") t \^./ ^'W^ 1 H 
 
 Scs*isik 
 
 o 
 
T II E 
 
 PRIESTHOOD 
 
 OF T H E 
 
 Old and New Testament 
 b Y 
 
 SUCCESSION- 
 
 In Seven LETTERS. 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 That there is no other Way to prove the 
 Lawfulnefs of Mini fieri al Million. 
 
 WITH 
 
 An Answer to the Principal Objections. 
 
 By ROBERT C ALDER, M. A. Late 
 Presbyter of the Suffering Church of S c o tland. 
 
 Ezra, ii. 6x. 
 
 Thefe fought their RtgifUr among theft that were reckoned 
 by Genealogy; but they were nof U und ; therefore were they, 
 as polluted, put from the Priefthood. 
 
 Hebrews, v. 4. 
 
 And ro l\T a n takerh this Honour to hin.felf, but he that is 
 called of God, as was Aaron. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 printed for J. "W 1 l s o n, Eookfeller in the 
 Exchange. 
 
5 c s 4W 3. 
 
TO THE 
 
 RE A D E R- 
 
 Succession being the Divine Char- 
 ter of the Gofpel Priefthood in the 
 New Teftament, as it was for the Atf* 
 ronical Priefthood in the Old, according 
 to the Scriptures, it concerns every one 
 who fets np for a Minifter, to be furc of 
 his evidence ; yea, and it concerns the 
 people, (as I make out in theie follow- 
 ing Letters) to know whether or not 
 they live under the conduct of fuch a 
 Miniftry, as may lawfully Preach, admU 
 nifter Sacraments, abfolve Penitents, and 
 thruft out ftubborn Offenders, which can 
 no otherwise be but by slfofohcai Sue- 
 ceffioru 
 
 Now, if a Presbyterian tells me, that 
 their Presbytery fucceeds to that Presby- 
 tery mentioned in i Tim. iv. 14, that 
 laid hands on Timothy ; I Ihall afk him, 
 by way of reply, How can he prove that 
 more«than a Jefuit, if ha were (b ridi- 
 culous as to allerr, That his order was in 
 the days of Mofes, from that Scripture, 
 Numb. xxvi. 44. O/Jefui came the family 
 of fA? Jefuits i For neither of them can 
 produce catalogues of their Succeffiom 
 a 2 Wc 
 
We can condefcend upon the time 
 when Presbytery, Jefuitifm, and Soctnia- 
 hiftn began, and that was fourteen, if 
 nor fifteen hundred years after the days 
 of the Apofles. Wc may therefore rea- 
 fonably conclude, that that Church Go- 
 vernment that lafted longed in the 
 Church, and has been univerfai in Eu* 
 rope, Afia, and Africa, the beginning 
 whereof we cannot trace in any age be- 
 twixt us and the ApoStlesj that, I fay, 
 fhould be the Government, that did pre- 
 lerve the Faith that was once delivered, to 
 the Sat/its, and transmitted to pofterity; 
 and thzz a is the Government to which 
 Chriil promifed, that the gates of Hell 
 jbou/d not prevail cgainfi it, and to be 
 zviih it to the end of the zuorld. 
 
 They have a dreadful account to 
 make, who wilfully Ihut their eyes a- 
 gainft the light, and make their follow- 
 ers KvaJlow down, for undoubted ora- 
 cles, falfe maxims and fayings, or erro- 
 neous gloi'fes upon true texts ot Scripture. 
 
 I fnall briefly hint at (bme popular 
 tricks, whereby they miflead the poor 
 people ; as, 
 
 I. To call. Epifcopacy, Popery : It is 
 ordinary to give odious names to any 
 thing that they intend to make hateful. 
 
 I 
 
C v ] 
 
 I thought it unworthy of John I\no^ t in 
 his pious and ferions Treatife on Failing) 
 in his Book of ComtnfruPrayef, printed 
 at Edinburgh by the heirs of Andrew 
 Hart, 1635-, to exprels himlclf thus : 
 Popes, Cardinals, and H'wned Btj'hops. 
 By this fcandalous epithet, he intended 
 to raite monltrous ideas in the heads of 
 the people, to make Biihops odious. 
 Thus his pretended SuccciTors call re- 
 ibrmed Epilcopacy Pbftty, tho' it be the 
 greatett bulwark in the world againlt it. 
 II. A fecond initance of their abating 
 
 o 
 
 the people, is making them believe, 
 that the Advocates for Prelacy make a 
 fairer abearance from human fv?ittng$ % 
 than from canonical Scriptures. Nazianz. 
 Que?. Pag. 109. Whereas, 
 
 There can be nothing more falfe. For 
 we tell them, that we have the Divine 
 Inltitution of the Old Teftamcnt for 
 our Pattern, to wit, the inequality of 
 Higb-prieft, Priejls, and Levites. And 
 we defy the earth to prove, that our 
 Saviour changed the imparity of the 
 Old Teftamcnt into a parity of the 
 New. Yea, the contrary was foretold 
 by the Prophet Ifaiah, lxvi. 21. And I 
 wilt take of them for Priejis and LeVrtef, 
 faith the Lord. Here was an imparity 
 a 3 to 
 
r vi ] 
 
 ro be in the New Teftament. We tell 
 them that our Saviour, in his own Col- 
 lege, had twelve Apoftles above the 
 ievcnty Difciples j here is one rank or 
 clafs above another, whom he governed 
 when perfonally upon earth, and he de- 
 puted the higher order to govern after 
 his Afcenfion. And we tell, from Jfts 
 vi. 6. and viii. 14. that thefe Apojl/es 
 conferred a power upon men that were 
 full, of the Holy Ghoft, to (hare with 
 them in the Government, and that by 
 the fignificant ceremony of imfofing of 
 hands, but not an equal power with them- 
 felves. For Philip the Deacon converted 
 Samaria to the Chriftian Religion, and 
 baptized them ; but could not lay hands 
 upon them ; for that belonged to an 
 higher office, as appears from the fore- 
 cited places of Scripture. 
 
 We tell them, That St. James was Bi- 
 ihop of Jerufalem, where (according to 
 Presbyterians) there were at lead thirty 
 thoufand Chriftians, as 1 make out in 
 this Lflay : And we fee, that St. "James 
 prefided authoritatively in the firft ge- 
 neral Council at Jerufaiem, Ails xv. 
 
 Again, we tell them, That allowing 
 the Presbytery mentioned, 1 Tim. iv. 
 14. was a lociety of Presbyters, (con- 
 trary 
 
[ vii ] 
 trary to ihc opinion of St. Jerome and 
 Mr. Calvin, their pretended Patrons); 
 yet that ordination of Timothys was 
 mainly and chiefly the aft of the Apoitle 
 St. Paul, w:io calls it the laying on of bis 
 hands, 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 
 We tell them of the feven Churches 
 *of dfu> with learned Presbyterians their 
 concefnons or their being Epifcopal. 
 
 We teli them, that penjbtna in the 
 gainfayinv ofCo\"dh, Jude verie 17. figni- 
 fies an inferior Clergyman's rifing up 
 againft his fuperior in, the Church, and 
 that this lin may be committed under 
 the Gofpel, as well as under the Law. 
 
 We teli them, that they may as well 
 unferipture the Epifiles to Timothy and 
 Titus , as to unbifhop themfelves. 
 
 Thefe, I think, with feveral other 
 Scriptures, backed with the practice of 
 the Universal Church, and the Expofi- 
 tion of the Ancients, may prove futfici- 
 ent to confute that falfehooJ, to wir, 
 That Pre/atijls make a fairer jhezu from 
 human fVritings } than from canonical 
 Scripture. 
 
 111. Another fallacy they impofe upon 
 their followers, is, That Bifjop and Pres- 
 byter is all one in Scripture ; the names 
 are common, and therefore no o^e order 
 
 above 
 
[ viii ] 
 above another. At this rate they may 
 realon, that all the Pncfts in the Ola 
 Teltament were High-pridts, becaufe 
 Aaron and his Tons are called Prieits, 
 Lev. i. 7, b. and alio argue thus, That 
 St. Stephen the Deacon was an Apoitle, 
 hecaule the sJfojile St. Paul calls him- 
 ieif a Deacon. 
 
 IV. Another falfe way of reasoning 
 they ufe to impute upon their Readers 
 and Followers, is, That, 
 
 The ancient and modern advocates for 
 Prelacy have different opinions about Bfip 
 copacy, and therefore there is no real foun- 
 dation for it. 
 
 I have anfwered this before, thus : 
 Put this argument in the Jews mouths 
 againft Chriitians, then the Chriflian Re- 
 ligion is nothing, becaufe the Profeflors 
 divide among tliemfelves j fome aflert* 
 ing the divinity of Chrift, and others 
 denying it: Again, off goes rhe cano- 
 nicalnels of the Scriptures, becaufe tome 
 books are doubted among Chriitians. 
 Others may conclude, there is no (iich 
 thing as Antichrif, becaufe of the diffe- 
 rent opinions about him. Again, Herod 
 and Pontius Pilate, were right when they 
 agreed to crucify Chrift, and St. Paul 
 and Barnabas were wrong, becaufe they 
 
 contended 
 
contended among themfelves : Yea, by 
 this way of arguing, Satan's kingdom 
 is right, and Cbrifl's is wrong, becaufc 
 the iiibjects of Satan agree, and Chnjl's 
 fubjeots have contentions among them- 
 felves. 
 
 V. Another trick they put upon the 
 readers of their books againfl us, is, That 
 they never take notice of the anfwers 
 given by us to their principal argu- 
 ments : For example, they ftill cite ar- 
 guments from Dr. Stillingfleet's Ireni- 
 cum, which, they think, make for 
 them ; but they never take notice of his 
 own retradations and anfwers to him (elf; 
 as many fpeak of David's (ins, but few 
 of his repentance. 
 
 When they objefl, that St. Patrick or- 
 dained three hundred and fixty-five Bi- 
 fhops in Ireland, who, fay they, could 
 not be Diccetans, becaufe fo many ; 
 which is very falfe j for there might be 
 a thoufand Dioccfles in Ireland : It is all 
 one whether a Diocefe be one mile or 
 twelve miles. They never heed the 
 anfwer given to them, That every one 
 of tkefe Bijbops had nine Presbyters un- 
 der them. 
 
 When they object againfl: us, That it 
 was the cuitom of Alexandria to elect 
 
 one 
 
c ■■?*. i; 
 
 one of their own number whom they 
 called Bijhof ; they tupprefs the return 
 we make to them, to wit, That neigh* 
 bourinv Bifcops were called, to give the 
 covfummatroe a& of Confe oration. 
 
 VI. A fixth thing I charge upon thenr 
 in abiifmg their followers, is their ar- 
 guing from an Accejfiry to a Princi* 
 IP*/, or from what is not cffential to that 
 which is : As for example, to argue from 
 a Diocefe to a Bifoop, which is not an 
 eflential correlative • for the Apoftles 
 were Bifhops at their firft confecration, 
 before ever there was a Diocefe, or a 
 Parifh, in a Magiftratical way : It is net 
 a particular place, but power in the 
 Priedhood, that we plead for, in any 
 part of the world. 
 
 I add to this, their arguing from the 
 primitive Chriftians, their ftate of perfe- 
 ction to their after-date of profperity ; 
 which is to reafon from a circumftance 
 to a fubftance. 
 
 I have anfvvered, and flill continue to 
 anfvver thus : I fuppofe that, when the 
 Ifraelites had been fettled in the land 
 of Canaan, fome crack-i>rain'd Schi (ma- 
 tick had fet up againft the rational con- 
 flituiions in Church and State, and en-' 
 deavoured to withdraw them from obe- 
 dience 
 
[ * 1 
 
 diencc to their Governors, by arguing 
 from their prefent (tare, to the (late of 
 their forefathers in the wildernels, by a 
 pathetical popular harangue, after this 
 manner : 
 
 Sirs ! What innovations are now 
 flnce the days of our forefathers t In the 
 zutldernefs there was no Circumcifion, no 
 fiat eh Temflcs arid Synagogues, no leaning 
 at taking the Pafchai Lamb ; for they took 
 it flanding,, in hajle, and with their fiaves 
 in their hands : there were no feafts of 
 Tabernacles then. Tea / then Mofes and 
 Aaron were protejled againf as ufurpers 
 of the people, their natural right of liber* 
 ty and property in Church and State, by 
 the Saints of the LORD, who fuffered 
 martyrdom in a congregational way, fay- 
 ing, Numb, xvi. at the beginning, You 
 take too much upon you j for all the 
 congregation is holy as well as you* 
 And did not the furvivers of thefe holy 
 Martyrs cry out agamfl Mofes, faying 
 You have killed the people of the 
 Lord. Verle 41. 
 
 Ought not fuch a litigious fellow to 
 be lent to a wildernefs with his adhe« 
 rents, rather than be permitted to difturb 
 the peace of the land of promife ? 
 
 VII. 
 
C *« ] 
 
 VII. The lafl thing I charge our anta- 
 gonilts with, is, That the prefent Pres- 
 byterian champions do not infill: upon 
 the proof of their Miniftry, from the 
 point of Apoftolical SuccelTion, as I 
 prove here, that their predeceflbrs did, 
 very judicionfly, againil the Erajlians 
 and Independents ; witnefs their Jus Reg* 
 EccL printed in 1647. If they have now 
 quitted this plea, it is certainly becaufe 
 they could not prove it ; as I, with fub 
 million to better judgments, endeavour 
 (and I hope with (uccefs) to prove Epifi 
 copal Ordination by Apo\iolical SucceJJion, 
 in this Performance, which I defy a 
 counter party to overthrow, unlefs they 
 demon 'rate to the world, that there is 
 fome other thing than SuccelTion that is 
 the fundamental Charter of the Mini- 
 dry, which, I am fure, that the pretence 
 to grace, gtft^ found doClrine, and popular 
 cails cannot be : And if men, that are 
 called Pr f Ae\tanis y obje<5t many inconve- 
 niencies againft me for this undertaking, 
 I have in this fmall tractate anfwered 
 them . And it will be found, that all the 
 abfurdities will light at their doors who 
 oppofe,and cannot be charged uponthefe 
 that do defend, That the Goffel prtfflr 
 hood is founded upon slpoflohcal Succejjicn. 
 
 It 
 
It was the Presbyterian principle in 
 the 47th year of God, and it is as true 
 now as it was then; let them therefore 
 prove that they arc the Succcftbrs of 
 the dpofi/es, or the SucccfTors of that 
 Presbytery^ which, they fay, laid hands 
 on Timothy ; or the SuccelTors of the 
 fixed Moderators, which they acknow- 
 ledge in the firft three Centuries ; or 
 the Succctfbrs of the Culdees in Scotland. 
 Yea, le-t them give a catalogue of their 
 Succeflion from 'John Knox ; for if they 
 hold not by the Succcffion, and prove 
 what they affirm, they have no advan- 
 tage of Independents, Brozunijis, Era/H- 
 ans, nor Enthufiafls. And if they flicker 
 themfclves under the wings of any of 
 the forementioned Sectarians, let them 
 andver their predeceflbrs arguments a- 
 gainit them, which i have abridged in 
 thefe following Letters. Let them tell 
 us when was fipifcopal Ordination que- 
 ftioncd, as we can prove that the Ordi- 
 nation of Ifchyras by Cdluthus, a Pres- 
 byter in Athanafius's time, was rejected 
 as invalid. The pow T er of Ordination is 
 what St. Jerome grants to be the privi- 
 lege of the Bijhop above the Presbyter, 
 in his letter to E cagrius, when he lays, 
 What is it that a Bijhop does that a 
 B Presbyter 
 
( xlv ) 
 
 Presbyter may nrt do, except Ordination '? 
 And in his Dialogue to the Latifenanr, 
 he fays, That the welfare of the Church 
 Confijls in the dignity of the High-pritfl, to 
 whom, if there be not fome mat chiefs 
 power alloived, there will be as many di* 
 vifions in the Church, as there are Priefls. 
 
 It is but reafoilablc that the Chrijhan 
 Church Ihould be as orderly and regular 
 as the Jezvijh Church was ; and the fird 
 Chriftians borrowed many of their ufages 
 from the Jews : For example, The two 
 Sacraments ofBaptifm and the. Lord's Sup* 
 per, were anfwerable to the Jewijh Bap- 
 tifms and their Pojh&niutns after the Paf 
 fover • : Ordination by impofitionof hands, 
 is derived from their Ordination in the 
 Synagogue ; our Cathedral Churches anfwer 
 to their Temple, and our Paroch Churches 
 to their Synagogues ; our Churching of 
 Ij/omen to their Purifications : And why 
 not our Bifoofs, Pnejls, and Deacons, 
 conform to their High priefls, Priefls, 
 and Levites, and the Apoflolical Succejji- 
 on preferved and proven, as well as the 
 Aaro mi 'calf 
 
 Arife, LORD, into tfy refl,, thousand 
 the ark of thy flrength. 
 
 Let thy Priefls be cloalhed with rtghte* 
 oufnefs, and let thy Saints Jh out for joy. 
 
 LETTER 
 
OF THE 
 
 DIVINE RIGHT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRIESTHO OD 
 
 E Y 
 
 SUCCESSION- 
 LETTER I. 
 
 S I R f 
 
 YO U earneftly defined me to give 
 in writing, the fubftance of 
 what pall: betwixt us, for four or five 
 days together, upon the divine right of 
 the Prieflhood or Church GorernmerJ ; 
 of its conveyance from its firft inftituti- 
 on to the end of the world, and of 
 what is the proper fubjefl of that pow- 
 er; And how to diltinguifh a true Mi- 
 ll 2 niilry 
 
[ i6 ] 
 
 niftry from a falie, a Minifter lawfully 
 lent, from an Intruder, Pretender or 
 Invader of that facred Function ; and 
 you feenVd to be convinced, that per- 
 fonal gifts, either natural or acquired, 
 were not of thcmfelves fufficient to 
 capacitate any private perfon in Church 
 or State, to exercife any office in either, 
 without a commiflTion- from the un- 
 doubted fuperior to authorife them in 
 their fpecifical offices : For, as capacity 
 to command foldiers, or to judge be- 
 tween neighbours, was not fufficient 
 for any peribn to aiTume a Captain's 
 office in the field, nor a Sheriff's pod 
 in a (hire ; fo neither was a man's pro- 
 found jkill in fcripture or ecclefiaftical 
 learningj enough for him, to take up 
 the mmiiterial Calling, without his 
 being folemnly inverted with a power to 
 excrce the fame, by a perfon or per- 
 forms, that had power to convey holy 
 Orders from Christ jndhU Apoftdes. 
 You granted alio, that pretence to 
 the fpirit of perfonal holinefs, was not 
 fufficient o authorife men to preach, 
 baptize, or abiblve penitents, or thruit 
 our (lubborn offenders : For then every 
 religious Lunatick, deep Difiembler, 
 and hypocritical juglcr, may thuril 
 
 himfelf 
 
[ '7 ] 
 
 himfelf into the holy Miniflry, and fet 
 up a teacher of every erroneous opi- 
 nion. 
 
 Neither can the civil Magiflratc be 
 the fountain of this power, as Eraftians 
 do maintain ; neither can the people 
 or body of believers confer this power, 
 according to the Independents : This 
 the learned and judicious Presbyterians, 
 in their "Jus divinum r if} minis eccle- 
 •fiafthi, printed 164'', have proven in 
 the 9th and 10th Chapters of that book ; 
 and in the 1 ith Chapter, li They prove, 
 that Christ's own Church Oificers 
 arc the proper receptacles and immedi- 
 ate Subjects of that Church power. w 
 
 And in their Appendix to that book, 
 in anfwer to certain queries from the 
 Independents, u They prove, that the 
 Miniflry comes by (ucceffion from the 
 Apoftles, by ihis promife, Marth. 
 xxviii, 20. Lo I am with you to the end 
 of the z'jor/tl. " And in that Appendix 
 they cite the Teftimony of Indepen- 
 dents, confefling, that the conveyance 
 of miniftcrial power thro 1 a Popilh 
 Channel, cannot make void mini- 
 ftcrial Ordinances. This is confon- 
 ant to what Mr. Samuel Rutherfoord, 
 in his Plea for Presbytery, C. 10. P. .'^r. 
 B 3 as 
 
[ i8 ] 
 
 as it is cited by Mr. William Vilanr in 
 his Revlev: of the h'/fiory of the Induh 
 genies, P. 535. " We have not feparate 
 " from Rome's Bapri!m, nor Ordination 
 "of Pallors." 
 
 And Mr. William Robertfon, in his 
 Diff titers Self condemned, cap. 5. print- 
 ed in 17 io, cites the authority oi the 
 learned Diffenters, averting the lame 
 thing upon the matter, and particu- 
 larly, the Jits divinum minijleni evan- 
 geihi\ done by a Provincial AfTembly, 
 and printed at London in 1654, Part 2. 
 
 P - 4 T > 43> 
 
 We are not (fay they), " to renounce 
 44 divine Ordinances, becaufe of cir- 
 " canfftantial defilements annexed to 
 " them : Baptifm and Ordination were 
 u found for fubftance in the Church 
 *' of Rome, and therefore to be re- 
 u formed, bin not renounced/' 
 
 Again Part 2. P. 33. they tell us, 
 *• That the Miniftry ; which is an Infti- 
 H tutiori of Christ, palling to us thro 1 
 " Rome, is not made null and void ; no 
 " more than the Scriptures, Sacraments, 
 " or any oiher gofpel Ordinance, which 
 " we now enjoy, and which do all de- 
 " feend to us from the Apoftles, thro* 
 11 the Romilh Church." 
 
 Again 
 
[ '9 3, 
 
 Again the Aflembly of Presbyterian 
 
 Miniftcrs (lays the (aid Mr, R.) toils us 
 in that fame book, P. ;8. Pan 2. u Wo 
 u muft diliingmfti betwixt the Church 
 
 M arid the apoiiafy of it, between the 
 
 u corn and the tares that arc in it : This 
 n the Apolile fcems to do ( 2 7he(T. ii. 
 u 4. ), where lie purs a diffcrer.ee be* 
 " tvvecn the Temfle of God, in which 
 " the Man r f Sin ihall Gt as God, and 
 14 between the Man of Sin % fitting in 
 11 this 1 cmple. The Man of Sin is no 
 u part of this Temple of God, hut a 
 " plague of leprofy, infecting, defiling, 
 u and polluting it. But yet (fay they), 
 " the Temple of God (which is his 
 " vifiblc Church, as appears trom 1. 
 u Cor. iii. 16. 17. Rev. iii. 12. and 
 l: xi. I. 2 Cor. vi. 16.), doth remain 
 li where the Man oj Sin fits, even as 
 " the Church of Pergamus did, where 
 u the Seat of Satan was ; and tho' we 
 u renounce the sJntichnjjianifm, which 
 11 pollutes the Temple of G017, yet 
 c< we do not (lay rhey) renounce the 
 u Temple itfelf. " 
 
 So irom this they conclude, that 
 the Apollacy, Idolatry, and ialfe Wor- 
 ship of the Church of Rome, does not 
 unchurch her. 
 
 But 
 
[ M ] 
 
 Bin farther they (ay Part 2. Page 42. 
 
 7 We will alittle compare the Apoftacy 
 "of the Ten Tribes, with the Apoftacy 
 H of the Church of Rome. The Tn 
 " Tribes old not only worfhip God af. 
 " ter a falfe manner, by fetjjng up 
 V their Golden Calves in Dan and /&//> 
 u el, but afterwards, in the reign of 
 " slhab, they dircclly worshiped falfe 
 " Gods, and fet up Baal and sfjlarotk 
 " and fell away, (wholly as they fay) 
 •* from the true God, and yet notwith- 
 " (landing of ail this, when the Pro- 
 " phet came to anoint Jehu, he faith nn- 
 " to him ( 2 Kings ix. 6. ) Thus faiih 
 il the Lord God of Ifracl, 1 have anoin- 
 " ted thee King over the people of the 
 " Lord, even over Ifrael ; here note 
 " ( fay they ) that they are called the 
 " people of the Lord, notwithftanding 
 u of their Apoftacy. ;? 
 
 To this Sir you replied, that you ne- 
 ver thought Presbyterians laid any 
 claim to* a Succeflion from the Apoftles, 
 nor did you ever think them the Suc- 
 ceflbrs of that Piesbytery, that laid 
 hands, together with St. Paul, upon Ti- 
 mothy, 1 Tim. iv. chap, verfe 14. u Ne- 
 " gleet not thegiftthat is ipthce, which 
 
 " was 
 -I 
 
r 21 : 
 
 Ci was given thee by prophecy, with the 
 il laying on of the hands of* the Presby- 
 u tery," compared with 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, 
 " that thou (lir up the gift of God 
 " which is in thee, by the putting on of 
 ') my hands." 
 
 And you told me, that the Papifts af- 
 firm with great aflurance, that neither 
 Epifcopal nor Presbyterian, nor any fet 
 of Proteftants, have Ordination by Apo- 
 ftolical Succeffion, and that the Prote- 
 ilant Bifhops could nor prove their Suc- 
 ceffion; becaufe, as Papifts affirm, there 
 was an interruption made in the days 
 of Queen hffizabeth, when there was 
 no Protcftant Bifhop alive, and to be 
 Popifn Biihops would not give Or- 
 dination to Proteftants; for this would 
 be to continue a Schifm againil them- 
 lelves. 
 
 For this you defired my thoughts 
 and reading in a few lheets of paper, 
 becaufe you had other avocations, and 
 had nor all the bocks that I cited, bat 
 that you would tru'ft my integrity in the 
 citation of authurs. Withal you told in- 
 genuoufly, that the difficulties which 
 troubled Chronologrers, fhould be no 
 itumbiiug to you - ? becaufe ail parties 
 
 who 
 
C 22 J 
 
 who allowed the divine Right of Scrip* 
 tures, were equally obliged to anfwer 
 Deifts and mockers of Revealed Religi- 
 on ; and learned men have given as 
 great fatisfaction in this point, as the 
 mauer will hear. 
 
 I therefore lay down this pofition, 
 Tnat the power of Church Government 
 is founded upon a continued Succeflion 
 from its firft Inftitution. 
 
 It was fo in the Aaronical Priefthood^ 
 and now h in the Chriftian and Apo* 
 tlolical. 
 
 I. Firft then, That Succeflion by di- 
 vine Inflitution, was the principle of n- 
 niry in the OldTeftament, and the teft 
 whereby to difcover prefumptuous Up- 
 ftarts, Self-Seekers, and Self-Senders> 
 we fee clearly, from the hiftory of the 
 whole fixieenth chapter of the Num- 
 bers, when Corah and his mutinous 
 confederates commenced a rebellion 
 againft Moies their fupreme Magiftrate, 
 who, in Dent, xxxiii. 5. is called King in 
 Jelhurun ; and a Schifm againft Aaron 
 their High Prieft; that Gor> decided the 
 controverfy by a miraculous judgment 
 againft the mutineers, who did not pre- 
 tend to bring in a new Creed, nor a new 
 Worfhip, but to derive their power from 
 
 the 
 
t H ] 
 
 tne people, faying, Numb. xvi. 3. that 
 all the congregation was holy as well as 
 Moles and Aaron. 
 
 2. Was it not e; fy for the mcanefl 
 cf the people to know, who was the 
 Succcflur of Aaron, when Manafleh, 
 brother to Jaddi High Prieft of Jerufa- 
 Jem, ier up a Temple in mount Ce- 
 rizim in Samaria, by means of Sanballat 
 his father-in law, an uncircumciied hea- 
 then I 
 
 3. When Jeroboam, the fon ofNchat, 
 had pcfleflcd himfclf of the kingdom 
 oflfracl, with the Ten Tribes revolting 
 -from Rchoboam, is it not (aid, that he 
 -made the people of Hracl to fin? And 
 was not this by inventing a new Pricft- 
 hood, out of the lowed of the people, 
 which were not of the Tribe oi Levi; 
 by which means the thread of the 
 Aaronical Succeifton was broke ? And 
 by fetting up cukes at Dan and Bethel, 
 as we read at large in the ift of the 
 Kings, xii. 26, 30, jr. 
 
 4. Did not our Saviour determine the 
 debate betwixt the Jews and the Sama- 
 ritans, when he fa)s. John iv. 22. Sal- 
 vation, is of the Jews, ikat is } fays a 
 learned Commentator, Salvation comes 
 by the Jews to others ? 
 
 5. Is 
 
*** 1 • 
 
 5. Is it not obfervcible from Luke xvi'u 
 1-4. thct Christ 1 > is lending the Sa- 
 maritan Leper, with the nine Jewifli 
 Lepers, to the Priefts of Jerufaiem, and 
 not (ending him to the ichifmatical 
 Priefthood of Samaria, that the caufe 
 was decided in favours of 'the Church 
 of the Jews, for all the fcandals and 
 corruptions it was charged with ? 
 
 6. Did not our Saviour fufficientiy 
 difcover his ayerfion to the Samaritan 
 Priefthood and Worihip, when it is (aid, 
 Luke ix. 53. "And they did not re- 
 " ceive h-uti, becaufe his face was as 
 " though he would go to Jerufaiem 5" 
 that is, fay the large Crkicks, becaufe 
 the Samaritans knew Christ and his 
 Apoftles to be Jews, and that they were 
 going to Jerufaiem to pray, or, as Dr. 
 Whitby lays, to celebrate the Paflover. 
 
 7. l&ftfy, Does not the care which 
 the Jews took to preferve the lift of 
 their Priefts, as well as of their Kings, 
 and that becaufe their whole Temple 
 Service, the effect of their Sacrifices 
 and Expiations, depended on it, ihew 
 how exact they were to keep up the 
 difference betwixt a Priefthood of God's 
 Inftitution, from one of human inven- 
 tion, like to Jeroboam's ? 
 
 And 
 
[ 2? 1 
 
 And do we not find, thai Jofephus 
 being a Pricft, not only depends on 
 genealogical tables for the proof of his 
 defcent, but adds, that all their PriclU 
 were obliged to prove their Succeffion 
 from an ancient line; and if rhcy could 
 not do it 5 they were excluded from of- 
 ficiating as Priefls, and that in whatfo- 
 ever part of the world they were, they 
 tifed this diligence r This is cited by 
 Dr. Whitby in his Commentary on 
 Matth. i. 6. out of Jofephus contra 
 App. lib. i. p. 1036; and the truth of 
 what Jofenhns fays, appears from the 
 Text cited inthe title-page of this book, 
 Ezra ii. 62. The children of Ha- 
 baiah fought their regider among thofe 
 that were reckoned by genealogy j but 
 they were not found ; therefore were 
 they, as polluted, put from the Pried- 
 hood. 
 
 Follows a CATALOGUE of 
 
 the Jeu'ifb High Priejls, from the 
 fir ft Injtitution of Aaron, to our 
 Saviour's day. 
 
 1 Aaron. 2 Eleazar. 3 Phineas. 4 A- 
 
 bifhua. 5 Bukku 6 Uzzi. 7 Zerahiah. 
 
 C 8 Meraiotht 
 
C 26 ] 
 SMcraioth. 9 Amariah. loAhitub. n 
 Zadok. 12 Ahimaaz. 13 Azanah. 14 
 Johanan. i-yAzariah. i6 Amariah. 17 
 Ahitub. 18 Zadok. 19 Shallum. 20 
 Hilkiah. 21 Azariah. 22 Seraiah. 23 
 Jchozadak,who vventinto captivity when 
 the Lord carried away Judah and je- 
 rufalena by the hand of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, 
 
 Thefe Ihave fet down out of the ! ft 
 Chron. vi. 4 to 16. according to the fyl- 
 hbicarion of our Engli/h Bible, omit- 
 ting feveral others in the foreiaid lift, 
 who were mentioned as High Priefts : 
 As for example,after Amariah the ninth 
 High Prieft, Eli, Ahimelech and Abia- 
 thar, fuppofing Scripture fufficient for 
 my purpofe. 
 
 The reft during the time of the cap- 
 tivity till the Maccabees, and from 
 them to the clays of our Saviour, I have 
 fet down out of the great hiftorical and 
 geographical Dictionary, having com- 
 pnreditwith Dionyfius Petavius. 
 
 During the Captivity were. 
 
 1 Tofuc. 2 Joachim. 3 Eliafhib. 4 Je- 
 hoida the ;d. 5 Jonathan. 6 Jaddus, 
 7 Onias the 1 It. 8 Simon the Juft. 
 
 9 Eleazar 
 
C *7 ] 
 
 9 Elcazar the 2d. 10 Manaflcs. 1 1 Onins 
 the 2d. 12 Simon the 2d. 13 Onias 
 the 3d. 14 Jaibn who bought the 
 Priefthood. 1 5 Menelaus, a Simoniack. 
 16 Lyfmachus, a Simoniack. 17 Alci- 
 mus, an Ufurper. 
 
 Follow thofe who begin anno 3886 of 
 the World, and of Rome 586. 
 
 1 Mattathias. 2 Judas Maccabxi-s. 
 3 Jonathas. 4 Simon 3d. John called 
 Hircan. 6 Ariftobnlus King and Pried. 
 
 o 
 
 7 Alexander Jannius. 8 Hyrcan. 9 Ar;- 
 itobulns. 10 Hircan re-e/taMiihfed. 1 1 
 Antigonus. 12 Anar.cl. 13 Ariftobulus. 
 14 Anahel re-eltabliihed. i5jeius Ton 
 ofPhabes. 16 Simon. 1 7 Matthias. 18 
 Joazar. 1.9 Eleazar 3d. 20 Jefus ion of 
 Sias. 
 
 In the year of CUR I S T from 1 6 
 to 62. 
 
 l Ifhmael. 2 Eleazar 4th. 3 Simon. 
 4 Caiaphas. 5 Jonathas and his brother 
 Theophiius. 6 Simon, iirnamed Can- 
 theras. 7 Matthias 2d. 8 Elionee. 9 Si- 
 mon Canrheras re-efiablifhcd. 10J0- 
 fcph. 11 Ananus. 12 Ilmael. 13 Jo- 
 C 2 icph 
 
C 48 ] 
 Jeph called Cab*. 14 Ananus fbn of A- 
 nanus. i5jefusfonof Damneus. 16 
 Jefus (on of Gamaliel. 17 Matthias 3d, 
 ion of Theophilus. \ 8 Phanafus,who was 
 High Prielt when Jerufalem was taken. 
 Sir, I thought it needlels to infert the 
 years of die world in which the High 
 Priefts governed the Church, becaufe 
 it was not to my chief defign, and the 
 omiffion can do no prejudice to my un- 
 dertaking ; and I have St. Matthew his 
 fir ft Chapter, and St. Luke his third, 
 for my patterns, giving a II It of our Sa- 
 viour's Genealogy, without mentioning 
 the years or time of his Anceitors. 
 
 I think this may ferve to prove, 
 that the Church in the Old Tcftament, 
 compiling of the Miniilry of Prietts and 
 Levites, was preferved in the Succeflion 
 of the High Prtefts. The next thing 
 I am to prove, is, that the Prielthood of 
 the New Teftamcnt can be proven af- 
 ter the lame manner, which Ihall be 
 the (abject of my next Letter. In the 
 mean time I give you my hearty (er- 
 vice, and defire to know, wh.^t Obfcrves 
 or Cenfures yourfelf or any of your 
 Friends have upon this, and the faults 
 ihail be amended in the next to you, 
 
 From your humble Servant, &c. 
 
 L FITTER 
 
[ *9 ] 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 that the Chriftian Priefthood 
 
 fcendf by Apoftolical Succeflion 
 
 ftQtn Ch r I s t, as the Jewiih 
 
 Priefthood defended by Aafonical 
 
 Slicceflion by God's In&iiution. 
 
 GO D is the God of order, there- 
 fore ail things ought to be done 
 in order and* decently. 1 Cor. xiv. 
 
 We find in i Chron. ^v. When 
 David brought up the Ark from Obed- 
 edom, that in the i ith verfe he calls 
 for Zadok and Abiathar the Prices, 
 faying to them, that they were the 
 Chief of the Fathers of the Lcvites, and 
 therefore "They and their brethren 
 " ihould fanftify themfelves, to bring 
 " up the Ark of the Lord : and verfe 
 u 13. for, becaufc ye did it not at the 
 " firft,the Lord our Gcd made a breach 
 11 upon us, for that we lbnght him not 
 u after the due order. " 
 
 C 3 Wc 
 
E jp 1 
 
 We find in the Old Tcftament, that 
 an order was in {tinned in the Church 
 of the Jews, and that they were govern- 
 ed by High-Pried, Priefis and Levites, 
 and that there were Priefts of the fir ft 
 and fccond order ; 2 Kings xxiii. 4. 
 And in the 1 Chron. vi. jgr f and 32. 
 when David had appointed the Singers 
 a in the Houfe of the Lord, after the 
 " Ark had reft, that they waited on 
 " their office, according to their order. " 
 
 All Societies civil and military, all 
 trades and occupations rnuft and ought 
 to have their rules of order ; and it is 
 not prefumed, that the Chriftian Church 
 fhould want its own laws, to govern 
 its members, or that,- as the Author to 
 the Hebrews fays, Chap. iii. i. 2. " That 
 " the Apoftle and High Priell of our 
 11 Profefiion, Christ Jesus, who was 
 " faithful to him that appointed him, 
 li as alfo, fvlofes was faithful in all his 
 u houie. Verfes 5-. and 6. Mofes verily 
 * was faithful in his houfe as a fervant, 
 u for a teitimony of thole things which 
 " were to be fpoken after ; But Christ 
 * : as a Son over his own Houfe. 
 "&c. 
 
 As Christ came not to deflroy the 
 fatv, but to fulfill it j fo neither came 
 
 he 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 he to deftroy the Priefthood, bur to 
 better ir, he hirnfelf -cinq a Prieft 
 
 for ever, after the order of Melchife- 
 dee. 
 
 Thefe words Hob. xii. 26. "Yet once 
 "more, I {hake not the fiarrhpnly, but 
 "alio Heaver,, " are not meant of the 
 material Heavens or Earth, but of the 
 Judaical State and Levitieal worfhip 
 and Service, which, Heb.ifl. 10. H Stood 
 u in meats and drinks, in divers waih- 
 " ings and carnal ordinances, impolcd 
 11 on them until the time of Refor- 
 " mation. * 9 
 
 Thele things were ftiaken at the 
 Coming of Christ, and Heb, xii. 
 27. This word, once more, fignifies 
 the " Removing of thofe things than 
 "are fliaken, as of things that are 
 " made, that thofe thiugs that can* 
 " not be fhaken may remain: " That is, 
 the Levitieal Priefthood and Sacrifi- 
 ces were to be lhaken, that the Gofpel 
 Priclthood and State might remain un- 
 fhaken, and continue to the end of 
 the world : For our Saviour did not 
 alter Judaiini to another religion, but 
 from a ceremonial to a fubltantial, from 
 a literal to a myftical, from a carnal 
 to a fpiritual Judaifm. 
 
 I 
 
... C 3* ] 
 
 I could multiply as many Scriptures 
 from the Ok! and New Tettament, as 
 nrp-ht fill as many iheets as I defian ' 
 to write upon this Subject, to prove 
 that, | 
 
 Neither the Son of God, nor the 
 Holy Choir, nor good Angels, nor good 
 Men, ever came on Gcd's embafly or 
 fervice, without a fpecial mandate or 
 commjiTion from himfelfj and con- 
 feqnently they who come of themlelves 
 in his name, not being fent by him, 
 can never promife a bleffing to their 
 labours, in an ufbrped Miniftry ) Thus 
 Jerem. xxiii. 32. "Behold, I am a- 
 " gainft thofe that prophefy falfe dreams, 
 " faith the Lord, and do tell them ; 
 11 and caufe my people to err by their 
 u lies, and by their lightnefs ; yet I 
 " lent them not, nor commanded them; 
 •« therefore the-y fhall not profit this 
 u people at all, laith the Lord.'' 
 
 It is feldom thatfuch Self fenders and 
 Sclf-feekers preach found doctrine un- 
 mixed with error ■ for when they go out 
 of the com mon road, the plain and ftraight 
 way, to wit, Apoftolical SucceiTion, they 
 are forced to betake themfelves to pi- 
 tiful defences, fuch as inward calls, im- 
 pulfcs of the fpirit, perfonal gifts, the 
 
 power 
 
[ S3 ] 
 power of the people, or of the magi- 
 strate; but (b it is not with thofe that 
 are truly fent of God. We find, St. 
 John i. 6. that Christ's Fore-runner 
 John the Baptiit was fent of God. 
 
 We have many paflages in the fcrip- 
 tnrc, of Christ's being fenr, as John 
 xiii. 20. " Verily verily, he that receiv- 
 " eth whomfoever 1 fend, receiveth me; 
 " and he that receiveth me, receiveth 
 "him that fent me. " Matth. x. y; 6. 
 7, 3. Christ fends his Twelve 
 Apoflles to the loll: fheep of Ifrael. And 
 after the Pvefurrection he fays to them, 
 John xx. 21. u As my father fent me, 
 fo fend I you." And Matth, xxviii. 18, 
 19. 20. " And Je&s came and {pake 
 " unto them; All power isgiven unto me 
 11 in Heaven and in Earth ; go ye there- 
 li fere and teach all Rations, baptizing 
 " them in the name ofrhe Father, and of 
 u the Son, and of the Holy Gholt ; teach- 
 " ing them to ohferve ail things, what- 
 11 foevcr 1 have commanded you ; and 
 " lo 1 am with you alvvay unto the end 
 " of the world. » 
 
 We read in St. Luke x. j. That the 
 feventy Diiciples went not till they had 
 their mailer's commiflion to go, And 
 in the days of the Apofties, we find 
 
 that 
 
I 34 1 
 that the new order and office of Deacons, 
 did not exercife their part of" Church 
 Government, umill they were aurho- 
 riied thereto by the Apoftles, who were 
 their fuperiors, altho' thefe feven were 
 men full of the Holy Gboft. See Acts eh. 
 vk and firft fix verfes. 
 
 If then the Son of GOD,, who had 
 the fpirit without meafure, did not ad- 
 venture upon his prophetical office, till 
 he got a folemn coniecraticn after his 
 baptifm, the Holy Ghoft defcending 
 upon hinr in a vi-fible glory ? and a voice 
 was heard, faying, " This is my be- 
 loved fan in whom I am well pleated : ,? 
 How wary ought men to be (tho* never 
 fo well gifted) before they venture up- 
 on the (acred miniftry, without power 
 given to them by Christ, to whom 
 all power in Heaven and Earth was 
 given ? He that- comes upon his private 
 fpirit, and not hearing what the fpirit 
 lays to the Church, gives ground to 
 libel him with thefe queries: " Friend 
 " how corned thou hither I And how 
 " canft thou preach except thou be 
 " fent I " When Christ Jesus, the 
 great prophet of the world, would not 
 go on, till he received an ordination 
 from Heaven, to the convicVion of men's 
 
 lenfes, 
 
C 35 ] 
 
 fcntes, they feeing the Holy Ghofl de- 
 fccnd, and hearing a voice declaring 
 that Jefus was the pcrfon that the Fa- 
 ther tent to teach and reform the 
 world. 
 
