SECTION I.

THE First Section of the Appeal con­tains ‘a Sketch of the Arguments in Favour of Episcopacy; SECT. I.’ which was marked out, with a View of en­abling the Reader to judge the better of the Situation of the Church of England in A­merica, from a general Acquaintance with her Prin­ciples, and the Grounds that support them. But although it was not thought to be improper, nor altogether foreign from the general Design of the Appeal, to give a summary View of the Evidence in Favour of Episcopacy; yet, as was observed, we maintain that the Validity of our Plea for Ame­rican Bishops depends not upon the absolute Truth, but upon our Belief of the Truth, of those Prin­ciples. The Plea of Dissenters for a Toleration in England, was never founded, I presume, on the abso­lute Truth and Certainty of their respective Tenets; at least, it was never admitted, on that Footing, by those in Authority. It is sufficient that Men believe the religious Systems they have adopted to be true, and that they hold no Doctrines that are inconsistent with the Safety of the State, to intitle them to a Toleration from the civil Government: And a Toleration implies, in the very Notion of the Word, a Liberty for Men to enjoy the free, [Page 16] open and undisturbed Use of such Methods of pub­lic Worship, and such Forms of ecclesiastical Go­vernment, as belong to their religious Systems. If therefore the Church of England in the American Colonies has a Right to be tolerated, i. e. unless she has forfeited the common Rights of Christians, she has a Right to an Episcopate; it being, as was shewed in some of the first Sections of the Appeal, an essential Part of her Constitution.

AT my Entrance upon the Subject, I made the following Observation, ‘That the Church of Eng­land is episcopal, and consequently holds the Necessity of Bishops to govern the Church, and to confer ecclesiastical Powers;’ and for Proof of it, refered to 'her public Offices,' and to ‘the whole System of her Conduct with Regard to her Clergy.’ The Truth of the Observation Dr. Chauncey is pleased in one Sense to allow, and in another to deny. But if it be true in any Sense, it is sufficient for my Purpose. If it be, according to the Doctor's Notion, by Virtue only of the Jus humanum of Episcopacy, that Bishops are necessary; still the Ends for which they are necessary cannot be obtained without them, so long as we are subject to the Authority that requires them. We com­plain of the Hardship of being obliged to go 3000 Miles for Ordination, with great Hazard and Expence: Will saying that the Obligation of Epis­copacy in the Church of England, is founded only on the national Authority, relieve us, while we look upon ourselves to be bound in Duty and Con­science to obey that Authority? Or, will it prove that we ought not to be relieved? If it will do neither, we are still in the same Condition, and have the same Reasons for Complaint.

[Page 17]BUT I humbly conceive the Doctor is greatly mistaken in his Opinion of the Matter, and that, in the long Account he has undertaken to give of the Principles of our Reformers, if he will be so good as for once to lend me his favourite Expres­sion, he does not speak the Truth of Fact. As the Substance of this Account has been copied from the Irenicum ^*, by a Succession, I had almost said an uninterrupted Succession, of Writers against the Church, including Writers against Christianity, down to the Whigs and Centinels of the present Day; and as I look upon it to be very partial and unfair, as well as injurious to many excellent Cha­racters, and to the Church of England in general— I beg Leave to examine it. The Subject, I fear, may be unentertaining to some of my Readers; on [Page 18] which Account, their Indulgence will be esteemed a peculiar Favour.

THE Doctor excepts against the Preface to the Book of Ordination, as a Proof that the Church of England is episcopal, in the common Sense of the Word; because, as Professor Wigglesworth had observed, there is Reason to conclude the Compilers of it were of Opinion, that Priests and Bishops are by God's Law one and the same. This was certainly, says Dr. Chauncey, the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Beginning of the Reformation, and of the Generality of its pious and learned Divines for a very considerable Time afterwards. (Page 8.) He refers to a Book published in the Reign of King Henry VIII, entitled, "The INSTRUCTION of a Christian Man", afterwards altered and reprinted with a somewhat different Title.

LET us first see what the Preface to the Ordina­tion Offices, says. The Words are these: ‘It is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles Time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no Man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such Qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Impo­sition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the Intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of England; no Man shall be accounted or [Page 19] taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, accor­ding to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly episcopal Consecration, or Ordina­tion.’

IF the Reader now will carefully consider this Passage, let him say, whether it is easy to conceive a more direct, positive and compleat Testimony in Favour of Episcopacy, than is here given by the Compilers of the Ordinal. The Distinction of the three Orders, of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, is in this Preface fully asserted;—the Antiquity of this Distinction is deduced ‘from the Apostles Time;’ —the Evidence in Favour of it is said to be contained in "holy Scripture and ancient Authors," —and the Clearness of this Evidence is such, that it must appear ‘to all Men diligently reading holy Scripture, &c.’ In Consequence of this Doctrine, ‘no Man is to be accounted a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suf­fered to execute any of the said Functions, ex­cept he be admitted thereunto, according to the Form’ then established; with a farther Excepti­on in Favour of those only, who had received "formerly episcopal Consecration, or Ordination." If the Doctor can discover no more in these De­clarations concerning Episcopacy, than that they may seem to have an Aspect this Way; such Pre­judice will go far towards accounting for the many Misrepresentations he has made, in his Answer to the Appeal. But to enable him to make a more im­partial Judgment of the Matter, I beg of him to try an easy Experiment, which is no other than [Page 20] this; whether, with all the Explanations and soften­ing Interpretations that the Words will admit of, he is able himself, honestly and consistently, to subscribe to this Declaration of our first Reformers. If he cannot, he must allow them to have enter­tained other Sentiments of Episcopacy, than he has represented them to have had—unless he can sup­pose them to be guilty of the grossest Deceit and Prevarication.

BUT, says the Doctor, ‘that Priests and Bishops were the same,’ CERTAINLY was the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Beginning of the Re­formation; (Ibid.) meaning when the Ordination Offices were composed; or it is impertinent to his Argument. But the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning Episcopacy, is certainly to be learnt from her public Offices and Acts, rather than from the supposed Sentiments of Individuals. For how incredible is it, that different Offices should have been composed for the Ordination of Bishops and Priests, if they were both considered as being in Reality but one Order? If every Priest was believed to be already a Bishop, would Men, who had any Consciences, consent to act the solemn Farce of ordaining such an one to the episcopal Office, with Prayer and the Imposition of Hands? Would they solemnly invoke the Almighty for his Blessing upon them in communicating those spiri­tual Powers, which they had no Intention to com­municate, as the Person was believed to be fully invested with them already? How injurious to the Characters of our excellent Reformers, is the most distant Insinuation of such Duplicity of Conduct!

[Page 21]BUT still the Doctor, it seems, is clear in the Matter; The first English Reformers certainly were not Episcopalians. If positive Assertions are to be admitted as Evidence in this Dispute, I can pro­duce, from the most respectable Authors, innu­merable Witnesses on the other Side. Bishop Ken­net, as moderate a Man, as candid a Writer, and as well acquainted with the English ecclesiastical History, as Doctor Chauncey, says, that ‘the Su­periority of Bishops is one of the Two distinguishing Principles of our Reformation,’ the ‘Supremacy of Kings’ being the other; ‘for both which our conformable Divines have been continual Advo­cates.’ ^* To this Testimony I will add another from Doctor Mosheim. This learned Foreigner, speaking of the Church of England in the XVIth Century, amongst other Things, says, it ‘con­stantly insisted on the divine Origin of its Go­vernment and Discipline.’ ^† It is supposed these two Assertions will be allowed to have as much Weight, as the Doctor's.

BUT let us proceed to Evidence of another Na­ture. The Book intitled ‘The godly and pious INSTITUTION of a Christian Man,’ was published 1537, in the early Infancy, or rather soon after the first Conception, of the Reformation. It was drawn up by Cranmer and others, agreed to by both Houses of Convocation, published with the King's Appro­bation, and intended as a Standard of Doctrine for the Bishops and Clergy. The Book itself I have never seen; but Collier has given an Abstract of the [Page 22] most material Parts of it. In this Abstract there is nothing like what the Doctor would prove from it; but there is something extremely unlike it in the following Passage: "They proceed (says Collier, speaking of the Authors of that Book) ‘to a more particular Explanation of the Authority of the Clergy, and divide it into two Branches, Po­testas Ordinis, et Potestas Jurisdictionis. Concerning the First, not being contested, they say nothing; the Latter, touching Jurisdiction committed by God to the Hierarchy, they throw it into three Subdivisions. By the First, they are impowered to reprove Immorality and Misbelief, and to ex­communicate the Obstinate and incorrigible.—By the second Branch of Jurisdiction, BISHOPS are authorised by our Saviour to CONTINUE the SUC­CESSION and PERPETUATE the Hierarchy. They are the Judges of the Qualifications for Priest­hood, and may admit or refuse as they think fit.— A third Branch of Jurisdiction belonging to Bishops and Priests, comprehends the Power of making Canons for the Discipline and Service of the Church.’ The Historian, at the Conclusion of his Abstract, gives the List of Subscribers, and takes Leave, with the following Remark: ‘This Book, in the Sacrament of Orders, declares the Clergy have their Commission from God Almigh­ty, and by Consequence, that their Authority is no Grant of the Crown.’

