SEC. I. Remarks upon the Letter-Writer, S. I. and Mr. L's Introduction.

MR. L. has ushered his "defence" into pub­lic view, with a letter signed, S. I. Who this gentleman is, we are not concerned to en­quire. As he has seen fit to give us only the ini­tial letters of his name, and left us to guess the rest; he must expect no more ceremony than any anony­mous writer, whatever honorary titles he may happen to be dignified with.

‘OUR opponents, says he, have of late, with­out any provocation, been mustering up their old sophisms against the ancient episcopal go­vernment of the church, which have been long ago abundantly answered over and over.’ Per­haps the gentleman thinks all arguments against his scheme, deserve the name of sophisms. He should remember however, that though to call an argument that pinches, by an ugly name, may be an easy method to get rid of it; yet in the judg­ment of the candid, a solid refutation would be more satisfactory. That our arguments are old, is readily granted; for so is truth: But that they are the worse or the weaker upon that account, ap­pears not. Nor does it appear that these argu­ments have been all abundantly, I mean solidly an­swered. To pretend to answer an argument, is one [Page 11]thing; to do it effectually, another. The former, in the present case, we allow. The latter perhaps wants proof: We have only his bare word for it; and as he seems to be an interested person, the public, and not he, will be presumed the proper­est judge. But then, ‘These sophisms have been mustered up against the ancient episcopal go­vernment of the church.’ Had he said against the present government of the church of England, as explained by some of her zealous sons; the words would have read as well, and been more agreeable to truth. Every sect, almost, is apt to boast of its antiquity; and if bare assertions are ad­mitted as proof, one has as good a claim to the honour as another. That the present government of the church of England, is episcopal, none will deny: But that it is very ancient, at least so an­cient as some of its advocates pretend, is by ma­ny denied. As to myself, I am fully persuaded, that notwithstanding all its high pretences to an­tiquity; it is comparatively a mere novel, upstart institution. So far from being the true ancient episcopacy, that prevailed in the apostles times, and the ages next following; that it is, in many respects, diametrically opposite to it and destruc­tive of it. This, I presume, will appear in the following pages.

BUT after all, if we had attacked even the church of England, without provocation, it was doubtless wrong. This is a charge commonly brought by our episcopalians. Notwithstanding the uncommon generosity, with which they are treated in this country, and the singular indulgence of the state towards them, above what was ever shewn to dissenters, in any part of the christian world; they are often complaining of opposition and ill-usage. At least, if we will believe them, they never begin a controversy. They are forced [Page 12]into it, in their own defence. This gentleman tells us, ‘these opponents, (meaning, I suppose, Dr. Chauncy and I) have of late been muster­ing, &c. against the church, without any pro­vocation.’ Mr. L. says, ‘I am fully persuaded, upon the strictest enquiry, it will be found, that there cannot be one single instance produced, for thirty years past, in which our clergy have begun the dispute.’ ^† And, ‘When the church of England is attacked, her clergy sup­pose they ought to defend it.’ ^* His book is ‘therefore called a defence, &c. And this is the only reason that causes him to publish this de­fence.’ But is this representation honest? Are presbyterians such quarrelsome neighbors, as al­ways to be attacking the church of England? And beginning the controversy with her, without provo­tion? Nothing less. The first piece wrote upon the controversy, in this country, was on the epis­copal side. And the first in this colony, by one with whom, I presume, S. I. is intimately ac­quainted. What then can these gentlemen mean, by attacks upon the church of England? Had ei­ther the Dr. or I, denied her the essentials of a true church; had we disputed the validity of her ministry;—pronounced a nullity upon her admin­istrations;—ranked her clergy among the sons of Korah, or her members with heathen Jews and infidels; or had we directly attempted to expose any of those many things, which are, at least, highly exceptionable in her doctrines, discipline, orders, and worship; they might, with more pro­priety sound the alarm, and cry, ‘an attack up­on the church.’ Every one knows, how com­mon these cants are, from a certain quarter. But is there any thing of this kind in the pieces Mr. [Page 13]L. pretends to answer? Certainly nothing. They bravely defend our ministry, from the exceptions of these zealous advocates for episcopacy, whose high-flying principles, lead them to anathematize all of our communion, and leave all the protestant world, but themselves, to the uncovenanted mer­cies of God. According to these gentlemen, it seems, there can be no defence of presbyterian principles, however modest, without attacking the church of England. This is a great mistake. Let but the church of England, even in her present form, be put upon her original and true footing;— let her rest upon the foundation, which the first re­formers, and all her moderate and catholic sons since, have fixed for her; I mean the civil authori­ty of the King and parliament; and they never need fear being attacked by us. A defence of presbyte­tian ordination and government, will be no direct opposition to the church of England, in this view of it. Had there never been any higher claims for her, (and, to me, it is clear there never oughts) Had her sons in this country, contented themselves, with challenging for her, the honour of being a valuable branch of the reformation, and of having the authority in England, engaged for her estab­lishment and support there; I am confident, "the annual lecture in Cambridge," at which Mr. L. is so much nettled, never would have had a being; nor the pieces he pretends to answer, have seen the light.

BUT the grand secret no doubt is:—The cause of episcopacy is to be pushed in America, at all events. And, upon trial, this it seems, has been found the best expedient—to unhinge and perplex the minds of ignorant people,—to fill their heads with airy notions of the absolute necessity of episco­pal ordination, prejudice them against their own ministers, as having no commission from Christ, no au­thority [Page 14]to perform the divine offices of religion, and boldly pronouncing nullity upon all their ad­ministrations. This is the general strain of all the pieces upon the controversy, that have been wrote in this country. If this was not Mr. L.'s design, he had no call to engage in the dispute. This, however, is no new art. All opposers of religion, have ever made their most successful attacks, through the sides of its clergy. Thus did Korah, Dathan and Abiram. They fell upon Moses and Aaron, and denied their authority, as officers in God's church. "Ye take too much upon you." The scribes and pharisees did the same in their opposition to christianity in its infancy. They "compassed sea and land to make proselytes," they attacked the divine author of the gospel, and boldly questioned his authority, as a public officer in the church. ‘By what authority dost thou these things? And who gave thee this authori­ty?’ The apostle Paul met with the same treat­ment. The Judaizing teachers, (who, by the way, were notable sticklers for uninstituted rites and ceremonies in religion,) traduced his charac­ter, denied his ministerial authority, and in that way endeavoured to prejudice people's mind, and draw off a party to follow them. This laid him often, under the disagreeable necessity, of vindi­cating himself against such aspersions; as may be seen in his epistles. The grand topic of declama­tion of papists, against protestants, has ever been this. ‘You have thrown off the pope's authori­ty, separated from the catholic apostolic church; you have therefore no authentic ministry, no va­lid gospel administrations.’ The same clamor was raised in England, by the non-jurors, against the church of England, at the revolution. And most of us remember, how successful the same ar­tifice has been, in the hands of our enthusiastic se­perates [Page 15]of this country, in the late times.—But to return.

‘FOR ten years, says Mr. L. before this, the church of England and dissenters, lived in a peaceful state: But since they have published so many things against that church, it has a lit­tle disconcerted the design of our clergy.’ If the "design of their clergy" is to promote prac­tical godliness, and make converts to Jesus Christ; I am at a loss to find any thing in the books he speaks of, tending to disconcert it. But if their grand design is, to convert presbyterians to the doc­trines of prelacy, and make proselytes to the church of England, I don't doubt but that it has been a little, perhaps not a very little disconcerted, by the publications aforesaid.—He adds, ‘Who de­termine, as much as possible, to live peaceably with all men.’—Peace, without doubt, is a very desirable thing; but if truth must be the purchase of it, we beg to be excused. We should heartily rejoice to find them, ever more disposed to a peaceful conduct, than at present they appear to be; and are not conscious of any thing on our side, to make them otherwise. But if their designs are disconcerted, by opening peoples eyes to dis­cover the truth; if their tempers are soured, and they become unsociable, and unpeaceful, by a bare detection of the weakness of their cause, and they are resolved not to live in peace, unless we will give up all pretences to the character of ministers and christians, and, right or wrong, come over to their party; we must plainly tell them, they hold their friendship too dear.

‘THIS conduct of their ministers, says S. I. to his client, has made it necessary for us to write again, in defence of the church; and I am glad, and thank you, that you have undertaken this office, and so well acquitted yourself in the dis­charge [Page 16]of it.’ How well Mr. L. has acquitted himself in this office, must be left to the reader.— However, if all our arguments are but sophisms; especially if they ‘have been long ago abundant­ly answered over and over by others;’ 'tis no great purchase to do it again. But a smattering of logic will serve, to answer a sophism, and detect its fallacy. And if in the present case, this has been so often done before, some perhaps may be ready to doubt, whether Mr. L. has not acted the plagiary, and only published the works of others, in his own name. Besides, if all our sophisms have been so often, so abundantly answered before, what occasion was there for doing of it again?— Not that I would detract from Mr. L.'s perform­ance. It is really better than I expected from him; and, so far as he enters into the subject, as good, I imagine, as the cause will well admit. After all, I can hardly think he has done quite so much exe­cution with it, as his friend supposes. According to him, all our arguments stand no more chance, before the formidable artillery of this mighty champion, than mere cobwebs or puffballs, be­fore the mouth of a roaring cannon. ‘They in­stantly vanish into dust and smoke.’ ‘But no wonder: Since whatever plausible appearance they make, they are but mere cavils.’

‘THEIR chief appearance of strength, he adds, lies in the promiscuous use of the words, bishop and presbyter.’ This gentleman must allow me to tell him, he here labours under a great mis­take. If he had read the pieces he makes so free with, he must have seen that we argue the validi­ty of presbyterian ordination, from the one general commission to ministers in the gospel. As this commission belongs to all Christ's ministers, we think they must be intitled to all the powers it contains; therefore to ordination, which is one of these pow­ers. [Page 17]We argue it, from all gospel ministers being successors to the apostles, in their ordinary capa­city, and so possessed of all the powers belonging to them, in that capacity, of which ordination is indubitably one.—We argue it, from there being but one kind, or order of ministers, to be found in the New-Testament,—but one set of qualifi­cations required,—one general work or business assigned,—and only one method of introduction into office prescribed for them all. Finally, we produce, as we think, plain and express instances, from scripture, of ordination by presbyters, pro­perly so called, which is more than our opponents have ever been able to do, for episcopal ordina­tion, though often requested so to do.

'TIS true, ‘the promiscuous use of the words, bishop and presbyter in scripture’ is one of our arguments, and, we think, a good one. For if these names were applied in common to all gospel ministers at that time; if every scripture presby­ter was really a bishop then, we see no reason why it should be otherwise now. At least the instance he brings to convince us of our mistake; to con­vince us, that though bishop and presbyter were one office in the apostles times, yet they ought not to be so now; does not seem so happily chosen to prove the point, though it serves well enough, to shew how the alteration was introduced into the christian church, the motives leading to it, and the means used to accomplish it.

THE instance he produces is this.— ‘They might, says he, with just the same reason, argue and conclude, that Pompey and Augustus were of the same office, because they were both call­ed imperatores; when all the world knows, that within 50 years, (as the case hath often been with other words) a different set of ideas was [Page 18]annexed to that word from what it meant 50 years before: Which was plainly the case, with the word, bishop, when the church came to be settled, &c.’ The truth of the fact he men­tions, as to the Roman state. I readily allow,— nor will I dispute the propriety of the applica­tion. It has indeed, in this instance, (as he just­ly observes) fared with the christian church, much as it did with the ancient Roman common-wealth. While Rome was free, and retained her happy re­publican form of government; the term, impera­tor, meant only an officer in the army, of equal authority with his brother officers of the same ti­tle. But when Julias Caesar, that grand usurper, not content with the original honours and powers of his office, as general; but fired with unbounded thirst of dominion, found means to destroy the an­cient form of government, and enslave his country; then he appropriated the title to himself and suc­cessors, and so the word, imperator, in process of time, came to signify, one of supreme au­thority over all [...]hers, both in the army and state.

AND has it not happened, even so, with the word, bishop, in the christian church? Originally it signified, barely a minister of Christ, a standing officer in the church, only of equal power with the rest of his brethren in the ministry. But the church of Rome, in imitation of the state, have long since, destroyed the original parity, that first subsisted among the gospel ministers, and, togeth­er with the power, appropriated the title of bishop, in its highest signification, to the pope, the grand usurper and enslaver of God's people, in spirituals, and made him lord paramount, over all the officers and members in the church of Christ. And pity it is, that any protestant church, should so far af­fect to ape and imitate them, as to adulterate the scriptural meaning of the word, bishop, to appro­priate [Page 19]the title to a pretended superior order of officers in the church, as expressive of a lordly authority over their brethren in the ministry, who were all originally upon a level, as to power; all true scripture-bishops. Is not this too much like symbolizing with the church of Rome, the moth­er of harlots and abominations? Is it not too lightly departing from the scripture pattern, and treating with too much neglect, that solemn cau­tion, given by the great head of the church, to his ministers, ‘be ye not called rabbi, mas [...]er, lord; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.’

LET the candid reader now judge, whether there is not some weight in this argument, drawn from the identity of ‘the names, bishop and presbyter in scripture’ in support of presbyterian ordina­tion, after all this gentleman has said to defeat it? Or whether it is, as he says, ‘a mere logomachy, or strife about words, fixing modern ideas to old names?’ Besides, who is it that has in­troduced this logomachy, ‘this strife about words?’ Who, ‘that affix modern ideas to old names?’ They, who have affixed to the name bishop, originally the same, by his own con­fession, with presbyter; the ‘modern additional ideas’ of superior authority, and a lordly do­minion, over his brother bishops and fellow pres­byters? Or we, who consider him, in the same state of equality with his brethren, in which the scripture has fixed him? They, who arrogate to him, the sole power of ordination and govern­ment? Or we, who, agreeable to scripture pat­tern, leave these powers in common to all gospel ministers? If there is any adulteration, any per­version of words from their original signification, "or affixing modern ideas to old names," let those be answerable who have given the occasion.

[Page 20] NOTHING of consequence occurs in the remain­ing parts of this letter, but what we shall meet with in the piece it accompanies, and which will be there considered. He indeed tells us ‘they maintain’ the ancient government of the church "was episcopal;" that Timothy was an instance of it at Ephesus, and the apocalyptic angel anoth­er, &c. &c. To which he finally adds, the tes­timony of the fathers, who, if we may believe him, were all upon their side of the question: And then says;— ‘They, (the fathers) must have as well known the form, in which the apos­tles, under divine inspiration, established and left the church; as we now know how ours was, in Q. Elizabeth's time.’

Answer.

IT is not true in fact, that these ancient fathers, had such perfect knowledge of the original insti­tution of the church, or that their writings in this case are so certainly to be depended upon, as his argument supposes. If their writings are a sure guide for us in one case, they are in another. But 'tis well known these same fathers maintained the doctrine of the millennium, and practised giv­ing the sacrament to infants; and moreover de­clared that they received these things from the apostles themselves. This they assert as fully, as they do the doctrine this gentleman cites them to prove. And yet his church, and all others, for many hundred years, reject the testimony of the fathers in the aforesaid instances, as being re­pugnant to the word of God. But further, grant­ing his assertion to be true, ‘that these writers knew as well what form of government prevail­ed in the apostles times, as we do, what was the establishment of the church of England in Q. Elizabeth's time;’ yet this will not prove that di­ocesan episcopacy is of divine right. This gentle­man, and other zealots of his party, assert, that epis­copacy [Page 21]in England, at the time of the reformation, was settled upon the foot of divine institution.— Others, not only presbyterians, but many eminent and learned episcopalians, affirm the contrary:— They deny it has any pretence of divine right in its original establishment, but rests wholly upon the civil authority and acts of parliament, for its existence in its present form. Now both of these opinions can't be true. If then we can't, at this day, certainly know, upon what footing the church of England stood in the reign of Q. Elizabeth; we certainly cannot know from the writings of these fathers, what was the apostolic institution of the church, even allowing that they knew it, as well as we do, what was established by Q. Eliza­beth and her parliament: For, it seems, we are far from being agreed in that, and therefore don't certainly know it.—But what spoils the whole of this argument for episcopacy, is that it takes for granted a fact which is not true. ‘The fathers testify in favour of diocesan episcopacy, there­fore it is of divine institution.’ I deny the fact. It is so far from being true, that any of the fathers of the two first centuries, declare in favour of diocesan episcopacy, much less that this was the form of church government handed down to them from the apostles; that, on the contrary, their writings unanimously exhibit to view a form, diametrical­ly opposite to and absolutely destructive of, the present diocesan episcopacy, that prevails in the church of England. This I propose to prove in its proper place, to which I refer the reader.

HE goes on; ‘This was always my way of ar­guing.’ Answer. Some men are observed, to have a very odd and wrong-headed way of argu­ing, all their days. But barely its being their way, the way they have always been used to, will not prove it to be a good one, or serve to recom­mend it to those, who have been accustomed to a better way.

[Page 22] HE adds, ‘just in the same way do our dissent­ing neighbours, with us, very rightly argue the cause of infant baptism, and the first day sab­bath; only they have not near so many clear, incontestible facts, either of scripture or anti­quity, for them, as we have for episcopacy; so that they must either give up them, or embrace that, or be self-condemned, as inconsistent with themselves.’—I answer. There is, at least in our opinion, much better evidence, both from scripture and antiquity, in support of infant bap­tism, and the first day sabbath; than for diocesan episcopacy. But if there were not, there is this material difference between us and them. They, from scripture and antiquity, are convinced, as they tell us, that diocesan episcopacy is of divine institution, and therefore practice it. But then they virtually exclude all other christians, from the benefits of the gospel, by denying the authori­ty of their clergy, and the validity of their admin­istrations, and leaving them in the deplorable state of heathen and infidels.—We, on the other hand, from the same testimonies, believe infant baptism, and the first day sabbath. We accord­ingly practice them. But then, ‘we have not so learned Christ,’ as to think it our duty, either by our principles or practice, to unchurch and un­christianize all who differ from us in these points: But, if they are otherwise qualified, cheerfully ad­mit their ministers into our pulpits, and their members to communion, in gospel ordinances.— We are content to enjoy our principles, without taking upon us to damn all who differ from us.— Upon the whole then, we don't find ourselves greatly embarrassed with this powerful dilemma, in which he means to entangle us, in order to draw us over to the church. We really think, not­withstanding all he has said, we may safely retain [Page 23]our old principles and practice, without incurring the character of self-inconsistency, in the judgment of the impartial, or feeling the reproaches of self­condemnation in our own consciences.

HIS letter concludes with these words.— ‘Let us then faithfully adhere to the doctrine, gov­ernment, and liturgy OF THE MOST EXCELLENT CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WHICH CERTAINLY ARE, AND HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE, THE MOST SCRIP­TURAL, OF ANY NOW IN THE WORLD.’—A high encomium! and if just, abundantly sufficient to recommend his beloved episcopacy to the good graces of all mankind. Let him only favour us with sufficient proof of his assertion, and we will, at once, quit our present way, and all in a body be­come cordial proselytes, to his most excellent, truly apostolic, and best constituted church in the world. Till then, he must allow us a little to he­sitate,—to consider who this pompous character comes from. Possibly it may be just.—Of this, how­ever, he has given us no proof but his bare word. Perhaps he may have observed, that it is no new thing for men to cry; ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.’ All men are apt to like their own principles best, and entertain a partial fondness for their own way. And for ought I can see,—the cry, of ‘THE MOST EXCELLENT CHURCH, THE MOST SCRIPTUAL, PURE, PRIMITIVE DOCTRINE, GOVERNMENT AND LITURGY OF ANY IN THE WORLD,’ are words, that sound as smooth and harmoniously in the ear, and offer full as much conviction to the understanding of an impartial judge, from the mouth of any other enthusiastic sectary, as from that of an episcopal dissenter in New-England. I now take leave of the patron in order to pay my devoirs to his client.

SEC. II. Containing some incidental Remarks, upon sundry scattered passages in Mr. L's book, not so immediately connected with the main point.

MR. L. charges me with a mistake, in calling Mark an apostle ^†. My words are, ‘Thus Matthew, Mark and John, are all called evangel­ists, tho' at the same time they sustained the cha­racter of apostles.’ How I came to make the mistake of calling Mark an apostle, I know not, unless through inadvertency; as knowing it no ways affected the argument, whether he in parti­cular bore that character or no. A mistake how­ever, I confess it was, and thank him for pointing it out. I shall now do him the same friendly office, in pointing out a few of his; some of which greatly affect the subject he is upon. The first I shall notice is a general one that runs thro' his piece, as well as the letter prefixed to it; I mean, his calling those of our communion in this country, dissenters. 'Tis pity, I think, these gentlemen don't consider where they live, before they give themselves such airs. Not that I imagine there is any thing re­proachful in the name, when properly applied, though doubtless this is their meaning. Dissenter is one, who differs from the established religion of the country where he lives. I must therefore [Page 25]inform him, if he don't know it, that the term is merely topical. That in England, for instance, the same person who is a member of the establish­ed church there, consequently no dissenter; let him but only pass the Tweed into Scotland, or cross the Atlantic, and fix in New-England, and he commences a very dissenter as any in Christen­dom. The reason is, in the former country, the episcopal persuasion, in the latter, the presbyterian or congregational, is the religion by law establish­ed. This mistake, I do not pretend, greatly af­fects the point in dispute. It may tend however to give people's minds a wrong bias. At least it is always best to call things by their proper names. And as Mr. L. as well as I, is a young writer, it may be a kindness to him just to be re­minded, that however weak and deficient his argu­ments are, his readers will at least expect of him propriety in point of diction.

IN page 37, he is chargeable with another mis­take, and that too expressed in a manner, hardly consistent with the character of a polite gentleman, upon which, 'tis said, he pretty much values him­self.—What I intend is, his charging me with downright falsehood and dishonesty for a certain passage in my book. His words are, ‘Mr. Welles, in P. 27, has these remarkable words. By bishops, they, (the church) mean, I hope, true scripture bishops, not merely creatures of the state, of human institution!’ On which he very genteelly remarks. ‘I must be so free as to tell him, he did not hope any such thing, so he knew the contrary to be true.’ What he could find in these harmless expressions to awaken his ire, (for he certainly was angry) or what induced him to cite them, and pass such illiberal and in­jurious reflections upon them; I confess myself [Page 26]utterly at a loss to determine. Was it that he tho't they carried in them an insinuation, that their church was really a creature of the state, in its pre­seat form, and not of divine institution? No such thing was expressed. But if there had, he ought to know that this is the opinion not only of presby­terians; but of many great and learned writers in his own church; I may say, of the generality of the reformers, and all the more moderate episco­palians ever since. ^‖ Or does he think there is a [Page 27]contradiction between this sentence, and the oth­er he pretends to quote from P. 50 of my sermon? The words I there use (for he has not quoted them right) are these, ‘Another argument made use of, &c.—is, that the New-Testament has actually appointed three distinct orders in the gospel ministry, viz. that of bishops, &c.’— Now let the candid reader compare these two sen­tences, and see if there be any contradiction: Or any thing that could provoke him to treat me so rudely. In one I say, episcopalians argue their three orders from scripture. In the other I express my hope that ‘by one of those orders, bishops, they mean scripture bishops.’ In the former, I assert what they declare their belief in this case to be. In the latter, I express my charitable hope of their hon­esty in such declaration. These were the hopes, the only hopes, I mentioned. But Mr. L. very politely replies, "I must be so free as to tell him he never hoped any such thing. In some cases, I would be far from calling his knowledge in ques­tion. But how he could know my heart; how he [Page 28]could certainly tell what I did, or did not hope, is be­yond me to conceive. But he tells me, not only that I did not " hope so;" but that ‘I knew the con­trary to be true.’ Now if I knew the contrary to be true, it must be because it was true: Other­wise, it is utterly impossible I could know it to be true. But what, I ask, is this contrary, which he says, I know to be true? Plainly this, ‘that by bishops, episcopalians do not mean true scripture bishops.’ This, and nothing else, stand opposed, to what I de­clared was the matter of my hope. All therefore I am able to make of this remarkable sentence, is this. I had said, ‘I hoped, by bishops, episco­palians mean true scripture bishops.’ Mr. L. denies they mean any such thing. I had declared, that when they talked so much about the divine right of episcopacy, I was charitably inclined to think they were honest. But this gentleman plain­ly tells me it is no such thing. Since therefore he must be supposed to know best, and will needs have it so; I will grant I was mistaken, as to him in particular; though as to others of his party, he must allow me to entertain the same charitable opin­ion still; at least till they give me the same reason to alter it, as he has done in his case. If this is not his meaning in these remarkable words of his; 'tis indeed difficult to say, what his meaning is.— They seem to have no meaning at all; and there­fore (to use another of his courtly phrases) ‘they might have been left out, and his defence would have been as good as it is now.’

MR. L. seems to be displeased with the length of my sermon. In page 30 he has these words, ‘Tho' he (Mr. Welle's) fleers about our preach­ing deacons; yet I believe it is really true, that Stephen preached as good a sermon as Mr. Welle's divine right, &c. though it was not so long.’ I have examined the passage, to which he refers in this remark, but can find nothing that [Page 29]looks like a fleer there. After giving an account of the institution of deacons, Acts 6, beginning, and answering the arguments they bring for their preaching; I have these words, ‘Since therefore it plainly appears, that these deacons, were in no sense, gospel ministers, but expressly ap­pointed and set apart to quite another service; it undeniably follows that no order in the chris­tian ministry can be founded upon this instance; and consequently, that their pretended order of preaching deacons, has no warrant—from the word of God.’ Now what is there in these words, that looks like a fleer? It is true, I deni­ed that preaching was any part of the scripture dea­con's office; and if after I had proved it was not, I called it, a pretended order, &c. I can see noth­ing criminal in it, nothing that looks like fleering. The order of preaching deacons in the church of England, is either a real and scriptural, or a pretend­ed and unscriptural one. The former he knows we deny. He knows it was the very thing I was then disproving; and if, when I had, as I thought, sufficiently disproved it, I called it a pretended or­der, I can see no reason he had to be offended. I hope he would not have me call it a real scriptural order of the ministry, when I did not believe it to be so, and had proved it not to be so.—But ‘he believes it is really true, that Stephen preach­ed as good a sermon as mine, tho' it was not so long.’ Possibly he does; tho' why he believes it, he has not told us. Sure I am, the scripture, to which he so often appeals, furnishes no evi­dence of it. That indeed gives a lengthy account of this protomartyr, but says not a word about his preaching as I can find. 'Tis true it speaks of his disputing; but then Mr. L. I presume, will not pretend that all disputing is preaching. He has disputed against my sermon; but he has not pub­licly told us, he ever preached against it, tho' oth­ers [Page 30]say he did at sundry places and times. Wheth­er his sermon, upon these occasions, was langer or sherter, whether it was better or worse than mine, as it is of little importance, I am not anxious to know. Be that as it will, I do not see what great reason he had to complain of the length of my sermon; since long as it is, it has given him so little trouble. For all he professedly attempts to answer of it, is only my first argument, which be­ing comprised in little more than two pages, could not, one would think, give him any great pain.— Whether it was the length, or the strength of the other arguments, that discouraged him from med­dling with them; as he has not seen fit to tell us, every one must be left to conjecture for himself.

THE pieces Mr. L. attempts to answer, had occasionally mentioned "the right of people to choose their ministers." This he has repeatedly remarked upon, tho' not directly connected with the main point; while sundry arguments that were, are passed by unnoticed. What could be his mo­tive for this, is difficult to guess. Perhaps he tho't so long as people were left to claim and prize this invaluable privilege; all he could say upon his divine-right and best constituted-church, would be insufficient to draw them away from a communion, where this priviledge is enjoyed, to one where it is utterly denied. He attacks Dr. Chauncy upon this head, and spends near two pages in endeav­ouring to disprove it; and, as if that was too lit­tle, he falls upon it again in his remarks upon me. He demands of the Dr. ‘Where we find in scrip­ture, this to be declared a part of christian li­berty,’ &c. I presume, scripture pattern will satisfy for proof of this point, since it is all they pre­tend to bring for episcopacy, and much more than they are able to produce. And of this kind of proof there is plenty in scripture. From the gospel his­tory it appears, that this was the universal prac­tice [Page 31]in the aposties times. When the vacancy made in the breach of apostles, by the [...]ath of Judas, was to be supplied; the vote of the whole visible church there present, was taken in the case; so that when Matthias was appointed, he is said to be ‘numbered with the aposties, by the common vote of [...]rage,’ as it is in the original. ^‖ This is a plain matter of fact: And this solemn [...]nsac­tion in the beginning of christianity, is a standing pattern for the church in all succeeding agos.

I mentioned in my sermon, the instance of the seven deacons, who are expressly said, ‘ [...]o be chosen’ by the church, by the whole [...]tionde. ^* Was it tho't necessary that the vote of the church should be taken, in the choice of officers, whose business was only to serve tables; how much more, in the more important office, of ministers of the word and sacraments? As a further proof of this right, I observed in my sermon, that this was the manner, in which the olders ordained by Paul and Barn [...]bas were introduced: By the vote or suffrage of the people, as it is in the original. ^†

THESE now are so many scripture examples, of the exercise of this right, by the primitive chris­tians. Hence it undeniably follows, that this ori­ginally belonged to the people; consoquently, [...]o go about to rob them of it, is unscriptural and ty­rannical. Dr. Chauncy mentioned a number of [Page 32]proofs from the fathers, in support of this right; and that even after the distinction between bishops and presbyters took place. To these, many more might easily be added, from the same quarter. I shall subjoin one from Cyprian, bishop of Car­thage, who flourished A.D. 250. ‘The people, says he, have the chief power of choosing worthy ministers, and refusing the unworthy.’ He adds, ‘That it must be received as a divine tra­dition, and an apostolic observation.’ ^† The ingenious ‘author of the inquiry into the consti­tution, &c. of the primitive church,’ supposed to be Sr. Peter King, afterwards lord chancellor, abundantly proves, from numerous testimonies, that this was the universal practice of the primitive church, for people to choose their own ministers. And indeed, the contrary practice is so repugnant to reason, to all notions of liberty, and the univer­sal custom in all other cases, that, one would think, nothing but the highest degree of prejudice could reconcile people to it. Do not we esteem it a pri­vilege to choose our civil rulers, and look upon the people as in a degree of slavery, who are utter­ly deprived of it? Would we submit to have others choose for us a lawyer to defend our property, or a physician to take care of our health,—and oblige us to improve these and no other? Certainly no. But if we are so tenacious of our natural rights, where our temporal interest and bodily health only are concerned,—how much more ought we to be, in things that relate to the health of our souls, our future and eternal interest? Surely as much more, as the latter exceeds the former in point of im­portance. No wonder then Mr. L. considered the want of this, a very important objection against his favourite church; and though somewhat beside [Page 33]his subject, set himself so zealously to remove it. How far he has succeeded, I leave to the reader. But if he is not able, wholly, to vindicate his own church in this respect, he seems to think it some excuse that others, and ours in particular, is in the same state. This seems to be his meaning in these words: ‘I believe if the matter be carefully ex­amined, it will be found, that the right of the New-England churches, to choose their minis­ters, is sounded, not upon scripture, but upon the law of the province, which declares who shall be the patrons, in each parish to choose their ministers. As far as I have been able to under­stand this matter, the law of the province consti­tutes the heads of the famisies to choose,’ &c. ^†

How far Mr. L. ‘has been able to understand this matter,’ he must know best. The defect of his understanding, it is not in my power to help. Whether it was for want of understanding or will, certain, I am, the account he gives of this affair is not true. According to the law of this colony, (and I suppose the case is much the same in the rest of New-England, where there is an ecclesi­astical establishment) the right of choosing a min­ister, is declared to be, not in the heads of fami­lies exclusively; but in them and the members of the church, whether heads of families or not. Be­sides, this right is not founded, as he supposes, in the law of the colony, any more than the obliga­tion of any divine law, adopted by the civil ma­gistrate. The obligation in one case, and the right in the other, is founded in scripture. The civil law only recognizes the right, and protects peo­ple in the enjoyment and exercise of it. And all men acquainted with our ecclesiastical constitution, know that we are so far from having any thing to do, with what he calls ‘patrons, in each parish, [Page 34]to choose the minister;’ that most people know nothing of the term, or what it signifies, and I hope, by experience, never may. The commu­nicants, and all others of our people, who vote in society-meetings for other purposes, have all free liberty to vote in the choice of a minister. And that they may act with discretion in this im­portant affair; they have opportunity to make tri­al of the candidate while he is upon probation.— Was it then honest in Mr. L. to say, ‘In the same way societies, corporations and particular per­sons, become patrons in the church of England?’ In that church, patrons, clerical or secular, choose the ministers for the people. In ours, he is cho­sen by the church and people themselves. In the former the bishop, or some lay patron, who per­haps never saw the candidate, and is never to fit under his ministry, has the sole power of elect­ing. In the latter, he is elected by the votes of those who have made trial of him, are to maintain him, and attend upon his administrations. In our method, the law acknowledges the natural and scriptural right of the people in this important af­fair, and protects them in the enjoyment of it. But in theirs, in defiance of both, their minister is ob­truded upon them without their consent. If there­fore, in this view of the case, ‘that good gen­tleman, (as Mr. L. calls the Dr.) should real­ly think their church, somewhat culpable in the matter of patrons;’ few people, I presume, "would greatly wonder at it," save he and those of his party; and if, as he says, ‘their church appears to him to stand clear of all blame in that matter;’ it must be owing, I think, to preju­dice and partiality in a very high degree.