 7 lie neceflity of mankind ftood in 
 need of Christ's coming into the 
 world, thoufands of years before the 
 fiillnels of time ; and when he came, 
 it flood in need of his preaching before 
 he entered upon the courle of his mi- 
 niilry; yet this his not coming (boner, 
 : a fecret in the bofom of" Omni - 
 fcience, who knows how to govern 
 the world, {hop Id teach men not to 
 take up the miniitry but in Christ's 
 own way, who came net into the world 
 till the Father fent him, nor let up for 
 a Prophet or Minifter tail he got com- 
 million : So likewife his Apoftles whom 
 he fent, as his father fent him, recei- 
 ved th^ir conlecration in thele words. 
 St. John xx. 22, 23. u When he 
 <c breathed on them, he (aid, receive 
 " ye the Holy GhoR • wholoevcrs fins 
 11 ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 " them, and whoibever's {ins ye retain, 
 %i they are retained- " 
 
 The receiving the Holy Ghoft, did 
 not fignify the power of working mi- 
 racles 
 
I I* ] 
 
 racles, or the ufe of fpeaking the lan- 
 guage of every country they came to ; 
 for that was not given tili fifty days af- 
 ter the refurrection, or ten days after 
 the afcenfion : Nor did it fignify the 
 fanclifyng graces of the fpirit ; for that 
 muft come by our working together 
 with the fpirit of God in the ufe of 
 the means, to wit, the Word, and the 
 Sacraments, by our own induftry in 
 working out the work of our falration : 
 And all Chriitians are obliged to have 
 faith, hope and charity, which are the 
 graces of the fpirit. 
 
 Thefe words then of confecration, 
 recetve ye the Holy G&oft, fignifies a 
 ghoftly or Ipiritual power to teach and 
 govern a christian corporation, to ab- 
 i .e penitents, to receive Jews and 
 Heathens into their fociety, when in- 
 structed in the faith, and with authority 
 to thrult itubborn offenders out of the 
 Church ; and this power of governing 
 by laws was to continue in the days of 
 miracles, even over perfons that had 
 the extraordinary gifts of the Holy 
 Ghoft : So the feven who were made 
 Deacons by the Apoitles in A6te \i. 6. 
 were by eleftton prefented before the 
 Apoitles, who laid hands on them, not 
 
 to 
 
C 37 ] 
 
 to confer the Holy Ghoft upon them ; 
 for we find they were full of the Holy 
 Ghoft before their nomination and 
 election ; but to confer a ihare of the 
 Government upon them for the exi- 
 gencies of the times. And we find in 
 Afts x. 44. 45. 46. 6*c. when Peter 
 had preached to Cornelius the Ccnturi- 
 on ? and his friends, that the Holy Ghoit 
 fell upon them, to the aftonifhment of 
 the Jews, who heard the Gentiles fpeak 
 with tongues : We find that thefe very 
 heathens were baptized with water, be- 
 caule they received the Holy Ghoft, as 
 well as the Jews : So we fee, that the 
 extraordinary gifts were not excepted 
 from the law of Christ, which was 
 to be a perpetual and {landing ordi- 
 nance in his Church. Marth. xxviii. 19. 
 Go teach and baptize &c. The gift of pro- 
 phecy and of tongues did not execm 
 perfbns from obeying the rules and 
 canons of their fnperiors. St. Paul 
 governing authoritatively the Churches 
 of his own plantation, gives rules to 
 thefe in Corinth, who were extraordi- 
 narily gifted ; 1 Con xiv. 40. and parti- 
 cularly to exercife their gifts decently 
 and in order 
 
 D In 
 
t 38 1 
 
 in fhort then, the Apoftles proved 
 their mi (lion from Christ in their own 
 time, fupplied their mortality by or- 
 daining their cotemporaries and fiirvi- 
 vors, and they theirs, transmitting the firft 
 commifiion that Christ gave, and To 
 on to the end of the world. Read Acts 
 xiv. 23. Tit. i. y # 2 Tim. i. 6. 2 Tim* 
 ii. 2. Rev. i. 20. 
 
 It follows then, that there can be no 
 lawful exercife of a ministerial power, 
 but what is conveyed by Succeffion from 
 the Apoftles : And no man can invade 
 this office, without incurring the guilt 
 of Sacrilege and prefumptuous usur- 
 pation j for tho' St. Paul fays of himfel^ 
 1 Cor ix. 16. fVo unto me if I f reach 
 not the Gofpel ; yet may we fay to an In- 
 vader, Wo be to thee if rhou preach the 
 Gofpel, without a call or million from 
 the God of order : For the fpirit gives 
 no commiffion to break his own efta- 
 blifhments ; fuch a perfon cannot profit 
 the people by his ufurped adminiflra- 
 rion, as the Prophet, Jerem. xxiii. 32. 
 faidefthe falfe Prophets in his days ^ 
 lor, if the anger of the Lor*d was kind- 
 led againft: Uzzah, who put his hand to 
 the Ark to lave it, when ttv. \ xen in 
 Nachon's threfhinq floor did fliake it, and 
 
 if 
 
C 39 ] 
 if the LaRD (mote him ri.ll he died, 
 what judgment may not fuch Invaders 
 be afraid of, when God puniftied Uz- 
 zah, even when there was a fecming 
 ncccility of faving the Ark ; 2 Sam. vi. 
 6. 7. 1 Chron»xiii. 9. 10. ? Azariah with 
 four-fcore of Priefts withftood Uzziah, 
 and told him that it did not appertain 
 to him to burn Incenfe to the LORD - 7 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 1 8. So may we lay to 
 Intruders, It does not belong to you to 
 preach or baptize ; for, as the Apoflle 
 lays, Heb. v. 4- " No man taketh this 
 N honour unto himfelf, but he that was 
 " called ok God, as was Aaron-" 
 
 And this call from God cannot be 
 from a giddy multitude, that follow e- 
 very kind of vain doctrine, and have 
 itching ears, taking a forfeit at ancient 
 and wholefome truths, heaping up 
 preachers to themfclves : Of fuch 3r« 
 Paul fpeaks, 2 Tim. iv* 3. 
 
 Yet fucn men will intrude themfclves 
 upon lawful pallors and their labours, 
 and pretend to have come in at the 
 door that was never opened to them, 
 as Satan frefented himfelf when the Sons 
 of GOD came together j Job i. 6. So 
 do thefe thrnfl themfclves into the 
 Church, and accufe, libel, and (lander 
 D z the 
 
_C 4° ] 
 
 the true? mintfters of God's word, as 
 the devil did Job, calling him a Tern- 
 porizer, and one that ferved GOD J or im 
 tercft\ and all this notwithstanding of the 
 teltimony that God gave of job, for 
 a man of honefly, integrity, and Without 
 hypocrify. - 
 
 I add no more at this time, think- 
 ing it fufficient already what 1 have giv- 
 en out of the Old Teftament, to prove 
 the SucceiTion of the Jewifli Prielthood. 
 My next ffaall be of the Chriflian PrielU 
 hood j in the mean time I reft. 
 
 Your Humble Servant, &c. 
 
 L E T T E R IIL 
 
 S H E W r N G 
 
 lhat Antients and Moderns proved 
 the Mijfhh of the Chriftian Prieft- 
 hood, as well as the Faith, /;}lSuc- 
 ceffion. 
 
 II E Poft-Apoftolicaj writers made 
 Succejfion of ' Etjbofs to be the teft, 
 rule, and iiandard of a Gofpel Prieji- 
 
 hood 
 
bood % and a diftinguifhing mark again ft 
 Innovators, Hcreticks, Schifmaticks, lm- 
 poitors, Usurpers and Upltarts ; and if 
 this line were once broke, that which 
 was cut of], was but like a finger fepa- 
 rmed from the body, from which it could 
 receive neither life nor morion, 
 
 I begin with St. Ircnaeus Bifliop of 
 Lions, who lived in the 160th year of 
 God, in feveral parts of his learned 
 book againit Heretics. And, tirft, from 
 the 3d Book and 3d Chapter. " We 
 " can reckon thofe from the Apollles 
 " fucceflors, to our times, who taught 
 " no fuch things;" meaning the Herefi 
 that he is confuting. And in that fame 
 Chapter, he fays, becaufe it was too te- 
 dious to reckon thefucceffion of all Chur- 
 ches, therefore he pitches upon the 
 fucceflion of the mod confpicnous, and 
 moil ancient, and belt known Churches, 
 founded, as he fays, by the moft glori- 
 ous Apoflles St. Peter and St. Paul; and 
 there he gives a catalogue of Biihops, 
 to his own days. "Again, lib. iii. c. 40. 
 He fhews, that where " The Church 
 " is, there is the Spirit 5 and where the 
 " Spirit is, there is the Church. They 
 " defraud themfcives of eternal life 
 " who are not in the Church ; That 
 D 3 , "Church 
 
" Church, which is founded upon the 
 11 Apoftles, Prophets, and Teachers." 
 Eph. iv. And fpeaking of the Schif- 
 maticks who neglect heatkeninc: to the 
 Word of God, and the ufc of Holy Or- 
 dinances, he (ays, " They are eilran- 
 " ged from the truth, they wallow in 
 v error; being tofTed thereby, they 
 " have one fentimcnt of the fame thing 
 " at one time, and a different one at a- 
 " nother, as times change, and never 
 " have folid nor fixed knowledge, affec- 
 " ting rather to be triflers and players 
 <f upon words, than to be the Difciples 
 " of the Truth." And lib. iv. c. 4.3. 
 •' We rauft obey thefe Priefts who are 
 H in the Church, who have their fuo 
 " ceflTion from the Apoftles, and who, 
 " with the fuccefTion of Epifcopacy, 
 11 have received the fure Gift of truth, 
 " according to the will of ihe Father: 
 " As for others who cut themfelve.s off 
 <l from the principal fucceffion, what- 
 " ever part of the world they are in, 
 u rhey ought to be fufpecled as Here* 
 " ticks, Dividers, laucy Hypocrites, 
 " Self-pleafers, doing things for gain or 
 " vain-glory; all iuch perfons depart 
 " from the truth/' 
 
 And lib. iv. c. 14. fpeaking on Eph« 
 iv. " Of Christ's giving to his Church 
 
 " firfl 
 
r ^ j 
 
 " firftApoftlcs, then Prophets, and then 
 " 1 etchers, he fay!?, Where the gifts of 
 
 u onrLoKD are, there muft we learn 
 " the truth, and that is with thofe that 
 u have foccefllon in rhe Church from 
 u theApoftles. Chrilt made fo many or- 
 " ders in the Church for our fake, and 
 " thofe expound the Scriptures without 
 11 hazard of mifleading ns." 
 
 The next authority I produce, is from 
 Tcrtullian, who lived in the 200th year 
 of our Lord, in his Book Of Prescrip- 
 tions tigauijl Hereticks, chap, xxxiu 
 
 u Let them (faith he), declare the o- 
 " riginal of their Churches; let them 
 " turn over, and find out the order of 
 " their Bilhops, running down by fuc- 
 u ceffion from rbe beginning • that this 
 u firft Bifhop of their's had an Apoftle, 
 14 or Apoltolic men, that never fepara- 
 u ted from theApoftles, for his founder 
 " and predeceflur ; for, after this manner 
 11 do the Apoltolic Churches make their 
 11 computations, as thcChnrch ofSmyr- 
 " na has Polycarp placed there by St. 
 " John, and the Church of Rome 
 " has Clement ordained by Peter ; and 
 94 even as other Churches can demon- 
 " (Irate, who were ordained Bilhops o- 
 u >cr them, by thofe of the Apoltolic 
 " fuccefiion." 
 
 The 
 
r. 44 ) 
 
 The nera teftimony is from St. Au- 
 gnfline, who lived in the 396th year of 
 God, againft Fauitus, the Manichee. 
 
 u Doft thou not fee what weight the 
 c< authority of the Catholic Church has 
 " in this matter, which being eftablifh- 
 " ed on the mo ft: firm foundations of 
 " the Apoftolic See, does endure to 
 " this very day, by the race of Bilhops, 
 " Ihcceedirg one to another, and by 
 " the confent of ib many nations under 
 " their government :" 
 
 Succeflion was the touch -ftoir, by 
 which the Church examined minifteri- 
 al Million, and the doctrine of Faith 
 that was once delivered to the Saints j 
 and very good reafon, for there is no o- 
 ther way : As for the Eraftian, Indepen- 
 dent, and Enthnfiaftick way, none have 
 advantage of one another, and all of 
 them are liable to unanfvverable abiiir- 
 dities. The Church of England holds 
 by fucceffion, and the Presbyterian au- 
 thors of the Divine tight of Church Go- 
 vernment, when they grappled with In* 
 dependents, held by the fame, 
 
 The learned Dr. Burnet, in his expo- 
 (Ition of the twenty-third article of the 
 Church of England, lets us fee, that a 
 Succeflion of Pallors ought to be in the 
 
 Church ; 
 
L" 4* ] 
 
 Church; that this is fettled by the Apof- 
 ties, and mud continue to the end of the 
 world, and, P. 257. of that book, lays 
 down the danger of men's taking this 
 authority without a lawful vocation. 
 
 " The argument of this from the 
 11 (landing rules of order, of decency, 
 " of the authority in which the Holy 
 u Things ought to be maintained, and 
 u the care that muft be taken toreprefs 
 " vanity and infolence, and all the ex- 
 u travagancies of light and ungoverned 
 " fancies, is very clear. For, if every 
 * man may afTume authority to preach 
 u and perform Holy Functions, it is cer- 
 " tain religion mult fall into diforder, 
 " and under contempt : Hot-headed 
 " men, of warm fancies, and voluble 
 11 tongues, with very little knowledge 
 " and difcrerion, would be apt to thru ft 
 " thcmfelves into the teaching and go- 
 " verning of others, if they themfelves 
 " were under no government. This 
 " would loon make the public worihip 
 u of God to be loathed, and break and 
 u diilblve the whole body. 
 
 " A few men of livelier thoughts, 
 %i that begin to kt on foot fuch ways, 
 u might, fur fome time, maintain a Ik* 
 11 tie credit; yet (b many others would 
 
 u follow 
 
I 46 3 
 
 * follow at that breach, which they hadT 
 ' once made on public order, that it 
 1 could not be porfible to keep the So- 
 1 ciety of Chriftians under any method, 
 1 if this were once allowed. And 
 1 therefore thole, who, in their heart, 
 c hate the Chr-rjlian Religion, and defire 
 ' to fee it fall under a more general' 
 i contempt, know well what they do, 
 ' when they encourage all thofe Enthu- 
 • fiafts that deftroy order, hoping, by 
 1 the credit which their outward ap- 
 1 pearances may give them, to compals 
 1 that which the others know them* 
 1 felves to be too obnoxious, to hope 
 ' that they can ever have credit enough 
 ' to perfuade the world to. Whereas, 
 ' thofe poor deluded men do not fee 
 1 what properties the other make 
 ■ of them. The morals of Infidels 
 1 fhew, that they hate all religions 
 1 equally, or, with this difference, that 
 1 the itri&er any are, they muft hate 
 ' them the more : the root of their 
 quarrel beingat all religion and virtue. 
 And it is certain, as it is that which 
 thofe who drive it on fee well, and 
 therefore they drive it on, that if 
 once the Public Order, and the Na- 
 tional Confutation of a Church is diflbl- 
 
 " vcd. 
 
t 47 1 
 
 * vcd, the flrcngth and power, as well 
 " as the order and beauty of all religion 
 " will foon go after it: For, humanly 
 " fpeaking, it cannot lubfift without it." 
 We lee then how Succejjlon is the 
 only way to prove a lawful Priefthood: 
 There is no fenfe can be made of the'e 
 words, Lo y I am with you to the end of 
 the world, but by holding to ^tpoftoiical 
 Succejjlon: It is an argument of a deC- 
 peratc caufc, when we mnft defend 
 ourfelves with fophiftry, quibbles, and 
 naughty fnbtilties : minilterial acts per- 
 formed hy fiich Self-corners and Self- 
 fenders are null and void; for thefe can- 
 not be called Workers together zvithGOD, 
 becaufe God has not lent 'them ; and he 
 has not promifedj to work with thofe 
 whom he has not fent : So that thefe 
 falfe Prophets deceive, and are decei- 
 ved j men's Salvation is not only uncer- 
 tain, but extremely in danger. Men- 
 put a trick upon their own fouls, who yet 
 are very wary, that they be not cheated 
 by their neighbours in a penny of their 
 temporal intcreft : It is fuch men that 
 Atheifts, Deills, hypocritical Politicians, 
 make ufc of, to overturn order, and at 
 lad thc'Chnltran Religion itfelf: And 
 it is a plague of God upon men to be 
 
 left 
 
C 48 ] 
 
 left a prey to every damnable Herefy ; 
 efpecially if temporal intereft be at the 
 bottom. And it is impoffible to confute 
 the errors of Eraftianifm, Independen- 
 cy, or Enthufiafm, without holding by 
 the Succeflion; and this is to hearken to 
 the words of the Prophet, Jeremiah vi. 
 16. u Stand ye in the ways and fee, 
 " and aik for the old paths, where is 
 u the good way, and w r alk therein. " 
 
 Sir, Let me hear more frequently 
 from you, and of the cenfures which 
 friends or foes, or men of different fen- 
 timents, pafs upon what is already font 
 to you, by, 
 
 S T R, 
 Your humble Servant, Sec. 
 
 LETT ER 
 
[ 49 3 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 P R O V I N G 
 
 : Qrdination of EpifcopaiPresb)tcrs -and 
 Deacons in thefe three kingdoms, 
 bv the continued Succeflion of Bi- 
 
 j % As t . 
 
 foops, in the Univetjal Church, fince 
 the days of the dpofllcs. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 Have fhewed the neceffity of lineal 
 and uninterrupted fucceflion,to prove 
 the validity of the minifterial function, 
 and the great danger in the want of it ; 
 particularly, that the admiriftrations of 
 fuch are null and void, becaufe God 
 hath not lent them. With all J fhew 
 the conceflions of Presbyterians, p. 3, 
 4, 5, of this book, toivit, that Ordi na- 
 tion handed dczvn by Papijls, is not in- 
 valid by that conveyance. 
 
 Now I prove, that Epifcopal Presby- 
 ters and Deacons, in Scotland, Eng- 
 land, and Ireland, have Apoftolical Or- 
 dination and true Million, from Bifhops 
 fucceeding to one another, fince the 
 days of the Apoftles. 
 
 £ 1 
 
I 5° 3 
 
 I begin with the year 1^62, after 
 the Restoration of King Charles II. 
 who in that year reftored Epifcopacy 
 in Scotland, all the former Biftiops, nn- 
 der the Spotfwoodian Metropolitanlhip, 
 being dead, except Biihop Sydferf of 
 Galloway. 
 
 In the forefaid year, Mr. Sharp, Mr. 
 Lfghton, Mr. Fairfoul, and Mr. Ha- 
 milton, were called up to London, and 
 thcfewere firft ordained Deacons, after 
 Presbyters, and afterwards confecrated 
 by Bifhop Juxon, Lord Biihop of Lon- 
 don, in King Charles I/s time, and af- 
 terwards translated to Canterbury in 
 King Charles II /s time. 
 
 This account of their Ordinations 
 and Confecrations is given by Mr. Ro- 
 gers in his hiilory of the Refloration, 
 
 I have not the book at hand, nor can 
 I get it among my acquaintances, but I 
 remember that he finds fault with them, 
 for taking Ordination at that time: be- 
 caufe he thinks it may infer the invali- 
 dity of theirPresbyterian ad miniftrations, 
 
 I am not to infill: on this point : but it 
 is certain, thatfeveral Presbyterians fub- 
 mitted to Epifcopal Ordination, as Mr. 
 Manton, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell, 
 was ordained m 1660 by Biihop Sydferf, 
 
 being 
 
C 5-1 ] 
 
 being then at London. Mr. Calamy, 
 Mr. BurgcG, Mr. Fnlwood, and Mr. 
 Humphrey, received Epifcopal Ordi- 
 nation a long time after they had per- 
 formed minillerial acts in the Presbyte- 
 rian way. For this, fee the learned Dr. 
 John Durrel, in his ^indicia Ecclefix 
 Angl'icana, in the 4th leaf of his anfvver 
 to the Apologias preface: that part of 
 the book is not marked with figures, but 
 it is in the 8th page; fee alfothe 7th chap, 
 page 56. And for the earned defire of 
 foreign Presbyterians to have Epilco- 
 pal Ordination, fee his 34th chap, of 
 the fame book. We find alio, that Mr. 
 Richard Baxter received Ordination 
 from Biihop Hall, to put matters beyond 
 doubt. 
 
 I here fet down the proof of the E* 
 pifcopal Clergy's Ordination from the 
 year 3662, up to the beginning of the 
 Reformation by Arch-Bilhop Cranmer 
 in the year 1 5*3 g • and from Cranmer 
 to St. Aultin the monk, the firft Arch- 
 bifhop of Canterbury, fent by Gregory 
 the Great, in the year 568, or yo6 by- 
 others. And from Gregory up to the 
 days of the Apoftles, St. Peter the A- 
 poftle of the Circumcifion, and St. Paul 
 the Apoltie of the Uncircumcifion. 
 
 E 2 The 
 
[ J* ] 
 
 The Succeifion of Bifhops, and Atch» 
 bifhofs in Britain, up to the dp\\les. 
 
 1662 James Sharp, Archbifiop of St. An- 
 drews 
 
 1660 William Juxon, tranflaUd from London 
 to Canterbury 
 
 1633 William Laud 
 
 1610 George Abbot 
 
 1 604 Richard Bancroft 
 
 1583 John Wbitgift 
 
 1575 Edmund Grindal 
 
 1559 Matthew Parker 
 
 1555 Reginald Pool 
 
 1533 Thomas Granmer 
 
 1504 William Warham 
 
 1502 Henry Dean 
 
 i486 John Morton Cardinal 
 
 1454 Thomas Bourchier Card. 
 
 1452 John Hemp Card. 
 
 1443 John Stafford Card. 
 
 1 4 1 4 Henry Chicheley Card. 
 
 1396 Thomas Arundel Lord Chancellor 
 
 1 38 1 William Courtney 
 
 137; Simon Sudbury Lcrd Chan. 
 
 1367 William Whideiey 
 
 1366 Simon Langham Card, and Lord Chan. 
 
 1349 S. : mon Iflippe 
 
 1348 Thomas Bradwardin / 
 
 1333 John Stratford Lord Chan. 
 
 1327 Simon Mepham 
 
 1313 Waiter Reynolds 
 
 1294 Robert Winohclfey 
 
 1278 John 
 
C 53 1 
 
 1278 John Pekliam 
 
 1272 Robert Kilwarby Card. 
 
 1244 Boniface of Savoy 
 
 1234 S. Edmund 
 
 1229 Richard Wctherfhed 
 
 1206 Stephen Langtpn Card. 
 
 1193 Hubert Walter Lord Chan, and Lord Chief 
 
 Juflice 
 1 191 Reginald Fitz-Jocel in 
 
 I 184 Baldwin S. Benedicli 
 1 171 Richardus Monachus 
 
 I I 62 Thomas Becket Lord Chan . 
 1 138 Theobaldus 
 
 1 1 22 William Corboyl 
 
 1 1 14 Rodolphus Chief Juflice 
 
 1039 S. Anielm 
 
 Vacai'it Sedes Annos 4, 
 1070 Lanfrancus 
 1052 Stigandus 
 1050 Robertus Gemeticenfis 
 1038 S. Eadlinus 
 1020 Agelnothus 
 1 01 3 Livingus 
 1006 S. Elfegus 
 
 993 Ahricus 
 
 990 Siricius 
 
 988 Ethelgarus 
 
 959 S. Duni'tan Lord Treafurer 
 
 934 S. Odo 
 
 924 W olfel mus Lord Chan. 
 
 915 Athelmus 
 
 889 Pleigmundus 
 
 871 Atheldredus 
 
 830 Coelnothus 
 
 829 Theogildus 
 
 804 Wolfredus 
 
 E 3 591 Athelardtw 
 
I 54 3 
 
 791 AtlielarJus 
 
 
 762 Lambertus 
 
 
 759 Bregwinus 
 
 
 740 Cuthbertus 
 
 
 735 Nothelmus 
 
 
 731 S, Tatwinus 
 
 
 093 S. Brithwaldus 
 
 
 668 S. Theodoras, a Grecian 
 
 
 Vacavit Sedes Annos 4. 
 
 
 654 S. Adeodatus, or Deus dedit, 
 
 iv as * .the firji 
 
 Englifhma-n that ruled this See. 
 
 
 634 S. Honorius 
 
 
 624 S. Julius 
 
 
 619 S. Melitus 
 
 
 614 S. Laurentius 
 
 
 596 S. Auguilinus Monachus 
 
 
 Follows a LIST of the Bijhops of 
 Rome, from Gregory the Great , to 
 
 the dpojlks, 
 
 590 Gregorius Magnus 
 578 S. Pelagius 
 573 S. Benedichis 
 560 Joannes $tius 
 $55 S. Pelagius 
 540 Vigilius 
 537 S. Sylverius 
 535 S. AgapetUs 
 532 Joannes idus 
 530 Bonifacius 2dus 
 
 J 26 Fcclix 
 
C 55 ] 
 
 526 Foelix 4//*/ 
 
 524 Joannes 1 7/iu j 
 
 5 14 S. Hormiida 
 
 490 S. Synv.nachus 
 
 497 Anaftafius 2 J us 
 
 492 S. Gelaflus 
 
 483 Foelix j/zaj 
 
 468 Simplicius 
 
 461 S. Hilarius 
 
 440 Leo Magnus 
 
 432 Sixtus it ins 
 
 424 S. Cocleitinus 
 
 419 S. Bomfacius \mus 
 
 417 S Zozimus 
 
 402 S. Innocentius 
 
 398 S. Anaftafius 
 
 355 S. Siricius 
 
 367 S. Damafus 
 
 385 S. Foelix idui viventc Liherio 
 
 352 S. Libeiius 
 
 3 37 J ulius . 
 336 Marcus 
 314 Sylvefter 
 311 S. Miltiades Martyr 
 309 S. Eufebius M. 
 304 S. Marcellus Ml 
 297 S. Marcellinus M. 
 a84 S. Cajus M. 
 275 S. Eutychianus /If. 
 273 S. Foelix \mus-. M. 
 261 S. Diony fius M. 
 260 S. Sixtus idus M* 
 257 S. Stephanus I\L 
 255 Lucius M, 
 254 S. Cornelius /Jf. 
 239 S. Fabianus I\L 
 
 238 S. Anthcrus 
 
C 56 ] 
 
 238 S. Anthems M. 
 233 S. Pont inn us M. 
 227 S. Urbanns M. 
 23 1 S. Califtus /If. 
 203 S. Zepherinus M. 
 194 S. Vi&or M, 
 179 S. Eleutherius 3f. 
 175 S. Sorer Tkf. 
 167 S. Anicetus I\L 
 158 S. Plus M. 
 154 S. Hyginus M. 
 142 S. Teiefphorus M. 
 132 S. Sixtus M. 
 121 S. Alexander M % 
 112 S Euariitus/tf. 
 103 S. Anacletus 71/. 
 
 93 S. Clemens M. 
 
 81 S. Cletus A/. 
 
 70 S. Linus 
 
 44 S. Peter Apeflh and Martyr \B1Jh0p of the 
 Circumcifion, and St. Paul of the Uncir- 
 cumciiion. 
 
 You fee, Sir, what proof we have for 
 the miniftry by Apoftolical Succeflion j 
 and I hope, you will not fay that this 
 is the worfe, becaufe Bellarmin makes 
 it one of the marks of a true church; 
 for Presbyterians made Succeffion their 
 plea againll the Independents, as I have 
 fhovvn you in my firft Letter: It is true, 
 that Chr 1ST was the Son of Go:>, tho' 
 the Devil faid it, and truth is the fame 
 
 from 
 
C 57 1 
 
 from Papi ft s mouths, as well as from 
 Proteftants. 
 
 You find in the lift of* the Bifhops of 
 Rome, that three and thirty of them 
 fucccffively died Martyrs : And that 
 the three orders of divine inltitution, 
 to zvit } the Bilhop, Prieft, and Deacon, 
 was not only at Rome, but in other 
 places, has been proven feveral times 
 by learned men. Hear what Mr. Cal- 
 vin lays in the 4th book of his inftitu- 
 lions, zjth chap, at the beginning. 
 
 " There is a threefold Miniftry com- 
 u mended to us in the Scripture, and 
 a whatever Miniltry was in the primi- 
 11 tive Church, was diftinguilhed into 
 P three orders : For, from the order 
 " of Presbyters, there was chofen Paf* 
 '; tors and Doctors; the reft were to in- 
 P fpect manners and cenlures : The 
 •f care of the poor was committed to 
 '* Deacons. St. Jerom mentions five 
 iC orders in the Church, to wit, Bi- 
 li ihops, Presbyters, Deacons, the Fb 
 il deles or Faithful, and the Catechu- 
 " menij three of tbefe were of the 
 " Clergy, the other two of the Laity/' 
 
 It is in the perions o^ Bilhops, that 
 the Succeflion of the inferior Clergy, 
 Presbyters and Deacons, is prclcrvea : 
 
 and 
 
[ 53 "] 
 
 and that three eliding names, orders 
 and offices, were in the days of mira- 
 cles and martyrdom, is clear from A- 
 naftafius, who lived in the gth century, 
 and from Platina, who both wrote the 
 lives of the Popes. 
 
 We find that Euariftus, who lived in 
 the i 1 2th year of God, ordained five 
 Bilhops, fix Presbyters, and three Dea- 
 cons. 
 
 Alexander, who lived in 121, or* 
 dained five Bifhops, five Presbyters,, and 
 three Deacons. 
 
 Sixtus or Xyftus, who lived in 1 3 2, or- 
 dained four Bifliops, eleven Presbyters, 
 and eleven Deacons, 
 
 Telefephorus, who lived in 142, or- 
 dained eight Deacons, fifteen Presby- 
 ters, and thirteen Bifhops ; and Hygi- 
 nus, his fucceffbr, ordained five Dea- 
 cons, fifteen Presbyters, and fix Bi- 
 lhops. 
 
 It is plain, then, that thefe holy men 
 and martyrs fhould underttand Apofto- 
 lical practice and government, and the 
 meaning of the Scriptures, as well 
 (if not better), than thole who live fix- 
 teen hundred years after them. 
 
 There is nothing more clear, than 
 that this diftinccion was in the fir ft 
 
 three 
 
[ 59 J 
 
 three centuries; for mention is made of 
 three orders in all the EpifUes of St. 
 Ignatius, who was St. John the Apoftle's 
 fcholar, to wit, of Bifhops, Presbyters, 
 anci Deacons ; and you know that the 
 genuine edition of thefe Epillles is vin- 
 dicated againlt the [ophiftry that is uied 
 to fupport a cau(e, which cannot other- 
 wife (land but by thefe pitiful fliif- 
 tings. 
 
 Clemens Romanus, ^'ho lived in the 
 8th year of God, enumerates four 
 orders in the Church, in his firft E- 
 piftie to the Corinthians, § 40. His 
 words are, 
 
 11 To the High Prieft proper offices 
 " are committed : To Pricits, their 
 " proper ftation is affigned: Levites 
 " have their proper Miniftries; and a 
 " Layman is bound by Laick precepts. 
 " Let every one of you, brethren, give 
 * thanks to God, living confeientioufly, 
 " without tranfgrefiing the prefcribed 
 " rule of his (ervice or miniftry." 
 
 This diltinftion of orders and offices 
 was not in Rome, but in other places; 
 for the great Origin in Alexandria, in 
 hii book concerning prayers, when he 
 h ^s fpoken of the duties common to all 
 Chriltians, iubjoirs thefe words. 
 
 "Bcfides 
 
C 60 ] 
 
 "Befides thefe common and univer- 
 " fal debts, there is a debt peculiar to 
 " thefe that are widows, maintained by 
 " the Church. And there is a debt 
 " peculiar to Deacons, and another pe- 
 " culiar to Presbyters. But of all thefe 
 u peculiar debts, that which is due by 
 u the Biihops is the greateft-: It is ex- 
 " acted by the Saviour of the whole 
 11 Church, and the Biiliop muft (mart 
 " feverely for it, if it be not paid." 
 
 Again, in the eleventh homily on Je- 
 remiah's prophecy, he has thefe words; 
 " More will be required of me who 
 u was a Presbyter, than of a Deacon $ 
 " more of a Deacon than of a Laick ; 
 " but he has mod to account for, who 
 " has eccleiialticai principality over us, 
 " to wit, the Biihop." 
 
 That Si/ccejjion is the divine Charter 
 and Teft of the Miniftry, ] think is pret- 
 ty clear. You will find that Eufebius, and 
 others, reckon the Succeflbrs of the A- 
 poi les to their own time, in the four 
 great patriarchal Churches, to wit, Je- 
 rulalem, Rome, Antioch and Alexan- 
 dria • of which la ft patriarchal St. Je- 
 rem fays, that it was a cuitom for the 
 Presbyters of the place, from the days 
 of St. Mark, downwards to IJeraclas 
 
 and 
 
r 61 ] 
 
 and Dionyfias, in the time of a vacancy, 
 tochufe one of their number, whom 
 they (tiled their Bilhop ; and what will 
 this prove, that he was only a fixed 
 Moderator? Or that their ele&ion and 
 nomination was a confummadve aft? 
 Or was there no more done in making 
 him a Billiop, but their chufingr Was 
 there no confecration following there- 
 upon, by Pifhops of neighbouring pla- 
 ces ? Eofebrus, a Bilhop in Palettine, 
 obferves no different form of confecra- 
 tion and ordination in Alexandria from 
 other churches ; for Anianus was ordain- 
 ed by St. Mark, Eiifcb. Ecc. HijL lib. 2. 
 cap. 24. Abiiius fucceeded to Ania- 
 nus. Euf. lib. 3. cap. 13. and was or- 
 dained by St. Luke, by the traditions 
 in the Apoflolical Constitutions. Cer- 
 don fucceeded to Abiiius, Euf. lib. 3. 
 § 24. ordained by feveral Biihops that 
 went to the city for that purpole, ac- 
 cording to Severus Alexandrinus, co- 
 temporary with Eutychius, who lived 
 in the ninth century. Primus fucceed- 
 ed to Cerdon. 
 
 This Primus lived in the days of A- 
 
 drian, who in his letter to Servianus 
 
 the Conful, which is inferted in the 
 
 life of Saturninus, by Vopifcus a Latin 
 
 F hiftorian, 
 
F 62 ] 
 
 hiftorian, wliich letter was written In 
 the year 132, giving a chara&er of the 
 Egyptians, he the faid Adrian mentions 
 their Patriarchs, Biihops and Presby- 
 ters. 
 
 I know it will be faid, that Biihops 
 had no diocedes, and a Bifliop then was 
 but a paftor of a fingle congregation. 
 To which I anfwer, that it is not a dio* 
 cefs that makes a Biihop, more than a 
 pariihmakesa Mini iter, but the power 
 of ordaining and governing, preaching 
 and adminiltring Sacraments, and the 
 power of the keys, whether they -have 
 ■dioceflcs or parifhes. But fecondly, it 
 will be found, that the Apoftles gover- 
 tied, and exercifed acts of authority and 
 jurifdi&ion, even in their abfence, over 
 the colonies of their own plantations : 
 So did St. Paul, i Cor. v. 3. For I Verily 
 as abferit in body, but prefent in ffirit, 
 have judged already, as though I were 
 •prefent, concerning him that has fi done 
 this deed. Alfo, Col. ii. 5. and 2 Cor. 
 >:i. 28. And be fides thofe things that are 
 without, that which cometh upon me daily, 
 the care of all the Churches. Did not St. 
 John authoritatively govern the feven 
 churches of A-fia'? And if it be enquir- 
 ed, How can any man govern a pro- 
 vince 
 
t *3 1 
 
 vince of fo many parifhes ? I anfwer, 
 as well as the High Prieit governed rhe 
 national church of the Jews : Or, as St. 
 John and St. Paul governed the church- 
 es of their own gatherings, with their 
 inferior clergy : as well as a King can 
 command three kingdoms, or as Xerxes 
 could command an army of an hundred 
 and feventy thouland men, by his offi- 
 cers and inferior commanders. 
 
 If men ihall dill infill: upon a con- 
 gregational way, a local, prefential and 
 pcrtbnal communion, which the Author 
 of the Enquiry into the Conjiitution and 
 Difcifline of the Primitive Church, prin- 
 ted in 1692, page 26. feems to do \ I 
 anfwer, that the diftinftion of the three 
 orders of the clergy, to wit, Bifhops, 
 Presbyters and Deacons, is as manifeit 
 as that of the Old Tcftament of High 
 Prielts, Prieils and Lcvites, which or- 
 der was but very low as to a wcrldly 
 condition, when the Ifraelices were in 
 the Wildcrnefs ; and fnch was the cafe 
 of the primitive Chriflians in the firit 
 three centuries. 
 
 No doubt but thefe fit ft Bifhops vvifli- 
 ed for the proiperity which came af- 
 terwards to their fucceflors in Conitan- 
 tine the Great's time j lb that their 
 F 2 narrow 
 
narrow and pinching circumftances, wa« 
 no rule for pofterity, more than the cale 
 of the Ifraelites in the Wildernefs, was 
 for their offspring in the land of Ca- 
 naan, where there were eonfiderable 
 variations, without altering the fubftan- 
 tial part of the Priefthood, when in the 
 Wildernefs. 
 
 That Author, (I fay), page 26. who 
 is called Sir Peter King, tells, that a dio- 
 cefs then was but like a parifh now, and 
 vouches St. Cyprian's authority for if, 
 Ep. 63. § io. p. 177. JVe celebrate the 
 Sacrament, the whole brotherhood being 
 frefent. 
 
 I have anfwered this and much more, 
 in the vindication of St. Ignatkis's E- 
 piflles, and I told that the Archbiihop 
 of Canterbury may fay fo, on every 
 Eafter day, of the whole national church 
 of England ; and I cited the learned 
 Thomas Edward, againft Mr. Clarklon, 
 giving an in(tance out of Jofephus de 
 hello Judaic o } lib. 7. cap. 17. quoted 
 by Euftbius, lib. 3. cap. <f. that, 
 
 41 Three millions of Jews, legally 
 " clean, communicated with the High 
 " Pried, and partaked at the altar in 
 u the Temple of Jerufalem, tho' they 
 " approached it not in their own per- 
 
 ions; 
 
r *5 ] 
 
 m fons ; and he add?, that this was about 
 
 * the (pace of two hours, in one and 
 
 * the fame afternoon. The inference 
 
 * that the (aid Mr. Edward makes of 
 " this, is, Let Independents ihow how 
 " all the males in liiael, (the women, 
 " if clean, not excepted), could perfon- 
 " ally communicate with the High 
 " Prieft, and I will folve how all Eng- 
 ■ land and Wales may communicate 
 m with one Bilhop, three times a year!" 
 
 Now if they would lay any thing to 
 their purpofe, they ought not to prove, 
 the fbme congregations had Bifhops,but 
 that all that had congregations under 
 them wereBifhops; in d chat there warno 
 diitinclion betwixt a Bilhop and a Presby- 
 ter, as Prieftsand Levites, in fynagogues 
 among the Jews, were not High Prielts. 
 
 I refer- the congregational men to 
 what the Presbyterians (aid in Jus Re- 
 vim. Eft/, printed in 16^7, p. 214. who 
 aflerr, and (in my judgment) do prove 
 very pointedly, that in divers cities 
 there were mere congregations than 
 one, particularly in Jerufalem ; p. 214. 
 " I. From the multitude of believers 
 u in that church. 2 From the mulii- 
 " rude of church officers there. 3 From 
 u the variety of languages there. 4 
 11 From the manner of Chriflians pu- 
 
 F3 
 
 " blic 
 
. [ 66 ] 
 
 " blic meetings in thefe primitive 
 " times, both in the church of Jerufa- 
 il lem, and in other churches; p. 216* 
 u Upon thefe words, Acts xxi. 20. u And 
 M when they heard it, they glorified 
 u God, and faid unto him, Thou feeft, 
 il brother, how many thoufands of Jews 
 " there are which believe, &c." Our 
 " tranflation (fay they) feems herein 
 u very defective, rendering it how ma- 
 " ny* thoufands ; whereas it fho.uld be, 
 11 according to the Greek, how many ten 
 " thoufands ? And thefe myriads (ecm to 
 M have been in the church of Jerufalem, 
 " feeing it is faid of them, " verfe 22. 
 " The multitude mult needs come to- 
 u gether, for they will hear that thou 
 " art come." Now confidering this em- 
 " phatical expreflion, not only ■ thou- 
 " lands, myriads in the plural number; 
 " not only myriads, ten thoufands in 
 f* the plural number; but how many ten 
 u thoufands; we cannot in reafon i;na- 
 " ginc, but there were at leait three 
 " ten thoufands, viz. 3^000 believers, 
 " ani how all thele flionld meet toge- 
 " thcr in one congregation, for all ordi- 
 " nances, let the reader judge." 
 
 From their conceflTion, I reafon thus; 
 Thefe thirty thoufand believers, (and 
 for ought we know, of many myriads, 
 
 there 
 
[ 67 ] 
 
 there might be an hundred thoufand be- 
 lievers), 1 fay the thirty thoufand could 
 make up thirty congregations • were 
 there thirty Bilhops in Jcrulalem; where- 
 as, at that time, we hear but of St, 
 James, who was the only Bifhop ? 
 
 In this national church of Scotland, 
 feveral Bilhops had congregations, yet 
 all the Minilters in the dlo^efs who had 
 congregations, were not Bifhops : For 
 every captain is a foldicr, but every (bl- 
 dier is not a captain ; every moderator is 
 a minuter, but every minifter is not a 
 moderator. Now let thole, who in for* 
 mer times founded their divine ri^htof* 
 church govcrnmentupon Apoftolicalfuc- 
 ceffion,(as the Awhorsof the divine right 
 of church government rref ended to do), 
 prove it from the Presbytery that laid 
 hands upon St. Timothy, with St. Paul. 
 l Tim. iv. 14. and 2 Tim/1.6, conform 
 to the primitive Prceftos, Prseies or Mo- 
 del ator, as 1 have proven Succeffiom 
 from Bifhops defcending from the A- 
 pofllcs [o our own days, and then the de- 
 bate is ended • and we are both fortified 
 igainft the Romifh champions, w r ho de- 
 ny the Aportolical Succeffion of all Pro- 
 teftants, which I lhall touch, with other 
 things, briefly in my next to you': in the 
 mean time I bid you a hearty farevvel. 
 
 L ETTER 
 
I 68 ] 
 
 LETTER v. 
 
 BEING 
 
 Jin Anfwer to fever al Objections 
 agairfi the former Letter. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I Received yours, and I give you hear- 
 ty thanks for the account you give 
 me of the late convcrfaiion you had 
 with a mix'd company, who, upon your 
 reading of my letters to them, gave their 
 different fentiments. One (aid, that he 
 thought all governments were alike, 
 and that the people, cfpecially the vul- 
 gar, were not concerned in the Clergy's 
 difputcs, if (bund doctrine be preached 
 to them ; nor fhould (Paid he) Clergy- 
 men jumble the people with the notion 
 of Succeilion ; for all national churches 
 cannot give the authentic regilters of 
 their defcent from the Apoftles, and 
 
 Clergymen 
 
C 69 3 
 
 Clergymen fhould preach nothing but 
 Faith and Repentance. 
 
 Another faid, if a Chriflian, not in 
 orders, IhouW preach the Golpel in 3 
 heathen ifland, that he has a call .from 
 God to the miniftry of that place, i£ 
 he has profelyted,. and fufficicntly in- 
 Itru&ed the people in Chriltianity. 
 
