The Scripture-bishop vindicated. A defence of the dialogue between Praelaticus and Eleutherius, upon The Scripture-bishop, or the Divine right of Presbyterian ordination and government: against the exceptions of a pamphlet, intitled, The Scripture-bishop examin'd. / By Eleutherius, V.D.M. ; In a letter to a friend. ; [Four lines from Isaiah]

The Scripture-bishop vindicated. A defence of the dialogue between Praelaticus and Eleutherius, upon The Scripture-bishop, or the Divine right of Presbyterian ordination and government: against the exceptions of a pamphlet, intitled, The Scripture-bishop examin'd. / By Eleutherius, V.D.M. ; In a letter to a friend. ; [Four lines from Isaiah]

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

A VINDICATION OF THE DIALOGUE Between Praelaticus and Eleutherius.

In a LETTER to a Friend.

SECOND LETTER.

[2]

Title page

PREFACE.

An Answer to ELEUTHERIUS ENERVATUS.

PART I. Remarks on the Dialogue between Euseb. & Eleuth.

PART II. Remarks on Two LETTERS, in Defence of the Episcopal Government of the Church.

ERRATA.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

PRAELATICUS TRIUMPHATUS. A Vindication of Presbyterial Ordination & Government. In Answer to The Scripture-Bishop Examin'd, And to Eleutherius Enervatus.

§

[Page]

The Scripture-Bishop VINDICATED

A Defence of the Dialogue Between Praelaticus and Eleutherius, Upon The SCRIPTURE-BISHOP, or The Divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination and Government: Against The Exceptions of a Pamphlet, Intitled, The Scripture-Bishop EXAMIN'D

By ELEUTHERIUS, V.D.M.

In a LETTER to a Friend.

Isai. lxvi. 5.

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

BOSTON, New England: Printed by S. KNEELAND & T. GREEN, for D. HENCHMAN in Cornhill. 1733.

[Page]

A VINDICATION OF THE DIALOGUE Between Praelaticus and Eleutherius.

In a LETTER to a Friend.

SIR,

I Had the Favour of your obliging Letter, which was the more welcome, for the Present that accompany'd it. I fully concur with you in Opinion, that our Cause will not receive much prejudice, from the Pamphlet you sent me, intitled, The Scripture-Bishop examin'd. For tho' the Author has entertain'd us, with a pompous and plausible Harangue; and (to do him justice) has done as well as the [Page]Subject was capable of; and indeed, made the best Appearance, of any that I know of, who have publickly espoused the same Cause: Yet I think 'twill appear, that he has done little more towards a refutation of the Dialogue, than to make a flourishing Shew, by a masterly Air of Contempt, by great Words, bold Assertions, and weak Arguments. And I should not know what excuse to make, for his assigning the same Reasons to establish his Cause, as are particularly refuted in the Dialogue, without taking any notice of such refutation; and for his wholly overlooking almost all the Arguments in the second Conference, in a professed Examination of them; had not he himself furnished me with an Apology. ‘Error hath so foul and ugly a Complexion, that it makes it need, and covet a Vizor, to hide it's Deformity; and can only be set forth with false and artificial Colours. The People are to be lulled into an undisturbed Security, and the Errors of the [Prela [...]y] disguised.’

He indeed in his Second Letter tells us, that ‘he does not think himself at all obliged, to regard my sta [...]ng the Questions in Dispute.’ And I grant, that he was under no Obligation, to enter upon the Examination of Arguments, that he could not answer. But if he will assume the Province of an Examiner, the World justly expects, that he should at least take some notice, of what he pretends to examine; they will else take liberty to think, notwithstanding his assuming Mein, and his merry Squ [...]bs at the Dissenters (as he is pleas'd to call us) that the Dialogue yet stands its Ground; and that a new Edition of it would be a sufficient Reply to his Invectives. However since he is for the shortest and safest Way, I will endeavour to follow him in his own Path.

I shall not disturb him at present, in his Merriment with the Platform of Church Discipline, hoping before I have done, to make up that Accompt with him once for all; and fully prove to him, the undoubted [Page]Claim of a particular Church, to choose their own Minister; and that tho' coming under a Separation to the sacred Service, makes a Man a Minister; yet it gives him no Right to minister unto a particular Church, without their Consent. I shall therefore immediately consider, what he has to say in answer to the Dialogue.

And I am first of all to pay him my Acknowledgements, for such an unexampled Instance of Modesty and Candour, as must not be lightly overlook'd; which is exhibited in the following Words.†

‘He begins his Attack with an endeavour to prejudice his unwary Reader, by branding a Church remarkable for her Indulgence, to Dissenters of all Denominations, with the hateful Name of Persecution.— Is it not however, astonishing, that any considerate Man, should furnish his Adversary with a Weapon, wherewith to dispatch himself? This our Author has effectually done: For has not New-England been notorious, for her Barbarities and cruel Persecutions? Does▪ she not still continue to persecute honest and well meaning Christians, Members of the true Church, by robbing them of their Estates, towards the support of Schismatical Teachers; and does she not yearly imprison their Bodies, for refusing to comply with her wicked and unjust Demands? Again, it will not (I hope) be impertinent, to ask (supposing the Truth of the aforesaid Allegation) if the Dissenters ever did suffer such Persecution from the Church of England, as she has suffered from them? &c. — Episcopacy they abolished, murdered two Arch-Bishops, defaced, abused, demolished Churches. The Clergy many thousands in Number, they imprisoned, plundered, ejected &c.— whose Sufferings therefore, must entitle them to the Character of the true Church?’

[Page] Here we have the Church of England represented in the brightest Colours, for her remarkable Indulgence to Dissenters of all Denominations. The Dissenters are painted as the most black and barbarous Persecutors; and New England especially, as being notorious for her Barbarities, and cruel Persecutions; and the Church of England by her unheard of Sufferings, entitled to the Character of the true Church. But what Proofs does he give us of all this? What Evidence have we of any one of these Facts, besides the bare Word of a Gentleman, which he may think it unmannerly, for any one to call into Question? But I think it would not have been amiss for him, to have considered his own Rule in this Case, that "unauthorized Assertions deserve no Confutation"

Persecution is such an unmerciful Violation of all the Laws of Humanity and so diametrically opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel, that nothing can be justly said in its favour, whosoever are chargeable with it. It cannot be painted in too black colours, nor rendred too odious to the World. It may therefore be worth the while, to inquire into the Justice of this Gentleman's Declamation against the Dissenters, and to consider how much his Cause will gain, by the Comparison which he provokes us to make.

You can't expect, that I should give a particular relation of all the Persecutions we have suffered from the episcopal Party. This would require several Volumes in Folio. Some brief Hints may be sufficient, to discover the Modesty of this Gentleman, in the confident Assertions under Consideration.

The first remarkable Persecution in this Cause, fell upon that famous Martyr Dr. Hooper, who with several other eminent Reformers, and afterwards Martyr [...] for the Protestant Cause, as Rogers, Latimer, Coverdale, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, &c questioned the lawfulness of the Habits, then and ever since, imposed upon the Clergy of the Church of England; and was [Page]therefore [...] into Prison, and continued there some Months, in expectation of Death, for refusing a Bishoprick, because he could not in Conscience be consecrated in those Vestments; nor be anointed at his Consecration.*

We hear but little more of Persecution in this Cause, during the short remainder of King Edward's Reign; and one would think 'twere impossible, that it should enter into the Hearts of Protestants, to worry one another, in the bloody Marian Reign, when they were all passing thro' the Furnace of papal Rage and Fury. But how improbable soever, we have an Instance of it in this Reign also. Among the Exiles that fled from the Smithfield Flames, a considerable Congregation setled at Frankford, were by the Magistrates admitted to a Partnership in the French Church. These agreed upon a further Reformation, left off the Use of the English Liturgy, chose that most excellent Man Mr. John Knox for their Pastor, lived quietly, and worshipped God in Peace and Purity; until Dr. Cox, and some other Bigots for the English Ceremonies, came among them, strenuously insisted upon the Use of the Service Book, disturbed their publick Worship, and (finding they could compass their ends no other way) accused Mr. Knox of high Treason against the Emperor, on Account of a Passage in an english Book of his, printed some years before in England, wherein he truly observ'd, that the Emperor was no less an Enemy to Christ, than Nero. By which means Mr. Knox was banished the Town, the Congregation broke up, and the remaining, Bigots left to quarrel it out among themselves, till they became a Scandal to all Men, both Protestants and Papists.

These Instances give us a Taste of the Lenity of this Party; but the succeeding Reign of Queen Elizabeth [Page]affords a more tragical Story; and gives us an odd Idea of the remarkable Indulgence to Dissenters of all Denominations, which our Author boasts of.

Upon the Accession of that Queen to the Throne, all our Divines that truly hated Popery, were for a further Reformation, as Mr. Pierce proves by many Authorities.† But the Queen so loved State and Magnificence in Religion, and was so fond of the Rites and Ceremonies, in which she had been educated, that she would hear nothing of it. But in the first year of her Reign, procured the fatal Act of Uniformity, which proved so destructive to the Peace of the Church, and such an Engine of Torture, to so many of the best Protestants in the Nation. Many that were gaping for Promotions, fell in with the Court; but yet such was the general Aversion against these Remnants of Popery, as they were then justly called, that four Years after this, Proposals for a further Reformation were brought into Convocation; and voted by the majority of the Clergy present: but rejected by the majority of one single Voice of a Proxy.‖ From this Time, we are to expect nothing but Impositions and Persecutions, on account of these scrupled and debated Points.

About a Year after this, Anno 1564, sundry of the Bishops meet in London, the London-Ministers are convented before them, and required upon pain of Deprivation, to promise and subscribe Conformity to the Habits, and likewise to the Rites of the Common-Prayer, the XXXIX Articles; and the Queen's Injunctions. Many were for Non-conformity suspended and deprived; and themselves and Families brought to extreme Poverty. Now were two of the most eminent Divines in the english Church, Sampson Dean of Christ Church, and Humphreys President of Magdalen College Oxon, convented and imprisoned for Non-conformity, [Page] Sampson deposed, and Humphreys afrighted from returning to Oxford, tho' his Place was not at their Dispose.†

The next Year (1565) was there a new Citation of the London Clergy, who were positively required to subscribe to an absolute Conformity, upon pain of Contempt. These Ministers cried out for Compassion to themselves and Families, saying, We shall be killed in our Souls, for this Pollution of ours: but there could be no Compassion for such Criminals; thirty seven of them are at once deprived of their Ministry, and many of them reduced to Beggary, tho' the Arch-Bishop himself acknowledged them to be some of the best Preachers.* Thus are the poor People deprived of the Bread of Life; and a great Part of the Churches shut up, for want of Preachers.

Two Years after (Anno 1567) a Congregation of about a hundred Persons was broken up, the most of them taken and committed to the Compter, from thence brought before the Bishop, examined, and a great part of them sent to Bridewel; where they were kept in strict Durance above a Year, for absenting from their Parish Churches, and for maintaining separate Assemblies for Prayer and Preaching, and Administring the Sacraments.‡

The two following Years, the Eyes of the Court, and of the Bishops, were turned another way. They were alarmed with the Confederacy of the Popish Princes, to root the Reformation out of Europe; and seem something to overlook the poor Non-conformists. But in the Year 1570, the penal Laws were executed to purpose, upon many that were cited to the Spiritual Courts; and after long Attendance and great Charges, suspended or deprived; among whom was the famous Mr. Axton, Minister of Morton Cobbet, who [Page]was deprived of his Living; and driven to seek his Bread in another Country: And the memorable Mr. Thomas Cartwright, B. D. and Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, who was deprived of his Fellowship, and expelled the University for Non-conformity.†

In the two following Years (1571, 1572.) notwithstanding the several strong Attempts in Parliament, for a further Reformation, and for putting an End to these Persecutions, they were continued with a Witness. In June 1571, the Arch-Bishop summoned about a dozen of the chief remaining Ministers, about London, that scrupled the Habits and Ceremonies; and suspended them.* And not long after, were about a hundred other Ministers deprived, for the same pretended Crime; and two of them were imprisoned a Year and four Months in Newgate, for presenting a Petition to the Parliament for Relief; and several others deprived, for speaking favourably of the imprisoned Ministers.‖

The very next Year (1573) there was a severe Persecution of the Puritans (as the Non-conformists were then called) throughout the Kingdom. The Queen publishes a Proclamation, that all Offenders against the Act of Uniformity, should be severely punished. In the single Diocese of Norwich, were three hundred▪ Ministers suspended: by which we may conjecture what Work was made, in the rest of the Kingdom. A Number of Ministers were deprived; and four of the most noted, committed to Newgate, for refusing to declare, that the Common-Prayer-Book is, every Part of it, grounded on the Scripture. New Tests were devised, to ensnare the Consciences both of the Clergy and Laity; by which means, Numbers of each were committed to Prison, Spies were set upon all that came to visit the Prisoners, and bring them Relief; and one eminent Minister (Mr. Robert Johnson) died in Prison, in great Poverty and Want.‡

[Page] In the two following Years (1574, 1575) the Puritans had more Rest: and I find them harassed with no new Persecutions, besides the breaking up of their Religious Meetings. But the poor Anabaptists had a sad Taste of the Clemency of the Times. Twenty-seven of these were taken at publick Worship, nine of them banished, and two burnt*

In the next Year, were no less than seven Ministers deprived for Non-conformity, in the City of Norwich; and considerable Numbers elsewhere, tho' I can't find a particular Account of their Number.‖

In the two following Years (1577, 1578) it appears, that the Persecution had made such a scarcity of Preachers in England, that in the large and populous Town of Northampton, there was not so much as one Preacher left. In the County of Cornwal were 140 Clergy-men, not one of which was capable of preaching a Sermon. By a Petition to the Parliament, from the City of London, it appears, that ‘one half at least of their Churches, are utterly unfurnish'd of preaching Ministers.— That there is scarce a tenth Man of them, that makes Conscience to wait upon his Charge.’ By a Supplication from Cornwal it appears, that ‘there were above the number of fourscore and ten thousand Souls, that for want of the Word of God, were in extream Misery, and ready to perish— That they had about 160 Churches, the greatest part of which were supplied by Men guilty of the grossest Sins, some Fornicators, some Adulterers, some Felons bearing the mark in their Hands for said Offence, some Drunkards, some Gamesters &c. — That they had some Ministers, that laboured painfully and faithfully in the Lord's Husbandry: but these Men were not suffered to attend their Callings &c.†’

In the Years 1580, & 1581, the Sufferings of the Non-conformists were not lessened. The Ministers were [Page]shut up in Newgate, the Marshalsea, and other Prisons in and about London. And a considerable Number of them are elsewhere imprisoned, upon the same account. Twelve Articles of Impeachment are drawn up against the Justices of the Quarter Sessions, by the enraged Bishop, because they had the Courage to move his Lordship, in Favour of the imprisoned Ministers.†

The Case of the Puritan Ministers the two following Years (1582, 1583) may be seen from a Petition of the Justices of the Peace for the County of Essex, to the Lords of Council. ‘The painful Ministers of the Word (say they) are marshelled with the worst Malefactors, presented, indicted, arraigned and condemned, for Matters, as we presume, of very slender Moment; some for leaving the Holidays unbidden, some for singing the Psalms—nunc Dimittis—in the Morning; some for turning the Questions concerning Faith, from the Infants, to the God-fathers, which is but YOU for THOU; some for leaving out the Cross in Baptism; some for leaving out the Ring in Marriage, &c.*’ The Justice of these Complaints is manifest, from the several Instances of barbarous Severity, transmitted to our Times; particularly the putting to Death of two Ministers, Mr. Copping and Mr. Thacker, for Non-conformity; and the suspending no less than two hundred thirty three Ministers for not subscribing to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Ordination of Priests and Deacons, as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God. And a great many others for other Causes, some of whom were Dignitaries in the Church, most of them Graduates in the University; of these some were allowed time, but forty nine were absolutely deprived at once.‡

One would think that this Year's Severity, in executing some, and suspending and depriving such a vast [Page]Number of godly and faithful Ministers, might have satiated the violent Appetite of the Bishops to Persecution; but such a dreadful Scene opens the very next Year (1584) as may well strike the Mind with Horror: and cannot be justly represented, by the brief Hints to which I have necessarily limited my self, in this Letter. Numbers of Ministers are again suspended; and notwithstanding their own Petition, the Petition of their Parishioners, the Petition of the Gentlemen of the several Counties, in their Favour; and the Petition of the Inhabitants of Malden, representing, that ‘since their Ministers had been taken from them, — they had none left, but such as they could prove unfit for that Office— Men of Occupation, serving Men, and the basest of all Sorts, Rioters, Dicers, Drunkards &c.’— and notwithstanding the Petition of the Inhabitants of Norwich to the same effect; the Arch-Bishop is so far from mitigating his rigorous Proceedings, that he seeks and obtains a new ecclesiastical Commission, by which he and his Brethren are authorized to examine the Ministers upon Oath, of their Opinions and Practices, that the most inward Sentiments of the Mind, and the most private religious Exercises, may not be concealed from these Inquisitors. And such merciless Use was made of this Commission, that the cry of the Sufferers reached up to Heaven. The Lord Treasurer separately, the Lords of the Queen's Counsel conjunctly, remonstrate to the Arch-Bishop, against these Proceedings; A Bill passed in the House of Commons against them: but the Queen stood by the Bishops; and the Persecutions go on. Multitude of Ministers are every where suspended, no less than thirty eight by the Bishop of London, in one Visitation. The Arch-Bishop writ to the Treasurer, that he had rather die, or live in Prison all the Days of his Life, than relax the rigour of his Proceedings, by shewing Favour to one.

[Page] In the two following Years (1585, &1586) the Persecution went on as before, some are suspended and deprived of their Ministry, some cast into Prison; and even some chained with Irons, and continued in hard Durance for a long time: and such a Scarcity of Ministers is by this means procured, that there were but two thousand Preachers, to serve near ten thousand Parishes. In one County there were but twelve Preachers, to three hundred thirty five Churches. And in London it self, but ninety seven Preachers, to a hundred twenty three Churches.* They that would hear a Sermon, must in some Counties go twenty Miles for it; and at the same time be fined twelve Pence a Sabbath, for absenting from their Parish Church.†

In the succeeding Year (1587) the Storm continued so heavy from the same Quarter, that of the ninety seven Preaching Ministers, found last Year in the City of London, there is now but nineteen resident Preachers, in that great and populous City.

I had thought to have gone on, in a brief annual Representation of these terrible Sufferings of the Non-conformists, further to display episcopal Clemency: but I find the Instances croud so fast upon me, that I must necessarily be too voluminous, if I am any thing particular. I shall therefore content my self, with only laying before you, some of the most horrid and unmerciful Cruelties of the following Times; and overlook the common Course of their remarkable Indulgence to the Dissenters of all Denominations, by suspending the Ministers, and depriving the People of the Ordinances of Salvation.

The first Instance I shall take notice of, is the unexampled Barbarity used towards that great Divine and eminent Christian Mr. John Udal, who was accused of writing a Book, wherein were some just Re [...]lections upon the Bishops, for countenancing Profaneness [Page]and Impiety; and for afflicting and molesting those that were truly Religious. For this he is sent to the Gate-House, kept close Prisoner, not suffered to have Pen Ink or Paper, or any Body to speak with him; not so much as his Wife was suffered to come to him, nor to speak to him but at a distance. On the 23 of July 1590, he is brought to Croydon in Irons: and tho' he never owned, nor could they prove, that he was the Author of the Book; nor was there any Appearance of Felony in it, whoever was the Author; he is nevertheless tryed and condemned: Sentence of Death was passed upon him, and Execution openly commanded. And tho' Execution was a while respited, there was no means to obtain his Pardon. Neither the earnest Intercession of the King of Scotland on his Behalf, nor the Intreaty of all his Friends, would prevail for his Release: But his Death in Prison, by the hard Usage he met with, prevented a more infamous End.* By which you may see what Justice there was, in the Conclusion of his Address to his Judges: As the Blood of Abel, so the Blood of Udal will cry to God with a loud Voice; and the righteous Judge of the Land will require it of all that shall be guilty of it.

In this same Year, the celebrated Mr. Cartwright (who had all this while passed through a continued Series of Tribulation) falls again into the Clutches of the High-Commission, with fifteen other Ministers. And tho' all proper Endeavours were used, to get them set at Liberty, or admitted to Bail; neither their own Petition, nor the Intercession of the King of Scotland for them, would prevail. Mr. Cartwright is kept close Prisoner two Years; and the rest much longer.†

About the same time, a Congregation in London conven'd for the Worship of God, being found out, are taken, fifty six of them are committed to several [Page]Prisons, to keep Company with several eminent Ministers, who were there before. It appears by one of their Petitions, that there were sixty seven thus confined, besides Women, and besides ten of their Number, that had died of their Hardships. Their Case was most movingly represented, by their Petition to the Council, in these words, ‘The Praelates of this Land, have for a long Time dealt most injuriously with us — persecuting, imprisoning and detaining at their Pleasure, our poor Bodies, without any Tryal, Release or Bail: and hitherto without any Cause, either for Error or Crime, directly objected—Some of us, they have kept in close Prison four or five Years, with miserable Usage — others they have cast into Newgate, and laden with as many Irons as they could bear; others into Dungeons and loathsome Goals, among the most facinorous and vile Persons, Where it is lamentable to relate, how many have perished within these five Years; aged Widows, aged Men and young Maidens &c. Where so many as the Infection hath spared, lie in woful Distress, like to follow their Fellows, if speedy Redress be not had. Others of us, have been grievously beaten with Cudgels in Bridewel; and cast into a Place called little Ease, for refusing to come to their Chappel Services.’ Some of these were after a long Imprisonment, released from their intollerable Sufferings, by being sent into Banishment, and others by being publickly executed as Felons, among whom were Mr. Barrow, a Gentleman of Gray's Inn; and Mr. John Greenwood, a famous and worthy Minister of the Gospel, who were both hanged at Tyburn.

But a very little after this bloody Tradegy, another eminently learned and pious Minister of the Gospel, Mr. John Penry, was also crowned with Martyrdom, and joined to the other Souls under the Altar, that are crying with a loud Voice, How long, Lord, holy and [Page]true; dost thou not judge and avenge our Blood, on them that dwell on the Earth.

I might have given you many more Instances of most merciless Cruelties and horrid Barbarities, in this Reign of Queen Elizabeth: but I'm perswaded you have by this time a just Idea of the remarkable Indulgence that the Dissenters of all Denominations met with from the Church of England.

The Nonconformists entertain'd great Expectations, that their long and grievous Persecutions under Queen Elizabeth would have▪ happily terminated, by the Influence of King James, who had been brought to his Crown, protected, defended and educated, by the Presbyterians; and who had sundry Times interceeded for the persecuted Non-conformists, in the Reign of his Predecessor: but they soon discover'd their mistake. For notwithstanding their Petition, signed by a thousand Hands; and notwithstanding this King's former Dislike of the Cruelties exercised against them, as well as of the english Service, which in a Speech to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he called an evil said Mass in English, that wanted nothing of the Mass but the Liftings; ‖ They met with the same kind of Treatment in his Reign, as in the preceeding.

In his Speech to his first Parliament in England, he professes, that the Sect of the Puritans or Novellists was not to be suffered, in any well govern'd Commonwealth— He acknowleges the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church, tho' defiled with some Corruptions; That he would be content for his own Part, to meet those of the Roman Church in the Mid-way &c.* This was justly look'd upon as a Cloud, that boded a terrible Storm to the poor Puritans, or Non-conformists, and it accordingly fell on them with a Witness.

[Page] In the second Year (says a learned and faithful Historian of that Time) after the King's coming into England, ‘three hundred Ministers were either silenced or deprived of their Benefices, or excommunicated, or cast into Prisons, or forced to leave their own Country. The Relicks of Popery that were much grown out of Use, before Queen Elizabeth's Death, were now restored. A more grievous Persecution of the orthodox Faith is not to be met with in History, in any Prince's Reign.’ And as this Prince in the Beginning of his Reign made himself an easy Prey to the Flattery of the Bishops, so he rather favoured than prevented the sad Series of Persecution, that continued during his Life. Only hearing a Sermon repeated on the Lord's Day Evening, or being partaker in a Petition to the Parliament, for relief from these Oppressions, is cause of imprisonment without Bail or Main-prize. A Declaration is published, giving Liberty for all manner of Sports on the Lord's Day; and the poor Nonconformist-Ministers, that refused to read it publickly, or that spoke against that horrible Profanation of the Sabbath, were every where trodden under Foot; and some of them severely handled.*

In Scotland, their whole Ecclesiastical Constitution is subverted, Episcopacy, Holidays and Ceremonies obtruded, their godly & faithful Ministers, Multitudes of them silenced, imprisoned and banished, some of the most noted and learned called into England; and confined there, that this Change might be carried on with less Opposition: And in a Word, the whole Church covered with a dark Cloud of horrible Persecution. ‖ The particular Instances of these tragical Persecutions, are too many to be distinctly enumerated here.

In the following Reign, the Bishops carry their lordly Domination over the Bodies, Estates and [Page]Consciences of all Men, to the utmost Height. All Opposition to their violent Proceedings, was punished with most extream Severity. All Lectures on any Week Day, and Afternoon Sermons on the Lord's Day, are put down; in the room of these latter, were substituted Games and Dancing upon the Lord's Day, enjoyned by a royal Proclamation, which all parochial Ministers were required to publish in their Congregations, at their Peril; whoever refused, were silenced, imprisoned, and cruelly treated. Private Clergy-men set up Images in their Churches, placed their Communion Table Altar-wise, and forced People to the Idolatry of bowing to 'em; pressed their People to confess their Sins; and preached up their own Power of absolving them: if any opposed them, they fell under their Wrath & Fury. Ministers were silenced, sequestred and deprived; and the Laity excommunicated, plundered and ruined. A Son was excommunicated, for repeating a Sermon to his own Father.* Unheard of Punishments were inflicted, for Non compliance with these Things. Some have their Ears cut off, their Noses slit, unmerciful Fines much beyond the value of their Estates imposed upon them, their Faces branded with red hot Irons; and they most barbarously and cruelly whipt, and shut up in the most afflicting & loathsom [...] Dungeons; all which miserable Tortures were the sad Lot of Dr. Leighton, Dr. Bastwick, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Burton. Multitudes were taken by their Pursevants, Multitudes censured in their High Commission Court, Multitudes of Ministers silenced and imprisoned, Multitudes of all Sorts banished, or forced to fly into other Countries, to escape the Barbarities designed against them.

NEW-ENGLAND is a standing Monument of these Tragedies; which deriv'd it's Being and first Increase, [Page]from the merciless Barbarities of this, and the foregoing Reign. As Mr. Norton observes;† ‘The Time being now come, wherein God purposed to superadd unto what had formerly been, a practical and more notable Testimony against the intermixing of human Inventions with Institutions Divine, and to the Gospel-Church-Worship and Polity in their Purity, He in his all-wise Providence transplants many of his faithful Servants into this Wilderness, as a Place in respect of it's Remoteness so much fitter for the fuller Inquity after, and free Exercise of, all his holy Ordinances.— A Service, of which the Apologetical Brethren (may we be permitted to transcribe their Apprehensions thereof) speak thus: Last of all we had the recent and later Example of the Ways and Practices (and those improved to a better Edition, and greater Refinement, by all the forementioned Helps) of those Multitudes of godly Men of our own Nation, almost to the Number of another Nation, among them some as holy and judicious Divines as this Kingdom hath bred; whose Sincerity in their Way hath been testify'd before all the World, and will be to all Generations to come, by the greatest Undertaking (but that of our father Abraham out of his own Country, and his Seed after him) A transplanting themselves Thousands of Miles distance, and that by Sea, into a Wilderness, meerly to worship God more purely; whither to allure them, there could be no other Invitement.’

"Exilium causa ipsa jubet mihi dulce, videri,

"Et desiderium dulce levat patriae.

Beza Eleg 2.

And can we, the Posterity of those excellent Persons' who forsook their Country, Kindred and pleasant Habitations; who crossed the vast Ocean, came into a howling Wilderness, among innumerable Armies of salvage Pagans; and encountred so many Difficulties [Page]and Deaths, for the Enjoyment of a good Conscience, and the pure Worship of God; can we (I say) be gulled into a belief of the remarkable Indulgence of those Times to Dissenters of all Denominations! Or can we be perswaded to apostatize from the Cause, for which our Fathers so remarkably suffered; and in which they were so remarkably own'd and blessed! Surely, our only Way to secure the Divine Presence, is to keep close to the Institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ; as our Fore-fathers have done at their Peril; and in that Way we may depend upon it, that he will remember the Kindness of our Youth, the Love of our Espousals, when we came after him into the Wilderness, into a Land that was not sown.

I think, Sir, that I have said enough, to give you a just Idea of the clemency of those Times; and I am sure, a fall Account of these unexampled Cruelties would fill every good Man with Horror. — Hear these things represented by my Lord Digby, one of the greatest Friends to the Church Party, in a Speech in Parliament, earnestly pleading in their behalf, wherein he is forced upon these following Concessions.

Methinks, the Vengeance of the Prelates hath been so laid, as if 'twere meant, no Generation, no Degree, no Complexion of Mankind, should escape it.

Was there a Man of nice and tender Conscience? Him they afflicted with Scandal in adiaphoris, imposing upon him those things as necessary, which he thinks unlawful; and they themselves know to be indifferent.

Was there a Man of legal Conscience; that m [...]e the Establishment by Law, the measure of his Religion? Him they netled with Innovations, with fresh Introductions to Popery.

Was there a Man of a meek and humble Spirit? Him they have trampled to dirt in their Pride.

[Page] Was there a Man of a proud and arrogant Nature? Him they have bereft of Reason, with Indignation at their superlative Insolence about him.

Was there a Man peaceably effected, studious of the Quiet and Tranquillity of his Country? Their Incendiarships have plagued him. —

Was there a Man of a pretty sturdy Conscience, that would not blanch for a little? Their pernicious Oath hath made him sensible and wounded; or, I fear, prepared him for the Devil.

Was there a Man that durst mutter against their Insolencies? He may enquire for his Luggs, they have been within the Bishops Visitation: as if they would not only derive their Brandishment of the spiritual Sword, from St. Peter; but of the material one too, and the Right to cut off Ears.

If now we turn our Eyes to Scotland, we shall find the same Tragedies acted there. The Lands formerly belonging to popish Bishops are violently taken from their right Owners, for the Support of the Bishops, newly obtruded upon them. The drawing a Petition to the King, for the Regulation of their abuses, is made a capital Offence; for which the Lord Balm [...] rinoch is condemned to dye. Their ecclesiastical Judicatories are subverted, the Liturgy, and a Body of Canons for the Worship & Government of that Church, violently imposed upon them. All which was managed (says Bp. Burn [...]t) by four or five aspiring Bishops. In a word, the Impositions and Oppressions were such, as alarmed the whole Nation, who unanimously take up Arms to defend themselves, against their Oppressors and Persecutors.*

Thus these Incendiaries set both Nations on Fire, and gave the sad Occasion to the civil War with it's direful Consequences, that laid the Nations waste.

[Page] Pas [...]ing over the Time of the Interregnum, when it was put out of the Bishops Power to persecute: Let us consider the merciful Dispensations of the Church Party, after the Restoration of King Charles II.

Though that Prince made high Pretences to Moderation; and shewed particular Favour to some of the Presbyterians, at his first Return to his Kingdoms, he is quickly brought into the High Church Policy. A Conference is appointed, between some of the episcopal Clergy, and some of the Non-conformists, where instead of abating a Whit of their former Rigour, or a Ragg of their Ceremonies, the Terms of Communion are by the Convocation, immediately succeeding the Conference, rendred more difficult; and the way paved for the Act of Uniformity, that was passed soon after, by which every one is deprived of all ecclesiastical Benefices, that don't ‘before the 24th of August 1662, declare their unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every Thing, contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, according to the Use of the Church of England.’ The Book of Common Prayer, with the Alterations and Corrections newly made in Convocation, was that to which they were to subscribe: ‘the Impression of that Book (says Bishop Burnet) went on so slowly, that there were few Books set out to Sale, when the Day came — With so much Precipitation was that matter driven on, that it seemed expected, that the Clergy should subscribe implicitly to a Book they had never seen; this was done by too many, as I was informed by some of the Bishops’ So that there was in a manner, no Ministry [...] in England, but those, whose Consciences would allow them to subscribe, and declare their hearty Assent and Consent, to a Book they had neither seen nor could see, in the limited Time Above two thousand of the most learned and faithful Ministers in the Nation, are turned out of their [Page]Livings in one Day; and left without any Means of Subsistence.

But this Severity not being sufficient; a new Act is made the very next Year, impowring Ju [...]tices of the Peace, to convict Offenders without Juries. Any Meeting for religious Worship, at which five were present, more than the Family, was declared a Conventicle; and every Person above sixteer Years old, that was present at it, was to lye three Months in Prison, or to pay Five Pounds for the first Offence: six Months for the second Offence; and to pay twenty Pounds Fine: and for the third Offence was to be banished to any Plantation, except New-England or Virginia, or to pay an hundred Pounds.†— We may easily conclude what terrible Persecutions followed, by the Execution of this Act: but this was not sufficient, fully to gratify the cruel Disposition of our Adversaries.

Another Act is made, enjoyning all the silenced Ministers ‘to take an Oath,—that they would not at any time, endeavour an Alteration in the Government of the Church or State; such as refused this, were not to come within five Miles of any City Parliament Borough, or of the Church where they had served.’ By this means, those two thousand sil [...]nced Ministers are brought into this sad Dilemma, that they must either wholly neglect the Ministry committed to them by Christ, break through their Ordination Vows, and see Multitudes of poor Souls perish for lack of Vision, while they sit all the day idle; or fall under the heavy Lash of these severe Laws. Whence, by their Faithfulness in their Master's Service, great Numbers of 'em are heavily fined; and shut up in the most uncomfortable Prisons, where some died of the Hardships imposed upon them, having no outward Relief, but the sad Comfort of having their Hearers share with 'em in their Fines, Imprisonments, and other Severities.

[Page] If the Reader wou'd see a more exact Account of these dark and dreadful Times, let him read Dr. Calamy's Abridgement and Continuation, in four Volumes; and he'll need no other Evidence of the merciful Disposition of that Church, which our Author boasts of.

If we look over to Scotland, the most tragical Scene opens there, that ever was known. Every Body must own, that the Persecution of the Presbyterians in that Kingdom did in many Circumstances exceed the Spanish Inquisition; and even come up to the bloodiest Rage of the Heathen Emperors. I venture to challenge our Author, to pitch upon any single Instance of Barbarity, in the Reigns of Maximilian or Dioclesian, that can't be parallel'd by the horrible Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, in that Period.

It is impossible I should in the Compass of this Letter, give you so much as a Detail of these unmerciful Cruelties: a particular Relation of them in their several Circumstances, by the Rev. Mr. Wodrow, containing two large Volumes in Folio.

The Ministry of the Church of Scotland are all turned out; and their Places supplied with most mean, ignorant, and scandalous Persons.* If any Presbyterians neglect, if their Wives or Children neglect Attendance upon the Ministry of these Curates; or if any suffer the Presbyterian Ministers so preach on their Lands, they are unmercifully fined; oftentimes beyond the real value of their Estates. Mr. Wodrow in his abovementioned History, has made a Computation of above three Millions, one hundred seventy four thousand, eight hundred and nineteen Pounds, thus taken, but from Part of the Kingdom, in about six Years time. A vast number of Fines, he has here omitted, because elsewhere mentioned in his History; and he tells us there were far greater Numbers, that he had no particular Account of.†

[Page] The Parliament of Scotland passes an Act, that Non-conformist-Ministers should not live within 20 Miles of their own Parishes, nor within 6 of Edinburgh or any Cathedral†

An Army of savage Highlanders is quartered upon the Parts, they called most disaffected, who ravaged, destroyed, and carried away what they pleased. The Presbyterian Meetings are pursu'd with armed Forces, and their Blood often mingled with their Sacrifices. ‖

Innumerable Multitudes are put into the most vile, unhealthy and loathsome Prisons throughout the Kingdom: above a hundred are shut up at a Time, in a horrid Vault, full of Mire Ankle-deep, where they had no room to sit, without leaning one upon another; nor the least Accommodation for Sitting, Leaning, or Lying, or Access to ease Nature; stifled for want of Air; and not so much as allowed a little Water to drink, but what they paid for at an exorbitant Price.*

Many are tortured with most inhuman Cruelty, by fixing an Iron Screw upon their Thumbs, and stretching of it, so as to make their Pain intolerable; by fixing an iron Boot upon their Legs, and driving in Wedges, till the Flesh & Bones are broken to Pieces; by tying a small Cord about their Heads; and with the But-End of a Pistol, twisting it so hard, as to cut the Flesh round to the Skull; by tying two small Cords to the Thumbs, and by them drawing up the Sufferers, to the Roof of a House; by laying the miserable Sufferers on their Backs upon a Form, with their Hands bound down to the foot of the Form, and a fiery Match put between every Finger of both Hands, by which several had their Fingers so burnt, that the very Bones were turned to Ashes, and others died of the Torture; and by several other Engines of Cruelty.‡

[Page] Multitudes are banished, and Multitudes put to Death by their Courts of Justice: but this proving too tedious and troublesome to the Persecutors, a shorter Method was taken, to get rid of all those that conscienciously scrupled, or that were but suspected to dislike, their newly established Prelacy and Ceremonies. Soldiers are sent about the Country, and authorized to kill Men in the Fields, in cold Blood;* and vast Numbers are accordingly put to Death in this military Way, many of them without so much as a previous Examination; for which this was a sufficient Excuse, They were known to be Whiggs, and they ought to be shot wherever they can be found. ‖ Several Women are tied down at low Water Mark, till the Water rise upon and drown them‡. Neither were very Babes and Sucklings exempted from the Cruelties of those bloody days†.

The Instances of these Barbarities are numberless. I must therefore content my self with transcribing a Summary of this matter; as it is represented, by the Author of the Memoirs of the Church of Scotland, Part 3. p. 290 &c.

In this Persecution, as has been collected from the Accounts both publick and private, above eighteen thousand People have suffered the utmost Extremities, their Enemies could inflict; of which the following Particulars are a part, many of which can be proved even to the Names of the Persons, with the Places of their Abode.

Seventeen hundred have been banished as Slaves to the english Plantations, besides such as were by order of Council, at the beginning of the Persecution, ordered on pain of Death to leave their Country, which amounted to eighty seven; and besides seven hundred and fifty banished to Ze [...]land, to the [Page] Isles of Lewis, Orkney, and to other remote Places belonging to Scotland; of these two hundred were wilfully and premeditately murdered, by keeping them under Hatches till they were drowned, when the Ship was stranded, and there was time for them to escape.

Eight hundred were out-lawed, as we call it in England, about the time of Pentland affair; by order of the High Commission Court: and fifty five eminent Persons, were panelled, as the Scots Laws term it — and were sentenced to be executed, without further Prosecutions, when they should be taken, as many of them afterwards were; among those were ten or eleven Ministers.

It is impossible to give an Account of those, who perished by unjust and tedious Confinement in Prisons, by the barbarity of mer [...]iless Jaylors or Keepers, Stench of close and horrid Dungeons & Vaults, want of Conveniencies &c.—They who think they have modestly computed the Number of these (for an exact Account cannot be had) tell us, they amount to above three thousand, six hundred.—

Those that have fled from their Country, forced into voluntary Banishment, in England, Ireland, Holland, Sweden &c. where they were driven into great distress,— the Number of these has been esteemed by such as think they have made a modest Calculation, at above seven thousand.

Besides these, there were abundance of innocent and pious Sufferers, who were basely murdered by the Soldiers and Persecutors; — being generally killed in cold Blood, without any process of Law civil or military, without any visible Crime, Charge, or Examination; of these, the printed Accounts tell us of seventy eight murdered by particular Persons; and I am well assured there were very many more; and I have heard, that a Person whom I have not met with, has the Names of above four hundred and twenty more: But that Number I dare not avouch.

[Page] The Number really executed in the pretended course of Justice,— and who died by the Hangman, is very great; and I am told that three hundred sixty two are to be found upon the several Books of the Justiciary and Council Courts, upon Record, besides what were executed by military Laws as they call them, of which no Record has been kept.

The Number of those who perished thro' Cold, Hunger, and other Distresses, contracted in their Flight into Mountains, Wandrings without Shelter or Harbour, in dreadful Winters &c.—These were many Thousands, and cannot be calculated; but will certainly make up more than the Number of eighteen thousand.

Among these, I say nothing of the Pillage and Spoil of Goods, the turning Women and Children out into the Fields, in Cold and Nakedness, after devouring their Food, and tearing off their Cloaths from their Backs, of which many perished for Want, and by the Extremities of the Weather.

Such as these have been the Trials, those of our Profession have passed thro' from the Episcopalians, in defence of the divine Institutions, and of a good Conscience toward God. And can the Gentleman I oppose pretend, that the other Side have ever met with such like Sufferings from us, as I have mentioned above, that he should so confidently put us upon making the Comparison? Let the World judge, whether this ben't a sufficient Vindication, of what was but occasionally mentioned in the Dialogue, and what causelesly put the Gentleman into such a Hear.

Tho' I can't agree with him in supposing, that the Sufferings of any Profession necessarily intitle them to the Character of the true Church; nor wou'd I by ripping up old Faults, create fresh Resentments among Parties: Yet I think, what I have said upon this Head, will justify my proposing these Things, as a sufficient Call to look into the Cause, for which so many excellent Persons have suffered; as well as justly [Page]awaken every one, to an Abhorrence of these execrable Methods of propagating their religious Principles, which I wou'd hope our Adversaries themselves are by this Time heartily ashamed of.

And now let us consider our Author's particular Charges against us. ‘Has not New-England (says he) been notorious for her Barbarities and cruel Persecutions? Does she not yet continue to persecute honest and well meaning Christians, Members of the true Church, by robbing them of their Estates, towards the Support of Schismatical Teachers? and does she not yearly imprison their Bodies? &c.’ To which I answer, if he can make our this Charge by sufficient Evidences, I shall join with him, in bearing my Testimony against these things. For I look upon Persecution to be too black and enormous a Crime, to admit of any Apology; and it is full as bad in New-England, as any where else.

I freely acknowledge, that in the Infancy of New-England, they made some severe Laws against certain Seducers, crowding in among them, who threatned no less than the Dissolution of their Government. There were some Severities used in those days, particularly toward a sort of Quakers, that were scarce justifiable; neither do we go about to justify them: yet, I must observe, that upon a fair State of the Matter, much might be pleaded to extenuate those Proceedings, and make them appear abundantly less harsh and rigorous, than they are by our Adversaries represented to be. But make the worst of them, I believe the Case can never be made a Parallel with that, our Author would compare it to. For how widely different is the punishing profane insolent Disturbers of solemn publick Worship, open Deriders and Subverters of the Christian Faith, and factious Despisers of civil Government; how widely different, I say, is this Case from that of punishing orthodox peaceable and faithful Christians, for mere Nonconformity to be established Church in some Points of Ceremony and Order!— For it seems, [Page]the Sectaries of that Day, against whom those New-England Laws were chiefly sharpned, were a more tumultuous and blasphemous Generation, than in after times. However, there were but few Prosecutions, upon those Laws, before the New-Englanders grew sensible of their Error in making them, and soon went into an intire Toleration of the various Sectaries crept in amongst them. And when the Revolution came, the Convention (in Massachusetts) upon that Occasion, unanimously voted, That any Laws, which might seem — contrary to a due Liberty of Conscience, never should be executed in the Territory . And since that Time several Laws have been made for the Ease of Quakers, Anabaptists, and Episcopalians, with Relation to the publick Taxes. So that I know of nothing, that can free our Author (as to the substance of his Crimination) from the guilt of groundless Slander and Calumny.

It is true, that some former Laws of New-England, which have had the royal Approbation, and are therefore the King's Laws, do intitle the Minister, elected by the Majority of the Inhabitants within his Parish, to the Salary agreed upon by them, to be levied by Rate upon 'em all. If the Majority of the Parish be Episcopalians, their Minister has a legal claim to the Salary: but if the Majority be of our Perswasion, their Minister in like manner has the Claim. And what Grounds then can there be for this tragical Outcry? Certainly it is not over-modest, for a Clergyman of the Church of England, to exclaim after this manner, when it's notorious, that not only the Tenths of their Income are paid by all Professions in England, to the established Clergy: but that the episcopal Clergy every where exact their Salary, from those of other Persuasions, where they can legally do it. This is exemplified in New-York; and on the West End of Long-Island, where the Episcopalians are not above a [Page]tenth Part of the People. And thus it is also in Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina.

But what makes this Crimination the more extravagant is, that such Regard has been had to the episcopal Clergy amongst us, that in Massachusett and Connecticut Governments, wherever there is an episcopal Incumbent setled, he is intitled by Laws not long since made, to that Part of the Tax for the Support of the Ministry, which is paid by the Members of his own Congregation. And each episcopal Congregation hath power to raise what Tax they please among themselves, for the Support of their Minister.

And all must acknowlege, that from the Beginning our Treatment of Episcopalians, coming into these Parts, has been with an exemplary Candour, Charity and Civility. Many Years passed indeed before the Church of England Service or Common Prayer was publickly us'd in the Country: But what was the Reason? Because there never was all that while a sufficient Number to form a Congregation, or else they cou'd never find Clergymen to undertake the Cure of their Souls One or other of these was the true Reason. Not, because the Government forbad or hinder'd their Setting up the Episcopal Way. No; They have always had that Regard to the Law of christian Forbearance, that they never (as I can learn) gave the least molestation to that Way: altho', it's well known that New-England was sought by the first Planters as a Retreat from the Imposition of some Ceremonies in the Church Service. All along, if any appearing to be Men fearing, God, have offer'd to joyn in Worship with the Churches here, they have readily been receiv'd to Communion in special Ordinances, notwithstanding their being in Judgment Episcopal. And in later Times, wherever a number in any Place have been desirous to set up the Way of the Church of England, no Interruption has been given to their Attempts: save what is common to their Neighbours [Page]of our own Persuasion, in the Case of setting up a new Congregation.

But let us now turn the Tables, and see how it far'd with us, when in an evil Reign we lost our Charters, and the Government fell into Episcopal Hands. It may be, our Author, when drawing up his Indictment of New-England, was either a Stranger or inadvertent to that part of our History, which relates to the doleful Scenes of Confusion, Persecution and Oppression, that New-England saw in the days of Sir Edmund Andross, a Governour of his own Communion: who, with four or five of his Council (Men of the same Principles) by the most arbitrary Proceedings harrass'd and enslav'd the Country; invading Liberty and Property, and threatning a Desolation of all our Rights and Privileges Civil and Ecclesiastical. Armies they levy'd, Laws they made, Taxes they rais'd on the People, and did what else they pleas'd, without the Advice of an Assembly. Some worthy Persons, having in an humble Address represented this Proceeding as a Grievance, were committed to the common Jail for a High Misdemeanour; deny'd the Benefit of the Hebeas Corpus Act; try'd out of their County; fin'd exorbitantly (some 20, 30, 50 l.) and oblig'd to pay 160 l. for Fees, when the Prosecution would hardly have cost them so many Shillings under a just Administration. And when upon their Trial they claim'd the Privileges of Englishmen, they were insulted and scoffingly told, Those things would not follow them to the Ends of the Earth.— Their Title to their Lands was absolutely deny'd by the Governour and his Creatures, upon trifling Pretences! So that they who had fairly purchas'd their Lands, and held them in quiet Possession for above fifty Years, were now oblig'd to accept new Deeds or Patents from the Governour, and pay for them a third part of their Value, in order to ascertain their Titles, or otherwise they would be seiz'd for the Crown.† Oppression rush'd [Page]in like a Tide, and bore down every thing before it. There were Standing Forces, to keep the Country in Awe; a Crew, that were ever moving Tumults, and committing insufferable Riots amongst a quiet and peaceable People; and that without Redress upon frequent Complaints. The Governour had said, upon Occasion, That it wou'd be for the Kings's Interest, for this People to be remov'd, and another introduc'd: and there were several Things, which made it suspected, that Sir E (carrying on secret Intreagues with the Indians) had conducted 7 or 800 of our Soldiers into the Eastern Wilderness in the depth of Winter, on purpose to sacrifice them there. Some of the principal Gentlemen of the Country were imprison'd, bound to the Behaviour, and cruelly squeez'd by the Demands of Cormorant Messengers and Officers, and all without any Accusation, but meerly upon a Jealousy that they joyn'd in the common Complaint of these Grievances. Some of our old Magistrates were put in Jail without any Fault laid to their Charge, and there kept for several Months. Some of our Ministers were grievously persecuted; a Process commenc'd against one for a Book publish'd long enough before Sir E. arriv'd in New-England. — Another accus'd of seditious Preaching, dragg'd out of his County to be try'd, because there (where he was best known) a Pannel could not be got wicked enough to ruine him on the single Testimony of one debauch'd Person, contradicted by he whole Assembly that heard the Sermon. The scrupled Mode of laying the Hand on the Bible in taking an Oath was then impos'd‡; and many holy and worthy Men suffer'd for refusing it. The Church-Party demanding the Keys of the South Meeting House in Boston, and being refus'd, the Governour threaten'd, He would presently seize on that House, and all the Meeting Houses in the Country, and hinder the People from contributing the value of Two-pence toward [Page]the Maintenance of any Nonconformist Minister. He also bad them consider what Effects the stiffness of the Protestants in France had, who wou'd not yield in what they might have done, [N.B.] and now (said he) there is not a Protestant in France. But this not prevailing, the Consequence was, they thrust themselves into the South Meeting House; and there continu'd, until by interrupting that Congregation, often in their Times, sometimes in the very Parts of their Worship, the whole Town cry'd Shame upon 'em; them they tho't of building. Some of our People contributed towards it: — But can the Townsmen of Boston tell, at whose Charge the Land (part of one of their Burying-places) was purchased? The People of New-England endured these and a hundred more such Injuries from a little restless Party, who arrogated to themselves the Name of the Church of England . And had not the ever-memorable REVOLUTION defeated the Purposes of those unhappy Men, very probably New-England had soon been a Stage for the same bloody Tragedies, to be acted over, as were seen in our Mother-Country in those days of common Distress to Protestant Dissenters. Thus we have balanc'd the Account relating to New England.

But our Author goes on, with a more extended Charge, against the Dissenters in general. ‘Episcopacy they abolished, murdered two Arch-Bishops, defaced, abused, demolished Churches, the Clergy many thousands in Number, they imprisoned, plundered, ejected, &c.’ Let us consider this something particularly. Was Episcopacy abolished? Let my Lord Digby in his fore-mentioned Speech in the House of Commons, furnish us with a Reason for that Conduct: ‘I (says that noble Lord) find my self willing to have them passed by (i. e. the Faults in the Petitions against the Bishops, then before the House) especially when I consider, how naturally prone all [Page]Mankind is, when it finds it self oppressed beyond all Patience, to fly into Extreams for Ease; and indeed I do not think any People hath been ever more provoked, than the genera [...]lty of England of late years, by the Insolencies and Exorbitancies of the Prelates.’

But who were the two Arch-Bishops they murdered? I suppose he means Arch Bishop Laud, and Arch-Bishop Sharp. The first of these was the chief Boute [...]eu and Incendiary, in all those horrible Flames of Persecution, by which the Nation was so severely scorch'd; on which account, he was impeached and condemned by the Parliament, for his horrible Barbarities and Oppression; for his Infraction of all our Liberties and Privileges; and for the violations of all Laws, divine and humane. I shall not dispute with this Gentleman, the Justice of his Sentence; nor the Authority by which he fell. But the Dissenters are no more accountable for his Death, than they are for all the State-Tryals, that have ever occurred. And as for the second of these Arch-Bishops, the perfidious and barbarous Persecutor Sharp, he fell a Martyr to his own inhuman Cruelties, by the Hands of enraged Assassins. But were the Presbyterians guilty of his Murder? Can this Gentleman prove, that there was so much as one Man, acknowledged by the Church of Scotland, that was concerned in his Death [...]? There were indeed five Presbyterians put to Death, on the Account of this Murder: but as it was never proved against them, so they in some of the last Words that ever they spoke, ventured their Eternity upon their Innocence. And who was guilty of their Murder, God will judge. But this Gentleman has doubtless heard of Matchiavel's Advice, Fortiter calumniare, aliquid haerebit.

He next charges us with defacing, abusing, and demolishing Churches. By defacing Churches, he may possibly mean the destroying as Fonts, Organs, Altars, and the like, so Images, the Scandalous Images, then [Page]set up in their Protestant Churches; such as that at Salisbury, which represented God the Father, under the Form of an old Man, towards which an old Woman used to make a Cursey*; and the Roods, that is the Images of Christ upon the Cross, with Mary and John standing by; as also Images of other Saints, Tutelaries of the Churches, to which they were dedicated.† That the Churches were thus defaced, is certain; and the Nonconformists have no Cause to be ashamed of the Imputation, had it been done by them. And it must also be acknowleged, that there were other sad Devastations made, in the time of the Civil Wars; and who could expect any better, from the Heat of military Fury? But it was as much out of the Power of the Dissenters, as of the Episcopalians, to prevent this, and all the other amazing Consequences of that intestine War. Let them thank those that gave Occasion to the War, for all the Miseries that it brought upon them.

We are also charg'd with imprisoning, plundering, ejecting the Clergy, many Thousands in number &c.— Now the true State of that Case is this. As for the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and the Cathedral Clergy, they suffer'd, as such, upon the Extirpation of the Hierarchy; which was done by a conformable Parliament; the Members of which were many of them known to be in their Judgment for the ancient moderate Episcopacy, and all of them (a very few only excepted) in Communion with the Church of England . Mr. Baxter testifies, That as far as he could learn by his own Acquaintance, and the Report of the Members themselves, there was but one known Presbyterian in the House of Commons, when the Wars began‖. And must the Dissenters be forc'd to [Page]answer for the Proceedings of an Episcopal Parliament!— Again, The Parochial Clergy, many of them suffer'd only as Pluralists, upon the Ordinance against Pluralities and Nonresidences†, which had been justly complain'd of from the beginning of the Reformation Some that suffer'd, were restless Adversaries to the Parliament and their Cause*: and several were active in the civil Wars, famous for fighting and plundering the Country‖. Some were scandalous for preaching Divinity subversive of Liberty and Property Some were avow'd Romanists, or Papists in Masquerade{inverted †}. In fine, a Multitude were cast out for their vile Immoralities, depos'd upon Oath against them, which rendred them unworthy of their Character*. Hence I believe, it will be found, that (comparatively) few were turn'd out merely for their refusing the Covenant: and if any suffer'd for refusing the Ingagement, it was no more than what some Presbyterians did likewise‖. I doubt, the Parliament's Committees were too severe in ejecting some honest Men†: and tho' herein they only follow'd the Example, the Prelatical Party had before set them, yet we are sorry they imitated them so far as they did. We do not justify it, but lament it, that several learned and pious Ministers were then turn'd out: tho' they were not so many as is pretended by our Adversaries, who have lately stretch'd their Wits and (I fear) their Consciences too, to increase their Number‡. — Our Author wou'd [...]ai [...] make us believe indeed, that the Clergy MANY THOUSANDS in Number, were imprisoned, plundered, ejected &c.— But certainly he will find it very difficult to prove, that the Number even of the Ejected (take in Scandalous and all) was any thing near so great, as he pretends. If they were Thousands, [Page]yet surely not many Thousands. It's true, Dr. Walker, in his Attempt to recover the Names and Sufferings of the sequestred Clergy, guesses that there were Ten Thousand Sufferers on the Church-Side; but after all his Blustring, his List makes out little more than a fifth part of that Number: and Dr. Calamy (in his Answer to him†) by a fair Computation reduces the Number still lower, and makes it probably fall short of the Number of Nonconformists that suffer'd by the Act of Uniformity; instead of so vastly exceeding it, as is oft asserted, and so commonly believ'd.— And then as to rigorous Treatment, the Doctor* observes there is this difference very discernible: that the Severities which are most complained of on the Church-Side, were the Effects of Civil Discords; whereas the Sufferings on our side were mostly upon a Religious Account, which made them the more cutting. The Parliament (says he) dealt severely with many of the Clergy, it is true: but then they did it not so much because they were Episcopalians in their Judgments, as because they oppos'd them in their Practices, and assisted their bitter Enemies. But still many that shew'd a Disposition to live peaceably, remain'd unmolested. Many went on using the Liturgy and Ceremonies, notwithstanding the rigour of the Times.— Many Episcopal Men held their Livings in all those Times, and were never sequestred or ejected, tho' their Livings were of good Value; or if put out of one Living, they soon got into another as good or better‖. Some met with no small Favours and Respects.‡ Some well known to be Episcopal, had the Hands of Presbyterians to help them into Livings, and many of their Pulpits were open to them to preach in{inverted †} The learned and catholick Dr. Tillotson, and Dr. Bates (with others) could carry on the Morning Exercise together as Brethren . [Page]How many of the loyal Clergy were there, who loved Preaching, and cleav'd to their Flocks, that did not enjoy some Liberty and Encouragement?† — Indeed I must confess, some few honest and valuable Clergy men met with rigorous Treatment: Bp. HALL'S hard Measure, written by himself, would make any Man's Heart bleed that reads it: but as that is dated May 1647, so I suppose, the hard Measure, that he and others endur'd, was only or chiefly in the time of the War and general Confusion. Whereas the Sufferings of the Nonconformists were in a time of Peace, after the most solemn Assurances, that all things past should be forgotten; and in Defiance of a Declaration, published by the King himself, with great Formality, in order to a Settlement of Ecclesiastical Matters: which Declaration, had it passed into a Law, would have left no room for future Severity*. And whatever unjustifiable Persecution any underwent, yet there were some merciful Ingredients in it, which the Dissenters never met with from the Episcopal Party; and in particular this, that a fifth part of the stated Income of the sequestred Livings was res;erv'd for the ejected Clergy, to be paid'em by their Successors: in which the Temper of the Parliament was admirable‡. The Bishops had a Pension allow'd them, or else were not dispossess'd of their Bishopricks, and had the Profits of 'em restor'd to them, after they had been a little time withheld: and some of them ended their Days in Peace and Honour‖.—

But perhaps it wou'd be more satisfactory and convincing to our Author and his Party, if I should relate the Sense of two worthy Persons of his own Church upon the matter The first is the Author of the Conformist's Pleas for the N [...]nconformists (said to be Mr. [I suppose, Thomas] Pierce, an Episcopal Minister, [Page]and a Man of good Temper†) who when the Sufferings of the Royal Party were objected to him, makes this Return: ‘(1.) It is probable, that many hundred, now ejected, were not Men in those evil days; therefore not guilty. (2.) There was a Provision of a fifth part for the Wives of the Ejected then: there is none for these. (3.) Who can answer for the Violence and Injustice of Actions in a Civil War? Those Sufferings were in a Time of General Calamity; but these were ejected, not only in a Time of Peace, but a Time of Joy to all the Land, and after an Act of Oblivion, when all pretended to be reconcil'd, and to be made Friends; and to whose common Rejoycing these suffering Ministers had contributed their earnest Prayers, and great Endeavours*. — Perhaps no Law (says he) was ever executed with more Violence and Partiality, or Proceedings with less Success, and more Mistakes and Errors in Proceedings, more arbitrarily & illegally, than those against Dissenting Protestants. Let it be judged and resolved soberly, whether this Way be not a greater Scandal to the Protestant Religion, than the Separation is, as great as it is‡.’ — The other gives his Sentiments in these words; ‘I must own (says he) that in my Judgment, however both sides have been excessively to blame, yet the Severities us'd by the Church to Dissenters, are less excusable, than those us'd by the Dissenters to the Church. My Reason is, That the former were us'd in Times of Peace and a settled Government: whereas the latter were inflicted in a time of Tumult and Confusion. So that the Plundering and Ravaging endur'd by the Church Ministers, were owing (many of them at least) to the Rudeness of the Soldiers, and the Chances of War. They were plunder'd, not because they were Conformists, but Cavaliers and of [Page]the King's Party. The Allowance of the sequestred Ministers a fifth part of their Livings, was a Christian Act; and what, I confess, I should have been glad to have seen imitated at the Restoration .’

Thus, Sir, you have seen, what Grounds our Author had, to draw up this heavy Impeachment against the Dissenters. And I think you will agree, that we may safely put the Case upon the Issue proposed by him; and leave it to others to determine, which Party are entitled to the Character of the true Church, by their Sufferings; and so conclude this historical Debate in his own Words, Let the World judge, if I have not fairly detected this Gentleman's Partiality, at his first setting out.

HAving thus particularly considered his Charge of Persecution, it is Time now to attend upon what he has further to say, in Answer to the Dialogue.

The Gentleman seems to be startled at the Terms Ceremonies and Impositions; which, he tells us, are Words of direful Import, being feigned and imaginary Scarecrows &c.* But why is he thus frighten'd with the Words, when so conversant with what is signified by them? Are there no Ceremonies in the Church of England, imposed as Terms of Communion? Have there been none kept out of the Church, refused Admission to sealing Ordinances, and excommunicated ipso Facto, by the Canons of that Church, for non-compliance with those Ceremonies? What then can he mean by inquiring, What are those Laws I fix this odious Brand upon, and call by the Nick Name of Impositions? — But to satisfy him, I'll tell him what [Page]Laws I refer to. — That Law, which requires our Acknowlegement of the Common Prayer Book, as containing nothing in it repugnant to the Scriptures, upon Pain of Excommunication.* — That Law, that declares us excommunicated ipso Facto, if we don't acknowledge, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are such, as we may with good Conscience approve, use, or subscribe to†— That Law, that obliges us upon the same Pains, to approv [...] of the Government of the Church of England, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch Deacons, and the rest that bear Office in the same.‡— That Law, that excommunicates us, if we do but pretend to groan under certain Grievances, imposed upon us by the Church of England .—That Law, that declares all excommunicated within the Realm, that da [...]e allow, that there are any Congregations or Assemblies, besides the Church of England, that may challenge to themselves, the Name of true and lawful Churches‖.— These, and many more such Laws as these (which the Gentleman knows well enough where to find) I call Impositions; and if they don't deserve that Name, he'll do well to let us know what Impositions mean.

His curious Panegyrick, upon these good Orders and Constitutions of the Church, as he calls 'em, will hardly persuade any rational Man to a good Opinion of 'em, till he can first shew us, by what Authority the Church of England, or any other Church under Heaven, can assume the Character of that one Lawgiver, who only can save or destroy; and take from us the Liberty, wherewith Christ has made us free. Let this Author, if he can, offer one Argument for these Impositions, that can't with the same Propriety be urged in favour of the Spanish Inquisition. He says, that "enough hath been said, by our own and foreign Divines, to remove the Imputation." And I in Answer assert, that enough hath been said, not only by our own, but by all the [Page]most noted foreign Divines, in the beginning of the Reformation, to justify & fix the Imputation immoveably for ever.

But why are the foreign Divines pressed into his Service? Can they be supposed to join with him in declaring the non-entity of those unhappy People's Church, that want episcopal Ordination, and so unchurch themselves and us together, to gratify this Party? No Sir, both the Discipline and Ceremonies of the Church of England, were very disagreable to the most eminent foreign Divines, from the Beginning; as appears by their declared Sentiments, and by the many Letters to Queen Elizabeth, to the Bishops and Nobility of England and others, against these Things, written by Calvin, Gu [...]lter, Bullinger, Beza, Zan [...]y and others; which you may see fairly represented in Mr. Neal's History of the Puritans. . Emphatical are the Words of Beza and seventeen other Divines, in a Letter dated October 24 1564. who say, ‘If the Case was theirs, they would not receive the Ministry upon these Conditions (the Terms imposed by the Church of England) if it were proferred; much less would they sue for it. As for those who have hitherto complied, if they are obliged not only to wink at manifest Abuses; but to approve of those Things that ought to be redressed, what Thing else can we advise them to, but that they should retire to a private Life.—As for the Popish Habits, those Men that are Authors of their being imposed, do deserve most evil of the Church, and shall verily answer it, at the dreadful Bar of Christ's Judgment‖.’ By which you may see, what Reason this Gentleman has to quote the foreign Divines in his Favour; and what Reason, to conclude this remarkable Paragraph, with a Charge upon us, or continuing and propagating Schism.

I am content, that they bear this Imputation of Schism, [Page]to whom it most properly belongs; whether they, that unchurch all the Protestant Churches but themselves, for want of episcopal Ordination, and that impose those unscriptural and (as themselves confess) unnecessary Institutions upon their Brethren, as Terms of Communion; or they, who peaceably reject these Remnants of Popery, because they cannot conform to 'em, without wounding their Consciences, and sinning against God. Whether these things are in themselves lawful or not, which occasion the Division, is not in the Question. They are certainly unlawful to us; because against our Consciences.

For this Gentleman's Diversion, I'll venture to entertain him with a short Story, and leave him to apply it. A serious Gentlewoman was so unhappy, as to think it unlawful to eat blood Pudding, a Food which her Husband was greatly delighted in. Her Husband requires her upon Pain of his highest Displeasure, to eat with him, assuring her that it's lawful, tho' not necessary, for her to do it. She desires to be excused, lets him know that it's against her Conscience, and (she thinks) against the plain Command of God, to eat Blood, promises Observance in every Thing she can oblige him in, consistent with a good Conscience towards God. He insists upon her Conformity, threatens to beat out her Brains; and actually drives her out of the House, for her non-compliance; and so a sad Schism is made in the Family. I desire to know, which of 'em was chargeable with the Guilt of this Schism.

If we consider this Case, with a particular Application to our own Country, who are the Schismaticks? They, that have kept close to the first Principles of the Country; and have maintained the Worship of God in purity and Peace, agreable to the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land, without imposing their Opinions upon any Man's Conscience? Or they, that are not content with the Liberty of bringing in their unscriptural Innovations; but must needs be obtruding them as necessary to Salvation, and declaring, with this very [Page]charitable Gentleman,† the Nonentity of our Churches, and that the Difference between us is not a Difference in Circumstantials; but a Priesthood or no Priesthood, a Church or no Church? If Schism, implies making of Divisions and Rents in the Church, I desire this Party would clear themselves of it; or else we must leave the Brat at the Door of its proper Father.

Before I dismiss this Head, I can't but take Notice of his so frequently and satyrically giving us the Appellation of DISSENTERS. But I pray who is it that dissent from the original and legal Establishment of the Country, they, or we? It were every whit a [...] good Sense, to call the German, Dutch, French, o [...] other foreign Churches Dissenters, as to give us in New-England that Denomination.

OUR Author undertakes ‘next (as he tells us*) t [...] examine the Reasons (in the Dialogue) so chusing Ordination by a Presbytery, rather than by diocesan Bishop.’ And he first pretends to an Examination of this Reason of our Opinion, That ou [...] Lord Jesus Christ has inhibited all Dominion and S [...] premacy among the Ministers of the Gospel, over one another &c. But what does he say to this? What Answer does he give, to the several Scriptures cited i [...] the Dialogue, that in express Terms forbid this impleaded Supremacy among the Ministers of the Go [...] pel? Not one single Word! He has left the Arguments as he found them, safe in our Hands, with a [...] implicit Acknowledgement, that their ecclesiastical Supremacy is indefensible.

He proceeds however to manifest his Willingne [...] to wipe off the Imputation, of Lording it over God's H [...] ritage, from their Bishops. But I cannot discover a [...] Pertinency in his Reasonings. He tells us, ‘All the [Page] Bishops in the World, except the Pope, do disclaim it.’ But why is the Pope excepted? Don't he disclaim it too? Did he ever confess his Guilt? — But whoever disclaim it, I can't think it a sufficient Evidence of Innocence, to plead not Guilty.

He goes on to prove, by a variety of Scriptures, that there is a Power and Authority belonging to the Rulers of the Church; and that the Exercise of that Authority is not a Lording it over God's Heritage. But what is this to the Purpose? Who ever disputed this Authority, or the lawful Exercise of it?

He moreover assures us, that ‘the Power and Authority of our Bishops is falsely suggested to be Lording it over God's Heritage, they have enacted no Laws of their own, that exceed their Commission, and the Apostolical Rule, of having all Things done decently and in Order.’ This I confess is to the Purpose; and if he could have given good Evidence of it, 'twould have done our Business effectually. But I suspect, there will remain nothing but his bare Word to support his Cause, when throughly examin'd.

Have they enacted no Laws of their own, that exceeded their Commission! But who gave them Commission, to impose any Laws at all, upon the Subjects of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our King. I have already shewn, that they have enacted a great Number of severe Laws, which they have enjoined with the greatest Penalties they could annex to 'em. But I still enquire, by what Authority? If the Lord Jesus Christ has given Power to his Church to make Laws, every Church have equal Claim to this legislative Faculty: And how then will this Gentleman justify the Reformation? May not the Church of Rome use this Authority, given them by Christ, as well as the Church of England? If he answers to this, that the papal Laws are unscriptural, and therefore beyond their Commission: I reply, so are the Laws of the Church of England. Now, who must be Judge in this Case. If [Page]we are referred to the Church for a Decision, Protestantism in general, as well as Presbytery, must fall before this Tryal. And what is worse than this, we must necessarily submit to the Laws of the Greek Church, of the Armenian, Georgian, Mingrellian Churches; and in a Word, of all the Churches in the World. For if the Decision belong to the Church, it belongs to one Church as well as another; and besure every one will determine in their own Favour. And thus Light and Darkness, Truth and Error, and the most contradictory Sentiments in the World, must be blended together; and every Man must be of every Opinion.—If he appeals to the Scriptures to determine this Matter, we are ready to join Issue with him, upon that Foot. But then, who must interpret the Scriptures for us, in this Case? If we are allowed the Use of our own Understandings, the Scriptures are on our Side the Question. If the Church may impose her Interpretations of Scripture, all the forementioned Difficulties recur. For every Church pretends to found her Authority upon the Scriptures. Nor will it do, for this Gentleman to plead, that other Churches are in the wrong, and the Church of England in the Right. For they will retort the Argument, with as much Justice and as good Assurance, as he can have. His only Way therefore, to avoid these Consequences, is to produce a Commission for the Church of England, EXCLUSIVE of all other Churches, to make these Laws, and enforce them; otherwise all Pretences to a legislative Authority, will sound very odly, from those that disclaim Infallibility.