I FIND but one thing more, in Mr. L's book, proper for this section. And that is, the uncommon advertisement tacked to the end of it. I have read it over sundry times, but can't be certain I have [Page 35]hit upon his meaning after all. He talks much about consequences; cautions his answerer against "falling upon consequences," and declares that he "has no concern with consequences." What he intends by them, is difficult to say. A consequence in logic, is an essential part of every good argu­ment. But he can't mean this by his consequences: For whatever they be, he places them in opposi­tion to arguments, for want of which, in confuting his book, they are supposed to be "fallen upon." And yet this or something like it, must be his meaning too; for he warns his antagonist against "flying from the subject," or what he has ad­vanced in "his book" and "falling upon the con­sequences." But if this be his meaning, he need give himself no trouble in the case, provided he has only been careful, "to advance" nothing but truth: For truth is ever consistent with itself; and noth­ing but truth will follow from it, or be the conse­quence of it, and this can do him no hurt. But if he has not: If he has advanced things in his book, that are not true, or espoused principles that can­ [...]ot be supported by scripture or reason, he must [...]e accountable for the consequences, whether he will or no. If, for instance, he has advanced a scheme of church government, which takes the power of discipline out of the hands of her proper pastors, and so robs her of this useful part of Christ's institution: If, according to his principles, the episcopal churches in America, cannot be said to have the least shadow of discipline: If it necessa­rily follows from his positions, that it is better to be a papist than a presbyterian, and an ordination received in the church of Rome, "the mother of harlots" is lawful and valid, while one received in the truly protestant church of Scotland or Geneva, is ipso facto nul and void. ^† If upon his scheme, all the protestant world, except his own church, ^☞ [Page 36]are utterly destitute of any valid gospel adminil­trations, and in no better state than heathen and in­fidels, because they lack episcopal ordination: Or lastly, if he should be told, that upon his princi­ples, both he, and probably the greatest part of episcopalians in this country, are in the same de­plorable circumstances; having never received any baptism, but what was administered by the u [...] ­thorized hands of those, who lack episcopal ordi­nation, and therefore, upon his princples, can have no power to baptize, consequently, that he, and the greatest part of his brother-missionaries in these parts, are so far from being the only authorized regular ministers among us, that they are not even visible christians, and therefore, not only, have no right to administer gospel ordinances to others, but are actually unintitled to them themselves:— If any, or all these things should happen to be urg­ed against him, perhaps he will call it "a flying from the subject, and falling upon consequences."— And in answer, gravely tell us, "he has no con­cern with consequences." But whatever he thinks, impartial judges, 'tis presumed, will think, that [Page 37]genuine censequences, may properly be urged in a dispute, without being chargeable with "flying from the subject for want of argument;" and that the advocates of such principles, from whence such consequences flow, ought to be "concerned" about them, whether they be or no. No man should advance any principles, but what are true. From such, no consequences will follow but what are true, and consequently good: Good in them­selves, and agreeable to every doctrine and duty of scripture, which is infallible truth. If therefore men find, their principles are productive of conse­quences, in their own nature, bad; repugnant to the laws of charity and the great doctrines and du­ties of the gospel; they cannot think to excuse themselves to the world, by saying "they have no concern with consequences." They ought to be " concerned about them," and manifest this con­cern to the world, by renouncing and abjuring such principles, as corrupt and detestable, from which such uncharitable and damnatory consequen­ces follow.

SEC. III. Animadversions upon Mr. L's prelimina­ry Remarks to page 10.

I FULLY agree with our author; ‘That it nearly concerns us to know who are the law­ful ministers in Christ's kingdom.’ And am well pleased with the method he has proposed to de­cide this point, viz. "by an appeal to scripture and reason." ^*

IN the mean time, let us attend to the obser­vations he thinks proper to make, previous to his entering upon this decision. His first observation is this, ‘The whole body of dissenters, (presby­terians he means) affirm, that bishop and pres­byter, in scripture, signify the same office: Yet they say, no instance is to be found there of an ordination, by any person unde, the name bishop: And if a presbyter is the same office, then there is none by a presbyter.’ ^‖ But now, who does not see the fallacy of this argument? He allows, with us, that bishop and presbyter in scripture, signify the same office; that ministers were pro­miscuously called by both these names, in gospel times. But then he holds, that the business of or­dination, &c. ought not to lie in common, to all gospel-ministers; but to be confined to a particu­lar order, which in their church, are called bish­ops. We, on the contrary affirm, that as bishop and presbyter, in scripture, signify the same office; the power of ordination belongs in common to all ministers, and therefore ought not to be confined [Page 39]to some few, under the title of bishops. To prove this, we observe, that though we have sundry ac­counts of ordination, in scripture, performed by ministers, yet there is no single instance of one so performed by them, under the name bishop, and yet to this, episcopalians appropriate the whole power of ordination. But Mr. L. says, if this be true, that there is no account in scripture of an ordina­tion performed by any person under the name bish­op, then it will follow,—What? Why "that there is none by a presbyter," that is, no instance of one performed by a presbyter. But does it at all follow, that because the scripture mentions no ordination as performed by ministers under their one title of bishops, therefore there is no instance to be found there of their ordaining under their other title, that of presbyters? Or thus, because the scripture never calls ministers by one of their common names, i. e. bishops, when acting in ordination; is it a necessary consequence that it never calls them by their other common name, presbyters, when act­ing in that business? Is it not possible that the same office in scripture, may be commonly denominated and known by either of the names, bishop or pres­byter indifferently, and yet only one of these names, constantly used and applied to him, when acting in the business of ordination? But now this is what his argument proves, or else it proves no­thing. The truth is, he has, either ignorantly or designedly, altered the terms in his syllogism, so that his conclusion contains more in it than his pre­mises, which all logicians call, false reasoning.— His argument reduced to mode and figure, runs thus, ‘Bishop and presbyter in scripture signify the same office. No instance is to be found there of ordination by any person under the name of bishop.’ This is his major and minor proposition. His conclusion is,— ‘Therefore there is no instance of an ordination performed [Page 40]by a presbyter.’ Whereas, had he kept to the terms in his minor proposition, his conclusion must have been,—"Therefore there is no instance of an ordination performed by any person under the name presbyter." Had he done this, his readers would at once have seen the weakness and fallacy of his argument.

IN England, bishop, and lord-spiritual are sy­nonymous terms. Now should I undertake to prove, that there is no account in the English his­ory, of an ordination performed by a bishop, and in order to it, make use of this argument,—Bishop and lord-spiritual signify the same office: But there is no account in history, of an ordination perform­ed by any person under the title of lord-spiritual; therefore there is no account of one performed by a bishop; and from hence should infer, the inva­lidity of episcopal ordination; Mr. L. I presume would hardly allow the argument to be good.— And yet it is the same he has used in this case, and full as conclusive. However, weak as it is, it seems it wrought full conviction in his mind: For he tells us ‘he is fully persuaded, at that time in which the scriptures were wrote, none had power to ordain ministers in Christ's king­dom, but those only who in scripture, are called apostles.’ ^† But then what becomes of bishop Timothy? Mr. L. has spent a considera­ble part of his book in attempting to prove, the divine right of episcopacy, from the instance of Timothy bishop of Ephesus. Yea it is the most plausible argument, and indeed the only thing in his piece that deserves the name of an argument. But if ‘none had power to ordain ministers in Christ's kingdom, but those only, who are in scripture called apostles,’ Timothy certainly had no power to ordain, for he is never once called [...] [Page 41] apostle in the whole scripture, as I shall have occa­sion more particularly to shew anon: Consequent­ly all pretence to support his scheme from this ar­gument is to no purpose. Tho' therefore I might now fairly dismiss the controversy, as decided in our savour by his own confession: Yet not to take advantage of this inconsistency of his, I shall con­sider the argument when I come to it. In the mean time I intirely agree with him in what follows in this paragraph: ‘That the bishops in the church of England, do not answer, to those that are promiscuously called, either bishops or presby­ters in scripture.’ I add, neither do they, to any order instituted in scripture. Diocesan bish­ops, such as obtain in that church, are so far from being of divine institution, that they are doubtless mere creatures of the state, what the gospel knows nothing of.

AND so I am ready to attend upon his next observation, which is this, ‘That dissenters (presbyterians he should have said) are not agreed among themselves about the orders of the ministry,—some holding to one order, oth­ers to two, and others again to three, &c.’ ^† But what then? shall we mend the matter, in point of unity, or in the least better ourselves, by going over to the church of England? By no means. Episcopalians are really as much divided in senti­ment in this respect, as those he calls dissenters.— Thus some of them absolutely deny that any par­ticular form of government or order, is establish­ed in scripture, but the whole is left to the civil magistrate. ^‖ Others again think, with us, that [Page 42]there are only two standing orders of officers, bish­ops or presbyters, and deacons, to be found there. ^* This has always been the opinion of the more moderate episcopalians in England; and therefore tho' they conform to the church of England, they do it, not as being of divine institution, but as established by the king and parliament. And others, with Mr. L. and his flighty brethren, as­sert the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons, as of divine appointment: These plead the abso­lute necessity of episcopal ordination, and reject all the protestant world who are without it. I might add, that there have been other advocates for prelacy, who have pleaded, with equal zeal, for the several orders of acolyths, lectors, subdeacons, archdeacons, chirocpiscopi, archbishops, patri­archs, and the Roman hierarchicks, for the pope, as Peter's successor, at the head of all.— ‘We may see then, (to use his own phrase) the ques­tion under debate, cannot be decided by these men; for they are not agreed among themselves.’

BUT how does he prove "that dissenters are not agreed" in this point? Why he tells us, "some never ordain their deacons," and these of course [Page 43]"hold, that Christ has appointed but one order, presbyters." But how does this follow? He him­self supposes the bishop is a different order in their church, and appointed by Christ. And yet, as far as I can learn, he has properly no new ordination when appointed bishop, but only what they call a consecration to the episcopal office. Though therefore some of our churches suppose, that since the civil magistrate now takes care of the poor, which, in times of persecution, was the deacon's business, there is no necessity of a formal ordination to that office; it will by no means in­fer a denial of his being an officer in the church, of diviner appointment. We all, I presume, are agreed that the deacon is an officer of divine ap­pointment, (though not instituted by Christ, as Mr. L. has it, but by his apostles:) And that, whether we ordain him or not. He was there­fore quite mistaken in affirming, that we hold to but one order of officers as of divine appointment.

BUT then if some dissenters hold to but one, and others to two, there are others again, he tells us, "that hold to three orders of ministers in the king­dom of Christ." And for this he quotes Mr. Calvin. But how came Calvin, pray, to be a dissenter? He was indeed a dissenter from the church of Rome: And (I hope) so is Mr. L. too. But from the church of England he never was a dissen­ter, for he never belonged to it. Our episcopa­lians, indeed, warmly contended, in years past, that the church of England establishment extends to America, and consequently that all who refuse to conform to it, are dissenters. But the highest sticklers for uniformity among them, never, that I know of, pretended to carry the claim to Geneva, before Mr. L. It seems his head is so turned against dissenters, since he has renounced our communion, and become a prelatest, that he is ready to fasten the opprobrious character, upon every one, who happens to differ from him. Besides, according [Page 44]to him, Calvin was no dissenters; for he held to the three orders of "bishops, presbyters, and deacons." I have examined the place in Calvin's institutions, from whence Mr. L. pretends to make his quotation, and boldly affirm there are no such words there. The sentence truly quoted, is this, ‘As we have declared that there are three sorts of ministers commended unto us in scrip­ture; so all the ministers that the old church had, is divided into three orders.’ Then fol­lows; not ‘ bishops, presbyters and deacons, as add­ed by our author; But these words: For out of the order of elders, were partly chosen pastors and teachers; the rest of them had the rule of judg­ment, and correction of manners. To the deacons was committed the care of the poor, and the distributing the alms.’ ^* This plainly shews what Calvin's judgment was: That besides pastors and deacons, there was the office of rul­ing elders, as practised in the church of Scotland. But now what is this to bishops, presbyters and deacons, as quoted by Mr. L.? This is not the only time, he has used the freedom with the au­thors he pretends to quote, of making them speak what they never intended.

BUT he tells u [...], ‘In scripture we find mention made of apostles, presbyters, and deacons, and why they should be so carefully distinguished whenever they are mentioned in scripture, if there was not a subordination in their office, seems very strange.’ ^§—Answer. Barely these names being mentioned, or even distinguished in scripture, will not prove, that they mean different orders in the church, of standing continuance. If so, we shall find, not only three, but five orders in scrip­ture. There we are told, "that when Christ ascended, he gave, not only apostles and prophets and evangelists, but also pastors and teachers." ^† [Page 45]Here are five different names of [...]-officers mentioned, and these as particularly- [...] carefully distinguished, as those he has mentioned: And if [...] these we add, presbyters and deacons, two of the number mentioned by him, and which are not in­cluded in the above five; we shall, instead of three, have no less than seven different orders, all as particularly mentioned and as carefully distinguished as those three mentioned by him.

HOWEVER, that there is mention made, in scrip­ture, of apostles, presbyters and deacons, is rea­dily granted. 'Tis further conceded, that pres­byters and deacons, signify two distinct offices in the church. Finally, it is allowed, that apostles are superior to them both. But then they are so, only considered in their extraordinary character, as apostles, in which, as I shall shew more fully hereafter, they have no successors, and so all that remain are only the presbyters and deacons, about which there is no dispute.

HE goes on.— ‘Let it be carefully remarked, that those who were commissioned to send others, who were called apostles, in the time when the New-Testament was penned.’ ^* But then what becomes of Timothy and Titus again? His main argument for the bishop's sole power of ordination, depends upon Timothy and Titus, being the bish­ops at Ephesus and Crete. But as they are never called apostles in scripture; it must unavoidable [...] follow, either, that they never were bishops, and so his main argument for episcopacy is demolished: Or if they were, then what he here so often affirms, is not true.

‘THE word bishop, he tells us, being used to express the apostolic office, no more altered the office, than the word, christian, altered the pro­fession of believers.’ Granted. But then there is [Page 46]this material difference in the two cases: The lat­ter was done in the apostles times: The former, by his own confession in times posterior. The name, believer, was changed into that of chris­tian, by divine inspiration. ^‖ Whereas no such heavenly warrant is pretended for changing the name apostle into bishop. If he will but just recon­cile this material difference; I will allow the two cases to be parallel. Till then, he must excuse me, if I think his comparison nothing to his purpose.

BUT he goes on to tell us, in his margin, from Eusebius and Theodoret, that bishops are the apos­tles successors.—I answer. If he only means that they are successors to them, in their ordinary capa­city, as gospel ministers, we have no dispute with him, upon that head. In that sense, we maintain that all gospel ministers are successors to the apos­tles, as I largely shewed in my sermon. But if he means, that they succeed the apostles, in their extraordinary capacity; let him produce for them the extraordinary credentials of miracles, &c. on which the apostolic character, as such, was found­ed, and we will submit. Otherwise this claim of succession, is but mere pretence. Besides, eccle­siastical writers, as expressly call presbyters, the apostles successors, as bishops. ^* Whatever there­fore is argued, from such succession, in favour of the power of the latter, follows with equal force as to the former.

SEC. IV. Dr. Chauncy's sermon vindicated from the exceptions contained in the "desence of episcopacy,"—from p. 11 to 24.

BEFORE I enter upon a vindication of the Dr's sermon, from the exceptions of another, it concerns me to do him justice, in one particular, in which I have, inadvertently, misrepresented him myself.

IN page 67 of my sermon, I had these words; ‘And although the above learned writer, (mean­ing the Dr.) excepts Ignatius out of the number of the primitive writers in his account, and owns, that the epistles ascribed to him, speak very fully in favour of diocesan episcopacy,’ &c.

WHEN I wrote this sentence, I had my mind upon what the Dr. says, in p. 71 of his sermon: But upon reviewing the passage, I find, I mistook his meaning. His words are not ‘that those epis­tles speak very fully in favour of diocesan episcopacy:’ But ‘that they do, as certainly, as strongly, and as constantly, distinguish bishops from presbyters, as any of the writings of the third and fourth centuries.’ Now all that the Dr. asserts is, that these epistles point out a dis­tinction of order between bishop and presbyter: And upon reading what Mr. Boyse has wrote, in his "clear account of the ancient episcopacy," in which he has every thing contained in these epis­les, relative to the subject; I am fully convinced, that the bishop described in these epistles, even in the present state of them, is very different from [Page 48]the dioces [...]n bishop. The Ignatian bishop, was merely a parochial one, having no more than a single congregation for his charge, with presbyters under him: Whereas the diocesan one, has many scores, or hundreds of such congregations in his cure. The interpolations and adulterations in these [...]pistles, were doubtless made, before the bishops power was enlarged, so as to comprehend a num­ber of parishes in his diocese.—Having thus cor­rected my own mistake; I proceed to perform the same friendly office as to Mr. L.

As a direct proof of ordination by presbyters, the Dr. had mentioned, the instance of Saul and Barnabas being separated to the work of the min­istry, by certain prophets and teachers, as record­ed, Acts xiii. beginning. As this is so very ex­press and circumstantial an account, of a separation to the work of the ministry; as all the solemn ac­tions, contained in ordination, are here so particu­larly mentioned; and as this is said to be done, not by apostles or bishops, but by the ordinary pas­tors of the church, here called prophets and teach­ers; Mr. L. seems to be at a loss what reply to make to it. He, at first, seems to be doubtful as to the nature of this action; at a loss what name to give it. "If, says he, this was an ordination:" "If this was a real ordination, then," &c. Fi­nally, he denies it to be an ordination. ‘What­ever is meant, says he, by this designation, it was not an ordination.’ ‘In truth this was not an ordination.’ ^† He found himself so pressed with this instance, that he had no way to get rid of the argument, but by flatly denying it to be an ordination. And indeed, this was the only course he could take to support his scheme. For if this be once granted to be a real ordination, the indisputable right of presbyters, to act in this business, is firmly established, and all pretences of [Page 49]confining it to a superior order, must be given up. I shall therefore offer a few observations, to prove that this was, in fact, an ordination; and then make some remarks upon Mr. L.'s objections a­gainst its being considered as such.

Now by ordination, I conclude, is meant, a so­lemn seperation, or setting apart to an office in the church, by such as have authority to do it, and that, in the use of those rites or actions, the scripture has appointed in this case. The scrip­ture rites of ordination, are fasting, prayer, and the imposition of hands. In this way the seven deacons were introduced into office, ^* which Mr. L. owns to be an ordination. In the same way Timothy was ordained. ^‖ And in the same way he is directed to ordain others. ^† And this has been the general method of introducing men into the minis­try, in all subsequent ages. But now, all these things concurred in the instance under consideration. The persons acting in it, were church officers of Antioch, "prophets and teachers." What they undertook to do, was to " seperate Saul and Barnabas to the work of the ministry, among the gentiles." This was done by the direction of the holy Ghost; ‘seperate me Barnabas and Saul to the work, where unto I have called them;’ that is, to the work of the ministry, especially among the gentiles, ‘to whom they were now sent.’ The thing therefore to be done, beyond dispute, was to seperate these two men to the work of the gospel ministry. How this was done, the account informs [...]; ‘For when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.’ As every ac­tion, every circumstance pertaining to an ordina­tion, is here so very particularly and expressly found; if after all, this was not an ordination, I dispair of [Page 50]ever finding one, in scripture or any where else. And what still further confirms the matter, if it needs further confirmation, is, that if I am not much mistaken, the apostle Paul himself acknowledges it to be so. In his inscription of his epistle to the Romans, chap. i. 5.1. he has these words, ‘Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, seperated to the gospel of God.’ He here evi­dently designs to give himself, his true and prop­er character, of an apostle, and minister of Jesus Christ. He therefore particularly mentions, both his call to the apostleship, and his seperation to the gos­pel ministry. By the former, he most likely means that immediate call from heaven, of which in Acts ix. Then it was he was called to be an apos­tle. But we find nothing in scripture answering to this other part of his character, viz. his seperation to the gospel of God, unless it was this seperation we are now considering. And it is worthy of remark, the word in both places is the same, both in the origi­nal, and also in our translation. In Acts 13th, ‘The holy Ghost said, APHORISATE, seperate me Barnabas and Saul to the work whereunto I have called them.’ In Rom. i. 1. The apostle, says he, "was, APHORISMENOS, seperated to the gospel of God." Does it not appear highly probable, that when the apostle wrote these last mentioned words, he had his mind particularly upon the action we are considering? I confess I see no other sense in which they can be well interpreted. And if so, we have the testimony, even of the apostle himself, that this was, in fact, an ordination.

To this Mr. L. objects, ‘that if these proph­ets and teachers were presbyters, so were Barna­bas and Saul. And if this was an ordination, they, who were before presbyters, were ordain­ed to a superior office; which, he says, is grant­ing the thing they contend for.’ I answer. Tho' Saul, and possibly Barnabas too, were in office, as [Page 51]apostles; yet there is no account, that either they or indeed any others, had been formally introduc­ed into office, as standing ministers in the church, by the imposition of hands, till now. They, and the rest of the apostles, had hitherto, exercised their ministry, principally among the Jews. But now, that the gospel was to be sent to the Gentiles, and churches gathered and settled among them, upon a plan which was to be perpetuated, after the times of inspiration were over, even to the end of the world; it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, to order, that they should be set apart, by the so­lemn rite of ordination, as a standing pattern for these future ages. This, as Dr. Chauncy observ­ed, was the opinion of a learned episcopal writer, Dr. Lightfoot. ‘No better reason, says he, can be given of this present action; than that the Lord did hereby, set down a platform of or­daining ministers, to the church of the Gentiles in former times.’ ^* This being the case, it will by no means follow, that, "if this was an or­dination, they were ordained to a superior office," as he supposes. Tho' they were in office before, they had been only "called to be apostles;" where­as now, they were " separated to the gospel of God," by ordination, that so they might, both have a public authentic character, and exhibit a pattern to be followed, in all succeeding ages. Had Mr. L's head been less crowded, with the unscrip­tural ideas of superiority and inferiority of orders in the ministry, he might have recollected, that even reordination itself, does not necessarily "ad­vance a man to a superior office in the church." —He doubtless knows sundry of his brethren in America, who have been twice ordained: Once, "by the hands of the presbytery," according to scripture pattern, and then again by the bishop, after they conformed to his church: And yet I [Page 52]suppose, he acknowledges them still, as sustaining no higher office, than that of presbyters. Tho' according to his argument, he ought, in all reason, to look upon them as dignitaries in the church; ‘for who, (to use his own words) ever heard, that a presbyter was ordained, unless it was, to advance him to a higher station in the church?’

BUT ‘In truth, says he, this was not an ordi­nation, but an [...]cion of the s [...] nature with that, Gal. ii. 9. When James, Cephas and John,’ &c. It is well, since he will not allow this to be an ordination, he has at last found what it is. It seems then, that it was "giving the right hand of fellowship:" For that is what was done in the instance to which he compares it. Now giving the right hand of fellowship, as it is a public declara­tion and sign, that the person to whom it is given, is now received into a co-partnership of power and office with the givers, must necessarily sup­pose that the persons giving, are at least, equal in power with him who receives it. Consequently if what was now done, was, as he says, giving the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and Saul, it will follow that these prophets and teachers were at least equal in power to Barnabas and Saul. Since therefore, Mr. L. allows the ordaining power to the latter, it must equally belong to the former, whether they did in fact exercise it at this time or no; and then the validity of ordination by pres­byters will of course follow.

AGAIN. If these two actions are, as he says, both of the same nature, then it will follow, tha [...] the persons acting in both were of the same office, or indued with equal power: But those who gave the right hand, in Gal. ii. 9. viz. James, Cephas and John, were undoubtedly vested with the or­daining power, for they were apostles: Conse­quently the prophets and teachers, who acted in the other instance, must be vested with the same [Page 53]power of ordination too, whether they actually ex­ercised it at this time or not.

MR. L. has one objection more to this instance of ordination. It is this, ‘Whatever is meant by this designation, it was not ordination to im­power Paul,—for it is beyond all dispute that Paul and Barnabas officiated as public ministers of Christ long before this pretended ordination.’ ^† Answer▪ if they [...]d, it was as apostles, by virtue of their extraordinary call; not as ordinary min­isters, in the gentile church, of standing continu­ance, by the imposition of hands in ordination. Tho' therefore with respect to the former, "they were, as he says, apostles, not of men, neither by man;" yet in the latter sense, they received their designation from men, as others now do, by the imposition of hands in a proper ordination. Their "officiating as public ministers before," by virtue of their extraordinary call, no more proves that this was not an ordination; than the eleven apos­tles so officiating, by virtue of a temporary mission from Christ in his life time, will prove the commis­sion, he gave them after his resurrection, was no commission. Mr. L. allows that the commission re­corded in Mat. xxviii. 19. and John xx. 21, was that which authorized the apostles to act as min­isters. And yet we know that Christ ordained the twelve apostles, and sent them forth to preach, long before he gave them this commission. ^‖ If therefore the eleven apostles so officiating in Christ's life time, does not prove the commission he gave them after his resurrection, to be no commission; neither will Barnabas and Saul's so officiating be­fore this, prove that this was no ordination.

THIS objection indeed the Dr. largely consider­ed and answered in his sermon. He there observ­ed, that though, "Paul and Barnabas were before this, commissioned ministers of Christ;" yet this [Page 54]would by no means prove that they did not now receive a proper ordination. ‘For the thing in­tended by ordination, is not that the ordainers should commission persons to do the work of the ministry. This is done by Christ. It only be­longs to them to declare who these persons are, and to seperate them to the work to which Christ has commissioned them. They [...] them ministers, but being author [...] hereto, give them an authentic character as such, in the eye of the world, &c. As in the case of the mayor of a city, the king's charter of incorporation grants the power; the burgesses and the recorder only indigitate the proper recipient of it, and put him legally into the execution of his office.’ ^* But the Dr. is mistaken, says Mr. L. in supposing that the mayor receives his commission from the king. He receives it, he tells us, not from the king, "but from the persons who give him the corporation oath." ^† In like manner, he argues, ministers received their commission, not from Christ, but from those that ordain them. ‘It is true, he says, that all power in the church of Christ is originally derived from him. When Christ was here upon earth, he reserved the power of making officers, in his kingdom, to himself alone: When he was about to ascend to heaven, he told a number of his disciples, that all power,’ &c. That is, if I understand him, tho' the great head [Page 55]of the church, while he was upon earth, kept the power of making officers in his own hand, yet when he ascended into heaven he delegated this power to his apostles and their successors. 'Tis pity Mr. L. had not told us, how much of [...] power of making officers in the church, is now Bel [...]gared to the bishops; whether all, or only a part of it; or in what sense it is now in the hands of the bishops, whether despotically or absolutely, or only ministe­rially. If it be only in the latter sense in them, then they are only Christ's ministers or instruments in introducing men into office, and investing them with the powers of Christ's commission, as the Dr. asserted, and so don't properly [...] the com­mission, but only indigitate or point out the recipi­ [...]t of it. All therefore they have to do in the case, is only to judge of the qualifications of the persons to be ordained, and give them a solemn admission to the exercise of their office, by fasting, prayer and the imposition of hands. The com­mission therefore is not from them, but from Christ. But if this power delegated to the bishops, be des­potical, as Mr. L. must suppose, or else what he here says is nothing to his purpose: If it be true, as he seems to intimate, that bishops now, have the same power of making officers in the church, as Christ had when here upon earth; then it will fol­low, that no ministers of the gospel, since Christ's ascention into heaven, can be said to receive their commission or authority from him, but from the ordainers: And therefore in the case of a city­mayor; if, as our author asserts, he receives his commission, not from the king's charter, but from the recorder, and is therefore not the king's offi­cer, but his who gave him his oath; so in this case, if ministers now, do not receive their com­mission from Christ, but from those to whom he has delegated this power of making officers in his church, that is, according to Mr. L. the bishop's; [Page 56]then they are no longer Christ's ministers, but the bishop's who gave them commission, and conse­quently they ought to preach, baptize, &c. not in the name of Christ, but of the bishop, whose min­isters they are, and who gave them their authority.

