[Page]
[Page]

A Second LETTER From a Minister of the Church of England, To his Dissenting Parishioners.

[Page]

A Second LETTER From a Minister of the Church OF ENGLAND, To his Dissenting Parishioners, In Answer to Some Remarks made on the former, by one J. G.

Prov. xxvi. [...].

As a madman who casteth Fire-brands, Arrows and Death, so is the Man that deceiveth his Neighbour, and saith, am not I in sport.

Psal. cxx. 7.

I am for Peace, but when I speak, they are for War.

BOSTON: Printed in the Year 1734.

[Page]

A Second LETTER From a Minister of the Church of England to his Dissenting Parishioners, in De­fence of the former, &c.

Dear Brethren,

MY wi [...]ing my former Letter to take off the Aspersions, which have been injuriously cast upon the Church, was principally occasion­ed by this very J. G. who, without any manner of Provocation▪ had (as some of his Friends have own­ed) written a scurrilous Paper of Verses, which did most abominably misrepresent, and abuse the Church, and tend to beget in People a very wrong Notion of it, and a bitter, uncharitable Temper towards it: And now, in spight of all the Caution and Tenderness wherewith I endeavoured to conduct my self, both in my Conversation and Letter, is still resolved to go on reproaching and misrepresenting us, and setting us in all the odious & ridiculous Lights he can invent.—For my part, I sincerely aimed at reconciling the Difference between you and us, and composing our Spirits as far as I was able, that if possible we might come at a right understanding of each other, and a good Agreement; or at least, if we could not attain to think alike, that [Page 2] we might not think hardly, censoriously or injuriously of each other, and might live in tolerable good Peace and Charity one with another. But this Man is re­solved to set, and keep us still at a variance, & to blow up the Fire of Contention and Uncharitableness, and all forsooth, under the Pretense of doing Justice! tho you will find by what follows, that his Remarks are in Truth one continued Piece of Injustice.

As to my self, I regard not his Reproaches: Let him rail and try to expose and vilifie me as much as he pleases; his Wrath is impotent, and cannot hurt me: I do heartily forgive him, and pray God give him Re­pentance and Forgiveness!—and as to his reproachful and abusive Treatment of the Church, I will only say, the Lord rebuke thee. I assure you that as I am not dis­posed, on so serious a Subject, to be either angry or merry; so I shall not go into such a Method in defen­ding our Cause: I have not so lea [...]ned Christ: The Church of England does not need such a furious, scold­ing, delusive Management, in defending her: She has stood the test of Time, of Fire and Faggot, of Civil Rage and Tumult, of Popish Tyranny and Enthusias­tic Anarchy, and is not to be look'd out of Counte­nance at this time of Day, by the bold Insults, and brazen Estrontery of little impertinent Adversaries God has abundantly assured the World that the Church of Eng­land, which has ever been allowed to be the Bulwark of the Reformation, is dear to Him, by delivering her in Six Troubles, and in Seven, by a Series of remarkable, (I had almost said) miraculous Providences, and ha­ving delivered us so often, and from so great Deaths, we trust in Him that He will yet deliver us. The Wrath of Man shall Praise thee, O Lord, and the Remainder thereof shall thou Restrain!

I am indeed sorry, for the poor Man's sa [...]e that he suffers himself to be so much out of Temper and with­out any Provocation; that he should shew himself so [Page 3] little of the Gentleman, or the Christian; that he should betray so much ill Breeding, as well as ill Temper, as he does by so much base Language, and such odious Insinuations; However, The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of GOD, and I doubt not but He will over-rule all this wrathful Treatment of us in such a manner as to make it turn to our Advantage; as it is, on the other hand a great Disgrace to your Cause, that it should be defended in such a scurrilous manner, inso­much that most of the sober, serious & thinking Peo­ple among your selves have often declared themselves ashamed of it, and even your Ministers will not ven­ture to offer a Syllable in defence of it.

It is indeed unaccountable to many considerate and moderate-spirited People of both Persuasions, what can be the Occasion of it, that this Man, and some others like him, should discover such a bitter Spirit against the Church of England in the Country, and raise such an hi [...]eous outcry, as if it were the greatest Judgment that ever befel it? What can tempt them to make such dolorous Lamentations, as tho' our Church was the most heretical, corrupt and abomina­ble Communion in the World? How can it be such a dreadful Grief to them, as tho' we brought another Religion, or another Gospel among you which you have not received? Whereas it is not so, my Brethren, we have the same Religion, the same Gospel, and the same Hope with you; only we think in some Things you are mistaken, and that you are in the wrong in being on the side of those that seperate from so excellent a Church as ours is: These Men do therefore fright themselves and you with meer shadows, and they know best what Ends they would serve in so doing: But do not, I be­seech you, suffer your selves to be frighted or exasp [...]rated by their hard Speeches: We have no design [...] desire to break in upon your Liberty, or impose up [...] you; nay, we do not desire you to conform to our [Page 4] Church any farther than you see good Reason for it: only we would wish you to exercise your Reason and consider things candidly and impartially, and not be governed by Passion or Prejudice, nor be put out of humour by empty noise or confident nonsense.

I own, and bless GOD for it, the generality of your Ministers are Men of a better Spirit, and will not run into the same excess of Riot with this Stranger in speaking Evil of us; and many of them I know to be sensible and ingenious Men, and of a good christian catholic Spirit, with whom I do, and shall converse, with the same freedom, friendship and good-will, as with any of my Brethren of the Church; and I do aver that [...] Difference in Opinion ever did, or shall alienate my Affections from any of them: And I can't but won­der, that they would suffer such a mess of Bil [...]insgate-Scolding to be printed, or that they can any of them stomach to vend it about among their People: I am sure they hurt themselves by it, and I am sorry for them, and for you, that you are in danger of being imposed upon by it, tho' I cannot think it will even­tually hurt the Church: It breaths nothing of the English Spirit; it is all over Outlandish: Had I had any of your own Writers to deal with, I should hope to have been treated in a more Gentleman- [...]ike, and christian Manner; however, I have not found my self disposed to be put out of humour by it, and I can as­sure you, that all the Passion it ever rai [...]ed in me, is that of Pity for him, that he should be so unhappily enslaved to his own Passions and Prejudice.

The only Instance wherein he can have any face to pretend that I expressed my self harshly is, (as he will have it,) that I called your Teacher a blind Guide, and then launches out in a great Commenda [...]ion of him, which, I assure you, I don't envy him; I rather wish for his sake it had been given him by a Person [Page 5] of a more Established Reputation that it might have been a Credit to him. — But he is very wrong to represent me as calling Him, in particular, a blind Guide: All that I did was to exhort you in our Savio [...]s Words to [...] he Danger there is, lest, if the blind lead the [...] both fall into the Ditch, i. e. into [...]rror, which certainly is the Case of those, be they who they will, who lead, and are led, into such a wrong and bitter Notion of the Church of England, and such an uncharitable Temper towards it: But I applyed it to no-body: let Them take it to whom it belongs: That there are blind or ignorant Guides in all Communi­ons, n [...]e will deny, and it was our Saviour's Intenti­on, (a [...] that and that only, was mine,) to exhort the People to be upon their Guard, to look out care­fully and see with their own Eyes, and not to pin their Faith upon any Mans Sleeve, nor be blindly led on into Error by ignorant and designing Men, be they who they will: This was all that I did, and pray where was the Crime of it?

I wish your Teachers were, some of them, more studious, and more knowing than they are; and it wou'd be well for them and you too, if, (as some of them do,) they would all read the excellent Writers of our Church: For I find that those of your Prea­chers that are most acquainted with our D [...]ines, are the most admired by your selves, and that the more knowing any of them, or their People, are, the better tempered they are towards the Church; and you may depend upon it, that in proportion as true Knowledge increases [...] Country, a Veneration for the Church of England [...]ll increase, and that the most bitter and censorious will ever be found the most ignorant.

But to come a little nearer to our Controvertist: I will first make two or three general Remarks on his unfair Management in this Controversy. [...] One is, [Page 6] that [...]e wou [...] seem to defend the Constitution of the Churches of [...] Country, and you are apt to take it, that it is your Cause he is pleading, whereas it is the Presbyterian Kir [...] of Scotland, that [...] really has at Heart, and aims at, at the bottom; and the Truth is, he drives as really a [...] an Innovation in the Country, as I can be supposed to do: It is not the Cause of the Congregational Principles of this Country that he is after, but what he calls the glorious Zenith of Presbytery, p. 16. and to gild over his Design the better, he calls you Presbyterians, and speaks as tho' Presbyterianism was established in these Governments, p. 2. whereas every body that knows any thing of the matter, must know, that the Principles & Practices of this Country are, in many things, very remote from Presbyterianism. It is well known that the generality of our Fore-fathers were Independents or Brownists, and he himself owns, p. 12. that he has as much aversion to Brownism as to Pre­lacy. He dislikes your Church-Government, and owns your Relations and Church-Covenants, p. 28. and your not reading the Scriptures to be Errors, p. 35. So that he is really an Enemy to the Cause he would be tho't to defend.

In the next place, he is very unfair in observing so often, and making such a Triumph of it, that I say some things without proving of them, when he knows that I never armed nor pretended to prove every thing in the Compass of two or three Sheets of Paper, and that it was one Design of my Letter to invite you as Lovers of Truth and fair Inquirers, to give me oppor­tunity in Conversation to prove several Things that I did not pretend to prove in so little a Compass: and yet this mean Artifice is used to represent as tho' I had proved nothing at all: Tho you will find by what follows, that there were many things, and those the most important, which I did prove, and he has not, to several of them, so much as attempted an An­swer.

[Page 7]Lastly, when I express my Dislike of the Temper of some of your Treachers towards the Church, and espe­cially their scattering abroad several Books, which set it in a very false and odious Light, he is very injurious in representing me, p. 15. &c. as tho' I condemned them all in a lump, as so many Seducers, Deluders, Ene­mies of GOD, Crucifiers of Christ, and I know not what: I am sure there is nothing in my Letter that can be justly interpreted to bear such a meaning. No, I know very well that there are not very many of them, (and I am sorry for him that he has given so much proof that he is one) who are of that bitter, injurious Spirit that I tho't it my Duty to bear Testimony a­gainst. — But tho' some of your Ministers, as he says, do treat me with all Civility and Candour, (and I am sure I never have been wanting in my Returns, as he very well knows,) He is resolved to be none of that Num­ber; he is engaged to blacken me, tho' it be at the expense of known Truth and common Justice: He charges me with repeated railings against them, both from the Press and Pulpit. p. 15. Now as to this, I may say, GOD is my Witness, and you also, that it is a most no­torious falsity — And I appeal to you all that ever knew or heard me, if I have ever said or written any that could be justly called Railing, or any thing like it.

And now to begin with this Pamphlet, and take things in Course. — The first thing he objects against me is, that I call you Dissenters, and my Parishoners; and he will have that we of the Church rather are Dis­senters in this Country, where he says the Presbyterians are the established Church, p. 2. — To all which I answer thus, — That you are my Parishioners, is as true, as it is that I am appointed Minister of this Town and the Places adjacent, by the Honourable Society incor­porated by Royal Charter for providing Ministers for the Plantations, and by the Bishop of London to whom the Ecclesiastical Government of them is committed [Page 8] by the supreme Authority of our Nation: And for this I can produce my Instructions. — That you are Dissenters is as true as it is that you dis [...]ent from our Church and do not conform to it, as I have proved it your Duty to do. — That the Church in this Country are not Dissenters▪ in his sense of the Word, is as evident, as it is false, which he says, that the Pres­byterians are the established Church [...]re: And that neither they, nor [...]ny [...] Persuasion contrary to the Church of England, are esta [...]hed in this Country, is evident from the Lord's Justice [...]er to the Lieutenant Governour of Boston, in the [...], which declares, That there is no regular Es [...] of [...]y National or Provin­cial Church in these Pl [...]tations▪ [...] there be any with­out His Majesty's Consent, and that it would be a Contempt of his Royal Prerogative for the Legislature here, to undertake to make any Establishment without Him, &c.

He seems angry p. [...]. that I call you Brethren: What a strange Man is this? He is neither pleased, full nor fasting: If I did not call you so, then he would exclaim against me as uncharitable; and if I do call you so, then I am inconsistent with my self: If the Church should declare a formal Sentence of Excom­munication against you, then he would say she is Ty­r [...]ical; and if she be so tender as not to declare such a Sentence against those that do, ipso facto, i. e. materially or in fact excommunicate them [...]elves: and is so kind as still to call them her Brethren, (as the fact is, and we have always done,) then, forsooth, we must be faulted for not treating you as Heathen & Pub­licans; tho' in that case, according to St. Paul, 2 Thes. 2.15. we should not count you as Enemies, but admonish you as Brethren. How shall we contrive to please this [...]-temper'd Gentleman? However, Whither he be plea [...]ed or displea [...]ed, I will go on, upon the S [...]re of our common Christianity, to call you, my Brethren, tho you are on the side of A Separation from the [Page 9] Church; and the rather because, I don't consider you as being so much to blame for it, as such furious Men as this J. G. who try to keep you as much at odds with us as possible; upon which account you are rather to be pitied than severely treated.

Nay, He seems displeased that I pray for you, and f [...]uts at me that I pray without Book; as tho' the Church allowed of no Prayers to be used, even in pri­vate, or any particular Occasion, besides the Publick Prayers; tho' he knows, or might know, that she pre­scribes no Forms for private Use, but leaves the Peo­ple to use what Method they please, and even allows the Minister to express the Prayer in publick, before the Sermon, as he thinks fit: And if he had read our Publick Prayers over so carefully as he pretends, he might have found that we do constantly pray, That GOD would bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred and are deceived, in which we pray for you; and moreover, That we pray for all our Enemies, Persecutors and Slanderers, in which we pray for him; And GOD forbid that I should cease to pray for you, or him either.

He says, p. 4. That he must use plainness of Speech, and tell me, That it is a most notorious falsehood, when I say that great pains are taken to fright you from coming within the Doors of the Church, when he knows I meant the Church of England. Now that this is true, I ap­peal to your own Knowledge, and to his bitter Wri­tings, full of dolorous outcrys against the Church — He exhorts me to take beed how I seduce end deceive poor Souls, &c. this I have always done, and by the Grace of GOD, I hope shall do, very conscientiously: and I wish he had been careful to act up to his own Exhortation: I am sure he greatly endangers them by trying to inspire them with such bitterness and ran­cour towards their Christian Brethren, so much the reverse of the Temper of the Gospel.

[Page 10]He says, p. 5. It can be nothing but an ambitious Spirit of Usurpation that makes me find fault with People's not co­ming to me, when I only desire that they would be so candid, and so much lovers of Truth and Right, as to examine things impartially, and when they hear the Church decryed and derided, to come and give me opportunity to vindicate it, and see with their own Eyes, whether it be that odious thing it is re­presented to be; to try all things, that they may know, and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5.21. Now why must this be uncharitably stiled a Spirit of ambiti­ous Usurpation? Why may it not be from a Love of Truth, and an earnest desire that it may not suffer from a Spirit of Party and Prejudice? As I do sincerely declare that it is.

However, to antidote you against coming to the Church, which is solemnly dedicated to the Worship of GOD, he contemptuously and impiously calls it a little Cage under the Hill: — Much like a Gentleman! — And like a Christian! — This I suppose he takes to be very pretty, thus to sport himself with sacred things. Is this the Man that writes himself a Minister of the Word of GOD? (for that is the meaning of those my­stical Letters, V. D. M.) — With what face can he pretend to be a Minister of the Gospel of Peace and Reconciliation that shall use such Language as this to stir up a Spirit of Hatred, Contempt and Ill-will among Christians?

He says, p. 6. I tell you you are brutishly ignorant of the way of Salvation: — Now where have I used any such Expression, or any thing like it? Have I not said the contrary? How abominably false & injurious is this?— I do indeed maintain, that your unacquaintedness with the Church of England is the main, and I would hope the only, reason of your Aversion to it: and I must say, and am well a [...]ured of it, that the Christian Religion [Page 11] is more clearly and intelligibly taught in the Church of England, than it is among yo [...] But is this to say, you are brutishly ignorant of it? GOD forbid!

In p. 7. also you have a most gross instance of un­fair and unrighteous Dealing: He would persuade you that we have no Godly Discipline: And that the Church her self owns it, and quotes a Passage in the Liturgy for it: But how unfairly does he act? He sets down the Beginning of a Sentence, and leaves out what should explain it:— What can this be, if it be not a wilful design to delude you? I will give the whole Sentence that you may see what the Truth of the Case is. — Brethren there was in the primitive Church a Godly Discipline that at the beginning of Lent such Persons as stood convicted of notorious Sin were put to open Penance.— This particular Instance of ancient Discipline, that notorious Offenders should do open Penance on the first of Lent, we own we have not, and wish it resto­red: But is this to own we have no Godly Discipline at all, because we don't use this good ancient Custom? I say again, GOD forbid! If open Penance is not done on the first of Lent, as it was in the ancient Church, it does not follow that it is never done at all: And if he had not been resolved to blacken us at any rate, right or wrong, and at the expence of both Truth and Justice, he would not have concealed the express Order of the Church at the beginning of our Communion Office, where the Mi­nister is strictly required to forbid any open and noto­rious evil-liver, presuming to come to the Lord's Table, till he openly declare himself to have truly repented and amen­ded his naughty Life, &c. And what this open Penance is, you may see in the Present State of Great-Britain, p. 190. The Delinquent is to stand in the Church-Porch, on some Sunday bearhead and barefoot, bewailing himself, and begging every one that passes by, to pray for him; then to enter the Church, and in the middle of the Church he is [Page 12] placed over against the Minister, who declares the foulness of his Crime, odious to GOD and scandalous to the Con­gregation, But if he is obstinately Impenitent, the dread­ful Sentence of Excommunication is denounced against him. —Now is not this a Godly Discipline? What would this Man have? — If indeed, There be too great a Re­laxation of Discipline in the Church, we may thank the Separation for it, which has been a Refuge for the obstinate and perverse, whereby the Churches Authority has been grievously weakened.

As to the Government of our Church he says, you have unanswered and unanswerable Arguments against us extant.— Now this I deny to be true, and do assure you that I know him to be very ignorant of the best Writers on our Side; and therefore no wonder he should talk at this Rate, and that you have no Ar­guments against us but what have been answered over and over again: On the other hand, We have sundry Authors that never were so much as attempted to be answered, such as Hooker, Potter, The Original Draught of the Primitive Church, The London Cases, &c.— He calls me, p. 8. to shew what there is on your side nearer akin to Pop [...]ry, than any thing in the Church: Because he is so importunate, I will here mention one thing, and that is, That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order: This is the main Foundation Prin­ciple of Presbyterianism, and this was also strenuously contended for by the Managers of the Court of Rome, as any one may see in F. Paul's History of the Council of Trent: Some other Instances I shall mention after­wards.

As to what he says here of the Apocrypha, Holy Days, the Sign of the Cross and Kneeling, it shall be considered afterwards.— And a [...] to what he says, p. 9. & 10 of the Lordly Superiority of Bishops and their swearing Obe­dience to Arch-Bishop:— I answer, It is very injurious [Page 13] for him to represent them as so many arbitrary Ty­rants, when he knows, They can require nothing but what is according to Law: and where is the harm of swearing to be obedient to lawful Authority in all Things lawful and honest, which are the Words of the Oath as express'd in our Licences: — But he would represent as tho' it were a blind implicit Obedience that is required, which is a thing the Church knows no­thing of, but has ever declared her utmost abhor­rence of it.— And here, how wickedly does he in­sinuate that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is as bad as the Pope of Rome?— He is but another Pope! — Not a Penny to chuse between them! — What can this be, if it be not a formed Design to impose upon you? And to operate the more pleasingly on your Credulity, he insinuates it with a Similitude of a Cat and a Mouse-Catcher,— and laughs, and thinks he is wondrous Witty:—poor Man!— As if a Cat catch'd nothing but Mice, and nothing catch'd Mice but a Cat: what poor despicable childish Stuff is this? —I wonder he could not have thought, on this Occasion, of a Weasel, or of a sort of Owl that catches Mice: So difficult a thing is it for some People to look at home! — No, He says they are the same, and so is the Pope and Arch-Bishop! — Now, how intolerably abusive is this? — when he knows well enough that the Pope claims an Infallibility & absolute Supremacy over all the Bishops in the World; whereas the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, is but the First among his Equals, and no more to the rest, than a Fore-Man to a Jury, or a Moderator to a Town-Meeting.

Here he would have you believe too, that however wicked a Man is, we declare, in the Burial Office, that we have a good Hope he is gone streight to Heaven: — I must still say, such false Insinuations are very wicked: We do indeed declare our Hopes in that Office, but not how­ever wicked a Man has been: For I know not that we are obliged to use that Office over one that there is no hopes of.—

[Page 14]He falsly pretends because I mentioned Delaune's Name but once, that this is all you bear of Delaune's Ar­guments, when I pretended to answer the most material Ob­jections in that Book: Now as to this I still say, that I answered the most material Objections in his Book, tho' I mentioned his Name but once: And where I did mention his Name, I answered the main Objection he has, and indeed that which runs thro the whole Book, weak as it is, as this Man owns, viz. that of our symbo­lizing with Popery, and shewed that it concludes as strongly against you as against us.

In the next three Pages you have a long harrangue about Persecution. — To which I have these things to say. — In the first place, That what he calls Perse­cution, I still maintain, was the doings of the State, and not of the Church; and this is as evident as it is that they are intirely distinct Governments: — Do any of the Churches Laws threaten Fines, Imprison­ment or Death to those that break them? No: How then can she be charged with inflicting them? — Why he says, because some of the Ecclesiastics were of the Legislature: — Well, be that as it will, this don't prove that they either made those Laws, or executed them, especially as Ecclesiastics: — But suppose they did: I don't pretend to say, there never was a Churchman of a persecuting Spirit: — If there have been such, they must answer for it: I am not concerned to defend Them, but the Church: And I challenge him to shew one Principle or Tenet of the Church that implies or justifies Persecution; for the Church is the same now there is no Persecution as when there was, and yet the Divine Right of Dioce­san Episcopacy still is, as it always was, a Doctrine of our Church.

And Secondly, Neither did the civil Government of England, except in Popish Times, overshed a crop of any [Page 15] Man's Blood on account of Religion, which was the Ex­pression I used. — Nor do I, as he says, represent the Presbyterians as seditious Incendiaries, unless he will own they were those that were guilty of seditious Practices under a pretense of Zeal for Religion. — Indeed most of the bitter things he instances in, were what the Dis­senters suffered in the latter part of King Charles II's Reign and under King James II. when it was very well known, that not the Church but Popery was at the bottom, and the Church at last was Persecuted as well as the Dissenters.

