THIS section he designed as a defence, in part at least, of the 'sketch of argu­ments' he had brought to view, in his 'ap­peal,' in favour of Episcopacy in general. It is a pity he put himself to the trouble of giving us this sketch. I remonstrated against it, in my answer, p. 14, and for these rea­sons. The plea, in what he had undertaken, would, by his own confession, 'be equally valid, whether these principles were founded right­ly, or wrongly;' and no valuable end could be answered by this trouble, unless to increase the number of his pages, which would DETAIN his readers from attending to the MAIN POINT he proposed for debate; and needlessly too, as he gave us only a repetition of arguments that had been before repeated over and over again so as to be even nauseous. He has seen fit frankly to acknowledge, defen. p. 77, 'that he was convinced what was said upon the general subject, however just in itself, or proper in the­ory, had been better omitted.' And yet, he has wrote no less than ninety-eight pages (more a great deal than one third part of the whole of what he has offered) in support of that, concern­ing which he was 'convinced' it had been bet­ter if he had said nothing. And what is asto­nishing, [Page 18] not being satisfied with barely insinu­ating, he has peremptorily declared, p. 77, that his 'adversaries have eagerly laid hold of a sub­ject which has been already debated for almost 200 years, and will probably be debated for 200 years to come; by this means keeping the PRIN­CIPAL OBJECT of this controversy, which is an AMERICAN EPISCOPATE, at a distance, and as much as possible out of sight.' Who could have imagined, that one who professes a regard to his own honour and character, could be capable of reflecting blame upon others, not only in an instance wherein he himself has been grossly faul­ty, but wherein the faultiness of others, if in­deed they are at all faulty, is wholly owing to him as its real and only occasional cause? Was not the Doctor the very person, who, by his needless 'sketch of arguments' to support Epis­copacy in general, 'kept out of sight the grand object in pursuit?' And did he not hereby render it necessary for those who answered him to do the like, at least for a while, and until they might, with allowance from him, bring this object into view? He is still inexcusably in­attentive upon this head; for, says he, p. 77, 'the Doctor seems to have acted upon this plan, exerting himself upon the subject of Episcopacy as if it was his chief business in answering the appeal; whereas the curiosity of the Public cal­led him to pursue another object.'—I had em­ployed but about 50 pages in 200 upon the ge­neral subject of Episcopacy; and this, after hav­ing remonstrated against the Doctor's obliging me to take this needless trouble, and excusing myself, on this account, to the Public, for post­poning, for a while, the consideration of the grand point in view: And yet, he unaccounta­bly [Page 19] brings me in making that my CHIEF BUSI­NESS, which was only a small part of it, and would not indeed have been any part, if he had not unseasonably and needlessly called me to it. The 'other object', which, says the Doctor, in the next words, 'the curiosity of the Publick called him to pursue, is an object from which I propose to be no longer diverted by an endless dispute concerning Episcopacy.' And yet, if the reader can give credit to it, he has still gone on, in contradiction to his own purpose, for more than 20 pages; though he had before wrote upon the same subject more than 70. Per­haps, when he calmly reflects upon his injudi­cious unfairness, not to say inconsistency with himself, as above opened to him, he may be put to the blush. It is impossible he should think, he has shewn himself so 'ingenuous' as might reasonably have been expected: Nor will it, after this, appear any thing strange, if we should meet with still more gross misrepresen­tations.

THE Doctor introduced the first section in his 'appeal' with observing, 'that the church of England is episcopal, and consequently holds the necessity of Bishops to govern the church, and to confer ecclesiastical orders.' It was said in answer, 'that the church of England neither holds, nor is obliged to hold, the DIVINE RIGHT of Bishops in the appropriated sense, to govern the church, or confer holy orders; and that none of her public offices, or any part of the system of her conduct, are founded on this principle.' The Doctor replies, def. p. 16, 'If it be by vir­tue only of the jus humanum of Episcopacy that Bishops are necessary, still the ends for which they are necessary cannot be obtained without [Page 20] them so long as we are subject to the authority that requires them.' It is at once easy and suf­ficient to say here, as the authority requiring is by supposition meerly human, no complaints can reasonably be made by those who could have none to make, if they acknowledged and ho­noured no one but JESUS CHRIST as SU­PREME HEAD of the christian church.

BUT the JUS DIVINUM of Episcopacy is what the Doctor has all along pleaded for, and it is THIS RIGHT only I ever pretended was not the doctrine of the church of England. And, upon fur­ther examination, in consequence of what the Doc­tor has offered, I am abundantly confirmed in the persuasion, that this doctrine was never intend­ed to be delivered as her faith, in any of her public offices; no, not in her 'preface to the book of ordination,' which has the strongest aspect this way. The Doctor thinks the DIVINE RIGHT of Episcopacy is clearly and fully asserted in this preface. Having cited those words of it he sup­poses make for his purpose, which I shall throw into the margin, ^* he observes upon them [Page 21] as follows, 'If the reader will now carefully con­sider this passage, let him say, Whether it is easy to conceive a more direct, positive, and compleat testimony in favour of Episcopacy, than is here given by the compilers of the ordinal. The dis­tinction of the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, is in this preface fully asserted;— the antiquity of this distinction is deduced 'from the Apostles time;'—the evidence in favour of it is said to be contained 'in holy scripture, and ancient authors;'—and the clearness of this evi­dence is such that it must appear 'to all men di­ligently reading the holy scripture.' In conse­quence of this doctrine, 'no man is to be account­ed a lawful ^* Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the [Page 22] church of England.'—If I should, in my own words, point out the inconclusiveness of the Doctors reasoning here, he and his friends might [Page 23] be disposed to cry out prejudice! obstinacy! perverse blindness! I shall therefore give the proper reply, at least in part, in the language of two famous episcopal writers. Bishop Hoad­ly, who has defended Episcopacy in a more mas­terly way than any one I have ever yet met with, in answer to Dr. Calamy, thus expresses himself upon this very passage in the preface to the book of ordination. ^† 'You wholly alter the form of that sentence in the preface to the ordination-office, on which you ground this ob­jection; and seem to me to misrepresent the plain design and intent of it. For there is some difference, I think, between these two sentences, 'Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are three distinct orders in the church, by DIVINE APPOINT­MENT;' and 'from the Apostles times, there have been these orders in CHRISt's church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' The former of these is your's; and leads people to think, that the principal intent of this sentence you scruple, was to lay it down for an undoubted truth, that Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons, are three distinct [Page 24] orders, (in the most strict sense of that word, and in opposition to those episcopal men, who did not approve of that word taken in so strict a sense) and that by DIVINE APPOINTMENT. The latter is the sentence, as it is expressed by the church itself; and the design of it is plainly no more, but to signify, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, have been in the church from the be­ginning, distinguished from one another by their peculiar offices. But, if you take a plea­sure in representing, and understanding, every thing in the way which carries most difficulty along with it, we cannot help it.' Another champion in the cause of the church of England, speaking in reply to this same difficulty objected by Dr. Calamy against ministerial conformity, observes, ^* with reference to the words on which this difficulty is grounded, that they 'say nothing of DIVINE RIGHT or APPOINTMENT; but only that, from the Apostles times, there have been these orders:— from which, the most that can be inferred is, that in such churches where there has been need of them, or occasion for them all, there have been three such ranks of ministers for the government and instruction of CHRIST's church, from the times of the Apostles; which yet, by Mr. Calamy's leave, does not prove a DIVINE APPOINTMENT of all,—there having been other things, in the Apostles days, which yet for all that are not allowed to be of divine appointment.' ^§

[Page 25]THE Doctor may perceive, by these quota­tions from two famous writers in behalf of the church of England, that those who cannot, in the present case, be taxed with 'prejudices that might influence them to misrepresentation,' could discern nothing in this 'ordination-pre­face' that 'seemed to have an aspect' in favour of the DIVINE RIGHT of Episcopacy. It is true, it accounts no one a LAWFUL Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon, of the church of England, unless admitted to office by LAWFUL authority, in the manner prescribed. But there is a wide difference between LAWFUL, and DIVINE autho­rity. [Page 26] Does this preface affirm, with the Doc­tor, that the power of government and ordina­tion are by GOD appropriated to Bishops, and so appopriated to them as that they ought to be exercised by no other, and, if they are, that they have no validitv? Let him, if he can, give the least shadow of proof, that this idea was intended to be conveyed as the sense of the church of England. Until he is able to do this, it will be a vain thing in him to pretend, that this is the doctrine of the English church, as held forth in this preface. The plain truth is, the 'book of ordination,' the 'preface' to which we have been considering, is formed upon the supposition, that Presbyters have the power of ordination in com­mon with Bishops; nor can it in any other view be made consistent with itself. This, because a matter of importance, even in relation to the grand point in debate, and not commonly con­sidered, I will a little dilate upon, and shall do it by giving the Public a large extract from Mr. Ferdinand Shaw's 'judgment of the church of England, in point of ordination;' wherein it is shewn, that 'she allows a divine inherent right in the Presbyter's office to ordain.' And I the rather chuse to exhibit this extract, because it is taken from a pamphlet I lately received from the other side the Atlantic, and is, perhaps, the only one in America.

ONLY, before I proceed, I would take leave just to inform the Doctor, that I have tryed the experiment he proposes, and find, that I can 'honestly and consistently subscribe' to this or­dination preface, with the allowance only of 'explanations' more natural, and 'interpreta­tions' less softening, than ninety-nine in an hun­dred are obliged to recur to, before they can, [Page 27] if they pay any regard to conscience, subscribe to the thirty-nine articles of the English church, not to say any thing of the book of common­prayer, and other forms to which they are obli­ged to assent and consent.—To go on,

SAYS the writer above-mentioned, 'It is very observable, that, for above an hundred years after the happy reformation in England, the form of committing to Bishops and Presbyters their office and work made no distinction at all in the order; as is evident to all who have perused the FORMER book of ordination. In the ordination of a Deacon, the office was ex­pressed, take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon. This was a distinct office, and the person was ordained to a distinct order in the church. But in the ordination of a Bishop, or a Presbyter, it does not appear, by the commis­sion that was given them, that they were esteem­ed distinct orders. ^* For there was no men­tion [Page 28] made in the words of ordaining them, that it was for the one, or the other office. In both it was said, 'receive thou the HOLY GHOSt;'—but it was not added (as it is in the PRESENT book of orders) 'for the office and work of a Priest, or for the office or work of a Bishop:^† So that it is plain, there was no real intrinsic difference granted by the ordi­nation-commission to those of the first or second order. The powers granted to the one, for ought appears, were granted to the other; for as the commission they received made no diffe­rence in the name or function, so neither did it in their authority. Whatever spiritual pow­ers the one had given them, to the other were given the same. Had Bishops the power of or­dination committed to them, so had Presbyters too, who received the same commission by the same solemnity, in words of the same impor­tance, and therefore must be invested with the same divine powers.'

[Page 29]And that the church of England conti­nues in the same mind to this day, I doubt not to make appear from the present book of or­ders; ^‡ to which every Clergyman is obliged to give his 'unfeigned assent and consent.' This therefore cannot be pretended to be only [Page 30] the particular opinion of some private persons, but must be owned to be the established doc­trine of the church, to which all her sons are by a most sacred vow bound to conform.

The Rubrick, immediately after the ordina­tion-prayer says, 'the Bishop with the PRIESTS present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of [Page 31] priesthood.' As priests are not to ordain with­out the Bishop, so neither is the Bishop to or­dain without Priests. If the former would be esteemed invalid, so, for ought I can see, must the latter too: I am sure, it would be expressly contrary to the rules of the church, by which some Priests are required to be always present with, and assisting of the Bishop in all ordina­tions; as appears by the Rubrick abovemention­ed, compared with other parts of the office, and Can. 31, 34.

IT cannot, with any colourable pretence, be said, that the joining of Presbyters with the Bi­shop in this solemn act does only signify their witnessing to, or approbating, the thing done. If thus were all, it might as well be done by the laity who were present, or the Deacons; and yet, it is certain, they are not permitted to lay on hands in ordination (as the Priests are); though they are permitted to be spectators, wit­nesses, or approvers, as well as they. Besides, it is evident from the ordination-commission, that the office of Priest is conveyed by the Bishop and Presbyters JOINTLY. 'Receive the HO­LY GHOST for the office and work of a Priest in the church of GOD, now committed unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands.' From whence it is as plain as words can make it, that priestly orders in the church of England are to this very day conferred by the BISHOP AND HIS PRESBYTERS TOGETHER; that the office is re­ceived from their JOINT AUTHORITY; that the Bishop ought not to ordain without his Pres­byters, any more than without prayer, or impo­sition of hands, which are all made essentially necessary; yea, that he cannot do it without a very material, but absolutely unwarrantable, [Page 32] alteration of the words in the commission, and perverting the design of it, changing the word OUR into MY, and saying, 'by the imposition of MY hands, instead of OUR hands; by which variation, how small soever it may seem, the Bi­shop would lodge the sole power of ordaining in himself, contrary to the letter and intention of the office, which necessarily supposes, that Presbyters have the same intrinsic power with the Bishop: otherwise it would be no other than a solemn piece of mockery to deliver the commis­sion in the name of the Presbyters EQUALLY with the Bishop. For how could they convey pow­er to others which they had not in themselves? None certainly should lay on hands at all in giv­ing ministerial authority, but such to whose of­fice it belongs to commit the same doctrine to others, which themselves have received a com­mission to be teachers of, no more than any should consecrate the elements in the eucharist, who were never impowered to administer the sacrament.

THERE is not the least appearance of any dis­tinction by the words in the office, that the granting the commission is only from the Bishop, and that what the Presbyters do in conjunction with him is only consenting to what he does. The church, in the preface to the book of or­ders, supposes imposition of hands necessary to the conveying the office of the priesthood. She therein requires PRIESTS, by the Rubrick, to lay on hands together with the Bishop: and, upon the performing of that action, the Bishop de­clares in express words, 'that the office and work of a Priest is committed unto thee by the impo­sition of OUR hands; which can never be meant, in any proper way of speaking, of the Bishops [Page 33] hands alone, but include his Presbyters, who were partners in laying hands with him, as hav­ing a share also in conveying the power which was by granted by that action, by a right inhe­rent in their office; though, by the ecclesiastical constitution of the country, they are restrained from exercising it ALONE, as the BISHOP HIM­SELF ALSO IS. He may indeed ordain a Dea­con without the concurrence of his Presbyters, and in this case the imposition of his own hands alone is required: whence it is plain, that the church makes a manifest distinction betwixt what the Bishop can do ALONE, and what he cannot do WITHOUT his Presbyters. She allows him to ordain Deacons by his SOLE power, and there­in the office is conferred ONLY by the impositi­on of his own hands: but when he is to or­dain Priests, he must then have the concurrence of his Presbyters with him, and the office is said to be conferred by the imposition of OUR hands, that is, of Bishop and Presbyters CONJUNCTLY. That is done by BOTH TOGETHER, which the church allows not to be done by EITHER SEPARATELY.

THIS may be illustrated from the office of 'consecrating Bishops,' which is made exactly to correspond with that of 'ordering Priests,' and therefore must be allowed to be a parallel case. In this office, conformable to the other, (mutatis mutandis) the 'Rubrick', just after the ordination-prayer, requires the Arch-Bishop and Bishops present (of whom there must be two at least) to lay their hands upon the elected Bi­shop, upon which action the Arch-Bishop im­mediately pronounces the commission, (as the Bishop does in the ordination of Priests) but declares, 'the office is committed by the impo­sition of OUR hands;' that is, the episcopal func­tion [Page 34] is conveyed by the imposition of the hands of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops together, with­out whom he ought not to consecrate a Bi­shop. Now, if a Bishop can no more ordain a Priest without the concurrence of his Presbyters, than an Arch-Bishop can consecrate a Bishop without the concurrence of his Bishops; if Pres­byters are required to use the 'same action' to­gether with the Bishop in the ordination of 'Priests,' as Bishops are with the Arch-Bishop in the consecration of a 'Bishop,' viz. imposi­tion of hands; and if the commission granted to 'Priests' by the Bishop and his Presbyters be in the 'same words' with the commission granted to Bishops by the Arch-Bishop and his Bishops, viz. 'committed unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands;' it must undeniably follow, that Presbyters have as much an inherent right in their office (in the opinion of the church of England) for ordaining Priests, as Bishops have in their's for consecrating Bishops.'

IT cannot be pretended, that the Arch-Bishop ALONE conveys the power, and that the Bishops who join with him in laying on of hands do it meerly as witnesses to, or approvers of, his act; because the Arch-Bishop's power over Bishops is granted to be meerly ecclesiastical, I mean owing to human institution, and not to a divine right.

LET men make what pretensions and evasions they will, it is certain, from the 'book of orders,' and the practice of the church of England, that she allows Presbyters to ordain in conjunction with their Bishop, which must be understood, if words and actions have any determined sense, by virtue of a divine right inherent in their office.

IF this be not her sense, what an absurdity [Page 35] must she be guilty of in ordering their concurrence in the sign, who have no manner of interest or right in the ministerial conveyance of the thing signified by it? Just as if it should be said, a Deacon hath power to use the words of institu­tion in Baptism, and to apply the proper ele­ment, but yet hath not power to baptise; or that a Presbyter may consecrate the eucharistical elements, according to CHRIST's institution, and distribute them to the People, and yet not have power to administer the LORD's supper.

IF imposition of hands in ordination be a meer cypher, and empty formality, in Presby­ters, will it not be concluded, that so it is in Bishops too, and that the laying on of the hands of the one and the other is but a needless ce­remony, and signifies no more to the convey­ance of ministerial authority, than if the hands of meer laymen were imposed? But, if this ex­ternal rite be supposed to convey the ministerial commission from the Bishop, why does it not import the same thing from Presbyters, who are enjoined it by the same authority as the Bishop, and in conjunction with him? Will not every one naturally conclude, that since the action is the same, since it is done at the same time, in the same manner, with the same words, and declared by the Bishop himself to be for the same end, that it conveys the same powers?' Thus Mr. Shaw.

UPON the whole, if there is no inconsistency between the established ordinal, and the preface to it, the Bishops spoken of, in the latter are not Bishops in the Doctor's sense, that is, Bi­shops who are divinely vested with the exclusive right to convey holy orders. For, according to the appointed rule, no man can be ordained a Priest without the laying on of the hands of [Page 36] Presbyters as well as of the Bishop. The or­daining power is lodged, not in the Bishop ONLY, or EXCLUSIVELY, but in the Bishop, and Presbyters CONJUNCTLY. If Presbyters cannot ordain by themselves ALONE, neither can the Bishop. There must be, according to the book, the concurrence of BOTH. It is from hence evi­dent, that the restraint laid both upon Bishops and Presbyters, as to the exercise of their ordain­ing power, is meerly ecclesiastical. The church of England certainly allows an inherent right in BOTH to ordain, though she allows neither to exercise this right but within certain limitations. And though she accounts none LAWFUL Bi­shops or Presbyters but such as have been LAW­FULLY admitted to office, she is far from NUL­LIFYING the orders given by either. She no­where declares ordination by Presbyters to be invalid, though she esteems it not LAWFUL. And herein she differs from those few of her high flying sons, who would make their own uncharitable notions her avowed doctrine.

WHAT has been above offered in proof, that the jus divinum of Episcopacy, according to the Doctor's sense of it, is not contained in the 'pre­face to the book of ordination,' will receive fur­ther illustration, if we consider what were the sentiments of the first reformers, those of them in special who had a hand in compiling the ordinal.

I HAD said, from Dr. Calamy, (answ. to the appeal, p. 8) 'that in the year 1537, the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, and Clergy of England, in their book intitled, 'the instruc­tion of a christian man,' subscribed with all their hands, and dedicated to the King, expressly re­solve, that Priests and Bishops, by GOD's LAW, are ONE and the SAME.' To this the Doctor re­plies [Page 37] (def. p. 22) 'Collier has given an ab­stract of the most essential parts of this book. In this abstract there is nothing like what the Doctor would prove from it, but something extremely unlike it.' Collier's silence is to lit­tle purpose. Meerly an omission of his, which might have been designed to serve his own ends, ought to be esteemed as nothing, when opposed to direct positive evidence given in the case by one of an established reputation for veracity, especially as he has quoted the very words of the book itself. And as to the passage in this abstract, which is 'so extremely unlike' to what I had brought to view, it can have this appear­ance to those only who are disordered in their sight. If there is any 'unlikeness,' it must be in the following words, which the Doctor has distinguished by the manner of printing, 'BI­SHOPS are authorised by our Saviour to CONTINUE THE SUCCESSION, and PERPETUATE THE HI­ERARCHY.' But it ought to be remembered, it had been said before, 'Bishops and Priests are one and the same thing': and, if so, its being said afterwards, 'that Bishops are authorised to continue the succession,' conveys precisely the same idea as if it had been said, 'Priests are authorised' to do this. This passage cannot be made at all 'unlike' to the other, unless the whole Clergy of the church of England in that day are made to contradict themselves; for which no reason can be assigned but that of serving a present turn.

THE Doctor allows, that the book intitled, 'a necessary erudition for any christian man,' which though 'drawn up by only a committee of the King's nomination,' was yet authorised by both houses of Parliament, prefaced by the King [Page 38] himself, and published in 1543 by his com­mand; I say, the Doctor allows (p. 23) that, in this book, it is declared, 'that the scripture speaks expressly of no more than the two orders of Priests and Deacons;' consequently, Bishops must be, in the apprehension of these reform­ers, of the same rank and order with Priests, their office the same, and the superiority of the one above the other by the ordinance of man, and not of GOD. But, says the Doctor, from Col­lier 'the ERUDITION makes orders one of the seven sacraments, and defines it a gift of grace for administration in the church; that it is con­veyed by consecration and imposition of the Bi­shop's hands; that in the beginning of christi­anity, this character was given by the Apostles.' He then adds, 'how to reconcile these passages may be difficult; and until this be done, they can prove but little on either side.' There is nothing to reconcile in these passages. If, as these reformers say, 'the scripture makes men­tion of only the two orders of Priests and Dea­cons,' Bishops cannot, in their opinion, be a distinct order from Priests; consequently, when they further say, 'the gift for administration in the church is conveyed by consecration and im­position of the Bishop's hand,' by Bishop they must mean an officer of the same rank or order with Priests, unless they are made foolishly, as well as needlessly, to contradict themselves, when their words are as capable of a consistent con­struction.