We have this Gentleman's Word for it, that these Injunctions are falsely suggested, to be Lording it over God's Heritage. To which I answer; They have often enough heard, that our Consciences tell us (after the best Enquiry we can make) that they are contrary to the Laws of Christ; and yet they are nevertheless enjoin'd with all their Penalties. What then can be done? Here is the Authority of Christ on the one Hand, and their Authority on the other. By the best Light [Page]we can get, to obey them is to disobey the Lord Jesus Christ. If they say, our Consciences are weak and erring, it's the same thing: for to him that esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean, Rom. xiv. 14. He that doubts, is damned, if he eat, ver. 23. and by this a weak Conscience is defiled, 1 Cor. viii. 7. As we can make our appeal to the righteous Judge, before whom we must finally answer for our Conduct, that we sincerely endeavour Obedience to him, in the contested Articles; so we chearfully appeal to the World, whether it ben't an unjustifiable Lordship, thus to endeavour to destroy those, for whom Christ died.—Who impowered them to judge their Brother, or to set at nought their Brother? (Rom. xiv. 10.) Or to put a Stumbling Block, or Occasion to fall, in their Brother's way? (verse 13.) Is this to bear the Infirmity of the weak, (as these Engrossers of all Wisdom are pleased to call as) or is it to please themselves? (Rom. xv. 1.) Is this to receive one another, as Christ also received us, to the Glory of God? (ver. 7.) — Methinks better Arguments, or less Assurance, would very well become our Tory Friends, in the Case before us.

I am next to consider what Grounds this Author has for all his Banter and Railery‡ at the Dialogue, for asserting it to be a natural Right, for a People to commit their most important Affairs, to one that they can approve; and that the Imposing their Ministers upon Congregations is a Lordship, that the Apostles themselves would not use, in supplying the Vacancy made by the Death of Judas; and in the Election of Deacons. To which he answers, ‘This Gentleman would do well to consider, that we are not now in a State of Nature, but of Grace; and he would find it perhaps no easy Task, to describe his State of Nature, and what particular Powers Men in that supposed State, have a just Claim to.’ I would not willingly overlook this Argument, if I could any ways find [Page]out what the Gentleman would prove by it. I can hardly think he means, that all his Party are in a State of Grace, in the same sense that the Apostle uses a like Phrase, in Rom. vi. 14. Because I believe that he himself will own, that there are some few of 'em under the Dominion of Sin. But perhaps he may intend (for I can but guess at his Meaning) that the Grace of the Gospel has made void the Law of Nature; and we are no longer to regard the Dictates of it. If thus, he is so unhappy, as to have the Apostle Paul for his Adversary, in this case, Rom. iii. [...]1. Do we then make void the Law thro' Faith? God forbid; yea we establish the Law. I think all are agreed, that 'tis the moral Law, or the Law of Nature, that the Apostle refers to, and I never before heard any one call into Question that received Maxim, The Law of Nature [...] the Law of God. But whatever his Meaning may be, I yet insist upon it, that a People have a natural Right to chuse their own Minister. For how ignorant soever he would make us, of the State of Nature I plead for, I am sure every one must own, that it's one of the first Dictates of Nature, to take Care of our Selves; and that our Care should be proportioned to the Weight and Importance of the Concern before us: Whence it necessarily follows, that as I have a natural Right to chuse what Food shall be provided for my Body, and reject such as is unwholsome or poysonous, in order to the Preservation of my Life, so am I much more concerned to take the like care of my Soul, that it be indeed fed with the Food of Life, and not destroy'd o [...] rendred unhealthy, by the Ignorance, Errors, Scandals or other Insufficiency of my Minister.— Besides, if have a natural Right to judge for my self, in the affairs of my eternal safety, and must stand or fall at last by my own Opinion and Conduct, and not by another Man's; I have equally a natural Right to chuse the Means, that I think most conducive to my eternal well-being, and cannot be determined by any other Person, against my own Opinion and Conscience. [Page]add, if the Power of imposing a Minister upon a People be allow'd to belong to the Superiour Officers of any Church, it must be allow'd to belong to the Superior Officers of every Church, and the Church of Rome may claim it, as well as the Church of England; unless the English Bishops can shew a Commission, exclusiue of all but themselves, to impose their Minister upon a People: and thus they have no Right to refuse Subjection to a popish Priest as their Minister, who live in popish Countries.

Our Author's Endeavours to prove, that the Apostle Matthias was not chosen by the Suffrages of the Laity, are altogether impertinent; for who ever pretended it? I grant, that an Apostle receiv'd his Character, not of Man, nor by Men; but immediately by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the Dead. And yet, the Suffrage of the whole visible Church then present (which consisted of but a hundred and twenty Persons, as appears from Acts i. 15.) was taken, in supplying the Vacancy made by the Death of Judas, not for chusing an Apostle, but for appointing two qualified Persons; out of which one was to be set apart, by the immediate Voice of Providence, unto that sacred Character: and accordingly we are told, that they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was Surnamed Justus, and Matthias, Acts i. 23. Tho' the Character of an Apostle made it necessary, that he should have an immediate Call to his Office; yet the whole Christian Church, being concerned and interested in the Qualifications of this publick Officer, they are all consulted in the Case, and have such a Voice in it, that the Person when appointed, cannot be disagreable to 'em. This is plain Matter of Fact: and this solemn Transaction in the very Infancy of the Christian Institution, is a standing Pattern to the Churches, thro' all succeeding Ages, in that Respect.

And as to the seven Deacons, if it be possible that any Thing can be fully and clearly represented by Words, we are certain, that they were chosen by [Page]the Church: Wherefore Brethren (say the Apostles,) lock ye out among you, seven Men of honest Report, full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom, whom we may appoint over this Business: and the Saying pleased the whole Multitude; and they CHOSE Stephen, a Man full of Faith and the Holy Ghost, and Philip, &c. Acts vi. 3, 5. I am surprized to find this Gentleman asserting, ‘that it doth not at all appear, that the Apostles counted this a Priviledge of the People; but the contrary; because the People claimed no such Right; but did it in Obedience to the Apostles.’ — But it's certain, whether the People claimed that Right or not, it was their Right, a Right allowed them by the Holy-Ghost, under whose Guidance the Apostles were in this their Conduct, and by whom the People were not indulged in an unjustifiable Usurpation.—And how does it at all affect the Case, that ‘the Apostles reserved to themselves the Right of appointing these Deacons to their Office?’ The Question is not about the Ordination (which is all that is meant by the Apostles appointing them, as appears from ver. 3. compared with ver. 6.) but about the Election, of these Church-Officers. They were chosen by the Multitude, if the sacred Text may be credited; which is all I plead for. And I mistake, if our Author does not in effect give up the Cause, when he allows that the ‘nomination of Persons is put on the People, and that this was the Apostolical Practice.’ But how he will prove the "practice of the Church of England consistent with this," I am at a Loss.

I might further observe, if the original of the Text in Acts xiv. 23. were duely noticed, it will appear, that the People had constantly the Liberty of chusing their Ministers, allowed them by the Apostles themselves. [...]. Which Beza in his latin Version, justly renders, Quum (que) ipsi per Suffragia creassent per singulas Eccl [...]si [...]s Presbyteros. And when them had by Votes constituted Presbyters in every Church. [Page]It can't be deny'd, that the Greek Word in this Text, signifies chusing by lifting up of Hands. Whence it's a necessary Consequence, that this was the Method of chusing Ministers in these Churches, under the Direction of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, which therefore ought yet to be retain'd, by all that would follow the Divine Pattern. This it seems, the Translators of our Bibles were convinced of. For as we are told by a very learned Man, ‘Our English Bibles themselves, until they had undergone Episcopal Correction, at this Text, put in the Words by Election; and the Margin had this Note, The Apostles did not thrust Pastors into the Church, thro' a lordly Superiority; but chose, and placed them, by the Voice of the Congregation.*’

To all which I may add, that all who are acquainted with the Fathers and ancient Councils, must acknowledge, that in the primitive Church the Exercise of the Ministry depended upon the Election of the People; which was in Cyprian's Time, esteemed as a divine Tradition: that Father assures us, That the People hath the chief Power of chusing worthy Ministers, and refusing the unworthy. To which he adds, That it must be received as a divine Tradition, and an Apostolical Observation; and that it was observed among them, and almost in all the Provinces, that for the right Performance of Ordination, the neighbouring Bishops meet together with that Congregation or People, for whom a Ruler is to be ordained; and the Bishop is chosen in the Presence of the People, who have most perfect Knowledge of the Life of every one, and have strictly observed their manner of Conversation. It would too much swell this Letter, to multiply Quotations of the like Kind. And I can't but flatter my self, that I have already said enough to convince any one, [Page]of the gross mistake of our Author, in his confident, Assertion, that ‘we want such Precedents, as may support the Right of the People, to chuse their Minister.’ And yet, I must confess on the other Hand, that our Adversaries do not want Precedents, to support the Imposing their Minister on a People, without their Consent, since the papal Usurpations have obtained; tho' they might be at a Loss to find any before.

Thus, I think I have fully discharged the Debt, contracted at the Beginning of this Discourse; and obviated this Author's Fleers at the Platform so Church Discipline.

But we are told, that ‘we all know that the Rebellion of Corah and his Company, was occasioned by Aaron's having the High-Priesthood conferred upon him, which Corah endeavoured to obtain for himself, by that popular Tumult’— How I pray, are we affected with this pretty Witticism? Do we pretend to the High Priesthood, as Corah did? Do we insist that our Ministry is properly sacerdotal, that our Bishops succeed to the High-Priest, our Presbyters to the Priests, and our Deacons to the Levites? Do we professedly thrust Men into the sacred Office, without a divine Appointment, to invade the Province of those Officers, that God himself has appointed in his Church, as Corah would have done? Does this Gentleman find our Ecclesiastical Affairs put into the Hands of Suffragans, Arch Deacons, Deans, Chancellors, Commissaries, Proctors, Apparitors, &c. Officers confessedly not of Divine Right? If he can make out these Things against us, we will acknowledge the Justice of the Imputation, and have no Recourse to Novels or Councils, or other human Warrant: but acknowledge ourselves Corahites, for thrusting Officers into the Church, without a divine Commission, and committing the Work to them, that belongs to the Ministers of Christ, by his own Institution.

[Page] A like Answer may be made to his Reasoning from 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. against the People's Right to chuse their own Ministers. The Apostle there plainly points at the Roman Apostacy, at their heaping up Teachers of their own devising, such as would best tickle their itching Ears, by forsaking the Truth, and entertaining them with fabulous Doctrines; which has been remarkably fulfilled in that Synagogue of Satan. Let them therefore apply this Text to themselves whose Clergy come nearest to the Roman Hierarchy. If we have been prompted by our itching Ears, to imitate the Church of Rome, in heaping up to our selves Lords Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Prebends, Arch Deacons. Vicars, Curates, and other such Teachers, that the Scriptures know nothing of, we will own the Gentleman's Charge, that we have no be [...]er Precedent, than the Prediction in the quoted Text. But in the Interim, we may justly despise his groundless Merriment on this Oocasion.

I Will next try, if I can't send that Spirit to haunt this Gentleman and his Party, which (p. 10) he says I have conjured up, and is not in my Power to lay. The frightful Hobgoblin is this Argument, proposed by Prelaticus in the Dialogue. — Ordination by Bishops is certainly of Divine Institution; for Bishops are Presbyters, if they have no higher Character; and therefore upon your own Principles, have Power of Ordination: whereas Ordination by Presbyters is at least questionable; and therefore ours must be allowed [...]be the safest Side. To which darling Plea of that Party, were several Answers given. They were first shewn, that both the Baptists and the Papists claim equal Advantage by this Way of arguing. That the Baptis [...]s plead, we own their [kind of] Baptism is valid, while they deny that Sorinkling an Infant is any Baptism at all; and therefore they must be of the safer [Page]Side: And that the Papists argue after the same Manner, that all own, Salvation may be obtain'd in the Church of Rome; but they deny the Possibility of the Salvation of Protestants; and therefore the Papists are of the s [...]fer Side. Unto this our Author under [...]akes [...] answer particularly; and his first Answer to the Plea of the Baptists, is truly very remarkable.

‘And whence pray (says he) received he his Information, that the Church of England allows the Validity of Baptism, administred by Baptists? No [...] from the Articles, Canons, and Rubricks of the Church; for they declare the Baptism of Laick [...] to be invalid, I by requiring a Lawful Administrator: and notwithstanding the great Pains take [...] to prove the divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination, I must still for Want of fuller Conviction level dissenting Teachers of all Denominations, in the same Rank with Laicks.’ — This, I must confess, is plain Dealing. The Baptism of Laicks is invalid. The dissenting Teachers of all Denomination (that is, all those that want Episcopal Ordination) are but Laicks: whence it must be the sad State of all the poor Protestants of France, Holland, Switser land, Geneva, Germany, Transylvania, Polonia, Bohemia, &c. as well as Scotland and New-England, to be unbaptized Persons, and (as one of this Author's Brethren expresses it Aliens from God & Christ, Strangers to the Covenant of Promise, and the Common wealth of Israel. And what makes our Case the more deplorable, is, that it's remediless. For the foreign Churches have no Ministers, that are episcopally ordained; and consequently cannot obtain Episcopal Baptism or Confirmation; and the Circumstances of the most of us in this Country, are bu [...] little better; for tho' we are favoured with some few Episcopal Ministers, yet they are generally such as were (according to this Gentleman's Way of [Page]Reasoning) baptized by Laicks, whose Baptism is therefore null, and they consequently, very unfit to administer the Ordinance to others, who are unbaptized themselves. Whether this be this Author's own Case, I cannot tell, he having concealed his Name: but every one knows, that it's the Case of the most of his Brethren in this Country, who have been baptized zither in Scotland or New England; And therefore, according to his declared Principles, are not in the Church themselves; and besure not capable to admit others into it by Baptism For to use his own Words, (p. 48.) can they baptize, who are not themselves Christians! They are not only out of the Way of Salvation themselves; but their miserable Hearers are like to perish with them, thro' the Nullity of their Administrations. How much does it therefore concern these Gentlemen, to seek episcopal Baptism, in order to their being Christians, before they boast of being the only Ministers in the Country; and before they cast so many famous Protestant Churches out of the Fold of Christ; when they themselves are by these damning Principles, in the same unhappy State. Thus you see, Sir, what a fine Train of Consequences follow from the Gentleman's first Answer; and who must pass for Scurrilous now!

Let us next consider, whether he has any better Success, in answering the same Plea of the Roman Catholicks. ‘The Argument of the Papists (he tells us) is this, You acknowledge a Possibility of Salvation in our Church, i. e. that invincible Ignorance joined with true Sincerity, may be an Apology for the Errors of many in it, which we do not acknowledge concerning yours. But pray who is so stupid as not to discover, that this is no Argument, why those who know the Errors and Superstitions of that Church, should go over to it?’—By this Gentleman's Leave, I shall venture to retort the Answer. The Argument of the High Church Party, is this, You acknowledge [Page]our Ordination valid, i. e. that the invincible Mistakes, join'd with Sincerity, of those who submit to an uninstituted Hierarchy, may be an Apology for their Error in it, which we don't acknowledge concerning yours. But pray who is so stupid as not to discover, that this is no Argument, why those that know the Usurpations of Prelacy, their Invasion of the Rights of Presbytery, and their uninstituted Original, should go over to them? I hope he won't be offended, with the Harshness of the Language, since it's borrowed from himself; and I think he'll be very much put to it, to make any Reply to this Reasoning, that mayn't with the same Justice, be urged in Favour of the popish Argument, which he undertakes to answer. He tells us indeed, that ‘the Dissenters acknowledge episcopal Ordination lawful, and considered by itself safe and secure, they ought therefore to submit to it; because a Deviation from it, cannot be acceptable to Almighty God.’— Which is so far from Truth, that we all believe, and have often enough proved, that the only Ordination, either instituted or exemplified in the Scriptures, is by the Imposition of the Hands of a Presbytery; and that our Deviation from this, cannot be acceptable to Almighty God. We grant indeed, that their Ordinations are lawful, if he intends no more by their being lawful, than that they are not a Nullity; and that their Clergy are thereby authorized to administer sacred Ordinances. But if he means by their being lawful, that their Episcopal Ordinations are such, as are according to the divine Pattern and Institution, we have ever denied it; and it is what they have never been able to prove. But were even that granted, that Episcopal Ordination is even in this latter sense lawful, how does that affect the Debate between us? Have we no other Objections against the Ordinations in the Church of England, that are sufficient to deter us from going thither for Orders? Were there none [Page]such offered in the Dialogue, that might have convinced him, that we did not esteem these Ordinations safe and secure for us?

Thus, Sir, you see that we have no more Cause to be frighted with this Spectre than they have; whoever conjures it up.

I am now to shew you, that we have just Cause of the same Objections against their Episcopal Ordination, as were offered in the Dialogue, notwithstanding his pretended Answers to 'em. (p. 12-15.) I shall therefore, once more expostulate the matter with them; and consider his Replies, as I pass along.

Is it the safer Side, to acknowledge and submit to a Hierarchy, not warranted in the Word of God? To which he answers, No. Well then, he himself being Judge, it is not safest for us to seek Orders from their Bishops, till we are convinced of the divine Right of Prelacy. Let him therefore shew us, where this is to be found in the Word of God, and he will effectually silence our Objections.

Is it the safer Side, for me to solemnly declare at my Ordination, that I am moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon me the Office of a Deacon; when I have no Purpose to serve Tables, for which Deacons were instituted? To which he answers ‘With Submission, we require better Authority than this Gentleman's Assertion, that Deacons were instituted barely to serve Tables.’ Well! he shall have better Authority, if that will satisfy him, from the very Words of the original Institution. Acts vi. 2, 3. Then the twelve called the Multitude of the Disciples unto them; and said, It is not Reason that we should leave the Word of God, and SERVE TABLES. Wherefore, Brethren, look ye out among you Seven Men of honest Report, whom we may appoint over THIS BUSINESS. It is possible, that any Thing can be [Page]expressed in plainer Terms? Have Deacons any other business appointed them, than to serve Tables? Is nor serving of Tables put in direct Opposition to the Ministry of the Word?—But he tells us, that "Philip Deacon preached and baptized" Was Philip no more than a Deacon? Is he not expresly called an Evangelist, Acts xxi. 8? Nay, does nor our Author himself (in p. 28.) allow him to be an Evangelist at this very Time? And is it good Reasoning, [...]hat because Philip, who was once a Deacon, did when he became an Evangelist, preach and baptize, therefore all Deacons have Authority to preach and baptize?— But ‘Ignatius (says the Gentleman) full as compleat a Judge as this Author, affirms in his Epistle to the Trallians, that Deacons are not Servants of Meats and Drinks only; but Ministers of the Church of God.’—I shall not now spend Time to shew the undoubted Evidence, that these pretended Epistles of Ignatius are the spurious Offspting of some monkish Impostor: but shall only consider, whether there be any such Thing in his pretended Epistle to the Trallians, as that "Deacons are not Servants of Meats and Drinks ONLY." no, he plainly says absolutely, they are not Servants of Meat and Drink; and why is ONLY added by our Author, but that if his spurious Ignatius had been admitted to speak his own Lauguage, he had in express Terms contradicted the Scriptures, and thereby ruined his Credit with those that have a due value for that blessed Book?*. But to go on—

Is it the safer Side, to take upon me the Order of Pri [...]h [...]od, an Order typical of our Lord Jesus Christ, ful [...]ed in him, and abrogated by him?—Our Author says ‘It is very safe to take upon me the Order of Priesthood, when duly called, and authoritatively [Page]sent.’—But it's pity, he did not better understand the Subject he was treating on, when he tells us, ‘Had this Gentleman been so ingenuous, as to have distinguished, between the Priesthood of the Aaronical Order, abrogated by our Saviour, and the M [...]lchizedecan, restored in it's Room, there would be no Difficulty in the Thing.’— That we may set this Matter in a true Light, it mayn't be amiss to consider, what was the proper Work and Business of the Priesthood, wherein the Difference between the Priesthood of Aaron and of Melchizedec consisted; and in what Respect our Lord Jesus Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchizedec, and not after the Order of Aaron.

We may first then consider, what was the proper Work and Business of the Priesthood. And this can't be better described, than in the Apostle's Language, Heb. v 1. For every high Priest taken from among Men, is ordained for Men, in Things pertaining to God, that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for Sins. And Heb. viii. 3 For every high Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices. Whence it's most certain, that every Priest, of whatever Order, is strictly and properly a Sacrificer; that the very End and Design of the Priesthood, was to offer Gifts and Sacrifices; and that the Terms, Priest and Sacrificer, are synonymous and reciprocal. Whence, when all true Christians are allusively called an holy Priesthood, 'tis on Account of their offering spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 5.

And we may consider wherein the Difference between the Priesthood of Melchizedec and of Aaron consisted. The Distinction between them was not with Relation to Sacrifices; the Priesthood of both was by these Oblations to lead the Minds, and direct the Faith and Hope of God's People, unto the promised Messiah, by whom all the faithful of Adam's Progeny had their only Prospect of Reconciliation unto God. But it consisted in the special personal Qualifications, by which Melchizedec had the Preference of Aaron [Page]He was immediately called to the Priesthood, without any external Rites of Consecration, such as were used at Aaron's Separation. He was a King, as well as Priest; Aaron had no regal Dignity. His Priesthood was perpetual, as he had not derived it from any other; and as he had no known Father or Mother, Beginning of Days, or End of Life. Whereas the Aaronical Priesthood was in a lineal Descent, and the Priests themselves were not suffered to continue by reason of Death▪ He was greater than Abraham: but the Aaronical Priests, as they were Abraham's Posterity, were his Inferiours. These were the special Differences, between the Priesthood of Melchizedec and of Aaron. And it was in these Respects, that the great high Priest of our Profession is said to be after the Order of Melchizedec, as may be particularly seen, in the viith Chapter to the Hebrews. The Priesthood of Melchizedec and of Aaron was, in it self considered, in all Respects the same; in the same Manner referred to our Lord Jesus Christ, and terminated in him; though there were some peculiar personal Characters belonging to Melchizedec, more accommodated to the Priesthood of Christ, than were to be found in the Tribe of Levi: hence our Lord's Priesthood is said to be after his Order. From all which it necessarily follows, that unless this Gentleman will join with the Papists, in pleading for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice, he cannot with any colour of Reason pretend as he does, that their Ministry is properly Sacerdotal

He indeed pretends to reason the Case, and says, ‘Was Jesus Christ a proper Bishop over his Church, by Commission from his Father; and are the visible Bishops proper Bishops of it, by Mission and Commission from him?’ then he challenges me to give any good Reason, if I can, ‘Why by Mission and Commission from Christ, the high Priest of our Profession, they are not also proper Priests.’ —To which I answer, one good Reason is, because all the Ministers of Christ have his Mission and Commission [Page]to be Bishops, but none to be Priests. Let him, if he can, shew us any such Commission, and we will yield him the Cause. Another Reason is, because the Apostle expresly tells us, Heb. vii. 24. that Christ has a Priesthood that cannot pass from one to another. For so the original Word [...] signifies; and so it is rendred in the Margin of our Bibles. And if his Priesthood be of that Kind, that it cannot pass from him to any other, no Person can be a Sharer in it, nor a Successor to it. To which I add this further Reason for it, that tho' Christ hath use for Bishops in his Church, he has none for Priests; there being no proper Sacrifices for such to offer, since he has offered up himself once for all.— Thus you see, what little Reason we have, to leave our Scriptural Ordinations, to take upon us the Order of Priesthood among them. And so I go on to expostulate with him.

Is it the safer Side, to take upon me the solemn Charge of the Ministry, and to come under awful Vows to fulfil it; and yet depend upon the Bishop's Licence to preach? To which he answers, ‘And pray where is the Inconsistency, of taking upon one the solemn Charge of the Ministry, and coming under Vows to fulfil it; and yet depending upon the Bishop's Licence?’ Why! Is it no Inconsistency, to be under the most solemn and sacred Bonds to preach the Gospel, to be instant in Season and out of Season, and yet to be under contrary Bonds not to preach at all, but as the Bishop pleases? Is it no Inconsistency, to be authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by him commanded to the Exercise of the Ministry; and yet have no Authority to exercise it at all, till the Licence is sealed and paid for? In a Word, either Episcopal Ordination authorizes and obliges a Minister to preach, or it does not. If it does, wo to him if he preach not the Gospel, whether he has any Licence or no. If it does not, we have no great Reason to be fond of such Ordinations: where Authority is given with one hand, and in a sort taken away with the other.

[Page] Is it the safer Side, to acknowledge our Bishops endued with the extraordinary Power of giving the Holy Ghost, by the Imposition of Hands? It's certain they seem to assume that Power, when they say, Receive the Holy-Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee, by the Imposition of our Hands. To which he answers. ‘Th [...] Apostles themselves were never endued with the Power of giving the Holy-Ghost.’— And I grant that they were not endued with Power, authoritatively and efficiently to give the Holy-Ghost. But then he must grant, that the miraculous Gifts did accompany the Imposition of their Hands; and of their only, wherever they went. And the Question is Whethen these extraordinary Gifts do now accompany the Imposition of our Bishops Hands, in Ordination? For we don't see all our Episcopal Clergy endued with them He answers to this, that ‘he don't think it can be shewn in any one Instance from Scripture, that the Grace of the Spirit is ascribed [...] any Man, as the Give [...] of it; we therefore truth that God of his Goodness will still convey this Gi [...] thro' the Prayers, and by the Imposition of the Apostles Successors Hands,’ to the End of the World. But he has here quite changed the Question, which was not about the Grace of the Spirit, but the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit; which were never received by the Imposition of any Hands, but the Apostles only. And as for the sanctifying Grace [...] the Spirit, Imposition of Hands was no institute▪ Means of obtaining it; nor do we read that it was ever once communicated by the Imposition of Hand [...] So that, take it in what sense he pleases, the Cla [...] is unwarrantable; and they have neither Precept Example, nor Promise, to found it upon.

Is it the safer Side, solemnly to promise at my Ordination, reverently to obey my Ordinary, that is, [...] Bishop; and to swear canonical Obedience to the Bishop, as you know has been commonly done? When [Page]I am taught to call no Man Master, but Christ, Mat. xxiii. 8, 10. To which it's answered, ‘No Doubt on't, if you intend to perform your Promise; and that in Conformity to God's Command.’—But he would have done well to have told us, what Command of God this would be a Conformity to. I have shewn him a Command of our Lord Jesus Christ, not to call any Man Master, to which he has made no Reply. And I shall only subjoin, that if not only promising, but swearing, not Scriptural, but canonical Obedience, he not to call a Man Master, in the sense forbidden in this Text, I know not what is. Truly, Sir, I desire to keep my Conscience free from [...]uch Shackles.

Is it the safer Side, to be ordained to but a Part of the Ministerial Work; and to be deprived of the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction, which belong to a Gospel-Minister, as such, and which he must account for in the Day of Christ? He answers, ‘Yes, much the safest, because in acting otherwise, you act in direct Opposition to the Command of Christ, usurping Powers that in no measure belong to you.’ We must wait the Gentleman's Proof of this Assertion. But I hope in the mean Time, that he and his Brethren won't pretend to be the only Ministers in the Country, when by his own Confession they have but a Part, and want (as he tells us p. 27) the much greater Part of the Ministry.

Thus, Sir, you have seen, that how much soever our Author may value himself upon his Performance, and flatter himself that he has convinced the candid Reader, that the Reasons in the Dialogue for preferring Presbyterian Ordination, to Ordination by Bishops, appear ill-natured Suggestions (as he is pleased to express it) and not Substantial Reasons, they yet stand their Ground, against all his Exceptions.

You have seen, how they of our Profession have from the Beginning of the Reformation gone thro' a most [...]elancholy Series of Tribulation and Persecution, for [Page]a good Conscience, and the pure Worship of God and what Multitudes have Sealed their Profession with their Blood. You have seen some of those multiplied Reasons we have, to complain of the Bishops imposing their Ceremonies upon us. You have seen, that their Episcopacy is an Assuming a Supremacy, absolutely forbidden by our Lord Jesus Christ, among the Ministen of the Gospel; and that it is a proper Lording it out God's Heritage. You have also seen, what little Reason they have to triumph, upon the trifling Pretence, that theirs is the safer Side; unless it be safest to leave the Institutions of Christ, and submit to the Inventions of Men; to mock the blessed Spirit of God, in pretending to be moved by him, to take upon me a [...] Office, that I never intend to exercise; to assume the Priesthood, which under the Gospel-Dispensation does incommunicably belong to the Lord Jesus Christ; to take upon me the most solemn Vows, and depend upon another Man's Pleasure, whether I shall fulfil o [...] violate them; to acknowledge, those extraordinary and miraculous Apostolical Qualifications reside in o [...] English Bishops, whereof they are not able to give [...] the least Evidence; to swear Subjection to the Bishops, according to the Injunctions of sundry seven uncharitable, and unscriptural Laws or Canons, where I am commanded to acknowledge no Master, b [...] Christ, in matters of Conscience and Religion: and t [...] be ordained to but a Part of the Ministerial Work, whe [...] I am called by God to the whole, and must account is the Day of Christ, for the exercise of the whole Ministrys Unless, I say, these Things make their Side the safest and unless it's the safest, because most uncharitable, we have no encouraging Motive to go over to the Church of England: who has made our Separation from help safe and just and necessary, by imposing unnecessary, unjust, and unsafe Terms of ministerial Conformity. [Page]I Am at length come to the main Question, Whether the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction belong to the Presbyters?

It seems the irresistible Evidence of this in the Dialogue, has given such Conviction to our Author, as has forced him to quit the most of those strong Holds, which the Party have constantly endeavoured to defend; and has left him but one only Place of Retreat. ‘I grant, (says he p. 16.) that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter, are used so promiscuously in the New-Testament, as to leave no Distinction of Office. I grant that there are as many Bishops, in the first sense of the Word, as Presbyters in the most early Churches. I grant, that we can find in the New-Testament no Presbyter, who was not a Bishop, i. e. called by that Name. I grant, that the Duties and Qualifications of those called Bishops in the New-Testament and of those called Presbyters, are the same, because they are the Duties and Qualifications of the same Church-Officer, called by both these Names.’—One would think, here are concessions enough, to put a perpetual End to this Controversy: and I might take the Advantage now to turn his own Argument, from the safer Side, against him. — Surely he might with as much security to his Cause, have made one Concession more, and granted that all their Pretences to a Prelacy in the Church, and for the Superiority of Episcopacy to Presbytery, are unscriptural and groundless. However, whether he will make this Concession, or no, we need not I think be in much Pain about the Issue of the Controversy, after he has granted, that the New Testament makes no Difference between Bishops and Presbyters. However, he is resolved to hold fast the Conclusion, tho' he has given up the Premises.

‘But tho' I have grante all this (says he) yet I hope may, and will maintain, that the Powers of those called Bishops in the New-Testament, were not the same, with the Powers of those who were [Page]called so afterwards, in an eminent Sense: or in other Words, that those Church-Officers, who are stiled Bishops in the New-Testament, have never received nor exercised the Right of ordaining others; but that this Right was always in the Hands of Officers, superiour to them.’—But how does all this appear? Can he give us any Evidence of it? He tells us, ‘It's evident from the Churches of Corinth, Ephosus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Crete &c which had in them a Clergy, consisting of several Ministers’ And then proceeds with the most scornful Air to inquire, "what Need there was for the Apostles to run the Hazard of long Journeys, and dangerous Voyages, for the performing Ordinations in these Churches, if the Elders already setled there, might have done it without them!—This, I confess, is a short and compendious Way of finishing a Dispute. At this Rate, no Adversary need ever want an Occasion of Triumph. But I must tell this Gentleman, that here is too much in all Reason taken for granted, without any Proof.

He first takes for granted, that the Apostles found these Churches settled with Elders or Bishops, when they constituted a Gospel Ministry among them, which is so far from evident, that it is not so much as possible.—The only Account we have of the Apostles constituting Elders, in any of the Gertlle Churches, was at Lystra, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, and (it seems) Derbe. Acts xiv. 21, 23. And it is certain, at their first Visit to those Citles they had no Time to instruct and settle a Ministry a [...]ng them; but were suddennly expelled out of their Coasts, by the Persecution raised against them, as appears from the twelfth and thirteenth Chapters of the Acts. There could therefore be no Chergy settled, when they ordained Elders there. This Gentleman should at least have given us a single Instance, of the Ap [...]siles travelling to ordain Elders, where there was a Pres [...]y [...]ry already settled, before he had entred [Page]upon his Triumphs: but this, I dare say, is what can never be done. But what Need is there to dispute against such an inconsistent Supposal? Was there a Clergy consisting of several Ministers (as he asserts) settled in these Churches; and yet must the Apostles be supposed to run such Hazards, and endure such Fatigues, to ordain Ministers, where there were enough already ordained; and where they were not wanted?

He again takes it for granted, that the chief or only Errand of the Apostles to these Churches, was for ordaining Ministers there.—But was there ever a more chimerical Supposal, when in all their Peregrinations, we find but one Account of their Ordaining Elders, in any particular Churches; and tho' it be there said, that they did this in every Church, yet it's plain, that it relates only to every Church there mentioned, viz Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. As the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. i 17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; so may it be likewise said, that Christ sent him not to ordain, but to preach the Gospel: that is, Preaching was his principal Work It appears to have been the usual custom of the Apostles, to tarry long enough in a particular Place, to convince them of the Truth of Christianity, and to initiate them in the Faith and Profession of the Gospel; and leave behind them, or send after them the Evangelists, to establish them in the Faith, to baptize the new Converts, and to settle the Ministry among them. For these Purposes was Titus left at Crete, (Titus i. 5.) and Timothy sent to most of the Churches where the Apostle Paul had been, as appears by the several Epistles of that Apostle. To imagine therefore, that the Apostles visiting the Churches was peculiarly on the Account of Ordaining Elders, is such a groundless surmise as deserves no particular Animadversion.

He further takes for granted, that Timothy and Titus were properly Apostles; and such, had the [Page]Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction committed to them. But does he bring one Word from Scripture to prove it? And may we not therefore (if I may borrow a Phrase from this Gentleman) place this to the Account of a strong Imagination.

He tells us indeed (p. 18) ‘that these were then commonly called Apostles, as Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi is called by St.Paul himself, Phil. ii. 25. [...], your Apostle’ — But what is this to Timothy and Titus, are they any where called Apostles? If not, how came they by their ordaining Power, which our Author makes peculiar to the Apostles?

But was Epaphroditus really Bishop of Philippi? How then came the Apostle to write an Epistle to the Bishops of that Church by Epaphroditus? It's manifest if he was their Bishop, he had a Number of others, that were Partners with him, in the Episcopal Care of that Church, as appears, Phil. i. [...] — Does St. Paul him self call him an Apostle? What is this but trifling with the Word Apostle, which in its natural and genuine Signification implies any Messenger whatsoever; and in this Sense was applied to Epaphroditus in the Text before us, who was the Philippians. Messenger to carry their Bounty to the Apostle Paul. as appears Chap. iv. ver. 18. And as this Word [...] in a common and unappropriated Sense is used for o [...] sent, or a Messenger in general (particularly in John xiii. 16. and 2 Cor. viii. 23.) so it is remarkable that when it is appropriated to the superiour Officers in the Church, they are never called Apostles of any particular Churches; but Apostles of JESUS CHRIST. And it is necessary from the Nature of the Thing, that they should be so denominated: for they had their Mission from Christ, were sent by him; and were therefore HIS Apostles or Messengers; and not the Apostles or Messengers of the Churches, from whom they derived neither their Mission, nor Commission. They were Apostles unto the Churches; but not Apostles [Page] of them. See 1 Cor. ix 2. To apply this to the Case of Epaphroditus. If he was the Philippians Apostle or Messenger, to the highest Office in the Christian Church, I enquire, By what Authority did they send him, to the Exercise of a sacred Character, de [...]ved only from Christ? But there's no Difficulty to understand, how he might be their Apostle or Messenger, to carry Money to the Apostle Paul, and to minister to his Wants. Thus, Sir, you see the Fate of this Gentleman's chief Corner-Stone; he having no other Scripture-Foundation, to build his lofty Fabrick upon.

But if he can't engage the Scripture in his Service, he'll try what Assistance he can find from Antiquity. ‘If we consult (say he) the ancient Records of the Church, we shall there find, that James Bishop of Jerusalem, Mark of Alexandria, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, and Clemens of Rome, were all called Apostles.’ But he has been so cautious as not to tell us, where these ancient Records are to be found: this were to submit the Case to Examination; and that would have spoiled all We are indeed informed, ‘Theodoret observes, that those which we call Bishops, the primitive Christians called Apostles.’ But here also his former Cautiousness is retain'd; and we are not informed, where this is to be found in Theodoret But suppose these be Theodoret's Words, what would he argue from them? I could also tell him, that his darling Ignatius observes, that the Presbyters are in the Place of the Council of the Apostles,* and exhorts, to be subject to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our Hope,‖ and to reverence the Presbyters, as the Sanhedrim of God, and College of the Apostles, and to follow the Presbytery as the Apostles And Jerom observes, that all that had seen the Lord, and preached him afterwards, [Page]were named Apostles; and tells us, th [...] there are four sorts of Apostles. which I hope is a least as good Authority, to prove Presbyters to b [...] Apostles, as he has brought to prove their Bishops such But I think neither of us have any Thing to boa [...] of, from any of these inaccurate Sayings of the A [...] cient. Names are often apply'd by way of Allusi [...] only. Thus among our selves the famous Mr. Eli [...] has sometimes been call'd the American Apostle: and Dr. I Mather in his latter Days usually among h [...] People went under the style of the Old Patriarch Such analogical Language is common in the World and was so with the Fathers.

I Need not now controvert with this Author, how the Apostles in their ordinary Capacity were denominated, I shall have particular Occasion to confide this afterward; nor need I contest his Closs upon 1 Pet. v. 2. since he grants all I plead for, from tha [...] Text. But it may'nt be amiss, to take some notice [...] his invincible Argument, to disprove the Authority [...] Presbyters to ordian. ‘Presbyters (says he, p. 18 have a Title to those Rights only, which were enjoy'd by those Church Officers, who are called Bishops or Overseers in the New-Testament. But the Power of Ordination was never allowed to, or claimed by, those who are there called Bishops.’ — deny his Minor. And will endeavour to particularly prove, that Ordination did belong to those, that went called Presbyters, Bishops, or Overseers in the New-Testament: And as I pass along, shall rescue the Arguments used to that purpose in the Dialogue, out o [...] his Hands.

This may be proved, from the Authority given [...] Timothy and Titus to ordain, 1 Tim. v. 22, and Tit. i. [...]. [Page] [...]f these were not endued with peculiar Apostolical Power, they are standing Pattern for Presbyterian Ordination. If they were endued with such Power, his Gentleman would do well, to give us some Scripture-Evidence of it; which is what I presume he'll ever attempt. He tells us indeed, that ‘they had Power to enforce Presbyters to their Duty, to receive Accusations against them; and judicially to pass Sentence upon them.’ — But does the Scripture tell us any such Thing? No, it wholly depends upon the Authority of our Adversaries; who should first prove their own Apostolical Power, before they take upon 'em to give us a new Bible. If you would see these Pretences fully silenced, be pleased to read the Dialogue, p. 45, and forward, to which this Author has not seen cause to reply.

It is also evident, that the Power of Ordination did belong to those, who were called Presbyters, Bishops, or Overseers in the New Testament, from 1 Tim. 4 14. Neglect not the Gi [...]t that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. Is not this a plain and full Instance of Ordination by Presbyters? An Instance, that notwithstanding all the evasive Arts of our Adversaries, to elude the Force of it, will yet be a continuing Warrant for Presbyterian Ordination.— But our Author tells us (p. 21.) that ‘it must be remembred, that the Gift that is here affirmed to be conferred on Timothy, by the Hands of a Presbytery, in another Place is said to have been given him, by putting on of St. Paul's Hands, 2 Tim. 1.6.’ This Objection was particularly answered in the Dialogue. It was there observed, that the Gift which Timothy received by the Imposition of Paul's Hands, was the extraordinary Powers of the Holy Ghost, thus conferred upon the generality of Believers, in the Apostolick Times, by the laying on of the Apostles Hands. To which he [...]plies, ‘If the Gift in one Text, may signify the miraculous Powers of the Holy Ghost, why not in the [Page]other?’ I answer, there is this Reason for it: T [...] extraordinary and miraculous Gifts of the Holy Gho [...] were always received by the Imposition of an Apostle Hands, and never by the laying on of any other Hand whatsoever. And therefore the Presbytery could ha [...] no Place, in this miraculous and incommunicable Apostolick Power. Paul's Hands alone would have been sufficient, for the Communication of the extraordinary Charismata: there needed no Presbytery to join with him; as appears, Act. xix. 6. nor could any join with him, without assuming such Powers as never belong to them. It was therefore agreable enough to [...] superiour Modesty and Humility of that great Apostle to put Timothy in Remembrance, to stir up the Gift [...] God that was in him, by putting on of his Hands, [...] was the miraculous Gift of the Holy Ghost, recei [...] by the Imposition of his Hands only: But if in th [...] last mentioned Text, the Apostle had referred to b [...] joining with the Presbytery, in laying Hands on Ti [...] thy, we may justly retort the Gentleman's own Arg [...] ment upon him (p. 22) that ‘it suits not with [...] Paul's Modesty and Humility, thus to arrogate [...] himself, the sole Power of conferring that Office when the other Presbyters are equally concerned’ From all which it's evident, that the two mentioned Texts refer to two different Things; and the Impositions of Hands were upon two different Occasion [...] the one at Timothy's Ordination, and the other for [...] receiving the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

The same thing is also evident, from the Consideration of the different Subjects treated on, in the Co [...] texts. For in 1 Tim iv. the Apostle is exhortin [...] Timothy to the faithful Discharge of his Ministeri [...] Duties, in the verses immediately preceeding, ar [...] following the Text under Consideration. Till I com [...] (says he) give Attendance to Reading, to Exhortati [...] on, to Doctrine. Neglect not the Gift &c. Medit [...] upon these Things, give thy self wh [...]lly to them—Take Heed unto thy self, and unto thy Doctrine &c, Whence [Page]it's plain, that this Text must refer to these Ministerial Duties pressed upon him; and must imply his Separation to those Duties, at his Ordination. But on the contrary, in 2 Tim. i. there are no such Duties treated on: but the very following Words to the Text, have a direct reference to these extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost. For God hath no (ssays the Apostle) given us the Spirit of Fear; but of POWER, and of Love &c. Whence it's manifest, that the Imposition of Hands here spoken of, was for Timothy's receiving these Gifts of the Holy Ghost. — Please to look into the Original Text, and perhaps you may be of opinion, that it very much favours my Interpretation. The word [...], you are sensible, properly signifies to put new Life into a Fire, or kindle it again. Now this metaphorical Expression can't, as I conceive, be so properly apply'd to the Gift of the Ministry, as to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The former is never (as I remember) compar'd to a Fire, but rather to a Treasure &c But when Persons received the latter, they were said to be baptized with Fire, Matth. iii. 11. Act. ii. 3. So that we are yet left in the secure Possession of the Text under Consideration.

It is further argued by this Author (p. 22) ‘As the Word Presbyter is promiscuously applied to the Apostles themselves, from hence it will follow, that by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery here mentioned, may very well be understood the laying on of the Hands of no other than the Apostles.’—But how will this agree with the Argument we have been just considering? If there were a Number of Apostles concerned in this Ordination, how can the Gift that is here affirmed to be conferred by the Presbytery, be in another Place said to be given by the putting on of St. Paul's Hands? Would it suit with St. Paul's Modesty and Humility, to arrogate to himself what other Apostles were equally concerned in? I hope he will give up one of these Arguments, unless he would establish his Cause by Contradictions. I'll [Page]however suppose with this Gentleman, that the Presbytery were all of them Apostles: he must nevertheless allow, that they acted in this Affair as a Presbytery; and how then will be justify their own Ordinations by a single Bishop? Is the Bishop of London a Presbytery? Supposing him to have the full Power of an Apostle, can he find any Warrant from this Text o [...] any other, to ordain without such a Number of other Bishops or Apostles, as will make a Presbytery? As for the Presbyters that lay on Hands with the Bishop they either have the Power of Ordination, or they have not. If they have, the Dispute is at an End. [...] not, How are Episcopal Ordinations performed by the Imposition of the Hands of a Presbytery? Let the World judge, who keep closest to this sacred Pattern; they whose Ordinations depend upon the Authority of one single Person, or we, who have always the Imposition of the Hands of a Presbytery, in this solemn Transaction.—Besides, if this Presbytery are allowed to be Apostles, they acted in this Affair as Presbyters: and are therefore succeeded by Presbyters, in the Power of Ordination. To say with this Gentleman, that ‘Presbyters no doubt they were, and perhaps superiour to Presbyters,’ is but a mean begging the Question. His Business was to have proved, that it was not only possible, but certain, that they acted in this Affair in a Character superiour to Presbyters, if he would wrest this Text our of our Hands—What Reason can be possibly assigned, why they have here the Denomination of a Presbytery, if they acted in a superiour Character? Was it on Purpose to lead us into a wrong Apprehension in this Matter? Would our Adversaries have failed of a Triumph from this Text, if this Ordination had been said to be performed by the Imposition of the Hands of a Consistory of Bishops, or Officers superiour to Presbyters?

I have already proved, that the Gift received by Timothy, by the Imposition of Paul's Hands, was not [Page]his Ordination; and so there is no Room left for the trifling Criticism, we are entertain'd with, from the greek Prepositions [...] and [...]. And indeed there is nothing more certain, than that they are frequently in Scripture used promiscuously, and particularly in an Instance exactly parrallel to this before us, in Acts xv. 4, 12. where it is [...] in the 4th, and [...] in the 12th verse; and both intend the same Efficiency, or rather Instrumentality, in producing the Effect. See also Acts xiv. 27. and many other Places.

But we are told (p. 23.) that ‘supposing Presbyters peculiarly so called, were in this Company, (which doth not appear, nor will the primitive Fathers at all allow) it will only follow from hence, that they may assist (with Officers superiour to themselves) at an Ordination: not that they may without such Officers manage this Affair’—But by this Gentleman's Leave, there is more to be supposed, than that there were Presbyters in this Company; it is to be supposed, nay it is certain, even from the very Letter of the Text, that they were all Presbyters, and acted as such at this Ordination; and there is nothing but the meer strength of Imagination, to render the contrary Supposal in the least probable. And are we thus to give up plain Texts of Scripture, because Men will imagine that they may mean something else, though they themselves know not what? Is not this to render every Article of Our Religion precarious? However to gratify him, I'll suppose, that these Presbyters had the Apostle at their Head, in Timothy's Ordination. But that being granted, I yet demand, what Business had their Hands upon Timothy, in conferring an Order, that they had no Authority to communicate, unless the Power of Ordination belongs to 'em? What can be more [...]udic [...]ous, than to allow to Presbyters all the ordaining Act, and yet to deny them the ordaining Power? What is Ordination but a solemn Dedication or Separation of a suitable Person to God [Page]for the Ministry, by Fasting and Prayer, with Imposition of Hands? And did not the Presbyters do all this, in the Case before us? What could a Bishop do more? Can he confer the Ministry by a meer Physical Contact?— It is allowed that Presbyters have Authority to do every Act, that belongs to Ordination; and yet the Bishop (it seems) must monopolize the Power of ordaining to himself. Can there be any Thing more inconsistent!

My Antagonist would fain find some other Business for the Presbyters Hands on the Head of the Candidate; and therefore tells us, ‘Presbyters may lay on Hands, for the greater Solemnity of the Action, or to give their Consent or Approbation.’—But have we any Scriptural Example of Imposition of Hands, for either of these Purposes? Would it ad [...] Solemnity to the Action, for them to intrude into another Man's Province? Would not their saying Amen to the Ordination-Prayer, be sufficient to give their Consent or Approbation? In fine, I would observe, The Apostle evidently lays Stress on the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbyters, in Timothy's Ordination; he makes mention of it to him as a matter of Importance and eminent Weight. But what rational Account can be given of his placing such an Emphasis on the Imposition of their Hands, if their joyning in the Action was of so little Significance, as is pretended by this Gentleman? I think I have here a fair Occasion, to borrow a Phrase from our Author: Who would be a Drudge to a Cause, that cannot be supported, without such pitiful shifts as these?

ANother Evidence, that Ordination did belong to those called Presbyters or Bishops in Scripture, may be taken from Acts xiii. 1, 3. where we find Paul and Barnabas set apart to the Exercise of their Ministry among the Gentiles, only by the Imposition of [Page]the Hands of a Presbytery.— That all the usual Acts and Rites of Ordination, as Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, were performed by these Presbyters; that this was done to separate Paul and Barnabas, to the Work of their Ministry among the Gentiles; so much is plainly expressed in the Text. Now I must confess, I know not what Ordination is, if Separating Men to the Exercise of the Ministry, by Fasting and Prayer, with the laying on of Hands, be not a proper and formal Ordination. And that these Ordainers were Presbyters, and neither Apostles nor Diocesan Bishops, is not only plain from the Text; but what our Adversaries themselves have acknowledg'd; and my Antagonist evidently allows it.—What Reason then can be given, why this is not a standing Precedent, for Ordination by a Presbytery? — But our Author is loth to give up his Cause; and must therefore say something. ‘I deny (says he p. 23.) that this was an Ordination at all; for if this were the Ordination of St. Paul, it will follow from hence, not only that Presbyters have a Right to ordain; but also that their Office extended to the ordaining even Apostles themselves, and to give them the Authority which they had in the Church.’—I deny his Consequence. For none pretend, that Paul and Barnabas were now authoriz'd to the Apostolate; they had their immediate & extraordinary Call befor [...]. But being now, first to preach and settle the Gospel among the Gentiles, they enter upon that special Exercise of their Ministry, at the ordinary Door of Ordination. Which supposal is so far from an Inconsistency, that it is not only exactly agreable to the sacred story in the Text before us; but is also to be esteemed a Declaration of the Mind of God, as to the manner of Dedicating Men to the Ministry, among the Gentiles, in all the succeeding Ages of the Church. And accordingly Dr. Lightfoot justly supposes, The Reason of this Ordination was, that the Lord hereby might set [Page]down a Platform of ordaining Ministers, to the Church of the Gentiles, to future Times.

Our Author would fain evade the Force of this Text; and therefore frames several Imaginations to get clear of it. He imagines that this solemn Transaction was for the Benediction of these Apostles; and gives Instances of Imposition of Hands in Benedictions. (p. 24.)—But then,

1. What becomes of the Argument in Heb. vii. 7. And without all Contradiction the less is blessed of the greater. Will this Gentleman allow, that Presbyters are greater than Apostles!

2. Was Imposition of Hands with Fasting and Prayer used for the separating Men to the Exercise of the Gospel-Ministry, in the Cases he mentions! How then does it affect the Cause before us? since Paul and Barnabas were by these solemn Rites separated to that sacred Service, ve [...]. 2.—They were (as all Ministers by Ordination are) recommended to the Grace of God, for the WORK which they fulfilled. Acts xiv. 26.

He goes on to argue, ‘That this was not a proper Ordination, is manifest from hence; because this Rite of imposing Hands, whereby other Ministers were ordained, was never used in making Apostles. It was a distinguishing Part of their Character, that they were immediately called and ordained by Christ himself.’—To which I answer, it is generally acknowledg'd, that it was a distinguishing Part of the Apostles Character, to be immediately called by Christ himself, and that they could not be ordained to the Apostolate by the Imposition of Hands. But what a Pity it is, that this Gentleman could not have remember'd this? It would have saved him all the Trouble and Pains of his second Letter. For how then, I pray, can there be a Succession in the Apostolick Office? How come the Bishops to be Apostles, if it be ‘a distinguishing Part of the Apostles Character, [Page]to be called and ordained by Christ himself’? Unless he can make it appear, that the Bishops have this immediate Call and Ordination. Thus his Arguments have the ill Luck, to cut one another's Throats; which (to borrow another modest Phrase from this Gentleman) is no other than usually happens to the Abettors and Maintainers of bad and erroneous Causes.

But let us see, how this Reasoning affects the present Case. Allowing that Paul and Barnabas could not be ordained to the Apostolick Office; allowing that they had an immediate Call to the Apostolate before: yet might not they have a peculiar Separation, to their Mission among the Gentiles? And was it not most agreable, that they should have a most open, and solemn, and known Dedication to that Business, against which the Jewish Church had such strong and rooted Prejudices, as appears, Acts xi. 2. and xxi. 20, 25.?—It is observable, This Gentleman himself scruples not to talk of ‘Occasional Commissions to execute Apostolical Offices, confer'd on those that were Officers before, such as Prophets, Evangelists, &c (p. 34)’ And now I know no Reason why I mayn't as well suppose a like fact, the occasional Separation even of those that were Officers before, such as Apostles, with relation to their new Labours in the Gentile World: and yet that occasional Separation such, with regard to the Manner of performing it, as affords a permanent Example to the Church.

The Gentleman has yet a further Answer to give: ‘Suppose (says he, p 25.) that Paul and Barnabas were now ordained, what Advantage can the Dissenters reap thereby? This was done by an immediate Command of the Holy Ghost, and consequently can be no Precedent, for those that are not impowered by such a Commission.’ Was there not a full Answer given to this Objection in the Dialogue? And is it just now to propose it as a new Argument, without taking any No [...]ice of the Solution there given to it? This indeed was his easiest [Page]and safest Method: but it won't recommend his Ingenuity, to any observing Person—I might justly here recommend him to the Dialogue, for an Answer, and make no other Reply: but that he mayn't complain of Neglect, I add to what was there proposed. If it was from the immediate Command of the Holy Ghost, then surely these Presbyters had a good Warrant for their Conduct; and the Precedent was well founded. Besides, it was necessary from the Nature of the Thing, that the first Examples of this Kind must be either by the immediate Direction of the Holy Ghost, or else meer human Inventions. Let him, he can, give us an Account of any Ordinations performed in the Apostles Times, that were not directed by immediate Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So that, there be any Reasoning from the Account of these Things given us in the New Testament, we ma [...] justly conclude for Presbyterian Ordination, from the Case before us, as founded on Scripture-Institution.

ANother Evidence to prove, that Ordination was allowed to and claimed by those called Presbyters or Bishops in the New Testament, is this. They that have the principal and chief Parts of the sact [...] Ministry committed to them, have also a Claim [...] the inferiour and subordinate Parts of that Offic [...] And that Preaching and Baptizing (which all allow to Presbyters) are the principal and chief Parts [...] the Ministry, appears from the Commission, Mat. xxviii. 1 [...]. where these are the only Ministerial Duties, expresly committed even to the Apostles themselve. To which our Author answers, ‘I deny that. Th [...] Power of ordaining and authorizing a Man to execute these Offices is much greater’ (p. 27.) But wha [...] has he to say, to the Argument taken from the Commission? Truly not one Word! He was told, th [...] either Preaching and Baptizing (the only Ministeri [...] [Page]Duties expresly commanded in the Commission) are the greater Parts of the Ministerial Work, under which Ordaining, Governing the Church &c as lesser Parts of a Minister's Work, are included; or else these Duties of Preaching and Baptizing, are the lesser Parts of a Minister's Work, under which the greater are included in the Commission: But it's a gross Absurdity, to suppose the greater included in the less; and therefore it must be acknowledged, that the less is included in the greater, that is, that the Presbyters Offices of Preaching and Baptizing, are the principal and superiour Parts of the Ministry. Whence it's a necessary Consequence, that as they have the greater, they have also the less; as they have the principal and chief, they have also the subordinate Work of a Gospel Minister, committed to them. And why did he not see Cause to make some Reply to this Argument? Must we not look at his Silence as an implicit Acknowledgement, that he knew not what to say to it?—But if he can't answer the Argument, he'll try if he can't raise some Objections, against what is proved by it. ‘This very Argument (says he) do the Papists use, to prove the sameness of Bishop and Presbyter as to Order; for as they say, the highest Act is to make the Body and Blood of Christ present.’—And what I pray follows from hence? If the Papists don't argue justly from their Idolatrous Mass, is there therefore no just arguing from this Scripture-Commission?

‘But pray (says the Gentleman, p. 28.) could not Philip the Evangelist baptize and preach, but could not confirm?’—I would entreat him to tell us in the next what he means by Confirming: for I can find no more about it in the Scriptures, than about an apostolick Succession. I find indeed, in the eighth Chapter of the Acts, that Philip did preach to the Samaritans, and baptized many; but did not pretend to impose Hands upon any in order to their receiving the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost: this was a Power peculiar to the Apostles only; for which [Page]Reason Peter and John were sent down to them, tha [...] they might receive these extraordinary and miraculous Gifts; and accordingly we read, when the Apostles laid their Hands on them, they received the Holy Ghost. ver. 17. But what is this to episcopal Confirmation?

He goes on ‘The Presbyters of Ephesus could feed the Flock, in doing of which no Doubt they preached and baptized: but it's plain they could not authorize another to do it. If they could, it's amazing to find Persons of a superiour Character sent amongst them, to manage that Affair.’ The Gentleman was doubtless very much pleased with this Argument, that it's so often repeated: but was ever any Thing more chimerical? Who were the Persons sent among them, to manage that Affair? I [...] there the least Foundation for these Suppositions, in the Scriptures?—I am ready to suppose, by what I find him saying elsewhere, that he intends by th [...] that Timothy was the Person of a superiour Character sent to ordain Elders at Ephesus.—But this is only founded upon his own Imagination. For the Scriptures are wholly silent about Timothy's apostoli [...] Character, as well as about his being ever concerned, in ordaining Elders at Ephesus. So that he might well enough have spared his toothless Satyr, upon this Occasion.—Thus after all he has said, or can say, it yet appears, that Presbyters are in the Possession of the principal Parts of the Gospel-Ministry. They are authorized by the Commission, no [...] only to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel; which the Apostle Paul esteemed the chief and principal Work, that he was sent upon. 1 Cor. i. 17.

It was also made evident, that Preaching and Baptizing are the greater Parts of a Minister's Work and that Ruling and Ordaining must therefore belong to them, who are authorized to the Exercise of these, from 1 Tim. v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double Honour; especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine. From whence it [Page]was argued: If they that labour in the Word and Doctrine are especially worthy of double Honour, more than they that rule well, then labouring in Word and Doctrine is a Work superiour to Ruling, and the principal Part of the Ministry. To which he answers ‘The very Elders who ruled the Church; and over and above that Service, labour'd in preaching the Word, are the Persons counted worthy of double Honour. Here is no Preference given to Preaching above Ruling: but Rulers are commended, for executing the other Parts of the Ministry.’—What! were these Rulers and Preachers the same sort of Officers? Are the Rulers only commended, for executing the other Parts of their Ministry? Then the Apostle recommended such to double Honour, who were under the general Obligation to preach instantly, in Season and out of Season; and yet did not labour in Word and Doctrine. And is this credible, that the Apostle should esteem lazy slothful Ministers, worthy of double Honour, or [...]ndeed of any Honour at all? However all must grant, that such Ministers as both rule well, and are constant Preachers, are worthy of more Honour, than [...]heir non-preaching Bishops. And so I think we shall [...]ose as little in Point of Honour, as we have done [...]n Argument, by this Comment upon the Text.

I shall have further Occasion to consider, who were the proper Successors to the Apostles, in their ordinary Capacity; and to make it evident against [...]ll this Gentleman's Exceptions, that Presbyters [...]ave all the ordinary Powers of the Apostles, and [...]annot want Authority for Ordination and Jurisdic [...]ion. It is therefore needless, to take Notice of what [...]e here says upon that Subject.

[Page] THere was this further Argument used in the Dialogue, to prove, that the Powers both of Ordination and Jurisdiction were inherent in, and claimed by those called Presbyters or Bishops in the New-Testament: They that have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to 'em, have the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction. This Proposition is self-evident, for all allow that Ordination and Jurisdiction are Exercises of the Power of the Keys. And that Presbyters have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to 'em, is what our Adversaries themselves do also in Effect allow All grant them the Key of Doctrine, and who the [...] can deny them the Key of Order and Jurisdiction since Christ gave all the Keys together, Matt. xvi. 19 [...] and John xx. 23. He did not give one Key to one and both to another. He gives no single Key [...] any Person; but Keys, and whatever these Key serve for. Now what Christ has joined together, M [...] may not put asunder. But our Author found this Argument too hard for him; and therefore prudently passed it over in Silence. And so we are left in the full and peaceable Possession of the Keys both [...] Doctrine and Discipline; and how then can b [...] disown our Authority for Ordination and Jurisdiction I appeal to the World, whether his Silence at th [...] Place is not a fair giving up the Cause. For wh [...] did he pass over this Argument, if he did not find it unanswerable? Unless he tho't it impertinent; and in this Case, he shou'd have given us his Reasons.

IT was further urged in the Dialogue, that the [...] who are in Orders themselves, have according t [...] the apostolical Constitution, Authority to confer Orders upon others; and consequently, Presbytery have Power to ordain others to the same Ministry which they themselves have received. This is founded [Page]on 1 Tim. ii. 2. Whence it was enquired, If Timothy had Authority to commit the same Things which he had received, to other faithful Men, why han't all others in the Ministry, the same Authority? He answers (p. 29) ‘Because it is not inconsistent with the Nature of the pastoral Office, or to the Gospel, to communicate the intire Power to some Officers; and some Branches of it only to others.’ This we have his bare Word for; and it is proved as far as the Word of a Gentleman will go in this Case. But I must needs say, that rational Scripture-Evidence of this would go further with me, than many such Assertions, how positive soever. I find nothing in the Scripture, for thus crumbling the Work of the Ministry into Parts; but on the contrary, we are all required to take Heed to our Ministry, and fulfil it. But he tells us, ‘We know well that one Deacon cannot ordain another, consistent with the Dissenters own Scheme.’ —But are Deacons themselves in sacred Orders, in the Sense now debated, according to our own Scheme? What then is this to the Purpose? Yet I can't help adding, That if Deacons may by virtue of their Office preach and baptize, and make their Pulpit Prayers too (according to the Episcopal Practice) I know of no Impropriety there wou'd be in asserting their Right also to ordain: because he that may do the greater, may certainly do the lesser, — as before. And truly to be free, I should look upon Ordination performed by a Church of England Deacon, to have Validity, as truly as Ordination by a Prelate. But now according to our Scheme, the Deacons have no Authority by virtue of their Office to preach or baptize, or preside and lead in the publick Worship. It wou'd be absurd therefore to suppose a Power in them, of giving Order, when the performing publick Prayers, and administring solemn Oaths and Charges in the Name of Christ, belong to the Work of Ordination. Whereas there's nothing in the Nature of the Thing, that necessarily [Page]precludes Presbyters from the Right of Ordaining; who are by their Office authoriz'd to perform the several Actions that belong to Ordination. This, I doubt not, wou'd appear very plain to our Opponents, if they cou'd but once disingage themselves from their singular Fancy about an authoritative external Commission or Delegation of Power, and consider Ordination in the Light we do, as a ministerial declarative and dedicating Act. They wou'd then see there is some Weight in Bp. Usher's Maxim, Ordinis est ordinare.—In Reply to what I had further argued, our Author subjoins, ‘Altho' Bishops do consecrate Arch-Bishops, it will not follow that Presbyters should ordain Presbyters; and the Reason is plain, because Presbyters are not at all impowered, in the New Testament, to perform this Work.’—But he should have remembred, that this is the very Case in Question; and therefore was it self to be proved, and not brought as an Argument. He, and I, have both appealed to the World, as to the Truth of this Assertion. The World is now to judge, whether it is not fully made appear from the New Testament, that Presbyters are impowered to perform this Work. And I also appeal to the World, whether this ben't a good Evidence of Presbyters Authority to ordain, that they have all the Powers committed to them in the New Testament, that belong to any ordinary Ministers of the Gospel; as I have already proved, and hope to make further Evident, notwithstanding all he can say to the contrary.—He concludes this Head with saying, ‘Neither do we allow of Inferiors consecrating Superiors, as this Writer wou'd disinginuosly insinuate: For all Bishops have originally equal Power; tho' a primacy of Order is granted to some by general Consent &c.’ Upon which I must be free to say, This Gentleman certainly acts the disingenuous part, rather than I: For he denies, that in the Church of England [Page] Inferiours consecrate Superiours, and yet at the same time in Effect acknowledges it, by confessing that Bishops do consecrate Arch-Bishops, and that Arch-Bishops have a primacy of Order; which I think sufficiently speaks them Superiours.—I said nothing about Imparity of Power: and yet, I believe our Author wou'd find it difficult to persuade the World, that Arch-Bishops in England have not a Primacy of Power, as well as Order; Else why are the Bishops oblig'd to take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to them?—But still it wou'd not hurt my Argument, if I shou'd allow him his Episcopal Parity. For if Bishops may ordain their Equals, there's the same Reason to allow Presbyters to do the like. Bishop Stillingfleet tells us , ‘Tertullian makes the Government of the Church to lie in a Consessus Ordinis, which (says he) I know not otherwise to render, than by a Bench of Presbyters; because only they were said in ordinem cooptari, who were made Presbyters; and not those who were promoted to a higher Degree in the Church. By the way (he adds) we may observe the Original of the name of Holy-Orders in the Church; not as the Papists, and others following them, as tho' it noted any thing inherent by way of (I know not what) Character in the Person; but because the Persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem, among the number of Church-Officers. So there was Ordo Senatorum, Ordo Sacerdotum &c. among the Romans.—From hence the use of the Word came into the Church; and thence Ordination, ex vi Vocis, imports no more than a solemn Admission into this Order of Presbyters—And the Collation of Orders (says he ) doth come from the power of Order, and not meerly from the power of Jurisdiction.— Those that are for Ordinations only by a superior Order in the Church, acknowledging [Page]a radical Power for Ordination in Presbyters, which may be exercised in Case of Necessity do thereby make it evident, that none who grant that, do think that any positive Law of God harl forbidden Presbyters the Power of Ordination; for then it must be wholly unlawful, and so in Case o [...] Necessity it cannot be valid: WHICH Doctrine (says he) I dare with some Confidence assert to be a STRANGER to our Church of ENGLAND.’ And this he afterwards largely makes appear. And truly so great stranger was this Doctrine even there from the time of the Reformation for many Years that the King's 'Professor at Oxford branded Lard with publick Infamy for asserting the Divine Right [...] Episcopacy.—By the way then we may learn what Opinion the Reformers would have had of many in our Times, who boast themselves true Sons of the Church of England, and yet are Zealots for an is famous unchurching Principle.

I come now to our Author.

HE would in the next Place (p. 30.) insinuate, that ‘all the Churches of the Ausburg Confession, those of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Transylvania and Bohemia,’ are all under Episcopal Government. But were this Representation as just as it is unjust, what would it be to his Purpose? Is there any one of these Churches, that derive the Succession of their Ministry, from episcopal Ordination? Was not the Reformation carried on by Presbyters amongst them all? And even in tho [...] Countries where they now have nominal Bishops were not their first Bishops after the Reformation ordained by Presbyters? Did not Bugenhagius a Presbyter ordain the first seven Superintendents, or Bishops: in Denmark? And the like may be said of Sweden, who therefore by our Author's Plan are in [Page]no better Case, than if they had no Bishops at all. But the worst on't is, that this Gentleman's Story is false in Fact. Hear Bishop Stillingfleet upon the Matter. ‘In Sweeden (says he) there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops; and so in Denmark, though not with so great Authority. In Holstein, Pomeren, Mecklenburgh, Brunswick, Lunenburgh, Bremen, Oldenburgh, East Friezland, Hessen, Saxony, and the upper Parts of Germany, and the Protestant Imperial Cities, Church-Government is in the Hands of Superintendants. In the Palatinate, they had Inspectores and Praepositi, over which was the ecclesiastical Consistory — And so they have their Praepositi in Wetteraw, Hessen, and Anhalt. In Transylvania, Polonia, & Bohemia, they have their Seniores, enjoying the same power with ancient Bishops’ [who, according to this learned Writer, were but prudential Officers, having only for more convenient Order a Presidency over the ecclesiastical Senate, or Presbytery in their respective Churches.] ‘All these (he assures us) acknowledge no such Thing, as the Divine Right of Episcopacy, but stiffly maintain Jerome's Opinion, of the primitive Equality of Gospel-Ministers.’ Thus he. [By the way I shou'd be glad our Author wou'd inquire and inform me whether these Superintendents or Bishops in the foreign Churches at this Day have a Metropolitan or Episcopal Consecration.] And does not my Antagonist know, that besides the Church of North Britain, there are a very considerable Number of our Profession in England and Ireland, and together with these, the Belgick Churches, the remains of the reformed French Churches, the Churches of Geneva, and Switzerland, which have no Bishops, neither Name nor Thing. And what is to become of all these, by this Gentleman's principles? ‘Is it (says he) this received Principle of the Catholick Church that [Page]unchurches foreign Churches; or do they unchurch themselves, by continuing wilful Transgressors of it? The positive Laws of God are all Sacrosanct, especially those he hath ordain'd for Government; and he will in no wise excuse the wilful Neglect of them; but every such Transgression against the Polity of the Christian Theocracy, let the Number of the Offenders be never so great, shall receive a just Recompence of Reward.’ Thus you see, how he charitably Damns all the foreign Protestant Churches by the Lump, and consigns them over to eternal Ruin.—To what amazing Lengths will High-Church Biggotry carry Men! Here's Uncharitableness not to be parallel'd, except amongst the most bigotted and bloody Papists. But we have this Comfort, that we are not to stand or fall at their Tribunal: nor will their want of Charity, recommend their Principles to any, that are acquainted with the Spirit of the Gospel. Judge now between me and th [...] Author, who it is that ‘does most shamefully and innorantly misrepresent the Protestant World,’ an [...] who is it that is guilty of "at once mocking God, as deceiving the People."