I tell you in my Letter, p. 7. that you are most unrea­sonable in talking of Persecution now, when you have almost 50 years enjoyed an uninterrupted Toleration. — To this he says, he is sorry I can't reckon back as far as 1688: Why really I fancy if he could reckon so far back he would find it almost 50 years. And with what propriety could King James be said to interrupt the Toleration, when he was the King that first granted it? and that the year before; and the Presbyterians were vastly lavish of their Compliments in thanking him, tho' they knew it was designed for the sake of bring­ing in Popery.

As to the Days of Oliver Cromwell, when the Dis­senters were uppermost, tho' the Brownists or Inde­pendents were his greatest Favourites, as he pleads, yet the Presbyterians were also supported by him in op­position to the Church: And tho' I believe they ge­nerally abhorred the Murther of the King, yet they barbarously deprived him of his Chaplains, and denyed him the Liberty of the Common-Prayer, and had a great hand in the management of those Times when, as I say, the Church was suppressed, and her Clergy sequestered, plundered and barbarously treated; and for this I appeal to Walker's History of the Sufferings of our Church and Clergy in those Times of Rebellion and Confusion. — But I [Page 16] would as [...] him, [...] not things go as the Presbyterians would have them when the Directory was established, and [...] Cl [...]v [...] got into the Sadd [...]e? Now the same Act of Parliament that establishes the Presbyterian Di­rector made b [...] [...] Assembly of Divines, did enact, that ‘If any [...] or Persons whatsoever, shall at any T [...]me or T [...] hereafter use the Book of Com­mon Prayer, in any Church, Chappel or public Place of Worship, or in any private Place or Fami­ [...], &c. that then every such Person so offending [...]all for the first Offence forfeit and pay the Sum of Five Pounds, and for the second Offence the Sum of Ten Pounds, and for the third, shall suffer one whole years Imprisonment, without bail or main-prize.’ These are the very Words of the Act of that Presbyterian Parliament, and yet he has the assurance to ask, Will you charge these things on the Presbyterians? And in Scotland I still maintain that the Presbyterians did, not only, as he says, repossess themselves of what they had been deprived of, but did, moreover ‘frequently disturb and interrupt the Episcopal Clergy in their religious Assemblys, and prosecute them for using the English Service in their Congregations, and administring the Sacraments according to the Form and Manner prescribed in the Church of England, till Queen Anne and her Parliament found it neces­sary to make an act of Toleration for the Episcopal Church there.’ These are Words of the present State of Great Britain, p. 281. See also Letters of Tole­ration against Meldrum. — I do therefore still say, that no Dissenters of any Denomination can with any face of Modesty object Persecution against us, when they in their Turns have persecuted us as much as ever they can pretend they were persecuted: Tho' I do abhor and condemn it equally on both sides, and wherever it is found.

After he has pretended to set the Case of Scotland in a clear Light, (tho' I can see no Light in it,) he says [Page 17] boldly and roundly, that no part of Christ's mystical Body over drank deeper of the Cup of Persecution, than the Presby­terian Church there did from the Hands of Protestant Pre­lates. What a prodigious Assertion is this? What can I make of it? I am loth to charge him with a design to say a notorious untruth, I had rather think him beside himself, or grossly ignorant, if I could any way help him out: Did he never read any thing of the ten bloody Persecutions of the primitive Church? Or does he know nothing of the innumerable Butcheries of Protestants from the Tyranny of the Church of Rome? Need I say how vastly more, even beyond Comparison, they suffered in 4 years under Queen Mary's Reign in England, than these People in the whole 28 years he speaks of in Scotland? Nay I may appeal to Walker's History abovementioned, compared with Bp. Burnet, that the Church of England and her Clergy suffered, at least as much in 12 years in the Time of the Rebelli­on: What does the Man mean in giving himself such unaccountable Liberties? — I am not concerned to vindicate Arch-Bishop Sharp; but with what face can he mention him, when he knows that he was barba­rously Murthered by Presbyterians? He ought rather in tenderness to his own Cause to be ashamed to re­vive the Memory of that bloody deed.

As to Lampoons, I dislike them on both sides: but with what Justice he or others can complain I cannot see, when he knows they begun with their Catholic Re­medy, and their important Questions as he calls them: I will venture to tell you one of his very important Ques­tions, it was this; after a very false and odious De­scription of the Church of England, in a sort of barba­rous Rhymes, he asks, ‘Are these Christ's Church, pray, or ben't they the Devils.’ Does he think such Questions deserve serious Answers? Or, if he does, can he or any mortal blame me; who (without returning Railing for Railing, or one Lampoon for [Page 18] another,) have tho't it my Duty, seriously to endea­vour to vindicate the Church, in a Country where she is so barbarously misrepresented and abused?

We are now come to that point, Whether the Mar­tyrs in Queen Mary's Days were Presbyterians? Now I can produce living Testimony that such things have been pretended, — However this he gives up, and al­lows that whoever said so ought to be made ashamed of it. — But yet he thinks they would have been for bringing the Reformation forward to Presbytery, if they had lived a little longer, p. 16. — No, no, they were not such weak People, or so ignorant of the Scriptures or the State of the Primitive Church as to be likely after­wards to alter their Judgments, or think Presbytery pre­ferable to Episcopacy: They knew what they did, and having the Civil Government with them in their Pro­ceedings, they had opportunity to go on leisurely, and to consider things with Care and Accuracy, and to set down their foot very wa [...]ily. — It has indeed been often pretended, meerly from some unguarded Expressi­ons of private Men, that our first Reformers held E­piscopacy to be only Jure humano, i. e. of human Ap­pointment: But with what Justice can this be pretend­ed? When they deliberately and publickly declare in the Preface to the Ordination-Office, that, ‘It is evident to all Men, diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles Times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, which were ever held in such reverend Estimation, that no Man by his own private Authority, might presume to execute them, except he were first tried, examined and approved, and with public Prayer and imposi­tion of Hands admitted thereto’.

I say, Those holy Martyrs were the very Men that com­piled our Forms of Prayer. — In answer to this, He [Page 19] asks, What did our Church do for Forms before their Day? and would insinuate, that before this they pray'd with­out Book, and so in this Regard were Presbyterians, p. 16. What wretched quibbling and unfair delusive dealing is this? when he and every body knows, that before their Days Popery was the established Religion in Eng­land. What they aimed at, and declared to be their Design, was to purge the Church of all Popish Innova­tions, and restore it as near as possible to the Primitive Model, as it stood before the Days of Popery; and the Forms they prescribed were such, and many of them the very same, as were used in the Church, within the Three or Four first Centuries, as Dr. Comber, and Mr. Bingham plainly make appear: and for these their Pro­ceedings and their stedfast adhering to them, in Op­position to the Church of Rome, it was that they burnt at the Stake, and not meerly for such Things as we hold in common with you, as he insinuates.

He still insists upon it, that, Tho' we use the Service of the Church, we are no true Church-Men; and will have it that we are Arminians, and a deal of pains he takes upon this Point, pages 17, 20, 29. and says, p. 42. Tho' I hate the Name of that Dutch Presbyterian, yet I am a Man after his own Heart: To all which, I answer, First, Tho' I am none of his Disciples, yet I don't hate him: Nay, I will own, that I have a much bet­ter Opinion of this Dutch Presbyterian, than I have of some Scotch and Irish Presbyterians, and don't deny but that we hold some Doctrines in common with him: Where he follows Christ and his Apostles, I am con­tent to follow Him; but I am far from following him in every thing; and therefore it is unfair and unjust for him to endeavour to render me odious by calling me an Arminian. He would think me very unjust if I should call him a Mahometan, because he holds some Doctrines that Mahomet taught; and yet this he certainly does; for it is well known that the [Page 20] Doctrine of absolute Predestination which he holds, was one of the fundamental Principles of Mahome­tanism: But just so unfair is he in calling me an Arminian.

Secondly, Whereas he says, you hold this Doctrine just as we do: This I deny; and leave it to any body to compare your Confession, and his pretended Expli­cation of it in p. 43, with our Article: You can in­deed consistently own our Article, but we cannot consistently own your Confession, because it peremp­torily determines in this Controversy, which ours does not, for there is not a Syllable in it of absolute Reprobation, which is the grand Point that we scru­ple: And herein the Wisdom and Goodness of our Church was very conspicuous, in so treating of this Doctrine, as not to give Offence to Persons of either Persuasion. For,

Thirdly, I appeal to Dr. Heylin's History of this Con­troversy, and Bp. Burnet on the 39 Articles, [and I here mention it once for all, that when I quote Au­thors to save the Trouble of writing, if any Persons want to be further satisfied, and desire it I will lend them the Books I refer to] I say I appeal to those Authors, that our first Reformers did not aim at ex­pressing Calvin's Sense; but designedly went in the middle way of Erasmus, Melancthon and the Ausburg or Lutheran Confession: And those who were rigid Calvinist's afterwards were so sensible of this, that they were not contented with our Articles, and would have had the Lambeth Articles, (as they are called) esta­blished, which strongly express the Calvinistic Sense: Now if our Articles, were full on that side, what need they have troubled themselves to bring in any others? See especially Dr. Heylin, who abundantly vindicates our Church from the Imputation, of Calvi­nism. I would observe,

[Page 21] Fourthly, That it is not a just and fair way to judge of the Sense of the Church by any single Phrase or Ex­pression taken by it self alone; (especially since so accurate a way of Speaking and Writing on contro­versial Subjects had not then obtained in our Language, nor in those Times, as it has since,) but the right way of ascertaining the Churches Sense, is to take the whole of it together, and compare the several Passages in the Articles, Liturgy and Homiles on a Subject one with another, which you may see done by Dr. Heylin in a multitude of Instances; I will mention two or three; Thus in the Prayers we use such Expressions as the [...]e, ‘Almighty GOD who hast compassion on all Men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, and would­est not the Death of the Sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live’. And in the Cate­chism we teach, ‘That Christ hath redeemed us and all Mankind’. — And indeed the 17th Article explains it self, if he had fairly given you the whole of it; for after what he recites, these Words follow, ‘Furthermore we must receive GOD's Promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture, and in our Doings, that Will of GOD is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of GOD’. Now in the Word of GOD it is expressly declared, that Christ died for all, 2 Cor. 5.14. That he tasted Death for every Man, Heb. 2.9. That he bought or redeemed, even those who notwith­standing by denying him brought on themselves swift De­struction, 2 Pet. 2.1. And that GOD is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to Repentance and be saved, 2 Pet. 3.9. and 1 Tim. 2.4, 5, 6. I would ask now, how it can be supposed to be the Sense of our Church; That Christ died only for here and there one, and that GOD hath absolutely Decreed or Wil­led the eternal Misery and Destruction of all the rest of Mankind: No, I am sure if we take the Articles, Prayers and Homilies altogether, and candidly inter­pret [Page 22] one Passage by another, and by the general Tenor of the whole, we shall find nothing in them that can be justly interpreted to express the Calvinistic Doctrine of absolute Predestination and Reprobation: And let the Articles be so understood, as in Candour and Jus­tice they ought, and there is not one of them, but I do heartily own and assent to. And besides,

Fifthly, Who, I beseech you, can be supposed so well to have understood the Churches Sense in her Arti­cles, as those very Men that composed them? Now it is certain that they taught exactly as we do now, and that long before Arminius was heard of; I might in­stance in several of them, but for brevity, I will only quote a Passage out of each of those three good Mar­tyrs, Archbp. Cranmer, Bp. Latimer, and Bp. Hooper, which you may see in Bp. Fowler's Discourse on Chris­tian Liberty, and many more in Dr. Heylin. Archbp. Cranmer says, that ‘Christ made a Sacrifice and Ob­lation of his Body on the Cross, which was a full Redemption, Satisfaction and Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World’. Which are also very near the same Words that our Church uses in her Com­munion Service. Bp. Latimer says, that ‘Christ shed as much Blood for Judas as he did for Peter; Peter be­lieved it, and therefore was saved, Judas would not believe, and therefore was condemned; the fault being in him only and in no body else, &c.’. And Bp Hooper says, Judas was no more excluded from the Promise of Christ than Peter; Esau than Jacob, concerning which two Brethren in the Sentence g [...]ven to Rebecca, there was no mention at all that Esau should be disinherited of eternal Life, but that he should be inferiour to his Brother Jacob in this World, which Prophecy was fulfilled in their Pos­tery, and not in the Persons themselves: GOD is said to have hated Esau, not because he was disinherited of eternal Life, but in laying his Mountains and Heri­tage [Page 23] waste for the Dragons of the Wilderness, Mal. 1.3.’ Thus they interpreted the 9th of Rom. then, just as we do now, and as the Church always did from the be­ginning in it's best and purest Ages, when they had no Notion of any absolute Personal Decrees.

And lastly, I observe, That according to the Doc­trine of our Church, her Articles are to be interpre­ted according to the Scriptures, and not the Scrip­tures by our Articles, or those of any other Church; and for this I have the Authority of the Church her­self, who declares in Art. VI. That ‘The H. Scrip­tures contain all things necessary to Salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man to be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be tho't requisite or necessary to Salvation’. Now I am well assured, that the Scriptures no where teach this Man's Notion of Predestination, and therefore neither does our Church. —And according to this Article, I am free to declare, and am glad he has put me upon it, p. 30. That I do from the bottom [...] my Heart hold the H. Scriptures to be my only, perfect, compleat and uner­ring Rule in the pursuit of Salvation; nor do I in the least think that this Declaration will at all rub hard on any of the Churches Articles, nor Ceremonies nei­ther, as he surmises, because I know, and am sure, That the Scriptures teach all the Doctrines of our Church, and justify her in the injunction of all her Ceremonies, and oblige us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace in the Observance of them, Eph. 4.3.

But if this be his Notion of the Scripture, what an unaccountable Man is he, p. 20. to question my Soundness in the Doctrine of Regeneration, or whither I hold the necessity of it, because I express it in Scripture Phrases, and don [...]t hold his unscriptural Notion of Predestination? Is it because he is resolved to repre­sent [Page 24] me as an Heretick in spight of Reason and Scrip­ture, and every thing I can say or do? I assure you, I must think my self much safer while I speak of these things in the Language of the H. Ghost, than in his unscriptural unintelligible Phrases.— And I do still say, that it vastly recommends the Church of England to me, as it ought to all good Christians, that all her publick Forms of Worship are intirely conformed to Scripture, and generally expressed in the very Words of it, whereby she teaches all her Children to Wor­ship GOD their heavenly Father in his own Lan­guage; I do therefore also still say, that we of the Church call no Man Master up [...]n Earth, and no Man Father, for one is our Master and Father in Heaven, in the Sense of our blessed Saviour, Matth. 23.8, 9. which does not forbid us to call Men Master and Father, as Terms of Respect and Reverence, but as implying an im­plicit Faith in them and Submission to them, like Ser­vants to their Masters, and Children to their Parents. Thus St. Paul justly assumes to himself to be the Spi­ritual Father of those whom he had begotten thro the Gospel, yet says he not as having Dominion over your Faith, but as helpers of your Joy, 1 Cor. 4 15. 2 Cor. 1.24. In this Sense it is that we call Ministers Masters, and Bishops Fathers: And what a mean Quibble is it for him to object this, when he would take it hard not to be called Mr. G. and Reverend Sir, which is the same with Reverend Father. — I would add here, that our Saviour may be reasonably supposed in that Text to forbid his Disciples going into Sects and Divisions, following different Masters or Heads of Parties, as the Corinthians did, one saying I am of Paul, another I am of Appollos, &c, 1 Cor. 1.12. In this Sense, which was what I principally intended, we say we call no Man Master upon Earth, we are neither Calvinists, i. e. Disci­ples or followers of Calvin, nor Arminians, i. e. Disciples or followers of Arminius, &c. but Christians, only, as being the Followers and Disciples of Christ alone.

[Page 25]In the next place, he would willingly have it belie­ved yet, that we are Jacobites, and High-Flyers, not­withstanding all I can say or do for our Exculpation: We have taken the Oaths to our most gracious Sove­reign King George, we pray for him, we preach up all Loyalty and Fidelity to him: and the utmost abhor­rence of the contrary Interest, and our Practice and Behaviour is all of a piece herewith, and yet he insinuates we may be Jacobites after all, p. 19. Well, all I can say, not only with respect to this, but many others of his odious Insinuations, is, that there is no fenc­ing against a Flail: One might as well as pretend to dispute a Whirlwind, as to reason with this scrupulous Surmiser: —

This point he would justify by a Fling at the late Bp of Rochester and another Clergyman, which is com­pounded of nothing but Malice and Impertinence, the shining Ornaments of his Book. The latter Quality saves me the Trouble of a Disquisition into the Cha­racters of those Persons; and it is Answer enough to ask him, Whether he would think I used him fairly, if I should argue thus about him. Heath and Cummin in Queen Elizabeth's Time, (as Mr. Strype tells us,) pre­tended to be Presbyterians, and preached against the Pope, and prayed and pleaded for a further Reforma­tion, and pressed forward earnestly towards the glorious Zenith of Presbytery, as this Man does, and yet they pro­ved at last to be arrant Jesuits, and promoting the Pope's Interest all the while: so may this J. G. be a Papist for ought any thing we know: I say how abusive would he think me, if I should argue thus: however all I would say is, Judge not that ye be not Judged.

We are now come to his Talk about Ceremonies, which is a Word, that the continual Din and Noise made about them has rendered odious and frightful to the vulgar, tho' all that is meant by them, is certain [Page 26] Appointments of things in their own Nature indifferent, made by lawful human Authority, for the more decent, orderly and edifying Administration of the Worship of GOD. Concern­ing which, I shall first vindicate the Lawfulness and Ex­pediency of ours, in answer to his Exceptions against them; and then shew upon what Foot it is, that we hold our Obligation to observe them. — As to the first of these — The first I mentioned was the Sur­plice: And as to this I shewed from Ezek. 44.17. and Rev. 19.8. the Propriety, Lawfulness and Significancy of this Garment, and I might have added Rev. 4.4. where the Elders are represented as clothed in White: And here, p. 21. he fully agrees with me, that the Sacred Officers should be distinguished by a peculiar Garment. But he says, why should they appear in white, and sometimes in black in the same Service? I answer they never do so: I take it, that Worship is one Service, and preaching another, intirely distinct; for the Minister acts in quite a different Capacity in presiding over the Con­gregation in offering up their Devotions to GOD, from what he does in preaching and teaching them their Duty to him. Now I cannot see but there is as good reason for distinguishing these different Services by different Habits, as the Clergy from the Layity, which he allows: And if it be proper to distinguish them, as he grants, and Government, for such good Reasons as I have given, hath appointed the proper habits, I still say, it betrays not only littleness of Mind and narrowness of Soul, but also too much of a factious disorderly Spirit, to disobey it.

The next thing I mentioned was Sponsors, or God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism: — And on this head I said, What can be more proper or expedient, than when the Child is admitted into Covenant, that somebody should an­swer it's part in it's Name. &c.— Here he says, the Child was in Covenant before, by virtue of it's Parents professed Faith, otherwise it could [...], &c — Now this is [Page 27] what I can't understand: And I would ask, How then any Children have a Right to Baptism whose Parents did never profess the Christian Faith: According to his Doctrine, no Children could be Baptized, but those of Christian Parents: This he has no proof for, nor any Reason does he produce, nor can any good Rea­son be given, why meerly the Parents Faith should in­title them to Baptism, or the want of it forbid them: Not only Abraham's Children, but all that were born in his House, nay, and bought with his Money, were Circum­cised, Gen. 17.12. Why then may not such be Bapti­zed? — We of the Church hold, that it is the Pro­spect or good Hopes the Church has, that a Child will in all probability have a Christian Education, which gives it a right to Baptism, and that it is not proper­ly in Covenant till they that undertake for its Educa­tion do in its Name answer its part of the Covenant; upon which occasion the Minister in GOD's Name engages that he will fulfill his part, and affixes the Sea [...] accordingly which he has appointed: And till this be done, I can't see what propriety there can be in saving it is in Covenant; for a Covenant implys Engage­ments undertaken between the Parties Covenanting; till therefore such Engagements are undertaken on both sides, and regularly Sealed, there is no Covenant compleated. Now since the Church looks on the Prospect of a Christian Education, as that which im­mediately intitles the Child to Baptism, therefore it is that she insists on a double Security for it: She knows that GOD and Nature have made it the Pa­rents Duty to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord; and therefore she does not re­quire any express Promise of them, but because they may fail, she insists that they should have others un­dertake with them, as a further & additional Security: And where is the evil of this? I am sure he has pro­ved no evil in it, nor can he. Indeed that he might seem to ma [...]e a bluster, he calls it a daring Presumption, [Page 28] as tho' we pretend to mend those Rules which infinite Wis­dom hath calculated, as he expresses it: As if GOD de­signed by the Rules he hath made, to exclude all hu­mane Prudentials: But for this he has not the least shadow of an Argument. — If in any instance Duty is not done, this is no more an Argument against the goodness of an Appointment of the Church, than it is against the the ten Commandments, or against hu­mane Laws appointing Guardians, &c. And the Ca­non he quotes which forbids Parents answering as God-fathers, is so far from declaring against this double Security, as he insinuates, that it was ordered for this very End that there might be a double Security; since if the Parents, who are supposed to be engaged by Nature, were admitted to answer as Sponsors, the o­thers might be apt to think themselves excused from any Obligation, and so it would at length be in the more danger of dwindling into an useless Ceremony.

As to the Sign of the Cross, p. 23. I mentioned it as being after Baptism, and not in Baptism, to intimate that it does not in the Churches Sense properly belong to the Office of Baptism, but is only used after the Admini­stration of it, in the public Declaration of the Childs being, by virtue of it's Baptism, received into the Flock of Christ: For which Reason it is not used in pri­vate Baptism, and yet the Church declares that it is compleat without it. — And as to the Expediency of it, I said that we used it to put us in Mind that we should be so far from being ashamed of the Cross [...]f Christ, that with St. Paul, Gal. 6.14. we should rather glory in it, and since it was commonly used in the Church within a hundred years of the Apostles, as ap­pears from T [...]rtullian and St. Cyprian, it appeared to me very probable that it was alluded to by St. John in Rev. 7.3. — To this he has the amazing unchari­tableness as to say, that I had reason to fear lest Divine Justice should have smitten my right Hand with a Leprosy, [Page 29] when such Words drop [...] from my Pen. — What Bitter­ness of Spirit does this express! I may at least guess what to expect had he the disposal of GOD's Judge­ments: however I bless GOD I am not in his Power, And in truth, after a serious reconsideration of this Passage, I cannot see any Reason I had to fear GOD's Displeasure on the account of it: And as I am not a­shamed of the Cross of Christ, but do glory in it that I Wor­ship a Crucified Saviour, and suffer in his Cause from this most abusive Writer; so I still think this Practice a very proper and suitable Expression of it.