A FEW Years afterwards was published, ‘a ne­cessary Doctrine and ERUDITION of a Christian Man,’ to which the King himself wrote a Pre­face. It was for Substance much the same with the INSTITUTION, but enlarged and altered in several Particulars: From whence it is evident that at this [Page 23] Period, the religious Principles of the Nation were in an unsettled, fluctuating State. In the Account given of the ERUDITION by the same Historian, there is something indeed to the Doctor's Purpose; for therein we are told, that ‘after mention made of the Appointment of Deacons’ in this Book, ‘it is subjoined, that the Scripture speaks expressly of no more than the two Orders of Priests and Deacons.’ Were we to stop here, we should infer that the Reformers at this Time, were not proper­ly Episcopalians, but Presbyterians. But in another Passage under the same Head, they have the Ap­pearance, not of Presbyterians, but of Episcopa­lians. Take the Words of my Author: ‘The ERUDITION makes Orders one of the seven Sa­craments, and defines it a Gift of Grace for Ad­ministration in the Church; that it is conveyed by Consecration and Imposition of the Bishop's Hands; that in the Beginning of Christianity, this Character was given by the Apostles. The Proof is drawn from the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus.’ How to reconcile these two Passages, may be difficult; and until this be done, they can prove but little on either Side. Collier says, that ‘under those called Priests or Presbyters, this Book supposes the episcopal Character was meant; for, that these two Orders were distinct and subordinate, is plain from this ERUDITION.’ He concludes with observing, that ‘this last Book does not stand upon so strong an Authority as the former. The INSTITUTION was the Act of the whole Clergy, and subscribed by both Houses of Convocation.’ But the "necessary ERUDITION," was drawn up only by a Committee of ‘the King's Nomination.’

[Page 24]BUT the true State of the Case appears to me to have been this: At the Time of the ERUDI­TION, Cranmer and his Associates were generally agreed in these two main Points; that the national Religion was grossly corrupted, and that a public Reformation was necessary. But how far either was the Case, was the Work of Time to determine. Luther and Calvin had made great Progress in Ger­many and some Places adjacent; but they differed considerably in their Systems; neither of which could safely be adopted, without a careful Exami­nation. Besides, in the Heat of their Contest, they were supposed to have run into some Extremes, which the English Divines judged it prudent to a­void. Our Reformers therefore were resolved to proceed with the utmost Caution. And the Me­thod they appear to have pursued was, to consider one Doctrine after another with the closest Attenti­on, until the whole System should be examined, and placed on the sure Basis of Scripture Authori­ty. While this slow and important Work was going on, the INSTITUTION and ERUDITION were pub­lished for temporary Use. Some of the Doctrines in Dispute between the Church of Rome and the German Reformers, had been fully canvassed and determined by Cranmer and his Friends. Others were not yet thoroughly discussed; among which must be reckoned that of ecclesiastical Government. This may fairly be concluded from the Questions proposed to an Assembly of SELECT Divines, as the Doctor properly calls them p. 9; to which Questi­ons they gave in severally their Resolutions in Papers, all whose Judgments were accurately summed up, and set down by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. For it was at this Time, and not ten Years after­wards, in the Reign of Edward VI, as Doctor [Page 25] Chauncey, following his blind Guide the Irenicum, asserts, that those Questions were given out for Dis­cussion, as is plain from Bishop Burnet.

AT this Stage of the Reformation therefore it is no Wonder, that we meet with some crude Expessions, relating to Episcopacy; as well as to many other Matters of the highest Importance. The Prepossessions of a Popish Education still ope­rated in the Minds of these honest Searchers for Truth; and it was owing perhaps more to the Force of these Prepossessions, than to any other Cause, that some of them have used Expressions, which have since been construed to imply their having some Doubts concerning the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters. The Popish Schoolmen and Ca­nonists had been for some Ages endeavouring to de­stroy the Distinction between the two Orders; of which Bishop Burnet gives a particular Account ^*, concluding it in these Words: ‘On this I have insisted the more, that it may appear how little they have considered Things, who are so far car­ried with their Zeal against the established Go­vernment of the Church, as to make Use of some Passages of the Schoolmen and Canonists that deny them to be distinct Orders; for these are the very Dregs of Popery, the one raising the Priests higher for the Sake of Transubstantiation, the other pulling the Bishops lower for the Sake of the Pope's Supremacy, and by such Means bringing them almost to an Equality.’ The like Observation was before made by an eminent Archbi­shop, who says: ‘We may justly ascribe the reviving of the Aërian Heresy in these latter Days, to the Dispensations of the Court of Rome, who licensed [Page 26] ordinary Priests to ordain, and confirm, and do the most essential Offices of Bishops. So their Schools do teach us, a Priest may be the extraor­dinary Minister of Priesthood, and inferior Orders by the Delegation of the Pope. Again, The Pope may confer the Power of Confirmation upon a simple Priest. By such exhorbitant Practices as these, they chalked out a Way to Innovators. And yet they are not able to produce a Precedent of such Dispensation throughout the primitive Times ^*.’

BUT to come to the Questions and Resolutions, Extracts from which make so great a Figure in the Irenicum: The Manuscript is published at large by Burnet ^†, excepting an Omission to be mentioned presently. Therein we find Cranmer's Answer to the 10th Question, in the Words quoted by the Doctor; but the Reader will not forget the Time of his giv­ing this Answer, which was about ten Years before our present Offices for Ordination were composed. However strange Cranmer's Opinion may appear to have been at this Time, there is strong Proof that he altered it immediately. For in the same Copy of Questions and Resolutions, Dr. Leighton's An­swer to the 11th Queston is: ‘I suppose that a Bishop hath Authority of God, as his Minister, by Scripture to make a Priest; but he ought not to admit any Man to be a Priest, and conse­crate him, or to appoint him to any Ministry in the Church, without the Prince's Licence and Consent. And that any other Man hath Au­thority to make a Priest by Scripture, I have not read, nor any Example therof.’ To the 12th Question Leighton answers: ‘I suppose that there [Page 27] is a Consecration required, as by Imposition of Hands; for so we be taught in the Ensample of the Apostles.’ Now Durell in his Vindiciae says, that having had an Opportunity of examining the ori­ginal Manuscript, he found that Cranmer gave his Consent to these two Opinions of Leighton, subscrib­ing to each Th: Cantuariensis; which very material Information is omited by Bishop Burnet ^*. Why Stillingfleet left out this Passage is plain; it inter­fered with the Design of his Irenicum: But why Burnet omited it is doubtful. For that he had no Intention to transmit Cranmer's Character to Poste­rity as Erastian, is evident from his Remark in the Body of his History. ‘In Cranmer's Paper, says he, some singular Opinions of his about the Na­ture of ecclesiastical Offices will be found; but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty, so they are not established as the Doc­trine of the Church, but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own, and it seems that after­wards he changed his Opinion. For he subscribed the Book that was soon after set out, which is directly contrary to those Opinions set down in these Papers.’ ^§

DR. Chauncey proceeds: The Bishop of St. Asaph, Dr. Thirleby, Dr. Redmayn and Cox, were all of the same Opinion with the Archbishop, viz. that ‘Bishops and Priests were at one Time, and were not two Things, but one Office in the Beginning of Christ's Reli­gion.’ I see no great Heterodoxy in this Opinion, if properly explained. It is now generally agreed by the Advocates for Episcopacy, that in the Beginning of Christ's Religion, Bishops, and Priests or Presby­ters, were synonymous Terms: Consequently, they [Page 28] were at one Time, and not two Things. But the Word Bishop in the 11th Question, seems to have been understood in its appropriated Sense. The Question is, Whether a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest by the Scripture, or no? And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest? To this Dr. Cox answers: ‘Bishops have Authority, as is aforesaid, of the Apostles, in the 10th Ques­tion, to make Priests, except in Cases of great Necessity.’ In his Answer to the 10th Question, to which he refers, he had made this Distinction, Bishops as they be NOW, i. e. as superior to Presby­ters; in which Sense therefore he asserts in this Place, that they have Authority to make Priests. Dr. Redmayn answers the Question thus: ‘To the first Part, I answer, YEA; for so it appear­eth, Tit. i. and 1 Tim. v. with other Places of Scripture. But whether any other but only a Bi­shop may make a Priest, I have not read, but by singular Privilege of God.—As for making, that is to say, ordaining and consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belongeth to the Of­fice of a Bishop, as far as can be shewn by Scrip­ture, or any Example, as I suppose from the Beginning;’ and with him agree Thirleby, Sym­mons, Robertson, Leighton and others. In short, they generally agree in answering affirmatively to the first Part, and negatively to the second Part, of the Question; an Exception being made by some of them for Cases of great Necessity.

BUT let us return to Dr. Chauncey: In this same Reign (of Edward VI.) in a public Declaration, subscribed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, eleven Bishops, and many other Doctors and Civilians, it is expressly asserted, that ‘in the New-Testament [Page 29] no mention is made of any Degrees, or Distinc­tion of Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or Bishops;’ for which we are re­fered to Burnet and Neal. I shall not trouble my­self or my Reader with Neal, who generally follows the Irenicum in these Matters. As to Burnet, upon consulting him I find the Declaration here menti­oned, copied-from a Manuscript in the Cotton Li­brary ^*. It is entitled, A Declaration made of the Functions and divine Institution of Bishops and Priests. But how the Doctor could ascribe it to the Reign of Edward VI, after examining Bishop Bur­net on the Subject, is inconceivable. It has evi­dent internal Marks of its being of a more ancient Date; and the Bishop puts it as far back in the Reign of Henry VIII, as 1538 at least, and proves that it could not have been made later than the Be­ginning of the Year he assigns. For it was sub­scribed by Edward Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died in May 1538. This Declaration therefore will not be admitted as an Evidence, that the Refor­mers in the Reign of Edward VI, believed diffe­rently from what they expressed in the public Offices.