Thus, Sir, I have at length finished my Remark upon his first Letter; and I hope have said enough to prove, that his Objections are groundless, his Reasonings unscriptural; his strong Assertions founded only upon Confidence, or a warm Imagination, & his Deductions monstrously uncharitable. And so I am prepared to attend upon what he has further to offer, for the proof of Diocesan Episcopacy, in his

SECOND LETTER.

[Page]

I Have hitherto been considering the Gentleman's Answers to our Arguments, for the divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination: we are now to see, what Evidence he can bring for Diocesan Episcopacy; and it might reasonably have been expected, he should have a very strong Foundation to build his Superstructure upon, since no less than the very Being of the Church and our Eternal Safety do (according to him) absolutely depend upon it. But when I read this Letter, I am surprized to find, that he does not so much as pretend to found his Cause upon Scripture-Evidence; nor offer at any one Argument, that Prelacy was established in the Church by Christ and his Apostles. His whole Business is, to answer such Objections, as he is pleased to throw in his own Way, while he professedly omits particularly Answering the Dialogue, for these Reasons: ‘First, because Part of it has been already considered; secondly, because (he tells us) I have placed my Antagonist's Argument in so indifferrent a Light, that he thinks himself not at all obliged, to regard my stating the Questions in Dispute.’ p. 31. —This is a Method truly artful enough, to amuse his Reader; and I think safe enough for us, let him impute his Neglect of the Dialogue, to what Cause he pleases.

The Method be proposes to gain his Point by, is to prove four Propositions; the Performance of which is next under Consideration.

His first Proposition is ‘That the Apostles had properly Successors, in the Essentials of the apostolick Office.’ (p. 32.) Well! suppose this were granted to him, what Consequence would he draw from it? The Question would still recur, who are these Successors to the Apostles? Were they Presbyters, or Diocesan Bishops?—I shall here take Opportunity, to discharge my Debt to this Author; and [Page]to shew him, that notwithstanding his frivolous Objections in his first Letter, the Apostles in their ordinary Capacity were but Presbyters; and consequently this Succession (if it be allowed him) is a Succession of Presbyters. They are Presbyters, and not Dioces [...] Bishops, that are still vested with the apostolick Character. It is certain that the Ap [...]stles style [...] themselves Presbyters 1 Pet. v. 1. 2 John 1. and 3 John 1. And it is as certain, that this Examine [...] cannot find them (in their Ordinary Capacity) bearing any other Denomination. If by their immediate Call they were endued with some extraordinary Powers; yet in their ordinary Capacity, they are never represented otherwise in the New-Testament, than as Presbyters. And let this Gentlem [...]n frame what Imaginations he pleases, about this Matters the Scripture-Account of it is most to be depende [...] upon. He tells us indeed (p. 19) that ‘it do [...] not appear, that they are no other than Presbyters — For tho' a superiour Order does frequen [...] presuppose and include all it's relative in [...]e [...] Orders; yet in no Case does the contrary Obtain being unnatural, and so irrational.’— But it do [...] appear, that they were Presbyters; and let him, he can, make it appear, that they were (in the ordinary Capacity) any more than so. To suppo [...] it possible, that they might be more than so, is [...] arguing; but begging the Question. By the far Way of reasoning, I can prove them to be every [...] a Pope. It is but supposing our Author arguing [...] a Succession in the Papacy, and the Conclusion wa [...] as naturally follow. For why mayn't a Papist prove by this Argument, that Peter was the first Pope [...] Rome, from whom all the Popes have succeeded [...] this Day, as well as our Author prove what he p [...] tends to? It's true (might a Roman Catholick sa [...] Peter calls himself a Presbyter; but does it he [...] appear, that he was no other than a Presbyter? [...] tho' a superiour Order does frequently presuppo [...] [Page]and include all it's relative in [...]eriour Orders; yet in no Case does the Contrary obtain &c. Peter might be Pope of Rome notwithstanding.— His Instances of a Doctor in any Faculty, being a Batchellor, a Serjeant at Law being Barrister, and a Duke a Marquess, but not vice versa, do but militate against him. For does a Doctor write himself Batchellor, a Serjeant at Law write himself Barrister, or a Duke style himself Marquess, as the Apostles write themselves Presbyters in the quoted Texts? In a Word, the supposal of a Succession in the Apostolick Office won't serve his Turn, inasmuch as Presbyters have the only just Claim to a Succession from the Apostles. And if the Apostles had properly Successors, in the Essentials of the Apostolick Offi [...]e (as he says they had) they were no other than Presbyters. He can find no Mention of any others to succed them, in all the New Testament.

But it's Time to consider, whether there be any Truth in this Proposition, upon which his whole Cause depends. How does it appear, that the Apostles had properly Successors in the Essentials of the Apostolick Office? Why, our Author asserts it, nay he has promised to prove it; and is not that sufficient? At present, he has Leisure for no more, than to answer some Objections against it: and we must have Patience to wait for the Proof of it, till some better Opportunity.

He tells us, ‘All my Adversary's Arguments will be fully considered, if I can give a clear and satisfactory Answer to this Question. Whether the extraordinary Priviledge of working Miracles, and being Witnesses of the Resurrection, which the Apostles were blessed with, were Essential to the Apostolick Office? I deny they were; and my Adversary affirms the contrary.’ But by his Leave, I must tell him, that my Arguments are not all answered, till he has replied to what was urged in the Dialogue, from the unlimited Commission of [...] [Page] Apostles; and reconciled that small inconsistency, of their Bishops having an universal Charge (as the Apostles had) and yet being fixed Pastors of a particular Diocess. For this was one Argument, particularly insisted upon, in the Dialogue. But since he is (as he tells us) for reducing the Debate, into as short a Compass as possible; and is pleased to neglect what he is not willing to answer; let us see how he performs what he has undertaken.

He first attempts to help out his Cause by explaining the Question; and tells us (p. 33.) ‘In order to give a clear Answer to this Question, I will suppose, that by Essential, this Gentleman understands something that was peculiar to the Apostolick Office; and what distinguishes it from all others’— But I must tell him, he has quite Mistaken my Meaning; and given a very wrong Explication of the Word Essential. It is Essential to a Brute, to have a sensitive Soul; but then it is not peculiar to a Brute, nor what distinguishes it from all others: For I think this Gentleman has one too. It is Essential to a Man, to be a reasonable Creature; but not peculiar to him: there are other rational Beings in the Creation. It is Essential to a King of Great Britian, that he be a Protestant; but not peculiar to him. I am willing to believe my Antagonist to be one too. And a hundred like Instances, might be given him.—But what I intend, by these Things being Essential to the Apostolick Office, is, that they are so necessary, that none could be Apostles without them; not that they were all of them peculiar to the Apostles. The Apostles were indeed blessed with some miraculous Gifts, which were peculiar to them; such as the Holy Ghost's being given by the Imposition of their Hands, which was not only necessary to every Apostle, upon which Account the Apostle Paul calls these Gifts thus communicated, the Signs of an Apostle, 2 Cor. xii. 12. but they were also such Powers, as none but they were ever endued with. The like [Page]may be said of the Apostles being Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. For tho' many others as well as they, were capable of witnessing to this Fact, yet they were not peculiarly commissioned, and sent about the World to be Evidences of it: and therefore are not (I think) in the New Testament denominated WITNESSES of the Resurrection in such a peculiar Manner as the Apostles are. But it can't be said of all the extraordinary Qualifications, that were Essential to the Apostleship, that they were thus peculiar to the Apostles. It was Essential, for Instance, to the very Being of an Apostle, that he had a certain Knowledge of that great Fact, upon which Christianity so much depends; that Christ risen was what he had heard, what he had seen with his Eyes, what he had looked upon; and his Hands had handled, 1 John i. 8. Wherefore it was a necessary Qualification, when an Apostle was chosen in the Place of Judas, that he should be one, that had companied with the eleven Apostles, all the Time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them, beginning from the Baptism of John, to the same Day, that he was taken up from them, in order to his being a Witness with them of his Resurrection. Acts. i. 21, 22. And in like manner, the Apostle Paul is caught up to the third Heavens, that he might by a sight of Christ be furnished for a Witness of his Resurrection, 2 Cor. xii. 2. compared with Gal. i. 17. and Acts xxii. 17, 18. But then there were five hundred besides these, that had seen Christ after his Resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 6. So also it was Essential to an Apostle, that he should have the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, to confirm his Testimony of the Resurrection of Christ, to Jews and Infidels, who would not receive this for Truth, upon Men's bare Word, without this Seal of Heaven to confirm it; as is largely proved in the Dialogue: and yet it is manifest, that the most, if not all the Christians, wherever the Apostles went, had these [Page]miraculous Gifts, as well as they, tho' not in so great a Degree.

It is fully sufficient to my Purpose, that these Qualifications were Essentially necessary to the Apostles, whether they were peculiar to them or not. It is enough, that they could not be Apostles without them. Let us but see their Bishops endued with these Qualifications, and thus furnished to be sent about the World, to be Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection, and I will allow them to be properly Successors in the Apostolick Office. But in the mean Time, in vain does this Author plead, that it's evident, ‘that these extraordinary Gifts we are speaking of, were so far from being peculiar to the Apostles, that many Men were endued with them, that [...]ad no share at all in the Ministry.’ In vain does he urge, that ‘if the Essentials of the Apostolick Office consisted in their being Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection, and the extraordinary Assistances of the Holy Ghost, then the Seventy Disciples, who had the extraordinary Assistances of the Holy Ghost and were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection, were Apostles; and the five hundred Brethren, by whom he was seen at one Time, were Apostles.’ For who ever pretended, that these Things were peculiar to the Apostles; or that they were the Essentials [...] the Apostolick Office? It suffices that they were Essential to the Apostleship, which is a quite different Thing. That was what I undertook to prove, an [...] I think have made abundantly evident, in the Dialogue, to which I refer you for Satisfaction. But what has my Antagonist advanced against this? Has he said one Word to prove, that any can be Apostles without this? No! that was to attempt an Impossiblity. Thus has he stumbled at the Threshold. Thus has he left the Arguments as he found them, untouch't by any Thing he has said. And thus also would I leave his first Proposition, were it not for one or two Things that occur under it, that may [Page]possibly be thought worthy of Notice. Particularly

He quotes Matth. xxviii. 20. to prove, that the Apostolick Office was to continue for ever in the Church.—But does that Text say any Thing about the Apostolick Office? That the Apostles were, in their Successors, to continue to the End of the World, is indeed manifest from that Text. But then the Question is, how are they succeeded? In their extraordinary, or in their ordinary Capacity? If the former, let their imaginary Successors shew us those extraordinary Qualifications, that were Essentially necessary to the Apostles; and we will acknowledge their Apostolick Character. If the latter, I have already proved, that Presbyters are their proper Successors; and he has not shewn us, nor can be shew us, that any but Presbyters, are by divine Appointment to succeed them, in either Capacity.

Another Thing that I could not lightly pass over, is his evading my Answer to the Arguments, brought from 1 Cor. xii 28. and Eph iv. 11. ‘This Gentleman (says he) would fain know, how it appears, that Apostles are permanently set in the Church, and to continue till Christ comes: when Prophets, Evangelists, Miracles, Gifts of Healing, and Diversity of [...]ongues, are confessedly temporary —I answer, th [...] these were not so many distinct Offices, they are only several Denominations, conferred on those Officers, that were in the Church before.’ Now, were this granted, what is it to the Purpose? Were not th [...]se, as well as Apostles, said to be set in the Church; and given for the perfecting the Saints, in the Text then under Consideration? Was not the fame Permanence predicated of these Offices and Gifts, or (if he please) Denominations; as of the Apostles? Let him therefore shew us Prophets and Evangelists; let him shew us Miracles, Gifts of Healing, and Diversity of Tongues, in their Bishops, and I'll allow 'em to be Apostles.—But I must nevertheless [Page]tell him, that this Notion of his, that these Gifts and Offices resided in the same Person, and that (as he too [...]oldly asserts) ‘the Work of an Evangelist, Prophet &c. was common to every Minister,’ is as false as it is impertinent; and is expresly contradicted by the Apostle himself, in the very following Words to those now considered, 1 Cor. xii. 29, 30. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Workers of Miracles? Have all the Gifts of Healing? Do all speak with Tongues? Do all Interpret? No! if we may believe the Apostle in the 27th verse of the same Chapter, tho' these all belong to the Body of Christ, they are all Members in particular. So that either the Apostle Paul or this Gentleman is certainly in a Mistake.

Thus I have particularly considered his first Proposition, upon which lies all the Stress of his whole Fabrick; and shewn that it is neither pertinent to his Purpose, nor true in Fact: and the rest of his Performance must therefore necessarily be a Castle in the Air, his Foundation being wholly taken away.

I might indeed have taken a shorter Method with this Gentleman; and put him upon the utter Subversion of this Proposition with his own Hand. For if it be (as he tells us it is, in p. 24) ‘a distinguishing Part of an Apostle's Character, that he be immediately called and ordained by Christ himself,’ it is evident to Demonstration, that none can be vested with that Character, but what have that immediate Call and Ordination. And what then becomes of his Succession, in the Essentials of the Apostolick Office? unless he pretends, that their Bishops are thus immediately called, and ordained by Christ himself. It might be worthy of this Gentleman's Pains, to make Peace between these two jarring Propositions, That it's a distinguishing Part of an Apostle's Character, that he be immediately called and ordained by Christ himself: and yet that the Apostles have properly Successors,[Page]in the Essentials of the Apostolick Office. This certainly deserves Re-consideration.

HIs Second Proposition is (p. 35.) ‘That it is not contrary to the Nature of the pastoral Office, or to the Gospel, to communicate the entire Powers to some Officers; and some Branches of it only to others." — But how does this appear? In this Opinion I am confirmed (says the Gentleman) because the Scripture supposes it may be done; and has left the Communicating the several Gifts, to the Discretion of the Ordainers, to distribute them, as they find the Persons to be ordained, qualified to receive them.’—The Scripture appealed to in this Case, is Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8. ‘Where (he tells us) the differing Branches of the pastoral Office are placed, not in the same, but differing Persons, Prophesying in one, Teaching in another, Exhorting in a third, Ministring in another, Ruling in another, according as they are qualified.’—What a pity it is that this Gentleman has no better Memory? It was but in the very last Page we were told that ‘the Work of an Evangelist, PROPHET &c. was common to every Minister.’ But now, when he has another Turn to serve, ‘The differing Branches of the pastoral Office are placed, not in the same, but differing Persons; PROPHESYING in one, TEACHING in another &c.’—But the Truth on't is, that as he greatly mistook, in the former Part of his Contradiction, so is he in no less a Mistake, in the Application of the Text before us. For —

In the first Place, what if the Gifts here enumerated, were not any of them, Branches of the ordinary pastoral Office at all; but Gifts of the Holy Ghost, extraordinarily, and occasionally communicated, for the Service of the Church in it's Infant-State? How [Page]will it then help his Cause? I think he won't argue from those extraordinary Dispensations, to the ordinary standing Ministry in the Church. For those came not by their Authority, from the grand Commission; but by immediate Inspiration. And that the Text before us did refer to Gifts thus immediately communicated, seems manifest to me; because we find the very same Enumeration of Gifts in 1 Cor. xii. 28. where the Apostle is professedly treating of the extraordinary Charismata, through that and the two immediately succeeding Chapters. And it's remarkable that in both Places, the Consideration of these Gifts is introduced in the same Manner; and [...]e [...] ed in the same View, by an Argument from the Members of the Body natural, to these Members of the mystical Body of Christ: that in neither Case, any Member has Cause to despise another; because they belong to the same Body. Now then, if it be a good Rule, to compare Scripture with Scripture; and t [...] make the Scripture it's own Interpreter, this Text it nothing to our Author's Purpose. I may add to this that one of the Gifts in this Enumeration, (the Gift of Prophecy I mean) is by all acknowledged, to be by immediate Inspiration; and I can see no Reason, why the others that are without Distinction joined with it in the Text, are not so too—Moreover, there are two of these Gifts, that certainly have no special Reference to any Office at all, viz. Giving, and Shewing Mercy; which cannot be supposed to be appropriated to any particular Order of Christians: but it's certain, Men may by immediate Inspiration be excited and inclined to these Duties, as is exemplified, Acts iv. 32. and then they are properly Gifts, as called in the Text; but why the rest of these Gifts must necessarily be distinct and separate Office [...] in the Christian Church, when these, that are without any Distinction, class'd with them in the same Enumeration, have no Relation to any Office at all, I can see no Colour of Reason.

[Page]But being willing to oblige this Gentleman as far as I can, I will even suppose, that these Gifts were not, all of them, given by immediate Inspiration; and that they were not in the same, but different Persons; he is not able to prove notwithstanding, above one of these, to belong to the ordinary pastoral Office.—Prophesying must be allowed to be an extraordinary Gift; and why mayn't the Ministry here mentioned, refer to Deacons, as it is called in the original the Deaconship? The Teaching refer to Catechists, the Exhorting to ordinary Pastors, the Ruling▪ to Ruling Elders? His supposal, that they all belong to the ordinary pastoral Office, is altogether groundless. And I think my Interpretation of these Words is much more natural and easy, than that he has given.—If any object, against my making the Teachers to be Catechists, I must observe to 'em, that there certainly was such a sort of Instructor in the Apostles Times.

Hence th [...]t Complaint of the Apostle, that those who for the Time ought to be TEACHERS, needed to be taught again, which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God, Heb. v. 12. From which Text it's apparent, that there were such Teachers in the Church, whose Business was to teach others which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God; i. e. in other Words, who were Catechists.

He goes on to argue: ‘That our Saviour founded his Church in an Imparity, both of Order and Power, must (I think) be acknowledged, if the twelve Apostles were superiour both in Order and Power, to the seventy Disciples.’—The Gentleman will be pleased to pardon me, that I cannot se [...] his Consequence follow from his Premises. If it be supposed, that the Apostles were superiour both in Order and Power, to the seventy Disciples, it won't follow, that our Saviour founded his Church upon that Imparity; because the Christian Church was not founded at all, at the Time when these were [Page]sent forth: but the Seventy's Commission expired before the Christian Church had any Being. The Argument may therefore be justly inverted. For i [...] the twelve Apostles were indeed superiour both in Order and Power, to the seventy Disciples, it appears that our Saviour did not found his Church upon an Imparity of Order and Power; because he did not under the Gospel-Dispensation renew the Commission of the seventy, as he did the Commission of the Twelve. If it be supposed that there was an Imparity in that their temporary Mission; yet our Saviour did not design that Imparity should continue after the Christian Church was founded; for the Seventy's Commission was then wholly dropt, and renewed no more. There was but one of these Orders continued, as Ministers of the Christian Church.

I have, I think, made it clearly evident in the Dialogue, that there was no Christian Church existing, when the seventy Disciples were sent upon their occasional Errand; that our Saviour himself and his Disciples, were Members of the Jewish Church and actually submitted to all the Ordinances of it: but the Christian Church being founded upon his Resurrection, there could be no Ministers, nor indeed Members of this Church, before it had a Being, and that the Aposte assures us, that the New-Testament (and certainly then the new Dispensation therein revealed) depended upon the Death of the Testator, Heb. ix. 16, 17. For where a Testament is, there m [...], of Necessity be the Death of the Testator; otherwise it is of no Strength at all, while the Testator liveth. To which, my Antagonist has not seen Cause to give any Answer. To this I may add, that the Christian Church was founded, upon the Subversion of the legal Dispensation; which was principally to type and shadow forth Christ's Death and could not therefore be done away, till what was thereby prefigured was accomplished, in his Resurrection.—Moreover, by [...]e Gentleman's own Concession, it is [Page]impossible the Seventy could be Ministers of the Christian Church, without a new Commission: for he himself tells us (p. 36.) that ‘the seventy were only sent before our Lord's Face, into the Cities and Places, whither he himself would come, (Luke x. 1.) to prepare the People for his Reception.’—Is it so? How then came they to be Ministers in the Christian Church? Were they only sent before our Lord's Face? Then certainly they had neither Mission nor Commission, after his Resurrection. Were they only sent where our Lord himself would come? Then their Mission was over, when he himself had been in the Places, whither he sent them. And before they could not from this limited Commission have any Ministry in the Gentile Churches. For this Author owns that ‘after they Return'd to our Lord; and gave him an Account of their Success, in the Execution of that Office, they were never once mentioned again.’

Though my Antagonist did not think it proper in this Place, to make any Remarks, upon what was said upon this Subject in the Dialogue; yet before he has finished his Discourse, he tells us (p. 48.) ‘He can't help being concerned for the Author, and his critical Inspectors; and reminds them of John iv. 1, 2. When therefore the Lord knew, how the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus had made and baptized more Disciples than John, (tho' Jesus himself baptized not; but his Disciples.)—Whence he triumphs "What! did they baptize, who were not themselves Christians? I desire to know, if they were not Members of the Christian Church, at what Time they were initiated.’— But who ever said, that they were not themselves Christians? They might be Christians, and savingly united to Christ, during the continuance of the Jewish Church-State, and before the Christian Church had it's Existence. And as to his second Question, I answer, they [Page]belonged to the Christian Church immediately, as [...]oo [...] as there was such a Church; but not before.

Thus you see, that his Argument labours of a no [...] sequitur, if it be even supposed that the Apostles were Superiour, both in Order and Power, to the seventy Disciples. But if that also should prove [...] Mistake, what will become of his Cause? And that it will do so is certain from this Consideration, th [...] there was no special Business, no peculiar Office, committed to the Twelve, that distinguished them from the Seventy; and therefore they could not by that Commission, be Superiour in Order and Power This Gentleman undertakes to prove the contrary But allowing all that he asserts; allowing that the Twelve were ordained to be with our Lord, and were his constant Attendants; allowing, that the Twelve were by Commission to preach to all the Jews, the Seventy only to the Places where ou [...] Lord would come; allowing, that the Inauguration of the Seventy was not so solemn as that of the Twelve; allowing, that the Twelve were distinguished by the Name of Apostles, the Seventy only called Disciples: and allowing that the Apostles are constantly called the Twelve, whereas had they been all equal, they must have been eighty two allowing, I say, all this (tho' it be a great deal more than is true) all the Preference thereby allowed to the Twelve, is only in Honour, not in Order They have no distinct Office, they have no distinc [...] Errand in that Mission. In a Word, they have n [...] distinct Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction; and therefore what ever Superiority is supposed, will make nothing to the Purpose.

HE next proceeds, to examine the Reasoning in the Dialogue, from the grand Ministerial Commission; But has according to his usual Method, discovered [Page]his Prudence, in overlooking the Arguments there offered; and in contesting with imaginary Objections, of his own framing. ‘Supposing (says he, p 37.) what this Author contends for, that this was the Commission, by virtue of which the Apostles ordained their Successors in the Ministry: Supposing (I say) that this was the full Commission of the Apostles; all the Ends of it might be answered, by their appointing different Orders, for different Offices in the Church: nor will it at all follow, that this is the Commission of Presbyters, in such Sense, as that they are impowered by it to ordain others, because the Apostles were.’—But he should have carried his Supposals a little further; and not only supposed, that this was the full Commission of the Apostles: but that it was the only Commission, by which all the Ministers of the Gospel are authorized, to the Exercise of their Ministry; and the only Commission by which the Gospel-Ministry is to continue, and Christ's promised Presence secured to them, unto the End of the World. And then it would follow, that they were impowered by this Commission, to ordain others, because the Apostles [...]ere; whatever this Author thinks of it. I therefore once more provoke him, to answer the Arguments in the Dialogue. If Presbyters are not included in the Commission, whence have they their Existence? If they are included in this only Commission to the Ministry, whence are their Superiours? Since the Commission is but one, there can be but one Order by virtue of that Commission. If Bishops are the Apostles Successors, and have in this Commission the Promise of Christ's perpetual Presence, there are no Presbyters inferiour to them; If Presbyters are the Subjects of this Promise, there are no Bishops superiour to them: If both are included, they have both the same Order, and have both the same Authority. He tells us indeed (p. 38.) ‘that the Apostles by virtue of this very Commission, might have appointed some Persons to baptize, [Page]others only to teach; and others indued with all these Powers.’—That is, tho' the Lord Jesus Christ himself has given all the Powers, committe [...] all the Work of the Gospel-Ministry, without Difference or Distinction, to every Minister of the Gospel yet the Apostles might by virtue of the same Commission, by which this was done, appoint some to the Exercise of all these Powers; and others to be Part of them. Or in other Words, they might by virtue of this Commission, vacate the Commission it sel [...] and change the Purport and Tenour of it.

I would gladly know of this Gentleman, whether Presbyters are authorized at all by this Commission, [...] not. If they are, where is the limiting Clause, [...] which they are barred the Exercise of all the Powers that are thereby communicated? If they are not, where is there any Promise of their continued Succe [...] sion; or of Christ's gracious Presence with them?

But he insinuates, that there is no Ground to thi [...] that this was the Apostles full Commission; and tell us, that ‘their Direction and Commission to orda [...] might be given them afterwards, by the Holy Ghost.’—And are all his high Pretences dw [...] dled to this at last, It might be So? He is verily [...] Sanguine to suppose, that we will allow for Fact, whatever he can imagine might be: some Evidence of this is therefore wanting, to establish his Cause ‘He desires to know, by what Commission, S [...] Paul and Barnabas did ordain Presbyters. H [...] can't discover (he tells us) that it was by virtu [...] of the grand Commission.’ And in Answer, I d [...] sire to know also, by what Commission they acted, [...] not by the grand Commission. If they had any other let him produce it; and that will end the Debate but if none can be produced, his shortsightedne [...] in making Discoveries carries no Conviction with [...] But if this Supposal was granted him, it would be [...] far from serviceable, that it would intirely subvert h [...] whole Scheme. Be it supposed, that the Apostles coul [...] [Page]not ordain by virtue of the grand Commission, without the immediate Directions of the Holy Ghost, it will then necessarily follow, that their Bishops can't ordain, by virtue of the grand Commission, without the like Directions of the Holy Ghost; for I think he won't pretend, that they have greater Authority than the Apostles had. Let 'em then wait for a new Commission, or for immediate Inspiration, before they pretend to monopolize the Power of Ordination, to themselves. I can't foresee, how he will get clear of this Difficulty.

And now he tells us (p. 39.) he'll give a Solution to the Question, If Presbyters are not in the Commission, whence have they their Existence? ‘He answers, from the Will of the Apostles, declared about them.—And it is as much for the good of the Christian Church, that the Apostles (who acted by the same Spirit) should declare the Commission of Presbyters, as that our Lord himself should.’—But I demand, what is the Will of the Apostles declared about them? Where is this Commission, that the Apostles have given to Presbyters? [...]s there any Thing any where declared about them, or any Commission given to 'em, that abridges them [...]f the Exercise of all the Powers, granted by the [...]rand Commission? Are they any where considered, [...] an Inferiour Order in the Church? He would have done well to have shewn us, where this Decla [...]tion of the Apostles Will might be found. If there [...]e any Commission at all, that secures to Presbyters a [...]ontinuance in the Church, distinct from the Commission under Consideration, I should be glad to know there to find it.

We are next entertain'd with very diverting In [...]rrogations. ‘If Presbyters were impowered by this Commission to ordain, (says the Gentleman) how came they in several Churches, to be restrained by the Apostles themselves; and denied the Exercise of this Right, immediately after this Commission was [Page]given them?’—Here he is at the old Sport again of proposing his own Imaginations for Matters of Fact without the least shadow of Proof to support them. But I must tell him, that I have no Disposition to Philosophise upon the golden Tooth. It's Time enough to consider his Questions, when he can prove the Facts. In the Interim, I hope his Argument [...] will be harmless enough, while they are only th [...] Product of his own Fancy. And the same may be said, with Respect to the constant disapproving, condemning, and denying the Right of Presbyters t [...] ordain, in the primitive Church. We cannot tak [...] his Word in this Case. The contrary to his Supposals, is notoriously true. And I again challeng [...] this Author, to produce so much as one single clea [...] and full Proof, from the first Ages of the Church that Bishops were then esteemed to be by Divi [...] Right, and Order superiour to Presbyters. But of th [...] more hereafter.

ANd now we are come to his third Proposition, th [...] chief thing intended. (p. 40.) He is now to prov [...] ‘that the Apostles did thus divide the pastoral Offic [...] and ordain'd some to the whole Power, such as w [...] now denominate Bishops; others to Part of it onl [...] such as we call Presbyters—Bishops, were Timot [...] Titus, Epaphroditus &c. And this (says he) a very remarkable Thing, that when there we [...] Presbyters already settled at Ephesus and Crete [...] and such as no Doubt were as well qualified [...] ordain, as in latter Ages, that St. Paul should [...] think fit, to entrust this Affair with them a [...] their Presbyteries: but should devolve it whol [...] upon Timothy and Titus; should appoint the two to that Office, without mentioning any Rig [...] in the Teachers.’—The old Game still: me [...] Imaginations, without the least Appearance of Pro [...] [Page]Does their Cause admit of no Evidence, that we must always be put off with bare Assertions and Suppositions? Has he proved, or can he prove, that Timothy ever ordain'd any Presbyters at Ephesus at all? I'm sure the Scriptures are altogether silent as to this Matter. Much less then can he prove, that he did this, when there were Presbyters already settled there. It is to carry his Imaginations a great deal too far, to suppose, because Timothy has Directions about ordaining, that therefore he was to ordain Elders at Ephesus, when it does not appear, that he was so much as resident at Ephesus On the contrary, it appears manifest to me, that Timothy never was Bishop of Ephesus, or resident there, from the very Text commonly brought to prove that he was, 1 Tim. i. 3. For this End, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia &c. For why is he besou [...]ht to continue there, if it was his Charge, when he could do no otherwise, without Neglect of his Duty, and without Sinning against God? And why entreated to [...]arry there, only while the Apostle went into Macedonia, if it was the fixed Place of his Residence? And when we consider the constant Peregrinations of Timothy, from one Country and Region to another, we have as much Reason to suppose him fixed at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Colosse, Judea, Nicopolis, Dalmatia &c. as at Ephesus; for to all those Places do we find him going, by the Apostles Directions; as was considered in the Dialogue.— But Suppose (for I am willing to make all possible Allowances) that Timothy was fixed at Ephesus, and was intrusted with ordaining there too, how does it appear, that the other Presbyters or Bishops did not act with him in a compleat Parity, in performing those Ordinations? Certain it is, that they had the whole Oversight of the Fl [...]ck committed to 'em, and if Ordination belongs to the oversight of the Fl [...]ck, that also was given them in Trust; for they are under no Restrictions, in that Charge of the Apostle, Act. xx. 28.

[Page] And as to Titus, how is it proved, that there were Presbyters settled at Crete, before he was left at that Island! All the Evidence of this is, that this Gentleman supposes it; and therefore it must be so? But why is Titus left at Crete to ordain Elders in every City, if they had Elders already ordained, and were already supply'd? However, were it even supposed, that Timothy and Titus were actually improved in ordaining Elders in those Churches, where there were Presbyters already settled, there might be great Want of the superiour Gifts and Graces of these extraordinary Persons, in that infant State of the Church; even tho' the Presbyters were of the same Order and Power, with them.

But since Scripture-Evidence fails, he appeals to Antiquity; and assures us (p. 41.) that ‘this was the Opinion of the primitive Fathers, who unanimously agree, that St. Paul made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete.’ To prove which, he quotes Eusebius Lib. 3. c. 4. and names St. Jerom, Isidore, Theodoret, Sedulius &c. He gives us no Advantage to examine the Truth of his Allegations, excepting only with Respect to his Quotation from Eusebius; and all that can be found there, is, that Timothy is REPORTED to be the first Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches in Crete; but how Eusebius came by this Report, he tells us not. It is such as cannot be depended on for certain Tradition. He himself indeed acknowledges, that in his History, he was entring upon a Desart and unused Way,— where he could not so much as find the naked Footsteps of Men, that had trod the same Way before him, —And that the best Helps he had, were but as Torches burning afar off. &c.† Eusebius was quite too late, to determine such a Matter of Fact; being not born till past the middle of the third Century. The like may be said of all the rest; [Page] Jerom not flourishing till past the middle of the fourth Century, and none of the others until the fifth. And how far is this from proving an Unanimity, among all the primitive Fathers in this Case, when there is not so much as one truly primitive Father alledged as a voucher for it? The Gentleman indeed (p. 43.) having made a vain repetition of what he before said from Eusebius, adds a Testimony, which from its Sound some may think truly primitive. Says he, ‘In the Apostolical Constitutions we are expresly told that Timothy was ordain'd Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul’ To which I would subjoin, that we are as expresly told some other things in those Constitutions, which are certainly false; if we may depend upon the Credit of the learned Du Pin, who says, 'Tis there spoken ‘of as the ordination of the Apostles, That the Gospel according to St. John thou'd be read: which was not written till the 37th Year of our Lord, after the the Death of the Apostles; That James the son of Zebedee is there introduced as present at Jerusalem, after the time of his Death; That it is there declar'd that the Constitutions were made in the presence of St. Paul and the seven Deacons, whereas 'tis certain that St. Stephen one of the seven Deacons died before the conversion of St. Paul.’ These are such notorious blunders in point of Fact, as justly render this Testimony, in the case of Timothy, very precarious. I can't help adding here, tho' these Constitutions go under the specious Name of Apostolical, and so a Testimony hence may seem to carry force in its very sound, yet that they are in truth the production only of some wretched Impostor, who lived far remote from the time of the Apostles: as is evident from those gross superstitions and absurdities, that are so commonly to be met with in them: a particular list of which, I have in readiness, if the Gentleman shall think it prudent to call for it.

[Page] He goes on in these Words ‘And the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon, including Timothy in the Number, reckon twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus to their Time.’ I have often met with this Testimony; to prove Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus; but I never yet read it without surprise, that any Man should have the Face to produce it, as the Testimony of the Fathers of this Council; when nothing is more plain than that 'tis the Testimony only of Leontius, a single Member of that, Council, who was actually Convicted of a gross mistake before this very Council in the main Point for which he offer'd these words. Dr. Stillingfleet's Thoughts upon this head are worth transcribing; but for Brevity I shall only refer you to the Place (Ireni [...]um, pag. 302.) from whence you will learn that my Antagonist is guilty of a gross Misrepresentation. I think i [...] concerns him to free himself of this Charge, and if he can't do it, fairly to retract his Mistake.— But suppose it the unanimous voice of Antiquity, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops, the one of Ephesus, and the other of Crete; will it therefore follow, that the, primitive Fathers esteemed them superiour to Presbyters? Don't this Author grant (p. 16.) that ‘the Duties and Qualifications of those called Bishops in the New Testament, and those called Presbyters, are the same.’ And it is but supposing, that the primitive Fathers used the Word Bishop, in the same Sense that the Scriptures do; and all these great Appearances from Antiquity, would vanish into nothing, had all the Fathers proclaimed it with one Voice. And if we can find those very Fathers by him cited, speaking as plain as can be expressed by Words, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop by divine Appointment, his Cause surely cannot be much strengthned, by this appeal to Antiquity. Let him then read Jerom's Epistle to Evagrius, and his Commentary upon Titus; and he will find him not only asserting, but largely [Page]proving, the Identity of B [...]shop and Presbyter. Let him read Primasius upon 1 Tim. iii and he will find him there asserting, that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Degree. Let him read Theodoret upon the same Chapter and he will tell him, that of old, they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters. And let him read Sedulius on Tit. i and he will find him asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, both Name and Office. Thus has he been helped out with the Authority of the Fathers.

I have been forced already to outdo my intended Brevity: and shall not spend Time, in partic [...]l [...]rly examining h [...] Discourse about the Character of Evangelists. He agrees, that they were Missionaries, travelling to convert Infidels; and consequently, that they must be furnished with Gifts, Graces and Powers, adapted to that Service. He agrees, that Timothy had the Work of an Evangelist committed to him. And therefore I would fain know, if Timothy was a Missionary, travelling to convert Infidels (which is his own Description of an Evangelist) how he could be a fixed Bishop of Ephesus!— But here is something of a peculiar Nature asserted by him, viz. that Deacons may be Evangelists; and yet he owns that it's the Work of an Evangelist to preach the Word, be instant in Season and out of Season, to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine. And is this the Work of a Deacon? If we look to their original Institution it Acts vi. we find them appointed only to serve Tables (as I observed before) that so others might attend upon the Word of God, and not be forced to leave it. If we look to the Qualifications, that the Apostle Paul thought necessary for 'em, in 1 Tim. iii. where he is purposely, and distinctly describing them, [...]here is no Mention of their preaching. How then may they be Evangelists? or which is all one by this Gentleman's Account of the Matter, how are they Preachers? Let him, if he can, produce any better Argument for it, than this: There was [Page]one Deacon, who afterwards became an Evangelist: therefore all Deacons, while such, are Evangelists.

I Have already considered the Gentleman's Appeal to Antiquity, to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, (which he comes over with again, p. 43.) and may therefore securely leave him to erect his Trophies, and carry on his Triumphs, on Account of his imaginary Victory. For I will allow him, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops, vested with all the Powers, that he himself supposes belong to those called Bishops, in the New-Testament: I will grant also, that such Bishops as these were fixed, in more than some of the Churches, in the Days of the Apostles: But it is his Business to prove, that these Bishop [...] were, according to the primitive Fathers, of an Order superiour to Presbyters, and universally held to be so by Divine Right.

However, the Gentleman perhaps will accuse me of Neglect, if I pass over some remarkable Passages he has in page 44.—One is that, ‘And in these (the primitive Fathers) there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself, (who was born near 250 years after the Apostles, and is the chief Person in all that time whom the Presbyterians cite for any purpose of theirs) traces up Episcopacy to the very Apostles; and makes it of their Institution.’ This Gentleman surely could not but know, if he ever read any thing on the Presbyterian side of the Question, that Jerom is not the chief Person they cite in their Cause. They have much greater dependance upon more primitive Writers, and as frequently quote Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. And notwithstanding the Constancy and Unanimity he speaks of, he has not seen good to bring one passage from either of these Fathers of the first and second Centuries: nor dare he venture the Controversy [Page]upon their Judgment, or Account of facts. What he here says of Jerom, that he traces up Episcopacy to the very Apostles, and makes it their Institution, is (to give it the softest) name, a palpable mistake if we may believe Jerom himself, whose opinion of this matter I shall give you in his own words. "And before there were parties in Religion by the Devil's instinct, and it was said among the People, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I of Cephas, the Churches were govern'd by the common Council of Presbyters. But after every one tho't those he baptized to be rather his, than Christ's, it was determined in the whole World, that one of the Presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all the care of the Church should belong, and the seeds of Division taken away. If ANY ONE SHOULD THINK IT OUR OPINION AND NOT THAT OF THE SCRIPTURES, that Bishops and Presbyter are the same, and that one is the name of Age and the other of Office, let him read &c.— And here he quotes most of those very Texts, which are urged by Presbyterians, to prove it the Doctrine of the Scripture, that Bishop & Presbyter are the same. Having done which, he adds, "These things are alledged, that we might shew that among the Ancients, the Presbyters were the same with Bishops; but by LITTLE AND LITTLE the whole care was devolved on one, that the Seeds of dissention might be plucked up. As therefore the Presbyters know, that BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, they are subject to him who is the President; so let the BISHOPS KNOW, THAT THEY ARE ABOVE PRESBYTERS MORE BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, THAN THE REAL APPOINTMENT OF THE LORD, and that they ought to rule the Church in common— I might fill several pages with quotations of a like import. His whole Epistle to Evagr [...]us is a vindication of the Divine Parity of Bishop and Presbyter; nor does he more fully and plainly express himself in any one thing, than that Episcopacy was not of [Page] Apostolical Institution, but owing to Custom, and come into upon prudential considerations.

Our Author goes on, ‘And in the very place where he most exalts Presbyters, he excepts Ordination as a Work always peculiar to Bishops.’ This is not a fair Representation. The words are, Quid enim fa [...]it excepta ordinatione Episcopus, qu [...] Presbyter nonfaciat? What except Ordination does a Bishop, that a Presbyter may not do? 'Tis readily acknowledg'd, Jerom here speaks of Ordination as the appropriate work of Bishops: But does he say, it was always thus? no such thing: so far from it, that in this very Epistle, he mentions Timothy as a Scripture Instance of Presbyterian Ordination, and argues here from the parity of Bishops and Presbyters according to Divine Institution. So that unless we should suppose this learned Father so very forgetful, as to be guilty of a gross self-contradiction within a few lines, it cannot be imagined he is here to be understood as meaning, that Ordination was always the peculiar work of Bishops in distinction from Presbyters. Nay, in the very Paragraph in which these words are found, [...]e speaks of Episcopacy as the Custom of After-times, and fallen into as a Remedy against Schisin So that when in this passage he appropriates Ordination to Bishops, he speaks only of the prevailing Custom in his day, not of any Apostolic Institution; for this is what he had expresly disclaimed.

Our Author having thus misrepresented the opinion of Jerom, its no wonder, in the next words, he should do the same by Mr. Baxter. He brings him in ‘owning thus much at least, that there were fix'd Bishops in the days of one of the Apostles; that neither the Apostles nor any of their Disciples, nor any Christian or Heretick in the World, spoke or wrote a word against Episcopacy till long after it was generally settled in the Churches.’ Words to this purpose, I grant, are to be found in Mr. Baxter: But here lies the fallacy. This Gentleman is writing in [Page]favour of the Episcopacy of the Church of England, and would make his Readers believe, Mr. Baxter had asserted the universal prevalence of this Species of Ecclesiastical Government; Whereas this is so far from the Truth, that this great Man really tho't Diocesan Episcopacy utterly subversive of Parochial, which he not only affirms to be the only Scriptural and primitive Episcopacy; but has wrote a large Volume† to prove it, in opposition to that of the Church of England: Nor has his Treatise upon this Head ever yet received a just Answer, neither do I think it ever can.

He concludes this Paragraph with a Challenge, ‘to instance any Christian Church for 1500 Years without Presbyters and Deacons subordinate to their Bishop.’ In answer whereto, I pitch upon every Church, within the two first Centuries, throughout the Christian World, that we know any thing of, as Instances; and return back the Challenge, defying this Gentleman to produce, within the limits of this time, upon genuine Authority, one single Church, that had in it Presbyters in Subordination to their Bishop, after the manner of the Church of England. And I challenge him yet further, to produce, if he can, only a single instance, within the same term, of Episcopal Ordination: which I the rather insist upon, because he makes this essential to the validity of Gospel Administrations. Nor, unless he be able to bring an instance of this kind of Ordination, will he have much reason to boast of the unanimity of the primitive Fathers on this Point: and much less to make any further use of that trite saying of Vincentius Lirinensis, which without the least appearance of truth, he cites in his Cause.

[Page] ANd now I must submit to be catechized by him, and to answer such Questions as he is pleased to propose. But I must observe to him, that they are the very same Questions, upon which the Protestants are challenged by the Papists, the Change of Character being only supposed; and the same Answer will serve in both Cases. It is queried; (p. 44)

1. When the episcopal Usurpation began?

Answ. It began in Diotrephes, and increased as Antichrist grew in Stature.

2. Where it began, whether in a particular Church, or few Churches at first; or all at once, thro' the universal Church?

Answ. Just where Antichrist was born, and nourished.

3. If it began in particular Churches, how, or by what Steps, it made it's Progress all over the Christian Churches?

Answ. It did eat as does a Canker, gradually and insensibly; and the Enemy scattered the Tares, while Men Slept.—But what means this Enquiry? Is it impossible that this should obtain, unless we can tell the particular Steps by which it advanced? Is it not evident to all the World, that Popery it self did get the Ascendant, over almost all the Churches? And must we not believe our Senses in a plain Matter of Fact, unless we can assign the particular Methods, by which it came to pass?

4. Whether it can be supposed, that the Presbyters then living, could be all, or most of them, ignorant of the Powers belonging to them of original Right?

Answ. The first Episcopacy was but a classical Presidency, without any Pretence of Superiority of Order and Power; whence the Encroachments were made insensibly, and without Observation. This Question is therefore nothing to the Purpose. And the same Answer serves for the 5th and 6th Question.

7. How can it be accounted for, that there should be no Mention, or fuller Relation, of so great an [Page] Usurpation, to be found in Record, in ecclesiastical History?

Answ. We have an Account in ecclesiastical History, how from Episcopus Praeses, there arose Episcopus Princeps; and how from the Moderator of a Classical Assembly, the Hierarchy advanced by Degrees, till the Pope was mounted upon the Seven headed Beast. Just as Purgatory, Image-Worship, and Invocation of Saints, were gradually advanced in the Church of Rome.

Upon the whole, I'll transcribe for this Gentleman's Satisfaction, and leave him to apply, Part of an Answer made to these Demands from the Roman Catholicks. ‘When Arius, Nestorius, and such like Hereticks arose, they violently broke out of the Church; and forsook all Communion. And when Mahomet came from without, he visibly assaulted all Christianity. But the Papacy bred silently, as a Gangreen in the Church within; that Cocka [...]rice was long a hatching in the Shell, before it did appear. It was a secret Departure from the Truth, caused by Errors stollen into the Church, sensim sine Sensu, insensibly and unawares. Whence appears the Difference between open Heresy and clandestine Apostacy; the one is easy to be known, because it works openly, in the Day; the other hard to be discovered, because it makes it's approaches only in the Night.’—Thus I have answered his Questions. And if he' thinks the Answers bear too hard upon the episcopal Usurpation, I can't help it; he himself is the Occasion of it. But it must be remembred, that as he says nothing of Episcopacy in general in his Questions, neither do I in my Answers. 'Tis of the Usurpation, that we are now treating.

[Page] I Am now again called upon to consider his Arguments from Antiquity. "Had this Gentleman (says he, p. 45.) ‘been a little more inquisitive, and not (depending upon the Authority of others) neglected examining the Epistles of Ignatius, an Apostolick Father, he might have met with one asserting the Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, by divine Right. To omit the plain and manifest Distinction he makes between them in every one of his Epistles, hear what he says, in that to the Philadelphians "For as many as are of God, and of Jesus Christ, are also with their Bishop. Again, There is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one Cup in the Unity of his Blood, one Altar, as also there is one Bishop. He compares the Bishop to the Father, in his Epistle to the Trallians. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he exhorts them to reverence the Bishop, according to the Power of God the Father.’—Our Author is so quick Sighted, it seems, as to find Ignatius here asserting the Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, by Divine Right. But I think there is nothing more plainly discoverable than the direct contrary to this, even from those very Passages, now in view For,

1. If Ignatius intends no more by Bishop, but a Congregational Bishop, or which is all one, but a meer Presbyter both in Order and Power, I think his Patronage can be of but little Service to our Adversaries. And this appears manifest, from this Gentleman's own Concessions. For he grants, that ‘Presbyters are those Church-Officers, that are called Bishops in the New Testament,’ p. 16. Now if Ignatius was an Apostolical Father (as he calls him) what Reason can be given, why he did not use the Word Bishop in the same Sense, that the Apostles used it? My Antagonist grants ‘that the Duties and Qualifications of those called Bishops in the New Testament, and of those called Presbyters, are the same.’ And why are not the Duties and Qualifications [Page]of those called Bishops by Ignatius, and those called Presbyters, the same? Verily 'twould tempt one to think so, when we find him speaking of their coming all into one Place; asserting that he that cometh not to the same Place, is proud and condemneth himself; and exhorting all to come together, as into the Temple of God, as unto one Altar. When we find him asserting, that there is one Altar, as also one Bishop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow-Servants. Exhorting that none manage any Church-Affair, without the Bishop; and affirming, that it is not lawful without the Bishop, either to baptize, or to make love Feasts ‖ and also exhorting Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to keep frequent Congregations, to enquire after all by Name; and not despise Men-Servants and Maid Servants. From all which it is evident to Demonstration, that Ignatius's Bishop had the Charge of but a single Congregation; and that all sacred Ordinances were administred by him only. If it be demanded, Who then were the Presbyters, by him so often mentioned? I answer, They were Ruling Elders. For tho' they are often consider'd in these Epistles, as being concern'd in Government, yet never as having any Authority to preach, or administer the Sacraments. Nay, we are expresly told, that it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop, as was observed before.

2. Suppose after all, that there was in Ignatius's Time, a Difference made between Bishops and Presbyters: Was it a Difference in Order? Were there any superiour Powers pretended to by Divine Right? Nothing of this is to be found in all his Epistles. I grant, that the Name Bishop was in the early Ages of the Church, appropriated to the Chief Presbyter, who was made the Constant Moderator of their Presbyteries; but without any Pretence of claim to a [Page] superiority of Order or Power, above the other Ministers of the World. And what is this to the Case in Hand?

I have all along considered these Epistles of Ignatius, as genuine; (which we have Reason to wish they were;) because I was willing to allow the utmost Force of this Gentleman's Arguments. Tho', it has been abundantly proved by many learned Men, that they are all spurious, or vilely interpolated: The Evidence of this is at our Author's Service, when he'll be pleased to call for it. And thus I have passed the Pikes of Ignatius's Epistles; and have given a sufficient Answer to all this Gentleman's fine Flourishes, about the Necessity of depending upon the Fathers, is a simple Matter of Fact: For it would have been soon enough for his pathetical Harangue, when he had first proved from the truly primitive Fathers, not that there were then Bishops in the Church (this is acknowledged on both Sides) But that these w [...] superiour to Presbyters, in Order and Power, upon the foot of a Divine Right, universally professed.

However, he has here one Thing more, I will bestow some Observations upon. I had adduc'd several Canons, agreed on at the 4th, Council of Carthage; Upon which the Gentleman observes (p. 47.) ‘And what then? therefore Prebyters can ordain! no such thing.’ If he had cast the slightest glance on that part of the Dialogue, he might have seen, that those Canons were bro't, not to prove Ordination by Presbyters, but that there was not in that day "so great a distance between Bishops and Presbyters, as there is now; and that nothing was done without the mutual concurrence of the Presbyters with their President": which stands validly collected from those Canons, notwithstanding his remark. But perhaps my Opponent wanted an Opportunity to introduce that Apostolical Canon (as 'tis call'd) "Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops, a Priest by one Bishop, and so likewise a Deacon"; and to let us know [Page]that he tho't it, "a very instructive Canon". I'll present him with a few more of those Canons, and leave it with him to determine, whether they are not full as Apostolical, if not quite so instructive. Can. 2. If any Bishop or Presbyter, besides what our Lord has appointed for Sacrifice, shall offer upon the Altar any other things, as Honey, or Milk &c. let him be deposed. Excepting Ears of Corn, or Grapes, 'tis not lawful to offer any thing upon the Altar, save only Oyl for the holy Lamps, and incense in time of divine Oblation. Can. 13. He that hath been twice married after Baptism, or hath had a Concubine, cannot be a Bishop or Presbyter, or at all in the Catalogue of the Priesthood. Can. 19. Of those who were single Persons, when they were made Clergymen, we command that only Readers and Singers may take Wives. Can. 23. If any Bishop has made use of the Princes of this World, and by their influence has got into the Church, let him be deposed, and all that communicate with him. Can. 64. If any one of the Clergy or Laity shall take from the holy Church, either Wax or Oyl, let him be separated, and add a fifth part to what he took away. Can. [...]0. If any one has a Devil, he may not be made a Clergyman, nor may he pray with the faithful, &c. These are all of them as truly Apostolical Canons, as that which this Gentleman has tho't fit to produce; and if he does not think they are instructive ones, he must allow us to guess at the reason, and chuse whether we will pay any greater regard to that which he calls the first in order among them.

I shall take leave upon this occasion to desire this Gentleman's Resolution of one or two Questions, viz. Whether the twenty third among the Apostolical Canons, be not of as good Authority as the first? And if it be, whether there be not just the same reason, that all the Bishops in England should at once be deposed, and all in Communion with them, as that Presbyterians should submit to Episcopal Ordination? And if the thirteenth and nineteenth Canons are of any validity, whether most of the Clergy of the establish'd Church, [Page]do not stand as much condemned by them, as others do by the first?

I shall only add, 'tis a shameful piece of Conduct in those of the Church, who call upon us to express our Regards to such of those Canons, as they think favour their Cause; while at the same time they treat most of these very Canons with the utmost practical Contempt. Let them lead in a punctual observance of them all, and then we may possibly think them serious, when they recommend some of them to our Consideration.

WE now come to his last Proposition. (p. 48.) ‘That, supposing all the Arguments urged in Defence of Presbyterian Ordination, were incontestably true; yet modern Presbyterian Ordination must be null and void." In Proof of which he tells us, 'Tis too well known to require Proof, that the true state of the Controversy, between us and the Presbyterians, depends upon the State of the Ministerial Office, at the Time of the Reformation. —The Question is not, whether such as were called Presbyters, in the Times of the New Testament, had the Power of Ordination: but the Question we are concerned about is this, whether such as were called Presbyters, at the Time of the Reformation, had the Power of Ordination.’ That they had not, he supposes evident; because ‘Bishops alone were some hundred Years before the Reformation, invested with the Power of Ordination.’ But then the Question recurs, What were these Bishops? Were they by Divine Right superiour to Presbyters, or not? If they were, let him prove it. If they were not, the Power of Ordination was all this while in the Presbyters, whether they exercised it or not. If these Bishops had the Power of Ordination themselves, the Presbyters ordained by them received[Page]all the Authority appointed by Christ and his Apostles, to those of their Order: and consequently had the Power of Ordination, according to the original Institution, inherent in them; by what Usurpation soever they were kept from the Exercise of it. Certain it is, that the Papists themselves, among whom was the Succession of Bishops he pleads for, did not pretend to the divine Right of Episcopacy; They supposed Bishop and Presbyter to be the same Order by original Right: and therefore their Presbyters were by their own Principles, ordained to all the Powers that belonged to Bishops This our Author himself reminds us of, p. 27. ‘This very Argument (says he) do the Papists use, to prove the Sameness of Bishops and Presbyters, as to Order.’ Now then if Presbyters were of the same Order with Bishops, not only by Divine Institution, but even in the Opinion of their Ordainers, what will become of the Gentleman's Reasoning under this Proposition. And this was the Opinion of the Protestant Churches every where, at the Time of the Reformation: not only the foreign Churches, who carried on the Reformation without their Bishops; but even in England it self; as may be seen at large, in the Appendix to the first Volume of Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation; and in the eighth Chapter of Dr. Stillingfleet's [...]renicum. Among a Number of Questions proposed by the King, to be answered by some select Divines, this was one;

"Whether Bishops or Priests were first, and if the Priests were first, then the Priest made the Bishop?—To which Arch-Bishop Cranmer made Answer,

‘The Bishops and Priests were at one Time: and were not two Things; but both one Office, in the beginning of Christ's Religion.’ —And the Bishop of St. Asaph, Ther [...]eby, Redman, and Cox, were all of the same Opinion with the Arch-Bishop. And indeed, this was the constant sense of the Church of England in this Matter, for a long Time after the [Page] Reformation. The first Person, that ventured publickly to assert the divine Right of Episcopacy, was Dr. Bancroft, then Chaplain to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, in a Sermon at Paul's Cross, Jan. 12. 1588. He declared, that ‘the Bishops of England were a distinct Order from Priests, and had Superiority over them Jure Divino, and directly from God.’ This made a great Noise, and gave great Offence to many of the Clergy. Sir Francis Knolles, Treasurer of the Queen's Houshold, had this much at Heart; and supposed, that if the Bishops were not under governours, to her Majesty, of the Clergy, but superiour Governours over their Brethren, by God's Ordinance; it will then follow, that her Majesty is not superiour Governours over her Clergy. He writ to the learned Dr. Raynolds of Oxford, for his Opinion of Bancroft's Doctrine, who largely and learnedly refuted it. And Arch-Bishop Whitgift himself (notwithstanding his imperial and lordly Behaviour) said, He rather wished, than believed it to be true (Neal's Hist of Purit p. 494.) Such an upstart Doctrine is the divine Right of Episcopacy.

Thus, Sir, I have distinctly considered all the Arguments for Prelacy, advanced by this Author: and must leave it to your Judgment, whether it be not a full and sufficient Answer; and whether we have not Cause (notwithstanding ‘the Inferences of a severe Aspect and harsh Sound,’ which this Gentleman would draw from our Ordinations) to comfort our selves, with the Expectation of Christ's promised Presence with us, in the faithful Discharge of our Ministry; and of his Blessing upon his Ordinances by us administred.

I am Your most Humble Servant ELEUTHERIUS.

Notes

†

Script. Bp. Examin'd, pag. 3, 4.

*

Fox, [...]atin Book of Martyr [...], p. 280. Neal, Hist. of the Puri [...]an [...], p. [...]0, 71.

†

Strypes's Life of Grindal, p. 19, 20. Hist [...] of the Trouble [...] of Frankford, printed 15 [...]5

†

Vindi [...]. of the Dissenters, p. 43.

‖

Strype's Annals. p. 337. Neal's Hist. or the P [...]ri [...], p. 18 [...]

*

Strype's An [...]. p. 419.

†

Neal's Hist. of the Purit. p. 208.

*

Ibid. p. 211.—Strype's Annals, p. 463.

‡

Neal's Hist. of the Purit. p. 242.— Cotton's Congreg. Way cleared, p. 4.

†

Neal's Hist. of the Purit. p. 256, & forward.

*

Ibid. p. 280.

‖

Strype's Ann. p. 187. Neal, from p. 284, to 296.

‡

Ibid. fr. p. 304, to 324.

*

Neal, p. 340.

‖

Ibid. p. 348

†

Ibid. p. 365, 366.

†

Neal, p. 372, 379.

*

Strype's Ann. p. 184.

‡

Ibid. p. 186. Neal's Hist. of the Purit. p. 400.

†

Neal's Hist. of the Purit. from p. 404, to 462.

*

Supplic. of the Purit. to the Parliament.

†

Fenner's Ans. to Dr. Bridges, p. 48.

*

Pi [...]rce's Vind. p. 129, to 138.

†

Neal's Hist. of the Purit. P 519, to 533.

*

Neal's Hist. p 545, to 558. Pierce, Vind. p. 144, &c.

†

Neal, p. 559, to 567. Pierce, Vind. p. 148.

‖

Calderwood's Hist. p. 286.

*

Ibid. p. 4 [...]8.

†

Alt [...]r. Damas. in Pref.

*

Pierce's Vind. p. 164, to 167.

‖

Calderwood's Hist from p. 4 [...]3 ad Finem.

*

Rushworth's Collect. Part. 3 p. 181.

†

Pierce's Vindicat. p. 177, to 194.

†

Life of Mr. Colton. p. 18, 19.

*

Bishop Burnet's Hist, of his own Times, Vol. 1. from p. 25, to 39.

†

Bishop Burnet's Hist. Vol. 1. p. 3 [...]3.

†

Bishop Burnet's Hist. Vol. I. p. 335.

*

Burnet's Hist. of his own Times, Vol. I. p. 25 [...], 258.

†

Preface, p. vi.

†

Hist. of Kings of Scotl. p. 242.

‖

Ibid. p. 250, 253.

*

Wodrow, Vol. II. p. 558.

‡

Ibid. p. 70, 77, 164, 391, 560 et alibi.

*

Wodrow's Hist. Vol. II. p. 333, 334.

‖

Ibid. p. 446, 447, 451, 460 et alibi.

‡

Ibid. p. 506.

†

Dr. Mather's Palm-Beaters; (being Extracts out of Mr. Wodrow's Hist.) p. 46 &c.

†

Vindication of N. E. against a late Address of a Faction there, p. 17, 18.

†

[...]ummer's Defence of the N. E. Charters, p. 39 &c.

‡

Willard's Discourse concerning that Ceremony.

*

Vindication of N. E. S [...]pradict. p 4. & passim.

*

Pierce's Vindic. p. 202.

†

Ibid. p. 201.

‡

Dr. Calamy, Church and Dissenters compar'd, as to Persecution, p. 35, 28. Pierce's Vind. p. 204.

‖

Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, p. 100.

†

Calamy, ubi supra, p. 76.

*

Ibid. p. 74, 38, 57.

‖

Ibid. p. 92.

‡

Ibid. p. 29, 69.

{inverted †}

Ibid. p. 69, 71.

*

Ibid. p. 38, 70, 75.

‖

Calamy, ubi supra, p. 70, 81.

†

Ibid. p. 72.

‡

Pierce's Vind. P. I. p. 214.

†

Church and Dissenters compar'd. p. 53 &c.

*

Ibid. p. 57.

‖

Ibid. p. 44, 68, 71, 81.

‡

Ibid. 67, 77.

{inverted †}

Barret's Ans. to Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 51, 52.

†

Conformist's Plea, p. 54.

†

Conformist's 4th. Plea, p. 110.

*

Calamy, Contin. of the Account &c. p. 575.

‡

Pierce's Vind, P. I. p. 214.

‖

Calamy, Church & Dissen. comp. p. 67, 68.

†

Pierce, ubi supra, p. 230.

*

Conformist's 1st. Plea. p. 12, 13

‡

4th Plea, p. 29.

†

Mr. Lewis of Margate.—See Dr. Calamy's Church and Dissenters compar'd, as to Persecution, p. 23, 24.

*

Script. Bp. Exam. p. 4.

*

Canon IV.

†

Can. VI.

‡

Can. VII.

†

Can. X.

‖

Can XI

*

Script. Bp. examined, p. 51.

†

Neal, p. 113, 124, 197, 198, 199, 273, 281, & alibi.

‖

Ibid p. 199.

†

Scripture Bishop examined, p 51, 52.

*

p. 5.

‡

Pag. 6, 7, 8, 9.

*

Ratio Disciplinae, p. 2 [...].

‡

Plebs ipsa maxime habet Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recufandi &c. Ep. 68.

*

Dodwel, Ono Priesthood, Chap. xiii. Sect 14.

*

In some Copies indeed the negative Particle in Ignatius is left out; which make him affirm that Deacons are Ministers of Meats and Cups. Vid. Original Draught—p. 236.

*

Ep. to the [...]

‖

Ep. to the Trall.

†

Ibid.

‡

Ep. to the Smyrn.

*

in Gal. i. 1, 19.

*

Vol. 1. p. 289.

†

Irenic. p. 306.

‡

Ibid. p. 273.

*

p. 276.

*

Iren. p. 4 [...].

†

Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 1.

†

Vid. Du Pin's Eccl. Hist. p. 16. Not. g.

*

Hieron. Comment. in Tit. Tom 9. pag. 103. Eras. Edit.

†

Treatise of Episcopacy.

*

Ep. to the Ephes. Voss. Edit.

†

Ep. to the Philad.

‖

Ep. to Smyrn.

‡

Ep. to Polycarp.

§

§

§

[Page]

EUSEBIUS INERMATUS.

Just REMARKS On a late BOOK, Intitled, ‘ELEUTHERIUS ENERVATUS, Or an Answer to a Pamphlet, Intituled, The Divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination &c. argued. Done by way of Dialogue between Eusebius and Eleutherius; together with two Letters on this Subject.’

By PHILELUTH. BANGOR, V.E.B.

Truth is not afraid of GIANTS. —

CHILLINGW.

They define not the Church, by that which the Church essentially is, but by that wherein they imagine their owne more perfect than the rest are.—

HOOKER.

This is the Circle of their Censure: No Church, therefore no Ministery; and no Ministery, therefore no Church. Unnatural Sons, that spit in the face of those Spiritual Fathers that begat them, and the Mother that bore them!

Bp. HALL.

Our Enemies themselves being Judges,

Deut. xxxii. 31.

BOSTON: Printed for D. HENCHMAN in Cornhill. MDCCXXXIII.

[Page]

PREFACE.

IT was some time after the foregoing Piece was in the Printer's hand, that we were saluted with another Answer to the Dialogue between Prelaticus and Elutherius, bearing the Title of ELEUTHERIUS ENERVATUS &c. Now indeed I can't b [...] be of Opinion, that impartial Judges will apprehend, that Elutherius in the preceeding Vindication has anticipated the greatest part of what is necessary to be offer'd in Defence of his Dialogue against this new Assault. However, that the Gentlemen concern'd therein, might not complain of any Neglect, nor have the Opportunity of glorying (as their manner is) "in a Book never answer'd," a little Pains have been bestow'd in some Remarks on their Performance, which are exhibited to the Publick in the following Pages.

It was thought convenient, that the Replications to both the Episcopal Answers should be publish'd under one Cover. But by reason of Elutherius's Distance from the Press, we could not expect seasonably to receive his Reply to this other Answer. Therefore T [...]e taken the Liberty to stand his Second in this Polemick Engagement: tho' conscious, I've need to make an Apology for my Officiousness, in appearing (unask'd) in the Defence of ONE, who needs no Assistant.

I hope, the Gentlemen I oppose, will not be offended at the Freedom and Warmth of Expression I've sometimes us'd; since it is but in Imitation of their own Language. I've in that Respect chosen to deal with them in their own Way, to the End they may more readily be convinc'd of the Abuses and Follies of their Way of handling the Controversy, and learn to set a better Example for the future. For if these Episcopal Advocates ever serve Religion, or their Cause, by the Method and Manner of Writing they've gone into, I shall be one among ma [...]y that evill be very greatly mistaken.

Elutheropoli, Dec. 25. 1733

P. B.

[Page]

An Answer to ELEUTHERIUS ENERVATUS.

PART I. Remarks on the Dialogue between Euseb. & Eleuth.

Sect. I. THE Compiler (shall I call him?) or the Publisher of this new Work, is pleas'd to subscribe himself by the specious Name of PHILALETHES, a Friend to Truth: and if that be his just Character, we may not be allow'd to doubt but that, when he feels the force of Truth, he will shew himself open to Conviction. Tho' if we should critically examine the hectoring Preface to his Performance, I fear whether there wou'd not be found some dark Omens of a contrary Complexion upon him, in several invidious Turns he has on the Editor of the Dialogue between Prelaticus and Elutherius, and in the secret History he gives us of the LAYMAN'S Letters to the suppos'd Rev. Author. They serve to give us a Specimen of his Veracity, and a Taste of his Kindness to his Quondam Friends.

This Gentleman (pag. 4.) makes a mighty Stir about an innocent Passage of Elutherius's, that one woul [...] a'tho't lay much out of his Way at present: and like a zealous Lover of Truth, very decently taxes him of a notorious Falshood; appealing to the Layman's Letters for Evidence; which are to be consider'd in the Sequel. Observe in the mean time, Elutherius's Words are easily capable of being [Page]reconcil'd to Truth, by an obvious Distinction. The Passage is in the 54th page of his Dialogue; ‘I'm sure (says he) I have no Eyes, if the truly primitive Fathers are not all with one Voice in the Presbyterian Scheme. And I desire any of your Party to bring so much as one of them, that declares Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Order superiour to Presbytery; within the first three hundred Years after Christ. This Demand has been often repeated; but [...] answered.’ Now the force of the Objection lies against these last Words: By which, no Person of Candour and Capacity cou'd understand him to mean any other than that this Demand was never answered really and satisfactorily; whatever has been attempted or "pretended in Answer to it." And, as it happen'd, Elutherius's Observation was back'd with the Judgment of two very learned Antiquaries, Divines of the Church of England: whose Words this Gentleman here artfully passes over in Silence; doubtless that he might "bluster with the greater Assurance," and cry out of " notorious Falshood and amazing Confidence" with the more Advantage. Verily I suspect this was "design'd for Amusing the Vulgar: " and i [...] seems as if he was resolv'd to begin, as well as ‘wind up, with Triumph, tho' at the Expence of his Integrity’ and Modesty.

This Gentleman here brings in Mr. SAGE'S Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprian [...]ck Age, as a wonderful Performance; which gives me a fair Occasion to refer the Reader to the several Answers, made to that Author, by Mr. Jameson, Mr. Lauder &c, and I will take the Opportunity to [...]peat the just Censure passed on that Book, by an eminent Divine of the Episcopal Communion. ‘It were not a difficult Task (says he) to shew, that there are in the Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianick Age a great many FORCED and DISTORTED Quorations out of ancient and modern Authors, for Episcopacy in his Acception of it.’ Dr. EDWARDS; Remains, p. 275.