And here he has taken a great deal of Pains, most invidiously and i [...]uriously to insinuate, that the Sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament of the Churches making, and that even according to our own Definition of a Sacrament, that it is an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace, &c. — Now to this I an­swer, that all his Talk on this head is meerly a con­trived Piece of delusive Sophistry, without so much as a shadow of any Foundation: And one would be tempted to think that nothing but an obstinate Reso­lution to be perverse, could put People upon wrack­ing their Inventions to put such odious and ground­less Constructions on this innocent Ceremony.

For,

1. As to the Sign it self, it is only the Sign of the Cross; unless therefore the Cross were an inward and spi­ritual Grace, it cannot be pretended that the Sign of it is a Sacrament. However,

2. We allow that the use of this Sign after Baptism, is appointed to be significant of the Obligations the Person baptised is laid under by that holy Ordinance, to exercise the spiritual Graces of [...]aith in a Crucified Saviour, and Courage and Stedfastness in adhering to Him in spight of all Temptations to the contrary: [Page 30] And supposing, in this Sense, it were an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace, it would not therefore be a Sacrament; for by the same Reason, every Name of a spiritual Grace, (such as Piety, Jus­tice, Mercy, &c.) would be a Sacrament, and if you should Name a Child, Hope or Charity, you would give it a new Sacrament; since none can deny but they are outward and sensible Signs of inward and spiritual Graces.

3. That therefore, which is the distinguishing Cha­racter of a Sacrament, is, that it be ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive spiritual Grace, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. Now this essential Character of a Sacrament, does not, and cannot belong to the Sign of the Cross, since it is not ordained by Christ, nor was it ever pretended by the Church to be ordained as a means whereby we receive Grace, or a Pledge to assure us thereof: Nor is there a Syllable of all that he has alle­ged, and after all his mangling Work, that can be justly interpreted to imply any such thing. — Yes, he says, it is to operate Grace morally, to stir up the dull Mind of Man, &c. — I answer,

4. No otherwise than as Words do: None will de­ny that Words and Exhortations, aptly addressed to the Minds and Consciences of Men, do operate mo­rally on them, to stir them up to the exercise of Spiri­tual Graces, but no body ever therefore took them to be Sacraments, because they are not means of Grace, of the same kind with Sacraments; which are appoin­ted by Christ to be Seals of the Covenant of Grace to the right use of which, he hath by Promise graciously annexed the bestowment of Spiritual Grace: (so that all he says on this Head, equally proves Preaching the Word to be a Sacrament, or indeed any good serious Discourse between Christians in private Conversa­tion.) — Whereas,

[Page 31]5. Our Ceremonies are not, nor were they ever de­signed, or taken, to be Seals & Assurances from GOD of his Grace to us, but only Hints and Remembrances of some Obligations we are under with respect to Him: And this kind of significant Usages hath ever been ta­ken up without any imputation of introducing new Sacraments, and this was the only intent of our Church, not only in the Sign of the Cross, but in all her other Ceremonies, that they should be used as a kind of Lan­guage, that, according to the ancient Custom of the primitive Church we should by Actions as well as Words outwardly testifie our Devotion to GOD and Christ, and acknowledge our Obligation to all Fide­lity and Sincerity in the Service of our Creator and Redeemer: And indeed appointed significant Actions are as properly Language as articulate Sounds; so that there is really no more reason to object against this kind of Language, than any other that is used in our Service or yours: Thus Bowing and Kneeling, and Stand­ing and Sitting, in the several respective parts of Ser­vice in which they are used, are so many Actions ex­pressive of certain inward Tempers and Dispositions of Mind, suitable to the several Occasions on which they are appointed. — And thus we use the Sign of the Cross, not as a Sacrament or means of Grace, ap­pointed to seal or convey the Grace of the new Cove­nant, (far from this,) but as a significant Memorial of our Obligation, being Baptized into the Death of Christ, not to be ashamed of Christ Crucified, as our Church expresses it, but manfully to fight under his Banner, against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to con [...]inue his faithful Souldiers and Servants to our Lives end. And, I pray, where is the harm of all this? Nay why I beseech you, is it not as proper and significant a Language as any other, and as free from any just fault or blame? The Words used on this Occasion were never found fault with, and as little Reason was there to object against the Action, which was never considered by our Church [Page 32] as signifying any thing besides what the Words import. What needs then all this impertinent Clamour?

In the next place, As to Holy Days, I shewed that they were wisely appointed by the Church to com­memorate the several Steps which our glorious Re­deemer took in accomplishing our Redemption, &c. and rested our Obligation to observe them, upon the same Foot as you hold your Obligation to observe your Fasts and Thanksgivings, viz. The Command of lawful Authority.— Now as to our Fasts & Feasts he says, p. 27. It is no less than a bold invading of Christ's Royal Prerogative to appoint them; but does not so much as attempt to shew why it is not as much a bold in­vading of His Prerogative for you to appoint your Fasts and Thanksgivings:— This therefore I still in­sist upon, that with the same Breath that you justify yours, you justify ours, and he can't shew the least difference:— for the same Temporal Blessings you fast and give thanks on the account of, are to be prayed for and acknowledged on every Lord's Day, as well as the Spiritual Blessings we commemorate on our Feasts and Fasts: So that the strongest Reasons are clearly on our side, as much stronger than yours, certainly, as Spiritual Blessings are greater than Temporal, the fruits of Christs coming into the World, than the fruits of the Earth. Indeed GOD commands us to keep Holy the Sabbath Day, which is now the first Day of the Week, to Pray and give Thanks for all Blessings Temporal and Spiritual; but it is not therefore unlawful for us to yield him our free-will Offerings, by appointing other Days to be kept Holy for some particular Pur­poses of either kind: This is what we are all agreed in; and why, I beseech you, may not we appoint o­ther Days to be set apart for Public Worship, as law­fully as you? All his Talk therefore about new Sab­baths, is as impertinent and abusive as that about a new Sacrament.— And I still say, notwithstanding [Page 33] his great boasting, that for want of your observing the Festivals of Christ's Birth, Resurrection, Ascension and his Sending the Holy Ghost, you scarce ever hear those great Fundamental Principles of Christianity, duly explained and inforced: I can truly say, tho' I lived 25 years among you, I never heard either of those great Articles of your Faith, particularly and professedly opened, proved and insisted on.

As to your Objection against us from Mat. 15.9. about teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, I shewed that it concluded nothing against us; unless you could prove either first, That we did with the Pharisees advance Human Inventions into Essential Doctrines, as they did the washing of Hands before eat­ing, &c. holding their Traditions of equa [...] Authority with the written Law: or, Secondly, That by, and for the sake of human Appointments, we justle out, and set aside Divine Commands, as they did the 5th Commandment by their Corban, neither of which ever were, or can be proved against the Church of England.— All his Answer to this is, that I could not answer the Ob­jection, and that I deal very unfairly with the Context, and rend it in pieces; without so much as endeavouring to shew wherein I did so. What was incumbent upon him, if he would have done any thing to the purpose, was in answer to my Challenge, to shew one Scripture Doctrine rejected, or one Divine Law set aside, or any thing enjoyned as necessary in it self which is not so, by the Church of England, which were what the Pharisees were blamed for: But to this he makes no manner of Reply.

And as lame is he in his Reply, p. 25. to my An­swer to that Objection from Jer. 7.31. where GOD gives that as a Reason of his Displeasure with his Peo­ple for their building high Places and worshipping Idols, that he commanded them not: I told you the meaning [Page 34] of it was that he had forbidden them — To this he only Answers, my Gloss was very unjust, without shewing wherein. — Now as to this, I appeal to all that know what is meant by that Figure called Meiosis, whither this Expression be any thing else: I commanded them not, i e. So far from this, that I strictly forbad them; for every Body knows that what he here complains of, he had peremptorily forbidden them: So that what he calls a moral Reason, is only a figurative Ex­pression, — for, that it could not, Literally under­stood, be any Reason at all, I shall shew presently, because, as St. Paul says, Rom. 4.15. Where no law is there is no Transgression: where no law forbids a thing, there is no transgression in doing it.

Nor has he so much as attempted one Syllable of Reply to the Answer I gave to your Objection about offending weak Brethren.— And he owns you are in an Error in enjoyning your Church Covenant and Relations; and only says, Your Errors will not lessen our Guilt, p. 28. So that even according to Him, you are as guilty of unwarrantable Impositions as we, and do as ready teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men; tho' this I have proved the Church does not, accor­ding to our Saviour's meaning. — Thus this great Champion who pretends to defend your Cause, mise­rably leaves you in the lurch, where you most wanted — his help.

And now I proceed to the second Head I mentioned, viz upon what foot it is that we hold our selves ob­liged to observe the Appointments of our Church. And upon this head, he says, If it were to save a Million of Souls, we must not let go the least trifling Ceremony. p. 20. — To which I answer, — This Sophistry is equally levelled against all Government, and all Churches. In your Churches, no body shall be admitted without submitting to your Church Covenant, and in some [Page 35] Places, without a Relation, and Vote of the Brethren, &c. — Nay, I have known People to go out of the World in the bitterness of their Souls, for want of Baptism and the Lords Supper, which were refused them by the Ministers, meerly because it was not the Custom in those Places where they lived, to admini­ster the Sacraments in private Houses, tho' on the most urgent Occasions: Which Practices among you, are vastly more unreasonable than any thing can be pretended in the Church of England. Nay, this Sophistry of his, intirely subverts his own dear Kirk of Scotland, which asserts, and indeed very justly; Art. XX. that ‘They that under the Pretense of Liberty, oppose any lawful Power, or the lawful Exercise of it, [such as is interposing in matters indifferent] whither Civil or Ecclesiastical, resist the Ordinance of GOD, and may be proceeded against by the Cen­sures of the Church, and by the Civil Magistrate.’ And indeed there never was, or can be a Church or Government in the World, but did, and must interpose in some things, for Public Order, that were antecedently matters of indifferency, which as I said, are what we mean by Ceremonies. — Now I have proved that there are no Ceremonies in our Church, the compli­ance with which, could do the least Damage to the Souls of Men; and therefore if they don't comply with them, it is not Government, Civil or Sacred that ex­cludes them, but they exclude themselves by refusing to observe the Laws of Christ, which require obedience to Government in all things not contrary to His Laws: And after all he has declaimed, it still remains to be proved, that the Church requires any thing inconsist­ent with the Gospel, or forbids what that requires.

He has got indeed a fine pretense for Disobedience, p. 26. where he quotes our Saviour's saying, Matth. 28.20. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you; upon which he says, It is a rule in Divinity, that [Page 36] where a Duty is enjoyned, the contrary Sin is forbidden. This I allow to be a good Rule, and own, that hence it follows that we may not teach any thing for a necessary Doctrine of Christ, which he hath not taught and commanded us to teach as such. — But does it hence follow, that Government may not en­joyn, for Public Order, some things which are decla­red in their own Nature to be indifferent, and only required for external Order and Decency? No such matter: So far from this, that Christ requires we should not only render to GOD the things that are his, but also to Caesar, the Civil Magistrate, the things that are his, Mat. 22.21. And with respect to Ecclesiastical Rulers; (such he means by those that sit in Moses Seat,) he says, All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, Mat. 23.2. So that when he requires obedience to lawful Authority in Church and State, by this Rule of Divinity, the contrary Vice of Disobedience is for­bidden. This Rule therefore concludes nothing a­gainst us, unless he will say that our Saviour's mean­ing when he commands us to obey him, is, that he for­bids us to obey even lawful Government in things not forbidden by him: This would be fine Divinity in­deed▪ What can this mean, but that it is utterly unlaw­ful to obey humane Authority, even where Christ hath not interposed? And what can this tend to, but to demolish all Government, not only in Church and State, but even in Families also? And what is this, but to make our blessed Saviour the Patron of all man­ner of Disorder and Confusion?

Now that this is the Tendency of this Man's Doc­trine, is evident from this, that he says, Christ does, by Command limit us, not only to that all that, but more­over only to that which he has commanded▪ And now, pray look at home, and see what will come of your own Cause: And here I will use the Words of Mr. Hart, in his Bulwark Stormed, which is a full and com­pleat [Page 37] Answer to Thomas De Laune's Plea for the Non-Conformists, which you have often boasted to be un­answerable, p. 35. I say let us ex [...]mine your own Practice, and take De Laune [...]s and this J. G.'s Max [...]m along with us, ‘for nothing is lawful in the Worsh [...]p of GOD, according to them, unless it be expresly commanded:— [...]ut I say GOD has no where ex­presly commanded your Teachers to preach, and the People to pray standing, therefore if Delaune's, and this J. G's Maxim be true your Practice in these particulars is unlawful. — Again, Nothing is law­ful in the Worship of GOD, says Delaune and J. G. unless it be expressly commanded; but I say, and so says Mr. Baxter, Christ. Dir. Lib. 3. p. 11. you have no express command for extemporary Prayer; there­fore, if these Men say true, your Practice in this particular is unlawful — Again, Nothing is lawful in the Worship of GOD, say they, but what is ex­pressly commanded; but I say, and so says Dr. Man­ton on Jam. 5.13 (one of your party) GOD has not to commanded you to sing Psalms in Metre, and with the Tunes you use, therefore your Practice in this particular also is unlawful. — Again, Nothing is lawful in the Worship of GOD, say they, unless it be expressly commanded; but, I say, GOD has no where commanded you to use leavened Bread in the Sacrament; therefore in this particular also your Practice is unlawful. — Again▪ once for all, No­thing is lawful in the Worship of GOD, but what is expressly commanded, say Delaune and J. G but I say, and so says Mr. Baxter, ibid. p. 111. GOD has no where expressly commanded you to receive the Sacrament [...]ing, or a [...] N [...]on, or to sprinkle Chil­dren in Baptism, or to Preach out of a Pulpit, or to enjoyn a Church Covenant, &c. therefore either Delaune's and J. G [...]s Principle is false or your Prac­tice in these Things is un awful’ — So you see how much you are beholden to Delaune and this J. G. [Page 38] for their Pleas and Remarks, in pretending to defend your Cause. They care not whom they ruin, so they do but destroy the Church.

He then impertinently asks, p. 25. Will you dare to assert, that we may introduce any thing into the Worship of GOD, as a part of his Worship, without a Divine Institution? I answer, we don't pretend to do any such Thing: But tho' we mayn't as a part of Divine Worship, we may as a Circumstance of [...] for the more decent, edify­ing and orderly Administration of it. — He asks then, Why not Cream and Salt, and Oyl and Spittie, and I know not what? I answer, because these and the like are indecent, inedifying and burthensome to the Wor­ship of GOD. However it is time enough to dispute such things with our Governours when they require them [...] We are only concerned to defend what is re­quired; and we are in no Danger of having any thing further enioyned; for our Rule [...] can require nothing of us, but what is according to the Laws in being, and we find nothing in them, nor could he prove anything, that does in the least interfere with our Duty to GOD, or the general Rule of Decency, Order and Edification. — After all he says, we may thank the Pa­pists for all this, for this is their very Language, p. 27. Now how abusive is this, when he knows they require many Doctrines to be believed, and enjoin many things to be done, that are plainly and directly con­trary to Scripture, and our Duty to GOD? How inju­rious then are such Insinua [...]ons.

I do still venture to say, that we may lawfully do what­soever GOD hath not forbidden, however so great a venture he would represent it, p. 25. and would ask him seriously, where is the great venture of it: All Divines admit that there are three kinds of Actions, viz Good, Evil & Indifferent, i. e. such as GOD hath commanded or forbidden, or such as he hath neither com­manded nor forbidden, and these last mentioned are [Page 39] called Indifferent: these therefore may be done or left undone at our Pleasure; for according to St. Paul's Rule before-mentioned, Rom. 4.15. Where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. Where there is no Law that commands or forbids an Action, there is no Trangression in doing or omitting it; for it being the Design of GOD's Laws to restrain our natural Liberty in such Instances as he knows it will be for our Good to be confined to do or avoid, and wherein he requires us to testifie our Duty, and Obedience to him; it is plain. That in all other Instances, he leaves us to the Exercise of our natural Liberty. This seems to me a clear Case, but it is as clear, that Government both in Church and State, is God's own Ordinance, and he has made it a necessary Duty to us to obey it, and conse­quently a Sin to disobey it: it must therefore according to his Will, be in the Power of Government also, in Subordination to him, to restrain our Liberty in cer­tain Instances — And lastly, It is no less evident, that those Actions, which in regard to the Commands of God are indifferent, are the only proper Objects of human Authority, i. e. wherein our Governours may properly, & Lawfully interpose, to command▪ or for­bid: for if they were to command or forbid only what GOD hath commanded or forbidden, our Obedience would not have their Authority or Commands for it's Object, but GOD's; and then those Laws of the Gos­pel which commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, 1 Pet. 2.13 and to obey them that have the Rule over us, Heb 13.1 [...]. would be empty Words, without any meaning. Obedience has ever a Relation to Commands or Prohibitions, and these must be the Commands or Prohibitions of the Autho­rity that Commands or Forbids; and the Apostles here speak of lawful Authority, which they must there­fore suppose to have a power of interposing by their Authority where GOD hath not interposed by His.

[Page 40]— They are indeed limited by him, but it is only by the general Rules of Decency, Order & Edifica­tion, and that nothing be repugnant to his plain De­clarations; but of this it must reasonably be supposed they are the proper Judges to whom the Government is committed both by GOD and Man. And when they do thus interpose in what they take to be for the Good of the whole, GOD has made Obedience our Duty: not that their Authority alters the Nature of those Actions; they still remain what they were before, in their own Nature, i. c Indifferent; but it is not in­different whether we obey or disobey, because GOD has indispensibly commanded us to obey them that are set over us in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5.12. And if in this Case, we should in opposition to their Authority, still use our Liberty, it would be only for a cloke of ma­liciousness, and not as the Servants of God, 1 Pet. 2.16.

You will say, What! Does he require an implicit Obedience▪ May we not judge for our selves?— I an­swer, Yes; you not only may, but ought to judge for your selves, and see to it that these be nothing re­quired by Authority that is evidently contrary to the Word of GOD, and inconsistent with your Duty to Him: But it you would make a just Judgment, you must judge seriously, and in the fear of GOD, as those that must give an Account; you must not dispute for disputing sake, no [...] be governed by a captious, dis­contented and factious Spirit: you must be disposed, as far as possible, to resign your Private Scruples to the Public Peace, and the Good of the whole, and by no m [...]ans disobey, unless it be, at least, as evident that what is commanded is contrary to the Word of GOD, and defaces, desecrates, dishonours and en [...]vates the Worship of GOD, as it is that the Word of GOD com­mands you to be obedient: you find it evident in your [...], that GOD requires your Obedience to Au­thority, both [...] and E [...]esiastical: Ask your selves [Page 41] seriously, is it as evident that what Authority requires is forbidden by Him, or pollutes, disorders, or destroys his Worship? Is it as evident that you will not do more Damage to the publick Weal, by indulging your Scruples, and for the sake of them, breaking in upon Publick Peace and Order, and thereby weakening the Hands of Government, which also is GOD's Ordi­nance, than any thing you Scruple can do to His pub­lic Worship?— I say, these things ought to be most seriously weighed and considered. — And sure I am, had those who have dissented from us, acted upon these Principles and Considerations, as they were in Duty bound, there never would have been any Separation begun or continued — It is a dreadful thing to break the Publick Peace of a Church or Go­vernment, and nothing can excuse it but a clear Con­viction that what we divide on the account of, is utterly unlawful, evidently sinful: Every little Scru­ple will not justify it: And if after all we can do to gain Satisfaction, we have some Scruples that are unsurmountable, we should however still conform as far as possible. How inexcusable then is it to con­trive to make Scruples and propagate them, to mag­nify and exaggerate them, and raise Mole-Hills into Mountains, as this Man and those like him, do? to strain at a Gnat, a little innocent Ceremony, and swallow a Camel, by breaking in upon publick Peace and Order.

It is pleaded against what I have been saying, that he that doubteth is [...] damned, in the Original it is,) con­demned if he c [...]t, Rom 14. ul [...]. I answer, The Apostle is this Chapter is speaking only of those Things where­in Authority, neither Divine nor Human had in [...]er­posed, as was the Case of Meats and Days appointed in the Mosaic Law, after the Abolition of it, and shews how Christians should conduct towards one another in such Cases, that they should receive one another, and [Page 42] not judge one another, &c. But he is far from meaning that Public Order and Government, when things have been established in the best manner, for the good of the whole, should give way to every Private Man's trifling Scruples, and be demolished for the sake of them, or be continually chopping and changing like the Wind: This would be contrary to that Unity and Obedience which he every where requires, 1 Cor. 12.14 to 26. Phil. 3 16. Rom. 15.5, 6. Phil. 2.2. Rom 16.17. Heb. 13.17. &c. and to our Saviour's Prayer, John 17.21. And upon this foot there would be no end of Scruples and Indulgences, Divisions and Subdivisions, and no Public Peace and Order could be provided for. — No, the Truth and the Right of the Case is, if I would do justice both to my Self and the Public under my Scruples, I should set what is clear in ballance against what is doubtful, and this will determine what Choice I ought to make: Thus I would fairly state the Case, I doubt, (and therefore it is supposed I am not clear in it,) whether I may lawfully comply with such a Ce­remony: But it is clear on the other hand, if I don't submit to what is established, I shall destroy the pub­lic Peace, and enervate Government: therefore I can no longer, properly Speaking, make a doubt of it. — Whether I should comply. — So that tho' in a Case not decided by Authority, if I should doubt, I ought to abstain by this Rule of the Apostle, yet if lawful Authority has interposed, the Case is altered, and it is my Duty to resign my Doubt, which implies some uncertainty, to the public Sense, to which I ought to pay a great defference, and to the good of the whole, which should be ever held sacred, and ought to be vastly dear to me, and which on the other hand, by my insisting on my Scruple, will certainly be infringed. — But for a more full and compleat So­lution of this, and indeed all other Cases of this kind, I refer to Dr. B [...]nnet's excellent Abridgement of the Lon­don Cases, p. 267. &c.