 Again you tell me, that others who 
 were Presbyterians gave their different 
 fentiments : Some told, that the Pres- 
 byterians pleaded SuccefHon, as 1 do 
 acknowledge in my former lcrers, and 
 do cite their own authority for it ; par- 
 ticularly, The divine right; of church 
 government, printed in 1647; fo that I 
 had nothing to fay againft them upon 
 my own hypothefis and conceflion. 
 Another feemed not to lay ftrefs upon 
 Succeffion, becaufe he thought it un- 
 certain , for the Romanics could not 
 condefcend upon St. Peter's immediate 
 Succeflbrs, as the Author of parochial 
 Bilhops made out, (as he thought) to a 
 demonitration. Another faid, that the 
 church government in the firft three 
 hundred years, was Presbyterian, ac* 
 cording to thefe Scottifh pleaders for 
 Presbytery ; and that the Culdees, who 
 were the firft, (at lead early) Proteflors 
 
 of 
 
[ 70 ] 
 of Chrifliamry in Scotland, wanted Bl* 
 fhops ; and confequently were Pres- 
 byterians. Yea alio, that the firft Re- 
 formers were Presbyterian; and there- 
 fore Presbytery was natural to Scot- 
 land, 
 
 Another (who was a moderate Epifco- 
 pal man) faid, that he could not come up 
 to fuch rigorous meafures as I laid downj; 
 becaule this would unchurch all the 
 foreign Proteftants, who write very 
 difcreetly for the Englifh Epifcopacy, 
 and could heartily fubmit to it : and 
 that they had (bund doftrine and wor- 
 lhip j and that Archbifhop Spottifwood, 
 with thole that went along with him, 
 received confecration only, without be- 
 ing made Prie(ts,in England. 
 
 Another pleaded the Eralltan prin- 
 ciple ; another the Independent way. 
 But, lait of all, the Roman Catholic 
 came in for his lhare, and told, that 
 no Proteftant Kirk nor Church could 
 plead SuccefTion; and inflanccd our A- 
 poftacy in Arch-Biihop Cranmei's days, 
 the Naig-head Ordination; and that 
 there were no Biihops in Queen Eliza- 
 beth's days, that could contecrate Mat- 
 thew Parker, Arch-Bi (hop cf Canterbury, 
 who fucceeded to Reginald Pool after 
 
 Cranmer; 
 
r 71 j 
 
 Cranmer ; and that all the right which 
 Parker and his Succeifors had, was mere- 
 ly Parliamentary, and not Divine nor 
 Canonical. You therefore defire me 
 to give you my thoughts plainly and 
 briefly upon all, which I fhall do, ( if I 
 can ) to the fatisfa&ion of the ingenuous 
 and unprejudiced. 
 
 Firft then, as to the Latitudinarian way, 
 of thinking any miniftry, whether Pre- 
 lacy, Presbytery or Independency, alike, 
 if the men preach found doctrine ; it is 
 a very erroneous, and consequently a 
 very dangerous, opinion ; for a princi- 
 ple I cannot call it, becaufe it has no 
 foundation cither in reafon or revelation ; 
 for it opens a door to all Herefy, and 
 to every Impoftor: It is inconfiftent 
 with God's providence and Christ's 
 promife : with God's providence in 
 the governing of his kingdom of heaven 
 upon earth, as if be had left his ratio- 
 nal creatures without laws and rules to 
 conduft them, in their private or pu- 
 blic, temporal or fpiritual, capacities. 
 As alfo, it is inconfiftent with the pro- 
 mife that the Saviour of the world, the 
 great Shepherd of the flock, and the 
 High Prieft, and Bifhop of our louls, 
 made to the Apoftles, his fubftitutes and 
 
 . deputes, 
 
E 7* ] 
 
 deputes, namely, to be with them to 
 the end of the world : For, as the fa- 
 eraments cannot be altered in their mat- 
 ter, nor in their form, no more mud 
 the Apoftolical Succeffion be left to an 
 arbitrary loofnefs of the wills of thofe 
 that are given to changes, and with 
 whom none fhould meddle. It is a& 
 necellary for Clergymen to preach up 
 the Apoiiolical Succeffion of the mini- 
 ftry, as it is to inftruft the people in 
 that fundamental article of the Creed, 
 I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, 
 the Remiluon oi' fins, 5cc. For a Church 
 is a fock'ry of men profcffing the 
 chriftian religion under lawful Payors, 
 who have power to preach, adminifter 
 facraments, and remit fins. It is as 
 lawful for minifters to teach the peo- 
 ple what rs the true Miniltry, as it is to 
 direct them what th£ true Church is; 
 and we have our Saviour's example, in- 
 ftrucling the woman of Samaria, St. 
 John iv. 24. w r here the true Church 
 was. 
 
 If it be neceflary for the people to 
 have the feals of the Covenant of Grace, 
 it is neceflary to have them from per- 
 fons authorifed to difpcnfe the myfte- 
 ries j otherwife they are given but by 
 
 a 
 
t >3 J 
 a dead hand ; and tho* the vulgar ho 
 Hot tcholars or antiquaries, yet reafon 
 tells them, that whofoever has the e>:~ 
 ercife of any office, ccclcfiaftic or ci- 
 vil, fhou!d have it from the perfbn or 
 perfons that have power to give it; o- 
 therwile, it is an ufurpction. It is na- 
 tural to argue, that Minifters fliould 
 jnake Minifters, upwards to the ftrft in- 
 ltitution, as they know that the mo- 
 narchy of the three kingdoms is heredi- 
 tary, and may know, when an invafioh 
 or ufurpation makes an interruption in 
 the Succeffion : after the fame manner 
 we can inlbrm the meancfi capacity, 
 that Epifcopacy has been the ftand'ing 
 government of the Church fi.nce the 
 Afceniion of our Saviour, and the De- 
 fcent of the Holy Ghoft, throughout 
 tfll nations ; and the adverfaries to that 
 government cannot condefcend on the 
 age when Epifcopacy began, or made 
 any encroachment upon the govern* 
 me nt that Christ appointed in his 
 Church to the end of the world. But, 
 on the other hand, if we can make cut 
 when Presbytry, Independency or 
 Eraftianifm, began, then it is eafy to 
 prove, that none ofthefe come by A- 
 poftblical Succeffion j and consequently, 
 G that 
 
C 74 ] 
 
 that they are not of divine right, nor 
 are their miniilerial aftsof any value 
 to the people. 
 
 If noble families prove their antiqui- 
 ty from their charters, we think that 
 the minifters of the gofpel fhonld prove 
 theirs by Apoftolical SuccefTion, which 
 is their warrant to be faithful and law- 
 ful ihepherds. And the people are 
 concerned to know, from what hand 
 they receive their royfteries, and their 
 abfolution, as perfons in a great family, 
 the Oeconomus or Steward, that gives 
 them their meat in due feafon ; or for 
 men to have difcharges for payment of 
 their debts j or for a penitent rebel to 
 have remiflion for Hish-Treafon. 
 
 Is it poflible, that iuch an univerfal 
 change as Rpifcopacy in the Eaftern and 
 Weftern Churches; could furprize n^n 
 in an inftant ? 
 
 " When I fhall fee (fays a learned Au- 
 " thor) all the democracies and arifto- 
 " cracies in the world, lie down and 
 " fleep, and awakeinto monarchies, then 
 " will I begin to believe, that Presby- 
 " terian Government, having continued 
 " in the Churches during the Apoftles 
 " times, Giould prefently after (againft 
 " the Apoftles do&rine, and will of 
 
 Christ), 
 
C rs 1 
 
 "'Christ), be whirled about like a 
 '' (lone in a mafque, and be transibr- 
 " med into Epilcopacy.." 
 
 Next, as to the plea of neceffity, and 
 the cafe of a learned and pious man's 
 coming into an ifland, or any other 
 place in the world, inhabited by heath- 
 ens and infidels, and having inftrucled 
 them in the Chriftian Religion, has not 
 fuch a man ( fay fome ) a call from 
 God to be an Apoftle to that people, 
 which he hath brought over to the know- 
 ledge of Ch R I st, without the ceremo- 
 ny of an ordination, or the plea of A- 
 poftolical Succeflion? 
 
 I anfwer firft, that neceffity is neither 
 the cafe nor the plea of the Anu-pre- 
 lutiiis in Britain : for they judge and 
 teach, that mat party is the true go- 
 vernment (as they think), according 
 to (capture and primitive antiquity; 
 and that they are obliged to eppofe Im- 
 parity or Prelacy, as not agreeable to 
 either : And though their anceftors laid 
 claim to Succeffion againit the Indepen- 
 dents in 1647, in their 'Jus Reg. EccL 
 yet not being able now to prove their 
 plea, they are forced to ilielter them- 
 felves with the principles which in 
 former times they vigorouily oppofed, 
 G 2 by 
 
[ 76 ] 
 
 by fuch arguments, as they cannot an» 
 iwer, when managed againft them by 
 Epifccpal hands, who ftuck clofely to 
 Apoilolical Succeffion, and proved their 
 claim by this very principle : fo that ic 
 is not necefiity that our Presbyterians 
 pretend for their want of an Epilcopacy, 
 but a law for the divine right of Presby- 
 try, and an obligation by an oath to raze 
 and extirpate it from off the face of the 
 earth. 
 
 As for the foreign Presbyterians > 
 who wife they had Epifcopacy, and do 
 write very honourably of it, I fay, 
 they are under no fuch neceffity ; for if 
 they have not fire in their own houfes, 
 they may light their candle in their 
 neighbours. They may follow the ex- 
 ample of the united Brethren of Bo- 
 hernia, called Huflkes, who, after a long 
 and tedious war with the Romanifts, 
 were allowed by the council of Bafil to 
 nave their worlhip in a known tongue, 
 and the ufe of the Cup in the Sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper; but feve- 
 ral Huiiites refufing to join in vsith the 
 Romiih communion, were thereupon 
 forced to fly the mountainous places near 
 Silelia, where they lived together in 
 great unity, amity and piety; They be- 
 thought 
 
[ 77 ] 
 
 thought themfelves how to preferve a 
 feed of the miniftry, lawfully ordain, 
 ed by the fucceffors of the Apofllcs : 
 For this caufe, they waited a long time, 
 to fee if it fhould pleafe God to in- 
 cline fomc of the Romiih Biihops to 
 break off* and then they were fare of 
 continuing the SucceiTion • but finding 
 no appearance of this, they gave over 
 hopes, and betook themfelves to another 
 expedient, Which was *nrto 1467, when 
 about feventy Presbyters, (battered 
 throughout Bohemia and Moravia, met 
 together, and, after feveral prayers and 
 tears, befoupht God to direct them in 
 that weighty cafe : And after having 
 tried the will of God by lot, they went 
 to the Waldenfes. StephanustheirBifhop, 
 having called another Bifhop with fome 
 few Presbyters, declared and proved 
 their uninterrupted Succefhcn by Bif- 
 hops from the Apofllcs, to that very 
 time: The Bohemian miniftcrs being 
 convinced, received confecration from 
 them, and thereby became happy in- 
 ftruments of prcferving the Apoltolical 
 Succeffion in the Bohemian Church, 
 
 I have recorded the itory more fully 
 
 in my Divine Right of Epttcopacy, p. 24, 
 
 26, 27, out of Dr. Durell, his Jfindicia 
 
 G 3 Ecc/ejim 
 
l ?3 g 
 
 Ecclejh AngL cap. 34, ^. 506. and 
 from a learned and worthy countryman 
 of our own, in a pamphlet called, '• The 
 Primitive Church Government, in the 
 practice of the Reformed Church of 
 Bohemia." 
 
 There may be interruptions in fome 
 national Churches, and corruptions in o- 
 thers, but the Apoitolical Succeffion 
 has never failed ; fo that the reformed 
 Churches are not expofed to the necef- 
 fity of making rniniiters of perlbns 
 whom they judge to have gifts, grace, 
 found doctrine, and the call of the peo- 
 ple, for want of Apoitolical Succeftion. 
 
 And as for the cafe of a pious and 
 learned ChfifHan Layman falling into 
 an heathen country, which he inftrufts 
 in the Chriftian Religion, this is no ar- 
 gument for him to take up the miniltry 
 at his own hand: he may teach the mo« 
 rals of Christianity, and devotions, but 
 not meddle wirh the myfteries of Re- 
 lipion, the Prieahood and Sacraments. 
 
 Our bleiled Lord has promifed his 
 effectual preiencc to be with the ficred 
 Prieithood, and their adminiltrations, to 
 the end of the world, which (we are 
 (tire) he has performed from the time 
 of his glorious Refurrection to our own 
 
 days j 
 
C 79 ] 
 days ; confcquentlv, no pretended nc- 
 ceiriry can authorife men to take a 
 courfc of minidration in the Church, 
 
 which directly overturns the Apottoli- 
 cal SnccefTion. The Father Almighty's 
 providence never permitted fuch a ne- 
 celfity as ihould overthrow his beloved 
 Son's promife, of being with the Chrif- 
 tian Prielthood and their adminiflrations, 
 io long as mortality continued. His 
 promifes arc yea and amen ; and we ;>rc 
 lure they will never fail : For though 
 there be many devices in a man'shearr, 
 we are fure, that the council of the 
 Lord it fhail (land, Prov. xix. 21. as it 
 has done from the beginning of the 
 promife till this very day. 
 
 In ihort, then, the Briiifh Presbyteri- 
 ans pretend no neceftity ; but, on the 
 contrary, are (worn confederates againft 
 Epifcopacy, as fuch : And the foreign 
 Churches need not lye under (ivTi a ne- 
 ceiTuy; they may remove it when they 
 will : No temporary, accidental, or con- 
 tingent neceffity can be made a rule a- 
 gainft the abfolute neceility which God 
 has made a perpetual {hmdard in his 
 Church ; for no institution of God cin 
 be taken away but by the fame authori- 
 ty that made it divine. Divine com- 
 mands 
 
[. 8o ] 
 
 mands cannot be taken away but by 
 divine countermands. The ncceflity is 
 not forced, but chofen, affected, and of 
 their own making; therefore let us 
 pray God to take away the prejudice of 
 their education, and bring them into 
 the bofom of the Church. 
 
 The next objection is, that the near- 
 er you come to the Apoftles, the Suc- 
 ceftion is more uncertain j for example, 
 it is difputed, whether Linus or Cle- 
 mens, Cletus or x\nacletus, did fucceed 
 to St. Peter, and was never yet deter- 
 mined. To which I anfwer, firft, that 
 the Presbyterians, who pleaded Succefli^ 
 on againft the Independents, were obliged 
 to give an anfwer to this, if it had been 
 then obje&ed againft them ; 2, I an- 
 fwer, that it is not (as I told you before), 
 diocefles that make Biihops more than 
 parifhes make Minifters, but the power 
 of ordination and conferring commif- 
 fions on the cotemporaries and fufvir- 
 vors ; for St. Peter was before them 
 Bifhop of the Circumcifion, and St. 
 Paul of the Uncircumcifion ; and the 
 twelve Apoftles were Biihops before 
 they went to teach all nations ; and why 
 might not Linus and Clemens be fo too, 
 wiihouthaving any encouragement from 
 
 the 
 
the civil magiftrates, who then were their 
 pcrfecutors, inftcad of appointing them 
 DiocefTes, Parilhes, Salaries, Mantes and 
 Glebes; Their cafe was but like the 
 High-Pried, Pricfts and Levites in the 
 Wildernefi : So that you are not to ar- 
 gue from the (late of adverfity to 
 profperity, or from changeable circum- 
 stances to unchangeable fubftantials j the 
 one might have been ibeceflbr to St. 
 Peter, the other to St. Paul. 
 
 Next, for the bufinefs of the Anti- 
 Popes Anacletus and Innocent the 2d, 
 the one at Rome, and the other at A- 
 vignon ; this is a very fenflefs argu- 
 ment againft the Apoftolical Succeffion ; 
 for if both were Bilhops in any other 
 part of the world, they had power to 
 confecrate or ordain Succeflbrs to the 
 ApolUes where ever they lived j and 
 their contentions for place did not un- 
 bilhop them, more than the diile.ifion 
 betwixt St. Paul and St. Barnabas did 
 un-apoftolare them : For, fuppofe that 
 two Presbyters having right ordination, 
 fhould coniend who ihould be Miniiler 
 of a Parifh, having templing emolu- 
 ments, and a lulty benefice, and in 
 their contention the one fhould preach 
 in the Kirk, and the other in the Kirk- 
 yard, 
 
r « 3 
 
 yard, and both of them baptize that 
 iame day, arc not both their baptilrns 
 valid for all their contentions ? 
 
 Again you tell me, that one of the 
 Presbyterians of the company {aid, Why 
 any more difpute, if (according to my 
 letter) the Presbyterians own their mi- 
 niftry to be founded on Apoftolical Sue- 
 ceffion? I anfwer, that the poiltion is 
 true; but let them prove that they 
 themfelves have.it, according to Scrip- 
 ture, and the univerfal practice of the 
 Church, whicLis the bed living com- 
 mentary upon it, and is the fureft 
 proof for the Canon of the Old and 
 New Teitament, infant Baprifm, and the 
 obfervation of the Lord's day. 
 
 Then, as to their plea from the Cul- 
 dces, the early ProfeflTors of Chriftianity 
 without Bifnops in Scotland, particular- 
 ly in the lile of Hyi, Jona or Icolmkil, 
 it is both unrcafonable and falfe : For 
 \mo. How unrcafonable is it to argue 
 from oMcure, uncertain and fabulous ac- 
 counts, againft the clear principles and 
 evident pra&ice of the univerfal Church, 
 in the Eaftern and Weltern parts there- 
 of? &do. Suppoling it as true as it is 
 falfe, 1 afk, Were thefc Culdees without 
 Biihops, Succellbrs to the Apoftles ? 
 
 pio 
 
r 8 3 ] 
 
 $tio. Are the Presbyterians now Sue- 
 cellbrs to thefc Culdees as iuch ? 4/;. 
 If thefe Monks were Presbyterians, u hy 
 are not the Presbyterians Monks, accor- 
 ding to the cultom of their fuppofed 
 preciecciTors the Culdees ? 5/2. Either 
 that time of the Monks was a perfect 
 or imperfect (late of the Church. If a 
 perfect (late, then all the Chriftian 
 world over was wrong except theni- 
 felves j which I think will take a confi- 
 derable time to prove: If imperfect, 
 why fhould it be a tlandard, a rule, yea, 
 or an argument for Presbyterian Go- 
 vernment ? Samaria was converted to 
 Chriftianity, and baptiled by Philip the 
 Deacon; therefore that Church Go- 
 vernment fhould neither have Bifhops 
 nor Presbyters : Some part of the Indies 
 were converted to the faith by Edefius 
 and Frumentius, two Laymen; there- 
 fore thefe parts ought not to have Cler- 
 gymen : A woman is faid to be the firft 
 inftrument of converting the Iberians 
 to the faith ; therefore (according to 
 this way of arguing) it is the female 
 fex, and not males, nor Clergy, fhould 
 govern in that part of the world, bto. 
 May not St. Jerom's queftion, in his e- 
 piitle to Evagrius, Why dolt thou object 
 
 to 
 
I 84 ] 
 
 to me the cuflom of one City? May \t 
 not ( I fay ) be pertinently retorted to 
 the Culdean Presbyterians, Whydo you 
 object to us the cuflom of a fmall II- 
 land ? But taftly, the thing h falfe in 
 matter of fact ; for, upon a critical re* 
 view, it will be found, that the Mona- 
 flerics of thefe times were the fchools 
 and univerfities, where youth were 
 brought up, and fitted to be put in ho* 
 ly Orders; and being recommended by 
 their iuperiors, were ordained by pro- 
 per Bifhops ; and they w-ere but as thofc 
 Monks in France, and other countries 
 governed ly Biihops. Whoever defires 
 full fatisfaflion in this point, let him 
 read our learned and accurate country- 
 man's remarks upon Sir James Dalrym* 
 pie his Hiftorical Collections, with an 
 Anfwer to the Vindication of the Eccle- 
 fiaftical part of them, printed at Edin- 
 burgh in 1714* 
 
 1 come now to another paflage of 
 your promifcuous converfation, which 
 is, That Presbyterian Government con* 
 tinued for the firft three hundred years 
 in the Univ-erfal Church ; which if it 
 did, it w 7 as certainly an iinfupportable 
 grievance, when it was ftiaken off in an 
 inftant j and it were ftrange how all 
 
 Europe. 
 
Europe, Afia and Africa, fliouldjump 
 from Presbytry into Prelacy in one 
 day's time, without the confent and 
 •deciGon of a General AfTcmbly. What! 
 Was there not one cog to bark? Not 
 one watchman to give the alarm ? 
 Nay certainly, this their faying is as 
 true, as that the watchmen about the 
 holy grave were afleep, when Chr i st's 
 Difcipks came and ftole the body of 
 our Saviour by night : St. Matth,xxviii. 
 13, 15. And it is this lie that keeps the 
 Jews in their o'bftirutfc unbelief to this 
 very day ; and this lie was the contri- 
 vance of the falfe teachers at that time : 
 What a judgment is it, then, to be un- 
 der the nrilriftry of thole that deceive, 
 and are deceived I 
 
 • I have elfevvhere -expofed the abfur- 
 dity arid falfehood of this opinion, in 
 thefe following queftions ; as xfiio. If 
 Prelacy began after Presbytry, in the 
 four hundredth year of God only, will 
 it not follow that the Fathers and Coun- 
 cils, and the holy Writers, iuch as St, 
 Angnftinc, St. Atha-nafius, St. Bafil, and 
 Eufebius, were Apoltates, Blockheads, 
 yea and Anti-Chriftians, in varying from 
 the primitive model, Christ's inftttu* 
 tion, and th-c Divine Right of Church, 
 H Government 
 
.1 86 ] 
 
 Government, if it be true that Presbytry 
 was the government of the firft three 
 Centuries? ido. Will it not S0II0W, 
 that Aerius, who was condemned for 
 an Heretick, for afterting a parity a- 
 mong the Clergy, and that there was 
 no difference betwixt Biihop and Pres- 
 byter, that he (I fay) was the only or- 
 thodox man in the Church, though he 
 had not fuch a following as St. Afcba- 
 na r ius ; againfi the whole world, when 
 he oppofed the Arians \ ^tio. How 
 came the Presbyters, who were an 
 hundred times more in number than 
 the Bifhops, not to ereft a General 
 Aflembly, to proteft their right againft 
 the General Council of Nice, confiding 
 only of 3 1 8 Bifhops, and remonftrate a* 
 gainft the encroachments and ulurpati- 
 ons which were made upon the Divine 
 Right of Presbytry, which ( according 
 to Scotch Presbyterians ) continued for 
 three hundred years after the Apoftles? 
 qto What fenfe fhall we make of 
 Christ's promife, of being with the 
 Apoftles to the end of the world, if he 
 was not with their lawful SnccefTors the 
 Presbyters but for 300 years? And 
 how comes the Antichriflian Govern- 
 ment of Prelacy, to continue above 
 
 thirteen 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 thirteen hundred years afterwards, with* 
 out any national Church Government 
 in the world being ever Presbyterian J 
 5/0. Will it not follow, that Old Tc (la- 
 ment Prophecies of the Minillry's be- 
 ing in an Imparity in the New Telia* 
 ment, and the Magiftrates becoming a 
 blefTing in the Chriftian Church, have 
 fail'd, as well as Christ's promife of 
 being with his Church to the end- of" 
 the world ? Now, as to that of the Mi. 
 niftry's being one order above another, 
 we find in Ifaiah lxv'i. 2 1 . And I will 
 take of them for Priejts and for Leviles. 
 That the Prieits were above theLevitcs 
 is not quclhoned, but that the Prieits 
 had Chief Priefts, is proven from 1 Chron. 
 xxiv. 6. Chief of the Fathers of the 
 Prills and Levites ; fo it is in verfc 
 2i. So, Ezra viii. 29. Watch ye and 
 keep them until ye weigh them before 
 the Chief of the Priefts, and the Levites. 
 and Chief of the Fathers of Ifrael at 
 Jerufalem, in the Chambers of the houfe 
 of the LORD, So, Neh. xi. 14. 15. 
 16. There are two named Overfecis, 
 which is the fame with Billiops. Next, 
 as to the Magiltrates being propheti- 
 cally promifed in the' Old Tcftamenr, 
 to become a blefling to the Chriftian 
 H 2 Church, 
 
[ 83 J 
 Church, is clear from I fa. xl'ix. 23. 
 That Kings fnould be nurfing Fathers,, 
 and Queens nurfing mothers : I (ay, 
 Will it not follow, that thefe things 
 have failed in the prophecies, if Pari- 
 ty was the true Church Government 
 in the three firft centuries ; and if Pre- 
 lacy came in with Conftantine the 
 Great, the firfl Chriftian Magiftrate,, 
 chat that Magiftracy was a curfe in- 
 ftead of a Melting ? 6. Will it not fol- 
 low that, in the firft three centuries, 
 the Presbyterians who refilled Biihop- 
 ricks in the time of perfecution, and 
 accepted of it in the time of profperi- 
 ty, were temporizers, and that (as the 
 Devil ftid of Job ) they would not lerve 
 God for nought. 
 
 jmSi Will it not follow, that Mr. Cal- 
 vin was an fieretick, who faid he knew 
 bo curie that was great enough for them 
 that would refule the Cyprianick Epif- 
 copacy ? Or that Beza was mad, who 
 counted thofe mad that refilled the 
 Englilh Epilcopacy I Or that Mclanc- 
 thon was befide himfelf, when he laid, 
 " Would to God it lay in me to refule 
 i4 Epilcopacy; for 1 forfee that here* 
 " after will grow 'up a greater tyranny 
 " in the Church than ever :" 
 
 As 
 
[ 89 ] 
 
 As for that pretence, that Presby- 
 terians were the firft reformers in Scot- 
 land, and therefore they have a right 
 to continue that government; This is 
 of a piece with that of the Culdces, :;nd 
 it is both falte and unrealbnable ; falic, 
 becaufe there were no Presbyterians 
 at that time, nor was ever a Presbyte- 
 rian government heard of in the world 
 before it: For, if (bme Pricfts, as 
 John Knox, had a hand in the refor- 
 mation, this d\d not make them the 
 Apoftles Succeflbrs ; for though they 
 had ordination in themfclves by Bit- 
 hops, they could not ordain Presbyters, 
 more than perfons that are baptifed are 
 commiflioned to baptize others. I am 
 furprifed to read Mr. John Lauder's an- 
 fvver to Mr. Dodwell, in the preface of 
 his book, called The ancient Bijhofs 
 considered, pag. 2 2. 23. thus rcatbning, 
 4t The ordained receive no more power 
 u from their ordainers, than they atfual- 
 u \y intended to give them ; But when 
 u the Popilh Prelates ordained the Paf 
 11 tors, they never intended to give them 
 " the power of Bifhops, but the power 
 41 of Presbyters only ; wherefore they 
 " actually received no more but the 
 
 u power 
 
 »3 
 
C so 3 
 
 f< power of Presbyters, when they 
 u were ordained. 9 ' 
 
 His anfwer is, " We muft not think 
 " that intentions can alter the nature of 
 ** things ; if a petfbn intending to give 
 " half a crown to a beggar, give him 
 " a whole crown, will the intention 
 4 convert the crown into an half 
 u crown." 
 
 To which I anfwer, that fecrct and 
 concealed intentions cannot alter the 
 nature of the thing, if the revealed in- 
 tention of the Church be pronounced 
 in the due form of words; for exam- 
 ple. If a wicked Pneft, in compact 
 with the Devil, intending to baptize in 
 in that name, iliould baptize in the 
 name of Father. Son and Holy Ghofl:, is 
 not the Baptifm valid for all this ? 
 So 1 apply, that the Bifhops, before 
 the reformation, did not ordain Priefts 
 by their fecret wills to give them [he 
 power of ordaining others, but with 
 the revealed will of the Church. In- 
 deed, if a Biihop fhould be in fuch a 
 miitake, forgetting himfelf, and fhou4d 
 ordain one a Prleii, whom he intended 
 but to ordain a Deacon, the perfon or- 
 dained is a Presbyter, notwithlhnding 
 the miltakc, and the Biihop cannot re- 
 tract 
 
[ 91 ] 
 
 tracl the thing that is done; but the 
 perlbn giving a crown to a beggar, 
 when he intended to give but an half 
 crown, may well call back for the o- 
 ther half. But Ejrilcopal confecration 
 was never given to John Knox, either 
 defign'dly or by a miflake : Therefore 
 Mr. Dodwcll's argument (lands where 
 it was. 
 
 But, in the next place, I dill enquire, 
 -Were the fir It reforming Presbyterians 
 the Apofiles their fucceflbrs I And can 
 the prefent incumbents reckon up their 
 fucceffion to thefe Presbyters, after their 
 fetclement in a Superintendency and 
 Book of Common-prayer ? 
 
 Bvo. If Presbyterian government'fhould 
 continue in Scotland, becaufe Presby- 
 ters had the main hand in the reform- 
 ation, (if we may believe them) then 
 why fhould not Epifcop:xy continue 
 in England by the lame way of realb- 
 ning ? And why fhould Presbyterians 
 life all wit and power to extirpate the 
 fuccclhon of the firft reformers in Eng- 
 land. 
 
 As for the moderate fpifcopalian, 
 his opinion in your mixed co.nvcriation, 
 who laid, This opinion of SuccclTion 
 would unchurch all foreign proLcltants, 
 
 which 
 
C 92 3 
 
 which is very uncharitable : I anfvvcr, 
 imo, That Sncceflion is not an opinion, 
 but a certain, fure and lolid principle : 
 Neither is it uncharitable ; for the judg- 
 ment of charity mult not claih with the 
 judgment of certainty and defcretion: 
 For, allow them to be a diffuhve Church, 
 becaufe they own the fundamental ar- 
 ticles of the Creed, ycu can never 
 make them a part oi' the reprefentative 
 Church ; that is, that their teachers 
 are the SucccflTors of the A pottles. 
 Withall you cannot call me uncharitable, 
 becaufe I defend this principle ; for all 
 the charity in the world can not make 
 them to be what they are not : More- 
 over, if their Church minittry be of di- 
 vine right, this will unminilter ten 
 thoufand times more minillers in the 
 Chriftian world than they are in num- 
 ber. Yea, let them take to them the 
 popilh Hierarchy to their Presbyterian 
 Parity, the number of Chriftians under 
 Epiicopacy will exceed them both. 
 Now, to tell me that this gives a handle 
 to the Papitts. and diminifhes the body 
 of the Proteltunts, is not to the purpofe ; 
 for it is not party that we are contend- 
 ing for, but truth : 1 would not have 
 the word Popery made a bugbear nor a 
 
 fear- 
 
C 93 1 
 
 fear-crow, to deter men from acknow- 
 ledging the good things in that Church ; 
 neither do 1 wiih that the word Protef- 
 tancyfhould be made like the great Diana 
 of the Ephefians, to countenance every 
 error that is among thole that proteit 
 againft Papifts. This is not to hold 
 with Papifts againft Proteftants, but to 
 contend for the truth j or to believe that 
 Christ is the Son of God, tho' the 
 Devil laid it ; for would not a Presbyte- 
 rian hold with a Popilh Prieft, disputing 
 againft a Socinian, who denies the divi- 
 nity of Christ ? yea, and with a Turk, 
 maintaining the abfolutc decree, againit 
 an Arminian ? Yea, would he not hold 
 with a Popifli Prieft, defending, againft 
 a Quaker, the (acraments of Baptilm and 
 the Lord's (upper, to the end of the 
 world? And do not the Socinians and 
 the Quakers go under the name of 
 Protectants ? Yea, will not Presbyterians 
 go in with the Jefuits, defending the 
 pTivilcge of the iubjects to dethrone 
 malverling Kings, againft the Protcltants 
 that hold the doctrine of paflive obedi- 
 ence an.t non-rcfiftance f And why may 
 not Kpitcepai Minitters hold with the 
 Papifts in .the principle of Apoftoiical 
 Soccellion ? Now, to tell us that this 
 
 unchurches 
 
[ 94 J 
 
 unchurches the grcatcft part of Proteft.- 
 ants, is not relevant; for they do un- 
 church thcmielves; and k is not rea- 
 fouable to think, that charity or compli* 
 mem can make thenv minifters who 
 have not Apoftolical Succeffion : for we 
 ihould reafon them up to us, and not 
 humour them in their errors ; cfpecially 
 when their fault is a thing that can be 
 helped, as I have already made out. It 
 is the greateft charity in the world to 
 tell men their duty and their danger. 
 It is truly their error that hinders the 
 enlargement of the reformation. I find 
 in the learned and reverend Doctor 
 Thomas Brett, in his account of Church 
 Government and Governors, that in 
 the conference at Hampton-court, Paov 
 38. Monfieur Rogne, who was the 
 French Ambaffador at that time, (aid, 
 " That if the reformed Churches had 
 u kept the fame orders among them 
 " that were in England,, he was afliired 
 u there would he many tboufonds of 
 11 Proteflanis more there than row there 
 u are/' 
 
 So that we fin againft knowledge and 
 confcicnce, to think them right whom 
 we know to be in the wrong. We have 
 a rnaxiin, incommodum non foloit a raw 
 
 mentum ; 
 
C 95" 3 
 
 vientum ; the objection from inconvc* 
 lliency docs not lolve an argument that 
 is true in itfelf. If, at the beginning 
 of the reformation, a Popifh Prieft 
 ibould have argued agaihft Luther and 
 Calvin, thus; What! Is all the Chrif- 
 ■tian wcrld wrong but you, who come 
 without miracles to prove )our being 
 fent ? What Church in the world do 
 you join with, when you skip from us? 
 Would we think this a good argument 
 aigainft the reformation ? Would it be a 
 good argument againft preaching the 
 Gofpel, that there is no falvation but in 
 Jesus Christ, from A els iv. 12. bc- 
 caufc, fome might lay, this would damn 
 the unconverted Jews and Gentiles ? 
 Would this be uncharitable doctrine to 
 preach, that Cheats, Oppreflbrs:, Whore- 
 mongers, and debauched p-erfons, cannot 
 •enter into the Kingdom of Heaven ; 
 whereas it is but to warn them of their 
 danger., and to bring them to their duty? 
 If any, by fraud, tyranny, and many 
 other unjuit ways, has made a great e- 
 ftate, ihall hear a fermon upon repen- 
 tance, and proving that re (tit ut ion of 
 ill-gotten goods is a neceflary ingredient 
 to make repentance acceptable, if he 
 fhould lay with himfelf) reflitwion will 
 
 beggar 
 
C 96 3 
 
 beggar my mimerous family, can tills, 
 I fay, be an apology for the wretched 
 <ufurer not to reftore goods unjuftly 
 purchased? Or will it fave him in the 
 day of Judgment? If we ihould argue 
 againft a rigid Supralapfarian, preaching 
 abfohne reprobation, faying, That this 
 <lo<ftrine of abfolute decrees renders 
 iome dcfperate, and makes others be- 
 come theirown executioners, fhould this 
 prevail with the orthodox Divine, to 
 give over preaching found doclrine, for 
 all the inconveniencies that follow ? So 
 I fay, that if the principle of A poftolical 
 Succeffion be true and neceffary, ten 
 thouiand arguments from inconveni- 
 ency cannot overthrow it. 
 , The authority the moderate Epifco- 
 palian gave in defence of his opinion, 
 was an inftance from Archbiihop Spottsf- 
 wood's Hiftory, that, in King James 
 VPs time, three Scots Divines went to 
 London, and received confecration, 
 without being ordained Deacons or 
 Priells, which Bifliop Andrews pleaded 
 Ihould be done before they were con* 
 fecrated, becaufe their Scots ordinati- 
 on was not by Bifhops. It was anfwer- 
 ed ( as is (aid ) by Archbiihop Bancroft, 
 that ordination, where Bifhops could 
 
 not 
 
C 97 ] 
 
 pot be hail, muft be cflccmcd lawful, 
 as it was the cafe of foreign proteftanr 
 Churches, and this reafon prcvail'd in 
 the meeting. To which I anfwer, ijt, 
 That neither charity nor courrefy, nor 
 ten thoufand authorities, can make 
 wrong right, or falfehood truth : zdly\ 
 That Dr. -Bancroft had a much better rca* 
 Ion, which was the thing that fatkfy'd 
 Bifliop Andrews, and that was, the lefler 
 was included in the greater ; and -that 
 Nectarius was made from a Layman 
 Bifliop of Confhntinople, and Ambrofe 
 Biihop of Milan j fo that a fingle con- 
 fecration makes a BHhop, who by his 
 character is a Prieit and a Deacon. See 
 Heylin's hiftory of Presbytery, Page 
 387. I may add, 3 r//y, That this fame 
 was pretty vmcanonical, and of bad 
 confequence; therefore the Bifhops of 
 England thought it not fit to make this 
 a preparative, and they mended it at 
 the confecration of Biihop Sharp. 
 
 But then they tell us. That Dr. Bur- 
 net, in his Expolition of the 23d article, 
 acknowledges foreign Divines to be 
 true miniflers : To this I anfwer, Firfl, 
 Let him, or any, reconcile that with 
 the neceflity of Apoftolical Succcflion, 
 which I have cited from his Expolition 
 I of 
 
c 98 ] 
 
 of the articles, Page, 27. Bin I -give 
 another anfvver to him out of the Ads 
 of the Apoftles, xii. 2. and Herod kil- 
 led James the brother of John zvith the 
 fword, 3. And be can fe he faw it p leafed 
 the Jezus, he proceeded further to take 
 Peter a/fo. I leave the application to 
 my Reader. But you'll find, in his Ex- 
 pofition of that article, when he has 
 done all he can for that fucceffionlels 
 niiniftry, that his reafon is no better 
 than that of the Papilh, who permit 
 women to baptize in cafe of neceffity. 
 
 The next thing you mention in your 
 mix'd convention, was the Eraftians 
 pleading for magiftrates being the foun- 
 tain of Minilterial or PrieRly power, 
 which is largely and learnedly confu- 
 ted by the Presbyterian authors of the 
 divine right of Church power, in the 
 year 1647, The mediums on which 
 they infift, from Page 82, to 96. are, 
 1. "The keys of the kingdom of 
 " heaven were never given to the civil 
 " magiftrate as fuch ; therefore they 
 • cannot be the proper fubje<5t of Church 
 u government. There was full power of 
 c Church government in the primitive 
 u Church when no magiftrarc was chrif- 
 " tian; yea when all magiftrates were 
 " perfecutors of the Church; and fo far 
 
 " from 
 
r 99 i 
 
 ' from being their nnrfmg Fathers, that 
 1 they were their cruel Butchers ; 
 1 therefore the magiftrate is not the 
 1 proper fubjeit of this power, 3, 
 1 The magtltratical power, really, fpe- 
 ; cifically, and eiTentially, differs from 
 1 ecclefialtical power ; therefore can- 
 ! not be the proper fubjeft of" it. 4. 
 
 • The civil magiftrate is no proper 
 1 Church Officer ; therefore not the 
 
 • proper fubjeft of this power. 5. The 
 ( civil magiltrate, as tiich, is not pro* 
 
 • pcrly fubjcvfl to Chr ist's mediatory 
 1 kingdom j therefore is not the re- 
 ' ceptacle of Church power from 
 1 Christ j for whatfoever ecclefiaiti- 
 ! cal ordinance, office, power, or au- 
 1 thority, Christ gives to men, he 
 
 : gives it as mediator, and head of the 
 
 1 Church, by virtue of his mediatory 
 
 1 office, and for gathering, edifying, 
 
 1 and perfectingof Christ's kingdom, 
 
 1 which is his Church; therefore they 
 
 ' cannot have formal Church power 
 
 : from Christ, 6. Magiftrat.es can- 
 
 ! not be the proper fubjeft of Church 
 
 ( power, becautc of the abfurdities 
 
 that follow thereupon. As 1. Con- 
 
 fulion betwixt the office of the ma- 
 
 giltracy and of the miniitry. 2. It 
 
 1 2 " confounds 
 
C too ] 
 
 1 confounds the Church and Common- 
 1 wealth. 3. Heathens, women, and 
 ' children, might be Church governors. 
 \ <\. The Church government mighc 
 1 be monarchical in one man, &c." 
 
 I add one thought to this, from that 
 earned and pious gentleman Mr. Robert 
 NeUon, his Companion to the fads and 
 feftivals of the Church, Page 558', 
 That tho' the magistrate cannot con- 
 1 fer fpiritual power, yet when the 
 \ Church received the beneSt of in- 
 corporation and protection from the 
 State, the Church was content to 
 fuffer Tome limitations to the exercife 
 of its power, and thought herfelf 
 fufficiemly recompenfed by the ad- 
 vantage that accru'd to her by the 
 incorporation." 
 The forefaid learned Presbyterian au- 
 thors, irom the ioth to the mh chap- 
 ter of the forefaid book, fhew, that thd 
 community, or body of the faithful, 
 cannot be the receptacle of Church 
 power. 
 
 '• 1 « Becaufc they haveo.o commiflion 
 "from Christ. 2. No warrant for the 
 " exercife of the a&ual execution of 
 " the power of the keys. 3. They 
 #< have no promife of the fpirit ol the 
 
 " mini! try, 
 
C ioi ] 
 u miniftry, and gifts to that end. 4. 
 u They arc nowhere in (cripturecoun- 
 
 11 ted Church governors. 5. Several 
 " absurdities follow from making them 
 u Church governors. As 1 . It lays a 
 " foundation for the Brownilts confuted 
 " democracy, and abhorcd anarchy ; 
 " for if every member of the body be 
 ■ an officer, where is the organical 
 u body: and, If all be governors, 
 " where are the governed \ If all be 
 M eyes, where are the feet: and, if 
 * there be none governed, where is 
 il government. 2. Hereby the com- 
 " munity or body of the faithful, even 
 t( the meanelt member, are veiled 
 "from Christ with full power and 
 f* authority, actually to difcharge and 
 " execute all acts of order and jnrif. 
 " di&ion, without exception ; for cx- 
 ? ample, to preach the word authori- . 
 11 tatively, dilpehfe Sacraments, to or- 
 " dain officers, admoniih offenders, ex* 
 u communicate the obflinateand incor- 
 " rigiblc, and to abfolve penitents " 
 
 u 3. An abfurdity cited from Mr. 
 « Bailhe, Chap. 9. P. 1 o3. his DiiTuafive 
 " again ft Independents, is, That pco- 
 " pie will be extremely unfitted for, 
 u and unwarrantably taken from their 
 I 2 " fevcr.il 
 
[ 102 ] 
 
 u feveral duties, that lye upon them, 
 ,% in. point of confcience, to diicharge in 
 " their general and particular callings, 
 " in fpiritual and fecular matters, on 
 " the Lord's day, and on their own 
 " days." 
 
 M 4. The community of the faithful 
 " being accounted the proper (ubject 
 * of the power of the keys, has not 
 " only power to elect, but alfo to or- 
 u dain their own paftors and teachers. 
 
 " Their affirmative inference is, j 
 11 That Christ's own officers are the I 
 u proper receptacle "bf Church power, | 
 11 Chap. 11. from Page 180, to Page ] 
 " 195. I need not abridge their proofs, 
 " for there, and in their Appendix, 
 4i in anfwer to feme queries from the 
 4i Independents, at the end of that book, 
 u they ihew that the rriiniftry came, and 
 " mult come, in a feries of Succeflion 
 f< from the Apodles, and that ordinati- 
 u on is valid, tho' it come from the 
 " Papii'is." 
 
 As to the laft account you give of the 
 papiu, in your promifenous company, 
 who pcfitiveiy aliened, that there was 
 no Apoilplical Succeffion to be had in 
 any protectant Church whatfoever, and 
 that the Pricfthood of England, that 
 
 laid 
 
r '°3 .1 . 
 
 laid the greatcft claim to it, is bur a mere 
 Usurpation. 
 
 I aufwer, ?. That this is grounded 
 upon a falfehood and calumny, pur- 
 po(ely invented to bring contempt 
 upon the reformation ,• which is, that 
 fo many, as Parker, Sandys, Grindal, 
 Horn, Juel, Scorie, 2>cc. went to a tavern 
 at the fign of the Naig-head in Cheap- 
 lide, a ltreet in London, and ordained 
 one another. This is proven, by Francis 
 Maibn and Bilhop Bramhall, to be a 
 manifeit untruth ; for they produced 
 the public regilters, which Archbifhop 
 Abbot caufed publifh, and flievv to fome 
 Priefts, that made a handle of this 
 figment, to delude their Dilciples and 
 to gain Profeiytes. 
 