FURTHER, as Christ had all power in heaven and earth, and so was under no limitation as to the ex­ercise of this power in making officers in his church, but might, if he had seen fit, multiplied these of­ficers, and, instead of two, appointed twenty, or two hundred different kinds or orders: So from this principle of Mr. L's, it will follow, that not only the apostles but their successors in office, to whom Christ has delegated this power of mak­ing officers, have the same unlimited authority also, in this respect as he had: That they are not con­fined to any particular number of orders, in the exercise of this their office making power; but may appoint and establish, as many different orders and degrees as they please; and instead of three orders in the church, might have three hundred or three thousand. For Christ had undoubtedly this power. And indeed this is the sense of the Romish church upon this point. The pope, in virtue of his being successor to Peter, is, according to them, not on­ly infallible, but is vested with all the plentitude of the power that Christ had, in this respect. And it is by this plentitude of power, with which he is vested, not only that he has constituted that great variety of orders, found among their clergy; but also raised those they called bishops, above presbyters in the church. According to the doc­trine of that church, bishops are superior to pres­byters, not by divine right, but merely as advanc­ed to this superior dignity by the plentitude of the pope's power. ^* But,

THE truth of the case is, those words, "as my [Page 57]father hath sent me, so send I you," on which our author founds the bishop's power of making officers in the church, have no direct reference to the power of ordination at all. They only imply, that as Christ received his commission immediately from the father; so he did immediately send them to disciple all nations, and teach them whatever he had commanded. But this by no means implies, that whatever power Christ had himself, he invest­ed his apostles with, or gave them the same author­ity and dominion in his church, that belonged to him. His power was despotical; theirs only minis­terial; and he himself warned them against aspiring at any more, Mat. xx. 25, &c. He did not there­fore make over to them a despotical authority of commissioning others, but only a ministerial au­thority of investing such with the office, his char­ter should authorize and oblige thereto.

HAVING thus vindicated Dr. Chauncy's notion of ordination, from Mr. L's exceptions, I am now prepared to answer the questions he has seen fit to propose.—He asks, "how the ordainers are to know in these times, that Christ has commission­ed these men, as his ministers, whom they let in­to the ministry?" ^*—I answer.

As the Dr. no where says that men are invested with Christ's commission, before ordination, as the question seems to intimate: He ought rather to ask, "how the ordainers are to know who are proper to be ordained, or vested with Christ's com­mission, and declared lawful ministers?"—And here the answer is easy. They are to know it by the candidate's professing an inclination to enter into the ministry, his being upon examination, found qualified for it, and, (in case he is to take the charge of a particular church) his being chosen and in­vited by the church to take the pastoral charge of [Page 58]them. All who have these qualifications and this call, the ordainers may know are such, as ought to be introduced into office in the church, and as such may safely ordain them.

AGAIN he asks, ‘What testimony is given to the world, that the persons he (the Dr.) has or­dained, are the ministers of Christ? ^‖’ Answer. Their public ordination is a sufficient evidence in this case. This, the Dr. had told him was the design of ordination. Not for the ordainers, pro­perly speaking, to authorize and impower them themselves, but "to declare who the persons were that Christ's commission has empowered." Not to make them officers, as Mr. L. would have it:— But "to give them an authentic character, as such, in the eye of the world." And [...] this, with us, is done in a very public manner, it must be sufficient­ly evident to those who attend the solemnity. And as to others, I hope, a certificate from the ordain­ing council properly attested, will be deemed as good evidence, in our case, as the bishop's licence and letter of orders are in that of Mr. L. and his brethren. We, no more than they, "expect or desire people should believe in this case, without evidence." If they can produce sufficient testimo­ny that their ministers are ordained, we, I presume, can easily do the same as to ours, notwithstanding this fleer of Mr. L. to prejudice people against us. "And therefore, to use his words to the Dr. I hope he will now see his error and retract it."

THUS I have endeavoured particularly to answer every objection brought against this instance of Paul's and Barnabas's separation, and, I presume, sufficiently proved it to be a real and proper ordi­nation. That it was so, was the declared opinion of Chrysostom, one of the fathers. He asserts that "Paul was ordained at Antioch," and that this is the [Page 59]sense of Acts xiii. 1—3. ^* Bishop Taylor was of the same sentiment, as I shewed in my sermon. The same was the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Hammond, two celebrated writers of the episco­pal side. ^* And Mr. Ollyffe another of them, in his dispute with Mr. Calamy, brings this very text in favour of reordination. ^* Finally, "in the book of ordination used in the church of England, (as my author says, for I have not the book by me) the order for consecrating bishops, alledges the ve­ry fact we have been considering, as an example or precedent." ^* This shews that the church of England looks upon this as a proper ordination, however some of her zealous sons, for special rea­sons, are tempted to deny it. But let it be called by what name it will, it is indubitably an express and very circumstantial instance, of persons being separated, and sent forth to the work of the gospel ministry, which is all the scripture means by or­dination. And as this was confessedly done, not by officers of a superior character, not by apostles or bishops, but by teachers or presbyters, it must be considered as a proper scripture pattern of pres­byterian ordination, and a proof that such ordina­tion is valid.

I PROCEED now to consider what Mr. L. has to say, upon the other instance of presbyterian ordi­nation in scripture, as mentioned by the Dr. viz. that of Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. 14. ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.’ This, the Dr. mentioned, as an express instance of ordination by presbyters, and very fully answered all the objections commonly urged against it by episcopalians. Nor do I find any material one added by Mr. L. He indeed tells us "the text says, Timothy was not ordained by [Page 60]presbyters, but by prophecy." ^§ I answer:—It does not say in so many words, he was ordained by either. The word, ordained, [...]t being men­tioned. But then, the thing signifying ordination; the rite universally in use, in setting [...]en apart to the ministry, viz. imposition of hands, is particular­ly mentioned, and expressly said to be performed, not by an apostle, not by an officer of a superior character, nor yet by prophecy; but by the presbytery. His saying therefore "that Timothy was ordained by prophecy," a phrase to which he, nor no man else can affix any determinate idea, could be with no other view, than to confuse the minds of his readers, and perplex an argument, which he found himself unable fairly to answer.— Had he attended to what the Dr. had observed, concerning the gift, here said to be given to Ti­mothy, by prophecy, it might have prevented his imposing upon his readers, and betraying his own ignorance, in the interpretation he has given of this text. At the same time, it would have saved him the trouble of repeating that other objection, so particularly answered by the Dr. viz. that Paul was concerned in Timothy's ordination. The word gift, here said "to be given to Timothy by pro­phecy," &c. Mr. L. insists, is the same in the ori­ginal with that mentioned 2 Tim. i. 6, as given by the putting on of Paul's hands. The Dr. al­lows it is. He moreover allows the same thing to be signified, in both texts, viz. the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. And further, that these were communicated to Timothy by Paul's hands only. For after mentioning the text in question, he says, ‘The meaning of the words, compared with what is said upon the matter in 2 Tim. i. 6, may be fully expressed in the following para­phrase,’— ‘Improve the gift of the Holy Ghost, which I imparted to you, in an extraordinary [Page 61]measure, according to the prophecies which went before concerning you, when you was se­parated to the work of the ministry, with the laying on of the hands of the consistory of pres­byters. ^†’ In this paraphrase is fairly and me­thodically included, every thing contained in both texts, concerning Timothy's ordination, and the gift here said to be imparted to him. The gift, in both places, signifies, the extraordinary HARISMETA or gifts of the Holy Ghost. These, the Dr. allows were conferred by the imposition of Paul's hands only, as mentioned in 2 Tim. i. 6. This was gi­ven by prophecy; that is, agreeable to, or in con­sequence of the prophecies, which the apostle says 1 Tim. i. 18, went before concerning Timothy. Holy men prophetically speaking by inspiration, of him, as a fit person to receive this gift, and in consequence, to be put into the ministry; to which service he is here, in 1 Tim. iv. 14, said to be separated, by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery, in ordination. This makes both the accounts, perfectly consistent, which no other in­terpretation, perhaps, can do. To be sure that given by Mr. L. is very far from doing it. In­deed, as in the forementioned instance of Paul and Barnabas; so also in this of Timothy, he seems very loth to allow, that ordination is intended by the imposition of hands. "If, says he, this was an ordination." Again. "If this was an ordi­nation, then," &c. It is easy to see, in both these instances, what were his reasons for expressing him­self so doubtfully in the case. If these were al­lowed to be proper ordinations, he was fully sensi­ble, all he could say, would be insufficient to weak­en the force of the argument, brought from them, in favour of presbyterian ordination. And there­fore he endeavours to persuade his readers, that it is, at least doubtful, whether ordination is the thing [Page 62]intended. But as the evidence in the case is so full; as every thing included in ordination is more parti­cularly and expressly mentioned, in these two in­stances, than in any others recorded in the New-Testament; and I may add, as there can certainly be found no instance of an ordination in the whole bible, if these are not allowed to be such; Mr. L. seems not quite willing, after all, to hazard the issue of the controversy, upon a bare denial of this fact: But thinks it concerns him to shew, that if this was an ordination, yet it was not performed by presbyters. And the only argument he brings for the purpose, is, "that the word presbytery, here, does not signify a number of presbyters. His words are; ‘It seems, the Dr. takes it for granted, that a presbytery means a number of presbyters only. Calling a number of presbyters, a presbytery, does not prove that St. Paul means the same, when he used the words. ^‡’ He therefore concludes that "Paul was at the head of these elders to con­stitute them a presbytery, with power to ordain." If therefore I can prove, that the word PRESBUTE­RION, a presbytery, always signifies, in the New-Testament, and other ancient writers, a number of presbyters only; then his whole objection against the Dr's interpretation of these words, is over­thrown; and this instance of Timothy's ordination, will remain an incontestible pattern and proof of presbyterian ordination.

Now the word PRESBUTERION is to be found but in two other places in all the New-Testament, in both of which it signifies "a number of presby­ters only." The first is Luke xxii. 66. ‘And when it was day PRESBUTERION, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together,’ &c. It is very evident the word here means a number of elders or presbyters only: It is so translated; the elders of the people, the [Page 63]sanhedrim or grand council of the Jews: Not including the chief priests, the scribes, or indeed any other officer of a superior rank, as Mr. L. would have it in the other instance: These are also ex­pressly mentioned, and very particularly distin­guished in the account; the elders of the people, PRESBUTERION, and the chief priests and the scribes. Besides, the very persons who are here called by the collective name PRESBUTERION; in the paral­lel place, Matt. xxvii. 1, are called by the com­mon or appropriate one, PRESBUTEROUS, (which shews the words are used synonimously) and they are there also distinguished from the chief priests or any other officers. It is therefore beyond all dispute that the word presbytery, here means a number of elders only.

THE other place, in which the word occurs, is Acts xxii. 5. There it is translated, "the state of the elders," that is, the body or company of presbyters. Here again they are particularly dis­tinguished from the chief priest, or any other su­perior officer; for he is particularly mentioned, and distinguished from the TO PRESBUTERION, the state or body of elders. ^‡ The word is frequently used by ancient ecclesiastical writers, and always to signify a number of presbyters only. Numbers of quotations from the fathers, might easily be produced in proof of this. I shall adduce but one, [Page 64]against whom, I hope Mr. L. will make no ex­ceptions. It is his favourite Ignatus. He fre­quently uses this word; and in him it ever signifies a number of presbyters only. A few instances may suffice. In his epistle to the Ephesians, he says, "Being subject to the bishop, and the presbytery." ^‖ Again, "That you may obey the bishop, and the presbytery." ^† Again, "He that does any thing without the bishop and the presbytery." ^* Again, "Respect the bishop and the presbytery." ^‡ In all these instances, and many more that might be men­tioned, 'tis evident to demonstration, that the word, PRESBUTERION, means a number of presbyters and nothing else. Not as Mr. L. would have it, "a number of elders with an apostle or bishop at their head." Thus it signifies in scripture, and in all good authors where it occurs. Nor do I remem­ber ever to have seen it used, in any other sense.

DR. CHAUNCY had therefore good right "to take it for granted, that a presbytery means, a number of presbyters only." And since this is the word used in this instance, it is a clear consequence, that Timothy was ordained by a number of presby­ters; and therefore that presbyterian ordination, is the true scripture ordination.

NOR will it at all alter the case tho' we should grant that Paul joined with the presbytery in Ti­mothy's ordination: For if he did, he acted, not as an apostle, but as a presbyter, of no more au­thority than the rest. For it is in this character only, that the persons who imposed hands are here said to act: Plainly denoting that they acted as a presbytery; and consequently, that the right of or­dination is vested in such a body, and in none else.

HENCE it will follow, that what Mr. L. says [Page 65]about the lower house of assembly in Connecticut, ^† is not true. It is not true "that a number of presbyters have no more power to ordain without a bishop, than the lower house of assembly have, to perform acts of legislation without the govern­or." So far from it, that presbyters and they only are vested with the power of ordination; and even when an apostle was joined with them, if that in­deed was the case; he acted, not as an apostle, but as a presbyter; therefore the action is expressly said to be done by a consistory of presbyters, as we have shewed above. But if it were not so: If it were true, as he says, that a number of presbyters have just as much and no more authority, with or without a bishop, than the lower house of assem­bly have with or without the governor; still it will be nothing at all to his purpose. For as the lower house, can perform no act of legislation, without the governor; no more can the governor without them. The power of the latter, in this case therefore, is at least equal to the former. If then we allow this a parallel case, it will indeed follow that presbyters have no power to ordain, without a bishop: But it will equally follow, that the bishop has no such power without the presby­ters. Consequently their power in this respect is equal. But, unluckily for our author, this will at once ruin his scheme, agreeable to which the sol [...] power of ordination is in the bishop, and the pres­byters have no manner of authority in the case.— Thus have I very particularly, and I think suffi­ciently vindicated the Dr's interpretation of this text, and proved it to be a standing pattern and warrant for presbyterian ordination.

MR [...] goes on,— ‘Another objection is, that in scripture, bishops are frequently called pres­byters; therefore bishop and presbyter mean one and the same office. In answer to this I [Page 66]would ask, whether apostle and presbyter mean one and the same office in scripture? Answer this without a double meaning, and the point is settled. ^*’—I answer. Considered as standing officers in the church, they most certainly do; and the apostle Peter himself shall be my voucher.— "The elders, says he, which are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder." ^§ This then, ac­cording to him, must settle the point.

As another proof of ordination by presbyters, the Dr. observed, "that besides deacons, the scrip­ture mentions but one order of officers only, pro­miscuously called bishops or presbyters, therefore that the ordaining power must belong to that or­der." In proof of this he added sundry texts, and among others, Philip. i. 1, where the apostle, ad­dressing this church with its officers, makes men­tion of but two orders, bishops and deacons.

IN answer to this Mr. L. says, these bishops were the presbyters of this church; and that, be­sides them and the deacons, there was an apostle, viz. Epaphroditus, presiding over them in quali­ty of bishop. In proof of this he quotes chap. ii. 5, 25, where Paul says, ‘I supposed it necessary to send to you, Epaphroditus my brother, &c. but your messenger. ^†’ In the original, he tells us, it is your apostle. Hence he infers, that in this church, were three orders of ministers.

ANSWER. Epaphroditus being sent to Philippi is no proof he was sent there in character of a bishop. If so then Timothy must have been their bishop also. For Paul says, "I trust in the Lord to send Timothy unto you shortly," v. 24. But this would be, to have two bishops in this one church, which is utterly inconsistent with the epis­copal scheme; according to which there can be but one bishop to one church. Neither will his [Page 67]being called the Philippian's messenger, prove that he was their bishop, or held any office in this church. I grant the word in the original is APOSTOLON, an apostle. This, however, in its common and un­appropri [...]ted sense, means not a bishop, or indeed any church officer; but according to its original derivation, a messenger, or one sent. It is accord­ingly so translated, wherever it occurs in scrip­ture, in its unappropriated sense, just as it is in this place. We meet with it in John xiii. 16, and 2 Cor. viii. 23. But as it is used in its unappro­priated sense in both, so it is translated, as here, not apostle but messenger: But if it must be render­ed apostle in this place, as Mr. L. contends, it must also in the others, and wherever it occurs. And if this be the case, John the baptist, and those who were sent to him from the pharisecs, must be also acknowledged as apostles or bishops: For they are called APOSTELLMENOI, apostles, a word of the same theme and import with this. And therefore if this word must always signify apostle or bishop, possibly Mr. L. will find in scripture, an instance of a she-bishop or apostle: For Junia, which by many is supposed to be the name of a woman, ^‖ is said with Andronicus, "to be chief among the apostles." ^† But the truth of the case is: The word APOSTOLON is here used in its unappropriated sense. Our Eng­lish bibles therefore rightly have it translated, not apostle, but messenger or one sent. For so Epaph­roditus was. He had been sent by the Philippians to carry their bounty to Paul, as appears from chap. iv. 18. And therefore the apostle very pro­perly calls him their messenger. Again. Paul's calling Epaphroditus, your messenger, plainly shews [Page 68]that he was not an apostle in the appropriate sense of the word. The apostles, as such, are never called apostles of the churches, but of Jesus Christ, whose apostles or messengers, they are, who gives them commission, and sends them forth. Thus Peter and Paul, often call themselves apostles of Jesus Christ, ^† but they are never once called, your apostles, or the messengers of the church.— Epaphroditus however is called a messenger or apostle, not of Jesus Christ, but of the church: This plainly shews that he was not an officer in that church, but only a messenger they had sent, to carry money to Paul. Indeed it looks at least high­ly improbable, had he been their apostle or bishop, as Mr. L. pretends, that he should be singled out by them for so inferior a piece of service, as car­rying their alms to Paul; especially, as they had a number of presbyters and deacons, whom they might have improved in this service.

FINALLY, had Epaphroditus been the bishop of this church, is it not strange the apostle should not mention him in his inscription of his epistle to this church? He particularly mentions the bishops or presbyters, and deacons, but says not a word of any apostle. This neglect, most certainly, Paul would not have been guilty of, had Epaphroditus been their bishop, as our author pretends. Upon the whole, these reasons must, I imagine, convince every impartial person, that he was not the bishop of Philippi, that there were but only the two or­ders of bishops or presbyters, and deacons in this church, as the Dr. asserted, and therefore his ar­gument for presbyterian ordination, from this text, stands good.

MR. L's next instance of three orders, is the church at "Jerusalem. We have clear evidence, he tells us, from scripture, that St. James resided for twenty years together, with and over the pres­byters [Page 69]and deacons there." ^* For proof of this he refers to Acts, chapters vi. and xv. chap. xxi. 18, and Gal. i. 19.

Two things, he says, he has proved from these texts. One, that the apostle James resided for twenty years together in the church at Jerusalem: The other, that he resided with and over the pres­byters and deacons of this church, during that time.—Let us examine his proofs.

As to the first, it does indeed appear from these texts, that Paul found James at Jerusalem, three several times, and at the distance of sundry years one from another. But then, at two of these times, the same accounts say, Peter was there with him. And one of them mentions John as there also. If, then, from these two accounts it can be proved, that James was at Jerusalem as bishop, during the term aforesaid; the same must follow also as to Peter. This argument therefore either proves that both of them so resided, or that neither did. But as they could not, in Mr. L's senfe, be both bishops of this church, the consequence is plain, that nothing can be concluded from these two ac­counts, that either of them were. All the proof then that remains as to this fact, is the single cir­cumstance of his being found there by Paul, some years after. Acts xxi. 18. But as there is no ac­count how long he resided there, barely his being found there, I presume, will hardly be admitted a sufficient proof of Mr. L's assertion, that the time of his continuance was twenty years. Indeed, as James, by our author's concession was an apostle, there is not the least degree of probability, much less any proof, that he resided at Jerusalem, or any other place, for any considerable time togeth­er, as his particular charge. So to do would have been utterly inconsistent with the apostolic charac­ter, [Page 70]and the charge given to the apostles by Christ, "go teach all nations," "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and so preach repentance and remission of sins among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." ^† How the executing this large commission, could be consistent with any of the apostles making Jerusalem their stated residence, especially for twenty years together, as Mr. L. asserts, for my part I am unable to under­stand. Wherefore without offering a word more upon this point, I freely submit it to the candid reader to determine, whether the evidence Mr. L. has brought, to prove that James actually "resid­ed twenty years together at Jerusalem, is sufficient to support the fact." But if it should be deemed to be, it will by no means follow, that he so resided in character of a bishop, or as Mr. L. expresses it, "with and over the presbyters and deacons there." This is the other thing he has here as­serted, and for proof of it, he refers us to what he calls, "James's conduct in the case St. Paul laid before him, Acts xv." I desire the reader to turn to the place, and read the whole account, and then say, what there is in it to prove that James, any more than any of the rest, that were present at that council, was the bishop of Jerusalem? Is it that he was at Jerusalem at that time? So was Peter and John, and other apostles. They there­fore from this circumstance bid as fair for the of­fice as he. Was it that James attended upon the council there? The same did the other apostles, yea and the elders and brethren too. Or was it that James gave his judgment, in the determina­tion of the question before them? This did all that were present. And therefore when the decree was drawn up and published, it is expressly said to go forth in the name. "of the apostles, and elders [Page 71]and brethren." ^* Or lastly, was it that James in particular, spoke in the council, and declared his sentiments concerning the case in question?— But the same did also sundry of the rest, as Peter, Barnabas and Paul. These are all particularly mentioned as speaking and declaring their opinion upon the point in debate. Yea, as giving the same sentence or judgment, that James afterwards declared to be his. What right, I demand, then had Mr. L. to say, "that James's authority was decisive in the case," any more than that of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, who had given the same sen­tence before? Certainly none. Nothing therefore from this circumstance, or indeed from any thing else, in the account, in favour of James's episco­pal relation to, and authority over this church, and its officers, but what equally appears in favor of the rest. And since they could not all be bish­ops of it, it is a plain case that none of them are proved to be so; consequently, that there were not three orders of officers in this church as Mr. L. has asserted.

HIS next attack upon the Dr. is for asserting, "That the apostles as such, were extraordinary officers, and had no successors," and then asks "in what respects they were so?" ^† I answer. Let him turn to the page in the Dr's sermon, from whence he has quoted these words, and he will readily see. ‘They received their commission immediately from Christ. Their charge was unlimitted; their province the whole world.— They were, by office, the teachers of all nati­ons; had power to gather churches every where, to settle them with proper officers, to inspect over them, to give binding rules and orders for the government of them; and all this under the in­fallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. ^‖’ If this [Page 72]don't satisfy Mr. L. I would refer him for a more particular account of the distinctive character and qualifications of the appstleship, to Mr. Boyse's "ancient episcopacy," p. 253, &c. To Dr. Bar­row as quoted by him, p. 272, &c. and "the scrip­ture-bishop, p. 26, &c. In the mean time, as I shall have occasion, more particularly to consider this point, when I come to his remarks upon my sermon, it may be sufficient to observe here, that Mr. L. does not pretend to prove bishops now-a-days, are indued with these extraordinary qualifi­cations, on which the apostolic character and pow­ers were founded; consequently the former cannot succeed the latter in the exercise of these powers. He says indeed as to some of these qualifications, such as, "the power of working miracles, travel­ling from place to place to plant churches, and be­ing immediately sent by Christ; that they were not peculiar to the apostles, for others at that time had the same." But now, what is this to his pur­pose? If they were not peculiar to the apostles, they were at least essential to the apostolic charac­ter and absolutely necessary to furnish men for the duties of it. Tho' therefore some, cotemporary with the apostles, might have some of these extra­ordinary qualifications, essental to the apostolic office; yet as none can pretend to them now; the consequence is undeniable, that none now can pre­tend to succeed the apostles, in that part of their character and office, to which these extraordinary qualifications were essential and absolutely neces­sary. Since therefore diocesan bishops do not, cannot succeed the apostles, in that part of their character or office which was extraordinary, and pe­culiar to them; it belongs to him, if he would sup­port his scheme, to prove, that the apostles, in com­municating their ordinary powers, did in fact make a difference; committing a chief power to a supe­rior order, called bishops, and an inferior one to others, under the name of presbyters.

[Page 73] THIS is what he next attempts to do.— ‘What we assert, says he, is that the apostles did com­mit a chief power to a superior order, then called apostles.’ And for proof he refers us to Acts xiv. 14. Philip ii. 25. 2 Cor. viii. 23. ‘From these texts, he tells us, it appears, that Barnabas, Epaphroditus and Titus are sliled aposties;’ and adds, ‘that he intends to prove Timothy also, to have been invested with the same apostolic pow­er and office. ^*’

ANSWER. As to, at least three of the four here mentioned, neither the texts he has quoted, nor indeed any other in scripture, proves them to be apostles, in the appropriate sense of the word. As to Epaphroditus, it has been already proved that he was no apostle, but only a messenger of the church of Philippi, sent to carry their contribution to the apostle Paul; an errand not over and above apostolical.—As to Titus, he is no where, in scrip­ture, called an apostle in any sense whatever. The text Mr. L. quotes to prove him so, is this, ‘Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner, and fellow-helper concerning you: Or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches and the glory of Christ. ^†’ It seems Mr. L. thought Titus must needs be an a­postle; because he found the word, APOSTOLOI, messengers, in the same verse, in which Titus is na­med. But unhappily for him, it is not Titus, but the brethren that went with him, who are called APOSTOLOI, messengers. Titus is particularly dis­tinguished from them in the former part of the verse, as Paul's partner and fellow-labourer, and not of the number of the brethren who are called APOSTOLOI, messengers, in the latter part of it. But if he was not: If he was, as Mr. L. supposes, of the number of these APOSTOLOI messengers; it would [Page 74]be nothing to his purpose: For it is abundantly evident, from the context, that the word APOSTO­LOI is here used, not in its appropriate sense, to signify an officer in the church; but in the com­mon and unappropriated one, meaning barely a messenger, or one sent. For it is evidently on ac­count of their being sent to Corinth to receive their collections, and carry them to Jerusalem, and nothing else, that these persons are called APOS­TOLOI, messengers of the churches. If therefore Epaphroditus was no apostle, much less was Titus, who is never once called by that name, in any sense of the word whatsoever. And tho' Mr. L. tells us "he designed to prove Timothy to be one;" yet as we find nothing of that kind done in the re­maining part of his book; 'tis probable, upon se­cond thought, he was discouraged in the attempt. Since therefore he has dropt him out of the num­ber, we have a right to do the same, and so there remains only Barnabas to be considered.

AND, it is readily granted he is called an apostle in Acts xiv. 14. But until it is proved that he derived his apostolic power from the apostles; barely his being called an apostle, will not prove his assertion, ‘that the apostles did communicate a chief power to a superior order called apostles.’ All that is proved from this text, is that "Barnabas was an a­postle." How he came to be so, or from whom he received his "chief power" and superior character as an apostle, the text is intirely silent; nor can it be collected from any thing Mr. L. has said. If his being here mentioned with Paul, signifies that he was vested with the same superior office and character as Paul was; no doubt he received his apostolic commission and authority, in the same immediate way, and from the same fountain, as Paul did. How that was, he himself has told us. For he was ‘an apostle, not of men, neither by [Page 75]man, but by Jesus Christ and God the father’ ^* At least till the contrary is proved from scripture, we have a right to conclude this was the case: Consequently, that the apostles did not ‘thus di­vide the ordinary powers of their office, commu­nicating to some more, to others less, and so constituting the two orders of bishops and pres­byters,’ as our opponents pretend. I may there­fore now with propriety, I presume, take leave of this argument in the words of Dr. Chauncy. ‘If the apostles did thus communicate these powers, in a different degree, committing to some more, to others less, and so constituting two orders in the ministry; it is what we may reasonably ex­pect to see evidenced. The new-testament is open. If it contains any such evidence, let it be produced. We imagine it contains clear evi­dence to the contrary, and that we have given such evidence. Merely calling bishops succes­sors to the apostles will not prove their superiori­ty: Tho' by the way they are never called so in the sacred books.—The bible only can settle this point. ^‖’

OUR author proceeds.— ‘Dr. Chauncy seems to allow, that the church universally has been governed, in the form of episcopacy, (after the first two centuries) for several succeeding ages. But, says he, before that, in the early days of the church, it was governed by presbyters. ^†’ I have examined the pages, from whence he pretends to quote this passage, but can find nothing of that kind there. If by episcopacy Mr. L. means diocesan episcopacy, (which he must mean, or it is noth­ing to his purpose) the Doctor is so far from al­lowing that the church was ever governed in that form, that on the contrary he affirms and proves, that during the first century, and the greatest part of the second, there is no distinction to be found, [Page 76]in the writers of those times, between bishop and presbyter; the names being used promiscuously for the same office, just as they are in the new-tes­tament. And even in the third century, and on­wards, after the name bishop came to be appro­priated, so as to signify something different from presbyter; he expressly denies "that the fathers are universal or unanimous, in affirming of it for fact, that it was a distinction importing a superior­ity of order, or that it was of ap [...]olical institu­tion." ^* As Mr. L. therefore has misrepresented the Dr. I hope he will do him justice. "And, (to use his own words) will see his error and retract."

I AM now prepared to consider his rhapsody of questions quoted from Mr. Chillingworth, and those of the same strain added by himself in pages 22 and 23, of his book: The whole of which amount to no more than this, viz. how, when and by what means it was that the original form of presbyterian church government, came to be changed to that of episcopalian?

FOR answer to which, and indeed, to almost eve­ry thing else he has remarked upon the Dr's ser­mon, I might very fairly refer him to the sermon itself. At least he will there see, that when this alteration of a distinction between bishop and pres­byter first began, it was very small. "The bishop was no more than primus inter pares, the head pres­byter, the praeses or moderator of the consistory; and it was by gradual steps he attained to the power with which he was afterwards vested. These ec­clesiastical superiorities and inferiorities, which have for a long time been visible in the christian world, were unknown in the first and purest ages: Nor did they at once take place. It was the work of time. From prime-presbyters, arose city-bishops: From city-bishops, diocesan ones: From dioce­san bishops, netropolitans: From netropolitans, [Page 77]patriarchs, and finally, at the top of all, his holiness the pope, claiming the character of universal head of the church." ^‖

IF this answer will not satisfy Mr. L. I will give him another, in the words of a protestant in answer to a demand of the like kind from a papist. It is as follows. ‘When Arius, Nestorius, and such like heretics arose; they violently broke out of the church, and forsook all communion. And when Mahomet came from without, he visibly assaulted all christianity. But the papacy bred silently, as a gangrene in the church within. That cockatrice was long a hatching in the shell, before it did appear. It was a secret departure from the truth, caused by errors stolen into the church, sensim, sine sensu, insensibly and unawares: Whence appears the difference between open he­resy and clandestine apostacy. The one is easy to be known, because it works openly, in the day: The other hard to be discovered, because it makes its approaches only in the night.’ Let Mr. L. only make the small charge of the word papacy into prelacy, and the answer will be exactly adapted to his question.

OR if this account should be thought of too late a date, I will refer him to that given by Jerom, one of the fathers. His words are these:— ‘The presbyter therefore is the same with the bishop. And therefore, by the devil's instinct, there were parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas; the churches were governed by the common council presbyters: But after every one thought, those he baptized to be rather his than Christ's; it was agreed in the whole world, that one of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom the care of all the church should belong, and the seeds of division taken away. ^‡’

[Page 78] I FIND nothing more, by way of remark, up­on the Dr's sermon, in the whole of Mr. L's book, except a passage or two towards the close, which shall be considered in their place. I therefore finish this section with this reasonable request;—that the Dr's sermon, our author's remarks upon it, and what has been now offered in reply, be carefully read over and compared. If this is done, I pre­sume, that no one except Mr. L. and his partial admirers will be of the mind, "that he has, as he [...] cerms it, considered the most material things ad­vanced by the Dr. in support of his scheme," much­less, "that he has shewn him to be greatly mis­taken in many things he has asserted." ^* On the contrary, unless I am much mistaken, every un­prejudiced judge will find, that by far the greatest part of the Dr's arguments, are passed over, in­tirely unnoticed. And as to those few that are touched upon; the objections are so far from being conclusive, that they are really of no weight at all.