[Page 43]And now I am upon this Subject, I will take occa­sion once for all, to vindicate my Self and Brethren, from the Imputation of the heinous Sin of Schism, which this Man has the Assurance to charge us with, in going over from the Way of these Churches, into the Unity of the established, pure and primitive Church of England. — P. 34 he says, You had a general Peace in your Churches, till we made a causeless Defection from you. — To which I answer. — First, As to your gene­ral Peace, GOD knows, there was little enough of it, and indeed, how impossible it was, or is, for you to subsist peaceably under such a meer shadow of Eccle­siastical Government as you have among you, which from the Nature and Conduct of it, we saw, and your own sad experience finds, to be sinking more and more every Day, into what will eventually prove little bet­ter than none at all. — And as to what Disturbance has followed upon our retiring into the Church, it has not been owing to that, any otherwise than as a meer innocent Occasion, but rather to the bitter Spirit wherewith some People, without any good Reason, are too much disposed to treat the Church, and oppose the Growth of it: I may however say, that we had in these Parts generally, a tolerable good peaceable Tem­per between the Church and Meetings, till this busy Stranger interloped among us; (if I may give him his own Expression,) and has besides not only been the Occasion of Disturbance where he is, but also assisted in setting up a Faction in another Place, in opposition to what Constitution you have, and the general Sense of your own Ministers: On the other hand, I am hold to say, That we [...] the Church have been very tender of med­ling in any thing that should rend to make disturbance among you, and your Disturbances have been much greater in places where the Church never came, than where it is; and have therefore never been owing to us, but to the weakness and in [...] of your own Constitution and to the wrong [...] Church-Government [Page 44] that generally prevail among you, as might easily be demonstrated.

Secondly, Whereas he would aggravate our Offence in that as he pretends, we have broken in upon your Establishment: As to this, I have already proved from the Lords Justices Letter abovementioned, that you have not any regular Establishment at all: And therefore we have, at least, as much Right to assert and promote the Church of England here, as you have to assert and maintain the contrary, [...]upposing they were both up­on a level in other Respects, which I have proved they are not. But pray, with what face can this be ob [...]ected against us by those who act upon Principles which first occasioned the severation in England, from an ex­cellent Church which was regularly established? And I desire to know, why it is not at least as law­ful to set up the Church of England, side by side with the Churches of the [...]e Countrys, as it was for our [...]re-fathers to set up, what they called Churches, in [...]ition to the established Church; and this espe­cially,

Thirdly, Since our Defection was not caus [...]less, and it is not true what he says, p 35. that I own you are Right in the Essentials of Religion. I said in most of them, not all, as this Assertion of his seems to im­port: And tho he says, I dare not, I assure him I dare, and do assert, and think I have abundantly proved (in my two Letters, printed with, Eleutherius Enerva­tus, or the Answer to the Divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination, as well as in the Letter he pretends to Answer, but makes no Reply to, on this Head: I say, I do assert and have proved,) that your Administration, especially in the Point of Church Government, is disagreeable to the Primitive Institution, and that you have grievously erred in casting off the original Government which Christ, or at least his Apostles, under the guidance of his Spirit, established in the Order of Bishops, as superior to [Page 45] Presbyters, in the present Sense of these Words.— He pretends indeed, p. 33. that what I alledge has been answered over and over again: — But this I again deny; and maintain, that the Arguments, in the Light wherein I set them, have never, yet been attempted to be answered.— I put the Case of Episcopacy at the lowest, and produced, at least, as good Evidence for it in Scripture, as you have for Infant-Baptism and the First-Day Sabbath, and give, at least, as good An­swers to your Objections from Scripture, as you can do to the Ana-Baptists in those Controversies: And to ascertain my self, that I am right in interpre­ting the Scriptures on the side of Episcopacy, I use exactly the same Method of Reasoning, as my Anta­gonists do in the Cases of Infant Baptism and the First Day, viz By appealing to the ancient Facts of the Primitive Church, and shew clearly that there is as much, nay more Evidence of the Fact, that the Epis­copal Government did universally obtain from the be­ginning in the Primitive Church, than they can produce for Infant Baptism and the First Day: So that they must either own they are inconsistent with them­selves, or give up Infant Baptism and the First Day, upon the same Foot as they declare against Episco­pacy.

This, perhaps, is the Reason why this Man does not undertake to Answer what I say on this Head, because he knows he has taken the same course in pleading the Cause of the first Day Sabbath, as I have taken in the Cause of Episcopacy; and he must be very render on this head lest he destroy his own Cause: For neither he nor any Man alive, can give any Rea­son, why the Facts of the Primitive Church, should not as well be appealed to, for the justification of our interpreting the Scriptures, on the side of Episcopacy, as of Infant Baptism, or the first Day: And I have in my Letters abovementioned, produced, at least as good Evidence, both from Scriptures and Antiquity, for [Page 46] Episcopacy, as he has for the Sabbath, or my other Antag [...]nis [...] [...] Baptism. — Now I would ask him, or either of them, (whether if the Country had been generally Seventh-Day Baptists, nay, suppose them established too,) they would not have thought it their Duty, and that they would have been sufficiently clear of the Guilt of Schism, if they had set up for Infant Baptism, and the first Day, in opposition to the general Sense of the Country? And sincerely, I declare, I am fully persuaded, and have clearly pro­ved, that Episcopacy is at least as much an Essential or Fundamental in Religion, as Infant Baptism, or the first Day Sabbath. — Besides, I can't but think, I have also fully proved, that it is a real Duty en­joyned in the Gospel, to read the Scriptures in Pub­lic, and use the Lord's Prayer, and this, this very Man also confesses, p. 35, 37. tho' he lives in the Neg­lect of them, and finds as much fault with you on these Accounts as I do: Not to mention those other things, that I proved from Scripture to be wanting a­mong you. — Now is it as justifiable a Cause of Separation, to be in a state, where some necessary things are wanting, and evident Duties not allowed to be done, as where some unlawful thing are requi­red; and seeing this was our Case, and we could not proceed with an unreproaching Conscience, for want of a regular Commission to act in Christs Name, with what pretense of Justice can he charge us with Schism.

I will further add on this head, that my Departure from you, my Brethren, has never been attended with a Spirit of Severity, Censoriousness or Uncharitable­ness towards you, much less with railing against you, as he again injuriously Charges, p 35. I have in­deed always insisted on what I take to be the Truth as it is in Jesus, but I have ever done it, in the Sp [...]rit of Meek­ness. Am I therefore become your Enemy, because I tell you [Page 47] the Truth? Gal. 4.16. Why should it be thought so? I have ever said, that I charitably believe, you gene­rally mean well, and endeavour to do your Duty, and please GOD in the Way you are in according to what Light you have, nor have I ever taken upon me to judge you as insincere, but only to judge for my Self, and act for my Self, according to the best of my Light and Ability. I must indeed own, that as I am fully persuaded upon the strictest Examination I can make, and with a most solicitous Concern not to be deceived my Self nor impose upon others, that I am in the Right in the Principles I have embraced, and the Choice I have made, so I am very desirous others should think with me, which is what ought and will be the Case with every one that loves his Neighbour as him­self: But I can sincerely say, I never have used, nor do I desire to use, any other Methods for influencing others to think with me, than friendly, calm and dispassio­nate Reasoning, heartily willing that every one should think for himself, and judge for himself, as I have done; and heartily endeavour that every thing I sug­gest, either to my self or others, should turn to, and issue in some good Practical Purpose, which may tend to make us wiser and better; more virtuous and holy here, and happy hereafter: And sure I am, neither Truth nor Right can ever much suffer under such a Management, nor can I think, that any thing can by this Means be promoted that tends to damnifie the moral or political, the civil or religious, the temporal or eternal Interests of Mankind; all which are certainly, at least as well, provided for in the Church of England, as any other Church this Day upon the face of the Earth. — And I must do my self that Justice, as to say, that I should even abhor my self, if I had the least Suspicion that I lived to any mischievous Purposes, or that any thing I said or did, had any tendency to the real Damage of my dear Country; and that I have as hearty a good Will to it, and as solicitous a Concern [Page 48] for its Welfare, in every thing wherein it's true In­terest consists, as any one that ever was bred or born in it; And it would be hard indeed if I should not have as much at least, as one that is but a Stran­ger in it. If in any thing I am mistaken, (as we are all liable to mistakes,) I assure you, as far I can know my Self, my Mistakes are involuntary, and there­fore pardonable; they are my unhappiness and not my fault.

But whatever charitable Opinion I willingly en­tertain of your Sincerity, on which Account I also hope for your Forgiveness if you are in an Error: yet this cannot alter my Opinion of those Things wherein I think you so: Things are of an inflexible Nature, they are what they are, let our Apprehen­sions of them be what they will; And therefore as no Error is really in it self the less, whatever cha­ritable Opinion we entertain of the Persons involved in it, and it is not a matter of Indifferency which fide we are of; so it deeply concerns every one to see to it what the Grounds of his Perswasions are, and that it is really Truth at the bottom on which he stands.— There are a certain Number of Truths and Duties which our Blessed Saviour and his Apo­stles have made necessary to be believed and done, and therefore he is really on the side of (what is cal­led) Heresy that denys and rejects any of them, tho' according to St. Austin's say, A Man may not be guilty of formal Heresy who does s [...] provided it be thro' meer Weakness, and involuntary Ignorance and Mistake, and not from a Spirit of Self-Conceit, Faction, Obstinacy and [...].— In like manner, as there are really certain Reasons that will render it not only lawful, but a Duty for a [Page 49] Man to set up in opposition to the Government he is under, and separate from his Christian Brethren among whom he dwells; so on the other hand, it must be owned, that there are groundless Pretenses for Se­paration, upon which if a Man separates, he is really i [...] a state of Schism, tho he may not be formally guilty of this Crime, because he may be involuntarily mistaken, and not conducted under the influence of Worldly Motives, and with a conceited, obstinate, factious and schismatical Temper; which to do is certainly a most heinous Sin, and was ever accounted a Crime of the deepest die. — It therefore vastly concerns every one to see to it, that the Reasons upon which his O­pinion and Conduct subsists, be such as will bear the Test of a most exact and careful Examination, and that, whatever they be, he do scrupulously and con­scientiously endeavour to be ever under the influence of a truly Christian Temper, a Spirit of Humility, Meekness Charity and universal Obedience. — What my Reasons were, I gave you briefly before, and have been now again just mentioning, and it is my business in the next place to defend them against this sour-tempered, and most unfair dealer in Contro­versy.

1. My first Reason against you was, that you are destitute of the Episcopal Government, which was at first appointed and established in the Primitive Church, and continued down for 1500 Years, and is still, by GOD's Goodness continued and established in our Nation and Mother Country, as well as in several o­ther Protestant Countries. — And here I gave you a short Abridgment of the Scripture Evidences for Episcopacy, from the Nature of a Gospel particular Church, as plainly consisting of several Congregation, with each an Elder at the Head of it, and all united under One chief Pastor, such as we now call a Bishop; of all which I gave Instances in the Churches of Ephisus [Page 50] and Crete, and in the Persons of Timothy, Titus, and the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, confirmed by the universal Facts of the Primitive Church: To all which, as I have said, he makes no Reply; and for a further Vindication of the Episcopal Government, I refer you to my Letters above-mentioned, printed with the Elutherius Enervatus, and the other Answer to the Divine Right of Presbyterian Ordination, but especially to Bp Potter on Church Government, and the Original Draught of the Primitive Church, and to several others that were never attempted to be answered.— Under this head I told you, that you have utterly forsaken the Scripture Rule, in not Ordaining Deacons, Acts 6.6. and in the Layity's Ordaining Ministers, for which you have no Scripture Rule or Example, but the contrary: This indeed you are generally asham [...]d of, and have long laid aside: But I shewed you, from the original Platform agreed upon in 1649, Chap. 9. it was the ancient allowed Custom of the Country, and has propagated a fundamental Disorder down to this very Day. — Now upon these most weighty Points, which were the chief Objections we have a­gainst you, he has not offered one Word of a Reply; so far is he from being true to the Cause he would be thought to defend.

2. My next Objection was, that the Separation was founded upon an unwarrantable Disobedience to Autho­rity, both in Church and State, contrary to those Tex [...]s, 1 Pet. 2.13. and Heb 13.17. To this he only answers by talking of your Loyalty to King George, which is nothing to the purpose, and against Diocesan Bishops, which I have already answered, and falsly pre­tends that the Missionaries of the Church are forced upon you. — But does not offer one Word to shew wherein the Church requires any thing of you contrary to the Word of GOD, which was the only thing incumb [...]nt on him.

[Page 51]3. As to my third Objection of your being in a state of unjustifiable Separation from the Church; This he makes no Reply to, only would have you believe that this is rather our Case in leaving you to return into the Unity of the Church; as to which, I refer you to what I have said already above, upon this Subject.

4. My fourth Reason was, your not Reading the Holy Scriptures in Public Worship, which I proved it to be your Duty to do, from Luk. 4.6. Acts 13.27. 1 Tim. 4.13. And as to this he intirely falls in with me, and says your Confession of Faith requires it; if so, I am sorry you are so inconsistent with your selves as not to practice it: And I hope you will take the Hint from this able Defender of your Cause, and hereafter reform this gross Neglect.

If you profess it to be your Faith, that the publick Reading the Scriptures is a part of Divine Worship, consider I beseech you, what St. James says, ch 4.17. To him that knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is Sin; and a greater than He hath said, That Servant that knew his Lord's Will, but did it not, shall be beaten with many Stripes, Luk. 12.47. — What, my Brethren, can tempt you to shuffle out this Ordinance of GOD, but the love of a long extempore Prayer and Sermon? And if this be not transgressing the Commandments of GOD for the Inventions of Men, I know not what is, Mark 7.7. And I hope you will not be angry with me for telling you some of your Mistakes, when your own Publick Confession of Faith condemns you, as well as the Presbyterian Directory, and the Practice of, not only the Church of England, and all other Pro­testant Churches, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian; and when your great Advocate himself condemns you. — Now tho' he perfectly agrees with me, that the Scriptures ought to be read in Public Worship, yet he can't forbear spitting out some of his Venom [...]ere, [Page 52] p. 35. And notwithstanding he had mentioned it before, p. 9. he falsly represents us as denying to Read some of the Canon, and imposing some of the Apocrypha.— Now, I know his meaning is, that we don't read some part of the Canon for publick Lessons: But why must this be abusively represented to the Under­standing of the vulgar, as tho' we forbid some part of the Scriptures to be read at all. But as to reading them in Public, it is true we are not required by the Church, (nor is there any Reason, why we should) to read all the Parts of Scripture in the Time of Publick Worship; and I believe any Body would think it very abusive to fault any Church for not reading many parts of it, such as hard Names of Pla­ces, Genealogies, and very obscure Prophesies, and the like: Such Parts of it, tho' on many Occasions, they are very useful, yet it is no disrepect to them to say that they are less edifying to the common People, than the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.— But as to the Apocrypha, it is only some part of it that is to be read, and we are not required to read one Syllable of it on the Lord's-Day, tho' if we were, it would be much more edifying than any thing this great Preacher could offer. — Now I will put it to your own Consciences, do you really think that such Reasons as these will justify a Separation from the Church Established in our Nation, viz. Because they don't read hard Names and ob­scure Prophesies in Publick on the Lord's Day, and because they read some excellent parts of the Apo­crypha, (tho' not as canonical Scripture,) on Week-Days?

5. I told you it appeared to me a great Duty commanded by Christ Luke 11.2. Mat. 6.9. to use the Lord's Prayer in Public Worship. — Upon this head he flys in your Faces, and says, you say that un­less it be unlawful to obey the express Command of Christ, it [Page 53] is lawful to use these Words, p. 37. Pray, Brethren mark well his Words, he says unless it be unlawful to obey the express Command of Christ, Luke 11.2. To do what? Why, to say, Our Father, &c. i. e. to use this Form which our Lord taught his Disciples. Very well, you see he allows it to be an express Command to use it; but then, what a strange Expression is this; unless it be unlawful to obey an express Command, it is law­ful to use it: What? Is it only barely lawful to obey an express Command? Certainly I should have tho't it a great Duty to obey an express Command of Christ: And yet he, (strangely inconsistent with himself,) goes to prove that we may lawfully break it; for he pleads that we are not tied by it to the Words, but the Things; as if to pray after this Manner in Matth. 6.9. which might more properly be rendered, to pray thus, did not relate to the Words as well as the Things, and as if Christ did not mean the same here, as in Luke 11.2. where he expressly Commands his Disciples to say, Our Father, &c. But what need I trouble my self to Answer what he says here, and his long String of quibbling impertinent Questions above, when you see he has himself effectually answered, all he has, or can say; for, pray, what business have we to go to questi­oning about it, when we have, as he owns, a plain and express Command before us? I should willingly Answer his Questions as fairly as he pleases, if they were not very unfair ones, and if he had not suffici­ently answered them himself: But indeed it would be beneath a fair well-meaning Man to ask such tri­fling Questions about precise Words, Syllables and Transla­tions: The result of his Queries is, that if we must use the Lord's Prayer at all, we must use it in the very Language wherein Christ delivered it, and with as good Reason he might have said, if we must read the Bible at all, we must read it in the Original. — Truly, I should chuse to use it in the Greek or Hebrew, if the People understood those Languages, but as they don't, I wou [...]d [Page 54] use any good Translation; but indeed, that whole Page i [...] spent for no other purpose, but to raise a dust that you might not see the Truth. I [...] the Truth is, He is as much convinced that it is a Duty to use this Form of Prayer as I am, and you may see here the great Sincerity of this Man, when he [...]ks against the Church, then he says there is no need of using the Lord [...]s Prayer as it is recorded in the Evangelists, but assoon as ever he has turned his Back, and engaged with a Brownist, then he says, there is an express Com­mand to use these Words. — Upon the whole, I would observe, that when a Man speaks against his own Judgment, meerly to please a Party, he had need be very cautious, or else he will, sometimes, open his Mouth so wide, that one may see his very Heart, which will spoil all that he has said.

Indeed I fear many of you quiet your Consciences in the Neglect of the Lord's Prayer, by thinking that you answer the End of Christs Command, by using the Substance of it, tho' in Words of your own Inven­tion: But, I beseech you consider, that the Matter of this Prayer is put by Christ in the most apposite and comprehensive Words possible, and to decline those Words of Christ for Words of our own inventing, is to prefer our own Inventions before the Command of Christ: And can you be so conceited of what you call your Gift [...], as to think you can Word that Prayer better than Christ has done? — Besides, if you lay aside the Words of that Prayer, you are danger of lay­ing, aside some of the Matter of it too — Particularly of that Petition, Forgive us our Trespasses, as we forgive th [...]m that Trespass against us; for in all the time that i [...] frequented your Meetings, I don't remember that ever I heard the Substance of that Petition in your extempore Prayers.— In a Word, the Lord's Prayer is given us to be, as it were, a [...]adge of our Pro­fession, as being the Disciples of Christ, and there­fore [Page 55] it may no more be altered than the Form of Baptism, In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and both of them were ever used by all Chris­tians, as such without variation, from the very be­ginning of Christianity. I will only add, If he un­derstood our Prayer-Book, so well as he pretends, he would be sensible that he is very unfair here, to represent us as using it, not only once, but repeatedly in the same Service; he might know that Morning Prayer is one Service, and the Litany, another, and the Com­munion Service before Sermon, a third, in each of which, as well as in each of the other Offices, we use the Lord's Prayer, according to our Saviour's Command, When ye pray, or, as often as you pray, say, Our Father, &c. — He talks here about your Directory. — Pray what Directory have you for Public Worship? You see the Man conceits himself in Scotland or Ireland all the while, and quite forgets where he is.

6. I found fault with you, That you are destitute of Public Forms of Prayer, which I proved to be the ancient Scripture-Method, from the Examples of David, Solo­mon, Hezekiah, Daniel, our Saviour in John 17. and Mat. 6.9. & 26.44. and the Apostles, Acts 4.24, &c And here also he seems to agree with me, that there should be Public Forms, and says you have not only Public Prayers, but Public Forms of Prayer, p. 37. — Now this is very surprizing to me, as I believe it must to you, for pray where are they? I should be very glad to see them. — I have been told that one did, not long since, solemnly avouch it, that Forms of Prayer were no Prayer at all: And now another tells you, that you have Forms. What this Man means by saying you have Public Forms of Prayer, I can't conceive; It is a Riddle to me: Sure I am, many of your Prayers are miserably without Form, consisting of an odd mix­ture, sometimes addressing GOD, and sometimes the [Page 56] Audience.— However, if, as he says, you have Pub­lic Forms; the Question is, which are best, Yours or Ours: And to make a Judgment of this, I say again, seriously, and without levity, I could be glad some of Yours might be taken in writing as they are delivered, that you might compare them, and then you would be in a Capacity to judge. — Our Worship, as I told you, is, most of it, the pure Word of GOD: We al­ways pray to Him, and praise Him, in those Prayers, that the [...]oly Ghost hath dictated: We use the Lord's Prayer, and several Psalms and Hymns taken from the Scripture, and indeed the whole Book of Psalms once a Month: We read the Scripture, and then pray for every thing we need for Soul or Body, in the best Words and Method that the wisest Men by the ordi­nary Assistance of GOD's Spirit, could contrive, and mostly expressed in Scripture-Language: And if there be any extraordinary Occasions, we have Prayers suited to them: And what can a reasonable Man desire more?— Instead of all this, you have only one or two Extempore Prayers.— Now tho' I don't think that Extempore Prayers, on extraordinary unforeseen Occasions, such as, sudden Calamities ana Disasters, and the like, are unlawful; yet I am sure, to trust the Expressing of all our Desires, and especially in Public Worship, to unpremeditated Words, just as our Invention shall suggest to us at that Time, is such a Rashness as Solomon cautions us against, in Eccl. 5.1, 2. or I know not what Rashness is; which Text I men­tioned in my former Letter, but he was too wise to [...]ake any Notice of it; for he knew it was dangerous meddling with edg'd Tools.