IT is evident then, beyond all reasonable dis­pute, from the 'institution' and 'erudition;' that, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, 'Bishops and Priests were one and the same order' in the opinion of the church of England. But, says [Page 39] the Doctor, (p. 25) 'at this stage of the reforma­tion, it is no wonder that we meet with some crude expressions relating to Episcopacy.' And again, (p. 24) 'among the doctrines that had not been fully canvassed, by Cranmer and his friends, must be reckoned that of ecclesiastical government.' But the plain truth is, the sentiments of the church of England, relative to Bishops and Priests, were much the same in the reign of Edward the Sixth, as they were in the days of Henry the Eighth,; in order to evince which I had re­course (ans. to app. p. 9) to the 'select assem­bly called by King Edward for the resolution of several questions relative to the settlement of religion.' To which the Doctor replies, 'It was at this time [in the reign of Henry the Eighth] and not ten years afterwards, in the reign of Ed­ward the Sixth, as Dr. Chauncy, following his blind guide, ^* the Irenicum, asserts, that these [Page 40] questions were given out for discussion; as is plain from Bishop Burnet.' If this is plain from Bishop Burnet, he is the 'blind guide' to the Doctor, and not the Irenicum to me. For, it is observable, these questions with the resolutions of them, are published by Bishop Burnet 'ex M. S. S. D. Stillingfleet,' as his own words are.^† And it is undeniably evident, from what is said of these manuscripts, and quoted out of them, by Dr. Stillingfleet, that this 'select assembly' was called by King Edward the Sixth, and not by Henry the Eighth. ^‡ Nay, Bishop Burnet him­self was of the same mind. For, says he, ^§ 'I find another instance like this, in the reforma­tion that was further carried on in the SUC­CEEDING REIGN of EDWARD THE SIXTH, of many Bishops and Divines giving in their opi­nions under their hands, upon some heads then ex­amined and changed. In CRANMER's papers some singular opinions of his about the nature of ec­clesiastical offices will be found'.— Dr. Chandler has inserted (in p. 27) from Bishop Burnet, the other words in the above passage I have, for this [Page 41] reason, omitted quoting, in order to weaken the evidence of Cranmer: and yet taking no notice of the former part, he places these questions gi­ven out to be discussed about ten years back­ward from their true date, and in direct contra­diction to Bishop Burnet; affirming, at the same time, that it was 'plain from him,' that he had fixed the time right. He is able to say, whether this was done with design, or through inattention. I would candidly attribute it to the latter, however strange it may appear, that he should quote one part of a passage, and suffer another, he lays so great stress upon, to escape his observation.

HE acknowledges (p. 26) that Cranmer's an­swer to the tenth question in these words, 'Bi­shops and Priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of CHRIST's religion,' are to be found, as I had quoted them, in the manuscript published by Burnet; but then adds, 'the reader will not forget the time of his giving this answer, which was about ten years before our present offices for ordination were composed.' To which I would only say, this memento to the reader is the effect of his 'blindly' following a true guide. For it appears from what has been said above, that the very author whose authority he relies on speaks of this answer of Cranmer's as given, not 'about ten years before the ordinal was compil­ed,' but in the reign of Edward the Sixth; and as this book of ordination was published in the third year of this King's reign, it could be but a very little time before its composition; which is the more worthy of special notice, because, as the Doctor himself observes 'Cranmer was the principal person concerned in that work.'

[Page 42]HE goes on (p. ibid) 'However strange Cranmer's opinion may appear to have been, there is strong proof that he altered it immediately.' This 'strong proof' follows in these words, 'For in the same copy of questions and resolutions, Dr. Leighton's answer to the eleventh question is; 'I suppose that a Bishop hath authority of GOD, as his minister, by scripture to make a Priest; but he ought not to admit any man to be a Priest, and consecrate him, or to appoint him to any ministry in the church without the Prince's licence and consent. And that any other man hath authority to make a Priest by scripture, I have not read, nor any example there­of.' To the twelfth question Leighton answers, 'I suppose that there is a consecration required, as by imposition of hands; for so we be taught in the ensamples of the Apostles.' Now Durell, in his Vindiciae, says, 'That, having had an op­portunity of examining the original manuscript, he found that Cranmer gave his consent to these two opinions of Leighton, subscribing to each Th: Cantuariensis.' It is observable, the 'strong proof' that Cranmer changed his opinion is rested upon the evidence of Durell, which is really no evidence at all, if Mr. Boyse may be believed, who speaks of him ^* as 'an author too notorious for his many falshoods and mistakes in this kind to be depended on.' And the Doctor him­self has unwarily given us strong reason to pre­sume, that Boyse's account of Durell is a just one. For, says he (p. 27) 'Why Stillingfleet left out this passage is plain; it interfered with the de­sign of his Irenicum: but why Burnet omitted it is doubtful.' There can be no doubt in the [Page 43] case. If this passage was not in the original manuscript the reason of his not inserting it is at once evident. If it was there, he must, with­out all controversy be esteemed a dishonest pub­lisher of original manuscripts; which would, in this case, be very extraordinary, as it would have been to his purpose to have given us these words, and he could have no imaginable tempta­tion thus unfairly to suppress them. But should it be supposed true, that Cranmer subscribed his consent to the opinion of Leighton, as signified in the above quoted answers to the tenth and twelfth questions, it would not argue that he had changed his sentiments as to this, that 'Bi­shops and Priests were not two things, but one office in the beginning of CHRIST's religion.' The only words upon which such a change of opinion can be grounded are these, 'I suppose that a Bishop hath authority of GOD, as his minister, by scripture to make a Priest—and that any other man hath authority to make a Priest by scripture I have not read.—But for aught any thing that is here said, Bishops and Priests might, in Leighton's opinion, be one and the same order of officers in the church of CHRISt; and nothing appears in any of his other answers in contradiction hereto. And as to the words, 'That any other man hath authority to make a Priest I have not read,' it is evident that 'by any other man is meant, any other man not vest­ed with clerical authority. The general strain of all the answers to this eleventh question plain­ly leads to the thought, that it was intended for the settlement of this point, whether the power of making Priests was appropriated to the Clergy, so as that it might not be exercised by meer laymen. It was by no means designed [Page 44] to decide the question, Whether ordination was appropriated to Bishops in opposition to, or exclusion of, Presbyters? This is put beyond dispute by the answer particularly of the Arch-Bishop of York to that question, which is this, 'That a Bishop may make a Priest may be de­duced from scripture—And that ANY OTHER THAN BISHOPS OR PRIESTS may make a Priest we neither find in scripture, or out of scrip­ture.

THE plain truth is, it does not appear from any one of the answers, to any of the proposed questions, that there was a difference in the sen­timents of these Bishops and Divines as to the ONENESS, or SAMENESS, of the ORDER of Bi­shops and Presbyters; though they might dif­fer in their opinion about the DEGREE in the same order. The Arch-Bishop of York's answer to the tenth question, 'Whether Bishops or Priests were first,' will convey to us a clear and just idea of this; as we find in it such words as these, 'the name of a Bishop is not a name of ORDER but a name of office, signifying an over­seer. And although the inferior Shepherds have also care to oversee their flock, yet forasmuch as the Bishop's charge is also to oversee the She­pherds, the name of overseers is given to the Bishops, and not to the other; and as he is in DEGREE higher, so in their consecration we find difference even from the primitive church.' I shall yet add; to the 13th question, 'Whether (if it fortuned a christian Prince learned to con­quer certain dominions of infidels, having none but temporal learned men with him) if it be de­fended by the law, that he and they should preach and teach the word of GOD there, or no? and also make and constitute Priests, or no? [Page 45] I say to this 13th question, Leighton's answer is, 'I suppose the affirmative thereof to be true; quamvis potestas clavium refidet praecipue in Ec­clesia.' And to the fourteenth question, Whe­ther it be forefended by the law (if it so fortune that all the Bishops and Priests of a region were dead, and that the word of GOD should remain there unpreached, and the sacrament of baptism and others unministred) that the King of the re­gion should make Bishops and Priests to supply the same or no?' His answer is, 'I suppose the affirmative to be true, in case that there cannot Bishops or PRIESTS be had forth of other coun­tries conveniently.' These answers are essential­ly different from what the Doctor would have given to these questions, and absolutely incom­patible with the divine right of Episcopacy in his sense of it. And yet, these selected Bishops and Divines were perfectly unanimous in saying, that, in the case proposed, 'learned laymen not only may, but ought to preach and teach GOD's word;' and the greater part of them declare it to be their opinion, that the 'PRINCE, (in this same case) and his TEMPORAL LEARN­ED MEN may make and institute ministers, or Priests.' ^* How dissonant are these sentiments of our reformers from those expressed in the 'ap­peal,' (p. 4) in these words, 'If the succession [that is, in the line of Bishops, who only have authority to ordain] be once broken, and the power of ordination [that is, by Bishops only] once lost, not all the men on earth—not all the Angels in Heaven, without an immediate com­mission from CHRIST, can restore it!

[Page 46]THE Doctor has not yet done with Cranmer. (Says he, p. 30) 'After the time of his subscrib­ing to Dr. Leighton's opinions concerning Epis­copacy, I find him in no fluctuation of princi­ples; but many proofs appear of his settled and steady belief that Bishops are superior to Presbyters by apostolical institution.' Enough, I trust, has been already said to show, that no valid proof has been given, that Cranmer sub­scribed Leighton's answers; or, if he did, that this was sufficient to fasten on him a change of sentiments relative to Episcopacy: nor am I yet persuaded to think, that there are any proofs from which it will appear, that it was ever his 'settled belief that Bishops are superior to Pres­byters by apostolical institution.' It is a pity the Doctor has not quoted the passages in Cran­mer's writings, upon which he finds that there was 'no fluctuation in his principles on this head.' He speaks of a 'Catechism he compiled, in which, if we may believe Bishop Burnet, he fully owns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests.' Could a sight of this catechism be ob­tained, it is probable it might be in our power to refute what is here said from Bishop Burnet: However this may be, thus much is certain, if we would form a right judgment in this matter, it must be from what is said in the catechism it­self, and not by implicit faith in the opinion of another, who, perhaps, never saw it himself. The Doctor likewise tells us of a 'sermon in this catechism, or large instruction of young per­sons, concerning the authority of the keys, upon Rom. x.13, 14, 15, in which sermon his no­tions of Episcopacy and church-government are so high, that even the high-flying Dr. Hicks re­printed it at large in his preface to the divine [Page 47] right of Episcopacy asserted.' This sermon is, I conclude, the very one repaired to by Mr. Dru­ry in order to prove that Cranmer retracted his opinion about Bishops and Priests; to whom Mr. Boyse replies ^* 'the passage he has cited in this sermon no way asserts Priests and Bishops to be at the beginning two distinct orders.' If the Doctor will bring to view this, or any other pas­sage, in this sermon, or in any other writing of Cranmer, and from thence point out to us the affirmed change in his sentiments, we will rea­dily submit; but until then we shall beg leave to think, that he ever adhered to the opinion, 'that Priests and Bishops were at one time, and not two things, but one office in the be­ginning of CHRIST's religion.

I HAD said, (ans. to app. p. 12) from Mr. J. Owen, and upon his authority, 'that the noti­on of the right of Bishops to govern and ordain, as being officers in the church superior to Presby­ters, by divine appointment, was first promoted in the church of England by Arch-Bishop La [...]d.' The Doctor takes occasion from hence to play with the word PROMOTED to make his readers merry. He is utterly at a loss what to make of it. It is a 'mysterious' word; it contains in it 'some secret meaning, which he does not com­prehend;' it 'must be unfolded,' or, notwith­standing what may be the meaning of this un­searchable word, 'he must take the liberty to believe, that the national establishment of this doctrine again and again, and making it a fun­damental principle of our reformation, was do­ing something to PROMOTE it.' I assure the Doctor I would not have used this word, which [Page 48] appeared to me a harmless, well meaning one, could I have foreseen the strange influence it would have on him. It has certainly very much obstructed his discerning faculty: otherwise, it would not have appeared to him, that the supe­riority of Bishops to Presbyters, by divine ap­pointment, was a doctrine that had been 'again and again nationally established;' much less that this was a 'fundamental principle of the re­formation.' Arch-Bishop Laud, without all doubt, was the FIRST, I will not say that PRO­MOTED this doctrine, lest a word of so profound a meaning should puzzle the Doctor; but he was the FIRST, in opposition to any 'national establishment,' or its being at all a principle, much less 'a fundamental one of the reforma­tion,' that openly asserted, and pleaded for this doctrine. Perhaps the Doctor, now I have sub­stituted a plain word, instead of a 'mysterious' one, will be convinced of this by what has been offered to his view: if he is not, I am satisfied, the impartial Public will.

HE goes on, 'if the meaning' of this incom­prehensible word promoted 'be, that none before Arch-Bishop Laud contended for the superiori­ty of Bishops over Presbyters, by divine appoint­ment, in their writings, I must still deny it; as I am able to produce abundant evidence to the contrary.' The reader will remember, I brought in Arch Bishop Laud, as the first promoter of Episcopacy upon the plan of a divine right, from Mr. J. Owen, depending on his authority. Of what great importance is it, whether he was the first, second, third, or fourth that contended for this doctrine? And yet, the Doctor has taken up eight or nine pages in endeavouring to prove, that a few others wree before Laud in pleading [Page 49] the divine right of Episcopacy. But the unhap­piness is, he is grossly mistaken in the idea he has given of the sentiments of the men he has named. They were, it is true, Episcopalians upon the foot of divine right, in a qualified, mi­tigated sense; but not in the sense in which Laud and the Doctor, plead for this right. It was not the opinion of any one of them, that the right of Bishops, by divine appointment, to govern and ordain, was such, as that it could not, as the case might require, be altered: and they were clear and full in signifying their sen­timents to this purpose. I have by me a book, intitled, 'A representation of the government of the church of England, according to the judg­ment of her Bishops unto the end of Queen Elisabeth's reign,' by Stephen Lob, as I find his name inserted, in the title page, by Dr. Increase Mather; in which are extracts, from all the writers Dr. Chandler has mentioned, and many more, making it evident, beyond denial, that their notion of Episcopacy, upon the jure divine­ship plan, was so qualified as to be consistent with an intire change in the exercise of governing and ordaining power: but it must suffice, that I may not take up too much room, to bring to view a few of these extracts, from only two or three of the most illustrious of these writers; and I have selected these principally for instruction to the Doctor, and to let him and the Public know, that he is HIGHER in his church-principles than the HIGHEST it was in his power to name, when HIGH notions of Episcopacy first began to be broached.

HE celebrates Arch-Bishop Whitgift as an eminent writer in favour of the divine right of Episcopacy; but, whether the Arch-Bishop's [Page 50] notion of a divine right does at all agree with his, may easily be determined by the following pas­sages in his book against Cartwright. Having distinguished between such things as so necessary that without them we cannot be saved, and such as are so necessary that without them we cannot so WELL and CONVENIENTLY be saved, he adds 'I confess, that in a church collected together in one place, and at liberty, government is neces­sary with the second kind of necessity; but that any kind of government is so necessary, that without it the church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind, thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny; and the rea­sons that move me so to do be these The first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed, or commanded, in the scriptures to the church of CHRIST; which no doubt should have been done, if it had been a matter necessary to the salvation of the church. There is no certain kind of government, or dis­cipline, prescribed to the church; but that the same may be altered as the profit of the churches requires.—I do deny, that the scriptures do set down any one certain kind of government in the church to be p [...]rpetual, for all times, per­sons, and places, without alteration.—It is well known, that the manner and form of govern­ment used in the apostles time, and expressed in the scriptures, neither is now, nor can, nor ought to be observed, either touching the persons or the functions —We see manifestly that, in sun­dry points, the government of the church, used in the Apostles time, is, and hath been of ne­cessity altered, and that it neither may, nor can be, revoked; [...]hereby it is plain, that any one kind of e [...]ternal government, perpetually to be [Page 51] is no where in the scripture prescribed to the church, but the charge thereof is left to the MA­GISTRATE, so that nothing be done contrary to the word of GOD. This is the opinion of the best writers; NEITHER DO I KNOW ANY LEAR­NED MAN OF A CONTRARY JUDGMENT.—Ei­ther we must admit another form now of go­verning the church, than was in the Apostles time, or else we must seclude the christian Ma­gistrate from all authority in ecclesiastical mat­ters.—I am persuaded, that the external govern­ment of the church under a christian Magistrate must be according to the kind and form of go­vernment used in the common-wealth; else how can you make the Prince supream Governor of all states and causes ecclesiastical?'— ^*

ARCH-BISHOP Bancroft is likewise mentioned by the Doctor as having signalised himself in defending the cause of Episcopacy; but it could not be Episcopacy in the the sense plea­ded for in the 'appeal,' and its 'defence.' For it is evident, from the case of the three Presbyters that were consecrated Bishops for Scotland, at London, that Bancroft allowed or­dination by Presbyters to be valid. The Doc­tor indeed [...]s pleased to say, (p. 46) 'They were not consecrated on the principle that ordination by Presbyters was valid, but upon the belief that the episcopal character, as it included those of a Presbyter and Deacon, might be conveyed by a single consecration'—But, as this is rested on no other proof than the Doctor's own affirmati­on, it ought to be considered as nothing, when [Page 52] compared with the evidence we have, that Bancroft directly expressed his acknowledgment of the vali­dity of ordination by Presbyters. Arch-Bishop Spotis­wood declares this in so many words. Says he, ^* 'A question was moved by Dr. Andrews, Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish Bishops; who, as he said, must be first ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a Bishop. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, That thereof there was no necessity, seeing, where of Bishops could not be had, the ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise, that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches. This applauded to by the other Bishops, ELY acquiesced, and at the day, and in the place appointed, the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated.'

AS for Hooker, it is plainly evident, from a considerable number of large extracts from his 'immortal work, the ecclesiastical polity,' to be met with in Lob's representation, that, in his opi­nion, the scriptures do not make the Episco­pal, or any other particular kind of government, UNALTERABLE; that the power of conferring orders is not, by any divine law, SO APPROPRI­ATED TO BISHOPS, that in no case, ordination by PRESBYTERS can be valid; and that the church visible is the true original subject of all power, and can alter the government of the church. Among the extracts to this purpose, the two or three following ones only must suf­fice for the present.

THE first is taken from his seventh book, in [Page 53] these words, 'Bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth, that their authority hath thus descended even from, the very Apostles themselves; yet the ABSOLUTE and EVERLAST­ING CONTINUANCE of it they cannot say any commandment of the LORD enjoins; and therefore must acknowledge, that the church hath power by universal consent, upon urgent cause, to TAKE IT AWAY, if thereunto she be constrained through the PROUD, TYRANNICAL, AND UNREASONABLE DEALINGS OF HER BI­SHOPS. Therefore, lest Bishops should for­get themselves, as if none on earth had AU­THORITY to touch their states, let them conti­nually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the church, having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous Bishops, doth still uphold, main­tain and honor them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that the LORD himself hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of Bishops in what sort so ever they behave themselves.'

IN the same book, he says, 'There may be some­times very just and sufficient reasons to all ordinati­on made without a Bishop. The whole church visible, being the true original subject of all pow­er, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to ordain: Howbeit, as the ordi­nary course is ordin [...] in all things to be ob­served, so it may, in some cases not unnecessary, that we decline from the ordinary ways.'

IN the same book still, we meet with this passage 'We are not simply without excep­tion to urge a LINEAL DESCENT OF POWER FROM THE APOSTLES BY CONTINUED SUC­CESSION [Page 54] OF BISHOPS IN EVERY EFFECTUAL ORDINATION.' ^* I shall subjoin here, that Stillingfleet says, 'They who please but to con­sult the third book of Hooker's ecclesiastical his­tory, may see the mutability of the form of church government largely asserted, and, fully proved.' Lob makes the same observation; and with exact truth, as I can myself testify, having had opportunity, since the penning what has been above offered, to look into Hoo­ke [...], that I might be satisfied what his sentiments were upon this head.

UNTIL the Doctor sees fit to profess his rea­diness to fall in with these sentiments, I shall think myself at liberty to believe, that Laud was the FIRST who promoted Episcopacy, conforma­bly to the idea, he, and the very small party he is joined with, entertains concerning it.

AS, upon the point of Re-ordination, he 'does not undertake to contradict me, (to use his own words, p. 42) but to place it in a proper point of light,' I shall only desire the reader to take notice of one thing he has omitted, which is of far greater importance than any thing he has offered. It is the act of the thirteenth of Eli­sabeth, which runs thus,^† That every person un­der the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or minister of GOD's holy word and sacraments, by reason of ANY O­THER FORM of institution, consecration, or or­dering, than the FORM NOW USED in the reign of our most gracious sovereign Lady—shall— declare his assent, and subscribe to all the arti­cles [Page 55] of religion.'—[These concern only the pro­fession of the true christian faith, and the doc­trine of the sacraments, comprised in a book en­titled, Articles, &c. viz. Thirty-nine articles] The penalty is, 'That every such person which shall not subscribe, shall be (ipso facto) deprived, and all his ecclesiastical promotion shall be void, as if he had been naturally dead.' In conse­quence of this act, Whittingham and Travers, tho' not ordained according to the FORM THEN IN USE, might notwithstanding be LAWFUL mi­nisters of the church of England. I mention this to let the Doctor know, that he was mista­ken in his declaration, (p. 45) 'that through­out the whole reign (that is of Queen Elisa­beth) we are considering,—it was an established law—that no man should be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the church of England, or suffered to exe­cute any of the said functions, WITHOUT EPIS­COPAL ORDINATION.' This is said in direct contradiction to the abovementioned act of the thirteenth of Elisabeth, which continued in force till Charles the second; when, by another act, 'eve­ry one, not in holy orders by EPISCOPAL OR­DINATION,' was disabled from 'holding any parsonage whatever, as if he had been natu­rally dead.' Whitingham and Travers were there­fore LAWFUL ministers in the church of England, tho' not EPISCOPALLY ordained; and their holding benefices was not 'by permission thro' the necessity of the times,' but in perfect agree­ment with the then established law of the nation.