 2. I anfwer, That in Queen Mary of 
 England's days, Bonner Bilhop of Lon» 
 don, Nicolas Heath Archbiihop of York* 
 and Thurlby Bifnop of Ely, had no or- 
 dination but by protectant Biihops ; 
 and if this was invalid, the Prieits or- 
 dained by them were no Priefts, and 
 could not confecrate the Holt. And if 
 this be true, then the worihip of the 
 Holt at that time was idolatrous. 
 
 3. I find other Papifts, fuch as Cud- 
 femius, cited by Doctor trideaux. in 
 
 his 
 
[ io4 ] 
 
 his fafci cuius controverfiarinn, Pag. 246. 
 printed at Oxford in 1649, acknow- 
 ledge, that the Ordination and Sue- 
 ceffion of the Englilh Church is both 
 catholic and valid j only that it is fchif- 
 raaticai. 
 
 But I find, that the perfon who en- 
 deavours to prove the invalidity of the 
 orders of the Church of England, infifls 
 upon other topicks, which is very folid- 
 ly confuted by the learned Doctor 
 Gilbert Burnet, in his Vindication of the 
 ordination of the Church of England, 
 printed anno 1677. His argument is, 
 That the minHters of the Church of 
 England are not Prieiis, becaufe their 
 form of ordination is defective ; which 
 is thus : 
 
 Receive the Holy Ghojl : whofe fins 
 thou forgivefl, they are forgiven, whafe. 
 fins th'Ai retained they are retained ; and 
 be thou a faithful difpenfer of the word 
 of GOD \ and his holy Sacraments, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghoft. Amen. After 
 which, the Bifhop delivers a bible to 
 him, faying, " Take thou authority to 
 " f reach the word, and minijler the holy 
 u Sacraments in the congregation where 
 " thou jhak be fo af pointed," 
 
 from 
 
C I** J 
 
 From this he fubfumes, " That by 
 
 • the form of ordination, the power 
 
 * of conlecrating the Sacrament of 
 " Christ's Body and Blood, is not gi- 
 " ven, the words only importing a 
 " power to difpenfe the Sacraments, 
 H which any Deacon may do.^ 
 
 To which it is anfvvcred, That, if 
 our form be the fame in which Christ 
 ordained his Apoftles, we may be very 
 well fatisfy'd that it is good and fuffici- 
 ent : And that it is fo, we read, St. 
 John xx. 22. Befides, it is anfvvcred to 
 the Papifls, that we judge not any 
 form ib eilential as to annul all ordina- 
 tions fiiiat have been made by any o- 
 ther ; for then we fliould condemn the 
 ordination both of the primitive Church- 
 es, and of the eattern Churches at this 
 day. 
 
 They cannot but acknowledge, that 
 the form of giving orders ill their 
 Churches, was notinlututedbyCHR is r, 
 nor received in the Church for divers 
 ages, which made Pope Innocent lay, 
 " That the forms of ordination were 
 " ordered and invented by the Church, 
 11 and were therefore to be obferved ; 
 " otherwife ic was fu flick in in giving 
 " orders, to fay, be thouaBilhop, or, 
 
 " be 
 
[ lo6 1 
 
 * be thou a Prieft. Dr. Burnet, Page 2 2 " 
 So that if this be an effential defeft 
 in the Engitfh ordination, then there 
 were no true Priefts in the primitive 
 Church for divers ages, nor at this day 
 in the Greek Church ; yet neither of 
 thefe can be acknowledged by the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 Page 40. Heihews, that the power 
 of confecrating the Sacraments, is very 
 fully and formally given in our ordina- 
 tion, in thefe words, " Be thou a faith- 
 " ful difpenfer of the word of God, and 
 u of his holy Sacrament. " And that 
 they bewray great inconiideration, that 
 think the word difpenfing,. is barely the 
 distributing of the facrament, which a 
 Deacon may do j for difpenfing is more 
 than distributing ; and it fignifies to ad- 
 minifter the facrament by virtue of this 
 office, as a Steward of the myfteriesof 
 God. 1 Cor. far. 1. And that this is 
 the true meaning, appears from com- 
 mon ufe, which makes it more than 
 barely to diltribute, and from the de- 
 clared meaning of thole who ufe it, 
 which is the only rule to judge of $li 
 doubtful expreffions. 
 
 A iecond objection is, That the 
 Church of England has no other than 
 
C I ©7 ] 
 
 a Parliamentary power. It is anfwered, 
 that they who compiled the Liturgy 
 and Ordinal, had no other power that 
 way than what Chriftian Princes did 
 give before in the like cafes ; aud it is 
 known how far the civil magiftrate 
 may make laws, and give commands 
 about facrcd things. It is known what 
 orders David and Solomon, Jehofaphar, 
 Hezekiah and Jofiah, gave in fuch cafes, 
 I Chron. xxiii. 6. xxiv. 19. 1 Kings 
 ii. 27. 2 Chron. xvii. 7, 8, 9. xxix. 
 
 A third objeftion is, That we have 
 our orders from thofe that were not 
 Bifhops, becaufe they have no more 
 power than the fir ft proteftant Arch- 
 oilhop of Canterbury Matthew Parker 
 had, who was the chief, and from whom 
 (as it were the conduit of all) jurifdic- 
 tion was derived to the reft. That he 
 had no fuch power and jurifdiction the 
 Papifts prove ; becaufe they that con- 
 firmed and confecrated him, had no 
 fuch power to confer upon him of 
 themfclves ; to wit : 
 
 William Barlow Bifliop of Bath and 
 Wells, afterwards elect of Chichcfter ; 
 John Scorie late of Chichefter, now e- 
 left cf Hereford ; Miles Coverdale of 
 
 Exeter, 
 
t 108 ] 
 Exeter,' and John Hodgfkins Bifltop 
 Suffragan ; " Who were none of" them 
 " a dual Bifliops of any See, but two 
 " elect only; and another quondam 
 " only; and fo had no actual jurifdic- 
 " tion at all ; the fourth only Suffragan 
 *' to Canterbury, and who had nojurif- 
 " diction but what he had from the 
 " Archbifhop of Canterbury, much lefs, 
 " authority to give him jurifdiftion o- 
 " ver himfelf, and all the Bifhops in 
 " the land; as the other three had no 
 " power at all to give him, much lets 
 " fo tranfcendent an one; becaufe none 
 " can give what he has not." 
 
 To which I anfvver, That the very 
 objection from a Popifn champion's pen, 
 is enough to juftify the ordinations of 
 the Church of England : But he is dif- 
 ingenuous in frying, that Matthew Par- 
 ker was the firft proteftant Archbifhop 
 of Canterbury; for Thomas Cranmer 
 was 26 years before him, and in his 
 time confecrations and ordinations were 
 given to thofe that turned Popifh in 
 Queen Mary's days, and eiteemed 
 valid, 
 
 2. To fay that none can inflall a 
 
 Biihop in a jurifdi&ion above himfelf 
 
 is falfe j for, Who inverts the Popes 
 
 with 
 
C . I0 . 9 *J 
 
 with their jurifdielion ? Do not the 
 Cardinals do ir, and arc they not as 
 much the Pope's Suffragans as Hodg- 
 flairs was Canterbury's ? 
 
 3. Jf he infills upon the twoBifhops 
 being clcJt to other Sees, and that one 
 of them had no See at all, let me aflc, l\\ 
 When St. Athanafias was baniihed out 
 of Alexandria, and others thruft in bis 
 place ; or when Liberius was baniihed 
 out of Rome, and F:elix (whom they 
 acknowledge a righteous Biihop) put 
 in his place ; they could have ordained 
 Pricfts and Bilhops, had rhele orders 
 been null, becaufe they were violently 
 thruft out of their Sees? Certainly per- 
 lecution and violence rather makes the 
 glory of eccleiiaftical functions fhine 
 more brightly, but cannot be imagined 
 to ftrip them of their character, and to 
 difable them from exercifmg the office 
 of their funftion. P. 78. 
 
 And to tell us that thefe Bifhops had 
 not power from Jesus Christ, but 
 from the Queen and Parliament, is falfe 
 and trifling; for they gave but the ci- 
 vil Sanction, legal Security and Pro- 
 tection, to thofe that had their power 
 from Christ by Apoftolical Succef- 
 fion : For, does it annul the ordinations 
 K of 
 
I no 3 
 
 of the Gallican Church, that it did fub- 
 mit to the Anti-popes at Avignon ? 
 Does it annul the ordination of the eaft- 
 crn Churches, that the Patriarch of Con- 
 flantinople is inftalled by an order from 
 the Grand Signior I P. 90. 
 
 You fee, Sir, four Biihops acknow- 
 ledged by the Papifts to be in the days 
 of Queen Elizabeth, and they being 
 Biihops., had power of conferring or- 
 ders by Apoftolical Succeffion. I add 
 to this, that the Papifts, efpecially the 
 Jefuits, are as great enemies to Epifco- 
 pacy, particularly the primitive and 
 proteftant Prelacy, as the Presbyterians 
 and other Seflarians can be j for they 
 would have all the power fwallow'd up 
 into the Popedom. I read a paffage of 
 a letter out of the book, called, Foxes 
 and Firebrands Part II. P. 1 1 . and ci- 
 ted by Dr. Brett, P. 119. in a letter 
 from a Popifh miflionary in the days of 
 King Edward, rehearfed' at large by 
 the faid Doctor, fpeaking of the Protel- 
 tants abroad, with a defign to make Ed- 
 ward and his heirs their chief defender; 
 and to have Biihops as well as in Eng- 
 land, " Which, (fays he) if it come to 
 H pafs that Heretick Biihops be fo near, 
 " andfpread abroad, Rome and the Cler* 
 " gy utterly fall," 
 
 Zo 
 
[ III ] 
 
 So you find what a grofs miftake they 
 are in that call our protcftant Epifco- 
 pacy Popifh, which the Papacy endea- 
 vours to ruin, and which itfelf would 
 ruin the Papacy, if it had fuch footing 
 abroad as it has in Britain and Ireland- 
 Sir, I add no more, but that I con- 
 tinue 
 
 Your Mod Humble Servant, &c. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Proving that Deifls hate Epifcopacy, 
 as being the Support of the Cbrijliaii 
 Religion. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 told you in my laft, that though the 
 Papifts have preferved the Apofto- 
 lical Succeffion, yet they have limited 
 the Primitive fcpifcopacy too much, 
 and are the preatcft enemies to the Pro- 
 tcftant Prelacy ; otherwife the Refor- 
 mation might have had greater footing 
 through Cliriftendom before this time 
 of day. 1 mult now let you know, that 
 K 2 the 
 
[ It* 1 
 
 the Delfts, who are the greateft erre- 
 raies in the world to the Chriitian Re- 
 ligion, cannot get their caufe wrought 
 in a more effectual way, than by un- 
 dermining the Hierarchy. An excel- 
 lent inftance I have out of the Turkifh 
 Spy : The author is a perfon that ap- 
 pears a great bigot for the Alcoran, yet 
 hates all revealed Religions alike : Vol. 
 IL P. 1 86. where he ihews, that there 
 is no fubvcrting of Chriflianity, till E~ 
 pifcopacy is firlt abolifhed. 
 
 " The Chriftian Church (fays he) 
 " feems to be a (lately building, where- 
 " of Prelacy is the corner-ftone ; if 
 " this were removed all would fall to 
 u the ground. That which they call 
 " the Hierarchy, if it could once be 
 " diffolved, or pulled down, we fhould 
 " foon fee all Chriftendom laki in ruins. 
 " This Hierarchy is a gradual fubordi- 
 " nation of Archbifhops, Biihops, and 
 " Prielts ; the inferior depending u- 
 " pon the fuperior, and all deriving 
 " their orders and dignities from their 
 " chief Patriarchs. Thefe are the links 
 u which compofe that chain that fattens 
 u Chriftendom together : Were this 
 " once broke, the united inrereft of 
 a Europe would icon fall to pieces. 
 
 " The 
 
C "3 ] . 
 
 " The way mufl be by beginning at the 
 u lowcrmoft link ; could but the Priefts 
 " be rendered independent on the Bif- 
 u hops, and on each other, it would be 
 u a fair ftcp to the difmantling of the 
 " out-works, thefc Prielts drawing an 
 " infinite number of peopleafter them ; 
 " as it is apparent in Geneva, Holland, 
 M Swifterland, and other places, where 
 u they have quite abolifhed the order 
 " and authority of Bilhops : And it is 
 " obfervable, that none of thefc fore - 
 u mentioned countries, fince that time, 
 11 have ever been inftrumental in op- 
 € pofing the victorious arms of the Ot« 
 (i toman Empire; as if, with the down- 
 " fall of Epiicopacy, the charm were 
 a diffipated, which had for fbme ages 
 11 precipitated thefe nations (among o- 
 " thers), to a raih and oblHnate refinance 
 u of that force, which is deltineci by 
 u fate to conquer and reform the world. 
 " Weigh well this thought, and thou 
 u wilt find that the order of Bilhops is 
 " cfiential and neceflary to the good cf- 
 C( tate of Chriftcndom 5 And that the 
 '• only way for the MufTulmans to un- 
 " dermine all Europe, will be to (up 
 " plant this order, and introduce an 
 " ecclefialttcal independency among 
 K 3 the 
 
[ >M ] 
 " the Priefts, by which means every 
 " one fhall alRime to himfelf, not on- 
 *' ly his proper fragment of the torn 
 dignity, but the whole fundamental 
 power of a Bifliop, taking upon him 
 to do thefe offices, which, before, 
 it was not accounted lawful for any 
 but a mitred head to perform. Hence 
 in time will follow innumerable in- 
 conveniencies, diftaftes and broils; 
 and perhaps as many Schilms as there 
 are particular Priefts to head them : 
 Since every one will be apt to think 
 himfelf capable of dilating to all the 
 rell, and judge it below him to re- 
 ceive the law from any. Thus will 
 there be a clear ftage for ambition, 
 avarice and lull, to act their pans on; 
 and when, by the craft of defigning 
 u men, the fuperflition of bigots, and 
 eg the eaiinefs of the credulous, the 
 u greateft part fhall be fodivided, that 
 u it will be difficult to find two men 
 * of the fame mind in articles of faith ; 
 H it will then be eafy, either by the in- 
 H telligible reafons of the Alcoran, or 
 11 the "more cogent arguments of the 
 *' fword, to plant the true and undefiled 
 u faith in thefe countries." Dr. Brett, 
 
 his 
 
[ It* ] 
 
 his Account of the Ancient Govern- 
 ment, P. 96, £mc. 
 
 Sir, This letter deferves our (efious con- 
 fideration ; for the more you fliake off 
 
 Epilcopaey the more near you come to 
 Turcilm; for, what a prodigious (warm of 
 monftrous |Hcreiles were broached in 
 England after the revolution of 1 64 t, 
 Pagitt's Hereliography, and Edwards's 
 Gangrena, abundantly reftif y : And there 
 was a defign then fet on foot to enlarge 
 the Proteftant intereit, and that was by 
 joining in communion with the Turks, 
 u Becaufc," laid the Projectors, " They 
 14 were Orthodox in the main : For 
 il the} : believed in one God; theylook- 
 4< ed on Christ as a great Prophet ; 
 lt they owned the abfolute decrees, and 
 " they hated Popery." This you may 
 •read in feveral pamphlets of the learn- 
 ed Dr. Lefly, and particularly in his 
 Rehearfals. In fhort then confider that 
 the Papifts, Presbyterians and Deifts, 
 efpecially the lad two, are the greatcft 
 enemies to Epifcopacy j and fo 1 bid 
 you FareweU 
 
 LETTER 
 
t 116 ] 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Shewing the Defence of Epifcopacy, 
 
 from the pen ofaprofefed Enemy to 
 
 the Efablijhed Church ^England. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 THE reverend and learned Dr. 
 Brett, P 82, 83, &c. has furnifh- 
 ed rnc with a furpriling paflage of a 
 part of a gentleman's fpeech, in the 
 Houfe of Commons, upon that which 
 was commonly called. The Root and 
 Branch bill ; which was entitled, An 
 a ft for the utter aboltfnng of all Archbi- 
 Jhops, B 7/7; ops, their Chancellors and Com- 
 miffaries, Deans, Deacons and Chapters, 
 Archdeacons, Prebendaries, Canons, and 
 all their Under officers* Sir E. D's Col< 
 leftion of Speeches, P. 63. 
 
 His 
 
[ H7 1 
 
 His words arc thefe, ibid. P. 127. 
 
 " They who deny that ever any fuch 
 u Bifhops, (that is, Biihops prefiding 
 l( over Presbyters) were in the beft and 
 11 purefl times, 1 intreat fomc one of 
 " them (if any fuch be here) to (land 
 " up and Jhew me, teach me, how I 
 " may prove, that there never was an 
 " Alexander at Maccdon, or a Julius 
 " Cxfar, or a William the conqueror in 
 
 * the world. For, Sir, to me as plain it 
 'Ms, that Bilhops-prefidcnt have been 
 " the confhint, permanent, and perpc- 
 
 * tual governors of the Church of God 
 
 * in all ages. And this being matter 
 " of fac), I do hope that hiftorical 
 " proof will be lufficicnt adequate 
 il proof in that, which in its fa& is 
 <l matter of hiftory ; but proofs here 
 
 * are fo manifold and clear, that I 
 il borrow the free and true affertion of 
 l< a worthy and learned gentleman, (Sir 
 ,l Thomas Afton's Review of Epiico- 
 u pacy, P. 1.). It may be thought -want 
 " of will rather than want of light, which 
 " makes men deny the antiquity of Bijbofs 
 " in the primitive times. u I herefore 
 
 f nnfwcr not me, but anfwer Ignatius, 
 " antwer Clemens, Tertullian, Ireneus ; 
 f 1 nay anfwer the whole undifputcd con- 
 currence 
 
[ 118 J 
 
 " currence of the Afian, the European,. 
 " and the African Churches, all ages, 
 " all places, all pcrfons : Anfwer, I 
 * fay, all thefe, or do as I do, fubmic 
 " to the fufficient evidence of a truth." 
 " Again, P. 139. he fays, " Parity of 
 u degrees in Church Government hath 
 u no foundation in holy fcripture, and 
 " is as abfonous to reaion as parity m a 
 u (late or family. Indeed it is a fancy, 
 u a dream, a mere non-entity j it neither 
 11 hath nor never had a being. If ir be 
 41 any thing, it is abfolute Anarchifm, 
 " and that is nothing; for privation of 
 *'• government is not a government." 
 " And then again he Ihews, P. 144. 
 u That a Bifhop's office was perpetual, 
 14 not temporary, in thefe words : " Bur, 
 " Sir, I have heard fome among us fay, 
 f* if then we muft have a Bifhop, let 
 " him be like a pilot, only for a voy- 
 l< age ; let him be like yourfelf, a 
 a fpeaker only for a Parliament. But 
 *f I do affirm, ab initiation fuit Jic. Your 
 " Bifhop of old was not occafional, fro 
 # re nata, and immediately degraded j 
 u nothing fo 5 but continued a fixed, 
 a conitant, perpetual moderator and 
 " prefident for life, unlefs outed for 
 u his own demerits V p 
 
 What 
 
C " 9 ] 
 
 What but demonftrative truth could 
 have extorted fuch a fpcech from a de- 
 clared enemy to all the Bilhops in Eng- 
 land, andaprofefe'dfoe to the Hierarchy. 
 I conclude then from Jeremiah vi. i6. 
 Ask for the old paths ; where is the <Jood 
 way, and zualk therein, and ye (hall find 
 reft for your fouls : But they fid, we will 
 not walk therein. 
 
 Ad 
 
 leu. 
 
 T e s t i m onies of F \ither j 9 and of 
 Mr. Calvin, of the Power and 
 Siicccffion o/^Bifhops. 
 
 I Need not cite paffages from St. Ig- 
 natius ; for it were almoft to tran- 
 fcribe more than the half of his gen- 
 uine Epiftles, to prove the diftinftion 
 betwixt Bifiiops, Presbyters, and Deacons. 
 Our Lord, whole precepts we ought 
 to revere and obferve, fettling the hon- 
 our of the Bifliop, and the ftate of the 
 Church, fpeaks thus in the Gofpel, and 
 fays unto Peter, I fay unto thee, thou art 
 
 Peter, 
 
C 120 ] 
 
 Peter, and upon this Rock I 'will but Id my 
 Church, and the gates of Hell Jhall not 
 -prevail againfl it ; and unto thee will I 
 ■give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 and whatfoever thou fh alt bind on Earth, 
 jhall be bound in Heave //, and zvhatfoever 
 thou (halt loofe on Earth, pall be loofd in 
 Heaven. From thence forwards the 
 ordination of Bilhops, and the ftate of 
 the Church, has continu'd through all 
 the changes of times and Succeffions, 
 (o as that the Church is founded upon 
 the Bilhops, and every aft of the 
 Church is governed by them, who are 
 its Prelates. Cyp. Efifi. 27. 
 
 St. Augiijline, in his commentary 
 on Pfal. xlv. 17. Inftead of thy Fathers 
 thou foalt have Children, zvhom thou may eft 
 make Princes in all lands; has thefe, 
 words ; il What is the meaning of this, 
 <; Inftead of thy fathers thou {halt have 
 "children? The ApofUes were fent 
 " as fathers : Inftead of the Apoftles., 
 *' fons are born to thee j they are made 
 <■ Billiops : For from whence are 
 " thefe Bilhops born that are now 
 " in the world ? The Church herfelf 
 " calls them Fathers ; fhe bare them, 
 " fhe has placed them in the feats of 
 " the Fathers : Do not then think thy- 
 
 " felf 
 
[ t« .1 
 
 4< felf -deferred, becaufe thou Iceft not 
 ff Peter, becaufe thou fceft not Paul, 
 " becaufe thou feed: not thofc by whom 
 " thou wait born ; out of thine own 
 " offspring thou had obtained a f'atl'Cr- 
 " hood: Inltead of thy Fathers, Sons 
 " are born to thee: Thou fhalt make 
 " them Princes over all the earth. 
 
 " What Afaron-ztid his fbns, and the 
 il Levites did in the Temple, this the 
 " Bifliops, Pritfts and Deacons claim to 
 <; themlelves in the Church: That we 
 " may know that the Apoflolical tra- 
 li ditions were taken from the Old Tcfc 
 Cl tament, and that the fafcty of the 
 " Church depends en the dignity of the 
 u High Pricfts, to whom, if a greater 
 14 and more eminent power was not 
 " given, there would be as manySchiims 
 " as Prie(ts." Jerome's tpidlc to Eva- 
 grins. 
 
 f But do you think it fufficknn to 
 " fay, that they are Orthodox and (bund 
 u in faith ? Suppofe they arc, yet (till 
 11 their ordination is null and invalid j 
 " and then what can their faith or any 
 " thing olfe fignify ; Chriitians ought 
 
 as -earrceilly <to contend for valui Ofci- 
 
 <l nation, as they ought to do for their 
 
 " very faith itfclf j for if it be ijjgful 
 
 L "* or 
 
 <t 
 
'" fo*r every pretender to confeerate, 
 " and make themfelves Priefts, then 
 V farewel Altar, fare w el Church and 
 " Prieithood too." St. CkryfoJL lorn. 3. 
 Pave 822. Edil.SaviI. 
 
 u I bad always a great reverence 
 " for the Bifhops of your Church, to 
 11 whom 1 gave inward reverence as 
 11 as well as outward refpetf:, and would 
 44 gladly have ferved them in fettling of 
 44 the Engliili Church ; and my judg- 
 li merit is, if we may have fuch an 
 "" Hierarchy, in which the Bifhops Co 
 *' cxcell others, that they refule not 
 
 * fubjeclion to Chiust, but would 
 " depend upon him as their only head, 
 
 * and refer themfelves to bim-$ in which 
 u they prelerve brotherly communion 
 u among themfelves ; that they are u- 
 " nited by nothing more than the truth ; 
 il in which cafe I denounce him wor- 
 M thy of all curies, who does not rib- 
 u ferve fuch an Hierarchy with all re- 
 " verence and obedience: And I would 
 << to r GoD fuch a Su-cccffio^n had con- 
 << tinned to this day; it fhould eafily 
 " have obtained from us the obedience 
 
 * that it deferves. I do account the 
 "government by Archbifhopsa moder- 
 " ate honour, as being within the com- 
 
 pafs ; 
 
C '=3 ] 
 
 li pafs of a man's power to execute, 
 
 * which the Pope's pretended authority 
 11 is not ; and the antient Church did 
 
 * appoint Patriarchs and Primates in 
 " every province, as a bond co unite 
 " Bifhops in concord/' Calvhtis anfwtr 
 to Mr. Cartwrights reprefcntation of 
 drcbbi(hop s and Bijhofs. 
 
 From the Spirit of Corah, Dathan, 
 w\Abiram } Good Lord deliver us; amen, 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 L 2 
 
T H E 
 
 SECOND PART 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SUCCESSION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRIESTHOOD 
 
 I N T H E 
 
 Old and New Testament. 
 
 O R, 
 
 A Challenge to all that want Epif* 
 copal Ordination, to prove the 
 Validity of their Minifterial Arts. 
 
 By ROBERT CA LD E #, M.A. Late. 
 resbyter 
 Scotland. 
 
 Presbyter of the Suffering Church of 
 
 Jeremiah, xxiii. 31. 
 
 Behold I am again ft them that prophetic falfc dreams, faith 
 the Lord, and do tell them, and caufc my people to err by 
 their lies, and by their lightnefs; yet I fcQC them not, 
 nor commmded them: Therefore they null nqt profit 
 this people, at all, faith the Lord. 
 
 St. John x. 1. 
 
 Verily, Verily, I fry onto you, he that enrereth not by the 
 door into the fheep fold, but climbcth up Tome other way, 
 tlie fame is a Thief and a Robber. 
 
 Would to Goi fitch a Succeffnn had continued to this day ; it 
 \uvdd tafilf h.ive obtained from us the obed'ence that it 
 defer ves. Calv. de neceif. Reior. Purr 1. P. 96. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 Printed for J. Wilson, Bookfellcr in th e 
 Exchange. 
 
TO THE 
 
 READER- 
 
 ]F the Apcftolical Sfaccdlian be the 
 foundation of the Goipcl Miniltry 
 to the end of the world, it naturally 
 follows, that they who cannot prove 
 their Miniftry by this rule and Itandard, 
 cannot be Minilters of Jfsus Christ, 
 who promifed to be with the ApolHcs, 
 and their fuccedors to the end of the 
 world : Coniequently their minilterial 
 adts m uft be null and void, and they 
 cannot profit the people, being but 
 Ufurpers of the Sacred Priejlhood, tho' 
 they fhjaiald write tcru-thoufcnd volumes, 
 and ^bjeft ten thouftnd inconveniencies 
 againft-our principles, iuch as unchur- 
 ching all that want this Succeilion. It is 
 reafonabiy prefumed, that the govern- 
 ment that has laded always in the 
 Church, is the iame that was eftahlilhed 
 by our Saviour, and that which is not 
 lb old as an hundred chiefs of kindred 
 in Scotland, by fome two, fome three 
 hundred of years and upwards, cannot 
 be the government of Christ's inlli- 
 tution. Ver, fuch is the corruption of 
 mankind, that when picture and pro- 
 fit 
 
\ cxxviii \] 
 
 fit has debauched the confcience, and 
 got the attendant over reafon, the fu- 
 preme faculty of the foul, and makes 
 it a flave to intereft againd duty, it will 
 find a thoufand fhifts and fubterfugcs to 
 defend the caufe it has efpou(ed ; 
 fo Advocates, when they plead the 
 caufe of Criminals, by many quirks and 
 tricks in law, endeavour to bring the 
 Pannels off. It is a fad matter that this 
 fhould be among Chriilians, who are all 
 bound to truth and finceruy ; but it 
 falls out ( according to the Proverb ), 
 Shew me the man anjd I ihall fhew you 
 the law : So fhew them worldy inter- 
 eft, and they will find out fcripiure. 
 So we may fay, new kings new laws : 
 We may add, new models of Church 
 government, new glofTes andnew fenfes 
 upon fcripture, according to the change- 
 able fafhion of the times. Mr. Lacie, 
 a ringleader of the Camiiars in England, 
 being about to fet off' his married wife, 
 and to take another, pretended a call 
 from the Spirit to ratify the deed ; yea, 
 and found fcripture for it, in Hof. i. 2. 
 Go, take unto tkee a tuije of zu/:oredojns. 
 Nothing fo ridiculous or abfurd but may 
 be rendered probable by argument or 
 reafon. There was never a damnable 
 
 Hcrefy 
 
f\ cxxix ] 
 
 Hcrefy but got fome follower?. I in- 
 stance the Cainians in the fecond cen- 
 tury, called after Cain r who held, that 
 the way to be faved was to fatisfy their 
 lulls: They compoled a book which they 
 called St. Paul's Afcenfion to Heaven, 
 which they filled with blafphemies, and 
 gave out, that thefe were the revelations 
 made to him, when he was rapt up 
 to the third Heavens. They had a 
 great veneration for Cain, Corah, Datkan 
 and slbiram, the Sodomites, and parti- 
 cularly, for Judas, becaufe his treach- 
 ery occafioned the murder of Jesus 
 Christ. Ephraim Pagit's Herefiogra- 
 phy gives an account of moft abominable 
 Herefies that broke forth in Oliver 
 CromwePs days, to the great fcandal of 
 Chriftianity. The Independents, in 1647, 
 in their warm difputes with the Pres- 
 byterians, gave the fame names to them 
 which Presbyterians gave to the Biihops 
 and the Clergy, to wit, Brats of . Anti- 
 chrift, the whore of Babylon, the Beuit, 
 and the Man of Sin: And the Enthu- 
 fiaits, who thought that every man and 
 woman among them was taught of God, 
 gave out, that the order of minifters 
 was juft what the Independents called 
 the Presbyterians. -And the truth is, 
 
 Lay 
 
r cxxx 
 
 Lay afide the practice of the univerfal: 
 Church, ancient and modern, and let- 
 men put their own fcnfe on the fcrip- 
 tures-, that which the Tremblers pro. 
 duced for themfelves by the found of 
 the letter,. was, and ftill.is, more taking* 
 than all the fcriptures which the other 
 two parties produced for thcmtelves. 
 For example, That there was no need 
 of minifters in the.gofpel days : That 
 the faints fhould be all taught of God ; 
 for the prophefies were to be fulfilled; 
 That the Spirit was to be poured out 
 on all flefh ; That all God's people 
 were Prielts, Rev. i* 6.. 
 
 I have fhewed in the Preface to the 
 firft part of the Suc'ceffion to the Prieft> 
 hood, feveral methods that our enemies 
 take to imppfe upon their followers : as 
 I. To call Epifcopacy. Popery. 2. Their 
 confidence in giving out, that the advo- 
 vocates for Epifcopacy make a fairer 
 ihow from antiquity than from cano- 
 nical fcripture. 3. That Biihop and 
 Presbyter is all one in Icripture. 4. 
 That mens different opinions about E- 
 piicopacy, is an argument that there is 
 no foundation for it. 5 That they 
 never notice the anlwers given to their 
 arguments* 6. That they argue from 
 
 -an 
 
[ exaxi ] 
 
 -en acccflory againft the principal ; and 
 from circumftances againft (ubftance. 
 7. That they never offer to prove their 
 own miniftry. There can be no argil* 
 ; ing, fays a moraiift, with a man that is ob- 
 ftinate in his opinion ; for when he has 
 once contradicted you, his mind is bar- 
 red up againft all light; none but man- 
 ly fouls can unfay what they have laic', 
 and forfake an error when they have 
 found themfelvcs in the wronp. 
 
 It is not every one that has the hu- 
 mility of St Anguiline, who is famous 
 for his retractions, and would not ftand 
 againft light, which fome reckon to be 
 -a fin againft the Holy Ghoft; hearing 
 they will not hear, and feeing they will 
 •not fee- Hcrefy^and Schifm are works of 
 the fleih, according to the Apoftle St. 
 Paul, and not an error of the judgment 
 only j for it is obferved, that Herefy and 
 Schifm bred: forth upon the profpec/t 
 of (ome worldly defign. 
 
 I charge the party Ideal with as guil- 
 ty of abuling, perverting, and mifap- 
 plying the holy fcriptures. It is in the 
 power of their teachers, to make mul- 
 titudes of the fimpler fort abhor the 
 obfervation of Chrtftmas, by telling, 
 from St. Luk$ ii. 8. That Christ's 
 
 nativity 
 
cxxxii 
 nativity could not be in the winter*' i 
 time, becaufe the fhepherds were keep- 
 ing their flocks at night ; as if all conn- 
 tries were alike, or as if fhepherds did 
 not io in colder countries. They feek 
 no more againft Biftiops gowns or ca- 
 nonical garbs, than chat the Pharifees 
 wore long robes ; when it is evident, that 
 it was pride, covetoufnefs and hypocri- 
 ly, that our Saviour charged them with, 
 and not their garbs. Paul left a cloak 
 at Troas, therefore he was no Bifhop, 
 is enough to deceive the poor people ; 
 but it is all one if it ferve a turn. Mr. 
 Richard Hollingworth, in his Modeft 
 Plea for the Church of England, P. 78U 
 &c, mentions, in the time of the long 
 parliament, feveral diihoneft: pcrverfions 
 of fcripture, as the agreement be- 
 twixt the Garlick and Onions of Egypt, 
 and the ceremonies of the Church of 
 England, it were eafy to fill feveral 
 fheets to this purpcfc,* but I /hall men- 
 tion ibme few, whereby they general- 
 ly abnfe the people in preaching and in 
 printing : As, 
 
 1. St. Luke xxii, 25*. The Kings of 
 the Gentiles exera'fe dominion over 
 them, &c. ver. 26. But ye jhall not 
 be fo; but he % that is jrreatejl among 
 
 you. 
 
£ cxxxiii 
 
 you, let him he as the younger are to tl: 
 elder, and he that is Chief as he that does 
 ferve. i Pet. v. 5. I fa. xxvii. Matthew 
 xx. 2 5*. Mark x. 42. 
 
 Anfw. 1. Put this Scripture in Level- 
 lers mouths, the ufe they will make of 
 it is, That there fhould he no govern- 
 ment, civil nor ecclcfiaflical, (upreme 
 nor fubordinate, among Chriitians, and 
 that heathen Kings turning Chriitians, 
 ihould abdicate their kingdoms and 
 power, and level thcmfelves with their 
 fubjevSls j which is againlt the common 
 fenle of mankind, 2. It is as imperti- 
 nently applied to ecclefiaftical go- 
 vernment; for a parity among church- 
 officers, never was in the world > for in 
 the Old Teftament there were High- 
 priefts, Priefts and Levites ; and Chrift 
 in his Collcce was above the twelve 
 and the feventy : And lure the Apoftles 
 governed the churches which they 
 planted. 3. May not the occaiion of our 
 Saviour's uttering thefe words lead meft 
 to the right underltanding of them ? 
 For two Apoftles dreaming that their 
 mailer was to be a temporary King, or 
 iecular Monarch, petitioned that they 
 fhould be next the King in his court : 
 He tells them that his kingdom was of 
 M another 
 
cxxxiv ] 
 another nature, and that they were not 
 to govern like heathen Kings, at their 
 will and pleafure, tho J they were to fit 
 upon the twelve thrones of Ifrael: His 
 government was for the good of his 
 fubjecls, and not like fome fccutar 
 Princes, that governed tyrannically, ma- 
 king their will a law. ^.. The words 
 Chief and Greater fuppofes an order of 
 fuperiority and fubordination among 
 them, but withal recommends humili- 
 ty. 5. Tho' our Saviour did not put 
 the (word in the hands of church go- 
 vernors (which is the civil magidrate's 
 office), yet be gave them the power 
 of the keys, to receive converts, and 
 thruft contumacious offenders out of 
 the church, where he appointed dif- 
 ferent orders for the government there- 
 of. 6. The libelling the Bifhops for 
 meddling in fecular affairs, or for ty- 
 ranny, comes very ill from thofe whofe 
 principle it is to dethrone Kings, and 
 to force nations againil their confiden- 
 ces, under pain of excommunication 
 and forfeiture, to fwear to their Cove- 
 nants and engagements : flich men are 
 not difpleafed that the kirk fhould have 
 the power of the (word and of the 
 keys together; but it grieves them that 
 
 the 
 
[ cxxw 
 
 the Pope ihouldhave it, and thcmfclvcs 
 lhould want it. 
 
 But hilly, What can this Scripture 
 make for Presbyterian government in 
 a parity, when the words Chief and 
 Greater in that fame text relate to an 
 imparity? But, in fhorc, let thole who 
 make ufe of thefe texts againlt us, tell 
 us what Icrvice it can do them? Are 
 they the Succcflors of thefe Apoltles in 
 their miniitry, or in the humility that 
 was recommended to ihcm by their 
 m after i 
 
 There is another Scripture they have 
 put in the mourns of the ignorant vul- 
 gar, and that is 1 Pet. v. 3, 4. Not as 
 being Lords over Cod' 's heritage; this they 
 cxpreily let down agamft Lord Biihops: 
 At this rate, the Quakers may argue 
 againit Mr. James and Mr. John, 
 Matth. xxiii. 10. and io may a melan- 
 choly bigot fcruplc to call any man Fa- 
 ther, from the 9th veife : Whereas, be- 
 fides the common way of commenting 
 upon the word Heritage, it may be 
 rendered lot, portion or pofleflionj fo 
 in the Old Testament, in the books ot 
 Jolhua and Judges, it is taken, and lo in 
 the New Tcflament, the Apoltles and 
 their Succcflors the Bilhops, were 
 M 2 Treafurers 
 
£ cxxxvi 3 
 
 Treafurers of the flock that came in to 
 the church, by fome that fold their e- 
 itates, and other benevolences of the 
 people, and this was difpofedof to the 
 Clergy and the poor, as the chief go- 
 vernors of the church found conve- 
 nient: Thefe who had the manage* 
 mem of that facred money, were not 
 to look upon themfelves as Lords or 
 Proprietors of that flock, which was 
 mortified for pious ufes, but as Stewards 
 anfvverable for their trull. 8ii Dr Whit- 
 by on that place. 
 
 Another paliage of Scripture they 
 abufe, againft the hierarchy, liturgy, ra- 
 tional rites and ceremonies, and the 
 laws of the church, by virtue of the 
 power which the governors have to do 
 things in order and decently, is Colojf. 
 ii. 21. Touch not y tajle not, handle not ; 
 which the Apoille fpeaks not as his 
 own words, but as the words of the 
 hercticks and falfe teachers in his own 
 days, who forbad the life of marriage, 
 and of meats, as of themlelves unlaw- 
 ful : The found of words, without con* 
 fidering the fenfe, is enough to them : 
 Many other Scriptures are thus perver- 
 ted, to keep up raftiod and fchilm. 
 
 2. In 
 
r cxxxvii 
 
 2. In the ne\t place, when the holy 
 Scriptures arc thus treated* what may 
 ihey not do with ccclefiadical hiftory 
 and Polt-apoftolical writers and fathers, 
 which are not translated in ail nations 
 as the Scriptures f Of this we have too 
 many evidences : For what more clear 
 than St. lgnatius's Epiilles, for Bifhops, 
 Presbyters and Deacons ? What fhift 
 have they againfl this I Either to deny 
 their authority altogether, or elfe, as 
 fbme of our countrymen do, to make 
 them Presbyterian ? And cho' they be 
 confuted to a demonttration, yet {til!, 
 right or wrong, they are wedded to 
 their new opinion, to as to baffle all ec- 
 clefiadical hiftory : Is there anything 
 more clear than St. Cyprian, for the 
 diltinition among clergymen ? yet a 
 Cyprianus Ifotimus will make him Pres* 
 byterian, tho' Monfieur Daille acknow- 
 ledges, " That it is clearer than the fun 
 '• at mid-day, from the Epiftles of Sr. 
 44 Cyprian, That not only the offices, 
 H but alfo the names of Bilhop and Pres- 
 44 byter, were diitinguifhed all the Ro* 
 44 man world over/' 
 
 It will appear in the following letters 
 
 what ufe they make of St. Jerome, to no 
 
 purpole, for their cauie. Mr. William 
 
 M 3 Jamefon 
 
L 'cxxxviii 
 Jamefon will make Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Bilhop of Conftantinople, plead agarnft 
 his own order, in thefe words, " Would 
 " to God there were no Prelacy, no 
 " prerogative of places!" Whereas the 
 father fpeaks againffc the ambitiorTand 
 intrufion of Maximus, a Cynick philo- 
 ibpher, whom he had converted to 
 Chriltianity ; and moft ungratefully 
 would take his place over his head : he 
 therefore fpeaks of the growing power 
 of Biihops over one another, and nor 
 of Biihops over their own Presbyters 
 and Deacons. See Dn Pin on the life 
 and writings of Greg. Nazianzen, and 
 alio the Author of the Anfwer to the 
 Parochial Bilhop. This letter of the 
 parochial Biihop to a prelatical Gentle- 
 man, cites a fentence out of llidorus 
 Pelufiota on the title-page of his book, 
 thus, "Seeing it is evident, how valt a 
 " difference there is betwixt the an- 
 "eient humble miniftry, and the pre- 
 " fent tyranny, why do you not crown 
 " with garlands the lovers of parity and 
 "equality?'' But he leaves the reader 
 to find this fentence in the writings of 
 that holy and learned man, and perhaps 
 we may read the mod of all his epif- 
 ties before we light on it. This wor- 
 thy 
 
£ cxMxix "2 
 thy perfon was a Prieit of Damiata, a 
 city in Egypt, and lived a monadic 
 life ; he was a fevcre cenfor of the a- 
 hufes in his time, particularly of thoie 
 that were guilty of fimony, covctouf- 
 nefs and felling of brdiiia'rioiH j and 
 charges the Eilhop of Dam iata with 
 thefe crimes, which he juftly might do, 
 and object againlt them the humility, 
 (elf-denial and fimplicity of their anccl- 
 tors, without the lead intimation of their 
 being Presbyterians. But the defign of 
 Nazianzen, Querela, and of this parochial 
 Bifhop,was to make their readers believe, 
 Gregory Nazianzen and llidorus were 
 Presbyterian, in their judgments ; whe- 
 ther this be ex infeitia out nequitia, out 
 of ignorance, which is want of know- 
 ledge, or out of delign, which is want 
 of confeience and honeity, I ftiall not 
 determine ; but it is certain that there 
 may be tyranny and ambition in a Pres* 
 byterian parity as much as ever was 
 feen in a Papal hierarchy, and this 
 kings and kingdoms have found to their 
 lad experience. 
 
 There is another wrong handle which 
 
 they make of Tcrtullian, who lived in 
 
 the fecond century, and that to fupport 
 
 themfclvcs in extemporary prayers ; 
 
 which 
 
[ «1 J 
 
 which is, Sine momtore quia de f colore \ 
 " We pray without a Monitor, bccaufe 
 " from the heart/' Which is fpoken 
 in aliufion to the heathen worlhip, ia 
 the invocation of their greater deities 
 "by name, repeated by the Pried, and 
 by the people after him, and both had 
 a Monitor or Cuflos that corre&ed them 
 when they went wrong. 
 
 Or, becaufe we pray heartily for 
 long life to Emperors, without any to 
 force us to it ; for fo the words in that 
 fentence do bear, Onnnus vitam fro* 
 hxam fro imperatorikus* 
 
 Or, third/y, It Signifies, we go to our 
 fecret prayers without a prompter or 
 monitor. 
 
 Fourthly, It was a worfhip in which 
 the people did vocally join, and which 
 they were acquainted with before hand, 
 which is clear in another paflage from 
 Tcriullian upon prayer. " Our voices 
 " mult be low, and we mud not lpeak 
 il louder than is necefiary/' So it is in 
 our book of Common Prayer. " I be- 
 ' feech you,as many as are here pre fen r t 
 4i to accompany me with a pure heart 
 " and humble voice/' All thefe make 
 good fenfe. 
 