I appeal to you, whether you would not think it [...] gross Rashness in an ordinary Person to make a long Speech to a King or an Honourable Assembly, [...] a Matter of great Importance, in unpremedita­ [...] Words? and whether, if many were equally con­cerned [Page 57] in it, they would not all take Care to be a­greed in it, before it be offered? As our Saviour says, Mat. 18.19. with respect to Prayer, we should be a­greed touching any thing we would ask — Now if this would be your Method in addressing an Earthly Mo­narch, about Worldly Matters: How much more should it be your Method in addressing the great King and Lord of Heaven and Earth, in things that concern your Everlasting Weal? He says you must be agreed in Matter, but not in Words, p. 38.— But pray how can you be agreed in the Matter, when you know no more what that will be, in particular, than what the Words will be? And how can you know what the Matter will be, but by the Words that should ex­press it? You have therefore no other way in this Case, but, as I said, (like the Papists) to have a kind of implicit Faith in your Minister.— This in­deed you might have, if it were as he tells you, p. 39. that such as he, depend upon the Spirit, to teach them how and what to pray, and bring Words to their Minds. This Quakerish Talk I answered in my Letter, where I told you, if this were the meaning of praying by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14.15. you must sing extempore as well as pray extempore.— When therefore we see these Men that are so familiar with the Spirit, sing New Psalms extempore; —When they make no use of Prayer-Books to learn the Art of praying, as I know they do; when there are no foolish, senseless and very unbe­coming Expressions in their Prayers; when no wicked Man, who we know has not the Spirit of Christ, can pray fluently; then perhaps we may begin to think that the Spirit brings to their Minds what to say next upon all Occasions: But till we see these things, we can never believe that the Spirit has so much to do in their Prayers as they would perswade us: — Not but that we own we can't pray acceptably with­out the Assistance of the Spirit of GOD inspiring us with such holy Tempers, Dispositions, Affections and [Page 58] Resolutions as become that holy Duty; but further than these, we can see no sense in this Notion of praying by the Spirit he pleads for. — Upon the whole, it is really a melancholy thing to hear you forever talking of pure Worship, and against the Inven­tions of Men, when at the same time, your Worship is little else but Man's Invention: For pray consider, what have you in your Service, but an extempore Prayer and a Sermon, and these you can't but see, are your Ministers Invention, unless you will say, as some Quakers do, that they are as much the Word of GOD as the Bible: You sing, it is true, two or three Verses of the Psalms, but they are turned into Metre, and this together with the Tunes you use, are but Humane Inventions, and of late date too: And one would think you don't sing as an Act of Worship, for then, sure you would stand up: The Blessing, it is true, is taken from Scripture, but then you have generally something added to it to mend it. This, my Brethren, is your pure Worship, for which you have turned out several Divine Appointments, such as the Lord's Prayer, reading the Scripture, the People's bearing a part, &c. For your further Satis­faction, read, Bp. King's Inventions of Men in the Wor­ship of GOD.

7. Another Thing I told you wherein you appea­red to me to vary from the Scripture-way of Worship, is, That the People do not bear a part in your publick Wor­ship. And here he says, We do allow them all that the Word of God, and the Examples therein, allow them. p. 39. Now would to God this were true, for we desire no more: But alas! What can be more contrary to Truth? for any Man, with but half an Eye, may see that the Word of GOD and the Examples therein, allow and require the People to join their Voices in speak­ing the Public Prayers and Praises: Thus, besides the Texts I mentioned before, see Judges 21.2. The [Page 59] People came to the House of God, and lift up their Voices, and wept sore, and said, O Lord God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, &c. And 2 Chron. 7.2. The People bowed themselves with their Faces to the Ground upon the Pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord, saying, He is Good, for his Mercy endureth forever.— Nehem. 8.6. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the People answered and said, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their Hands and they bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord, with their Faces towards the Ground. Yea, There is an express Command for it, in Psal. 106.48. Let all the People say, Amen. And in like man­ner, in the New-Testament, it is plain from 1 Cor. 14.16. That the unlearned had a vocal part assigned them in the Christian Assemblies, so from Rev 19, 6. To which he made no Reply, and yet had the Courage to charge this Scripture Way of Worship with Confusion.

But let us take a view of his Comment on two Texts that I mentioned to prove this Point; one was Acts 4.24. They lift up their Voice with one accord, and said, &c. Now, says he, it is evident this was a singing Voice: Sure he is a bold Man, thus to contradict the Holy Ghost: The Spirit of GOD says, they said this Prayer: It is no such thing, says J. G. they sung it: Well, Let us see how he proves it? Why, says he, It is evident that part of this Prayer was part of the second Psalm: Here now is Demonstration! Not a Word more to be said! for you know it is impossible to use one Sentence out of the Psalms without Singing. Had this Man ever been at Church, he would have seen this Argument consuted for there we use whole Psalms together without Singing: and I pray does he never use a Sentence taken out of the Psalms in Prayer? and does he always sing his Prayers? — I can't leave this terrible Argument without taking Notice of a flat Contradiction: He had said but the Page before, That the Apostles did not use either David's, or [Page 60] Solomon's or Hezekiah's Prayers, yet here in the very next Page he tells us, that part of this Prayer which the Apostles used was the express Words of the second Psalm, which David composed. This verifies the Proverb, They that tell two Stories, need have a good Me­mory: But it is no wonder a Man should contradict himself that makes bold to contradict his Maker; nor is it any wonder that a Man should plead for un­premeditated Prayers, that Writes without any Pre­meditation or Consideration.

He next falls upon Rom. 15.6. where we are com­manded with one Mind, and one Mouth to glorify our heavenly Father,— And says he, this one Morth is the Ministers Mouth, p. 40. — Very fine! And why not the one Mind the Ministers Mind too? and then the People have nothing at all to do, and may e'en go to Sleep, or go home and leave the Minister to pray for them, for he can do it, according to Mr. J. G's sense, with one Mind and one Mouth, as well without them as with them: Now we take it, that as the one Mind signifies the Minds of all the Congregation, united in thinking the same thing, so the one Mouth means the Mouths of all the Congregation, as it were with one Voice saying the same thing. — He then propunds two or three childish Questions: One is, Why don't your People joyn in reading the Lessons, i. e. Chapters, as well as the Psalms? I answer, because when other Parts of the Scripture are read, GOD is therein speaking to the People, and therefore it is proper for the Minister alone to read it, as Ezra did, in Neh. 8.3. And it was but a little before he had said, that in Scripture-times, One read Moses and the Prophets, and all the People did not read with an audible Voice, in a most confused manner, as if we did so: Whereas we in this conform exactly to the Scripture Pattern: But now he has forgot himself, and asks why don't the People read a part of the Lessons? — But on [Page 61] the other hand, the Psalms are Prayers and Praises, or Addresses to GOD, and therefore all our People joyn in saying and singing them. — He next asks, By what Rule do Women thus speak in the Church? I an­swer, pray by what Rule do Women sing in your Meetings? There is as good warrant for one as the other, 1 Cor. 11.5. where the Apostle speaks of Wo­men praying and prophesying, or singing▪ as Mr. Mead justly interprets it. Tho' the Apostle forbad them to teach or usurp Authority over the Man, 1. Tim. 2 12. Yet he never forbad them to joyn with the Congre­gation in praying and praising GOD. Now I hope these Difficulties are removed, and our Worship wholly cleared from Confusion.

And now I am on this head of the Peoples part in Public Worship, I will vindicate what I alledged to prove it their Duty to say Amen vocally: I produced several Texts out of both the Old and New Testa­ment, which are as full to the purpose as Words can be, some of which I mentioned above. Now observe how easily he turns them off: —He says, p. 42. My multiplied Quotations prove no more than that the People should say Amen privately. I confess, I am much at a loss to know what he means by saying Amen privately, unless it be to say Amen silently, i. e. to speak and at the same time say nothing at all: This is quite as good as the Quakers silent Meetings, which they say are most edifying. But I intreat you to consider, That to assent to a Public Prayer in my Heart is one thing, and openly to testifie this Assent by saying Amen is another, and that GOD requires the latter as well as the former. — It is a dangerous thing to make a Nose of Wax of the Scripture, as he does on this, and many other Subjects; thus when GOD requires us to confess with the Mouth, as well as to believe with the Heart, Rom. 10.9, 10. to say Amen as well as to think it, for a poor silly Mortal to start up and say, it is Confusion, and it is more decent to say [Page 62] it privately, &c. How intolerably presuming is this? If this Method will do, the Quakers must never be condemned for rejecting outward Baptism, and the outward Lord's Supper, so long as they can say they receive them inwardly. — Lastly, Whereas he re­presents us here as saying Amen twenty or thirty Times in reading the same Prayers. — I pray what People do so? I am sure the Church of England say Amen but once to one Prayer. — To use his own Words, How hateful are such slanderous Insinuation? — Upon the whole, I can't but think, Brethren, you had but a hard Bargain of it, when you were persuaded to give up your most valuable ancient Scripture Privilege of bearing a vocal part of the Public Prayers and Praises, and instead thereof are allowed the Liberty of holding up your Hand to Vote in every trifling Affair of Church Discipline: I would therefore wish you to resume that your ancient Privilege again.

8. Another thing wherein you appeared to me to have gone off from Scripture Rule and Example, was your Neglect of bodily Worship, which I proved to be your Duty from 1 Cor. 6.20. where we are required to glorifie GOD with our Bodies, as well as our Spirits. Particularly I proved Kneeling in your Prayers and other Services to be your Duty from the Command, Psal. 95.6. and the Apostles Example in Acts 20.36. nay, Christ himself Kneeled, Luk. 22.41. To this he makes no Reply, only gives an ill-natured Flout, which deserves no notice. — I mentioned Bowing at the Name of Jesus, as a proper Token of our Submission to Jesus of Nazareth, as our Lord and King, our Saviour and our GOD, in opposition to the Arian and Socinian Heresies, and as being suffi­ciently justified to be lawful from Phil. 2.10. His only business in Answer to this, was to prove that it is inexpedient or unlawful: Instead of which he pre­tends to a little Greek, and says it might be rendered [Page 63] in the Name, But I say if it was so rendered, it would not be so justly rendered as it is now, and for this I appeal to the Critics, and to the Scope of the Apostle in that Context. As for his Questions that follow, about doing it but once, and to the East, they are meer Quibbles, and I am not at all concerned to An­swer them, if they deserved any Notice, as indeed they do not. — I will only say, that it is then most proper to express our Adoration of him when we confess our Faith in him, and that we do in all other parts of our Worship, offer up our Addresses to GOD in the Name of Jesus Christ, as well as you.

But the most material Objection you have against us on this head is our Kneeling at the Sacrament; and as to this, I gave you as briefly as I could, the Reasons of our Practice: One Reason I gave you was this, viz. that the Lord's Supper is the most solemn Act of Worship that we can perform, and Kneeling is the proper and Scripture Posture of Worship. — To which this Remarker makes no reply at all: And the Reason doubtless was, because he was not able, for he promised at first setting out, that he would do his ut­most, p. 2. — And because you commonly think that Christ gave this Sacrament to his Apostles, Sitting, I observed to you, that this was a mistake, for the Ta­ble posture in Christ's Time was Leaning; and there­fore in Sitting at it, you can't pretend to conform to the manner of the first Institution. This also he takes no Notice of; for Answering was not his Design, but Quibbling.

He indeed tells us that it was first administred in a Table-Posture, but dare not tell what Table-Posture he means, for that would have spoiled all: nor does he vouchsafe to give us the least Proof of this bold Assertion; for altho' it be easy to affirm, yet it is im­possible to prove that it was first administred in any [Page 64] Table-Posture: And yet he immediately brings a most terrible Charge against me as being guilty of a most horrid Reflection on the Lord Jesus Christ, p. 41. because I said▪ how scandalously indecent is it to receive this Seal of our Pardon, sitting?— But why so hasty, Friend? What makes you think it a most horrid Reflection on our Lord? This is, in effect, to charge me with Blasphemy!— Do you really think it as horrid a Reflection, as that of the Pharisees, who said our Saviour had a Devil? Or was there never a Jew, Turk or Pagan, that cast a more horrid Reflection on Christ? Why then, in the superlative Degree?— However, Brethren, being arraigned at your Bar for no less a Crime than Blasphem [...], which is what must be implyed in most horridly reflecting on Christ, I plead not Guilty; and to acquit my self, I will prove, That it is scandalously indecent to receive the Seal of our Pardon, Sitting; and that to say so, is no horrid Re­flection on our Saviour, because it does not appear that he gave it to his Disciples, Sitting.

As to the first of these Propositions I argue thus: It is a Rule allowed by all; and the Counterpart of it this very Man pretends to, That Those Commands in the Decalogue, which forbid a Sin, do at the same Time re­quire the Contrary Duty: Thus when the first Command­ment forbids us to acknowledge any false Gods, it does oblige us to acknowledge the True God: So when the second Commandment forbids us to bow down to false Gods and serve them; it obliges us to practise the contrary Duties in our Addresses to the true GOD, viz. to bow down to Him and serve Him: i e. To worship Him both with our Bodies and Minds.—Therefore as he that either bows or kneels, or uses any other Posture of Reverence to a graven Image, breaks the second Commandment, so does he who in the most solemn Act of Worship, (such as receiving the Lord's-Supper,) refuses to use some such Posture of [Page 65] Worship to GOD: for it is a Contempt of GOD to address his Infinite Majesty without some Posture of Adoration, as well as a Sin to kneel to an Image, tho' without praying to it, as the Papists pretend to do: The one is Idolatry, the other Sacrilege; for the Reason why we are forbid to bow down to an Idol, is because it is an Act of Worship due to GOD, and whether we give to an Image what is due to GOD, or refuse to pay it to Him, we are equally Robbers of GOD, we deny Him His Honour, and are guilty of Sacrilege.— I beseech you, my Brethren, consider this without Prejudice: I know you abhor Idolatry; pray do not commit Sacrilege, Rom. 2.22. — I before urged this positive Command to you, from Psal. 95.6. O come let us Worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. Now if ever we would bow our Knees to our Maker, we ought, surely, to do it then, when we come to Him in the nearest Approaches that we are capable of in this World, and with the highest Sense of Gratitude that our Son's can admit of, to remember and adore Him for the most astonishing Instance of Love that could be bestowed on us, even giving his own Son to die for us: Certainly if it be not our Duty to kneel before GOD on this most solemn Occasion, it is hard to say when we are obliged to it: And he that can so far disregard this positive Command of GOD, as to sit down in this nearest and most solemn Approach to him, no doubt but he may with as good Reason sit in every other part of Wor­ship, and so never bow his Knee to GOD, or give Him any Bodily Worship, thro' the whole Course of his Life.

And as Sitting at the Lord's Table is a Transgression of the Positive Law of GOD; so it is likewise con­trary to all the Rules of Decency among Men: for this I appeal to any Man's Conscience: Suppose that for some grievous Crime you were justly condemned to die, and when you were come to the Place of Ex­ecution, [Page 66] the King being present, should hold out a Pardon to you; I ask in what Posture would you receive it? Would you sit on your back-side and take it? No, certainly, you would fall on your Knees with the deepest Gratitude:— And will you be more unmannerly to GOD than towards Man? — You know that in the Lord's Supper, the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Christ, whose Death is the alone Foundation of our Pardon: And as the Minister delivers you this holy Bread and Wine, so GOD at the same Time gives you Christ, and the Blessings He has purchased. — Now does not even Nature teach (as St. Paul says in another Case,) that it is a Shame to receive our Saviour, Sitting, as tho' we were his Companions rather than his Subjects: But I proved before, that we are to consider our Saviour now as being in a different Capacity from what he was while on Earth: Then he was in the Form of a Servant, but Now He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and GOD hath commanded even His Angels to worship Him, Heb. 1.6. Rev. 19.16. How much more is it a Duty incumbent on us sinful Mortals? No says this Man, He allows us to be as free and in­timate with Him as ever, p. 41. Now I would ask, whether this does not look something like a Reflecti­on on Christ? The Pope indeed conceiting himself Christ's Vicar, looks upon it as his Privilege to sit at the Sacrament; and pray consider, whether it does not look like Symbolizing with him for you to do so? —I add lastly, on this Head, — We find St. Paul severely reproved the Corinthians for their irrevence in receiving the Sacrament, and threatned them with Damnation for their not discerning the Lord's Body, 1 Cor. 11.29. i. e. Their not making a difference between the Lord's Table and their own, but receiving it as common Food: —Now he that sits at the Lord's Table, as to his outward Deportment, makes no Difference between the Lord's Table & his own; he makes no Dis­tinction [Page 67] between the Body and Blood of Christ and Common Food.

It is pleaded on your side, That if Christ gave this Sacrament to His Apostles, Sitting, then it is lawful at least, for us so to receive it.— I answer, It is a great Mistake to think that Christ gave it to his Disciples, Sitting: For every Man that has but the smallest Ac­quaintance with the Original, and the Customs of those Times, must know that they did not sit down as we do now, but lay down on Couches, so that their Feet came behind each other, and they leaned on each others Breast, John 21.20. — Well, but say you, this was a Table-Posture, — I answer, We have no Reason to think that Christ gave this Sacrament to his Disciples while they continued in this Posture. There is not the least Intimation of any such thing in either of the Evangelists, but it is highly probable that they changed their Posture, before they received it. — Pray take your Pibles, and turn to Matth. 26.26. Mark 14.22. Luke 22.19. We there find that after they had eaten the Supper of unleavened Bread, which was called the Passover, (but not the Paschal Lamb, for that was not killed till the next Day, and that by the Priest at the Temple,) I say, after this Supper was over, Christ took Bread, and gave Thanks and Blessed it: Now you cannot think, that the Apostles conti­nued in that Posture, while Christ was giving Thanks, and Blessing or Praying: — If you think they did so, Why don't you sit still or lie down, while your Minister is praying over the Bread and Wine? No, you think they rose up and put themselves into a worshipping Posture, or else how dare you do so? So that it is plain, and your own Practice shews you believe that neither Christ nor his Disciples did con­tinue in a Table-Posture, but put themselves into a Worshipping-Posture, when this Sacrament was in­stituted.—If you say. None of the Evangelists take No­tice of their rising up from the Table to Pray and give [Page 68] Thanks, — I answer, neither was there any need of it, since the change of Action from eating to gi­ving Thanks, does sufficiently signifie and infer a Change of Posture. Neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke mention Christ's Changing his Posture, from the Time that they first sat down that Evening, till they arose to go into the Garden, and yet it is certain that they did rise up and sit down again after Supper, John 13 4. &c. — Now if Christ and his Apostles did rise to pray over the Bread and Wine, (which you must own, or condemn your selves,) then pray tell me where you find that they sat down again to receive it after it was consecrated? If Mr. J. G. can do this, then I will own my Guilt, but till this be done, which I am sure no Man can do that has not another Bible than I have, I must look on him as a false Accuser. — I intreat you therefore, my Bre­thren, no longer to entertain that Notion, which has no foundation in the Bible, that Christ gave this Sacrament to his Disciples, sitting; nor is there one Instance in all that holy Book, of one good Man that Worshipped GOD, in that indecent Posture, and it is contrary to many express Commands that injoyn Bodily Worship, as I shewed you before.

But Mr. J. G. tells you that kneeling at the Sacrament had its rise from those that adore the Elements. I answer, It is true he says so, and that is all: Intreat him in his next to prove it, and a great many more untruths that he has confidently asserted. — I am sure Mr. Bingham in his Orig. Eccles. l. 15. makes it evident, That the Primitive Church never used the Posture of Sitting at the Sacrament, and that they always used a Posture of Adoration, either Standing or Kneeling. He quotes among others St. Cyril, whose Words are these, ‘Approach, says he, not rudely, but bowing thy self, and in a Posture of Worship and Adora­tion, saying Amen. Now St. Cyril lived in the Year 350, whereas Transubstantiation and Adoring the [Page 69] Elements, came not into the Church till about 1200 as Mr. Dalice proves. So that an adoring Posture was certainly used, at least above 800 Years, be­fore Transubstantiation; so far from Truth is what he here asserts! — But supposing, (not granting,) that it was so, does that make it unlawful for those to kneel that have no design or thought of adoring the Elements? Pray look into our Rubric in the end of the Communion-Service; and then charge us with adoring the Elements if you can. And why is it not as good to symbolize with the Papists in using a reverent Posture, as with the Arians or Socinians in an irreverent one. The Arians, or rather Socinians, who deny Christ's Divinity, first brought in that in­decent Practice of Sitting at the Lord's Supper, be­cause they thought it unlawful to worship Christ: I don't desire you to take this upon my bare Word, as he does what he says, but I will give you the very Words of the Protestant Church in Poland: The Words of their genera [...] Synod are these, — ‘Those traiterous Fugitives from us to Arianism, were the first Authors among us of Sitting at the Lord's Table, contrary to the Rites used in all the Refor­med Churches throughout Europe; we therefore reject this Ceremony as indecent and irreligious.’ — You see they thought Sitting indecent and ir­religious as well as the Church of England, and they tell us it was not used by any Protestant Church in their Time. This Synod was held in the Year, 1578. — And now I hope I have said enough to convince you, if Reason or Scripture will convince you, That it is a scandalous us Indecency to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Sitting.

The last Thing I objected against you, was your teaching Children ‘That GOD has foreordained whatsoever comes to pa [...]s.’ For I say, since Sin has come to pass, it seems clear to me that you must [Page 70] herein teach them that GOD has foreordained i. e. willed, Sin, &c. I added, That your Doctrine of Ab­solute Reprobation seemed to me directly inconsistent with what GOD declares with an Oath, in Ezek 33.11. that he hath no Pleasure in the Death of him that dieth. Chap. 18.32. &c Now upon this Head he says, p. 42. That I call the Truths of GOD, Error, and when he has done, he in effect gives th [...]m up him­self, and pretends to show that you do not teach that GOD has foreordained Sin; tho' it has come to pass, and that you do not hold Absolute Repro­bation. — What an inconsistent Man is this? — He then undertakes to explain what it is you do hold: And I wish you to consider carefully what he says, and see whether you can make Sense of it, or indeed any thing, Sense or Nonsence. — In order to show that tho' Sin has come to pass, and tho' GOD has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; yet he hath not foreordained Sin, he says, I know little, or use little Phi­losophy, as well as Divinity: And to shew his own great Learning, he adds, (for this is what is imply­ed in his Questions,) That Sin has not so much as any Physical Goodness in it: That there is nothing positive in it: That it is a meer negation of Rectitude: A meer non-En­tity: And that GOD's Works about Sin, are a willing Per­mission of it, and a wise and holy Gubernation, but no ac­tual Efficiency into the real Anomy thereof. p. 42.43. — And now he thinks he has made it as clear as the Sun. — I can't imagin what Notions you have when you read these wonderful plain Passages. — By the Physical Goodness of Sin, indeed, you may pos­sibly think he means whether it be good Physic or not? But what you can think he means by its being a non-Entity, by the Gubernation of it, and no actual Eff [...]ciency into it, and the Anomy of it, it is quite beyond me to imagin. — However, I will endeavour to explain it to you, as well as I can, in plain English, that you may see what fine Doctrine he reaches, when [Page 71] it comes out of the Clouds and thick Darkness, un­der which he is obliged to conceal it.