I SHALL not think it improper to add here, more especially for the use of the Doctor, and his friends, that this act of the thirteenth of Elisabeth is a full proof, that it was not her opinion that ordi­nation [Page 56] was, by divine appointment, appropriated to Bishops in distinction from Presbyters, so as that or­dination by Presbyters only was invalid. Had this been her sentiment, she could not in consistency herewith have given her fiat to this act. Now, let it be particularly remembered, the Doctor has told us, (p. 41) he has 'proved, that the doctrines of the Bishops and Clergy, in the reign of Queen Elisabeth, must have been agreable to the Queen, and to the principal persons about her court.' If so, Whitgift, Bancroft, Bilson, and other epis­copal writers in this reign, were not for ordi­nation by Bishops, so as to nullify ordination by Presbyters; nor could they disown any as LAWFUL ministers of the church of England MEERLY because they had been ordained by Presbyters only. The divine right of Episcopa­cy, in the Doctor's sense, could not therefore be the doctrine of the church of England in the reign of Queen Elisabeth (as I have before prov­ed it was not in the reigns either of Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth); and to say that it could, would be to say, that two contradic­tory establishments were in force at one and the same time.

THE Doctor now proceeds to show, that there is 'authority in the church of England purely ecclesiastical;'—But, as in reply (p. 211) to my third objection to the plan of an American Episcopate, he only says 'it has been answered already, [he must mean in this part of his de­fence, or it is no where endeavoured to be an­swered] I shall postpone what might have been offered here, until I come to justify the force of this objection. Only, I shall think it proper to insert, in this place, a few pertinent words from Burn, who is an author the Doctor will [Page 57] not suspect to have been wanting in his regard to the church of England. Says he, ^* 'The truth is, that, after the abolition of the papal pow­er, there was no branch of sovereignty with which the Princes of this realm, for above a century after the reformation, were more delighted than that of being the supream head of the church: imagining (as it seemeth) that all the power which the Pope claimed and exerci­sed (so far as he was able) was, by the statutes abrogating the papal authority, annexed to the imperial crown of this realm.—The Pope arro­gated to himself a jurisdiction superior, not only to his own canon law, but to the municipal laws of kingdoms. And these Princes of this realm abovementioned seem to have considered them­selves as POPES IN THEIR OWN DOMINIONS.'—

THE Doctor, after he had wrote fifty-eight pages, very pertinently introduces his reader, asking, 'What is all this to the purpose of an American Episcopate?' And then as pertinent­ly answers the question by saying, 'I know not.' Why then did he commit so gross a tres­pass upon the patience of the Public? It is true, he said nothing, in his appeal, 'about the opi­nion of the reformers upon the points of Epis­copacy, and the King's supremacy;' but it is as true, that he said that which contradicted their opinion, and made it necessary in answering his appeal, to set this matter in a just light. He has therefore really, though undesignedly, sneer­ed at himself. If his sketch of arguments 'was to the purpose of an American Episcopate,' it was to the purpose to make answer to it; if it was not [Page 58] to this purpose, as is certainly the truth, he knows as well as I, that HE ONLY is the object of ridi­cule for giving occasion to that which was im­pertinent, as not being to the purpose of the main point to be disputed.

HE now comes to defend his darling doctrine of an uninterrupted succession in the line of Bi­shops. And here he has sunk much below my expectations; not having offered any one thing that will bear being examined, though in a cur­sory way only.

I HAD allowed, 'that none have authority in the christian church but those who derive it from CHRIST, either mediately, or immediate­ly;' suggesting, that this was 'the opinion of the Colonists of whatever denomination:' up­on which the Doctor, taking it for granted that authority, if conveyed mediately, must be con­veyed by personal succession, labours hard to prove a self-evident truth, namely, 'that where a thing is to be conveyed from one person to another, not immediately, but by a successive communi­cation through a number of intermediate hands, if any one in the succession fails of making the conveyance, the thing evidently stops, and passes not on to the person to whom it is intended'. Who ever disputed this, which is so evident, up­on the b [...]re proposal, that it cannot be made more to by any method of reasoning whatever? It is a pity the Doctor did not think it proper to prove the only thing that here needed proof, viz. that authority can be conveyed mediately from CHRIST, in no way but by personal succession. Un [...]il he is able to prove this, it is to no pur­pose to say, 'if the authority first given to A is to pass on successively to B, to C, to D, and to E; should the conveyance stop, or be interrupt­ed [Page 59] at C, so that it passes not on to D; in that case D does not receive it, and therefore cannot convey it to E, unless D is able to give what it has not.' This pompous shew of demonstra­tion may delude weak minds, but is altoge­ther a rope of sand, unless it be first proved, that the authority is so given, that it can in no medi­ate way be conveyed, but in succession from A to B, and so on. We join with the Doctor in say­ing 'That no number of men on earth, nor all the Angels in Heaven, can give authority from CHRIST not given to them, or renew this au­thority if lost.' And what then? Is it not ob­vious to the most vulgar understanding, that the grand point in dispute is here begged, and sup­posed to be granted, namely, that authority is given by CHRIST to be communicated by per­sonal succession, and that there is no other me­diate way in which it can be communicated? The Doctor might have known, as he pretends an acquaintance with Hooker's 'immortal work,' that the church, at least in his opinion, is the true original subject of all power from CHRIST; and that she may take it away even from Bi­shops, if they are proud, tyrannical, and unre­formable in their dealings, as GOD knows has too often been the case. He accordingly declares, we are not simply, and without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by con­tinued succession of Bishops in every effectual ordi­nation. ^* And I can assure him still further, it is the opinion of the non-episcopalian Colonists, that the power of perpetuating the ministration of the word and gospel ordinances, is so lodged [Page 60] with christian churches, that, whenever the case requires it, they can begin a succession de no­vo, ^* which succession will be as truly vested with authority from CHRIST, as if it had been uninterruptedly handed down from the Apostles. The Doctor, instead of attempting to disprove these tenets, takes it for granted, that autho­rity from CHRIST can be conveyed in no me­diate [Page 61] way, but by personal succession in his no­tion of it; and then needlessly blots several pa­ges in proving what no man in his senses ever did, or could deny.

[Page 62]I HAD said of the succession pleaded for in the appeal, 'that it is not capable of any good proof, nor is there any probability, that so long a chain, running through so many ages of ignorance, vio­lence, and all kinds of imposture, has never once been broke,' (p. 15.) The Doctor rep [...]es, 'This assertion militates as forcibly against the suc­cession which the churches in the Colonies certainly believe, as against the episcopal.' The colony-churches are so far 'from certainly believing' what the Doctor would here make them believe, that they care nothing about an uninterrupted line, either of Bishops or Presbyters; as they know they have power from CHRIST to con­stitute officers for all the purposes of the gospel-ministry, should it so happen, that the line of succession, in regard of Presbyters, as well as Bi­shops, had been interrupted and broken.

THE Doctor goes on, 'as to the succession in the line of Bishops, I am still of opinion, that it is incumbent on the objectors to prove, that it has been interrupted'. One would naturally be disposed to think, it was incumbent on those, who urge the absolute necessity of the non-inter­ruption of this line, in order to the validity of gospel-administrations, to prove that it has not been interrupted; especially if they are the admi­nistrators. For myself, I am free to own, I should not dare to meddle with the dispensation of gos­pel-ordinances, upon the doctrine of an uninter­rupted line, unless I was able, fairly to prove, that I was myself in this line without inter­ruption.

THE Doctor here mentions some things po­sitively in favour of the line's being uninter­rupted. Says he, 'We know, by the best his­torical evidence, that it has been the universal [Page 63] practice of the church, from the time of the A­postles to the present hour, to acknowledge none for Bishops who were not ordained by other Bi­shops.' It is impossible he, or his party, should be possessed of this knowledge, unless in imagi­nation only; because it can have existence no where else, having no reality as a truth, from the practice of any one christian church for the first two hundred years. Throughout this long space, no proof can be given, that 'none were acknowledged for Bishops, who were not ordain­ed by Bishops' in the impleaded sense. If there can, let it be produced. It has never yet been done, and I challenge the Doctor to do it: nor indeed was it ever the 'universal practice,' in any age, even to this day, to 'acknowledge none for Bishops, but those who were ordained by Bishops,' upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT. He goes on, 'the consecration of Bishops was a public act—esteemed to be a matter of such importance that the report of it was immediately carried even to distant places—and, in disputed cases, it was easy to discover, whether the person was, in re­ality, a Bishop or not; or, supposing the con­trary, that no one would receive episcopal con­secration from such hands.' I shall leave it with common sense to judge, whether this is any other than a sandy bottom to build one's faith upon, in a matter of such essential concern as the un­interruption of this line is made to be. And what the Doctor yet adds is as weak an one. Says he, 'We know from scripture, that IF such a succession is as necessary, as, upon a spe­culative examination, it appears to be, CHRIST has promised to preserve and continue it to the end of the world.' That is, in plain english, if it be supposed, allowed, and taken for granted, [Page 64] that CHRIST has made an uninterrupted suc­cession necessary, he will take care, in virtue of his promise, to preserve and continue it. A nota­ble discovery this! Who, besides the Doctor, that regards his character, would declare in the face of the world, that he was 'abundantly satis­fied with these various kinds of evidence,' in an affair essentially connected, in his view, with ever­lasting salvation, which, when examined, appear to be meer nothing?

I HAD said, that, to make the very being of a church, and all covenant hopes of salvation, to rest upon so precarious a foundation as an unin­terrupted succession in the line of Bishops, was to expose the religion of CHRIST to ridi­cule;—That it would follow upon this doc­trine, that the public worship of the non-episco­palian Colonists, of all the dissenters in England, and of all the reformed churches who had no mi­nisters but such as were ordained by Presbyters, would be an affront to CHRIST; and that, at the reformation, if the popish Bishops had stuck to their old principles, and discontinued the suc­cession by refusing to ordain any but those of their own communion, it would have been the duty of the laity to have lived without gospel ordinances till a new commission was sent from Heaven to give authority to administer them;— And I am greatly confirmed in the propriety and force of these objections by what the Doc­tor has said in answer to them. Let the reader compare what we have both offered, and judge for himself. And, perhaps, he will not judge differently from Monsieur Claude, in the like case; whose words are these. ^* 'To speak [Page 65] my thoughts freely, it seems to me that this confident opinion, of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy, that goes so high as to own no church, or call, or ministry, or sacraments, or salvation, in the world, where there are no epis­copal ordinations, although there should be the true doctrine, the true faith and piety there; and which would make all religion depend up­on a formality, and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than human insti­tution; that opinion, I say, cannot be looked on otherwise than as the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisy, a piece of pha­risaism all over, that strains at a gnat and swallows a camel; and I cannot avoid having, at least, a contempt of those kind of thoughts, and a compassion for those who fill their heads with them.'

IT was further observed, in answer to the ap­peal, 'That the worst of this doctrine of an unin­terrupted succession is, its being derived through the church of Rome;' concerning which it is declared by the church of England in her ho­milies, 'that as at present it is, and hath been for nine hundred years, it is so far from being of the nature of the TRUE CHURCH, that NO­THING CAN BE MORE;' besides which, she ex­plicitly speaks of this church as a FOUL, FIL­THY, OLD, WITHERED HARLOT, the FOULEST and FILTHIEST that was EVER SEEN.' What now is the Doctor's reply? He gives it in a pas­sage he quotes from Mr. White's defence, the whole force of which, so far as there is any, lies in these words, 'Harlot as she is, she may bring forth children, as well as an honest and virtuous matron, and sometimes children far better than their parent. And if I must derive my spiritual [Page 66] pedigree from a harlot, I had rather it should be an old withered one, of an ancient and honoura­ble line, than a young strumpet of no name and family, and who came into the world but yes­terday,' The Doctor cannot be more surprised at my being 'unacquainted with this defence of Mr. White,' as he thinks I 'appear to be,' than I am at his injudiciousness in bringing it into view. If Bishops derive their existence, as such, from an acknowledged WHORE, they must, with­out all controversy, be born of fornication. Is it possible a WHORE, a FOUL, FILTHY WHORE should, being an ADULTERESS, bring forth any other than a BASE-BORN, SPURIOUS race? And it matters not, whether she be a young whore, or an old withered one. The Doctor may prefer an episcopal pedigree from a withered whore, having existed such for many hundreds of years, being on this account, an ancient whore, and an honourable one, (if this is not a moral impossibility) to a descent from a young strumpet of no name or family. He shall have his choice for all me; but let him remem­ber, in either of these cases, the descendants will be bastards, and not sons. Besides, he has not seen fit to say a word, either from himself, or Mr. White, by which we may be informed, how that church can communicate true genuine orders, which the homilies, he has subscribed to, de­clare to have been 'NINE HUNDRED YEARS past SO FAR from having the nature of the TRUE CHURCH, that NOTHING CAN BE MORE. As the dissenting Gentleman ^* reasons with great propriety and strength, 'What miracles are here! That which is no true church, nor has been any thing like it for a thousand years past; [Page 67] yet conveys true, regular offices and powers! An anti-apostolic church imparting genuine apo­stolic orders! The synagogue of satan becomes the sacred repository, wherein the power of ordina­tion to holy offices, in CHRIST's church, for more than ten centuries, principally rested, and was almost only to be found! The church of Rome, which, by apostacy hath cut itself off from the body of CHRIST, hath nevertheless his spi­rit and authority dwelling in it; and is com­missioned by CHRIST to examine, ordain, and send ministers into his church, for the edifying his body, and perfecting his saints! How in every view marvellous and transcendant is this!'

THE Doctor says nothing further, in this sec­tion, in his own defence, that calls for enlarge­ment by way of reply.

THOUGH he had needlessly introduced an ex­tract, in his appeal, from Chillingsworth's de­monstration of Episcopacy, I thought it proper to take some notice of it. What he has offer­ed in his defence, is, as I apprehend, very little to the purpose. I desire therefore nothing more, than that the reader would examine what we have both said, and then judge between us.

HE does not deny, that Bishop Burnet, when he wrote his vindication of the church of Scot­land, 'believed Bishops and Presbyters to be se­veral degrees of the same office.' But he adds, 'his subsequent writings afford innumerable proofs, that he afterwards believed the doctrine of Episcopacy, both by the evidence of scrip­ture, and the practice of the primitive church.' When he wrote his vindication, he believed the doctrine of Episcopacy in the sense that nineteen in twenty of the members of the church of England believed it then, and believe it now; but that [Page 68] he ever believed it in the Doctor's sense, or that he ever wrote any thing from whence this can be made evident, I shall not be persuaded to think, until I have better proof of it than bare affirmation ^*: nor I shall believe, that Stillingfleet ever departed so far from the sentiments of his [Page 69] Irenicum, as to fall in with the Doctor in his no­tion of the jure divinino-ship of Bishops in distinc­tion from Presbyters, before I see it otherwise evidenced than by his naked assertion.

I SHALL take this opportunity to assure the Doctor, that I am not ashamed openly to de­clare, that I pay 'more deference to Stillingfleet, Rector of Sutton, than to Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul's, or Bishop of Worcester, in the dispute relative to Episcopacy.' He may call this 'par­tiality, absurd, and preposterous:' But it may be, the Public will think with me, that a rec­torship, or bishopric might have some influence to enlarge his notions of the power and dignity of Bishops, though never that I know of, to the height the Doctor would carry them.

AS to Arch-Bishop Usher, that known and ce­lebrated antiquary, it is as evident as a fact of this nature can be, that it was his settled opini­on, 'That Bishops and Presbyters differ only in degree, not in order. What the Doctor has said tends only to disguise, not to invalidate this truth. I never said, or thought, that the Arch-Bishop esteemed ordination by Presbyters regular, where there were Bishops by whom it might be obtained. But it is indisputable, even from the very words omitted by me, in the Arch-Bi­shop's letter to Bernard, but cited by the Doc­tor, that he accounted ordination by Presbyters to be valid in places where Bishops▪ cannot be had; which is essentially inconsistent with the Doctor's scheme. The plain truth is, the Arch-Bishop neither thought Bishops were a distinct order from Presbyters, or that ordination was, by di­vine appointment, appropriated to that order. This is, beyond all reasonable dispute, evident from his own words, professedly used in arguing [Page 70] upon this point, as produced by Dr. Parr who wrote his life. ^* They run thus. 'The intrin­sical power of ordaining proceeds not from juris­diction, but only from order. But a Presbyter hath the same order in specie with a Bishop. Er­go, a Presbyter hath equally an intrinsical power to give order, and is equal to him in the power of orders: The Bishop having no higher degree in respect of the intention or extension of the cha­racter of order, though he hath an higher degree (i. e. a more eminent place) in respect of au­thority and jurisdiction in spiritual regiment.'

THE Doctor finishes this first section by de­claring, 'That he is more established than ever in the belief that Episcopacy is not only an­cient, and catholic, but truly apostolical.' But this faith of his, and the publication of it, are to no purpose. He made his appeal to the 'impartial Public;' and to this tribunal the dispute, on both sides, is submitted. They therefore are our Judges, and it must be left with them to decide in this matter.

THE Doctor has seen fit, for reasons best known to himself, to pass over almost eve­ry thing, this section relates to, that was mate­rial; choosing to detain his readers, from the main point, by calling their attention to that which is of comparatively small importance.

HE thought it proper, in his appeal, to make a distinction 'between the several things that had been added to the episcopal office, and those which originally and essentially belong to it.' It was said in reply, 'The question is not, whe­ther these and such like appendages to the epis­copal office will be destructive of the powers which essentially belong to it; but whether they do not unfit the persons vested with it for the proper discharge of the duties of it? insomuch that it would be unreasonable to add such ap­pendages, and as much so to expect, if they are added, that christian professors should not com­plain of it as an intolerable grievance.' The Doctor affects, to be at a loss to know, who I meant by 'christian professors,' by his crying out 'Professors of what!' I will tell him, pro­fessors [Page 72] of faith in CHRIST, as the one only SU­PREME HEAD of the church, in opposition to all other claims, whether they are made by the POPE, or any christian PRINCES or STATES whatever. He then says, 'Whether the addi­tion of such append [...]ges be reasonable, or un­reasonable, is nothing to me; and, which is much more, it is nothing to the case of such an Epis­copate as is proposed for America.' Why then, in the name of wonder, did he say any thing about these appendages? If it was nothing to him, that is, the cause he was defending, and nothing to the case of an American Episcopate, it was most certainly to no purpose for him to say a word about them.

IN prosecuting the distinct on he had made, he observed. 'He who has a small diocess has the same episcopal powers, as he that has a large one; and it matter [...] not as to the validity of the act, whether it be performed by the one or the other.' To which it was answered, as he has summed up the answer, 'It certainly does as to his capacity to serve the ends of his office; and there is, in proportion, the same incongruity in placing Bishops at the head of large diocesses, as in having an universal one.' What now says the Doctor to this? His reply is, 'This consi­dered as an answer to me, and in no other light are we authorised to consider it, amounts to no more than this; that although what I said is al­lowed to be true, yet something that I did not say is entirely false. The thing which I did not say is, that a Bishop is as able to serve the great ends of his office in a large diocess as in a small one.' It is true, he did not say this; but it is as true, that it was with propriety, and irresistable [Page 73] force that I said it. He knows, or is grossly ignorant, that we never disowned the validity of episcopal acts, where Bishops had large diocesses. He knows also, unless he is an utter stranger to the non-episcopalian sentiments, that we judge it highly improper, and an intolerable grievance, that Bishops should be at the head of large dio­cesses; because it destroys their capacity to serve the ends, designed by CHRIST in the in­stitution of their office. His only business therefore was to show, that this appendage did not affect the Bishop's capacity to answer the ends of his appointment. As the 'validity' of episcopal acts was never called in question, on account of the largeness, or smallness, of their diocesses, his mentioning this appendage was quite impertinent, unless with a view to prove, in opposition to us, that it would consist with the Bishops duty; which, it should seem, he does think was any part of what he was called to. However, he goes on, 'If I had said this [that a Bishop is as able to serve the ends of his office in a large diocess, as a small one,] unless the large diocess is supposed to be larger than in any protestant country—it would not have been so very exceptionable."—Much might be said here, but I shall make no other answer than this, that when the Doctor understands the full meaning of those words of our Saviour, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' and has his mind impressed with a just sense of the duty incumbent on a Bi­shop in the church of CHRIST, I have no doubt but he will alter his sentiments upon this head.

HE now passes on to the trite worn-out in­stances of Aerius and Colluthus, but without say­ing any thing worthy of detaining us very long.