 For if the Minifler did compofe a 
 prayer with which the people were ac- 
 quainted, 
 
I cxli ] 
 
 quainted, or prayed extempore, ftill he 
 was a monitor, prompter or rouler in 
 devotion to them. 
 
 ?. There is a third way our adverfa- 
 ries take, and that is to perplex and 
 jumble the controverfy with the notion 
 they have of congregations, as the In- 
 dependents, and of parifhes, as the Pres- 
 byterians do; but both agree that it was 
 without a Bifhop. I have proven St. 
 James his dioccfan prelacy over the 
 Presbyters of Jerufalem, and St. John's 
 over the Afiatick churches, and St. 
 Paul's over his own plantations ; and 
 furely that kind of government is pre- 
 fumed to be throughout the world; for 
 the Apoftlcs intended uniformity ; 
 I Cor.iv. i r . ;i. 17. xi. 16. But there 
 were no pariihes then as we have now. 
 P.rifnes, according to MorerTs ditftio- 
 nary, were appointed by Fabianus the 
 the 21ft Pope, who divided Rome a- 
 mong the (even Deacons, and Diocef- 
 fes by Dionylius aligning a church- 
 yard and parilh to every Presbyter. 
 Pope Marcellinus brought the number 
 of dioccfles to twenty five. The fir (I 
 who initialled pariihes in England was 
 Honorius, Archbiihop of Dover. 
 
 "in the fir ft ages of Chriftianity," fays 
 the learned Mr. William Nelibn, in hrs 
 
 Right 
 
I cxlii ] 
 
 Right of the Clergy of Great Britain;;! 
 " there were no determinate boundaries. 
 Bat when St. Peter had ordained 
 Priefts, and Cletus had ordained them .1 
 to a certain number, Evariftus,. who was 
 alfo Bifhop of Rome, affigned to each 
 Prieft his title, that is his parifli, which 
 was the place where the converts ufu- 
 ally aflembled. to worfhip. Forty years- 
 after, Hyginus Bilhop of Rome placed 
 a Prieft in every parifh, and the chief 
 of thefe Priefts he called Cardinal Pref- 
 byters. Pope Dionyfius. was the fir It 
 that divided the weilern dioceiTes into. 
 parilhes. ;> 
 
 "The word .Parocbia, fays the fame au- 
 thor, was by the ancient writers ufed in 
 a more large and comprehenfive fenfe ; 
 for the churches of Alexandria, Car- 
 thage, Corinth, Ephefus and Jerufalem, 
 were called parifnes j but then it was 
 not only a particular one that was com- 
 prehended by that word, but all the 
 towns and villages near that city,within 
 which circuirthere were many churches 
 and congregations of Chriftiaiis." 
 
 "This (faith he) appears by Eufcbius> 
 who tells us that L set its was prefident 
 at Alexandria, and of the reft of Egypt.; 
 but that the ibperintendency of the pa- 
 riihes where L&tus had. the civil go- 
 vernment, 
 
£ cxliii ]] 
 Tcrnmcnt, belonged to Demetrius, who 
 was Bifhop Parochiae, that is of the 
 whole church of Alexandria, and was as 
 large as the civil diocefs." 
 
 The learned Dr. Thomas Brett, in 
 the 7th chapter of Ancient Church Go- 
 vernment, tells us, that the church re- 
 venues throughout the whole diocefs, 
 were (till collected and paid to -the Bi- 
 fhop, by whom they were divided into 
 lour parts ; which cuftom continued in 
 fome places to the ninth century, or 
 •longer; for in the council of" Salisbury, 
 conveened anno Dom. 807, it was de- 
 creed (according to ancient cuftom) 
 that the tythes ihould be divided into 
 four parts, viz. one to be allotted to the 
 Bifhop, another to the Clergy, a third 
 to the poor, and a fourth belonging to 
 the buildings for the churches : So that 
 then minHters were not maintained as 
 now, by the church dues arifing within 
 the precincts where they ferved. 
 
 The places fet apart for public wor- 
 ship were at firft called titles, feveral of 
 which were within the city itfelf, and 
 others in country villages which be- 
 longed to that city, and were within the 
 bounds of the Epiicopal diocefs. He 
 tells us that, before the end of the fifth 
 century, the Presbyters of Rome had 
 
 fixed 
 
I cxliv ] 
 fixed titles, which they added to the!* 
 names in fubfcriptions : So wrote C#lius 
 Januarius Presbyter, Tituli Veftinae, &c. 
 whereas before, we find Presbyters in 
 general called Priefts of fuch an Epifco- 
 pal church, as a Pried of Rome, Alex* 
 andria, or Antioch. 
 
 The fame erroneous notion our ad* 
 verfaries have of the word Altar : They 
 tell us, there was one altar in every con* 
 gregation, and therefore that a Biihop 
 could have no more under his care than 
 as many as could conveniently hear 
 and receive the Sacrament from him: 
 Whereas, cur Saviour and his Apoftles, 
 and their immediate Succefibrs, retain- 
 ed as many of the Jewiih cuftoms as 
 did conffi with Chriftian liberty • fo 
 Clemens Romanus, in his firft epiftle 
 to the Corinthians, calls the Bifhops, 
 Priefts and Deacons; High-priefts, Priefts 
 and Levites ; fo thefe Presbyters and 
 Deacons kept altars in fubordination to 
 their Bifhops ; as the Jewiih fynagogues 
 had altars, but in fubordination to the 
 temple, and yet all of them but one al- 
 tar by the principle of unity, as well as 
 all made but one Jewiih church j fo we 
 fay, one faith, one baptifm. There 
 were two altars in the temple, and yet 
 but one in a fpiritual ienfe, 2 Chron* vii. 
 
 7- 
 
I cxlv ] 
 
 7. The two tribes, and the half iribc 
 upon Jordan, were allowed an altar, 
 when the children of Ifrael found that 
 they intended nofchifm, Jofa. >;xii. 22. 
 There were feveral altars in Canaan 
 before the building of the temple, 
 Sfwbres vi. 26. Wc find, 1 Kinrrs xix. 
 26. "the prophet complains, That the 
 altars were thrown down. 
 
 There was then but one church hi 
 an imparity of Priefthood in old Ifrael, 
 and what ihould change it to a parity 
 in the new Ifrael, is not eafy to find by 
 fcripture. reafbn, or the practice of the 
 univerfal Church. We find the Jewiih 
 form of church government never alter- 
 ed under their Captains Motes and Jo- 
 ftiua j nor under the Judges ; nor under 
 the Kings; nor in the wildernefs ; nor 
 in the land of Canaan ; nor did the 
 Chriftian Priefthood alter under Hea- 
 then perfecutors, nor under Christian 
 patrons, k is true, we "find our Scot- 
 tifh martyrs for the Solemn League and 
 Covenant, left a teltimony againft Epif- 
 copacyj but the primitive Bilhops in 
 the days of miracles and martyrdom, 
 died for Christ, never repenting of 
 their Prelacy, looking on it as a Chrifti- 
 an order, and not an ufurpation j but 
 they think that their Moderator makes 
 N up 
 
L cxlvi 
 
 up the Bifhop, tho f he be not the cen* | 
 ter of unity, nor the Succeflbr of the 
 Apoftles. 
 
 4. A fourth ftraragem theyufe, is to 
 argue from the infancy of the church 
 to the increafe thereof, as if the fume 
 coat which ferved our Saviour when a 
 child, ihould ferve him when he came 
 to the full Itature of his manhood. 
 When magistrates turned Chriflian, ma* 
 ny things were in better cafe than 
 when they were Pe-rfecutors ; St. Paul 
 wrought with his own hands : But cer- 
 tainly it is better now that hrs fucceffors 
 have a legal maintenance ^ better have 
 cathedral and parifh churches, than to 
 have hired houfes, as St. Paul, Afts 
 xxviii. 31, 3 32 . or upper rooms, or go 
 from houfe to hcufe. 
 
 5. Another device th^y have, is a 
 very M(e way of reafoning ; when we 
 tell them of the antiquity of Bifhops, 
 they tell us, " Antiquity does not fe- 
 " cure from error/' This arguing from 
 opinion to matter of fact, is molt un- 
 reafonable j it is as if you would reafon 
 thus, Papias vented his opinion of the 
 Millennium, therefore there was no Bi* 
 ihop at Jerufalem nor Alexandria,6r. Or 
 thus, There are various difpmes abottt 
 civil government, fome founding it in 
 
 the 
 
I cxlvii ] 
 the people, lomc in the peers, feme in 
 parliaments, others in the right of he- 
 ritage ; thelc things are uncertain ; 
 therefore it is not certain that the 
 Prince of Orange came to England in 
 1688, which was known all Europe o- 
 ver. This, I think, any perfbn will 
 judge a bad argument, 
 
 6. Another falfe way of arguing, is 
 carting up the privilege that Presbyters 
 had of old j whereas many things were 
 granted to them by pcrmiffion, but ne- 
 ver the power to ordain others : But 
 this is not their cafe ; Presbyters then 
 did things Efifcofo per?nittente, but now 
 they aft Epifcopo prohibente ; the one in 
 dependence of the BHhop, the other in 
 oppofition to the Bifhop. 
 
 But lad of all, and the faddeft of all 
 is,, their abufing the credulity of the 
 people, men of weak judgments, firong 
 paffions, and wild fancies, keeping them 
 in ignorance of the dreadful fin of 
 fchifm, which fome fathers, particular- 
 ly St. Cyprian, reckons a lin againft the 
 Holy Ghoft ; and lb St. Bernard makes 
 three branches of that fin, Nolle obedire, 
 fimulata Pietas, et omn: Scktfma. Re* 
 bellion, hypocrily, and Schifm, from all 
 
 which fins ?ood Lord deliver us 
 
 o 
 
 The 
 
t ffr 3 
 
 T H E 
 
 S E. C O N D PART' 
 
 OF T K E. 
 
 SUCCESSIO N 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 PRIESTHOOD 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Old and New Testament. 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 S I R, 
 
 " | Congratulate yourfafe return, and 
 J| I give you hearty thanks for the di- 
 Adrift account you give of the entertain- 
 ment my laft Performance on the Suc- 
 ceffion of the Prieftbood met with, and 
 the various fentiments of men about it, 
 how it plcafes tome, and difpleaies o- 
 thers j particularly becanfe it gives of* 
 
 fence 
 
[ M9 ] 
 fence by unchurching foreign Protcl- 
 tants that wiili well to Epifcopacy : In 
 afmWcr to which I lend you the fol- 
 lowing thoughts." 
 
 I. r ^T^ % HAT fuch men do not well 
 J[ underftand the nature of of- 
 fence or fcandal in the Scrip- 
 ture ftile, when they take it for pro- 
 voking men to ailgcr and difpleaiinp 
 them ; for very often it fignifics to lay 
 a trap, (hare, or {tumbling block in the 
 way of the weak, and to pervert them 
 from their duty : And, in this ca(c, 
 offence may be given, tho' not taken ; 
 and in other calcs offence may be taken 
 and not given. They who preach Ihif- 
 matical or heretical doctrine to their de- 
 luded difciples, give offence to them • 
 and yet they are not provoked to anger, 
 but are led into fin: He that fpareth the 
 rod (faith Solomon) hateth the child. Proi\ 
 xiii. 2_j. Here the foolifa fond father 
 gives offence to the child, and yet 
 both are pleafed, and think they love 
 one another. The father that corrects 
 the Child, does his duty, 2nd gives no 
 offence tlvV the cnild be diipleaicd. 
 
 An i whereas it is laid, That it un- 
 churches a great body of Prcteilams ; I 
 
 N 3 anfwer 
 
anfwer as formerly, That truth will 
 be truth tho' the Profeffbrs be never fo 
 few, and a multitude can never make 
 error to be truth ; Multitude errantium 
 non parit error: patrocinium ; It is hot 
 great numbers of mifled perfons that can 
 make faUehood truth, or right wrong. 
 .Let therefore the reformed Churches 
 jook to the confeOjUcnce themfelves ; 
 for, as the Apoftle fays, 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 
 IV e can do nothing atfainil the truth, but 
 for the truth. Illud pojjiimus ( fays the 
 Moralift) quod jure poffumus ; IVe can 
 do that which we can do lawfully, or by 
 an unerring rule of duty. It is not 
 our faying that foreign Reformers are 
 true ifttmfters that will make them io r 
 if they cannot prove that they are the 
 Succeflors of the Apoitles; and that 
 is the thing they cannot pretend to. 
 1 :m informed, that the learned Dr. 
 Grabb, when he examined the funda- 
 mental charter of the miniftry, found 
 th t it could never be proven but by 
 Su ceffion, and that no reformed Church 
 co, lid lay claim to it but England ; 
 and therefore left Germany, his own 
 untry, and came over to England, 
 vhere he lived and died m the bofom 
 of an Afflftolic Church. 
 
 Again 
 
[ »*» ] 
 
 Again the word Proteftant may de- 
 ceive the fimple and unwary, by the 
 very foupd of it; but wile men kpow, 
 that 'neither Protcftancy nor Popery is 
 our religion, but€hrhtianity only/ and 
 the definition of a Church, is a body of 
 believers proioilng the Cnriltian rcligi- 
 gion under lawful pallors. Now, law- 
 ful ministers mult prove their million 
 immediately or mediately; immediately, 
 none now a-days pretend to it but 
 Eathufiafts or Semienthufiads ; and we 
 know not what to make of them in 
 point of rcafoning j for when we think 
 we have them, we immediately lofe 
 them : They run hither and thither, 
 wanting a (olid foundation to fix on. 
 
 Let, then, thefe whom I deal with 
 at prefent, diiVmguifh themfelves from 
 Entkijiafts, Erajtians, or Independents, 
 again ft whom the learned authors of 
 "Jus Reg. EccL argued molt folidly,- (as 
 i 1 have ihev/d in the firft part ), and 
 fiiew their mtniitry by Apoltolical Snc- 
 ceiTion, as they pretend, or eife give 
 over the carde, and anlwer the argu- 
 ments of thefe learned Presbyterians in 
 the 1637. 
 
 If the found of the word Proteftant 
 catch a man by his ear, without foli. 
 
 diiy 
 
[ >r- ] 
 
 dity in the brain, he may (wallow down 
 any Berefy that ever was condemned in; 
 the primitive ages; for Jews and Turks', 
 ilo proteft againft Papifts : Enthufiafts 
 that deny an ordained minittry, and In- 
 dependents who flight Apoltolical Suc- 
 ceffion, are Proteflants ; Socinians, 
 that deny the divinity of our Saviour, 
 are Proteftants ; Deifts, who ridicule 
 revealed religion, are Proteftants ; and 
 Athcifts, that mock the notion of a 
 deity, go under the name of Prote- 
 ftants : So, it is very dangerous to mif- 
 lead men with the name of a thing 
 which dcdroys Chriftianity : For, as I 
 faid, neither Proteitancy nor Popery is 
 religion, but Chriftanity ; So that the 
 quellion remains ftill unanfwered, viz. 
 Whether or not they, who go under the 
 name of miniftcrs in the reformation, 
 can prove that they are the Apoilles 
 Succcffcrs ; becauie there is no oiher 
 way to prove a lawful miniftry ? 
 
 However (omc of the foreign Prote- 
 ftants, io called, plead necellity, and 
 wiih they might have an Engliih EpHco- 
 pacy, and others pretend a divine Right 
 of Presbytery : But the Britiih Prcshyte* 
 rians abjure Epiicopacv, ami inch arc 
 excommunicated by Calvin, and are 
 accounted madmen by Beza. 
 
 But 
 
c m 3 
 
 Fur I fee no ground for their pretence 
 to nccefiityj for they might get aa 
 Apoftolical ordination by having a con- 
 fecration from England or Greece, with- 
 out impofing unlawful terms of com- 
 munion upon them y and tins might 
 tend much to the reformation ot ChriU 
 rendom ; but the hand of Joab makes 
 the impediment. 
 
 I offer another thought upon this 
 head, the unchurching of foreign Pro- 
 teftants, and that is, If Presbyterians be 
 right in this debate,, and Epifcopais 
 wrong, this will unchurch twenty 
 rhouland more chrifiians than the fo- 
 reign Churches are • for it has been of- 
 ten told them, That let them join rheir 
 Presbyterian parity with the Popifli 
 hierarchy, there are three times more 
 Chriftians in the world, than Papifts 
 and Presbyterians are, and that under 
 Epifcopacy and Apoftolical Succeflion. 
 Let it bo alfo confidered, that the 
 foreign Churches have the fhadovv of 
 Epifcopacy, and (as Calvin fays), nature 
 : abhors a parity. There is a pro fed: E- 
 • pifcopacy in Denmark and Norway, and 
 j other places have Superintendents and 
 [ general Superintendents, tho'thcy can- 
 ! not lay claim to Apoftolical Succelfion; 
 
 but 
 
t m 3 
 
 but of the S'ucceflion of Sweden I fhall 
 treat hereafter. 
 
 I know it is faid, that Presbyterian 
 Churches are more charitable ; for they, 
 acknowledge the validity of Epiicopal 
 ordination, but we do not acknowledge 
 theirs : This is like the Popifh argu- 
 ment, That Protectants acknowledge 
 there may be falvation had in the Popifti 
 Church, but the Papifts deny that Pro- 
 teftams can be faved. I a-nfwer, That 
 the confent of both parties in an opini- 
 on, is not a rule ; but Metaphyseal prin- 
 ciple and truth is the r.ule to fleer by. 
 '1 he Logicians tell us, that contingent 
 proportions may be true or falfc, as the 
 matter is to which it is applied. Herod 
 and Pontius Pilate, tho* differing in< o- 
 ther tilings, yet agreed againft truth 
 itfelf. It was an argument the Dona- 
 tifts, a four, churlifhand peeviih pack 
 of Schifmaticks from the Catholic 
 Church, made nfe of againft the Ortho- 
 dox, " That it did acknowledge the 
 " baptifm of the Donatifts, and did not 
 " rebaptiz? them ; but fo did not the 
 <w Donatifts with them ; therefore, by the 
 " conieihon of adverfaries, the balance 
 " was caft on their i\i\o who did re* 
 " baptize thole that departed from the 
 
 " Catholic 
 
< Catholic Church. ff The Orthodox 
 did not rebaptize thofe that came over 
 to them from the Donatifts, nor diet 
 they re-ordain their Pridh, norNovatiau 
 Prietts : The rcafon is, becaufe they 
 had Apoftolical uiccctTion by Bifhops* 
 But the argument vhich the Papifts 
 make ufe of, is not univerGUly true on 
 either fide: For fome cufuifts among 
 the Romanics do affirm, that the Rul- 
 ticks, and the fimpler fort of thole in 
 Germany, that go under the name of 
 Hereticks, and do not err 'fti'fly, {land- 
 ing out againft fight, cannot be formal 
 Hereticks, becaufe they have the Ca- 
 tholic faith in their baptifm, which 
 cannot be loft but by erring ftnbbornly. 
 Again, feverai Proteftants are as dog- 
 matic as the Papifts are, and affirm, 
 u That a man living and dying in 'he 
 " Popifli principles cannot be faved. " 
 And Mr. Dodwell, in two letters, makes 
 a ftrcng doubt of it. 
 
 As for the reft of the arguments 
 which feem to plead for Presbytery, 
 I fhall take notice of them hereafter. 
 In the mean time i reft yours, to 
 fervc you. 
 
 LETTER 
 
I 1J6 1 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Wherein is considered the pretended 
 Defence which Presbyterians make 
 for their cavfe, out oj St. Jerome, 
 on Titus i. 5. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 f Shall firft fet down St. Jerome's 
 very words, and conficcr whether 
 they are of any advantage to the Pres- 
 byterian caule. The words are thefe, be- 
 fore fuch time as, by mitigation of the 
 Devil, factions, or parties, were made in 
 religion, and people began to fay, 1 am 
 of Paul, at d I of Apollos, and 1 of Ce- 
 phas, the Chinches were governed by 
 the Common Council of Presbyters j 
 but afterwards, when every one ac- 
 counted any whom he had baptized to 
 be his own, and not Chr ist's, it was 
 decreed through the whole chriftian 
 
 world 
 
world, That one chofen out of the 
 Presbyters fhould be fct over the red:, 
 unto whom the care of the Chwrca 
 fhould belong, that the feeds of Schiihi 
 might be taken away. n 
 
 They do the reverend and learned 
 Father a great injury, rhar interpret this 
 with a Presbyterian meaning} for ic 
 will appear, they make him guilty of 
 preemption, falfehood, and grofs con- 
 tradiction ; 
 
 Firfl, In averting a thing for which 
 he brings no proof, either from Scrip- 
 ture or Poft-apoftolical writers • for Sr. 
 Jerome, living in the beginning of the 
 fifth Century, affirms quite contrary to 
 all that were before him, to wit, St. 
 Clemens, St. Ignatius, and all the four 
 centuries precceding his time, if his 
 meaning be Presbyterian. 
 
 Secondly, They will render him guil- 
 ty of biafphemy, to wit^ Thai Christ 
 and his Apoltles did inftilotc a Presby- 
 terian parity j but it was found very in- 
 convenient, and therefore it was iownd 
 expedient that Presbytery fhould be 
 converted into an Epifcopacy, that h+ 
 a government of divine right ihould be 
 turn'd intoone of human right; becaufe 
 the devil prevailed more on PresbyteVy 
 O than 
 
C 158 ] 
 
 than on Epifcopacy, and that the govern* 
 ment of Christ's inftitution was not 
 fuch a fence and bulwark as the remedy 
 that men found out afterwards ; a great 
 refledion upon the wifdom of our Sa- 
 viour and his Apoftles, who could fore- 
 fee the inconveniencies that fhould en- 
 fue upon Presbyterian government. 
 
 Thirdly, Will not this make him guil- 
 ty of grofs contradictions, if his mean- 
 ing be Presbyterian ? Becaufe in many 
 places, particularly in his 85th Epijlle 
 to Evagrius, he aflerts, " That Bilhops, 
 "Presbyters and Deacons, are in the New 
 "Tel lament correfpondent to High- 
 ** priefts, Priefts and Levites in the Old 
 " Teftament. " And in that fame Epif- 
 tle he tells us, "That, from the days of 
 « St. Mark the Apoitle, the Church of 
 "Alexandria was governedby Bilhops till 
 " the time of Dionyfius and Heracles, 
 "whofucceededtoDemetrius,inthe 231, 
 M 'which was in the third Century. " And 
 in the forememioned Epiftle, does he 
 not propofe the queftion, " What is it 
 "aBifhop can do, but what a Presbyter 
 " may do, except ordination ? " And, in 
 his Dialogue with the Luciferians, he 
 fays, "'The wellfare of the Church 
 "conffls in the dignity of the High- 
 pried 
 
I »59 ] 
 
 " prieft, to whom, if fomc matchlefs, 
 u power be not given, there will be as 
 " many divifions in the Church as there 
 u are Priefts. ?; 
 
 fourthly, Is not this a reflection 
 upon Presbyterian government, that 
 they themielvcs were forced to make 
 Bifhops, becaufe they could not fubfiit 
 without a change ; and that this was 
 in the Apoftles days, whether before or 
 after Timothy was made Bifhop of Ephe- 
 iius, or Titus at Crete? 
 
 Fifth/)\ Is it not a reflection upon St. 
 Jerome himfelf, or all the Presbyterian 
 apologifts for him, that they can never 
 condefcend upon the time, place, or 
 perfons, by whom this change was made, 
 throughout the whale zvor/d, as the Father 
 words it I for it is certain the imparity 
 was before the general council of Nice: 
 and if it was in the Apoliles days, I 
 have proven in the firll part, that they 
 kept the government of their own plan- 
 tations in their own hands, and intend- 
 ed that their SuccelTors lhould do the 
 fame. 
 
 Sixthly^ If univerfal cuftom did make 
 Epilcopacy a law, and a (landing govern- 
 ment throughout the world, continuing 
 for 1503 years, by what rule have 
 O 2 Presbyterians 
 
t 1 60 3 
 
 Presbyterians right to reverfe that cn- 
 ftom, without gathering the world to- 
 gether to rcaflume their pretended 
 
 o I 
 
 right ? Are they lure to (land out againft 
 the mitigation of the devil at this time, 
 more than they did in their firft inllitu- 
 tlon, when they w f ere forced to meta- 
 morphofe their Presbytery into an Epif- 
 copacy ? Are they fure to keep peace 
 and unity better than in the days of the 
 Apoftles ? Was it not for the better 
 that this change was made ? And if a 
 man may pais from his own right, by 
 what law can he recover it upon his 
 repentance, if he do not fliew the very 
 condition upon which it was firft fur- 
 rendered, and the breach made upon 
 the other fide ? The Hebrew lervant, 
 by the ceremony of having Bis ear 
 thruft through with an aw/ } Deut. xv. 1 7. 
 was to be a fervant for ever. Now if 
 Presbytery, for very good reafons, did 
 alter itfelf into Epifcopacy, when fchifms 
 broke forth in the church of Corinth 
 in the days of the Apoftles, and that 
 one order above another was found to 
 be the proper remedy for this fore 
 difeafe, and this remedy did continue 
 for 15*00 years; What reafon is there 
 to alter this Icheme of government, 
 
 when 
 
[ i6i ] 
 
 when wo have not the Apoflles alive 
 (who had an infallible conduct) to in- 
 terpofe their authority, and to counter- 
 mand their own decrees throughout 
 the world ? 
 
 But /ajlh, If] we can fall upon a plain 
 expolition to lave St. Jerome, that 
 great light of the phurch, from fpeak> 
 ing unrruthSjj abfurdities, and inconli- 
 ftencics, this delerves very well to be 
 coniidered : For it is certain, he (peaks 
 not the lenle of Aerius, who, in the 
 4th emury, w r as condemned as an he- 
 retkk, for laying that Bifhops and Pre J* 
 bytcrs were all one, which is the Prcl- 
 byterian opinion. His fenle then can 
 be no otherwifc than this, which is a- 
 grceable to other ancients and his own 
 expreiTions : u Thar, in the days of the 
 Apoilles, the name of Bilhop and Pref- 
 byrer was common, but this aid not in- 
 fer a parity in the church ; for the A- 
 pottles were above thefe Biihops and 
 Presbyters, and kept the government 
 of the churches which they planted, 
 in their own hands: But the church in- 
 crcafing, and the Apoitles being near 
 to the hnilhing of their courfe, and run- 
 r.ing out their race, they let up their 
 Succeilbra, to whom the name of Biihop 
 O 3 was 
 
C 162 ] 
 
 was peculiarly appropriate, as having 
 the power of the Apoftles over Presby- 
 ters and Deacons, and fo to continue to 
 the end of the world." This is agree- 
 able to reafon, and to the pra&ice of 
 the univerfal Church ; and will make 
 good fenfe of the words of St. Jerome, 
 in his comment on Titus i. "Let Bifhops 
 * know, that it is more from cuftom 
 4 than by any appointment of our Lord, 
 £ that they arc fuperior to Presbyters." 
 
 All which may be granted without 
 injury to the caufe which we plead 
 for ; for the Father means, that this di- 
 ftin&ion was made rather by Apoliti- 
 cal inftituiion and practice, than by our 
 Saviotrt; which does not deny our Savi- 
 our to have been the foundation of this 
 government • for, in the days of his hu- 
 miliation, he being the virtual Church, 
 kept all the government of his college 
 of Apoftlts and Difciples in his own 
 hand ; but in that lame college there 
 was one rank above another, to whom 
 government and power was to be given 
 at the rcfurreclion, and exerciled after 
 the alrenfion, 
 
 I think the handle that Presbyterians 
 make of the learned Dr. Sage's words, 
 makes nothing to their purpofc for a 
 
 parity, 
 
r 163 ] 
 
 parity, viz. " That the twelve Ap< (lies 
 " firft commifTion had not constituted 
 '• them governors of the Chriftian 
 " Church, if their eommiffion had not 
 
 " been Renewed after the rcliirrcetion of 
 " Ghrift; for the Chriiiian Church could 
 " not be founded rill our Lord was rilcn, 
 11 feeing it was to be founded on his re- 
 " furreftion." 
 
 It is clear then, that St. Jerome's words 
 plead nothing for Presbyterian parity • 
 for what fhould exempt him from the 
 cendire of the Church, of being con- 
 demned for an heretick, more than Ac- 
 rius, who, in the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury, miffing a Biihoprick, fell upon 
 this revenge, to make himfelf a Biihop 
 in his own opinion, bccaule the Church 
 thought him unfit For a Biihoprick ? 
 
 It is acknowledged, that St. Jerome 
 was a man of too warm a temper, and 
 of very keen refentments when pro- 
 voked • and 1 will not fay but he had 
 reafon to plead for his own order of 
 Prieithood, that was infuhed by (ome 
 rich Deacons, whofe infolence came to 
 that height, as to take precedency of 
 the Presbyters • 4 * who (as St. Jerome 
 " confcfles) might dp any thin- that a 
 " Bifliop did, except ordination/' It 
 
 is 
 
[ * 6 4 1 
 is a very odd expedition that Dr. Rhind, 
 in his Ft ndi cation of the Kirk, puts upon 
 St. Jerome's words, Excefta Ordmatiune, 
 that is, The ordering of the meetings, k 
 is plainly as fenielefs an interpretation 
 as jefuits put upon them, making the 
 words to be an error of the printer, ai- 
 ledging it ought to be tfecefta Qramatt* 
 one, having gotten Ordination. But 
 what will not men fay, when they arc 
 refolved againft the cleared liqht \ If 
 men are refolved net to look upon tr,e 
 light, they will clofe their eyes. 1 (hall 
 take notice of the reft of your argu- 
 ments at greater conveniency. Fare- 
 wcl. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I Find the very learned Author of 
 the Brief Account of the Ancient 
 Church-Government, Page 201. accufe 
 Blondcl and Salmalius (the two cham- 
 pions for Presbyter} 7 ) with partiality 
 and breach of promile, by their appeal- 
 ing to St. Jerome as a patron of Prefc 
 bytery, in his 85th epiftle to Evagrius, 
 citing a paflage which the forefaid ad- 
 vocates for Presbytery think does make 
 
 for 
 
[ 165 ] 
 
 for them, and not anfwering the cleared 
 paflagc in it all, which makes for Epifc 
 copacy, to wit, Ut fciamus Apoflo/tcas 
 tradittones, &cc. That we may know that 
 the Apoflo/ical traditions are taken from 
 the Old Tejlament ; what Aaron and his 
 fons, and the Levites, were in the temple, 
 the fame \ Bijhops, Presbyters and Deacons, 
 Jbou/d claim to t hem f elves in the Church. 
 
 This Blondel leaveth unfpoken of, 
 tho' he intitleth his book, Apologia pro 
 fententia Hieronynti, faying he would 
 treat of it in his fixth Section ; but in 
 his book he has only three lections. 
 And ib Salmafius (who wrote before 
 him), in his book againft Epifcopacy, 
 hath left it untouched, laying he will 
 anfwer to it in his book De Ordine Ec- 
 clefajlico ; but when he wrote that book, 
 he forgot his promife. 
 
 LETTER 
 
[ 166 1 
 
 LETTER III.. 
 
 In Anfwcr to thofe that endeavour to 
 
 prove the validity of the Minijlerial 
 Acts of thofe thai want Epifcopal 
 Ordination. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 YOU defire rne to fay fomething in 
 the cafe of thejewiih Church and 
 Priedhood, as it was dated in our Savi* 
 our's time : Which feems to make very 
 much for foreign churches, and for thofe 
 that want Epifcopal Ordination. For ? 
 as Dr. Burnet fays in his Expofition of 
 the 23d article, Page 382. u God had, 
 * by exprefs law, fixed the Priedhood 
 " in the elded of Aaron's family ; and 
 " that therefore, tho', that being a theo- 
 " cracy, any prophet impowered of God 
 u might have transferred this office from 
 u one perfon, or branch of that family, 
 
 " to 
 
c »«; a 
 
 " to another; yet, without fuch an au- 
 " thority, no other perfon might make 
 " any fuch change. But after all this, 
 " not to mention the- Maccabees, and 
 " all their fucccilors of the Afmonean 
 11 family, as Herod had begun to change 
 " the High-Prieflhood at pleafure, fo 
 11 the Romans not only continued to do 
 " this, but, in a molt mercenary man- 
 " ner, they fet this facred function to 
 " (ale. Here were as great nullities in 
 u the High-priefts that were in our Sa- 
 11 viour's time, as can be well imagined 
 u to be : For the jews keeping their 
 " genealogies fo exadUy as they did, it 
 " could not but be well known in whom 
 " the right of this office refted j and 
 u they all knew, that he who had ir, 
 " purchalcd it ; yet thefe were in facl 
 u High-priefts ; and lince the people 
 M could have no other, the atonement 
 " was ftifl performed by their miniftry. 
 11 Our Saviour owned Caiaphas, the (a- 
 u ciilegious and ufurping High-ptieii, 
 "John xviii. ?2, 23. and as fuch he 
 " prophefied, John xL 51. This Ihews 
 " that, where the neceflity w r as real and 
 " unavoidable, the Jews were bound 
 u to think that God did, in confideration 
 14 of that, difpenfe with his own precept. 
 
 This 
 
 > 
 
[ 168 1 
 
 u This may be a juft inducement for us 
 " to believe, that vvhenfoever God, by 
 " his Providence, brings Chriftians uiv 
 H der a vifible necelTity, of being either 
 " without all order and joint worlhip, or 
 e: of joining in an unlawful worlhip ; or 
 u finally, of breaking thro' rules and 
 u methods, in order to the being united 
 " in worihip and government; that of 
 u thefe three, of which one mult be 
 41 chofen, the lafl is the lealt evil, and 
 u has the feweft inconveniencies hang;- 
 " ing upon it, and that therefore it may 
 < be chofen;" 
 
 I mud (ay, that they are far to feck, 
 who will make this a defence for the 
 lavvfulnefs of the ordination of foreign 
 or Biitifh Presbyterian kirks ; for none 
 of them pretend neceffify, but af« 
 fert the divine right of Presbytery, in 
 oppofition to Enifcopacy, by their own 
 expolition of the fcriptures, contrary to 
 the univerfal and primitive praflice of 
 all the churches in the world. So that 
 the Presbyterians will never thank the 
 champion that makes fuch a defence in 
 their behalf. And yet, in my opinion, 
 they have no better : Their prcdecef* 
 fors (as I have cited in the firit part,) 
 declaimed magiftrares and people, as 
 
 the 
 
C 169 j 
 
 the foundation of the miniflry, and ve- 
 ry folidly refuted thefc opinions, and 
 founded it upon Succeffion j hut being 
 unable to prove their o^vn, they mult 
 wander, or flicker themfelvcs under the 
 wings of Independency or Enthufiafm ; 
 conlequcntly their minifterial a:ts mult 
 be void : There is a nullity in their bap • 
 films, and in prcfuming to adminiller 
 the Eucharift. But, in the next place, 
 I anfwer with the learned author of the 
 Invalidity of Lay Ba£>tffm } in his Appcn - 
 dix, page 176, £kc. 
 
 Prrm That tho' things were as the 
 expohtor reprefents them concerning 
 the Jevvifli Church, yet it will not fol- 
 low, that the miniftrat-ions of thofe that 
 cannot prove their miniftry by Apofto- 
 lical Succeflion are valid > befcaufc the 
 Chriftian Church never was, nor ever 
 will be reduced to that ftate of the Jew* 
 ifh Church : For the fuppofed ufurpa- 
 tion affefted the whole church of the 
 Jews ; becaufe the atonement by the 
 Jewiih High -pried could only be made 
 in that one place called the Holy of 
 Holies, which was in the temple at Je* 
 rufalem. Even a true High-prieft could 
 not do it in any other part of the world. 
 But the miniRrations of the Chriftian 
 P Priefthood 
 
[ 170 1 
 
 Prieilbood are not fo confined to place; 
 they are equally valid over the face of 
 the whole earth ; fo that if wicked ci- 
 vil powers in one country fhould baniih 
 or deftroy Chriftian High-priefts, the 
 Bifhops : Or, in another country, thofe 
 High-priefts themfelves Ihould defile 
 God's worftrip, to that degree that it 
 would endanger our falvation to join 
 therein; yet (till God's prornife of be* 
 ing with his Apoftles, his High-priefts, 
 to -the end of the xvorld ; and that the gates 
 of -hell (hall not prevail againjl his Church, 
 Secures us t'ru-s much, that this deftruo 
 tion or defection of the Chriftian High- 
 priefts, lliall not he uraverialj fome 
 ihall be found on earth with wham we 
 may communicate, and from whole 
 hands men may receive valid ordinati- 
 on, to minifter in holy 'things : So tbar, 
 if in one city or kingdom they are per- 
 secuted, they may flee into another j 
 and if they are deftroyed in one domi- 
 nion, they may he found in another. 
 And this in fad has been hitherto ve- 
 rified, from the firft planting of Chri- 
 ftianity to this day.; infbmuch, that no 
 Chriftian Church has been reduced to 
 that univerfal defection here fuppofed 
 to have been in the Jevvifli: For even 
 
 in 
 
C 171 ] 
 
 in the worft times of Popery, they 
 that reformed; without Bifliops to head 
 them, might, if they would, have pro- 
 cured miniflers to be ordained by Greek 
 or oriental Bifliops, or by reformed Bi- 
 fliops in England, if their own corrupt 
 Bifhops refufed to ordain them. And 
 it is not fufficient to object, that the la- 
 bour and travel, thus to obtain valid or- 
 dination, is excefiive great, and in fbme 
 eircumftances next to impoffible j for 
 men can cafily overcome thefe imagi- 
 nary mountains of trouble and danger, 
 in cafe of health, wealth, pleafure or 
 profit : for the wonders of the deep, 
 ftorms, tempefts, the fear of robbers, 
 pyrates, and mercilefs murderers, do 
 not terrify them from their purfnits i 
 And is not a valid miniilry preferable 
 to thefe ? So that the cafe of the uliirp- 
 ed Priefthood of the Jews could not be 
 helped in any other part of the world j 
 but fo is it not in the Chriftian Church; 
 for the atonement could only be made 
 at one altar, from which, by fuppofi- 
 tion, rhe infUtuted High-prieft vyas for- 
 cibly kept by the fecular power of the 
 Romans. 
 
 Secondly, This learned Author, in an- 
 
 Aver to Dr. Burnet's Exbofnion, which 
 
 P 2 * fays 
 
t 172 3 
 
 lays, ". That God had, by an exprcfe 
 u Jaw, fixed the High-priedhood in the 
 " elded cf Aaron's family;" denies, 
 that this exprefs law is to be found in 
 the Canon of holy Scripture j for we 
 find the inditution to have been ex* 
 prefsly in Aaron and his fons. See 
 Exod. xxviii. I, 2 y 40, 41, 42 ; 43. See 
 alfo xl. 13, 14, 15. Again in Lev. xvi. 
 we have an exacl: defcription of the a- 
 toncment, and ot the High-pried's mi-- 
 niftration thereof in the holy place once 
 a year, but not one word of Aaron's 
 elded fon. Verfes 32, 34. SteLev. xxi. 
 10. Numb. iii. 10. xviii. I, 7. 
 
 It will be laid to this, That God him> 
 felf commanded Mofes to conlecrate E- 
 leazar the elded fon of Aaron, to be 
 High-pried indead of his father, Numb. 
 xx. 25, 26, 27, and that therefore the 
 law confined the High-priefthood to the 
 elded fon's line. 
 
 The confequence cannot be allowed 
 from this particular indance ; becaufe 
 the (landing law about the Priefihood 
 is, That it jha/l be in Aaron and bis fons ; 
 and there is another law concerning the 
 very fame office, that excludes the eld- 
 ed, as well as any other of Aaron's 
 fons, from that great dignity, if he 
 
 Ihould 
 
C 173 ] . 
 
 fhould chance to have any impediment 
 mentioned in that lav/. Set L>'-j. xxi. 
 17 to 23. And it cannot be fairly af- 
 firmed that God would lecure the eldelt 
 fons from every one of thefc blcmilhes, 
 that they might minidcr before bin! 
 within the veil. 
 
 Again, the fcriptures record feverai 
 Higlvprielts who were not of the line 
 of Eleazar the cldcft, but of Ithamar 
 the younger (on of Aaron. For gxan«* 
 pic, Eli, in the time of the Judges, 
 1 Sam. ii. 27, 30. Ahimelech in the 
 reign of King i'aul, 1 'Sam. xxi. 1. xxii. 
 15. called alfo Abiathar, Mark ii. 26. 
 the High-prieit whom King Saul flew. 
 So likewile another Ahimelech in the 
 reign of King David, 2 Sam. viij. 18. 
 and in the reign of King Solomon Abi- 
 athar. Thefe, it is plain, were not of 
 the line of Eleazar j for his (ons arc 
 mentioned particularly by name, l 
 Chron. vi. and not one of thefe High* 
 prietls is reckoned among them j yet 
 they executed the office, and no mark 
 of infamy is let upon them for lb do- 
 ing, becaufe thev were not the Gran- 
 gers who, by the law of Moles, were to 
 die for coming within the veil. And 
 certainly if they had been invaders oC 
 P 3 the 
 
. C 174 1 
 the High-priefthood, God would have 
 given us fome notice of his difpenfing 
 with his own fuppofed law, or elfc fome 
 mark of his difpleafure at their ufurpa- 
 tion, to have warned others from the 
 like fin for the future : as he did upon 
 King Saul, for but offering a burnt-offer- 
 ing, when he had no authority to do h, 
 being no Pried. 
 
 We do not fee that the Priefthood 
 v -as fixed in the eldcft of Aaron's fami- 
 ly ; and therefore when any other of 
 Aaron's fons got into the High Prieft- 
 hood, which required that it Ihould be 
 in Aaron and his Ions, the effential Law 
 of God concerning the High Priefthood 
 was not vacated. And this was the cafe 
 of the Maccabees, and all their Succef- 
 f >rs of the Afmonean family ; they were 
 of the fons of Aaron, and therefore va- 
 lid High-priefts. 
 
 * Again, fays the fame learned Author, 
 the High-priefts in Herod's and the Ro- 
 mans time, they were a!fo of the fons 
 of Aaron ; for notwithftanding the wic- 
 kednefs of fetting that office to fa!c, Jo- 
 fephus a flu res us, that it was done wi h 
 ihis particular regard, that thefe who 
 obtained it were in Holy Orders. His 
 words are thefe :" 
 
 « Herod 
 
[ :*7S J 
 
 ci Herod having now received the 
 
 u kingdom from the Romans, made no 
 11 longer any fcruple of choofiDg the 
 M High-prielts out of the Afmoncan 
 
 " race ; but conferred the honour in- 
 n differently upon peidons, tho' never 
 " fo pbfeure provided they were but 
 " in Holy Orders" Book 20. Cap. 8. 
 
 This fhews, that Herod and the Ro- 
 mans, as wicked as they were, had io 
 much regard to the Je.vifh Laws, as 
 not to prollirute the High Prieithood to 
 any who were not of the feed of Aaron. 
 And therefore it is rcafonable to con* 
 elude, that the High-prielts in our Sa- 
 viour's time were valid High-prielts 
 
 Thirdly and lajlly, fays this learned 
 Author, in anfwer to Bifhop Burner's 
 Expofltion upon this point, " The a- 
 " tone men; was (till preferved by their 
 T M miniftry jV that is, as the Fxpofition 
 alledges, " The ufurping Priesthood in 
 il our Saviour's days." That the learn- 
 ed Author calls begging the quelti >n, 
 affirming the thing he (h >ald have pro- 
 ven, tj wit, " that the fuppofed u- 
 <% iurping High-prieits performed not 
 u any attornment at aii " And the rea- 
 fon of his denying \s f j hat if they were 
 not inllituted High-prielts, their pre- 
 tended 
 
C i;6 ] 
 
 tended ftcerdotal a#s, attempting to 
 propitiate the divine nature, were as 
 null to that purpofe, as King Saul's was 
 before them; that is, wholly null and 
 voi I. But idly, Tho' they wore truly 
 High-priefts, as he grants they were, 
 yet it does not appear, that any atone- 
 ment for the fins of the Jews was made 
 by their miniftration in our Saviour's 
 time : for the people were appointed 
 to wrath and vengeance. Our Saviour 
 ivep over them, becanfe, through the 
 hardnefs of their hearts, the things 
 which belonged to their -peace were kid 
 from their eyes : So that an offering by 
 the moil regukir Higrs-priell: was of no 
 efficacy to atone for fuch iinners. 
 