SEC. V. Reflections upon Mr. L's claim of an un­interrupted succession from the apostles, especially thro' the line of the old Bri­tish bishops;—from p. 24, to 27.

WHAT could induce our author, to fall up­on this topic of the uninterrupted succes­sion, and set himself to answer objections against episcopacy, which neither of the pieces he under­takes to confute, say any thing about; and at the same time, pass over unnoticed, so great a part [Page 79]of the arguments contained in these pieces, is dif­ficult to determine; unless perhaps because he thought it easier answering objections of his own starting, than those urged by his opponents. Be that as it will. "Another objection, he tells us, is that they receive their authority from Rome; and that church is so corrupt, that she can convey none." ^‖

I HAVE sometimes heard it remarked, indeed, as a fort of inconsistency in the church of England, to discover such a partial affection to that of Rome, as to allow of their orders as valid while they de­ny those of all protestant churches; and boast so much of a succession through that church, which in their homilies they call "a filthy old withered harlot, and so far from being of the nature of a true church, that for more than nine hundred years before the reformation, nothing could be more." This, however, Mr. L. denies. They did not, he says, derive either their power, or christiamity from Rome. "The British church flourished, he tells us, many hundred years—before the gospel took place in England." I answer:—That chris­tianity was early introduced into England, is not denied. Who first preached it there, is very un­certain. 'Tis still more so in what form, whether presbyterian or episcopalian, that church was first settled. If Paul was the first who brought the gospel to Britain and planted christianity there, as many writers say; it is presumed, that since he himself was ordained by presbyters, that was the form of ordination and government he would es­tablish there. As to king Lucius, whom Mr. L. makes to be the first christian king, and the found­er of an arch-bishoprick in London; the time of his conversion is so uncertain, that Fuller, in his church history, reckons up no less than twenty­six different accounts of it by different writers; be­tween the first and last of which, there is no less [Page 80]than 90 years difference, as to date. ^* This, with many other things mentioned by the same author gives the whole such a fabulous and romantic a [...] that there is little or no weight to be laid on a [...] thing said about him. And indeed many doubt whether there ever was such a man in the world.

BUT granting christianity was as early planted i [...] G. Britain, as he pretends, this will by no mean help him out with a succession thro' the old Bri­tish bishops, as distinct from those of the Romis [...] church. He allows that the pope "got footing in England before the reformation." But then [...] tells us "the old British clergy opposed him with all their might, and prevented all that came from Rome, from getting into the vacant churches, [...] far as possibly they could." That when the first op­portunity presented, at the time of the reformation "they threw off the papal yoke." All that we [...] "ordained at Rome, he tells us, refusing to com­ply with the reformation, returned to Rome, from whence they came. The number of bishops th [...] did so were fourteen. The rest of the bishop who were ordained, and derived their power by [...] regular succession of ordinations from the ancient British bishops, were the men who ordained the bishops and presbyters of our church." ^‡ I have transcribed the whole of this curious piece of secret history, that the reader may have it all in one view.

IT is well known, by all acquainted with the English history, that Austin the monk came into England toward the latter end of the sixth centu­ry. He was sent there by Gregory, the pope [...] Rome, to convert the Anglo-saxons to christiani­ty. From that time to the reformation, A. D. 1530, a space of near a thousand years, England was under the popish yoke, and over-run with all the errors and superstitions of the church of Rome, [...] much as the rest of Europe. The whole christians ^‖ [Page 81]world, for many hundred years before the reform­ation, "wandered after the beast;" and the church of England, during the whole of that period, was as much [...] church of Rome, as that of France, Spain, or even Italy itself. All equally sunk in error, superstition, and idolatry, and equally "drunk with the cup of abominations, and filthi­ness of the fornications, of that old withered har­lot." Where then, I ask, will Mr. L. find a suc­cession for their clergy, except through the bishops of the Romish church? His attempts to derive it through a line of "ancient British bishops," is a mere chimera, that scarce deserves notice. There were no such bishops to be found in England, during the greatest part of that time. I readily allow that christianity had been planted in England, before Austin's arrival; that upon the Saxon inva­sion, a number of the British christians retired in­to the mountains of Wales, and preserved their liberty and christianity. It is further granted, that upon Austin's coming into England, the old Bri­tish clergy in Wales, refused at first to submit to the Pope's authority. In consequence of which the greatest part of them were cruelly put to the sword, in the city of Bangor, said to be effected by Austin's means. ^* The remainder were too in­considerable a handful to make any opposition to Austin, who was commissioned by the Roman pon­tiff, and supported by the power of the Saxon kings, sundry of whom are said to be his early converts. If these Welch bishops therefore, were those Mr. L. means by his "ancient British bishops" from whom their clergy derive their succession, and who he tells us "as far as possible, prevented all that came from Rome from getting into the vacant churches;" the opposition they made, could be but very feeble at best, and must certainly have [Page 82]ceased, after the greatest part of them were cut off. And as to the remainder of them we are as­sured from history, that they soon after submitted to the church of Rome: "For Laurentius, who succeeded Austin, as arch-bishop of Canterbury, by demeaning himself more humbly, that his pre­decessor had done, reduced the rescuent Britons to some tolerable conformity to the Romish ceremo­nies." ^* And so entirely were the ancient Britons, brought under the ecclesiastical dominion of the Romish church of England, that about A. D. 1279, near three hundred years before the reformation, "John Peckham, arch-bishop of Canterbury, ac­tually excommunicated their prince, because he could not prevail upon him to be at peace with England." ^‖ In about three or four years after this, king Edward the first, intirely conquered Wales, beheaded I hewellin ap Griffith their last king, after he had taken him prisoner. ^† Since which time, Wales, the last resort of the ancient Britons, has been annexed to England, as part of the kingdom, and incorporated with it, in all affairs civil and eccliestical. What then can Mr. L. mean, by pretending to keep up a distinction between the British clergy, and those of the Romish church? Wales, for many hundred years before the refor­mation, was as really under the "papal yoke," as he terms it, and received their bishops "from Rome" as much as any other part of the kingdom.

BUT if this had not been the case: Had it been, as his argument supposes, that there was a distinct succession of bishops kept up in Wales, in a direct line from the ancient British bishops, even till the reformation; this will afford him no manner of re­lief as to the present clergy of their church. They, certainly, can claim no benefit from such a suc­cession of Welch bishops; for not one of the [Page 83]Welch bishops was concerned in the consecration of Parker, and yet from him all the bishops in the church of England ever since must derive their succession. The fact was truly this. In the be­ginning of the reformation under Henry VIII. all the bishops, abbots and priors in England, (Fisher bishop of Rochester only excepted) complied with it, as far as it was then carried. ^* This therefore, could not be the time Mr. L. speaks of, "when all that were ordained at Rome, refused to com­ply with the reformation, and returned to Rome from whence they came." For at this time none returned to Rome; and but one in the whole king­dom, refused to comply with the changes that were made. By the reformation, therefore, he must mean, the revival of it in Queen Elizabeth's reign. Then indeed, all the bishops in the kingdom, ex­cept Kitchen of Landaff, refused to comply with it and were turned out. None of them, however, "returned to Rome, as he asserts, save one only, and but three left the kingdom, viz. Pates, bishop of Worchester, Scot of Chester, and Goldwell of St. Asaph. ^‖ This is considerably short of the number fourteen, mentioned by Mr. L. Now this being the case, that all the bishops in the king­dom, not only of England, but Wales too, except one, were deprived; where will he go to make out a succession for their clergy, from the old British bishops? They were all, save one, deprived, and a new succession begun in Parker, from whom all the bishops ever since, must derive their claim. Unless therefore, he can prove, that Parker was consecrated by the descendants of those "ancient British bishops," his pretended succession from them, is inevitably overthrown. But to the utter destruction of his scheme, so it happened, that Parker, (from-whom all the clergy of the church [Page 84]of England, both bishops and presbyters, ever since, derive their succession) was consecrated, not by any of the bishops of Wales, but by four Eng­lish bishops, who had been consecrated in king Edward's time, had been deprived in the reign of Queen Mary, and had never been restored. For the men who consecrated Parker, were Barlow, formerly bishop of Bath and Wells, Scory of Chi­chester, Coverdale of Exeter, and Hodgskins fus­fragan of Bedford. ^‡ But none of these had been bishops of Wales. It is true the writ of Parker's consecration, named Kitchen of Landaff for one. But it is equally true that he never appeared to assist at the consecration, and so it was performed without him by the four above named. Where then, I repeat it, will Mr. L. make out his succession, through the line of the old British bishops? If he was so unacquainted with history, as not to know that there was no manner of foundation for such a pretence, he was unqualified to write upon the subject, and ought not to have meddled with it. If not, he has designedly imposed upon his readers, and ought "to retract."

THE truth of the case is, no history of the British church furnishes the least foundation, even of pre­tence, for such a succession. Bishop Burnet says, that the reformers in England, expressly allowed "that England received the faith from those sent from Rome by pope Gregory the great, i. e. Aus­tin and his monks. ^* And all the advocates for un­interrupted succession, I have ever seen, till Mr. L's book appeared, unanimously agree in tracing it up to Austin, and through him to St. Peter. Mr. Beach in particular, some years ago, in his controversy with Mr. Hobart, says, "the present arch-bishop of Canterbury is the seventy-third, who has fet in that see, since Austin the monk." ^‖ [Page 85]And tho' I don't imagine there is any great prob­ability of an unbroken succession, even in that line, yet it must be sought there, or no where. 'Till therefore Mr. L. brings us some better authority for one, through the old British bishops, than his bare assertion; he must expect it will be treated with that contempt, such a visionary enthusiastic scheme deserves.

I CALL this notion of an uninterrupted succession, and the absolute necessity of it to render gospel ad­ministration valid, a visionary enthusiastic scheme. It is so even when traced in any line. The evi­dence of the fact is so small, and the probability, or rather evidence of an interruption, so great, that a man must renounce the common principles of credibility, and act by an implicit faith, to give in to it, or at least to lay any great weight upon it. But to be very confident of it, and that in a line where it is absolutely certain it is not to be found, argues, if possible, a greater degree of weakness and credulity than what the most visionary enthusiasts are influenced by. And is not this even the case with our author? For though he disclaims a suc­cession through the Romish church and lays the whole stress upon one thro' the old British bishops, which never had any existence, save in a heated imagination, he is so confident of the truth of it, that he tells us, "we have as good evidence that their clergy derive their authority, by an uninter­rupted succession from the apostles, (meaning thro' the line aforesaid) as we have of the descent of all mankind from Adam by ordinary generation." ^‡ The highest evidence to which, even Mr. Beach, pretended in this case, and that in a line too, which bid much fairer, than the romantic one of our author, was only to put it upon a level, with that of the Levitical priesthood in the family of Aaron. This indeed was much too high. But even this it [Page 86]seems will not content Mr. L. Nothing short of one, equal to that "of our descent from Adam, will serve his turn." If the faith of the advocates of this doctrine, continues thus increasing, we may expect it will soon grow up to full assurance; and that the next stickler for uninterrupted succession, will put the evidence of it upon a par with that of our existence.

LET us however, examine Mr. L's proof: And here let it be noted, that we have the most clear and express scriptural evidence of our natural de­scent from Adam, and therefore are absolutely cer­tain of it. ^‖ The same he tells us, we have for the uninterrupted succession of their clergy from the apostles. Let it be also remembered, that this succes­sion must be in a line of bishops as superior to presby­ters, for he calls it "a regular succession of the episco­pal power," "an apostolic succession," and "a suc­cession of the gospel ministry in the three orders." Barely a succession in the line of presbyters will not suffice. For we have such a succession up to their bishops, and yet he denies us to be the ministers of Christ. Now the argument by which he under­takes to prove his succession, is this. Christ's promise to his ministers, contained in his commis­sion, in Mat. xviii. 20, must have failed unless there has been such a succession as he pleads for, that is, in a direct line of bishops as a superior order in the church. But why must the promise have failed, unless there has been such a succession? There is nothing in the commission, limiting the promise to such a superior order: Not the least hint of the institution of such an order. The com­mission is but one, and therefore one order only is instituted by it. But if there were two, or ten, it would make no alteration: Since the promise is not limitted to any one in particular, a succession in either of them would answer all the ends of fulfill­ing [Page 87]the promise. Mr. L. himself allows that this promise belongs to presbyters. ^* If so, then a continuation of the succession in the line of presby­ters, would as effectually serve the accomplish­ment of the promise, as one in the line of bishops: Consequently, if it has been continued in the for­mer, the promise is fully accomplished, even tho' it has been broken or interrupted in the latter; and therefore his argument from the promise, in support of a succession in the line of bishops, is by his own confession, intirely defeated.

THE truth is, as the commission supposes but one order in the ministry, the utmost that can be argued from the annexed promise, in favour of a succession, even of any kind, is that there shall be a ministry continued in the church, to the end of time. How, or in what manner ministers shall be introduced, whether in a regular unbroken fine of succession or not, whether by a superior or inferior order of ministers, yea whether by the officers of the church or the brethren, as the commission is wholly silent upon this head, so nothing relative thereto can be concluded from it. And although from other texts it appears, that it belongs, not to the private brethren, but to ministers to ordain; yet for aught appearing in the commission itself, a succession of ministers, even by lay ordination, would have as effectually secured the accomplish­ment of the promise, as one by presbyters, yea or bishops themselves.

THUS his bold assertion "that we have the same evidence for the succession he pleads for, as we have for our descent from Adam, finally comes to this." For one we have the certain, indubitable, repeated, express testimony of infallible scripture, which is evidence of the highest kind. For the other, we have only his forced interpretation of a particular text, which is no evidence at all.

[Page 88] BUT if scripture will not support his confidence in this point, perhaps he thinks history will. For he tells us "there can be no instance produced from all ecclesiastical history, of any one man's being owned, by the church universal, as a bishop, who was not ordained by another bishop, or by an officer in the church superior to a presbyter." ^* 'Till this is done, he thinks "it unreasonable to disbelieve the succession in the three orders." This argument for a succession, is the universal acknow­ledgment of the church, that there has, in fact, been such a succession. Now the fact here assert­ed, is either true, or it is not true. If it is not true in fact, that there has been any such universal acknowledgment, in favour of a succession, which is doubtless the case; then his argument founded upon such acknowledgment is at once destroyed. But if it is true, his argument founded upon it, is inconclusive; for if it proves the point in question, it will equally prove other things, which even Mr. L. himself will not admit as truths. ‘The sum of the argument, he tells us, is this: Christ, at first, did appoint a certain number of men with power to send others: The church univer­sal never could be induced to receive officers, unless they were ordained by such officers, as Christ appointed to ordain; therefore there has been a succession of such officers, as Christ ap­pointed at first, which are apostles, or, as they have been since called, bishops. This evidence for the apostolic succession, he says, is fully suf­ficient to satisfy a rational enquiry, whatever [...] may be to silence the spirit of party.’ ^† No [...] if this argument proves an uninterrupted succession of bishops as superior to presbyters, it will equally prove the Pope's supremacy, together with other doctrines equally absurd. Let us try it in an in­stance or two of this kind, and see how it will run.

[Page 89] CHRIST did at first say unto Peter, "unto thee I commit the keys of the kingdom," &c. "The church universal never could be induced to submit to an authority Christ had not instituted;" but the church universal, for many hundred years, did in fact submit to the pope, as Peter's successor and the vicar of Christ; therefore the pope's supre­macy, &c. is of divine institution. Or thus:— Christ did at first appoint the sacrament of his supper, to be administered to the proper subjects of it: The church universal never could be in­duced to depart from Christ's appointment, in this respect: But the church universal did in fact, for a long time practice giving the sacrament to in­fants; therefore this practice was no departure from Christ's institution. Whether this "evidence will be sufficient to silence the spirit of party," in any who should happen to dispute the pretended au­thority of his holiness, the pope, or the lawfulness of giving the sacrament to infants, I will not take upon me, absolutely, to determine. Sure I am, however, it is the same evidence he has brought, in support of his apostolic succession, "and as fully sufficient to satisfy a rational enquiry."

I HAVE been thus long upon the point of a suc­cession, not that the defence of the sermons I am vindicating, is concerned in it; for neither of them say any thing about it. Nor would I be under­stood, absolutely to deny, that there has been a succession in the christian ministry. I rather in­cline to think there has; though not such an one as Mr. L. contends for, in a line of bishops supe­rior to presbyters. Of this there is scarcely the least probability. But my motive herein was, to expose the weakness of such high claims, and the dangerous tendency of laying so much weight upon this same episcopal succession, as the zealous ad­vocates for it commonly do. As to the weakness [Page 90]of the proof, I presume it has been sufficiently ex­posed. The danger of laying so much stress up­on it, must be obvious at first view. It naturally tends to fill the minds of serious christians, with perplexing doubts and sears, as to the validity and efficacy of the gospel administrations, on which they attend; and utterly deprive them of the com­fort and edification they might otherwise hope to receive from them. At the same time, it gives a handle to deists and infidels, to banter and ridicule the most important truths of christianity, while they thus behold them, and that even by its teach­ers, sunk to a level, in point of evidence, with the most doubtful and disputable points.

I SHALL conclude what I have to say upon this head, in the words of a learned prelate of the church of England; ^* as probably it will be more convincing to Mr. L. and those of his stamp, than any thing I can say. They are contain­ed in his answer to the high claims of the non­juror-clergy, at the time of the revolution; who refusing to swear allegiance to king William, were deprived of their office, and others put in their places. Upon which they condemned the whole church of England, as schismatical, in hav­ing gone off from this same line of succession, our author contends for, and like him and his zealous brethren, arrogated the whole power of the church and ministry to themselves.—Upon which the learned bishop thus writes.

‘I DO not love, I confess, so much as to repeat the principal branches of their beloved scheme; they are so different, whencesoever they come, from the voice of the gospel. When they would alarm you, as their fellow-labourers the papists do, by telling you, that you cannot hope for the favour of God, but in the strictest communion with their church (which is the true church of [Page 91]England, governed by bishops, in a regular suc­cession)—that God hath himself hung your sal­vation upon this nicety; that he dispenses none of his favours or graces, but by the hands of them and their subordinate priests;—that you cannot be authoritatively blessed or released from your sins, but by them who are the regular priests;—that churches under other bishops,— (i. e. other than in a regular succession) are schis­matical conventicles, made up of excommuni­cated persons, both clergy and laity; out of God's church, as well as out of his favour:—I say, when such arguments as these are urged,—you need only have recourse to a general answer, to this whole heap of scandal and defamation, upon the will of God, the gospel of Christ, and the church of England in particular; that you have not so learned Christ, or the design of his gospel, or even the foundation of this particular part of his church, reformed and established in England. The following arguments will justify you, which therefore ought to be frequently in the thoughts of all, who have any value for the most import­ant points. God is just and equal, and good: And as sure as he is so, he cannot put the sal­vation and happiness of any man, upon what he himself has put it out of the power of any man upon earth, to be intirely farisfied in.—It hath not pleased God, in his providence, to keep up any proof of the least probability, or woral possibility, of a regular uninterrupted succession.— But there is a great appearance, and, humanly speaking, a certainty of the contrary, that this succession hath been interrupted.’

SEC. VI. A indication of my discourse upon presby­ter an ordination, from the exceptions contained in Mr. L's book;—from page 27 to 38.

NOT to say any thing of Mr. L's logic, he seems to be well acquainted with a certain figure in rhetoric, by which a part is taken for the whole. Havi [...]gremarked upon one or two, among many, of Dr. Chauncy's arguments, he roundly tells us, "he has considered every thing material advanced by the Dr." The same method he takes, in his remarks upon me. Thus he begins them.— "The sum of his argument is this, there is but one commission, and of consequence can be but one order of gospel ministers." ^* Truly concise and laconic! An easy and compendious method this, of answer­ing a book,—to remark upon one argument, out of many, and then pretend he has answered the whole; though perhaps not quite so safe and hon­ourable to the author, unless he could be sure, the pieces he pretends to answer, had never been seen by his readers. 'Tis true this was one of my ar­guments: I hope to shew it is a good one. But if he had read my piece, he must have observed that I used sundry others in support of the doctrine I undertook to defend. I argued it, from presby­ters being [...]cessors to the apostles in their ordi­nary [...]. From there being in fact but one order [...] to be found in the gospel. From pres­byters [Page 93]being true scripture bishops, and the only hishops the gospel owns. From express instances of presbyterian ordination found in scripture. And finally, from the suffrage of antiquity,—the unan­imous judgment and practice of the reformed churches abroad,—the first reformers in England, and many great and learned episcopalians since.— How then could he pretend, "that this was the sum of what I had advanced, in support of my principles?" However, since he chooses to com­bat only this one argument, I shall follow him in his remarks upon it. His words are, ‘Mr. Welles says, page 17, these last words (meaning the promise annexed to the commission) plainly shew that this promise was made, not to the persons of the apostles, but to their office as ministers in Christ's church; and consequently that their office is to continue to the end of the world.— He asserts, page 16, this is the commission, and the only commission we have any account of,—which Christ gave to his apostles.’ The con­sequence of which Mr. E. says, must be this,— "that the commission constituted them apostles, and therefore the apostolic office must continue to the end of time." ^†

ANSWER.—If by apostolic office, he means the office the apostles sustained, as ordinary ministers in the church; I readily grant that the commission in Mat. xxviii. did constitute them apostles, and that their office, in this sense of it, is to continue to the end of the world. But if by apostolic office, he means their office as apostles, properly so call­ed, considered in their extraordinary character, I deny that it was to be continued, and affirm there is nothing in the words he pretends to quote from me, that will infer such a conclusion. 'Tis true I said, and still say, "that the promise of Christ's presence to the end of the world, annexed to the [Page 94]commission, was made, not to the persons of the apostles, but to their office." But as what? Not as apostles, but as I there express it, "as ministers in Christ's church," i e. standing ordinary minis­ters. I also said, "that is the commission, and the only one, we have any account of, that Christ gave his apostles." But then I added, "in virtue of which they were impowered to act as ministers in his church," i. e. as ordinary standing ministers, as the whole connexion of my discourse shewed. Had Mr. L. thus quoted my words at large, every reader would have seen the weakness of the con­clusion he pretends to draw from them. They are so far from giving any countenance to his notion of, "a continuation of the apostolic office as such; that on the contrary, they very expressly distin­guish between this, and their ordinary character, and very clearly shew, that it was the latter, and not the former, that was to be perpetuated, and in which they were to have successors to the end of time. This, I presume, is sufficient to vindi­cate my words from this consequence he pretends to draw from them.

BUT, says Mr. L. "the consequence (meaning from my words) is plainly this; that the commis­sion constituted them apostles, or else that they acted as apostles without any commission."

I ANSWER:—This is by no means a plain con­sequence neither. Had I said, as he has imper­fectly quoted me, "that this is the only commis­sion we have any account of, that Christ gave his apostles," and had added nothing further, it would indeed have followed, not as he says, "that they acted without any commission;" but that, for aught appeared in scripture, they acted without any. These two conclusions are very different.— The scripture gives no account of the ordination of Silas, Apollos, Epaphroditus, &c. I trust, how­ever, he himself will not from hence conclude that [Page 95]they acted as ministers without any commission or ordination. But then he well knew, that when I said, "this is the only commission," &c. I meant the only one they received as standing gospel minis­ters, invested with an office to be perpetuated.— This distinction was fully expressed in the clause he has seen sit to suppress, viz. "in virtue of which they were impowered to act as ministers," &c.— His conclusion therefore, "that this commission constituted them apostles, or else they acted with­out a commission," no ways follows. For altho' as standing ordinary ministers, they had no other commission, yet they might have as apostles. It was in the former view I spake of them, not in the latter. Certainly they were called apostles long before this commission was given, even upon their being called by Christ. ^* Paul was called and commissioned to be an apostle, and acted as such, long before he received ordination as a standing gespel minister. The commission of the apostles as such, as extraordinary officers, was in an extraor­dinary way; by an immediate call from heaven. As apostles, they were all with Paul "not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. ^‡ When it was they received this com­mission, whether upon their first call, as some sup­pose, or at the day of Penticost, as others think, is perhaps difficult certainly to determine. As their apostolic office, properly so called, was extra­ordinary, and temporary, there was no occasion the commission, impowering them thereto, should be particularly recorded in scripture. This was given to them in person; and as they were to have no successors in it, none else had any concern with it. But as standing ordinary ministers, they were to have successors to the end of time; and therefore it was necessary their commission, in this charac­ter, should be particularly recorded; for this con­cerned [Page 96]their successors as well as themselves. Ac­cordingly we find, this commission is in fact re­corded: 'Tis that we have been considering: 'Tis that to which the promise is annexed of Christ's presence to the end of the world; and the same concerning which I asserted in my sermon, "that it is the only one, we have any account of, which Christ gave to his apostles, in virtue of which they were improved to act as ordinary ministers in his church." And for this purpose, no doubt it is re­corded, that it might be a standing commission, impowering, authorizing and directing, all the true ministers of Christ to the end of the world.

OUR author's next remark is to this purpose,— that while I am proving from one commission, that one order only of ministers can be virtuated by it, I myself, in effect, allow two, and so defeat my own argument: For he says, I call the apostles in one place, extraordinary officers, and in another, ordinary ones, and yet these are both impowered by one commission; hence he concludes that I am "refuted by myself." ^‡

I ANSWER, had he honestly cited the passage he pretended to quote from me, the weakness of this conclusion of his would have been obvious at first view. 'Tis true I speak of the apostles, as sus­taining the twofold character or office, of apostles, and ordinary gospel ministers. But then it is equally true that I speak only with respect to the latter, when I say, "this is the commission and the only commission we have any account of their re­ceiving from Christ." This distinction and limit­ation I fully enough expressed, in the passage from which he quotes these words, though he has seen fit to suppress it by a partial and imperfect quota­tion. Such acts may help to support a bad cause: A good one has no need of them. Will it at all fol­low, that because the apostles, considered ordinary [Page 97]ministers of Christ, are impowered by this one ge­neral commission, that they must as extraordinary officers also be impowered by the same? If it will not, then there is no force at all in Mr. L's con­clusion from my argument, as though it allowed of two orders being impowered by one and the same commission. As there is nothing expressly said, or even implied in this commission, of more than one order to be impowered by it; not the least intimation, that the powers it contains are to be divided, and the whole given to one order, and part only to another; and finally, as it is incon­sistent to suppose, that two or more officers, the one superior, the other subordinate, should be vir­tuated and appointed by one and the same commis­sion, we may I think, fairly conclude, that one order of gospel ministers, and only one, is appoint­ed and impowered by this commission; conse­quently, that all the powers contained in this com­mission belong to that one order, and that of or­dination among the rest. I presume therefore, my argument from the one commission, still stands good, notwithstanding all Mr. L. has said against it.

I HAD said in my sermon, "that the apostles in their extraordinary character, had no successors." This Mr. L. calls "a bold assertion," and demands "what evidence I had produced to support it." ^‖

ANSWER. As the assertion is a negative, had no evidence been produced, it would hardly have deserved the epithet of "bold." According to the rules of argumentation, the proof lies upon those who affirm a fact, not upon those who deny it. Had Mr. L. however, carefully read over the page in my sermon, from whence he pretends to quote the passage, he must have seen the evidence he demands. My words are these, ‘It must be remembered that the apostles sustained a twofold [Page 98]character; the one extraordinary as apostles, the other ordinary as gospel ministers. In their extraordinary capacity, they were immediately called by Christ. Were sent forth by him to be witnesses of his resurrection.—Were endowed with extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, the knowledge of tongues, the power of discerning spirits, and of working miracles. They were not limitted to any particular place, one more than another, for the exercise of their ministry; but had the whole world assigned them as their charge; and being under the infallible guidance of divine inspiration, they had the superinten­dency and government of all the churches com­mitted to them, until the canon of scripture should be full, and compleat rules given for that purpose in the word of God. In this they had no successors, but this part of their office expir­ed with themselves: For as there is now no oc­casion for these extraordinary powers, since the scripture is sufficiently attested, its canon com­pleated, and every thing necessary for the insti­tution and government of the church, particu­cularly revealed; so there are no men since the times of the apostles, who can lay any claim to these extraordinary and miraculous powers; and therefore none can pretend to be successors to them in that part of their character which was founded on these powers.’—This was the sense in which I asserted "the apostles had no successors," and these the reasons I assigned for such assertion; and to me they appear conclusive. As this extra­ordinary character of the apostles had its rise in the extraordinary circumstances, attending them, and was founded in the extraordinary powers bestowed upon them, it must necessarily have ceased, if the circumstances and powers have ceased, on which it was founded; but that the latter have ceased, Mr. L. will not deny: For whatever powers they [Page 99]claim for their bishops, the pretended successors of the apostles; I think that of working miracles is not one of them. If he can produce any instance of that kind sufficiently authenticated, they shall be properly noticed; if not, he must not be of­fended, if people look upon the claim a little as­suming, nor pretend the "assertion is more bold" than true, if the right to assume the character should happen to be denied. ^†

[Page 100] OUR author's next attack upon this argument of the one commission, is from the order of deacons, whom the apostles, he says, by virtue of this com­mission, constituted and ordained. "They were ordained, he tells us, to do something which the apostles did, before these deacons were consecrat­ed to their office." ^† It is pity he had not told us what this something was, they were ordained to do. This he purposely evades; and he had his reasons for it. If he had done this, he was sensible it would have at once appeared, that their office was not contained in, or virtuated by this commission, and so have overthrown his objection against my argu­ment, which was "that one and the same com­mission, could constitute but one office only."— This something to which these deacons were ordain­ed, was to serve tables, concerning which work, not the least hint is to be found in the ministerial commission. That indeed impowers those to [Page 101]whom it is given, to preach, baptize, &c. but says not a single word of serving tables and managing the church stock, the peculiar business of deacons. As therefore the deacon's office is not contained in, or virtuated by this commission; so the ap­pointment of them no ways militates against my argument, that where there is but one commission, there can be but one order or office impowered by it.

BUT though he cannot find the work of a deacon contained in the ministerial commission, he seems very desirous of having their office virtuated by it, that so he may make out two orders impower­ed by the same commission, contrary to what I had asserted. "If, says he, the commission of the apostles, impowered them to ordain but one or­der of officers; how came they to constitute the office of deacons." ^* I answer:—They did it, not by virtue of the ministerial commission we have been considering, but of that which constituted them apostles. The former, as has been shewed, bolonged to them, not as apostles, but as ordinary ministers of Christ, impowered thereby to preach, baptize, &c. In virtue of this, they were no more impowered to constitute a new order, than any of their successors in the same office. But as apostles, as divinely inspired, and under the infallible gui­dance of the Holy Ghost, they had power to do it. And in this capacity, and this only, they act­ed, when they instituted this office. As therefore, it was not in virtue of, or by power derived from the general ministerial commission, that this office of deacons was instituted; so there can be no ar­gument brought from their appointment, in proof of two or more offices virtuated by this commis­sion; consequently, my argument, "that where there is but one commission, one order only can be virtuated or impowered by it," still stands good.