AS to Aerius; I had said, 'That Epiphanius [Page 74] was the first that found fault with him, for his opinion of the parity of Bishops and Presbyters.' Upon this the Doctor, that he might make some shew of learning, egregioussly trifles. The on­ly thing that needs a remark is, his observing, 'If an intimation is intended, that Ephiphanius was the only person that, at first, considered the doctrine of Aerius as exceptionable, or that the parity of Bishops and Presbyters was generally admitted in the fourth century, the suggestion is groundless. The united voice of antiquity, and even the concessions of our most considerable ad­versaries, prove the contrary with invincible evidence.' This is not the first or second time, that the Doctor has discovered his little acquaintance with antiquity; though he speaks with positive assurance, as though he was the most learned antiquary. Episcopal writers of the first figure, such as Reignolds, Jewel, Bridges, Bishop of Oxford, Whitaker, Regius Professor of divinity in the University of Cambridge, Stil­lingfleet, and others, would have informed him, had he not read the original authors, that Je­rom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chry­sistom, The [...]phy act, were, as to the identity of order upon the footing of divine right, of the same opinion with Aerius, though they lived much about the same time; and, I may add, so were Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenaeus, who lived before him. It is not there­fore in the least probable, that Aerius was con­demned CHIEFLY, as the Doctor or says, for his opinion concerning the parity of Bishops and Presbyters. Had this been the case, most of his co-temporaries must have been condemned likewise, as they were chargeable with the same monstrous heresy. It is far more reasonable to [Page 75] think, that he acted in opposition to the then general practice, exciting, in consequence of his opinion, divisions and discord; and that this, among other things, was the true reason of his condemnation. And this indeed appears to be the purport of the account, the Doctor himself has given us from Mosheim, the only evidence he has brought to prove, that Aerius was con­demned, not 'meerly or only,' as I had said, but CHIEFLY for his opinion concerning the identity of Bishops and Presbyters.

AS to Collythus; he has added an 'extract from the synodical epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pontapolis, and from a joint letter of the Clergy of the Province of Marco­tis, both preserved in the works of Athanasius.' But if he had seen fit, as he was desired, to con­sult Blondel's Apologia, or what is said from it in the Irenicum, he would have found a full answer to these extracts. I shall here lay before his view what is said in the Irenicum as a sum­mary of Blondel's representation. It is in these words,^* 'First, the pronouncing such an ordina­tion null doth not evidence, that they looked on or­dination as belonging, of divine right, only to Bi­shops; for we find, by many instances, that act­ing in a bare contempt of ecclesiastical canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Pres­byters. Secondly, if Ischyrds had been ordain­ed by a Bishop, there were circumstances enough to induce the council to pronounce it null. First, as done out of the diocess, in which case ordinations are nulled by council. Arel. c. 13. Secondly▪ Done by open and pronounced schis­matics. Thirdly, done fine titulo, and so nulled by the then canons. Thirdly, Collythus did [Page 76] not act as a Presbyter in ordaining, but as a Bi­shop of the Meletian party in Cynus, as the Cler­gy of Mareotis speaking of Jschyras, his ordina­tion by Collythus a Presbyter, making shew of being a Bishop; and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Metetius.'

I NOW come, my readers, to hold out to your view, not a 'CURIOSITY,' but a marvellous phenomenon in the 'regions of controversy.' The Doctor had said, in his appeal, 'No in­stance of an ordination by meer Presbyters can be found in the church for several ages.' It was offered in reply, 'We should take it kindly to have pointed out to us so much as ONE in­stance, within the long period of an hundred and fifty years from CHRIST, of an ordination by any Bishop, in any part of the christian world; meaning by a Bishop, an officer in the church superior to a Presbyter. I have lately been looking over the extracts I made twenty years ago from the FATHERS OF THE TWO FIRST CENTURIES, and do not find a SINGLE EXAM­PLE of an ordination by Bishops, in the appro­priated sense, within the time before specified. If the Doctor would present us with one [that is from the FATHERS within this time] it would be to me a great favour.' What now is the Doctor's answer? It follows in these words, 'Behold, reader, a curiosity. This very same challenge he made in his Dudlean lecture, (p. 70) to which a formal and direct answer has been given by Mr. Leaming. His words are as follow: I will comply with his (Dr. Chauncy's) demand; and I hope he will allow the autho­rity of my author. I might produce many, but for brevity's sake shall mention but one in­stance; and that is the ordination of Titus by [Page 77] St. Paul. That Titus had an episcopal ordina­tion appears from the charge St. Paul gave him, Tit. 1.5. 'For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I HAD APPOINTED THEE' St. Paul charged him to 'rebuke with all authority;' and again, 'a man that is an heretic, after the first and se­cond admonition, reject.' Here St. Paul com­mitts to Titus the whole power of ordaining el­ders in Crete, and of governing them, and all the christians in that Island. This authority is clearly expressed, and the bounds, in which he was to exercise it, distinctly marked out. Thus it appears, that this was an episcopal ordination in our sense of the matter. Our Bishops claim nothing but the very same power that St. Paul gave to Titus over the Island of Crete.' Hav­ing cited this passage from Mr. Leaming, he goes on, 'Is not this a fair and full answer to the Doctor's demand? Ought he then to be unsa­tisfied, when all that he asks has been given him?' Unless the Doctor [Chandler] will allow me to suppose, that he possesses understanding but in a very low degree, which I would not chuse to do, I must hold myself obliged to think, that he KNEW that this was neither a fair or full an­swer; and that I had no reason to be satisfied with it, as NOTHING that I asked, instead of EVERY THING, had been given me. Was it possible one of common discernment should not perceive the gross impertinence of Mr. Leam­ing in bringing to view a pretended SCRIPTURE instance of episcopal ordination, when the in­stance I desired, in as plain language as I could speak, was one from the FATHERS of the chris­tian church. Would the Doctor have thought [Page 78] I had given a fair and full answer to that affirma­tion of his, 'There is not an instance of ordin [...]tion by Presbyters to be found in the chu [...] for several ages,' if I had only said, 'I might produce many, but for brevity's sake shall men­tion but one instance,' and that is the ordination of Timothy by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; producing only those arguments that had been used an hundred times over to prove, that this was an ordination by Presby­ters? I am essentially mistaken in the Doctor, and that convened body which first put him up­on writing, if they would not have laughed at the mention of such an instance, in opposition to the above affirmation, and treated it with contempt as being altogether trifling. He pro­ceeds, 'Is it not very extraordinary, that he (Dr. Chauncy) should so roundly repeat the de­mand without the least notice of Mr. Leaming's answer?' The Doctor will not venture to say, he had not read the following words of mine concerning Mr. Leaming, in the letter prefixed to Mr. Welles's answer to him, 'Was I inclined to engage in the episcopal controversy, I should chuse for my opponent, one that is better able to manage a dispute, than he appears to me to be.' This is sufficient to account for my re­petition of the demand, when so fair an occasion was offered for it. The Doctor will doubtless think it sufficient. And as to my doing this 'without taking the least notice of Mr. Leam­ing's answer,' the plain truth is, I did not esteem it worthy of the least notice, or that any one else would, that had any considerable degree of in­tellectual discernment. Besides, the Doctor knows Mr. Welles had wrote an answer to Mr. Leaming, in which he nullified this produced in­stance, [Page 79] and all that was said upon it; particu­larly signifying to him, and to the Public that, the example of episcopal ordination wanted, and desired, was to be selected, not from the scrip­ture, but from one or another of the FATHERS of the two first centuries: Notwithstanding which, the Doctor has carefully avoided a com­pliance with my demand; though repeatedly made, and so particularly explained as not to be capable of being misunderstood. How then could he, without blushing, go on, and say, 'I have sometimes met with persons who would al­ledge the arguments of others that had been an­swered, and the objections of others that had been confuted [He is himself an eminent instance of this] without taking notice of the said answers and confutations; but Dr. Chauncy is the first man I have found in any of the regions of con­troversy, that could, without any symptoms of perturbation, deal thus with his own arguments and objections, after they had been formally an­swered and confuted.'—One cannot help think­ing that the Doctor found himself greatly puz­led, not knowing what to say. To give the desired instance was not in his power—To de­clare that it was not, would have had an ill as­pect on the cause he was defending—To say no­thing might have lessened his reputation as the selected episcopal-champion. The best method therefore was to say something, though it should not be to the purpose; but to do it in the use of language that might lead ignorant readers to imagine, that he had effectually done the business. If the Doctor can give a better account of his conduct, let him do it.

HE now knows, if he is capable of being made to know, that what I desire is, an instance [Page 80] of EPISCOPAL ORDINATION, in the appropria­ted sense, from some or other of the FATHERS within an hundred and fifty years from CHRIST. The demand, he owns 'is fair;' and it is modest likewise, as ONE INSTANCE ONLY is required, which he may fetch from any part of the then christian world. He is either able to give an instance, or he is not. If he is able, let him do it; and I will frankly acknowledge, in the face of the world, that I have been mistaken: If he is not able, let him as frankly and openly acknow­ledge it, and not divert his readers with telling them of curiosities and extraordinaries in the re­gions of controversy, which have no existence but as creatures of imagination. I shall only add, as I am in some sollicitude for him, lest he should not be able, meerly of himself, to pro­duce the desired instance, I would advise him to call in the aid of the learned convention, of which he is a member; or if they should not be suf­ficient, let him seek further help from any of the episcopal Clergy on the American Continent. It is really worth his while to be at some pains in this matter; for unless he produces the de­manded instance of ONE EPISCOPAL ordination, he cannot, with any tolerable face, in time to come, ask for an example of ordination by PRES­BYTERS: Nor may he think he is at all wrong­ed, if we give no credit to his word, should he hereafter say, as he has done, (p. 63) That 'we know, by the best historical evidence, that it has been the UNIVERSAL practice of the church, from the TIME OF THE APOSTLES TO THE PRESENT HOUR, TO ACKNOWLEDGE NONE for BISHOPS, WHO WERE NOT ORDAINED BY OTHER BISHOPS.' And for his encouragement I now publicly assure him, that I will receive as ge­nuine [Page 81] any instance he may be able to bring from the certainly spurious, or interpolated, epistles of IGNATIUS, the great oracle of Episcopalians.

THE Doctor now comes [...]o consider the ex­ample of the Waldenses, which I had mentioned in proof of ordination by Presbyters. And he says here, in direct opposition to as known a truth as is contained in history, 'That the Waldenses were Episcopalians; yea, 'such high-flyers that they claimed an uninterrupted succession in a line of Bishops as superior to Presbyters.' If he had affirmed this of the church of Scotland, it would not have been more distant from the truth. Nothing is more evident, than that, among the Waldenses, long before they had that name, and from the twelfth century when they were thus denominated, ordination was performed by co­ordinate Pastors, or Presbyters, assembled in sy­nods; as may be seen in the account of the Waldenses and Albigenses, published by Paul Perrin of Lyons, under the head of discipline. Nay, that famous Episcopalian, Dr. Reignolds, who more than equalled in learning either Mos­heim, or Dr. Alix, peremptorily affirms, in his let­ter to Sir Francis Knolls, that the Waldenses were of the same opinion with Aerius as to the identi­ty of the order of Bishops and Presbyters. The unknown writer of the answer to Mr. Owen, to whom the Doctor is obliged for his account of the Waldenses, indeed says, 'They did affirm, that they had lawful Bishops, and a lawful un­interrupted succession from the Apostles to this day'—But we all know the equivocal use of the name Bishops; and that it may as well mean officers in the church of the same order with Presbyters, as of a superior order. In the latter sense, the Waldenses never pretended to have [Page 82] Bishops, or a succession of them from the Apostles, as is evident from the general strain of ecclesi­astical history; in the former, they might pos­sibly affirm this. It is most probable this author, or the writer he quotes from, confounded the Waldenses with the Bohemians; though it is not true, even in this view, that the Bishops, and suc­cession spoken of, would be pleasing to the Doc­tor. For the episcopacy of the Bohemian church was not such an one as he is a stickler for. Says the learned Comenius, in his ratio disciplinae fra­trum Bohemorum, (p. 19, 20.) 'It is true, the Bohemians have certain Bishops, or superinten­dants, who are conspicuous for age and gifts, and chosen by suffrages of all the ministers for the keeping of order, and to see that all the rest do their office. Four, or five, or six such have they, as need requires; and each of these has his diocess. But then the dignity of these, be­yond the other ministers, is not founded in the prerogative of honours and revenues, but in that of labors and cares beyond others. Accor­ding to the canons of the Apostles, a Presbyter and Bishop are one and the same thing; only a Bishop among them signifies an inspector, or superintendant: And therefore the Bishops of the unity are in equal honour among themselves, ex­cept that one of them presides for the sake of order.'—But I must not enlarge here. I may have said too much already.

THE Doctor concludes this section with a few feeble attempts to defend some part of what he had said upon the subject of confirmation. Three texts he brought to view, in his appeal, in sup­port of this rite of the church of England. I was particular in taking notice of each of them. To the first and third of these texts he has not [Page 83] seen fit, no doubt for a very good reason, to say a word. In answer to the second, he complains of being 'accused of unfairly quoting a text of scripture; a crime (says he) which I hold in ab­horrence—I am sorry Dr. Chauncy could think me capable of committing such a flagrant act of impiety.' I have carefully looked over what he has offered to exculpate himself from the crime, he says, I had charged him with; and shall be glad, if the impartial Pubilc find reason to be satisfied, 'that he did not suppress the latter part of a text, because if he had given the whole, it would have been at once visible to the reader, that it would have been nothing to his pur­pose. I will not say a word to weaken the effort he has made to clear up his character in this point; but willingly suffer it to be seen in its full force.

IF the reader shall think it worth while to turn to the answer I was particular in making to the two objections against confirmation, the Doctor endeavoured, in his appeal, to remove out of the way, he may, perhaps, be let into the true reason why he passed over what was there offered in total silence.

I CONCLUDED what I had to say, on the rite of confirmation, with an extract from the dissenting Gentleman against Mr. White. The Doctor has thought it sufficient to give us, in answer, the reply of Mr. White. And I shall think it suf­ficient, in return, only to beg the reader to com­pare this reply of Mr. White, with my extract from the dissenting Gentleman; and if he can bring himself to think it worthy of the name of a reply, let him repair to what this same dissent­ing Gentleman has said in answer to it, in his fifth section; more especially that part of it [Page 84] which is contained in p. 172, 173. He will then need nothing [...]urther to convince him, unless he is in a disposition not to believe that the sun shines, though he beholds it in its meridian lustre.

IT only remains here to assure the Doctor, in acknowledgment for his advice, that I have not the opinion of Mr. White that he has; esteem­ing him no more than a child in comparison with Mr. Towgood And this, I believe, is the real sentiment of all, in the impartial world, who have had opportunity to read their performances. As to Dr Grey, he was u doubtedly an inferior man, in all respects, to Mr. Pierce; and particular­ly appears to be so in his controversy with him.

THE Doctor comes, in this section, to in­validate the objections that had been brought against the proposed plan for an Ame­rican-Episcopate. And here it might have been expected to find him exerting himself with the greatest vigor and strength. But we are greatly disappointed. He discovers less spirit, and is less convincing, in what he has offered upon this MAIN POINT in controversy, than in any part of his performance. He seems indeed to have kept this GRAND OBJECT out of sight as long as he could, if we may judge from the 198 pages he wrote before he came to it. And it would have been, perhaps, as much to his ho­nor, if he had wholly passed it over in silence, unless what he has said had carried more weight with it.

BEFORE he enters upon the consideration of the objections to the episcopal plan for Ameri­ca, he takes notice of two or three other things, which must detain us a while.

IN the 'appeal answered,' in a marginal note at the bottom of p. 133, mention was made of a copy, that had appeared in one of the public news-papers, of the petition that was sent by a [Page 110] number of episcopal Clergymen to the University at Cambridge, in which some things justly ex­ceptionable were pointed out. The Doctor's reply is, 'I can and do assure him [Dr. Chaun­cy] that it is fictitious and false; and that the Convention sent home no such address, nor any that contained similar expressions with these he censures.' I also can and do assure Dr. Chand­l [...]r, that it would have given both myself, and the Public, much greater satisfaction, if he had here inserted a copy of the petition itself, properly au­thenticated. We might then have judged for our­selves, and not been put upon yielding implicit faith in his bare word; which though true in his own apprehension, might possibly be otherwise in the view of others. Whatever the Doctor, or the Convention may think, it carries with it no good aspect, that they so resolutely keep secret their petitions, when copies of them have been desired; putting us off by telling us, they do not contain that in them which we have heard they do, and in such ways that we shall believe what we have heard, until we have opportunity to see with our own eyes.

IT was said, ap. answ. p. 135, 'Some of the most respectable Episcopalians, in these parts, for sobriety, good sense, and a steady attachment to the interest of the church of England, have declared it to be their opinion, that Bishops would be of no service here, and that they did not de­sire they should be sent.' The Doctor, upon this, affects to be at a loss to know what 'pe­culiar idea' I intended to convey by the phrase 'respectable Episcopalians;' which could not easily be accounted for in any other person, as I was particular in representing them respectable 'for their sobriety, good sense, and steady at­tachment [Page 111] to the church of England.' He is much puzled to understand the meaning of the 'indefinite word, SOME;' whether I intended by it 'two, or two hundred.' It could not well have been 'impossible' for him to have known my meaning, in the use of this innocent word, if he had only allowed himself to read the imme­diately following sentence. 'And it is to me, as well as to MANY I have conversed with upon this head, EPISCOPALIANS among others, very questionable, whether, if the members of the church of England, in these northern Colonies, were to give their votes, and to do it without pre­vious CLERICAL influence, they would be found to be on the side of an American Episcopate.' One might 'possibly' have guessed at what I meant by the word, SOME, after this explana­tion of myself. But the Doctor chose rather to make a shew of being witty, than to argue; though his wit is wholly grounded upon a par­tial representation of what I had said. He goes on, 'I question whether there is an Episcopalian on the Continent, either of a more or less re­spectable character, including in it some degree of attachment to the interest of the church, that has objected against an Episcopate upon the plan of the appeal.'—What he here says, put into plain English, is this; he questions whether truth can be spoken unless by himself, and a few others who speak as he would have them. But why does he question, whether any Episcopalian has objected to an Episcopate upon his plan? The reason is, because 'he must act a very un­natural, inconsistent part. For how absurd is it for a man, who is attached to the church of En­gland in America, not to wish its soundness and health?' And here he goes on repeating, in a [Page 112] way of argument, what he had often urged be­fore in favour of his American Episcopate. But what is all this to the point? It is a fact, not a speculative truth, we are now upon. And the Doctor must know, unless he is a great stran­ger to the world, that facts and speculative argu­ments do not always harmonise with each other. Besides, where is the difficulty in supposing, that most Episcopalians on the Continent may have a quite different notion of the plan for an Ame­rican Episcopate, from that the EPISCOPAL CLERGY have of it, who were its ONLY FOR­MERS, and the ONLY PETITIONERS that it might be carried into execution? Might they not be apprehensive of danger from a plan con­trived by the CLERGY, and sent home for rati­fication, without their consent, or being applied to for it? Surely, it is not impossible they should think, notwithstanding all the Doctor has said, that the mission of Bishops into the Colonies would do more hurt than good. This, I know, is, in fact, the opinion of MANY Lay-epis­copalians, and, I believe, of the greater part of them in the New-England Colonies. I shall only add here, speculative arguments are no more suted to invalidate the truth of this fact, than they would be to prove that there were no Episco­palians on the Continent. For it would be a much easier task to prove it speculatively absurd there should be any, than that they should be against the proposed Episcopate.

THE Doctor animadverts upon nothing fur­ther, until he comes to p. 138, where he says, that 'I objected to their plan because I thought it had been illegally settled.' And for aught any thing he has proved to the contrary, the ob­jection to the plan, for this reason, stands firm and [Page 113] unshaken. He says, 'I take it for granted, that what has been done by our friends and superiors at home relating to it [the plan] has been done without the King's approbation.' And well I might, as we were told of a scheme for the mission of Bishops to the Colonies, settled by Clergymen at home, and approbated by Clergymen here, to the intire n [...]glect of his Ma­jesty, without whose LICENCE, not even the CON­VOCATION have any right to settle such a plan, or so much as ATTEMPT to form it. The Doc­tor allows, 'that the two houses of Convocation have no authority, without a ROYAL LICENCE, to attempt, enact, promulge, or execute any canon, by whatever name it might be called, which should concern either doctrine or disci­pline.' But says he, 'This notwithstanding, the Clergy, even in convocation, are still, in several inferior instances, left perfectly free.' It would be strange, if they were not. But how does this prove, that they are 'left perfectly free' in such SUPERIOR instances as the settlement of a plan for the new modelling the power of Bi­shops? The King's supremacy, as head of the church, is not more nearly concerned in any ec­clesiastical affair whatever. He goes on, 'The two houses of Parliament cannot, without a Roy­al licence attempt, enact, promulge, or execute any statute, more legally than the two houses of Convocation can enact a canon' This is ex­pressed very much as it would have been by one who did not understand the proper rights of Parliament. If the thing meant is, that the two houses of Parliament, and the two houses of Con­vocation, are under the same constitutional restraint, he is entirely mistaken. The two houses of Parlia­ment are perfectly at liberty, without any Royal li­cence, [Page 114] not only to ATTEMPT, but actually to form, any statute, plan or canon, in order to its being en­acted, promulged, and executed in consistency with the constitution: Whereas the two houses of Convocation are restrained, by the statute of the twenty-fifth of Henry the eighth, called the act of submission, from so much as ATTEMPT­ING any law, or canon, or whatever other name may be given to it, without LICENCE FIRST GRANTED TO THEM BY THE KING; and hav­ing, in virtue of his licence, agreed on any can­on, or constitution, they are not permitted to PUBLISH it, until it has obtained his confirma­tion. ^* And if it is accounted inconsistent with the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical mat­ters, for even the Convocation to ATTEMPT to form, settle, or publish a plan for the regulation of the church, without his GRANTED PER­MISSION, though, in so doing, they should pro­fess the highest regard to 'the public good;' it ought certainly to be esteemed much more so for other Clergymen to do this, especially in bo­dies convened for the purpose, not by authori­ty from the King, but of their own heads: And it makes no alteration in the case, whether they are superior or inferior Clergymen, or a mixture of both, unless in the degree of disho­nour that is hereby reflected on his Majesty as, under GOD, the supream head of the church. They may speak of themselves as 'consulting the public happiness,' and doing it 'with the utmost fidelity,' and all 'deference and submission to the wisdom of government;' but time was, when they would, notwithstanding such a com­pliment on themselves, have been called 'disaf­fected associations,' and as such been 'sup­pressed;' as has often been the case.