Our Adversaries have often boasted of late, that our great Reformer Cranmer was altogether in their Sentiments, concerning the Origin and Nature of Episcopacy. But I trust sufficient has been said to prove, that they have no just Reasons for Triumph, on this Account. Time was when Cranmer was a Papist, and believed the Doctrine of Transubstanti­ation. This, with the other distinguishing Doctrines of Popery, he renounced by Degrees; in Conse­quence of an honest and faithful Examination of [Page 30] them in Succession, one after another. Is it then fair, or can it be reconciled with that common Jus­tice which is due to him as a Man, to say nothing of his eminent Character, to alledge against him in the Reign of Edward VI, after he had firmly set­led himself upon protestant Principles, any Opi­nions he entertained before he was a Protestant? At the Time indeed when he expressed himself, in the Manner that has been mentioned, on the Sub­ject of Episcopacy, he was not a Papist; but it may be said with equal Truth and Propriety, that he was not yet a compleat Protestant. In Regard to some Points, he was still under the Influence of old Prejudices, and of the Impressions he had re­ceived from the Schoolmen and Canonists; from which however it was not long before he perfectly disengaged himself. After the Time of his sub­scribing to Dr. Leighton's Opinions concerning E­piscopacy, I find in him no Fluctuation of Princi­ples; but many Proofs appear of his settled and steady Belief that Bishops are superior to Presbyters, by apostolical Institution. In 1548, he compiled a Catechism, or ‘large Instruction of young Persons in the Grounds of the Christian Religion;’ in which, if we may believe Bishop Burnet, ‘he fully owns the divine Institution of Bishops and Priests.’ In this Book the Archbishop also pub­lished his Sermon, of the Authority of the Keys, upon Rom. x.13, 14, 15. in which Sermon his Notions of Episcopacy and Church-Government are so high, that even the high-flying Dr. Hicks, as some have called him, reprinted it at large, in his Pre­face to The divine Right of Episcopacy asserted. Now let it be remembred, that this Sermon was published in 1548—that the Ordinal was compiled in 1550—and that Cranmer was the principal Person [Page 31] concerned in that Work; and then let it be judged, whether, according to my Answerer, the Considera­tion who were the Compilers of that Work, will in the least contribute to overthrow my Position, ‘that the Church of England is episcopal, and consequently holds the Necessity of Bishops to govern the Church, and to confer ecclesiastical Powers.’

FROM Cranmer, I might go on to vindicate the Sincerity of the other Compilers of the Ordinal, from the same injurious Impeachment; but I have already exceeded the Limits I proposed for this Subject, and I imagine what has been offered is suf­ficient to satisfy all reasonable Persons—and it is vain to attempt the Conviction of others.

FROM the Reign of Edward VI, the Doctor carries us to the Days of Queen Elizabeth, p. 11; when according to him, it was only determined, in ‘ the Articles of Religion agreed upon, to be agree­able to God's Word;’ which seems to be all that he can discover in Favour of Episcopacy. But does he not speak, in this very Passage, of Queen Elizabeth's Re-establishment of Church Government? Now what Form of Church-Government did She re-establish, but that Form which had been before established by Edward VI? And has not this been shewn to be truly episcopal? Is not then the Re-establishment of Episcopacy somewhat more than a bare Determination, mentioned in the Articles of Religion agreed upon; altho' it is there only said to be "agreeable to God's Word?" Neither is this, as the Author of the Irenicum thought it, a low and diminutive Expression, when advanced in Opposi­tion to those who denied it to be ‘agreeable to God's [Page 32] Word.’ For if Episcopacy be agreeable to Scrip­ture, so far as any Form of Church-Government is directly opposite to Episcopacy, it is contrary to Scripture. If this were said of that particular Form for which the Doctor is an Advocate, how­ever diminutive he might esteem it, I fancy he would not consider it as a low Expression.

BUT we need not have been detained with the foregoing Particulars; for we are more roundly told, p. 12, that this Notion of the Right of Bishops to govern and ordain, as being Officers in the Church, superior to Presbyters by divine Appointment, was, as the excellent Mr. J. Owen says, ‘FIRST promoted in the Church of England, by Archbishop Laud.’ This, Dr. Chauncey calls the plain Truth, and would doubtless have us receive it as the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. But of all plain Truths, this is the most mysterious. There may indeed be some secret Meaning in the Word promoted, which I do not comprehend; but until it be unfolded, I must take the Liberty to believe that the national Esta­blishment of this Doctrine, again and again, and making it a fundamental Principle of our Reforma­tion, was doing something to promote it. If the Meaning be, that none before Archbishop Laud, contended for the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters by divine Appointment, in their Writings or publick Disputations; still I must deny it, as I am able to produce abundant Evidence to the con­trary. Among the first Set of English Reformers, the Doctrine of Episcopacy was not disputed, other­wise than in the Way of friendly Enquiry, which soon ended in a general Consent to the Doctrine. Soon after the Accession of Queen Elizabeth, it was received and established as a Doctrine fairly [Page 33] settled by the venerable Reformers of King Edward's Reign, without a particular Re-examination. When the English Exiles returned, amongst the foreign Prejudices imported from Frankfort and Geneva, we find no fixed Disaffection towards episcopal Govern­ment. For even Calvin himself had no Objections to a moderate Episcopacy, such as that of the Church of England. Some of these Persons scrup­led wearing the Habits, objected to the Terms of Conformity, and caviled about some Parts of the Liturgy. For several Years these were the only Subjects of Debate between the Church and the Puritans, as they were now called; and it is not to be expected that, during this Period, we should find any elaborate Defences of episcopal Govern­ment. But afterwards, when the Hierarchy came to be formally attacked by Cartwright, Udal, Penry, and the other Whigs and Centinels of that Reign, it was vigorously defended upon the Footing of a divine Appointment. Even Mr. Neal allows, that the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters began to be disputed and denied, towards the Middle of this Reign. ‘ Whitgift, says he, was the first that de­fended the Hierarchy, from the Practice of the third, fourth, and fifth Centuries, when the Ro­man Empire became Christian; but Bancroft divided off the Bishops from the Priesthood, and advanced them into a superior Order by divine Right, with the sole Power of Ordination, and the Keys of Discipline; so that from his Time there were reckoned Three Orders of Clergy in the English Hierarchy, viz. Bishops, Priests and Deacons.’ He also says, ‘the Queen and the later Bishops would not part with a Pin out of the Hierarchy ^†.’ From whence it is evident, [Page 34] that whatever the excellent Mr. J. Owen may have thought, or Dr. Chauncey may now think, it was not the Opinion of their great puritanical Histo­rian, that the Doctrine of Episcopacy by divine Appointment, was FIRST promoted in the Church of England by Archbishop Laud.

THE first regular Attack upon the Hierarchy of the Church of England was made by the Puritans in 1572, in their Admonition to the Parliament; the Design of which, among other Things, was to subvert the ecclesiastical Government by Bishops. Dr. Whitgift, then Vice-Chancellor of the Uni­versity of Cambridge, was thought to be a proper Person to give "an Answer" to it. Upon this Service he was put by Archbishop Parker, and he performed it with great Approbation and Applause. Strype says of his Answer, that it was an ‘excel­lent Book, containing a very learned and satis­factory Vindication of the Church of England, and the Usages thereof, and especially of the Government of it by Bishops ^‡.’ We also learn from the same Historian, that ‘as Archbishop Parker was the chief Person that set Whitgift about this Work, so he gave him considerable Assistance therein, and the several Parts of the Copy, as it was finished, were sent to him from Time to Time, to review: And Cooper, Bishop of Lincoln, another of our learnedest Bishops, together with other Bishops and learned Men, were consulted withal.—So that this Book may be justly esteemed and applied to, as one of the public Books of the Church of England, con­cerning her Profession and Principles; being of the like Authority, in Respect to its Worship [Page 35] and Government, in Opposition to the Discipli­narians, as Bishop Jewel's Apology and Defence, in Respect to the Reformation and Doctrine of it, in Opposition to the Papists ^‖.’ Upon what Principle he defended the Government of the Church by Bishops, we may learn from Sir F. Knoliys, a great Patron of the Puritans; who some Years afterwards, speaking of Dr. Whitgift's Writings in this Controversy, complains that he ‘had claimed, in the Right of all Bishops, a Su­periority belonging to them, over all the inferior Clergy from God's own Ordinance ^§.’ In 1583 Dr. Whitgift was promoted from the See of Wor­cester to that of Canterbury, in which he continued for many Years, giving frequent Proofs of his steady Adherence to the same Principles with Re­gard to Episcopacy. I will content myself with laying before the Reader, the following remarkable Instance. In 1593, he wrote a long Letter to Beza, expostulating with him for intermedling, in the Manner he had done, in the Disputes between the Church of England and the Puritans; in which Letter is a Passage, which I will take the Freedom to recommend to the serious Attention of Dr. Chauncey, as it will tend to rectify some of his No­tions concerning Episcopacy. ‘We make no Doubt,’ says the Archbishop to that eminent Protestant, ‘but that the episcopal Degree, which we bear, is an Institution apostolical and divine; and so always hath been held by a continual Course of Times from the Apostles to this very Age of ours. For as for what you seem to hint out of Hierom and Augustine; as though Custom only, and that but latter, prefered Bishops to Presbyters; it is a Wonder to me, that you should [Page 36] wrest their Sayings to that Purpose; and that you should not see by other of their Books, what they, as well as other Fathers, thought of this. And why you bring in the mention of Ambrose, I do not sufficiently apprehend. For neither what Ambrose saith of the first Presbyter succeeding the Bishop deceasing, nor what of the Elders that were wont before those Times to be admitted unto the Councils, can by any Pretence look this Way. You may remember, learned Sir, the Be­ginnings of that Episcopacy, which you make to be only of human Institution, are refered by the Fathers, with one Mouth, to the Apostles, as the Authors thereof; and that the Bishops were appointed as Successors of the Apostles; especially in certain Points of their Functions. And what Aaron was to his Sons and to the Le­vites, this the Bishops were to the Priests and Deacons; and so esteemed of the Fathers to be by divine Institution ^*.’