 But Or. Burnet goes on in defence 
 of fucceflioniels ordination, and fays, 
 11 That where the neceffity was real and 
 " unavoidable, the Jews were bound to 
 " think, that God did, in confideration 
 u of that, difpenle with his own pre- 
 " cept." 
 
 To which our learned Author an* 
 fwers, "That this mull be acknowledged 
 in one fenfe, and ablblutely denied in 
 another. It mud be acknowledged, 
 that God in fuch real and unavoidable 
 neceiTities, difpenfes with his own pre- 
 cept j 
 
. C 177 ] 
 cept*; that is, does not expect us to o« 
 beyir, when it is out of our power to 
 obey it. He then difpenfes with our 
 non-ability to perform it - y and fb im- 
 pntes not unto us the omiflion of it. 
 put then it is abfolutely to be denied, 
 that in fuch real and unavoidable nccef- 
 fity, where we cannot have his pofitive 
 inilitutions, he difpenfes with them, by 
 allowing us to commute, and put in* 
 Head thereof our human inftitutions, to 
 ferve for the lame purpofes as tHfc di- 
 vine one : becanfe it would infer that 
 God would equalize a human inftitution 
 to his own divine one. For the jews 
 always, when they thought and practifed 
 as the Molaick Law directed them, rec- 
 koned that God would not, in cafes of 
 greateft r.eceffity, allow them to fubfti- 
 tute their own inventions in the room 
 of his pofitive inftitutrons. For thus, 
 when they were in captivity in Baby- 
 lon 70 years, they did not dare to fa- 
 crifice, becaufe they were deftitute of 
 the temple and altar, where God had 
 placed his name, and where the infti- 
 tution required his facrificc to be of- 
 fered; and to this day they give th$ 
 fame reafon why they do not offer any 
 material facrifice as formerly, becaufe 
 
 they 
 
C 173 3 
 
 they have not the appointed temple 
 and altar. So that we may reafonably 
 conclude, that when we cannot have 
 nor obtain God's pofitive inltru&ions, 
 we mu ft not let up our own inftead 
 thereof." 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 YOU fee haw fohdly Dr. Burnet is 
 I confuted, when he has racked his 
 wit to do the fucceflionlefe eaufe a piece 
 of fevvice ; and the anfwer given may 
 ferve to ftranglc all that any other can 
 fay, tho' he ihould have wriuen a thou* 
 fand fheets upon the head. For i* 
 They cannot pretend neceffity. 2. 
 They do not pretend to it; for they 
 exalt and prefer their government to 
 Epifcopacy. 3. We find, that if God, 
 in his providence, will have his pofitive 
 inftirutions to peri-Jh, (which Chrift 
 promifed fhould never be fo in the 
 Gofpcl Mini(try) the inventions of men 
 cannot make up that lofs, or come in 
 place thereof. 
 
 LETTER 
 
E 179 1 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The Anfvkr Prefbyteruns give to 
 the Pica of Sufcejjtpii, i. That it 
 is do£trinal> an.i not per final. 2. 
 Of the cottceffions of learned Pa pi (Is 
 and Pr idhints, for the validity 
 of Ordination by mere Prieits or 
 JPresfbyters. 
 
 TH K ordinary anfwer thtJt is give a 
 againlt the Aocftolical Succeffion 
 •is, That what Fathers and Proteitams 
 meant by it, is doftrinal and not per- 
 fonai Succeffion : Which, in my hum- 
 ble opinion, cannot make good fenfe; 
 for one doctrine does not fucceed to 
 anotner: We are to contend for the 
 Faith that was once delivered to the 
 Saints ; but one faith does not fucceed 
 to another; for the faith never dies ; 
 nor does one bible fucceed to onother, 
 
 otherwile 
 
r 1*0 i 
 
 otherwife we might be multiplying 
 creeds and bibles every day ; But it is 
 that fame faith and doctrine taught by 
 the Apoflles that is continued in the 
 church, by the preaching of thofe that 
 are lawfully authorized by the Bifhops, 
 who are the Succeflbrs of the Apoflles, 
 whofc ports and offices are preaching 
 the word, adminiftration of facraments, 
 abfolving of pen, tents, and other mini* 
 fterialafts j 1 (ay, by Succeflbrs (upply- 
 ing the mortality of their predecerfbrs, 
 according to Chrilt's promife, Matthew 
 xxviii. Lo ! I am with you to the end of 
 the world. 
 
 Secondly, As to the conceffions and 
 opinions of Canonifts and Schoolmen 
 among the Papifts, That the ordination 
 of Priefts without aBifhop, may be va- 
 lid j and the conccffion of Proteftant 
 and Epifcopal Divines fo- the validity of 
 the minifterial acls for foreign church- 
 es that have no Epifcopal ordination, 
 and are not the perfonal Succeflbrs of 
 the Apoflles, 1 give thefe following 
 thoughts. 
 
 i. That it is not our charity, norci* 
 vility, nor the opinions of learned men, 
 that can make thofe Gofpel Minifters, 
 nor their adminiftrations valid, who are 
 
 not 
 
C 181 ] 
 
 not authorized by Bifhops, who prove 
 at lead: a prcfumptivc SuccefTion to the 
 Apcrtlcs, which their oppofers cannot 
 di (prove. 
 
 2. There are as learned men, and 
 wh'S with grearer fircngth of riafbil 
 confute 'their opinions, particularly Dr. 
 Hi ekes, Mr. Dodvvell, and the author of' 
 -Lay Btiptifm invalid. 
 
 3. They who give fuch conceptions-., 
 do more harm than good ; for it puts 
 : tbeVr readers in the belief., that a Presby- 
 terian ininiftry is as good as an Epifcopal 
 in fuch and fuch circumflanccs, and that 
 their adminiftrations are as valid as if 
 they were the A parties Succcfibrs ; and 
 that it isneediefs to feek an A.poftolical 
 ordination where it may be had, as it 
 can never be wanted; if men be wil- 
 ling to have it : Moreover, it makes 
 people think Church government to be 
 but -indifferent, or ambulatory, and that 
 it is impofTible to find out what is right 
 or wrong, br to know what is title or 
 falfe j withall, it makes men entertain 
 miftaken notions 5 for charity, (ays the 
 Apoflle, 1 Cor. xiii. rejoiceth in the truth, 
 and not in error tfr falfehocd Charity 
 mud be accompanied with knowledge 
 and rcafoiV truth and certainty ; Nou:, 
 
 Q that 
 
that the adminiftrations of thcfc wha 
 are the Apofiles Succellors, and of 
 thofe who are not, fliall be valid, is not 
 confident with realbn nor revelation. 
 It opens a door to all hereiy and 
 fchiihi. It is not charity to footh 
 men in their errors; charity without 
 truth and certainty is but ilupidity. 
 If there feem to fee any harfhnefs or 
 bad confequences in all this, -kt us fee 
 at whofe door the fin doth lye* 
 
 4. Lanfwer, That the beft and moil 
 learned Bifliops, and foreign Presbyteri- 
 ans allow of Epifcopal ordination ; but fo 
 do not the Epifcopal allow of theirs, 
 which I have fhewn, in the firfl -letter, 
 to be noPopifh argument: I think, then, 
 when a thing is certain on the one fide, 
 and uncertain on the other, it is reafon- 
 able to yield to the lafeft fide, as Meflrs. 
 Burgefs, Baxter and Manton did, to take 
 away all doubt, by fubmitting to Epif- 
 copal ordination. And fo after the re- 
 iteration of King Charles, in the year 
 1662, MefTrs, Sharp, Fairfoul) Lighten 
 and Hamilton yielded firft to be diacon- 
 ate, then to he presbyterate, and thirdly 
 to be confecrated Biihops, as Roger 
 Coke, Efq; in his Detection of the Court 
 and jlate of England in the four lajl reigns, 
 
 Vol. 
 
C '8 3 ] 
 
 Vol. il. printed in 1694. Page 121. re- 
 lates : The book is wrong paged, for 
 it has 121 twice ; but the account is in 
 the lait 121// Paec. And that author 
 is iomewhat difpleafed with that tub- 
 mifTion ; becaufe he thinks it was a 
 virtual acknowledgement of the invali- 
 dity of their Presbyterian minillry. 
 
 5. The Presbyterian argument, from 
 the concefiion of learned antagonifb, 
 Popifli or Proteftanr, is not coming to 
 the point, oor is the queftion rightly 
 Hated: For the queftion is) Whether or 
 not there can be a rtririiftry commiilioned 
 to preach and baptize, 6r. that have 
 not Apoftohcal Succeffion, which cannot: 
 be proven but by Kpifcopal ordination, 
 the conftant and univcdal practice of 
 the Church, which is the fureft living 
 commentary on the fcriptures ? 
 
 6. I oppoie to all the counter-con- 
 eeflions of rhe learned reformers, which 
 may be fcen in the miicellany numbers, 
 particularly in the Appeal to Calvin's 
 Tribunal, where the reader may fee 
 his approbation and tcftimony of hier- 
 archy, liturgy and ceremonies, Sec. the 
 rranlcribing whereof would exceed 
 the volume which I am printing at 
 prefent ; particularly in his Anf.ver 
 
 Q. 2 to 
 
to Mr. Cartwright's refrefentatim of 
 Archbifoofs and Bifbops,, where he " de- 
 V bounces all curies againft thofe wha 
 i: do not oblerve inch- a hierarchy with 
 " all reverence and obedience ; and he 
 Ki accounts a. government by Arch* 
 u biihops a moderate honour, as being 
 " within the com pais of a man's power 
 u to execute. And the antient Church 
 u did appoint Patriarchs and Primates 
 u in every province, to unite Biihops 
 u in concord. " See this more largely 
 cited in the firft part. SeezKo, in the fore- 
 faid mifcellany numbers, P. 6 i . Calvin's 
 opinion of his ordination of Presbyters 
 without Biihops, where he fays, " It 
 " were greatly to be deiircd, that a 
 u continued Succefiion might be pre- 
 <: ferved, that the office might be deli- 
 44 vered from hand to hand, &tc. f * 
 
 Again, in the iame 6\jl Page, where 
 he gives his fentiment of the Biihops 
 having the foie power of ordination : 
 " And here he fuppoies it agreeable to 
 41 Apoftoiical practice ; foe there was 
 11 at Ephefus a college of Presbyters, 
 u when St. Paul ordained Timothy ; 
 •? and tho' the Apoitle. tells us of ike 
 *' laying on of the hands of the Presbytery^ 
 %i i Tim* iv 14. jet in another place 
 
 " he 
 
[ 135- ] 
 k he mentions the impofition of no 
 rt hands but his o~vn y 2 Tim, i. 6. I 
 " do not underftand, lays he, the firit 
 " place to be meant of the college of 
 " Presbyters, but of the ordination it- 
 u lelf,as if the Apoftle had laid, fee that 
 lt the grace of God given thee by im- 
 41 pofition of hands, when 1 made rhee 
 fi a Presbyter, be not in vain. " St. 
 Jerome faid this before him. So that 
 Calvin's meaning is, neglefl not the gift, 
 (that is the office) of Presbytery, or of 
 a Presbyter, ivhich is given to thee by 
 frophecy, that is, by the fpirit of diU 
 cerning which is in me } and by which 
 I found thee a qualified and fit pcrlbn 
 to receive the office of a Presbyter, by 
 the laying on of my hands* 
 
 \ find Mr. George Gilcfpie, in h\$ 
 Treatife of mi fie tie ny queftions, pub* 
 Jilhed by Mr. Patrick Gilelfie, printed 
 at Edinburgh, anno 1649, pafs his civil 
 cenfure upon this expofition of Calvin's, 
 page 98. thus, quandoque bonus dormitat 
 Moments. u Sometimes the great Ho- 
 " mcr takes a nap ; if Or as \vc fay in 
 a Scottiih proverb, a four-footed hcrfe niay 
 fnaffer ; or, in Er-glifh. may fumble. 
 This, I think, is bur.ufbry confutation 
 
 0.3 * 
 
[ i86 ] 
 
 of Calvin's expofuion, and of St, Je- 
 rome's authority before him. 
 
 I could bring in a cloud of witnefles 
 of the reformers, as Luther and his 
 followers; and Melanchton, who fay, 
 *i Would to God it lay in me to reftore 
 u the order of Biihops, for I forefee 
 " what manner of government we 
 " fhall have, and that thereafter will 
 " fpring up a greater Tyranny than 
 '/ ever. V But. 
 
 7. Lajlly, the learned men of Pro- 
 tectant Epilcopals grant their allow- 
 ances with a warrant, caution and 
 limitation, by which they ftrangle all 
 the Presbyterian defences. For Bifhop 
 Downham, in his defence of his con- 
 fecration fenuon, and Mafor/s defence 
 of ordination, page 168 to 171. Dr Field, 
 lib, 3. cap. 39. and others, except 
 fome cafes of neceflity -, fuch as thete, 
 f* If all the Biihops in the world were 
 41 dead or deilroyed, turn hereticks or 
 " pcrfecutors of the truth, and refufe 
 " to ordain any that will not fubfcribe 
 " their errors ; or, if fome Chriltians 
 *' in a defart ifland had no accefs to 
 " Bifhops." 
 
 It is told in the preceeding letter, 
 that the Church of God was never 
 
 brought 
 
r i8 7 a 
 
 brought to fiKh a pals, nor never fhall 
 be; and if God will differ his pofitive 
 inltitutions to pcriih, I do not ice how 
 men can mend the matter, unlels they 
 come with extraordinary credentials to 
 prove their million. But the Presby- 
 terians do not thank any man tor iuch 
 conceflfions, for they plead a divine, 
 ficriptural, apoflolieal and primitive right, 
 by their own expofition of the fcripture 
 and fathers, againit the practice of all 
 antient and modern Churches in the 
 world ; and confequently thefe concef* 
 fions fill to the ground. 
 
 1 find Presbyterian authors cite fe^ 
 vcral fchoolmen and canonifts againft 
 the divine right of Bilhops, which it 
 were tedious here to repeat j but a 
 ihort anlwer may fuffice, to ivit, that 
 thele authors do lb, to magnifie the 
 power of the Pope, whom they account 
 the vifible head of the Church, and 
 Christ's Vicar --General upon earth, 
 and (wallow the primitive Epifcopacy 
 into the Papacy. So authors, whom 
 Presbyterians cite in their favours, al- 
 low of one Bifhop by divine rrght over 
 the clergy, but the Presbyterians none 
 at all, 
 
 Bur, 
 
C ^«8 J 
 
 Bur, tc do the Papifts jufiice, ihcir 
 learned men cenfure Inch opinions as 
 are injurious ro the primitive Epifco- 
 pacy,as Francifcus a Hanita Clara, afo/og. 
 Fpfcof. P. 125. cited by the learned 
 Anonymus author of the Brief account 
 of the antient Church government, page 
 251. The words are, " They are not 
 41 found to be divines but tnffling law- 
 11 yers, who firft broached and vented 
 44 this opinion, if we may call it aa 
 44 opinion. The ground of this opi- 
 44 nion arifes from the refpect they 
 " bear to the Apofiolic See ; but it 
 4i were greater deference to the fu- 
 44 preme See, to fearch after truth, and 
 44 having found it to declare it, than, 
 " under colour of reipeft to that Sec, 
 " to belch forth new opinions unknown 
 * to antiquity." 
 
 And the council of Trent, Scf[. 23. 
 Chap. 4. declares, " That Bifhops are 
 41 true Succcflbrs of the Apoitlcs ; that 
 44 they are above Presbyters, and that it 
 4h belongs to them to confirm and ro 
 " confer Holy Orders." And the 6th 
 Canon of the fame Seffion is this, " If 
 " any fay that there is no hierarchy in- 
 11 (United by divine appointment, which 
 
 confifts 
 
C »fi 1 
 
 4 * confifls of Biihcps, Presbyters, and 
 " Deacons, let it be an anathema. **> 
 
 So we find that the authorities which 
 Presbyterians cite from Fapiftsand Pro- 
 teltanrs, can do them no (crvice. 
 
 I could fill a volume in favours of 
 Epifcopacy from Presbyterian authors 
 and reconcilers, as Monfieur Daille de 
 Script. Dion, and Ign. falf. attrib. lib. 2. 
 cap. 38. 
 
 Y It is clearer than the fun at mid- 
 u clay, from fuch. of the writings of Ori- 
 "gen as are extant, and efpecially from 
 " Cyprian's epiftles, that,.towards the end 
 "of the third century, not only the of- 
 "fices and funftions, but alto the names 
 "of Bifhop and Presbyter were diltin- 
 "guiihed." But Calvin goes a greater 
 length, as I have proven in the firlt 
 Part. 
 
 And our learned countryman Dr. 
 ; Forbes, in his Irenicum tells us, "That a 
 " church where no Bilhop is, may be a 
 1 " churchy tho' imperfect ; " yet in his 
 fecond book, and 12th proportion, uC 
 icrts, "That he fins againft Chritt, who- 
 " fuever he be, Clergyman or Laick, 
 J* who deipiies the authority of his Bi- 
 " ihon, and denies obedience to the 
 
 " juit 
 
I 193 ] 
 
 u juft commands of thefc who arc un- 
 N der the Epifcopal power." 
 
 The Reverend and learned Dr. Scot, 
 in his Chriitian Life, vol. 2. chap,. 7. 
 page 294. {peaks as much as any living 
 did, or can do, for thofe that have not 
 Epifcopal Ordination. Thus, when he 
 fays, " Tho' the inftituted government 
 '' of Epifcopacy be neceifary to the per- 
 fection of a church, yet it doth not 
 therefore to the being of it ; for even 
 in the Jevvifn Church, wherein all 
 things were determined by divine 
 inltitution, even to the minuted cir- 
 cumllances, there were fundry devia- 
 tions from that inltitution, which yet 
 did not unchurch them, ft was a 
 great deviation in them to offer facri- 
 fice in their high places, after God 
 had determined them to (acrifice on- 
 ly at the temple at Jerufalem. It was 
 another great deviation in them, to 
 make Priefts out of other familes, af- 
 ter God had determined them to the 
 family of Aaron 5 and yet. it is ceitain, 
 that neither the one nor the other did 
 unchurch them. And if thele devia- 
 tions from divine inftitmion, which 
 were the effects of their negligence, 
 " did not yet unchurch them, it is not 
 
 * to 
 
I »?« ] 
 
 •' to be imagined that fuch deviations 
 c * from it as are the pure effcifts of ne* 
 u ceflky, fhoukl unchurch others. -And 
 " by the fame reafon, whenever the 
 u Divine Providence doth, by unavoida- 
 14 lie necelTity, deprive any church of 
 u its Epifcopacy, it thereby, for the pre* 
 " lent at lealt, and whiht the neceffity 
 Hl continues, relcaies it from the obliga- 
 u tion of the inftitutron of fcpifcopacy, 
 " and allows it :o adminifter its govern* 
 " ment and dilcipline by a parity of 
 " Presbyters. And therefore, fo long 
 " as it did not renounce the Epifcopacy, 
 u but (till continues in communion 
 u with other churches that enjoy it, it 
 u ought to be looked upon, and com- 
 u municatcd with, as a true (though a 
 * maimed one) of the Church Catho- 
 14 lie : For the Catholic Church never 
 11 denied her communion to any Chri* 
 H (tiars or community of Christians, 
 upon any unavoidable deviation from 
 u pofitive inftituiion. It was without 
 
 1 doubt as great a deviation from poli- 
 " tive inftitution for Laymen to bap- 
 1,1 tize, as for a parity of Presbyters to 
 u govern, ordain, &c. and yet, in cafes 
 " of neceffity, the Catholic Church al- 
 
 1 ways allowed the baptifm of Laymen, 
 
 . M as 
 
C 192 1 
 
 u as deeming baptiim in itfelf more 
 " neceflary, than the adminiltration of 
 " baptiim by perfons in Holy Orders. 
 To this it is aniwered in ihort, That 
 what is (aid to Dr. Burnet in the pre- 
 ceecmg third Letter, may fuffice to in- 
 validate what the learned Dr. Scot has 
 written upon this head. For the pa- 
 rallel betwixt lay baptifm in cafe of 
 ncceffity and Presbyterian ordination 
 will not held j for the firft does fall out 
 when a commiffioned perion cannot l>e 
 had to baptize, but the tecond does no^ 
 nor ever did, nor ever will fall our, fo 
 long as Chrilt\s promife (lands. The 
 foreign churches and Britiili Presbyte* 
 rians may have Episcopal ordinal ion if 
 they will ; but they think they arc not 
 expofed to that neceiTity, which chari- 
 table and learned authors in the Epifco- 
 pal communion plead in their be* 
 half ; for they believe their own confti- 
 tution more reformed from Popery than 
 the EpHcopal is, and Presbytery more 
 fcriptural and primitive than Epifco* 
 pacy. 
 
 2. They who are for Lay-baptifm 
 plead necetfity only, but the Prof* 
 tuterians plead authority for what 
 they do. 
 
c m 3 
 
 3. Presbyterians will not allow that 
 Laymen fh >uLI bapnze in cafe of n<b« 
 ceflfity, nor do the Doners of the Church 
 of England allow it ; tho' it was fome- 
 tinies praclited about the beginning of 
 the reformation, and allowed by o* 
 thers 
 
 Withall, with due def rencc to the 
 learned Doctor, it is denied rhat ever 
 the Catholic Church did allow of it ; 
 for they who ftu.ied the cafe, have 
 found that it was a Romifh corruption, 
 and that it was oppofed mightily by 
 many in the African church ; and the 
 learned Author of the Invalidity of Lay* 
 baptifm, has folijly demonftrated this 
 to be a Romiili corruption, a Mmtani- 
 ftical notion in Tenullian ; and that it 
 is not of fuch abfolute neceflity as -tc: 
 invade the PriefUy office, but to craft 
 the foul to God that made it, rather 
 than tranfgrefs his potitive inftiiuti ns. 
 
 4. The Britifh Presbyter'ans make it 
 their bufincfs to affr nt, rubble, cxtir- 
 pare, and (wear Epifcopacy out of the 
 world, as an Antichriihan corruption. 
 
 5. The learned Dr. -cot will find 
 many Divines agaihlt his opinion on 
 this head There is a learned anony- 
 mous Presbyter of the Church of f 1 g- 
 
 R land, 
 
I »94 ] 
 
 land, who has written on the Divine 
 Right of Epifcopacy, printed in 1708, 
 who in his preface, written by the re- 
 verend and learned Dr. George Hickes, 
 has thefe words : " As I am as much 
 " as any prieft in the Church of Eng* 
 44 land for fraternal correfpondence with 
 44 the 'foreign refotmed churches ,fo I 
 " think the befl ufe that can be made 
 41 of it, is to fhew the infufficiency of 
 44 thofe arguments, which either their 
 44 minifters, or (ome^of our clergy, have 
 " ufed in behali of their reformation 
 H and mifltion ; and 40 befeech and o- 
 44 bligc them in the fpirit of meeknefs, 
 11 to put the latter out of all qucftion 
 44 and doubt ; by returning to that form 
 u of ccclefiaftical polity which Chrill 
 "Jefus appointed by himfeif, and by 
 44 the direction of his holy Spirit, for 
 11 the (landing and unalienable go- 
 u vernment of the Church. I think 
 M this much more becoming the cha- 
 u rity of a Chriitian Bifhop or Prieft, 
 " than to footh them up in their error, 
 " and devife ihifts of arguments againfl: 
 46 the authority and practice of the Ca- 
 4i tholic Church, to harden both their 
 11 magiftrates and mini iters in the con- 
 (( tinuance of a finful exorbitance, which 
 
 « they 
 
C '95- ] 
 
 u they ought to reprefs." He con* 
 eludes with the words of my Lord 
 Chancellor Clarendon, tranferibed out 
 of an imperfect letter, written by his 
 Lordfhip a little before his death at 
 Rhoan in France : 
 
 41 i cannot," faith he, " bu: obferve, 
 14 without raking delight in the obferva- 
 u tion, how great paina grave Divines 
 " of the Church of England take, to 
 44 have our Church of England thought 
 u to be of the fame religion with the 
 44 other, whilft their paiiors fupcrcili- 
 " on fly look upon the nlelvcs as having 
 V no need of their accefs or countc- 
 44 nance : We fcem. to dcfirc to bs 
 44 thought like them, when they do not 
 "in the leafl degree appear willing to 
 M be thought like its ; and when in the 
 M ufurpation of Cromwell, and the do 
 44 folation to which our poor church 
 44 was reduced,, they made no fcruple 
 u to declare it Antichriftian. They 
 44 are now reduced to fo much good 
 11 manners, as to believe us in a (tatc of 
 " falvation, without fo much as lament 
 44 ting their own defefts, which the 
 44 grcared men that have been of their 
 11 communion, had the modelty hero 
 44 rofere to do, and feemed to grieve 
 R 2 « chat 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 i4 that it was not in their power to make 
 44 their reformation as ours was. if the 
 " difference that is now in our temper 
 " proceeds from our Chriftian nieek- 
 94 nefs and chariry, jet: us, before we 
 il think too well of the foil, ft ay till we 
 " fee thofe virtues tranfpianted and 
 " profper there, and produce the fame 
 44 inclination in them, which men 
 41 would pcrfuadc us to have. 
 
 " 1 am fare I have no authority to 
 " condemn them, becaufe my mother 
 " the church hath not directly con- 
 H demned them ; but I am not fure 
 " that every private man is at liberty 
 •* to choofe a communion for himielf, 
 u becaufe his church hath not taken 
 *' upon it to condemn. It will become 
 4< every true ion of the Church of Eng- 
 " land to have that reverence for it, as 
 <c not to proftitute his dignity to a com- 
 *' pliar.ee with a lefs perfeft communis 
 r on, when he is not neeeffitatc to it. 
 4< It was no light reproach that Tully 
 44 charged upon a great part oi the Ro- 
 M man Senate, Qui fpem Catalinz mcili* 
 41 bus fententiis aluerunt 7 conjurationem* 
 46 que nafcentem^ non crcdendo ccrrotora* 
 * verunt. 
 
 "It 
 
[ 197 1 
 
 u It had been very happy for the 
 * church, if it had fu fie red only by her 
 " enemies, and thole who hated her, 
 " who were never numerous enough 
 41 to have deftroyed her : Its ruin pro- 
 " ceeded from thofe who wiihed her 
 " no harm, but thought by little com- 
 41 piiances to have fatisfied the defires 
 14 of many men, who appeared more 
 41 moderate than the reft/' 
 
 When this noble Peer was in banilh- 
 ment in France, he would not comma* 
 nicate in that church, but kept his own 
 chaplain with him ; and being advifed 
 to keep communion with them, for his 
 own prefect intereft and eafe, and bc~ 
 caufe they were irreconcilable enemies 
 to the Papi'ls, he fays, " To commnni- 
 11 cate counfcls with them, may pofhbly 
 14 be-at fome times convenient and law- 
 41 ful ; but to communicate in the la- 
 44 crament, that was intHtiued for the 
 4i reconciliation of mankind, with them 
 * who are, and becaufe they are irre- 
 14 concilable to another, great body of 
 4i Chritt, feems to be an argument 
 " drawn rather from the principles of 
 11 Machiavel, than from the prece*pts 
 ** of the gofpcl." 
 
 R 3 And 
 
r 198 3 
 
 And being told, That his compliance 
 would reconcile many good men to 
 him, whereas the contrary would pro- 
 voke thern; he faid, " This is a qneflion 
 41 pertinent indeed, but can never be 
 ci ftretched into an argument to recon- 
 a cile a man, who loves himfelf nobet- 
 *' ter than I do, and who fears no new 
 u misfortunes more than 1 do. 
 
 " I have always had a reverence for 
 
 44 old Elea^ar, who would^not be per- 
 
 11 fuaded by thofe who loved him, to 
 
 11 provide and bring with him his own 
 
 44 mear, and to make as if he did eat of 
 
 44 the flefh taken from the facrifrce, but 
 
 * 4 chofe rather to fuffer death, with all 
 
 44 the circumftances of torment, than to 
 
 u be guilty of fuch odious difTimulation. 
 
 j 
 u For it becometh not our age (laid 
 
 44 he) in any ways to diflemblc, vvhere- 
 M by many young perfons might think, 
 11 that Eleazar being fourfcore years old 
 14 and ten, was now gone to a ftrange 
 u religion, and to through my hypocri- 
 11 iy Ihould be deceived by me, and I 
 #i get a flam in my old age, and make 
 " ^ abominable ." 2 Maccabees vi'u 24, 
 2J, &c. 
 
 I wifli this noble Peer of famous me- 
 mory, had many more neighbours of 
 
 the 
 
r 199 j 
 
 the Clergy and Laity, of his principle 
 and practice. 
 
 6- The learned'Dr- Scot has, in the 
 
 fore-cited place, page 29ft. (aid as much 
 as can confute all the defences he 
 makes for foreign Churches, thus : 
 
 44 Tho' a community of Chriltians 
 11 may be a true part of the Catholic 
 il Church, and in communion with it, 
 li tho' it have no Epifcopacy, yet it is a 
 < l plain cafe, that it it rejects the Epif- 
 <' pacy, and feparates from the commu- 
 " nion of it it thereby wholly divides 
 " itfclf from the communion of the 
 Cl Catholic Church . For whether Epif- 
 copacy be of divine inftitution or no, 
 H this is matter of fact granted on all 
 u hands, that, for twelve hundred years 
 " at leaft, all thefe churches into which, 
 iC the Catholic Church hath been diftri- 
 s< buted, have been fubjecl to Epifcopal 
 " government and ditciplinej and there- 
 11 fore they who now feparate them* 
 11 feives from Epifcopal communion, as 
 u fuch, mu" in fo doing feparate them- 
 " felvcs from the communion of all 
 " churches for twelve hundred years 
 " together ; and then either all thefe 
 <( churches muft be out of communion 
 u wiih the Catholic Church, and con- 
 
 " fcqucncly, 
 
[ 200 1 
 
 # 'fequently, during all that time, there 
 11 muft be no fuch thing as a vifible 
 u Catholic Church upon e^rth, or elfe 
 P thefe communities of Chriftians which 
 " feparate from all thefe churches, muft 
 u be fchiftn and feparation from the 
 * Catholic Church." 
 
 7. Laflly. Think upon this, That the 
 anfwering of Dr. Burnet, and of Dr. 
 Scot, is as good as if ten thoufand were 
 anfwered upon the fame fuhje£ ; for it 
 is not the opinion of judicious men, 
 but ihe reafons which they give that 
 Ihould bfc convincing ; but we find that 
 other learned men diffenting from 
 them, give (Ironger reafons, and this 
 fhouid cafl the balance, and end the de- 
 bate. Adieu. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Ecaufc people make a handle of 
 the conceffions given on both 
 fides, I fhall here prcfent you whh 
 JVIonf. le Moyn, profeflor of divinity at 
 Leydcn, his letter written to the Bilhop 
 of London in the year 1680. It is one 
 of the three letters annexed to Stilling- 
 fleet's Unreafonablenefs of Separation. 
 The other two are by Monf -de'i Angle, 
 
 and 
 
[ 2 °1 1 
 
 and Monf. Claude The paflage I cite 
 out of Le Moyn^s letter follows. 
 
 u For Epifcopal government, what is 
 11 there in ir that is dangerous, or may 
 " realbnably alarm men's confcienccs ? 
 " And if this be capable of depriving 
 * us of eternal glory, and Hunting the 
 " gates of heaven, who was it that en* 
 u tered there for the (pace of fifteen 
 {■ hundred years, fince, for all that time r 
 M all churches in the world had no o- 
 11 ther kind of government ? If it were 
 " contrary ro the truth, and attainment 
 N of eternal happinefs, is it credible 
 " that God had fb highly approved of 
 
 Y it, and permitted his church to be ty- 
 tl rannized over by it for fo many ages? 
 5 1 For who was it that governed it I Who 
 il was it did make up its councils as welt 
 u general as particular \ Who was it 
 " that combated the herefies with which 
 " it hath been at all times afiauired ? 
 u Was it not the Biihops I And is it not 
 u to their wife conduft, ro which, next 
 I? under God, his word is beholden for 
 " irs victories and triumphs ? And, not 
 " to go back (o far as the birth and in- 
 4 * fancy of the church, Who was it that 
 " in the laft age delivered England from 
 
 V the error in which Hie was envelo- 
 
 H ped? 
 
t 202 ] 
 
 44 ped ? Who was it that made The t 
 44 to rile there fo miraculoufly ag; 
 " Was it not the zeal and conltanc 
 u the Bilhops and their miniltry, 
 u difengaged the Englifh from the 
 " predion under which they had gr 
 44 cd Co long ? And did not their exar 
 4i powerfully help forward the r< 
 44 mation of all Europe ?" 
 
 Again, near to the end of his le 
 he writes thus ; 
 
 41 For, to fpeak the truth, I do no 
 " that their meetings" (meaning t 
 of the Fnglifti diiTenters) " are of 
 11 great ufe y or that one may be r 
 " comforted there, than in Epifc 
 u Churches: When I was at Lor 
 '• almoft five years ago, 1 went to 
 44 verals of their private Aflemblie 
 " fee what way they took for th< 
 " ftru&ion of the people, and pre 
 " ing of the word of God ; b 
 u profefs, I was not at all edified b 
 u 1 heard one of the rnoft far 
 " Non-conformifts; he preached 
 " place where there were three i 
 " and three or fofir-fcore of won 
 u he had chofen a text about the 
 " ding of the ruins of Jcrulaleui) 
 " for explication, of it, he eked 1 
 
i 2 °3 ] 
 
 * and Vitrirclus about an hundred 
 " times, and did not forget to mention 
 " a proverb in Italian, duro con duro non 
 u fa muro. All this (cems to me no- 
 
 * thing to the purpofe, and very improp- 
 u er for the poor v^ om.cn, and very far 
 u from a fpirit that fought nothing but 
 44 the comfort and edification of his 
 " hearers. " 
 
 It may be prehimed, that a famous 
 profeflbr of divinity, would publifh no- 
 thing but what was agreeable to ienle 
 and realon, knowledge and confeience. 
 
 Adieu* 
 
 L E T T E R V. 
 S I R 
 
 YOU tell me, the Iaft day, when 
 yon was in a mixt multitude, 
 that the Presbyterian party hoaftcd, that 
 their books againft us were not anfwe- 
 red j but they anfwered all that we can 
 fay. To which I return thele following 
 thoughts, i. Men fancy with them- 
 felves, that, if this be ^not particularly 
 named, then they are not anfwercd. 
 2. The queftion is. If what they have 
 
 written 
 
[ 20 4 ] 
 
 written be an anfwer to us? It is no 
 writing much but well and folidly thai 
 can abide the reit. 3. I lhall take Iw 
 half a lheet againlt all the volumes the} 
 have written, and tell them, in the 4th 
 place/thattnere is no Epitcopal miniiter 
 ■but can prove his ordination from the 
 Apoitles by the Brfhop who ordainec 
 him ■ and no Bi/hop but ran derive hi; 
 Sucocffion in a hit of ^predec^flbrs from 
 the Apoftles. But 5. We give then s 
 defiance to prove their ordination fiom 
 John Knox, who was but a mere Pueii 
 at the reformation, and was never in- 
 verted with a commifiion to ordain o« 
 •thers, nor any fimple Pnelt or Pres- 
 byter for 1500 years, before John Cal- 
 vin at Geneva, who pieads mere necef- 
 firy for what he did, and ? as I fa id, 
 vvilheJ that the Succcflion might have 
 been continued in the church. But 
 6. If what they fay themfelves can ne- 
 ver prove the validity of their minirtry: 
 anu Laftly, If what they lay again tt us 
 can never help them, (for they own the 
 validity of our ordination), then the in- 
 gen nous world mult coniefs that their 
 caufe is gone, and that their minifterial 
 acts und miffion have no pronnie of the 
 hlefilngs wuich are annex' d to the per- 
 formances 
 
C *°5- 3 
 
 formanccs of thofe that are lawfully 
 fent. For two contradi&ory ordinarons 
 cannot be true. Come then and let us 
 reafon together. They tell us, 
 
 |. That the word Bifhop, Elder/ or 
 Presbyter, are all one in the New Tei- 
 tament ; and therefore not one order 
 above another, but a direft Presbyte- 
 rian parity ; no fuperiority nor inferio- 
 rity : For the Bifhop is a Presbyter, and 
 the Presbyter a Biihop. At this rc.tc, 
 they may fay, the word Imperator fig- 
 nifies an Emperor, and a General of an 
 army, therefore both one. The word 
 Dux, fignifies a Duke and a Captain, 
 therefore every Captain is a Duke. 
 The wofd Father fignifies a natural Fa 
 iher, a King, and a fpiritual Paftor. 
 The word Ruler fignifies a King, and * 
 Chancellor, &cc. therefore no iupremc, 
 no fubordinatc governor. The word 
 God, fignifies the Creator of the world, 
 and a King and Benefaftor is called a 
 God in tne fcripturc (lile : therefore 
 rhere can be no difference betwixt the 
 Creator and Creature ; and, is it not 
 blafphemy to fey they are both one ? 
 
 The word Miniller fignifies a Mini- 
 
 ftcr of the State, as well as a iMinHter 
 
 in the Church j 1 hope you'll not fay 
 
 S they 
 
£ 2c 6 ] 
 they are one, more than a Deacon in a 
 Church, or a Deacon of a Graft in a 
 city is one and the fame ; or that a 
 ruling Elder and a .preaching Elder in 
 the Church are both one; otherwife a 
 ruling Elder, tho' a fhoemaker or wea- 
 ver, is a Bilhop, if Bilhop and Presby- 
 ter be one, according to the Presbyte- 
 rian way of reafoning. In the Old Tef- 
 tament the fcripture mentions Priefts 
 and Levites j but are not Chiefs or 
 High Pi iefts underftood ? We mention 
 the -Angels of Heaven ; are not Arch- 
 angels implied ? When we fpeak of the 
 Houfe of Lords, does not this include 
 Dukes, MarquifTes, Earls, &c. ? What 
 a pitiful quibble is it to (ay, that a Bi- 
 ihop is called a Presbyter, and a Pres- 
 byter a Bilhop, therefore no chief Bi- 
 lhop or chief Presbyter? Do we not 
 read in fcripture of a chief Man, chief 
 Captains, chief Fathers, chief Men, 
 chief Houfe, chief Priefts 7 chief Prin- 
 ces, and chief Singers ? Will not Pres- 
 byterians grant that Deacons were Mi- 
 nisters of the Gofpel, and that the word 
 Deacon fnould be tranflated Minifter ? 
 But were all Deacons Bilhops or Pres- 
 byters ? Mu ft they not then acknow- 
 ledge, in this cafe, that there was an 
 
 inequality 
 
C 207 ] 
 lire quality among the firlt Miniftcrs of 
 the Gofpel ? 
 
 You may here fee the power of pre- 
 judice and intereft, by fuch a pitiful 
 argument as that of" the community of 
 names, to keep up a iadtion and fchtfhj 
 in the Univcrfal Church, by an nncr- 
 dained fucceflionlefs mirriftry, and to a- 
 bufe the ignorance and credulity of 
 their followers. For i. They fettle a 
 model of church government which 
 was never known till of late, and thou 
 they feck fcripuire to prove ir, like Pwrc 
 that make a fermon and then feefc 
 a text for it; whereas, I think, the text 
 ihould have been the mother of the 
 fermon. 2. They tell us, That we read, 
 1 77///. iv. 14. of the Laying o U f the 
 bands of the Presbytery ; therefore no 
 fuperiority among churchmen, it is 
 anfwered by way of cjuefUon, What 
 Church in the world, Poft-apoftolical 
 Writer, Father, or Council, underftood 
 this in the modern Presbyterian ienfe \ 
 Neither St. Jerome nor Mr. Calvin ever 
 underftood it to figftify a (ocicty of 
 preaching Elders, but the office of a 
 Presbyter. But if they will have it fo, 
 pray, was not the Apoltle St. Paul the 
 principal Agent in that ordination, and 
 S 2 cal 
 
C 208 j. 
 
 calls if particularly the laying on of lis 
 hands. 2 Tim. i. 6. And it is obforvable, 
 that the two Greek proportions h* and 
 H'?* fignify by and with j by y the prin- 
 cipal ; and xvitb, the concurring caufe, 
 M*/ *r, by the hands of Paul, with the 
 hands of the Presbytery. If they will 
 have the word Presbytery to fignify 
 their own fenfe, Will it not follow, that 
 a Presbytery may give to a (ingle per- 
 ion the power that the whole Se nate 
 or meeting has not in itfelf ? And why 
 do r.o: rhey make among themfelves 
 one fixqd perpetual Biffiop, as that 
 Presbytery gave the power of jurifdic- 
 rion and ordination to Timothy, as the 
 ancients nnd'erftbod ir, and all learned 
 criticks, PopHh and reformed, except 
 thofe that are refolved not to be con- 
 vinced, and to keep up a faction I' 
 And they objeftto us, that the Presby- 
 ters of Alexandria u(ed, upon the 
 death of their Biihop, to chufe one of 
 their number, whom they called Bi- 
 ihop; Why then do not they follow this 
 pradtice ? But jn this I have fhewn 
 their miitake in the firit part,, that, tho' 
 they did nominate their Biiliop, yet 
 neighbouring Prelates were called in to 
 give the confummative ad of confe- 
 
 cration 
 
[ 209 ] 
 
 cration. Bat Laji/y, What fignifies 
 all this, if they cannot prove themlclves 
 fucceflors ro that Presbytery that laid 
 hands on Timothy? For there is no 
 Presbyter ordained by Biihops among us, 
 hut can prove their Succellion in the per- 
 sons of the Biihops that ordained them, 
 and that upwards to the Apodles. But 
 then they go to the fathers ; and herein 
 I tell them, that if St. Jerome fail them, 
 they can get no fervice of the fathers, 
 unlefs they reckon Aerius a father, 
 whom the fathers condemned as an 
 heretick, for maintaining a parity among 
 Churchmen ; but, in my fecond letter, 
 1 have ihown the abfurdity of thofe who 
 pretend that St. Jerome's teltimony 
 makes for Presbytery. 
 
 The next thing they contend for is, 
 that the primitive Biihop was a Paro- 
 chial, and not a Dioceian. To which 
 I anfcver, that it is not a diorefs that 
 makes a Biihop, nor a parilh that makes 
 a Miniiler, more than a gown makes 
 a Curate, or a grey cloak makes 3 pres- 
 bytcrian Teacher There are now vr 
 days Biihops that have no dioceiles, 
 and minilters that have no parilhe: 1 , 
 yet have lawful oidination and Apollo- 
 lical SucCwflion : Let then thefc par- 
 S 3 ochial 
 
[ 21° ] 
 
 ochial Bifliops, as Presbyterians call 
 themfelves, prove their Sacceflion, 
 as we prove oar Diocefans, and there 
 is an end of the controverfy ; and o- 
 rherwife nothing is faid, tho' they 
 ihould write ten thoufand volumes In 
 their own caufe. 
 