[Page 115]THE Doctor takes occasion here perempto­rily to declare, 'That I have pronounced all consultations of their Bishops for the interest of religion to be, in general, an infringement of the King's supremacy, unless a licence for that purpose is formally granted from the Crown.' He has been so wise as not to refer to the page in which I say this; and until he is pleased to do it, I shall think myself at full liberty to esteem what he has offered as a gross misrepre­sentation.

HE seems to look upon 'consultations for the interest of religion,' and laying plans for a new regulation of the power of Bishops, and the ex­ercise of discipline in the church of England, as meaning one and the same thing. But he ought to have known, that NO ROYAL LICENCE is made necessary for consultations to promote the general interest of religion; whereas, even the whole body of the Clergy, superior and in­ferior, are not permitted, though legally assem­bled in Convocation, so much as to ATTEMPT a plan for new modelling, in any part, the ec­clesiastical constitution, without a LICENCE for­mally granted herefor by the King. Can it then be supposed allowable, for a deputised Clergyman to proclaim it to the world, without the least hint of any GRANTED LICENCE from the King, that such a plan has been 'privately formed and settled by some superior Clergymen at home, and approbated by the episcopal Clergy here,' and in convened bodies for the purpose?—He would now suggest, 'That the King had been consulted, and given undoubted proofs of his approbation of the measure.' Why then was not the plan introduced with particular notice of so important a point of deference to the Royal [Page 116] supremacy? Was it more proper to tell the Public, that the episcopal Clergy here were agreed in this plan, than that his Majesty had approbated it? And why is there not now ex­hibited in form some authentic proof of the KING's LICENCE to contrive and publish the plan we have had held out to view? This would have been much more satisfactory, than barely to insinuate, or say, 'That it had been honoured with the King's approbation.'

SENSIBLE, I suppose, of the insufficiency of all that had before been offered, the Doctor now gives us the following very extraordinary infor­mation. Says he, 'The charter granted to the Society for propagating the gospel, has the na­ture and efficacy of a commission.' For what? Why, 'by this charter, or commission, the mem­bers are warranted to concert measures, and to settle plans, for the carrying on the design of that incorporation in the most effectual manner.' Very tru [...]; but was it any part of the design of that incorporation to 'settle plans' for a new modelled church of England? The Doctor is, I believe, the first man that ever dreamed of a 'Royal commission' in the Society's charter, em­powering its members to contrive schemes for governing t [...]e church of England in a manner different from that which has been ordained by the King and Parliament They might pro­bably think, 'That an American Episcopate was highly expedient' in order to their propagating Episcopacy, instead of religion in general; and they might hereupon 'sketch out a general plan for sending Bishops to America, which plan might be publicly approved, and patronised by her Majesty Queen Ann.' All this may be true, and perfectly consistent with due honour to the [Page 117] Royal supremacy. For it is not meerly a plan for sending Bishops to America, that is incon­sistent herewith; but a plan that proposes their mission to carry on the business of ecclesiastical government and discipline in a manner quite different from that which is enjoined by the au­thority of the King and Parliament. The pro­posed plan, as 'resumed and digested with pe­culiar attention;' is of this sort; and there­fore a direct violation of the seventy-third can­on, which enjoins, 'That no Priests, or Mini­sters of GOD's word, nor any other persons shall meet together in any private house, or elsewhere, to consult upon any matter, or course to be ta­ken by them, or upon their motion, or direction by others, which may any way tend to the im­peaching, or depraving of the doctrine of the church of England, or of the book of common prayer, or of any part of the government or dis­cipline now established in the church of En­gland, under pain of excommunication ipso fac­to.' The Doctor says here, 'Whoever knows any thing of the history of the times in which the canon was framed, must be sensible that it was designed against a very different sort of per­sons from those ven [...]rable prelates, who formed and settled the plan for an American Episco­pate.' If vene [...]able prelates at home formed this plan, and episcopal Clergymen here appro­bated it in conve [...]ed bodies for the purpose, they are chargeable with the very crime this can­on was designed to guard against; and it is more aggravated in them, than in 'the different sort of persons' it might be supposed would be liable to condemnation by it. He adds, 'And as it was designed against a very different sort of persons, so the words of it clearly point out [Page 118] a very different conduct.' The conduct of the persons concerned in the forming and approba­ting this plan, is as like that pointed out and condemned, in the canon, as words can make it. There has been 'the meeting together of Priests and others;'—they have met together 'in private houses or elsewhere;—and the de­sign of their meeting was 'to consult upon a course to be taken by them, or upon their mo­tion,' in order to affect an alteration 'in some part of the government, or discipline, now esta­blished in the church of England:' which, without all dispute, is the very fault intended to be testified against in the canon. There is no way, indeed, in which this established mode of government in the church of England can be more directly and effectually impeached, or de­praved, than by practical endeavours to get it changed. And it will not be pretended, that this is not the tendency of the proposed and published plan. Whether the 'combinations and consultations,' to this end, 'are factious,' or not, must be determined by the canon itself; which certainly supposes them to be so.

I SAID, in my answer to the appeal, the pro­posed plan 'is a plan for altering the govern­ment and discipline of the church of England in the Colonies.' To which the Doctor replies, 'Does he then believe the canon was intended to secure the government and discipline of the church of England in the Colonies? Without this intention the proposal of any alteration in the form of ecclesiastical government here can be no violation of the canon.' Why do Colony-episcopa­palians glory in being members of the church of England, if there is no church of England here. And if there is, it is as as reasonable to sup­pose [Page 119] the canon was intended to guard its esta­blished form of government against impeachment or depravation here, as at home. But, says the Doctor, 'What is the nature and tendency of the alteration proposed? Is it to deprave the government of the church of England at home? No; it is in reality to honour it, by endeavour­ing to bring the government of the church here much nearer to her pattern, than it is, or can be, while destitute of Bishops.' One, having no biass on his mind, would not think it reflected much honour on the government of the church at home to make alterations and amendments in it, before it is thought fit to be exercised here. And the supposed alteration most certainly de­praves it, as it restrains Bishops from the exer­cise of that government over the Laity, they are entitled to, not only from the grant of the King and Parliament, but, as the Doctor believes, of JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles. He goes on, 'Nor is the plan for a different mode of an Epis­copate for the church of America, any impeach­ment of that under which it exists in England.' The proposing, and endeavouring, an alteration essentially carries in it the idea of an impeach­ment. It is not possible it should be altered without being impeached. What imaginable reason can there be for a change in any mode of government, unless it be supposed, insufficient, imperfect, and not sutable to be exercised, in those respects at least, wherein a change is de­sired and endeavoured. And this is the very thing here meant by its being impeached. But, says the Doctor, 'As to such externals, the church of England has always allowed them to be things that are alterable, and that they ought to be altered, according to the circumstances and [Page 120] opinions of different Countries, or even of the same Country in different ages. When she has made this alteration in 'such externals' at home, America will of course r [...]ap the benefit of it, should an Episcopate be s [...]t [...]led here; but until this is done, it will be an impeachment of the mode of government in the church of England at home, to propose a different one for the same church here. It is an i [...]le thing to say, 'That circumstances in America require that the ex­ternals of an Episcopate should be under a re­gulation peculiar to this country.' Epis [...]opa­lians here a [...]d in England are members of one and the same church; and no circumstances, un­less those of a meer worldly nature, which have nothing to do with a purely spiritual kingdom, can make it fit, sutable, or reasonable, that the mode of an Episcopate should be different from what it is at home.

THE reader will, perhaps, by this time be dis­posed rather to wonder, than 'laugh,' at the Doctor's 'audaciousness' in making so light of the 'fulminations' of an established canon against impeaching, or depraving the constitutional go­vernment and discipline of the church of En­gland. He, together with the other framers, approba [...]ors, a [...]d publishers, of the proposed plan of impeachment would do well to consider, whether they are not, by the determination of their own church, 'excommunicated' persons.

THE way being thus prepared, we now come to the GRAND POINT in debate, the proposed plan for an American Episcopate. According to the Doctor's desire, in his 'appeal to the Pub­lic,' objections were brought against this plan. He has endeavoured in his 'ap [...]eal defended,' to take off the force of them. We shall impar­tially [Page 121] examine what he has said upon each ob­jection distinctly.

OBJECTION I. 'The government and disci­pline of the church of England, under the pro­posed American Episcopate, is injurious both to the church, and the Bishops that are to preside over it.'

'IT is injurious to the church.' And why? 'Because it is to operate on the Clergy only. The lay-members of the church of England may not be favoured with the benefit of the governing authority of the Bishops to be sent.' What says the Doctor in reply? He reasons thus, 'If the Laity are not to be affected by the Bishops au­thority, they are certainly not to be injured by it; that which does not operate at all, produc­ing no effect either injurious, or beneficial. With regard therefore to the exercise of discipline o­ver the Laity, no benefit is proposed, and no inju­ry is to be feared.' Is this a fit answer for the public view? Are not Bishops appointed, in the sense even of the church of England, for the be­nefit of the Laity, as truly as the Clergy? Are not the Laity as capable of receiving benefit from Episcopal authority, duly exercised, as the Clergy? And if they are capable of being bene­fited by the exercise of this authority, must they not be injured, if a stop is put to its operation, in relation to them? Its not being permitted to operate at all, in regard of them, is, in the na­ture of the thing, injurious, and in proportion to the greatness of the benefit that is lost by this non-permission. No one, I believe, before the Doctor ever said, it was not injurious to deprive the Laity of a spiritual priviledge they are sup­posed to be entitled to, and by a grant from JESUS CHRIST. And if CHRIST has grant­ed [Page 122] them this privilege, for their spiritual good, what power on earth can justly deprive them of it? If superior Clergymen at home, and infe­rior ones here, should combine together, and project a plan to prevent their being under the governing authority of Bishops, they would cer­tainly plan away an indubitable privilege they are entitled to as members of the church of England; and, if they are really Episcopa­lians, they must look upon such treatment as highly injurious and abusive. The Doctor, in answering this part of the objection, has done no great honour to himself. He could scarce have said any thing that would have more exposed the weakness of what he undertook to defend.

THE proposed plan was said to be 'injurious also to the Bishops it would have sent to the Colonies.' And for this reason, 'Because they are, in a meer arbitrary manner, restrained in the exercise of that authority, which, in the judgment of these very planners, properly be­longs to them, both by apostolic appointment, and the constitution of the church of England.' The Doctor replies, 'If such a restraint is not injurious to the church, it will be difficult to prove that it can be injurious to the Bishops.'— It is not possible it should be any other than in­jurious to the church, as it deprives its Laity of a privilege they are as certainly entitled to as the Clergy, and that might be as advantagious to them. But he says further, 'Are we to con­sider the authority of Bishops as so much pri­vate property, which belongs to them, and every limitation of it as so much damage sustained by the Bishops? And yet, unless we consider it under some such idea, I see not how it can be made out, that any prudent restraints of their [Page 123] authority can be an injury to them.' Ocular de­monstration only could have convinced me, that the Doctor was capable of sinking so much be­low a man of common understanding in his rea­soning here. Does he not believe, has he not strenuously pleaded, that the governing autho­rity of Bishops is derived from JESUS CHRIST himself? And if CHRIST has vested Bishops with their governing authority, is no injury done to them, arbitrarily to restrain them in the exercise of this authority? If CHRIST has empowered, and commanded Bishops to exer­cise authority over the Laity, as well as Clergy, shall it be deemed no injury to be confined in the exercise of this authority to the Clergy only? It is amazing, one of the Doctor's character should not be able to see, that Bishops were ca­pable of 'sustaining damage' in other ways be­sides that of being touched in their 'private property!' If he had allowed himself to con­sider, he must have known, that a good Bishop would have esteemed himself more highly injured by being restrained in the just exercise of the au­thority committed to him by CHRIST, than by suffering in his private property.' A total restraint of authority over the Laity is here cal­led a 'prudent one; but it can be so, only in regard of political worldly ends to be answer­ed by it. I entirely agree with the Doctor in what he adds, 'He that is fond of exercising power for the sake of exercising it, without re­garding whether it tends to edification or de­struction, is unworthy of it.' But what he aims at proving by this is beyond me to find out. Surely he will not say Bishops are so fond of the destructive power here described, as to make it expedient to restraim them from the exercise of [Page 124] any power at all over the Laity! And unless he means this, I see not to what end he has made the remark. And, in every conceivable view of it, it holds as strong against their having pow­er over the Clergy as over the Laity. This is all he has thought fit to say in answer to the first objection. The reader can have no just idea of the utter insufficiency of this reply, unless he compares it with the objection, as stated and il­lustrated in the 'appeal answered.'

OBJECTION II. 'The Bishops, in this plan, are so widely different from the Bishops of the church of England at home, that it is not rea­sonable they should be desired, or sent.' The Doctor says, in answer, 'The Bishops, in this plan, are essentially the same with the Bishops at home, how widely soever they may differ in some circumstances.' Can they be essentially the same, if they are essentially restrained in the exercise of that authority which is proper to their office, and they have full scope to exercise at home? And yet, this is the exact truth. It is expressly proposed, that they shall have no rule over the Laity; that is, that they shall be deprived of one half of that authority, as to its exercise, which is essential to them as Bishops. He goes on, 'But let them be never so different, if such Bishops as are proposed are fitter for the Colo­nies, than such Bishops as are in England, then it may be reasonable that they should be both desired and sent.' The plain answer is, they are not fitter for the Colonies, than for the Mo­ther-Country; and it is unreasonable they should be desired for, or sent to, the Colonies, until they are first enjoyed at home. It was said in illustrating this objection, 'Shall a compara­tive handful of episcopal professors, most of whom, [Page 125] in many of the Colonies, are so insufficient as that they are upheld in Being, with respect to their religious denomination, at the charitable expence of a distant Society;—shall these ima­gine themselves so important as that, for their sakes, the powers and appendages of Bishops shall be so mightily abridged? Surely the whole body of Dissenters in England, and a very con­siderable part of the established church there, are as well worthy the national attention; and it is as fit, their requests, often repeated, should be answered. When this is done it will be time, and not before, to expect that this plan should be considered, and brought into effect.— To this, and much more of the like import, the Doctor has only said, That he 'had before giv­en a full and sufficient answer:' But where, he has not told us; nor can I find that he has any where given such an answer, or even attempted to do so. He has also silently passed over what was argued from the doctrine of uniformity, made so important a matter in the church of En­gland; as that it would mar the glory of this uni­formity to clothe the same officers of the same church not with the same, but widely differing powers; and that there would not, in this case, be the appearance of consistent regularity in one and the same ecclesiastical constitution.—This silence of the Doctor, in answer to objections he openly 'invited objectors to make, that they might be fairly and candidly debated before the tribunal of the Public,' will, I fear, be construed to his disadvantage, if not to the hurt of the cause he is defending.

HE goes on to the next consideration, which is, 'That if Bishops should be sent to the Colonies, with these restrained powers, undesira­ble [Page 126] consequences might be naturally feared, both here and at home.'

AN undesirable consequence to be feared here is, 'That the Bishops would throw off this re­straint as soon as might be; embracing all op­portunities, and using all likely means, to reco­ver those appendages to their office they had been deprived of.' This was said, and shewn, to be no unreasonable supposition. The Doctor replies, 'Was it ever before offered as a reason, why exorbitant power should not be limited, (and such the Doctor esteems to be the power of Bishops in England) because the persons cur­tailed would endeavour to throw off the restraint as soon as may be?' This question, as thus ge­nerally put, is quite beside the case. We never objected to the proposed limitation of the power of Bishops, as being in itself, in its own pro­per nature, unreasonable and unfit; but to the confinement of it to the Colonies: and for this good reason, among others, that it would strong­ly tend to defeat itself. The Bishops under a restraint of their power here, would naturally be disposed to throw it off, if the like restraint did not take place at home; and they would have this plausible plea to make in their own justifi­cation, that they aimed at nothing more than was allowed to be reasonable and proper in En­gland. The plain truth is, if the exorbitant power of Bishops ought to be restrained at all, it is as reasonable it should be restrained at home as here; and it is a good reason, why it should not be restrained there, that such an unfair, partial, and unjust restraint would, in all probability, through the lust of power, which even Bishops are not totally delivered from, soon come to no­thing here. But says the Doctor, 'Why are [Page 127] we to suppose, that the American Bishops will be uneasy under such a limitation of their pow­er, as the plan expresses?' The reason is obvi­ous, namely, because Bishops have discovered, in all past ages, that corruption was so far unmor­tified in them, as to consist with a strong incli­nation to enlarge the sphere of their power, whenever they had any plausible pretence here­for; as they certainly would have in the pre­sent case. But 'whatever power or privilege, they [the proposed Bishops] shall once possess, by virtue of their office, they will continue to hold, as long as they shall remain in the office; and as they know the terms before they accept of it, there can be no disappointment. And why should they be uneasy, because the Bishops at home are invested with civil authority? The Bishops at home may as properly be uneasy and restless, because they are not, like some of their order on the Continent of Europe, sovereign Princes.' Some Bishops at home, in times past, whatever may be the truth at this day, were un­easy and restless for want of more honour and power; and, without all doubt, would have used any means, could they probably hoped for success in the use of them, in order to their be­ing as 'sovereign Princes' as any 'Bishops on the Continent of Europe.' And no security can be given us, if the desired Bishops should be sent, and upon the proposed plan too, that they would not be soon so 'restless and uneasy,' as to affect that very change, in their restrained dig­nity and power, which is so much feared. The Doctor goes on, 'Perhaps the uneasiness of the American Bishops may be supposed to arise from the reflection, that, destitute as they are of civil power, they are Bishops of the same church with [Page 128] their brethren in England.' And it may natu­rally be supposed, they would be 'uneasy,' if not at first, yet, in a little time, from the re­flection, that they were deprived of that power, it is as reasonable they should be vested with, as their brethren of the same church, and in pre­cisely the same office, at home. But 'they will not be able to avoid this further reflection, that they are Bishops of the same church in dif­ferent countries, and under different circum­stances; which essentially alter the case.' It is not probable they would ever make this re­flection, as there would be no just reason for their so doing. It is, in truth, nothing better than a vain pretence. The same episcopal-mode of church government is as proper for the Mo­ther-Country, as the Colonies. Nothing in the situation of America, or in the circumstances of the Country, or of the Episcopalians in it, can make it reasonable, or fit, that the episcopal-mode should be 'different' here from what it OUGHT to be at home, unless it be supposed, that the Kingdom of CHRIST is not that spi­ritual one he has declared it to be, but a King­dom whose government is founded on worldly policy, and is to be supported upon principles of the same kind. What but the wisdom of this world could ever lead any man to think, that the professed disciples of the same LORD, of the same religion, and of the same subjection to the same spiritual government, should be dif­ferently governed, because they happen to live in different places? No considerations, but those of this world, can be mentioned, that will jus­tify, as reasonable, that episcopal mode of go­vernment here, which will not render it equally fit in England. Says the Doctor yet farther, [Page 129] 'This same kind of reasoning would operate as strongly against episcopal Clergymen in America, as against Bishops. The Clergy of the church of England at home, are, in a great measure, supported by tythes; therefore, it may be said, if Clergymen of the church of England are once admitted in this Country, under whatever re­strictions and limitations, they will not be easy, until they shall have secured to themselves the tythes of our estates.' The fact here supposed is, I believe, strictly true, that the Clergy of the church of England will never be 'easy until they have secured to themselves' from our estates here, what will be, in substantial signifi­cation, the same thing with the tythes in En­gland. The Doctor himself very obviously, however undesignedly, led us to suspect this in some hints he dropped in his appeal; and that is attempting to be done, or actually is done, at home, respecting GLEBE-LANDS for the church of England in America, which puts it beyond all doubt. But this notwithstanding, we object not against the admission of episcopal Clergy­men, or even Bishops, into America, if they have no authority, but that which is 'altogether from CHRIST,' and not from this world.