AMONGST those who signalized themselves in de­fending the Cause of Episcopacy, was Dr. Ban­croft, who succeeded Whitgift in the See of Can­terbury. But I need no more than to mention this Instance, since it is so plain that even the Centinel found himself obliged to contradict the general As­sertion of Mr. J. Owen and Dr. Chauncey, and to confess that Dr. Bancroft in 1588 preached up (by a small Mistake he says, first preached up) in the Church of England, after the Reformation, that Bi­shops were of divine Right, an Order superior to Presbyters ^†. As to what he tells us immediately [Page 37] after, that Archbishop Whitgift said, he rather wish­ed, than believed it to be true; this is incredible in itself, and seems to rest altogether on Neal's Au­thority. This Historian, in his Account of Ban­croft's Sermon, refers to no other Evidence than Strype's Life of Whitgift; and in that Book the Ancedote is not to be met with. But near this very Time, viz. in 1589, the Archbishop in Ans­wer to the Calumnies of Martin Mar-Prelate, says, ‘that he was persuaded, that there ought to be by the Word of God, a Superiority, among the Ministers of the Church; and that it was suffi­ciently proved in his Book against Cartwright: And that he was at all Times ready to justify it by the holy Scriptures, and by the Testimony of all Antiquity ^*.’ This clearly shews, in Opposi­tion to Neal and the Centinel, that the Archbishop did not wish, but believe Dr. Bancroft's Doctrine to be true.

THE Controversy concerning Episcopacy having been excited and vigorously urged against the Church, by Cartwright and his Associates, it be­came the Object of public Attention. On this Occasion, the Queen's two great Counsellors, the Lord Treasurer Burleigh and Secretary Walsing­ham, thought fit, in the Year last mentioned, to have a Conference on the Subject with Dr. Hutton, at that Time Bishop of Durham. The Bishop wrote a particular Account of the Conference to the Archbishop, in a Letter, dated October 10th, 1589, which is preserved in the Appendix to the Life of Whitgift; and therein it appears that he very earnestly endeavoured to promote, with all his Abilities, the Notion of the Right of Bishops to govern, [Page 38] &c. And as he was known to express the Opinion of the other Bishops, Strype observes, that in the Doctrine and Arguments he advanced, ‘we may see and understand, what were the Judgments of the Bishops of the Realm, and the learnedest Divines in those Times, nearest the Reformation of this Church, and so best knew the true Con­stitution of it.’

ABOUT this Time Dr. Bilson, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, wrote his Book, entitled, ‘The perpetual Government of Christ's Church,’ which was published in 1593. The first Edition of this Book is now before me; and from the Author's own Account of it in his Preface, I will present the Reader with the following Extracts. ‘In the A­postles, I observe, says he, four things needful for the first founding and erecting of the Church, tho' not so for the preserving and maintaining thereof; and four other Points that must be per­petual in the Church of Christ. The four extra­ordinary Privileges of the apostolic Function were, their Vocation immediate from Christ, not from Men, nor by Men; their Commission ex­tending over all the Earth, not limitted to any Place; their Direction infallible, the Holy Ghost guiding them, whether they wrote or spake; and their Operation wonderful, as well to con­vert and confirm Believers, as to chastise and re­venge Disobeyers. Without these Things the Church could not begin, as is easily perceived; but it may well continue without them.—The other four Points of the apostolic Delegation, which must have their Permanence and Perpetu­ity in the Church of Christ, are the dispensing of the Word; administring the Sacraments; im­posing [Page 39] of Hands; and guiding the Keys to open or shut the Kingdom of Heaven. The first Two, by Reason they be ordinary Means and Instruments by which the Spirit of God worketh each Man's Salvation, must be general to all Pastors and Presbyters of Christ's Church; the other Two, by which meet Men are called to the Ministry of the word, &c. there is no Cause they should be committed to every Presbyter, as the Word and Sacraments are. For as there can be no Order, but Confusion in a Common-Wealth where every Man ruleth, so would there be no Peace, but a pestilent Perturbation of all Things in the Church of Christ, if every Presbyter might impose Hands, and use the Keys at his Pleasure.’ Again: ‘Who succeeded the Apostles, whether all Presbyters equally, or certain chief and chosen Men, one in every Church and City, trusted with the Government both of the People and Presbyters, I have large­ly debated, and made it plain, as well by the Scriptures as by other ancient Writers past all Exception, that from the Apostles to the first Nicene Council, and so all along to this our Age, there have always been selected some of greater Gifts than the Residue, to succeed in the Apos­tles Places, to whom it belonged, both to mo­derate the Presbyters of each Church, and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands; and this their Singularity in succeeding, and Su­periority in ordaining, have been observed from the Apostles Times, as the peculiar and substan­tial Marks of episcopal Power and Calling.’ I have been the larger in these Extracts, because of the judicious Distinctions contained in them, as well as on Account of the Scarceness of that va­luable [Page 40] Book of which the Authors of the Biogra­phical Dictionary gives this Character, that ‘it is esteemed one of the best Books in Favour of Episcopacy.’

IN the next Year, viz. 1594, Hooker began to publish his immortal Work, the Ecclesiastical Po­lity, wherein the whole System of Church-Govern­ment is examined from its first Principles, and the Church of England, particularly its Hierarchy, is defended with such Force of Argument and Per­spicuity of Method, as are an Honour even to the Age in which he wrote. But this Book is so well known, that I need not be particular. All that I shall say is, that the Author was so perfectly satisfied of the Goodness of his Cause, and the Strength of his Defence, that after he had finished it he called upon his Adversaries in these memo­rable Words: ‘We require you to find out but one Church upon the Face of the whole Earth, that hath been ordered by your Discipline, or hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, by episcopal Regiment, since the Time that the blessed Apostles were here conversant.’

BY this Time a Number of the ablest Pens in the Kingdom were employed in defending the Church, against the Arguments, and Cavils, and Calum­nies, with which it was fiercely assaulted by its Adversaries. Amongst others that engaged in its Defence, was the learned Dr. Saravia, formerly a Minister of the Dutch reformed Church, and then a Prebendary of Canterbury, who also in the same Year published his Book in answer to Beza, de di­versis Ministrorum in Ecclesia Gradibus; wherein he more particularly pleads the Cause of the English [Page 41] Hierarchy. He dedicates his Book to the Arch­bishop, and says in his Dedication, ‘that in this Dispute he had defended the episcopal Authority to be of divine Institution, and apostolical Tra­dition, and that it was taught as well by the Word of God, as by the universal Consent of all the Churches ^*.’

I MIGHT easily proceed to other Instances of the like Nature; but those which I have produced are abundantly sufficient for my Purpose, as every single one in this Collection is of itself, and sepa­rately, a full and clear Confutation of Dr. Chaun­cy's positive and unlimited Assertion, that the Doctrine of Episcopacy, upon the Footing of a divine Appointment, was FIRST promoted in the Church of England by Archbishop Laud. For none of these Instances are later than 1594; and it was not until Ten Years afterwards, in 1604, that Laud made his first Efforts to promote this Doctrine, in his Disputation at the Time of taking his Degree of Bachelor of Divinity ^‡.

BEFORE I take my Leave of this Subject, it may be proper to remark, that what I have proved to have been the Doctrine of the Bishops and Clergy in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, must have been agreeable to the Queen, and to the principal Per­sons about her Court. Whitgift, the Leader in this Controversy, on the Side of the Church, was made Archbishop of Canterbury—Bancroft was soon promoted to the See of Worcester—and Bilson, in a short Time, was advanced to the Bishoprick of Winchester. These Promotions were doubtless in­tended, [Page 42] in some Measure, by the Queen, to re­ward them for their Services in the Defence of the Church, and are manifest Indications that She ap­proved of the Principles for which those Writers contended.

HAVING shewn that the Church of England was properly episcopal from the Beginning of the Re­formation; it is Time to consider another general Assertion, which is advanced with a View of strengthening the former. The Point of Re-Ordi­nation, the Doctor tells us, p. 13, did not begin to be urged, until the Days of Archbishop of Laud. I do not undetrake to contradict him in this Point, but I will endeavour to place it in a proper Light.

UNTIL the Days of Archbishop Laud, there were but very few Cases, if any, wherein it was needful to consider the Point of Re-Ordination. It was not until 1572, that the Puritans ventured to withdraw from the Church, and to set up separate Assemblies; and then, for many Years, their Congregations were supplied with Ministers who had received Or­dination from the Bishops in England. Afterwards, when this Resource was insufficient to answer their Occasions, they were at the Trouble and Expence of sending over for Ordination, such Persons as were wanted, to Antwerp and other Places upon the Continent; still scrupling to set up an Ordina­tion of their own, in Opposition to the Bishops. As this was the Case, there were but few Ministers in the Kingdom, before the Days of Archbishop Laud, that had not received episcopal Ordination; and of those few, I do not recollect a single Person, that regularly conformed to the Church, and ap­plied for Preferment.