When he says, Sin is only a Negation, a meer Non-Entity, the true meaning of it is, That it is not; that, properly speaking, it has no Being, or there is nothing in it; for non-Entity is as much as to say not-Being: And so he has made a very harmless Business of it — This is delicate Philosophy! and fine Divinity! — It was by the same sort of Philosophy, that some Philosophers of old, undertook to prove that Pain is no Evil, and others, that there is no such Thing as Motion in Nature; and by the same sort of Philosophy, some more modern Philosophers taught, That it is better to be exquisited, and forever Miserable, than not to be: and it is by the same kind of Philosophy, that some In­fidels of these Times undertake to prove, That there is no such Thing as Liberty of acting, either in GOD or Man.— I confess, I am not ignorant either of this Philosophy, or Divinity, tho' GOD forbid I should use any of it: No, my Brethren, this an Instance of that vain Philosophy, that Science falsly so called, that St. Paul bids you beware of, Col. 2.8. 1 Tim. 6.20. And I earnestly exhort you with him, to beware of it, and of the pernicious Notions it tends to ensnare and in­tangle you in: The Doctrines of the Gospel are plain and easy, and level to ordinary Capacities: They don't need this Cobweb-Philosophy to be em­ployed about them: It only confounds them, and ren­ders obscure the plainest Things in the World: Take heed therefore that ye be not led away by them from the Plainess and Simplicity of the Gospel: He would be thought to be a Paulonite, as he expresses it, and pre­tends the Church of England teaches as he does; but I am sure, Neither St. Paul, nor the Church of Eng­land teach any such Doctrine as he does here, and which he has not one Text to justify: Where, I pray, [Page 72] do St. Paul, or the Church of England teach that Sin is a meer Negation, and only a Non-Entity, and has nothing positive in it, &c.? — If it were nothing but a meer Negative, Sinners might be tempted to hope they shall Escape any other Punishment than the meer Negation or Denial of Happiness; but you may de­pend upon it, that without Repentance it will finally meet with positive Punishment even exquisite Pain [...] Torment.— Besides, Is there not a positive Perve [...]ness, Stubborness and Wilfulness of Opposition [...] Hearts and Lives of wicked Men to the Will of GOD, (Rom. 8.7.) as well as an indolent Inactivity in neg­lecting to obey it? And are there not positive Transgressions of negative Precepts or Prohibitions, as well as negative Omissions of positive Duties? — The Truth is — He does by this Doctrine confound the very Assembly's Catechism, which it was his Business to defend, for that defines Sin to be, not only, a want of Conformity unto, (which is the negative part of it) but also a Transgression of the Law of GOD, which is the positive part of it.— However, whether according to his Metaphsics, it be Entity or Non-En­tity, be it negative or positive, I am sure none can de­ny, that it hath, properly speaking come to pass; and therefore, in a Word, so sure as Sinners are consci­ous to themselves of an inward Aversion to Holiness, and Pleasure in sinful Practices, and of a violent, habitual, impetuous Tendency towards the commission of them; so sure as you see with your Eyes, and hear with your Ears, & understand with your Hearts, that there are such Things, as Murthers, Thefts, Op­pression, Lying, Swearing, Cursing, &c so sure Sin has, properly Speaking, a Being in the World; and so sure it is that GOD could not ordain or will it, and therefore he has not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

[Page 73]Indeed he durst not speak out and own the Con­clusion, tho' it be so evidently contained in the Pre­mises; and therefore he says, what GOD does about Sin, is, a willing Permission of it: That is, (in plain English,) tho' GOD does not decree Sin, yet he is very willing it should be, because, otherwise, (according to his Doctrine,) he could not get Glory to his Jus­tice in the Punishment of it: But this is not a whit better than to say He Decreed it; for he that Wills the End, must Will the Means. — To permit Sin, (especially according to his Metaphysical Explication of it,) may seem too strong an Expression; but if all that is meant by it were, that GOD does not positively interpose to hinder it: This we allow; because so to do would be to alter his own Workmanship, by lay­ing a Necessity upon those Creatures which he has made to act freely, and this he could not do, con­sistent with the Law of their Nature which he has made, i. e. he could not wisely do it, at least in the ordinary Course of Things; and because to necessi­tate them to good or bad, would be to destroy the very being of Duty or Sin, of Virtue or Vice, since the very Essence or Nature of Virtue or Duty con­sists in the free and willing Obedience, and of Vice or Sin, in the free and wilful Disobedience to the Law of GOD. — The other of GOD's Works about Sin, he says, is the Gubernation, i. e. the Government of it: — This is an odd Expression: However I shall not contend with him about it, provided what he means by it, is only, that GOD over-rules the Sins and Follies of Men in such a Manner as to bring Good out of Evil, and make them turn to the ad­vancing of his own Ends in the Government of the World: — This I own he may do, without do­ing any thing Himself that shall necessitate them to Sin: Which I suppose, is what he means by His having no actual Efficiency into the real Anomy thereof: [Page 74] But I can't help observing here, what an odd way of Speaking it is to talk of the Anomy of Sin: It is as much as to say the Sin of Sin, for Anomy is only a Greek Word, by which the same Thing is meant, as we mean by the English Word Sin, 1 John 3.4. To speak thus, therefore, it is to distinguish where there is no difference, which is what obscures and confounds that which otherwise would be plain and intelligible; as tho' GOD might necessitate the Action, which is Sin▪ without having to do in the depravity of it, which really implys a Contradiction.

As to the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, this he does, in effect, give up: For he says, p. 43. GOD did not ordain any Creature to absolute Damnation, but [...]o Dam­nation for Sin. And p. 44. that you do not teach that GOD hath Decreed the absolute Damnation of any Man. — Now if it be thus, it is very well, I have no Fault to find with this; it is I own exactly agreeable with what We teach. — The Doctrine of our Church conformable to the Holy Scriptures, is this, — That GOD hath, thro' Christ, predestinated the Righteous, the Virtuous and Holy, to everlast­ing Happiness and Glory, and ordained the Wicked, the Obstinate and Impenitent to everlasting Misery and Perdition. St. Paul says Rom. 8.29. Whom he did [...]-know, he also did Predestinate: Who he fore­saw would repent, believe and obey the Gospel, these are they whom he had chosen in Christ ou [...] of Mankind, to bring them to everlasting Salvation, as our Church expresses it in her 17th Article, and those who would obstinately persist in their Disobedience and Impenitence, notwithstanding all the means he should use to reclaim them, these he determined to reject. — This is our Doctrine, and if he would teach no otherwise, I should have nothing to object. — But I must Remark here two things: — One is, [Page 75] That in denying Absolute Reprobation he denys his own Articles, and therefore with what Face can he charge me with denying any of the Articles of the Church. — That he denys his own Articles in denying Absolute Reprobation, is evident: For these are the Words of your Assembly's Confession of Faith which he has assented to, p. 20, 21, — ‘GOD hath not Decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or would come to pass upon such Condi­tions.’ And ‘By the Decree of GOD, for the Manifestation of his Glory, some Men and Angels are predestinated to everlasting Life, and others are fore-ordained to everlasting Death.’ And ‘these Angels and Men thus predestinated and or­dained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either encreased or diminished.’ — You see it is plain from these Words of your Con­fession, that they are particularly, unchangeably and unconditionally, or absolutely, ordained, some to ever­lasting Life, and others to everlasting Death, and not because GOD foresaw such or such Conditions; either Holiness in the one, or Sin in the other. — So that, as I said in denying absolute Reprobation, he plainly denys his own Articles; let him therefore hereafter forbear charging others with denying theirs. — But the other Remark I would make here, is, That he is not only inconsistent with his Articles, but also with himself. For he had said just before, that in GOD's Decrees. He consulted the Counsel of His own Will, and not the Wills of any of his Creatures.— Whereas, If he decreed the Reprobate to Damnation for Sin, as he owns here, and if they fall into Sin by their own Wills, as he here also says, it is plain that GOD in ordaining them to Damnation must have had an Eye at their Wills in making this Decree. — So apt are those on that side to run into Contra­dictions [Page 76] in explaining their Notions!— To con­clude, I earnestly beseech you, Brethren, to beware of these Doctrines, so full of Inconsistencies, and I may add, of most fatal and pernicious Consequences, as tending to beget in your Minds very gloomy, hard and unworthy Thoughts of GOD, and to dishear­ten and discourage you from an earnest and engaged pursuit of the Eternal Interests of your Souls: since any one will be apt to say, If my Fate is already before-hand determined by an absolute inexorable Decree of GOD, all my Endeavours can do no Good: If I am to be saved, GOD will sometime or other bring me home, whether I strive no; and if I am to be forever miserable, all my Endeavours can never prevent it: Than which Conclusion, nothing can be more pernicious to the Souls of Men! — Let me rather exhort you to work out your Salvation with fear and trembling, for it is GOD that worketh in you to will and to do: And you may depend upon it there is no absolute Decree in your way; You shall reap in due Time, if you faint not.

But I have done with this unaccountable Man for the present, and am not conscious that I have in any Thing misrepresented either Him or my self: I will only desire you to compare things exactly and impartially, and to weigh and consider well the true Merits of the Cause between us, without Favour or Affection.

I perceive some of you Triumph in his Victory over me: But I can't help thinking, but that, if you would be impartial in making your Judgment, you would find his Advantage over me to consist only in Quibb [...]es, Inconsistencies, Misrepresentations, gla­ring Falshoods in Matters of Fact, hard Speeches, and censorious and abusive Language; and in these, [Page 77] I am content he should have the Victory, especially since I know I have Truth, Reason and Scripture on my side. And I will leave it to you, and all that will be reasonable, dispassionate and impartial, to judge between us, whose Letter is most void of Truth, Charity, Meekness and Moderation, and which savours most of the Spirit of the Gospel. — He says, If I had not laid [...]side all shew of Modesty, I would not have mentioned any thing of our being stiled grievous Wolves and false Bret [...]n, for that was what I complained of. Now I must confess, I am not so very modest as to receive such in [...]urious Treatment without declaring that I think it most abusive and unchristian, and am sure nothing can justly be pretended on our side that can compare with it. — If he will lay aside his sour wrangling Way of Writing, and fairly and calmly attend to the real Merits of the Cause, and reason Soberly, without Railing, Scoffing and Reviling, as it becomes a Gentleman and a Christian, and like a Lover of Truth and righteous Dealing, I shall wil­lingly attend him again; but if he thinks fit to go on in the manner he has done, I shall think him here­after beneath my Notice, and endeavour to find some more advantageous Method of spending my Time. In the mean Time, as I have devoted my Life to serve the eternal Interests of the Souls of Men, so I shall be heartily glad to make my Self any ways use­ful to you and yours, in endeavouring to promote Truth and Holiness among you here, and your ever­lasting Happiness hereafter: for I sincerely still remain,

Dear Brethren,
Your hearty Friend, and Well-Wisher.
[Page 79]

A POSTSCRIPT To this Second LETTER.

THERE being an Appeal made, in the fore­going Letter, to Two Letters published, in Elutherius Enervatus, as containing sufficient Evidence of the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy; and there having been just Published, a pretended Answer to those Two Letters, by one who stiles him­self Phileleuth. Bangor: — Tho' it be tho't needless to enter upon a very pa [...]ticular Examination of this vain­glorious Triumph, yet it seemed not unnecessary to add here, some brief Animadversions of the Author of these Letters, by way of Reply to it; which are as follows.

It would be almost endless, if I should take Notice of every particular Instance of this Gentleman's un­fair Dealing: He often strains my Expressions, and those of the Authors he quotes, into meanings which neither they nor I ever intended, and then laboriously fights with his own Shadow: In other Instances, and those very many, he has nothing but a Sett of meer Quibbles, for two or three Pages together: And in others he seems industriously to go besides the Ques­tion, insomuch that I really wish I could see for what End he could write, at least, half this long-winded Pamphlet, unless it were purely to amuse his Readers with a tedious Verbosity, and to see how much he [Page 80] could say upon the Subject. — In such a captious, quibbling Way of Writing, there is truly scarce any thing but what may be answered: Even the most sacred Causes of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, nay, and Christianity it self, are not without Adver­saries, that can find Art enough to make a plausible Pretense of answering. — With respect to such a management it was, that Mr. Baxter, as I remember, says, somewhere, ‘He should never think the worse of a Book because it was pretended to be answered.’ And as to the Letters under Consideration, I can't think but I may say, with, at least, as much Justice as Elutherius does concering his Dialogues, p. 2. ‘That a new Edition of them would be a sufficient Reply to his Invectives.’

The main Artifice that runs thro' his Performance, consists in producing long and numerous Quotations from several of the most considerable Writers of our Church, especially in their Writings against Popery, which he would have his unwary Readers believe, from a meer Gingle of the Words, to be destructive to the Cause of the Church to which they adhered, and which they so admirably defended: As if those great Men did not know how to Write consistent with themselves; or, as if what we plead for were arrant Popery, and the Arguments and Manner of Speaking they use, were as much inconsistent with, and subversive of what we plead in behalf of Episco­pacy, as of the great Corruptions of the Church of Rome, which they impugn. — Seriously I can scarce conceive, how this Gentlemen can think himself in earnest, in the use he pretends to make of those Pas­sages; for there is not a tenth part of all his nume­rous Quotations from Jewel, Hooker, Chillingworth and Tillotson, &c. but which take them as they lie in the Authors themselves, and with the Views they had in Writing them, and I do highly approve of them, and [Page 81] can find nothing in them, that is at all really incon­sistent with what I contend for, nor with the way of Reasoning that I use. — They were certainly as great and good Men, and as excellent Defenders of our Church, as ever the Nation bred, and are remar­kable for a prodigious vein of Reason and Eloquence: And I can't help saying, with respect to Hooker and Chillingworth in particular▪ That it seems to me, the Man who has seriously read and considered, and at the same Time is not convinced by their mighty Rea­sonings in behalf of Episcopacy, as well as the other things they contend for, must have a Mind of a very strange and odd Sort of make.

This Mr. Phileleuth. indeed, pretends p. 3. from Ed­wards's Authority, that Mr. Hooker, l. 3. held Episcopa­cy was mutable, and might be abrogated; which is a Specimen of Edwards's usual abusive Misrepresentation of his Authors: For the Truth is, Mr. Hooker is there speaking of Prudential Constitutions, respecting the Circumstantials of the Episcopal Government, and o­ther Institutions of Religion, and not of Episcopacy it self, which he strenuously holds to be founded on the Word of GOD, in that very Book, §. ult. and the same is evident from his 7th Book, where he says, §. 1. (and afterwards abundantly proves it,) ‘Neither hath Christianity been ever Planted in any King­dom throughout the World, but with this kind of Government alone, which to have been ordained of GOD, I am for my own part, as resolutely per­suaded, as that any other kind of Government in the World whatsoever is of GOD.’ — Could he then think it mutable or that it might be abrogated? — What is there that some People, to serve a Turn, will not say?

And as to Mr. Chillingworth's Demonstration of Episcopacy, let Mr. Phileleuth. say what he will about [Page 82] Edwards's Strictures, and one Lauder's pretended Confutation of it, p. 136. I can't yet believe, there ever was, or will be, a just Confutation of it; for it really is, what it pretends to be, A Demonstration in it's kind. — And for this Gen­tleman to pretend, because Mr. Chillingworth, in his Modest Way of speaking mentions Episcopacy, as being not repugnant to the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles, &c. that this is all he undertakes to prove, is very wrong, for he knows that what he under­takes to demonstrate, is, that it was really Instituted by the Apostles, and that it is to this Conclusion that he affixes his Q. E. D. And does this make nothing to our Cause? Pray wherein does the "unaccountable Folly" consist of my alledging this Demonstration? I am not willing to say, it was an unaccountable want of In­tegrity in him, to misrepresent it as he does.— He says, We read nothing there of Episcopacy's being a Fundamental of Religion: —But, If it was an Insti­tution of the Apostles, as he has demonstrated it to be, I desire to know how much that falls short of ma­king it a Fundamental, since the Apostles were under the Direction of the Spirit of GOD in Planting and Settling the Churches — I own it is only an external of Religion, and so were the two Sacraments, and I should be glad to be informed, supposing it proved to be an Apostolical Institution, way it is not at least as much a Fundamental in Christianity, as Infant Bap­tism and the First-Day-Sabbath, which I conclude he holds to be Fundamentals, i. e. Necessary; why then should he be so much amazed as he pretends to be, that I esteem Episcopacy Fundamental. Sure I am, Go­vernment, and a proper Form of it, are things of Im­portance enough in themselves to be made Funda­mentals, by being appointed by the Apostles; and I will be free to say, that if Mr. Hooker and Mr. Chil­lingworth, and I may add, Potter, Slater, Sage, Brett, Bingham [Page 83] and many others, (nay even Hoadly himself,) have not, by fair and just Reasoning, proved the Apostolical, and consequently, Divine Institution of Episcopacy, so that nothing but Scepticism, that will cavil at any thing, can pretend to dispute it, I for my part shall despair of ever seeing any thing proved.

The chief use he makes of Mr. Chillingworth against me is to disprove what I plead for, respecting the use we make of the Fathers, in finding out the true Sense of the Scriptures in disputed Cases.— Now as to this, I was sensible I had not sufficiently ex­plained my self in my first Letter, and therefore in my second Letter, I endeavoured to explain my self in such a manner as, I tho't, Ill-Will it self could not mi [...]represent.— My Principle, as I then explain'd it, was to this Effect,— "That I take the H. Scrip­tures for the only Rule of my Faith and Practice, which is the great Fundamental Principle of the Church of England:— But inasmuch as every Sect of Christianity do also pretend to the Scriptures as their Rule; and there are several Texts, especially respect­ing the External Polity of the Church, that are dif­ferently understood by different Sects: I judged the safest and most undoubted way to ascertain the mean­ing of those Texts, after all the Light we could get from the Scriptures themselves, was to appeal to the Facts and Practices that universally obtained in the Church, immediately after Scripture-Times, and so downwards thro' the first and purest Ages, and to the Fathers who lived in those Times, only as Witnesses what those Facts really were."— This Method I found our Dissenting Brethren themselves took, and that very justly, to establish the First-Day Sabbath and Infant Baptism, which they esteem as much Funda­mentals as we do Episcopacy; and therefore they must either allow our Method of Reasoning to be good, or own that they are inconsistent with themselves.

[Page 84]Now this stating of the Case Mr. Phileleuth. takes little, or no Notice of in his Reply, and leaves his Friend miserably helpless where he most needed his help; and one would think, by his Neglect of him in this Affair, that he was willing to Sacrifice In­fant-Baptism, and the First-Day Sabbath themselves, so that he might but destroy Episcopacy with them— All this he artfully conceals and keeps out of sight, and instead of attending to it, as he ought to have done, in faithfulness to his Friend, and his own side; and notwithstanding that I had abundantly cleared my self from such an Imputation: He would still invidiously have it believed, p. 72. That I joyn with the Papists in setting up Tradition as a Rule of my Faith, in Conjunction with the Scriptures, and makes a great show with many large Quotations, not only from Chillingworth, but also from Bp. Jewel, Ep. Hall, A. Bp. Tillotson, &c. as tho' they condemned my way of Reasoning; whereas, (however some few Passages may carry a different Sound with them, yet) in the whole, what they contend for is not at all inconsistent with it; so far from this, that their Reasoning against the Roman Catholics, is, in many Instances upon the same foot with mine against the Presbyterians, who are both alike condemned by the Facts of the Pri­mitive Church. — But as to the Passages he quotes, let the impartial Inquirer examin them in the Au­thors themselves, and compare them with what I plead, and he will readily see the Difference — They were pleading against the Corruptions and In­novations of the Church of Rome, which were in­troduced some Hundreds of Years after the Apostles; whereas I was pleading for a Practice universally ob­taining from their Days: — They were pleading against the Authority of Fathers that lived after the Introduction of those Innovations, and of Writings of uncertain Authority; whereas I was pleading from the Authority of the Fathers who lived in the Apostolic [Page 85] Age, and the two next Ages after them:— They were pleading against the Authority of the pretended oral or unwritten Traditions of the Church of Rome, i. e. against Things which the Roman Catholics pre­tended, were, for several Ages, handed down from Age to Age, by Word of Mouth, for which they could produce no written Tradition at all; whereas I was pleading from the Authority of what was writ­ten and recorded by very many, and those the most faithful Witnesses of Antiquity, of different Countrys, Nations and Languages, yet all conspiring in Attesta­tion to the same Facts: — The R. Catholics pre­tend to have Traditionary Interpretations of Scrip­ture so handed down, to justify what they hold, which I do with Chillingworth and Tillotson disclaim, and with them do appeal to open Universal Facts attested to by the Fathers, as being what were obvious to every Man's Senses, nor do I argue from any Facts universally obtaining in any one Age alone, which, I deny not but that they might be contrary to Facts as generally obtaining in another Age; but I argue from Facts that obtained in every Age, from the Beginning of Christianity?— How disingenuously then does this Gentleman deal, in pretending those Authors were at all against me, and when he knows they were in the same Sentiment with me, on the Subject now under Debate?

My Adversary had written very contemptuously of the Fathers, and their Authority and Usefulness: This I tho't it necessary to animadvert upon, as tending to favour the Cause of Infidelity, by weaken­ing, if not destroying the external Evidence of the Canon of the New-Testament, which can no otherwise be Established but by the Testimony of the Fathers▪ who are likewise Witnesses to Episcopacy.— And truly after all that this Gentleman has said, on this Head, I should be glad to be made sensible that the [Page 86] Case is otherwise.— Does it not weaken the com­mon Cause of Christianity to weaken any one of the Evidences of it? Is not the Testimony of the earliest Christian Writers to the Apostolical authority of the several Books of the New Testament a mighty Evi­dence of their being Genuine? And are they not the same Men who are Witnesses to their Apostolic Ori­ginal, and their being universally received as such, that are also Witnesses to the Apostolic Original of Episcopacy, and its universal Reception? Does not therefore the weakening their Credibility with re­spect to the one, weaken it also with regard to the other? If the Scriptures were translated into divers Languages, and dispersed throughout all Countrys, did not Episcopacy go every where with them? If the Scriptures were handed down from Age to Age, was not Episcopacy handed down with them? Nay were they not Bishops that handed them down, and spread them abroad successively, with the successive Communication of their own Order? They received the Holy Books at first from the Apostles, with their Orders, and conveyed them to others successively, with the same Orders. — And whatever this Gen­tleman or others may pretend against a Succession of Bishops, can He or They find one Age or Nation of Christendom, without Bishops, till of late, or wherein a Successive Ordination or Consecration by Imposi­tion of Hands was not practised and held necessary for conveying that Character? If there have been some Irregularities in the Manner, must they destroy the Essence of the Thing? And if in any particular Church the Succession may have failed, did it there­fore, or could it, fail in the whole? If GOD's Pro­vidence was engaged for the Preservation of the Scriptures, was it not also engaged to preserve a true Succession of those who were to convey them down, and to explain and enforce them, and to be always with them to the End of the World?