I READILY allow "the office of deacon, to be [Page 102]inferior to that of apostle." I grant "it is an of­fice in which the power of ordination is not in­cluded." And if it will please him, I will con­cede too, that they may in a general sense, be call­ed "ministers in Christ's church." But then, as they are so, not by virtue of the general commis­sion given to ministers as ministers of the word and sacraments; but by the express appointment of the apostles, acting in their apostolic character; this will afford no argument in favour, either of his preaching deacons, or of his notion that two or more orders are impowered by this one commission. —Let him shew in this commission, or elsewhere, as particular an account of the appointment of their two orders of bishops and presbyters, as we can produce of the institution of deacons. Let him produce as express warrant for deacons preaching, from the account of their first institution, as we have for that of presbyters, in the general minis­terial commission; and we will readily allow their scheme of diocesan episcopacy to be warranted by scripture: 'Till then, he must not be offended if people call it by its true and proper name, an unscriptural scheme that has no countenance from the word of God.

BUT he tells me, that I undertook to prove the right of people to choose their own ministers, from the instance of deacons being chosen by the church. "Now, says he, if these deacons were ministers, it proves that there was more than one order of ministers at that time: If they were not, it does not prove the point for which he brought it." ^§

ANSWER. Deacons being called ministers in a general sense, agreeable to the original import of the word DIACONOS, will not prove them to be ministers in the sense of the commission, that is, ministers of the word and sacraments. If so, Mr. L. must admit of a fourth order into their priest­hood, [Page 103]viz. that of she-ministers: For the apostle calls Phoebe a minister, (DIACONON) "of the church of Cenchrea." ^‖ Consequently, calling deacons min­isters in this general sense, will not prove "that there was more than one order of ministers, in the proper sense, at that time." And yet their being ministers in this general sense, that is, officers or servants of the church, and as such, chosen and elected by the church, affords a good argument in proof of the church's right to choose her own of­ficers in general, and consequently those who are to minister in the word and sacraments in particu­lar. This instance therefore, of the deacons elec­tion by the church does as effectually "prove the point for which I brought it," as if they had been ministers in the most strict and appropriate sense of the word. Thus my arguments for but one order of gospel ministers, stand, I trust, fully vin­dicated from this cavil also.

THOUGH deacons, in the general sense above, may be called ministers, yet 'tis plain from their original institution they never were designed to be ministers of the word. The occasion of their ap­pointment, and the business they were appointed to do, is there expressly said to be, "to serve ta­bles," ^* and that with a special express view that the apostles being released from this care; might be at liberty to pursue their proper work, to "give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." Who can once imagine then, that preaching is any part of the deacons business? That when the apos­tles found, that "serving tables" was inconsistent with and too much for the ministers of the word, and accordingly instituted the order of deacons to ease them of that burden, they should nevertheless devolve the whole burden of both upon the dea­cons they had appointed? The apostles themselves were not sufficient for both; but the deacons whom [Page 104]they appointed, it seems were, if the doctrine of preaching deacons be true. When the deacon is employed in his proper work, I know no body that "despises him" (as Mr. L. complains.) It is an honorable office in the church, and ought to be so esteemed. But when he leaves his business, and becomes "a busy body in other mens matters;" when he invades an office the scripture never de­signed him, and presumes to preach as a minister of the word; if he is not to be despised upon this ac­count, most certainly he ought to be rebuked for his rashness and presumption.

IN my argument from the one commission, I had these words. "Who hath a right to divide the powers Christ has evidently connected in his com­mission, and give the whole to one order of min­isters, and but half to the other; or rather to cre­ate a new order of officers in the church which the gospel knows nothing of?" From these last words Mr. L. attempts to prove, that I have cut myself off from a regular ordination. For if either the bishops or presbyters in their church, are this "new order which the gospel knows nothing of;" as we derive our succession from the bishops of their church, by whom our first ministers in this country were ordained, we must, he supposes, de­rive it from this new order, and therefore our ordinations must be null. ^‖

ANSWER. When any officers in Christ's church, in addition to the powers granted them in the gos­pel, engross and exercise those which do not be­long to them, they are so far forth "a new order which the gospel knows nothing of." This I take to be the case with diocesan bishops. They ingross and monopolize the whole power of ordination and government, which the gospel leaves, in common, to all gospel ministers. In doing this, they usurp a power, which does not belong to them, and in [Page 105]the exercise of this usurped power, are "an or­der which the gospel knows nothing of." This, however, does not nullity those actions, which the gospel impowers them to perform. Now one of these is ordination. Though therefore, in ingress­ing the whole power of ordination, &c. to themselves, they act as "a new order of which the gospel knows nothing of," because they have no right so to do; yet barely in ordaining, they are an order which the gospel owns, because, by the gospel, they have a right to ordain. Again, when an or­der of officers, from principle, neglect a part of the duties of their office, and which their commission obliges them to do; they are so far forth; "a new order which the gospel knows nothing of." This is the case of the presbyters in the episcopal church. Considered as set apart to the ministry by ordina­tion, they are lawful gospel ministers. But con­sidered as abridging themselves of one half of the powers that belong to them, as living in a state of servile subjection to the bishop by their oath of canonical obedience; and preaching, not in virtue of Christ's commission, but the bishops licence; they are merely of human institution, a "new or­der which the gospel knows nothing of." But until it is proved, that an officer's pretending to claim and exercise a power which he has not, des­troys and nullifies the power which he lawfully has; Mr. L's consequence, as to the unlawfulness of my ordination, will by no means follow. If a justice of the peace should pretend to engross all the authority of his brother-justices in a whole county, 'tis plain in so doing, he would be an officer which the law knew nothing of. This, however, would not invalidate those acts, which, as a justice, the law impowered him to do. The Pope, with his impious and unscriptural claim of infallibility and universal dominion, over the whole [Page 106]christian church, I hope Mr. L. will allow, is an officer which the gospel knows nothing of: And yet he, and all other advocates for uninterrupted succession, must derive it from him, or upon their own principles, they can have no claim to the ministerial character. However therefore this ar­gument of his, might move one to pity its wealt­ness. I find nothing in it to make us "ashamed of proper beasting in the ministerial authority we have received."

IN page 28 of my sermon, I argued, that as a go­vernor and justice of the peace being different of­ficers, must be impowered by different commis­sions, so if there were different degrees of office in the gospel ministry, we might reasonably expect different commissions, authorizing them to these offices.

TO this Mr. L. replies, that a governor, by virtue of the king's commission, can authorize a justice of the peace and other officers, and just so the apostles, by virtue of their commission from Christ, "can authorize men of different orders to act in Christ's name." ^†

ANSWER. Though a governor can authorize a justice and other officers which the laws of the king or constitution have appointed, yet he can create no new officer in the state. So in the other case. Though the apostles could ordain such officers as the gospel had appointed, yet they could make no new ones, different from, or in addition to those which the laws of Christ's kingdom, and the gos­pel constitution have established. We know it was agreeable to the gospel constitution, that they should appoint the office of deacon; because they have in fact done it. Besides this, we read of no other order appointed by them. If there be any, it belongs to our opponents to produce them.— When Christ ascended, he left only his eleven apos­tles [Page 107]in commission; all of one order, all equal in power. Had two or more orders been necessary in the gospel ministry, he "who was faithful in all his house," would certainly have appointed them, or left orders with his apostles to do it. As he has not; as neither he nor his apostles have insti­tuted, except deacons, any more than one order or officers in the gospel church, 'tis a certain conse­quence there are no other. And therefore Mr. L's plea, from what the apostles were "impow­ered to do in authorizing different orders," is no­thing to the purpose. What they were "impow­ered to do," we must judge from what they have in fact done. And as, in fact, they have, besides deacons, appointed no other order, we may safely presume they were not impowered by Christ to appoint any other. As to the three orders which he says, they appointed in the church of Jerusa­lem, it has already been considered and refuted, and his assertion proved to be groundless.

HIS next attack upon me, is for saying, "that presbyters have a right to govern the church."— This, he says, "I labour hard to prove." ^‡ 'Tis true I mentioned this occasionally, and, I think, sufficiently proved it, without any "hard labour." He himself allows them some power of govern­ment. "That they have a right, in subordination to "their apostle or bishop, to govern their own flocks." ^‡

ANSWER. What kind or degree of government, the missionary of Norwalk, as a simple presbyter, pretends to, or what manner of discipline he ex­ercises over the flock there, I am not able to say. This, however, I can say, that if he exercises any discipline at all, as a ruler in the church, it is with­out book. The canons of his church and the rules of his order, having allowed nothing of this kind to him, but reserved the whole affair to his ordi­nary. If therefore he should presume to arro­gate [Page 108]any such power, and take it upon him to dis­cipline any of his unruly flock, "I can't say, (to use his own words to me) how they will relish these high claims of his." If he should ever attempt any thing of this kind;—"unless he does it under the specious pretence of opposing presbyterians,"— "and his people should once come to be cool, he must take a great deal of pains, and use much art, to bring them tamely to submit to this his claim of authority over them."

FOR the direct proof of the presbyters right of government, the reader is referred to the latter part of this, and the next section. In the mean time there is one sentence more in this paragraph, which deserves a remark. It is this:—"If he will allow our bishops, the same power over the pres­byters, that the apostles exercised over their pres­byters, we will contend for no more in their behalf."

ANSWER. 'Tis granted the apostles exercised authority over those he calls presbyters, in the age in which they lived. But the same did they also, over those be calls bishops; particularly over Ti­mothy and Titus. If this then is any argument in proof of three orders in the church, in proof of the bishop's authority over the presbyter now, it equally proves the necessity of four orders, and will as effectually establish the authority of the Pope over all other bishops, as it will theirs over presbyters. But the authority the apostles exer­cised over other gospel ministers, whether presby­ters or bishops, or by whatever name they were called; they did it, not as ordinary ministers of the church, not as an order to be perpetuated; but as apostles, as officers divinely inspired, &c.— When therefore Mr. L. can prove his bishops, to have the same immediate mission, miraculous powers, infallible guidance, &c. &c. &c. which constituted the apostolic character and superior au­thority; it will be then time enough for him to make, and us to grant the above demand.

[Page 109] MR. L. next imputes to me an argument, for support of our ordination, that I never used. He says "I take a great deal of pains to prove, and often repeat it, that the power of the apostles, to ordain and govern, was not expressed, but only implied in their commission." ^‡ "This, he says▪ I do in order to prove that the first ministers of this country had power to ordain, though no such power was expressed, in the commission they received from the bishops that ordained them." ^‡ Though I never thought of this argument he here frames for me, yet as he advanced some things in his re­marks upon it, which may tend to mislead the in­attentive, it may be proper to make a few obser­vations upon what he here offers.—He first tells me, that to the account of the commission in Mat. xxviii. I ought to have joined that given by John; chapter xx. 5, 21, 22, 23. Where Christ says, "As my father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whosoever sins ye remit," &c.—"If, says he, we lay together the accounts, these two apostles give of the matter, we shall plainly see, that in the apostles commission, they were expressly impow­ered to send others—to govern the church—to preach and to baptize." ^*

ANSWER. Great weight. I am sensible, is laid by the advocates for prelacy, upon these words of our Saviour, "as my father hath sent me," &c. The warm patrons of episcopacy, pretend here to find, the bishops exclusive right to the power of ordination, &c. Though by what logic, is dif­ficult to say. Papists, from the same text, sup­port the sacrifice of the mass. For as God the Father sent Christ to offer a sacrifice for lin; so Christ sent his apostles, and they others, to offer the sacrifice of the mass, that is, the real flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the supper. So that these words will prove almost any thing and [Page 110]every thing. Now though I don't conceive the ministerial commission, to be contained in these words, but rather in those of Matt. xxviii. Yet if it will gratiry Mr. L. I am willing, for once, to allow it; to allow the commission to be collected from both. But then I don't see what service it will be to his cause. For though the power of government is rather more particularly expressed, in John's account than those in Matthew's; the ordain­ing power, about which we are contending, is f [...] ­as clearly expressed in Matthew as in John: Of rather, it is expressed in neither. However, tho' the commission in Matthew, says nothing expressly about sending others; yet the promise of Christ's perpetual presence, annexed to the commission, necessarily supposes it, as I shewed in my ser­mon; consequently the ordaining power is fairly implied in the commission. But the utmost that can be pretended in John's account, is barely as implication of such power. Mr. L. supposes that the power "of sending others," is expressed [...] these words; "As my father hath sent me, ever so send I you." Here indeed is express mention of "the Father's sending Christ," and of "Christ's sending the apostles;" but not a single word of "the apostles sending others," or any thing expressly in­timating that such power was committed to them. In order to this, the words must have been, "as I send you, even so do ye send others." Mr. L. [...] conclude, will say, that the words, "as my father hath sent me," &c. contain in them a power com­mitted to the apostles of sending others. I gr [...] they do. But how? Not expressly, but only b [...] implication. But then the same does the commis­sion in Matthew. As to this then, there is [...] manner of difference. "Perhaps, therefore, ( [...] use his own words) no better reason can be given▪ why Mr. L. will not allow the commission in Mat. xxviii. to be the only ministerial commission, that [Page 111]that it does not comport with his scheme." Ac­cording to "his scheme," there are three grada­tions in the ministry. Men must be first ordained deacons, then presbyters, and finally advanced to the highest order, bishops. But, for this, he found, one and the same identical commission would not suffice. He has therefore, besides tha [...] mentioned by me, Matthew xxviii. found, as he thinks, another in John xx. "This, he tells us, Christ gave to his apostles, the night after he rose from the dead," and so before the other. By this then, according to "his scheme," the apostles must have been ordained to no higher order than deacons, or at most presbyters. The other commission, that in Matthew, he tells us, "was given some time after in Gallilee, which therefore, "to comport with his scheme," must have made them bishops.— But, unhappily for "his scheme," the first of these, according to him, contains the powers of ordination and government, and the last, only those of preach­ing and baptizing. According to his account, there­fore the apostles must first have been ordained to the highest office of bishops, and afterwards to the lower one of presbyters or deacons; which, to make the most of it "comports with his scheme" but very indifferently, and must well nigh "prove faral to his design."

BUT if this will not help his own cause, he thinks it will overthrow ours. For he says,—"if we find that the words of the commission that their minis­ters received from our bishops, are not expressive of such power, viz. (of ordination and govern­ment:) We must conclude they did not receive such authority as is pretended." ^†

ANSWER. If there is but one ministerial commis­sion, as has been proved, then all who are lawfully ordained, are vested with this commission, and all the powers it contains, of which ordination is one, [Page 112]let the intention of the ordainers be what they will. The bishops, who ordained our first ministers, in­tended, I hope, to make them lawful ministers of Christ, and invest them with his commission; and moreover, used words sufficiently expressive of such intention. If they did not do this in our case, nei­ther did they, I presume, in that of Mr. L. and his brethen: They are therefore not lawful minis­ters of Christ, not being vested with his commis­sion. But if this was done in the case of the lat­ter, it was equally so in that of the former; con­sequently they were vested with Christ's general commission and with all the powers of it, and those of ordination and government among the rest.

As a proof of but one order in the ministry, I mentioned, in my sermon, the elders of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. and said, "the intire gui­dance and government of the church was com­mitted to these elders, without any mention of [...] single person as their superior in office." [...] Mr. L. demands, "Where does he find that the government of these churches was committed to these elders." ^‡

ANSWER. I find it in the words directed to the [...] by the apostle, v. 28. He there charges them in these words. ‘Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy▪ Ghost hath made you overseers; to feed the church of God.’ But he tells me ‘they are here expressly said to be made overseers, not to govern, but to feed the flock; and he is really amazed I should assert, that the intire guidance and government of the church is committed to them, for he can see nothing of it there.’ Per­haps the following observations may help him to see it.

IN the first place,—I find this power of govern­ment contained in the name, by which these elders are there called. The apostle expressly calls them [Page 113] ourselves. He tells them they were made, EPISCO­POUS, bishops, over this church, and that by the Holy Ghost. This name includes in it the power of rule or guidance. It is rendered, by the best lexi­cographers, by epicopus, bishop, inspector, an in­spector, praeses, a president or chief ruler. Ac­cordingly it is the very name that episcopalians have appropriated to the highest order of their clergy, the bishops; and that as peculiarly expres­sive of the power of government or chief rule.— If therefore their bishops, as such, are vested with the power of government, these elders are also; for they are expressly called bishops; and were made such even by the Holy Ghost. Doubtless the Holy Ghost, in making them bishops, com­mitted to them the whole power of bishops, and this of government among the rest. Mr. L. allows, those who are made bishops, by other bishops in their church, or even by the grand pontiff at Rome, to be invested with the power of governing the church. But to these bishops at Ephesus, who were made such by the Holy Ghost; he will not allow any such power. How partial is this, to say no more? This power of government therefore is included in the very name by which these elders are called.

AGAIN. It is included, and that expressly, in the charges the apostle gives them. The words are, "to feed the flock of God, POIMAINEIN. ^‡— The word in the original, signifies to rule or feed, as a shepherd does his flock, and so includes in it all acts of pastoral government and care. It is derived from POIMEEN, a shepherd, whose busi­ness is, not only to feed, but to rule and guide his flock. Which title our Lord applies to himself, as peculiarly expressive of his character, as the "chief shepherd and bishop of souls," and of all that power and authority he exercises in that cha­racter. [Page 114] ^* Accordingly he uses the same word as his apostle does here, in his charge to Peter an apostle, and that as expressive of the whole care he was to take of Christ's flock, both in govern­ment and instruction. ^† Peter uses the same word, in his charge to the elders or bishops of the church­es, to whom he directs his epistle. ^§ That these were the proper bishops or rulers of these churches, is plain from the apostles charging them to "take the over-sight of them." EPISCOPOUNTES. To act the bishop among them; as also from his caution­ing them against " lording it over God's heritage," i. e. using this power of government tyranically. But to put the matter beyond all dispute; we find the word sundry times used in the New-Testament, where it can't possibly admit of any other inter­pretation but to rule, and therefore is so rendered by our translators. Thus when Christ is spoken of under the express character of a governor: He is said, as such, (POIMANEI) "to rule God's peo­ple Israel." ^‡ Again. "To him that overcom­eth, I will give power over the nations, and he shall (POIMANEI) rule them with a rod of iron." ^‖ Again it is said of the man child, "that he was to rule (POIMANEI) all nations with a rod of iron." ^‡‖ Finally the supreme dominion and authority of our blessed Lord, "who hath on his vesture and on his thigh, a name written KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS," is set forth by the same word, "he shall rule (POIMANEI) all nations with a rod of iron." ^‡‡ Thus with an evidence, beyond all exception, it appears, that the power of ruling or governing the church of Ephesus, is expressly commit­ted to the elders of it, by the apostle, in this his charge given to them. And yet because our translators use the word feed in this place, Mr. L. confidently asse [...] "that the direction given to them, was only to [Page 115] teach or feed the people over whom they were placed." ^§ He puts the words feed and teach in italics, and makes them synonimous terms; at the same time he sets both in opposition to ruling or governing, which is the original meaning of the word; and then tells us, "these words expressly declare, what they were made overseers to do; that was, to feed the church of God; there is not the least intimation they were to govern it." And he "is really amazed, he says, that I should assert the contrary, when the place referred to so ex­pressly says, that the Holy Ghost made them overseers, not to govern, but to feed the church of God." ^†. What the poor gentleman's amazement arose from, whether from the overbearing lustre of the evidence he opposed, or from what other cause; sure I am, he has grossly perverted the meaning of this text, by so confidently asserting, that nothing concerning the government of the church, is contain­ed in it; when that is the very thing the apostle gives them in charge; and that by a word as ex­pressive of it, as perhaps, any in the New-Testa­ment. I hope he did not do this, with a dishonest design, to impose upon his unlearned readers. I will not therefore tell him as he politely does me, "that he himself knew the contrary to be true." This, however I will tell him, that if he did not, he was utterly unqualified for the controversy he has undertaken, and therefore ought to have de­clined it.

HAVING thus made good the assertion in my sermon, "that the government of the church was vested in these elders, the argument deduced from it in support of presbyterian ordination still stands good. The inference Mr. L. draws from what he calls "this claim of mine, as to the effect which he supposes it will have, upon the minds of my hearers, gives me not the least uneasiness. The communicants of our church, which he is pleased [Page 116]to call the meeting of Stanford, by twenty years experience, well know my principles and practice, as to church government. Every one who reads my sermon will readily see what I meant by saying "the intire guidance and government of the church, was committed to the elders." That is, not ex­clusive of the church, but in contradistinction to any other pretended superior officer. That they were the only persons who, as officers, had any thing to do in governing the church. This I expressed by saying, "the Holy Ghost had made, not Timothy, but these elders, the sole bishops of the church." Whereas, when I am professedly speaking of the powers committed to ministers, by Christ's com­mission; I express it in these words,—"To dis­pense the word and sacraments, to preside in the government of the church, and to ordain others." ^† This, I think a sufficient answer to all his quib­bles, as to the "powers I claim," in the govern­ment of the church. His remarks upon it, con­sidering the foundation he acted upon, and his end in view; appear as weak, as they are ill natured.

THUS have I very particularly considered, all Mr. L's remarks upon my sermon, and, as I think, abundantly refuted, all his objections against my arguments from the one commission. Having suf­ficiently proved, that as there is but one commis­sion given by Christ to his ministers, there can be but one order only, virtuated and impowered by it; consequently that all who are authorized by this commission, to any part of the ministerial office, must be vested with all the powers the com­mission contains; therefore with that of ordination, which is one of these powers. And as this is the only argument Mr. L. has pretended to attack, all the others in my sermon, must be presumed to stand good.

SEC. VII. A particular consideration and refutation of what Mr. L. calls "his direct proof of episcopacy, from matters of fact re­corded in scripture,"—from page 38 to 48.

THE whole of what our author calls "his direct proof of episcopacy," turns upon "the directions given by the apostle to Timothy, com­pared with his charge to the elders of Ephesus." "There are some things, says he, given in charge to these elders, in common with Timothy: Such as,—to take heed to themselves and to their doc­trine," &c. "But besides these, he tells us, there are several particulars, of great importance, that Paul gave in charge to Timothy, which he did not so much as mention to all these elders." ^†— Particularly.—He informs him as to the qualifica­tions of presbyterians and deacons.—Orders him to charge some that they teach no other doctrine. Charges him to lay hands suddenly on no man.— Directs him how to receive an accusation against an elder.—Orders him to rebuke them that sin, before all.—And finally charges him to keep this commandment unrebukable, till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. "These things, he says, Paul gave in charge to Timothy, but did not so much as mention them to the elders of Ephesus." Hence he infers, "that Timothy was superior in office to these elders, and charged with the go­vernment of them, and of the church at Ephesus." ^‖ [Page 118]He then concludes, "that Timothy had the same authority that their bishops claim, and the elders the same power only that the presbyters, in their church, exercise," consequently, "that episco­pacy is of divine right, and the whole dispute is at an end." ^† This is the true state of his argument presented in its full force. It turns wholly upon this.—"Timothy had more, and more important charges given him than these elders, therefore he was superior to them in office, vested with episco­pal authority over them.—In answer to which I observe,—

1. THAT if his arguments proves Timothy su­perior to these elders; it equally proves Peter su­perior to the rest of the apostles, and so establishes the supremacy of the Pope above all other bishops, according to the doctrine of the church of Rome.

IT is evident from the whole history of the gos­pel, that Peter is, in various respects, distinguished from the other apostles. Whenever their catalogue is given, he is placed the first. ^‖ Are any select number chosen, upon any special occasion, Peter is always one. He is one of the number, and the first mentioned, who were picked out to provide for the passover, ^‡—to attend Christ in his trans­figuration, ^§ and in his agony in the garden. ^* Our Lord frequently addresses his speech to him in particular by name, even in the presence of the rest of the apostles. His opinion is asked con­cerning the demanded tribute. For him Christ, in particular, prays that his faith fail not, and char­ges him, and him only, to strengthen his brethren. The women at the sepulchre, are directed by th [...] angel, to go tell his disciples, and Peter in particu­lar, that he was risen from the dead. ^¶ And, wh [...] was still more directly to the case, our Lord par­ticularly [Page 119]applies to him by name, and commits to him the government of the church, without say­ing a word to the rest of the apostles; tho' they were all present at the same time.—"And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatso­ever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." ^† In the same manner, after his resurrection, he addresses Peter only, though the other apostles were present, with this important charge,—"feed my sheep,—feed my lambs." ^‖ Here now are not only a number of cir­cumstances mentioned, which seem to give Peter a precedency to the rest of the apostles; but sundry important charges given to him which are not gi­ven to them, though they were present at the same time. And what is remarkable, these are the very arguments used by the church of Rome, to establish the Pope's supremacy, as Peter's suc­cessor, and give him a superiority to all other of­ficers in the christian church. If therefore they are sufficient to prove Timothy's superiority to the elders of Ephesus, they are equally so to prove that of Peter to the other apostles, and, conse­quently, to establish the supremacy of the Pope over all other ministers. As the argument is the same, it is certainly as conclusive, in the mouth of an Italian Roman-catholic, for the Pope's su­premacy, as in that of an English prelatist for the bishop's supremacy. And indeed it is worthy of note, that there is no one argument used, by the latter, for the divine right of episcopacy against presbyterians; but what has been used with equal force, and equal success, by the former for the divine right of the papacy, against protestants.—If [Page 120]then our author insists upon this argument, as con­clusive in his case, he must own it to be equally so, in that of the Pope, and, to be consistent with himself, must turn Roman-catholic: Or if he de­nies it in one case, he must give it up in the other, and own there is no force in it when brought to establish diocesan episcopacy.—Moreover,

2. If this argument proves Timothy's superi­ority to the elders of Ephesus, it will equally fol­low, and upon the same principles, that he was superior to many others also, whom yet Mr. L. himself allows to be bishops in his sense of the word. He has told us that Barnabas was an apos­tle or bishop; ^* that Epaphroditus was the bishop of Philippi, and James of the church at Jerusalem. ^‖ But no where will he find those particular direc­tions given to them, as are here given to Timo­thy. Where does he find Barnabas the apostle, James the bishop of Jerusalem, or Epaphroditus of Philippi receiving those more, and more import­ant charges, which, as he pretends, distinguish and prove the episcopal character of Timothy bishop of Ephesus?—In this respect even the Ephesian elders, to whom yet our author will not allow the episcopal authority, have evidently the advantage. Fort hey, he allows, received charges and direc­tions from the apostle, though not so many and important as Timothy did. But these, whom ne­vertheless he owns were proper bishops, received no such charges. Either therefore he must re­nounce the episcopal character of James, Epaph­roditus, &c. and give up his argument for epis­copacy thence arising; or else he must allow these elders of Ephesus to the bishops, and so give up his present argument; or finally, which will amount to the same, must suppose Timothy to be supe­rior to both, and, by divine right, an arch-bishop, a prince, apostle or Pope. Nay further, as there [Page 121]are no such particular directions and important charges, in scripture, given, even to the twelve apostles themselves, as are here given to Timothy, it must follow, from this argument, that Timothy was superior even to them. And that although he received his directions and charges from the apostle Paul, he was nevertheless Paul's superior: For we no where find such particular directions and important charges given even to him, as are here given to Timothy. Thus this argument for Tim­othy's superior power and character, while it de­prives the Ephesian bishops of pastoral authority, at the same time cuts off all others mentioned in scripture, even the apostles not excepted, from any claim to the powers of ordination and government.

THERE is no way, I conceive, to get clear of this difficulty, upon his scheme, but only by sup­posing, that though the apostles had not these par­ticular directions given them that Timothy had, yet all the powers that belong to the pastoral or episcopal function are included in their general commission given them by Christ, and this is suf­ficient to constitute them proper bishops. It is granted they were. But then the same must be granted in the case of these elders, to whom he d [...]nies this power, and then his whole argument is defeated. They also were vested with the powers included in the ministerial commission given by Christ, and besides, had a particular charge given by the apostle, which, as I shall shew anon, ne­cessarily supposed these powers. Either therefore this argument intirely cuts off the apostles, and all others mentioned in the gospel, from any claim to the powers of ordination and government, and leaves. Timothy the only apostle or bishop; or else, if the others are allowed to be vested with these powers, in virtue of the general ministerial com­missions the same must be granted to these elders [Page 122]also, and so his argument to prove diocesan epis­copacy, from this instance, looses all its force.— But,—

3. IT is not true, in fact, that Paul gave more important charges to Timothy, than what he gave to these elders, and therefore, Mr. L's argument, founded upon the supposition that he did, is not conclusive. His charge to these elders, very ex­pressly considers them as bishops of the church of Ephesus; yea as appointed and fixed in the pas­toral or episcopal office over that church, even by the Holy Ghost. "Take heed therefore to your­selves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath fixed or established you bishops." ^† When therefore the apostle here charges them to "take heed to the flock over which they were constituted bishops;" it is a direct charge, to do all the work to discharge all the duties, and execute all the powers of the episcopal office, consequently tho [...] of ordination and government which are part of those powers. When the same apostle directs Timothy "to do the work of an evangelist," all will allow it a command to discharge all the du­ties of that office. And when our Lord, in his general commission to his apostles, bids them "go teach all nations," &c. it is granted on all hands, to be a command, authorizing and requiring them to exercise all the offices and powers of the minis­try. So when the apostle here commands these elders to "take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops; it equally, comprizes in them a charge to the exercise of the whole power and duty of a bishop, as though they had been all particularly enumerated, as it is pre­tended they were in the directions to Timothy.— Is Timothy, for instance, "charged to see to the qualifications of such who were to be ordained presbyters and deacons?" The same is given in [Page 123]charge to these elders, when they are commanded to "take heed to this whole flock as its proper bishops or pastors," to which office this work be­longs. Is Timothy ordered to charge the elders that they teach no other than gospel doctrines? The same is included in the charge given to these elders. They are expressly commanded to "take heed to the whole flock," &c. to feed, i. e. not only to reach, but, as I have largely proved above, to rule and govern this church of Ephesus. Paul had particularly reminded them, "how that he had kept back nothing that was profitable to them, but had taught them publicly, and from house to house;" that the doctrine he had preached, was repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ;" "and that he had not shunned [...] declare unto them the whole counsel of God;" [...] that he had shewed them all these things, to the in­ [...]nt that so laboring," i. e. as he had done, "they [...]ight support the weak," &c. ^* Now what can the apostle mean, by so particularly mentioning in [...]is charge, what, and how he had preached, but in set them an example, how they should preach themselves? And that they should take care, that as other doctrine should be taught by others, is very particularly contained in his exhortation to them. For after he had given them the above charge, as a reason of it he immediately subjoins "for I know this, "that after my departure, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch," &c. ^‡ But to what purpose was it for him to forewarn them of these "grievous wolves, these false teachers," "and men speaking perverse things," when, if Mr. L's principles be true, they had no power to prevent them? And how weak, and even impertinent, will the apostles [Page 124]discourse appear, to assign that, in particular, as a reason, why they should take heed and watch over this church, as its proper bishops or pastors, when at the same time the apostle knew, if Mr. L's doctrine be true, that they had no power, no au­thority, as rulers of the church, to call these false teachers to account, against whom he had warn­ed them? Would it not appear extremely imper­tinent, not to say ridiculous, for the bishop of London, Mr. L's diocesan, to give him a solemn charge, to "take heed to the church at Norwalk, to watch over it, to feed and govern it as a proper bishop or pastor," and that with a special view to prevent "false teachers from thrushing them­selves in, and drawing away disciples after them;" when at the same time, his Lordship well knew, that he was so far from having any power to rebuke an elder, to receive an accusation against these [...] teachers, and so prevent the bad effects of their endeavours to draw away disciples after them; that he has not authority to call to account, even [...] private christian, or judge and censure the meanest offending member in his church? Most certainly it would. But equally impertinent will the apos­tles' charge to these [...]ders appear, unless we sup­pose they had power to call to account, and to cen­sure these false teachers, and so prevent the evils, he foresaw would otherwise arise.