In the next place, I observe, Philalethes (p. 5.) brings in Mr. Hooker as a Champion for Episcopacy. To which it were Answer Enough, to say, if he has a Richard Hooker to boast of, we have a Thomas Hooker to match him. The Survey of Church Discipline, wears, for ought I see, as venerable a hoary Head, as the Ecclesiastical Polity. But what I wou'd especially remark is, That it appears to me a very odd point of conduct in this Gentleman to alledge his Episcopal HOOKER'S Ecclesiastical[Page]Polity, and glory in it as a Book "above an hundred Years old, yet never answered;" when, if he has ever red it with any Care, he cou'd not but be sensible, that this his applauded Author never declares himself for the unalterable Divine Institution of any one particular Form of Church-Government: but holds that all our Forms of Government are equally practicable; no one being of Divine Right, in that nature as to exclude another. I acknowledge him a Friend to Episcopacy: but far from being a Patron of this Gentleman's Cause, the immutable Divine Right and indispensable Necessity of Prelacy, as a distinct Order superiour to Presbytery, and over a Plurality of Cities and Churches. Here's surely a stumble at the very Threshold. An unlucky Accident!—But that it mayn't be said I impose on the credulous Reader, I'll give him the sense of two Episcopal Divines upon the Politician: The one is Dr. Stillingfleet, who says (Irenic. p. 394.) ‘They who will please but to consult the third Book of learned and judicious Mr. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, may see the MUTABILITY of the Form of Church Government largely asserted, and fully proved.’—My other Witness is Dr. Edwards, whose words are (Remains, p. 257.) ‘The judicious Mr. Hooker holds, that Episcopacy may be ABROGATED: and consequently is not of Divine and Apostolical Right, but is the Political Institution of the Church.’—Now, if these be the Principles, that Mr. Hooker defends (as our Adversary says) ‘with such strength of Reason and clear Evidence, that nothing but Obstinacy can withstand;’ I must have Leave very much to wonder what sort of Metal those Gentleman's Forheads are made of, that dare in Contradiction to their admired judicious HOOKER, assert Diocesan Prelacy as the invariable Form of Church Government by Divine Institution. "On this Account (to allude to this Writer's own Remark) ‘it is justly thought, by some ingenious Men, a needless Waste of Time and Labour, to give new Answers and Replies to such Objections, as have been so fully answered’— by Presbyterians, and so effectually superseded even by that learned Episcoparian. ‘But yet for the Satisfaction of some, that may be stumbled, upon reading this doughty Performance’ of Philalethes, it may be of Service to bestow a few Remarks upon the principal Contents of the Dialogue he has fram'd between Eusebius & Eleutherius.

I pass over his Lady's merry Squibs; as also I shall several other Impertinencies, in the Course of his Conference, and confine my self chiefly to matter of Argument.

[Page] Sect. II. Whether Elutherius's Inquiry, either into the Scriptures or Antiquity, ‘has been too superficial, to find out any thing of Truth’ in the present Controversy, as Eusebius insinu [...] (p. 8.) may safely be left to the Opinion of indifferent Judges, upon their Perusal of his VINDICATION. But I'm sure this Gentleman shows, that his Inquiry into Antiquity, as well as sacred History, has been very superficial, when he challenges us, to ‘shew that it is agreable to the Practice of any good Christians in the first and purest Age of the Church, is form Parties, and separate Communions &c.’ He seems is have forgot there was such a Text in the Bible, as that, Gal ii. 11,—14. And did he never read what Mr Chillingworth h [...]s observ'd, (R [...]lig. Prot. p. 228.) ‘Divers time it hath happened, as in the Case of Chrysostom and Epiphanius, th [...] particular Men, and particular Churches, have upon an overvalued Difference, either renounced Communion [...] tually, or one of them separated from the other; and yet both have continued Members of the Catholick Church.’ Or did he never meet with that Passage in Bp. Hall (Works p. 520.) ‘Let the Malicious prattle what they will; with some of ours [i. e. our Sects] the Controversie is not about any solid Limbs of the Christian Faith, but only of the very Skin; with some others, not about the Skin, but the Garment rather; nor about the Garment itself neither, but of the very Hem.—Controversies, that will easily admit of a Reconciliation.— Our Differences [i. e. the Di [...] among Protestants] are no greater, than were those of O [...]d, among the HOLY Fathers of the Church, whose Quarrels notwithstanding are not so odiously blazoned by Posterity. I let pass the private Scoldings of the Ancients, not without some unpleasing (I had almost said misbeseeming) Tar [...]ness I had rather set before your Eyes (for good Lucke sake) those publique Altercations of the Churches and Fathers, which afterward shut up in a blessed Concord. What Quarrels arose at the Council of Ephesus between Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Antioch? The Churches under both stuck not to counter-thunder Anathemaes one against another—The Flame of their Rage almost drew the Christian World to Parties.’ — Then follows an Account of a hot Quarrel between the Roman and the Eastern Churches, happily heal'd by Athanasius. Whereupon the pious Bishop cries out, ‘Neither would it speed otherwise with us, if some Athanasius from Heaven would but joyn our Hands together. Oh if [Page]once — a Synod were call'd (as general as might) wherein both parts freely and modesty might lay forth their Opinions, and — common Terms agreed upon —; how easily then, how happily might these grievous Stirs be quickly pacified?’—This is a sufficient Reply to Eus [...]hius's De [...]d. And as for what he says in his warm Declamation against "the despised Party of Presbyterians, for forming separate Communions" &c. I answer, the Stone which he hurls, happens not to come out of David's Sling, and will do little Exe [...]ution upon us. 'Tis rather like the Stone that Achilles is said to have flung at a dead Skull, which rebounding, struck [...]ot his own Eye.

— Rediit lapis ultor ab esse,

Actorisque sui frontem, oculosque petit.

The hard Invective recoils in Eusebius's face. 'Twas his [...] Church, that really form'd the Parties, and the separate Communions; not Nonconformists. "For (as Bp. Stillingf. observes, in his Rational Account of Prot. Religion, p. 359.) ‘whatever confines, must likewise divide the Church: for by that Confinement a Separation is made between the Party confined, and the other; which Separation must be made by the Party so limiting Christian Communion.— Whatever Church makes some extrinsecal and accidental Things the necessary Conditions of Communion, so as to cast Men out of the Church, who yield not to them, is SCHISMATICAL in so doing: and the Separation from it is so far from Schism, that being cast out of that Church on those Terms, only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church.’ On which Grounds it appears, that his Church is the Schismatical Party, a [...] not we.— But Eusebius personally, is yet more deeply [...]olv'd in the Guilt he charges on us: and I take the Opportunity to tell this Gentleman, that by the same (or as good) Mediums, by which he will justify the Episcopal Separation in New England, with a Consonance to his own Principles and Authorities. I doubt not Elutherius will be able easily to vindicate the Presbyterian Separate Communions here or any where. Let this Writer take the pains to read judicious HOOKLR'S Ecclesiastical Polity now: I claim in my Turn to recommend it to him. And let him, if he pleases, read Bp. STILLINGFLEET'S Unreasonableness of Separation too (to say nothing of his Irenicum) another Book he gravely "recommends to our Perusal; which, he says (p. II.) has to his knowledge convinced more than one of our dissenting Teachers." Well, however, I commend even this also back to himself, [Page]for a more critical and serious Perusal. And I venture to challenge him, upon the Principles of these his own applauded Authors, to vindicate his Episcopal Separation. Surely this Writer exposes the Partiality of his Judgment, or else shews a very small Attention to the Merits of the Controversy between him and us, strangely forgetting what Part of the World he's in, while he thus presses into his Service, in New England, at all Adventures, Books that were evidently calculated for quite a different Meridian. Ex Vipera Theriacam, is one remarkable point of Physick: and it may be no less excellent a Method in Controversy to turn our Adversary's own Authors against himself; as the best Antidote, sure, that can be, against the Poison he diffuses. And I might presently prepare a sufficient Potion, to make him heartily sick, and cure him of his Boasting. It's manifest, They are chiefly Topical Arguments, those learned Episcoparian Writers make Use of, against the Presbyterian Separation in England; and are easily accommodable, to the Service of our Cause, against the New England Episcopal Separatists. The Foundation-Principle with the Ecclesiastical Politician is that (p. 89, 90) ‘The Necessity of Polity and Regiment in all Churches may be held, without holding ANY ONE certain Form to be necessary in them all:—Seeing the general Principles [and Rules of Scriptures] are such, as do not particularly prescribe any one; but sundry may EQUALLY be consonant to the general Axiomes of the Scripture.’— And Dr. Stillingfleet is in full Concurrence with him. This is the very Spirit and Soul of his Irenicum; and however the Doctor might afterwards appear to some to have alter'd his Judgment, yet in this main Point (as well as some others) I see n [...] that he cary'd at all from himself: nor does he seem willing it shou'd be tho't indeed he had in any Thing contradicted his Irenicum, in his later Writings. So much seems to me plainly imploy'd in those Words of his, speaking of himself in the 3d Person, (Pref. to Unreas. of Sep. Edit. 2. p. 72.) ‘But after all this, WHEREIN is it that he hath thus contradicted himself? Is it in the point of Separation?—No.’ Then he transcribes several Particulars out of his Irenicum, exactly quadrating with Mr Hooker's Judgment: and subjoyns this approving Clause; ‘Allow but these three Conclusions, and defend the present Separation if you can.’—Now the same say I with equal Assurance, unto the Episcopal Separatists in New England. And I will add in the Words of Dr. STILLINGFLEET [Page](Ubi supra, p. 77.) ‘If a Council cou'd be called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom, we shou'd not doubt of their Determination of the Unlawfulness of the present Separation,’ i. e of Eusebius and Company. Upon the whole we see, these Gentlemen must certainly read Books with a very distorted Eye, who think it proper to recommend Hooker and Stillingfleet to us in New England; as if they had made a Coat to fit their Moon in all her Changes, or contriv'd a Dial for them to serve all Meridians. And by the way, I can't help making the Reflection; how little the Ingenuity of these Gentlemen is to be depended on, with regard to the Fathers; what poor Encouragement we have to take Things upon Trust from these Men with Relation to Antiquity: who will venture to vouch modern Authors at this random-rate; making them speak what they never thought or dreamt, and espouse a Cause, which by their Scheme of Principles it appears, must needs have been their Abhorence.

Sect. III. In Return now to what our Reverend Eusebius [...]ers next (pag. 9, 10, and 11.) on the head of Separation still, all I need to do, is to execute the Lex Talionis upon him, and transcribe his own Words, with a little different Turn. Indeed I had done it; following his Train of Reasoning, and adopting much of his Language: which Kind of Answer I thought sufficient—ad hominem; and I found the Words run as smoothly from my Pen as his. But for Brevity I omit the whole; yet think fit to subjoyn this obvious Remark: It must needs look very simple in this Writer, and make him bear an odd Figure in Controversy, to use such a way of arguing against Elutherius, which how specious soever might readily be turn'd against himself, and that with greater Advantage! Since Elutherius never was a professed Member of the Church of England, and so never made a formal Separation from it: whereas the Gentleman, Eusebius is suppos'd to personate, was once an ordain'd Presbyter in one of the New England Churches, and has in the most open and solemn manner voluntarily renounc'd their Communion; which Conduct of his, how he will be able to clear from the Guilt of Schism, upon the Principles of his admir'd Authors, I must confess my self at a Loss. — I shall add here; Certainly it can't be thought but that impartial Men will allow Presbyterian Ordinations in New England to have as much Validity, as is allow'd to Ordinations in the Scottish, and foreign Churches of [Page]the Presbyterian Persuasion, who are without Bishops, both Name and Thing; and this, of Choice, not of Necessity. I think truly we stand upon equal Terms with them: and that we have as good Pretensions to the Charity of our Episcopal Brethren, as they. And if so, I now send this Writer to his beloved Hooker and Stillingfleet, to learn Charity and Prudence from their Example; who, I believe, he will never once find so rash as to contest the Validity of Presbyterian Ordinations in Scotland, or among the Protestants abroad. Mr. Hooker (p. 122.) having laid down this general Observation, That ‘Matters of Ecclesiastical Polity, as being of a farre [...] Nature & Quality [i. e. than Things necessary] are not so strictly and everlastingly commaunded in Scripture, but that — Much which it hath taught, may become unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometimes also because we cannot: —he proceeds to say, 'In which respect, for mine own part, altho' I see that certain Reformed Churches, the SCOTTISH especially & the FRENCH, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture, I mean the Government that is by Bishops, inasmuch as both those Churches are falne under a different kinde of Regiment, which to remedy, it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present Affliction, this their De [...]ect I had rather lament in such Case, than exagitate,’ that is, than raise a Dispute and Disturbance about it. Observe, the want of Bishops, he calls a Defect, and Imperfection; but does not make it an Essential Defect, a fundamental Imperfection, such as destroy'd the true Church-State, & must by all means be supply'd or repair'd: No, says he, to remedy it, is ALTOGETHER TOO LATE for the one, and as much TOO SOON for the other. Now one of these, I doubt, is the true Case of New England at this Day: and I am inclin'd to think, Judicious Hooker would say, it is the former; and judging our Defect, in regard of Bishops, "an irremediable Error," would determine it best to lament in such Case, rather than exagitate, as is the manner of his pretended Followers and Admirers. But verily till they prove our Ecclesiastical Methods "contrary to the Light of Nature," and "repugnant to the general Axioms of holy Scripture" (which they can never do) they can plead no Warrant from Mr. Hooker, to exagitate, contend, and oppose the settled Orders in these Churches. Neither do I think, they can fetch any Authority or Countenance from Eusebius's other celebrated Author. [Page]For tho' I find Dr. Stillingfleet (in his Unreas. of Sep.) often mentioning New England, yet never once that I have observ'd, does he say any thing that has the Appearance of condemning our Ordinations as invalid, or our Churches as not true and good. —And now as for the Letters annexed to that Treatise of the Doctor's, wrote by famous Presbyterians abroad, which this Gentleman boasts of as ‘condemning the English Separatists,’ let this (to omit all other Remarks) for the present be accepted as Fact; I however put it to his Conscience, whether he thinks the Authors of those Letters meant to condemn the Churches in New England; or whether even the Principles there laid down, will in any manner reach this End. For my part I gladly appeal to those very Letters, for the Vindication of our Churches: and I dare this Writer to bring his late Separation from us upon a Trial by those Letters.

As to Dr. Edwards, let this Gentleman read his Discourse of Episcopacy; where he may inform himself of the Principle which retain'd that Excellent Divine in the Episcopal Communion: and he'll find the Doctor's Example of Charity and Moderation as well operates against him, for "falling in with the Separation" in New England, as his Arguments make for us, upon the head of Ministerial Parity; which are such, as this Writer I doubt will never be able to answer.

"The Opinion of the Old Nonconformists in our own Nation" is next bro't against us (p. 12) Upon which I need make no other Reply to our Author, but that I believe the World will think Eusebius had done well to have imitated the Example of those ‘old honest Nonconformist Ministers (as he calls 'em) in submitting to Lay-Communion, when he resign'd his Cure,’ rather than to submit unto Reordination, and ‘run into the Errors of the Separatists.’ If this sort of Reasoning has any force, it has as much in my Application of it, as in our Author's: Or if it be esteem'd Cant, and not Arguing, he has taught it me. But for a just Account of the Opinion and Practice of the Old Nonconformists, and a full Answer to the Argument bro't on this head, I refer to Dr. RULE'S Rational Defence, where ‘the Case of the Separation is truly stated, and the Blame laid where it ought to be,’ in Answer to Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S Unreasonableness of Separation, which is there consider'd Paragraph by Paragraph, and intirely confuted.—However I wou'd subjoyn here one Observation; and this is, That if the old honest Nonconformist Ministers [Page]were against the Separation; just as much, I believe, were the old honest Conformist Puritans (which made the Body of the Clergy at first) against the unalterable Jus Divinum and absolute Necessity of the Hierarchy and Ceremonies of the Church of England.— Jam ergo sumus pares.

Sect. IV. Eusebius proceeds to some Remarks on the Sufferings of the Nonconformists. (p. 13, 14, 15.) And for an Answer, I might commend him to Elutherius's VINDICATION; where he may find both History and Argument upon this head, Enough, I hope, to silence his Exclamations for the future.

Though, I can't but express my Admiration, that this Gentleman should "have the face" to say that he "might insist on the Guilt of the Sufferers, and the Justice of the Government;" and to insinuate as if we were for "making Saints of Malefactors;" and to talk of ‘the Event's proving since, what the Government then saw of the Tendency of Nonconforming Practices’ &c. This (by the Connection) appears design'd for a Slur on the way of the old nonconformable Puritans, or first Dissenters; whose Memory this Gentleman just now express'd some Respect for, by calling them ‘the old HONEST Nonconformist Ministers.’ But, if in this he has spoken otherwise than he thought, and intended ‘nothing but Palaver and Complement’ to serve a present Turn, I shall not however say to him, as he to Elutherius in another Case (p. 17.) "Pray retract it: " No, but I patiently let him stand condemn'd out of his own Mouth, guilty of a palpable Self-Contradiction.— And as for his Reflections on the Sufferers after the Restoration, which are so full of Calumny and Abuse; what other Answer do they deserve, but that, Increpet te Dominus!

He has rak'd together all the Instances of Wickedness, he cou'd easily think of: But who must pass for the Criminals! Was it indeed the nonconforming Practices, that brought the Nation into the Confusion, he speaks of, with the Subversion of all Government civil and ecclesiastical! No; it was Tyranny in the State, and Persecution in the Church, that drove Things to those Extremities. The Event serves but to prove the Mischief of Impositions, and the destructive Tendency of Episcopal Bigotry and Rigour, and arbitrary Government. The inglorious Reign of K. Charles the First is now sufficiently unveiled; they were his arbitrary and illegal Practices, that bro't on the lamentable Series of Events, refer'd to: and the [Page] Practices of a Sett of Church-Men, who carry'd the Ecclesiastical Power extreme high, and had drawn a weak Prince over to their Interest, these help'd to hasten on the fatal Catastrophe. We are told by Mr. Bennet (Historical Account &c. p. 39. ‘This is to be observ'd, that the Bishops and Cathedralists had made themselves so obnoxious to the Parliament and the People, by their Affectation of Dominion over their Consciences in the last Convocation; and by the manifest Increase of Superstition, and encouragement of Superconformity, and a verging towards Popery, under the Direction of Arch Bp. Laud: that they cou'd not stand their Ground, even in a Parliament where there was scarce a Man but who was in full Communion with the Establish'd Church; and all this above a Year before the War was attempted, and before there was any such thing as a Presbyterian Church in England: And those who the year after manag'd the War, and headed the Armies upon the Account of Liberty, against the tyrannical Incroachment of the King and his Ministers, were Members of the Establish'd Church; as those were, who made the like noble Stand at the REVOLUTION.’ Dr. Burnet tells us, ‘The Duke of Hamilton was dissatisfy'd with the Courses some of the Bishops had follow'd, before the Troubles began; and cou'd not but impute their first Rise to the Provocations that had been given by them. (Memoirs, p. 408.)—"That m [...]ny of those who were for Episcopacy (says Mr. Tong, Def. of Mr. H's Enquiry, p. 138.) were highly offended at the Behaviour of some of the Bishops, appears by the Speeches of the Lords Falkland and Digby, both great Royalists: and for my part (says he) I desire no other Evidence of the intolerable Usurpations of the Laudensian Party, than what those noble Lords have given us.—The Nonconformists indeed generally joyn'd with the Parliament in that cause, which was doubtless as just and necessary, when first undertaken, as ever was carry'd upon the point of a Sword.’—But for the amazing Consequences of that dreadful War, it was as much out of the Power of the Presbyterians, as of the Episcoparians, to prevent 'em. Thank the Bishops and those other evil Counsellors about the King, that by fatally misleading him gave Birth and Life to the War, for all the Mischiefs that ensu'd upon it. ‘Authoriz'd Oppression, & Cruelty in Princes (as Seneca justly observes) are a War against Mankind; to murder whole Nations, is only a more glorious Wickedness; and wicked [Page] Examples (says he) seldom fail of coming home at last to the Authors themselves.’—But WHO were those our dear Brother paints in such bloody and horrible Colours, that were guilty of robbing and butchering all honest loyal Subjects they cou'd lay hands on? "Does he mean those that for above twenty Years together made a Trade of breaking into the houses of Protestant Dissenters, taking away their Effects, and casting them into Prisons, and suffering them to lie and perish there!" — And WHO were those that were guilty of demolishing Churches? Does he mean the infamous Sacheverel-Mob, who were once so busy in pulling down Presbyterian Churches!— By persecuting the Clergy in the most cru [...] manner, I wou'd fain know whether he had an Eye to the barbarous Outrages against honest Nonconformist Ministers in one evil Reign and another.—And whether by murthering the King, he means the dethroning K. James the Second and driving him out of his Kingdom by the terror of Arms taken up against him (which was virtually a cutting off his head) is left at some Uncertainty. Further, WHO were those men that were so great Incendiaries in the troublesome Times, and during the Usurpation promoted the Persecution of the poor Remains of the Royal and Church Party? Does he point to those Episcopal Clergymen, that actually bore Arms in the King's Service against the Parliament, and were (as Dr. Calamy says) famous for fighting and plundering the Country! or those that (as Dr. Fuller observes) cou'd not forbear printing and preaching Satyrs on the Times, and provoking the Government to Severity!—And when he speaks of some who solemnly swore to the League and Covenant, which horrid Impiety (he says) was truly the Cause of their after-Misery; Does he allude to those blessed Times (3 or 4 Years before the Civil War) when Arch bishop Laud was busy in swearing Clergy and Laity to Canonical Obedience and Superconformity, by the famous E [...]- [...]at ra-Oath: the End of which was to support the Hierarchy, Engaging all Persons in a Vow never to alter it; and the imposing of which gave such a general Alarm and Disgust to the Nation? Is this that unlawful Con [...]ederacy, he roars a-against? And when he tells us of some, that "thro' Indignation and Infatuation openly affronted the King, & acted against the Laws of the Church" &c. who does the Gentleman mean? Does he refer to the non-juring Schismaticks; who by doing those Things "hasten'd on their own Ruine and Misery, which they ought to have ascrib'd to a Divine Vengeance, pursuing them, [Page] "rather than to the Impiety o [...] their Governours" persecuting them. Surely of all Men, these Tory-Separatists seem to be the most possess'd with a Spirit of Infatuation; which God often leaves Men ‘to, when the Time of their Punishment for their former Wickedness is come.’ —"If I have not been so happy now as to hit upon the Gentleman's true meaning, in any of these Instances, he must blame himself for sculking so in Generals". But it may be I have been out, in every one of my Constructions; and the Gentleman was all this while levelling at the poor Dissenters. Be it so! We are then to understand him as speaking of the Dissenters, when he tells us (p. 15.) "All of them had the offer of keeping their Livings, tho' they were stolen, on Condition they would swear Fidelity to the King, and Obedience to the Laws, and under Oath renounce the impious League and Covenant."— Merciful Dispensation, to suffer the continuance of those Quondam-Rebels, even all of them, in stoln Livings; and this, when they had too long already kept the right Owners out, and upon such [...]asy Conditions! And if these were all the Conditions offer'd 'em, it's more merciful still, & truly very wonderful, that none of those, who had been irregular Intruders, shou'd be requir'd to submit to Reordination, by Episcopal Hands! Sure this was far from shewing the Church of England to be so rigid in her Judgment, as some of her Sons represent her: for certainly she wou'd not have dispens'd with her Canons, if she had judg'd the Mission of those ordain'd by mere Presbyters invalid.— (But I rather fear this Gentleman has forgot some of the Conditions.) And since the Terms were so easy; "as easy as they could expect"; how ungrateful, how sordid, how infatuated, must the Men be, to refuse them! Certainly the Reflection is very shocking! — And how bold were they, to go on with their Praying and Preaching for the Saving of Souls, when they were silenc'd by the glorious Act of Uniformity! How daring, to venture (on the most necessary Occasions) within the Limits of any Corporation, or Place where they had been Ministers, when they were under a merciful Sentence of Banishment to but five Miles Distance! Was not this to openly affront the King! Was not this to act against the Laws of the Realm! And how could they expect any other but by that Means to hasten on their own Ruin and Misery! How blind, that they could not see a Divine Vengeance following them for their Wickedness in these things! Amazing Stupidity, that they should ever have the least Tho't or Suspicion of any Impiety of their Governours, in depriving, crushing and ruining [...]'em!

[Page] I expect, Eusebius will be "put into a Ruffle by this Discourse," which will all pass for Banter with him: and it may add to his Discomposure, if I mention the Remark, which I have had running in my mind upon the View of his Pages under present Censure: This good Gentleman surely would be a bright Hand to write a Panegyrick on the admirably meek and gracious Archbishop LAUD, or the incomparably tender and humble Lord JEFFRIES! See what an excellent Spirit he is of! How little has he in him of the Spirit of Bigotry, Imposition, and Persecution! Which is what the World at this day explodes and readily calls (if any thing can be so) a Spirit of Infatuation. — I think fit to observe here, the History Elutherius has given, of the Treatment our Fore-fathers met with, serves to shew the true Spirit of High Church; and the Danger attending such, as upon certain Salvo's to a scrupulous Conscience venture within the Inclosures of the National Establishment: which is a sufficient Caution to us, against Conforming; and if we can't safely conform, we must e'en continue Nonconformists.

Sect. V. After the preceeding Remark, I will leave Eusebius to enjoy the Pleasure of his fine Speculations upon Wisdom and Folly (p. 16.) with his trifling Amusements that follow, about Safety and Danger. Referring him, if he needs an Answer, to the VINDICATION, where he'll meet with a full Reply upon the head of the safer Side (Pag. 53, to 64.) Only I wou'd observe; It is evident to all the wise and impartial World, that the first Planters of New England, for the body of 'em (I mean now in particular the Clergy) were such as ran not into the Errors of the Separatists, but were some of those old honest Nonconformist Ministers; who, when they had long waited for Amendments in the Ecclesiastical Constitution, whereof Hopes had been given them by many then in Power, and after all found the Church fixed in those Corruptions, which had so long been matter of fruitless Complaint, and the Spirit of Imposition and Persecution gradually advancing, which left no rational Prospect of the desired Reformation, upon this (I say) they turn'd their Thoughts to another Point, and judg'd it high time to seek a Retreat in some lawful and honourable Way. When they cou'd no longer enjoy Liberty of Conscience at home, they resolv'd to pursue it abroad: Cautious of going into the Brownistical Separation, they made a peaceable S [...]cession; leaving the Kingdom, and retiring into this distant uncultivated part [Page]of the World, as those that prefer'd Heaven and Conscience to all other Considerations. Here they studiously prosecuted the laudable Design of a further Reformation, and by the Blessing of God (who was pleas'd to own them in their great Undertaking, by many signal Tokens of his gracious Presence) they made some happy Advances Herein; in which Respects, Our Case appears to me vastly preferable to that of the National Church: as wou'd, I think, admit of the easiest Proof, were I at Leasure to run a Comparison†.—We had for certain a Right to reform, and vary from the Church of England, since we are beyond the Limits of the Parliamentary Acts establishing the Episcopal Hierarchy, and are by Royal Charter constituted distinct Colonies and Provinces, or Bodies Politick. We may justly claim as much Liberty and Privilege certainly as any Provincial Churches: and our Adversaries concede, that the Power of all Provinces is equal‖. As a Consequence of which, it must be granted, where some general Council or national Synod has not interpos'd its Authority, every Provincial Church is left to regulate their own Affairs according to their best Prudence, without any Obligation to Uniformity with other Churches in all Ceremonies. As judicious Hooker observes (Eccl. Pol. p. 160.) ‘Churches are rather in this Case like divers Families, than like divers Servants of one Family; because every Church, the state whereof is independent [i. e. as a Church] upon any other [Church] hath Authoritie to appoint Orders for it self in Things indifferent,’ or variable; among which he constantly reckons the Form of Church-Government. Dr. Stillingfleet allows of ‘the Separation or distinct Communion of whole Churches from each other.’ And he tells us (Misch. of Sep. p. 16—19.) ‘The true Notion of a Church is no more than of a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion.— Every Church thus Constituted (says he) we do assert to have a just Right of governing it self, and of reforming Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship. On which Ground, we are acquitted from the Imputation of Schism, [Page]in the Separation from the Roman Church; for we only resume our just Rights.’—Now the same say I in Defence of New England, with regard to our Variation from the Episcopal Church. And whereas Dr. Stillingfleet (Unreas. of Sep. p. 147, 8.) distinguishes and says, ‘By Separation I do not understand a meer Difference as to the way of Worship, which the Members of the foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy: For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches;—They never departed from ours, but only continue in the Communion of their [...] Churches:’ The like I say in behalf of the Body of the People in New England; They don't break off from the Communion of the Episcopal Church, but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches. We are therefore, by the avow'd Principles of this great Champion of the Church of England Cause, acquitted from the Guilt of Schism, yea of Separation. ‘For (as he argue, Ibid. p. 156.) a Man is not said to separate from every Church, where he f [...]bears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he [...] oblig'd to hold Communion [being a Member of it] and yet withdraws from it.’—This now shows at whose Door, according to him, the Charge of Schism and Separation must lie, whether ours, or our Episcopal Brethren's. And if these new Separatists have such a Value for this Doctor's Judgment, let them hear how he concludes upon the Matter (Ibid. p. 240, 1.) ‘I cannot yet see, by all that hath been said, how those that break the established Order in a Church, wherein all the Substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound, and set up particular independent Churches in Opposition to it, can acquit themselves from the Guilt of SCHISM, how great and intolerable soever it be thought.’ — Now it's most evident from the whole Tenour of the Doctor's Writings, that notwithstanding our particular way of Worship and Form of Church-Government, he holds us in the Roll of the Churches of God, which have all the Substantials of Religion in them. He often speaks of the New England Churches; and his Definition of a Church belongs to ours. And the Arguments he makes use of against Separation, are equally applicable by us against our Episcopal Separatists. Sure I am, the Unreasonableness of Separation falls heavily upon these New England Dissenters. For I'm confident, they can't object to us either of those Things, which the Doctor says may be the just Reasons of a Separation, viz. [Page] ‘heinous Error in Doctrine, or idolatrous Practice in Worship, or Tyranny over the Consciences of Men; which yet he observes (Ibid. p. 221.) may not be such as to destroy true Baptism, and therefore consistent with the Essentials of a Church.’ We are then true Churches, according to him: and pure Churches too; free from the Causes of a justifiable Separation. I may with the highest Justice now give our separating Brethren the Doctor's Words (Ibid p. 217, 8.) ‘There can be no way left to justify the Separation from our Church, but to prove, either that our Worship is idolatrous, or that our Doctrine is false, or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation: which are all so remote from any Colour of Truth, that none of our Adversaries have yet had the Hardiness to undertake it. —And I earnestly desire our Brethren, as they love their own Souls, and wou'd avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin, impartially and without Prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus (quoted by the Dr. Ibid. p. 212, 3.) and how parallel it is with their own Case who separate from us, and set up other Churches in Opposition to ours, which yet they acknowledge to be very orthodox, and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments.’

I might indeed address Eusebius in his own Language (p. 17.) ‘After so much plainly confessed, of the safety of our Communion, pray justify your self in leaving it, and using so much Pains to asperse a good and excellent Church,’—and so on to the end of the Paragraph. It is remarkable how unlucky this Gentleman is continually in the Choice of his Arguments, as well as Authors; which do but serve in the End to hit himself, and lash his own Error. And all the Revenge I care at present to take upon him for his hard Speeches, in the Close of that Paragraph, is this, Medice! cura te ipsum.

Sect. VI. Now for the Presbyterian Objections, relating to Oaths, Subscriptions, Licences &c. if (as Eusebius informs us, p. 18.) ‘they have been solidly answered, especially by Mr. Hooker and Bp. Hoadley,’ I have this to remark upon it, that those Objections have been as solidly supported and defended by Dr. Calamy , and others; who have also largely set forth the Objections that "affect Lay Communion."

And now since this Gentleman has call'd in a new Advocate [Page]for his Cause, Bp. Hoadly; I take Leave to put him upon trying how he can justify the Episcopal Separation in New England, by that Author's Principles, as exhibited in his Writings, even in his Controversy with Dr. Calamy.

I pass over Eusebius's mean Reflections on Elutherius (p. 19.) which serve only to give us? Picture of himself, and to point out "the Cause of his own Misfortune." Mutato Nomine de se Fabula narratur. Sure he had now forgot the Admonition given him but a little before (p. [...]5.) ‘Attalus told Eusebius, these Invectives carry nothing of Argument, and it were better to return to the Purpose.’

Upon what he offe [...]s next (p. 20, 21.) all I have Occasion to do, is again to retort, and put him to solve his own Difficulties. This Gentleman's ‘own Confessions, which I have already remark'd, shew that he himself does not think but that there may be HONEST Nonconformist Ministers: and if he might have remain'd an HONEST Nonconformist Minister, or a good Christian in the Communion of our Churches, what cou'd constrain him to desert it?’—The Point of Subjection to Ecclesiastical Laws, I leave him to dispute with Elutherius, who sufficiently answers what he has here suggested on that head. VINDIC. p. 41, 45.— I might go on in our Author's own Language (tho' it grates me, to repeat after him the Words of Crimination; I do it not in a way of Charge, but only to let him see how he likes his own opprobrious Language at second hand) and might say to him, as he to Elutherius;—‘Since you were required to give Adoration to none but the true God—&c. what cou'd make you uneasy and discontented, but your own EVIL, RESTLESS, AMBITIOUS Spirit? The Constitution of our Church has been sufficiently justify'd by Men of greater Sense and Abilities than you or I, and 'tis enough to refer you to those ingenious and learned Treatises’— But I'm e'en sick of transcribing such insipid and nauseous Stuff.

I will now relieve the Reader, and my self, with an entertaining and apposite Passage out of pious Bp. Hall's Works (p. 516, 7.) ‘It is an heavy Crime (says he) wherewith we are charged by the Romanists, That we are fallen off from the Catholick Church, that we have rent the s [...]emless Coat of Christ; — whereof if we were indeed guilty, how unworthy were we to breath in this Air? But we call Heaven and Earth to Record, how unjustly this Calumny is cast upon us, yea, we protest before God and Men, that the Envy of this [Page]so foul a Crimination lights most justly upon the Heads of the Accusers. May it please you to hear a short Apologue: A certain Man invited to a Feast one or two of his Friends; entertained them bountifully; They sat together lovingly, they are together, and were merry one with another: In the second Course (as the Custome is) the Master offereth them Wine, sets before them an Apple; now a Worme had somewhat eaten the Apple, and a Spider by Chance had fallen into the Cup; The GUEST sees and balks it: The MASTER urgeth him, Why do you not eat, quoth he, why drink you not? I dare not, saith the OTHER, 'tis not safe to do either; seest thou not this Vermine in the Cup, and that in the Apple? Tush, saith the MASTER, what so great matter is this? It was I, that set this before thee; it was I, that began to thee in the other; Drink it, eat it, at least for my sake. But, suffer me first (replies the GUEST) to take out this Spider, to cut out this Worme; the Wine, the Apple likes me well enough; the Spider, the Worme, I cannot away with. AWAY with such overnice and curious Companions (quoth HE againe) FY upon thee, thou ungrateful Fellow, that dost so little regard my Friendship, so contemn my Cheere: And with that, in a Rage, throws the Platters and Pots in the very Face of his Guest, and thrusts him out of doors all wounded. Tell me now, I beseech you, worthy Auditors, whether of these violates the Laws of Hospitality? I dare say you have easily applied it before me.—We have willingly departed from the Communion of their Errors; from the Communion of the Church we have not departed. Let them but cast away [the Spider in the Cup, the Worme in the Apple; what else be they, but Superstition in their Worship, rotten and unwholesome Traditions—? with out these, the Religion pleaseth us well: let them not thrust upon us] their Soul-slaying Traditions, we will communicate with them in the Right of one and the same Church, and remaine so for ever.’

I think now the Bishop's instructive Apologue tallies very well with Elutherius's diverting Fable of the Blood-Pudding (VINDIC. p. 43.) and serves to give Countenance to it; however ludicrous an Aspect it may have in so serious an Argument. The Moral of both is the same, and the Application easy. This now is sufficient to justify the Nonconformists against "all malepert Opposers." And what was before offer'd ‘is full Enough, Eusebius (I give you back your own Words, p 21.) [Page] to shew that you was no ways constrain'd by the force of rational Arguments, as you pretend, to leave the Communion of the Church, in which you were once a Pastor, and joyn with Dissenters: which is as much as I have undertaken, in order to refute the whole Argument of your Dialogue.’

Sect. VII. A short Interlude happens next. The Debate between Eusebius and Elutherius being now interrupted, we have Philalethes taking a Turn in the controversial Conversation (p. 22, 23.) But I must beg this Gentleman's Pardon, if I observe, his Head seems, like Eusebius's, to have grown giddy, upon their Voyage for Episcopal Orders: which makes him stumble too on plain Ground; he also forgets what Part of the World he's now in, and that all Arguments don't alike [...]ute every Climate.

We'll for once allow him his Plea, ‘That the Church of Christ has Power to make Orders and Rules, for Regulating its Discipline, and prescribing how her Clergy shall be admitted &c.’ But what's this to the present Purpose? Or what Advantage will he get by it? I beg this Gentleman to inform me, what Church of Christ it is, that has interpos'd her Authority to make Rules and Orders for us in New England. He well knows, that the Act of Uniformity is limited, and do's not extend to the Plantations: So that we lie without the Pale of the establish'd national Church. He well knows also, that in several of these Charter-Government, the Civil Powers have given their highest Countenance, by reasonable Laws and Orders, to the Ministry and Discipline of the New England Churches: and have not our Province-Laws receiv'd the Royal Sanction! If there be any thing then in his Plea, that affects the Controversy before us, it will turn out in our favour: and he must be oblig'd to relinquish the Pretence. I may borrow some of the Words of Dr. Stillingfleet, and apply them to the Occasion: ‘This Argument therefore must be quitted; and they who will defend the present Separation, must return to the old Principles of the Separatists, if they will justifie their own Practices. And so I find Mr. Philalethes is forced to do: for discerning that the Pretence of" Church-Power and Establishments "wou'd not hold of it self, he adds more Weight to it,’ and calls in the Help of Jus Divinum, which ‘comes home to the Business, and brings us to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry.’ [Unreas. of Sep. p. 118.] — The [Page]Gentleman takes Sanctuary in his Jure Divino; the sole Refuge left him: And "a Couple of LETTERS written by a dear Friend of" Philalethes, which he "seems to be much charm'd with," are here "held out," and applauded, as containing Wonders, even ‘clear Proofs that the original Government of the Church was Episcopal,’ &c. (p. 23.) I shall reserve the Consideration of them to their proper Place: and must now attend to the Conference between Eusebius and Elutherius, which revives afresh, and proceeds a little further upon the Business in hand.

Sect. VIII. Here (p. 24.) we find Eusebius undertaking to ‘examine the most weighty Arguments of Elutherius in his Dialogue, against the Episcopal Constitution, and in Justification of of the Presbyterian Scheme.’

The first Argument he pitches on, is what Elutherius occasionally suggested (Dial. p. 5.) That ‘a Prelate at best is but a human Creature, and not of Christ's Appointing.’ This indeed was design'd more immediately against the Lordship and Jurisdiction of the Bishops. But Eusebius (p. 26.) says ‘Tis certain it was design'd for a Slur upon Episcopal ORDINATION;’ and makes a mighty Improvement of the harmless Passage, insinuating, as if Elutherius intended to argue, that ‘a Bishop or Prelate can have no Power to Ordain; because being a mere humane Creature himself, he can't make a Divine one, i. e. a Minister of Jesus Christ. Upon which he exclaims, If Eleutherius strikes thus high, he will UNDO us all, &c.’

Now in Answer to these Remarks, I'll attempt two Things—

1. To point out several Senses, in which Elutherius's Proposition may be safely understood, and in which it must be acknowledg'd to be true.

Here let it be observ'd, the Prelate spoken of is of the English Stamp, a Diocesan Bishop; and now I say, this Prelate at best is but a human Creature, as deriving his whole Power from human Constitutions, having no external Jurisdiction but what he derives from the State, & dependent upon the Crown for his very Being. The Apostle says, We know that an Idol is nothing in the World: So I may say of Prelacy, We know it is nothing in the World, in point of Divine Right. Just as our Author (I hope) would say of the Romish Papacy, it is at best a mere human Creature; so say we of English Prelacy: which is manifestly founded upon, and directed and limited by the Laws of the Nation. Some of the best Defenders of Episcopacy have [Page]acknowledg'd, there's no such Thing as a strictly Diocesan Prelate to be found in Scripture: and if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God, it must derive from the Civil Magistrate and Laws of the State. ‘And indeed what is it (as one observes) that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England? He may elect the Person, and does so in Reality; for he nominates authoritatively. He may multiply Bishops ad libitum; and if he pleases, may appoint one in every Parish. He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases: for the Lay-Chancellors, who judicially excommunicate or absolve, have their Commission to do it from the King, not from the Bishop; and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter, as in the Peculiars, they have in divers Parts of England: A certain Proof, that the Bishop's Jurisdiction is only by human Right. Lastly, the Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops, when they see just Cause: and this Power has been so lately exerted, that it needs no further Proof. I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops were not divested of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. That which induces me to mention this is, I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert, that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time: therefore if the former were not divested of their Power, I see not how the succeeding Incumbents could have any by their own Rule; and so their Ordinations would be null, if the others be valid. To say, that the depriv'd Prelates had the Power still, but were restrained from the Exercise of it, would be to confront the Act of Parliament [in the Case of the Bishops depos'd at the Revolution] which says expresly, they are deprived of their Office, and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the Exercise of their Office, and being deprived of the Office it self.—Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough, that the English Prelacy is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate, who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop, if he pleases; their whole Power (as distinct from Presbyters) being founded upon the Laws of the Land.’ — Thus the learned Mr. Tong, in his ingenious Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry (p. 53, to 60.) where this grand Point is largely argu'd, and Objections answer'd.

But perhaps it will tend more to Eusebius's Conviction, if I produce one of his own Authors. This therefore I will do, [Page]and I pitch upon Bp. Hoadly; who in his elaborate. Argument on the Case of the depriv'd Bishops, upon the glorious Revolution (see Bp. of Bang [...]r's PRESERVATIVE, p. 9. &c. p. 33, &c.) furnishes us with a fair Key (very nigh the same with that of Mr. Tong) to that mystical Passage of Elutherius. He has learnedly demonstrated, that the Bishops Right of executing their Office ariseth from an human Original, i. e. the Nomination of the Civil Magistrate. ‘This Nomination (says he) is vested in the Crown by the Laws: and is ultimately resolv'd into the supreme Authority of the Nation: Consequently, therefore, what is given, may be taken away, by the same Authority &c." And it's remarkable "The words of the Act (says he) declare them [i. e. the Bishops deprived] to be depriv'd from their OFFICES, as well as their Dignities" &c.— And therefore it was "A total Deprivation, and made them cease to be Bishops, as to any RIGHT (properly so called) of executing their Offices.’ Now my Remark upon it is, That this plainly argues an English Prelate in Effect to be (in Elutherius's terrible Language) at best but a human Creature; It shows, that Prelacy is in the Eye of the Civil Magistrate, and in Fact and Practice, but an accidental human Creation only. This is a Conclusion, that seems to me to follow from the Premises, as naturally and clearly as Light from the Sun. However at least it appears evident "beyond the Possibility of a Reply"(to use a High Church Phrase) that an English Prelate at the worst, that is, a depriv'd Bishop, is even at the best but a human Creature; unable, if he has any latent Power, to put it in Exercise, or perform any regular and (and in the Eye of the Law) valid Act of Authority, in point of Ordination or Jurisdiction. And if so, I fear me, this STRIKES HIGH indeed, and casts an odious Reflection somewhere, even upon Ordinations. Now let Eusebius turn the Fury of his severe Resentments from Elutherius, and fall foul on his own Advocate the Bishop, for "designing to cast a SLUR upon Ordinations, upon Episcopal Ordinations" too (which it verily seems he has done in fact) and that the blackest of Slurs, upon some of 'em; even "the infamous Blot of Usurpation without a true Right."

But further I will lay before Eusebius one Consideration, that may serve as an Argumentum ad hominem, upon the Point we have in hand. I conclude, this Gentleman himself will confess, that an English Prelate is at best but a mere human Creature, if it can be prov'd he has no authentick Episcopal [Page]Consecration; which it will appear, upon his Principles, no Bishop in England at this day has a just Claim to, if it can be made out, that there has been a Breach of regular Succession at any time, evident and notorious. Now that there was in fact such a Breach, even at the Reformation, I vouch in an Episcopal Author for my Witness; whose Authority, Argument and Advice may have some Weight with this Gentleman. See a LETTER to the Rev. Mr. PEERS, Vicar of Faringdon, By a CLERGYMAN (London, printed Anno 1716.) Of which one informs us, "It deservedly met with good Acceptance from the World." There you will find the following Paragraphs. (p. 43. and onwards.) ‘We have been taught, I know, to assert the Necessity of Episcopal Ordination, in a Succession from the Apostles: but if that is to be done at all, it shou'd be done with Caution, even in our Sermons, but never in Print, because that Succession must be deriv'd thro' the Romish Church, which has been divided into great Schisms, and at last was so corrupted, so chang'd from the Model of Christ and his Apostles, that we were forc'd to separate from her. And when we did so, how was the Succession preserv'd!— Perhaps you have not read this Part of our History, and therefore I'll set down a Passage or two from Bp. BURNET'S History of the Reformation, with my own Observations, which you may peruse at your Leasure.’ I shall for Brevity leave out the historical Passages he quotes at large, yet referring to the Places, where he says they may be found; Vol. II. Fol. 378, 396, 402, 403. — And only give you in Parentheses, what is necessary to clear the Clergyman's Observations upon 'em, which are these. He says (p. 48.) ‘Having quoted Bp. Burnet pretty largely on the Case, you may expect I shou'd set down his Opinion of it; but truly, his Lordship seems to give up the Point, and rather excuses it from the Confusion the Church was then in, than offers at a plain Vindication. However, upon the whole, 'tis plain, our Reformers were under some Difficulties in this Affair of the Consecration [viz. of Archbishop Parker; the See of Canterbury being vacant by the Death of Card, Pool, as also were some other Sees, at Queen Elisabeth's Accession] Otherwise the first Commission [or Warrant for Parker's Consecration] wou'd not have been directed to three Bishops, who had forfeited their Sees by an Act of Parliament pass'd that very Year, Or (upon their re [...]using to [Page]act) the second, to one quondam Bishop (whom they never restor'd ) two Bishops elect, and two Suffragans: [the two old Bishops, the only ones, with Sees, named in the Commission, had no manner of Share in the Consecration; only one of the Suffragans assisted, who, as the Case then stood (says the Bp.) I am afraid cou'd have no Power to do it.] Especially, if we further observe, That in the Letters Patents for the Consecration of the first Bishops, the QUEEN, for avoiding all Ambiguity, and Questions, that might be objected against the same; hath, by her SUPREME Power and Authority, DISPENSED with all Causes and doubt of any IMPERFECTION or DISABILITY, that can, or may, be objected to it. This, as the Statute says, was a Caution which had not been us'd in Letters Patents of the same Nature; and therefore may give one Reason to suspect, that the Legality of the Proceeding was not so clear, as one cou'd wish it: and this Suspicion is confirm'd by the Act of Parliament, which pass'd in the Eighth Year of her Reign, Declaring all the Consecrations, that had been since the Queen's Accession, VALID;’ any Matter

Thing, that can, or may, be objected to the Contrary, notwithstanding; ‘— PROVIDED, that no Person &c. — This Proviso refers to the Statute of the 5th of Q Eliz. cap. 1. By which, all Archbishops, and Bishops, are empower'd to tender the Oath of Supremacy —. So that the Parliament, tho' they confirm'd the Bishops in their Sees; yet not confirming, but on the Contrary, excepting, and vacating those Acts of theirs which regarded the Liberty and Property of a third Person, have virtually declar'd, that they did not look upon 'em as good Bishops before this Act pass'd; for if they had been, these Tenders of the Oath, which they made as Bishops, and under the Sanction of an Act of Parliament, wou'd have been valid.’

‘Besides (as he goes on to observe) if we put our Cause on the Foot of a Divine Commission, will not the Sectaries retort upon us, That either the Popish Bishops had a Divine Commission, or they had none: If they had, how cou'd they be depriv'd of it, even by an Act of Parliament; and consequently, what Right had those who succeeded them? If they had not, how came we by it, who claim under their [Page]Consecrations? So that I think, instead of insisting loudly on our Divine Right, as you and other indiscreet Men have done; we had better let that Matter pass over in S [...]lence (unless now and then we introduce it in the Pulpit) and rest upon our National, Legal Establishment, which will serve our Turn as well.’— The Clergyman concludes his Letter, with a just Reprehension to Mr. Peers (which is applicable perhaps to many others of his Brethren) saying, ‘I cou'd not forbear letting you know, that I think weak Arguments betray the Cause they are brought to support, and that our Church has suffer'd (and unless more Care be taken in the Choice of our Champions, is likely to suffer) more by the Folly of its Friends, than by the Malice of its Enemies.’— Now, I appeal to Eusebius, whether the manifest Defect of Canonical Ordination in Parker's Case, as it is represented by the Clergyman, do's not infer a Breach of regular Succession: and if the Legality of all the following Consecrations depended entirely on Parker's, who then from a private Clergyman was promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Canterbury, I leave Eusebius to draw the Consequence: Expecting he will cry out, Verily this Gentleman STRIKES HIGH with a Witness, I had almost said, with a Vengeance: higher still than even Bp. Hoadly; the Bp. as high as the Revolution, but this Clergyman as high as the very REFORMATION, and will UNDO us all indeed.— Ay, that he will, Eusebius, if your darling Principles be true: but as WE have not so learn'd Christ, the Reformation shines yet gloriously in our Eyes, and the Succession is still secure and good. And truly You must be oblig'd to Presbyterian Principles, to make out the Validity of your Episcopal Ordinations: Or I doubt, there remains not a good Bishop in England; but they must all be voted at the best mere human Creatures, upon your own Plan. Thus we have seen Elutherius's terrible UNDOING Position confirm'd in two Senses, which it fairly admits of; the one Consideration was of a Political, the other of an Ecclesiastical Nature

There is another Sense I will now mention, which the Position may also be taken in, and in which it must be acknowledg'd undoubtedly true; and that is, a Prelate, consider'd RESPECTIVELY, or Relatively, is but a human Creature: First, respectively to Eusebius himself; Secondly, to us in New England.

Will Eusebius dare to say, A Prelate in Relation to him is any thing more than a mere human Creature, without all Power to ordain! For how Divine soever a Bp. be simply in himself, [Page]yet Respectively he is at best but a human Creature, and can't pretend to work the MIRACLE of transforming an unbaptiz'd Laick into a Christian Minister. That's a moral Impossibility!

I take this Opportunity to invite Eusebius, with his Fraternity, to a more serious Reflection upon their own real State, in point of visible Christianity: and beg he will for Charity sake give Satisfaction to some Scruples, a solution to certain Difficulties, arising on that head.— Sir, I solemnly put the Question, Can you upon your professed Principles make out an authentick Claim (foro Ecclesiae) to the Character of Christian? I insist on a generous and direct Answer. Pray, do your self Justice, upon this Occasion; and let the Secret come abroad, if you have ever received any other than Lay-Baptism. For if not, I must have Leave to doubt, the Bishop's Hand has no such miraculous Virtue, as to supply the ESSENTIAL Defect in that Case. Certainly, my Friend, if as a Christian Professor you are of a LAY-Extract, you can't as a Christian Minister challenge any higher Original. You may well look on your self still, notwithstanding your Episcopal Orders, but a pretending Laick, as much as before. Surely you must needs receive Conviction by this, that Respectively to You, at least a Prelate is at best but a human Creature: for it was impossible for him to make a Divine one of You; I mean, of one in your Circumstances; a mere human Creature, without Episcopal Baptism. Read now, and apply to your self what you find pertinent to your Case, in Rom. 2.17—23.

It remains, that we consider the Prelates in Relation to us, the Ministers and Churches of New England. I premise this Observation, That a Prelate is a relative Term, and (as one expresses it) always connotes a BISHOPRICK, as his Charge and Cure. The Prelate's Power is limited, and none is Bishop of another Man's Diocese, nor can the Bishops display their Power in such Parts even of England, as are exempted by Law from Prelatical Jurisdiction, and govern'd by Courts held by dignify'd Presbyters. The Bp. (notwithstanding his specious Title of chief Governor) passes but for a mere human Creature in the Peculiars: and why shou'd he pass for any other among us in New-England, who are at least as much privileg'd as they! Certainly the Regal Authority, having the Right of Nomination, has equal Pretences to the Right of Suspension: the same Authority that gives the Power of external Jurisdiction, may lay what Restriction is thought fit, on the Exercise of it, either total or [Page]partial, & exempt any part of the King's Dominions there from [...]ow such has been the ROYAL GRACE to New England in [...]is Particular, that we are indulg'd with the great and INESTIMABLE. Privilege of an INTIRE EXEMPTION from Episcopal Impositions, by the excellent Establishment, Charter and Laws, we are under. So that altho' in a Civil Consideration we are dependent Provinces, and gladly will ever remain so (loyal to the Crown, and dutiful to the Mother-Kingdom) yet we are (in fact and right) independent Churches; by the Royal Indulgence, resign'd to a perfect Liberty in Ecclesiastical Regards. Surely the Prelates are all in Effect DEPRIV'D Bishops, as to us; depriv'd by a most sufficient Authority, to all Intents and Purposes. But if I am so very unhappy as to have been mistaken, I desire Eusebius to be so kind, as to set me right, and inform us WHOSE Diocese we pertain to, that we may be no longer ignorant who is our Bp. Will he undertake to decide the grand Dispute at this day between the Bp. of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury! For my own part, I know of no Act of Parliament, that vests the Title in the Bp. of London; without which, his Claim is merely presumptive. But it may be, this Gentleman will think it his wisest way, to say, we are as yet only subject to the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction, like the Peculiars in England. Well, to this it's answered, ‘They are no otherwise under it (and consequently we are no more under it) than even the BISHOPS are: and the prelatical Party themselves acknowledge, that Archbishops are but of Human Institution.’ We may therefore without all hazard, conclude, that a Prelate is at best but a human Creature Respectively, & in Relation to us Whether you look upon him in a Legal or an Ecclesiastical Consideration, he is unto us, I say, at best a more human Creature.

Upon the whole then, what has this Writer got by his noisy Bustle and Outcry against that hurtless Passage of Elutherius! Here indeed we have Eusebius's Master-Objection, and what he values himself most upon; or to allude to a Phrase of his own, "triumphs upon, as the foundation of the finest Flourishes in his Dialogues." But I flatter my self, the Flowers are cropt and spoil'd, and his Triumphs at an End.

I come now to the other Thing I had in View.

2. I am to do Justice to Elutherius, in giving the true Sense of the Passage under Consideration, as intended by him: which alone wou'd have suffic'd presently to dissipate the furious Storm rais'd upon this slight Occasion.

[Page] And as I observ'd before, this Passage, as it stands in the Dialogue, has evidently an immediate Relation to the Bishop's Jurisdiction. 'Tis level'd against the Constitution, and Frame of the English Hierarchy in general; but more particularly against the ‘imposing of their Minister (as the manner is) upon a Congregation, without the People's Consent: which Elutherius thinks an unsufferable Lordship over them. And therefore says, I care not to be set over a People in this L [...]r [...]y manner.—I cannot but complain of the Spiritual Courts &c.— Nor do I find any Warrant for the Ecclesiastical Authority exercis'd over both Ministers and People in the Bishop's Name. If there be— shew it me; if not, you'l allow me to refuse your Hierarchy &c.’ (Dial. p. 6, 7.) These are his express Words: and you see, they apparently respect Things consequential to Ordination. And as it unluckily happens, Eusebius himself brings in the Passage he cavils at, expresly under the head of ‘what Eleutherius has said against the Episcopal CONSTITUTION,’ (p. 24) yet quickly forgeting this, and resolv'd upon a perverse Comment, he afterwards treats the disputed Sentence as particularly referring to ORDINATION, and has the Front to say to Elutherius (p. 26.) ‘It is CERTAIN, You design'd a Slur upon our Ordination among your vulgar Readers, by your unfair Insinuation, when you call a Prelate a human Creature, and your Ordinations such as are according to Christ's Institution, p. 9. as though ours were not so.’ This, however, is a Consequence far fetcht, "as any one may see with half an Eye," comparing pages 5th & 9th: For at that Distance the two Premises stand, from which he makes up his formidable Conclusion.

Well! Nevertheless, to give him the fairest Play he can desire, I will for once suppose Elutherius's Words to come in under the head of Ordination, as an Objection against the Episcopal Way. But what mighty Use will our Adversary be able to make of this Concession, in Prejudice to the Argument in hand! Why, let this Gentleman put his own uncouth and ill-natur'd sense upon the Words so apply'd, and then it will furnish out a little Rant upon Elutherius. But certainly a small Degree of Candour (that friendly Candour we all upon Occasion need some Assistance from, and none perhaps more than Eusebius and I) wou'd have taught this Gentleman to pit the favourable Construction, which he knew well enough the Words wou'd admit of, and cou'd not rationally think a [...] other was intended. Yet observe, when Elutherius says, [Page] "a Prelate is at best but a human Creature," this Gentleman will have him intend to divest the Bp. of his whole ministerial Character, and leave him without the common Powers of the Clergy. Verily He might as well have infer'd, that he meant, a Prelate is not a Christian, any more than a Divine: or truly he might as well have infer'd, he meant to insinuate, that a Bp. is a Fool; for so still he wou'd be a human Creature. — But I'm asham'd of his trifling Cavils, and his ‘unfair Insinuation, which cou'd not be design'd for any thing but a SLUR upon Elutherius, among his vulgar Readers.’ He well enough knew, however the Words may sound, Nothing more was really intended by 'em, than that ‘Prelacy it self is not of Divine Appointment, but of human Invention’: and he saw it so explain'd by Elutherius himself, in those very Terms. (Dial. p. 7.) This Gentleman could have distinguish'd, if he had pleas'd, between the Person and the Character: or rather between the constitutive Character of Minister, and the accumulative Character of Prelate. The first is from Heaven: the second is of the Earth. Prelates, as such, Elutherius denies to be of a Divine Make [...] but yet consider'd in another Light, i. e. as Ministers, he denies not their being of Christ's appointing.

Accordingly Eusebius at length do's him the Justice, to make a Distinction, and bring him in saying, ‘I never deny'd Bishops the power of ordaining as PRESBYTERS, but only as Prelates.’ Truly it was a Thing too notorious to be dissembled, that Elutherius has never once seem'd to call in Question the Validity of a Bishop's Ordination, i. e. of Ordination by a Bishop in Conjunction with other Presbyters. All that he disputes, is the Necessity of a Prelate in Ordination, and the Regularity of the English Episcopal Manner of Ordination, taken in all its Circumstances, as he has set them forth at large. (Dial. p. 8, 9.) And the very worst he can be suppos'd to aim at, was (as he expresses himself, Ibid.) ‘the assigning Reasons why he esteem'd Presbyterian Ordination every way preferable to Ordination by Bishops.’ Now certainly, so far as Episcopal Ordination is attended with Circumstances IRREGULAR and UNSCRIPTURAL, "the want of Christ's Appointment," with respect to those Things, might fairly be objected in Plea against it, and be assign'd as a Reason for refusing Ordination in that Manner, and "seeking Ordination (as he has expressed it) where all these Abuses may be regulated." And this the rather, since in the present agreable Posture of Affairs, as the Door of publick Liberty stands open to P [...]otestant [Page]Dissenters at home, so the Anti-Prelatical Way is the primitive & prevailing Way of New England, ESTABLISH'D by ancient Custom, general Agreement, and the Recommendation of Civil Authority; which gives as good a Sanction to it, as the Episcopal Way has in the Mother-Country. Prelatical Ordination is "a Deviation from a settled Method, [...]ful in our Judgment, without a Necessity for such a Deviation." I borrow the Language from Bp. Hoadly; and if there be any Strength in the Argument, as he applies it against Dr. Calamy, it must be allow'd to have the same Force in my Application of [...] against Eusebius. I will also borrow a few Words from Dr. Calamy (Mod. None. P. III. p. 425.) who having spoken of the unwarrantable Clogs attending Episcopal Ordination, takes Occasion to say; ‘In that respect, I sha [...]'t stick to declare, that I no more approve of the Method of the Church of England, than of the Method even of the Brownists. I no more think, that a Separation to the Office of the Ministry, with such Clogs superadded, is approved of God, regular, and warranted by Scripture, than I do, that a Separation to the Office, without any Concern of Ministers, is so, where their Judgment and Help can be had.’ The superadded Engagements on the one side, are as bad as the Omission on the other: and as little dispensable in our Opinion.

Sect. IX. Eusebius shews a remarkable Confidence (not to say, Baseness) by insinuating again, notwithstanding the Distinction and Caution before given him, as if Elutherius really intended to deny the Validity of Episcopal Ordinations; "Which (says he, p. 26.) you would fain NULL." Verily one wou'd think, this Gentleman was so possess'd with the Nullity of Presbyterian Ordination, that it has strange Effects upon him; his Brain seems addl'd, and he talks as if he could not muse upon any thing, but Nullity, NULLITY! The Word sounds in his Ears continually, in the manner of an Echo; and he fancies he hears it from all Quarters, on every Occasion. As Ill-will is is always jealous, he imagins his Opponent must needs be haunted with the same evil nullifying Spirit, as himself. —Again, COMMISSION, SUCCESSION, LAY-DERIVATION, are Ecclesiastical Terms of Art and Cant, favorite and familiar Terms (I doubt not) with this Gentleman. Upon which I must recall to his Mind a beautiful and pertinent Period of his own (p. 14) ‘YOU LOVE TO HARP upon those Things, that you think will move People's Affections to OUTRUN THEIR REASON.’

[Page] Eusebius (p. 26.) with a formidable Dilemma pushes at us: but we don't feel our selves at all go [...]'d by either of its hor [...]s. As for his Presbyters, let 'em shift for themselves: Our Concern is to vindicate our own. And we are not so [...]ond, we confess, of an uninterrupted Line of Succession, nor much scar'd at the Consequences of a Breach in the Chain. We are not afraid of "pretending to a Commission to begin a new Succession," sufficient to the Purpose, whether it be immediate or only mediate, if there were Occasion. This Gentleman, I believe, labours of some Confusion in his Thoughts about the Nature of Ordination, and has not learn'd yet the necessary Distinction between Commission and Investiture; which are certainly very different Things. To help his Understanding a little, I will illustrate the Matter by a familiar Case of the like Nature. The Massachusetts Explanatory Charter gives to our House of Representatives the Power of chusing a SPEAKER, and to the Governor the Power of approbating him: yet neither the Election nor the Approbation do's properly constitute or make him Speaker; but it's the King, who does this, by the Charter, as his Instrument. The King appoints the Officer: They only design the Person. The King gives the Commission: They only the Investiture. The Commi [...]sion gives the Power: and the Investiture leads on the regular Exercise of it. Now 'tis the same in the Case before us. The People chuse, and the Presbytery approbate by solemn Rites and publick Actions: thus the consenting Candidate becomes regularly invested, and introduc'd into the Exercise of those Powers, which are given to Ministers by the Gospel, the fundamental Charter of the Church. The sacred Scriptures are the Minister's Letters of Credence, which give him all his Authority. Hence Dr. Stillingfleet observes; ‘The Pastors of the Church ought to be receiv'd but according to that Power and Authority, which their CREDENTIALS, viz. the Scriptures, do CONVEY to them.’ (Rat. Acco. Prot. Relig. p. 260.) Let Eusebius read also what his judicious Hooker (Eccl. Pol. p. 331, &c.) has offer'd in Confutation of the Allegorical Argument taken from a STOLEN SEAL; which is so commonly bro't against Presbyterian Baptism and Orders, to prove them null, and us quilty of Forgery and Sacrilege. What will Eusebius make of those Remarks of the Ecclesiastical Politician; (p. 332.) ‘That God hath committed the Minist [...]rie of Baptisme unto special Men, it is for ORDER'S sake in his Church, and not to the End that their Authoritie might give B [...]ing or add Force to the [Page]Sacrament if selfe.’ (p. 333.) The Worke of external Ministerie "in Baptisme is onely a Preeminence of Honor."—He defines Ordination (p. 124.) "a solemn Admittance." And (p. 435.) he observes, ‘That the onely true and proper Act of Ordination is, to INVEST Men with that Power which doth make them Ministers, by consecrating their Persons to God and his Service in holy Things.— They are by virtue thereof bequeathed unto God, severed and sanctified to be imployed in his Service. (p. 434.)— Which Men, thereunto assigned, doe hold their Authoritie from God (Who should give them their Commission, but HE?) whether they be such as Himselfe immediately or as the CHURCH in his Name investeth. (p. 410.)—And he observes (p. 322.) External Cir [...]umstances, even in the highest and holiest Actions, are but the lesser Things of the Law (Matth. 23.23.) whereunto those Actions themselves being compared are the greater; and therefore as the greater are of such Importance that they must be done, so in that Extremitie before supposed [in Cases of Necessity] if our Acount of the lesser which are not to be omitted, should cause Omission of that which is more to be accounted of, were not this our strict Obedience to Christ's Institution touching Mint and Commin, a Disobedience to his Institution concerning Love?— AWAY with these mercilesse and bloodie Sentences! Let them never bee found standing in the Books and Writings of a Christian Man: They savour not of CHRIST, nor of his most gracious and me [...]ke Spirit, but under Colour of exact Obedience they nourish Crueltie and Hardness of Heart.’ Now let this be apply'd to the Case we are upon; and I think it sufficient to solve all the Difficulties about beginning a new Succession &c. I shall add here that Passage of Mr. Chillingworth (Relig of Prof. p. 354.) ‘There is no Repugnance in the Terms, but that there might be a true Church after Luther, though there was none for some Ages before. For it does not appear (says he) that the Generation of Churches is univocal; that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church.— For a false Church may preserve the MEANS — of raising a true Church; I mean the Integrity and Authority of the WORD of God with Men.’

Eusebius go's on; ‘The most of you indeed have so mingled your Succession from Episcopacy, with LAY-DERIVATIONS, by uniting with the Independents, that 'tis hard to say, what Foundation you now stand upon.’ Well, what then! Surely we have no [Page]more Reason to be afraid, than himself, of the terrible Consequence of these Lay-Derivations, which he supposes have been mingled with our Succession from Episcopacy. I answer him, in his own Words (p. 42) "This would be but a Gingle, if you did suppose so, and not at all serve you." Eusebius's LAY-DERIVATIONS make a pleasant Chime with the Bishop's LAY-DEPRIVATIONS, we heard of before: and as it happens, the Words vary but in one trifling Letter. Now when this Gentleman will undertake to defend the latter, and ward off its evil Consequences; I believe I shall be able, on the same or as good Grounds, easily to defend the former, and hold up a Shield against its formidable Train of Consequences, how tragically soever they are represented. For, methinks, the Consequences will come out pretty much the same, and equally affect the Business of Ordination.—And if he could prove, that we have in fact so mingled our Succession from Episcopacy with Lay-Derivations, as he says, the Gingle would not serve him, nor do I know how it would hurt us. In short, when Eusebius will undertake to prove, he is a true Christian, notwithstanding his Lay-Baptism, I will attempt to prove, I am a true Minister of Christ, notwithstanding any Lay-Derivation, possible in my Case, "by uniting with the Independents." Truly, I fear, this Gentleman and his Fraternity, have mingled, shall I say? or defiled their U [...]ion to Episcopacy, in as bad a sense as we have our Succession from it, with Lay-Derivations. What a foul Mixture is Lay Baptism and Apostolical Ordination! Is not this a mingling Heaven and Earth together! I may return him his own Language, ‘It is hard to say, what Foundation you now stand on; and you might have justified your selves better upon INDEPENDENT Principles: but only you are something too late; having all of you for some time past agreed to set the Laity aside, as having no Part or Lot in this Affair; so that having asserted the Right of Ordination to be, not in the People, nor in the Presbytery, but wholly and only in the Bishop, by Christ's Institution, you have nulled all Lay-Ordinations,’ and therefore all Lay-Baptisms; the Consequence of which is, you have fairly null'd your own Ordination, tho' done by an Episcopal Hand. For your Lay-Baptism was an Error in the first Concoction, that cou'd not be mended in the second. The application of an Episcopal Hand has not yet the virtue of such a sovereign Alterative, as by any secret Operation, to change your moral Constitution, and cure your old Distemperature.—Certainly an unbapti [...]'d Minister is as odd a Concrete, as gross a Solecism, [Page]as can readily be thought of. You had better verily have stuck to your Independent Principles: you wou'd then have stood on a surer Foundation, than the fruitless subsequent Act of Episcopal Ordination, which can't confirm a Nullity.

And now, if you wou'd know how we can justify our selves upon INDEPENDENT Principles, I might refer you to almost all the celebrated Authors, that have wrote in Defence of the Reformation, Episcopal as well as others; whom you will find leaning very much to Independent Principles, and defending the Reformation upon this grand Principle of the Independents. That the Body of the Faithful have all Ecclesiastical Power lodg'd with them, in the last Resort, for the Security & Preservation of the Church. But perhaps it may contribute more to this Gentleman's Satisfaction and Conviction, if I can produce something to the purpose out of the Authors he himself has alledg'd against us in the present Dispute. Let him please then to consult his own (shall I say? or rather our) applauded STILLINGFLEET In his Rational Account of the Protestant Religion, he has many Passages to our Purpose. I shall single out these few. See Pag. 53, 54. ‘A Church— is only a Combination of Men together, upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation; and for the Performance of those Acts of Worship which are suitable thereto.— We must distinguish those Things in the Catholick Church, which give its Being, from those Things which are the proper Acts of it, as the Catholick Church. As to this latter, the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him, is necessary; in order to which there must be supposed lawful OFFICERS set in the Church, and Sacraments duly administred: But THESE, I say, are rather the EXERCISE of the COMMUNION of the Catholick Church [...] than that which gives it its BEING; which is, the Belief of that Religion, whereupon its Substance and Unity depends; and as long as a Church retains this, it keeps its Being, though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due Exercise of all Acts of Communion in it.— Whatsoever Church imposeth the Belief of OTHER things as necessary to Salvation, which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church, doth, as much as in it lies, BREAK the Unity of it; and those Churches, who desire to preserve its Unity, are bound thereby not to have Communion with it so long as it doth so.’ — These now are right Reformation-Principles: and who does not see that these are the very [Page]Spirit of Independentism! I am one that happens to be ‘united with the Independents,’ and shou'd know their Principles. If the Harmony between the Doctor and us be call'd upon Trial, I appeal to the Judgment of Mr. LOWTH, a zealous Episcopalian. "The immediate Result of this arguing, says he upon these Passages (Letter to Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 67.) is ‘—That a Man may be a Christian, and not a Church-Member: That the Being of the Church is not necessary to Salvation; That the Church is a subsequent Combination for Acts of Worship: That Church Off [...]rs are not of the Essence of the Church: — That Schism, which is a Breach of the Churches Union, do's not relate to Church Officers, in their Church Laws and Canons’ &c. These are some of the Opinions he fastens upon the Doctor; and concludes with observing to him, ‘Hereby you give support and Countenance to the many Sectaries among us.’ Certainly he do's so to the Independents, whom this his Episcopal Adversary mentions in particular.