AT home, it was said, two ill consequences might be looked for. One was, 'That vast numbers there, who have long complained of the too largely extended power claimed and ex­ercised by Bishops, might think themselves hard­ly treated, that no regard should be paid to their intreaties, while a comparatively few inconsi­derable professors of the church of England in America are heard, and an Episcopate settled for them according to their mind.' To this the Doctor answers, 'The reader can hardly avoid [Page 130] remarking, that here, and in many other places, the Doctor forgets his proper business and cha­racter. His business is to answer the appeal upon the principles of the Dissenters; but in­stead of this, he frequently endeavours to raise difficulties and objections which cannot pro­perly be made, but upon principles opposite to his own, and of those whom he represents, in this controversy.' The Doctor has injudici­ally misplaced this remark. Had he made it under the former objection, it would have ap­peared more plausible. As brought in here, it is really a blunder. Surely, Dissenters at home might, in their proper character as such, complain of hard treatment, should the request be granted to a few comparatively inconsiderable American Episcopalians, which, for a long time has been, and still is, denied them; though the request from them is equally reasonable. It is scarce possible but that they should feel, and groan under, such partiality. But, upon what­ever principles this, or any others, difficulty is raised, it is proper, if a real one, it should be mentioned by way of objection, as objections of all kinds were called for. And the Doctor is now informed, if he needs information, that those he improperly calls Dissenters in this part of the world, are, upon christian principles, in real earnest that the episcopal LAITY may not be imposed on by their planning Clergy. The former objection, under which the Doctor's pre­sent remark would have been more pertinent, was principally made with a view to serve them; as there has been a combination of their Cler­gy to carry into execution, so far as they were able, a scheme they had contrived for their own sakes, to the intire neglect of them; though [Page 131] much more worthy of the most ample pro­vision they could have made for their spritu­al profit, under the government of the de­sired Bishops. The Doctor goes on, 'It will never be admitted as an objection coming from the Dissenters here, or in England, that many at home will grow more clamorous against the present power of the English Bishops, in conse­quence of the settlement of such an Episcopate as is proposed for the Colonies.' What business had the Doctor with those he calls Dissenters here, when the objected difficulty was the un­easiness the proposed plan might give the Dis­senters at home? Besides, he ought to have known, there are no Dissenters in any of the Co­lonies to the northward of Maryland, unless epis­copal ones. Moreover, it was not mentioned as an objection, that Dissenters at home would 'grow more clamorous in consequence of the settlement of the proposed Episcopate▪' This he represents as my objection, but without any just foundation from what I had said. There is a great and wide difference betwixt Dissenters being 'clamorous against the power of the En­glish Bishops,' upon the settlement of the pro­posed Episcopate here, and their 'thinking them­selves hardly treated, that no regard should be paid to their intreaties, while a few compara­tively inconsiderable Episcopalians, in America, are heard, and an Episcopate settled for them according to their mind.' These were my words, and they contain a just reason for such sensati­ons as naturally arise from hard and partial treat­ment, which there may be without being at all 'clamorous.' The Doctor has only this to say further here, 'Should the objection be made by any who have a right to make it, it is sufficient [Page 132] to refer them to what has been already said to the purpose.'—Surely, if he had a right to 'in­vite objectors to propose their objections, that they might be fairly debated before the tribunal of the Public.' they must be supposed, at least by him, to have this right which he seems to question. His business was to point out the impropriety, or insufficiency, of such objections as any might make, not to suggest that they had no right to make them. But what is it he had already said, to which he refers us? It is in these words, 'That such an Episcopate may be erect­ed HERE with ease; but it cannot be effected in ENGLAND, without subverting an establish­ment, and making a very visible alteration in the national constitution—a work never to be undertaken but in the greatest extremity, and, even then, not without a trembling hand.' We have nothing more here than an affirmation of his own opinion; though he knew it was the opi­nion of others equally capable of judging, that he is certainly and grossly mistaken.—The proposed Episcopate could not be erected here with that 'ease' he would insinuate. It would, without all doubt, be the occasion of effects similar to those, it would have, were it to be erected at home; and they would probably be, in proportion, as great and general. As to its 'subverting an establish­ment, and making a very visible alteration in the national constitution,' he has himself given us a full and sufficient answer. For he has told us, (p. 205) That 'as to such externals [as the plan for an American Episcopate would propose should be altered] the church of England has al­ways allowed them to be things that are alterable, and that they ought to be altered, according to the circumstances and opinions of different coun­tries, [Page 133] or even of the same Country in different ages.' Perhaps, he will allow, if he will not the impartial Public will, that the circumstances and opinions of the present age make it as reasona­ble and fit, as they well can do, that these AL­TERABLE EXTERNALS should be ALTERED. And I will venture to say, it is, in the present day, extremely necessary such an alteration should be undertaken. The sooner the better. And it might, without much difficulty be accomplished, if gone upon, not 'with a trembling hand,' but a resolution of spirit becoming men and Christians.

THE other ill consequence, as the Doctor has been pleased to represent it, is, 'That the Bi­shops in England will be jealous, that an in­vasion of their authority was intended'. I nei­ther said, nor intended to say, that any in­vasion of their authority was intended, but on­ly that they 'might easily and naturally argue from what was done here to what might, with as much reason, be done there:' Upon which account, it was further said, 'It can be scarce supposed, it should escape the thought of our English Bishops, that the settlement of such an Episcopate in America, as is proposed, may pre­pare the way for such a change in the power of Bishops at home, as they would not be very fond of.' To which the reply is, 'I will only remind the Doctor of one circumstance which he happened to forget; namely, that this very plan has been formed and introduced by those Bi­shops themselves, and consequently should they be jealous that any invasion of their power is therein intended, they must be jealous that they have intended to invade it themselves". I can assure the Doctor I did not forget, that a few Bishops at home might have an hand in the formation of this plan; but [Page 134] that they all, or generally, had, I have never yet seen reason to believe. But if it was the joint contrivance of them all, it would only ar­gue this, that they were inattentive to what might be the result of this plan in the natural course of its operation; or that they were above fearing consequences; or, in fine, that they designed this plan as only an entering wedge to make way for the creation of more Bishops, who, in proper time, might be clothed with like dignity and power with themselves.

THE impartial public will judge, whether the Doctor has succeeded better in his answer to this, than the foregoing objection. I could wish, for his own sake, he had acquitted himself more like a man of thorough understanding, 'that came prepared' to plead for the truth only, and not 'to object at any rate, rather than not to object at all'

OBJECTION III. 'THE church of England knows no such Bishops as are specified in this plan, nor can they, in consistency with its con­stitution, be sent to the colonies'. As this is an objection essentially destructive of the proposed plan, if it exhibits the real truth, it was justly expected the Doctor would have been particu­larly careful to demonstrate that it did not. And yet, to the surprise of his readers, the whole he has thought fit to offer is contained in these words, 'this objection, and all that has been said to support it, has been fully answered already'. What must the public say of his so­lemn call for objections to be fairly debated be­fore their tribunal, when, upon this call's being complied with, by mentioning, and supporting, an essentially important objection, he virtually declines debating on it by dogmatically affirm­ing, [Page 135] 'that it has been fully answered already, and all that has been said to support it? And this is the more extraordinary, as he has not re­ferred to the page, or even the part of his book, in which this full and very particular answer is to be found. I have carefully looked over the whole he had 'already' wrote, and cannot find any thing that resembles the answer he describes. What he has offered upon the King's suprema­cy, page 49, and three or four pages onwards, looks the most this way; and this, I conjecture, is what he refers to: But it is far, very far, from being an answer to 'all that was said' in support of the present objection. This I shall now endeavour to make evident to the reader; and may venture, in the doing of it, to engage his attention for a while, without being charged with keeping out of sight the grand point in controversy,

THE plan says, 'The Bishops to be sent to America shall have no authority, but purely of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is de­rived ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, and not from the STATE. The objection against this plan is, 'The church of England knows no such Bishops, nor can they, in consistency with its constitution, be sent to the Colonies.' And why? Because the constitutional supre­macy of the King is such, that there can be no Bishops without his licence for their election; nor, when elected, and consecrated, can they exercise any authority, not in purely spiritual mat­ters, but BY and UNDER him, and within the limits that have been pointed out by the STATE. They may not vary a title in any one thing per­taining to the exercise of their authority. How then can their authority be ALTOGETHER from [Page 136] the CHURCH, not from the STATE? If, con­sistently with the constitution, they can ex­ercise no authority, as officers in the church of England, but BY and UNDER the King as SUPREME GOVERNOR. and in exact confor­mity to the ORDERS of the STATE, how is it possible their authority should be 'such as is ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, not at all from the STATE? This, to ordinary understandings, looks very like a direct contradiction. In this way of arguing the objection was largely sup­ported.

LET us now see, whether what the Doctor has offered upon the King's supremacy is 'a full answer to all that has been here said.' He has cited the thirty-seventh article of the church of England, which contains her doc­trine of the King's supremacy; he has cited al­so the Queen's injunctions to which this article refers: But, it is to be particularly observed, in his whole arguing upon this point, he attempts to prove no more than this, that 'the church was believed to have certain powers of a spi­ritual nature, which this supremacy does not in­clude, and which our Princes are so far from pretending to convey, that all manner of right to exercise them, in their own persons, is there­in formally and expressly disclaimed.' That this is what he endeavoured to prove, is made indisputably clear from the manner in which he illustrates his argument. Says he, 'Let it be considered, that every man is, in some sense, a King in his own house and family; and no cler­gyman has a right to come into it to perform any ecclesiastical offices, to administer baptism for instance, without his leave and consent. Upon him it altogether depends, whether the [Page 137] Clergyman shall have a proper and lawful au­thority to perform this office in his family. But is it not evident, that the giving him that authority is a very different thing, from investing him with the general-power to administer the sacraments? In like manner, as a Kingdom may be considered as a large family, the King is the political father of this family; and as such is su­preme over all persons belonging to it, whether spiritual or temporal. And without his consent or authority, no Bishop, or ecclesiastical person, can lawfully officiate within his dominions. But the giving this authority, by commission, or in any other way, does not convey to any man his sacred character; but always supposes him to have been previously invested with it, by virtue of a commission from CHRIST.' What the Doctor has here said, by way of illustration, is highly exceptionable, and serves little to any other purpose than to make it certain, that all he aims at proving is only this, that, notwithstand­ing the King's supremacy, it is from CHRIST, not the King, that the authority of Bishops, as such, in the church of England, is conveyed to them. It is, with me, beyond all doubt, that his labor upon this head is altogether in vain. The Queen's words, in her injunctions, as quo­ted by the Doctor, are these, 'Her Majesty nei­ther doth, nor ever will, challenge any autho­rity, other than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memo­ry, King Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, which IS, and was of antient time, due to the imperial Crown of this Realm.' What now is the authority that was challenged and used by these noble Kings? It is nothing short of this; that they were vested with 'ALL POWER [Page 138] to exercise ALL MANNER of jurisdiction; and that Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have NO MANNER of jurisdiction ecclesiastical but BY and UNDER the KING's MAJESTY, who hath full power and authority to hear and determine ALL MANNER of causes ECCLESIASTICAL, and to reform and correct all vice, sin, errors, heresies, enormities, abuses whatsoever, which, by ANY MANNER of SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY or jurisdictión, ought or may be lawfully reformed. ^* Who that be­lieves such power is vested in the King, as su­preme head of the church, can, at the same time, believe, that the authority of Bishops, in their ecclesiastical character, is ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, not from the STATE? If the Doctor should be able to prove this to be within the compass of possibility, he would dis­cover a far higher reach of thought than he has ever yet done But we have no need to enlarge here. Should it be supposed, not grant­ed, that the authority of Bishops does not flow from the Crown, but from the church, which is the utmost the Doctor has endeavoured to prove, it will not follow from hence, that he has answered, or so much as attempted to answer, 'all that is said in support' of the objection in debate. Dare he say, that the authority of the clergy of the church of England, whether supe­rior or inferior, let him derive it from what source he pleases, can be constitutionally exerci­sed in any one instance, but as pointed out by the [Page 139] King and Parliament? Can the whole Clergy of England, with all the power they are vested with from CHRIST, make the least alteration in the established form of worship, ordination, or government? Is there any one thing, in these most important religious points, that they can depart or vary from? If now their autho­rity, as to ITS EXERCISE, is intirely under the direction, restraint, and sovereign controul of the King and Parliament, how grossly ab­surd must it be to propose the mission of Bishops, with such authority only, as is ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, and not at all from the STATE? There are no such Bishops in the church of England, nor can there be till the King is deprived of that supremacy, which has been granted to him by acts of Parliament, and the present ecclesiastical establishment is ei­ther nullified, or essentially altered. It will not be in the power of the Doctor fully to an­swer 'all that has been said', until he hás in­telligiby informed us, how that authority is ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, and not from the STATE, which can be exercised, neither in the affair of worship, ordination, govern­ment, or discipline, but BY and UNDER the guidance, controul, and sovereignly prescribed order, not of the CHURCH, but of the STATE: This is his proper business—This he should have undertaken in his reply to this ob­jection—And this is still incumbent on him, if he would entertain the least hope, upon just grounds, of supporting so strange a pro­posal as that of the mission of such Bishops to America, as are unknown to the church of En­gland, and cannot be sent but upon the subver­sion, or great alteration, of the present ecclesi­astical establishment.

[Page 140]I SHALL only add, the objection in debate was enforced by observing, 'That this depen­dance on the STATE, notwithstanding the de­sired authority ALTOGETHER from the CHURCH, is the true source of all the hardships and grie­vances, on account of the want of Bishops in America, that have been so bitterly complain­ed of. Did Bishops of the church of England no more depend on the STATE, than our mi­nisters do, the episcopal churches here might as well be supplied with Bishops, as our's are with Pastors,' &c. To all which the Doctor has no where dropped a word, though he has 'fully answered all that was said.' It certainly looks as though he did not know what to say, or he would have said that which would have had a better tendency to serve his cause.

OBJECTION. IV. 'We are in principle, against all civil establishments in religion; and as we do not desire any such establishment in support of our own religious sentiments, or practice, we cannot reasonably be blamed, if we are not dis­posed to encourage one in favour of the episcopal Colonists" The Doctor observes upon this, 'If by WE, I mean those of the congregational persuasion in New-England in general, the ob­jection contains an article of intelligence that is to him NEW.' Nothing more follows from hence, than that he is informed of something he did not know before. But though he would affect to be ignorant of a real truth, he is free to declare his faith in an imaginary one, namely, 'That a large majority of the several persuasions, ex­cepting the people called Quakers, notwith­standing the declarations that have been publish­ed against establishments in the gross, had al­ways a reserve in favour of the establishment of [Page 141] their own religion.' Was it to the purpose of the present argument, I could easily, notwith­standing 'the historical accounts, and authentic anecdotes, in the Doctor's possession,' make it appear, with a meridian lustre, 'That the Pu­ritans, in the reign of Queen Elisabeth,' are in­juriously misrepresented in what he has here given us 'from Maddox's answer to Neal.' And he must not take it amiss, if I tell him, that we are not surprised at his endeavouring to unco­ver the nakedness 'of his ancestors,' as he is a DESERTER from that GREAT CAUSE which brought them over to this then desolate land: Nor is it beyond what we expected, to find him, and many of the Society's Missionaries, who are either proselites themselves, or the sons of pro­selites, fired with extraordinary zeal in propa­gating high-church principles. This has all a­long been the way, on this side the Atlantic, in which converts to the church, especially clerical ones, have endeavoured to give proof of the sin­cerity of their conversion.

HE now comes to the point in debate, and agrees with me, 'That if I, and those of my per­suasion, do not desire an establishment in support of our religious sentiments, we cannot be rea­sonably blamed, if we are not disposed to en­courage one in favour of the episcopal Colo­nists.' But says he, 'What has the case of re­ligious establishments to do with the American Episcopate, which has been offered to the Pub­lic?' He knew, or might have known, that the objection supposed they had a great deal to do with it; and, instead of asking such a needless question, he should have evinced, upon the foot of solid argument, that they had no connection with, or relation to, each other. But he con­tents [Page 142] himself with only going on asking, 'Does this plan propose an establishment of the church?' It undoubtedly does. 'Will the execution of it imply, or amount to, any such thing?' Yes; or it can never be carried into execution. 'Will the in­troduction of Bishops, who shall have no authority, but purely of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is derived altogether from the church, and not from the state; [and so on to the con­clusion of the plan;] I say, will the introducti­on of such Bishops as these amount to an esta­blishment? Nay, can it have any more aspect against the civil or religious privileges of the Colonists, than against those of the Crim Tar­tars'? Surely the Doctor could not but know, before he asked these questions, that it was only asking, whether we thought there was any weight, or force, in the produced objection. How unaccountable therefore is it, that he could imagine, that he had said any thing to the pur­pose, by barely putting these questions! They are really nothing more than so many strongly expressed affirmations: and will he call this argu­ing? He proposed, that every objection should be fairly debated before the tribunal of the Public; but, instead of debating upon this, he roundly and repeatedly affirms, by way of que­ry, that it has no validity in it. His proper work was, to make it clearly evident, by good reasoning, that the proposed plan did not imply an establishment, and that it could, without one, be carried into effect; the contrary to which will, without all doubt, be found the truth of fact, if ever this plan takes place. If it should, it must be by the constitution of a new church of England in the Colonies; but how this can be effected without an establishment, accord­ing [Page 143] to the true idea of this word, no one, unless it be the Doctor, can explain. This is what he ought to have done in answer to the present objection; and until we are thus favoured, we shall take the liberty to think, we are perfectly consistent with ourselves, while we are not dis­posed to encourage the planned episcopal esta­blishment, as we desire no establishment of our own mode of religious government, or disci­pline.

THE Doctor now gives us a curious specimen of his talent at nice, strict, close reasoning. I had said, 'It does not appear to us, that CHRIST has entrusted the state with a right to make religious establishments. If the state in England has this delegated authority, must it not be owned, that the state in China, in Turkey, in Spain, must have this authority also? What should make the difference in the eye of true reason? Hath the state in England been distin­guished by Heaven by any peculiar grant, be­yond the state in other Countries? If it has, let the grant be produced. If it has not, all states have, in common, the same authority. And as they must severally be supposed to exert this authority in establishments conformable to their own sentiments in religion; what can the consequence be, but infinite damage to the cause of GOD, and true religion? And such in fact has been the consequence of these establish­ments, in all ages, and in all places'. Some of these bad consequences were then particularly mentioned. Let us now see the Doctor's reason­ing to invalidate what was thus offered against the right of states to make religious establish­ments. Says he, 'The same argument with which the Doctor endeavours to overthrow it [Page 144] [this right of states] is as forcible against the right of private judgment. This will evidently appear from the following experiment. If a person in England has this right, must it not be owned that a person in China, in Turkey, in Spain, must have it also', and so on, applying what I had offered against the right of states to make religious establishments, to the right of private judgment; as though the argument was equally forcible against the latter as the former. But surely the Doctor does not believe, that the right of states to make religious establishments is as clearly and indubitably a grant from GOD, as the right of private judgment! And if he does not, what doth his arguing prove? The cases must be parallel, or the reasoning from the one to the other cannot be conclusive. It is allowed, the bad effects that follow from the exercise of private judgment are no proof, that men have not universally a right to judge for themselves. And why? Because they have this right granted to them by GOD himself, and we are as sure of it as that he has granted them any other right whatever. Is the case the same with respect to the right of states to make religious establish­ments? Is not their pretended right founded en­tirely on its supposed connection with the real interest of religion? It is therefore a good argu­ment against this right, though none at all against the right of private judgment, that, instead of being advantageous, it has been infinitely hurt­ful to the cause of GOD, and true virtue. The religion of Jesus, in particular, has suffered more from the exercise of this pretended right, than from all other causes put together; and it is, with me, past all doubt, that it will never be restored to its primitive purity, simplicity, [Page 145] and glory, until religious establishments are so brought down as to be no more. In short, when the Doctor shall make it evident, that the state-right we are considering stands upon the same bottom, and is as incontestably a grant from GOD, as the right of private judgment, we shall then allow, that the bad consequences flow­ing from the exercise of these rights are as for­cible an argument against the one as the other, that is, no argument at all; but, until then we shall think this arguing altogether below one, who would be esteemed a gentleman endowed with a good capacity for reasoning. I am obli­ged to say, the Doctor seems to have no great ta­lent at answering objections, or has been unac­countably careless in the doing of it. Instead of recommending to the reader what has been wrote against religious establishments, I would ad­vise him to consult his own reason, and to pay a regard to the dictates of COMMON SENSE, and he need not then fear being led aside either by 'Bishop Warburton's alliance between the church and the state, or Dr. Stebbing's essay concerning civil government, or Dr. Roger's vindication of the civil establishment, or Bishop Ellys on spi­ritual liberty, or a late elegant essay on esta­blishments in religion, in answer to the confes­sional.'

OBJECTION V. 'The church of England in the Colonies, in its comparative low state, in­stead of an Episcopate, upon this plan, or any other, needs rather the charitable assistance of its friends to support its present Ministers, and others that are still wanted.' The reply be­gins, 'The Doctor forgets that the church of England, in several of the Colonies, is not in that comparative low state he speaks of; but is [Page 146] able to support, and does support, its Ministers in general as amply as any set of Clergymen are supported in the British dominions.' This I did not forget, though I took no notice of it, for this very good reason, because it did not appear, that the church of England in any of these Colonies had complained for want of Bishops, or were disposed to petition for them. The only com­plainers and petitioners are residents in the other Colonies, where the church of England is in the comparatively low state that was represented. Neither Clergy, nor Laity in the Colonies where episcopal Ministers are so 'amply sup­ported,' have made any stir, that we know of, about the want of Bishops, or signified their de­sire of their mission. But, says the Doctor, 'Supposing the church throughout the Colonies needed the charitable assistance of its friends to support its Ministers, yet this would be no proof that it does not need also an Episcopate.' If it would be no proof of this, it would fully prove, that the episcopal Clergy, in the Colonies, are boundless in their desires of charity. One would think, the amazing sum that is annually, and charitably, expended in supporting Missionaries, might satisfy the [...]lurdiest beggars, without han­kering after as much more charity as would be sufficient for the support of Bishops. Besides, they cannot have Bishops, upon the proposed plan, unless the church of England is, by the state, differently constituted here from what it is at home.