THIS power therefore most certainly they had. A power of "receiving an accusation against as elder," against any of their own number, "any that should arise from among themselves;" and if found guilty, "of rebuking them openly before all, that others might fear;" a power, in short, of putting to silence false or scandalous ministers, and of laying on hands upon others and ordaining them in their stead.—This power they had equally with Timothy, which though not so particularly expressed, is yet as necessarily included in the charge [Page 125]given to them, as in that given to him. Besides, Timothy himself was certainly ordained by such elders, as has been already proved, and therefore these elders had the same power to ordain.

AND as to "the one solemn charge more" so very remarkable, mentioned by our author as given to Timothy, viz. "of keeping the commandment till the coming of Christ," since he himself tells us "that this is of like nature with the promise to the apostles, that Christ would be with them to the end of the world;" it is evident from what he expressly allows elsewhere, that this must belong to these presbyters, equally with Timothy, even upon supposition Timothy was their superior.— For, speaking of this promise, he says; "though it might with more propriety be confined to the apostolic office, than to the other, i. e. that of presbyters; yet we allow that it extends to both, as both are to continue to the end of time." As this charge therefore is what he calls, when applied to Timothy, "a charge, not merely personal, but such as had relation to the office he sustained;" and as this, according to him, "is peculiar to those officers of Christ, who have power to constitute other officers in the church [...]" it undeniably fol­lows from his own concession, that these elders, even though inferior to Timothy, had power to constitute or ordain other officers in their church; "for to their office, he tells us, was the promise and charge given, as well as to that of the apostles, since both are to continue to the end of time;" consequently these elders, having his own charac­teristic of those who had power to constitute others, must be invested with the power of ordaining by his own concession: And so upon his own princi­ples, presbyterian ordination is scriptural, "and, to use his own words, the dispute is at an end."

4. THAT Timothy could not be the bishop of Ephesus, left there with ordaining power, &c. is [Page 126]evident from Mr. L's own definition of an officer vested with that power. For he tells us "that at the time in which the scriptures were wrote, none had power to ordain ministers in Christ's kingdom, but those only who are in scripture called apostles." Again:—"Let it be carefully remark­ed, that those who were commissioned to send others, were called apostles in the time when the New-Testament was penned." ^‡ This then, with him, is absolutely essential to the character of those who had power to ordain at that time, viz. that they are in scripture called apostles. But now Ti­mothy is no where in scripture called an apostle, and therefore, according to his own definition, could not be left at Ephesus with power to ordain. Pity it is he had not thought of this. It would have saved him all the learned labour of his "direct proof of episcopacy." And though it would have de­prived him of the pleasure of those confident tri­umphs, with which the conclusion of it is orna­mented, and robbed him of the applause which his zealous admirers lavish upon this part of his per­formance more especially; yet, in the judgment of the impartial, "his book would have been as good as it is now, though not quite so long."

BUT perhaps he will endeavour to prove, for he told us he designed it, though it should seem, he afterwards forgot his promise, "that Timothy was admitted to the apostolic office." But if he was, why is he never called an apostle? Paul fre­quently joins him with himself, in the inscription of his epistles. And though he takes to himself the name of apostle, yet, 'tis remarkable, he ne­ver once gives it to Timothy. His stile is, "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy a broth­er." ^† Now how can this be accounted for if Ti­mothy was an apostle? Would the meek, the humble St. Paul arrogate to himself the honorable [Page 127]title of apostle, and deny it to Timothy, to [...]om it was equally due? Most certainly not. Besides, if Timothy was an apostle, he was equal to St. Paul. But that he was not, is plain from the au­thority Paul exercises over him. He every where treats him, not as an equal, but an inferior. He writes epistles to him, in which he warns, directs, charges, commands him, in the most authoritative manner. Orders him to come to him, to bring his cloke, his books, his parchments, and per­sonally to attend upon him. ^‖ Is this the language of one to an equal? Especially one of St. Paul's meek and humble spirit? Certainly not. Timothy therefore was not, could not be an apostle, conse­quently, if Mr. L's doctrine be true, could not be left at Ephesus with ordaining power; since [...]one, according to him, but apostles, and so called in scripture, had power to ordain. In short, Paul exercises the same authority over Timothy, and that even in those directions and charges, on which however, our author founds his episcopal or apos­tolic character, as he does over the elders of Ephe­ [...]us. This would incline one to think, Timothy was superior to these elders in no respects.—But if he was, yet,—

5. HE was an evangelist, and therefore could not be, as Mr. L. supposes, a resident governor or fixed bishop in Ephesus, or any other place. That he was an evangelist, we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 6. Now the work and business of an evangelist was utterly inconsistent with a fixed relation to any church, as its stated pastor or bishop. He was a kind of subordinate apostle, an extraordinary and temporary officer, whose business was to travel from place to place and water the churches which the apos­tles had planted. ^* Or, as Eusebius expresses it,— "To lay the foundation of faith in strange nations, [Page 128]to constitute them pastors; and having commit­ted to them the cultivating these new plantations, to pass on to other countries and nations." ^‖

THIS argument of Mr. L's for episcopacy, whol­ly depends upon the supposition of Timothy's be­ing fixed at Ephesus, over the elders of that church, as their proper bishop, with ordaining and go­verning powers. He every where supposes him to be such a fixed officer in that church. "He enquires, whether Paul has not given Timothy, a much more extensive charge to be exercised by him at Ephesus, than he gave to the elders of the same church." ^‡ Speaks of him "as invested with power over the church of Ephesus,"—and charged with the government of the church at Ephesus. ^† He every where supposes him to be a fixed officer in that church, and the whole of his argument depends upon this single circumstance. If he can't prove this, all his argument in favour of episcopacy, from the more particular directions given to Timothy, than to these Ephesian elders, comes to nothing. —This Mr. L. indeed does not once attempt to prove. He seems rather to take it for granted: And so having begged the main question in dis­pute, proceeds to argue from it in support of his scheme. And all the evidence that episcopalians ever bring, in proof of this main fact, is "Paul's beseeching of him to abide still in Ephesus, while he went into Macedonia." ^§ But does this sound like the language of an apostle to a fixed pastor of a church? If Ephesus was his stated charge, why is he besought to abide there, when he could do no otherwise, without neglecting his duty and sinning against God? And why is he intreated to abide there, only while Paul went into Macedonia? If he was bishop of that church, a stated residence there was his indisputable duty, not only for that short [Page 129]period but during life. And he would need no [...]treaties to oblige him to it, unless we suppose the doctrine of non-residence, so much espoused by some of his pretended successors, was then in vogue. But considered as an evangelist, an unfixed itiner­ [...]nt missionary, such an entreaty was highly proper. And such an one, 'tis plain from scripture, he was. Accordingly, as he is here desired, by the apostle, to stay, for a season at Ephesus; so we find him upon another occasion sent to Corinth. 1 Cor. xvi. 10. He is with Paul again, when he wrote his second epistle to that church. 2 Cor. i. 1. As also when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians. Chap­ter i. verse 1. At Baerea he was with Paul, and [...]ode there still with Silas. Acts xvii. 14. The word is the same, as is used for his continuing at Ephesus. ^‖ If therefore, in the one instance, his so abiding makes him bishop of Ephesus; it equal­ly makes him bishop of Baerea in the other. 'Tis true he soon left Baerea, and followed Paul to Athens. Acts xvii. 15. But 'tis equally true that he was to stay at Ephesus, only till Paul finished his journey to Macedonia, and returned to him again. 1 Tim. iii. 14, chap. iv. 13. And in the second epistle, which was written not long after the first, it is most probable, from chap. iv. verse 12, that he had left Ephesus already: But if he had not, 'tis certain he then left it; for the apostle there calls him away to Rome, and sends Tychicus, another evangelist to Ephesus. 2 Tim. iv. 9, 12; 21. Eph. vi. 21, 22. In 1 Thes. i. 1. we find him in Athens; whence he was sent to Thessalo­nica, and from thence returned back to Athens. 1 Thes. iii. 1, 2, 6. After this he removed with Paul to Corinth, Acts xviii. 5. From thence he accompanied him to Asia and Ephesus. Acts xix. 1. And thence he was sent into Macedonia. Verse 21, 22. But it would be tedious to follow him, in all [Page 130]his travels to so many different places. Enough has been mentioned of his unfixed, itinerant man­ner of life, to shew he was an evangelist, and there­fore could not be a fixed resident officer in any church. The same might be shewn as to Titus, whom episcopalians make to be bishop of Crete, barely because the apostle, for some short time, left him there for certain purposes. There is the clearest evidence from scripture, that they were both of them impowered in the work of the evan­gelists. And as this was utterly inconsistent with their sustaining a relation to any particular church, as their fixed pastors or bishops, 'tis a clear con­sequence they did not sustain such relation. There­fore all our author has argued in support of epis­copacy, from these directions given to Timothy, is nothing to his purpose.

6. As the scripture is wholly silent as to this notion of Timothy's episcopal care of Ephesus; so there is nothing in any of the ancient fathers to support this opinion, but much to the contrary.—Dr. Whitby, who was well read in the fathers, confesses, as I shewed in my sermon, "that as to the great controversy, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, he could find nothing of this matter in any writer of the first centuries, nor any intima­tion that they bore that name." He adds indeed, "that this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent suffrage of the fourth and fifth." "But these, as Dr. Chauncy justly observes, were times too far distant from Timothy and Titus, to be relied on for the truth of this fact; especially, as in these times they had greatly departed from the simplicity of the gospel." ^* And if Mr. L's quo­tations from Iraeneus be true, this silence of the fathers for 300 years, cóncerning the fact in ques­tion, is a certain evidence it never did exist. Irae­neus's [Page 131]words, as quoted by our author, are,—"We can reckon those bishops who have been constituted by the apostles, and their successors, all the way to our time. We have the succession of the bishops, to whom the apostolic church was committed in every place." ^‖ Now since, Iraeneus lived in the second century; if they had in his time, as he declares, "the true succession of bishops in every church, and yet in there is nothing to be found of Timothy and Titus the succession for Ephesus and Crete, as Dr. Whitby asserts; 'tis an undeniable consequence that they never were bishops of these churches, let the wri­ters in following ages say what they will to the contrary.

BESIDES, it is evident from ecclesiastical history, that the apostle John was at Ephesus, and resided there for a considerable time after Paul's departure thence, and after the writing the first epistle to Timothy, on which his pretended episcopacy over that church is founded. Eusebius, upon the tes­timony of Iraeneus and Clemens Alexandrinus, af­firms, "that he returned to Ephesus, after his re­lease from banishment, and lived there, and among the Asian churches, until Trajan's reign." ^† Now if the apostle John resided at Ephesus, and ruled that church by his apostolic power, certainly Ti­mothy was not, could not be the supreme bishop of Ephesus. Consequently all attempts to prove episcopacy from this argument are to no purpose.

7. AND lastly, we need not recur to ecclesiasti­cal history for proof of this point. The sacred scriptures abundantly prove, that not Timothy, but the elders of Ephesus, were the true and only bishops of this church. This is evident from the account given of them in Acts xx. 17, 36. Before this. Paul had been successfully labouring for near three years in and about Ephesus. Great numbers [Page 132]had been converted to the faith. A flourishing church gathered, and elders ordained. And now that the apostle was about to leave them, never to see them more; as one deeply concerned for them, since he could not visit the church in person, he sends for the elders of it, preaches his farewell ser­mon to them, and gives him his last directions and charge, in a most solemn and moving address.—In all which there is not one word mentioned, or the least hint given, of setting a single person over them as their bishop. So far from this, the whole government of the church is expressly committed to them and them only, in a state of equality. And what is remarkable, though Timothy was proba­bly now present, not a single word is said of his relation to this church. No directions are given to him as the governor of it, nor the least hint mentioned to these elders, to consider and obey him as their superior: But they, the elders, are the only persons mentioned as the appointed offi­cers in it. They are expressly called its bishops; yea are declared to be appointed such by the Holy Ghost. The care and guidance of the church, in all things, is committed to them, and they are, in the most solemn manner, charged to seed, teach, rule and govern it, as its only proper pastors or bishops. And what puts the matter beyond dis­pute, they are commanded to do this with an ex­press view to prevent the future disorders which the apostle foresaw, were about to arise in this church, by "grievous wolves, men speaking perverse things," "thrusting themselves in," "to draw away disciples after them." This is the express reason assigned for giving this charge. To pre­vent this, they are commanded to watch, to rule and govern the flock committed to their care, and exercise that authority, which, as its proper pas­tors or bishops, they are vested with, in warning their people against those grievous wolves, con­vincing [Page 133]these gainsayers, or by exercising their pastoral authority, in way of discipline; to put to silence these corrupt teachers. But now how in­consistent will all this appear, if they were not the pastors, but only the subject presbyters of this church, as our author affirms? What propriety, in giving them, and them only, this solemn charge, when they had no power, no authority to comply with the most essential branches of it? How ab­surd, to direct them in the government and dis­cipline of this church, both as to private members and corrupt teachers, when they could exercise no authority over either, and at the same time, in­tirely to omit Timothy, to whom, and only whom, upon the episcopalian scheme, the whole of this business belonged? The supposition is ridiculous. It destroys the whole force of the apostle's reason­ing, and renders his discourse quite impertinent.

THE apostle, no doubt, had a tender concern for the future welfare and good government of this church. He had long presided over it in person. He was now taking his final leave of its officers, never to see them more. ^* The elders understood him in this sense. They took leave of him, as their apostolic father, in a manner most tender and affecting, with many tears. "Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more." ^‖ This then was the proper time, to provide for the future gui­dance of this church and its officers; to provide a single person to succeed him in the government of it, had this been the scripture model, as our opponents pretend. Had this been the gospel plan, certainly Paul would not have concealed it from these elders, especially at such a time as this. He called them to record, "that he was pure from the blood of all men," "that he had kept back nothing that was profitable for them, nor shunned [Page 134]to declare unto them, the whole counsel of God." ^† And then immediately adds, "that the Holy Ghost had made them the fixed overseers, bishops or pas­tors of this church," without so much as hinting that any one was to preside over them. Had epis­copacy "been profitable to them," the apostle must have known it. Had it been any part of the "counsel of God," he must have told them so; for he "kept back nothing of that." Now was the proper time to have done it when he was giv­ing them his last, his parting directions. But nei­ther before, nor now, does he mention a word of any such thing. On the contrary, he expressly commits to these presbyters, in a state of parity, the whole government of this church, which plain­ly shews, that diocesan episcopacy was no part of "the counsel of God," and therefore not of divine institution.

IN this view of the case, the directions given to Timothy, while at Ephesus, (if indeed he was there when he received them) will nothing weaken the force of this conclusion: And yet on them, the whole strength of Mr. L's argument depends.—For, granting he was there, when he received these epistles; yet all skillful chronologists agree, they were wrote, long before the convention of Paul, and the elders at Miletus; and most probably, before the church of Ephesus was settled according to gospel order, with presbyters appointed in it. If this was the case, the directions must be sent to Timothy, for there was no other officer to whom they could be sent. His stay, however, at Ephesus, was but short at the longest. He was soon called away by the apostle, and there is no account that he ever returned. If he did, it could not be as their bish­op; for this office was conferred upon the elders, by the express direction of the Holy Ghost. Vest­ed with this office, the apostle found them, when [Page 135]they met him at Miletus; and in full possession of it, he left them, when he took his final leave of them, never to see them more. Judge then, who is to be credited in this case; our author, who says these elders were only simple presbyters, without any pastoral authority in this church; or the apostle, who expressly charges them, to exercise such au­thority in the government of it!—Mr. L. who confidently asserts, that Timothy was their only bishop, to whom they and the church of Ephesus were subjected, as their single pastor or overseer; or St. Paul, who assures us, that these were ap­pointed by the Holy Ghost, in parity, the overseers or bishops of this whole flock!—"Look into the scriptures. Judge for yourselves. If what I have advanced, is not fact, it may be easily exposed. If it is an undeniable truth, it is a truth of great im­portance, if religion be so."

I AM now prepared for a few remarks upon some select passages in this part of Mr. L's defence, which will conclude this section.

HE enquires,—"If the elders of Ephesus had power to ordain and govern, what need of sending Timothy there?" ^* leaving him there, he should have said.—I answer,—

IT does not appear from scripture, that this church had any settled pastors at this time. But if it had, they needed the divine directions concerning ordination and government, contained in these epistles to Timothy, as much as we do at this day. And who more proper to receive, and put them in execution, than an evangelist, an extraordinary officer, and a faithful companion of Paul? But till he can prove that Timothy was lest there, as a resident pastor over that church, as fully as I have, that the elders were, this will be no service to his cause. Barely his being sent to Ephesus, will not prove this. If so, Tychicus also was their [Page 136]bishop, for he was sent there as well as Timothy. And upon the same principle, Timothy must have been bishop also of Corinth, Thessalonica, Mace­donia, &c. for to all these was he sent as well as to Ephesus. This would be to make him a pre­latist as well as a non-resident, and exhibit a com­pleat idea of modern episcopacy.—Again,—

HE demands a proof from facts recorded in scripture, "that mere presbyters, in virtue of their office as such, did ordain officers in the church of Christ." ^‖—Answer.

IF by mere presbyters, he means, such as those in his church, professedly subjecting themselves to bishops, and disclaiming all pastoral authority in ordination and government; none will pretend to prove from scripture that such ever did ordain.—And good reason for it. The scripture knows of no such order. But if he means scripture-presby­ters, such as those at Ephesus; presbyter-bishops, such as Timothy and Titus were directed to ordain; I have already proved, such presbyters did in fact ordain, and that by virtue of their office. Of this sort were those, who ordained Paul, Barnabas and Timothy, as I have already proved, by express facts recorded in scripture. And what is more:—The scriptures plainly shew, that none but such ought to ordain; they being the only ministers, author­ized by Christ's general commission, and vested with all the powers it contains.

WHAT he quotes from Mr. Beach, respecting our first ministers, who were ordained by the En­glish bishops, is no valid objection against this, even allowing that there was no expressed inten­tion, either in the ordainers, or ordained, of con­veying the power of ordination. For the com­mission of Christ, not the intention of the ordain­ers, is what conveys the power in ordination, as I shewed in my sermon. I now add:—These first [Page 137]ministers of New-England were ordained, I con­clude, in the same manner as Mr. L. and his brethren were. Either therefore he is no minister of Christ, not being vested with his commission in ordination: Or if the words used in his ordination, were sufficiently expressive of such investiture, in his case; they were equally so in that of our minis­ters; consequently, they were cloathed with all the powers the commission contains, of which that of ordination is confessedly one.

As to the other part of this objection, the oath of canonical obedience; though it is far from be­ing true, that this, as he affirms, includes in it "a solemn promise never to ordain others;" yet allowing it did, such promise, being evidently sinful, can't be binding upon conscience, but is ipso facto null and void. A number of the Jews bound themselves by solemn oath, "not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul." ^* If this oath was binding, it was their duty to keep it; consequently, murder is a duty. For the murder of Paul or of themselves, was a necessary consequence of their keeping this oath. But if it was not binding in this instance, no more was it in the case he supposes, consequently the objection is of no force.

MR. L. says,—"Nothing is now claimed by our bishops, but the very same that St. Paul gave in charge to Timothy. Nothing prohibited to the elders and presbyters of our church, that he com­manded the elders to do, at Ephesus." ^‖ Is this really the case? Do not their bishops claim a power of administering the sacraments, of baptism and the Lord's supper? But where will he find this mentioned in Paul's charge to Timothy? Do not the former claim the power of confirmation and absolution? But does Paul mention either, in his charge to the latter? The bishops in their church, claim the whole exclusive power of ecclesiastical [Page 138]rule or government. But where do we find Paul giving this to Timothy? On the contrary, does he not expressly charge him, that those presbyters he was to ordain, should be "men that ruled well their own houses, that they might be able to rule the church of God?" ^* Does he not expressly command, "let the elders who rule well be ac­counted worthy of double honour?" ^‖ But what occasion for this, if the bishop had the sole power of government? I add; where does he find the apostle charging his grace, Timothy lord bishop of Ephesus, "to entangle himself with the affairs of this life:" ^† To intermeddle, and bear a chief part in civil matters, to erect courts, and preside in them, either in person, or by his lay chancel­lor, for the trial of all causes, testamentary and matrimonial, &c. &c. &c.? And yet he knows a set of bishops, pretending to be the only successors of Timothy and the apostles, who actually claim and exercise all the fore-mentioned powers. Paul tells the Ephesian elders, "that the Holy Ghost had made them pastors or bishops over the whole flock," and charges them to exercise the powers of such, to feed, to rule and govern this church as its proper bishops, to use their authority, if ne­cessary, in a way of discipline, and prevent false teachers creeping in, to draw away disciples: And is there any thing, I ask, of this kind, allowed to Mr. L. and his brother-presbyters in their church? Not in the least. He himself knows, that by the rules and canons of his order, he is absolutely pro­hibited every thing of this kind.

THUS have I answered every thing material in this part of our author's defence;—particularly shewed, from facts recorded in scripture, that Ti­mothy neither was, nor could be a fixed bishop of Ephesus, settled there, with governing powers over these elders; but that this church was most [Page 139]evidently settled upon the presbyterian plan,—that St. Paul when taking his leave of it, never to see it more, very expressly left the intire guidance of it, not to a single person, not to Timothy, but to these elders in a state of parity; consequently, that this is the true scriptural plan of church order and government, and therefore, presbyters, or ordina­ry pastors, in such state of equality, have the power of ordination, &c. committed to them.

I HAVE nothing to add, but my most earnest wish and prayer, that the great head of the church would guide us into all truth, and inspire all pro­testants, especially gospel ministers, with the spirit of meekness, forbearance and charity towards each other, even though not exactly of one mind in all points; that so, instead of worrying and cruelly condemning our fellow christians, and thereby, giving advantage against us to the patrons of Po­pery, infidelity and irreligion; we may all cor­dially unite, in opposing the common enemies of christianity, and promoting the grand and import­ant truths, in which we all agree.

SEC. VIII. Mr. L's proof of episcopacy from the writings of the fathers, contained in his appendix,—from page 49 to 61, examined and refuted.

OUR author proposes, in this part of his work, "to enquire what form of government pre­vailed, immediately after the apostles." "To answer this enquiry, he tells us, he will exhibit a few extracts, from the ancient fathers."

[Page 140] HIS first extract is, from that truly ancient apos­tolic father, arch-deacon Echard of England, who flourished about A. D. 1699. But what purpose this extract is designed to serve, the reader must de­termine for himself, for I am not able to help him.

HIS next is from Eusebius. He, I own, is one of the fathers; but far from being an ancient one: For he lived in the fourth century. And as he himself tells us, in his history, "that he could trace no footsteps of any going before him, only in a few narratives," ^† there is little dependence upon what he says, of things so remote from his time. However, the passage quoted is this:—"St. John, being by Domitian's death, released from banishment, returned, and took the care of the church of Ephesus; and upon the invitation of the neighbouring churches, who had enjoyed only the ministry of presbyters and deacons, he went to them, and consecrated bishops," &c. ^* I have carefully examined the passage in Eusebius, Mr. L. refers to; but find it very different from what he has quoted. None of the words, set down in italics, are to be found in the original. The pas­sage truly rendered, is as follows. Speaking of John, he says,—"After the tyrant's death, he re­turned to Ephesus; and being invited so to do, went also among the neighbouring nations, where he appointed bishops, established regular and com­pleat churches, electing to the clerical office whom­soever the Holy Ghost pointed out for the same." ^‖ Though I will not charge Mr. L. with dishonesty, in thus pretending to quote from Eusebius, what is not to be found in him; since 'tis possible he might not have leisure to consult the original, but taking the translation upon trust, set down the pas­sage as he found it, in some episcopal writer; yet every one must see, the words added, in Mr. L's [Page 141]quotation, intirely alter the sense of the passage, and make it evident it was done, by somebody, to favor episcopacy, and impose upon the unlearned reader. With the addition of the words,—"who had enjoyed only the ministry of presbyters and deacons;" the passage does indeed seem to favour the doctrine of three orders in the ministry; but let it be read without this corrupt addition, and then let the intelligent reader judge, what it is to Mr. L's purpose; or whether any other eight lines, taken at random, from Eusebius, or any other author, will not as effectually prove episcopacy, as these here quoted? Stripped of this addition, the passage mentions but one officer, viz. a bishop in these churches; and as that, in scripture, means the same as presbyter, by his own concession, it can be nothing to his purpose.

HIS next quotation is from Irenaeus,—"That Polycarp was constituted by the apostles in Asia, bishop of the church at Smyrna." Answer:—St. Paul, whose authority is at least equal to that of Irenaeus, tells us, "that the Holy Ghost constituted the elders of Ephesus, bishops of the church of Ephesus." If therefore Polycarp's being calle I bishop, proves him such in Mr. L's sense of the word; these elders must be so too. But then what becomes of his main argument for prelacy, from Timothy's being bishop of Ephesus? Or if he still denies these elders to be bishops, though they are called so, the same he must do as to Poly­carp's. And so this extract fails him also.

BUT he tells us, the design of Irenaeus was to prove a succession of apostolic doctrines, "but his argument is equally good in favor of a succes­sion of bishops." And this, he says, will prove "that bishops were superior to presbyters." An­swer:—Not till he proves there were, besides these here called bishops, any presbyters in that church for them "to be superior to." Irenaeus, in [Page 142]the passage quoted, mentions but one order only. This extract therefore, is so far from helping Mr. L's scheme of three orders, that it is wholly in favour of our's which has but one.

THE same answer also will serve, for his three next extracts from Irenaeus. As there is no men­tion made in either of them, of more than one order, viz. bishops, nor the least hint given con­cerning any other; it must be presumed, that Irenaeus knew of none, but such bishops or pres­byters as are mentioned in scripture. Conse­quently that the doctrine of three orders, and Mr. L's diocesan bishop, was a stranger in the time in which this father lived. I shall only just add:—That Mr. L's translator, has again served him ill. For in the first of these quotations the words of Irenaeus, as recited by Eusebius, are not "that Clement is he of whom mention is made Philip. iv. 3," as Mr. L. has it; but "that Linus is he, of whom Paul makes mention in his epistle to Timothy." ^†

HIS next extract is from Jerom,—"Quid facit exceptá ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non facit?" "What can a bishop do, except ordination, that a presbyter may not do? Had Mr. L. answered this question, according to his own principles, the reader would, at once, have seen, how very little it was to his purpose. For is there nothing in the church of England, ordi­nation excepted, but what is common to the pres­byter and bishop? Certainly there is Mr. L's bishop can confirm, hold spiritual courts, exercise discipline, &c. But is a presbyter allowed to do those? Nothing less. But Jerom does not even insinuate, that ordination belongs only to the bish­op, by divine right. And had Mr. L. read the epistle, from whence these words are taken, he must have seen, that the whole scope of it is to [Page 143]prove, that in the apostles times, bishop and pres­byter were the same, both in name and office.—This he asserts, in so many words, and proves it from the same texts and topics, as are used by presbyterians at this day; and then goes on to shew, how, when, and upon what occasion the govern­ment of the church was altered afterwards. "That one was afterwards chosen, who should be set over the rest, he tells us, was done as a remedy against schism." ^§ When therefore he uses the words Mr. L. has quoted, he evidently does it to shew "what was the practice of the church in his time;" not what prevailed in that of the apostles. 'Tis pity Mr. L. will not be at the pains of reading the fathers himself. It might, perhaps, save his friends many a blush upon his account.

THE next church he mentions, as upon the epis­copal model, is that of Antioch. "In this, he tells us, was a number of believers, whom the apostles, Paul, and Barnabas, "took the govern­ment of for some time." Strange! Two bishops in one church at once! How different the modern episcopacy from the ancient! Formerly one church could boast two bishops, and both apostles. But their successors, it seems, have made such improve­ment in the prelatic art, that one bishop now will serve for more than an hundred. This must be ancient episcopacy inverted. However, this was not the case long. "Paul and Barnabas, he says, were soon succeeded by Peter." What, Peter bish­op of Antioch! We tho't he had been metropo­litan of Rome. But this was not long. "Euodius soon takes his place; to whom succeeded Ignatius;" whose epistles, we are told, contain the very mo­del and marrow of modern episcopacy. Accord­ingly our author is longer upon this favourite pa­tron, than all the rest of the fathers; though I [Page 144]think he gives us but one or two extracts from him, and them but short. ^*

As to the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, Mr. L. must know, if he has read Dr. Chauncy's sermon, that they lie under very strong suspicions of for­gery, or at least of great adulteration and corrup­tion. This the Dr. largely shews in his appendix, and offers such arguments in support of the charge, as makes it, at least very highly probable, if not certain this was the case. These, Mr. L. does not attempt to answer. He indeed tells us, "that bishops Beveridge and Pearson have fully confuted, Messrs. Daille, L'arroque, and all others, in what­ever they have advanced against these epistles."—And I can tell him "that L'arroque undertook to answer Beveridge and Pearson, as appears by a manuscript found among his papers, in which he had made great progress; but at the desire of seve­ral persons, who leaned too much to be episcopal cause, he did not finish this reply." ^‖ A victory obtained by such arts as these, can do no great honour to the conquerors. This story, Mr. L. if he pleases, may confront with his, concerning Bl [...]ndel in page 69 of his book.

BUT if we should allow these epistles to be ge­nuine, they will really make nothing in favour of diocesan episcopacy, but much against it. 'Tis true, they frequently mention bishops, presbyters, and deacons: But then it is equally true, that the bishop described in these, was essentially different from the diocesan one. The "Ignatian bishop" presided over but one single church, was there­fore no more than a congregational bishop, or pastor of a particular church: Whereas the dioce­san one, presides over many scores or hundreds of congregations. Again,—the former had much the same authority over his presbyters, as the rector [Page 145]of a parish, in the church of England, has over his assistant curates, who are not pretended to be of a different order, but have radically the same power with the rector: But the church of England bishop, is asserted to be a different order from the presbyter; by divine right, superior to him, and vested with the sole power of ordination and go­vernment. A few extracts from these epistles will serve to prove this. "Let all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ; and the presbyters, as the apos­tles."—"Let none do any of those things which belong to the church without the bishop."—"Where the bishop appears, let the multitude, or congregation be." ^* "If the prayer of one or two have so much efficacy, how much more the prayer of the bishop, and the whole church? He that comes not to the same place, is puffed up," &c. ^‖ "Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters, but when you meet together, let there be one prayer, &c. run all together as to one temple of God, as to one altar." ^† "Where the pastor is, there do you, as sheep follow." ^‡ From these passages it appears, that the diocese of the Ignatian bishop, was no larger, than could meet together in one place, for public worship, with the bishop and presbyters. But it is impossible for a modern diocese, consisting of some hundreds of congrega­tions, to attend divine service in one place.