[Page 87]He slyly, and most abusively Insinuates, p. 86, and 92, as tho' my Reasoning on this Head was slyly libel­ling Christianity and abusing the Bible. But pray, is it Libelling Christianity to be Solicitous to prove it's Divine Original, and not to be mistaken about it, or any thing relating to it, and to be tender of, and do Justice to the Character and Reputation of those who have transmitted it down to us? — Is it abusing the Bible to prove the several Books of it to have been received from Inspired Men, and to have been always handed down as such, by the same Witnesses who attest to the Fact of Episcopacy in their Times, and that it was Originally derived from the Apostles; and to prove to my Self and others that I am not mistaken in my Notion of Scripture Facts, by Appeal­ling to the Facts immediately after Scripture Times and downwards, as attested to by those very Men who are Witnesses for the Apostolical Original of those sacred Books? This sure is so far from abusing Scripture, that I can't but think it the greatest Ho­nour we can do it, next to governing our Lives by it, to establish all the Evidences of it in the best manner we can, to be solicitous rightly to understand it, and to reverence the Characters, and honour the Memory, and to pay a great Difference to the Tes­timony of those Holy Martyrs who attest to it's Di­vine Original, and those Facts afterwards that are so highly useful to lead us to the right understanding of it: And this is all I can be justly charged with: Nor were my Concessions concerning them at all in­consistent with this, were they but considered with the least Candor. — On the other hand, I can't but be still of Opinion, that to asperse and deride them, as my Adversary had done, does really, so far forth as the External Evidence of the Canon of those holy Books is concerned, greatly tend to the Disadvan­tage of our common Cause, and to serve the Cause of Infidelity. — And by the way, I cannot help say­ing [Page 88] on this Occasion, that it is an unaccountable thing to me, and a sad Instance of the Force of Pre­judice, that our Brethren in this Country, should be so intent upon opposing the Church of England, that they scruple not, in order to disgrace her a­mong the People, to reprint, recommend and scatter about Pamphlets that have been written by Infidels at Home, with a Design to bring all Religion into Contempt, and to stab the Gospel thro' the Sides of the Church; — Such was Parson Alberoni; — Such were Trenchards Lucub [...]ations, and such the Pamphlets recommended by this Gentleman, p. 51. at least one of them: — Nay some have, to my Knowledge re­commended Tindal's Book of The Rights, &c. (not to mention Chubb's Latitudinarian Pieces, who has lately declared himself on the Infidel Side, with Tindal, for the Sufficiency of Reason without Revelation.) Wretches these! Who care not how much they belie, abuse and misrepresen [...] the Church, so that they may but by that means bring all Religion into Contempt. — With what Conscience could my Brother Phil. recommend such vile Pamphlets as that addressed to Sir Nathanael Curzon, when he can't but know that it is stuffed with most notorious Falshoods, such as these, That the Bishops give Lic [...]es to Mid-wives to Baptize, and to M [...]n to keep two Wives, to commit Adultery, to practice Knavery, and to communicate with the Church of Rome, &c.’ Many more I might mention. — What do you mean, my Brethren, in [...]king such Courses as these to blacken the Church? [...]n you be insensible that these Men are as really [...]emies to you as to us, and that they equally De­ [...] the Ruin of us all? I am mistaken if you are not [...] the Event made sadly sensible of your Error, in ta­ [...]g such Methods to render the Church odious: [...] you not see loose Notions in Religion and even [...]idelity coming in apa [...] among us? Ought you [...] therefore in saithfuln [...]s to the Gospel and your [Page 89] Selves, to joyn with us against the common Enemy?

Put to go on,

This Gentleman, p. 91. suggests as tho' I insinu­ated that the Divinity of Christ was doubtful, be­cause I mentioned it with Episcopacy, as an Instance wherein the Matters of Fact attested by the Fathers, are highly useful to satisfy us, that we take up a right Notion of the Scripture-Sense. Now, why should this be invidiously represented, as tho' I doubted whether the Divinity of Christ was plainly taught in Scripture? He knows I was not speaking of either the one or the other, as being doubtful to me, but as being disputed, & consequently doubted by others: He is not ignorant that there are those that not­withstanding the Plainness of Scripture, pretend to doubt, whether the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father be a Scripture-Doctrine? And to satisfy them in this matter, I say it is highly useful to appeal to the Testimony of the Fathers, whether that was constantly taught from the Beginning as a Scripture-Doctrine or not? The same I say with respect to Episcopacy, It appears to me not doubtful but suffi­ciently plain from Scripture, to be an Apostolical Institution; but since there are those that doubt and dispute it, I plead, that the consequent Facts ought, in all reason, to satisfy, any one that it was so.

But he says, supposing the Fact or Episcopacy ever so well attested, ‘He that argues from Fact to Right is a meer Sophister.’ p. 80.— I allow this in all other Facts but such as are done under the Infalli­ble Conduct of the unerring Spirit of GOD; but in this Case we may be undoubtedly argue from Fact to Right: The Apostles did, in Fact, wherever they pro­pagated Christianity, institute Episcopacy; we there­fore justly conclude, that Form of Government, and that only, to be Right, and that it is our bounden Duty to submit to it, and that it ought to be con­tinued in all Churches to the End of the World.— [Page 90] Is this Sophistry? No sure, There can be no Dan­ger of erring in arguing thus: The only Question then is, whether the Apostles did in Fact institute Episcopacy? We think it plain from Scripture, that they did, in the Persons of Timothy, Titus, and the Angels of the seven Churches; and we are well assured that we are not mistaken, since we find it so clearly attested by the Fathers, Clemens, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian, which I quoted, besides many others, within the three first Centuries successively, that I might have mentioned, and which have often over and over been alledged, that the Apostles did every where institute Episcopacy, in our Sense of it. Nay Mr. Chillingworth, (whom he so basely mis­represents, and so emptily Triumphs in,) says, in the Margin of his Demonstration, that ‘Dr. Hammond has fully demonstrated it, in his Dissertations against Blondel, (which, says he, never were answered, and never will) by the Testimonies of those, who wrote in the very next Ages after the Apostles’. not to mention Molineus's, Beza's, Chamier's and Vedelius's Concessions, on which he builds his Demonstration. — But of the Facts themselves, I shall say more af­terwards.

His grand Objection against my way of arguing is taken from the Chiliast Notion of Christ's personal Reign on Earth, and the Communicating of Infants:— These, he pleads were universal Facts of the primitive Church, and we may as well, argue the Right of them, as of Episcopacy, from the same Reason.— To all which, I answer— First, Supposing the Case to be as he represents it, his Friend Elutherius was im­pertinent in appealing with so much Assurance to the universal Fact of Infant-Baptism in those Days in Proof of it's Divine Institution. And you must never here­after pretend to argue from the Fathers, but be confined to Scripture alone in proving, that and the First-Day-Sabbath, [Page 91] in both which Cases, your Adversaries will perhaps be even with you, at least, if Antiquity be not taken into the Account — But, Secondly, The Instances of the Chiliast Opinion and Communicating of Infants, are not in any measure upon a par with E­piscopacy: For, First, As to the Communicating of Infants, I cannot find that there is any one Father within the the 3 first Centuries that ever pretended they had that Practice from the Apostles: Nay, I am persuaded it cannot be made appear to be Universal Matter of Fact within the 2 first Centuries. — There are indeed two Passages, one in Dionysius the pretended Areopagite, and another in the Clementine Constitutions, which are both Writings of very dubious Authority, that seem to allude to such a Custom's obtaining in their Time, and there is a Passage or two in St Cyprian that seem to imply as much: I say these three Instan­ces, and two of them of very doubtful Authority, are all that I can find concerning this Custom within the 3 first Centuries; and will this Gentleman pretend Communicating Infants is proved to be equally early, and universal Matter of Fact with Episcopacy, and equally derived from the Apostles? What partiality is here? I deny not that it was practised in Africa in St. Cyprian's Time, and so was Rebaptising Heretics, which last mentioned Practice, tho' it obtained there, was contrary to the general Practice of the Church; & so might the former for ought that appears to the contrary. It is confessed, that this Practice did at length, by degrees universally obtain in the Church, and in St. Austin's Time, in the beginning of the 5th Century, it was (as several other irregularities were, that had crept into the Church by that Time,) pretended to have been derived down by Tradition from the Apostles, but there does not appear to have been any manner of Foundation for such a pretense. — What then is this to the Case of Episcopacy, which had been con­stantly mentioned in every Age from the very be­ginning [Page 92] as derived from the Apostles? And I am free to own that if this Practice could be made appear as evidently to have been derived from the Apostles, as Episcopacy, I should have the like Veneration for it as I have for that, especially, provided also there were as good Grounds for it in the Scriptures as there are for that: Whereas there does not appear to be any Grounds at all.

Now, Secondly, as to the Chiliast Opinion, it consisted only in adhering too strictly to the Letter of that Passage in the 20th of Revelations, concerning the Saints Reigning with Christ a 1000 Years. — This No­tion, I own, did get considerable Footing in the Church in the second and third Centuries; but it took it's Rise from the single Testimony of Papias, an honest, but weak Man, who pretended he had it from St. John, as the true Sense of that Passage in the Reve­lations, in which it is easy to imagin he might be mistaken: But it does not appear to have been ever the universal Belief of the Church. — It is true, Mr. Chillingworth and Archbp. Tillotson do make use of it against the Papists, and speak of it as being gene­rally received: But Dr. Whitby, since, in his Treatise of the Millennium, has, I think effectually confuted the Arguments they use, and made it sufficiently ap­pear, from even Justin Martyr and Irenaeus themselves, who were Chiliasts, and from Origen, That it never was the universal Doctrine of the Church: For Brevity I omit his Arguments, and beg the Reader to con­sult Dr. Whitby in that Treatise, where I think he cannot fail of receiving Satisfaction in this Point. — Upon the whole, I cannot see, that either our Cause, or my way of Reasoning in Defence of it, are at all endangered by what this Gentleman argues from that Practice of Communicating Infants, or this Opinion of the Chiliasts: They do by no means appear to be parallel Instances with Episcopacy: All his boasting therefore on this Head is utterly empty and vain.

[Page 93]And now we are come to the Stating of the Ques­tion; in order to which I had made this Observation, as being what I judged just in it self, as well as a necessary Means in order to prevent contending about Words, viz. That there is no more arguing from the promiscuous Use of the Words Bishop and Presbyter, to prove them the same Order, than from the promiscuous Use of the Words Apostle, Presbyter, and Deacon to prove them to be the same Order: Now I can see little else but meer Cavilling in all that is said on this head: I readily allow the Word Deacon, when applied to the Apostle, Eph. 3.5. &c. is not used in a restrained Sense to signifie the Office so called, but it is evidently so far restrained as to signifie the mi­nisterial Office in general; for he is there speaking of the Ministry of the Gospel, whereof, says he, I am made a Minister; and therefore what I contend for is, that as the Word Deacon or Minister does not always signifie a particular Office in the Ministry, so neither can the Word Bishop be necessarily supposed to signifie a particular Office: And that therefore a Presbyter is an Overseer or Bishop, only in the same Sense as an Apostle is a Minister or Deacon; those Terms being always restrained to the Ministry in ge­neral, tho' not always to any particular Office of it: And the Apostle Peter calls himself a Presbyter, 1 Pet. 5.1. as what was implyed in his Apostle-ship, tho' not therefore implying all that his Apostle-ship did imply. So that what I plead is, that it is plain, and nothing can be plainer, than that these Words being all frequently used in a general Sense in the New-Testament, there is no certain arguing from them to the more restrained Sense in which they were used afterwards; and that therefore we ought to leave off arguing from the promiscuous Use of Words, and to be determined wholly by Facts. Accordingly I stated the Question between us to be this, — Whether the Apostles did not appoint in each Church, a President or Go­vernor Superior to, and with Jurisdiction over the Presbyters [Page 94] and Deacons, who were Officers of that Church, as well as the People under them? And here I must own, It was a vain attempt for me to endeavour by Words to fix any one of this Gentleman's sceptical Humour: One might as well undertake to fix Proteus himself to one particular Shape: For tho' I believe there is nobody that had a Mind to understand another, and that was not resolved to indulge a meer Strife about Words, but would readily enough comprehend my meaning; yet Mr. Phileleuth. notwithstanding he him­self owns with me that we should wholly leave con­tending about Terms, p. 101 &c. and professes he desires to understand, and hates and scorns a meer strife of Words, is sadly puzzled to understand me, and spends no less than 5 Pages, here, besides many more else where in carping and quibbling upon the Words of the Ques­tion as I have stated it: And I must again explain what I mean by a Church? And what I mean by a Governor or President of it, &c.? Tho I had suffi­ciently explained my self on all these Points before.

Now as to the first, it is plain to me from Scripture and Antiquity, that by a particular Church was ordi­narily meant all the Christians of a City, with the adjacent Country depending on it, even tho' they consisted of many Congregations; as I proved they generally did, even in the most Primitive Times: I have owned that it was many Years before any Parochial Bounds were fixed to the several Congre­gations, this being meerly a circumstantial Thing. In this sense I shewed, we must unavoidably under­stand the Churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Smyrna, and the rest of the Scripture-Churches. I deny not but the Word Church may sometimes in Scripture mean a particular Congregation, as when we read of a Church in a House, Rom. 16.5. and so it might possibly mean in the Text he mentions, 1 Cor. 14.34. of Women speaking in the Churches; tho' it seems [Page 95] to me more probable this ought to be understood of the Places of Worship, like that, Chap. 11.22. Have ye not Houses to Eat and Drink in, or despise ye the Church of GOD? i. e. the Place dedicated to his Worship. This instance therefore of the Churches of Corinth that he brings, is so far from weakening, that it confirms what I contend for, viz. that in the same particular Church, there were several Congregations & Places of Worship, while yet they were all called but one Church, as this Church is it self stiled, Chap. 1. of each Epistle, The Church that is at Corinth.— Accor­ding, therefore, to the Scripture-Style, we should not say the Churches of Boston, but the Church of Boston, notwithstanding there are many Congregations and Places of Worship, which should all be united under one Head as the Congregations of each Church in the Primi­tive Times were which tho' they might be sometimes called Churches, as we now-a-days call the Places of Worship, and particular Congregations, Churches, (meaning Parish-Churches,) yet, it is evident, from this very instance, that they were all in Scripture-Times called one Church, meaning a particular Church, con­sisting of several Congregations, under the Care of so many Presbyters, all united under one principal fix­ed Person, at the Head of them; as the Pre [...]byters of the Church of Ephesus, (whereof there were se­veral, Acts 20.17.) were united under Timothy, and afterwards under the Angel of that Church.

I say ordinarily all the Christians of one City and Country adjacent, were a particular Church, and but one Bishop presided over each of them: Not that this was ever reckoned a necessary Rule, but what was judged most for the public Advantage always governed: Hence when two Cities were very near each other, they were united together under one Bishop; and on the other Hand, when there was a large Country without any City in it, it was divi­ded into several Districts, like Counties, the chief [Page 96] Town of which was the Bishop's Seat. Thus in England, London and Westminster, being near each o­ther, make one Bishoprick, and Bath and Wells ano­ther, and Litchfield and Coventry another; otherwise there are just as many particular Churches & Bishops in England, as there are Cities, according to the pri­mitive Model, and some large Countries had former­ly-Suffragans, of the same kind with the ancient Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops, and it would per­haps, be well if they were restored: However, as things are, the Number of Bishops in England is so considerable, for so small a Spot of Ground, that I think there is little Occasion for Complaint. — As to Mr. Phileleuth's ill-natured Flouts, and unmanner­ly, indecent Reflections in p. 107, 8, 9, and 123. as well as many other places, I take no Notice of them: It is sufficient to pass them by with Pity and Con­tempt.

And as to the Government of each particular Church, tho' he pretends to be so much at a loss for my meaning, he knows well enough, that what we con­tend for, is, that this is, and was always deemed to be essential to Episcopacy, that in each District, be it a City, with it's adjacent Country, or a Chief Town with it's County, there be one chief Head or Gover­nour, ordain'd to that Off [...]ce, who has such a Presi­dency ever the rest of the Clergy, and the People under them, as well as him, and in subordination to him, as may be properly called, a Jurisdiction, not Legislative but Executive, not Despotic and Abitrary, but l [...]mited by Laws which he may not dispense with, no [...] may he any more transgress them than the meanest Presbyter.—And this was always the same in the Church, whatever Irregularities and Exorbi­tances there may have been in some Places & Times, and whatever accidental Alterations there have been, are, and lawfully may be on Account of which it is [Page 97] a mean Artifice of our Adversaries, when we prove that such a Person was always from the Beginning at the Head of the Clergy in each Church, to cry out. O, But those ancient Bishops were not of the same kind with our modern Bishops: Why truly, we don't pretend that they were Lords, or had many other Temporal Privileges which Christian Kings and Princes have since granted to Bishops, or that there was always one precise Method in their pub­lick Administrations; notwithstanding these, and the like purely Circumstantial Differences, we insist upon it that our Bishops are now of the same kind with those ancient Bishops, as to what was a [...]ways essential to their Office and Character, be they called Prelates, Presidents, Governours, Moderators, or what they will.

Another Quibble that runs thro' this Gentleman's Performance, is, That those primitive Bishops were not of a different Order from the Presbyters.— To this I answer, That to me it seems a meer Strife a­bout Words to object against calling them distinct Orders: However, If that would please him, I should find no fault with Mr. Hooker's Account of the dif­ferent Orders, which he himself quotes, p. 47. ‘That the Clergy be divided into two Orders, Presbyters and Deacons, and that of Presbyters, some be greater, some less in Power, and that by our Saviour's own Appointment.’ Thus the whole Clergy of the Jewish Church were Priests and Levites, but the High Priest was never the less, by Divine Appoint­ment, superior to the other Priests. Let the Bishop be a Presbyter if you please, according to this way of stating the Case: The Gentleman it seems likes a Dichotomy better than a Trich [...]tomy, let him have his Humour, so that the Truth of Things be not infringed. —The Reason why we call the Bishop of a different Order from the Presbytery is, because he is, & always was [Page 98] consecrated or ordained to that Superiority of Station and Office, in solemn manner, by Imposition of the Hands, either of the Apostles at first, as Timothy by Paul. 2 Ep. 1.6. or of other Bishops afterwards, as is plain from many Passages in Antiquity, Vid. Bing­ham's Origines. And for this Reason Deans and Arch-Deacons which he mentions, p. 58. are not different Orders, but of the same Order with the rest of the Presbyters, because they have no distinct Ordination from the rest, as Bishops have, and as Arch-Bishops likewise have not from the other Bishops, being both the one and the other, only primi inter pares, i. e. chief Men of the same Order with the rest of their Brethren, only appointed to particular Businesses of more e­special Weight and Trust.

Upon the whole therefore, what we plead for is only this, That according to the Primitive Model, every Nation or Province be divided into several Districts, consisting of a convenient Number of Con­gregations, each immediately under the Care of their several Presbyters, and all united under one princi­pal Person at the Head of them: Such as those were, whom the Apostles at first ordained, one in each City, wherever they prop [...] Christianity, and who by the End of the First, or beginning of the Second Cen­tury, began to be distinguished from the rest of the Clergy by the Name Bishop, whose fixed Business it was, and to which He was ordain [...], to presice Authori­tatively in Ordination and Government, in such [...] manner, that nothing might be regularly done by the Clergy, without him at the Head of them —This I say, is what we plead for, and for this we appeal to the Facts of the Holy Scriptures, and the most Pri­mitive Churches.— Thus, in Fact the Church of Ephesus with it's Presbytery and People were under the Government of Timothy, and that of Cr [...]te under the Government of Titus, as is plain from the Epistles [Page 99] to them, and the Seven Churches of Asia with their Presbyters and People, were under the Government of their Seven Angels, as appears from the second and third Chapters of the Revelation.

Now, as to Timothy and Titus, this Gentleman con­tends that they had, one the Care of all Asia, and the other of all the Cities in Crete, and therefore they could not be fixed Bishops of particular Churches: As if these were inconsistent the one with the other. They might have, and, if we will believe the Testi­mony of the Ancients, they had a Primacy and ge­neral Inspection over the Bishops, and all the Chur­ches in those Parts, tho' they had a particular fixed Jurisdiction each one in his own particular Church: Timothy had manifestly a Jurisdiction over the parti­cular Church of Ephesus, as appears from the Epistles to him; and all that Theodoret's Testimony can rea­sonably be supposed to imply is that he had a Primacy and general Inspection with regard to the rest of the Churches of Asia, each of which had it's Angel or Bishop besides, as is clear from St. John's Epistles to them, Rev. 2. & 3.— And where I beseech you, is the Inconsistency of supposing a Succession of such fixed Governors of Ephesus, and the rest of the Chur­ches of Asia, as in Fact they were, and St. John's settling at Ephesus in the Decline of Life (which he makes such adoe abou [...]) not to Preside over them as a fixed Governour of any particular Church or Pro­vince, but to Complete [...]he Settlement of Christianity in the World, to receive Revelations from GOD and communicate them, to finish and settle the Canon of Holy Scripture, and to direct, reprove, instract and exhort the Churches, and all in the Quality of an Apostle? Such Arguing as he has upon this Head, is very trifling.