[Page 43]THE foreign Divines mentioned by the Doctor, viz. P. Martyr, M. Bucer, and P. Fagius, who were admitted, without Re-Ordination, not to ec­clesiastical Preferments in the established Church, (ex­cepting P. Martyr, who had been episcopally or­dained, and was made at last Canon of Christ's-Church) but to academical Preferments in the Uni­versities; came over upon the Invitation of Cran­mer, and were settled in their respective Places, be­fore the Ordinal was compiled and established. As to Whittingham and Travers, the two other In­stances pointed out by the Doctor; the former was prefered in the early Part of Elizabeth's Reign, by the Interest of the Earl of Leicester, the great Pa­tron of the Puritans. Upon the Accession of that Princess, she found the Affairs of Religion in a confused, precarious State; and the great Object of her Attention was, first, to bring about quietly, if possible, the Re-Establishment of the protestant Religion, as it had been reformed in the Reign of King Edward; and then, to secure it against the Attempts of the Papists. All her political Address was requisite for conducting this important Work, as it was foreseen that innumerable Dangers would attend it. In this Condition of Things, it was found necessary to encourage and employ all Persons in­discriminately,who were known to be disaffected to Popery, and were thought able by writing or preaching to combat successfully its distinguishing Principles. Wittingham was a Person of this Cha­racter, and although not lawfully ordained, yet by the Connivance of some, and the Interest of others, he obtained the Deanry of Durham. Travers, a noted Puritan, and a popular Preacher, one of those who went over to Antwerp for Ordination, finding the Mastership of the Temple vacant, made [Page 44] Use of all his Interest to obtain it; and he suc­ceeded so far, that he engaged even the Lord Trea­surer Burleigh to recommend him for the Appoint­ment. But the Archbishop opposed it, alledging his irregular Behaviour, and the Insufficiency of his Ordination. The Event was, that Travers was set aside, and the Place given to his Competitor, the celebrated Hooker. His Friends however made a Shift to keep him in as the Preacher of the Af­ternoon Lecture.

HAVING shewn in what Manner Whittingham and Travers got their Preferments, I shall go on to observe, that there were in the former Part of this Reign many Instances of meer Laymen, without any Kind of Ordination, who had the Address to possess themselves of Livings in the Church. ‘ Ni­cholas, Bishop of Bangor,’ says one who was most circumstantially acquainted with the History of those Times, ‘having this Year (1567) made some Inspection into the Condition of his Diocess, sent the Archbishop, according to his Order, the Names of all the Dean and Chapter, and of all the Ministers in his Diocess, with Account of their Residency and their Hospitality; such also as were not Deacons, nor Priests; and yet held ec­clesiastical Preferments. To the End, as he wrote, that his Grace might perceive, how Men that were no Ministers had such Livings, to the utter Decay of learned Men to be Ministers, where others had that Liberty to hold Benefices, and not to be in Orders ^*.’ If then the Prefer­ments of such Men as Whittingham and Travers are a Proof, that in this Reign the Ordination of Presbyters was allowed to be valid; those Prefer­ments [Page 45] which were held by the Laity are also a Proof, that no Ordination at all was thought to be necessary.

BUT neither of these Conclusions ought to be admitted; since we know upon the strongest Evi­dence, that it was the Doctrine of the Church throughout the whole of the Reign we are consi­dering, that Ordination was of divine Appoint­ment, and that episcopal Ordination was of aposto­lical Institution; and that it was an established Law from the very Beginning of it, that ‘no Man should be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bi­shop, Priest or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions,’ without episcopal Ordination. Yet notwithstanding, it was impossible to prevent Transgressions of it in some Instances; and such Instances shew, not what was approved of, but what was overlooked or per­mitted, through the Necessity of the Times. These Irregularities however were corrected by Degrees, and in a Course of Years they were entirely remov­ed. In 1586, the Archbishop took Cognizance of the Case of Travers, objecting to ‘his Ordination at Antwerp, and his denying to receive the Or­ders of the Ministry according to the English Book of Ordination.’ Travers drew up the Rea­sons for his Conduct, and presented them to the Lord Treasurer, who sent them to the Archbishop. The Archbishop returned them with short margi­nal Animadversions, some of which I will tran­scribe, for the Use of Dr. Chauncy and his Friends. ‘As to that Assertion, that Ministers lawfully made in any Church of sound Profession in the Faith, were acknowledged such in any other; and this to be the universal and perpetual Prac­tice; [Page 46] the Archbishop made this only Exception; always excepting such Churches as allowed of Pres­bytery and executed it. Then as to his Examples, this was the Archbishop's Animadversion—that he knew no such foreign Ministers executing their Ministry here; but if there were, their Cause was far differing from his—That Mr. Whitting­ham, had he lived, had been deprived, without special Grace and Dispensation; although his Cause and Mr. Travers's were nothing like.— That the Laws of this Realm required, that such as were to be allowed as Ministers in this Church of England, should be ordained by a Bishop, and subscribe to the Articles before him. Lastly, whereas Travers had said, that the last Archbishop of Canterbury was acquainted with his Manner of calling to the Ministry; and so was the Bishop of London, and were contented he should preach at the Temple (as he had done now almost six Years) and that the present Arch­bishop himself had not taken any Exceptions a­gainst it; our Archbishop said, that this was to abuse their Patience, and that he never allowed of his Kind of calling, neither could he allow of it ^*.’

AS to the three Presbyters that were consecrated Bishops for Scotland in the following Reign; they were not consecrated immediately, without previ­ous Ordinations, on the Principle that Ordination by Presbyters was valid, but upon the Belief that the episcopal Character, as it included those of a Presbyter and a Deacon, might be conveyed by a single Consecration, as in the Instances of St. [Page 47] Ambrose and Nectarius ^*. And as to Bishop Mor­ton's Answer to the Archbishop of Spalato, sup­posing it to be fairly represented by Peirce, who produces no other Authority than that of one Hickman; yet the Doctrine of the Church is not to be learnt from the singular Notions of an Indi­vidual.

BY this Time, I trust, it may fairly be judged, whether the Want of Instances of Re-Ordination before the Days of Archbishop Laud, can in the least affect the Evidence I have produced, ‘that the Church of England is episcopal.’

I MUST now return back to p. 10, to examine the Doctor's other capital Assertion. It is in Fact true, says he, that both in King Henry the Eighth's Time, and in Edward the Sixth's, the Bishops took out Commissions from the Crown like other STATE-OFFICERS, for the exercising their spiritual Juris­diction; in which they acknowledge, that ALL SORTS of Jurisdiction, ecclesiastical as well as civil, flow ORIGINALLY from the regal Power, as from a SU­PREME HEAD.— Among the Particulars of ecclesi­astical Power given them by this Commission, is that of ORDAINING Presbyters. Now what the Doctor means by this and more to the same Purpose, may be gathered from p. 57, where he affirms, without Ambiguity, that as to Authority purely Ecclesiastical, there is no such Thing in the Church of England. And he intimates p. 11, that such Authority was never claimed by the Church, until the aforesaid [Page 48] Days of Archbishop Laud; telling us, again from the Irenicum, that if we come lower to the Time of King James, his Majesty himself declared IN PRINT as his Judgment, ‘that the civil Power, in any Nation, hath the Right of prescribing what ex­ternal Form of Church-Government it pleases, which doth most agree to the civil Form of Go­vernment in the State.’ And thus the Religion of the Church of England is made to be altogether a PARLIAMENTARY RELIGION.

THIS Gentleman must be supposed not to be ignorant to whom he is indebted for the Weapons of his literary Warfare; but it may not be amiss to observe to others, that this general Charge against our Reformers was first drawn up by Bellarmine, Saunders, Doleman, Harding, and other Papists, in Revenge for their rejecting the Pope's Supremacy; and that the Enemies of revealed Religion have all along endeavoured to support them in the Charge.

THE Point has been strenuously laboured by Tin­dal, the most inveterate of the deistical Tribe; and some of our late Adversaries have not been ashamed to follow him as their Leader. Even the good Doctor himself has honoured his Book of the Rights, with a second-hand Quotation. Now, that these two Bands, the Papists and Deists, should be re-inforced by some of the hot-headed extrava­gant Writers on the Side of the Dissenters, is not to be wondered at; but that a Man of the Doctor's Coolness and Prudence should be seen to ‘go down’ to these ‘Philistines to sharpen his Mat­tock,’ is a little surprizing. But without pur­suing so obvious a Reflection, I will proceed im­mediately to the Doctrine of the King's Supremacy, as maintained in the Church of England, and in­quire [Page 49] whether it is fairly represented in the above-quoted Passages.

I HAVE already proved that the Church of En­gland has constantly asserted an Authority purely Ecclesiastical, derived from Christ as its proper Source and Author; and consequently not from the Crown, or the civil Constitution. Thus, for Instance, the Power of Ordination, and Authority to administer the Word and Sacraments, have al­ways been exercised upon the Footing of a divine Appointment. The Church also claims a farther ‘Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Au­thority in Controversies of Faith,’ as belonging to her by Virtue of this Appointment; which Claim has been acknowledged and supported, by all our Kings and Queens since the Reformation ^*. Unless therefore the Church is inconsistent with herself, and believes an Authority to be derived from Christ, which She believes not to be derived from him, but from another Fountain; She can­not hold that the regal Power and Supremacy ex­tend to Matters of this Nature, any farther than to controul and regulate the external Exercise of such spiritual Authority.