AGAIN:—It is plain, from these epistles, that the sacraments were not to be administered, but in the presence of the bishop. "Let that eucharist be accounted valid which is celebrated in the bishop's presence, or by his permission; where the bishop appears, let the multitude be;—it is not lawful without the bishop, either to baptize or to [Page 146]make a love feast." ^§ "Take care to use, or fre­quent, one eucharist; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union in his blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop." ^‡ "Since every one of you by name, with common consent, meet together,—that you may obey your bishop and the presbytery, with an undivided mind, breaking one loaf, which is the medicine of immortality." ^† From these passages it appears, that as every altar, or communion table, had its bishop; so all the communicants, in his whole diocese, steadily met together with the bishop, to receive the sacraments, and that it was not allow­ed to receive them, but from his hand, or in his presence. But now, how different is the case from this in the church of England? There, one bishop has many scores or hundreds of communion tables in his diocese, and a great many thousand com­municants; for whom it would be absolutely im­possible, to attend the communion at one table, with their bishop, and receive the consecrated ele­ments, at his hands, or in his presence.

MOREOVER, the Ignatian bishop took care, i [...] person, of all the poor of his diocese; which plain­ly shews it was but a single congregation he pre­sided over. Thus Polycarp, bishop of Smyrn [...], is commanded to do. "Let not the widows by neglected: Be thou, next to the Lord, their guar­dian. Let nothing be done without thy will. Let your religious assemblies be more frequent. En­quire after all by name. Do not proudly overlook the men-servants and maid-servants." ^‖

I MIGHT easily fill several pages with extracts to the same purpose. But these are abundantly suffi­cient to shew, that the bishop described in these epistles, was not, could not be a diocesan bishop, but only a pastor of a single congregation, agree­able [Page 147]to the practice in our churches. And not­withstanding all the bustle made, with these epis­tles, by episcopalians; should the episcopacy de­scribed in them, once take place; it would be as certainly ruinous and destructive, to the English [...]ierarchy, as that contained in th [...] scriptures, and [...]ractised in our churches, would be. Then there [...]ould be no longer, any of those large and over­ [...]rown bishopricks, so much, and so justly com­ [...]ained of, even by episcopalians themselves, con­ [...]ning some hundreds of churches and congrega­tions, with but one single pastor to watch over, to [...]spect, and govern the whole: But every con­ [...]regation, every church, would have its own par­ [...]cular pastor for these important purposes; as the presbyterians actually have. Hence it will follow; [...]t the episcopal ordinations at this day, are by [...] means the episcopal ordinations of the Ignatian [...], being performed by a sort of bishops, un­ [...]own at that time, and whose authority is incon­ [...]tent with, and destructive of, that of the Ignatian [...]hop: Whereas, the ordinations, called presby­ [...]rian, are truly episcopal ones, in the language of [...]. They are performed by such parish­ [...]stors, as Ignatius's bishops were, having the [...] charge, the same office, and power, as his [...]. And therefore, to press Ignatius into the [...] of diocesan episcopacy, and argue from the [...]hop's power, as described by him, in support of [...] which modern bishops claim, is but to im­ [...]se upon the reader, by mere sounds instead of [...]guments.

WHOEVER would see more upon this argument, [...]ould recommend to them the perusal of Mr. [...]yse's "clear account of the ancient episcopa­ [...]y," and, "an enquiry into the constitution, dis­ [...]pline, unity and worship of the primitive church," [...] to be wrote by Sir Peter King. These au­ [...]ors, especially the former, have collected every [Page 148]thing from Ignatius, relative to the subject, and clearly shewn that the Ignatian bishop was but a pastor of a single congregation, and therefore can afford no countenance or support of modern episcopacy.

OUR author [...] mentions Clemens Alexandri­nus, as declaring in favour of his scheme: ^* But as he uses, not Clement's words, but his own, and refers to no particular place for what he advances; it may be sufficient to tell him, that when he does this, it will be then time enough to answer him.

HIS next voucher, is Clemens Romanus. He is made to say, "To the high priest, his proper offices were appointed; the priests had their pro­per order, and the Levites their peculiar services, or deaconships."

I GRANT there are words to this purpose, in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians: But that "he applies these words, as Mr. L. says, to the orders in the christian church," I utterly deny. I have carefully examined every thing in this epistle, [...] to this point, and can find nothing that looks like such "an application:" And I challenge Mr. L. or any one else to point it out. As Mr. Pierce justly observes, "there are no signs of ecclesias­tical monarchy, to be found in Clement. A pres­byterian can hardly describe our opinion, more clearly, and fully, than in his words. Every thing he says, of the form of ecclesiastical government, exactly agrees with scripture.—He never distin­guishes presbyters from bishops; but these names signify the same with him, as they do also with the sacred scriptures. He makes the church of Corinth to be subject, not to one single person, but to a company of bishops or presbyters." ^‡ He reproves the Corinthians, for making an opposi­tion against their presbyters, and casting them ou [...] of their episcopal office. Which plainly shews, th [...] [Page 149]with him, bishop and presbyter are the same of­fice, as they are in scripture. And having exhort­ed them to peace, and subjection to their spiritual guides; the more deeply to impress their minds with this exhortation, he tells them, "that the apostles, receiving instructions, and being sent out by Christ,—went forth, declaring the glad tidings of the coming of the kingdom of God; and preach­ing through countries and cities, they constituted the first fruits of their ministry, for bishops and dea­cons of those that should afterwards believe, hav­ing by the spirit approved them." ^‖ And, as if he wrote on purpose, to guard against the high claims of modern episcopacy, having mentioned in the next chapter, "how the tribe of Levi was chosen for the priesthood, by the budding of Aa­ron's rod," he adds in the chapter following — "And our apostles knew by Jesus Christ our Lord, that contentions would arise about the name, (or on the account) of episcopacy; and for this cause, being indued with certain fore-knowledge, constituted the foresaid persons, (i. e. bishops and deacons) and moreover gave orders, that other approved men might succeed in the place of the dead, and execute their office." ^† Now who would expect a writer that could talk thus, should be pressed into the episcopal service? This epistle of Clemens, is justly esteemed, one of the most gen­uine and valuable pieces of antiquity. And as he is one of the earliest of the fathers, living about A. D. 65, or 70, and supposed to be the same mentioned by Paul, as one of his acquaintance, and fellow-labourers, in his epistle to the Philip­pians; ^‡ so it is remarkable he mentions the same church-officers only as of divine institution, that Paul himself salutes in the beginning of the same epistle, viz. bishops and deacons: ^* Moreover, he [Page 150]uses the names "presbyter and bishop" premis­cuously for the same office, as Paul also does in his epistle to Titus. ^‖ This clearly shews that the name bishop, in his time, had not got to be an ap­propriated term, to signify an officer, distinct from, and superior to a presbyter; consequently that he was unacquainted [...]ith diocesan episcopacy.

MR. L's last testimony from the fathers, is from Jerom. "What Aaron and his sons and the Le­vites were in the temple; that same are bishops, presbyters and deacons in the christian church." ^† Had Mr. L. read Jerom himself, and not trusted to some detached scraps, badly translated by oth­ers, he must have seen that Jerom is so far from favoring episcopacy, either in this epistle to Eva­grius, or in his commentaries, that on the con­trary [...] sets himself strenuously to oppose it in both. In his commentary upon Titus, ^§ having declared, "that presbyter is the same with bishop, that, according to scripture, one is the name of age, the other of office;" and largely proved, from the same texts and arguments, as are used by pres­byterians, that in the times of the apostles, " [...] care of the church was equally divided among ma­ny, being governed by the common council of presbyters;" he adds: "These things are alledged that we might shew, that among the ancients, the presbyters were the same with the bishops, but by little and little, the whole care was devolved on one, that the seeds of dissention might be plucked up. As therefore the presbyters know, that by the custom of the church, they are subject to him who is their president, ("praepositus;") so let bishops know they are above presbyters, more by the custom of the church, than the real appointment of the Lord; and that they ought to rule the church in common. Again:—"Among the ancients, [Page 151]bishops and presbyters were the same; for one is the name of dignity, the other of age." ^‡ I might fill pages with quotations from him to the same purpose. And as to the passage Mr. L. has here quoted from him, if he will read what a dignitary of his own church has said upon it, ^* he will at once see that it is nothing in support of his cause. He will there see, that the whole drift of the epistle is to chastise the arrogance of one, who had pretend­ed, that deacons were superior to presbyters. To confute this notion, he largely proves from scrip­ture, that a presbyter is so far from being inferior [...] a deacon, that on the contrary, he is really equal [...] a bishop, being the same office, according to scripture account. Whereupon he immediately [...]dds the words quoted by Mr. L. Now can it once be supposed, that a man of Jerom's good sense, after he had been proving the presbyter's superiority to a deacon, by shewing that he was equal [...], and in fact, a bishop, should immediately be guil­ [...]y of such an inconsistency, as to assert a bishop to be superior to a presbyter, as Mr. L. by his quotation [...]ould make him to do? 'Tis absurd to suppose it. "The plain meaning of Jerom, (as Dr. Stilling­ [...]eet observes) is no more than this." "That [...] Aaron and his sons, in the order of priesthood, were above the Levites, under the law; so bishops [...]nd presbyters, (which are with him the same) in the order of the evangelical priesthood, are above the deacons, under the gospel: For the compari­son runs, not between Aaron and his sons under the law, and bishops and presbyters under the gospel; but between Aaron and his sons, as one part of the comparison, under the law, and the Levites under them, as the other; so under the gospel, bishops and presbyters make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and his sons, [Page 152]in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of priesthood; and the other part, under the gospel, is that of deacons, answering to the Levites under the law." This interpretation of Jerom's words, will make him consistent; whereas that of our au­thor, makes him flatly contradict himself; and so cannot be admitted.

THUS have I particularly examined all Mr. L's testimonies from the fathers, and, as I trust, suffi­ciently shewn, that they make nothing in support of the cause he has undertaken to defend: On the contrary, that all he has mentioned, even Ignatius not excepted, are plainly on our side. More espe­cially is this the case as to Clemens Romanus, the earliest of all the fathers, as appears from the above quotations. That Jerom also was full in the pres­byterian scheme of church order and government, the impartial reader, I presume, is by this time fully convinced.—I shall add a few more testimo­nies from some of the rest, and so conclude the ap­peal to the fathers.

POLYCARP, next in order of time to Ignatus, A. D. 140, in his epistle to the Philippians, has these words, "Wherefore you must—be subject to the presbyters and deacons, as to God and Christ." ^* Here is no mention made, but of two orders of church officers. Not a word of a bishop, as their superior. All that are named are presbyters and deacons. And these presbyters had the care and go­vernment of the church. For in the same epistle, he says, "Let the presbyters be full of pity, mer­ciful to all, reducing those that wander, visiting the sick, &c. abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, unjust judgment, &c. not too severe in judgment, as knowing we are all guilty of faults." ^‖

JUSTIN Martyr, who flourished, A. D. 155,—in the clear account he has given of the churches in his time, has these words,—"Then is bread [Page 153]and wine brought to the president of the brethren, after the president has given thanks, and the whole people made their acclamations, they that are call­ed deacons among us, give to every one a part of the bread and wine," &c.

AGAIN:—"On Sunday, those in the city and country assemble together, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read, &c. the rea­der ceasing, the president makes an exhortation.—After this, we [...]ise and [...] our prayers, which being ended, bread, wine, and water are brought forth. The president, according to his ability, offers prayers and thanksgivings.—The elements are distributed.—The rich contribute, the col­lections are lodged with the president," &c. ^† A man will here scarce refrain thinking, he is read­ing an account, of a modern presbyterian or con­gregational assembly. No mention of any officers in the church, but the PROESTOS, president or mi­nister, and the deacons. The former preaches, prays according to his ability, (therefore not out of a book) administers the supper; the latter carry about the consecrated elements of bread and wine, and distribute them to the communicants, exactly agreeable to the practice in our churches.

MUCH the same account, Tertullian, a presby­ter of Carthage, A. D. 200, gives us of the church­es in his time. Having mentioned their assembling for the purposes of prayer, reading the scriptures, and the exercise of discipline, in censuring offenders, and excluding them from communion, he says.—"In all these things, certain approved elders pre­side, "who have obtained their office by merit, not by bribes. ^* Here again we see, elders, presbyters in parity, not a single bishop, presiding in the church, even in government, which in the diocese scheme, is wholly confined to the bishop; the presbyters, [Page 154](as Mr. L. says) having no power to govern the church.

IRENAEUS also, (from whom Mr. L. has made sundry extracts, to prove a succession of bishops from the apostles) in another place, speaking to the heretics of that age, says,—"We challenge them to shew that tradition, which was handed down from the apostles, by a succession of presby­ters." ^† This proves, that in his time, bishop and presbyter signified the same office, as in the scriptures: For those, who in Mr. L's extracts, he called bishops, in this he terms presbyters.—Again:—"It behoves us (says Irenaeus) to hearken to those who are presbyters in the church; to those who, as we have shewn, have their succession from the apostles; who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have also received the certain gift of the truth." Upon which Dr. Stillingfleet justly remarks. "What strange confusion must this raise, in any one's mind, that seeks for a succession of episcopal power over presbyters from the apostles, by the testimony of Irenaeus? When he so plainly attributes both the succession to the presbyters, and the episcopacy too, which he speaks of." ^‖

IT would be easy to fill many pages, with ex­tracts to the same purpose, from these and other ancient fathers, as Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, the apostolic constitutions and canons, &c. But these, I trust, are abundantly sufficient to shew, that diocesan episcopacy, was a thing unknown in these ages: That the more early writers, make no distinction at all between bishop and presbyter, but use the names promiscuously, to signify the same office, just as the scriptures do. And even in the latter ones, where some distinction appears, it was no greater than that between the rector of a parish, and his assistant curates, who are yet of the same order; consequently, that there is no foundation [Page 155]for diocesan episcopacy, such as our author pleads for, to be found in any of these writers: Modern episcopacy was an utter stranger to these times.

MR. L. utterly denies "that there are any his­tories, giving an account of any one single church in the universe, that has been presbyterian from the planting of christianity." ^* I believe the reader is convinced by this time, that the churches men­tioned in the foregoing quotations, were really upon the presbyterian plan. I shall adduce a few more instances of the same kind.

IN the church of Alexandria, it appears from Jerom, that presbyters actually ordained, for two hundred years, from the first planting of it. His words are,—"At Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishop thereof, the presbyters always named one, chosen but of them, and placed in an higher degree, their bishop: As if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose one of themselves, whom they knew to be most diligent, and call him [...]rch-deacon." ^† Hence it appears, that the bishop of Alexandria, was no more than a prime-presbyter, of the same office with the rest: No more than an [...]rch-deacon, of the same office with his brother­deacons; and that even this was conferred, not by consecration, from the hands of a superior order, but by the presbyters themselves, who chose and appointed him thereto. If presbyters therefore could appoint and consecrate their bishop, I hope it will be allowed that they had power to ordain a brother-prresbyter; consequently that presbyterian ordination was the original establishment there.

THAT the ancient Gallic or French church was presbyterian, appears from what I have already quoted from Irenaeus, pastor of the church of Ly­ons in France. With him, presbyter and bishop are the same office, as they are also in scripture. [Page 156]And, (as Dr. Stillingfleet justly observes) he at­tributes, both the episcopacy he pleads for, and the succession thro' which it descended from the apostles, intirely to the order of presbyters, and none other."

THE Irish church also, in the early times of it, was evidently presbyterian. Certainly it was not episcopalian, of the diocesan kind. Ninnius men­tions St. Patrick's ordaining 365 bishops in that church, in the early times of it. And Mr. Clark­sen shews out of Bernard, and Baronius, that there were, in that kingdom, well nigh as many bishops as churches. ^* These certainly could not be bish­ops of the diocesan kind, who have many scores or hundreds of churches in their cure; but were evidently congregational pastors of particular chur­ches, like ours at this day.

MR. L. is at a difficulty to know what I meant, by [...]aying "that the church of Scotland had been presbyterian from the beginning." ^† I will now tell him.—It was not that it was so, barely from the time of the reformation, as he pretends; but that this was its original constitution, and continued so to be, till Popery had over-run that and all other churches; from the errors of which, when a considerable part of Christendom was delivered, by the glorious light of the reformation; that church immediately resumed her original consti­tution of presbyterian government, and has re­tained it ever since.

THAT the church of Scotland, was originally presbyterian, is proved by a cloud of witnesses.—Prosper Aquitanicus, in his chronicle, annexed to that of Eusebius, tells us,—"that Palladius was ordained, by Pope Caelestine, for the Scots, that had already believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be their first bishop. ^‖ The same is also affirmed by Bede, and cardinal Baronius. Fordun an an­cient [Page 157]historian, affirms, "that before the coming of Palladius, the Scots, following the custom of the primitive church, had teachers of the saith and dispensers of the sacraments, who were only pres­byters or monks." ^* Johannes Major, another ancient historian, says expressly,—"that the Scots were instructed in the faith by priests and monks without bishops." ^‖ The same also testifies Hector Boethius. Palladius, he tells us, was the first of all who exercised any hierarchial power among the Scots, being ordained their bishop by the Pope; whereas before, their priests were, by the suffra­ges of the people, chosen out of the monks and elders." ^† Buchannan and Craig testify the same.

I HOPE these testimonies will convince Mr. L. (they certainly will every candid person) that presby­terianism was the original constitution of the church of Scotland: And that he will no longer be a [...] a loss what I meant by afferting it was. ^§

IN the mean time, I am at a loss to know what he means by saying,—"that presbytery was intro­duced into Scotland, at the time of the reforma­tion, by rebellion," unless he thinks it must needs be rebellion, for subjects to be christians or pro­testants, who are so unhappy, as to have a pagan or papist for their prince: But if so the greatest part of the English nation, episcopalians not ex­cepted, were guilty of rebellion, at the glorious revolution. The parliament of Scotland, opposed the Popish Queen Mary, by introducing presby­tery, [Page 158]at the time of the reformation: The same did the parliament of England, to the Popish king James the second, in joining with the prince of Orange, for preserving their religion and liberties, at the time of the revolution. If then "presby­ry was introduced into Scotland by rebellion" in the former instance; the same was the case as to episcopacy in England, in the latter. Moreover, if it be rebellion for people to differ from the reli­gion of their rulers; all the primitive christians, even the apostles not excepted, sta [...] chargeable with this crime; for they all dissented from the re­ligion by law established. I hope my antagonist is not a rebel: And yet upon the principles [...]e here advances, I da [...]e not undertake to acquit him:—For 'tis well known, that when he forsook ou [...] communion, and became an episcopal dissenter, he adapted a scheme of religion, different from that professed and established by the civil rulers of the colony. ^*

OUR author seems to blame me for saying,—"there has never been any pretence for lay-ordi­nation in the church of Scotland." "This he says, may be true, and it may not. If John Knox ne­ver was lawfully ordained, the Scotch ordinations are no better than those in N. England." "This, he says, he supposes, to be the case." But I must tell him, the good king Edward supposed other­wise, [Page 159]or he never would, 'tis presumed, have im­proved Mr. Knox as his own chaplain, and offer­ed him a bishoprick, as it is certain he did. ^‖

MR. L. seems to be sure that episcopacy was the original constitution in England. If it was, I am sure nothing he has said proves it to be so.— The authorities he has brought are by no means sufficient for the purpose. In the first place, they assert no such thing in the quotations he has made from them. They only mention that this church had bishops; but whether diocesan ones, or only scriptural bishops, congregational pastors, they are wholly silent. Besides, they are testimonies some ten or twelve hundred years too late, to be depended upon, as authentic vouchers in this case. If St. Paul planted christianity in England, as ma­ny suppose, 'tis natural to suppose that he would settle the same form of ordination, he himself had received, and this has been proved to be presby­terian.

HAVING thus attended our author, in his search after episcopacy among the writings of the fathers, having particularly examined all his extracts, from them, and exhibited a number more from the same writings, in support of the contrary opinion; I now freely submit the whole—"to the cool and candid" to determine whether they are of so much "weight in his favor" as he seems to "persuade" himself they are. The impartial reader will now judge, whether Mr. L. has been able to find any more solid foundation, on which to erect his grand fabric of diocesan episcopacy, among the writings of the fathers, than what appears in the New-Testament; consequently, what little reason he had, to be so very confident of having fully set­tled the dispute in his favour, by an appeal to these writers, and that even before he had finished his extracts from them.

[Page 160] UPON quitting his favorite Ignatius, he has these words,—"But is not this fact evident and unde­niable, from the forecited passages, that in the next age after the apostles, episcopacy was univer­sally received, in all the churches of Christ?" ^‡ What now, I ask, are these passages from whence this fact is so undeniably evident? Why barely one or two quotations, from the pretended epistles of Ignatius, without having, as yet given the least intimation, that these epistles lay under any suspi­cion of interpolation, adulteration or forgery, and without afterwards examining, or attempting to invalidate, any of the arguments brought by Dr. Chauncy, to prove their insufficiency, in point of evidence, on that account. Besides these, Mr. L. had, as yet, brought no testimonies from any writer, within two hundred years after Christ, ex­cept from Irenaeus only; and these barely some scraps, detached from their connection, and which even then, favour his cause in sound only, not in sense; as has, I trust sufficiently appeared, from the foregoing remarks. And yet this is the whole evidence, on which he affirms it "to be undenia­ble fact, that episcopacy, in his sense of the word, was universally received, in all the churches of Christ." What may not one make to be fact, and undeniably so, upon such evidence as this? Much to be pitied is the man, who is so far under the government of prejudice, as to imagine such evi­dence as this undeniable! Much more, if his pre­judice puts him upon representing that as undeni­able evidence to others, which is truly no evidence at all!

HE goes on:—"Though this strangely slipt Dr. Chauncy's observation, when he read the fathers, yet I suppose their testimony may be of some weight, with those whose observation this point has not slipt." ^†

[Page 161] ANSWER:—Dr. Chauncy never so much as hint­ed that this fact had slipt his observation. He well knew that no such fact ever took place with­in that team of time, and so must every one else, who impartially reads the fathers. What the Dr. referred to, when he said, "unless it had slipt his observation," was this, "that the mode of dic­tion," "bishops, presbyters, and deacons," was [...]t to be met with, till he come to Clement of Alexandria, who flourished towards the close of the second century. If Mr. L. will be pleased to point out an instance, the Dr. no doubt, will rea­dily own "it slipt his observation." 'Till then, he will have just occasion for blushing, whenever [...]e reflects, how grossly he has perverted the Dr's words.

MR. L. says, "he is surprized that the Dr. should deny, that the ancients constantly assert the government of the church, to have been episcopal all along from the times of the apostles, without producing a sentence from one of the fathers, to support his denial." ^‡

ONE would think, a man who engages in a public controversy, ought to be so well acquainted with the rules of disputation, as to know, that it belongs to those who affirm a fact, to bring evi­dence in proof of it; not to those who deny it.— This was the case here. Dr. Hoadly affirmed a certain fact to be declared in the fathers. Dr. Chauncy denies they mention any such fact. This he has a right to do, without proving such denial. The proof lay upon the affirmer. It lies upon all the advocates of episcopacy in this instance. It has often been called for:—But the call has never yet been answered, by producing so much as a single passage, within two hundred years after Christ, except from the justly disputed epistles of [Page 162]Ignatius, wherein this fact is affirmed, either in direct terms, or in words from whence it can be fairly deduced. 'Till this is done, Dr. Chauncy, and all mankind have a right to deny the fact.— Had Mr. L. thought of this, it might have saved him his great "surprize."

HE adds:—"Instead of supporting this denial from the fathers, the Dr. has quoted the opinion of the moderns." ^* Mr. L. is quite mistaken in the design of these quotations. They were bro't only to shew, that in the ages posterior to the se­cond century, and even after the establishment of episcopacy, it was far from being indubitably clear, that this establishment, and the practice upon it, had taken place upon the foot of a divine right.— And in this view there are none, I imagine, save Mr. L. and his party, but what will think them pertinent and conclusive.

IN answer to the Dr's demand "of an example of episcopal ordination within the two first centu­ries," Mr. L. instances in the ordination of Titus by St. Paul." ^‖ But pray how came he by the knowledge that Paul ordained Titus? He affirms it, and that is all. If he had any proof, why did he not produce it? Sure I am, the scripture affords him none. But if it did, how will this prove he did it in the capacity of a bishop? Paul himself was ordained by presbyters: No doubt then he acted as a presbyter in ordaining Titus, if he acted at all. "But, says he, that Titus had episcopal ordination, appears from his being left in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting," &c.

ANSWER:—These directions given to Titus, no more prove him to be bishop of Crete, i. e. of a superior order to the elders he was to ordain; than like directions given to Peter, prove him to be superior to the other apostles. Besides, those [Page 163]whom he was to ordain, are expressly called bish­ops. ^* He himself was no more, therefore could not be their superior, consequently not their bishop, in Mr. L's sense of the word. But if he was, how does this prove that he himself received episcopal ordination? This, if I understand it, is Mr. L's argument: Titus himself was a bishop; therefore, he was ordained by one, or had episcopal ordina­tion. But how does this follow? Paul and Timo­thy, he allows, were bishops: And yet, it has been proved, and that from scripture, that they were both ordained by presbyters. And from Jerom it appears, that he whom they called bishop, in the church of Alexandria, was chosen from among, and set apart to his episcopal office by his presby­ters of that church, for two hundred years, in the beginning of it.

AN example of episcopal ordination, not from scripture, but from the fathers of the two first centuries, was what was demanded. Mr. L. says he could produce many. Why has he not then done it? Was it for want of inclination, or ability?— Doubtless the latter. Thus after all his boasted appeal to the fathers, they afford him as little re­lief, as the scriptures do.

SEC. IX. Examination of Mr. L's appeal to the first reformers for his divine right of episco­pacy,—from page 61 to 65.

IN both the pieces Mr. L. undertook to answer, it was observed, that this doctrine "of the un­alterable divine right of episcopacy," was a stran­ger to the first reformers, even in the church of England. This was done with a view to expose the bigotry of those anathematizing zealots, the modern sons of that church, who, like Mr. L. un­church and unchristianize all the protestant world but themselves. Sundry testimonies were adduced, from the first reformers and latter writers of the church of England, both bishops and others, to prove that this was not the doctrine of that church, at the time of the reformation, and many years after.—That though for reasons of state, they con­curred with the episcopal settlement in England; yet they did not look upon it to be of divine right, or so essential as to nullify all ordinations, unless those performed by bishops, in their sense of the word. And it was particularly shewed, that the first who publicly maintained that un­charitable anti-christian doctrine, was the famous arch-bishop Laud, of papistical and persecuting memory; and that he was publicly rebuked by his superior for so doing.

MR. L. declares himself of the same principles, and undertakes to defend them, by an appeal to the first reformers. Let us examine his proofs.

HIS first is from arch-bishop Cranmer, in these [Page 165]words, "We read not that any, not being a bishop, hath, since the beginning of Christ's church, or­dained a priest." If by bishop, is here meant a congregational bishop, all presbyterians will agree, that none but such have power to ordain: But then it will be nothing to Mr. L's purpose.—But if a diocesan bishop is intended, then all that Cranmer can be supposed to mean is, that the business of ordaining has been confined to such bishops, not as solely vested with that power by the law of Christ; but only by human appointment, and the custom of the church. For bishop Burnet assures us, that Cranmer's opinion was,—"That bishops and priests, were at one time, and were not two things, but one office, in the beginning of Christ's religion." ^‡ If they had one office, they had one and the same power: All therefore, that Cranmer intends is, that this work of ordination, which was originally common, had been, by the custom of the church, appropriated to bishops. This interpretation makes Cranmer consistent, whereas Mr. L's involves him in a plain contradiction.

HIS next extract is from bishop Jewel, in these words,—"We believe that there be divers degrees of ministers in the church, whereof some be dea­cons, some priests, some bishops." That Jewel here only asserts a matter of fact, or what were the officers then in the church, not a matter of right, or what ought to be by divine institution, is evi­dent from what he says in his apology. Speaking of the various degrees of the clergy in Jerom's time, he says,—"Christ appointed not these dis­tinctions of orders from the beginning."—"This is the thing we defend, St. Jerom saith, let bishops understand, they are in authority over priests, more by custom, than by order of God's truth. A priest is the same with a bishop; they are both one thing, and the churches were at first, governed by the [Page 166]common advice of priests." ^† This plainly shews that in the passage quoted by Mr. L. he does not mean to declare his belief of the divine right of three orders; but only to assert a matter of fact; and so is no proof that Jewel owned the divine right of episcopacy.

BUT Mr. L. supposes, this is proved to be the doctrine of the reformers, from the preface to the book of ordination. "It is evident to all men diligently reading the holy scriptures, &c.—that there have been these three orders of ministers," &c. ^‖ Upon which he observes,—"It must be evident to any man of common sense, that the reformers, who composed this preface, believed the three offices of bishops, priests and deacons, to be of divine right, or none of them to be so; for they as positively assert that all are, as that one is." Answer:—They do not assert that this one is. This preface only asserts a matter of fact; that there had been such orders from the apostles times. It does not declare that these three orders are of divine unalterable right:—Nor does it determine what kind of bishops were from the apostles times, whether diocesan, or only parochial. And if Messrs. Hoadly and Ollyffe, two episcopal divines, may be allowed to understand the sense of this as­sertion, as well as Mr. L. it will be nothing to his purpose. Mr. Ollyffe in his answer to Mr. Cala­my, speaking of this very preface, says,—"The proposition of this rubrick is formed or expressed, with as great a degree of latitude or moderation, as ever could be expected, from an episcopal church. It saith nothing of divine right or appointment. That is Mr. Calamy's addition, as Mr. Hoadly well ob­serves. It saith nothing of the distinction of their powers and officers; or whether they have been eve­ry where in every church or no: But only, that from the apostles times, there have been these orders, [Page 167]&c.—From which, the most that can be inferred is, that in such churches where there has been need of them, or occasion for them all, there have been three such ranks of ministers, for the government and instruction of Christ's church, from the times of the apostles; which yet by Mr. Calamy's leave, does not prove a divine appointment of all, (however otherwise it may appear to him) there having been other things, in the apostles days, which yet, for all that, are not allowed to be of divine appointment." Here we see Mr. L's uncharitable interpretation of this preface, as though it meant to nullify all ordinations, save those of the episco­pal kind, stands expressly condemned, by two celebrated divines of his own church. As their interpretation is more charitable and christian-like, than Mr. L's; I presume every person of candor will judge it the true one; and consequently, that his argument, founded on such a stingy interpre­tation, can't be admitted as proof, that the vene­rable compilers of this preface, were of his con­tracted and schismatical principles.