I HAD said, 'In North-Carolina, the religious state of things, by all accounts, is deplorably sad—They have few, very few, Ministers to of­ficiate in gospel-administrations. That charity, which might be sufficient for the maintenance of [Page 147] as many Missionaries as would be needful there, would be swallowed up by one Bishop only. And would this tend so much to the honour of GOD, and the good of souls, as if it was ex­pended in support of missions that are really ne­cessary?' Upon this the Doctor cries out, 'It is surprizing to see what advantages are claimed by some people! How they can make use of the same argument to different purposes! When other ends are to be answered, the writers against the church can tell us, that the Society have no power to apply their funds to other uses than were intended by the donors—But now an Episcopate is in view, it is thought reasona­ble and just that the Society should alienate a fund, more strictly appropriated to a particular use than any other in their power, (for this may be truly said of the fund for the support of Ame­rican Bishops) and expend it upon Missionaries to be sent to Carolina, and other places, provi­ded always, that such places are at a due dis­tance from New-England.' It is not easy to conceive, what could give occasion for this strange remark. Not a word was said of the fund appropriated for the support of American Bishops, or of the Society's expending one far­thing of this fund to other uses than were intend­ed by the donors. It was only said in gene­ral, 'That charity which might be sufficient for the maintenance of as many Missionaries as were wanted would be swallowed up by one Bi­shop only.' H [...] the Society nothing put into their hands for the support of the gospel in America, besides what is appropriated for the support of Bishops here? And as the fund for the support of American Bishops is insufficient, might not the Society, with fidelity to their trust, [Page 148] in the Doctor's opinion, make up this deficien­cy, should Bishops be sent? This, and this on­ly, is what I had in view. And as Missiona­ries were peculiarly wanted in Carolina, and other places, it was supposed, and I believe, up­on just grounds, that it would be more for the honour of GOD, it should be expended this way, than in supporting Bishops. What the Doctor has here said is therefore quite aliene from what was really intended, nor in the least an answer to it. Had he looked within, I can scarce think his conscience would have suffered him to insinuate, that I spake of missions to Ca­rolina, because at 'a due distance from New-England.' He knows, that the expressly nam­ed object of the Society's care is, the mission of Clergymen for the administration of the word and sacraments in those Colonies, where there was no provision at all, or a mean one, for the publick worship of GOD. And he must know likewise, unless he is strangely ignorant, that Carolina is the Colony, if there is any one on the American Continent, where, as we have of­ten been told in the society-sermons, they had scarcely any form of public worship; where even the LORD's day was hardly distinguished from other days, but by greater idleness and profane­ness; and where baptism and the LORD's sup­per were scarcely known to be administred. Why then would he suggest, that I mentioned Carolina, because 'duly distant from New-En­gland?' He has not herei [...] discovered that christian concern for the propagation of the gos­pel, according to the acknowledged design of the Society's charter, which might have been expected from a Missionary in virtue of it. He adds, 'As the Society have never acted the part [Page 149] of unfaithful stewards, in other cases, we can be under no apprehensions that they will in this.' I say not, that they have acted an unfaithful part; but this I will say, it is the real truth of fact, to whatever cause it may be owing, that they have employed few Missionaries, next to none, in Carolina, where they were most needed, and multiplied them where there was little, if any need at all of them; and in some places they have supported, and are still supporting them, where the churches to whom they minister are abundantly able, without any assistance from them, to support the gospel. And though guarding the Colonists against, or delivering them from, the delusions and superstitions of POPERY, is one essential part of the business of the Society, as pointed out in their charter, they have so strangely neglected Canada, which, ever since the conclusion of the last war, has been a Province in subjection to the British Crown, as to give occasion for a letter to them, from the Chaplain to the garrison at Montreal, wherein he says, ^* 'That the Romish Priests avail themselves greatly of the neglected state of the church of England in those parts; persuading the Canadians, that we have not religion so much at heart as they.' Let the impartial Public judge, whether it would not be a much stronger argument of the Society's faithfulness as stewards, to take effectual care that Carolina and Canada have a full supply of Missionaries, rather than New-England, New-York, the Jer­sies, or Pennsylvania, where there is no pretence [Page 150] of any want of them, but meerly to uphold a different mode of administration in one and the same religion.

I HAD said, 'As to the Colonies, extending from Pennsylvania to the northermost bounds of the Massachusetts-Province, notwithstanding the pious care of the Society at home, and the vast charity they have been annually expending in favour of the church of England, from their first incorporation to this day, it has grown but little in comparison with the other denominati­ons of christians, not having got as yet beyond its infant state.' Says the Doctor in reply, 'I conceive he must be mistaken as to the fact. In Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, and New-York, I will not be positive that the church has encreased beyond the proportion of other denominations for fifty years past—But in the New-England Colonies it appears, from good accounts, that the church has considerably increased; and that the number of its professors at this day bears a greater proportion to the number of inhabi­tants, than it ever has done before. I may be mistaken with regard to some of the New-En­gland Colonies: But'—. He has hitherto spoken cautiously, but not like one who appears to have a sufficient acquaintance with the real truth of fact. Upon the strictest examination, it would be found, that the increase of other denomina­tions, beyond the increase of Episcopalians, is greater in New-England, than in New-York, New-Jersey, or Pennsylvania; and this greater increase is rapidly going on in all the Colonies that constitute what is called New-England, ex­cepting the Colony of Connecticut, in which there has been the greatest increase of the church of England; but there is nothing 'amaz­ing,' [Page 151] as the Doctor's epithet is, in this increase: Nor had he the least reason to go on saying, 'I cannot at present recollect an example, in any age or country, wherein so great a proportion of proselites has been made to any religion in so short a time, as has been made to the church of England in the western division of that populous Colony; unless where the power of miracles, or the arm of the Magistrate, was exerted to pro­duce that effect.' Notwithstanding the hyper­bolical mode in which the Doctor here flourishes, there are not one tenth part so many Episco­palians, even in the western division of Con­necticut, as there have been sterling pounds ex­pended in order to proselite them: Nor are there more episcopal churches in all the New-England Colonies, than there have been thou­sands of pounds sterling spent to found and sup­port them. And they are, by far the greater part of them, not excepting those in the above­mentioned 'western division,' in so weak and low a state, that there would be no hope of their continued existence, if that charity was withdrawn, which, at first, gave being to them, and has all along supported them in being: Whereas, the churches of other denominations, without the help of charity from abroad, or the expectation or desire of any, are become numerous, and continually increase in number, beyond what has been known in any age, or place, since the first ages of christianity.

I HAD spoken of the church of England here, 'as being in its infancy, not able to stand upon its own legs, and so far from a state of matu­rity, as not to make it worth while for a Bishop to come here.' The Doctor replies, 'infant and feeble as she is, he has allowed that she may [Page 152] be [...]70,000 strong in the Colonies—Now can he possibly think, when he allows himself time for consideration, that the church of England in America, containing 270,000 members, in which are included most of the governors and princi­pal persons in the Colonies, is so inconsiderable, that it is not worth while for a Bishop to take the charge of it?' When I supposed the church of England might contain 270,000, I took into the computation all the Episcopalians on the Ameri­can Continent. But when I spake of her as in 'an infant feeble state, not able to stand upon her own legs,' my view was (as may be seen in the passages with which these words are connect­ed) to her existence in the seven Colonies, ex­tending from Pennsylvania to the utmost north-east bounderies of the Massachusetts-Province; in all which, though they contain by far the greatest number of inhabitants on this Conti­nent, there are not more than 26 or 27 thousand professors of the church of England, who are scattered over an extent of 600 miles in length, and more than an 100 in breadth. And 'of these, (as was observed in my answer, pag. 156, to which the Doctor has made no reply) it would be no wrong to the truth, if it should be said, a very considerable part went over to the church, not so much upon sober inquiry and real princi­ple, as from disgust at the parish-minister, or unhappy prejudices arising from the placing a meeting-house, or some such important difficul­ty in the towns where they lived.' In this view of the church of England, which is certainly a just one, what occasion is there for Bishops, at least in these parts of America? I had nothing to do with the Colonies to the southward of Pennsylvania. They have neither complained for [Page 153] want of Bishops, or desired the mission of them. When this is the case, we shall doubtless say that upon the matter, which is just and reasonable. The above described seven Colonies only, contain the complainers and petitioners; and as the So­ciety's chief solicitude, as well as charity, has been laid out to episcopise these Colonies, they are eminently,if not solely, the Colonies for which Bishops have been so earnestly sought after. But the church of England must make a more re­spectable figure in these Colonies, before she may hope for such a superior order of men as Bishops. Will it become their dignity to be supported by charity, and to be placed at the head of churches so dependant on charity, as that if it is withheld, they must, by far the grea­ter part of them, fall into non-existence? The church (as the Doctor loves to call it—as though there was no other church) must wait until it arrives at a state of much greater maturity, be­fore it will be worth while for Bishops to come here. It is acknowledged the Governor, in most of these Colonies, is commonly in name, an Epis­copalian; though sometimes destitute of every thing else that looks like religion.—Surely such Governors cannot be supposed to have much at heart the affair of an Episcopate, unless they should view it as connected with their worldly interest in one shape or another. It is quite re­mote from the truth to say, that 'most of the principal persons in the Colonies' are of this persuasion, unless by principal persons are meant, those who are appointed to their civil posts from home. In general there are 50 prin­cipal persons to one, in the Non-episcopal Colonies, who are not members of the church of England, but of churches of other denomi­nations.

[Page 154]THE Doctor now leaves me for a while, in or­der to consider the objections I had introduced as offered by Dr. Mayhew against this plan, in reply to a supposed high dignitary of the church of England. As it was the professed design of the 'appeal' to remove objections against the American Episcopate, 'the suffering these ob­jections to lie against it, without lisping a word to take off the force of them, 'was mentioned as a failure. The Doctor has excused himself by saying, 'He had not seen these objections, though he had in vain made inquiry after them.' The excuse is 'candidly accepted' as a good one. 'But (says he) what excuse can Doctor Chauncy make for taking no notice of what was powerfully offered by Mr. Apthorp in answer to these very objections of Dr. Mayhew?' There is no need of making any excuse, as, in compli­ance with the invitation given in the 'appeal,' my business was, not to answer objections, but to bring them that they might be answered by the Doctor. Now he has adopted what he ima­gines was 'powerfully offered by Mr. Apthorp,' it is become proper I should take notice of it; but, had I done this before, I might have been taxed with officiousness; I should certainly have acted out of character as an objector, and pre­vented myself in that which ought not to have been expected until now.

BEFORE the Doctor brings in Mr. Apthorp, he says a few words, which, I suppose, he intended should be looked upon as an answer to the 'ex­pedient I suggested to compromise matters be­tween Episcopalians and other denominations in the Colonies;' but as he has silently passed over what I had largely offered in illustration of the propriety and reasonableness of this expedient, I [Page 155] have nothing to do here but to desire the reader to turn to p. 150, 169, 160 of the answer to the 'appeal;' and he must then be convinced, that the Doctor, under the pretence of saying something, has really said nothing.

NOW comes in Mr. Apthorp's answer to Dr. Mayhew's objections. This answer was publish­ed before the Doctor's death, and the only rea­son he made no reply to it was, that neither he, or his friends, thought it worthy of such notice. It was, as they imagined, wrote principally with a view to recommend himself to a certain great man, whose favour might be advantagious to him. However, if he had been permitted, in the alwise government of Heaven, to have lived until this time, he would, doubtless, upon this occasion, have pointed out the utter insufficien­cy of this Gentleman's answer to his objections. And though he might have done it to better pur­pose than I can, divine Providence has put a fa­tal bar in the way of the Public's having this sa­tisfaction. The reader, while he remembers it is the Doctor's friend that appears in his behalf, will not attribute to him any defect he may dis­cern in the vindication of his objections.

'THE Doctor, (says Mr. Apthorp) affects to doubt whether the scheme proposed by his an­swerer be not meerly his own, instead of being, as is asserted, the real and only one that has been in view; and says, that if this assertion be true, he and others have been misinformed.' The reply is, 'Let his or their informers say on what grounds they have ever affirmed a different one to have been framed; or else let them take shame to themselves for inventing falshoods, or venting imaginations for facts; and let the Doctor set a mark on them, and be more cauti­ous [Page 156] whom he believes hereafter.' What was said by the Doctor is here set in a very partial and unfair light. Instead of properly quoting his words, as he used them in a connected course of reasoning, this writer has given them, or ra­ther the sense in which he understood them, in a disjoined absolute form. The writer the Doctor replies to, after he had proposed a scheme for a Colony-Episcopate, assures us, 'This is the real and only scheme that hath been planned for Bi­shops in America; and whoever hath heard of any other hath been misinformed through mis­take or design.' Says the Doctor in answer, 'To speak for myself, then, I am one of those who have been thus misinformed; and I know of others who have been so, in common with me —He speaks of this scheme with great as­surance, as if he were at head-quarters, and cer­tainly knew it to be the real and only one. Pos­sibly, this may be the case. But he is not known; nor has he informed us [...]on what ground or authority he goes in giving this ac­count of the matter. The declaration of an anonymous writer, how confidently soever he may express himself, is not, surely, sufficient to satisfy us, that this is the true scheme planned.— It may possibly be only his own scheme, the scheme of a private man; and until it comes with better authority, or in a more authentic way, we may consider it as an imaginary one.'— Let Mr. Apthorp 'take shame to himself' for pretending to answer an objection, without so much as saying a word to invalidate such perti­nent and solid reasoning in support of it. I can­not suppose Dr. Chandler himself will think, that what is here said is 'powerfully offered;' if he should, without all doubt, the impartial Public will judge otherwise.

[Page 157]HE goes on to tell us of 'successive proposals for American Bishops, made at different times, through a long course of years, by men of high rank and character in the church; all which agree with what the answerer has avered.' He likewise gives us at large 'Bishop Butler's scheme, as one 'that might have peculiar weight with the Doctor;' and speaks of it as exactly si­milar to that in the answer to his observations.' What is all this to the purpose? We know, and the Doctor knew, there has long been a design to introduce Bishops into the Colonies, and that plans have been formed to accomplish this design. But should there have been a general agreement in these plans, they may be nothing more than the schemes of private men; and this indeed is the truth of fact. They are not to be looked on as schemes set forth upon the foot of proper autho­rity. The planners of them had no such au­thority; and whatever they might intend, or pretend, if ever an Episcopate is authoritatively settled in America, it may be, for aught any or all of them can say, upon a plan very different from that which they have proposed. Mr. Ap­thorp is pleased to say of the proposed plan, 'That it is such a simple and beautiful plan of the most antient and moderate Episcopacy, that it should, not only remove all the Doctor's ap­prehensions, but the scruples of every rational and learned Dissenter against that apostolic form of government.' Where does this writer find, in any of apostolic epistles, the model of an epis­copate without any authority to govern the La­ity? Let him, if he can, produce a text, in any part of the new-testament, wherein ruling the Clergy, in distinction from the Laity, is made the proper work of Bishops. He would likewise do [Page 158] what was never done before, if he would point out that part of the christian word, where the Bishop's diocess, in the 'most ancient times,' ex­tended an hundred miles in breadth, and several hundred in length. Until he it able to prove, that such was 'the most antient Episcopacy,' no rational or learned Dissenter against the proposed plan, will entertain an opinion of it as, in any measure, agreeing with the 'apostolic form of government.' This Gentleman has not disco­vered here the most intimate acquaintance, with either the apostolic Episcopacy, or that which took place in the most antient times.

HE goes on, 'Supposing this to be the real scheme, the Doctor owns that it sets the matter in a less exceptionable point of view, than he had seen it in before.' Very true; and I am ready to own the same thing. But this does not make the scheme unexceptionable. He now com­plains, 'The Doctor cannot forbear going fif­ty years back to ridicule some harmless, though ill chosen, phrases, in which the substance of it [the scheme] is expressed.' As he had occasion to speak of the Society's abstract, printed in 1715, in which, among other reasons for an Episcopate in the Colonies, 'the blessing all manner of people susceptible of such holy im­pressions as are made by the imposition of the Bishops hands,' is particularly mentioned; it will, I believe, be thought excusable in him, if he has called this a matter 'sublime, mysterious and sacred,' passing it over with nothing more than a contemptuous sneer. But, says this wri­ter, 'He well knows, or easily may, that we ascribe no more efficacy to the laying on of Bi­shops hands, then his brethren do to the laying on of Presbyter's hands.' The Doctor could not [Page 159] possibly know this, because it is not the truth of fact. Mr. Apthorp must be very ignorant of the sentiments of Non-episcopalians, if he does not know, that we conceive quite differently of the laying on of Presbyters hands, from what many, at least, of the church of England do of the laying on of Bishops hands. Do Episcopa­lians never speak of an indelible character as im­pressed by the Bishop's hand in ordination? Do they never lead people to think, as if there was an instituted connection between the impo­sition of his hand in confirmation, and the be­stowment of the Spirit in his gracious influences? These are the false and ridiculous notions they deride, not ordination or confirmation, meerly as such, by the laying on of Bishops hands. And, perhaps, ridicule is the fittest way in which such mysteriously sacred matters can be treated. Nei­ther Dr. Mayhew, or any of his brethren, object to the performance of the offices of ordination or confirmation by persons of that order, to which Episcopalians conceive they are committed.' But, says this writer, 'The Doctor thinks we are possessed sufficiently of the whole ex­ercise of our religion, because our young peo­ple may be confirmed, and Clergymen ordained for us, and properly inspected afterwards; pro­vided they will all go from America to Europe for these purposes. Can he say with a good conscience, that liberty like this is all he should desire for himself, and his brethren?' And here he is intreated 'to read over some words of his answerer, to which he has made no reply'. The words are these; 'The American Dissenters from our communion, would think it insuppor­tably grievous to have no ministers, but such as received ordination in England or Ireland; or [Page 160] to be witheld from the use of any religious rite, which they esteemed as highly as we do confir­mation; or to have their church destitute of a super-intendency, which they conceived to be of apostolical institution. I should in such a case be a zealous advocate for them, as not yet en­joying the full toleration to which they had a right. And surely they ought to ask their con­sciences very seriously, why they oppose our ap­plication for such indulgence, as they would claim for themselves; and whether indeed such opposition is not downright persecution; and that in a matter meerly spiritual, without the mixture of any temporal concern'. The rea­son why the Doctor made no reply to these words was, not because 'they admit of none,' but be­cause they are quite beside the case in dispute. The American Non-episcopalians neither enjoy or desire to enjoy, any other liberty than to provide such Pastors, to officiate in such services among them, as they think are agreable to the word of GOD. Such liberty is equally possessed by Episcopalians. If the other denominations more fully and conveniently enjoy the exercise of their religion, it is not in the least measure owing to their being favoured with greater li­berty, but to their greater care of themselves under that permission, which is equally granted to all denominations. If there is any one purely spiritual privilege, which Episcopalians do not as fully enjoy as any of the other denominations, it is owing to themselves, and not to any want of liberty in this respect. Their liberty is pre­cisely the same with the liberty of the other per­suasions. Was it not, I should be as 'zealous an advocate for them,' as this Gentleman could be for us under like circumstances; as thinking [Page 161] that they were hardly used. The true reason why Episcopalians do not AS FULLY enjoy the exercise of their religion, as the other denomina­tions is, not because they are not possessed of equal liberty, but because they do not make the like full use of it. These other denominations would continue until dooms-day without Pastors to officiate in any religious service among them, if they waited for their mission from the state at home: Nor would they complain of this as a burden, much less an insupportable one. They are intirely satisfied, as they have the grant of liberty to provide for themselves the full enjoy­ment of all the spiritual privileges of the King­dom of CHRIST. Episcopalians are equally partakers in the same granted liberty; and they should be contented herewith, and not complain of it as an insuperable hardship, that the state at home does not furnish them with Bishops in order to the compleat exercise of their religion. Did christian churches in the first ages of the gospel, make such complaints? If they might be permitted to provide spiritual officers for the spiritual services of christianity, it was all they desired; and it is all that can reasonably be de­sired at this day. And such permission is as compleatly enjoyed by Episcopalians, as by any of the other denominations on the Continent.

Mr. Apthorp proceeds, 'The Doctor, still flying to ridicule in defect of argument, inti­mates, how much the Episcopalians in America need to be well ruled and governed—how much the Clergy need to be united, and reduced to or­der'. The Doctor did not undertake to argue upon these things, as is here suggested. He purposely avoided it, lest he should not 'express himself with quite so much gravity and solemni­ty' [Page 162] as some might think proper. It is not there­fore easy to account for this remark upon what the Doctor mentioned in transit [...] only, unless it was that occasion might be here from taken to tell us, 'that the American Clergy are unanimous in their wishes to be under the immediate inspection of Bishops resident among them; which con­currence implies quite the contrary to a present disorderly state of that Clergy'. That those among the Clergy, who petitioned for Bishops are 'unanimous" at least in pretence, in their wishes to have them, is not disputed; but that the whole American Clergy are thus unanimous is far from being a 'known' fact. No evidence has yet been given, that the Clergy, any more than the Laity, in those Colonies which are cal­led Episcopal, are at all desirous of being under the 'immediate inspection of Bishops'; nor is it thought to be a fact capable of being evidenced. How far this may imply 'a present disorderly state of that Clergy', I leave with this writer to say. He adds, with reference to the American episcopal Clergy in common, 'they are, perhaps, as faithful to their trust, and as blameless in their manners, as any body of men in the christian ministry'. It would give me real and great plea­sure, was I as fully satisfied of this, as this w [...]iter seems to be.

HE now brings in the Doctor saying, 'great inconveniences are likely to follow from the sen­ding Bishops to America'; and then answers, 'He says also, it is readily owned that our appre­hension of what may possibly or probably be the consequences of it, ought not to put us on in­fringing the religious liberty of our fellow-sub­jects and christian brethren. Nay, he adds, nei­ther have we any power to do so, if we were [Page 163] unreasonable and wicked enough to desire it; our charter granting such liberty to all protestants'. What now is the consequence of these concessi­ons? 'Therefore, says this writer, Bishops may, by that charter, settle even in New-England'. So purely spiritual Bishops might without it, or in any part of the christian world, in virtue of that liberty wherewith CHRIST has made the professors of his religion free. It follows, 'And if the having Bishops among them be part of the religious liberty of the Episcopalians, as it evi­dently is; the Dissenters ought not to oppose it on account of apprehended consequenes'. There is a great and wide difference (as has been abun­dantly proved) between purely spiritual Bishops, and such Bishops as are specified in the proposed plan. We make no opposition to Bishops that have 'authority altogether from CHRIST, and not the state'. If we oppose Bishops of a contra­ry species, we oppose no part of that episcopal liberty which is RELIGIOUS; and should great inconveniences be likely to follow from the sen­ding such Bishops, opposition to their mission would, on this account, be highly reasonable, and not the least infringement on RELIGIOUS liberty.

BUT, says this writer, 'What are the bad consequences apprehended?' He answers, 'Bi­shops, the Doctor tells us, are ambitious and unquiet'. In reply whereto he says, 'So are Presbyters, and all sorts of men too often.' But this proves nothing, unless he could have said further, that their sphere of influence was equally extensive, in consequence of which there was equal danger, from their intrieguing with great men at home, or with Governors and principal men here, of carrying into execution such schemes as might be greatly hurtful, both in a civil and [Page 164] religious sense. It follows, 'The Doctor will own that Bishops are now, and long have been as quiet an order of men as any in the nation.' He will be far from owning this, 'if it be true, as many affirm [these are the Doctor's words, p. 64] that high church tory-principles are lately re­vived in England, and greatly favoured by some, whose influence may go far towards bringing them into as much reputation, as they have been in disgrace since the death of Queen Ann.'