IN what Sense she maintains the Doctrine of the King's Supremacy, is expressed with great Clear­ness and Precision in her 37th Article. ‘The Queen's Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, [Page 50] unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all Causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign Jurisdicti­on. Whereas we attribute to the Queen's Ma­jesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the Minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the mi­nistring of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which Thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify: But that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God, whether they be Ecclesi­astical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers.’ More Power than this, we give not to our Princes; and less, I believe, is not claimed by the supreme civil Governors of any Kingdom or Republic upon Earth. In the INJUNCTIONS to which the Article refers, the Queen says: ‘Her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any Autho­rity, other than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous Memo­ry, King Henry VIII, and King Edward VI, which is and was of ancient Time due to the imperial Crown of this Realm: That is, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all Manner of Persons born within these her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what Estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soever they be; so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them.’

[Page 51]SUCH Power as is attributed to the Crown in the Article, and explained in the Injunctions, is ne­cessary to preserve the Independency of every State and Kingdom at all Times; and the vigorous Ex­ertion of such Power was found to be peculiarly necessary to carry on the Reformation, wherever it was attempted. JOHN, Elector of Saxony, resolving to rescue himself and his Dominions from the des­potic Authority of the Roman Pontif, and to esta­blish the Doctrine of Luther, assumed to himself that Supremacy in ecclesiastical Matters, which the Church of England allows to be the Right of all sovereign Princes. In Order to secure and per­fect this new Establishment, he ordered a Body of ecclesiastical Laws to be drawn up by Luther and Melancthon, and to be proclaimed by Heralds throughout his Dominions. This was in 1527, while our King Henry VIII, was in Subjection to the papal Yoke, and not long after he had drawn his Pen to defend the Pope's Cause against the Doctrine of Luther. The next Care of the Elector was to dis­place all such of the Clergy as were either vicious or illiterate, and to supply the Churches with such as were most eminent for their Piety and Abilities. By these wise and spirited Measures, the protestant Religion was firmly established in Saxony, and be­came able to support itself against all the Force and Arts of its Adversaries. The illustrious Ex­ample of this Elector was soon followed by other Princes and States in Germany, and the like Suc­cess attended their Proceedings ^*. The same Ex­ample was also followed in England, as soon as the Resolution was taken to reform the established Religion.

[Page 52]IF we examine our 37th Article, it is evident that the main Design of it is to guard against the Jurisdiction of the Pope, and to secure to our Princes that Supremacy in ecclesiastical Matters, which the reformed German Princes and States had so successfully exerted, and which, by the English Constitution, is one of the most ancient and un­doubted Rights of the Crown. At the same Time it is farther evident, both from the Article and the Queen's Injunctions, that the Church was believed to have certain Powers of a spiritual Nature, which this Supremacy does not include, and which our Princes are so far from pretending to convey, that all Manner of Right to exercise them in their own Persons is therein formally and expressly dis­claimed. If Queen Elizabeth had believed that all ecclesiastical Authority flow'd from the Crown, contrary to her own solemn Declarations; there was a Time wherein She could have hardly avoided to betray these Sentiments: I mean, after the Depriva­tion of the Popish Bishops, when she undertook to supply the vacant Sees with Men of other Prin­ciples. It was with great Difficulty that She was able to procure proper Persons to perform the first Consecration; and had She been of Opinion that She had the Power in herself, it is more than pro­bable, that, in those Circumstances▪ She would have immediately and directly invested Dr. Parker with the archiepiscopal Office. But to such a Power She had no Pretensions herself; and She believed, that neither Henry VIII, nor Edward VI, pretend­ed to more, than ‘under God to have the Sove­reignty and Rule over all Manner of Persons,’ whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal.

[Page 53]But Dr. Chauncy says, that in both those Reigns the Bishops took out Commissions from the Crown like other State-Officers. The most exceptionable Com­mission of this Nature, in either Reign, was grant­ed to Bonner, in 1539. The Commission at large is in Burnet's Collection, and the Substance of it, as translated and abridged by him, is as follows: ‘That since all Jurisdiction both ecclesiastical and civil flowed from the King as supreme Head, and he was the Foundation of all Power; it be­came those who exercised it only at the King's Courtesy, gratefully to acknowledge, that they had it only of his Bounty; and to declare that they would deliver it up again, when it should please him to call for it ^*.’ This, I believe, must be the Commission which the Doctor alludes to. He is pleased to say that the Bishops (in the Plural) took out such a Commission, and affirms that it is in Fact true; but Bishop Burnet, after all his Exa­mination, says, ‘whether the other Bishops took out such a Commission from this King, I find not.’ The Language of this Commission, as has been acknowledged, appears to be exceptiona­ble; but its Meaning may notwithstanding be harm­less. What was intended by it must be learnt from the public Declarations of those Times relating to the Subject. And it is in Fact true, that it was then the Doctrine of the King, of the Bishops, of the Nation, that Authority to administer the Sa­craments and to perform other spiritual Offices, is derived, not from the Crown, but from Christ. This Doctrine was clearly and fully maintained in the "Institution of a Christian Man," as has been shewn from Collier. In the Cabala or Scrinia Sacra, is published a Letter of Henry VIII, to the Convo­cation [Page 54] of the Province of York, explaining the Su­premacy; but in Language which may appear somewhat uncouth at this Day. Herein says the King; ‘If you take spiritualibus for spiritual Men, that is to say, Priests, their good Acts, and Deeds worldly; in all this, both we, and all Princes, be, at this Day, Chief and Head; af­ter whose Ordinance, either in general or parti­cular, they be ordered and governed. In all those Articles concerning the Persons of Priests, their Laws, their Acts (whose Persons and Laws he here also, as in the Statute-Book, calls spiri­tual) and Order of living, forasmuch as they be indeed all temporal, and concerning this present Life only; in those we be (as we be called) in­deed, in this Realm, Caput; and because there is no Man above us here, we be indeed Supre­mum Caput: As to spiritual Things, meaning by them the Sacraments, (including Orders) being by God ordained, as Instruments of Efficacy and Strength, whereby Grace is, of his infinite Good­ness confered upon his People; forasmuch as they be no worldly nor temporal Things, they have no worldly nor temporal Head; but only Christ did institute them, by whose Ordinance they be ministred here by mortal Men, elect, chosen, and ordered, as God hath willed, for that Purpose, who be the Clergy; who for the Time they do that, and in that Respect, tanquam Ministri versantur in his, quae Hominum Potestati non subjciuntur; in quibus, si malè versantur sine Scandalo, Deum Ultorem habent; si cum Scandalo, Hominum Cognitionis et Vindictae est.—Such Things, as although they be amongst Men, yet they be indeed divina, quoniam supra nos, sunt ni­hil [Page 55] ad nos ^†.’ It is therefore evident, that what was meant to be given by the King, in his Com­mission to the Bishops, was no more than a Liberty, a legal Authority, to exercise their spiritual Functi­ons; and a Jurisdiction, relating to Matters testa­mentary, matrimonial, &c. which is called spiri­tual, because it is committed to spiritual Persons. And such Jurisdiction as this, undoubtedly flows from the Crown, and it becomes those who are in­trusted with it, to acknowledge that they hold it of the King's Bounty, and to deliver it up when he calls for it, if they have received it on that Condi­tion. For an Illustration of this Matter, let it be considered, that every Man is, in some Sense, a King in his own House and Family; and no Cler­gyman has a Right to come into it to perform any ecclesiastical Offices, to administer Baptism for In­stance, without his Leave and Consent. Upon him it altogether depends, whether the Clergyman shall have a proper and lawful Authority to perform this Office in his Family. But is it not evident, that the giving him that Authority, is a very different Thing from investing him with the general Power to administer the Sacraments? In like Manner, as a Kingdom may be considered as a large Family, the King is the political Father of this Family, and as such is supreme over all Persons belonging to it, whether spiritual or temporal. And without his Consent or Authority, no Bishop or ecclesiastical Person can lawfully officiate within his Dominions. But the giving this Authority by Commission, or in any other Way, does not convey to any Man his sacred Character, but always supposes him to have [Page 56] been previously invested with it, by Virtue of a Commission from CHRIST.

THE above Explanation of the ecclesiastical Power claimed by Henry VIII, as belonging to the regal Supremacy, the Words will fairly admit of; and in this Sense they are easily reconciled with other Declarations that were made, about the same Time, in Acts of Parliament, and in public Instru­ments of different Kinds. Nay, the above Expla­nation is necessary, in Order to make this very Commission to Bonner consistent with itself. For besides the Jurisdiction conveyed by it, from the Crown, it acknowledges another Sort of Power to have been committed to him by divine Authority, and that this was evident from Holy Scripture. The Words are: Praeter et ultra ea quae tibi ex sacris Literis DIVINITUS commissa esse dignoscuntur. In the Reign of Edward VI, from 1548 to 1553, Bishops were commonly constituted by the King's Letters Patent. ‘By these Letters Patents, it is clear, says Bishop Burnet, that the episcopal Function was acknowledged to be of divine Appointment, and that the Person was no other Way named by the King, than as Lay-Patrons present to Livings; only the Bishop was legally authorized, in such a Part of the King's Dominions, to execute that Function which was to be derived to him by Im­position of Hands. Therefore here was no Pre­tence for denying that such Persons were true Bishops, and for saying as some have done, that they were not from Christ, but from the King ^‡.’