The next Author I shall quote, is judicious HOOKER. Let us first attend his Description of the Church. ‘Seeing that the Church (says he, Eccl. Pol. p. 367.) is a Name which Art hath given to the Professors of true Religion; as they which will define a Man, are to passe by those Qualities wherein one Man doth excell another, and to take onely those essential Properties, whereby a Man doth differ from Creatures of other kinds: So he that will teach what the Church is, shall never rightly performe the Worke whereabout hee goeth, till in Matter of Religion hee touch that Difference, which severeth the Churches Religion from Theirs, who are not the Church. — Whereupon, because the onely Object, which separa [...] ours from other Religions, is Jesus Christ, in whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, wee find that accordingly the Apostles doe every-where distinguish hereby the Church from Infidels and from Jews; accounting them which call upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to bee his Church. If we goe lower, we shall but adde unto this certaine casuall and variable Accidents, which are not properly of the Being, but make onely for the happier and better Being of the Church’ &c. If I mistake not, a great Deal to our Purpose is comprehended in this significant Period: but I forbear Remarks. And now I undertake to vindicate our Ordinations, howsoever we may have "mingled our Succession [Page]from Episcopacy with Lay-derivations," upon the same or as good Principles, as judicious Hooker has justify'd Lay-Baptisms upon. It may not be amiss to transcribe a few Passages of his upon that Head, for the Entertainment of this Gentleman and the Information of our "Vulgar Readers." (See Eccl. Pol. p. 327 &c.) ‘If Baptisme (says he) seriously be administred in the same Element, and with the same Forme of Words, which Christ's Institution teacheth, there is NO OTHER DEFECT in the World, that can make it frustrate, or deprive it of the Nature of a true Sacrament. — Are not many Things FIRM, being done, altho' in part done otherwise than positive Rigor and Strictnesse did require? Nature, as much as is possible, inclineth unto VALIDITIES and Preservations. Dissolutions and NULLITIES of things done are not only not favoured, but hated, when either urg'd without Cause, or extended beyond their Reach: if therefore at any time it come to passe, that in teaching publikely or privately, in delivering this blessed Sacrament’ [of Baptism; he might as well by parity of Reason have added, in delivering the Sacrament of the holy Supper, and in ordaining Persons to the Ministry] ‘some unsanctified Hand contrarie to Christ's supposed Ordinance do intrude it selfe to execute that, whereupon the Lawes of God and his Church have deputed others; Which of these two Opinions seemeth more agreable with Equity? OURS, that disallow what is done amisse, yet make NOT the FORCE of the Word and Sacraments, much lesse their NATURE and very Substance to DEPEND on the Minister's AUTHORITIE and CALLING; or else THEIRS which def [...]ate, disannull, and annihilate both, in respect of that one onely personall Defect; there being not any Law of God, which saith, that if the Minister bee incompetent [thro' want of Calling] his Word shall be no Word, his Baptisme no Baptisme?’ — He adds (speaking of the Separatists) ‘Such are their FUMBLING SHIFTS to inclose the Minister's VOCATION within the Compasse of some essential Part of the Sacrament. A Thing that CAN NEVER STAND with sound and sincere Construction.— The Fruit of Baptisme dependeth onely on the Covenant which God hath made,’ &c. I cou'd gladly take the Pains to copy over much more: but this must suffice. And now I put it to all impartial Readers to say, WHO it is, that in the Judgment of admired HOOKER "runs into the Error of the Separatists" in the point of NULLITY, Elutherius, or Eusebius! And in Charity to Eusebius, [Page]I once more beseech him to read and study the Ecclesiastical Polity; not doubting but he will find very much there, to the Confusion of his darling Scheme, and to the Reproach of his late unaccountable Separation.

I take Leave now to recommend to him another of his own applauded Authors, I mean Bp. HOADLY. Pray, let Eusebius consult this learned Prelate's Book before mention'd; his famous PRESERVATIVE against the Principles and Practices of the NONJURORS both in Church and State: and if he c [...] meet with nothing there to confound his Schismatical Scheme, and justify Independent Principles, I will undertake to cite Enough for the Purpose, when call'd upon: For I doubt not, a very Stripling may do somewhat in this Cause, like David's cutting off the insulting Philistine's head with his own Sword. In the Interim, will he be pleas'd to accept of a few select Passages, which may suffice for the present! And let him try what he can make of 'em. The Bishop, in his Preface, speaking of the Subject of his following Papers (made up of three parts) says;—‘The Third concerns the very VITALS of true Religion; and is, in Truth, the Cause between JESUS CHRIST, and Those, who, professing themselves his Followers and his Ministers, substitute themselves in HIS Place, and assume the Authority of their great Legislat [...] and Judge.—The greatest Satisfaction I have— is, in declaring to all Christians their Right, to look into the Gospel themselves; to depend upon CHRIST alone for their Religion, and upon his final Determination alone, for their Salvation▪ and, in the mean while, to esteem it a small Matter, to be judged of Man's Judgment: Well knowing, that NOTHING but THIS wide and strong Foundation well laid, can effectually guard against those Schemes, and Platforms, of a SUPERSTITIOUS TYRANNY, which may to some appear harmless at first; but from which in Truth, the whole Dreadful Fabrick of POP [...]RY hath by Degrees, grown up to its full Strength and Maturity.’— In the Book it self (Pag. 75, to 81.) the Bishop says; ‘I do not love, I confess so much as to repeat the principal Branches of their beloved Scheme [i. e. of Church-Power, and Sacerdotal Privileges] They are so different (whence soever they come) from the Voice of the Gospel.— When they wou'd alarm you (as their FELLOW-LABOURERS, the Papists, do) by telling you, that you cannot hope for the Favour of GOD, but in the strictest Communion with their Church (which is the [Page] true Church of England, governed by Bishops in a Regular Succession) that God hath himself hung your Salvation upon this Nicety; that he dispenseth none of his Favours or Graces, but by the hands of Themselves, and their subordinate Priests; that you cannot be authoritatively Blessed, or releas'd from your Sins, but by Them, who are the Regular Priests; that Churches, under other Bishops [i. e. other than those in a Regular Succession] are Schismatical Conventicles, made up of Excommunicated Persons, both Clergy and Laity; out of God's Church, as well as out of his Favour: I say, when such Arguments as these are urged, you need only have Recourse to a general Answer to this whole Heap of Scandal and Defamation, upon the Will of God, the Gospel of Christ; and the Church, of England, in particular? You may tell them securely, that you have not so understood the Nature of that God, who is your Governor and Judge; that you have not so learn't Christ, or the Design of his Gospel; or, even, the Foundation of this particular part of his Church, reform'd and establish'd in England. The following Arguments will justify you: which therefore ought to be frequently in the Thoughts of All, who have any Value for the most important Points.’

God is just, and equal, and good: and, as sure as He is so, He cannot put the Salvation and Happiness of any Man, upon what He himself hath put it out of the Power of any Man upon Earth, to be intirely satisfied in.

It hath not pleased God, in his Providence, to keep up any Proof of the least Probability, or moral POSSIBILITY, of a Regular Uninterrupted Succession. But there is a great Appearance, and humanely speaking, a Certainty of the Contrary; that this Succession hath been often interrupted: especially in the Opinion of THOSE, who maintain all Lay-Baptisms, and all Offices performed by Persons, that either have been irregularly ordained, or have forged their Pretensions to Ordination, to be more NULLITIES: there having been certainly a great Number of such like Instances.

Amongst our selves particularly, the Case will admit of another Argument;—It is very well known that, ever since the Reformation, there hath been a Regular Succession of Bishops kept up, certainly in Ireland, and probably in England also, by the Church of ROME.—It is as well known, that several of the first Protestant Bishops were named by the Lay-Power, as Successors to Bishops, who were deprived solely [Page]by that Lay-Power. Nor can there be any Regular Su [...]ssion in the Protestant Churches, but what must come down from those Bishops; whom yet our Adversaries must deny to have been Bishops, upon the Account of th [...]se Lay Deprivations.

Ask our Adversaries therefore, first, What shou'd we have done, upon their Principles, for any Degree of Reformation? — To have it from any Hands but theirs [the Popish Bishops and Clergy] will, I fear, upon their [High Church] Principles, give a Nullity to the whole: As this cannot be done, without setting up Altar against Altar, and one Succession of Bishops against another.

Ask them, how we shall decide the Matter (not between our selves and them, but) between their MUCH DEARER Friends, the Roman Catholicks, and Th [...]m. — I have never heard yet, that this present Popish Church, in England, or Ireland, hath been condemn'd by our Adversaries, as NO Church, and all its Ordinances declared NULL; and its Succession, irregular or insignificant. And yet, upon their Principles, if the Appointment of Romish Bishops here be Regular; there cannot be Another, in Opposition to it, Regular likewise. If the Popish Church here, be a Church; then, these new Protestant Churches cannot be truly so, &c.

The Advocates of the Church of Rome, therefore, are so wise, as to turn these Principles of some profess'd Protestants to their own Account; and delude many weak Minds, of such as have been first deluded by our Nonjurors.—All this may, methinks (as he goes on, p. 87, 88.) serve to alarm our Adversaries, upon their own Principles, about the Danger, their own Church of England is in, by their way of Proceeding. And perhaps They, who seem to have but a very faint Notion of the Honour of GOD, and the Design of the Gospel, any farther than they suppose them to go, hand in hand, with their own particular Sect, and Church, may receive the first. Impression and Suspicion of their being mistaken, from this manifest Tendency of their own Principles, to unchurch Themselves; and to reflect back upon their own People and Clergy, that Excommunication and Damnation, which they are so freely dispensing abroad, all around them.

And as I am sure (says he, p. 98.) that it is upright and honest, to speak thus plainly; and to inculcate this upon You: So I am as sure, it is the only certain Method of preventing, or expelling the POISON of Those, who are gone out from us, because they were not of us.

[Page] Thus the very Bishop, that Eusebius just now made his Appeal to, has turn'd all his own Artillery against him and his Party: and verily they had need have Backs of Steel, as well as Faces of Brass, to bear such a scourge, and stand it out after so severe a whipping. The Bishop, you see, has laid down Premises, and drawn Conclusions, which strike as high, and as deep too, as that hated Passage of Elutherius's; at which this Gentleman started, & made the fearful Exclamation, "Elutherius will UNDO US ALL." I may surely return him his own words (p. 27.) and let him see how he likes them, coming from my hand: ‘You have NULL'D all LAY-Ordinations, and such as DERIVE from them; and pray look into that Affair a little critically, and see if this be not your OWN Case.— You see what must be your own Fate;’ upon submitting the present Dispute to the Decision of your chosen Episcopal Umpire. Well, I commit Eusebius to the Mercy of the BISHOP: and if he thinks, that HIS tender Mercies are cruel, let him blame himself for so ill-judg'd an Appeal; in which his intemperate Zeal certainly outran his Wit.

In the Language of this celebrated Bishop (who, I must observe by the way, seems to have alter'd his Judgment in these Ecclesiastical matters, since he manag'd his Controversy with Dr. Calamy, against the Dissenters) I go on, and under his Authority, I venture to accuse Eusebius and his Party, ‘Not merely of a Heresy against Charity, as they do the DONATISTS, who had only just the SAME Uncharitableness, of adhering [...]o the Consequences of their own Principles; But, of a Heresy even against the very Possibility, and Nature of Things; or of holding that, which throws Men out of the Favour of God, which way soever they act.’ But I must resign these anomalous Episcopalians to the Bishop himself, for the making out this Accusation; which he does at large, in too many Pages to be here recited. (See PRESERV. p. 89, &c.)

I have dwelt the longer on this Part of Eusebius's Argument; because if he be spoil'd of the main piece of his Armour, we may safely leave him to work all his other Engines, as he pleaseth.

I might fairly now withdraw my hand from the Table, and venture the Rest of our Author's Dialogue, with his Friend's Letters annex'd, to try their Fortune. For, after what has been now offer'd, let them advance a thousand specious Pretences for the immutable Divine Right and absolute perpetual Necessity of the supreme Order of Bishops; let them quote what Precedents, and [Page] Testimonies, they please, of Men after the Apostles, tho' never so pious, or great; and let 'em bring what consequential Arguings, they will, from the Example of the Apostles themselves: their own Bishop HOADLY (Preserv. p. 93.) has taught us to say to our Readers, If they amuse you with that POWER, which our Saviour lodg'd with his APOSTLES, You may answer securely, That it is impossible for you to depend upon THIS Right, in THEM, as any thing Certain, till they prove to you, that Every Thing spoken to the Apostles, belongs to Bishops in all Ages of the Church. ‘It is therefore (says he, p. 101.) your Duty, your Privilege, and your Interest, to observe Those Passages in the New Testament, in which the Genius, and great Design, of the Gospel, is purposely express'd; and Those in which it is purposely and expresly declared, upon what Sort of Things Christ will acquit, or condemn You, at the last Day. — These will be your safe and unmoveable Retreat. And whilst you adhere to Them, you will ever be sure, that not the least Tittle of your Salvation, or Damnation, depends upon the Will of weak Men; but all upon God and your selves: that Human Benedictions, Human Absolutions, Human Denunciations, Human Excommunications, have nothing to do with the Favour or Anger of GOD. — Therefore, Stand fast in that LIBERTY, with which God and Christ have made you free.’ I shall here borrow but one Word more from the Bishop (p. 86.) ‘Let this be apply'd to all LIKE C [...]ses; and it will be a CERTAIN Rule to go by.’ So I leave Eusebius to wrangle it out with his Right Rev. FATHER, on the present Argument: and pass on to the remaining Parts of the Dialogue before us

But having so enlarg'd on what has first offer'd, I am oblig'd to make short Work with the Rest▪ I had taken the Pains indeed to go thro' the whole, with particular and large Remarks on such Passages, as at first appear'd to me not coincident with any Thing in the other Gentleman's Answer, call'd, The Scripture-Bishop Examin'd: But upon a Review of Elutherius's VINDICATION, now come from the Press, I find that Part of my Performance very much superseded; and his Vindication will, in most Things that remain, serve for a sufficient Reply, as well to his new Adversary; being easily applicable, by every intelligent Reader to that End. In what follows therefore, to avoid Prolixity, I shall do little more than point the Reader [...] [...]he Places, where he may find Elutherius's Answers to what Eusebius has offer'd.

[Page] Sect. X. For the Case of Timo [...]y's Ordination by the Laying [...] of the hands of the Presbytery, which Eusebius brings under Consideration (pag. 27.) I refer you to the Vindication; where you'l find all the Reply, that needs to be made. See VINDICATION, pag. 70, to 76,— Only upon Occasion of a Passage Eusebius has (in pag. 30.) I will just offer one Request to him; which is, That he wou'd please to adjust the affair of Presbyters joyning with the Prelate in Ordination, a little more exactly, and inform us precisely what is the Nature of that ASSISTANCE, he says, they give him in Ordaining. For not a little may depend upon the true stating of that critical Point.

So for the Case of Barnabas and Saul's Separation by the Laying on of the hands of certain Prophets and Teachers, which Eusebius brings next into Debate (p. 32.) You will find the specious Flourishes here intirely spoil'd, if you look into Elutherius's VINDICATION, where he has given a full Answer to the Question, "What were they ordain'd to"? and a Solution to the pretended "Self-Contradiction." See VINDICATION, pag. 76, to 80. — Only, because Eusebius denies that this was indeed any Ordination at all, I will just give him the Hint, That in this he contradicts some of the Fathers; St. Chrysostom, for instance, who asserts, that St. Paul was at Antioch ORDAINED to the APOSTLESHIP, and that this is the sense of Acts 13. And he as well contradicts Dr. Hammond, Dr. Lightfoot, and others. Mr. Ollyffe, in his Controversy with Dr. Calamy, pleads this Text in favour of Reordination: which I wonder Eusebius for his own sake shou'd forget.— Bishop Taylor (in his Clerus Domini, p. 54.) speaking of Paul, says, ‘He had the special Honour to be chosen in an Extraordinary Way: yet he also had something of the Ordinary too; for in an extraordinary manner he was sent to be ORDAINED in an ordinary Ministery.— His Designation was as immediate, as that of the eleven Apostles, though his ORDINATION was not. — Saul upon his ORDINATION changed his Name, &c.’ He is first called Paul, Act. 13.9.— Let me add, I wou'd fain have Eusebius give us one single Reason, why Paul might not be properly ordain'd, as well as Timothy; if he supposes there was no essential Difference between them: and if Timothy was ordain'd by the Laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, why not as well any other of the Apostolick Order, by the same hands? But whether he'll allow it to be a proper Ordination, in his peculiar Sense of the matter, or no; Here's certainly a Precedent for all that we mean by Ordination. [Page]Here's an Instance of acknowledg'd Presbyters separating Persons to the work of the Ministry, and sending them forth. Now had our Adversaries as plain and evident a Scriptural Instance of an undisputed Prelate's Separating an Apostle in the like Case, very probably they wou'd have triumph'd in it, as an incontestible standing Precedent for Episcopal Ordination. In the Consecration of Bishops, this Fact is alledg'd as an Example (but how pertinently!) which shews the Sense of the Church.

Sect. XI. In the next place, we are entertain'd with a Debate upon the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, as infer'd from the promif [...]uous Use of the Words; (Pag. 34, to 38.) But the Cavils and Objections here offer'd by Eusebius, were sufficiently obviated in Elutherius's Dialogue; or if not, they are now fully answered, in his Defence of it. See VINDICATION, pag. 65, to 70. And pag. 91—93.

However, by the way, I will offer a Request to Eusebius: Whereas he observes (p. 34.) ‘The word Bishop has for more than 1600 years been us'd in a more restrained Sense, than in the New Testament;’ I beg he wou'd please to inform us of the exact Date of this Restriction, and the precise Degree of it. For a clear Decision of these two Cases is absolutely necessary to the support of his Cause; Because too late a Restraint, or a Restraint only of the Name, or of a little of the Power, won't suffice for the Foundation of a Disparity of Order.

And I observe, whereas he tells us (p. 35.) ‘At first —the Imparity was sufficiently distinguish'd, by the superior Order's being call'd by a Name appropriate thereto, viz. Apostle, which never was us'd in Common, as the other Names were;’ Nevertheless (I say) the Distinction is not sufficiently signify'd, if this Name Apostle was never given, in the appropriate Sense of the word, to some that he supposes to be of that superior Order. The Occasion of my mentioning this is, It's remarkable, that Paul and Timothy, joyning together in several Epistles, Paul in the Superscription assumes to himself the style of an Apostle, but leaves out Timothy's apostolical Character. Now, I pray the Reason. Must we not fetch it from that Scripture, Are all Apostles? Are all Evangelists?— I add, Neither was the Imparity sufficiently distinguish'd, altho' the name Apostle might never be us'd in Common; BECAUSE the Word Evangelist was certainly us'd as little in Common; and yet our Adversaries plead, that Evangelists were not a distinct Order. Much less will it appear, that the Imparity was sufficiently [Page]notify'd, if the Name Apostle was sometimes apply'd in a common Sense, to such as it does not appear were of that superior Order he speaks of, I mean of the same Class with the Twelve. If Silas be any where honour'd with the Title of Apostle, it must be meant only in a common Sense: for we read, he was only one of the chief Men among the Brethren, and distinguish'd from the Apostles, when this Appellation is us'd in its appropriate Sense, Acts 15.22.—If Epaphroditus or Titus are call'd Apostles, 'tis only as they were Messengers of the Churches. And if Timothy was an Apostle, I demand that Eusebius shew us in him the Signs of an Apostle.—In fine, I observe We are not sufficiently inform'd, That what Superiority or Influence the Apostles, Paul & the Twelve, appear to have had over Pastors and Churches, was the Result strictly of their Commission-Power, and not rather of some peculiar inspired Gifts, which gave them a Preheminence. So that their Example is not sufficient to establish the Doctrine of a standing, Imparity. And then supposing a perpetual Imparity admitted, what must it be? An Imparity of Order, or of Degree only? It's observable, Mr. HOOKER (Pol. p 417.) says, ‘The whole Bodie of the Church being divided into Laitie and Cleargie, the Cleargie are either Presbyters or Deacons.’ So again (p. 421.) ‘All whom the Church did ordain, were either to serve as Presbyters or as Deacons.’ Tho' he is of Opinion (as he expresses it, p. 419.) ‘Of Presbyters, some were greater, some lesse in power, and that by our Saviour's own Appointment.’ He makes ‘the Apostles peculiar Charge to be this, to publish the Gospell of Christ unto all Nations, & to deliver them his Ordinances received by immediate Revelation from Himselfe. Which Preeminence excepted (says he) to all other Offices and Duties incident into their Order, it was in them to ordaine and consecrate whomsoever they thought meete’ &c. He tells us (p. 421.) ‘Evangelists were Presbyters of principall Sufficiencie, whom the Apostles sent abroad, and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs, wheresoever they saw need. Ananias, Apollos, TIMOTHY were thus imployed.— Finally, Pastors and Teachers, what other were they than Presbyters also? Howbeit setled in some certaine Charge, and thereby differing from Evangelists.’ And he uses that peculiar Phrase else-where (p. 436.) "Bishops,—and OTHER Presbyters." So that, upon the whole, it is plain, Mr. Hooker makes them all radically and essentially one Order; not different Species of Ministers, having essentially diverse Rights, Powers and Businesses, [Page]but fundamentally one and the same Order of Ministers; tho' with some. Variation as to Degrees, and Ways of exercising their common Rights and Powers, yet this merely for Order's sake. The Distinction between Bishops and other Presbyters, he calls it a "Difference of Pastors": and only supposes ‘It ought to be, when they grow to any great Multitude,’ (p. 125. which implies, that this Difference of Pastors is not absolutely, in all Cases, necessary. And he has these remarkable words (p. 124) ‘Where the Clergy are any great Multitude, ORDER doth necessarily require that by DEGREES they be distinguished.’— Now a mere gradual Difference, in such a Case, between Ministers for Order's sake, perhaps few Nonconformists wou'd oppose; and it's certain, the Body of 'em express'd their Consent to this, when they offer'd to admit And bishop USHER'S Reduction of Episcopacy. Upon this Occasion I'll give you the sentiments of the late learned Mr. Simon Browne (Sermon upon Ordination, p. 59.) speaking of Titus, he says, ‘General Work was his principal Work; not as an Officer essentially different from other Presbyters, but as an It [...]rant Minister &c.— And if such a general Officer were still employ'd in Ordinations, and his Work esteem'd more honorable than that of fix'd Pastors, and he in that Sense superior to 'em, whilst their Original Power of ordaining, when chosen out to this Service, were acknowledg'd, I know None that wou'd so far run counter to Apostolical Practice, as to quarrel with this Office.’— I add; So much wou'd be consented to, by the Generality of Nonconformists, I believe, for Peace-sake at least: altho' we do not hold a Superiority in some Ministers over others to be of standing Obligation by any Divine Institution; nor indeed do we see the same Necessity of it now, as there might be in the Infancy of the Church; much less of a Superiority in the nature and degree of that peculiar to the Apostles, the Reasons whereof ceased with their Persons, and which therefore must be acknowledg'd purely temporary. A Priority of Order may be allow'd: but a Primacy of Sovereignty we look upon as an intolerable Usurpation.

Eus [...]bius has another remarkable Passage (p. 36.) ‘We have no Reason (says he) to complain for want of a clear and plain Dispersation in all necessary points of Fath and Practice: — and especially in this matter &c.’ Now here's (1) a Concession to the Fulness and Perspicuity of Scripture, that supersedes the Necessity of traditional Light, in matters fundamental; [Page]which confounds the great Argument of the two Letters annex'd. (2) Here's an Implication, that Episcopacy is one of those fundamental matters; in which he contradicts all his own Authors. (3) Here's an Assertion, that in this matter the Truth is sufficiently clear from the Scripture; which is confuted by the long Controversy about Episcopacy, between learned and good Men on both sides— But he adds a qualifying Proviso, to compleat the Farce: "If Men will open their Eyes." He had e'en as good have said, If Men wou'd but see with his Eyes. But then He must lend us his Glasses to help our Sight: Yet alas, such is our Misfortune, all Men can't see thro' the same Spectacles.— To his Question (Ibid.) ‘Seeing there was then a superior Order, viz. Apostles, why might not the Church afterwards appropriate the Word— Bishop— to that Order’ &c I answer

(1) They might not do it, because afterwards there was in fact no superior Order, to appropriate it to. If he says, there was, I must observe, 'tis gratis dictum, he has not yet prov'd it.

(2) They need not do it,— upon the Reason, he assigns.

For I argue; Timothy and Titus had those CRITERIONS of Apostles, which he mentions (viz. ‘immediate Mission, and other Things peculiar to their Persons,’) or they had not. If not, then how do's he prove Them to be of the supreme Order? (For will he not grant, that immediate Mission was an essential stroke in the Character of an Apostle!) But if he says they had, the Fact remains to be prov'd; nor will it afford any Consequence to his Purpose. I add, It seems strange to suppose, there shou'd be need of distinguishing the first Planters, when they were dead, and not when alive.— It seems strange, that Timothy and Titus, and others, shou'd be call'd Apostles, while the Twelve were living, and yet afterwards (as they must do, by his way of representing the matter) lose that honorable Name, the sole Name appropriate to the superior Order, and sink down to a Name (that of Bishops) common to the inferior Order — Eusebius's Observation (p. 37.) upon Act. 1.20. is very frivolous and weak; since he allows the Word Bishop to be us'd at first in Common. And then, at the same time the Apostolick Office, it's observable, was call'd Diaconia, ver. 2 [...].—To put any Colour on his Argument here, he must first prove, that the Apostles in Reality had their ‘Successors, in the chief Government of the Church in its settled State;’ we shan't quarrel with him about the Name, if he proves the Thing— The Fathers using the Name Bishop in a sense distinct from that of Presbyter, will never [Page]prove a superiority of Order; much less such a superiority Jure Divino.—Further, as to what he observes on the Word Imperator (ibid.) it's obvious, that he has here very much misrepresented Elutherius's Design in his Dialogue, p. 14. The Scope of Elutherius's Argument there was to prove, that this Example is not a Parallel to the Case under Consideration. For to make it so, it ought to have had in it two Terms, General and Monarch, apply'd promiscuously to two distinct Officers at the same time. Whereas, says Elutherius (ibid.) ‘There never was, nor cou'd be, without the Confusion of Language, a promiscuous Use of Monarch and General, AS we find there was of Bishop and Presbyter.’—And then, in this Case of the single Name (Imperator, or Commander) tho' suppos'd to be at the same time promiscuously given to a General and a Monarch, there might be an easy Distinction of them notwithstanding, by reason of the two different Species of Government and Business, Military and Civil: Whereas in the Case of Bishops and Presbyters, the sort of Government, as to both, is Ecclesiastical, and indeed their whole Work the same; which is what Elutherius in his Dialogue proceeds to prove by several Scripture-Arguments. — So that Eusebius certainly cou'd have little Temptation to glory in so small a Criticism, as he has offer'd: and I think rather it's his Answer that appears "Shuffling and impertinent."—In a following Passage, he gives me Occasion to renew my Demand of the exact Date abovementioned: Else if we shou'd multiply Instances to our Purpose without Number, whether out of Scripture or Antiquity, he wou'd still shuffle us off with that trifling Reply, "Your Instances are all more ancient." Pray let him tell us what Century, and what Part of that Century, we must fix upon. One would think, such an important Fact, as that of appropriating a Name, which had long been apply'd in Common, especially if it was universal matter of Fact, done by publick agreement, must needs have some famous Witnesses to it in History (according to the Episcopal way of reasoning) from whence the precise Year and Day of the remarkable Event might easily be collected. I wish to see a fair Account of it.

Sect. XII. In the next place (p. 39.) Eusebius taxes Elutherius's Dialogue of a "false Representation," with respect to ‘the SOLE Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction united in the Bishop’ &c. Now it were enough, for Answer, to refer him [Page]to the Letters our Author himself has publish'd, which make the very same Representation. See Page 100. where the governing Powers and the Power of Ordination are put on the same Foot without any Distinction; and governing Powers are appropriated to the Bishop, in Exclusion of all Partners. But I will refer him to a greater Authority; I mean Bishop Bilson, who in his Perpetual Government of Christ's Church (p. 317.) speaks more fully to Elutherius's Purpose; expresly denying Presbyters ‘the publick Use of the Keys, and affirming, that this the Church of Christ allowed always, and ONLY, to Bishops.’ For a further Refutation of Eusebius's Distinction of subordinate and chief Governments, I refer to the well-known Case of Mr. Ra [...]tri [...]k.— Elutherius certainly stated the matter right; and this Gentleman has offered nothing but a fanciful Distinction, without any Authority to support it: so his Charge of Misrepresentation, by force of its own Weight falls to the Ground, but rebounds on himself.

Next follows a Dispute about who are Successors to the Apostles, p. 40; to 44. And here Eusebius has expos'd himself by a Complication of unhappy Blunders, as they appear to me, whereby he has in effect overthrown his whole Cause; which might easily be shewn, but that I am not willing to swell these Papers to a needless Length. For I think Elutherius has said Enough in Answer to what is offer'd here by way of Argument, in his VINDICATION. p. 91 to 103. However I will present Eusebius with some borrow'd Scraps, from Episcopal Hands, for him to chew upon. The first is a Saying of the excellent Mr. Chillingworth, I have met with somewhere in his Book of the Religion of Protestants. ‘The Apostles (says he) by laying the Foundations of the Church, were to be the Foundations of it: and accordingly are so called in Scripture. And therefore, as in a Building it is incongruous that Foundations shou'd succeed Foundations; so it may be in the Church, that any other Apostles shou'd succeed the FIRST.’ — To which I shall add that of pious Bishop HALL (Works p. 331.) ‘These Tooles which serve for the Foundation, are not of use for the R [...]o [...]e. Yea, the great Master-Builder chose those workmen for the first Stones, which he meant not to imploy in the Walls. Do we not see all Christ's first Agents EXTRAORDINARY; Apostles, Evangelists &c. — What Church ever since boasted of such Founders? — Why shou'd God begin with those He meant not to continue; but to shew us we may not always looke for one [Page]Face of Things?’ — So again (pag. 552.) ‘We may not either have or expect now in the Church that Ministery, which Christ set: Where are our Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists? If we must always looke for the very same Administration of the Church, which our Saviour left, why doe we not challenge those extraordinary Functions? Doe we not rather thinke, since it pleased him to begin with those Offices which shou'd not continue, that herein he purposely intended to teach us, That if we have the same heavenly Business done, we shou'd not be too curious in the Circumstances of the Persons?’ — I now leave Eusebius to contest the Point with Bishop Hall, and Mr Chillingworth, whether there was any proper Succession to the Apostolick Office. Let him laugh now, if he pleases, at ‘the Apostles double Capacity, which help'd those great Authors to such fine Distinctions: and let him vapour over the Bishop's Conclusion,’ as he has done (p. 30.) over that of Elutherius, "being both equally ridiculous," and to pass in his Account, no doubt, for "mere Whims of their own Brain." I shall now add a word or two by way of Request. I desire this Gentleman to inform me, Whether the Apostles Superintendency did not extend over all Churches, and over Bishops, as well as Presbyters? And [...] they be that are their Successors in this universal Superintendency? Or was this an extraordinary Power, not design'd for Continuance? I desire he will be punctual in answering me to this: for if he says, The Apostles Superintendency, as universally exercis'd, was extraordinary, and limited to their Persons, I wou'd fain have my Turn to laugh at a fine Distinction, that will ruin his Cause; Or if he chooses to say, without any Distinction, That their universal Superintendency was an ordinary and continuing Power, I shall still have the Pleasure of seeing him confound his own Scheme, by setting up a fourth Officer in the Church, Paramount to the other Three, which can be nothing inferior to a POPE.— Another Request I have to make, is this: If Apostolical Superintendency be the sole Prerogative of Bishops, and such as necessarily bespeaks them a distinct and superior Order in the Church, then I beg Eusebius, who is such a mighty Solver of Difficulties, and yet such a Hater of fine Distinctions, to inform me, How we may reconcile the Practice of his own Church with this Scheme. Pray, Sir, be so good as to tell me what sacred Order your Lay-Chancellors belong to; who, tho' it may be pretended they hold their spiritual Courts in the Name of the Bishop, [Page]yet do receive their Commission from the King, and act without the Bishop, and can bid Defiance to him upon Occasion. Bishop Bedel's Case for that.— And then, pray let me know, whether those Deans are Apostolical Superintendents; who, especially in the Peculiars, by Law possess and exercise a separate Jurisdiction over Clergy and Laity, without the least Subordination to the Bishop. Certainly, Eusebius, I may on this Occasion with a good Grace return you your own Words, (p. 43.) and say, ‘It is your Business to look out a regular Authority for them, independent of the Bishops; for your All that is dear, depends upon it.’ Assure your self, so long as the Usurpations of your Lay-Chancellors and your independent Deans are continu'd, it's a vain thing to wrangle about the Imparity of Bishops and Presbyters. Let your Episcopacy be made the same in Practice, as it is represented in Theory: Else all your artful Reasonings must pass for impertinent Paralogisms, and Amusements for the Ignorant. Surely now you must on your very own Principles acknowledge, that your Prel [...]y in the practical and complex Notion of it (in which it shou'd always be consider'd) as comprehending those ano [...]lous Officers and a Shoal of other inferiour Usurpers who are integral parts of the Episcopal hierarchy, is at the best but a mere human Creature.

To use your own Language (p. 41) ‘Pray contrice now how one and the same Commission cou'd make the Apostles Superintendents, and their Successors (your Bishops) not Superintendents.—I don't wonder you seem puzzled.’ Consider well before you answer: and let me beseech you to try if you can reduce the Parallel you so incomparably speculate upon (p. 43. &c 44.) "to the Case before us." Pray, Sir, tell me, Does your LAY-CHANCELLOR, and do's your DEAN, ‘receive Authority to act in Christ's Name, from the Power confer'd by Christ upon the Bishop, for their Work of governing Presbyters?’ Or do they derive their Power from human Laws and Customs? [Page]If they receive their Commission from any but the Bishop, you may then apply to these human-Creature-Governors those Words of yours, in which ‘you design'd a Slur upon our Ordinations among your vulgar Readers,’ as being perform'd without a Bishop, even those your Words (p. 44.) ‘Without which Power and Authority in the Bishop, the most solemn Ordinations (or Commissions, if you please, to Lay-Chancellors, &c. given) by unauthorized Hands, wou'd be of no more Effect, than a formal Commission signed by John of Styles appointing Tom of Nokes Justice of the Peace’ So I cry Quittance: and dismiss you, to enjoy the sweet Satisfaction of your own Speculations.

Sect. XIII. In the next place (p. 44 to 47.) we have a Dispute about the State of the Church of Ephesus, whether settled under a Presbyterian Form of Government, or a Prelatical. But the Sum of what Eusebius offers here is only Conjectures and Surmises, mere "Whims of his own Brain" His Argument is, Such a Thing "might be"— ‘I see nothing that forbids;’ Therefore it was. Truly if he takes the Liberty thus to make one Postulate after another, without any rational Grounds, and to assert what he pleases, he may e'en conclude what he lists; Quidlibet ex quolibet. There's no Bound to such a Disputant.—All that I need to do here, is to desire the Reader to turn to the Dialogue, which this Gentleman pretends to answer, and see whether all his rare Suppositions and strong Assertions amount to any Thing of a just Reply to Elutherius's Objections and Reasonings there. Vid. DIAL. pag. 10, 11, 12. and p. 45, to 48. — And then, if you want any further Satisfaction, look into the VINDICATION. (p. 108, to 113.) Only I must crave Leave to put a Request to the Gentleman, which is, That he wou'd inform us particularly what he means by that critical Passage (p. 47.) "Paul was himself their Bishop or Superintendent;" and shew us what Force he thinks it bears in the present Argument. It looks truly as if it were like to prove a Bone of Contention between us.

I pass to observe; we have next (from p. 48, to 53) a Debate upon that noted Text, Matth. 20.25, 26. which Elutherius in his Dialogue (p. 6, [...].) had urg'd, as carrying in [...] a Prohibition of all Dominion and Supremacy among the Ministers of the Gospel.— Now the main Thing, which Eusebius offers in Reply to this Argument is, That ‘if we will [Page]but allow Bishops to have a lawful Claim to so much Authority, as the Apostles exercis'd (who it can't be suppos'd were so wicked, as to take upon themselves a forbidden Authority) he will contend for no more in their behalf as Christ's Ministers. This, say's he, will sufficiently preserve their Supremacy &c—The Bishops may keep their Mitres, and all the Authority they now enjoy in our Church.’ Well, to cut short the Dispute, I will for once grant this Gentleman the whole of his Demand, viz. That Bishops shall have as much Authority (and no more) as the Apostles exercis'd. But then it will be a Question, What was that Authority the Apostles exercis'd? Did they exercise any Coercive Authority in matters of Religion? It seems they expresly disclaim it, 2 Cor. 1.24 — Did they exercise a Temporal Authority, a secular Dominion over their Brethren? It seems they renounce it, in saying, Our Weapons are not carnal. Did they hold Episcopal Courts, and practise such Forms of Discipline, as are in the spiritual Courts of this Age? ‘Where, instead of the Discipline instituted by Christ, the Church-Offender is carry'd from Court to Court at intolerable Charges, subjected to heavy Fines, exorbitant Fees, or Imprisonment &c.’ These Objections Elutherius's Dialogue had laid in this Gentleman's way: and I presume he had an Eye to these in that guarded Expression, ‘So much Authority as the Apostles exercised, we will contend for no more in the Bishops behalf AS Christ's Ministers.’ Now I put it to him to say, whether the Authority of the Prelacy, in those Points abovemention'd, be not more than what the Apostles exercis'd; and whether such as exercise this Authority, do not do it as Christ's Ministers: and how they that as Christ's Ministers do exercise more Authority, than the Apostles did, can be justify'd in being so wicked as to take upon themselves a forbidden Authority: For if ‘this Instruction of our Lord (in Matth. 20.) was intended (as he says) to direct the Conduct of his Ministers’ and if "the Apostles have set an Example to their Followers;" Then certainly the secular Authority of the Bishops, and the Authority of the spiritual Courts, is a forbidden Authority; and they must be wicked, who take it upon them. Now, Eusebius, pray be plain and honest, and don't shuff [...]le in your Answer. It is your Business to prove this a regular Authority, and vindicate the Bishops Temporal Authority and spiritual Courts: for (to return you your own Words again) your All that's dear depends upon it. — Whether that Text forbids all Inequality among Ministers, or not, this must be acknowledg'd, it forbids [Page]them the use of civil and temporal Power at least; I say, the Use, as well as the Abuse, of such kind of Power, is forbidden in those Words of Christ, Among you it shall not be so.

As for Eusebius's Remark (p. 52.) ‘which he speaks by way of Negation, not Prohibition,’ 'tis a groundless Distinction. For the Apostles in part explain'd our Lord's Intention, when they said, It is not Reason, that we shou'd leave the word of God and serve Tables. Much less Reason is there that Bishops shou'd leave the word of God, to serve as Lord Treasurers, as some of 'em have done, or to serve in Parliament, as they all (but one) do. I see no possible means to reconcile their Practice to that of the Apostles, who gave themselves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word: nor is their Conduct reconcilable to the Duty charg'd on Bishop TIMOTHY; Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee; Meditate on these Things; give thy self WHOLLY to them; Preach the Word, be instant in Season, out of Season. Endure Hardness, as a good Soldier of Jesus Christ: No Man that warteth, intangleth himself with the Affairs of this Life. These Divine Precepts and Prohibitions necessarily cashier the Bishop of his Court-Employments, and secular Lordship. As for their criminal Lording in Spirituals, I refer to Elutherius's VINDICATION, (page 4, to 47.) both for history & argument.

Eusebius's Construction of that Passage, He that is chief &c. is against the whole Stream of Protestant Writers; who constantly apply this Text in Opposition to the usurped Supremacy of Rome: Mr. Hooker do's so in particular. But Eusebius's Construction of it (p. 49.) is fairly reconcilable with Peter's Supremacy among the Apostles, and makes as much for a Pope, as for a Prelate. And by his way of arguing in page 52d for ought I see, the Bishop of Rome may keep his Crown, as well as any other Prelate his Mitre, and all the Authority spiritual and temporal he now enjoys in the World. If the Bishops of England are "Lords by the King's Courtesy" (as he observes p. 53.) I subjoyn, the Bishop of Rome is more than that by the Courtesy of many Kings, and once was so even of our own for many Ages. In which Remarks, ‘my Aim is to discover this Gentleman's Mistake by what is call'd REDUCTIO ad ABSURDUM;’ and to caution him, that he be not found at last in the Tents of Rome, whither his Argument has so palpable and direct a Tendency.— It puts me in Mind of a remarkable admonitory Passage in a Letter of Bishop HALL'S to (Archbishop) LAUD: ‘God crieth (says he) with Je [...]; WHO is on my Side? Who? Look at last out of your Window [Page]to Him, and in a resolute Courage cast down the Jez [...] bel, that hath bewitched you.’

It's hardly worth while to make any Observations on Eusebius's learned Management of the Argument (page 50, 51.) where he is "trying the matter in another Light." For as to the Doctrine asserted by Elutherius (Dial. p. 38.) ‘That the Christian Church being founded on Christ'. Resurrection, there cou'd be no Ministers nor indeed Members of this Church, before it had a Being;’ He has the Happiness to be able to produce good Episcopal Authorities for it. Dr. Stillingfleet is fully in the Opinion: See Irenicum, p. 210,—218—So Bishop Lloyd (Serm. on Act. 2.42.) tells us, ‘That the Disciples, when Christ administred the Supper to them, were not then in Orders, but were Laymen; for (says he) it was before our Lord's Death, and he did not ordain them till after his Resurrection.’—This is enough to shew that Elutherius's Doctrine is no peculiar Presbyterian Tenet: and therefore whatever Conclusions Eusebius pretends to draw from it, they can no more be turn'd to the Prejudice of our Cause, than of his own.

Thus I have gone thro' the Dialogue betwen Eusebius & Elutherius; bestowing all the Remarks, that cou'd be tho't needful: and must say upon the whole, I believe, every judicious and unprejudic'd Reader will easily concur with me in this Reflection, That Eusebius's Conference has very little answer'd the Title given it; for ELUTHERIUS appears as yet in sound Health and Vigour, free from all perceivable Symptoms of ENERVATION: and need be in no Haste to fly this redoubted Champion.

Sect. XIV. I observe, Philalethes is sensible (by what he says in the Close, p. 53.) that Eusebius had made many Omissions in his Examination of Elutherius's Dialogue (only nibbling at a few Passages here and there) and therefore for a further Answer to it, refers his Friend Attalus to the LETTERS he had lent him.—But what need of those Letters to satisfy Attalus, when Eusebius's Arguments in the Conference had so satisfactorily solv'd all his Scruples, and pour'd in upon him such irresistible Conviction; as to engage him instantly in the Resolution of "returning to his Parish-Church" without any more Adoe, and to transport him suddenly into the Height of Bigotry!—Truly it looks, I must profess, very odd and ridiculous, to make the Conference shut up with so surprizing an Epilogue. Nor wou'd I give a Fig for a Thousand such [Page]hasty and passionate Converts; immediately commencing uncharitable Zealots, inspir'd with the narrow and hot Spirit of a Party: altho' Eusebius (it seems) ‘thinks his Pains well recompenc'd by this Resolution of Attalus, his old Friend’—Well, I leave 'em now to lay their Heads sweetly together, and please themselves, like true Lovers of Christian Peace and Charity, with railing at Dissenters, and uniting in the common Cry of the furious Herd, Better a Papist, than a Presbyterian!

I find but one Thing further, that deserves any Notice; and that is an OBSERVATION Philalethes merrily suggests by way of Banter (p 54) which yet some may think is in part too true to make a Jest of. The Gentleman here seems indeed to have struck upon one of the cardinal Distempers of his Church's Constitution; namely, SIMPLE Presbyters, stript of the useful ministerial Powers of Ordination and Government, to furnish dignify'd Officers with an overgrown Power, of little Significance to the main Ends of the Ministry, and comparatively useless, as being stretcht to an extravagant Extent, "beyond the Sphere of human Activity," and incumber'd too with Abundance of civil Avocations. Verily we look on this part of the Constitution, SIMPLE Presbyters, as exceptionable almost as any Thing in the Church of England. For, as to Bishops, i. e. such in whom those Powers of ordaining Ministers, and governing the Church, are united; let us but have Plenty enough of 'em (a Bishop to every Parish, if they will) and we are content: Or if they must be more general Officers, we cou'd yet submit to them upon Occasion; provided their Episcopacy be duly limited, so as to be a mere Presidency of Order, and to leave the other Presbyters in full Possession of the Powers inherent in their Pastoral Office.

Indeed the Prelates, our Adversaries plead for, are quite of a different Cast; inviron'd with such peculiar Circumstances, as make them obnoxious to great Exceptions: and truly the whole Model of their beloved Hierarchy appears to me in such an unproportion'd and disjoynted Condition, as exposes it to just and insuperable Objections. Suffer me to give you a brief View of it, according to the best Accounts I can obtain. Without descending to every Particularity, take these general Hints

You must observe then, in the Church of England, the DEACONS leaving their proper Work of serving Tables, do for a short Season officiate as a kind of Half-Priests; being admitted to baptize, as well as preach, by the Bishop's Licence, [Page]but excluded from consecrating the Eucharist: And the PARISH-PRIESTS, are in point of Power and Practice, little more than Half-Ministers; having no Hand in the Business of Ordination, subject to the Impositions of Superiors in matters of Government, and debar'd all publick and formal Exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline.

Again observe, Here the Presbyters are held to be all Jure [...]ativo on a Level, in regard of ministerial Power, as being of one and the same Order: yet there are RECTORS, or Parsons of Parishes, that have other Presbyters in Subordination to them, as their Curates or Deputies, who are de facto controul'd by their Masters at pleasure, and allow'd to do nothing of Importance without their Leave. And there are ARCH-DEACONS, so called, tho' not of the Order of Deacons, but Presbyters, who hold their Courts, and are Superintendents over the inferior Clergy in their respective Districts.

Observe again, Here the Bishops are asserted to be all of one Order and equal Authority; yet Two of these, possessing Metropolitan Sees, are named ARCH-BISHOPS, and the rest of the Prelates at their Consecration take a solemn OATH OF DUE OBEDIENCE to them, in their respective Provinces. One is Primate of England; the other of all England.

Again, here Bishops and Presbyters are doctrinally held to be two different Orders: and yet are practically blended togeer in several Respects. For in the Church of England there are Presbyters having Government over Presbyters; as in the Case of the Cathedral DEAN who claims and exercises Jurisdictions, in certain Points, uncontroulable by the Bishops; and in the Case of Arch-Deacons, "who act (so Dr. Edwards observes) as Bishops, without Controul." Yet neither of these is of the Order, to which that kind of Government (I mean the Government of the Clergy) is pretended to be appropriated. — I omit subordinate Officials, Commissaries, &c.

Yea, here are Some of the very LAITY exercising Episcopal Powers over the inferior sacred Orders; and even the Rectors of Parishes, tho' claiming something of Pastoral Authority, must with an implicit Faith obey the spiritual Courts, under the Conduct of those irregular Ecclesiasticks: who were never heard of in Antiquity, about which our Adversaries so loudly din us in the Ear continually, but are of novel Invention.

Here the BISHOPS have the Honour to be temporal Princes, Members of the House of Lords; but are scarce any better than mere titular Administrators of Church-Discipline: tho' [Page]pretended to be sole Pastors of large Diocesses, at least the chief Governors; yet seem really to stand for little more than Cyphers, in the Ecclesiastical Courts.— Here are CHANCELLORS, mercinary Laymen, yet spiritual Lords; having in fact the Power of Excommunication, and Absolution (two of the most important Branches of Ecclesiastical Judgment) lodged in their hands; exclusive of the Parochial Clergy, and (as it seems) unaccountable to their Diocesans: and the Forms of Proceeding in their Courts are such (so Bishop Burnet complains) as have in a great measure enervated all Church-Discipline. And further here are EXEMPT Presbyters, in the Quality of Deans, practising Episcopal Authority (tho' in Contradiction to their Principle, says Bishop Burnet) independent on the Bishops, in the P [...]CULIARS (so called) which are evidently Imperium in Imperio.

In fine, the KING is according to our English Constitution the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical: and Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical Persons, have NO MANNER of Jurisdiction, but BY and under the King's Majesty; who is supreme Head of the Church of England, in Contradistinction to the Pope of Rome, and is final Judge of Controversies in all Things and Causes spiritual.

This is a summary, and I think true State of Matters of Fact in the establish'd National Church. And who now can forbear admiring the goodly Order, the rare Symmetry, Harmony and Consistence in this Ecclesiastical Oeconomy! What other than a Golden Foundation must this beautiful and noble Superstructure be thought to stand upon! No Wonder, we hear the venerable Hierarchy so often glory'd in, as the best constituted in the World. Nor need any man wonder, that when this incomparable Constitution became well establish'd and secure, it was thought fit to expunge that remarkable Passage in some ancient Editions of the Liturgy, as grown an unnecessary and obsol [...]te Article of Prayer; which however, because I wou'd not abruptly dismiss our Episcopal Dialogue, without the Decency of an agreable Conclusion, and I can think of none better at present, I shall take Liberty to repeat (as still hope I may with Propriety, and shall with Seriousness do) on this Occasion:— ‘From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and from all his detestable Enormities, Good Lord! deliver us.’

AMEN.

[Page]

PART II. Remarks on Two LETTERS, in Defence of the Episcopal Government of the Church.

Sect. I. WHen I was perusing these Letters, and came to that Marginal Note the Author gives us (p. 87.) I cou'd not help admiring at the Conduct of Philalethes, in palming them on the World, as "written by a LAYMAN": Unless by a Figure, he intended to transfer this Character to a dear Friend of his, who doubtless was mightily pleas'd with that shrewd OBSERVATION in the Close of the Dialogue (offer'd as a Consequence upon Elutherius's Argument) That the Presbyters of the Church must be mere human Creatures, if their Bishops at best be but such. (p. 54) — I take Occasion to say here, That his Flirt at the Presbyterians (as I take it) in the following Words, ‘Since all their Power is derived from such Creatures, it must be merely human still, and not of Christ's appointing;’ This, I say, being but obscure as to the Reference, and not expresly level'd at us, it escap'd my Notice at first; and I now forgive it, since he makes so light of a Lay-Character, and appears so willing to share with us in the Odium of a Lay-Derivation.

I find little of solid Argument, in these Letters, that's new, and not already obviated in the foregoing Papers. However, that my Rev. Brother Layman may have no Colour for Complaint of being treated as "too contemptible a Person to be our Adversary in this Controversy," I will consider the principal Contents of his Letters; which being made publick without any particular Direction, every one may claim a Right to make what Return he thinks fit unto them.

The first Letter, we perceive, had an Answer made unto it by the Gentleman it was sent to in Manuscript; which, I'm humbly of Opinion, it wou'd have been but a piece of [Page]common Justice in Mr. Layman, to have publish'd at the same time, or else to have suppress'd his second Letter, in Reply thereto. Nevertheless, we will follow him in his own Path, and e'en take Things as we find them.

Sect. II. I am glad to find this Gentleman declaring (p. 5 [...].) ‘We agreed upon the holy SCRIPTURES for the RULE, by which this Controversy should be DECIDED:’ and cannot but highly approve the Caution he expresses and inculcates, ‘L [...]st mistaking that for the SENSE of this Rule, which is NOT, we set up OUR OWN Schemes and Imaginations, instead of the Divine Appointments.’ To prevent this, he lays down two Rules for the right interpreting of Scripture.

His first Rule, i. e. "Comparing one Passage with another" &c. is not only a very just and reasonable one (as he says) but the most effectual and satisfactory. This is the Rule with all true Protestants: by this Method the Reformers confounded the Papists, and in this Way the primitive Fathers were wont to confute Hereticks. And if in this way the Cause of the New England Churches cannot be supported, we are willing to lose it. Bishop Jewel quotes Ambrose, saying, ‘Interrogemus Petrum; Interrogemus Paulum; si Verum volumus invenire’ Let us hear and compare what Peter and Paul say, if we wou'd find out the Truth.— "Scripture is the Interpreter of it self," says Chrysostom. This was also the Judgment of an older Father than these, I mean Irenaeus, ‘The lawful and securest Exposition of Scripture, saith he, is according to the Scriptures themselves.’ (Vid. Dr. Edwards, Remains. p. 131.

Sect. III. As for our Author's other Rule (p. 58.) ‘That in doubtful Cases we [...] chuse that Interpretation of Scripture, which is most agr [...]ble to the [...] [...]nd unanimous Sense and Practice of the [...] of God [...],’ I shall offer the following Remarks upon it: which will be a full answer to all th [...] he has advanc'd in support thereof.

In the first place, let it be observ'd: If we are in doubtful Cases to form our Judgment by the Sense and Practice of the Church from the Beginning, this second Rule appears to me coincident with the first: for the Beginning must take in the Times of Christ and his Apostles; which the Scriptures only give us an authentick and sufficient Account of. There are no Interpretations of Scripture, out of Scripture, truly from the Beginning, that I know of: and therefore none necessary to be believ'd [...] [Page]giving us the genuine Sense of Scripture. If the Beginning [...]st be taken into the Account, we may well stop at the Scriptures; which deliver to us the fullest and truest Reports of [...]at. Yet if there be any Tradi [...]i [...]e Interpretations of Scripture, let 'em be produc'd, and prov'd to be of Apostolical Derivation: We are ready to receive the Sense of Scripture, upon the Authority of true Original Tradition. But where is this to be found, save in the Bible it self! If then we must recur to the Beginning (without which indeed it were absurd, to pretend to the universal Sense of the Church) by Consequence we must content our selves with the Scriptures, as the ONLY Rule to judge by in all Controversies of Religion, arising among such as believe the Scriptures: ‘and those that cannot thus be ended (i. e. by Scripture, without the Help of Fathers and Traditions) are not necessary to be believed, one way or other.’ So determines the learned Chillingworth. (Relig. of Prot. p. 102.) ‘And our Reason hereof (says he) is convincing; Because nothing can challenge our Belief, but what hath descended to us from CHRIST by Original and Universal Tradition: Now NOTHING but Scripture hath thus descended to us; Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief.’

This now destroys Mr. Layman's specious Pretence of ‘the primitive Church's being a SAFE WITNESS, in what Sense the Apostles wou'd have themselves to be understood.’ For herein He goes upon the Supposition of two Things, neither of which are to be granted as undoubtedly true.

First, it supposes that the primitive Church certainly know, and unanimously agreed, in what Sense the Apostles wou'd have the obscure places in their Writings to be understood. Whereas in fact there appears no such Uniformity of Judgment among the Ancients, as to the Meaning of Scripture in doubtful places, nor Harmony of Sense and Practice in many Matters relating to the Church, it's Worship, Discipline, and Government. Whatever ‘Advantages (as our Author insinuates) s [...]y were under, not to mistake the Apostles Meaning, above us at this Distance’: yet it must be acknowledg'd, that the Fathers differ'd among themselves about the Interpretation of many Texts of Scripture, and in as important Points as those disputed among Protestants

In this [...]ow de [...]ed Point of Episcopacy, if the Fathers be con [...]d as [...] of Scripture, either there was no universal [...], o [...] it is manifestly in favour of [Page] Presbyterian Parity. I am free to challenge Mr. Layman, to produce the universal Consent of ancient Commentaries, for his Doctrine of the Divine Right of Bishops, a an Order superior to Presbyters, and esteem'd a FUNDAMENTAL of Religion; as (p. 84) he says it was in those primitive Times: For I'm persuaded, he'll be hard put to it, to advance so much as the Shadow of a single Testimony to it in any ancient Expositor. So great and absolute a Stranger is this wild Opinion to all Antiquity.

And if we consider the Fathers as Witnesses to Matters of Practice, tho' it is not to be deny'd, that those who lived in or nigh the Apostles Time, were the most likely Persons to know the Truth of Facts, and the most proper to report them, and might as Historians challenge a common Credit with us, in Case it were evident, that their Care to inform themselves aright was equal to their Opportunities, and that they agreed in their Reports, and that their Writings have been deliver'd down to us, in their original Purity and Integrity, without material Depravations, Losses and Defects: which is another Supposition, the Gentleman builds upon; for how else can the primitive Church be pleaded as a safe Witness! Yet what say judicious Inquirers, on these Heads? ‘We plainly see, (says Dr. EDWARDS, in his Discourse concerning the Fathers, p. 136.) that some of the ancient Writers were not diligent enough in enquiring into the true and exact Accounts of Things; but instead of that contented themselves with a superficial Notice of them, and were [...]areless, and took Things upon Trust. Wherefore (says he) tho' there is nothing more common than to make use of the Fathers Names and Testimonies, yet we have Reason to conclude that nothing is more uncertain and preca [...]ious.’

This will appear in a more convincing Light, if we consider thro' whose hands the Fathers Writings have come down to us; even such as have used their utmost Art to make them speak the Language of Rome. And therefore none are louder in boasting of the Fathers, as their Witnesses, than the Popish Doctors; because having taken such Care to make the Fathers their own, they think they may safely shroud themselves under their Authority.

Hear those just Remarks of good Bishop HALL (Works p. [...]18▪) upon ‘the Grounds of the Papists Confidence in appealing to the Fathers.— Our Adversaries (says he) knowing of themselves (that which Tertul [...]ian saith of all Heresies) [Page]That if Appeale be made to the sacred Bench of Prophets and Apostles, they cannot stand; remove the Suit of Religion [...]ra [...]tily, into the Court of the Fathers.— There be two things, that give them heart in this Provocation: One, the Bastardy of false Fathers; the other, the Corruption of the true. What a Flourish doe they make with usurped Names? Whom wou'd it not amaze, to see the frequent Citations of the Apostles own Canons, Constitutions, Liturgies, Masses,— Epistles decretall, of Clemens, — and an hundred other Bishop holy and ancient: Most whereof have crept out of the Vatican or Cloysters:— that I may say nothing of those infinite Writings, which either Ignorance, or Wilfulness, hath fathered upon every of the Fathers.— This Fraud is more easily avoided.— Most Danger is in the secret Corruption of the true and acknowledged Issue of those gracious Parents; whom through dose and crafty handling, the, have induced to belye those that begot them, and to betray their Fathers, either with Silence, or false Evidence. Plainly, how are the honoured Volumes of faithful Antiquity, BLURRED, INTERLINED, ALTERED DEPRAVED, by subtile Treachery; and made to speak what they meant not?— Hence those Fathers are some-where not OURS: what Wonder? While they are not THEMSELUES.’ — Hinc Origo Mali. Hinc [...]e Lachrymae. And now after all the Protestant Labours to restore the Fathers to their primitive Purity, by conferring various Copies &c. and notwithstanding all the Fidelity and Care us'd by our Translators, that "have taken so much la [...] dable Pains of late to make 'em speak ENGLISH," it remains uncertain whether any of those Writings are all-over genuine, and free from sp [...]rious Words and Passages: So that here is no possible Sure-Footing.

But admit they be genuine and of good Credit; yet where is the Consent of Antiquity, so much talk'd of! Was there a perfect Uniformity of Practi [...]e, among the primitive Churches? It appears not in the Histories of those Times. And what is it Chrysostom says (How. in Ma [...]th. 49.) ‘He that wou'd know which is the true Church of Christ, how shall he come to know it in the Similitude of so GREAT CONFUSION, but only by the Scriptures.’

But, again, supposing these ancient Authors in their Accounts of Facts, reported nothing of a Variety of Principles and Practices in the primitive Church; yet how do's this give us [Page] Assurance of an actual Uniformity, or prove any Tradition Apostolical by the universal and unanimous Suffrage of the Church of God from the Beginning! For Worthy Bishop HALL complains, not only that the ancient Witnesses have been corrupted, but some of them purged to DEATH. And that is the Complaint of Dr CAVE (Epist. before A [...]tiq [...]. Christia.) ‘There are only some few scattered Handfuls of the primitive Writings left: So fatally mischievous (says he) was the Carelesness of those, who ought to have been the Guardians of Books and Learning in their several Ages, in suffering the Records of the ancient Church to perish. We have been robbed of the Records of the first Times of Christianity, whereof scarce any Footsteps do remain." And elsewhere (Pref. to Antiq. Apostol.) he laments "the irreparable Loss of the primitive Records, which the Injury of Time hath deprived us of; the Substance being gone, and little left us but the SHELL and CARCASE.’ — Now if this be the Case, I cannot but wonder that any Persons of good Sense and Judgment can allow themselves to talk of the universal Consent of Antiquity, the unanimous Suffrage of the primitive Church &c. and make that a Standard of Orthodoxy, which is but a mere U [...]opian Fancy, a visionary Illusion, and no Reality. The Suffrage of the primitive Church in any Case must necessarily be very defective and imperfect, if so much of the ancient Records are lost, that we have nothing left us but the Shell and Carcase. And here, by the Way, it is a good Observation of Dr. EDWARDS (Rem. p. 139.) ‘Perhaps it is by the particular and over-ruling Providence of God, that there are so few ancient Writings left, that thereby the Authority of the holy Scriptures may be more attended to and relied upon by us.’ To which I will add that of the eminent Archbishop TILLOTSON (Rule of Faith, Fol. Vol. I. p. 678.) ‘And that no material Corruptions have crept into those Books (the holy Scriptures) we know by better Arguments than Oral Tradition, even by the Assurance we have of God's vigilant Providence; and from a moral Impossibility in the Thing, that a Book so universally dispersed, and translated into so many Languages, and constantly read in the Assemblies of Christians, should have been materially corrupted, so as that all those Copies and Translations should have agreed in those Corruptions. And this Reason S [...]. Austin (Ep. 48) gives of the Preservation of the Scriptures [Page] entire, rather than any other Book; if Mr. S. likes it not, he may call St. Austin to account for it.’

Upon the whole, I cannot but sincerely joyn with Mr. Layman, in putting my self under the Conduct of those sacred Texts, Jer 6.16 Cant. 1.8.— Ask for the old Paths— Go thy way forth by the Footsteps of the Flock. But I differ from him exceedingly, when he thinks, that ‘God seems here to point out his second Rule to us;’ i.e. To take the primitive C [...]urch for a safe Witness, in what Sense the Apostles wou'd have themselves to be understood, in doubtful places of Scripture▪ For this wou'd be a setting up human Tradition, to ascertain the Sense of Divine Writt: which is quite opposite to the Scope and Spirit of those Texts; and sets the Old Testament against the New, which tells us how our Saviour dealt severely with the Scribes and Pharisees on this very head; their imposing the Traditions of the Elders, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. He corrects their Traditional Interpretations of the Law, by referring 'em to the original Institution and Practice, as recorded in Scripture. It was not so from the Beginning, says He: Search the Scriptures.— That now is asking for the old Paths; Inquiring out God's Ways, published by Moses and the Prophets. (Compare Jer. 2.17. and 18.15 and Mal 2.8.) That's going forth by the Footsteps of the Flock; attending to the Examples of the holy Patriarchs, and others, graced with honourable Testimonies in Scripture-Story; and being Followers of them, who thro' Faith and Patience inherit the Promises.— Yet this must be taken with a Limitation: such as that the Apostle makes in propounding himself for a Pattern; 1 Cor 11.1. Be ye Followers of me, even as I also am of CHRIST. He adds, Now I praise you, Brethren, that you remember me (my Doctrine, as well as Example) in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES, as I delivered them to you.— For I have received of the LORD, that which also I delivered unto you. (Compare Chap. 15.2.) Here then is our Rule, to follow them who follow CHRIST; and they are said to be Followers of Christ, who keep the Ordinances, which the APOSTLES receiv'd of the Lord, and have delivered unto us, i. e. in their inspir'd Writings. This is the true Tradition, which we may safely follow: This, the Standard, to which we must reduce our Belief and Practice in Religion; and not entertain the Doctrine or Example of others, whether Ancients or Moderns, without bringing 'em to this sacred Test, the written Tradition of the Apostles. The Papists indeed are for an Oral Tradition; and by this Means they [Page]stamp all their novel Opinions and Practices, with the venerable Name of Antiquity. Agreably Bishop JEWEL observes, ‘There is no Toy so vain and fabulous, but they are able by their Cunning to bring it lineally, either from Christ, or his Apostles, or from one or other of the ancient Fathers.’ Those Traditional Doctors, it's well known, have been the notorious Corrupt [...]rs of Religion. Tradition was the grand Cry of the ancient Hereticks: This was the constant Cant of the Pharisees; and has been the Pretext made use of in every Age, to colour over the Whims of those that wou'd be wise above what is written. I am sorry to hear any Protestants joyning with Pharisees and Papists in this Noise and Din about the Tradition of the Elders, the Suffrage of the primitive Church; as if the Voice of Antiquiry were necessary to settle the Sense and supply the Defects of Scripture, and Orthodoxy were to be determin'd by Votes. Mr. Layman's Primitive Church a safe Witness, is but another Phrase for the Popish Oral Tradition; for tho' it be written now, it was but Oral a good while: and so the Arguments of Protestants against that Point of Popery, may in a great measure be turn'd against him. For my part, I am not for professing the Protestant Religion upon Popish Principles: and shou'd be asham'd of any Opinion, that can't be defended but upon a Principle, that disgraces the Scripture, reflects on the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ, as Lawgiver to his Church, and tends to overset the main Pillar of the Reformation; For I look on the Protestant Cause to stand on this Basis, That the word of Christ is the only Rule of Faith, which every Man is at Liberty to judge of for himself. And I must freely confess, I had rather mistake in some Things of lesser Consequence (for I am in no Danger of falling into any damnable Heresies) in the way of a sincere resolute Adherence to the Word of Christ as my ONLY Rule; than resign my Reason and Conscience to the Conduct of ancient Fathers, and receive their Dictates with an implicit Faith and Obedience, under the fond Notion of their being SAFE Witnesses of the Apostles meaning in doubtful Cases. The BIBLE is the Religion of Protestants; If this be the Ground of our Faith, and Model of our Worship and Practice, our Religion will be Divine, and we shall truly walk in the old Paths, the good Way, the Way of Safety and Happiness: Whereas, so far as we build on Traditions of Men, our Faith will be but human, our Religion vain, and our Path full of Snares. Bishop JEWEL has that excellent Passage in his admirable Answer to the Jesuite [Page]Def. Apol. p. 619.) ‘Therefore we thinke it better to examine and try the Grounds of your Religion by the Word of God, that is one, and uniforme, and endureth for ever; than by your Touch of Rome, that is so uncertain, and so mutable, and so often hath deceived us. S Cyprian saith, Si ad Divinae Traditionis Caput & Originem revertamur, cessat Error humanus: If we returne to the Head and Original of the heavenly Tradition (which is the Word of God) all human Error giveth place.’ And elsewhere (Ser. on 1 Pet. 4.11.) the Bishop utters himself in the Language of a true Protestant, in some very pertinent Observations; which I shall take the Pleasure to transcribe, and are highly worth the Readers Attention. He observes; ‘Christ saith, All Things which I have heard of my Father, I have delivered unto you: — and, whereas the Pharisees and Sadduces had moved the Questions of Divorcement, and the Resurrection, he never had Recourse unto the RABBINES, but alwaies to the WORD of the Lord.— Basil doth say, That that Man, which dareth put to or take away any thing from the Scriptures of God, is either a feeble Christian, or a notable arrogant Fellow. To put to the Word of God the Inventions of Men, what other Thing may it seem, than to mingle new Wine, not with old Wine, but with Wine that is dead, and with Lees or Dreggs? and to joyne Light with Darkness, a wild Beast with a Man, a Man with God? — For although very much by the Judgment of all Men is to be given to the Fathers, yet were they Men, and might erre. Truely, to speak nothing else of them, they did oftentimes VERY ill agree among themselves about VERY great and weighty Matters. But the Word of God is sure and firme, and certaine, and appointed for every Time. — O if the Word of the Lord might be heard, among so many [...]lamours, and in so great a hurly burly: If we wou'd suffer God himself to sit as Judge in his owne Case, the Matter wou'd be passed over with lesse Tumult a great deale, and more easily might we agree about the whole Matter. Wherefore, if all the Worship of God, all Godlinesse, all Religion, be to be sought out of the Word of God: If the Institutions of Men have miserably PERVERTED all Things in all Times; let us, my Brethren, unto whome the Office of Teaching is alotted, consider how DANGEROUS a thing it is to speak more: and let all, who will be, and will have themselves accounted to be [Page] Christians, remember how DANG [...]ROUS a thing it is to believe MORE. Let us not be wedded too much to oar owne Wit: let us not be wedded too much to the Fathers and Forefathers. — When wee shall be placed before that dreadful Judgement-Seate, when all Things shall burne, and the Angels of God shall tremble, to what Fathers, to what Decrees of our Forefathers, shall we Wretches then appeale? Wee shall then have Refuge to CHRIST alone; then shall wee use the Aide and Word of Christ alone. Wherefore let us not be of so secure a Minde in so great a Matter: Our Life, our Soul, our Salvation, is the Thing in hand.’ Thus in the Sermon. And the Bishop in his Defence of it against Dr. Cole's Exceptions (Reply, p. 44) addresses himself to him in that pathetick manner: ‘O Master Doctour, let us lay aside all Selfe-Will and Contention, and have Recourse only unto the Truth, that God hath revealed to us in his holy Word. For thereby shall ye be able to know whether the Church doe right, or no. And thereby shall ye be able to reforme her, if she happen to do amiss. For it is possible the Church may erre; but it is not possible the Scriptures may erre. And the Scriptures of God have Authority to reforme the Church; but I never heard that the Church hath Authority to reforme the Scriptures. — To conclude (says he) like as the Errours of the Clocke be revealed by the constant Course of the Sunne; even so the Errours of the Church are revealed by the everlasting and infallible Word of God.’