 I find a Pamphlet printed in 1714. 
 •above eighteen fheets of paper, called, 
 M letter from a 'parochial Bifhop to a 
 prelatical Gentleman in Scotland, con- 
 cer /liner the Government of the Church ; 
 Which, I think, is a good abiiraft of 
 all that the party has written on the 
 head. But he founds all that -he fays 
 upon a very grofs mitlake in his notion 
 of the word pari 111, taking the antient 
 notion of it in the modern opinion that 
 we have of it at this time ; for what if 
 a parilh fignifies a diocefs, comprehen- 
 ding feveral meeting places for worfhip 
 under a chief Bifhop or Presbyter, call 
 him as you will, is not then the title 
 of this book fpoilt ? Now, why not a 
 Diocefs in the Chriitian Church, as well 
 as one Church of the Jews was under one 
 High-pfieft? Pray ! was not St. James 
 Biihop of Jerufalem, where, according 
 to the authors of Jus Rev. EccL as I 
 have cited in the firft Part, there 
 
 were 
 
E in ] 
 
 were many myriads % that is, many ten 
 thoufands. Acts xx. 21. that bt/ieved^ and 
 ivere ieiluous of the law ? This Church 
 was governed by Sc. James, and taught 
 by his Presbyters, before ever the word 
 parilh, in the modern (cnic, was 
 heard of. 
 
 For we find, that St. Paul's going to 
 Jeruihlem for a conciliation in a great 
 and weighty bufirtefs. .Jets xx. 17. 18. 
 St. Luke fays, Next day we ivent in to 
 James, and all the Elders, i. e. Presby- 
 ters, zuere frefent. We find James cal- 
 led by his own name, by way of ex- 
 cellency, as all the chief rulers were 
 among the Tews, according to thatRabbi- 
 nical rule, Rabbi is greater than Rah, 
 and Rabban is greater than Rabbi, but he 
 that is called by his bare name, without 
 any title, is greater than Rabban. See 
 the Preface of this fecond part upon the 
 word parifh. 
 
 The author of the Parochial Bifoop has 
 read the writers of his own party, but 
 neither he, nor any of them have given 
 a faithful anfwer to what we fay j but 
 for this he has a falvo in the end of his 
 book. P. 141, where he defires of the 
 pcrlon he writes to, not to u nibble at 
 " fome particulars in his book, and to 
 
 " pats 
 
L 2I2 1 
 « pafs by the reft, as Mr Sage did with 
 u Dr. Rule, by undertaking to prove 
 <( that there was Epifcopacy inSr. Cypri- 
 " an's time; and Mr. Calder with Mr. 
 * Jamefon his Nazianzen Querela, 
 " fattens upon a particular place of 
 " Ignatius's Epiftles." 
 
 r J his is enough to cad all that he has 
 written ; For Dr. Rnle laid the whole 
 Jtreis of the caufe upon it, faying when 
 any proves that the " Cyprianic Rifhop 
 u was fuperior to Presbyters, we ihall 
 11 give Cyprian and him leave to call 
 u us fchifmatics. " What needed the 
 learned Mr. Sage go any further with 
 him ? And, Mr. Calder made good 
 his vindication of St. Jgnatius's E- 
 piftlcs, it was enough to ardwer all 
 the Presbyterians in the world ; and the 
 ftrongeft arguments that Mr. Calder 
 has adduced for his plea, remains un- 
 anfwered by the party, particularly 
 that of the Presbyiers of Alexandria 
 naming one of their number whom they 
 made Bifhop j but they will not tell, 
 as 1 have proven, that there was a con- 
 fummative act by neighbouring Bilhops; 
 which this author might read in anfwer 
 to Mr. Jamefon. Bat feeing this pamph- 
 let is (olidly confuted by another hand, 
 
[ 213 J 
 
 I Hull fay no mere about it. But fllll I 
 delire them to make good their own 
 ordination and fucceftion from the 
 ApoiHes. 
 
 But ibme may fay, that the Papifts 
 give us as ftrong an home-thruft as we 
 give to the Presbyterians, and fo we are 
 not flyting free. To which I anfwer, 
 That this makes not us to be in the 
 wrong, nor Presbyterians to be in the 
 right ; Apoftolical SuccefTion is the rule 
 to prove a lawful minittry, and this is 
 the thing that we lay claim to, and 
 prove by a lilt of Bilhops from the 
 foundation of the gofpelj and it was 
 the plea of Presbyterians in their Jus 
 Reg. Eccl. as I have Ihown in the firft 
 part, but they never attempted to do 
 it; yea it is impoffible for them: Why ? 
 They rebel ugainft and feparate from 
 thole who are theSucceflbrsof the Apof 
 ties. But further, if the Papifts could 
 prove againlt us what they alledge, it 
 would be ulurpation in us to continue 
 in the exercife of our mini (try, and yet 
 the SuccclTion not to fail ; for we could 
 go to Greece for it, and receive ordi- 
 nation without impotition of unlawful 
 terms. But we are not put to theie 
 (traits; For we have anlwcred all that 
 
 the 
 
[ *M 1 
 
 the Papifls fay againft us, without mak- 
 ing new commentaries upon the {cap- 
 tures and the fathers. 
 
 As. for their objections againfl: impa- 
 rity and fabordination, from tlvefe words, 
 L ukc xxii. 25. 26. and 1 Peter v. 3* 
 I have anfy/ered that in the preface, to 
 which I refer you. 
 
 In fhort then, let them prove their 
 miffion by Apoftolical Succeffion, and 
 prove that Presbyterian government 
 was primitive and univerfal, othervvife 
 give over the caufe. I bid you fare* 
 welL 
 
 P O S T s e R I P T. 
 
 T is obfervuble that ordination by 
 mere Presbyters was accounted a 
 nullity in the ancient Church, as Mufe- 
 usandEutychiatius, two Grecian Presby- 
 ters, having uncanonicaily ordained fome 
 clerks, they were declared in the Coun- 
 cil of Sardica. Con. 18. 19. but in the 
 rank of mere laymen. See Bev. 'Tom* 
 1. P. 505. 
 
 There was alfo one Maxim us, a •pre- 
 tended, but no real Bifiiop, who having 
 taken upon him to oi'dain fame, this 
 
[ 215 ] 
 
 act was declared null by the Coun- 
 cil of Conltance, 2 Can. and 4 Bev. 
 Tout. 1. P. 91. 
 
 So it was determined in a fynod at 
 Alexandria, by the famous Confeflbr 
 Holius and other Bifhops there aflem- 
 bled, that Ifchyras who was ordained by 
 Colluthus, a mere Presbyter, fhould 
 be declared to be no Clergyman. Sy~ 
 nod Alcxan. afud At ban. Apcl. 2. £"- 
 ffiji* Synod, afud Bin. T. 1. P. ^05. 
 The Council of Hispalis degraded a 
 Pried and two Deacons, becaufe the 
 Bilhop of Agabra being affected with 
 fore eyes, and having (ome prefented to 
 him to be ordained Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons, did only lay his hands upon them, 
 fuffering a "Presbyter that flood by to 
 lay the prayers over them, and read the 
 words of ordination. This being con- 
 sidered in the aforefaid Council it was 
 determined that the Presbyter that af- 
 filed, for his boldnefs and preemption, 
 would have been fubject to the Coun- 
 cil's cenfure, but that he was before de- 
 ceafed : Next that the Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons who were fo ordained, fhould be 
 actually depoled from all Sacred Orders, 
 Counc. Btfp. 2 Can, 5. Ann. 619. Bin. 
 T. 2. Par. 2. P. 326. 
 
 This 
 
I *« J 
 
 This is told the Presbyterians by ma- 
 ny of our Cafuifts that write on the 
 head, particularly by a learned and ac- 
 curate pen, John Jacques, in his Ordina- 
 tion by mere Presbyters void and null. 
 Printed in 170?. Now if ordination by 
 Clergymen inferior to Bilhops be noc 
 valid, far lefs is ordination by the peo- 
 ple or Laymen, and no other thing are 
 Presbyterian teachers who want ordina- 
 tion by Biihcps. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 An ar, fiver to Mr. Alexander Lauder 
 Incumhent at Mordington, his Book, 
 called, The ancient Bilhops coi> 
 (idered, both with refpe& to the 
 extent of their jurifdi&ion, and 
 nature of their power* In an- 
 fwer to Mu Chiilingworth and 
 others. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 B 
 
 Ecaufe this book is fo much cried 
 up by the party, (tho* it be altoge- 
 ther, 
 
I 217 3 
 
 ihcr, as I take it, upon the Independent 
 lay) and is mentioned as unanswerable 
 by De Foe, whom Dr. Lefly takes to 
 task in his Rehearfals. 1 (hall conlider 
 the method, which Mr. Lauder takes 
 to confute Dr. Chilling worth's demon - 
 itration, which is as follows. 
 
 The Apojlollced lujlitution of Epifco 
 pacy demon ftrated, by William 
 Chillingworrh. 
 
 " TF we abftraft from Epifcopal go* 
 u \ vernment all accidentals, and con- 
 " fider only what is efTential and necef- 
 " fary to it, we fhall find in it no more 
 " but this : An appointment of one man 
 " of eminent fan&ify and Sufficiency to 
 " have the care of all the churches 
 " within a certain precinft or diocefs, 
 " and furnifliing him with authority, not 
 " abfolute or arbitrary, but regulated 
 u and bounded by laws, and moderated 
 u by joining to him a convenient num- 
 " ber of aftiftants, to the intent that all 
 u the churches under him may be pro- 
 " vided of good and able pallors,and that 
 Xi both of pallors and people, conformity 
 " to laws, and performance of thcirduties 
 T " may 
 
C 218 1 
 
 41 maybe required, under penalties, not 
 44 left to difcretion, but by law appointed. 
 
 " That this government was received 
 ■" univerfally in the church, cither in 
 41 the Apoftle's time, or prefently after, 
 41 is fo evident and unqueftionable, that 
 11 the moil learned adverfaries of this 
 n government do themfelves confefs it. 
 
 " Petrus Molinseus in his book dernu- 
 41 yiere Pajlorali, purpofely written in 
 H defence of the Presbyterial Govern- 
 *! -merit, acknowledgeth, That prefently 
 '* after the Apoltle's time, or even in 
 44 their time (as ecclefiaftical ftory wit- 
 " nefleth) it was ordained, that in every 
 w city one of the Presbytery fhould be 
 44 called a Bifhop, who ihould have pre- 
 " eminence over his collegues, to a- 
 « void confufion which oft-times arifeth 
 " out of equality. And truly this form 
 44 of government all churches every 
 " where received* 
 
 11 Theodorus Beza, in his tra<fl de tn~ 
 ** p/ici Efifcofatus genere, confefleth in 
 M effe# the lame thing : For having dt- 
 " (tinguiihed Epifcopacy into three 
 44 kinds, divine, human and fatanicai, 
 " and attributing to the lecond (which 
 " he calls human, but we maintain and 
 (i conceive to be Apoftolical) not only 
 
1 2I 9 ] 
 
 #< a priority of order, but a fuperiority 
 il of power, and authority over Presby- 
 H ters, bounded yet by laws and canons 
 H provided againft tyranny : he clearly 
 H profefierh, that of this kind of Epifco* 
 H pacy is to be underftood, whatfbcver 
 * we read concerning the authority of 
 u Bifhops or Prefidents (as Juftin Mar- 
 11 tyr calls them) in Ignatius, and other 
 M more ancient writers. 
 
 " Certainly from thefe two great de- 
 " fenders of Presbytery,we fhould never 
 " have had this free acknowledgment, 
 u fo prejudicial to their own pretence, 
 M and fo advantageous to their adverfa- 
 14 ries purpofe, had not the evidence of 
 u clear and undeniable truth inforced 
 u them to it : It will not therefore be 
 " neceflary to fpend any time in con- 
 " futing that uningenuous aflertion of 
 u the anonymous author of the Cata* 
 u iogue of teflimonies for the equality of 
 " Btfhops and Presbyters, who affirms, 
 " That their difparity began long after 
 u the Apoftle's times ; but we may fafc- 
 " ly take for granted that which thefe 
 " two learned adverfaries have confef- 
 u fed j and fee whether upon this foun« 
 H dation laid by them, we may not, by 
 T 2 " unanlwerablc 
 
[ 2^0 ] 
 
 " unanfwerable reafon, raife this fuper- 
 44 ftrnfture : 
 
 " That feeing Efifcopal Government is 
 u confeffediy fo ancient, and fo Catholic, it 
 " cannot ivith reafon be denied to be Jfyth 
 " poflolic. 
 
 " For fo great a change, as between 
 11 Presbyterial Government and Epilco* 
 " pal, could not poffibly have prevailed 
 " all the world over, in a little time. 
 " Had Epifcopal government been an 
 il aberration from, or a corruption of 
 " the government left in the churches 
 a by the Apoftles, it had been very 
 '! ftrangc, that it fliould have have been 
 u received in any one church fo liid- 
 " denly, or that it fliould have prevail* 
 " ed in all for many ages after. Van* 
 11 affe debuerat error Ecclefiarum ; quod au* 
 H tern api/d omnes unum eft y non efl erratum f 
 li fed traditum. Had the churches er- 
 " red, they would have varied ; what 
 " therefore is one and the fame amongft 
 "all, came not fure by error, but tradi- 
 " tion. Thus Tertullian argues, very 
 " probably from the confent of the 
 " churches of his time, not long after 
 " the Apoftles, and that in matter of o- 
 €i pinion much more fubj eel to unob- 
 " ferved alteration. But that in the 
 
 %< frame 
 
C 221 1 
 
 ? frame and fubftance of the necciTary 
 u government of the church, a thing 
 " always in life and practice, there 
 " fhoukl be fj Hidden a change as pre- 
 11 fently after the Apoftle's times, and 
 a lb univerfal, as to be received in all the 
 " churches, this is clearly impoftible. 
 
 11 For what nniverfal caufe can be ai- 
 f figned or feigned of this univerfal A- 
 " poilacy ? You will not imagine that 
 ? the Apoftlcs, all or any of them, made 
 l< any decree for this change when 
 u they were living, or left order for it 
 " in any will or te (lament when they 
 " were dying : This were to grant the 
 " queftion, to wit, That the Apoftlcs 
 " being to leave the government of the 
 u churches themfelves, and either fee- 
 " * n g ^7 experience, or forefeeing by 
 " the Spirit of God, the diilracuons and 
 u diforucrs which would arife from a 
 u multitude of equals, fa& (United Erif 
 u copal government inftcad of their 
 " own. General councils, to make a 
 " law for a general change, for many 
 
 * ages there were none. There was 
 " no Chriftian emperor, no coercive 
 " power over the church to infurce it; 
 
 * or if there had been any, we know no 
 " force was equal to the courcge of the 
 
 T 3 " Chi": 
 
fl Chriftians of thofe times : Their lives 
 " were then at command (for they had 
 a not then learned to fight for Christ), 
 4 ' but their obedience to any thing a- 
 41 gainft his law was not to be com* 
 " manded, (for they had perfectly 
 u learned to die for him) ; therefore 
 44 there was no power then to command 
 <4 this change, or if there had been any, 
 u it had been in vain. 
 
 4i What device then lhall we ftudy, 
 44 or to what fountain fhall we reduce 
 41 this ftrange prerended alteration ? 
 4 Can it enter into our hearts to think, 
 44 that all the Presbyters and other 
 '' Chriitians, then being the Apoftles 
 11 fcholars, could be generally ignorant 
 " of the will of Christ, touching the 
 11 nccefHty of a Presbyterial govern- 
 44 ment ? Or dare we adventure to think 
 u them fb ftrangely wicked all the world 
 
 * over, as, againft knowledge and con- 
 11 fcience, to confpire againft it ? Jma- 
 94 gine the fpirit of Diotrephes had en- 
 " tercd into fome, or a great many of 
 " the Presbyters, and poflefled them 
 
 * with an ambitious defire of a forbid- 
 11 den fuperiority ; Was it poiTiblc they 
 4i fhould attempt and atchieve it once, 
 
 * without any opposition or contradic- 
 
 " tion ? 
 
[ 223 ] 
 
 u tion ? And befkles, that the con- 
 u cagion of this ambition fhouki fpread 
 14 iticlf, and prevail without ftop and 
 " conrroul, nay without any noife or 
 u notice taken of ir, thro' all ihc 
 u churches in the world, all the watch- 
 tl men in the mean time being {b fait *• 
 11 deep, and all the dogs lo dumb, that 
 u not lb much as one fhouki open his 
 " mouth againft it ? But let us fnppofe 
 11 (though it be a horrible untruth), 
 11 that the Presbyters and people then 
 u were not lo good Christians as the 
 u Presbyters are now j that they were 
 " generally lb negligent to retain the 
 "government of Christ's Church 
 u commanded by Christ, which now 
 u we are fo zealous to reftore ; yet cer- 
 " tainly we mutt not forget nor deny 
 " that they were men as we are. And 
 * if we look upon them as mere natur- 
 " al men, yet knowing by experience 
 u how hard a thing it is even for policy 
 u arm'd with power, by many attempts 
 11 and contrivances, and m a long time, 
 " to gain upon the liberty of any one 
 " people, undoubtedly we fhall never 
 14 entertain fo wild an imagination, a* 
 H that, among all the Chriftian Pres- 
 41 byters in the world, neither confcicnce 
 
 " of 
 
[ 22 4 U 
 
 " of duty, nor l;-ve of liberty, nor a« 
 " verfencfs from pride and ufnrpatioh- 
 ^ of others over them, fhouid prevail 
 " ib much as with any one, to oppofe 
 u this pretended univerfal invalion of 
 14 the kingdom of Christ, and the li- 
 " berty of Chriftians. 
 
 " When I fhall fee, therefore, all the 
 u fables in the Metamorphofes afted and 
 tf prove liories ; when I fhall fee all 
 •J the democracies and ariftceracies in 
 " the world lye down and flecp, and 
 " awake into monarchies j then 1 will be- 
 u gin to believe that Presbyterial govern- 
 u ment, having contiued in the Church 
 il during the Apoftles times, fhouid pref- 
 u ently after, againft the ApoiHes doc- 
 "trine and the will of Christ, be 
 " whirl* d about like a fcene in a. mask, 
 u and transformed into Epifcopacy. In 
 " the mean time, while thefe things 
 €i remain thus incredible, and in human 
 " reaibn impoffiblc, 1 hope 1 fhall have 
 " leave to conclude thus: Epifcopal go- 
 u vernment is acknowledged to have 
 " been univerfally received in the 
 11 Church prefently after the Apoftles 
 li times. Between the Apoftles time 
 " and this, preiently after, there was 
 i; not time enough for, nor pcflibility 
 
 " of 
 
C 225* ] 
 
 V of fo great an alteration. And there- 
 " fore Epifcopacy, being confe(Ted to 
 " be fo ancient and Catholic, mull be 
 u granted alio to be Apoltolical. Qjwd 
 u erat demmjlrandum." 
 
 Follows i\lr. Lauder's pretended con* 
 futation of Dr. Chillingworth; which 
 is as great a confirmation of him as the 
 higheft flyer in the Church of England, 
 could imagine and publifh in defence 
 of that demonftration., 
 
 Mr Lauder in Pages, 67, 68. &c. 
 by applying what Monfieur Arnaud 
 fays of Tranfubflaiuiarion to Epif- 
 copacy, writes as follows. 
 
 " TF the ancient Church was Presby- 
 €i * terian, and believed, that Pallors 
 " acting in parity was a divine inftituti- 
 " on, it could not come to that (late it 
 " was in inAerins's time, without anuni- 
 11 verfal change in belief and practice ; 
 " and it cannot be imagin'd, this change 
 "could happen but one of thefe two 
 11 ways, which are both equally impof- 
 i: (ibie. ] . That this change was made 
 11 in an inftant ; fo that when all Chri- 
 " Itians believed, till fuch a time, the 
 
 Church 
 
r 226 ] 
 
 * Church fhould be ruled by Paftors a- 
 
 * &ing in parity, they began all of them 
 
 * together to believe the Church fhould 
 
 * be ruled by a Bilhop, and, going to 
 ° bed Presbyterians, arofe Epifcopal "in 
 11 the morning, not knowing how, and 
 " forgetting cpite what they formerly 
 " were. But this is fo abfurd, that I 
 " Hand not to refute it. Or, 2. That 
 " this change was made infendbly ; that 
 M fome introduced the opinion or Epif- 
 il copacy ; that thefe fome had but few 
 ° followers at firft ; but at length this 
 
 * opinion was fpread infenfibly every 
 " where. 
 
 " According to this fuppofition, there 
 u behoved to be a time, to wit, when 
 " this opinion firft arofe, in which it was 
 " followed by a Imall number of perfons 
 u only : another time in which, this 
 " number was greatly increafedj and 
 " equalM that of thofe who were againft 
 M Epifcopacy ; another in which this 
 " opinion was matter of the multitude, 
 16 tho' opposM (till by many others, who 
 u were for Presbytery ; and, in fine, ano- 
 u ther time, in which itreign'd peace- 
 " ably and without oppofition : Which 
 il is the ftate in which mod Presbyteri- 
 ans 
 
[ 2-7 ] 
 
 " ans will acknowledge it was when 
 " Aerius appeared in the world. 
 
 " If the opinion of the Prelatifts was 
 " an innovation, it is impofilble it could 
 " come in infendbly, without pafling 
 " through theic degrees. Yet every one 
 " of thefe degrees contains infupporta- 
 H ble abfurdities. 
 
 u To begin with the firft : If Prela* 
 "" cy was introduced by one or a few 
 u perfons, how is it poflible their name 
 u could remain unknown ; or that they 
 u could propofe fuch a furpriilng alre- 
 u ration in the government, without 
 M any perfon's being aftoniihed at it, 
 41 or fetting himfelf to eppofe the 
 " lame ? Is it poffible the Presbyters, 
 " ruling Elders and Deacons, did not at 
 u all perceive this rifing tyranny ; or 
 u perceiving it, made no oppofition 
 41 thereto ? How is it poffible, that be- 
 u ing perfuaded the Church ihould be 
 41 governed by Paftors ailing in parity, 
 u they (hould fubmk their reafon with- 
 " out contradiction to one, who fliould 
 f publifh, contrary to the opinion and 
 * practice of all Chriftians, that the 
 " Church fliould be ruled by a Bifhop ? 
 " The belief of rhe mylteries, and 
 u the news of God's becoming man to 
 
 u lave 
 
 } 
 
[ 228 ] 
 
 44 fave finners, had the oppofition of 
 '•' fenfe and reafon to overcome, and 
 41 prejudices the fouls of men were pre- 
 " engaged with ; wherefore it made at 
 " fi'rft a prodigious noife, and raifed the 
 " whole world againft thofe who prea- 
 4i ched it, aud could not be eftablifhed 
 tl without bocks, fermons, difputes, 
 44 miracles, and the {bedding of the 
 €i blood of an innumerable number of 
 4i martyrs ; Yet they would have us 
 44 believe fuch a mighty change could 
 41 be made in the government of the 
 14 church, even from ariltocracy to 
 <v monarchy, without either fermons, 
 41 books, difputes or martyrs j and tho' 
 41 Presbytery was fettled by the Apoflles 
 44 tbemfelves, and remain'd in poflef- 
 4c fion without controul for many years; 
 4i vet Epifcopacy might be let up in all 
 u the churches of the world without 
 " contradiction, oppofition or aflonifh- 
 41 ment, and fo much without any 
 " noife, that the authors and time of 
 46 this flrange innovation have remained 
 u altogether unknown. 
 
 14 But how came it, that they who 
 11 abandoned the ancient government 
 " of the Church by Presbytery, to em- 
 11 brace this novelty, perceived not 
 
 " the 
 
[ 229 ] 
 
 "the alteration? How is ir that they 
 * did not write and teftify, that they 
 u had been in an error hitherto by 
 " wanting Biihcps ■? How came it that 
 u they accuic^i not their pallors of de; 
 (l ceiving them wickedly, and cried 
 u not, Verba tuiquorum frzvhfuzrunt 
 u Jiifer me f 
 
 " Ncverthelefs nothing of all this is 
 " to be met with : For it is matter of 
 11 fa 61, that, fincc the Apoftles days to 
 u the time of Aerius, we can find no 
 " proof* that any, in publifhingthat Pre- 
 " lacy is a divine inftittttioh, thought 
 11 he propofed an opinion in any thing 
 u different from the common belief of 
 " the ancient church, or that in his 
 li own time. 
 
 gl It was never heard, that any was 
 " delated either to Presbyteries or Ge- 
 u neral AfTembhes, {or having publiih- 
 " ed, either by word or writing, that 
 " Epifcopacy was the Apoftolical go- 
 " vernment of the church. 
 
 " It was never heard, that any Fa- 
 " ther, Presbyter or Council wfratfo- 
 " ever, troubled themfelves with op- 
 11 pofing Kpifcopacy, or teftified that 
 M they who were advancing it, were 
 U l4 bringing 
 
t 230 ] 
 
 *' bringing in Antichriftian tyranny in • 
 ** to the church. 
 
 *' It was never heard, that any eccle* 
 4t fiaflical author or preacher com- 
 u plain'd, that a pernicious alteration 
 " of the Presbyterian government of 
 11 the church was made, or beginning 
 t4 to be carried on in his time, becaufe 
 11 fome were for fetting up Bifhops* 
 " All the dogs were dumb, as fays Mr a 
 H Chillingworth. 
 
 M Moreover, if we confider Epifco* 
 11 pacy in thefe chimerical degrees, 
 li through which it behoved to pais, ac- 
 M cording to the Presbyterian fuppofiti- 
 11 on, before it could arrive at that 
 " height in which it was afterwards, 
 41 the extravagance of the Presbyterian 
 u fuppofition will appear yet more in- 
 u fupportable. For it behoved necef- 
 " farily to be, that there was a time in 
 " which the belief of Epifcopacy, 
 u which they fuppofe was not that of 
 u the ancient church, was fo mix'd in 
 " the church with the belief of Pres- 
 "*' bytery, which they think was the 
 u true and ancient opinion, that the 
 " one half of the Presbyters and peo- 
 " pie were of the one opinion, and the 
 "other half of the other. 
 
 N Neither 
 
u 
 
 [ 231 ] 
 
 14 Neither can it be fuppofed, tha 
 this divifion of opinion and practice, 
 44 was in different provinces only, but 
 44 it mud be admitted, according to 
 
 * the Presbyterian fuppofition, that in 
 
 * the lame provinces, cities, churches 
 44 and families, the faithful were all 
 * : divided with rcfpeft to the govern- 
 " ment, fome believing that Epifcopa- 
 44 cy was Apoftolical, fome Presbytery. 
 14 And thac this divifion was not only 
 44 in the Roman church, but the Greek, 
 44 Armenian and Egyptian churches. 
 
 " If thefe fuppofitions be join'd with 
 14 matter of tt& t which the Presbyte- 
 44 rians cannot deny, to ivit, That till 
 44 Aerius no perfon ever oppofed Pre- 
 44 lacy, or doubted of the divine infti- 
 44 rution thereof, the greateft ablurdi- 
 " ties imaginable will follow. For ei- 
 M ther it mud be fuppofed, that this 
 44 general divifion, with refpeft to the 
 44 government, remained unknown to 
 H Presbyters and people ; or, if it was 
 i% known, was wholly negle&ed by 
 44 both, (b that they attempted no re- 
 44 medy. But both thefe fuppolitions 
 41 are contrary to common fenfe. 
 
 44 To examine the firflr, That this 
 
 a diviiion remain'd unknown : Is it 
 
 U 2 " poITible 
 
[ *3 2 3 
 " poffible a rational man can perfuade 
 " himfelf, there was a certain time 
 u when brethren were oppos'd to bre- 
 11 thren, wives to their husbands, 
 " Presbyters to Presbyters, not in one 
 " province, but in all the provinces of 
 u the world • not about, a fpeculative 
 u point, which few perfons concern 
 " themfelves with, but the. government 
 si of the church, which belongs to 
 " practice ; and yet no perfon was fen- 
 " lTole of fuch a divifion ; not one foul 
 tc ever knew that his father, friend cr 
 " pallor was of an opinion contrary to 
 11 his own in this point ? That this 
 " ftrange diverfity of opinion fhould bo 
 " wholly unknown, not a year only* 
 " but for many ages I 
 
 *' But if wc fuppofe, That this di- 
 " verfity of opinion about Epifcopacy 
 " was not unknown either to paftors or 
 IC people, it is yet more contrary to rea- 
 " ion, and all that can be gathered from 
 " experience, to imagine, that this io 
 " ftrange a divifion made no noife, and 
 " ftirr'd up no difputes ; that paftors 
 " and people, tho' divided among them- 
 ** felves about a point ot fuch impor- 
 " tance as might have caufed them look 
 u on one another as enemies, co.uld ne- 
 
 u verchelels 
 
C 233 ] 
 
 " vcrthelefs remain united in commir 
 " nion and perfect amity, without any 
 41 thing like Pentland or Bothwel -bridge 
 u work among them. 
 
 11 If we fuppofe the church could live 
 il in profound peace, when its members 
 « were fo divided, we mutt: alio fup- 
 '* pofc, that people then were of ano- 
 11 ther fpecies than thofe of this age, 
 
 * For it is impoflible people now can 
 " hinder themfclves to defend their 
 11 own opinion by books and difputes, 
 11 and to endeavour the conviction of 
 li thofe they judge to be in an error, 
 •' to accufe them before ecclefiaftical 
 •' tribunals, and condemn them, if they 
 M had authority, which cannot but oc- 
 i% cafion noife and rupture of commu- 
 
 * nion. 
 
 H It necefftrily follows,thc men of that 
 *' age, if they could continue in fuch a 
 u deep deep, notvvithftanding fuch dif- 
 " union, had neither charily to their 
 
 * neighbours, nor zeal for God, nor 
 " eagernefs for their own way, that u f 
 u they were not. men, I know not what 
 u can move thofe, who are not touched 
 u by fuch abfurdities." 
 
 1 have fairly laid down Mr, Lauder's 
 
 parallel of Epifcopacy, with Monfieur 
 
 V 3 Arnauu's 
 
r r 234 ] 
 
 Arnaud's pleading for Tranfubftamiati- 
 on, and I give the following animad- 
 verilons upon it. 
 
 Firj}, If Tranfubftantiation can be 
 proven from (cripture, antiquity, and 
 the ■ conftant practice of the Univerfal 
 Church, I iliall believe the one as well 
 as the other : For fure I am, that feme 
 canonical books of the NewTeftamenr, 
 have undergone greater debates in the 
 firi't ages of the church than Prelacy e- 
 vcr did. 
 
 Secondly, I argue thus, that every 
 thing that can be known, muft be fo 
 by fenfe, reafon or revelation ; but E- 
 pifcopacy can be known by all the 
 three, which Tranfubftantiation cannot; 
 therefore Mr. Lauder's parallel is not to 
 the purpofe ; we have all the proofs in 
 the world for the one, which we have 
 not for the other : For things are pro- 
 ven by phyfical evidence, demonftra* 
 tion and tcftimony. Things that are 
 apparent are fo in relpedt of fenfc, as 
 that the fun fhines, or fire burns. A- 
 gain things, tho' not evident to fenfe, 
 may be fb to reafon, which is a faculty 
 in the foul enabling a man to draw 
 conclufions from evident principles. 
 Things may be knovyn antecedently by 
 
 their 
 
[ 2 35 ] 
 their caufe, or rcverfely by their effects: 
 So we proceed from principles evident* 
 ly known to confcquenccs certainly 
 concluding. 
 
 Teltimony is either divine or hu- 
 man ; we believe that what God has 
 laid is true, becaufe he is wife and can- 
 not err, he is good, and will not de- 
 ceive. 
 
 Human teftimony, by which we pro- 
 ceed in the ordinary affairs of life, by 
 fomc is called moral certainty, in which 
 the world in mod of things, efpecially 
 public matters of fa6t, cannot be dc- 
 ceived, as that there was fuch a perfon 
 as Alexander the Great, or that there 
 was fuch a city as Nineveh. 
 
 When our blefled Saviour turned 
 water into wine before the company 
 that did celebrate the marriage in Ca- 
 na of Galilee, this was phylical evi- 
 dence to them ; when the report there- 
 of was received upon their teltimony 
 that fuw it, it was moral certainty to 
 them that believed it. 
 
 Thirdly, To apply this to the cafe in 
 hand, Tranfubitantiarion and Epifcopa- 
 cy are quire different fubjects, not capa- 
 ble of the fame way of probation ; The 
 firit contemplative, metaphyseal and 
 
 mvfficai ; 
 
r 236 ] 
 
 myftical : the fecond is vifible, evident 
 and historical. And can facramental 
 phrafes, that are figurative and myfteri- 
 ous, be reafoned upon after the fame 
 manner, that things apparent or evident, 
 or matters of fa*ft can be dilcourfed on ? 
 For example, Can the perfbnalities of 
 the Deity, the unity in trinity, and tri- 
 nity in unity, be fo evident as the hifto- 
 ry of our Saviour's birth, life, pafiion, 
 reiurreclion and afcenfion r But, 
 
 Fourthly, We tell the Papiits, that the 
 very word Tranfubftantiation was not 
 heard of for feveral centuries ; but what 
 age fince the Apoftles, what place in 
 the Chriftian world, did not hear of 
 Bifhops, Presbyters and Deacons, where 
 Chriltian Churches were planted ? The 
 Chriflians in the firft aces faw and knew 
 it in their days, and we know it by mo- 
 ral certainty in our days, as the work! 
 knows at prefent by phyfical evidence, 
 what church government is in the 
 eaftern and weftern churches. 
 
 Fifthly, Epifcopacy is a government 
 known by {enfe, and agreeable to rea- 
 fbn and revelation : For it is very rea- 
 sonable that one order fhould be above 
 another; for Arch-angels in heaven are 
 above Angels* Epifcopacy was in the 
 
 Old 
 
C 2 37 1 b 
 Old Teflament in High-priefts, Prieftj 
 and Levites. And what was instituted 
 in the Old Teflament and not repealed 
 in the New, ought to continue io long 
 as the realons thereof continue : Our 
 Saviour upon earth, in his college of 
 twelve Apoftles and fevemy Difciples, 
 had the government of his own femina- 
 ry in his own hand, and was in the Old 
 Teflament (tile their High pried, the 
 Apoftles the Priefts, and the Difciples 
 the Levites : and, in the New Tefla- 
 ment (hie, he was their Bifhop, the A- 
 poftles the Presbyters, and the feventy 
 the Deacons, The Church Govern- 
 ment was devolved upon the twelve ar 
 the refurreflion ; the feventy had no 
 government until they were aflumed 
 from the lower to the higher rank, vs 
 Matthias was, to fill up the vacancy 
 which fell out by the apofiacy of Judas, 
 or to be apoltoled themfelves as belie- 
 vers increaled. The feventy were to 
 the Apoftles in place of Presbyters, and 
 the Deacons were laymen full of the 
 Holy Gholt, upon whom the Apoftles 
 laid hands, without the concurrence of 
 the feventy : So that impofition of 
 hands, to confer fomc authority for the 
 conftant government of, the Church, 
 
 was 
 
was ufed in the days of miracles, A 
 the Church Government contini 
 from the days of the Apoftles in an i 
 parity throughout the world for fift< 
 hundred years :. And if Monf. Arnai 
 proof for Tranfubttantiation be as gc 
 let the world judge. 
 
 Sixthly, The Papilts fay,." They h 
 " reafon to believe it, becaufe it i 
 " myilery, and we are to believe 
 *' fenfes till a greater authority than 
 4i fenfes contradict our fenfes ; for ex; 
 " pie in Gen. xviii. 2. when the tfc 
 u . Angels came to Abraham, he t 
 " them to be men of ordinary gen 
 ■f tion like to himfelf, and would en 
 u tain them as ftrangers-j but when 
 a was convinced that they were noi 
 " as he thought his fenfes reprefer 
 " to him, then he believed anot 
 " thing." I anfvver, That if the Paj 
 give us as good revelation for the ( 
 as we have for the other, I fee 
 reafon why we fhould not believe th 
 if their parallel holds. 
 
 But, /ajl/y, The PapHls tell us, 
 " Trandiblfantiation is a word that 
 il church was forced to coin, as 
 " church did the word Pcrlonality, 
 " nity, Sacrament, and particularly 
 
C 239 ] 
 
 ■ word Confubl^ntial, to fignify the di- 
 41 vinity of our Saviour, and his being 
 u of the fame fubttance with the Fa- 
 9 ther ; and why not, fay they, the 
 " word Tranfubitantiation, to exprefs 
 u the real prefence of the body and 
 11 blood of Chrift ?" I anlwer, if there 
 be (as I laid before) as good reafen for 
 :he one as the other, why not be* 
 lieve it ? 
 
 But Mr. Lauder, page So, Sec. tells 
 us (if the letter be adhered to), " As 
 V many fentences may be produced in 
 " favours of Tranfubftantiation, as for 
 " EpHcopacy : n For example, Cyril of 
 Jerufalem, Catech. My flag, in the end 
 of a long citation, fays, " Rejoice in the 
 " Lord, being perfuaded of it as a thing 
 " moft certain, that the bread which 
 " appears to your eyes, is not bread, 
 *' tho 7 your talie doth judge it to be lb, 
 44 but that it is the body of Jefus Chrift: 
 41 And that the wine which appears to 
 u your eyes, is not wine, tho' your fenfe 
 " of taftc takes it for wine, but that it 
 " is the blood of Jefus Chrift." To the 
 fame purpofe he cites St. Ignatius, Ju* 
 (tin Martyr, and St. Ambrofe. 
 
 To which I anfwer, that Mr. Lauder 
 has faid very well, and fpoke his word 
 
 with 
 
C 240 3 
 
 with a warrant : Thus, If the tetter h 
 adhered to ; fo that I think he will al- 
 low of what thefe fathers faid, (peak- 
 ing in xi myftical fenfe. But pray I Is 
 hiltory 2nd matter of fact to he ex- 
 pounded like romance, poetical -fifli- 
 ons, or lacramental phrafes : I could 
 add feveral Proteilants faying as much, 
 but I ihall content my felf with Mr. 
 Calvin, firft out of his ln\ihutions y lib. 
 4. cap. 17- § 24. " I do not meafure 
 " this myftery with human reafbn, nor 
 " fubject it to the law of nature ; for, 
 " if any ask me concerning the manner 
 11 I will not be afhamed to confefs that 
 " it is a myftery too high for me, to 
 *' comprehend in thought, or exprefs in 
 " words. We captivate our minds, 
 " and fuffer them not to mutter one 
 " word/ 7 
 
 See him alfo on the 1 Cor. xi. 24. 
 "Neither does Christ offer us the 
 "benefit of his death and refurrecHon, 
 " but that very body it felf in which he 
 11 fuffered and rofe again. " 
 
 Sir, i hc.ve prefented you with IVJr. 
 Lauder's confutation of Dr. Chilling- 
 worth's demonitration, and my own 
 animadverfions upon it, which 1 leave 
 to the cenfure of the impartial reader: 
 
 In 
 
r ** ] 
 
 In my opinion, he has done the Epif- 
 copal caufe greater fervice than he has 
 clone to his own ; which minds me of 
 what I read of one Phalereus, who be- 
 ing (tabbed in the bread: by an enemy, 
 was cured of an impoflhume held del- 
 perate by the phyGcians. 
 
 And yet Mr. Lauder pafles a com* 
 plimcnt upon himfelf, triumphing, as 
 if he had given a dead Itroke to the 
 caule of Epilcopacy, by overturning 
 Chillincwonh's demonstration for it, in 
 the following words : •• I am perfuaded 
 " the reader now is beginning to be a- 
 " fhamcil of Mr. Chillingworth's de- 
 41 monftration, and inclines to pity the 
 " weaknefs of thofe, who differ them- 
 u fclves to be furprized by Inch a con- 
 
 • temptible fophifm ; and that out 
 11 Epifcopal friends will never trouble 
 
 * us with it any more, nor fo much 
 " as fpeakof it before a man of fenfe." 
 And much more to this purpofe he has 
 in his own commendation. 
 
 Mr. Lauder ipcaks with a great deal 
 of aflurancc ; he was afliired before- 
 hand to be believed by the party, who 
 will credit any thing that comes from 
 the mouths or pens of thofe who de- 
 lude them, againli: the common fenfe of 
 X mankind } 
 
C f4 2 3 
 
 mankind : Yea, if they would con- 
 trive to preach up the doctrine of tran- 
 fubftantiation, they are afliired their 
 implicite difciples will believe them. 
 
 The great Chillingworth's demon- 
 flraiion {lands firm and fure, for all that 
 is faid againll it, as well as his works, 
 remain in credit with the learned 
 world after his death, notwithflanding 
 the difgrace that Presbyterians ("par- 
 ticularly Dr. Chcynel Incumbent at 
 Petworth ) endeavoured to put on his 
 perfon and books, fie ( the faid Dr. 
 Chillingworth ) had defired on his 
 death-bed to be buried with the office 
 of the burying the dead, according to 
 the Church of England, but inftead of 
 that, he was perfccuted to his grave, 
 the faid Dr. Cheynei throwing his books 
 in with his corps, with thefe words, 
 " Get you gone ye curled books which 
 " have feduced fo many precious fouls ; 
 " go rot with your author!" The Doc- 
 tor prints an account of this hi-s gallant 
 behaviour, and is commended by Dr. 
 Calamy for it. 
 
 What could a Pope, that pretends to 
 infallibility, do more than this Dr Chey- 
 nei did in this cafe? 
 
 And 
 
c m 1 
 
 And now, Sir, to conclude, ir Dr. 
 Chillingworth's demonftration for Epi& 
 copacy Itands fixed, and rather fortified 
 than confuted by Mr. Lauder, I hope 
 you will acknowledge ir to be a Ihield 
 and bulwark againit all that he, or all 
 the party have written againit Epifco- 
 pacy, and in defence of Presbytery. 
 1 remain, as formerly, your very humble 
 Servant* 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Would not have meddled fo much 
 with Mr. Lauder's book, but that a 
 gentleman of good learning, and a true 
 ion of the Church, told me, that it was 
 in fuch vogue with the party, that they 
 confidently allerted, that an anlwer 
 Could never be made to it (b long as 
 die author was in life, and then they 
 would not be at the pains to read the 
 anfwer after his death. Beildes, 1 find 
 mention made of it by Mr-De Foe, as an 
 unanl'wcrable piece, in the learned Dr. 
 Lcfly's Rekearfals, Vol. ii. Numb. g2> 
 46, and 47. The jelt is, That when 
 I>c Foe had extolled the book, fothat it 
 could not be had in any Stationer's iliop 
 X 2 in 
 
[ 244 ] 
 in London, nor could be borrowed from 
 De Foe himfelf, ic behoved Dr Lefty 
 to call for it at London, on the other 
 hoe of Tweed. 
 
 I cannot pais by one pafTage of Mr, 
 Lauder's book, page 110. v/here he 
 fays, 
 
 *f A In the sncient Church we meet 
 '* withthree kinds of ecclefiaftical officers, 
 '•' Bilhops, Presbyters, and Deacons; the 
 11 BifHops were an order fuperior to the 
 '! Presbyters, and the Presbyters fuperior 
 $l tc; the Deacons ; and very foon after 
 " the departure of the Apoftles, thefe 
 '- -three diitincl orders appeared in the 
 '•Church. B. This is a thing fo evi- 
 <- deur, that it cannot be denied with- 
 " out manifefl abfurdity. C. But the 
 il difficulty will be to fhew, what way 
 " the early practice of the Univerbi 
 " Church as to this particular, quadrates 
 " wiih fcripture ? D. 1 he arguments 
 %< which our Prelatilts propofed for this 
 " end, are very contemptible. E. The 
 <; arguments taken from the Levites,and 
 cl the different orders of the Pricfts un- 
 " der the Old Teltament, or from the 
 u twelve Apoflles andfeventy Diiciplcs, 
 u and fictitious Epifcopacy of Timothy 
 " and Titus, are lo very \veak 3 (as has 
 
 11 been 
 
C if* ] 
 
 " been demonftrated to them an hun-> 
 " dred times) that they can fatisfy none 
 " but thofc who are refolved to be fatH- 
 " fied, be the thing right or wrong. 
 " And (b much has been faid againfl: the 
 4< argument from the Angels of the 
 ? Churches in the book of the Revclati- 
 14 on, as renders it wholly ineffectual. 
 