[Page 57]BUT notwithstanding, Dr. Chauncy has thought fit to say, that among the Particulars of ecclesiastical Power given them by this Commission, is that of or­daining Presbyters. Now this Assertion he borrows from the Dissenting Gentleman, and the Dissenting Gentleman borrows it from Tindal, Author of the Rights; and Tindal, producing no explicit Form of Words whereby this Power was ever conveyed from the Crown, only infers it from the Language of the King's Commission, which has been consi­dered already. The Words of Tindal are these: ‘The Jurisdiction any Bishop has, and his Right to have a Share in the making of ecclesiastical Canons, and the Power of constituting inferior Ministers, must be derived mediately from the Parliament, but immediately from the King, as having the supreme executive Power’. The Reader here sees, that what Tindal, by way of In­ference, had made to be a Power of constituting inferior Ministers, the Doctor by a farther Infer­ence from his Inference, makes to be a Power of ordaining Presbyters; and thus his Proposition is established. It would have been much more to the Purpose, if he, or the Dissenting Gentleman, or the Author of the Rights, had pointed out to us a single Instance of a Presbyter ordained by Virtue of the King's Commission only, by Persons who had no other Kind of Authority. For if the Commission was given for that Purpose, it is strange that it should not have produced the intended Effect in one Instance; and if there were any Instances of it, it is strange that the Saga­city of such Writers should not be able to discover them.

I HAVE now shewn from our Articles, and the public Declarations of such of our Princes as were more immediately concerned in bringing about the Reformation, that the Supremacy claimed by our [Page 58] Kings, and given to them by the Church of Eng­land, does by no Means exclude a purely spiritual Authority—an Authority which is derived only from Christ—which has distinct Acts and Offices of its own—and which is incommunicable by the civil Magistrate. This Account might be confirmed by Testimonies from a continued Succession of the greatest and best Writers, which our Nation has ever afforded. I might also produce the Declara­tions of our succeeding Princes, down to our own Times; but a full Treatise upon the Subject is not my Intention, and I fear the Reader has already been too long detained with it. And yet I must beg Leave to exhibit the Testimony of James Ist, since the Doctor, from the Irenicum, has introdu­ced him as speaking the Language, which seems to favour his Side of the Question now in Debate. This Prince, among other Things, declared, ‘that he always believed, in Opposition to the Puri­tans and Bellarmine, who denied that Bishops received their Jurisdiction immediately from God, that Bishops ought to be in the Church, as being of apostolical Institution, and consequently of divine Ordination ^¶.’

SHOULD it now be asked, what is all this to the Purpose of an American Episcopate? My Answer is, I know not, but—perhaps Dr. Chauncy does. Should it be asked again, is it any Defence of the Appeal? To this I must answer, I can hardly con­ceive that it is. I said nothing obout the Opinion of our Reformers, upon the Points of Episcopacy and the King's Supremacy; and therefore my Vindication of them, can properly be no Vindication [Page 59] of any Thing I had advanced. It is however in­tended to vindicate the English Reformation, and the Church of England from the Charge of Erastia­nism; which the late Attacks, occasioned by the Appeal, have made necessary in itself, and a Duty peculiarly incumbent upon me. But although what has been said, is not properly a Defence of the Appeal, yet it is in some Degree necessary in Order to prepare the Way for defending it, against such a Kind of Opposition as has been made to it.

THE Way being thus prepared, I shall now pro­ceed to an immediate Defence of the Appeal, so far as I find it ought to be defended; but with a Mind open to Conviction, and with a Resolution to re­tract, if, upon this Re-examination of the Subject, I shall find, by the Assistance of my Opponents, or by any other Means, that I had fallen into any Mistakes of Consequence.

I BEGAN with observing, that ‘it is an essential Doctrine of the Church of England, that none have Authority in the Christian Church, but those who derive it from Christ, either mediately or immediately.’ To which the Doctor replies: This is not a Doctrine peculiar to the English Church. Every other Christian Church, of whatever Denomi­nation, holds the same. The Churches in the Colonies, are certainly of this Opinion. So far then, it seems, we agree; but then he cannot think that an uninter­rupted Succession is necessary to a mediate Conveyance of this Authority; so that while he owns the Prin­ciple, he rejects its unavoidable and inseparable Consequence. For when a Thing is to be conveyed from one Person to another, not immediately, but by a successive Communication through a Number of intermediate Hands; if any one in the Succes­sion [Page 60] fails of making the Conveyance, the Thing evidently stops, and passes not on to the Person for whom it is intended. Thus for Example; should any Thing be sent from Dover to London, and yet be carried no farther than to Canterbury or Rochester, and perish there, it could never arrive at the Place of its Destination. Again: Should I claim a Ti­tle to any ancient Estate, and it should appear, upon Inquiry, that the Chain of Conveyances has been broken before it reached me; my Title will be pronounced to be invalid. Nothing but this uninterrupted Chain of Conveyances is wanting, to intitle me to the best Estate in the Kingdom. Once more: If a Man is to receive a Commission medi­ately from the King; unless the Person who confers it has been authorized to do so, it is evidently not the King's Commission that he receives, but one that is spurious. These Cases are plain, and will hardly be disputed.

LET us see then, whether an uninterrupted Succession is not as necessary to a mediate Con­veyance of Authority from Christ, as from the King or any other Person. If Authority can be conveyed from Christ mediately, by a Succession that is interrupted, there must be somewhere in the Succession a Person who can give that which he has not. If the Authority first given to A, is to pass on successively to B, to C, to D, and to E; should the Conveyance stop or be interrupted at C, so that it passes not on to D; in that Case D does not re­ceive it, and therefore cannot convey it to E, un­less D is able to give what it has not. Supposing the Authority, when it comes down to C, to be anni­hilated or to cease; unless it be renewed, E can never be invested with it. The Question then is, [Page 61] who shall renew it? Now all Authority from Christ, must flow from Christ; if it begins, and has its Source short of him, it is not HIS Authority. If he pleases to renew it, he may give it immediately to E, or he may give it to D, by him to be commu­nicated to E; and in either Way E may be invested with Christ's Authority. But now let us suppose that any Number of 'Men upon Earth,' or that ‘all the Angels in Heaven’ should attempt to renew the Authority of Christ, once interrupted and lost; unless a Stream can have a higher Derivation than its Source—unless these Men or these Angels can give what they have not, the Thing is impossible. They may give what they have—they may give their own Authority; but Christ's Authority they cannot give, unless they have received it. And if they have received it, it is not they that renew the Authority, but Christ himself.

THE Doctor cries out, is this the Doctrine of the Church of England? Whether it be so or not, he in Effect tells us that every other Christian Church, of whatever Denomination, holds it — that the Churches in the Colonies, are certainly of this Opi­nion; i. e. they believe a mediate Conveyance of Authority from Christ, which necessarily implies an unbroken Succession of Conveyers. He appears therefore to have acted inconsistently, in treating the general Doctrine of a mediate Conveyance, or, in other Words, an uninterrupted Succession, as if it were singular, unscriptural, absurd and con­temptible. He may say that he meant to explode such a Succession in the Line of Bishops only; but this is not clearly expressed. His Words, in some Places lead us to believe, and the Arguments of some of our Adversaries force us to conclude, that the [Page 62] Doctrine of an uninterrupted Succession in general, without any Limitation, is considered by them as absurd and ridiculous. Whether in particular the Conveyance of Christ's Authority, from the Apo­stles down to the present Day, has been made only in the Line of Bishops, is a different Question; and which Way soever it may be decided, it affects not the common Principle of an uninterrupted Suc­cession. And whether it has been made in the Line of Bishops, depends upon the Decision of another Question, which is, whether the Power of Ordi­nation was originally given to Bishops only, as an Order superior to Presbyters. That the Affirmative of this Question is maintained by the Church of England, I have abundantly proved.

THE Doctor in p. 15, says of the Succession for which we contend, that it is not capable of any good Proof, nor is there any Probability, that so long a Chain, runing through so many Ages of Ignorance, Violence, and all Kinds of Imposture, has never once been broke. But this Assertion militates as forcibly against the Succession which the Churches in the Co­lonies certainly believe, as against the Episcopal. As to the Succession in the Line of Bishops, I am still of Opinion, that ‘it is incumbent on the Ob­jectors to prove that it has been interrupted ^*.’ [Page 63] For we know, by the best historical Evidence, that it has been the universal Practice of the Church, from the Time of the Apostles to the present Hour, to acknowledge none for Bishops, who were not ordained by other Bishops. We know, from the very Nature of the Office, as well as from History, that the Consecration of Bishops was always a pub­lic solemn Act, of which there were many Wit­nesses—that every such Consecration was esteemed to be a Matter of such Importance, that the Re­port of it was immediately propagated and carried even to distant Places—and that, in disputed Cases, it was easy to discover, whether the Person was, in Reality, a Bishop or not; or, supposing the con­trary, that no one would receive episcopal Conse­cration from such Hands. We know also from Scripture, that if such a Succession is as necessary, as, upon a speculative Examination, it appears to be, Christ has promised to preserve and continue it "to the End of the World." With these vari­ous [Page 64] Kinds of Evidence we are abundantly satisfied; and until the Objectors are able to bring positive Proofs that the Succession has been interrupted, we shall not recede from the Claim.