[Page 100]And as to Titus, where is the inconsistency of calling all the Christians of Crete a Church at first, and yet supposing, as from the Nature of Things we unavoid­ably must, that upon the Increase of Christianity there, there might be a particular settled Church in each City, with each one its Bishop and Presbytery: And that then Titus, who had before been Bishop of the Church of Crete, might now be more properly Styled, (as Doro [...]heus call him,) a Bishop in Crete; i. e. in one of the Citys of that Island, with a Primacy respecting the other Bishops? There is no inconsi­stency in all this with what I plead for; and this Supposition renders the Testimonies of the Ancients all consistent with one another. He brings a Pas­sage out of Dr. Whitby against me, who says, ‘He cannot find in any Writer of the three first Cen­turies, any intimation, that Timothy and Titus were fixed Bishops’. But does not the Gentleman deal very unfairly in leaving the Matter thus, when Dr. Whitby's next Words are, ‘That this Defect is abundant­ly supplied by the Concurrent Suffrages of the 4th and 5th Centuries?’ And does he not next quote Eusebius, (who indeed lived in the third Century,) and who says, ‘it was delivered down to them by History, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete. From whence it is manifest, tho' those Histories are now lost, that such were then ex­tant; and the Doctor quotes many others that attest to the same [...]act.—It is true, Dr. Whitby has a Conjec­ture that is almost peculiar to himself, and which I don't see to be sufficiently supported by the Reasons he gives; however afterwards he abundantly proves Timothy and Titus to have been truly Bishops, tho' he is somewhat doubtful about their having a fixed Charge in any particular Church; and that Episco­pacy was truly an Apostolical Constitution, he de­monstrates in a most unanswerable manner in that Preface to the Epistle to Titus, where among other [Page 101] Instances he mentions the Angels of the 7 Churches as undoubted Bishops, and says, ‘There can be no stronger Proof of such a Matter of Fact, than the general and concurrent Practice of the Christian Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles; and this general Sense of the Christian Church may be demonstrated’. And then goes on with his Demonstration, and among others he alledges the Arguments of Bp. Stillingfleet as unanswerable, whom, Mr. Philele [...]th. still vainly pretends is on his Side of the Question: Where he has these remarkable Words in his Dut. and Rights of the Paroch Clergy, p. 11. ‘They who go about to unbishop Timothy and Titus, may as well unscripture the Epistles written to them, and make them only some occasional Writings, as they make Timothy and Titus to have been some particular occasional Officers—And we have no greater Assu­rance that these Epistles were written by St. Paul, than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apos­tles in the Care and Government of the Churches’. Thus you see how much reason he has to boast of Whitby and Stillingfleet. — And lastly, as to the Ar­gument for Episcopacy from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, what he says in Answer to it, does not, as far as I can see, in the least weaken it: Nay he owns, p. 127. the main of what we contend for from it, viz. "That they might be so many dis­tinct fixed Persons, presiding over the rest of the Clergy as well as People, in each of those Churches". Only he pretends this don't prove them to be of a different and superiour Order: To which I need say no more than what I have already said, only I think it is plain enough, that, even in Governments, ever so well ballanced and limited the distinction between Governors and Governed, is sufficient to denominate them of different Orders.

[Page 102]Next to these Facts of the Holy Scripture, we appeal to the Facts of the most Primitive Churches, by which we ascertain our selves that we are right in our Notion of Scripture Facts.— And here the Gentleman pretends to be mightily astonished at my Assurance in saying; "I cannot see how it can be doubted, but that we have the universal Witness of the Church of GOD, in every Place, and every Age of the ancient Times of Christianity, even from the Beginning, intirely on our Side of the Question." —Now by the universal Witness of the Primitive Church here, and the General Suffrage of Antiquity, I mean, That all the Writers of the Primitive Church, that have any Occasion to mention the Government of the Church, either in their Times or before, do constantly and unanimously attest to, or, at least suppose it to be such an Episcopacy, as we plead for, as to the Essentials of it, and that none ever speak a Syllable of any other Form of Government: This I can't but still take to be the Case: Nor can I conceive how any one that impartially reads Bp. Pot­ter's Church Government, Mr. Slater's Original Draught, Mr. Bingham's Origines Ecclesiasticae, (not to mention many other modern Authors,) together with the An­cients themselves St. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, and many others of the Fathers, can make any Doubt of it: I am sure, I can no more doubt of it, than I can, from reading the ancient Greek and Roman Authors, what the Form of Civil Government was which obtained in their Countrys and Times. Sir E. Deering (tho' no Friend to the English Consti­tution,) in his Collection of Speeches, has these Words, ‘They who deny that ever any such Bishops (i. e. Bishops presiding over Presbyters,) were in the best and purest Times, I intreat them to shew me how I may prove that there ever was an Alexander, a Julius Caesar, or a William the Conque [...]or: — To me as plain it is that Bishops President [Page 103] have been the c [...]nst [...]n permanent Governors of the Church of GOD in al Ages — Therefore, says he, Answer not me, but answer Ignatius answer Clemens, Tertulli [...]n, Irenaus, nay answer the whole indisputed Concurrence of the Asian, the European, and the African Churches, all Ages, all Places, all Persons: Answer, I say, all these, or do as I do, submit to the sufficient Evidence of Truth’. Gro­tius who was willing to say the best he could of the Presbyterian Scheme, does however declare, De Imp. Sum. Pot. ‘That Episcopacy had it's beginning in the Apostolical Times, this is testified by the Catalogues of Bishops left us by Ienaeus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret and others, who all begin from the Apostolical Age: But to detract from the Faith of such Writers, and so agreeable to one another, —is the part only of an irreverend and obstinate Mind’. And he produces many Testimonies, and among others, says, ‘The seven Angels of the Asiatic Churches in the Revelation are an irrefragable Argument to this Assertion.’ See more at large in Dr. Brett of Church-Government, p. 83. &c. Now whoever knows the Characters of these two great Men, will be sensible that nothing but the Force of Truth could have extorted such Declarations from them.

I assure you I meant nothing like Railing or Un­charitableness in what I said, however that hard Construction must uncharitably be put upon it: But I should be glad any one would tell me, in what Church, or in what Age this Episcopal Form of Government did not obtain? And where or when, it would not undoubtedly have been judged censura­ble for any one to dispute against, and set up in op­position to it? These that did so, we find were in Fact censured, and what else could others have ex­p [...]ied? — To these thing [...] my Brother Phil. [...] [Page 104] to say: Why then should he be so terribly amaze [...] [...] Episcopacy was not among those things that M [...] Chillingworth judged unwritten and unneces­sary, for he held and proved it to be Apostolical; why then should he be brought in as censuring my Expressions: I must still think such a management to be fallacious.

It is not worth the while for this Gentleman and I to enter into a particular Debate upon the Testi­mony of the Fathers, concerning the Matters of Fact relating to the Controversy before us; because it has been so often done to our Hands already. — The ingenious Author of▪ The Inquiry into the Constitu­tion, &c. of the Primitive Church, had done the best that the Nature of the Thing would admit of, in endea­vouring to Support the Presbyterian and Congregational Pretenses from the Facts of the Primitive Church: To which Mr. Slater gave a distinct and compleat Answer in his Original Draught of the Primitive Church, with which that ingenious Gentleman, the Inquirer, (as I have been told by good Hands,) owned him­self fully satisfyed, and that his Book was sufficient­ly answered, nor would he be persuaded to attempt any Reply. — Let those who are, without partiality and without Hypocrisy, desirous of finding the Truth, read those Books, and the others I mentioned above, and judge for themselves. — And I would hope no body would be so disingenuous as to bring over [...]gain the Testimonies by which the Inquirer endea­ [...]ed to support his Hypothesis, without taking [...]ce of Mr. Slater [...]s Remark and Replys: When I see his Original Draught fairly & justly answered, with [...]he same Christian Temper, and the same Integrity, wherewi [...]h he wrote it, then, and not till then, shall [...] began to think our Cause in some Danger. — In the mean time [...] can [...]t [...] e [...]pres [...] my Surprise on this [...] to deal with, [Page 105] after having read these Books, (as he pretends to have read them for he quotes the Orig Draught, p. 15.) should yet have the Face to impose upon ignorant People with such fallacious Misrepresentations of Au­thors as his Remarks are, upon the Authorities I produced. Verily he, and whoever goes with him in­to such a Management, must have Backs of Steel, as well as Faces of Brass, (if I may for once in a way give him back his own Words,) to stand it out a­gainst Mr. Slater's mighty reasoning. — I will make two or three Remarks on his Misrepresentations of the Fathers I quoted, and so conclude.

I had observed that Ignatius, who first wrote after the Apostles, A.D. 107. (for so it should be according to Du­pin,) mentions the 3 Orders under the 3 distinct Names, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, no less than 16 Times, and requires the Presbyters and Deacons as well as Peo­ple, to be subject to them. — Now Mr. Phileleuth. to invalidate this, argues, that the Words Bishop and Presbyter do not, in Ignatius, signifie different Orders, because I allowed they did not in St. Clement's Time, and to establish this Conclusion, he pleads that St. Clement must have written his Epistle but a little Time before Ignatius. — To this I Answer, That Mr. Wooton and A.Bp. Wake have proved that Clement wrote his Epistles at least nigh 40 Years before Ignatius; for that [...]t appears from the Epistle it self, that it was written just after the Persecution under Nero, which was A. D. 65. because he speaks, c. 5. of St. Peter and St. Paul as having been lately Martyred; and that it must have been written before the Destruction of Je­rusalem, which was A. D. 70 bec [...]se he speaks of the Temple and it's Services as still continuing. These and other Arguments they use, advance a very strong probability, at least, that the Date of this Epistle must be whereabouts I placed it: And consequently there must have been Time enough for the first Go­v [...]urs [Page 106] of the Church, who at first were called A­postle [...] as being Fellow-labourers with, and Successors to the Twelve, by degree; to drop that Name, as Theodore [...] & others testifie, out of respect to the Twelve, and to be generally distinguished by the Name Bishop.

However it is abundantly clear from Ignatius's Epis­tles, that his Bishops were sufficiently distinguished from his Presbyters to be called a distinct Order.— That they had a distinct Ordination, as Bishops cannot be reasonably doubted, since all accounts extant from the Beginning do constantly, without Exception, speak of Bishops as being ordained to their Office by Im­position of Hands: The o [...]dest Rule of the Church extant, among those which Bp. Beveridge proves to have been the Rules of the Church in the second and third Centuries, is, ‘That a Bishop must be Or­dained by two or three Bishops, and a Presbyter and Deacon by one B [...]shop.’ V. Cler. Vad. Mecum. p. 2, 3. And this cannot be disputed by any one that is ver­sed in St. Cyprian's Works: St. Polycarp is by Irenaeus, who personally knew him, said to have been ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Smyrna, and Ignatius is uni­versally declared to have been ordained by the Apos­tles, Bishop of An [...]ioch, not to mention St. James at Jerusalem, Clemens at Rome, Timothy at Ephesas, Titus at Crete, Mark at Alexandria, and many more which were ordained by the Apostles themselves: Now it is clear from Igna [...]ius [...]s Epistles that the Bishops of those Times, (particularly Polycarp,) had Presbyters under them; and since it is evident from the Holy Scriptures that the Apostolic Method of Ordination was by Imposition of Hands, it cannot be questioned but that they were to ordained to their Office of pre­siding over and governing the Clergy, as well as Peo­ple of their respective Churches, See Bingham, l 2 5.1. — That Ignatius's Bishops had such a Jurisdict [...]on over their Pre [...]byters as the English Bishops, is clear [Page 107] from Ep. ad Smyr. §. 8. which I mentioned before, in which it appears that nothing could lawfully be done without the Bishops Approbation or Licence: And since it is there manifest that, under his Directions, their Presbyters did administer Baptism and the H. Eucharist or Lord [...]s Supper, as did likewise St. Cyprian's Presbyters, Ep. 15, 16, 17. It is little short of right down Raving for Anderson, and after him Elutherins, to pretend they were only Lay-Ruling Elders of the Presbyte [...]ian kind. And by the way, how shall we reconcile Elutherius and his Friend Phileleuth. while one holds Ignatius's Presbyters to be Lay-Elders, and the other to be of the same Order with the Bishops? So inconsistent are false Schemes one with another, as well as with Truth! — That Ignatius's Bishops had the sole Power of Ordination is manifest, not only from the Canon abovementioned, but also from hence, that there is not one Instance to be given, in all Antiquity, of any other approved Ordinations, but what were performed by Bishops, as Mr. Bingham a­bundantly proves,l. 3. c. 3. §. 6. and I challenge one Instance to be produced. — And lastly, That Ignatius held Episcopacy to be Fundamental, is clear from many Passages, particularly Ep. ad Eph. §. 3. where he says, that ‘the Bishops appointed unto the utmost Bounds of the Earth are by the Will of Jesus Christ. And §. 5. ‘Let us take heed that we do not set ourselves against the Bishop that we may be subject to GOD’. And §. 6. ‘For whomsoever the Mas­ter of the House sets over his Houshold, we ought in like manner to receive as we would do him that sent him’. And he requires the Deacons to be subject to the Presbyters, and both Deacons and Pres­byters to the Bishop according to the Will of GOD.

And now as to St. Cyprian's Testimonies, who lived within 150 Years of the Apostles: I must have the Charity to believe, that this Gentleman never [Page 108] throughly read the Works of this Father, or surely he could never go about to mislead People into such a wrong Notion of his Sense of Episcopacy from the Passage he quotes: for nothing can be clearer than that St. Cyprian's Notion of Episcopacy, and that which this Gentleman pleads for, are utterly diverse from each other: For he would have St. Cyprian's Bi­shop to be nothing but a meer Moderator, i. e. to have only [...] Primacy, without any proper Juris­diction, [...] it is plain from the Passage I quoted, Ep 33. Ed. O [...] [...], ‘That it is established by the Divine Law, that every Act of the Church should be governe [...] [...] Bishops,’ and what St. Cyprian in this Place [...]ledges [...] for, Thou art Peter, &c. is not to shew what respect Peter bore to the other Apostles, as having a Primacy among them, but that the Apostolate, and consequently the Episco­pate as succeeding to it, was fi [...]st Instituted in what Christ there says to him — And in his Letters to his Presbyters and Deacon [...] while he was in Banish­ment, he plainly writes to them in the Style, not of a meer Moderator, but of a Governour, particularly, Ep. 15, 16, 17, or 10, 11, 12, Ed. Pam. He chastises some of the Presbyters for not considering the Ho­nour and Obedience they owed to the Bishop set over them, in that they had admitted some to the Communion who had fallen, without his having first declared his Acceptance of their Repentance, as the Custom then was, by Imposition of Hands. — It is also plain that he considered the Bishops as being of a distinct Order from the Presbyters, from what Mr. Slater argues in his Original Draught, viz. That St. Cyprian styles the Bishops his Colleagues, but never gives that Appellation to the Presbyters: And this Distinction is abundantly evident thro'out the whole of his Writings. Particularly I desire the Reader to consult, Ep. 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 65, 69, 75, as they stand in Pamelius [...]s Edition, as [Page 109] well as many other Places. In the 35th Ep he gives his Clergy an Account of his having ordained Nu­midicus Presbyter, and calls them, "his Clergy": and in that, and Ep. 38. he speaks of Ecclesiastical Pro­motions as depending on the Bishop; can these and the like Expressions be reconciled with the Character of a modern Moderator of a Presbytery?— In Ep. 39. he tells them "he had suspended or censured such and such Persons".— In Ep. 69. he says, ‘The Bishops succeed the Apostles by vicarious Ordina­tion,’ and calls them "Governours of the Church", as he also does in the Council of Carthage; and in Ep. 76. he makes a Regular ‘Succession from the Apo­stles necessary to a lawful Ordination’, and the same does Firmilian, Ep. 75. — But it would be endless to mention all the Passages in St. Cyprian that explain the Nature of the Episcopacy of those Times, as being manifestly of the kind we plead for. I wish the Reader could at least consult these, and that he would readily see how far this Gentleman is from giving a fair and just Representation of St. Cyprian's Sense.— Nothing can be more evident from the whole of his Conduct with respect to his Presbyters, than that he had, and exercised a proper, tho' limited Jurisdiction or Government over them; and yet this unaccountable Gentleman would face down the good old Father and the whole Primitive Christian World, That his, and all the ancient Episcopacy was only a meer Primacy.

Well, But he undertakes to prove this from St. Cy­prian himself; who, in his Tract De unitate Ecclesiae, makes the Primacy of Peter with respect to the rest of the Apostles who were of the same Order with him­self, a Pattern for all succeeding Bishops. Now as to this, I think it will be plain to whoever will consult that Passage, compared with the Design of the Dis­course, and the other Passages of his Works which I have referred to, that among other Arguments for [Page 110] Unity, he uses this, That as the Apostolate was one, each Apostle having the whole Authority of the en­tire Apostolate; so the Episcopate which succceds it, is but One each Bishop having the whole Authority of the Episcopate: But as the Unity of the Apostolate centered in the Primacy of Peter, so he would have the Unity of the Episcopate center in the Primacy of One in each Province, which Primacy is menti­oned in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice, as an ancient Custom, and as having universally obtained in the Church: See Bp. Fell's Notes in loc. — And agreeably to this Sense of St. Cyprian St. Jerom pleads, ‘That all Bishops have the same Power, whether the Bishop of Rome or of Eugubium, whether they be great or small, rich or poor? &c. They are all alike Successors of the Apostles’: And yet he would have a Primacy among them, as appears from the Passage this Gentleman refers to. — All that can be gathered from the Passages, therefore, is, that all Bishops are equal, as all the Apostles were to whom they succeed; but does it therefore follow, that, ac­cording to them, Bishops and Presbyters are equal? By no means, for they are not speaking a word in those Places of Presbyters: — They would have a Primacy in each Province among the Bishops, as Peter was Primate among the Apostles: but does it therefore follow that the Bishop has only a Primacy among the Presbyters? No such thing, for neither of them ever speak of Presbyters as being the proper Suc­cessors of the Apostles. — This Gentleman there­fore does manifestly pervert the true Sense of St. Cyprian and St. Jerom, in understanding them to mean that the ancient Bishops had only a Primacy with respect to the Presbyters, just as St. Peter had with regard to the other Apostles: for they are not speaking a Syl­lable in those Places of the Bishop with respect to his Presbytery, but of the Bishops among themselves; neither is St Cyprian there speaking of the Unity of [Page 111] a particular Church, but of the Catholick Church; and maintains, as I have said, that as there is one Apostolate, of which each Apostle had the whole Power, so there is one Episcopate, of which each Bishop has the whole Power! Never does he once speak thus of Presbyters, tho' he very often mentions them, but ever speaks of them as being distinct from Bishops, and inferior and subject to them: But as there was a Primacy in the Apostolate; so he fre­quently speaks of a Primacy in the Episcopate in each Province, but never does he speek of this in regard to the Presbytery.—He himself was Primate or Arch-Bishop of the Province of Africa, and presided in the Council of Carthage, in which, beside many Presbyters and Deacons, there were 87 Bishops of that Country: on which Occasion, he says, ‘None of us takes upon him to be a Bishop of Bishops. i. e. To exercise a proper Jurisdiction over other Bishops: In this consisted the Papal Usurpation afterwards, turning the Primacy into a Supremacy, and the Spiritual into a Worldly Dominion: This St. Cyprian disclames, (as did even Gregory the Great, a Bishop of Rome, above 300 Years after this:) But it is evident from his E­pistles, that he was at the same time a Bishop of Presbyters, and did exercise a proper, tho' limited Jurisdiction or Government over the Presbyters, Deacons and People of his own particular Church of Carthage.— And now I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader, whether I have not truly and justly represented his Sense, and the Sense of those Primitive Times, and consequently whether this Gentleman hath not grosly misrepresented it.

The Church of England is formed exactly according to St. Cyprian's Model as to all the particulars I have been mentioning: Does he make all the Apostles e­qual in Power with St. Peter? So are all our Bishops equal in Power with the Archbishops, except what a meer Primacy for Order nece [...]a [...]ly implys: — Had [Page 112] Peter a Primacy with respect to the other Apostles? So have our Archbishops with respect to the other Bishops, and as St. Cyprian likewise had with respect to the other Bishops of Affrica. — Did the Unity of the Primitive Church, as to its common Polity, center in this Primacy? So does the Unity of the Church of England: — Had St. Cyprian's & Ignatius's Bishops each of them Presbyters under them, and a limited Jurisdiction over the Clergy, as well as Peo­ple, each one in his own Church? So have the Bi­shops of England each in his, and only a limited Ju­risdiction: —The Bishops of those Times alone ordained, and so do ours, excepting that the Presby­ters with us assist in ordaining Presbyters, and so they probably did then. Some circumstantial Difference there may be, but the Substance, or most material Points of Ecclesiastical Government, are the same.— Upon the whole, I can truly say, I desire no other kind of Bishops than such as were in St. Cyprian's time; and if I did not sincerely think that those of our Church were manifestly of the same kind with them, I would immediately drop my Pen, and never under­take to plead her Cause any more.

But before I finish, I must beg leave to observe, That this Gentleman seems, after all, not unwilling to own that the Cyprianic, and even the Ignatian Bishops, (nay, and even Timothy, Titus and the 7 Angels themselves, were at least fixed Moderators, p. 127, 128, 152, And for ought I can see, his Argument from St. Peter's Pri­macy must make them fixed by Divine Appointment: By which I think he must be allowed to grant that the way of these New-England Churches, and the Scotch Presbyterians, are not conformed to the Primitive Model, as established by Christ and his Apostles; for it is well known that theirs are only vague Modera­tors, and chosen pro re [...]ata. — Now seeing he is come so near to us, as not only to allow that those whom we call Primitive Bishops might be fixed Mo­derators [Page 113] or fixed Presidents, as in fact they were, and seems not to dislike this Constitution; methinks it is pity we should differ any longer. Let him only grant two Things more, which the Primitive Model certainly also requires, viz. That these fixed Presi­dents be ordained to their Office with Imposition of Hands, by those of their own Order, and That no Act of Ordination and Government be allowed but under their Presidency: Nay, rather than fail, let it be so limited, if he pleases, as that the President shall no more be allowed to do any thing of Moment with­out his Presbytery, than They without him; I say let these things be granted, and we will be at once uni­ted with him, and all be one Communion again.

And now to conclude: As to the Business of Charity, I must think my Brother Phil. hath not considered the Expressions I used, (which he will needs have to be inconsistent with both It and Themselves) with that Candor and Charity he might and ought to have done. — For GOD's sake, my Brethren, Let us not, for the Future, study to put the worst Constructions we can on one anothers Words or Actions; but let us rather endeavour to make the best we can of them: Let us not try to magnifie and aggravate the Diffe­rences between us, but rather to make as little of them, and to consider them with as much Tenderness, as possible: Let us not dispute which has already most or least Charity, but let us strive to see who shall hereafter, really and in fact, most abound in the Practice of that Heavenly Vertue, both towards each other, and towards all Men: This is the best Course we can take, as far as possible in this imperfect State, to reconcile our selves to one another, both in Judg­ment and Practice; to meet together in Truth, and live in Peace here, or however to meet at last in that perfect State of Truth, and Peace, and Holiness hereafter, where GOD and Charity alone shall forever Reign!

FINIS.
[Page]

ERRATA.

PAg. 7 line 29. read, will have it. p. 15 l. 8 for was r. is p. 25 l. u [...] is, only certain, &c. p. 42 l. 18 for would r. should. p. 46 l. 17 r. tho' (as I am told) he lives, &c. l. 21 for is it r. it is. l. 24 for thing, r. things. p. 47 l. 21 for endeavo. ur, r. endeavouring. p. 49 l. 8 for conducted, r. conduct p. 5 [...] [...] 31 for and, r. but. p. 54 l. 29 r. you are in danger. p. [...]4. l. 6 blot out (it) p. 89 l. 32 blot out (be) p. 99 l. 2 5 r. as in fact [...] was.

Page [...]32, at line 2 inse [...] [...]is marginal Note, [...] a [...] all Answer to this Objection, read A. Bp. King [...] [...] excellent Answers to Mr. Boise.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the 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.