Mr. Layman gives me Occasion, by what he says (p. 88.) to inquire of him, Whether he thinks he can as heartily joyn with this Rev. Protestant Father, as I do? And whether he will say, and how he can make it appear, that "These Passages are not at all inconsistent with his way of Reasoning"? And he gives me occasion to inquire of him also, Whether he thinks, when Bp. Jewel was for trying the Protestant Cause only by the Scriptures, and so vehemently declin'd the Authority of the Fathers (not without some Reflections on their Memory, as sometimes very ill agreeing among themselves, and that about very weighty Matters, &c.) the secret Reason at the Bottom was, "Because he was afraid of their Authority"? — That he was not so in Reality, is evident from his Controversial Pieces, against the Popish Opinions, which are full of Quotations from the Fathers. The true Reason then must be, not because he distrusted his Cause, and was afraid, but because he had a mean [Page]Opinion, of the Authority of the Fathers in any important religious Disputes. He was upon Principle against TRADITION, as a uncertain, unsafe, and dangerous thing, to be set up for a Rule in interpreting of Scripture. And therefore, when he controverts with the Popish Doctors on the Foot of Tradition, it is not to be understood as done of Choice, as thinking it the best Method to issue the Controversy; but only of Constraint, and with a View to quell their deceitful Vaunts of Antiquity, by beating them at their own Weapons▪ Now just the same Principle and the same View are Protestant Dissenters govern'd by, in the Episcopal Controversies. If they decline the Authority of the Fathers, it is because they think it contrary to the natural Fitness and Reason of Things, to refer a Divine Cause to human Arbitration, and set up a fallible Judge to determine for them in Matters of Conscience. However, they have sometimes submitted to contest the Points in Debate, on the Foot of Tradition, but then their principal View herein has been to confront their Adversaries, in the way of an Ad [...]ss to their avow'd Principles, commonly term'd Argumentum [...] h [...]minem: which is an Argument drawn from an indirect and insufficient Medium, it the Opinion of him that uses it, not affecting the Merits of [...]he Cause; but design'd chiefly to silence; the Opposer, and [...]onvince him that there is a Necessity of putting the Dispute on a different Issue.— In this way much has been done, to baffle our Episcopal Adversaries, by a variety of Hands; who have exerted themselves to good Purpose, on one Occasion and another: Such as Owen, Baxter, Boyse, Pierce, and others among the Dissenters; Jameson, Lauder, Anderson, and others among the Scottish Ministers; with Stillingfleet and Edwards, among the Church of England Divines: Not to mention any Essays, that have been written in New England. All which Writers, if they don't prove, that we have the justest Pretensions to Antiquity for our Hypothesis, yet do demonstrate thus much, That our Adversaries Boasts of "PLAIN Testimonies to the Divine Right of Episcopacy, as an Order superior to Presbytery, and of the Government of the Church by a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles being a NOTORIOUS, UNIVERSAL, and GLARING matter of Fact," are but vain Boasts of s [...] guine Persons, that have not had Opportunity to ripen their S [...] dies in Antiquity, or have never had Impartiality enough to look into and examine Things as they ought. However, at least, the numerous Controversial Writings of so many learned and pious Men on both sides of the Question, must needs be allow'd [Page]by modest Persons, certainly to demonstrate this, That it is a difficult Thing to come at the true Sense of the Fathers, even to an industrious and teachable Inquirer, and that it's next to impossible for unlearned Men to become acquainted with it; notwithstanding our Author's Insinuations to the contrary, p. 87.— This Gentleman observes (p. 91.) That ‘setting his Postulata aside (which shall be mention'd by'n'by) we may w [...]ngle on upon SCRIPTURE without End: My Design in them (says he, to his Adversary, p. 92.) was to fix you, that we might come to a fair Stating of the Case, and bring the Matter to a short Issue: But that wou'd not serve your Turn; you was of the Mind to play a little longer upon the Identity of Names and Ambiguity of Words.’ Now, for my part, I can't apprebend Mr. Layman cou'd have any other View himself than this, in diverting the Scent, and carrying us into the Wood of Antiquity, which is as full of Windings, and Darkness, and Ambiguity, as he can suppose the Scripture is; and therefore, for ought I see, he may wrangle on upon Fathers (as he says we may upon Scripture) without End, and notwithstanding his gla [...]ring Pretence of bringing the Matter to a short Issue by his Postulata, on which (he say) the Life of the Controversy as to Scripture, and I may add with equal Reason as to Fathers too, depends, he may wander these seven Years in the Mazes of Antiquity; and be never the nearer his short Issue. This will appear in the Sequel.

Sect. IV. I propose now, under a distinct Head, to collect and consider the more specious Pleas Mr. Layman has offer'd, to justify his Appeal to the Fathers, and support the Authority of Tradition; which are deliver'd in the form of Declamation and Invective.

I observe, this Gentleman once and again makes doleful Outcries against us, as if by rejecting the Authority of the Fathers in the present Dispute we did a Thing, that ‘very much weakens the Common Cause of Christianity, destroys all historical Faith, shocks even the Scriptures themselves, and brings our Bibles into Contempt; as if therein we join'd with all the DEISTS and INFIDELS in the Kingdom, were serving their Turn, and justifying their Infidelity, or at least giving them a great Handle against us, to laugh at us, and ridicule our Religion &c. (Compare pag. 72, 73, 80, 81.) Thus he sets us out in all the odious Colours he cou'd think of, and meerly riots upon our Infirmities, as if we were a Company of Knaves, [Page]or a Pack of Fools. I am sure, any indifferent Person with half Eye may see, that herein he treats us injuriously.’ Have we [...] just Provocation to retort upon him, in his own Words (p. 81.) ‘Why shou'd you thus delight to walk in the Counsel of the Ungodly, and sit in the Seat of the Scorner!’ Do's Mr. Layman think to run us down with a railing Accusation, and to gain his Point by mere Dint of Slander! I have [...]le Inclination to recriminate: or else I wou'd expostulate with him in his own Language (mutatis mutandis) ‘How comes it to pass, that PAPISTS are so mightily pleas'd to hear the Christian Fathers cry'd up for Oracles, by those who pretend to be Protestants? Is it not because you are herein serving their Turn, and justifying their Conduct in laying aside the Scriptures, and in stead of them substituting the Fathers for their Guide in matters of Faith; or at least giving an Handle, to it! Methinks I should not love to be of their Company, in any thing that shou'd bring the Bible into Disgrace, and undermine it once the whole Foundation of the reformed Religion, as it seems to me an implicit Faith in the Fathers, as safe Witnesses, in what Sense the Apostles wou'd have themselves to be understood, has a Tendency to do. — But I forbear.’ And had rather [...]sign this Gentleman to the Castigations of the learned CHILLINGWORTH, for whose Judgment he has express'd a profound Respect. The Apostle thought it the best Expedient in dealing with the Men of Crete, to alledge against 'em their own Poet, whom he calls a Prophet: I propose to take the like Method, and may justly expect this Gentleman will submit to the Correction of his own Episcopal Author.

Mr. Layman says to his Adversary (p. 80.) ‘Si [...] [...] sure you, that I as tenaciously adhere to the holy Scriptures for my Rule, and the ONLY Rule of my Faith, as you or any one of your Persuasion whatsoever." But then he says (p. 59.) In doubtful Cases, it is my bounden Duty to follow the Footsteps of the Flock of Christ; that is, taking the primitive Church for a safe Witness, in what Sense the Apostles, wou'd have themselves understood, to chuse her as the best Guide to lead me to the Sense and Meaning of Scripture. This (says he p. 84.) is what we contend for.’ And he tells his Adversary (p. 89.) ‘After all your Endeavours to deface the Fathers, I cannot part with my Rule;’ i. e. to make them his Guide in interpreting doubtful places of Scripture.— Thus the Gentleman, I see, has learnt the exact Language of Rome: for that is the Popish Shibboleth, The Scripture a perfect Rule, yet not [Page]excluding Tradition; which they make come in as an Interpreter of Obscurities in the Faith, and a necessary Guide to the Sense and Meaning of the Rule. 'Tis just the Talk of this Gentleman; The Scriptures his only RULE, and the Fathers his GUIDE in doubtful Cases.

Now will he hear Mr. Chillingworth, and yield to his Censure! Turn to his learned Book of the Religion of Protestants (p. 47.) Where, in Answer to the Popish Plea aforesaid, he thus delivers his Thoughts. Here ‘we have direct B [...]ys-play; a thing given with one hand, and taken away with the other.—We acknowledge (say you) Scripture to be a perfect Rule; — only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition. As if you shou'd have said, We acknowledge it to be a perfect Rule,— only we deny it to be a perfect Rule. Either therefore you must revoke your Acknowledgement, or retract your Retraction of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. For if you will stand to what you have granted, That Scripture is a perfect Rule;— you must then grant it both so Compleat, that it needs no Addition, and so EVIDENT, that it needs no INTERPRETATION: for both these Properties are requisite to a perfect Rule.’ — It follows (p. 49.) ‘When Protestants affirm against Papists, That Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith,— their Meaning is, that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine, and a Rule of Faith, as Papists and Protestants do, contains all the material Objects of Faith, is a compleat and total, and not onely an imperfect and a partial Rule.’ In the same page, he condemns the popish Doctrine of Traditions not excluded, as ‘a DISPARAGEMENT to the Scripture's being a perfect Rule."— He has those Passages (p. 50.) "The Interpretations of obscure places of Scripture, which without question the Apostles taught the primitive Christians, are WHOLLY LOST; there remains no Certainty scarce of any one.— The Scripture is the only Rule to judge Controversies by. Every Man is to judge for himself with the Judgment of Discretion &c." He says elsewhere (p. 102.) We conceive, as the APOSTLES Persons, while they were living, were the only Judges of Controversies, so THEIR Writings, now they are dead, are the ONLY Rule for us to judge them by.’ Observe it, Here lies the Difference between our Layman and Mr. Chillingworth: The Layman says, The Scriptures are his only Rule of Faith; but in doubtful Cases the Sense of the primitive Fathers must be his Guide. [Page]Whereas Mr. Chillingworth in direct Opposition plainly says, The Scripture is the ONLY Rule to judge even CONTROVERSIES by, and that every Man is to judge for himself.— What without a Guide! Yes; for so says Mr. Chillingworth (p. 51.) ‘My Request is, that you will permit Scripture to have the Properties of a Rule; that is, to be fit to direct every one, that will make the best Use of it, to that End for which it was ordained: and that is as much as we need desire. For as, if I were to go a Journey and had a Guide which could not err, I needed not to know my Way: so on the other side, If I know my Way, or have a plain Rule to know it, I shall need no Guide.’

Well, but Mr. Layman perhaps will say, "This is not at all inconsistent with my way of reasoning:" for I only speak of doubtful Cases, where we have not a plain Rule; there, I say, the Fathers must be my Guide. Now hear Mr. Chillingworth again (p. 74) ‘If you speak of plain Places (and in such, ALL Things NECESSARY are contained, says he) we are sufficiently certain of the Meaning of them, neither need they any Interpreter. If of obscure and difficult Places, we confess we are uncertain of the Sense of many of them: But then, we say, there is no Necessity we should be certain. For if God's Will had been we shou'd have understood him more certainly, He wou'd have spoken more plainly.’— Upon which the Consequence naturally arises, It never was God's Will, that we shou'd take the Fathers for safe Witnesses to the Sense of Scripture, or authentick Interpreters of doubtful Places; and so their Belief and Practice, an authoriz'd Standard to all Posterity.— And whereas Mr. Layman says (p. 59.) ‘I shou'd EXTREMELY ENDANGER my self, if I forsake the ancient Paths, to follow new Devices,’ &c. What says Mr. Chillingworth to this? See his Book (p. 52.) ‘Where the Scriptures (says he) are not plain, there if we, using Diligence to find the Truth, do yet miss of it and fall into Error; there is NO DANGER in it: Because those Places contain not Things necessary, neither is Error in them dangerous.’ — And whereas Mr. Layman says (Ibid) "In doubtful C [...]ses, it is my bounden DUTY to follow the footsteps of the F [...]ock of Christ": Hear Mr. Chillingworth in answer to this; who says (p. 122.) ‘Our OBLIGATION expresly to know any Divine Truth must arise from God's manifest revealing of it, and his revealing to us that he hath revealed it, and that his Will is, we should believe it. Now [Page]in the Points controverted among PROTESTANTS, he hath not so dealt with us; therefore he hath not laid any such Obligation upon us. The Major of this Syllog [...]s [...] is evident. — The Minor also will be evident to him that considers, That in ALL the Controversies of Protestants there is a seeming CONFLICT of Scripture with Scripture, Reason with Reason, Authority with Authority, &c.’

Let it be added here: To set up the Fathers for Interpreters of Scripture, from whose Sense we SHOULD not depart; however Mr. Layman may daub and disguise the matter by calling 'em only safe Witnesses to the Apostles Meaning; it is nevertheless in Effect to make their Traditions our Rule of Faith, to make them the Judges of Controversies in Religion, and advance 'em to the Papal Chair. ‘To require, that their Interpretations of any Law of Christ should be obey'd, as the true and genuine, seem they to our Understanding never so dissonant from it, is to require indeed that their Interpretations should be the LAWS. 'Tis to make the Law and the Lawmaker both mere STALES, and to set up the Interpreters in CHRIST'S stead: 'tis a Dethroning Christ from his Dominion over Mens Consciences,’ and a making our selves the Servants of Men. To receive the Judgment of the Primitive Church with an implicit Faith, is not to obey the Gospel of Christ, but "only the Interpreter." This is just ‘as if I should pretend to submit to the Laws of the King of England, but should indeed resolve to obey them in that Sense which the King of France should put upon them, whatsoever it were;" in which Case, "I presume every understanding Man would say, that I did indeed obey the King of France, and not the King of England.’ These are the Thoughts of Mr. CHILLINGWORTH. (Answ. to Direct. to N. N. Sect. 10.) If then any believe the Divine Right of Episcopacy, upon the Credit of Antiquity, 'tis at best but a [...]uman Faith: and if they conform in Practice, from a Reverence to the Authority of the Fathers, it is rather obeying Man, than God. But now, we know, that the Religion is [...]in, that's taught by the Precept of Men. Therefore it cannot be matter of DUTY, to take the primitive Church for our Guide in doubtful Cases: and it must not be said, ‘We SHOULD c [...]use’ this or the other Interpretation of Scripture, merely because it happens to have the Suffrage of the Fathers. Nor, by Consequence, can there be any [Page]EXTREME DANGER in forsaking ancient Paths, as the Case is tragically represented by our Lay-writer.

Well, but Mr. Layman perhaps will say; If there be no absolute Obligation to receive Traditional Interpretations, yet at least you must allow the Fathers to be ‘the safest and best Guides to the Sense of Scripture in doubtful Cases, as being under much better Advantages not to mistake, than we at this Distance.’ I have said something to this before: But now let Mr. Chillingworth speak. (See his Book, p. 137.) ‘Who can doubt but the primitive Christians, to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the Apostles touching the Sense of the obscure places of them? These TRADITIVE Interpretations, had they been written and dispersed, as the Scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the Scriptures are: But to shew how excellent a KEEPER of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the CATHOLICK Church, for want of writing They are ALL LOST, nay, were lost within a few Ages after Christ: So that if we consult the ANCIENT Interpreters [N. B.] we shall hardly find ANY TWO of Them AGREE about the Sense of ANY ONE of them.’ —May we venture to take Mr. Chillingworth's Word in this Case? If so, this at once destroys the Credit of Mr. Layman's SAFE WITNESSES and BEST GUIDES. And pray, who is't now that reflects on the Catholic Church, and exposes the good old Fathers, as if there were no Faith in what they say! Where's the glorious UNITY, Mr. Layman boasts of, among the primitive Fathers; and on which the Authority of those venerable Martyrs and Confessors so depends! You see, they are not only "some of our Persuasion" (as he insinuates, p. 72.) that undervalue the Authority of ancient Interpretations and Traditions. No, we have the good Company of some of the Episcopal Persuasion: the great CHILLINGWORTH, for Instance. And if we shou'd represent the Fathers as being some of 'em "ignorant Men, or guilty of pious Frauds," neither shou'd we be alone in this. For hear what the Episcopal Mr. Sprint says, (Necess. of Conform. p. 91.) ‘Touching the Fathers and Bishops of the Church, some being simple, and of small Capacitie, and shallow Judgment, as Eusebius saith, received Traditions without any searching of Writings, as out of bare Report. Such one was Papias, the hearer of St. John, and Companion of Policarp, who in this Simplicity broached fabulous Doctrine of the Chiliast Error: by whom Irenaeus, [Page]and others which were of the like Opinion, were deceived, namely by pretending and reverencing of his ANTIQUITY, Euseb. 3.35. Such were Tertullian and Lactantius.— Some were deceived by Hereticks; who to cover their pernicious Heresies, did studiously broach Traditions under the Apostles Names and Authoritie.— Eusebius 5.25. Clemens Strom. lib 7.— Some are noted to have ascribed too TOO MUCH unto Traditions: So did Papias, Clemens, Origen, and they cite Ap [...]ryphall Books to countenance them, and commend very sorry Matters, both of Doctrine and of Practice, to themselves and others. So did Papias, Clemens, and Origen, and Basil, and Epiphanius; (of which point, look Chemnitius examp. parte. 1. de tradition. Fol. 85, 86, 87.) and what they cou'd not sound from any true Originall, sundry of them did usually ascribe to the Apostles.— Some did commend the Traditions, which they liked a [...] fancied themselves, to their Posterities for Laws, &c.’ [...]us Mr. Sprint. Hear also those Remarks of Bp. MORTON (Prot. Appeal, p. 324) ‘Papias, who was the Disciple of St. John, did (as Eusebius witnesseth) broach many Paradoxes and exorbitant Doctrines, &c. And shall we thinke that those purer Times, when some Ancients not content to keep Regiam Viam, i. e. the rode-way, which is the written Word of God, but were seduced by presumption of unwritten Traditions, and erred in points of Doctrine; could be altogether free from some Sprinklings & Spots of ceremonious Corruptions! It is a knowne Contention about the Observation of Easter, which afflicted and vexed the Church of God in the daies of Victor Bishop of Rome, by dividing the East and West Churches; the one Side pretending a Tradition from St. John and St. Philip; the other presuming of a supposed Tradition from S. Peter and S. Paul. Whereby was made a Schisme and Rent, not in the Garment onely, but even in the Bodie of Christ, which is his Church. These two Examples may serve for many, which might be alledged, to give us more than a Signification of the DANGER and UNCERTAINTY of unwritten Traditions; which the after-times, even of S. Augustine (not to wade deeper into this POOLE) had more cause to complaine of: whom we find bewailing the Corruptions of his Age, and confessing, That he durst not freely reprehend many Traditions, whereby the Church was then pestred, and which he calleth PRESUMPTIONS; and consequently, could not agree with the Simplicity of the [Page]Gospel of Christ." — The same Bishop (ibid. p. 355) says, Our Adversaries themselves know right well, that the Fathers Writings are FULL of OBSCURITIES. — Some of them had their by-paths; —in some Things did GREATLY erre." — And he observes, "Their Bookes, which have been corrupted by Hereticks (which also are confessed to have been very many) are to be esteemed as none of the Fathers; being by the Art of Arians, Pelagians,—and other He [...]eticks, infected with deadly Corruptions: So that the unexpert Scholar is no otherwise occupied in turning over the Fathers, than an ignorant Man who is conversant in an Apothecarie's Shop, where without warie Circumspection he may sucke his BANE out of Boxes, which carrie the Title of an Antidote.’ — Let the Reader judge now who they are that represent the Fathers in a Light so hateful to Mr. Layman. And if our Freedom with the Fathers [...]eds an Apology, I can't make one in Words more apposite, [...]an those of the same Bishop MORTON (ibid. p. 356.) ‘Which Errours the Protestants have noted, not as the Children of CHAM, pointing at Deformities to laugh and scorne; but as careful and faithful PILOTS, discovering Shelves & Sandes, for the directing of others in the safest Course.’ This, I hope, Mr. Layman will accept as a sufficient Return to his sarcastical Fling (p. 81.) where he insinuates as if the Presbyterians ‘derided the Fathers, and delighted with the accursed HAM to expose and mock at their Nakedness.’ Verily this Temper and Design are as distant from us, as from himself. For, by the way, I must observe, even he takes upon him to use a pretty deal of Freedom with the good old Fathers, in the midst of his apologetical Harangue; particularly in conceding, that some of the "erroneous Tenets" held by them may pass for "VERY BAD Mistakes," and that they might be MISLED into them;" That they ‘might fall into unjustifiable BROILS and Contentions about SMALL and circumstantial Matters;’ That ‘particular Churches might have DIFFERENT Usages, for which they might ZEALOUSLY and perhaps TRULY plead Apostolical Tradition’ &c. (p. 85, 86) Surely I might now shoot at him with his own Bow, and turn his own Arrows against him, as a Son of Ham, equally with us. Alas! if these Things may be suppos'd, I doubt the Testimony of the Fathers must in a great measure lose its Credit, and won't be allow'd by unpassionate and disinterested Judges to carry any great Authority with it. — If the Fathers did sometimes zealously [Page]plead Apostolical Tradition on both Sides of a fierce Controversy, and that so near the Apostles times, in the very next Age; I'm sure, this tends very much to weaken, if not wholly invalidate, the Credibility of their boasted Tradition, as fabulous and uncertain; and reflects on the Fathers as being partial or incompetent Judges. Or if they might TRULY plead opposite apostolic Traditions to support contrary Practices, this infers a gross Reflection (as upon the English Act of UNIFORMITY, which at this rate may pass for an unapostolical and unnecessary Act; so in special) on those primitive Fathers, who with so much unchristian Heat contended for Uniformity, in small Matters, even to Excommunication of such as differ'd from them. And then, might any of the venerable Fathers fall into VERY BAD Mistakes, and be MISLED into 'em too; what a Reflection is this upon them, as ignorant Men, and of weak Capacity! And does not this render their Testimony to any particular Doctrine, not evident in Scripture, very precarious; since it might, for ought we know, be one of the very bad Mistakes they were misled into? — How will Mr. Layman bring himself off now! Or how will he bring off the Fathers with Honour, and secure the Reputation and Force of his Rule for right interpreting of Scripture, the Sense and Practice of the primitive Church! Why, all he can say (I presume) is what he suggests (p. 85.) ‘Do any of them assert these or any of these to be the UNIVERSAL Doctrine of the Church in those Days? Or do they plead for them as ESSENTIAL Doctrines of Christianity? No (says he) not a Word of this.’ — Well, we will try the Justice of this Gentleman's Remark. 'Twou'd be tedious to go over the several Errors he mentions: and therefore I will single out one Opinion, he ranks among the Errors of the Fathers, (to which I shall add another not mention'd) and rest the Cause here.

I fix then on what he calls ‘the CHILIAST Notion, of Christ's personal Reign with the Saints on Earth, a thousand Years’ &c. Now, was this asserted by any of the Fathers to be the UNIVERSAL Doctrine of the Church in these Days? Mr. Layman answers, No, not a Word of this. But is he sure of his Point! It seems, some learned Episcopal Antiquaries are of another Mind▪ For what is that, we read in Dr. EDWARDS'S Discourse concerning the Fathers! (Remains, p. 28.) ‘The Tradition concerning the Millennium, i. e. the personal Reigning of Christ upon Earth a thousand Years &c. was derived from St. John, if we will believe Papias, one of the Ancients, a Disciple of St. John the Evangelist. And because [Page]this Opinion was grounded on such Authority, it became the GENERAL and UNIVERSAL Belief of the Christians that came afterwards, yea, of the most EMINENT of the Fathers."—So Bishop MORTON (Prot. Appeal. p. 510.) The Error of the Millenarit (says he) our Adversaries have acknowledged to have been both ancient and GENERAL, and defended by primitive Fathers, and that without either notorious Beginning or public Resistance." And he tells us (p. 664.) "The Error of the Chiliasts continued THREE HUNDRED Years;’ that is, successively from the time of Papias, who was contemporary with the Apostle John. (Ibid. p. 324.)—So Archbishop TILLOTSON (Fol. Vol. 1. p. 730.) observes, ‘The Tradition of the Chiliasts was the Persuasion of ALL orthodox Christians in Justin Martyr's Time;’ who flourish'd in the middle of the 2d Century.— Now, it may be, Mr. Layman will return upon me, These Passages give us only the Opinion of the Moderns on the Case: But my Demand was, ‘Is the Chiliast-Notion asserted by any of the Fathers themselves to have been the universal Doctrine in those Days?’ Well, to this the Answer is still affirmative. The Mouth of two Witnesses may suffice, for Evidence, both of which liv'd in the next Age after the Apostles. I shall take my Account from Mr. CHILLINGWORTH. (Relig. Prot. p. 309.) ‘It appears manifestly out of this Book of IRENAEUS (Lib. 3. adv Haer.) that the Doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his Judgment Apostolique Tradition, as also it was esteemed (for ought appears to the Contrary) by ALL the Doctors, and Saints and Martyrs of or about his Time; for ALL that spake of it, or whose Judgments in the point are any way recorded, are for it: and JUSTIN MARTYR (In Dial. cum Tryphon.) professeth, that ALL good and orthodox Christians of his Time believed it; and those that did not, he reckons among Heretiques.’ Will any one now deny, the Doctrine was universal!

But Mr. Layman has another Question behind; Did any of the Fathers plead for the Chiliast Notion as an ESSENTIAL Doctrine of Christianity? I answer, Judge you by the Account of Justin above given: He manifestly esteem'd it a Doctrine of such Importance, That those who did not believe it, he reckon'd among HERETICKS. I shall add, in the Words of A. Bp. TILLOTSON (Vol. 1. p. 732.) ‘It is not material to my Purpose, whether or no Justin look'd upon this as a Point necessary to Salvation, so long as it is evident that he looked upon it [Page]as a Divine Revelation, and Part of the Christian Doctrine. And yet, it seems, he thought it a Point of more than ordinary Importance, because he joyns it with the Doctrine of the RESURRECTION, and says that it was not disowned by any but those who also denied the Resurrection.’ He expresly says of the Disowners of this Doctrine, ‘Of these who are called indeed Christians, but are atheistical and impious Hereticks, I have shewed, that they teach in all Points blasphemous, atheistical and absurd Things &c. (Dial. cum. Tryph. p. 306. Edit. Lut [...]t. 1615.’

Thus it appears, the Doctrine of the Millennium was in Justin's time Universally believ'd by the Orthodox, and held to be Apostolical, and such as deny'd it deem'd Heretical. Upon the whole take this Observation, in the Archbishop's Words (p. 730.) ‘If notwithstanding the Persuasion of that Age, that this Doctrine was descended to them from the Apostles, it was not really so descended; Then the Persuasion of Christians in any Age, that a Doctrine was brought down to them from the Apostles, is no Demonstration that it was so. —The natural Consequence (of the Premises) is this (says he) That the Mistake of ONE simple and credulous Man may in an Age or two give Occasion to the universal Entertainment of a Doctrine, as descended down to them from Christ and his Apostles, when there was no such Matter.’

Apply this now to the Point in Controversy, the Case of Episcopacy. Mr. Layman (p. 90.) says, "he thinks it HARD, if we can't allow, that the Fathers knew whether the Church was govern'd by Bishops, or not." I must confess, it seems so: but then it must be added, We think it hard too, if we mayn't be allow'd to judge, whether the Fathers do testify, in fact, the Church was govern'd by Bishops, or not. And supposing the Fathers do testify in the Affirmative, we think it hard again, if we mayn't be allow'd to judge, whether the Bishops of the primitive Church were of the same Spec [...]es with those in the modern Church, or not And if it shou'd appear, that in the 3d or 4th Age they were the same, yet we think it still hard, we mayn't be allow'd to judge, whether these Bishops were then held to be of Divine Right, or not: And if of Divine Right, whether they founded their Opinion upon Scripture, or Tradition. Now if they built upon Scripture, we think it hard, that their Opinion shou'd be urg'd as a Rule to us, and that we mayn't be allow'd to see with our own Eyes, and judge for our selves on the Sense of Scripture. But, if upon Tradition, then [Page]think it hard again, to be born down with an Authority, that has so many just Prejudices lying against it. As Dr. STILLINGFLEET says (Irenic. p. 317.) ‘How can we fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity, as any thing certain or impartial in this Case; when it hath been found so evidently PARTIAL in a Case of less Concernment, than this is! A Witness, that hath once betrayed his Faithfulness in the open Court, will HARDLY have his Evidence taken in a Case of Moment, especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony. For my part (says the Dr.) I see not how any Man, that would see Reason for what he doth, can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles; WHEN in the Case of keeping Easter (a Case wherein they had all the Advantages imaginable, in order to knowing the Certainty of the Thing in question among them) there was yet so much unreasonable Heat shewed on both sides, and such Confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical:’ I add, WHEN in the Case of the Chiliast-Notion, there was the fairest Appearance of an authentick Tradition from the Apostles, some Texts of Scripture seeming to favour the Opinion, a very early Entertainment of it, an universal Suffrage for it, and a long Duration thereof thro' the Course of Three Centuries (all which flagrantly appears matter of fact) yet all this while, if we may believe the Church in Ages following (for at present I am not concern'd to deliver my own private Thoughts on the Subject) the Millenary Opinion was erroneous, and the Tradition has been almost as universally condemn'd for Apocryphal, as once it was receiv'd for Canonical. Now, why may not we suppose, the Tradition pleaded in behalf of the distinct Order and the Divine Right of Episcopacy, has as little of Truth in its Foundation? ‘This Notion being once started (as Dr. Calamy observes, Mod Non [...]. I. 181.) the Fathers may be easily suppos'd to have taken it from one another, as they did the Chiliastical Opinion; while yet there might not be any better Ground to ascribe it to an Apostolical Original, than there was as to that Opinion which prevail'd so generally for several Centuries’ If Mr. Layman will not allow the Suffrage of the primitive Church to be a solid Proof in one Case; I think I may with equal Modesty refuse it in the other: Especially since I find one of his own Episcopal Authors crying up the Tradition in this Case of Chylias [...], and in one other Case, as being most probable, next to that of the [Page]Canon of Scripture, and this alone excepted, without a Rival. The famous Mr. CHILLINGWORTH (p. 102.) has these words; ‘The Apostles Writings are the only Rule for us to judge Controversies by; There being NOTHING unwritten, which can go in upon half so fair Cards, for the Title of Apostolike Tradition, as these Things, which by the Confession of both sides are not so: I mean the Doctrine of the MILLENARIES, and of the Necessity of the Eucharist for Infants.’ Again, hear what he says (p. 136.) ‘To deal ingenuously with You and the World, I am not such an Idolater of S. Austin, as to think all his Sentences are Oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the universal Church of his Time, must needs have come from the Apostles. Though, considering the Nearness of his Time to the Apostles, I think it a good probable Way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when I see no Reason to the contrary. Yet, I profess, I must have better Satisfaction, before I can induce my self to hold it certain;— because by the Church universal of some Time, and the Church universal of other Times, I see plain Contradictions held and practised: Both which could not come from the Apostles; for then the Apostles had been Teachers of Falshood.—I instance in the Doctrine of the Millenaries, and the Eucharist's Necessity for Infants: both which Doctrines have been taught by the CONSENT of the eminent Fathers of some Ages, without any Opposition from any of their Contemporaries; and were delivered by them, not as Doctors, but as WITNESSES, not as their own Opinions, but as APOSTOLICK Traditions: — And (yet) that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other Time, I believe you will not think it needful for me to prove.’

So again (p. 261.) ‘Though some Protestants confess some of your Doctrine is Ancient: yet this is Nothing, so long as it is evident, even by the Confession of all Sides, that many Errors, I instance in that of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, were more ancient. Not any Antiquity therefore, unless it be Absolute and Primitive, is a certain Sign of true Doctrine.’ (See also CHILL. Answ. to Pref. p. 11.)

This now, I think, subverts the Foundation of Mr. Layman's Argument from the Fathers, in the case of Episcopacy: and particularly invalidates the Argument a Minori, which he so insists upon in both Letters; I mean, his Objection from [Page] parallel Cases, in which (he says) we plead the Sense and Practice of Antiquity, to support our Opinion, and yet (says he) ‘the Testimonies of the primitive Church in those Cases are not so ancient, clear and frequent, as for interpreting of Scripture in favour of Episcopacy." Particularly he says (p 69.) "We have much more ancient, clear and frequent Testimonies, in favour of Episcopacy, than can be produced in the Cause of Infant-Baptisme: For there is no Father (says he) that gives a full clear and incontestible Testimony for Infant Baptisme, before St. Cyprian, who lived 150 Years after the Apostles’ &c. Well now, supposing this to be Fact, I ask the Gentleman, whether he thinks the Authority of Cyprian and the Church in his day, to be a sufficient Ground for interpreting doubtful Texts of Scripture in favour of Infant Baptism, and for refelling those Arguments against it, to be bro't out of Scripture, which he says (p. 68.) are "as strong, as any we can bring against Episcopacy?" To this, if he will be consistent with himself, he must answer in the Affirmative. — But then again I must observe, if he will be still consistent with himself, he must also think, the Authority of Cyprian and the Church in his Day is a sufficient Ground for interpreting the Scripture in favour of Communicating Infants: which yet I trust Mr. Layman will allow to be an Error, but I hope will not number it among his ‘LITTLE TRIFLING Instances of Mistakes and Errors.’

I think proper to take a particular Notice of it, tho' he omits it in his Catalogue of "worst Things." ‘That Infants were admitted to the Lord's Supper in those early Ages of the Church, is known to all that are acquainted with Ecclesiastical History,’ says an anonymous Episcopal Writer. (LIVES of the primitive Fathers, p. 592.) He adds (p. 607.) ‘That it was so in the third Century, appears by the Account St. Cyprian gives us, &c. — And that this was not only practis'd in St. Austin's time, but also deem'd necessary to the Salvation of Infants, as well as Baptism, is manifest by what he tells us in his first Book, &c.— The Practice continued to the Reign of Charles the Great at the Beginning of the 9th Century; as is prov'd by Bp. TAYLOR, in his Treatise call'd, The worthy Communicant. Ch. 3. §. 2.’— Bp. MORTON (Prot. Appeal. p. 510.) observes, That this Practice ‘continued in the Church for 600 Years; the first Author, or visible Resister whereof (says he) our Adversaries cannot name in continuance of so many hundred Years.’ I shall add that of Mr. CHILLINGWORTH, (Answ. to Pref. p. 11.) ‘S. Augustine, I am sure, held the Communicating[Page]of Infants as much Apostolique Tradition, as the Baptizing them. So again, he says (p. 135.) "It was a Practice of the whole Church in S. Austine's time, and esteemed an Apostolique Tradition, even by S. Austine himself, That the E [...]charist should be administred to Infants: Tell me, Sir, I beseech you (says he to his Adversary) Had it been insolent Madness to dispute against this Practice, or had it not? If it had, how insolent and mad are you, that have not only disputed against it, but utterly abolyshed it?’ — I will supply the other part of the Dilemma, and say; If it had not, then how intolerably partial and abusive are you, to plead that Authority for Infant-Baptism, or in any Case, which you scruple not your self to reject in the Case of Infant-Communicating, and in many other Cases?—How weak and simple too, to build on an Authority, as a certain or safe Ground for Belief, which may support Falshood, as well as Truth? — If Mr. Layman will not be try'd by Austin's Judgment, who (according to the Episcopal way of arguing) must needs be allow'd to know well enough, what was the Opinion and Practice of the Church in an Age or two before him, I know not why he should plead the Authority of Cyprian: Or if he will not submit to the Authority of Cyprian in one Case, I think he unqualifies himself to plead it in any other. If the Communicating of Infants was a Custom of the Church in the Cyprianick Age, and held to be of Apostolick Original, and of necessity to Salvation, as it certainly was by Austin, and probably by Cyprian, and all the Doctors for those 600 Years in which it is known to have been practised; How can Mr. Layman, consistently to himself, disown that ancient Usage! What! (to turn upon him his own Argument (p. 86.) ‘Were all those Fathers a Pack of Knaves, that he should have no Faith in what they say! Would he be willing to be treated so himself! Nay, Do's he treat the Heathen Historians so injuriously! Why then must the poor Christian Fathers be disbelieved!’

Or how can he reject the Chiliast Notion, as an Error, when it was so early receiv'd, as Apostolical, and held as a matter of Faith for the Space of three Centuries: and yet at the same Time urge those very Considerations in favour of his beloved Episcopacy! I will return Mr. Layman his own Argument, (p. 69.) apply'd to this Case. ‘If the Fathers of the first and best Ages are on the Side of the CHILIAST Opinion (as we have been told they are) I can't with all the Witts I have, devise, Why the Witness of the Fathers of the primitive Church [Page]should not as well be called in, and be allowed as good Evidence, to justify our interpreting the Scriptures, in favour of the CHYLIAST Doctrine, as of Episcopacy; Especially seeing we have much more ancient, clear, and frequent Testimonies of the primitive Church, for interpreting of Scripture in favour of Chyliasm, than can be produced in the Cause of the Divine Right and fundamental Necessity of Episcopacy, as an Order superior to Presbytery: For there is no Father, that gives a full clear and incontestible Testimony for this, at least before St. CYPRIAN (if we shou'd allow that he do's it) who lived 150 Years after the Apostles. Whereas how clear and full in the Cause of Chyliasm is IRENAEUS, who lived in the very next Age to them; and JUSTIN MARTYR, who liv'd and wrote an hundred Years before Cyprian, and but fifty after St. John, the last surviving Apostle; and above all, PAPIAS, who lived in the Apostles Times, and said he receiv'd the Chyliasti [...] Tradition from the Mouth of the Apostle John himself! So full and express is the whole Current of Antiquity, in favour of Chyliasm, that it seems to me (according to Mr. Layman's way of thinking) that NO HONEST Man can question, but that it had the universal Witness of the Church of God, even from the Beginning: and yet [...]e ventures to rank this Notion among the Errors of the Fathers. For which Reason, I can't help being persuaded, that there never was a Time in the primitive Church, for some Centuries after the Apostles, but that if Mr. Layman had lived in it, and obstinately persisted in his Anti-Chyliast Opinion, he would have been ce [...]sured and cast out of the universal Church, for a HERETIC, &c. &c.’

Thus I have exactly follow'd the Gentleman's Train of Reasoning: and now, whether it be thought Logick, or Sophistry, I'm sure the Argument is as pertinent to my Case, and as good in my Application of it, as in Mr. Layman's. Yea, I have not merely quitted with him, but he fal [...]'s in my Debt: for I have this great Advantage above him, that the Idea of Chyliasm has been settled and un [...]form; whereas the Notion of Episcopacy has been various and indeterminate. Bishop is an equivocal Word; acknowledged by Mr. Layman to be promiscuously us'd in Scripture, and in Clemens, the first Christian Writer: and it is very disputable, whether it was not so us'd, by all the Writers of the 2d Century at least: So that, allowing the Fathers do assert the Divine Right of Bishops, yet (in them there may be only the Nomen, not the Sensus Neminis, [Page]according to modern Conceptions of Episcopacy; and) the Possibility of their meaning only Parochial Bishops do's exceedingly weaken the Argument from primitive Testimonies, for the Divine Right of Diocesan Prelates. Whereas now the Chyliasm of the Ancients has a known fix'd and unvarying Idea; So that here the Fathers Testimonies are in a plain Case: which Consideration must necessarily cast the Balance in favour of my Point, and give a greater Weight and Force to Mr. Layman's Argument as I apply it, than as he uses it. The confessed Ambiguity of the word Bishop, makes his Argument against me possibly a mere Fallacy: Nevertheless the same Argument, as I use it against him, he must grant to be certain Demonstration; being in a Case where there's no such Ambiguity acknowleg'd. But still with what Logick or with what Charity, the harsh Conclusion, Mr. Layman has dictated to me, may be drawn, I must leave with indifferent Judges to say. My Design was only an Argumentum ad Hominem; and it's well if it don't prove an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, beyond Mr. Layman's Skill to refute, without destroying his own Cause at the same time.

After all, it may be, our Lay-Adversary will tell me, I have been arguing only in the Evasive Way, and that he expected I wou'd speak more directly to the Point, in refuting his grand Charge against us, as joyning with DEISTS and INFIDELS, destroying all historical Faith, and shocking even the Scriptures themselves, while we reject the Testimony of the Fathers in favour of Episcopacy, which (as he says) hath as good Evidence from human Testimony, as the CANON OF SCRIPTURE. His Words are (p. 72.) ‘I know of no external Evidence of the Canon of the Scriptures, besides the Testimony of the Church. What Evidence, for Instance, have we, that the Epistle of St. James, or Revelation of St John, were written by the Apostles, whose Names they bear, and were receiv'd for canonical Scripture, besides the Testimony of those very Men, who are likewise Witnesses to the Apostolical and Divine Original of Episcopal Government?— And (he says p. 81.) "if they are not to be depended upon, when they bear Testimony to Episcopacy, why shou'd we depend on them, when they bear Testimony to the Canon of Scripture?’

This is the Argument, that embolden'd the Gentleman to fall foul of his good old Friends and Fathers, as joyning with all the Deists and Infidels in the Kingdom, to bring the Bible into Disgrace, by treating the primitive Fathers with so much Contempt. But, upon the calmest Consideration it appears to me [Page]at best only an Argumentum ad Passiones, an Address to the Readers Passions, rather than their Judgment; or in Eusebius's Dialect, an Argument adapted to move People's Affections to outrun their Reason. Mr. Layman, it seems, was resolv'd to do Business; and therefore, to alarm Men's Fears, [...]e couples Dissenters and Deists together, and puts Christianity and Episcopacy on the same foot, both to stand or fall together. If he can't convince the rational Inquirer, he'll try to stumble the Ignorant, to scare the Credulous, and cheat the Unwary into his Belief, by terrible and odious Representations of our Opinion. Sure he has drank at Lesly's Cistern, and [...]ckt up Dodwel's Vomit, whom Bp. Burnet scrupled not to call the Corrupter of our Faith and Church. His Declamatory Strains on this Occasion exhibit the true Reveries of those non-juring Schismaticks, that have been wont to supply by Rant, what they wanted of Reason, and to scatter their spiritual Ter [...]s over the Nation, when they could not by rational Arguments support a sinking Cause. But let us a little consider the [...]mendous Objection: and I doubt not, it will appear to every intelligent Reader transparent Sophistry. The following Remarks may suffice to guard our Cause against so weak an Attack.

I observe, first, The Gentleman argues upon an Hypothesis, which he knows we cannot grant him; That the primitive Fathers do, in fact, bear their Testimony to Episcopacy, in his Acceptation of it. We don't deny (as we judge) the primitive Episcopacy; but only that of the modern Stamp, which we think a Stranger to the best and purest Antiquity. Here then Mr. Layman is guilty of the Sophism, call'd Petitio Printipii. He charges us as being in a Confederacy with Deists (to bring the Scriptures into Disgrace, which have no other external Evidence (says he) but the Testimony of the Fathers) Because we reject the Testimony which the Fathers bear to Diocesan Episcopacy: Whereas it is one great Point in Contest, whether the Fathers do give their Attestation to this Species of Episcopacy. We dispute it: but do's our rejecting his Construction of the Fathers, prove our treating them with Contempt! It's true, we cannot but have a hearty Contempt for the Pretended Testimonies from the Fathers, alledg'd in the Cause of Diocesan Episcopacy, as wholly impertinent: and yet at the same time we may highly honour their Real Testimonies to the Canon of Scripture.

But then, admitting the Fathers probably speak of Episcopacy, in Mr. Layman's Acceptation of it, will he (dare he!) pretend, [Page]that the Testimonies in that Case are as full and unanimous, clear and strong, as for the Canon of Scripture? Is the Tradition sufficiently testify'd to be universal, original and uninterrupted, in one Case, as well as the other? If not, 'tis no criminal Partiality, nor any Contempt of the Fathers, to reject a defective Testimony, while we accept their fuller and clearer Suffrage in another Case.

But then again, supposing that the Fathers had given the fullest and plainest Testimonies to Episcopacy, as to i [...]'s Existence in their Day; yet what Evidence would that afford of an uninterrupted Succession of Bishops to this Day? Without which, I doubt, our Author's Cause will finally miscarry, and his Argument signify just nothing. According to the common Doctrine of our Adversaries, all that are not in the true Li [...]e of Succession from the Apostles, are but Lay-Impostors: And now will he pretend, that there is as good Evidence of an unbroken Line of Bishops, and Presbyters Episcopally ordain'd, as we have of genuine and true Scriptures! How easy a matter were it, for particular Churches to be impos'd upon with forged Orders, or uncanonical Consecrations; whereby the Line would certainly be violated! But how impossible were it, to obtrude a false Bible on the whole Church of God! And when some have attempted to forge Books of Scripture and father 'em on some Apostle, how easily has the Cheat been detected! Now, that in Fact there have been repeated Breaches of regular Succession, seems to be past all Controversy. Bishop HOADLY (Preserv. p. 78.) observes; ‘This regular uninterrupted Succession of Persons qualified and regularly ordained, is a matter impossible to be proved: Nay, the Contrary is more than probable, upon all historical Evidence.’ But that we have the true Canon of Scripture, I hope, Mr Layman will allow to be capable of Demonstration by the best historical and rational Evidence A Succession of true Bibles is a thousand times more evident, than a Succession of true Bishops. And to insinuate, that we have no surer Evidence of genuine Scriptures, than can be produced for a right Line of Episcopacy, verily it is one of the s [...]yest Lib [...]is upon Christianity, that can easily be imagined.

But then further, supposing this Line of Succession demonstrable, even up to the Fathers, and that they are full and clear in their Testimonies for Episcopacy, as universal matter of Fact in their Times; yet he that argues from Fact to Right in this Case, is a mere Sophister: For this is to suppose an Impossibility [Page]of Innovations in the primitive Church, or at least a Certainty of their Freedom from Changes and Corruptions, which is contrary to all Accounts of those Times, and will appear highly improbable, if we reflect on the usual Tempers and Prope [...]sions of Mankind. But then it will be said, The Fathers testify to the Right, as well as Fact. I reply, This is as easily deny'd, as affirm'd; and we think, no sufficient Proof has yet appear'd. However, upon Supposition of Proof, [...]l it remains a Doubt, whether mere human Testimony to the Divine Right of Episcopacy is sufficient to bind it on the Conscience, as a matter of Necessity to be believ'd & practis'd. The Divine Right can be infer'd only from Scripture: if it be not evident from thence, it can never be made evident. And if the Divine Institution of Episcopacy must be fetcht from Scripture, then it will be necessary, in the first place, to prove the Apostolick Original of the Scriptures: without which it will be intirely out of our Power to prove the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy. But then, when we are satisfy'd of the Truth in this great Point, it follows in the Nature and Reason of Things, that we must now take the Divine Book for our only [...] of Faith. The universal uncontroul'd Tradition, in the Case of the sacred Canon, carries a rational Probability, that may justly beget in us an Esteem for the Bible, and put us upon examining its Contents: and when by viewing the internal Evidences of its Divine Original, we become so satisfy'd of that, as to take it for the Word of God; we are now of Consequence to judge and try all other Traditions, of a religious Reference, by this Rule, and not the Rule by them. And we must say, when we judge of the Episcopal Tradition, by the Rule of Scripture, we can discern no evident Characters of Divinity upon it, to indicate an Apostolick Original; and therefore cannot but vote the Pretence of Divine Right, a mere Imposture.

In fine, allowing the Divine Right of Bishops to be held by some of the Fathers, yet (to return Mr Layman a Question or two of his own) "Do any of them assert this to be the UNIVERSAL Doctrine of the Church in those Days? Or do they plead for it as an ESSENTIAL Doctrine of Christianity? Perhaps I may safely answer (as he in another Case) NO, not a word of this. Whereas now, the Divine Right and the uninterrupted Succession of Episcopacy are fundamental Points with Men of Mr. Layman's Principles: who tell us, that such as are not in professed Unity and Communion with their Church, govern'd by [Page] Bishops in a regular Succession, are out of Christ's Church and out of his Covenant, out of the Favour of God, and out of the Way to Salvation. Herein, I think, they tour very high above all the soaring Strains of the most hyperbolical Writer in Antiquity: or at least they can't produce the universal Suffrage of the primitive Fathers, to confirm these wild and rampant Imaginations. Sad wou'd it be for us, if the Truth of Christianity had no better Evidence, than the Truth of this strange Doctrine. Will Mr. Layman pretend, that the venerable ancient Doctors and Confessors, who seal'd with their Blood a Testimony to the Gospel of Christ, have left their Testimony to this high Rant in favour of Episcopacy! I dare say, tho' we despise this from our hearts, yet we don't herein reject the unanimous Suffrage of the primitive Church. Should it appear, that one or two Fathers have asserted the Divine Right of Episcopacy, as an Essential Doctrine of Christianity, let this be thrown into the List of "their NOSTRUMS, or private Opinions, which Mr. Layman (p. 83.) observes, They might have, as well as other Men:" and in which I hope, we may safely venture to differ from them. I trust, we are as strictly tenacious, as Mr. Layman, of all those great Truths, which all Christendom in those days agreed upon to be the Essentials of Religion: But then, when he ranks Episcopacy among these Essentials, we think he departs from the current Sense of Antiquity; and that this favorite Tenet of his is far from being one of those Points, which all Christendom in those days agreed upon. For ought I see then we may renounce Mr. Layman's ESSENTIAL Doctrine; and yet retain a sufficient Respect for the primitive Church, and pay a just Deference to the universal Suffrage of those venerable Martyrs and Confessors, who are Witnesses to the Divine Original of the holy Oracles. It is therefore an intolerable Insult, and abusive Sophistry in this Gentleman, to represent us (first) as treating the primitive Fathers with Contempt, merely because we slight his pretended Testimonies from Antiquity in relation to Diocesan Episcopacy: and (then) as joyning with DEISTS and ATHEISTS, in undermining Christianity; because there is no external Evidence of the Canon of the several Books of Scripture, that he knows of, besides the Testimony of those good Men, whom (as he will have it) we treat with so much Contempt. This is the mighty Argument, he urges in Support of his Charge: but there's as little Reason in his Plea, as of Charity in his Accusation. It seems to me, there's Abundance of Fallacy in this way of arguing.

[Page] I would inquire of Mr. Layman, Whether he will maintain, that God has hung the Salvation of Men's Souls upon this Nicety of knowing the exact Canonical Scripture receiv'd by the Fathers, or upon our having a complete Sett of the several Books of Scripture? For if not, why does he make such a Stir with his external Evidence of the Canon of the several Books! Again, I have to inquire of him, how far he thinks the Testimony of the primitive Fathers may serve as an external Evidence to satisfy us, that we have pure and genuine Scriptures, the true and intire Canon, without Mutilation, or Corruption? And how he'll make it appear, that their Testimony is the only external Evidence? Or if so, whether this external Evidence is absolutely necessary, that no other kind of Evidence will suffice without this? And whether he thinks, we can't have a rational Conviction of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, without any Regard to, or Knowledge of this Evidence from the Testimony of the Fathers?

I desire Mr. Layman to favour me with a just Reply to these Queries; the Resolution whereof seems to be of some Importance in the present Controversy. I am apt to think, it would help to ripen his Studies on these Points, if he would please to consult the learned CHILLINGWORTH'S Protestant Religion.—In special I recommend to him these Parts of the Book, which I have had particularly in my Eye. CHAP. II. Sect. 24th, and so on to Sect. 92d, passim. Also Sect. 105, 126, 159. And CHAP. III. Sect. 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 54. And CHAP. IV. Sect. 53. —Whoever reads Mr. Chillingworth, will easily perceive the Views I had in the foregoing Queries; and how these affect the present Controversy.

Upon the whole I will only observe; that however sufficient the Evidence for the Canon of Scripture from universal Tradition may be, yet it's manifest Mr. Chillingworth denies, there is the same Tradition to be pleaded in favour of any Interpretation of Scripture in doubtful Cases. Pag. 102. He says, ‘NOTHING besides Scripture, comes to us with as full a Stream of Tradition as Scripture; Scripture ALONE —having Attestation from Tradition truly universal.—NOTHING bu [...] Scripture hath descended to us from Christ, by original and universal Tradition. —Pag. 50. The Interpretations of obscure places of Scripture, which without question the Apostles taught the primitive Church, are WHOLLY LOST; there remains no Certainty scarce of ANY ONE.—Pag. 75. The Tradition of this Church, (viz. the Church of all Ages, up to the [Page]Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself) you say, must teach us what is Scripture; and we are willing to believe it. And now, if you make it good unto us, that the same Tradition, down from the Apostles, hath delivered from Age to Age, and from Hand to Hand, any Intepretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that also.— Pag. 137, 138. These traditive Interpretations are all LOST.—Blessed therefore be the Goodness of God, who, seeing that what was not written, was in such Danger to be lost, took Order, That what was necessary should be written! St. Chrysosto [...]'s Counsel therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of Belief, we are willing to obey: And, if you can of any Thing make it appear, that it is Tradition, we will seek no farther But this we say withal, that we are persuaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scripture; and that there is NOTHING now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good a Plea, to be the unwritten Word of God [alias, authentick Tradition from the Apostles] as the unquestioned Books of Scripture, to be the written Word of God.’ —The Argument then from Tradition, however good, as to the Canon of Scripture, yet is not so, as to any Interpretations pretended to be Apostolical. Consequently we may very justly oppose the Argument from Tradition, in favour of Episcopacy, without disarming our selves of the Plea, on the same Head, in behalf of the Scripture-Canon, or giving any Advantage to Deists and Infidels. Whereas, to say that there's as good Authority for Episcopacy, as for the Canon of Scripture, seems to me ‘very much to weaken the common Cause of Christianity, and give the Atheists and Infidels indeed a great Handle against us, to laugh at us and ridicule our Religion;’ since Episcopacy has so precarious a Foundation, and has no evident universal and original Tradition, to support its Claim of Divine Right. Of all the Men in the World, I shou'd have thought Mr. Layman the most unfit to accuse us of joyning with Deists: the Charge returns on himself with greater Justice. How strong a Temptation may it well be to a Deist, to deride us, and our Religion, when he hears it warmly asserted, That there's as great Evidence for the Divine Original of Episcopacy, as of Christianity it self; while he knows how little of Evidence there is in the Case of Episcopacy, and what Probability that the Tradition of its Divine Right is supposi [...]itious, the mere Invention of interested and designing Men to screen their own Usurpations. [Page] ‘That DETESTABLE FALSE Proposition (as one calls it) Mr. Toland, in his Amyntor, improves from the Non-juror Mr. Dodwell, to the great disadvantage of the Christian Revelation; and I can't imagine what any Free-thinker in the World cou'd say worse. How is the very Foundation of the Christian Religion hereby Sapped!’

And whereas Mr. Layman makes Episcopacy a parallel Case with that of Christ's Divinity (p. 90, 91.) insinuating, by his way of arguing, as if they were both ‘DOUBTFUL Cases, in which we must come at the Sense of Scripture, by consulting the ancient Fathers, as faithful Witnesses to the Matters of Fact, whether the Church was govern'd by Bishops or not, and whether the eternal Divinity of the Son of God was taught or not;’ I'm sure, this is to give a great Advantage to Arian Hereticks. Is the Case of Christ's Divinity left doubtful in Scripture; notwithstanding the Apostle John wrote his Gospel with an explicit View to the [...]tablishing this important Point!

Do's Mr. Layman think, the TRADITION of the Fathers may be safely depended on, as the Rule of Faith, or (in other Words) a just measure by which we may judge what we are assent to, as the Doctrine of Christ, and what not; when the Apostle in his old Age, after long Experience and Observation, finding how little the Understandings and Memories of Christians were to be trusted, and how Tradition was already corrupted in so weighty a Point, as the Divinity of Christ, tho't i [...] necessary for him to write, on purpose that they might believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Joh. 20.31 —Will Mr. Layman pretend, that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is convey'd down to us by Traditionary Interpretations in the Books of the Fathers, more plainly and clearly, than it is in the Apostolical Writings! Did not the orthodox Fathers themselves make their Appeal to the Scripture [...], as containing plain Texts for the Divinity of Christ! A Bp. TILLOTSON (Vol. I. p. 680.) observes, ‘St. Chrysostome professes to demonstrate out of Scripture, That the Son is of the same Substance with the Father; and relies upon Scripture alone for this, without mentioning any other kind of Argument. (Hom. 32. de Consubst.) So that it seems St. Chrysostome was not acquainted with the Insufficiency of Scripture for the Conviction of Hereticks in this Point; and that he was either ignorant of the (infallible) Way of demonstrating this Point from Oral Tradition, or had no great Opinion of it.’ [Page]Whereas contrary wise, The Hereticks of old made their Appeal to the Traditions of the Fathers, delivered from hand to hand, as preserving the true Teaching of the Apostles. The Arian Heresy had once polluted almost all the Churches, insomuch that the whole World (says Jerom) groaned, and wondred to see it self turned Arian. "This Heresy was of a long Continuance; for (as Dr. Tillotson, ibid. p. 704. observes) from it's Rise, which happened in the 20th. Year of Constantine, it continued two hundred sixty six years" And it was the manner of those Apostates to defend their Error by the specious Pretence of Traditionary Interpretations of Scripture, handed down from the Apostles by uninterrupted Succession. Jerom tells us, ‘That the Hereticks were won't to say, We are the Sons of the WISE, who did from the Beginning deliver down to us the Apostolical Doctrine: But he adds, That the true Sons of Judah adhere to the SCRIPTURE.’ (Comment. in Isa. c. 19. quoted by Dr. Tillotson.) I shall only add the Judgment of Constantine, in his Speech to the Council of Nice, with the Archbishop's Remark upon it (Ibid. p. 753.) ‘The Books of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the Oracles of the old Prophets (says he) do EVIDENTLY teach us what we ought to think of the Divine Majesty. Therefore laying aside all seditious Contention, let us determine the Matters in question by Testimonies out of the DIVINE WRITINGS. Not a Word of any other Tradition but Scripture, which was held evident enough in those days; though now Mr. S. tells us, it is not sufficient to decide that Controversy about the Divinity of Christ:’ —Which Exception, if it were true, would strike at Protestancy, as condemning the Scriptures of Imperfection, and at Christian Religion, as making one of the first Principles of it precarious and doubtful: The natural Consequence of which is, the exposing this sacred Instrument of our Religion, and even Christianity it self, to the Flours of Deists and Infidels. I think I may be allow'd on this Occasion to repeat that remarkable Expression of Dr. Tillotson's (Ibid. p. 677.) and with it I shall conclude this long Discourse, ‘Therefore, to be very plain with Mr. S. and Capt. E. I am heartily sorry to see, that one of the chief Fruits of their Conversion is to abuse their BIBLE.’

Sect. V. After all, supposing we shou'd grant, that the Fathers are safe Witnesses and the best Guides to the Sense of Scripture in doubtful Cases; yet, it seems, the Concession will [Page]do Mr. Layman's Cause but little Service. For observe, in order to the Pertinency of this his 2d Rule, in the present Case, he must allow that he founds his Doctrine, of Episcopacy an [...]stolick Institution, upon Doubtful Texts, as expounded by the Fathers: Else I can't devise what Business that Rule for right interpreting of Scripture, has in the Controversy before us. Now, this notwithstanding, the Gentleman advances Episcopacy to the Dignity of an Article of FAITH: which if it be, I'm sure it destroys the Foundation of his 2d Rule; For no true Pr [...]testant ever made Tradition necessary to support any Article of Faith, nor ever made that an Article [...] Faith, which has no other than doubtful Texts to countenance it. Hear that of Arch-Bishop TILLOTSON (ubi supra, [...] 685.) ‘Our Principle is, that the Scripture doth SUFFICIENTLY interpret it s [...]lf, i. e. is plain to all Capacities, in Things NECESSARY to be believed and practised.— As for obscure and more doubtful Texts, we acknowledge the Comments of the Fathers to be a good Help, but no certain Rule of Interpretation" So (p. 658, 9) "The Opinion of the Protestants concerning the Rule of Faith is this in general, That those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures, are the Means whereby the Christian Doctrine hath been brought down to us. — That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain, as to all Things necessary &c. Again (p. 665.) Altho' oral Tradition be the Means whereby we come to know that these are the Books of Scripture; Yet these Books are the next and immediate Means whereby we come to know what is Christ's Doctrine, and consequently what we are to believe.’ — Hear also that of Mr. SPRINT (Necess. of Conf [...]m. p. 81.) ‘We are to observe, that our Church (as other reformed Churches) do teach nothing fundamentall, which is not EXPRESSLY taught in the Word.—The fundamentall Points, and special Precepts of Christ, Shee proposeth as binding the Conscience under paine of Condemnation to every wilfull and impenitent Transgressor. The Circumstantialls or Ceremonialls determined by her, out of the generall Rules of the Word, she proposeth and enjoyneth as free, not binding the Conscience in themselves; as variable, not perpetuall; as accidentall, not necessary.’— If this be a true Account of the Church of England, then it's plain, that Mr. Layman departs from the Sense of his own Church, when he proposes Episcopacy as a fundamental Point, and yet at the same time numbers it among those Cases that [Page]are Doubtful, in which the Judgment of the Fathers is a necessary Help. Or if that Account be false, and Mr. Layman has the Concurrence of his own Church with him in asserting Episcopacy, tho' not Evident in Scripture, to be a Fundamental of Religion, or a matter of Faith, a Point necessary to be believ'd and practis'd, Then I say let him and his Church fall under the Lash of that impartial Sentence passed by the Great CHILLINGWOTH (Prot. Relig. p. 125.) ‘If the Church propose, as Matters of FAITH certainly true, such unfundamental Points, as she is not warranted to propose, by EVIDENT Text of Scripture; she may well be questioned, Q [...]O WARRANTO? She builds without a Foundation; and says, Thus saith the LORD, when the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from RASHNESS and high PRESUMTION.’ And whatever be the Opinion of Mr. Layman, or his Church, or the Fathers, as to the Divine Right and Necessity of Episcopacy, I say in the Language of Mr. Chillingworth (p. 363, 4.) ‘Points of Doctrine (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary Point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary Point be made necessary by being overvalued.—They that believe all Things plainly delivered in Scripture, believe all Things fundamental: and are at SUFFICIENT UNITY in Matters of Faith.’ So then (by the way) according to this eminent Writer, Presbyterians are in Unity with the primitive Church, as well as Mr. Layman: at sufficient Unity, notwithstanding we shou'd happen to differ from her about the Divine Right of Episcopacy; This being not one of the Things plainly delivered in Scripture, but grounded on doubtful Texts, by the Gentleman's own (at least implicit) Acknowledgement. — I have said the less on this Head now, because I shall have Occasion afterwards to make some further Remarks upon it.

Having thus examin'd the Force of Mr. Layman's principal Pleas in behalf of the Authority of the Fathers, as Interpreters of Scripture in doubtful Cases, I must now lea [...]e it with the Reader to judge whether I have not intirely invalidated his 2d Rule for the just interpreting of Scripture, at least as apply'd to the present Case: and shall only add this one Reflection, in the Words of Dr. STILLINGFLEET (Irenic. p. 319.) ‘If we must stand to the Judgment of the Fathers, let us stand to it in this, That no TRADITION is any farther to be embraced, than as it is founded on the WORD of GOD. For [Page]which Purpose those Words of Cyprian are very observable (Ep. 74.) In Compendio est &c. He asserts it an easie matter for truly religio [...]s and plain-hearted Men to lay aside their Errour, and to find out the Truth; which is by returning to the Head and Spring of Divine Tradition, viz. the Scriptures.—And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to Tradition, Cyprian keeps his Liberty by this close Question, Unde illa Traditio? Utrumne de Dominica et Evangelica Auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum Mandatis atque Epistolis veniens &c. We see (says Dr. Stillingfleet upon it) this good Man would not baulke his way one foot for the great bug-bear of Tradition, unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it, and could produce the Credentials of Scripture to testifie its Authority to him.’

Sect. VI. I proceed now to discharge my Debt with relation to our Author's POSTULATA, which I promis'd to consider. He says (p. 59.) ‘I shall desire you to grant me these two or three Postulata, or give me Reason why they may not be admitted.’ I shall endeavour to gratify the Gentleman, in one or other part of his disjunctive Desire.

His FIRST Postulatum is, ‘That the same Word may be used in different Senses, in different Ages: As for Instance, the Word Imperator’ &c. This, I declare, is an unlucky Example: the Change of the Sense of that Name, he intimates, came in with the Alteration of the State; and if Mr. Layman will allow the like Reason or Occasion for changing the Sense of the Word Bishop, viz. an Alteration of the Constitution of the Church, much good may do him with his Postulatum! I will give him full Liberty to make the best use he can of it, to serve his Cause. However I must observe, there's a Difference between what may possibly, and what may lawfully be done. — If we may take Leave to alter the Sense of Scripture Names, Words and Phrases, at Pleasure, we may at this Rate (to borrow some of Mr. Layman's Words) interpret away several Articles of the Christian Faith.

His SECOND Postulatum is, ‘That therefore the promis [...]uous Use of two Words in one Age, does not hinder, but that they may be fi [...]ed in the next Age, to signifie two different Things, which were really different in the former Age, tho' under other Denominations; as for Instance, the words KNAVE, and SERVANT &c. And so it may possibly have been with the words BISHOP and PRESBYTER’ &c. I can't but observe, [Page]again, if the Gentleman will have the Case he mentions, pass for a Parallel, it's certainly a very unlucky one. The word Servant, I suppose, retains its ancient honest meaning; but Knave is become a Term of Reproach, an ignominious Character: Now I'm something at a Loss how to apply this part of the Parallel, whether to his Bishop or his Presbyter; being both degenerated from their original and innocent Meaning: which makes me inclin'd to think his Instance not a fit Parallel. And I think so for another Reason; Because the words Knave and Servant were never, that I know of, promiscuously as'd (as he pretends the words Bishop and Presbyter are in Scripture) in an indifferent Application to two different Sorts of Persons at the same time.— I observe further, This his second Postularum is founded in an Hypothesis, which do's not appear evidently true, That the Word Bishop chang'd its Sense in the Next Age. However I shall not stand at present on a Pr [...]chronism here; but will for Argument's sake suppose it a just state of Fact. Nevertheless, the Question rises, Whether the Fathers held their Bishops, in the new Sense of the Word, to be of Divine Right? Mr. Layman, I doubt not, will be of Opinion, They did so. But then unhappily for him it falls out, since Words may vary their Sense in different Ages, we are consequently left at an Uncertainty what they meant by a Divine Right. Mr. Layman, I suppose, will understand by it a Right of Duty or Obligation, by virtue of a positive Institution of Christ: But the Fathers might mean by it only a Right of lawful Liberty, by virtue of the Divine Permission (they apprehending no express Prohibition in the Case) and by virtue of the generall Rules of pursuing Peace and Unity, to which Ends they might think their invented Episcopacy a Means adapted: and it's well known, they were wont to stamp any thing with the Names of Divine and Apostolical, that they thought had a Tendency to those excellent Ends. So that these Phrases, Divine Right and Apostolical Tradition, as used by the Fathers, do manifestly carry as much Ambiguity with them, as the word Bishop in Scripture.

And then another Difficulty is▪ what was the new Sense, in which the Fathers apply'd the Word Bishop, after the appropriating of the Name to some special Persons in the Ministry; whether it denoted at first a different Order, or only a different Degree in the same Order; whether it denoted a Superiority of Power over the Presbyters, and an Exclusion of them from the Government of the Church, or only a mere Presidency, a [Page]Priority of one for Order's sake above the rest, still preserving an Equality of Power. I think the latter is more probably the true State of the Case. But Mr. Layman, looking thro' the false Prospective of modern Usage, thinks the Name Bishop meant the same Thing in the primitive Church, as now in the Church of England: Just as the Papists, whenever the Word Missa occurs in ancient Fathers, presently imagine it intends the same Thing, as it now thro' Custom signifies, since it has been appropriated to that which they call the Sacrifice of the Altar. ‘Whereas the Name at first (says Dr. Stillingfleet, Irenic. p. 238) was taken only for the publick Service of the Church, so called from the Dismission of the People after it with an [...]e, Missa est: but in process of Time the Lord's Supper engross'd the Name Missa to its self; and when the Sacrifice of the Altar came up among the Papists, it was appropriated to that: For though they innovated Things never so much, yet it hath been alwaies the Policy of that Church not to innovate Names, that so the Incautelous might be better deceived with a Pretence of Antiquity; and thus under the anciently simple name of Missa, lies at this day couched a Mass of Errours.’—And I find Mr. Chillingworth (p. 261.) making that Observation; ‘They (i. e. among Protestants) that confess some of your (the Papal) Doctrins to have been the Doctrin of the Fathers, may be mistaken, being abused by many Words and Phrases of the Fathers, which may have the Roman Sound, when they are farr from the Sense. Some of them I am sure are so’ &c. —Of the same Stamp is the Argument for modern English Episcopacy, from the Use of the Word [...] or Bishop in Antiquity: for tho' the Name we [...]ay allow to bear a somewhat different Sense in early Antiquity, from what it does in Scripture, yet its ancient Sense among the Fathers might differ still more from the modern Acceptation of it. Tho' the Name be retain'd, yet the Nature of the present Episcopacy may vastly differ from, if not be quite repugnant to, the ancient Episcopacy.— I don't therefore at present see how my Cause will be hurt, tho' I shou'd grant Mr. Layman his two first Postulata.