 44 F. Neverthelefs, that the practice 
 M of the Univerfal Church as to this 
 " particular, (or their having three 
 14 diftinct orders of Church officers, 
 41 Bijhops, Presbyters and Deacons ) fo 
 u loon after the times of the Apoftles, 
 " Ihould contradift fcripture, or divine 
 11 inititution, is a thing that appears to 
 " me to be altogether improbable. And 
 " I am of opinion, that there is one 
 <( place of fcripture (which the Pre* 
 ? larifts overlook, or rather which they 
 li conlider ordinarily as deftructive of 
 u their caufe, and which therefore they 
 u have tortured with a thoufand im- 
 il pertinent gloffes) on which the dif- 
 u tincl order of fiifiop and Presbyters 
 u may be rationally founded; and which 
 <; confeqnently makes it appear, that 
 " the ancient Church, by confidcr- 
 '•' ing the Bifhops as an order diltincft 
 M from Presbyters, and fuperior to them, 
 X 3 " did 
 
C 246 ] 
 
 <k did not contradict fcripture or divine 
 <f inilitution fo much, as many learned 
 u and pious men have imagined. " 
 
 " This text is, 1 Tim v. 17. There 
 11 the Apoftle faith, G. Let the Elders, 
 4f or Presbyters, that rule well, be counted 
 a uo r thy of double honour, efpecial/y they 
 41 who labour in zuord and dotlrine. *' 
 
 I profefs I know not what to make 
 of this pailage of Mr. Lander's book; 
 for in 4& and B. he (ays as much as all 
 the Prelatifts in the world can fay, that 
 the three diftinct orders of Clergymen 
 were foon after the departure of the 
 Apo'tles, and that too in the Univerlal 
 Church. 
 
 Bur, in that part marked by the let- 
 ter D. he thinks it fome difficulty to 
 reconcile that univerfal order with the 
 fcripture. Strange ! Would the firit 
 Poft-apodolical Bifhops convey the 
 Scriptures to poflerity, which would 
 witnefs againft their Apoftacy, and fly 
 in thefr faces, fot deviating from the 
 fcripture Bilhop r How come they to 
 ni3ke fuch a fudden election, and not 
 one to proteft againft them, and this 
 to be in the days of martyrdom and 
 miracles ? And, if thefe Poft-apofto- 
 lical Biihops were wrong, w r ho was 
 
 jrkht I 
 
[ <M7 1 
 
 right ? Were the Gnofticks, Montanifls, 
 and other Hercticks ? 
 
 As to that pafface figned with the 
 Letter £. I think there was never a 
 Pope in Rome pronounced out of" His 
 chair more peremptorily than this au- 
 thor ; and at this rate the (trongclt ar- 
 guments on any head may be anfuered. 
 
 Mr. Lander was afTured before-hand, 
 that the generality of his party would 
 take his bare -word upon ir, tho' he had 
 publilhed the quite eontrary. What ? 
 Are the arguments that Prclatifts make 
 ufc of for three orders fo contemptible, 
 from the orders of High-prielts, Prielis 
 and Lcvitcs in the Old Teftament ? 
 Then may he not give the lie to St. 
 Jerome (his pretended patron), who 
 gives this fame reafon in his epilHc to 
 fcvagrius ? Are the arguments of the 
 twelve above the feventy, and the Epil- 
 copacy of Timothy and Tuns, and of 
 the feven Angels To weak : Can he af- 
 fert this, without giving the lie to Cal* 
 vin, Beza, and other learned foreign re- 
 formers ? Were not the weaknefs of" 
 thefe arguments demonftrated an hun- 
 dred times to the Prelatiits ? Might not 
 Mr, Lauder fet down three of the belt 
 of the!e demonltrations j but the reader 
 
 mull 
 
[ 2 4 8 ] 
 
 mu ft take his bare and bold afTertion 
 for it ? 
 
 F. Mr. Lauder is of the opinion, that 
 it is altogether improbable that thele 
 three diilinet orders, fo foon after the 
 Apoitles, fnould contradict fcripture. A 
 great compliment indeed upon the ho- 
 ly Bifhops and Martyrs, that it is impro- 
 bable they friouiJ contradict the fcriptures, 
 which they were preaching and prac- 
 tifing ; fo that if they did according to 
 fcripture, then the three offices of Bi- 
 fhop, Presbyters and Deacons, is of di- 
 vine right. 
 
 G. But how that fcripture, i Tim. v. 
 17. {hall undo the Epifcopai caufe ■ and 
 how we have tortured it with a thou* 
 fanti impertinent gbjjfes, is like his ufual 
 confidence, in fayiug what he pleafeth, 
 without the fhadow of one proof. How 
 that text fliall undo the three orders, 
 which Mr. Lauder thinks is not againft 
 fcripture, I am yet to learn, I find the 
 learned Jofeph Mede has an excellent 
 exercitation upon it ; and the mo ft im- 
 pertinent glofs that ever 1 faw upon it, 
 i$, to make it a warrant for ordination- 
 lets Lay-elders, who are fo far from 
 having double honour, that is } of main- 
 tenance and efteem, that they have not 
 
 fo 
 
[ *49 ] 
 fo much as (Ingle honour. And (if I 
 mind rightly) JVIr. William Jamefon in 
 his Cypr, libtimus, has given over that 
 plea of Lay-elders ; for he iavv it would 
 not do for him from icnptnre or anti- 
 quity. Adieu. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Con f fling of Queries ext railed out of 
 the Firji and Second Part of this 
 Book of the Succeffion of the 
 Pricfthood, ivitb ajkort Dialogue 
 befiuixt an ancient Peei\ Chief of a 
 numerous Tribe, and a Presbyterian 
 Incumbent in his Pari/k. 
 
 Queries. 
 
 WHAT is it that makes a Minifter 
 of Jefus Chrift I Or what gives 
 a Minifter commillion to preach, admi- 
 nilter facraments, or to ablolve peni- 
 tents I 
 
tents ? Whether is it the magiflrate, or 
 the people, or pretence to an inward 
 call trom the Spirit of God ? Or natu- 
 ral and acquired gifts ? Or, laftly, per* 
 fonal and Apoftolical Succeftion ? The 
 learned Presbyterians againft the Jnde*- 
 pendents, in 1647, have with (trong 
 fenfe confuted Eraftianilm and Indepen- 
 dency, and fixed upon SuccelBon, as the 
 rule to prove an authorifed miniilry 
 from the Apoflles, by virtue of that 
 prom-He, Mutih. xxviii. 2.0. Lo } I am 
 with you, &cc. as is proven in the firft 
 Part ; page 98, &c. Is not this as true 
 now as when they faid if then I But how 
 did they, then, or can you now prove 
 your Succeffion frovn.the Apoflles, as 
 Epifcopal Presbyters can and have clone ? 
 See firft Parr, page 52. Is there then 
 any validity in the niinnterial arts of 
 Presbytery that want Apoitolical Suc- 
 ceffion ? 
 
 2. What Priefthood in the world was 
 ever governed in a parity, either Jewiik; 
 Heathen or ChriUian, and according to 
 the law of nature, that abhors a parity, 
 and according to God's pofuive initiiu- 
 tion in the Old Teilament, of High- 
 Prieft, Priefts and Levites, and his pro- 
 mile by the Prophet Ifaiah, chap. lxvi. 
 
 ver, 
 
r *s* ] 
 
 Ver. 21. to give a fuitablc Clergy in the 
 ckys of the Gofpel, And 1 will take of 
 the vi for Priejls and for Levites. See 
 firft Parr, page 85. And when Chrilt, 
 in his own college, keeping the govern- 
 ment in his own hand over the twelve 
 who were above the ieventy, made iuch 
 a diftinftion, was not this an imparity 
 in his own time I Othenvife, if ir was 
 but an equality, why fhonld not they 
 be called the eighty-two, inftead of the 
 twelve and the (eventy ? And was not 
 this a pattern of what was to be, after 
 the Apoftles got the power of making 
 cotemporary Clergymen and Succeilbrs, 
 to an order of fuperiority and inferiori- 
 ty, and that-to the end of the world I 
 Or were the p^rfbns whom the Apo- 
 ftles ordained to preach and baptize, 
 and to do other offices in the Church, 
 equal to the Apoftles in power I Were 
 the feven Deacons, AEis vi. 6. cloathed 
 with a commifiion of laying en hands in 
 ordination and confirmation, as the A* 
 poftles,or immediate mitfion, or Apofto- 
 heal Ordination ? Does not the contrary 
 appear from Afts viii. 14. ? 
 
 3. If you fay that Bifhops and Pres- 
 byters are all one in fcripture, efpe- 
 cially from Ails xx. 28, comparing it 
 
 with 
 
[ 252 ] 
 
 with the 1 7th verie, where they that 
 are called Presbyters or Elders in the 
 17th verfe, are called Bifnops or Over- 
 leers in the 28th verfe ; I aik, Docs this 
 make a foundation for a parity, or take 
 away {upcriority among Clergymen ? 
 Were not the Apoftles, who converted 
 Jews and Heathens, fbpericr to thefe 
 Bifhops and Presbyters as well as to the 
 Deacons r Did they not keep the go- 
 vernment of their own colonies and 
 plantations in their own hands, as St, 
 John over the feven churches of Afia, 
 and St. Paul of Corinth, Ephefus, Phi- 
 lippi, &cc. ? But ftill the queftion \s 7 Are 
 you the Succellbrs of the Elders and 
 Overfeers mentioned in that chapter? 
 Or how do you prove your miniftry 
 from that? Or how do you know but 
 there were Bifliops diftincl from Pres- 
 byters at that meeting? For do we not 
 read in the 4th verie, that there ac- 
 companied Paul Sopater cfBerea, and 
 of the Theffalonians, stfriflarckus and Se- 
 cundus > and Gaius of Derbe> &c. whom 
 the ancients account proper Bifhops of 
 the place ? And might not the 28th 
 verfe be fpoke to Bifhops properly (b 
 called r Bur, be as it will, What church 
 in the world for fifteen hundred years 
 
 was 
 
r *& i 
 
 was Presbyterian by that fcripture, or 
 what ancient Commentator expounded 
 it in the Presbyterian fenfe? Is not the 
 univerfai pradtice of the church fuffi^ 
 cient to give light, when things are 
 controverted, as in the cafe of Jnfanr 
 Baptifm, the change of the feventh day 
 of the week into the obfervation of the 
 firft day? 
 
 Or if you will make the Laying on 
 of hands upon Timothy by the Presbytery^ 
 i Tim. iv. 14. an argument for Presby- 
 terian government, how do you prove 
 that that Presbytery was like to yours, 
 confiding of a monthly or yearly Mo- 
 derator, and Lay Elders, that are igno- 
 rant of the very fundamentals of Reli- 
 gion? Or that your Presbyteries arc 
 like to theirs, who had the Apoltle for 
 a Moderator, who attributes the aciion 
 of ordination to himfelf, 2 Tii;u i. 6. 
 Or how can you prove that you arc 
 Succeflors to that Presbytery that laid 
 hands on Timothy \ Or why do not 
 you make a Moderator, Superintendent, 
 or Bifhop over Presbyters, as Timothy 
 was made, with a power of juiifdiftion 
 and ordination at Ephefus, or as Titus 
 was at Crete ? 
 
 Y Or 
 
I m D 
 
 Or if you will make ufeof the Apof- 
 tie St. Paul's (alutation in the firli chap* 
 
 ter to the Philippians, verfe i. To 
 
 alt the Saints at .PhUiffi, with the Bi* 
 foofis and Deacons, to make for your mo- 
 dern notion of Presbytery; 1 afk, Are 
 not others opinions as good fenfe as 
 yours? Some who fay, That there was 
 a College of Biihops there, waiting to 
 he called wherever the Apoftles (who 
 planted the .gofpel in other places) 
 lhould appoint them ; or that there 
 might be a Bifhop there for the Cir- 
 cumcifion, and another for the Uncir- 
 cumcifton, as were in other places, 
 particularly at Rome ? Or that Bifhops 
 were occafionally there ? Or that the 
 Presbyters were included in the Dea- 
 cons j for Deacons fignify Minifters ■? 
 But then to give all that you would be 
 at, let thefe Biihops fignify Presbyters, 
 and the Deacons an order inferior to 
 them, what advantage will the Presby- 
 terian caufe have by that ? Was there 
 not imparity in that fame cafe ? Was 
 there not one order above another? But 
 then if you afk, Where was the chief 
 Bifliop ? It is anfwered, That the chief 
 Biiliop was an Apoftle of Apoftolick 
 Ordination, and at the writing of that 
 
 Epiftlc 
 
C *s$ ] 
 
 Epiflle he was in company with St. 
 Paul, Phi/ip. ii. 25. Epapbroditus your 
 tnejfenger, which Presbyterians expound, 
 one fent from the church of Philippi 
 with a contribution of facred money to 
 the Apoftle St. Paul; which will not 
 hold j for the word Ato«/ao» cannot be 
 taken in fuch a fenfc, for it would be 
 Ayy.Kov if it fignify'd meflcnger in the 
 Presbyterian notion. 
 
 But ftili, to crown all, Are Presbyte- 
 rians the SuccelTbrs to thefe Bifhops, or 
 Presbyters and Deacons that were at 
 Philippi? For unlcfs they prove their 
 million by Succeffiun, they can never 
 prove their miniflry. 
 
 4. How can Presbyterians, with 
 knowledge and confcicnce, infift upon 
 that new notion (the firft author of it, 
 for ought I know, was Mr. Baxter) to 
 keep up a party, and to (land out againft 
 light, to draw over deluded difciples to 
 themfelves, and to tell us that the firft 
 Bifhops were congregational or paro- 
 chial Bifhops, in the mpdern notion 
 that they have of it ? What t was every 
 Elder under St. James, firft of Jerufa* 
 lem, a Bithop ? There were many tea 
 thoufands of believers on the place, as 
 the authors of Jus Reg. EccL acknow- 
 Y 2 ledge } 
 
C 256 ] 
 
 ledge ; now, could one Bifhop ferve 
 them all ? Or were the feveral Elders 
 or Presbyters at Jerufalem, Bifhops of 
 the place ? See firlt part, pag. 65. 66. 
 But let Presbyterians prove themfelves 
 Succeflbrs to St. James ofjerufalem and 
 his Elders* 
 
 5- When St. Ignatius, an Apoftolical 
 Bifhop, difciple to St. John, in his E- 
 piftles, written in his way going to his 
 martyrdom, and had no occafion to ex- 
 tol the order of Bifhops for his own fake, 
 being to be baptized in his blood ; when 
 I fay, in his feven genuine Epiftles, 
 found out by Dr. Ufher a Bifhop, and 
 Voffius a Presbyterian, and proven to 
 be fo by Bifhop Pearfon, Du Pin, and 
 others, mentions the three diftin& or- 
 ders of Bifhops, Presbyters, and Dea- 
 cons, pray was there a Presbyterian 
 parity to be imagined in that (tile r If 
 thete three orders were all equal, will 
 not the interpretation run thus: Be 
 obedient to Bifhops, Bifhops, Bifhops, 
 Presbyters, Presbyters, Deacons, Dea- 
 cons? But {till, let Presbyterians prove 
 their SucccfTion from Pofl-apoflolical 
 Writers. 
 
 6. If you fay that local, perfonal, 
 and prefential communion was required 
 
 with 
 
C & 1 
 
 with the Bifhop of the place ; I fay, 
 that may be in a national church as 
 well as in a congregation ; for may not 
 all England communicate with the 
 Archbiihop of Canterbury on Falter- 
 day, as well as three millions of Jews, 
 legally clean, communicated with the 
 High Pried, and partook with the altar 
 in the Temple of Jcrufalem, tho' they 
 approached it not in their own perfons I 
 See firit Part, pag. 6^. &c. 
 
 When there is an imparity in hea- 
 ven among the Angels, and on earth 
 in the natural and political body, in na- 
 vies among mariners, in camps among 
 foldiers, in univerfities among matters 
 of colleges, and in every family among 
 fathers, children, mailers and fervants, 
 why fhould the Church of Chrift, which 
 is his myflical body, want beauty, or- 
 der and harmony, in a decent fubordina* 
 tion, which (till was in the Old Tefta- 
 ment Church, and (till continues in all 
 parts of the Chriftian world, till among 
 fome few of very late ? Na)^, what 
 power have mere Presbyters (tho* de- 
 pending upon the Bilhop) to give holy 
 orders, more than a baptifed Laick has 
 to give baptifm, or one that has recei* 
 ved the iacrament of the Lord's Sup* 
 Y 3 per, 
 
per, to adminifter that unto others ? 
 And if Presbyters ordained by Bilhops, 
 cannot confer that power on others, 
 how can they who are not fo ordained 
 beftow it ? And how can they who 
 have fhaken off the facred order of Bi- 
 fhops, who are the Apoftles Succeflbrs, 
 prefume to do it, without incurring the 
 guilt and danger of periihing in the fin 
 of Corah ? And ought that power to 
 be ufurped that was never given to in- 
 ferior Clergymen, nor ever was meant 
 to be given to them at the plantation of 
 Religion, nor at the reformation from 
 Popery : How can they then exercife 
 it without incurring the fin againit Fa- 
 ther, Son ; and Holy Ghoft ? 
 
t 2 « J 
 
 DIALOGUE. 
 
 BETWIXT 
 
 An Ancient Noble Earl andaPref- 
 byterian Incumbent in thePariih, 
 named Mr. John, who came 
 to pay a Viiit to the Family : 
 Relative to the Firft and Second 
 Parts of the Succcflion of the 
 Priefthood. 
 
 Mr. John. 
 
 MY Lord, I come hither to pay the 
 duty I owe to your Lordfhip, 
 and to your noble family, as being mi* 
 niftcr of this parilh whereof your Lord* 
 Ihip is hcretor. 
 
 Earl. Mr. John, you arc welcome 
 to me, and To is any who has the name 
 of a miniftcr. 
 
 Mr 
 
[ 260 ] 
 
 Mr* John. I hope your Lordihip 
 will grant me more than the bare name 
 of a minifter ; for 1 am fettled in the 
 parifh by the law of the land, and I 
 was ordained by the laying on of the hands, 
 as Timothy was, i Efh. v. 14. And 
 I am forry your Lordfhip does not 
 ftrengthen my hands, by coming with 
 your lady, children and fcrvants, to 
 countenance the worfhip and "ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 Earl. Mr. John, your grievance mud 
 have feveral diiVinct anfwers; and fir'l, 
 to be ingenuous with you, 1 think the 
 bare name of a minifter is too much 
 for you, for none fhould be fo called but 
 fuch as are truly fb, unlefs we fpeak 
 in the Quakers (tile, thus, minifter fo 
 called. I find it commended in the 
 Angel of Ephefus, Rev.W. 2. That he 
 tried them which called themfelves A* 
 follies and were found liars. And tho' 
 you be eftablifhed by the prefent law, 
 that does not make you a minifter; ftr 
 I fancy you will not fo far depart from 
 the Presbyterian authors of Jus Reg. 
 Ecclef. written in 1647, who maintain 
 very folidly againft the Eraftians, that 
 the civil magiftrate cannot be the foun* 
 tain of the gofpel miniflry, nor can 
 
 the 
 
C 261 ] 
 
 the people be the original, as thefe 
 authors have maintained againft the In- 
 dependents. 
 
 Mr. John. Not fo my Lord, but by 
 the laying on of the bands of the Pref- 
 bytery. 
 
 Earl. The authors of the fbrecited 
 book founded the miniflry upon Apo- 
 ftolical Succeffion : Now, Sir, prove 
 you that the Presbytery that laid hands 
 on you, are lineal fucceflbrs to that 
 Presbytery that laid hands on Timothy, 
 where the Apoftle St. Paul afcribes the 
 whole action to himfelf ; and neither 
 St. Jerome, nor Mr. Calvin, nor any 
 ancient author ever underitood it in 
 your prefent (enfe of the words. 1 count 
 them no Presbyters but fuch as are or- 
 dained by Bifhops, who can derive their 
 fucceflfion from the Apoflles : For it is as 
 reafonable that the Chridian Clergy 
 ihould be as exacl and punftual in prov- 
 ing their deicent from the Apoftles, 
 as the Jews were in the Old Tefta- 
 ment, in proving their Priefthood from 
 Aaron. 
 
 Mr. John. What ! Will your Lord- 
 fhip unchurch all the Proteitants in the 
 world. 
 
 Ear(, 
 
I 
 
 Ear/. I am not fond of the word 
 Proteftant more than the word Papift p 
 I find the Socinians go under the name 
 of Proteftants, who are guilty of the 
 herefies of Ebion, Cerinthusand Carpo* 
 crates, denying Christ's divinity, and 
 afcerting him to be a mere man. 
 Presbyterians are Proteftants, who main- 
 tain the error of Aerins, who was con- 
 demned for anhcretrck, for afTerting, 
 " That there fhould be no diftin&ion 
 M of higher and lower degrees among 
 H Clergymen." In a word, Arians, 
 Enthufiafts and Antinomians, go under 
 the name of Proteltants, and are all 
 more guilty of afundamental error than 
 Papifts. You have the worft things 
 that Papifts have, and which the bell 
 of themfelves condemn. But you cry 
 out againfc their maintaining Apoftolical 
 Succejfion, fit forms of Prayer, Feajls 
 and Fefivahy order and decency, as r#nk % 
 Popery. And, Mr. John, do you think 
 their minifterial ads valid that have no 
 lawful ordination ? For firft, they are 
 not Presbyters that are not made fo by tire 
 Succeflbrs of the Apoltles,. which our 
 authors prove ; andtbey who are fo prcf- 
 byterate were never allowed to confer 
 that office upon others, 
 
 Mr. 
 
I 263 1 
 
 Mr. John. Then (according to this 
 notion) they cannot be within the cove* 
 nant of grace. 
 
 Earl. Sir, it is not our charity nor 
 civility, nor the conceffions of the lear^ 
 ned, nor the objecting many inconveni* 
 encies, that will make wrong right, or 
 make them miniflers who have not 
 ordiuation by the divine rule of A£o- 
 ftolical SucceiTion. If a man hearing a 
 fermon on repentance, who has made a 
 great eftate by force and fraud, not 
 asking a quefiion for confeience fake, finds 
 fomething in the fermon that kindles a 
 fire in his confeience, tozvit, That his 
 repentance can never be finccrc, nor 
 acceptable xo God, without rejlttution 
 of ill-gotten goods ; he will eafe his 
 confeience with this reafon, that this 
 would beggar him and all his family, 
 and damn thoufands in the world j I 
 hope this is no good reafon for him to 
 perleverc in his oppreflion of the te* 
 nants, and circumvccning his neigh- 
 bours. 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, I hold myfelf 
 ftill by the hying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery. 
 
 Earl. If a comp any of Laymen, many 
 whereof haye a competent meafure of 
 
 learning, 
 
r 264 ] 
 
 learning, and can preach lound doflrine, 
 yet being difpleafed with the principles 
 and practices of the prelent kirk, find a 
 neceffity for a reformation, and there- 
 upon ordain five or fix preaching Elders 
 among themfelves, and at length gather 
 a great following, and are like to over- 
 turn your prelent kirk fettlement,. and 
 perhaps, in procefs of time, may get law 
 on their fide, would you look upon 
 them as lawful minifters ? 
 
 Mr. John. No truly, becaufe they de- 
 part from the good old way. 
 
 Earl. Sir, 1 fay, that your Presbytery is 
 neither good nor old ; not good, becaufe 
 it has not Apoftolical Succeffion ; not 
 old j for pray, Mr. John, how old do 
 you think Presbytery ? 
 
 Mr. John. As old as the Apoftlcs, 
 
 Earl. So might this new fuppofed 
 Presbytery fay upon the fame fcripture 
 which you cite for yourfelves ; but tell 
 me of an Apoftolic Church for three 
 hundred years, when the church was 
 under perfecution, or afterwards when 
 it came to its profperity, under kings 
 who became nurfing fathers, and queens 
 who became nurfing mothers, that had 
 fuch a Presbytery as you plead for at 
 prefent ? I can prove my own family to 
 
 be 
 
C & ] 
 
 be three hundred years older than your 
 Presbytery; yea it were no hard task to 
 prove an hundred Chiefs in Scotland 
 older than Presbytery ; but I will not 
 contend il) againft Epifcopacy : For un- 
 der the Old Teftajncnt it continued 
 fince the firit conlccraticn of Aaron to 
 the High-priefth;<od, and under the 
 New Te(tamcnt fince the days of the 
 Apofllcs ; but the filft that fet up this 
 new model of ordination by mere Pref- 
 byters in a parhy, was John Calvin at 
 Geneva, in the year 1541, which is 
 but an hundred and feventy-fix years 
 ago; now my fit ft prcdecctfor Dowgald 
 was an eminent inilrument in reftoring 
 Malcolm the third, the 86rh King of 
 Scotland, againft the ufnrper and tyrant 
 M'Beth, and that in the year 1057, 
 which being fubfira&cd lrom 1717, 
 there remains 660, and fubftraft 176, 
 years from 66o ; there remains 484 
 years older than Calvin's founding of 
 Presbyterian government, which was 
 never heard of before, in the perfecti- 
 on, nor in the profnerity of the Chri- 
 ftian world. Moreover, Mr. John, yoti 
 cannot prove a lift of your (ircccfiicn 
 from John Calvin (whole ordination as 
 a Prieft is very much doubled) in a 1> 
 Z neal 
 
C 266 ] 
 ireal Succeffion, nor from John TCnox, 
 who was but a mere Pfieli, that could 
 not confer the orders of Prietthood, 
 more than a baptiled Layman can 
 confer Baptifm, nor they who re- 
 ceive the Lord's Supper can give it to 
 them who have not received it. 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, I am not for 
 •vain genealogies, i Tim. i. 4. Tit. iii. 9. 
 
 Earl. Mr. John, your way of realon- 
 ing is peculiar to your party, upon the 
 mere found of a word, like that of Pre/* 
 bytery, and 'Lords over God's heritage : 
 For I am not debating my genealogy 
 out of vanity, but merely to fhew the 
 unreafonablenefs of yaur pretences to 
 the Sacred Office of the Priefthood, 
 which yon cannot prove from Calvin 
 nor Knox, who had no power to ordain: 
 Comparifons are odious we fay j but if 
 this comparifon be true, it choaks your 
 pretences to the miniftry. And, Mr. 
 John, Is there not a difference betwixt 
 vain genealogies and genealogies ? as 
 there is betwixt vain philofophy and 
 philofophy ? vain repetitions, and repe- 
 titions that are not vain ? Idle words, 
 and words that are not fo ? Is there not 
 a difference betwixt Epifcopal Mmifters 
 that can. derive their Succeffion from 
 
 the 
 
C 267 ] 
 
 rhc Apoflles, and thole that canno: do 
 it from Calvin nor Knox: And were 
 no; genealogies found neceflary to prove 
 the Menias his humanity, witncls St. 
 Mattk. i. and St. Luke \\.\ Yea, were 
 not genealogies in the Old Teltament 
 neceilary to know who were Priefts and 
 who not, Ezra ii. 62. and vii. 64. As 
 when the Epifcopal Miniders the lad 
 year were found to be minillcrs accor- 
 ding to law, by the Proteftant Bifhops 
 who ordained them ? And now in what 
 part of the world, Mr. John., do you 
 prove yourfelvcs minUters in the man- 
 ner they did ? 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, in the primi- 
 tive times there was no fuch thing as 
 Lord Bifhops. 
 
 Ear/. No more was there Mr. James's 
 nor Mr. John's; and if there was no 
 Lord Peter nor Lord Paul, no more was 
 there Mr. Peter nor Mr. Paul. 
 
 Air. John. My Lord, No fuch thing 
 as diocefTes and large revenues, nor Bi- 
 ihops fitting in civil Judicatories. 
 
 Ear/. Mr. John, nor do 1 find Parifli 
 Churches, nor fifty, fixty, leventy or 
 a hundred pounds a year of ftipend, nor 
 the plcafurcs of the fair fcx for matri- 
 monial conveniencies, in the primitive 
 Z 2 times. 
 
[ 268 ] , 
 
 nines. And truly Mr. John, I find 
 ^Presbyterian Parochial Bifhops (as forne 
 of yea call yourfelves molt ignorantly) 
 as unmonificd to the world as ever [ 
 fitw an Archbifhop : and Mr. John, it is 
 often told you, t&ft a Diocefs makes not 
 a Bifliop more than a Parilh makes a 
 Miniiter; but you will infill: upon it 
 (contrary to knowledge) to keep up 
 rHe people to your intercft. 
 
 Is that a good argument, that the pre- 
 fent Bifhops (encouraged by Chriftian 
 Kings, when the ecciefiaftic and civil 
 {tares are cemented and concorporated) 
 cannot be ihe Succeflbrs of the primi- 
 tive Bifhops, becaufe they were poor 
 and perfecuted : At this rate you may 
 argue, that ] am not the fucccflbr of 
 Dowgald the firft founder of my fami- 
 ly, becaufe he was not an Earl as I am, 
 but the fifth Eari fmce the clays of 
 King James the fixth, and former twelve 
 Lords Barons ; before that we were 
 Knights ; and before that, we were but 
 Good-mans, as we call them in Scot- 
 land ; befides my fint Anceftor had, 
 perhaps, nDt thirty pounds worth of 
 lands, and had but houfes of timber, 
 (lake and rice; but his luccefTors cinic 
 to have ten thoufmd pounds a-year, 
 
 with 
 
t 9*9 3 
 
 uith [lately towers and palaces, and we 
 became a great and mighty Tribe 
 Through the kingdom : Yea, and at this 
 rate, Mr. John oupht not to have his 
 iixty pounds a year, becaufc St. Pan! 
 iv r ought with his own hands. It was by 
 fuch pitiful quibbles that in Oliver's 
 days,and by new interpretations on Icrip- 
 turc, you expelled the Apoltoiic Sue- 
 ceflion out of the Proteitant Church, 
 and by the lame naughty lubtilities, you 
 are preparing to act the lame game over. 
 
 The Epifcopal Minilters ihew their 
 Charter, St. Mattb. xxviii. 20. Lo, I 
 am, &cc. and St. John xx. 2|. As 7/iy Fa- 
 tker hath fent me, &cc. and prove their 
 Million in a SuccefTion of Biihops from 
 the days of the Apoftles ; but you think 
 to overthrow this with your own glofs 
 on thefe Icriptures, St. Luke xxi. 25% 
 Tie Kings of the Gentiles, £<c. and 1 Pet. 
 v. 4. Lords weer God'j Heritage. But 
 Sir, 1 {hall prefent you with a parallel 
 of your way of reafbning to deftroy the 
 Apoltolical Succeiiion, and 1 ihall read 
 it to you out of an ingenious author, 
 Diaphan. page i 20. and L crave your at- 
 tention to the words. 
 
 u Cvjus being the (eventecnth k::hht 
 or his family, which com . a 
 
 7 r 
 
 La 
 
[ 270 ] - 
 
 flourifning ftaie time out of mini, a 
 faction arifes to difpofTcfs him of all 
 that his anceftors enjoyed fo long ; they 
 i ell him in general, That his anceftors 
 were intruders, but differ very much 
 about the time, one (ays 200, another 
 500, and another 800 years ; Cajus 
 Jhews his father's fucceflion, and an e- 
 vident tettimony under his hand, thus, 
 
 11 Ego Gcnvillus, &cc. conftituo Cajum fili* 
 'uu iftdum Hxredem bonorum mccrum cm- 
 ttium* " 1 Gonvill, &c. conftiturc Cajus 
 u my Ton heir of all my goods/' 
 
 41 In come a company of trifling fophi- 
 flers, A. E. C &cc. and wheedle him out 
 of his ancient pcfieffion, after this man- 
 ner, 
 
 M i. Says A. This is plainly corrupted, 
 it was not written Cajum, but Sajum ; 
 the corruption is eafy on the bottom of 
 the firft letter. 
 
 " 2. B. Let it he as it will, this tcfta- 
 ment is of no value, for it proceeds on 
 an uncertainty, if not a falfc fuppofiti- 
 on ; for who can fay, That you are 
 •lint Cajus, or that you are Gcnri/i's fonf 
 
 " 3. C. You mult be his Ton and aftual 
 heir while he was alive, or when he 
 was dead ; not when he was alive, for 
 right cannot be but in one a*, once ; not 
 
 when 
 
[ 271 J 
 
 when lie was dead, for none can be Ton 
 to him that is not, no more than any 
 perlun that is alive can be father to him 
 that has no being. 
 
 " 4. D. W.;s this right which is con- 
 veyed to you in your father alone, or 
 in (ome others belides ? If in himfclf 
 alone, why doth he fay, con\\Uuo, i. c. 
 jimul ftatuo* I appoint together with o- 
 thers ; and if fo, why arc they not nam- 
 ed r 
 
 " y It feems to me. (faith E.) Mr. Ca- 
 jns, That this teftament is rather agaiufl 
 you than for you : For either you pre- 
 tend to be his fon, before this tefta- 
 ment or after ; if before, your own evi* 
 dence wirnefleth againft you, Conjiituo 
 Cajum fiitum ?neutn, M I make Cajus my 
 fon," if after, then by this teltameiu 
 you are made his fon, 
 
 " 6. It doth indeed (faith F.) make 
 him his heir; but what of what? Not 
 of his cftarc, which we contend about, 
 but only of his goods , and do you think, 
 Mr. CajtiS, rhal a dying man would 
 fpeak improperly, truly no ; Goods of 
 mind, virtue, prudence, temperance, 
 thefe according to Ariftotlc are proper- 
 ly called goods, and that of body and 
 fortune improperly called io. 
 
 7. Let 
 
c 272 . ] 
 
 " 7. Let it be what kind of goods you 
 will (faith G.) } This very word Meo* 
 rum overturns all your pretentions ; 
 for thefe are your father's words \ you 
 lay, well then, if it be fo, either fiato 
 you plead for,, thefe goods are now ei- 
 ther bis, or not his? If they be his, 
 then they are not yours; if they be now 
 not his, then the very title you rely 
 upon is falfc. 
 
 " 8. A Tcftamcnt (faith H.) is to be 
 taken in its (met and rigorous fenfe, fo 
 the word Omnium fpoils your plea ; 
 you mnft have ail his goods or none, 
 but you have not his good face, nor his 
 good endowments. 
 
 " 9. Come, come, ((aith /.) we need* 
 cd nor have gone (o far, or nfed fo ma- 
 ny words ; Cajus pretends, that his fa- 
 ther who made the reftament was the 
 laft of j 7 knights of his family: Out 
 of his own mouth I will condemn him, 
 with the very firft: word of his will, 
 which he fays his father made, which 
 is E%o, the firft perfon, and yet he fays 
 his father was the laft perfon of 17 
 knighrsi- 
 
 Mr. Jfjfau My Lord, that is a very 
 heavy charge on Presbyterians, thai: 
 they interpret the Old and New Tcfta- 
 ment 
 
C W3 1 
 
 mcnc after the lame manner rruir theie 
 fuppofed triflers expounded Cajus his 
 teltanicnt. 
 
 Earl. Yes, I know they do ; I con Id 
 multiply examples to you on the head, 
 as The Kings of the Gentiles, and Lords 
 over'God's beritaae y by that way of rcalbn- 
 ing ; and that there is no order of 
 Clergymen above another, becaufe Bi- 
 Ihops and Presbyters are promifcuoufly 
 taken : Yea, wn&t think you ot a cry'd 
 up champion for the Presbyterian caule, 
 (M. IV. J. Sum and Subjfonce of £- 
 
 ftfcopal Coutroverfy, pag. 3. 4.) who 
 tells us very confidently, " That the 
 c< Spirit of God had peculiar views of rc- 
 " forming Scotland, when the Prophet 
 u Ifiiah, lv. 3. ("aid, / wtll make an 
 u everl^UngCjvenant ivith you, O'C. and 
 u Jer. 1. 5. Come and let us join curfehes 
 " to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant, 
 11 &c" and gives his reafon thus, " For 
 " till of late Scotland was reckoned one 
 " of the utmolt parts of ihe earth, or 
 u known world." Now is there any 
 thing in Cajus's tcflament more ridicu- 
 ] on fly commented on by the qu'rbblers 
 than this ? 1 am lure not one half fo 
 blafphernous, as to make the people 
 believe that the bloody Solemn League 
 
 laid 
 
C 274 ] 
 
 and Covenant was prophefied as a gof- 
 pel bleffing ? May not this man fay any 
 thing, and undertake to prove, (as he 
 does), That St. Ignatius and St. Cy- 
 prian were Presbyterians. And could 
 mere be greater nonfenfe fpoke, than 
 to fay, " That Chrift died a martyr for 
 " Presbyterian government/' Mr. D. 
 " W. Sermon, Pf. ii. 1 2. and to prove it 
 from St. John xix. 19. " Jefus of Naza- 
 reth King of the Tews ?" 
 
 Or can there be greater nonlenle 
 than to (ay that Cain was an Arminian, 
 Papift and Socinian ? Blackwell's Ratio 
 Sacra, page 7. Or that the faying of 
 the Lord's Prayer in fuch a manner, or 
 aiier prayers, " Is a lifelefs, faplefs, 
 " ldathfome worftiip." Mr. H. Caf. 
 EjF a )' s f P a S e 3*3, 32O; "And that it 
 " is an engine from Hell to fubvert the 
 " goipel*" Th-ele things I eite to you 
 from printed books, under the authors 
 own hands; and now, when } r ou deal 
 fo with the Scriptures, what may not be 
 expected of the ule you make of cede- 
 fuftical hiftory, and of the ancient wri- 
 ters, which are not fo commonly in 
 mens hands as the bible is I 
 
 M 
 
 f.. 
 
[ 275 ] 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, I am forry that 
 I have lo(t my errand in coining hither; 
 for 1 thought to gain your Lordlhip to 
 countenance the worihip and ordinan- 
 ces. 
 
 Earl. Mr. John, tho' you had a law- 
 ful ordination I would not hear you, un- 
 lefs I knew before hand what prayer 
 yon put up for the congregation, who 
 are obliged to know how they worfhip 
 God as we 11 as you, and to pray to 
 God as well as to fing to God. 
 
 Mr. Johiu My Lord, 1 pray as the fpi* 
 rit directs me. 
 
 Earl. Sir, if extemporary praying be 
 to pray with the fpirit t will it not fol- 
 low, that nond in the congregation has 
 the fpirit but yourfelf, becaufe none 
 pray offhand but yourfelf? Befides, the 
 people do not pray themfelves, but 
 they on4y hear you pray, as they hear 
 you preach, but do not preach them- 
 selves. Again, if your prayer be by 
 the fpirit, if one fhall write it in a fliort 
 hand, and print it, what hinders it to be 
 canonical fcripture ? And, $d/y, Why 
 do you write your fermons left you 
 fpeak nonfenfe to the people, and not 
 your prayers left you fpeak nonfenfe to 
 ,God? 
 
 Mr. 
 
C 0$ ] 
 
 Mr. Jjhn. My Lord, I conic not hi- 
 ther to debate, but advife your Lord- 
 ihip to be a good example in the pa- 
 rifh by countenancing the ordinances. 
 
 Earl. Sir, I have my own chaplain 
 canonically ordained, who can derive 
 his SuccelTion from the ApofUes by the 
 Biihop that ordained him. 1 have rhe 
 book of Common Prayer in my family, 
 whereby the meaneft fervam is edified; 
 we have confefTion, abiohuion, ihe 
 form of found words, fcriptures read 
 every day; baptized pcrfons may read 
 their dury, and they who are to com- 
 municate lee their duty plainly in rhe 
 communion office; my wife knows 
 how to give thanks to God after child- 
 bearing, and I know how to get my chil- 
 dren confirmed, and we are all edified 
 by the fafls and feftivals of the church 
 throughout the year. 
 
 Mr. John. Falts and feftivals.! Old 
 Popifh tralh ! 
 
 Earl. Every thing mufl be called Po- 
 pery that makes againft you; but, Mr. 
 John, the laft Chriftmas fell to be on 
 a Sunday; what text did you preach u- 
 pon \ 
 
 Mr. John. I Sam. xvi. i. 4!nd the 
 Lord [aid unto Samuel, How long wilt 
 
 thou 
 
c w i 
 
 thou mourn for S'iul y feeing I hare re- 
 jetted him from being King over Ifrael. 
 
 Ear/. What preached you on Eafter- 
 day ? 
 
 Mr. John. 2 Kings viii. 13. And Ha- 
 zael faid, But what, is thy fervant a dog 7 
 that he jhould do this great thing f 
 
 Earl. What on Whidimday I 
 
 Mr. John. On Cant. vi. 6. 7. Thy 
 teeth are as a flock of fieep, -which go up 
 from the wafloing, whereof every one bear* 
 eth tzuins, and there is not one barren a* 
 mong them. As a -piece of pomegranate 
 are thy temples within thy locks. 
 
 Earl. Truly, Mr. John, I do nor 
 
 think the congregation can be much e- 
 
 dified by fermons you make on thefe 
 
 texts. 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, come fee and hear. 
 
 Earl. Nay, I think 1 do better to 
 hear the myfteries of the Chriftian re- 
 ligion ; The nativity and refurreflion of 
 cur Saviour, and the defcent of the Holy 
 Chofl, who continues the miniftry in 
 the Church as fucceeding to the Apof- 
 tles, according to Christ's promife 
 of bqing with them to the end of the tuorld. 
 
 Mr. John. My Lord, 1 wiih you 
 would read the Presbyterian pamphlets 
 as murh a$ you read the Prelatick. 
 
 A a Earl 
 
I -278 J 
 Earl Sir, I read both, and if you 
 would read what is anfwered without 
 prejudice, you would find your miniftry 
 ro be without million ; but to difcourfe 
 upon charity with a worldly wretch, 
 upon fobriety and temperance with an 
 epicure, is all one as to perfuade you 
 out of your ftipend by the doftrine of 
 Apoftolical Succeflion ; but if a change 
 ihoiila come, you will fee the Epifcopal 
 writings with other fpe&acles than you 
 do now, as your predeceflors overcame 
 their obligations to the Solemn League 
 and Covenant, and 700 of them kept 
 their (Upends. Sir, take you all your 
 authors for Presbytery, Eduardus Dido- 
 clavius, the Anagram of David Calder* 
 wodiusj take you the writings of Mr. 
 Forrefter, Dr. Rule, Mr Jamefon and 
 Mr. Anderfon, and prove yourfelves 
 minifters by perfonal Succeffion to the 
 Apoflles, otherwife I will not believe 
 your million, tho' you fhould write as 
 many books as could fill the Bafs. 
 
 POST- 
 
C 279. ] 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I Thought to have given fome account 
 of the Apoftolical Succeffion of the 
 Church of Sweden, and of feveral 
 foreign Bifhops that broke off from Rome 
 and turned Lutheran, fuch as Gebhard 
 Trulhcs Archbifhop of Cologn, Ver- 
 gerius and his brother, who were both 
 Bifhops ; as alfo of Dudithius aBifhop j 
 but 1 found it more proper to treat of 
 this by itfelf ; bccaufe my defign in 
 this Second Part was to prove ourielves 
 minifters, and challenge all the Presby- 
 terians in the world to prove their mif- 
 fion, which from my heart I wifh they 
 could do, for the credit of the refor- 
 mation. And tho' they fhould find an 
 hundred errors in my performance, (as 
 I hope there is not one that's wilful) yet 
 this can make nothing for them, except 
 they prove that they are Succeflbrs to 
 thofe that got commifiion to teach and 
 baptize all nations* 
 
 FINIS* 
 
r * 
 
I 
 
 ■