THOUGH they here speak of three orders in the church, yet they no where say, that bishops are by divine right, superior to presbyters:—Nor is there the least intimation, that they looked upon all ordinations to be null and void, unless per­formed by a bishop. For though they say "no man shall be accounted a lawful bishop, unless admitted according to the form there prescribed;" yet this is expresily limitted "to that church of England." All therefore that can be meant by this, is no more than a declaration, who they will allow to be accounted lawful bishops of the national church of England: But this is no proof that they believed the divine right and absolute necessity of diocesan episcopacy, or accounted those churches to have no valid ministry and ordinances, that are without it, as Mr. L. does. The contrary of this, [Page 168]is undeniably evident from their practice, as I shall shew.

OUR author's last argument, to prove that the reformers were of his uncharitable sentiments, in this point, is taken from the 3d, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th, canons of their church, which he has quoted at large. ^‡

As the canons of the church of England, as they now stand, were composed at sundry times; at periods far distant one from another; some in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, some in that of King James, &c.—Mr. L. should have told us which class, those he has quoted belonged to: For if they were among the number of those passed in King James's reign; they can't be said to exhibit the sentiments of the first reformers, who had no hand in making them, being dead many years before. As he has not seen fit to do this, I might justly forbear any further notice of them, as being noth­ing to the purpose of his argument.

HOWEVER, allowing they were of the first class, they will by no means prove, that the compilers of them believed the unalterable divine right of episcopacy, and denied the validity of presbyterian ordination. The substance of them is, (for they are too long to transcribe) "that if any person should deny the church of England to be a true church, or declare her government by bishops, &c. to be anti-christian, or repugnant to the word of God, or upon that account, or any other, separate himself from her communion, he shall be ipso facto excommunicated." But now there is nothing in these canons, that will prove the authors of them believed diocesan episcopacy, to be of unalterable divine right. They might think it to be lawful, though not expressly of divine institution; much less that it was absolutely necessary to the being of the church.

[Page 169] As to the charity of such excommunicating, anathematizing canons, I must leave it to the vin­dication of Mr. L. and those of his stamp: For as to myself, I utterly despair of succeeding in any attempt of that kind. Americans, blessed be God, have hitherto been unacquainted with such damna­tory canons. Their fulminations in this land, are heard, only like the distant thunders of the vatican. —Had not Mr. L's zeal for episcopacy, got the better of his prudence, I should have judged he would have been more tender of the reputation of his best constituted church, than thus to expose her nakedness, by bringing to view these notable canons, in a country where they are so little known. Per­haps his design was to let us know what we are to expect, if the scheme for sending bishops to Amer­ica, erecting spiritual courts, &c. in the colonies, should take place.—But to return:—

THE above remarks, I trust, make it sufficiently clear, that it cannot be proved, either from the preface to the book of ordination, or from the canons, or indeed from any thing else Mr. L. has quoted, that the reformers were of his sentiments, as to the divine right of episcopacy. They con­formed to the episcopal church, as established by the king and parliament, as what they tho't lawful, though not necessary in itself, or of any scriptural or divine appointment.—That they did not look upon it as of divine institution, is evident,—

1. FROM their express declarations, both singly, and in a collective capacity. I have had occasion already to cite some passages from bishops Cran­mer and Jewel, in which they expressly assert it, as their judgment, "that bishop and presbyter, in scripture, is one and the same." The bishop of St. Asaph, Therlby, Redman and Cox, declared themselves of the same opinion. Bishop Morton, in his catholic apology, declares, "that the power of order and jurisdiction, which the papists ascribe [Page 170]to bishops, doth, by divine right, belong to all other presbyters. And particularly, that, to ordain, is their ancient right." ^† Bishop Bedel says, "that a bishop and presbyter are all one, as Jerom proves from scripture and antiquity." ^* And then men­tions sundry of the ancient fathers, as Ambrose, Augustin, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oe­comenius, and Theophylact, as of the same opin­ion. Dr. Reynolds, in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls, mentions bishop Pilkington, Dr. Hum­frey, Whittaker, Bradford, Lambert, and Fulk, as all declaring the same. To which number we may add, bishop Carleton, Dr. Field, Mr. Mason, Dr. Forbes and the arch-bishop of Spolato, who all expressly assert the validity of presbyterian or­dination. ^‖

To these single testimonies, I will only add, that in the time of the reformation, the arch-bishops, bishops, arch-deacons and clergy of the church of England, in their book, intitled, "the instruction of a christian man," subscribed with all their hands, and dedicated to King Henry VIII. A. D. 1537, in the chapter of orders, have these words,—"In the N. Testament there is no mention of any other degrees, or distinctions in orders, but of deacons or ministers, and presbyters or bishops." ^§ And King Henry VIII. himself, in his book stiled, "A necessary crudition for a christian man," set out by the authority of king and parliament, prefaced with the king's own epistle, and published by his command, A. D. 1543, in the chapter of orders ex­pressly resolves,—"That priest and bishop, by God's law, are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to both, and of these two orders only, [Page 171] priests and deacons, the scripture makes express mention." ^‡

THESE things, I mentioned in my sermon, to which Mr. L. has made no reply. I now submit it to the candid reader, whether it is possible to suppose, that men who could express themselves in this manner, were of Mr. L's principles, "that diocesan episcopacy is of divine right," "and that all ordinations by presbyters, are a mere nullity."

MR. L's letter-writer, S. J. tells us,—"the sentiments of the first reformers, are not to be learnt from some transient expressions of indivi­duals, but from their public acts." I have here produced instances of both, in which, as indivi­duals, and as public bodies, they give their testi­mony for the scriptural divine rights of presbyte­rian ordination and government, in terms, as ex­press and positive, as can well be conceived.— From these testimonies it evidently follows, that episcopacy was not established in England, at the time of the reformation, upon the foot of divine right; but only as a form of government, suited to the civil institution of the state by which it was established.

2. THIS fact further appears from the practice of the church of England, consequent upon said es­tablishment. It is not denied that there have been some particular members of that church, all along, from the pontificate of arch-bishop Laud, to the present day, who, like Mr. L. have espoused this uncharitable doctrine of the divine right of episco­pacy, and the invalidity of all ministerial authority and gospel administrations, where this is wanting. But that this is not the doctrine of the church of England, appears from her repeated practice to the contrary, in admitting ministers to officiate in that church, who [...] had episcopal ordination. In the reign of King Edward the sixth, Mr. Knox was improved by him, as his chaplain, and had [Page 172]the offer of a bishoprick, though he had nothing but presbyterian ordination, and not even that, if Mr. L. says true. In the same reign, Peter Mar­tyr, Martin Bucer, and P. Fagius, all foreigners, and who had been ordained only by presbyters, had ecclesiastical preserments in the church of En­gland conferred upon them, without re-ordinati­on. ^† Mr. William Whitingham was made dean of Durham, about 1563, though ordained by pres­byters only. ^‖ In like manner, Mr. Travers, or­dained by a presbyter beyond sea, was seven years lecturer at the temple, and had the bishop of Lon­don's letter for it. ^‡ And even so late as the time of King James I. bishop Bancroft, though a rigid episcopalian, consecrated Spotswood and two oth­ers, bishops for Scotland, without first ordaining them presbyters, though they had received only presbyterian ordination; and he alledged this as his reason, "that presbyterian ordination was valid."

Now is it not abundantly evident from these facts, that the church of England, as such, is not of Mr. L's principles, as to the point in debate? He asserts the divine right of episcopacy, and utterly denies the validity of presbyterian ordination:— But here we see, the church of England, and her greatest dignitaries and bishops, not only asserting in words, the validity of presbyterian ordination; but repeatedly declaring this, to be the sense and doctrine of that church, by admitting, from time to time, those who had no other ordination, to the free exercise of the ministry, and placing them in the highest offices in the church. Whom now shall we believe? Mr. L. who pretends, from the rubrick and canons of this church, to prove that she holds the unchristian, schismatical doctrine afore­said? Or she herself, who by her practice, denies it? Must we not suppose, that the first reformers, the bishops and dignitaries of the church of England, [Page 173]understand her constitution and principles, as well as the missionary of Norwalk?—But,—

3. THAT presbyterian ordination is valid, even in the sense of the church of England, is evident, from the most public and express acts of the king and parliament. The church of England is properly a parliamentary church. She expressly acknowledges the king as her head, invested with supreme power in all affairs, ecclesiastical. Her articles and canons are all enjoined, by authority of parliament. 'Till this is done, they are of no force. The parlia­liament, therefore, especially if considered as com­posed, partly of the bishops, who have a seat there, must be supposed to understand her constitution, and what doctrines she maintains. But now the validity of presbyterian ordination has, in fact, been owned and established, by the king and par­liament, at two several times, Soon after the res­toration, A. D. 1661, there was an act of parlia­ment passed, "declaring and confirming those to be ministers, to all intents and purposes," who were then incumbents in the several parishes; tho' many of them had been ordained, after the bishops were put down in the preceding administration, and so had only presbyterian ordination. ^‡

AGAIN:—The same was done, A. D. 1707, by the act of union, whereby England and Scot­land were united into one kingdom. Previous to this, the parliament of Scotland passed "an act, for securing the protestant religion, and presbyte­rian church-government in Scotland, to posterity." —Now this act was made an essential and funda­mental part of the act of union, and so is confirmed by the king and parliament of Great-Britain, and thereby, the presbyterian order and government of the church of Scotland is as fully to all intents and purposes, established there, and by the same authority, as episcopacy is in England. Accord­ingly, ever since that time, every king of Great-Britain, [Page 174]upon his accession to the throne, is ob­liged to take the following oath,—"I G.—king of Great-Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c.—do faithfully promise and swear, that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve, the settlement of the true protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline, rights and pri­vileges of the church of Scotland, as established by laws made there, in prosecution of the claim of rights; and particularly by an act, intitled, an act for securing the protestant religion, and presbyteri­an church government, and by the acts passed, in the parliaments of both kingdoms, for the union of the two kingdoms."—"So help me God.—G. Rex." ^‖

HERE again we see, the supreme authority of the nation, king, lords, and commons, expressly allow­ing the religion of the church of Scotland, and her presbyterian form of government, to be the true pro­testant religion. As such, they establish it to perpe­tuity; and the king, by his coronation oath, most solemnly promises and swears, to protect and de­send it. But how could all this be, if the church of England, and the king as the head of it, really believed, as Mr. L. says they do, the divine right of episcopacy, and the unlawfulness and nullity of presbyterian ordination and government?—Must not the king and parliament, who are properly the church of England, be supposed to understand her constitution, on which she was settled at the reformation, and the doctrines she maintains, as well as Mr. L.? Most certainly they must. Con­sequently, since they have so expressly declared, by their most solemn and public acts,—"that a church, founded upon presbyterian principles, is a true protestant church; and as such, have estab­lished it, and engaged to preserve and defend it in perpetuity; it undeniably follows, that the di­vine right of episcopacy, was no part of the ori­ginal constitution of the church of England at the [Page 175]time of the reformation, or a doctrine since owned by her, as such. What rashness, what effrontery then, is Mr. L. chargeable with, in so confidently asserting, as he does, "that the body of the church of England divines, at the time of the reformation, and I may say, ever since, have constantly believ­ed and maintained, the divine right of episcopa­cy?" 'Tis pity gentlemen of such uncharitable and schismatical principles, can't be contented, since it must be so, to enjoy their unscriptural no­tions themselves, without vainly attempting to fix the odious imputation upon others, and thus black­ening the memory of the good old reformers, who detested these doctrines equally with us.

UPON the whole then, if any weight is to be laid upon the most express declarations of many great and learned men of the church of England, bishops as well as others, at the time of the refor­mation, and since, in their individual capacity, in favour of the validity of presbyterian ordination and government;—if any heed is to be given to the re­peated instances, in which that church has, by her practice, owned and approved of that doctrine;— if any regard is to be had to public acts of parlia­ment, acknowledging and declaring presbyterian churches and ministers, to be true, lawful, protestant ministers and churches; it must be a most clear and indubitable fact, that the church of England, nei­ther at the time of the reformation, nor since, hath espoused and maintained the doctrine of the divine right of episcopacy; but on the contrary does ex­pressly own the lawfulness and validity of presbyte­rian ordination and government. This uncharita­ble doctrine, is not the doctrine of the true church of England. It is believed and maintained, only by some of her degenerate sons; of which number I am really sorry to find so great a part of her pro­fessors in this country, and Mr. L. among the rest.

SEC. X. Animadversions on Mr. L's appeal to the foreign protestants, concerning the va­lidity of presbyterian ordination,— page 63, &c.

IN this part of his work, our author pretends to give us sundry extracts from the foreign pro­testants: Not indeed to prove, that these foreign churches are of the episcopal kind. This he knew was impossible: But though they are presbyteri­ans themselves, yet that they do not allow our ordinations to be valid. Now, granting his quo­tations from Calvin, Beza, Le Mayne, &c. to be genuine; which, considering the freedom he uses with other authors, is at least very doubtful; they will by no means prove that these men denied the validity of ordination, even among the dissenters in England. What they seem to blame the old puritans for, is their separating from the establish­ed church of England, not for maintaining pres­byterian principles. Besides, it is well known what arts were used in them times, by the sticklers for uniformity, to solicit the opinion of foreign protestants in their favour, and get them to dis­countenance the separation. "About this time, several letters passed, between the English divines, on both sides, and several learned foreigners.— Matters were falsely represented to them, and great arts were used, on the bishops side, to prevent such persons writing, who they found would not write in their behalf; and what they thought made for them, they published to the world in way of tri­umph. [Page 177]The foreigners were told, that unless they complied with the things enjoined, they must let in the papists to supply the cures. Several foreigners therefore dreading that, and hoping these things would soon be altered, spake more favorable of them than they deserved." ^† Moreover, these foreign divines knew, that episcopacy was settled in Eng­land, not as of divine right, but only by civil au­thority. Having this view of the English hierar­chy, they might think it more advisable for their brethren in England, to submit to it, than to go into a separation barely upon this account. For it is only on account of this, that they are, in Mr. L's quotations, supposed to separate, and for which they are blamed. Whereas this was but one thing, among many, that caused the separation. But what business had Mr. L. with the dissenters of England? The pieces he attacks, undertook the defence of the New-England ministry, not that of the dissenters in England. There was no need of it. This has been repeatedly and successfully done by many able writers of their own. Particularly by Messrs. Baxter, Calamy, Pierce, and more lately the dissent­ing gentlemen in answer to Mr. White. Besides, who does he mean by "the dissenters in this coun­try?" If he intends New-England; bating a few anabaptists and quakers, I know of no dissenters, save those of his communion. Episcopacy never was established here, though its opposite is, to the no small mortification of our author and company. If therefore, the foreign divines had such a regard to peace, as to advise their presbyterian brethren in England not to separate, even from an episco­pal church, by law established: Who can suppose they would not condemn Mr. L. and party, in separating from the established presbyterian churches here, and becoming episcopal dissenters? Where­fore, [Page 178]to come to the question, as he has stated it; that is, "whether our ordinations in this country are allowed to be valid by the foreign protestants?" In answering of it I will pursue his method, and "examine their public constitutions, their gen­eral practice, and their private sentiments."

1. FROM the public constitutions of the foreign protestants, it is evident even to demonstration, that they do and must approve of our ordinations as valid. If they allow their own to be valid, they must for this plain reason allow ours to be so; be­cause their constitutions, at least so far as ordina­tion is concerned, are precisely the same with ours. Mr. L. I trust; need not be told that our ordina­tions are strictly presbyterian, agreeable to our constitution: But the same is the constitution of the foreign churches. "The protestant churches abroad, says Mr. Boyse, ^* are divided into luthe­theran and reformed. For the lutheran churches we have the concord of lutherans printed at Leip­sick, containing the confession of Augsburgh, and the apology for the same—the Smalcaldic articles, Luther's greater and lesser catechism." From these authentic writings, we learn what the opin­ion of the Lutherans in this point is. The words are,—"The gospel gives to those that are placed over the churches, a command to teach the gos­pel, to remit sins, to administer the sacraments, and jurisdiction also. And by the confession of all, even our adversaries, 'tis manifest that this power, is by divine right, common to all that are set over the churches, whether they be called pastors, or presbyters, or bishops.—Since bishop and pastor are not different degrees by divine right, 'tis mani­fest that ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is valid." ^‖ The confession containing this [Page 179]article was subscribed by three electors, forty-five dukes, marquisses, counts and barons, the consuls and senators of thirty-five cities, by Luther, Me­lancthon, Bucer, Fagius and many other ministers to the number of eight thousand, says Mr. Cala­my. ^† 'Tis the common confession of the Lu­theran church throughout Europe.

OF the same sentiments in this point are the re­formed churches comprehending the rest of the for­eign protestants. In the Helvetic confession are these words,—"One, and that equal power and office, is given to all ministers in the church. 'Tis certain that from the beginning, bishops or pres­byters governed the church with common care.— None set himself above another, or usurped do­minion over his fellow-bishops." ^‡ This confession, as Mr. Boyse says, was approved by the reformed churches of Scotland, France, Belgium or the Dutch, Poland, Hungary and many in Germany. ^§ Dr. Chauncy adds, "those of Myllhusium, Neo­come, Geneva, and most of the protestant church­es, except those above mentioned." ^‖

THE French protestant churches, in their con­fession presented to Charles IX. say,—"We be­lieve all true pastors, wherever they are placed, to be endued with equal power, under that only head, the chief and universal bishop." ^*

IN the Belgick or Dutch confession, we have these words, "In what place soever the ministers of the word of God are, they have all the same and equal power and authority, as being all alike the ministers of Christ, that only universal bishop and head of the church." ^¶ Mr. L. need not be told that the article of the church of Scotland is the same upon this head.

Now can there be a more full and convincing [Page 180]evidence, of these foreign churches allowing of the validity of our ordination, than this universal agreement and testimony of their public constitu­tions in this point? Mr. L. and those of his stamp, though they renounce our ordinations, yet allow of those performed in the Romish church. The reason is, because the principles of the papists, in this respect, are the same with theirs. Episcopacy is the doctrine of the church of Rome; the church of England therefore allow their ordinations to be valid, as being the same with her own. But now, with an evidence beyond exception it appears, that all the foreign protestants are strictly of our prin­ciples, as to the ordaining power; from whence it undeniably follows, that they must allow and approve of our ordinations, as valid, because they are the very same as are pointed out, in all their confessions of faith.

2. THIS point is also evident from the univer­sal practice of the foreign churches. All the Dutch churches throughout the united provinces, the protestant churches in France, those of Geneva and the protestant cantons in Switzerland, &c.— are utter strangers to bishops, both name and thing. All their clergy are upon a level; all equally ex­ercising the power of ordination, and every other branch of ministerial authority. And as to those protestant churches which have officers they stile bishops, superintendants or seniors; they are lit­tle more than standing moderators, pretending to no superiority, by divine right, over their breth­ren. "All these churches, says Dr. Stillingfleet, acknowledge no such thing as the divine right of episcopacy, but stiffly maintain Jerom's opinion, of the primitive equality of all gospel-ministers." ^* —Nor can they do otherwise; having at bottom no other than presbyterian ordination among them: For Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, Bugenha­gius, [Page 181]&c.—and the first reformers and founders of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves presbyters and nothing else.

THIS again clearly proves, that they do in fact allow our ordinations to be valid; for they are the same with theirs. Theirs are performed by pres­byters, pastors, by divine right, all in a state of equality: The same also are ours. If therefore, they allow their own, they must allow ours, which are the same. And that this is the case in fact, is evident from particular instances of their practice. In Holland, tho' they allow a liberty of conscience to those of other denominations, yet no ministers are supported by the public, but those of their own profession: But it is an undoubted truth, as I am informed, that they do in fact support one or more Scotch presbyterian ministers, just as they do their own. This plainly shews, that they look upon the presbyters in Scotland, as their brethren, of the same church with themselves, and undeni­ably proves, that they allow of their ordination, and consequently of ours in this country, which is the same. The Dutch churches therefore in Europe, beyond dispute allow the validity of our ordinations. In America the case is the same.— Here there are sundry Dutch churches, originating from, and upon the same constitution, with the reformed protestant churches in Holland. These allow the validity of our ordinations. A number of years ago, a young gentleman of Dutch extract, came to New-Haven, and was ordained by our ministers, at the College there, as a minister for the Dutch churches in the county of Albany.— This, as my author tells me, was done by order of the classis in Holland. The Rev. Mr. Woosly, who was ordained by a number of Connecticut ministers, over the church and congregation of Southold, on Long-Island; after he left that peo­ple, and removed to his plantation, in Oyster-Bay, [Page 182]preached and administered the sacrament, in a Dutch church in that town, for twenty years to­gether. The same did the Rev'd Mr. Ketteltas since. He was ordained minister of Elizabeth-Town, by the presbytery in New-Jersey. After he left that people, at the invitation of sundry Dutch churches in Queen's-County, Long-Island, he officiated as their minister for some time. The same gentleman is now improved in the ministry, in the French protestant church in the city of New-York. Now these are so many express in­stances, in which our ordinations have been, in fact, acknowledged and allowed to be valid by the foreign protestant churches. And yet in direct opposition to this incontestible evidence, in the very face of these stubborn and obstinate facts, Mr. L. has the assurance, shall I call it? To tell his readers "that none of these foreign protestants, (meaning the Dutch, French, &c.) will admit of a man ordained by our dissenters, (as he calls us by way of contempt) to administer the sacraments in their churches." "That they condemn, and find as much fault with our ordinations, as the epis­copalians (meaning himself and those of his high-flying principles) do." "And that our mode of worship, &c. is condemned by all the foreign pro­testants." ^* What heed is to be given to the testi­mony of a man, who thus boldly contradicts the most glaring facts?

3. FROM the private sentiments of foreign pro­testants it appears, that they both approve of our method of ordination and government, and con­demn that of the episcopal church. Gerard, a fa­mous Lutheran divine, says,—"During the apos­tolic age, there was no such thing as a distinction, between a bishop, and a preaching presbyter." ^‖— Calvin's private judgment in this point, is well known from his institutions and other writings.— [Page 183]Heylen, Howel, and other rigid episcopalians, speak of him as the father of presbyterians, and the most inveterate enemy of the hierarchy. ^†— Musculus, another learned foreigner, asserts and proves from Acts xx. Philip. i. and the like texts which we now use,—"that bishop, pastor, and presbyter are all one and the same." ^* Zanchy, another foriegn divine, and one of the old reform­ers, professes,—"that he cannot but love the zeal of such as hate the name of bishop and arch-bishop, fearing lest with these names, the ancient ambition and tyranny, together with the destruction of the churches, should return." ^‖ The celebrated Tur­retine, Ames, and Wollebius, divinity professors in the universities of Geneva, Friseland and Basil, all fully declare in favour of our ordination and op­pose episcopacy, not only in the church of Rome, as Mr. L. pretends, but in general, as unscriptur­al. ^§ To add no more, Beza, who Mr. L. would persuade us is a friend to the English hierarchy, in his letter to Mr. Knox, minister of Scotland, soon after the reformation began there, writes thus,—"But I would have you, my dear Knox, and the other brethren, to remember that which is before your eyes: That as the bishops brought forth the papacy; so false bishops, the relics of Popery, shall bring in epicurism to the world.— They that desire the churches good and safety, let them take heed of this pest. And seeing ye have put that plague to flight timorously, I heartily pray you that ye never admit it again, albeit it seem plausible, with the pretence and colour of keep­ing unity, which pretence deceived the ancient fathers, yea even many of the best of them." ^‡

Now who can suppose, that men of these senti­ments, [Page 184]could be friends to episcopacy? Who can entertain the least doubt of their being, in princi­ple, strictly presbyterian, when they so strongly express themselves in favour of the latter, and in opposition, and even detestation of the former? ^§ If these testimonies, from the public institutions, the universal practice, and the private sentiments of the foreign protestants, do not amount to a full proof of their being strictly presbyterian in prin­ciple themselves, and of their approbation, and allowance of our ordinations, as valid and scrip­tural, I must forever despair of seeing any fact proved, in any case whatever.

BUT Mr. L. tells us, "the whole that is aimed at, in these confessions, is to condemn the usurpa­tion of the Pope, not to condemn episcopacy." ^* Answer: 'Tis evident to demonstration, from the foregoing testimonies, they meant to condemn both; and that for this plain reason, because both are equally unscriptural, both rest upon the same foundation. I defy any man to condemn the Ro­mish tyranny, at the same time, defend the Eng­lish hierarchy, upon any consistent principles.— [Page 185]Episcopacy is episcopacy, whether in England or Rome. Whoever opposes it in the latter, must, to be consistent with himself, condemn it in the former. Besides, some of the above testimonies, especially Beza's, as expressly condemns episco­pacy in Great-Britain, as at Rome. He calls it the pest, the plague of the church, and equally ru­inous to its welfare in the former, as in the latter.

AGAIN:—Mr. L. appeals to the foreign church­es, "whether any presbyterian ministers are main­tained by them, &c.—but only such as have been ordained according to the method of those church­es." ^‖ Answer:—Doubtless none but such, are received and maintained by them. And this again is a clear evidence that they approve of and allow our ordinations to be valid, and that our ministers and ordinations are the same, in their opinion, with theirs, since they do, in fact, as has been shewn above, receive and maintain them in their churches, just as they do their own. How inju­riously then does Mr. L. treat the foreign protest­ants, thus to represent them as patrons of his un­scriptural scheme, and endeavour to fasten upon them, the odious imputation of maintaining his uncharitable and schismatical principles? What im­position upon the reader to attempt to beget in him a belief of this groundless aspersion?

I HAVE now gone thro' with my remarks upon Mr. L's book. Have very particularly examin [...], and I trust, fully answered every thing in i [...] wor­thy of notice. Scripture, reason, [...] authentic history, have been my guides through the whole enquiry; and, unles [...] I am [...] mistaken, his prin­ciples and condect [...] condemned by all three. The result i [...]—that neither in the sacred scriptures, nor the writin [...] first reformers, the constitutions the opin [...] [Page 186]and practice of the foreign protestants, not even in the principles of the true church of England itself, is there the least shadow of a foundation for dioce­san episcopacy, considered as of divine right.

WHEN Christ ascended, he left the eleven apos­tles, the only ministers of his church; all vested with the same commission, all equal in power. Au­thorized by this commission they went forth,— preached the gospel, planted churches, and or­dained ministers in them; vested them with the same commission they themselves bore. No ac­count is to be found of their fixing some in a su­perior, others in a subordinate station. The min­isters they ordained, were all of one order, pro­miscuously called bishops, pastors, or elders. As the general commission is but one, so one method of introduction into office, one set of qualifications in order to it, one work or business for them when introduced, and one only, is to be found in the word of God. This was the order fixed by Christ, and followed by his apostles. They invariably ad­hered to that divine maxim of the great head of the church,—"call no man your master upon earth, for one is your master in heaven, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." This was transmitted to the primitive christians, and observed in the purest and earliest ages of the church. A defection from this original parity, 'tis granted, pretty soon arose.— "The mystery of iniquity began to work," even before the apostles were dead. A thirst of domin­ion and ecclesiastical pre-eminence, early oppe­rated amongst the ministers of the meek and lowly JESUS. This increased from less to more, till " that man of sin, the son of perdition, who ex­alteth himself above all that is called GOD, or is worshiped," got himself fairly mounted upon the seven-headed beast, and enslaved all christendom with his usurped dominion. From this yoke of anti-christian tyranny, when great part of Europe [Page 187]was happily delivered, by the glorious light of the reformation, the ancient parity among ministers, generally took place. By far the greatest part of the protestant churches, recurred to the original scriptural plan of presbyterian order and govern­ment. And where in any instance, as in England, they adopted the episcopal mode, it was not under any pretence of divine right, but wholly in con­formity to the form of government in the state.

THE above facts are indubitably clear, from scripture, and ecclesiastical history, ancient and modern. On these facts the reasonings and con­clusions are founded, contained in the foregoing pages. For the truth of the facts I appeal to the au­thentic writings aforesaid. For the justness of the reasonings and conclusions deduced from them, the candid reader is now to determine.

IF diocesan episcopacy be of divine right, it is certainly contained in scripture. If it be of such vast importance, as is pretended, it must be very clearly and expressly revealed there. Doctrines of importance, truths essential to religion, are not left to be collected barely from dark hints and doubtful expressions; but are clearly revealed, and often repeated, in various modes of diction, "that he who runs may read them." But is this the case with diocesan episcopacy? The warmest advocate for it, I presume, will not pretend it is. All that the learned labor of its ablest champions has hith­erto been able to produce, is barely some dark hints and doubtful expressions, which a fruitful inven­tion may turn to favour it; but these capable of a more rational interpretation upon the contrary scheme. And yet to this point of doubtful dispu­tation, the most essential doctrines and express pre­cepts of our holy religion, it seems, must be made a sacrifice. That men fulfil their promises, per­form their covenant obligations, and religiously regard their solemn vows, is not only one of the [Page 188]first dictates of natural religion; but very express­ly and repeatedly enjoined in the word of God. —But when men, who have solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry in our churches, re­nounce their ordination vows, and take episcopal orders: When professors among us, who solemnly promised and covenanted before God, angels and men, to walk in communion with us, rend them­selves oft, and join the episcopal separation, un­der a pretence of the divine right of episcopacy, who does not see that doubtful points are preferred to positive precepts; and that more weight is laid upon the former, than the latter? If this is not to substitute "mint, anise, and cummin, instead of the weightier matters of the law," 'tis indeed hard to say what is. And after all; what is gained, in point of valid ministry and or dinances? Why truly, upon their own principles, just nothing at all. If our ministers have no power, then our adminis­trations are invalid, our baptisms a mere nullity. Those therefore who have been baptized in our churches, are in a state of mere heathenism, let them conform to what church they will. As this is the case with most of their ministers in this coun­try, they must, upon this principle, be so far from being the only regular ministers, that they are not even visible christians; and instead of being the only persons impowered to dispense gospel admin­istrations, they have no right even to partake of them themselves. Consequently all they pretend to baptize, are still in a state of heathenism, and so all their ministers and churches, as well as ours, in the same wretched and deplorable condition.— Who can suppose such doctrines as these, are to be found in the bible? Who can imagine, claims and principles, productive of such shocking con­sequences, have any warrant from the gospel of Christ? A moment's cool reflection, methinks, might shew their absurdity, and give a check to [Page 189]the advocates of them, in their warmest career of proselyting zeal. Verily, gentlemen, a little more consistency of principle and conduct here, would not be amiss. Let us first see you concerned to secure for yourselves, a valid baptism: Then it will be time enough to press us with the argument of your only valid ministry. When we see you pro­perly concerned for your own safety, it may pos­sibly convince us that you are sincere, in your zealous att [...]pts to promote ours.

IF Mr. L. or any other, will just remove these difficulties, and favour us with a solid, scriptural and thorough refutation of the foregoing argu­ments, it will be kindly received, and properly noticed. But if only bold assertions, false quota­tions, and a superficial glance, upon here and there a sentence, is offered to the public, under the spe­cious pretence of a full answer, it will be treated with deferved neglect.

MAY the Father of lights direct our enquiries, and the God of truth lead us into all truth. May the saving influences of the spirit of peace and ho­liness, so remarkable in the apostles and primitive christians, be shed forth in plentiful effusions, up­on all orders and denominations. That so, how­ever we differ in sentiments in some lesser things, we may all agree in "choosing the one thing need­ful," and finally unite our hearts and voices, in endless hallelujahs, to our common Lord and Re­deemer.

AMEN.