His THIRD and last Postulatum is, ‘That we can no more conclude, because the same Persons in Scripture, were called Bishops and Presbyters, that there was no such Subordination of Officers, as we contend for; Than we can conclude, because the same Persons in Scripture were called Apostles, Presbyters, and [Page]Deacons, (as certainly they were) that therefore there was no such Subordination of Deacons to Presbyters, and of Presbyters to Apostles, as you allow there was.’ This Postulatum is founded on several Hypotheses, either of which will bear a Dispute; and therefore must not pass for a self-evident Proposition.

1. It supposes, That there was the same Subordination of Pre [...]byters to Apostles, as of Deacons to Presbyters: Whereas in the latter Case there was manifestly a Difference of Order; but whether so in the former, is not clear, and out of question. The Apostolical Preeminence might result merely from their inspir'd Gifts and peculiar Circumstances; without a Superiority of Order, and Commission-Powers essentially divers from those of Presbyters.

2. It supposes, That there is in Scripture the same promis [...]nous Use of the Words Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons, as of the Words Bishops and Presbyters; which I see no Light at present to grant: For tho' we find the Apostles of Christ and the Presbyters of the Churches sometimes called Deacons (this Word in such Case being us'd in its general Signification, Servants) Yet where do we find any Persons, that were Deacons (in the restrained Sense of the Word, as meaning those special Officers so denominated; I say, where do we find Deacons) in Scripture called Apostles of Christ or Presbyters of the Churches? Whereas in the Case of Bishops and Presbyters, there was a mutual Interchange: the Application of the Names was reciprocal. This makes a vast Difference, and I think quite destroys Mr. Layman's Argument

3. It is here supposed, That those whom after-times appropriated the Name Bishop to, were in fact and right Successors to the Apostles, as an Order distinct from those call'd Presbyters and Bishops in Scripture, and having a Superiority of Power and Government over them. This Mr. Layman affirms: but I deny; and must wait for his Proofs.

I shall now beg Leave in my Turn to lay down a few Postulatums; which I desire Mr. Layman to grant me, or else give some Reason why they may not be admitted.

I. That the same Name may happen to signify different Officers in several Ages As for Instance, the name Governour, in the former times of New England imported an Officer, acting as President or Moderator, with the power only of a CASTING Vote, in the General Court: Whereas, since the Change of the Constitution by a new Charter, the same Name Governour [Page]denotes a Person representing the King's Majesty, and having a NEGATIVE Voice in all Acts of Assembly.

II. That therefore the Contin [...]nce of the Application of a Name, does not hinder but that the Officer, to whom it is apply'd (tho' in appearance the same, having always been at the head of Affairs) may in Reality be very different (in regard of an Accumulation of new and essentially diverse Powers) from what the Officer, going under that Name, was in former Ages. So it may probably have been with the Name Bishop, in the Christian Church, which is chang'd from its ancient Signification, and carries with it a quite different Idea now, from what [...] had in early Antiquity: as much, it seems, as the word Missa, Priest, and other Names used by the Church of Rome, [...]ffer in Sense now, from their original Meaning, when [...]st introduc'd in the primitive Church. Dr. Stillingfleet [...]s that Observation (Irenic. p. 263.) ‘It is a common Mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of Correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law; which Mistake hath been the Foundation and Original of many Errors. For when in the primitive Church, the Name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospel Ministers from a fair Compliance (as was thought then) of the Christians only to the Name used both among Jews and Gentiles; in process of time, Corruptions increasing in the Church, those Names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accomodation, brought in the Things themselves primarily intended by those Names: So by the metaphorical names of Priests and Alt [...]rs, at last came up the Sacrifice of the Mass; without which, they thought the names of Pri [...]st and Altar were insignificant. — It is easie to observe (says he, p 237.) that nothing hath been a more fruitful Mother of Mistakes and Errours, than the looking upon the Practice of the primitive Church through the Glass of our own Customs: Especially when under the same Name (as it is very often seen) something very different from what was primarily intended by the use of the Word, is set forth to us. It were no difficult Task to multiply Examples in this kind; wherein Men meeting with the same Names, do apprehend the same Things by them, which they now through Custom signifie, without taking notice of any Alteration in the Things themselves signified by those Names.’

III. That we can no more conclude, because there was some Difference made between Bishops and Presbyters in the primitive [Page]Church, after the Apostles times, that there was such a Subordination between them, as Mr. Layman contends for; than we can conclude, because some Bishops in Antiquity were distinguish'd with an Archiepiscopal Dignity, that therefore there was and ought to be a Subordination of one Bishop to another; or because the Bishop of Rome was anciently vested with a Patriarchal Primacy, that therefore there was and ought to be a Pope, as Christ's Vicar, sitting Monarch in the Church, Lor [...] paramount to all other Bishops: which are Things, I suppose he will not allow.— It's a pertinent Remark of Dr. Stillingfleet's (Irenic. p. 252.) ‘We read not of any Command, that in the San [...]edrin one should have some Peculiarity of Honour above the rest; this Men's natural Reason would prompt them to, by reason of a necessary Priority of Order in some above others: But yet all Order is not Power, nor all Power juridical, nor all juridical Power a sole Power: therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any, from Order to infer Power; or from a delegated Power by Consent, to infer a juridical Power by Divine Right; or lastly, from a Power in common with others, to deduce a Power excluding others.’ — All which, I think, they are guilty of, who would establish modern Episcopacy by Inferences from the mere Name and Preeminence of Bishops in the primitive Church, or would defend the Papal Supremacy by Arguments from the ancient Primacy of Order and honourable Titles, by which the Bishop of Rome was distinguish'd among the Fathers. They stand on an equal Foot; therefore I joyn the two Cases

My Design in these Postulates is to fix our Lay-writer, who seems very much of the Mind (notwithstanding his contrary Pretences) to play upon the Identity of Names and Ambiguity of Words. He tells us, that we may wrangle on upon Scripture without End, if we set aside his Postulata: and yet in Defiance to his Postulata, he carries the impertinent Wrangle into the Traditionary Part of the Controversy; and has scarce any thing worth mentioning, to offer in his Cause, out of Antiquity, besides the Use of Names, and Words, and Phrases, that have the EPISCOPAL Sound, but as used by the Fathers are very distant from the modern Se [...]se. I may justly return him some of his own Language, adapted to my purpose (p. 91, &c.) ‘Here you did mighty well to pass by your own POSTULATA, because you knew well crouch where the Shoe pinc [...]es; and that the Life of the Controver [...]y as to Fathers depends on them: for set them aside, and you may WRANGLE on upon Fathers and Traditions [Page] without End; whch is what you seem to delight in, at least as much as we. If you had taken a just Notice of your own Postulata, it would have spoiled, and perhaps prevented, most of your pretty Remarks upon Antiquity. Pray, Sir, let us act like Men, and not always be Children. We must wholly leave contending about Terms.’

It's worthy of Notice, what Dr. Stillingfleet says (Irenic. p. 239.) ‘Names and Things then must be accurately distinguished, and the Sense of the Names must neither be fetched from the Custome now used, nor from the Etimologie of the Word, but from the undoubted Practice of Apostolical Times, if that can be made appear what it was.’ —And the Dr. observes (p. 321.) ‘As to matters of Faith, we have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that, a Place to fix our faith on, though the World be moved out of its place, I mean the undoubted WORD of God: but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture, no Certainty can be had of them, from the hovering Light of unconstant TRADITION,—in many things repugnant to its self.’

Sect. VII. Mr. Layman having gone thro' his Postulata, upon the Design of fixing us, that we might come to a fair stating of the Case, and bring the Matter to a short Issue, proceeds to lay down this COROLLARY upon the whole (p. 60.) ‘From whence I gather (says he) That we must wholly leave contending about Terms, and that the QUESTION between us must be this, Whether the APOSTLES did not appoint in EACH CHURCH, a PRESIDENT or GOVERNOR superior to, and with Jurisdiction over the PRESBYTERS or BISHOPS and DEACONS, who were Officers of THAT Church, as well as the PEOPLE under them.’

I must profess, the Gentleman took a wise Method, to guard himself, by prefacing his Question with a Caution against contending about Terms; for he has, in this pretended fair State of the Case, made use of such ambiguous Terms and Phrases, as without a distinct Explication of them it's impossible to bring the Controversy to an Issue, but we must still be entangled with Logomachies. For my part I desire to understand, and to be understood: I hate, and I scorn a mere Strife of Words. And did I not think the Merits of the Cause were really affected by the Ambiguities, I find here, I should be far from picking a Quarrel with Terms: but I think, some he has used on this Occasion, are of too doubtful a Signification, to pass without a Definition. To avoid the Appearance of captious Wrangling. I'll but single out two or three Expressions.

[Page] Thus, when he speaks of the Apostles appointing in [...] CHURCH, it's a Question that enters into the Heart of the Controversy, What CHURCH is here to be understood? Mr. Layman knows, this Word has various Significations, and is of as uncertain a Sound, as the Word Bishop. I inquire then, what Notion he has of the primitive Churches, in each of which he says the Apostles appointed a President &c. Were they of the Diocesan, or the Parochial Form? By a PAROCHIAL Church, I suppose, is usually understood, A particular Society or fixed Congregation of neighbour-Christians, combined for personal Communion, & mutual Edification, in the Observance of Divine Ordinances, of publick Worship & Discipline, administred by stated Presbyters or Bishops (one or more) resident among them. But by a DIOCESAN Church I suppose is usually understood, A Plurality of these Parochial Congregations, united under one General Officer, of the highest Order in the sacred Ministry, having the sole Power of Ordination, and Eccl [...]siastical Government within a certain District. If I mistake in my Definitions, I shall willingly submit to Correction. Now I desire the favour of Mr. Layman, to say which of these different Species, he intended in the Question before us: or if neither, then to give a Third. If he speaks of the Parochial Church, we shall not be fond of contending with him; provided he do's not make it essential to a Church, to have subordinate Presbyters in it. But if he speaks of a Diocesan Church, I desire to be resolv'd in these Inquiries, Whether it was limited originally by the Apostles to a particular City; or took a wider Compass, and extended to a Multitude of Cities and Towns, according to the Model of these Times? And whether he holds this Diocesan Church to be a Church of the lowest Order; so that Parochial Congregations are no Churches, but only Parts of the Church individuated by one Diocesan Pastor?

An other Expression I must remark upon, is that, wherein he characterizes the Officer, in Question: ‘Whether the Apostles did not appoint in each Church a PRESIDENT, or GOVERNOR superior to, and with JURISDICTION over the Presbyters &c.’ The word President is equivocal, serving for very different Notions; and tho', for any thing in the Notation of the Word, it may have the same Idea with the Term Governor, yet in modern Use it signifies only a chief Manager or Director, as the President of the King's Council, whose Office is to propose Business at the Council-Table, & report — Now had Mr. Layman used but this single Term, I should have thought he meant nothing more than a Moderator in the Council of Presbyters: [Page]And indeed he tells us (p. 101.) ‘That this is ALL he contends for, in behalf of Bishops, supposing them fixed in that Office, and no publick Acts of Government be done by the Presbytery without them at the head of Affairs.’ But this seems to me, to appear all Jest, when I consider what follows in the Question, by way of Explanation; — "a President, or GOVERNOR (says he) superiour to, and having JURISDICTION, over the Presbyters" &c. I must confess, this looks to me a very odd sort of Moderator! If his President must be such a Governor, he do's [...] amuze us, when he says, a Moderator is all he contends for. The Gentleman appears plainly to contend for a Governor with Jurisdiction over Presbyters. The word Jurisdiction sounds high; it may comprehend all Acts of Government, Legislative, Judicial, and Executive: I know not whether he meant all; or if not all, which did he mean? If he can soften down the Words Governor and Jurisdiction, to a Sense consistent with the Idea of a Moderator, I shall be glad. 'Tis pity, he could to better define the Episcopacy he contends for. He leaves it at miserable Uncertainties.

In fine, I observe, Mr. Layman in the Question having mention'd the Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons, brings in t [...] Phrase, "the People UNDER them." Now I desire to know, in what Sense and how far he will allow the People to be UNDER the Presbyters or Bishops, by Apostolical Appointment. Have the Parish-Priests in the Church of England the Government of the People, the Power of the Church-Keys, in the full Degree, as the Apostles left it to the Presbyters of particular Churches? Did the Apostles leave the Presbyters Assistants in Discipline, and in possession of a proper Church-Government over the People as Assessors with the Prelates? And are the Parsons in the Church of England Governors in every Parish, under their respective Diocesans, as Presidents or Moderators? Or are the Diocesans sole Governors, exclusive of the Parish-Presbyters? By what Mr. Layman says (p. 100.) The governing Powers and Power of Ordination are by Divine Appointment vested only in the Prelates, exclusive of all Partners: ‘When Timothy and Titus are represented as being invested with them, and no mention is made of any that were PARTNERS with them (says he) we can't justly presume, that any where in those Churches had those Powers.’ And yet almost in the same breath (p. 101.) he says, ‘If you will allow them to have been MODERATORS of the Presbyteries, that is all we contend for &c.’ Here seems to me to be a Contradiction [Page]in Terms: I shall wish to see how the Gentleman will reconcile these two Passages, in appearance so inconsistent. Ti then we can't possibly understand what it is he contends for and his Question thus stated leaves us as much in the Dark as ever. I must beg him to define what the Power of his PRESBYTERS or Bishops is in their respective Churches, or how the People are under them: whether in any other Sense than as they are under the DEACONS. And I must intreat him more clearly to define the Power of his President or Governor, and tell us what is that Jurisdiction over the Bishops and Deacons, which he attributes to the said Officer.

But after all this, perhaps we've been talking only of a mere Phantasm; a President that exists but in Imagination: for we must observe, in England it is not one Prelate, but one Lay-man, a Chancellor that is eminently this President, who has in his hand the Power of the Keys, and manages the Business of Court-trials; the Prelate seldom or not at all medling with it, and the Parochial Bishops intirely excluded from it, being but as Criers to publish the Sentences of the Lay-Chancellor.

And truly I must observe, the Gentleman leaves us at a loss, whether by his President or Governor over the Presbyters, he does not actually mean this Lay-Chancellor: for in his Definition he omits telling us, whether the Officer appointed by the Apostles to exercise Jurisdiction over the Presbyters, was one so much as in sacred Orders. But if it seem too captions, to except at his Definition on this Account, and tho' we should suppose he meant such a President as is in Orders; yet there's another Exception, which I can't see how he will avoid the force of: and this is, That he has left us at Uncertainty whether his President must be of a superior Order to the Presbyters; and may not be an Officer in the Nature of an Archbishop, of the same Order with the Presbyters or Bishops, tho' above them in Degree: for I hope the Gentleman will allow an Archbishop in the Church of England to be "a President or Governor superior to and with Jurisdiction (in some Sense) over the Presbyters or Bishops," since he has so many transcendent Prerogatives, and the Prelates are oblig'd at their Consecration to take an Oath of due OBEDIENCE to him. Or perhaps Mr. Layman's President may be the Archdeacon (an acknowledg'd mere Presbyter) or the Dean (still a Presbyter;) either of which (and the latter especially, in the Peculiars) is an Officer to whom his Description, said down in the Question, agrees exactly; [Page]—"a President or Governor superior to and with Jurisdiction over the Presbyters", &c.

Thus the Gentleman has put us to some Trouble, by his floating so in Ambiguities, to search out his Meaning. And now if I have been so happy as to hit upon his true Meaning, in either of the Instances above, I must desire to be inform'd how it appears, that the Apostles did appoint in each Church, such a President or Governor, whether Chancellor, Dean, Arch-deacon, or Arch-bishop. Was this the State of Things, while the Church was yet in her Embryo & first Rudiments? Or did Things arrive to this Pass afterwards, when the State of the Church became more ripe and settled? Mr. Layman pretends (p. 61.) to ‘confine himself, in his Inquiries, to what Intimations we have of the Constitution of those Churches, which were grown into Form, and seem to have been settled in Scripture-times.’ And a dear Friend of his, the Dialogist (p. 23.) boasts of these his Letters, as exhibiting ‘clear Proofs, that the SAME FORM of Government NOW in the Church of ENGLAND, has obtained from the APOSTLES Days.’ Hence then we must conclude, if Mr. Layman has prov'd any thing, he has prov'd the Divine Right of Archbishops, Arch-deacons, Deans, and Lay-Chancellors, as appointed by the Apostles, when the Churches were bro't into Form, Presidents or Governors over the Presbyters; for such they are according to the present Model of the Church of England, and do as Governors enter as much into the Essence of the Constitution, for ought I see, as the Diocesan Prelates. For which Reason, if it should be reply'd by Mr. Layman, that he pretends not to prove the Divine Institution of Chancellors, Deans, &c. I can't help expressing my Astonishment at the strange Assurance of his Friend, who would bear us in hand, That in these Letters we shall find clear Pr [...]ss, that the Original Government of the Church was Episcopal (i. e. after the manner of the Church of England; so he must mean, for it follows) and that the SAME Form we NOW have in our Church, has obtained in all Ages and Places, from the Apostles Days unto our own Times." A Saying this, which it will be hard for the greatest Wit to invent a Parallel to, for the amazing Confidence it betrays; and could I hope by any means to escape the merciless L [...]sh of this confident Dialogist (to borrow some pretty Phrases of his own, p. 3, 4.) I would a [...] too, for the notorious Falshood; if a Man of such Fidelity as he can be guilty of such a Crime.

But after all, notwithstanding the Uncertainty of Mr. Layman's Language in the Question, where by President or Governor [Page]appointed by the Apostles in each Church, may be indifferently understood either of the soremention'd governing Officers in his Church; yet I am rather prone to conjecture, he intended the Diocesan Bishop or Prelate: and accordingly I shall de futuro so understand him.

Sect. VIII. Mr. Layman having ‘thus stated the Question, proceeds now to consider what Light the holy Scriptures, interpreted by the forementioned Rules, give us for the Resolution of it.’

Here the Gentleman premises (p. 61.) That he shall wholly ‘wave the Consideration of the State of Things, while Christ was upon Earth, — and before the Churches were brought into Form, while they were intirely under the Guidance of Inspiration.—And will confine himself to what Intimations we have of the Constitution of those Churches, which were grown into Form, and seem to have been settled in Scripture-times.’

Well, and what is the Account he has gathered up of these Churches in their mature and settled State? Truly it appears to me but a jumbl'd Business. However, I will set his Report in as fair a Light, as I can: and make some Remarks, but as briefly as well as may be; for the Discussion of the Point, with relation to Scripture-Arguments, has been done so particularly and fully by Elutherius in his Vindication, that I have but little Room left me for any Reflections here. However, I will just offer a few Observations.

1. The Gentleman tells us (p. 62.) ‘As to PRESBYTERS, We find, that when the Apostles had converted any considerable Number in a City, they left 'em under the Guidance of Them; Ordaining ELDERS in every City (Church, it should be) Act 14.23.’—What do's the Gentleman mean by Guidance? It should seem, he intends Pastoral Care. Hence he has that Phrase (p 63.) "They were at first taken CARE of by Presbyters:" and alledges in Proof ‘that Exhortation to the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20.17. Take Heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, or Bishops.’ Now, when the Churches had attain'd to this State of Things, methinks they were sufficiently ripen'd, and grown into Form; a Form very happy, and which the Churches of New England by long Experience find as effectual to the good and holy Ends of Church Societies, as the Diocesan Form ever was, in its most flourishing State.—And by the way, we have here a very notable Concession from our Lay-Adversary; That the A [...]stles constituted Presbyters, with an Episcopal Care of the [Page]Churches, before he pretends there were any fixed Prelates appointed by them. Here then we are agreed, That the Christian Churches were at first under the Guidance and Care of Presbyters or Bishops, without a fixed President at their head: and now I might with good Advantage turn against him his own Argument from the safer Side (p. 114, 15) and in Imitation of him say; He allows Presbyters to have been appointed by the Apostles, and that the Churches were at first committed to their Care and Guidance as the Bishops of them, without any fixed President over them; This he allows: whereas we dispute the Apostolick Appointment of his fixed PRESIDENT, with Arguments, at least of very considerable Weight. From this we satisfy our selves, that our Side of the Question is the safer; and in such a Case (he tells us) the safest Side is to be chosen.

But, to go on,

2. I observe, Mr. Layman tells us (p. 63.) ‘It seems to be the Case every where, That the Christians of a CITY were called a CHURCH, how many Congregations soever they made:’ and of this he appears to be grown to an Assurance, by that time he had got to pag. 94.—Thus, it seems, we have an Answer already to one of the Questions, I just now put to him. But the other Question waits to be resolv'd: and agreable to it, I will here indulge my inquisitive Humour so far as to ask Mr. Layman, Whether when the Christians of a City were multiply'd so as to make several Assemblies under the Care of stated Rectors, we are now to look on the Church as ripen'd and grown into Form? Cou'd it be a proper Church, while under the Guidance of the Presbyters or Bishops, without a fixed President at the head of Affairs? If so, I think the Presbyterian Cause (as might easily be shewn) will receive no small Advantage from this Concession. But if not, then I pray what must be the State of the Liturgick Congregations in New-England? At this Rate I see not how it can be allow'd, there is so much as one true Church, among all those of the Prelatical Persuasion here. Well may they (as they affect to do) call themselves the Church of ENGLAND: for that they are, if a Church in any Sense. THERE resides their fixed President; if they have any at all in a special Relation to them: and there only, if any where, have these new-fangl'd Separatists their Church-Existence. Mr. Layman's Principle, for ought I see, destroys the Being of Parish-Churches: for, be there ever so many Parishes in a Diocese, or Bishoprick, they all make but [...]one Church. 'Tis then but by a hard Cata [...]hresis, that he can call his Congregation [Page]a Parish-Church; it being at best but a part of a Church, and having its essential constitutive Head a thousand Leagues off. Sad! if the "Head must answer for the Faults of the Body. p. 66.

And, by the way, if the word Church in Scripture was generally used to signify the Christians of a CITY; if it was in Scripture-times the Case every where (as Mr. Layman says) That the Christians of a CITY were called a CHURCH; Then, I must beseech him to let me know, how he can reconcile the Form and Practice of his own Church to this Principle. It seems an unconscionable Stretch of the Line, beyond all Scripture-Bounds, to draw it round a Multitude of Cities and Towns, as in England; and much more to extend it from thence to the very Ends of the Earth. In this Respect London, I think, may almost vie with Rome: and truly it seems to me as consistent with Scripture-Institution, to unite the universal Church under one Oecumenical Patriarch as to attempt the Coalition of innumerable Christians in widely distant Countries under one Prelate or Primate. What Distinction is there, to make this lawful and the other not? — But I pray, when, how, and by what Rule or Reason was the ALTERATION from the approv'd Custom in Scripture-Times bro't about? This mighty Change, from the Church and Bishop of a City, to the Church and Bishop of a Province, a County, or large Comp [...] of Ground, containing many Cities and Towns, and Hundreds of Congregations, must needs (I conclude) pass with Mr. Layman, if he abide by his avow'd Principles, for an Anti-Scriptural, and therefore an Anti-Christian Innovation: And surely he must be able from History to give us some Account of its Rise and Progress: for, can it be imagin'd, there shou'd be no visible Traces left of this Innovation? Could it possibly be introduced (according to the Episcopal way of reasoning) without much Opposition, and Complaint, especially from the degraded City-Bishops? Can this be thought, when Government is so nice and tender a Point with Men? And What! did no Tongue or Pen rise up in Defence of the City-Churches? Is it to be dream'd, that this Encroachment upon their fundamental Rights, this Invasion of their undoubted Privileges, shou'd be tamely submitted to, without any Noise or Contradiction? And however it came on, it shou'd seem, it must be a comparatively modern Innovation. For do you judge, it cou'd possibly come up in the Days of Ignatius, or Irenaeus, or even Cyprian; who must needs have had a clear Knowledge of the original Constitution of the Christian Churches, and cou'd not be mistaken about it, since [Page]they liv'd so nigh to Scripture-Times! Surely those good Men, those holy Martyrs, cou'd never be consenting to so manifest a Deviation from the sacred Apostolick Model of Church Government. They cou'd never have a Hand in pulling down the City-Presidents, set up by the Apostles for Conservators of Peace, Unity, and Order in the City-Churches; when the Presbyters and Congregations under them must certainly be [...] to fall a Sacrifice to Strife, Debate, and Disorder, without the Presence of their respective Governor: at the head of Affairs among them; and when indeed these Presidents themselves, having once got the humour of Usurpation, wou'd under Colour of prudential Reasons for enlarging their Bishoprick, be apt to indulge the Lust of Dominion, and Monopoly, which is ever insatiable and knows no Bounds: And by this unhappy Means the Christian World wou'd be fill'd with continual Animosities and Emulations, the fruit which is Confusion, most opposite to the grand professed End of Prelacy. Upon such Considerations as these, I must needs be of Opinion, That none of the good old Fathers joyn'd in this Conspiracy, to dissolve the City-Church-State, and abolish that City-Episcopacy, which Mr. Layman says was settled every where in Scripture-times, and which I suppose it is he speaks of (p. 112.) where he celebrates ‘Episcopacy as a wise Appointment of the Apostles under the Guidance of the Holy Ghost, being in the nature of the Thing (says he) the most likely Form of Government, to prevent Divisions and Disorders:’ and adds, ‘It is apparent from the whole face of Ecclesiastical History, that not Episcopacy’ [no besure, not this CITY-Episcopacy, much less PARISH-Episcopacy] ‘but Opposition to it, and USURPATION OVER it, have been the Cause of those horrid Convulsions,’ which the Christian World has often groaned under. Happy were it for Christendom, if all Papal Tyrants and Protestant Usurpers in the Churches every where had their extended Territories crumbled into just Divisions, and Episcopacy were reduc'd within the ancient modest Bounds of a Town or City at most. Will not Mr. Layman joyn in the Wish for a Return of Scripture-Times, when there were City-Churches and City-Bishops every where, and when therefore a Prelate of modern Figure wou'd have appear'd a prodigious Sight! — But I must go on to observe,

3. Our Author (p 63.) says, ‘The Churches were at first taken Care of by Presbyters, still under the Government of the Apostles, as appears from the Epistles to the Corinthians’

[Page] Since he has mentioned the Corinthians, it leads me to make one Observation, which may perhaps be of some Direction to us in forming a Judgment, as to the Truth of Mr. Layman's Maxim, That in Scripture-times a Church consisted of all the Christians of a City, how many Congregations soever they made. Now, if it be supposed, that there was a Plurality of Christian Congregations in the City of Corinth, then we may naturally be led to apply to them that Passage in 1 Cor. 14.34. where the Apostle prohibits their Women's speaking in the CHURCHES. It seems to intimate a Number of Churches in that City, if there be any Weight in that Observation, ‘That it is not to be thought, he would particularly have mentioned their Women, [...], if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth, where they were likest to usurp that Authority.’ It has been often asserted by our Adversaries with Confidence, that it doth not once fail, That where Churches are mention'd in the Plural, they are the Churches of a Province; not of a City: But it seems, here it fails for once.

I will suppose then, that there were Parish-Churches in the City of Corinth: and I have Mr. Layman's Authority for it, That when the Epistles to them were written, they were under the Care of Presbyters, without a fixed President. But, says he, "still under the Government of the APOSTLES" 'Tis granted, the Apostles might superintend the Churches every where. The Direction and Influence of inspired Apostles seem'd very needful in the Infant-State of the Church; and they continually travel'd about, doing Good, confirming the Souls of the Disciples, planting and establishing of Churches. But yet, were the Churches, that had only Presbyters or Bishops, without a fix'd Governor, any MORE under the Government of the Apostles, than other Churches, where these fix'd Governors are pretended to be in place? Were not these fix'd Presidents as much under their superintendency, as the Presbyters? Mr. Layman says (p. 65.) ‘I am sure no Bishop in England pretends to more Authority over the Clergy and People of his Diocess, than the Epistles of St. Paul give to Timothy & Titus:’ what Truth there may be in this, I will not stay to examine; tho' I believe, the Gentleman would be hard put to it to make it out: However, I must return him this Observation. That I am sure many a Presbyter in England has no greater Marks upon him of Subjection to his Bishop, than do appear on Timothy and Titus to the Apostle Paul: at least these Prelates appear in as [Page]much Subordination to and Dependency upon this Apostle, as the Presbyters of Corinth; which may easily be made evident, by comparing the several Epistles to them respectively. But whether they were equally so, or not; yet if Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding their prelatical Character, were at all "still under the Government of the Apostles," it suffices to my Purpose, and proves the Vanity of this Objection in the Case of the Presbyters.

4. I observe, Mr. Layman adds a Limitation, ‘They were at first taken Care of by Presbyters, TILL such Time as they (i. e. the Apostles) finding their Work too great, and their Charges too extensive for themselves, appointed fixed Governors, or Presidents over both Clergy and People of each City, as St. Jerom says, to prevent Schisms, &c.’

Here the Gentleman seems to intimate, that the Apostles kept the Government of the Churches in their own hands, and manag'd it themselves, as long as they cou'd; but at last thro' the Exigence of the Case, and as a Remedy to Schisms, not so well prevented by their own Government, they at length threw it up, and out of Necessity appointed fixed Governors over the Clergy & People in their own Room. I wish he wou'd give as the Scripture-Account of this Fact; for I can't let it pass for a notorious, universal, glaring matter of Fact. Nor can I let Jerom stand for a Witness to it; methinks he liv'd too late to be an Evidence in the Case: neither indeed do I know, that he has pretended to be one. The Passage out of this Father, alledg'd by our Author, I'm of Opinion (notwithstanding what he has offer'd, p. 9 [...], 7.) had no Reference to the Apostles Times: and I think I have very good Reason on my side, when I consider Dr. Stilling fleet's Arguments on this head (Irenic. p. 279, 80.) to which I refer Mr. Layman for a Solution of the main Difficulty he has started.

And as to the Notion of the Apostles appointing fixed Presidents over the Clergy, in their own Time, will Mr. Layman please to accept Dr. Stilling fleet's Judgment in the Case, after he had ripen'd his Studies in Antiquity (Unreas. of Sep. p. 269.) where he observes; ‘In the Preface before the Book of Ordination, it is said, That it is evident— that from the Apostles Time there have been these Orders &c. What is the Reason that they express it thus, FROM the Apostles Time, rather than IN the Apostles Time, but that they believed, while the Apostles LIVED, They managed the Affairs of Government themselves: — While the Apostles lived, it is [Page]probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but few: But as they went off, so they came to be setled in the several Churches.’—The Dr. indeed appears for unsetl'd Governors besides the Apostles in their Life-time; such as Timothy and Titus: But thinks there were no fixed Bishops, or but few. So then, it seems, 'tis doubtful whether during the Apostolic Age the Churches had any such fixed Governors at all; but continu'd all that while under the Guidance of the Presbyters or Parish-Bishops; and Mr. Layman's fixed Presidents came in after the Apostles time. The Presidency then in Scripture-times, for ought I can learn, was an unfixed Itinerant Thing; this is the best, that Scripture-Example can be pleaded for: and over this, it shou'd seem, there was the Presidency of the Apostles themselves. Surely, whether it was a fixed or unfixed Presidency, Mr. Layman will allow, that the Apostles reserv'd to themselves the same Power of Superintendency they had, while the Churches were under the Presbyters only. I ask this Gentleman to tell me plainly, whether his suppos'd fixed Governors were the Apostles Successors, in codem Gradu, upon an exact Par with them: or were they their Substitutes, Delegates, and Representatives? In short, were they supreme Governors, or only Sub-Governors? A direct Answer to this plain short Question will perhaps go a great way towards deciding the present Controversy. If he says, they were the former, I think it will be inconsistent with all the Accounts of Fact we have in Scripture: and if he says, they were the latter, then I doubt no Argument can be drawn to his Purpose; for the Deputies, we may rationally think▪ ceased with their Principals, and cou'd have no Successors.

In fine, shou'd we allow there were actually fixed Presidents in the Apostles times, yet it must be remembred, They were but City-Presidents, and fixed within those narrow Bounds; and where it happen'd there was but one Congregation in a City, there cou'd be but a Parish President. And I can't devise at present, how any Argument can be drawn from either of these Presidents, in favour of modern Episcopacy; which, whether it be consider'd as National, Provincial, or only Diocesan, is a vast Remove from the ancient Episcopacy. If we shou'd own Mr. Layman's Presidents, as appointed by the Apostles; yet a Diocesan over many Cities, an Archbishop over a whole Province, and a Primate over all England, must be acknowledg'd to be beside Scripture-Institution & Example; unless Peter's Supremacy among the Apostles be pleaded. Here [Page]is one Usurpation upon the back of another; the Diocesans usurp the Rights of the City-Bishops; and the Archbishops usurp again from them; and for ought I know, the first Primate usurps upon the other; and in many Episcopal Countries the Pope usurps from Metropolitans and Patriarchs: and for ought appears, the Pope may watch over his extensive Charge, as easily as an english Primate or Prelate over his. For, as one observes, "As the Bishop can do all by the Parochial Clergy, for Word and Sacraments, and by Chancellors, Archdeacons &c. for his Discipline, such as it is; and as the Primate can rule a national Church by his and the Bishops Courts: So can the Pope rule the Church Catholick (whithersoever scattered over the whole Earth) by Cardinals, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, by his Legate, and other Officers of his Appointment". And I challenge Mr. Layman, to shew any essential Difference in these two Cases.

5. I observe, our Author attempts to illustrate and confirm his preceeding Remarks, by a Variety of Examples, or Instances of particular Churches so form'd and settled, as he had represented the Case, in Scripture-times.

And here (p. 64) he begins with JERUSALEM, the Mother-Church, of which he will have St. James to be the first Bishop. But it seems to me, to lie as an insuperable Prejudice against this Opinion, That the Apostles did for a great number of Years (if Antiquity gives us a true Report) make Jerusalem the place of their usual Residence, after their Travels resorting thither as their head-quarters; one or other of them generally being on the Spot: So that the Apostles having that Church almost continually under their own Eye, it superseded all Occasion for a fixed President, and defeats all Pretences therefore of James's being the first Bishop there. However, I will consider what Mr. Layman has to say upon the head.

I observe, to put a Colour on this Notion, he quotes several Scriptures, Act. 15.19. and Chap. 21.18. Yet he ‘pretends not an undoubted Conclusion from Scripture for it (as he observes to us, p. 98.) but only this, That seeing the most ancient Writers from the beginning have constantly asserted him to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem, —those Texts should be understood in that Sense.’ And the Gentleman appears very angry at Elutherius for calling this a Whimsical Plea, as hereby reflecting upon "all Antiquity, which with one Voice says, that St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem". But I take leave on this Occasion to remind Mr. Layman of his own Postulate: [Page]for if the same Word may be us'd in different Senses, in different Ages, he should first have shewn us, that the Word Bishop was used in the same Sense by the Fathers from the Beginning, as it bears in the present Age: But the Gentleman has with his own kind hand confounded any Pretence of this nature. For he himself has told us (p. 68.) That ‘the Word Bishop was but by DEGREES appropriated to the first Order:’ and he has fix'd the Date of this Fact after the Time of the first Writer among the Christian Fathers, if I understand him right; for having quoted Clemens, he says (p. 106.) ‘The Words, Bishop and Presbyter, were NOT YET fixed to signifie the different Orders.’ I'm aware indeed, the Gentleman may reply, That this refers only to the Time of C [...] ment's writing his Epistle to the Corinthians; which he has, perhaps with some artful Design, placed An. Dom. 67. But I am of Opinion, it may as well be apply'd to the Period of his Life; and that for this Reason, because if the best Accounts may be credited, that Father died within about seven, eight, or nine years after his writing this Epistle: For Chronologists, I suppose generally, place his Death about the beginning of the second Century; some in the second Year thereof; tho' others place it in the last Year of the first Century: And some of the best Chronological Authors date his Epistle Anno 93, which was but two years after his being chosen Bishop of Rome. (Compare Calvisius and Isaacson.) We may then very rationally conclude, that the Synonimous Use of the Words Bishop and Presbyter continu'd at least to the End of the first Age.

And from hence I draw this Inference, in Contradiction to Mr. Layman, That if James was from the Beginning call'd Bishop of Jerusalem, yet here's a Course of fifty years (the famous Council at Jerusalem, in which he is represented by our Author acting as a Governor or Superintendent, being A. D. 52▪) in all which Time James certainly was not called Bishop in the modern Sense of the Word (which Mr. Layman must intend, when he says, St. James was call'd Bishop of Jerusalem; or else he's guilty of the grossest Fallacy) and therefore it is an abusive Imposition (since the Usus loquendi is of such material Consideration, in the Construction of Words, which by Tract of Time often lose their original Sense, that an Argument can't safely be built merely upon a perpetual Harmony of Language) I say, it's therefore an Imposition on the Reader, to tell him, ‘That the most ancient Writers from the BEGINNING have CONSTANTLY asserted St. James to be the first Bishop of [Page]Jerusalem.’ So that, for ought I see, if Elutherius call'd this a chimerical Notion, he did not miscall it; and if he made himself merry with it, it was far from being (as Mr. Layman wou'd have it) with every little Reason. I would ask the Gentleman, whether this St. James was an Apostle, or not? If he affirms; I must needs be of the Opinion, that, an Apostle a [...]ed City Bishop, is truly a very ridiculous Chimera, a perfect Castle in the Air. And if he denies; then it will follow, that [...] who was not an Apostle, presided in the grand Council at Jerusalem, "giving Sentence (according to Mr. Layman, p. 64.) and therein acting as a Governor or Superintendent," over an Assembly of Apostles: and if this be not a Chimerical Notion, I must confess my self a Stranger to common Sense, and to the meaning of common Language. — Further, I observe, Mr. Layman makes St. James a Bishop with a Presbytery about him. ‘The Apostle Paul (says he, ibid.) returning to Jerusalem, Acts 21.18. is said, to go in unto James and the Elders, i. e. his Presbytery being present.’ It seems then, even after the Church there was grown into Form, the Presbyters were not excluded from all Interest in consiliary and judicial Proceedings, but were at least what Ignatius (Ep. ad Trall.) calls [...], and Jerom calls Senatus Ecclesiae, a Bench of Assistants, and in a Sort Assessors with the Bishop, assumed in partem Solicitudinis & Regiminis. It appears too, the Bishop's Diocess was not so big, but that ALL the Elders, or stated Presbyters (tho' there were even several Congregations) might conveniently meet in a Body, for Consultation, and Management of Affairs of common Concernment, together with their President. Surely one might be tempted by this Reflection to think, St. James was not really (however nominally) a Bishop in the hierarchick-Sense, but rather a Congregational Bishop; or at most but a President of the Classical Stamp, the Moderator of an Assembly of Elders: The Presbyterians will consent with one Voice, I doubt not, to an Episcopacy of this kind. But so much for the first Instance of Episcopal Government. Only I will just observe, it will be worth while for Mr. Layman to inquire how these Presbyteries (which, I know, even some Episcopalians say, continu'd in the Church for above three Centuries) came to be abolish'd.

The next Instance is CRETE. ‘The Epistle of St. Paul to Titus (says Mr. Layman, p. 64.) seems plainly to fix him there with governing Powers,’—over the People of that Church. So again, p. 99. ‘There are very plain Intimations in the Epistle to [Page]Titus, of his being fixed Governor of the Church of Creet: — a Matter of Fact seconded with the universal Suffrage of Antiquity.’ I think rather, by the Scripture-Account of Ti [...] which challenges the first Consideration with us, there's more to be said for his being Bishop of Corinth, than of Crete. However, to pass that, methinks his being Bishop of Crete must not pass for a glaring Fact, if we only consider an Observation Mr. Layman himself has made, which seems to spoil all the Evidence in this second Instance: for he remarks (p. 64.) ‘One special part of Titus's Business was to ordain Elders in EVERY CITY, Tit. 1.5.’ I perceive then there were more Cities than one in Crete: 'tis indeed the largest and most celebrated Island on the Coast or Greece, and was in times past a considerable Kingdom; now known by the name of Candia, but sometimes call'd Hecato [...]polis, from its containing an hundred Cities. Therefore if (according to what we heard just now from Mr. Layman) the Christians of a City made a Church, and fixed Presidents or Governors were appointed over the People of each City; Then it's a rational and necessary Consequence, that Titus was not one of the fixed Governors, this Gentleman is contending for, i. e. a City-Bishop: but if Governor at all in Crete, must be a Provincial Governor, a supreme President over the Bishops of many Cities (for Titus was to ordain Presbyters or Bishops in every City) which makes him at least an Archbishop, or P [...]mate. This certainly must needs be his Relation to Crete; if he was in any Sense a fixed Governor there: he could have no fixed Relation to that Island upon Mr. Layman's Plan of City-Episcopacy. I desire the Gentleman to solve this Difficulty, in his next. Were the Bishops in every City subordinate to Titus, as a common Governor over all? Or was he limited to one City? Or how was it? If he was limited, with what Propriety could he be call'd Bishop of Crete? unless there was but one Church in the whole Island; which indeed is what Mr. Layman supposes, when he uses the Phrase "That Church", and again "the Church of Creet:" but this is Language, I believe, he won't find in all Antiquity. Dorotheus calls him only Bishop IN Crete: but Eusebius speaks of him as "Over the CHURCHES of Crete", [...]. And if he was not limited, but had an extensive and equal Power over all the Cities, and their Bishops, neither could he in that Case be properly call'd Bishop of Crete; for his extensive Power speaks him rather a Metropolitan or Primate. And truly I believe, there may a much better Shew of Argument be advanced, [Page]both out of Scripture & Antiquity, for his being a Provincial Primate, than a City-Prelate. Hear what the learned Nicolson says to this purpose (Apology for Church of Engl. p. 62, 3.) ‘What more decent among Church-governours, than that some be Superiours, some Subordinate? — Even among the Twelve were there not Chief Apostles?—For Peter, James, and John are called Pillars.— Thus it is with their Successors the Bishops: they are all pares Potestate; in the Power, he that is at Eugubium, is as great as he at Rome &c. But yet for all this, one Bishop may be set in a higher Degree than another, and one set over another.— What was Titus and Timothy? were they not more than ordinary Bishops? Titus had the Charge over the whole Isle of Crete, in which there were seven Bishops besides. (Miraeus lib. 4 de Notitia Episc. pag. 181.) This was Paul's Companion, saith Chrysostome (Hom. 1. in Titum) that was approved; otherwise Paul would not have committed unto him an whole Island, and the Trial and Judgment of so many Bishops. To Timothy, if we believe Theodoret and other Ancients, was committed all Asia the lesse; in which were questionless instituted by the Apostles many Bishops. Of the last Example there may be some Scruple; of the first there can be no Doubt to any one that lists not to be contentious.’ Thus he. — So then Mr. Layman and his Brother Dialogist (if I may safely borrow some Words from their Preface or Introduction, p. 3.) have fair Warning given them, what they must pass for in the Opinion of one of their own Club, viz CONTENTIOUS Dunces and Bigots, if they presume irreverently to differ from the learned Nicolson's Judgment. If therefore I might be thought worthy to be of Council to them, I would humbly advise, That they talk no more of Titus as a mere Bishop, but as a more than ordinary Bishop, i. e. in Ecclesiastical Style, an Arch-bishop or Primate. I doubt not, the Gentlemen will presently be "aware of my Trap": and I believe, I have 'em pretty fast, let Titus's Character and Title be "AS what it will."

Mr. Layman's next Instance is EPHESUS; of which Church he pretends Timothy was the fixed Governor. (p. 65.) You see, still the Gentleman carries on his Hypothesis, that the Christians of a CITY made a CHURCH: Well then, let the Christians at Ephesus, how many Congregations soever they compos'd, pass for a Church. But will Mr. Layman say, Timothy was only Bishop of a City-Church? You've heard what the aforesaid Episcopal Apologist says, "To Timothy if we believe Theodoret [Page] and other Ancients, was committed all Asia the [...]sse; in which were many Bishops. I then return Mr. Layman his own words (p. 68.) ‘That it was Fact, we have the Witness of Theodoret, an APPROVED ancient Writer.’ Will he now accept the Testimony of that approv'd Writer to this matter of Fact! If he refuses, with what face can he expect, others shou'd pay any Deference to that Father's Authority? But if he complies, I doubt it will turn out badly for his Cause, which I am apt to think must sink and fatally miscarry, if TIMOTHY'S special Relation to EPHESUS, as fixed President or Bishop thereof, be given up, which is the grand Plea made use of in Defence of Prelacy. I argue upon it, Either Timothy was the fixed Governor of the Ephesian City-Church, or he was not: which will Mr. Layman now upon second Tho'ts chuse to do; deny, or affirm? If the Gentleman, convinc'd by Theodoret's Testimony, sees fit to retract his former Opinion, and now denies Timothy's fixed Relation to Ephesus, as Bishop of that City, he will then spoil the fairest Flourishes in his Letters, on the Scripture-Argument, and I doubt must never afterwards bring the Epistles to Timothy into this Controversy, which have hitherto been the main Supports of his Cause. But if he chuses to adhere to his own Opinion, and insists upon Timothy's Relation to Ephesus, as Bishop of that City only, then I say, still his Cause seems in equal Danger; for if he presumes to deny a matter of Fact, witness'd by THEODORET, celebrated by himself as an approv'd ancient Writer, he at once confounds the whole Authority of Tradition, and must never more open his Lips in vain Boasts of glaring Fact, the Sense of the primitive Church, and Suffrage of the good old Fathers. — I think, here is S [...]ylla and Chary [...]dis: and I can't but pity the Gentleman in his critical Situation, while Danger looks him in the face, which way soever he turns. Let him take Care, that to avoid the Gulf, he don't run himself on the Rock, and split.

But further, I have a different kind of Argument to offer. Mr. Layman has made a Concession (p. 63.) ‘That in the Church at Ephesus there were many Elders or Bishops; and that at first it was taken Care of by Presbyters (as the Case seems to be every where else) still under the Government of the Apostles, till such Time as they saw fit to appoint fixed Governors &c.’ Now, by all that I can find in Scripture, the Ephesian Church was never taken out of that first State; but remain'd thro' Scripture-times taken Care of by Presbyters, still under the Inspection of the Apostle John in particular. There's [Page]a general Consent of History, that this Apostle had his proper Home at Ephesus, & that there he died just before the Close of the first, or upon the Commencement of the second Century, when he was about 90 years old; tho' some say, he liv'd to 120, which must bring him nigh 30 years into the [...]d Century. Now if that Apostle usually resided at Ephesus all his days, it superseded the Necessity of a fixed Governor there; whatever there was elsewhere. Mr. Layman (p. 63.) gives this as the Reason of the Apostles appointing fixed Governors in any place, ‘They finding their Work too great, and their Charger too extensive for themselves.’ But this is a Reason, that cou'd very little affect the Case of Ephesus, which the Apostle John cou'd easily superintend, it being his Home. I find an Episcopal Author observing; ‘When the APOSTLES departed from any Church, which they had planted, in that then they appointed a Bishop. For while They remain'd in or near the Place, there was no such Need; the Apostles supplying the Wants of those Churches with their Presence, Letters and Messengers. But when they were finally to forgo those Parts, then they began to provide for the Necessity and Security of that Church by settling Episcopal Power.’ (Nicols. Apol. p. 57, 8.) Indeed the Apologist makes this Remark in relation to the Case of Timothy; who, he thinks it probable, was made Bishop, when Paul was at Miletum. Therefore it follows; ‘St. Paul at this time was to take his Leave of the Churches at Asia; he saith it plainly (Acts 20.25.) That they shou'd see his face no more: most probable then it is, that at this time he left Timothy to supply his place a [...] Ephesus.’ Nay, but verily it seems much more probable, in my humble Opinion, that he did not leave Timothy to supply his place; there being manifestly no Occasion for it, in as much as they had the Apostle John so much among them, and saw his Face very frequently, who was certainly sufficient to supply the place of the Apostle Paul. If it be Fact, that St. John had his Residence chiefly at Ephesus, then I presume to turn that Remark of the Bishop (for so I take him to have been) I say, to turn the Bishop's own Observation against himself; For (says he) while they (i. e. any of the Apostles) remain'd in or near any place, where a Church was planted, there was no such Need for appointing a Bishop; the Apostles supplying the Wants of those Churches with their Presence &c. Now according to this, how improbable is it, that Timothy shou'd be made stated Bishop of Ephesus; when there was no such Need for one there, and such abundant Occasion for [Page]him at the same time in other places, in or nigh which there was no Apostle remaining! And if the Apostle John's residing there be a Consideration that argues the Improbability of Timothy's being fixed Bishop there, during his Life; then it necessarily infers, that probably he never was so at all, if it be true, what Mr. Layman (p. 103.) insinuates, That St John outlived Timothy.

I will now briefly compare some of the Probabilities, on either Side of the present Question. As to Timothy, Mr. Layman observes (p. 65.) ‘The Apostle's writing to him once and again, as concerned chiefly at Ephesus, plainly intimates, that there was a fixed Relation between him and that Church.’ This is the best he has to say, for Timothy. But there's much more of Probability in the Apostle John's Case. Chronologists tell us, St. John wrote and publish'd his Gospel at Ephesus; some dating it A. D. 69. tho' others much later. Between the years Eighty and Nin [...]y he was banish'd into Patmos, where (some say, Anno 95▪) he pen'd his Revelation, in which he writes to the Seven Churches of Asia minor, among whom Ephesus has the Honour of the first Place. They tell us that after his Return from Exile, he dwelt at Ephesus again, to the Day of his Death; and that this was the Place of his Sepulchre. These are much plainer Intimations of John's usual Abode at Ephesus, and special Affection and Care for the Church there, than any appearing in the Case of Timothy.

I'm aware, it will be objected, that St. John inscrib'd his Letter for the Ephesine Church, Unto the ANGEL of the Church of Ephesus. But surely this cou'd not intend Timothy; if Mr. Layman's Observation be just (p. 103.) ‘That Timothy shou'd be living, when the Epistles of St. John were written seems to be a groundless Guess.’ Nor need this Angel intend any one of Mr. Layman's fixed Presidents; as it were easy to make appear, were it worth while to enter into the Argument.—I think, the Gentleman has set himself in a very odd Light, by first introducing his Plea, from these Angels of the Churches, with that Remark (p. 66.) ‘Who in the Revelations are called Angels, [...]ccording to the PROPHETICAL Style of that MYSTERIOUS Book;’ and then after a warm Debate upon the Subject, closing up his Reasonings with that sanguine Reflection (p. 6 [...].) ‘It seems to me, I must confess, unaccountable, that any shou'd go about to [...]lude so PLAIN a Case,’ &c. Pray now let Mr. Layman, who is so full of his Boasts of glaring Facts, and the universal Suffrage of Antiquity, before he talks any more of a [...]ain C [...]se here, settle the Line of Succession in the Ephe [...]ne [Page]Church, and tell us who succeeded Timothy in his Bishoprick; that we may know the Name of this Angel, that John wrote to: it may have a happy Tendency to settle the Dispute. Let us therefore have this plain Case well attested by the unanimous Suffrage of primitive Writers: for we are as little dispos'd, as himself, to be put off with groundless Guesses, or the single Opinions of private Doctors. Indeed (as Dr. Stillingfleet observes, Irenic p. 321.) ‘The main Difficulty lies in the immediate Succession to the Apostles: — the main Seat of the Controversy lies there, whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches, did substitute single Persons to succeed them or no; So that unless that be cleared, the very Deed of Gift is questioned.’ And what the Dr. says concerning ROME, that famous City, where one wou'd think the Succession shou'd be clear, if any where, may, I fear, with equal Reason be apply'd to EPHESUS; "Here the Succession is as MUDDY as the Tiber it self." Let Mr. Layman purge and clarify the foul Stream of Succession; or we shall make bold to slight his Quotations from Austin and Eusebius (p. 101.) as foreign to the purpose. But thus much for the first Objection.

I'm aware of another Objection against what I have advanced, relating to the Ephesian Church's remaining thro' Scripture-times in the Care of Presbyters, under the Inspection of the Apostle John; It may be said, that St. John as an Apostle, being oblig'd to be much in travelling, for the Propagation of the Gospel, must necessarily be often absent; which made a fixed Governor at Ephesus absolutely requisite. But to this I answer, (1.) It is to be observ'd, that not the occasional Absence, but the final Withdraw of an Apostle from any Place, is pretended to be the Reason or Occasion of a Prelate or fixed President's being appointed. And then (2.) I answer, This Objection carries as much Force in Timothy's Case, as John's: for it is apparent, that Timothy was an Evangelist, and Mr. Layman acknowledges (p. 65.) That "Evangelists were indeed ITINERANT Officers." Now, if Timothy's being an itinerant Officer is thought not inconsistent with his being a particular fixed Governor of Ephesus; much less can it be imagin'd, that John's being an itinerant Officer shou'd be inconsistent with his retaining a general Apostolical Superintendency over the Church there, in common with the other Asiatick Churches; which, if we believe what Antiquity reports, the Apostle John govern'd to his dying Day.

[Page] Indeed it's a common, and I think, a material Objection, brought against Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus, That he was an EVANGELIST: But Mr. Layman (ubi supra) answers, ‘To say this, is to say nothing to the Purpose, because that Office might be exercised by any Order of Officers,’ even Deacons: "One of the 7 Deacons (says he) being an Evangelist." But to say this, I'm sure, is to say nothing to the Purpose: he himself has given us a Key to that Case, and has taught us by a following Passage (compar'd with what he has said, p. 62.) to argue upon it; What if PHILIP were a Deacon (fixed in that Relation to a particular Church) this do's not at all hinder but that, having stood some time a Candidate for further Preferment in the Church, and by behaving well in inferior Affairs purchased to himself a good Degree, he might AT LENGTH be ordered by the Apostles, to do the Work of an EVANGELIST, and become an itinerant Officer.

But were Evangelists (as this Gentleman affirms) indeed itinerant Officers? How then cou'd Timothy be the fixed Governor of a City-Church? An itinerant Officer, in a fixed Relation to a particular Church, seems to me a palpable Inconsistency: Here's "a Combination of Ideas" indeed, which I want Mr. Layman's Skill to reconcile to the Notions of common Sense. Yet if that must not pass for an Inconsistency, I'm sure: must, An itinerant Preacher a fixed Pastor at the same time: But Mr. Layman is confident, ‘Timothy and Titus might take up a fixed Residence in their respective Churches, and yet withal do the Work of an Evangelist among the unchristianized People there and in the Places adjacent.’ — I'm as confident then, the Prelates of those Times must have fewer Incumbrances, notwithstanding their "great Metropolitical Churches," and it shou'd seem, must have more Zeal, than our modern Prelates: who appear readier to go upon some Civil Embassy to foreign Courts, than upon the Gospel-Message to unchristianized People; so far from this (if we are rightly inform'd) that they can hardly find the Heart, or seldom get Leasure, to preach the Gospel even at home, to their own People. Further I observe, the Gentleman says, They were ORDERED &c. Now it's uncertain whether he do's not use this Word in the same Sense, as his Church do's in the Book of Ordination, where the Ordaining of Ministers is call'd the ORDERING of them. If so, then I perceive, the Work of an EVANGELIST is by Apostolical Appointment a Work that Prelates are ordered or ordained to. I wish truly I cou'd see our English Bishops engaging Heart and [Page]Hand in this part of their Work. So I shou'd hope, they wou'd do their glorious Master much greater and better Service, than by attending Parliaments and Court-Affairs. At least If they shou'd send out their Delegates, to gospelize the Pagan Parts of his Majesty's Dominions, I'm sure, it wou'd be a noble Attempt, and they might hereby do more Service to the Kingdom of Christ, than by sending their Missionantes into foreign Parts already gospelized, where they can find in many places only small Parcels of factious Persons to preach to, and must spend their Zeal in setting up Liturgical Assemblies on the Foundations of Schism and Division.

However, as to the Point, ‘that the Office of EVANGELISTS might be exercised by any Order of Officers, even DEACONS,’ Mr. Layman happens herein to differ from his judicious HOOKER, who tells us (I [...]l. Pol. p. 421.) That ‘Evangelists were Presbyters;’ and therefore their Office was incompatible to Deacons, who are another and lower Order. Yet were they such Presbyters, as [...]ou'd not be Pastors at the same time; which ( [...] he) ‘were Presbyters also, howbeit setled in some certain Charge, and thereby differing from Evangelists; whom the Apostles sent abroad, and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs, wheresoever they saw Need:’ And it's remarkable, he names Timothy among them who "were THUS i [...]p [...]yed."

I know not whether Mr. Layman may not be of Opinion, that the Prelates of his Church are properly Evangelists, as much as Timothy; and will interpret that Text to the Purpose, He GAVE some Apostles and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, &c. for the Work of the Ministry, TILL we all come in the Unity of the Faith. — If this be his Opinion, I will repeat to him that apposite Passage of his beloved CHILLING WORTH'S (R [...]lig. Prot. p. 160.) ‘We that are willing to leave all Men to their Liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, find it no Difficulty to discern between Dedit and Promisit; he gave at his Ascension, and he promised to the World's End. Besides, though you whom it most concerns, may haply flatter your selves, that you have not only Pastors and Doctor, out Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and those distinct from the former, in your Church; yet we that are disinteressed Persons, cannot but smile at these strange Imaginations.’ But it may be Mr. Layman will reply, He do [...]s not pretend, that the Office of an Evangelist is perpetual, much less that all who are Bishops are obliged to attend it, but Timothy and Titus's being fixed Governors, and yet ordered to do withall[Page]the Work of Evangelists was an extraordinary Thing in their Case. Well, if so I desire then to be inform'd upon what Reasons he suppos [...] that their Office, as Evangelists, was extraordinary, any more than their Office as Presidents. For ought I know, he may by such a Concession in the former Case, take an effectual Method to break the Neck of Episcopa [...]y; at least, of the Arguments for it, from the Instances of Timothy and Titus.

In fine, I don't remember, that Mr. Layman all this while has told us, whether Timothy and Titus, when become fixed▪ Presidents, were advanc'd to an ORDER distinct from and superior to the Presbyters or Bishops. So that, for ought I can discern, his Presidents may be ranked with Metropolitans, Primates, Patriarchs; who are acknowledg'd to be only Gradus in Episcopatu: and I'm persuaded no Bishop or fixed President in Scripture-times pretended to more Authority over the Clergy of his Diocess, than Custom gives to Metropolitans and Patriarchs, over the Prelates in their respective Provinces or Districts; notwithstanding their Primacy or Patriarchate is founded purely upon View of Unity and Order. Do's Mr. Layman pretend his fixed Presidents in Scripture-times were superior to, and had Jurisdiction over the Presbyters? I find Episcopal Writers not scrupling, in the Case of Archbishops, to ascribe to them. ‘a Metropolitical JURISDICTION;’ and I find the learned Apologist (Nicol. p. 100.) saying ‘It was established from the beginning, that in all Provinces there shou'd be one CHIEF Bishop, which from the Mother-City was called a Metropolitan; to whom all the other Bishops shou'd be SUBJECT, and to HIM accomptable. — For Discipline can never be well administred among them that have an equal Power. (It follows, p. 101.) His Office was to call the rest of the Bishops of the Province to the Synods; — in which he sat as President, and the rest might not proceed to do any thing without Consulting him: When they assembled but once a Year, many Causes that did abide no Delay, were committed by them to the Metropolitan hearing the Judgment. To him then lay App [...]ales.’ The same Author (p. 64.) to justify the Right and Preheminence of Metropolitans, afterwards call'd Patriarchs, alleges the 35th of the Apostolical Canons: which says ‘The Bishops of every Nation must know [...], the Chiefest, the First, the Primate; and willeth him to be [...], as HEAD among the Bishops of that Province: who in the African Council is call'd [...].’ And he informs us (p. 67.) That those Primates, as they ‘could call Synods through their [Page]whole Province, so cou'd PUNISH any Bishop or Church-man or other under them.’ I find Bishop JEWEL (Reply, p. 111.) observing; ‘Gregory found this fault in the Bishop of Salonae, that being within the Jurisdiction of his Province, he was consecrate without his Knowledge; and he writes of the Bishops within his Charge, in those terms, Episcopi M [...]I, Episcopi m [...]i COMMISSI: My Bishops; Bishops within my Cure.’ Thus it seems, the Power of Primates, above the rest of their Order, ran pretty high; and may I not safely say, there is no Bishop in England, pretends to more Authority over the Clergy of his Diocess? Or do the Epistles of St. Paul give more Authority to Timothy and Titus? What tho' the Angel of the Church at Ephesus "is represented exercising Jurisdiction there (as Mr. Layman insinuates, p. 67.) in examining into the Pretensions of those, Who say they are Apostles, and are not! What if all this can amount to no less, than that he was ecclesiastical Governor there! Do's it necessarily infer, that Mr. Layman's fixed Presidents are of a superior Order to Presbyters? Verily there's no such Consequence: for we see, in the Case of Primates, a gradual Difference between Officers of the same Rank: and that a Jurisdiction over Prelates, equal perhaps to what Mr. Layman claims for his fixed Presidents, in point of Government, has existed, without the Primates being of a distinct and higher Order. Now, why may not the Difference, that Antiquity seems to make between Presbyters and Prelates, be accounted for in the like manner? Why mayn't Prelacy, as well as Primacy, be tho't an Advancement, not in Order and Office, but only in Degree? To this perhaps Mr. Layman will answer, That the Scriptures make the Difference between fixed Presidents and Presbyters, not merely gradual, but plainly ESSENTIAL; inasmuch as they tell us, that at Ephesus and Crete the governing Powers and Power of Ordination were appropriated to Timothy and Titus: for he argues (p. 100.) ‘When THEY are mention'd as being invested with them, and NO MENTION is made of any that were PARTNERS with them; we can't justly presume, that any others in those Churches had those Powers.’ But to this Objection I reply; It's easy to solve and dissipate the seeming Difficulty here, by an impartial View of a parallel Case, we have in Scripture: I mean that of our Saviour's delivering the KEYS to Peter. Matth. 16.18, 19. I say unto THEE, That thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK will I build my Church: — and I will give unto THEE the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever THOU shalt bind &c. Pray let Mr. Layman [Page]consider now: Do not the Keys here imply the governing Power; and the Power of Ordination? Is not PETER represented as invested with them? And no Mention made here of any that were Partners with him? But will he argue in this Case, We therefore can't justly presume, that any others in the Church had those Powers, or whatever is meant by the Keys? Surely no rational Protestant cou'd refrain crying FY upon his Argument, apply'd to this parallel Case! However, Protestants are not backward to allow Peter a Primacy of Order (as 'tis call'd) or rather a Priority for Order's sake. Agreably Bishop JEWEL (ubi supra, p. 226.) observes, ‘St. Peter in the old Fathers is diversly called, the First, the Chiefe, the Top, the high Honour of the Apostles; and in Eusebius and St. Augustine, [...], and PRINCEPS Apostolorum: the word Princeps (says the Bishop) is not alwaies taken for Prince, or Governor endued with Power, but often times for the first Man, or best of the Company. In this Sense Cicero saith, Philosophorum princeps Aristippus. So is St. Peter called Princeps Apostolorum.’ Yet, I can't but think, if Timothy or Titus had been call'd in Scripture Princeps Episcoporum, our Lay-Adversary wou'd have produced this, as an indisputable Evidence of his being a fixed President and having Jurisdiction over the Presbyters or Bishops— Nay, had it been said, that to Timothy was committed the Care of Ephesus, and to Titus the Care of Crete, he wou'd probably have built a triumphant Argument upon it, for their being sole Governors of those Places. But I will produce a parallel Case, in which there may be as much Colour for the like Argument; and yet when examin'd, it will be found far from carrying uncontroulable Evidence with it. Paul says (Gal. 2.7, 8.) The Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed unto ME, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto PETER: For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, the same was mighty in Me towards the Gentiles. Shall we now think (however the Text may seem to favour such an Opinion) that Peter and Paul divided the whole World between them? One being the Apostle of the Circumcision, and the other of the Uncircumcision. Shall we understand it Exclusively of others? What! were there no Apostles but Peter and Paul? Were the rest all dead? Or were they all degraded from their Office, that none of 'em shou'd be admitted Partners with Peter and Paul? Or had they all done like Demas, who having loved this present World, forsook Paul, and retir'd from publick Service? Or did those two Apostles, in Anger at the rest, refuse their Company, [Page] [...] Paul in the Case of Mark? Of whom it's said, Paul thought [...] good to take him with them, who departed from them from [...]amphylia, and went not with them to the Work. Surely these hypotheses are too absurd, to be granted; and are a Contradiction to sacred Story. What shall we say then! Had Peter and Paul in their respective Provinces a Supremacy over the other Apostles? No such matter. All we can conclude is, that Peter and Paul appear'd generally at the head of Affairs, and were most remarkable for their extraordinary Labours and Succes [...], the one among the Jews, the other among the Gentiles: let not so, but that James and John are said (in that very Context) to be Pillars, as well as Cephas and Paul. Even thus, [...] the Case of Timothy and Titus, were they expresly, call'd Bishops the one of Ephesus and the other of Crete; yet it must have been understood, they were so, not Exclusively, but Eminently, as being the first in Seniority or in Accom [...]lishments, and having a Priority of Order. Why shou'd their being tall'd, one the Bishop of Ephesus, t'other the Bishop of Crete, ar [...]e they were sole Bishops in their respective Churches; any more than Peter's being call'd the Apostle of the Circumcision, and Paul the Apostle of the Uncircumcision, argue their being [...]he only Apostles, or having a Supremacy over the rest? Finally, Mr. Layman brings in the Case of the seven Churches of Asia, (p. 66.) and prosecutes his Argument upon it, p. 100. [...] have touch'd on this before: and shall now only observe [...]e or two Things further. The Gentleman founds his Argument chiefly on a METAPHOR ("the metaphorical Title of Angel," p. 103.) which he wou'd laugh at in any body else; and which is the more wonderful in him, because he has tol'd us (p. 84.) "That every ALLEGORICAL Gloss of a Father is not to (be taken for an Interpretation." Why then will Mr. Layman himself go to allegorizing, and harp so much on a metaphorical Title! I may return him his own Reflection (p. 102.) "This "sure deserves no Answer, but only shews how necessitous your Case is, that you are so ready to catch at every Twig." And after all the "Bluster" he has made with Arguments and Testimonies, for these Angels being single Governors, Heads, Superintendents, exercising Jurisdiction, &c. he at last shuts up the Debate in a very modest manner. (p. 103 first Paragr.) And I shall not be backward to allow him the whole of the WHAT he contends for, as he represents it there, if I understand his Terms right: for the Gentleman seems to delight in an equivocal Stile; that I am forc'd often to guess at his Meaning. If by "Clergymen" he [Page]intends PRESBYTERS or Bishops, and DEACONS, I see no Harm in conceding, that there might be ‘more than Seven in each Church.’ If by the Clergymen's ‘having the CARE of these Churches’ he intends having the whole Care belonging to their respective Offices; we are willing to allow, that the DEACONS had the Secular Care, and the PRESBYTERS the [...]piritual and Past [...]ral Care. I see no Hurt to my Cause, in granting that the Asian Churches, when the Apostle John wrote to them, were "taken Care of by Presbyters", or (as his Expression is p. 62.) "were left under the GUIDANCE of them." And I think, I may safely indulge him in his Opinion, ‘That ONE had a PREEMINENCE or PRECEDENCY to the rest’ provided he affixes the same Ideas to these ambiguous Terms, which they carry with them when apply'd in some common Cases; as that of the Parson, in relation his Curates; and that of the Metropolitan, in relation to the Bishops of his Province: in both which Cases, Mr. Layman doubtless will hold a Preeminence or Precedency of one to the rest, yet without a Difference of Order, or substantially diverse Powers. But if this be all that the Gentleman contends for, I think in truth he contends to little purpose; unless it be to the purpose of serving his Adversary's Cause, and betraying his own.

Thus, I have examin'd (more largely indeed than I at first intended) those Scripture-Arguments, Mr. Layman has offer'd in favour of the Episcopal Form of Government; and which, he says (p. 68.) he "can't but esteem incontestible Evidences." But if any unbias'd judicious Reader will have the same Esteem of 'em, after what has been said in Answer, I shall much wonder.

Sect. IX. Upon the whole, I observe, "The Case of the Episcopacy of TIMOTHY and TITUS," is what my Lay-brother seems to think the plainest in Scripture, and here indeed lies his main Strength: But after all he has said, even this is far from a plain Case. The Gentleman himself appears to have lower'd his Esteem of his own Arguments, on this head, by that time he had writ on to the middle of his second Letter: For there (p. 99.) we find him speaking of 'em in more modest and diffident Terms. The incontestible Evidence now dwindles away to a "Probability," tho' (as he thinks) "a very strong" one; Yet still, I observe, it is but such a Probability "advanced at": And we all know, a very strong Probability, yea a thousand of the strongest Probabilities, are not inconsistent with the Possibility, [Page] [...]ay nor with even some Probabilities too, of the Contrary; and therefore can never amount to a conclusive Argument.