THE Doctor had said, 'Let us suppose, that Bishops are to be at first sent to America with such limited powers [as are mentioned in the proposed plan,] to reside in the episcopal Colo­nies, and to have no concern, but with Episco­palians. Have we sufficient ground to think, that they and their successors would, to the day of doom, or for a long time, remain contented with such powers, or under such limitations? In a word, that they would continue such inoffensive harmless creatures as this Gentleman suppo­ses.'—To this the reply is, 'Who knows whe­ther the New-Englandlers will not hang Qua­kers and Witches again?' It is conceded, no one knows that they will not, should the proposed mission of Bishops take place; for, in England, where there is no complaint for want of Bishops, both Quakers and Witches have been hanged in much greater numbers than they ever were here. This writer goes on 'The Clergy of En­gland are in general friends to religious free­dom: The people of England, Whigs and To­ries, are unfavourable to clerical power; and a far greater danger, than the Doctor's imagi­nary one, is that of their laying aside all regard to the christian ministry, and to christianity it­self.' The Doctor himself, in answering a like reply of his Antagonist, fully answered what is [Page 165] here said; though this writer, instead of attend­ing to it as he ought, has only repeated, in ef­fect, the same thing over again. I have nothing therefore to do here, but to quote the Doctor's own words. Says he, 'All this being t [...]n for granted, yet may not times alter, and administra­tions change? Who knows what the next reign and administration may be? or whether attempts towards an oppressive enlargement of power, may not be as much encouraged, ae it is sup­posed they would be frowned on, during the present?' Mr. Apthorp says further, 'There never was so little prospect, that a spirit of reli­gious intolerance would revive here,' that is, in England. I heartily wish there was no reason to suspect the truth of what is here affirmed. He goes on, 'If it should, it might not extend to New-England—But even supposing it to reach thither, the effects would be very little by the circumstance of no Bishop being already placed in America.'—The Doctor shall speak for himself here also. Says he, 'We are cer­tainly much more secure against such oppression in the absence of Bishops, than we should be if they were once fixed here. Obsta principiis was never thought an ill maxim by wise men,' and so on, with pertinency, the best part of a page; all which, this writer has been so wise as to pass over in silence. But, says he, 'The whole appre­hension [of bad consequences] is groundless'. And why? 'The English Dissenters, who have six and twenty Bishops established among them fear no harm from them. Why then should the New-England Dissenters fear any, if one or two should be established, with much less pow­er, in one or two neighbouring Provinces?' It is more than this writer knows, that the Dissen­ters [Page 166] at home 'fear no harm:' or should this be true, it is far from being so that they suffer none. They now are, and ever will be, in suf­fering circumstances; unless the establishment of the church of England is dissolved, or great­ly altered from what it is at present. And there is nothing felt or feared by Dissenters at home, but we, in this part of the world, may feel, or have reason to fear, should the desired Bishops be sent to the Colonies. The paragraph we have been considering is thus concluded, 'So public a declaration as has been made of the model of Episcopacy, proposed to be followed in Ame­rica, will itself be an effectual barrier against any undue extension of ecclesiastical power; of which the Doctor affects to be so apprehensive,' This being a meer naked, unsupported affirmation, nothing more is needful to be said upon it, than only to affirm the direct contrary, that it will not be an effectual barrier, and that the Doctor did not affect to be apprehensive, but really was so, and upon just grounds.

THE Doctor observed, 'If Bishops are sent to America, they must be well supported; this is beyond doubt. By whom? or by what means?' And here he largely argued to show it to be highly probable, 'that it would be, if not at first, yet in time, by a tax laid on the Colonies to this end.' Among other things, he pertinently re­marked, 'If Bishops were speedily to be sent to America, it seems not wholly improba­ble from what we hear of the unusual tenor of some late parliamentary acts and bills, for raising money on the poor Colonies without their consent, that provision might be made for the support of these Bishops, if not of all the church-clergy also, in the same way.' To [Page 167] all which Mr. Apthorp is pleased to give us the following weighty answer, 'If no proper maintenance can be found for them, he needs not be uneasy at the project of sending them; and that it is not to be at the expence of the Colonies, he has seen in Bishop Butler's scheme, with which the others agree' It is not possible any one should have a conception of the pertinency, force, and elegance of the Doctor's objection, as set forth at large in his reasoning upon it, by read­ing only this cursory, slighty, and, I may say, trifling answer to it.

AMONG the inconveniences that might result from the appointment of Bishops in America, the Doctor mentioned these, 'That, by the increase of the episcopal party [which might be effected by this appointment, and is doubtless one principal rea­son why it is so much desired] they might get a majority in our houses of assembly; that, in con­sequence thereof, the church of England might become the established religion of all these Co­lonies; that a sacramental test, or something like it, might ensue, to exclude Non-conformists from places, preferment, and civil offices, as in England; and that taxes might be imposed on us all in common, for the maintenance of these Bishops, and the episcopal Clergy'.—Upon these inconveniences the Doctor argued largely, close­ly, and cogently. What now says Mr. Ap­thorp? In taking notice of this objection, he does as he had all along done before, that is, contents himself with nibling at here and there a sentence which he is pleased to pick out, with­out concerning himself with the Doctor's whole reasoning in connection. Let us take a view of his reply. Says he, 'The Doctor imagines, that appointing Bishops in America would probably [Page 168] increase the episcopal party there; and then great evils might follow.' What a poor, lame, lank representation is this of what the Doctor had offered! However, let us attend to what follows. 'I cannot discern in what other way it can increase their party, than by supplying them more easily with a competent number of ministers; taking care that these ministers should be diligent and exemplary; and promoting an early sense of piety among their young people, These are no evils.'—The Doctor never lisped a word in complaint of them as such. But sure­ly this writer's knowledge of mankind is very scanty, if he is capable of 'discerning' no other ways, than those he has specified, in which the episcopal party might be increased. Would the glare of episcopal dignity have no influence upon some sort of persons? Would the con­nection of American Bishops with those at home, and their power with great men there, have no effect upon the sons of this world, who might have in view this or the other post of honor or profit? A variety of other ways might easily be mentioned, wherein the episcopal party might be increased—But I forbear. He goes on, 'The Doctor indeed says, that pretexts might easily be found for enlarging the power of these Bishops, and increasing the number.' The re­ply is, 'But enlarging their power would imme­diately raise a clamour that could not be with­stood.' Is not this as good a reason, at least a very good one, why they should not be sent at all, unless with such powers as are 'altogether from CHRIST, not from the state?' Should they be sent, would it not raise a clamour? And if it could be withstood, it would not, perhaps, be with so much ease as some may be ready to ima­gine. [Page 169] But 'if a few Bishops proved disagreea­ble, more would not be added.' This is more than this Gentleman knows, or has any authority to affirm. Nay, 'though they should prove agree­able and useful, more would be sent only to such Provinces as chose them.' Perhaps, by Pro­vinces are meant the comparatively few Episco­palians that live in them; and by their choice of Bishops, their being contented with having them sent to them: In this sense, it may be true, 'more Bishops would be sent only to such Pro­vinces as chose them'; but, in the common and ordinary sense in which these words are under­stood, it is not true, that even the first proposed Bishops would be sent, or chosen, by any Pro­vince on the Continent. It follows, 'In the short stay which one of them would choose to make in New-England, he would not bring over many persons to our church. And therefore how terrible things soever Episcopalians, if they should become the majority, may attempt and perform there, they will be almost, if not quite as likely to accomplish, without a Bishop a­mong them, as with seeing one now and then.' If Bishops were sent, though New-England should not be, at first, the place of their residence, it would be the diocess of one of them; and though, when he came upon a visitation, he might 'chuse to make but a short stay,' he would, by reason of his superiority in dignity and influence, be able to effect more 'terrible things' than all the Episcopalians put together, should they be the majority. Most certainly, he would not be such a Bishop as is desired, if this 'majority' would be 'almost, if not quite, as likely' to ac­complish their schemes 'without ever seeing him, as with seeing him now and then.' This [Page 170] writer would make us believe, if Episcopalians, by becoming the majority, 'had power, there is no reason to think they would be oppressive; for they are not oppressive in the Colonies where they actually have it: Or that they would at­tempt, for they could not with any modesty, or any hope of success, such laws against the Dis­senters, as the Dissenters have not attempted against them.' Is an establishment, obliging Dissenters to pay, in common with Episcopalians, towards the support of the church of England, no degree of oppression? Such an establish­ment has been attempted 'with success,' if not with 'modesty' in one or two of the Colonies, where Episcopalians are the majority;—Nay, e­ven in New-York, where there are ten to one that are not Episcopalians, episcopal art and po­licy, if I have not been misinformed, has subjec­ted one County to this same kind of oppression. So that, instead of there being no reason to think there would be such oppressive establishments in all the Colonies, there is the highest reason to think this would be the case, if Episcopalians should become the majority. It is added, if the zeal of the New-England Clergy threatens [...] danger, Bishops would temper it, as they have done in England, instead of inflaming it.' It would tend greatly to the ease of our minds, if this could be as strongly proved, as it is here affirmed. Bishops have not been remarkable, in any ages that are past, for 'tempering, instead of inflaming', a zeal in their Clergy that portended danger.

UPON the whole, it appears, that this writer had no good foundation for his hope, 'that the Doctor would, on considering further, endea­vour to reconcile his Countrymen to the admis­sion [Page 171] of Bishops'; that is, such Bishops as the plan proposes should be sent to the Colonies. Far from being in the least disposed to this, he was abundantly confirmed in the reasonableness of what he had wrote to prevent such a recon­ciliation, by the weakness of this lame effort to remove away the objections he had made against the planned American Episcopate.

DOCTOR Chandler now appears again in per­son, and seemingly pleased, that the offered ob­jections could, 'within a much smaller com­pass, be answered and confuted.' Without all doubt, was he to be the judge, the confutati­on would be accounted absolutely complete; but, it is to be remembered, not he, but the im­partial Public are the determiners in this case: and, possibly they may think, the feeble attempt he has made to invalidate these objections, is ra­ther a confirmation, than a confutation of them.

I COMPLAINED of the Doctor for giving us only a long string of needless questions, instead of good reasoning, in order to justify the propo­sed plan for an American Episcopate. This took up one paragraph. In the next, my de­mand was, 'What right have they to this Epis­copate? How came they by it'? And here I was explicit and large in endeavouring to show, that they had no such right. What says the Doctor? He replies, 'I am unable to account for so great a confusion of ideas as discovers it­self in these two paragraphs.' If the first of these paragraphs 'discovers any confusion of ideas,' it must be a confusion of them in his own mind, or in his manner of expressing them; for it was nothing more than a repetition of his own questions, with this application of them, 'Surely he could not imagine, that any man of [Page 172] good understanding would be otherwise moved by them, than to wonder he should only harangue, when it was his business to argue!' As to the 'confusion' in the other paragraph, it is no­where discovered, unless in what he has said up­on it. And, in truth, his arguing here very evi­dently discovers, that his conceptions of it were indistinct, or rather that he did not understand it; though it was expressed as clearly and fully as any thing that was offered on the controver­sy. Dr. Chauncy, says he, 'seems very strenu­ous to deny that the church of England in Ame­rica has any right to the Episcopate proposed; but then he declares himself perfectly willing we should have it.' It is impossible, if he had en­tertained in his mind a clear and just concep­tion of what I had said, that he should affirm 'I had declared myself perfectly willing they should have the proposed Episcopate,' unless he had uttered a downright falshood. I challenges him to produce any sentence in this paragraph, or in any other part of my answer, in which this is declared either directly, or even consequentially. It is indeed a flat contradiction to all that I had said. What he means, in the following words, by my 'choosing, perhaps, that this Episcopate should be granted as a matter of favour, rather than of right,' is beyond me to investigate. I said not a word about 'favour' in this respect; but confined myself wholly to the matter of 'right.' It must therefore be owing to some strange 'confusion in his ideas,' that he should go on, and inquire, 'What need is there of this distinction, and to what purpose will it serve, if it is not to operate against us?' This is a 'distinc­tion' intirely of his own framing. It never en­tered into my heart, not is there a word con­tained [Page 173] in this whole paragraph that could lead him to make it. It is to me altogether unac­countable, how he came to think of it. He proceeds, 'Our claim is, that we may be upon an equal footing with the other denominations in America.' I have more than once affirmed, and abundantly proved, in these papers, that they are upon this equal footing; and call upon him to prove the contrary. Says he, 'In order to this, [our being upon an equal footing it is ne­cessary, that we should be allowed the enjoyment of our ecclesiastical constitution in the same com­pleat manner, as it is enjoyed by them.' By 'our ecclesiastical constitution,' he must mean here the constitution of the church of England; but to enjoy this in as compleat a manner, as other denominations enjoy their's, is not to enjoy it agreeably to the proposed plan, but to the utter subversion of it; as will presently appear. He goes on, 'of our ecclesiastical constitution Bi­shops make an essential part, and therefore with­out an Episcopate we cannot enjoy it.' Nei­ther can they compleatly enjoy it with Bishops, unless they have authority over the Laity as well as Clergy; for such authority is an essential part of the constitution. Nay further, this con­stitution cannot be compleatly enjoyed without spiritual courts, and the exercise of episcopal au­thority in the precise way and manner that has been solemnly established by King and Parlia­ment. The Doctor has here insensibly endea­voured to prove a great deal too much, unless he intended to give us a remote insinuation of what might be expected, should the proposed plan be complied with, namely, that the church of England was not yet in the full and compleat enjoyment of her constitution; her enjoyment must rise still much higher. He adds, 'Our [Page 174] claim is justified by the common principles of human nature, of the christian religion, and of civil society' If so, the claim is as well found­ed as a claim can be. But what proof has he given us that their claim is thus founded? It follows in these most remarkable words, 'We call it a right because all good writers agree in calling a right thus founded by that name.' What is this to the purpose? Who ever questi­oned, whether a claim thus founded might be called a right? His business was to prove, that their claim, or right, to the proposed Episco­pate was thus founded, that is, upon the princi­ples he had before specified. But not a word is offered in proof of this. It rests upon nothing more than his naked affirmation. He says yet further, 'For words we do not contend. What we insist upon is this, that the church of En­gland is, in all respects, fairly entitled to as full a toleration in the Colonies, as other churches in the Colonies enjoy. And it cannot be thus to­lerated unless it be suffered to EXIST IN ALL ITS PARTS.' If the church of England cannot be FULLY TOLERATED in the Colonies, unless it is suffered to EXIST IN ALL ITS PARTS, it is at once evident, that we must have in Ameri­ca not only Bishops, but Deans, Prebends, Arch-Deacons, spiritual courts with their Chancellors, and the whole train of officers employed in ma­naging that SPIRITUAL authority which is ex­ercised over both Clergy and Laity: For these are PARTS of the constituted church of England. It is strange the Doctor, while arguing for no­thing more than that limited Episcopate he had proposed, should endeavour to do it upon a plan that would make it reasonable, that the church of England should exist here IN ALL RE­SPECTS, [Page 175] and IN ALL ITS PARTS, as it does at home. But he ought to know, that in order to this, something more than 'a fair and full toleration' would be necessary. There must be an ESTABLISHMENT, which he will not allow he ever thought of; as we shall see presently. The plain truth is; as it was 'our business as opponents,' we have shewn, that the Colony-Episcopalians are treated in precisely 'the same manner' with the other denominations—They are all, without exception, upon the same foot­ing of liberty, in virtue of the granted tolerati­on; and if Episcopalians do not enjoy any spi­ritual privileges so fully as any of the other de­nominations, it is not owing, in the least mea­sure, to the want of a PERMISSION herefor [...]; for the GRANTED PERMISSION is the same to all; making no manner of difference between one de­nomination and another.

I HAD said, appeal answered p. 180, 'If Episcopalians think Bishops, in the appropriated sense, were constituted by CHRIST, or his Apos­tles, we object not a word against their having as many of them as they please, if they will be content to have them with authority ALTOGE­THER FROM CHRIST. But they both claim and desire, a great deal more. They want to be distinguished 'by having Bishops upon the foot­ing of a STATE ESTABLISHMENT'? I then went on to argue somewhat largely against their having a right to such an establishment. The Doctor replies, 'Where did he learn that we want Bi­shops upon such a footing?' and affirms, 'That I could learn it, neither from the appeal, or from any thing that has been published on the side of the church;' yea, he solemnly declares, 'I know of no such thing, I have seen nothing that has [Page 176] been written, since the reign of Queen Ann, either in England or America, in print or in manuscript, that indicates such a desire'. He goes on yet farther, and says, 'I have met with nothing in conversation with Clergymen or Laymen, in or out of convention, from whence I can learn or sus­pect, that there is an Episcopalian, within the British dominions, that aims at or expects an Episcopate here upon the footing of a state esta­blishment'. The Doctor, when he wrote thus, must have had in his thoughts an establishment for the support of the episcopal Clergy, either superior, or inferior, or both. In this view, an establishment was not proposed in the 'appeal,' nor is it pleaded for in the writings on the side of the church that I know of; nor can I say, that it was ever mentioned by the convention: Though I am far from thinking it to be a truth, that there is no Clergyman or Layman, in the American Colonies, that does not expect and wish, that an establishment upon this footing, will be brought into event sooner or later. I said no­thing about such an establishment. But an esta­blishment, and a state one too, must take place, or the church of England here can never have the Episcopate that has been proposed and desired. The Doctor will own, the Episcopate that has been planned for the Colonies is widely different from that which exists at home. American Bi­shops shall have no authority over the Laity;— their spiritual courts must not be held in this part of the world;—and they themselves are to be confined in their power within certain pre­scribed boundaries. How is all this to be ac­complished? Must there not be the interposi­tion of the state? Can it be effected in any [Page 177] other way? And if the state interposes to con­stitute a Colony Episcopate, it must be under their patronage, guidance, and controul, as to the ex­ercise of its powers. And what is this, in real meaning, but an establishment? The church of England, in this case, will be distinguished from all the other denominations; and, instead of be­ing only tolerated as they are, will be as truly, if not as fully, an established church here, as it is in Great-Britain. But Colony-Episcopalians have no right to be thus distinguished; as was abundantly proved in answer to the appeal, to which the Doctor has said nothing by way of reply, for no other reason, it may well be sup­posed, but because he could not. If he had here pointed out, as it was his proper business to do, the way in which the Episcopate proposed in the appeal, and by the writers on the side of the church, could be carried into effect without a state-establishment, he would have said something to the purpose; but, having wisely avoid­ed this, we are left to think, the American Episcopate they have planned is virtually, and in reality of sense, the same thing with a planned episcopal establishment. It is to us incon­ceivable, how their desired Episcopate could, in any other way, take place in the Colonies. In vain therefore does he complain, that 'they are abused by petulent tongues and abusive pens for being charged with aiming at a state esta­blishment.' We should feel 'remorse of con­science, if we did not without hesitation' object against the proposed Episcopate for this very reason, because, by aiming at it, an establish­ment of Episcopacy in America is equally aim­ed at. The impartial Public are to determine, not Dr. Chandler, whether they are justly char­ged, or 'unwarrantably condemned.'

[Page 178]HE still goes on, in his defence, a number of pages; but, as there is scarce any thing in them that relates to the grand point, and nothing, so far as I am able to judge, of sufficient weight to call for particular notice; if the reader will only compare what he has offered in these pages, with the answer to the appeal, I am per­fectly willing, without saying a word more, to leave the dispute to the determination of his im­partial judgment. But, at the same time, I would assure the Doctor, that his 'fear,' least he should have 'somewhat broken in upon my re­pose,' is entirely groundless. He may fondly imagine, he has 'pleaded the cause he under­took' with such superiority of good sense, and sound reasoning, as to give me 'disturbance;' but he has been the occasion of no other unea­siness to me than that of disappointment; for he has fallen much below my wishes as well as expectations; not having wrote so as to give opportunity for a tryal of strength. He has candidly excused my insufficiency, as it was my hard lot to prove, 'that good is evil, and evil good; that darkness is light, and light is dark­ness, which could not be done without 'such a genius and abilities as are not to be found'. I wish I could make so good an apology for him. His task was easy. He had only to plead the cause of truth; and yet, he has done it with so little appearance of ingenuous solid arguing, that, I fear, his cause will suffer in the opinion of all that are capable of discernment.

I INTENDED to have come to a conclusion here, by presenting to the reader, in one view, the sum of what has been said on both sides, that he might the more easily make a judgment in the ca [...]e. But I must omit this, that I may have [Page 179] room for a matter of much greater importance; the treatment of the Presbyterian church at New-York, in relation to the charter they peti­tioned for, both to the government there, and to the King at home. And I the rather chuse to hold this up to public view, as it is an alarm to all the Colonies on the Continent, giving them solemn notice what they may expect, should Episcopalians ever come to have the superiority in their influence. Nothing has been offered, in a way of reasoning, against the planned Ame­rican Episcopate, that carries with it such FEEL­ING FORCE as the negative to the prayer of this petition, with the reasons upon which it is grounded.

THAT the reader may perceive the propriety of my introducing this affair, I would just re­mind him, that the Doctor, in his appeal, had spoken of the 'mildness, tenderness, and mo­deration of the English Bishops for a course of years past;' insomuch, that they had 'scarcely afforded an instance of reasonable complaint, especially to Dissenters:' In answer whereto, he was told of the rejection of the petition of the Presbyterian church at New-York for a char­ter;' which was effected through the interposi­tion, particularly, of the Bishop of London, oc­casioned, without all doubt, by ungenerous re­presentations from Episcopalians in America.

As I am not, from personal knowledge, ac­quainted with this affair any more than the Doc­tor, what I propose is to hand to the Public, in an appendix, the clear, full, and yet concise, ac­count of it, which has been transmitted to me from New-York: previously giving this intima­tion, that the facts, contained in the account to [Page 180] be exhibited, came with their proper vouchers, copies of the original papers, which would have been printed, but that they are most of them long; and it was thought, it would be too great a trespass on the readers's patience to call his attention to them. They may, however, be seen, should it be desired, either here or at New-York.