In the present Case, Mr. Layman himself, as much Noise as [...]e makes with his incontestible Evidences for Episcopacy from Scripture, yet makes a Concession (p. 90.) That ‘some Texts seem to favour the contrary Opinion.’ His calling in the Help of the Fathers indeed shews, he do's not think his Scripture-Arguments in themselves fully demonstrative. Nay, even with their [...]elp, in the plainest Case too, that of Timothy and Titus, he [...]etends not to strict Demonstration. His Words are (p. 99.) ‘When a Probability from Scripture, of such a Matter of Fact, is seconded by the universal Suffrage of Antiquity; it seems to me, to amount almost to a Demonstration.’ The Gentleman, I con [...]ess, is not to be discommended for his Modesty and Caution [...]ere. It only seems to him, to amount almost to a Demonstration; so that (make the best of it) it amounts but to a Pro [...]ability at last. But now surely something more than a faint Demonstration, or a strong Probability, is requisite to support so heavy a Weight, as this Gentleman's Doctrine (p. 84.) where he ranks Episcopacy among the ‘great ESSENTIALS of Religion, about which there was always a glorious Unity among the Fathers;’ nay, and challenges us to ‘Name the Church or Age of those primitive Times, wherein it was not esteemed a FUNDAMENTAL of Religion.’ Sure I may exclaim in the Language of his Brother Dialogist, and with greater Truth and Justice, (p. 4.) "O amazing Confidence! to say no worse." Do's this Gentleman consider what a Fundamental is! I advise him to consult the learned Chillingworth, upon the Doctrine of Fundamentals. (Prot. Relig. passim.) I will just give a Hint or two of that great Man's Judgment. He lays it down as a Postulatum, (p. 133.) ‘That the Knowledge of Fundamentals is drawn from SCRIPTURE.— I cannot know (says he) any Doctrine to be a Divine and supernatural Truth, or a true Part of Christianity, but ONLY Because the SCRIPTURE sayes so, which is all true: Therefore, much more can I not know it to be a Fundamental Truth." He observes (p. 20.) "Verities in Scripture, written because they were necessary to believed, are those only, which constitute the Covenant between God and Man in Christ. But he puts "matters of Policy and Oeconomy in the rank of Things evidently not intrinsecal to the Covenant, & not in themselves necessary to be believed, but only by Accident, because they were written.—Tho' all which is necessary, be plain in Scripture; yet all which is plain, [Page]is not therefore written because it was necessary: for what Necessity, that I shou'd know St. Paul left his Cleak at Troas!’ Again (p. 36.) ‘A sure Note of a Point not necessary is, when Scripture may, with so great Probability, be alledged on both sides, that Men of honest and upright Hearts go some one way, and some another.’ — So (Pref. Sect 31, 33.) Those ‘Truths are fundamental, which are EVIDENTLY delivered in Scripture, and COMMANDED to be preached to all Men: Those not fundamental, which are obsoure.’ Now let the learned Layman reduce his Doctrine, of Episcopacy a Fundamental, to this Standard. Here's a short plain Test: Is Diocesan Episcopacy evidently delivered in Scripture? No; for then Mr. Layman cou'd not with any Propriety have rank'd it among those D [...]ubtful Cases, which need the Help of his 2d Rule for right interpreting of Scripture, the Sense and Practice of the primitive Fathers. And if Scripture, even interpreted by the Help of the Fathers, did afford incontestible Evidences, how comes it, the Point is so controverted among good Protestants? This is, according to Mr. Chillingworth, one very sure Criterium of an obscure Point. (Pref. Sect. 31.) ‘There is no more certain Sign (says he) that a Point is not evident, than that honest and understanding and indifferent Men, and such as give themselves Liberty of Judgment, after a mature Consideration of the Matter, differ about it.’ And will any one have the Impudence, to say, That no honest and understanding Men can differ about this Point of Episcopacy! I now come across that bold and severe Passage of Mr. Layman (p. 70.) ‘It seems to me (says he) No HONEST Man, who knows any thing of the matter, CAN question, but that WE have the UNIVERSAL Witness of the Church of God, in every PLACE, and every AGE of the ancient Times, even from the Beginning, INTIRELY on OUR side of the Question.’— Still I must exclaim, with his Brother Dialogist, "O amazing Confidence! to say no worse." Pardon me, if I presume to put Mr. Chillingworth's Judgment into the Scale against Mr. Layman's Opinion. HE (ubi supra) speaking of ‘the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion, such as may with Probability be disputed on both sides,’ immediately subjoyns, ‘SUCH are the Disputes of Protestants; — GOOD Men, and LOVERS of TRUTH, of all Sides’ — Apply this to the Disputes between Episcopal and Antiepiscopal Protestants. Behold now the catholick Spirit and unbias'd Charity of the excellent Chillingworth! According to him there may be good Men and Lovers of Truth even among Presbyterians. Here's a [Page]just and generous Return to my Friend Elutherius's handsome Expressions of Charity and Candour in his Dialogue; where he professes a high Value for the Church of England as a Protestant Church, and a just Veneration for the Learning and Piety of some of her Bishops, and shews a Forwardness to embrace Prelaticus, [...]n Episcopal Priest, as a truly Christian Minister, of the same Body of Christ with himself. But the Spirit, his Adversaries manifest, is quite the Reverse. All that One of them (Script. Bp examin'd) has to say upon it, is in that sarcastical Fleer (p. 15.). "I am sorry we can't return the Complement." And Eusebius (Dial. p. 17.) turns upon him in a manner more ungenteel, fierce, and boisterous; ‘If you have said too much in professing, you highly value the Church of England &c. pray RETRACT it; or else, after so much plainly confessed of the Safety of our Communion, justify your self in leaving it, and using so much Pains to asperse a good and excellent Church, and such Men.’ — Then he falls to chiding and scolding at him for ‘joyning with a Party of Separatists CONDEMNED by God and Man.’ Finally, comes Mr. Layman on the Stage, and closes the glorious Scene of Charity; ‘It seems to me (says he) NO HONEST Man, who knows any thing of the Matter, can question &c. i. e. in short no Man of Conscience and common Sense can be a Presbyterian.’ We see then what we must pass for in his Club, viz. unconscionable Bigots or silly Dunces. Nay, he tells us (p. 71.) ‘Had a PRESBYTERIAN liv'd in primitive Times, and been obstinate in his Opinion, I can't help being persuaded, he wou'd have been cast out of the universal Church for an HERETIC and SCHISMATIC, meerly for denying and casting off episcopal Government’ I shall not return Railing for Railing: but I desire the Gentleman patiently to receive his Master's Censure (Chillingw. Pref. Sect. 35) ‘Let this be granted (i. e. the Principle, which he calls the chief Pillar, and the Basis of his Book, viz. That all Things NECESSARY to Salvation are EVIDENTLY contained in Scripture) and the immediate COROLLARY will be, and must be, That not WE for rejecting, but YOU for imposing upon the FAITH of Christians, Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and for disturbing the Churche's Peace, and dividing Unity for such Matters, are in a high Degree PRESUMPTUOUS and SCHISMATICAL.’ — I will take Leave further to address him in the Words of that great Author, adapted to my Purpose by the Addition in the Parenthesis (Chill p. 93) "Methinks in all Reason, you that Challenge Privileges" [for your Bishops, as a superior Order to Presbyters, and of fundamental [Page]Consequence] ‘shou'd produce your LETTERS PATENTS from the KING of Heaven, and shew some EXPRESS Warrant. — Otherwise you know the Rule is, Uli Contrarium non manifeste probatur, praesumitur pro Libertate.’ We may venture then to bring a QUO WARRANTO? And if our Adversaries can't produce Letters Patents from HEAVEN, to establish the Authority and Divine Right of Episcopacy, Judgment must be given in our favour, and we be left to enjoy the Liberty, we claim by Divine Right.

But, says Mr. Layman (p. 99.) ‘Such an Evidence we have as the nature of the Thing will bear; and as much as we could reasonably expect, supposing it were so; as much as is sufficient to satisfie a wise and good Man. In a word, as much at least, as Men generally think sufficient to justifie their Belief of a great many things of this Nature,’ &c. But I answer, Supposing there were such Evidence really, as amounts to a fair and strong Probability; yet how do's this infer the indispensable Necessity of Episcopacy, and an Obligation to receive it as a Fundamental of Christianity? Is a mere Probability Foundation sufficient to build an Article of Faith upon? Is the Evidence, upon which we believe a great many things of a trifling Concernment to us, sufficient to establish a Divine Institution? Or is the Evidence, upon which we may safely ground our Belief and Practice, in the Circumstantials & Ceremonials of Religion, as much as is sufficient to justify our Faith and Practice, in the GREAT ESSENTIALS of Religion, under which head Mr. Layman annumerates Episcopacy! Is a thing of this Nature (i. e. according to this Gentleman, a thing necessary, a thing fundamental, a great Essential of Religion) to be receiv'd upon a mere probable Evidence, that will but suffice to justify our Belief of a great many things of a slight and indifferent Nature! If there be but a Probability from Scripture, what tho' it be seconded with the universal Suffrage of Antiquity! Is this sufficient Evidence for a FUNDAMENTAL of Religion? or can that be justly esteemed a Fundamental, which has no better Evidence, no stronger Motives of Credibility attending it? According to Mr. Chillingworth, there are especially these Requisites to a Fundamental, That it be a necessary Truth, intrinsecal to the Covenant of Grace, evidently delivered in Scripture, and commanded to be preached to all Men; as in some Passages before ci [...]ed. If this now be the Case, I must intreat our penetrating Layman to demonstrate to us, that Episcopacy has these Marks of a Fundamental upon it; and particularly to point us to the Scripture, where his Doctrine of [Page]Prelacy Jure Divino is commanded to be preach'd to all Men: Or if in all his Researches into the first and purest Antiquity, [...]ie has discover'd any Traditional Evidence of such a Command, I shou'd be glad he'd help us to it. Else this wild and novel Device, of Episcopacy a FUNDAMENTAL, will turn out a mere Trick to amuze the Unlearned, and deceive the Simple.

In short, when I reflect on this Gentleman's Conduct, I'm sur [...]riz'd at the Inconsistency of it. He makes that Pretension (p. 89.) ‘I build as much (nay MORE) on my first Rule of Interpreting of Scripture by Scripture, as on this second of Interpreting Scripture by the Help of the Fathers;’ and yet immediately adds (so forgetful is he) ‘But after all your Endeavours to deface the Fathers, I cannot part with my Rule’ (as if the Fathers were his only Rule) ‘but do still think, That the Matters of Fact, which immediately ollow'd AFTER the Scriptures, are the BEST Guide in coming at the Sense of them in doubtful Cases:’ and his management of the Dispute in the present Case, is very much of a piece with this Declaration; the chief Run of his Arguments being on the foot of Tradition. He pretends (p. 58.) to disclaim the sense of the primitive Church under the Notion of a Rule of Faith; and yet at the same time attempts formally to prove a Fundamental of Christianity by the Testimonies of the Fathers; under the Notion indeed of Witnesses to the Meaning of the Rule: but this, in such a Case, is as much against the Grain, with all true Protestants, and in particular with Mr. Chillingworth, as is possible. This learned Man says (Prot. Relig. p. 196.) ‘May it please you now at last, to take Notice, that by Fundamental, we mean all and only that which is NECESSARY.’ And the whole Current of his admirable Book takes its Rise from this one grand Principle, That all things necessary to Salvation are EVIDENTLY contained in Scripture. And what he means by this Phrase (evidently contained in Scripture) so often used by him, we may collect from that Passage (p. 82.) ‘The Scripture is a sufficient Rule, for those to judge by, that believe it to be the Word of God, what they are to believe, and what not;— I say, sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible, in things necessary, to all that have Understanding, whether they be Learned or Unlearned And my Reason hereof (says he) is convincing and Demonstrative; because NOTHING is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. For to say, that when a place of Scripture, by reason of ambiguous Terms, lies indifferent between divers Senses, whereof one is true, and the other is false, God obliges Men [Page]under pain of Damnation, not to mistake thro' human Frailty, is to make God a Tyrant; and to say, that like Pharaoh, he gives no Straw, and requires Brick; that he reaps, where he sows not’ &c.—Nay, but Mr. Layman will say, God has provided us with Guides, even the Fathers, to interpret to us the Sense of Scripture in doubtful places. To this I answer again in the Language of Mr. Chillingworth (ibid.) ‘You still run upon a false Supposition; That God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies, that may happen among Christians, about the Sense of obscure Texts of Scripture: whereas He hath left every one to his Liberty herein, in those words of St. Paul, Quisque abundet suo Sensu, &c.’ And he says (p. 74) ‘This we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the World a judicial definitive obliging Sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man, or such a Society of Men, as is authorized thereto by GOD. But we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the Pleasure of God to give any Man, or Society of Men, any such Authority. And therefore, though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended, as we do that all Sin were abolisht, yet we have little Hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended: And in the mean while, think it best to content our selves with, and to persuade others unto an Unity of Charity, and mutual Toleration; seeing God hath authorized no Man to force all Men to Unity of Opinion.’— Words worthy to be engraven in Letters of GOLD!

If it be thus, why will Mr. Layman talk so much of the Authority of the Fathers, and go about to force all Men to Unity of Opinion, by setting up the unanimous Suffrage of the primitive Church, for a decisive Rule in doubtful Cases! At least why will he attempt to establish a Fundamental of Religion on the Credit of their Judgment and Practice! Let our Layman take the Rebuke from that learned Hand, I have so often turn'd against him (Chill. p 242.) ‘You bring in the Sentence of St. Cyprian; but, Why, in a Controversie of Faith, do you cite any thing, which is confessed on all hands, not to be a Rule of Faith! So (p. 266, 7.) Neither are Optatus his Sayings Rules of Faith, and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith. — No Antiquity less than Apostolical, is a certain Note of Truth.’ If our Lay Adversary then will have Episcopacy to be a Matter of Faith, a great Essential of Religion, let him not refer us to Antiquity and the Fathers for Evidence: Or, if he will adhere to the Fathers in this Dispute, and cite [Page]any thing which is not a Rule of Faith, and not fit to determine Controversies of Faith (as Mr. Chillingworth says) let him then renounce his Notion of Episcopacy's being a matter of Faith, a Fundamental of Religion. I freely leave it to his Option, which to do: and if he can fairly get clear of this Dilemma, he shall be mihi magnus Apollo.

I'm aware, it may be objected to me; But has not Mr. Chillingworth himself publish'd, The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated! Yes, Mr. Layman in his Letters mention's it in this remarkable Passage (p. 86.) ‘As to Mr. Chillingworth, if you have any Value for his Judgment, pray read his Demonstration of Episcopacy, which never yet was answered nor never will.’ Well, upon his Motion, I have review'd that short Work; and I find it nothing at all to Mr. Layman's Purpose. For what do we read there? Truly not one Word of Episcopacy a Fundamental of Religion! Not one Word of Episcopacy a distinct ORDER from Presbyters! Not one Word of Bishops having the sole Power of Ordination and Government! Not one Word in favour of Episcopal Government, but upon this Proviso, that it be "abstracted from ALL Accidentals"! And what this Expression may couch in it, he has resign'd to our own Conjectures. Nay, and when Episcopal Government is stript of all Accidentals, the upshot of Mr. Chillingworth's Demonstration, is, ‘That it is not REPUGNANT to the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles; that it is not FORBIDDEN, that it is not AGAINST the Apostles Doctrine and the Will of Christ:’ All which are very lean and diminutive Expressions; and only import, that he thought some kind of Episcopacy lawful: which is little (if any thing) more than even Presbyterians have granted; some of whom have been for Bishops, taken sano Sensu, as well as he. What an unaccountable Folly then was it, to alledge Mr. Chillingworth's Demonstration, which makes little or nothing for Mr. Layman's Cause!

It's observable, Mr. Chillingworth might perhaps consistently enough improve the Fathers in arguing for Episcopacy, because this was not a Fundamental or a matter of Faith with him, but merely a matter of Opinion, and extrinsecal to the Covenant of Grace; as he sometimes distinguishes. Whereas Mr. Layman makes Use of the Fathers to prove a Fundamental of Religion; in which the Demonstration can be of no possible Service to him.

And now whereas Mr. Layman boasts, It never yet was answer'd, nor never will be; I believe we cou'd crack too of Books on our side, that never were answer'd, and (to [Page]speak modestly) it may be never will: but all the Reffection I chuse to make, is, That he happens in this Assertion to be agregiously mistaken. For, altho' that celebrated Piece can be of little Service to the Cause of Episcopacy Jure Divino, and much less to the English Prelacy, loaded as it is with a vast Aggregation of ACCIDENTALS, that Mr. Chillingworth wou'd have thrown away; Yet such Use and such mighty Vaunts have been made of that small Performance (unworthy of the Author, and very short of its specious Title) as that several learned Pens have wrote Answers to it. It falls out, I have two of 'em by me; some Strictures by Dr. Edwards, and a more labour'd Reply by Mr. Lander, who has taken the Pains to go through the Demonstration Paragraph by Paragraph, remarking upon every Line and Word of it, and giving a compleat Confutation to it.

I am oblig'd now to vindicate Mr. Chillingworth and Elutherius, from a Misrepresentation of the one, and an Accusation of the other, which Mr. Layman advances in the Words following the forequoted Passage (p. 86, 7.) ‘What you cite from Mr. Chillingworth about some Fathers and Councils contradicting others, is evidently spoken concerning the latter & corrupt Times of Popery, and not of the first & purest Ages: and therefore is nothing to your Purpose, but is fallaciously introduced’ Sure I am, our Lay-Author never read Mr. Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, or else has a very bold Forhead, thus to play the old Jesuitical Game, by shifting off his Words with a feigned Distinction of Traditions. Did he imagine, by the thinnest Sophism, to cast a Mist before our Eyes! No, we have seen, Mr. Chillingworth's Challenge is indefinite, to Traditions of the first, as well as later Ages, and of the purest, as well as corrupter Times. Save in that single Point, the Canon of Scripture, he challenges all Mankind to produce any other Instance of Tradition truly original, universal, and perpetual. He traces Tradition up to ‘the Times of the Apostles and our Saviour himself (p. 75) and demands, if there be ANY Interpretation of ANY Scripture, from the Apostles delivered down from hand to hand, and from age to age’ And to let us know how fully he was resolv'd in this Point, he says to his Adversary (p. 138.) ‘WE ARE PERSWADED, that you CANNOT of ANY Thing make it appear, that it is Tradition, but ONLY the Canon of Scripture.’ What could be spoken plainer, or uttered more peremptorily!

Had Mr. Layman cited the Place, where we might find the Passages that Elutherius quoted from Chillingworth, we should [Page]be better able to judge upon the truth of his Charge, That "they are fallaciously introduced." However, I believe, I can ness pretty nigh whereabouts our Friend was; and in turning over the Leaves, I fix my Thumb on Page 335th. (Chap. II. Sect. 56.) where he has these Words; ‘The BIBLE, I say, the Bible ONLY, is the Religion of Protestants! WHATSOEVER ELSE, besides IT, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable Consequences of IT, well may they hold as a matter of OPINION; but as matter of FAITH and RELIGION, neither CAN they with Coherence to their own Grounds believe it themselves, nor require the Belief of it of others, without most high and MOST SCHISMATICAL Presumption. I, for my part, 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 Foot, but upon THIS ROCK ONLY. I see plainly and with mine own Eyes, that there are Popes against Popes, Councels against Councels [and not only so, but as he adds] some FATHERS against others, the same FATHERS against themselves, a CONSENT of Fathers of one Age against a CONSENT of Fathers of another Age, the CHURCH of one Age against the CHURCH of another Age. TRADITIVE INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or NONE to be found: No Tradition, but only of Scripture, can derive it self from the FOUNTAIN; but may be plainly prov'd, either to have been brought in, in such an Age AFTER Christ, or that in such an Age, it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient Certainty but of Scripture ONLY, for any CONSIDERING Man to build upon. THIS therefore, and This ONLY, I have REASON to believe.’ — I have thus recited the [...]ssage at large, that Readers who have not the Book, may [...]e capable of giving their Opinion upon it, and judging be [...]een Mr. Layman and Elutherius. I leave it now to every equal and intelligent Reader, and even to Mr. Layman himself upon second Thoughts, to say, Whether here is not as absolute a Renunciation of all Traditions in every Age, and in very Point, save that one of the Canon of Scripture, as could easily be expressed in human Language! And therefore, I [...]hink, this Gentleman is bound now in common Equity, both [...] his Adversary and to Mr. Chillingworth, to appear in open Court with a humble Retraxit. And indeed, I think, Justice to his own Reputation too obliges him to confess himself guilty, [Page]both of the Impertinency, and the Fallacy, he has charged injuriously upon Elutherius.

I acknowledge, Mr. Chillingworth on some Occasions expresses a Reverence for Antiquity and Tradition: but then it is Antiquity no less than Apostolical; it is Tradition truly Original, derived thro' the Church of ALL Ages (says he, p 65.) and ‘that Succession of Christians, which takes in Christ himself and his Apostles. Prove your Doctrine (says he) by such a Tradition, and we will yield’ This truly is (in Mr. Layman's Language, p. 99.) ‘Evidence, as much as is sufficient to satisfie a wise and good Man.’ For this originates with the Scripture, begins at the very first Times of the Church: and if any Tradition evidently takes its Rise there, we stand ready to receive it; Yea, if that be the Case, we shall be content without examining into the Monuments of subsequent Antiquity. As Mr. Chillingworth says (p. 84.) ‘How shall a Man possibly be able to know, whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetual Succession of visible Professors, which held always the same Doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary: unless he hath first examined, what was the Doctrine of the Church in the FIRST Age, what in the second &c? And whether this be not a more difficult Work, than to STAY at the FIRST Age, and to examine the Church by the Conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age, every Man of ordinary Understanding may judge.’ Hear also what he says, (p. 80.) ‘Believe then the Consent of Christians, which are now, and have been ever since Christ in the World, that we ought to believe CHRIST; but learn of us, what Christ said. (ye) which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom. Why, I beseech you? Surely, if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my self, that I were not to believe in Christ, than that I should learn any thing concerning him, FROM ANY OTHER than THEM by whom I believed in him: at least, than that I should learn his Religion from you; who, with forging so many false Stories, and false Authors, have taken a fair Way to make the faith of all Stories questionable:—who make a Profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors; a ready Course to make it justly questionable whether ANY remain uncorrupted. For, if you take this Authority upon you, upon the Six Ages last past, HOW SHALL WE KNOW, that the Church of that [Page]Time did not usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the Six last Ages BEFORE THEM, and so upwards, until we come to Christ himself?’—It's remarkable, what be observes (p. 261.) ‘Not any Antiquity therefore, unless it be ABSOLUTE and PRIMITIVE, is a certain Sign of a true Doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to Corruption, as we pretend it was: who can possibly warrant as, that Part of this Corruption might not get in, and prevail in the 5th or 4th or 3d or 2d Age? Especially seeing the Apostles assure us, that the Mystery of Iniquity was working, tho' more secretly, even in their Times. If any Man ask, How could it become universal in so short a Time? Let him tell me how the Error of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became so SOON universal: and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others.’

Here now, I can't but observe, Mr. Chillingworth has by these few Lines given a home Thrust to his own Demonstration of Episcopacy. Like Samson, he has himself crush'd the Pillars, this Structure of his leans upon, and shaken it down on his head. And thus, at one Blast he has torn up the whole Foundation of Mr. Layman's plausible Discourse (p. 71, &c.) on ‘Episcopacy an universal Matter of FACT; it's not being possible the Fathers shou'd mistake about it; nor imaginable that those holy Martyrs wou'd on purpose transmit a Lie to Posterity, without any Temptation.’ I am sure, they had as little Temptation in the Case of Communicating Infants, as in that of Dioces [...]n Episcopacy; and it was as evidently an universal matter of Fact; and being esteemed a Divine Appointment, it was as much a Doctrinal Article, as Episcopacy. What Mr. Layman says upon a Comparison of Infant-Baptism and Episcopacy (p. 113.) I may with greater Truth say of Infant-Communicating and Episcopacy, "I can't see but that they stand upon equal Grounds." And I hope Mr. Layman will not call my turning his Argument against himself impertinent: for I can't but think it very pertinent; and if he can find any Salvo at all to offer in Answer to it, I'm persuaded, it must be an exceeding lame one, a poor Come-off. In short, I think that the Use I have made of his Reasoning, will remain pertinent, till he can show, that there are stronger, clearer and earlier Testimonies for the immutable Divine Right and indispensable Necessity of Episcopacy, as a superior Order to Presbytery, than of Infant-Communicating: But this I think he can't be so vain as to pretend to.

[Page] One wou'd expect plain Testimonies in the Case of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, if in any Case at all. Some Pretists indeed have been so satisfy'd of this, as to lay the whole Stress of the Controversy on this single Case: and 'tis with a special View to this, Mr. Layman made that Remark, ‘Evidence we have, as much as is sufficient to satisfie a wise and good Man.’ We see then by the way, what Presbyterians must pass for in his Account, Fools or Knaves; but so must some even of his own Church too, as it happens; for there have been Episcopalians, that never cou'd be satisfy'd with the Evidence in this Case. I shall only instance in the learned Dr. Whithy, who ingenuously gives us his Thoughts in these Words (Pref. Com. in Tit) ‘As to the great Controversy, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete; I confess, I can find NOTHING of this matter in any Writer of the first three Centuries, nor any Intimation that they bore that Name."— He subjoyns, "I confess, that these two Instances absolutely taken, afford us no convincing Evidence for a settled Diocesan Episcopacy.’— What Considence then do's it bewray, in Mr. Layman, to bear us in hand, That ‘the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus is a matter of Fact, wherein the Probability from Scripture is secended with the universal Suffrage of Antiquity!’

In fine, supposing this Case were ever so clear in Antiquity, and supposing that Episcopacy was held by the primitive Church a Fundamental of Religion (as Mr. Layman pretends) yet I say still, what signifies the universal Suffrage of Antiquity, in relation to the great Essentials of Religion, if the Scripture is silent or obscure? How bold a Charge of Insufficiency is it, upon the Scripture, to hold one of the great Essentials of the Gospel not evidently revealed in the Bible, but depending for its Certainty upon Fathers and Traditions! It's a just Remark of Dr. Stillingstret's (Irenic. p. 198.) ‘Whatever is done with an Opinion of the Necessity of doing it, destroys the Scripture's Perfection, if it be not contained (i. e. as he expresses himself before, " not fully laid down) in it: for that were to make it an imperfect Rule; and in this Sense every Additio perficiens is Additio corrumpens."—And he observes (p. 114.) "A just Ground of Separation is any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental Article of Christian Faith: which may as well be done by adding to fundamental Articles, as by plain denying them. And my reason is this: because the very Ratio of a fundamental [Page]Article doth imply, not only its Necessity to be believed and practised, but likewise its Sufficiency as to the End for which it is called fundamental.—Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamental, that is, necessary to Salvation, doth thereby destroy the Sufficiency of those former Articles in order to Salvation; for if they be sufficient, how can any new ones be necessary?’ The same learned Hand [...]bserves (p. 152, 3.) ‘Supposing that Apostolical Practice be sufficiently attested by the following Ages,—tho' the matter of Fact be evidenced, yet the obligatory nature of that Fact must depend on Scripture.—And supposing any Form of Government in its self necessary, and that Necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God, the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its End; for then deficit in necessarits.’

Besides, as Mr. Chillingworth (Relig. of Prot. p. 136.) says, ‘Who can warrant us, that the universal Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical? Seeing, in that famous place for Traditions, in Tertullian, Quicunque Traditor, Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them. And who can secure us that humane Inventions, and such as came à quocunque Traditore, might not in a short time gain the Reputation of Apostolique! Seeing the Direction then was, Pracepta Majorum APOSTOLICAS Traditiones quisque existimat.’

Will Mr. Layman, after this, think to establish his Episcopacy upon the Credit of Apostolic Tradition, confirming and interpreting the Scripture! Let him then never more alledge Mr. Chillingworth, as an Advocate for his Cause: I'm sure, 'tis such as that learned Protestant will by no means patronize.

Sect. X. It remains [...], to take some Notice of those Quotations, Mr. Layman has offered, from the Fathers; which, he thinks, are plain Testimonies to his Purpose, and give great Light into the present Controversy.

Only I will first offer some Remarks on what he premises, in that occasional Passage (p. 105.) ‘As for Dr. Stillingfleet, it is very well known, that when he wrote his Irenicum, he was but a young Man, and had not ripened his Studies in Antiquity, and also that long after in his Treatise of the Mischief [I suppose he meant, The Unreasonableness] of Separation, especially in the Preface to it, he does in Effect at least, retract what he had written before. So that you have no Reason so loudly to boast of him.’—As to the Doctor's writing his Irenicum, when he [Page]was but a young Man, take the Remark made by one of his Contemporaries, the learned and judicious Mr. Howe (Letter upon Occasion of the Dr's Mischief of Separation, p. 32.) ‘To say the truth, the Gravity and Seriousness wherewith that Book was written, appears to have so little of the Youth in it, in comparison of the Jocularity and sportful Humour of some of his latter Writings, when he hath been discussing the most weighty and important Cases of Conscience, that it seems as a Prodigy in Nature, and that he began his Life at the wrong End; that he was old in his Youth, and reserved his Puerility to his more grown Age.’—Mr. Howe further says; ‘I conceive, one may safely take it for granted, his Intention was not to retract the whole Book. However, his Retractation cannot make that which was true, become false. The Reason of Things is sullen, and will not alter to serve Men's Conveniences.’—Perhaps indeed the Dr. really had chang'd his Opinion in some Things: yet I observe, he himself do's not positively affirm he had, but speaks with Caution, hypothetically (Pref, Unr. Sep. p. 76.) ‘IF any thing in the following Treatise, be found different from the Sense of that Book’ &c. Nevertheless he appears loth it shou'd be thought, he had alter'd his Judgment in some of the most material Points; as appears by that Expression I quoted before, (Ibid. p. 72.) ‘But after all this, wherein is it that he hath contradicted himself?’ I must say, if the Dr. had really chang'd his Opinion in any matters of Importance, he wou'd have shewn more of Ingenuity, by being frank and express in his Retractations, and descending to Particulars, than he has done, while he leaves us in the Dark, by lurking in Generals. If he was conscious of any heterodox [...] pernicious Principles in his Irenicum, he wou'd have acted [...]ut the part of an honest conscientious Man (like St. Austin) in marking them out plainly to the World, and setting himself to refute them; that ‘honest Men, w [...]o thought well of many Things in that Book (and perhaps the same Things which he afterwards disapproved) might not always be deceived by the shews of Reason that deceived himself, and by which he deceived them. We depend not on his Authority (says Mr. Howe) but on the Reasons he alledged, which if they were fallacious, he shou'd have shewed wherein, and answer'd his own Reasons.’—But since he hath not done this, I rather take it for an Argument, that the Dr. look'd on his Irenicum, in the Substance and main Design of it, to stand good [Page]still; and that in the grand Points his Judgment really continu'd the same. A Controversy indeed has been manag'd in Print, on this very Question, Whether Dr. Stillingfleet has in his latter Writings given the World sufficient Evidence of the Change of his Judgment, as to the Points of Church-Power in general, and Episcopacy in particular? between the Doctor, and Mr. Lowth, a noted Episcopal Divine. It happens, I have by me a large Letter of his to the Dr. (printed Anno 1687.) therein he professedly examines his latter Writings (particularly the Unreas. of Sep.) and brings them in for Evidence against him. He observes, as to one important Point and mother, nearly touching the Episcopal Controversies (p. 80.) ‘It appears, that That was not one of those Points, concerning which Dr. St. saw Reason to alter his Judgment in 20 Years time.’ He charges him with making "the Church of England a Parliament-Church:" and tells him, his ‘Definition of it is much at the same as Socrates defin'd a Man, Homo est Animal bipes, implume. Diogenes's Jackdaw was as good a Man, when he had pluckt his Feathers off.’ He charges him with holding that ‘an Act of Parliament is sufficient to constitute true Pastors; which (says he) savours too much of the old Vessel.’ But to omit other Passages, he concludes with this, ‘And in the last place, You have made NO Satisfaction at all to the Church of God, for that Irenicum-Doctrine, which equals the Presbyter with the Bishop. There is not ANY Thing LIKE Amends for it in ALL your Writings, that I have met with. It is true, You often speak of Episcopacy, as the most ancient Government derivable from the Apostles: But you have not any where asserted it in the Number of those Institutions and Practices Apostolical, which are PERPETUAL and IMMUTABLE; and until you say THIS, all you can say besides, is to NO Purpose. The Bishop is notwithstanding, at the Mercy of your Prince or your Presbyters, when their Prudence sees fit to degrade and depose him: There is no more Obligation to continue the distinct Order of Bishops, than that Order of Widows, in the Epistle to Timothy. And thus (Sir) I have shew'd, that you have not made due Satisfaction for those Errors in your Irenicum, concerning the Power of the Church in general, and the Constitution of our Church in particular.’ How fitly may I hereupon return Mr. Layman his own Remark! ‘So that you have no Reason so loudly to boast of Dr. Stillingfleet.’ For ought I see, he remains ours, nigh as much as ever: We have Mr. Lowth's Authority for it, That [Page]the Dr. at least has said nothing to the Purpose effectual against us. And I cannot but look upon it, as reflecting a Lustre on the Presbyterial Cause, That so great a Man, as Dr. Stillingfleet, first wrote very much in favour of it, when young; and then a long time after, when he had ripen'd his Studies in Antiquity, cou'd find Nothing to write in Opposition to it, that a zealous and penetrating Episcopalian wou'd reckon effectual to the purpose. Besure Dr. Stillingfleet had more Wit, than to go our Layman's Lengths: nor indeed has he gone much (if any thing) further, in the point of Episcopacy, than Mr. Chillingworth, who founds his whole Demonstration on a mere Presumption, and whose Episcopacy stript of all Accidentals wou'd be little more than Titular, or a Presidency of Order.

And now I observe, That if what Dr. Stillingfleet has advanced, might truly be said to be to no Purpose, then I'm sure, Mr. Layman's Quotations from Antiquity may modestly enough be call'd Impertinent: while it appears, they say nothing determinately of the Diocesan Episcopacy, pleaded for; nor of an original inviolable Right; much less of a fundamental Necessity, in order to Salvation. As for my own part, I frankly confess, it wou'd have made but very little Impression upon me, if every one of his Testimonies had expresly and fully vouch'd for such an Episcopacy; since he has been so far from proving from Scripture its Necessity, or even its Existence in Scripture-times. The mere Sense or Practice of the primitive Church, without evident Scripture-Authority to back it, I can never persuade my self, has Weight sufficient to determine my Belief or Practice of any Thing, as of unalterable Divine Instition, much less as one of the great Essentials of Religion.

But supposing, Antiquity were an adequate Rule; yet nothing short of the unanimous or at least general Suffrage of Antiquity is sufficient (even according to Mr Layman) to satisfy a rational Inquirer: but which Way can we come at this, with any Certainty! Can we safely trust to the Opinion and Report of 4 or 5 Fathers living in several distant Ages, be they ever so pious and learned, concerning Times and Places far remote from them, when we are left ignorant of their Veuchers, upon the Credit of which the Validity of their Testimonies depends!

However, supposing that in this Way we cou'd have the universal Sense and Practice of the primitive Church fully ascertained to us, so as to satisfy every wise and good Man; yet of what Service will Mr. Layman's Witnesses be to his Cause, if after all it be found, they say nothing to give Light into the [Page]present Question, or at least nothing decisive, to his Purpose! And I am free to declare, that according to my best Apprehension there is not a single Hint, in all his Train of Testimonies, clearly asserting Diocesan Episcopacy, as of Divine Right, an Order superior to Presbyters, of perpetual and universal Obligation, a great Essential of Religion, and of fundamental Necessity; much less proving the Doctrine he advances, to be the genuine Interpretation of Scripture, in this disputed Case, by the unanimous Suffrage of the primitive Church: all which really belongs to the Thesis, Mr. Layman has attempted to defend, tho' he was pleas'd very artfully to leave out a great part of it in his stating of the Question.—I cannot but wonder how the Gentleman cou'd be so vain as to pretend DEMONSTRATION, to boast of incontestible Evidences, and duro Ore to talk of a notorious universal and glaring matter of Fact; when his Evidences (all laid together) do not amount to so much as a fair and strong PROBABILITY! Upon a careful Examination of these Testimonies from the Fathers, I find them either aliene to the Point in hand, or contrary to Mr. Layman's Side of the Question, or at least unequal to the Design he produces them upon.

No one of his Witnesses singly, nor all of 'em collectively, do so much as make it appear probable, That Episcopacy of the modern Diocesan Kind (de facto) universally prevail'd in the primitive Church from the Beginning, or even in their Day; much less, that (de jure) in their Opinion this Form of Government, and no other, was for ever to be us'd in the Church; and still much less, that Episcopacy was esteem'd a Fundamental of Religion by every Church and Age of those primitive Times. I might easily demonstrate this, but that it seems needless; and I think, since Mr. Layman has handed to us his Quotations so naked, with little or nothing of Comment or Improvement upon 'em, I may safely venture to let 'em stand just as they are, without any Remarks of mine upon 'em Indeed I had taken the Pains to go thro' a distinct and particular Examination of them: but upon second Thoughts, for the Reason just hinted, and because I wou'd not unnecessarily add to the Lenth of this Work (which has run out to an Extent already very much exceeding my first Intentions) I chuse almost wholly to drop that part of my Performance, as well as the Remarks I've made on a Variety of incidental Passages in Mr. Layman's Letters.

Only I will in short observe thus much: That whereas this Gentleman acknowledges, under his first head of Testimonies, from Glemens (p. 106.) "The words Bishop & Presbyter were NOT [Page]YET fixed to signifie the different ORDERS,"I think he has by this one Concession invalidated, if not all his Evidences, yet some of the earliest of 'em; I mean those from Ignatius's Epistles, who was contemporary with Clemens, and wrote much about the same Time: for which Cause it may justly be presumed, let Ignatius mention Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, whether 16 or 1600 times, his mentioning those distinct Names is no Argument that he speaks of three distinct Orders. Mr. Layman tells us, that ‘Ignatius wrote first after the Scriptures were finished A. D. 101.’ Whether he means, that the Scriptures were then finish'd, or that Ignatius then wrote, is uncertain. If the latter be his Meaning, it serves to shorten the Space between Clement's writing, and Ignatius's: or if the former, still we know, that Ignatius died within a very few Years after Scripture-times, and therefore the Date of his writing can't vary much, nor be very distant from that of Clement's. We read in Eusebius's History (l. 3. c. 14.) That Clemens wrote his Epistle from Rome, of which he became Bishop in the 12th Year of Domitian's Reign: who, as some Chronologists tell us, was created Emperor A. D. 81; tho' others say, Anno 83. So that we must conclude, Clemens wrote his Epistle in or after the Year 93. if not after 95. at which time the words Bishop and Presbyter, it's confess'd were not yet fixed to signifie the different Orders. And if this Change was effected at the time of Ignatius's writing, then it must have been effected either in Clement's Time, or presently after. But now (to make use of Mr. Chillingworth's way of arguing, in his Demonstration) between Clemens and this presently after, there was not Time enough for so great an Alteration: and therefore there was no such Alteration, as is pretended, in Ignatius's Time. And therefore the words Bishop and Presbyter, being confessed to remain synonimously us'd so long in the Church, must be granted also not to signify different Orders in the Epistles of Ignatius: Quod erat demonstrandum— However, since this Gentleman declares his Opinion (p. 70.) ‘That St. Ignatius is as CLEAR and FULL for the Episcopal Government, as Words CAN express,’ then doubtless he'll easily he able to prove from Ignatius, that Bishops, when advanc'd above the Order of Presbyters, had a new Consecration; That they had the sole Power of Ordination; and that they had such kind of Jurisdiction over Presbyters, as is attributed to our English Prelacy. Sure I am, It is of great Importance to his Cause, that he inform us how the "Case stood as to these matters of Fact," in that Father's day, being "immediately after Scripture-Tines:" [Page]and that he give us some Evidence, that Ignatius held this Episcopacy a Fundamental of Religion. I hope therefore, and I demand of him, that in his next he will favour us with some of his clear and full Proofs, under each of these heads. In the mean time, I shall think it no Presumption, to call his Quotations from Ignatius impertinent, as being perfectly consistent with the words Bishop and Presbyter not being yet fixed to signify different ORDERS.

Truly, I believe, Mr. Lyman will find it hard to prove, that his fixed Presidents or Bishops at first had any more Power over Presbyters, than modern Parso [...]s of Parishes in England have over their Curates, who yet are not of a distinct Order. And tho' in Process of Time these Parochial Bishops might extend their Influence beyond the Limits of a single Congregation, and even a City; yet he will find it difficult to prove, that for several Centuries they claim'd any thing beyond the Metropolitical Preeminence, which imports no other Superiority but what is held consistent with Episcopal Parity, and an Identity of Order. And I can't but observe here, Mr. Layman tells us (p. 112.) "Episcopacy was truly appointed a Remedy against Schism": which is a Concession, that seems to me to give a fatal Wound to his Cause. For if that was the Case, it must be acknowledg'd, that as the End of the Appointment certainly specifies the Nature of the Episcopacy, by Consequence this makes the ancient Bishop a mere President for Order's sake; not an Ecclesiastical Monarch, but a Moderator, only Primus inter pares: Such as Peter is suppos'd to have been among the Apostles. And if it can be prov'd, that even Cyprian, the latest of his 5 Witnesses, meant nothing more by Episcopacy, than this Primacy of Order, I trust Mr. Layman will freely excuse me from offering any particular Reflections on his other Testimonies of a prior Date, as being indeed altogether needless.

Now, among a Variety of other Quotations, that might easily be made from Cyprian's Writings, I shall single o [...] one remarkable Passage, which is full to my purpose, and stands in that very Discourse, Mr. Layman (p. 112.) recommends to us to "read, St. Cyprian's excellent Tract De unitate Ecclesiae." The Words I refer to, are these: Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum; Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & super istam Petram &c. Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit; Pasce Oves meas. Super Unum [...]edifi [...]at E [...]cl [...]siam suam. Et quamvis Apostolis em [...]bus parem Potestatem tribuat, & di [...]at; Sicut misit me Pater &c. Tamenut Unitatem manifestaret, Unitatis ejusdem [Page]Originem ab Uno incipi [...]ntem sua Auctoritate disposuit: Hoc eram uti (que) & caeteri Aposlol [...], quod fuit Petrus, pari Consorti [...] praediti & H [...]zoris & Potestatis; sed Ex [...]rdium ab Unitate preficiscitur, us Ecclosia [...]a monstr [...]tur; &c. Pag. 77. Ed. Fell. Amst. 1700.

The Occasion of Cyprian's writing his Discourse of the Unity of the Church, was the Schisms made by setting up of Anti-Bishops, or one Bishop in Opposition to another, which Case happen'd both in Rome & Carthage. The main Drift hereof (as an Episcopal Author represents it) is ‘to shew the horrid Impiety of rebelling against the duely and canonically Elected and Ordain'd and Orthodox Bishop of any particular Church, or separating from him, or setting up as an Antibishop in Opposition to him: and his first and chiefest Argument is, That our Lord founded his Church on St. Peter, and thereby instituted Episcopal Government.’—The Truth is, Cyprian in his Writings very frequently alledges Peter as the first and great Example of the Episcopal Dignity, and founds the Subjection of the Presbytery to one Bishop chiefly, if not only, on that Scripture, Tu es Petrus, &c. He do's so particularly in the Passage cited by Mr. Layman, from Epist. 33. and the Quotation I have made, serves for a Commentary on that: but I'm confident, neither of'em affords any Testimony to the Cause this Gentleman is defending.

It seems to me, if Cyprian had believ'd Episcopacy to be by Divine Institution a Superior Order to Presbytery, he would never have contented himself with alledging this Scripture, Tu es Petrus; when he was so warmly engag'd in Defence of the Episcopal Honour, against some Presbyters, who he thought had made a bold Invasion upon it.

In the Passage I've quoted, we have these Things observ'd to us.

1. Cyprian says, ‘Our Lord speaks to Peter, I say unto THEE, That thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto THEE the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven &c. And again to the same Person, he saith after his Resurrection, Feed my S [...]eep. On ONE Man he builds his Church.’

This is Cyprian's great Argument for one Bishop to a Church. The Scope of it, consider'd in its relation to the Case he wrote upon, must be this; That, as among the twelve Apostles Peter was First & Chief, so among the Rulers of every Church there must be one Chief. He e [...]idently makes the College of [Page]Apostles, and the Presbytery of a Church, parallel Cases; and [...]unds the Preeminence of one Church-Ruler above the rest, [...]on the Example of Peter's Precedency to the rest of the Apostles. From whence it's obvious, Cyprian's Judgment was [...]is, That all Presbyters, or Pastors and Teachers, are Succes [...]s to the APOSTLES, in those ordinary Powers given them, which wou'd be necessary for the settled State of the Church: [...]t still, that One among those, in every Church, shou'd have Precedency to the rest, as Peter among the Twelve.

Now it's well known (as I have observ'd before) that the old [...]athers attributed a Sort of Primacy to the Apostle Peter, caling him the Chief, the Top, the high Honour of the Apostles, the [...] (Dux, Praeses) and PRINCEPS Apostol [...]um: And [...]appears, Cyprian look'd upon Peter, as holding the Primatus, [...]he place of President or Chairman among the Apostles; and be Church being built on the Foundation of the Apostles, among [...]hom Peter was Chief, he seems to speak of him as in a Sense the Corner-Stone; observing, ‘Christ said to him, Thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I build my Church: He buildeth his Church on ONE.’ We may well think, that Cyprian understood not the Apostles to be the Foundation, but as made Use of by Christ in building his Church: much less that he look'd [...]n Peter to be the sole Foundation, in that Sense, exclusively of the other Apostles; but only consider'd him, as the first Stone at the head of the Corner, as it were, or rather the chief Master-builder. Thus Tertullian understood those words to Peter (De Pud. c. 21.) In ipso Ecclesia extruct a est, id est, PER ipsum; The Church was built upon him, that is, by him.—And this Eminency of Peter, Cyprian makes the Pattern and Plea for the Episcopal Dignity, or Precedency of One, to the rest of the Rulers, in every Church. His words, in the Passage quoted by Mr. Layman, and as translated by him, are these, ‘Our Lord being about to CONSTITUTE the EPISCOPAL HONOUR, and the frame of his Church, said to Peter, Thou art Peter &c. from which the Ordination of Bishops, and Constitution of the Church does descend, through the Courses of Successions and Times; that the Church should be built upon the Bishops,’ &c. You see by these Words, Cyprian makes the Episcopal Honour, which he pleads for, to commence in the Person of the Apostle Peter; Here's the Origin of the Episcopal Preeminence, according to [...] that Father. But what did Cyprian mean by this same Episcopal Honour, which originated in Peter? Shall we understand it, as the Papists do, of the Romish Supremacy, the universal Empire [Page]of the POPE! Whom they hold Successor to the Apostle Peter in the See of Rome, and Head of all Bishops through the Church Catholick. Or shall we understand it, as Protestant Prelatist [...] do, of Diocesan Episcopacy, the Government of Prelates ove [...] the Clergy in particular Churches! Sure I am, there's as little Shew of Reason for the latter, as the former: both Constructions carry a Load of Absurdity with them. I desire Mr. Layman to read judicious Hooke [...]'s Thoughts on the Popish Plea [...] (Ser. 1. on part of Jude, Sect. 14.) and to let me know how far, he thinks, that Answer to the Papal Argument fails of being a just Reply to his own Argument for Prelacy, as grounded on the Words of Cyprian.

This Language of Cyprian, Episcopal Honour, puts me in mind of those Passages in the Ecclesiastical Polity, where Mr. Hocker observes, ‘That the Worke of external Ministerie in Baptism is onely a Preeminence of HONOUR; and that it is onely for ORDER's sake in his Church, that God hath committed the Ministerie of Baptism’ [he might by parity of Reason have added all other external Ministeries] "to special Men &c. And if the Episcopal Honour did commence in Peter, as we know; none but Papists that allow him any thing more than a Priority of Order among the Apostles; so consequently it must be acknowledg'd, the [...]piscopal Honour that Cyprian pleads for, can mean nothing different, nothing transcendent to that. Surely M [...] Layman can't with any face plead Cyprian's Authority for any other episcopal Honour, than what corresponds to Peter's Primacy among the Apostles. Plainly, according to this Father, the Bishop is to his Presbytery, what Peter was to the Apostles; who is by Eusebius called [...], the Prolocutor among the Apostles; and by other Fathers the Name [...] is frequently given him, which (says Dr. Stillingfleet, Irenic. p. 214.) imports no more than Praesultor in Chorea, he that led the Dance among the Disciples. The Bishops then, whose Honour Cyprian holds to be founded in the Apostle Peter, were but Coryplai, Arch-Bishops, or leading Presbyters, having a Priority or Precedency to the rest. This is the utmost we can rationally suppose intended by Cyprian's Episcopal Honour. Some Resemblances of it there may be in the Church of England: as in the Dignity of the Parson above his Curates; in that of the Dean, who is Head of the Chapter in Cathedral Churches; in that of other Dignitaries, above the inferior Clergy; or in that of the Metropolitan, who is Ordinary to all the Bishops of his Province. I doubt not, one or other of [Page]these Cases reaches the whole meaning of the Cyprianic Episcopal Honour; which most certainly was such as that Father [...]eld not destructive of Parity. For we must observe,

2. It follows in my Quotation from Cyprian; ‘Altho' to all the Apostles Christ gave EQUAL POWER, when he said, As the Father hath sent Me, so send I You, Receive ye the holy Ghost: If ye remit to any one his Sins, they shall be remitted, &c. The SAME as Peter was, were even the other Apostles also, being EQUAL Partners both in Honour and Power.’

You see, Cyprian puts all the Apostles on a Level, as of one Order and Office; and allows no one a Superiority of Power, or essentially diverse Dignity, above the rest. What shall we make then of the Episcopal Honour, he supposes constituted, when Christ said, Thou art Peter; from whence by the Turns of Times and Successions the Appointment of Bishops hath run on? It's most evident, Cyprian holds the Apostles to be all Pares Apostolatu, equal in Apostolic Honour and Power; and therefore by the Episcopal Honour instituted in Peter, he must intend something consistent with the Parity he asserts: and therefore he must intend a mere Priority, Precedency, or Presidency of Order; such as is commonly practis'd in a Society of Equals, where One has something of Preeminence allow'd him, for the better Regulation of Proceedings, and avoiding of Confusion I know, Cyprian says, "The Bishop has the sublime Top of the Priesthood": But this means no more than the Fathers intended, when they call'd Peter the Top, the high Honour, and Head of the Apostles: still asserting an Equality in Power, and Identity of Order; and therefore holding Peter's Primacy to be but a Presidency, for Unity and Concord's sake. Of this Nature, by Consequence, very apparently and necessarily must be the Episcopal Honour, which Cyprian pleads for as descending to future Times. For Peter being the Example and first Instance of Episcopal Honour, what Prerogative he had above the rest of the Apostles, THIS and no more may the Bishop claim above the other Presbyters in his Church. Hence it appears to me demonstrated, beyond the power of Contradiction, That Cyprian believ'd the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters, as alike succeeding to the Apostles; Knowing nothing of a distinct Order of simple Presbyters (as in the Church of England) subordinate to Bishops by Divine Institution.

It is the most glaring Absurdity, to suppose that our Lord those Words, Tu es Petrus, instituted an Imparity of Order mong the Apostles; and if not among the Apostles, then a [Page](by that Argument) among the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel: And unless Mr. Layman will fix this Absurdity on Cyprian (which indeed wou'd be but to expose himself) let him never more attempt to prove Diccesan Episcopacy from any such Testimonies of that Father. I'm as much mistaken, as possible in any thing, if the very Quotation he has bro't against us from Cyprian, taken in a comparative View together with that I've produc'd, do's not give as dangerous a Blow to the Prelacy he defends, as almost any thing that can be fetcht from Antiquity, or Scripture. I shall therefore without the least Anxiety, wait to see what artful Shifts he will invent, to salve a lame and wounded Cause.—And go on now to observe,

3. Cyprian adds, ‘Yet to declare Unity, the Lord by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Unity, beginning of One.—The Beginning proceeds from Unity, to shew the Church One.’

This Father urges it as an Argument against Anti-Bishops, That the Church was at first built on ONE, Tu es Petrus. It's a celebrated Maxim of his in this Tract, Episcopatus est unus enjus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. This one Episcopate he makes to begin in Peter, and from him (it seems) communicated, and branched forth. He says (Ep 43. p. 229.) Deus unus, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. ‘God is one, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, & one Chair founded on Peter by the Voice of the Lord.’ From hence he collects, there ought to be but our Bisbop in a Church. The Beginning arises from Unity, to declare the Church is one: And by the Tenor of his Discourse De Unitate Ecclesiae, Cyprian thought that one Episcopate was not only design'd as an Emblem of one Church, but also as a Means to promote Unity, Order and Concord in the Church. His main Scope is, That for the avoiding of Schisms and Confusions there must be one Bishop in a Church. With that View, as Peter was set over the rest of the Apostles, so in every Church there ought to be one Bishop, according to Cyprian. But now to that End it is sufficient, if the Bishop be only a Moderator, as Peter was: and therefore at most Cyprian's Bishop can mean no more than a fixed Moderator; which is reconcilable with Ministerial Parity, and far distant from Ecclesiastical Monarchy. This is clearly evident from the Analogy of Difference, between Peter and the Apostles, and the Bisbop and his Presbyters.

I might now illustrate and confirm Cyprian's Testimony, by [Page]many similar Passages in other of the Fathers. But to omit all others, I shall place an Asterism on a Passage of Jerom that seems very parallel; who tho' a stiff Defender of the Equality of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture-times, yet Mr. Layman will have it (so he says, p. 9 [...].) that ‘generally speaking no Father has STRONGER EXPRESSTONS for the Imparity of them, than he:’ To which I have a sufficient Reply made ready to my [...]and, in this Observation of his own (p. 112.) ‘It's very unfair to set a single Passage or unguarded Expression of an Author, against the general Current of his Writings.’ Waving all other Remarks, I come to the Quotation from Jerom, which seems to me a good Illustration upon that from Cyprian.

His Words are these; At dices, Super PETRUM fundatur Ecclesia: Licet id ipsum in alio loco super OMNES Apostolos fiat, & cuncti Claves Regni Coclorum accipiant, & ex aquo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidetur: Tamen propterea inter Duodecim UNUS cligitur, ut CAPITE constituto, SCHISMATIS tellatur Occasio, &c. (Hieron adv. Jovin. l. 1.) He is in that place hotly contending for the Honour of the Apostle John, and commends him above the Apostle Peter, because Peter was a marry'd Man, but John a Virgin. In the Warmth of Debate, Jerom raises this Objection against himself; "But you will say, The Church is founded upon Peter": to which he replies; ‘Albeit in another place the very same is done upon ALL the Apostles, and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and on them EQUALLY the Firmness of the Church is established: Nevertheless among the Twelve ONE is chosen out, for this End, That a HEAD being constituted, Occasion of SCHISM may be taken away. But why was not John, being a Virgin, chosen? Seniority had the Preeminence given to it; because Peter was a Man in Years: that a mere Youth, and one but a Boy almost, shou'd not be preferred above Men advanc'd in Life’ Upon which I remark, in the words of Bishop Jewel (Reply, p. 190.) ‘St. Hierome agreeth thorowly with St. Cyprian, That for avoiding of Schisms, one high Priest, that is to say, one Bishop, was by good Policie appointed &c— To the like purpose St. Hierome writeth upon the Epistle unto Titus (cap. 1.) These Things have I spoken, to the Intent to shew, That in old time Priests and Bishops were all one: but that in Processe and by Degrees the whole Charge was brought unto one Man, that the Occasions of Dissensions might be rooted out.’

Thus, in the Judgment of Bishop Jewel, there was an Agreement of Thoughts, between Cyprian and Jerom, as to the Rise, [Page]Nature, and End of the ancient Episcopacy. They both make it design'd as a politick means for the Prevention of Schisms and Distensions: they both make one single Person the Subject or Recipient of it: They both make Peter's Preeminence among the Apostles the Exemplar, which after-ages took Copy from: Cyprian makes the Bishop but summus Sacerdos, the Chief of the Order of Priests or Presbyters, and Jerom asserts the actual Equality of Bishops and Presbyters in old time. And therefore, it is a rational and necessary Inference upon the whole, That the ancient Episcopacy was at first, both in Intention and Fact, but a Moderatorship, or Presidency of Order: and tho' by Degrees almost the whole Pastoral Charge might come at Length to be devolv'd on the Priest, call'd Episcopus, or Bishop, by way of Eminence; Yet this was consider'd only as a lawful Expedient for the Good of the Church, and never pretended to be founded on a Divine Right in the Bisbop, by virtue of any distinct Commission, to a Superiority of Power over the Presbyters, as an inferior Order by Christ's Institution: the Presbyters being only under a prudential Restriction in the Exercise of those Powers, which Jure originali they stood intitled to in common with the Bishop. Consider the Case of Peter, as Head of the Apostles, and it gives you an exact Idea of the Cyprianic Bishop.

Now, to sum up my Argument: If the Episcopal Honour was instituted in the Apostle Peter; and Bishops have no Right to any more Power over Presbyters, than he had over the rest of his Brethren: And if the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued all with equal Fellowship, both of Honour and Power; but he chosen out, as a President, and appointed the First and Chief, for Unity and Order's sake; Then it is clearly the Judgment of Cyprian, that the Difference between Bishops and Presbyters is not specifick, but only gradual, and consistent with the Sameness of Order. And by Consequence Mr. Layman is guilty of a gross Imposition upon the unlearned Reader, and an equal Abuse of that good Father; when he vouches him as a Witness in the Cause of modern Prelacy, which differs from the ancient Episcopacy toto Coelo, the whole Heavens over.—Will Mr. Layman pretend to know what was the primitive Episcopacy, better than Cyprian! who (as himself observes, p. 108.) ‘lived within 150 Years after the Apostles, A. D. 250. and know as well what they appointed, as we do what was done in Queen Elisabeth's Days.’ Will this Gentleman face down the good old Father, That Bishops are by divine Right a superior Order to Presbyters, having Jurisdiction over them; and attempt too [Page]to support his Tenet with numerous Arguments from Scripture, and Citations even from Cyprian himself! when yet that learned Father knew no better Scripture-Argument for Episcopacy, [...]han Tu es Petrus, and evidently makes the Episcopal Honour nothing more than Peter's Primacy, and therefore only a Presidency, not subversive of Parity: in which he has the Con [...]urrence of Jerom, and I doubt not the general Suffrage of Antiquity. I will then presume to retort on Mr. Layman, in his own words (p. 98, 9.) which I may repeat with as much Truth the deliver'd them, and they carry as good force of Argument in my Application of 'em, as in his: ‘All Antiquity with one Voice say, it was so; You do but say, and not prove, that it was not so: Their Authority is, I think, as good as yours; and indeed at least as much better, as they lived nearer those Times than you.’

Having thus disarmed our Lay-Adversary of all Pleas from Cyprian, the Witness he so loudly boasted of, I think I have done enough to abate his Confidence in Antiquity, and to vindicate my Friend Elutherius from the abusive Charge of notorious Falshood bro't against him, in relation thereto, as hinted in the beginning of these Papers. Cyprian being remov'd out of the way, Mr. Layman's Specimen of Collections loses its Strength and Terror: his whole Nubes Testium, exhal'd from Antiquity, dissolves and vanishes, without shooting out any Lightnings or Arrows to do us Harm.

I shou'd have proceeded now to vindicate the Presbyterian Allegations from Antiquity, against the Exceptions and Cavils of Mr. Layman. (p. 109, & alibi.) But after the foregoing Reflections, I think it needless, and am willing to let them have their Fate: Because, tho' we had not so much as one conclusive Argument from Antiquity, still if be can advance none on his side better, than what he has offer'd in his small Specimen, out Cause will be in no great Hazard. Besides, the Onus prohandi lies on the affirmative Side.

I hope Mr. Layman will no more object to us (as in p. 109.) "You produce Jerom, a comparatively modern Father"; since what I have alledg'd from him, is but a parallel Passage to that from Cyprian, which I trust Mr. Layman will enumerate among "the Testimonies of genuine Antiquity."

I hope too, that Mr. Layman will no more object to us (as in p. 97.) That they are only "some warm unguarded Expressions, wherein Jerom may seem to degrade Bishops into a Parity with Presbyters"; since it appears, there was such a Harmony between that [Page]Father and the so much magnify'd Cyprian, in their Sentiments about the ancient Episcopacy. It is not Jerom alone, who tells us that Presbyters are loco Apostolorum, in the Apostles stead: but as Dr. Stillingfleet observes (Ir [...]nic p. 308.) ‘Even Cyprian who pleads so much for Obedience to the Bishops as they were then constituted in the Church, yet speaks often of his Compresbyteri (Fellow-Presbyters) and in his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus who had reproached him, speaking of those words of Christ, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. Qui dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoe ad omnes Praepositos qui Apostolis vicaria Ordinatione succedunt (Ep. 69. Ed. Pamel. s. 4.) where he attributes Apostolical Succession to all that were Praepositi,’ which Name [tho' Mr. Layman citing the same Passage, p. 108. appropriates it to Bisbots, yet Dr. Stillingfleet observes, it) ‘implies not the Relation to Presbyters as over them, but to the People, and is therefore common both to Bisbops and Presbyters; for so afterwards he speaks, Nec Fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec Plebs Praepositum, &c.’

Upon the whole I observe, The Testimony of one single Bishop against the Imparity of Order between Bishops and Presbyters, by Divine Institution, is of more Importance and Validity than Ten for it; in as much as it is rational to suppose, that none will object against the Authority they are in, or detract from it, but such as make more Conscience of the Truth, than of their own Honour and Interest.

And (in Mr. Tong's words) ‘I wou'd lay down this, as a just Remark upon these Proofs out of Antiquity, That one Passage which expresly tell us, what kind of Superiority Bishops had in primitive times over Presbyters, and how they came by it, is of more Value in this Controversy, 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 Controversy 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.’

Sect. XI. I shall now finish with some Remarks on Mr. Layman's Manner of concluding his LETTERS; that is, with an [Page]Exhortation to Charity, a Vying with us on that head, and a Testimony against the unreasonably severe and hot Expressions of uncharitable Writers, on either side. (p. 76. and 114.)

I heartily joyn with him in the Recommendation of Charity, Meekness, and Moderation, which so become Christians. But I wish the Gentleman had been more consistent with himself: for in the very same Breath, while he applauds and urges Charity and Moderation, he exposes himself as miserably defective in these Christian Virtues: and while he pretends to be "sorry if any of the Church shou'd, at any time, treat any of us with Indecency," he at the same time falls soul of us, in a most indecent manner, taxing our "Ministry & Sacraments as at least EXTREMELY irregular" (p. 114.) and implicitly pronouncing us "HERETICKS and SCHISMATICKS, worthy to be cast out of the universal Church" (p. 71.) yet he has the face to boast (p. 76.) ‘We have at least as much Charity for you, as you have for us; for you think us to be as much out of the Way, as we think you are:’ But this the Gentleman himself confutes, by his own Plea from the safer Side (p. 115.) where he observes, ‘You allow our Orders to be good, our Bishops being at least Presbyters; whereas we dispute yours—: and if your Presbyters are not Bisbops, it is certain they are but LAYMEN, and therefore cannot ordain.’

I leave every one to judge, who it is that errs most on the censorious & damning side. I think truly this Gentleman seems to breath very much the Spirit of the old Donatists, so infamous in the primitive Church for their stingy narrow Principles, and the edious Practices of Re-baptizing the Proselytes to their Party, as being no Christians before, and Re-ordaining of Ministers that came over to them, as being no Ministers before; Confining the true Church to their own Communion, and unchurching all the other Churches of the Christian World. If St. Austin cou'd lift up his Voice from the Grave, how wou'd he thunder at these Episcopal Donatists! Yet it may be they wou'd not be persuaded, tho' one shou'd even rise from the Dead.

I conclude with those excellent Remarks of the catholick and charitable Mr. Chilling worth. ‘The over-valuing of the Differences among Christians (says he, Relig. Prot. p. 175.) is one of the greatest Maintainers of the SCHISMS of Christendom.’ Again (p. 177.) ‘Certainly, if Protestants, be faulty in this matter (i. e. playing the POPE) it's for doing it too much, and not too little. This presumptuous Imposing of the Senses of Men upon the Words of God, the special Senses of Men upon the general Words of God, and laying them upon [Page]Men's Consciences together, under the equal Penalty o [...] Death and Damnation; This is, and hath been, the ONLY Fountain of all the SCHISMS of the Church, and that which makes them immortal: the common Incendiary of Christendom, and that which tears into pieces, not the Coat, but the Bowels, and Members of Christ; Ridente Turca, rec dolente Judaeo. Take away these Walls of Separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this Persecuting, Burning, Cursing, Damning of Men for not subscribing to the Words of Men, as the Words of God; Require of Christians only to believe CHRIST, and to call no man Master, but HIM only Let those leave claiming Infallibility, that have no Title to it and let them that in their WO [...] disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their ACTIONS: In a word, take away Tyranny, which is the DEVIL'S Instrument to support Errors, and Superstitions, and Inpieties, in the several parts of the World, which cou'd not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth; I say, take away Tyranny, and restore Christians to their just & full LIBERTY of captivating their understanding to SCRIPTURE only; and as Rivers, when they have a free Passage, run all into the Ocean, so it may well be hoped by God's Blessing that universal Liberty, thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Unity. These Thoughts of Peace (I am persuaded) may come from the God of Peace, and to his Blessing I commend them.’

AMEN.

ERRATA.

SCr. Bp. Vind. Pag. 30. lin. 36. read Whenever.—P. 52. l. 12. r. of.—P. 65. l. 22. r. Concessions.—P. 88. l. 11. r. a Stranger.— P. 115. l. 14. r. softest Name)—l. 17. r. Bishop.

Eusch. Inerm. Pag. 5. l. 3. r. might be agreed.—l 26. r. Terms only, returns—.P. 6. l. 12. dele as— l. 24. r. Scripture—. l 33. r. imply'd—. P 8. l. 23. r. Defect and Imperfection—. P. 20. l. 25. r. Charter-Governments—. P. 12. l. 33.r. and even—. P. [...]0 l. 22. r. Accordingly our Author—. P. 32. l. 38. r. guilty—. P. 57. l. 24. r. together—. P. 88. l. 42. r. of Reason—.P. 98. l ult. r. Charter in Massachusetts—. P. 1 [...]0. l. 16. r. of which—. P. 139. l 20. r. his own head—. P. 140. l. 2. r. Prela [...]ists.

Notes

†

They that desire to know what we are capable of saying upon this head, of the Advantages we've gain'd by leaving the Church of England, may see a short Specimen, in Dr. Calamy's Mod. Nonconf. 3d Part, p. 98. &c.

‖

Vid. Orig, Draught, p. 151, 2.

‡

Mod, Nonconf. in 3 Vol. against Ollyffe and Hoadly.

†

Coverdale. He refus'd it; being disaffected to be Ceremonies and Habits: and it's remarkable, he attended the Consecration only [...] a plain black COAT.

‡

They that have the Curiosity to know more particularly the Names Powers and Practices of the numerous Body of English Ecclesiasticks, may consult two Pamphlets published among us: The one intitled A brief Account of the Revenues, Pomp, and State of the Bishops and other Clergy in the Church of England; printed Anno 1725. The other A brief View of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction—Addressed to Sir N Curzon Bar. &c. London printed and Boston repr. 1733.

Information about this book

Title statement

The Scripture-bishop vindicated. A defence of the dialogue between Praelaticus and Eleutherius, upon The Scripture-bishop, or the Divine right of Presbyterian ordination and government: against the exceptions of a pamphlet, intitled, The Scripture-bishop examin'd. / By Eleutherius, V.D.M. ; In a letter to a friend. ; [Four lines from Isaiah]

Dickinson, Jonathan, 1688-1747.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N03036

ID [TCP]

N03036

ID [STC]

Evans 3651

ID [STC]

Evans 3654

ID [NOTIS]

APX0444

ID [IMAGE-SET]

3651

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99017048

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 3651.Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 3654.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N03036)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 3651)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 3651; 3654)

Source

— The Scripture-bishop vindicated. A defence of the dialogue between Praelaticus and Eleutherius, upon The Scripture-bishop, or the Divine right of Presbyterian ordination and government: against the exceptions of a pamphlet, intitled, The Scripture-bishop examin'd. / By Eleutherius, V.D.M. ; In a letter to a friend. ; [Four lines from Isaiah], Dickinson, Jonathan, 1688-1747., Foxcroft, Thomas, 1697-1769. Eusebius inermatus..

Extent

[4], 126, [2], 158 [i.e., 160] p. ; 17 cm. (8vo)

Printed by S. Kneeland & T. Green, for D. Henchman in Cornhill.,. Boston, New England: :: 1733.. (Half-title: Praelaticus triumphatus. A vindication of Presbyterial ordination & government. In answer to The Scripture-bishop examin'd, and to Eleutherius enervatus.) (Attributed to Jonathan Dickinson in Dexter's Yale graduates.) (Error in paging: p. 6 misnumbered 9.) ("Eusebius inermatus. Just remarks on a late book, intitled, Eleutherius enervatus, or an answer to a pamphlet, intituled, The divine right of Presbyterian ordination &c. argued. Done by way of dialogue between Eusebius and Eleutherius; together with two letters on this subject. By Phileleuth. Bangor, V.E.B. ..."--[2], 158 [i.e., 160] p. at end, with separate title page. Attributed to Thomas Foxcroft by Evans. Running title: An answer to Eleutherius enervatus.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.