THE only Proof of this Nature attempted by the Doctor is in a Note, where he gives this In­formation: Mr. Petoy the Historian, says, that the Church of England, as well as the Scotch Church, was at first planted and governed, without Bishops until Bishops were sent from Rome. And there cannot be any good Evidence produced, that there were any Bishops in England, until Austin the Monk was sent from Rome. But Dr. Burn, a much better Autho­rity, says, ‘The ancient Britons are believed to have had at least one Archiepiscopal See before the Times of Austin the Monk, viz. at Caerleon, or (as some will have it) at Landaff ^*.’ And Dr. Stillingfleet, to whom more Attention may be paid by some People for the Sake of his Irenicum, having carefully studied the Antiquities of the Bri­tish Churches, in his large Work on that Subject, says in p. 77. ‘I see no Reason to question a Suc­cession of Bishops here from the first founding of a Christian Church.—Although, by the Loss of Records of the British Churches, we cannot draw down the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles Time, yet we have great Reason to presume such a Succession, when upon the first summoning a Council by Constantine, three Bri­tish Bishops appeared; one out of every Pro­vince; as they did in other Parts.’ Again, to the same Purpose in p. 83. ‘Although we cannot deduce a lineal Succession of Bishops, as they could in other Churches, where Writings were [Page 65] preserved, yet as soon as through the Church's Peace they came to have Intercourse with foreign Churches (as in the Council of Arles) they ap­peared with a proportionable Number of Bishops with those of other Provinces; and their Suc­cession was not in the least disputed among them, they subscribing to the Sentence and Canons as others did.’ But after all, supposing the Case to have been as is represented by Mr. Petoy; it affects not the Authority of our present Bishops. If they derive their Succession from the Bishops that were sent over in the sixth Century, their not having received it from Bishops of the old British Churches is no better Proof of its Invalidity, than their not having received it from the ancient Druids.

FARTHER Objection is made to the uninterrupt­ed Succession claimed for our Bishops, on Account of its exposing the Church and Religion of Jesus Christ to open Ridicule, p. 16. Now I am unable to con­ceive that the general Doctrine can appear ridicu­lous to any that understand it; but should it be o­therwise, I cannot help it. To some Persons, many other Doctrines of the Christian Religion appear to be ridiculous; but will this be thought a sufficient Reason for Christians to explode them? Will the Doctor be willing to regulate the System of his own Belief, by this Standard? Do the Churches in the Colonies establish Ridicule for the Test of Truth? That the Church of England does not, I am very certain. But still, that the Doctrine of an uninterrupted Succession in the Line of Bishops should be more ridiculous, than of such a Succes­sion in the Line of Presbyters, is to me utterly in­comprehensible.

[Page 66]I COME now to consider the great popular Ob­jection, that this Doctrine unchurches all the fo­reign Protestants who are without episcopal Govern­ment, as well as the Presbyterians in Scotland, and our own Dissenters; on which Account the Doctor says of it, that instead of deserving a serious Con­futation, it may reasonably excite the Contempt of all. I suspect he found it much easier to treat it with Contempt, than to give it a serious Confutation; and yet as it stood so much in his Way, it might have been well worth his while to have removed it, if he could, although at the Expence of a serious Confutation.

BEFORE I answer directly to the Objection, I beg Leave to remind him of Bishop Burnet's Position, that ‘the ill Consequences drawn from Opinions are not to be charged on all that hold them, unless they do likewise own those Consequences.’ Now, if it be a Consequence of the Doctrine of an uninterrupted Succession in the Line of Bishops, that many of the foreign Protestants are unchurch­ed; yet it is a Consequence that has seldom been owned by the Advocates for the Doctrine. Is it then candid in the Doctor to charge us with this Consequence? Would he be willing to be treated in this Manner himself? He is generally thought to be calvinistic in his Principles, and to hold the Doctrines of Election and Reprobation in the Sense of the Assembly's Catechism. Now he need not be informed, that there are many Persons who believe, the unavoidable Consequences of those Doctrines to be, that Man is no moral Agent, and of Course no accountable Creature—that the Supreme Being is the Author of all Sin, &c. These Consequences, I dare say, he disowns, and looks upon the Imputation of [Page 67] them as injurious. Why then will he impute to us a Consequence, which we neither acknowledge nor believe to be included in our Principle, in the Sense of our Opponents?

BUT to proceed immediately to the Objection: If there is such a Thing in the Church as Autho­rity from Christ, not immediately confered, but mediately derived down to the present Age; the Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Con­veyers is as clear, as that the whole is greater than its Parts. That the Power of Ordination was ori­ginally given to Bishops only, as an Order of Men superior to that of Presbyters, is a Doctrine which we believe upon the Evidence of Scripture. And that for many Ages this Power was exercised by Bi­shops, and was not exercised or claimed by any other Persons, and consequently had no Existence but in the Line of Bishops, is as certain, as the Concurrence of civil and ecclesiastical History can make it. Whatever therefore may be the Conse­quences of the Doctrine, with Regard to ourselves or others, our Belief of it appears to us to be founded upon invincible Evidence. And whenever any Doctrine appears to us to be evidently true, we think we ought to believe it, whether it be chari­table (if Charity may be predicated of Doctrines) or not.

AS to those protestant Churches which are with­out Bishops; while this continues to be their Case, they must be manifestly without that Authority which Christ has appropriated to Bishops. But then such is our Charity towards them, that we believe, upon the Evidence of their frequent and solemn Declarations, that this is rather their Misfortune [Page 68] than their Fault; and therefore we hope (to use the Words of Bogerman, President of the Synod of Dort, upon the same Subject) that God will be merciful to them. The Church of England has always treated all the foreign protestant Churches with a kind and sisterly Affection. She indeed ‘holds the Necessity of Bishops,’ but not that Bishops are necessary to such Churches as are unable to obtain them. In like Manner, She holds the Necessity of the Sacra­ments, but not that they are necessary to every In­dividual. She esteems the Sacraments to be no more than " generally necessary to Salvation," and not universally so; or, as She expresses it in speaking of Baptism, She maintains ‘the great Necessity of that Sacrament where it may be had.’ Thus, the Necessity of Bishops is no more than a general Ne­cessity; or, in other Words, Bishops, according to the Belief of the Church of England, are neces­sary only where they may be had. And if they are an Institution of Christ, intended for the standing Use of the Church, less than this cannot be believed, unless in a single Case hereafter to be excepted. The Institutions of Christ we are bound to observe, in Proportion to our Abilities and Opportunities, and he has promised his Blessing to us in the Use of them; but where these are wanting, our Desire of obeying him will undoubtedly be accepted, instead of Obedience. Where Christ has directed us in what Manner to act, his Direction is the Rule of our Duty; but it is no Rule to himself, and, whenever he pleases, he may accomplish to us the Ends, with­out our having made Use of the Means or Instru­ments.

WHETHER any of the foreign Churches, al­though desirous of Bishops, are in Reality unable [Page 69] to obtain them, is best known to themselves. It might appear otherwise to us, but they have affirm­ed it to be true; and certainly it is more charita­ble to believe, than to disbelieve, them. To prove the Sincerity of their Declarations, it is hoped, that whenever the Providence of God shall give them an Opportunity of obtaining a protestant Episco­pate, they will readily and thankfully embrace it, as one of those Churches has already done, setting before them an Example worthy of all Imitation. ‘The Protestants of Bohemia, who were appre­hensive that Ordinations in which Presbyters, and not a Bishop, should create another Presbyter, would not be lawful; and were in Doubt how they should be able to maintain such an Ordina­tion, either to others when they opposed, or to their own People, when they questioned it;— sent Deputies to the Remains of the ancient Waldenses, upon the Confines of Moravia and Austria, by whose Bishops these Deputies were consecrated to the epispocal office, which they have ever since transmitted to their Successors ^*.’

BUT if any of the foreign Churches have at length formed an Opinion that Bishops are need­less, and are in a Disposition to refuse an Episco­pate if they had it in their Power, which is the Case of the Kirk of Scotland, and of the English Dissen­ters; although we cannot but condemn such irre­gular and unscriptural Conduct, yet we mean not to exclude them from our Charity, nor do we desire to degrade them from the Rank of Christians. For besides the Cases of Inability already mentioned, we believe that the Goodness of God may be also [Page 70] extended to Cases of honest and involuntary Igno­rance. Where Men, through the Force of Prejudice or of any imperceptible Bias, mistake the Matter of their Duty, while they are earnestly desirous of knowing and performing it, we hope that the In­tegrity of their Hearts will be allowed, in a great Measure, to atone for the Errors of their Under­standings. If a Person, duly qualified for some par­ticular Office, should endeavour to obtain the King's Commission, but through a Mistake should receive a fictitious one in its Stead; although such a Commission is not the King's, and all his public Acts in Consequence of it are strictly illegal, yet a good King would be disposed to overlook it, and to ratify those Proceedings which were invalid in themselves. In the same Manner, although we be­lieve that Presbyterian Ordination does not convey Christ's Commission, which he was pleased to lodge in other Hands; yet as some Persons honestly mis­take such Authority as is conveyed by it for his Commission, and by Virtue thereof endeavour to execute his Laws and Purposes relating to his Church, we hope the Irregularity of the Conduct will be forgiven them.

INDEED Persons of the same Spirit with that which governs some of our American Writers a­gainst the Church, would probably say of it, in the Doctor's Language, that it is a vile Affront and Abomination to Christ, as it undoubtedly is when wilful and presumptous; but I cannot believe that, in any Instance, Christ will receive what is sincerely intended to be an Act of Obedience, as an Affront and an Abomination. It concerns us to inquire ho­nestly, and with the greatest Care, after the Will of our blessed Master, and if possible not to mis­take [Page 71] it; but after all, if we should unfortunately still mistake it, we have the Happiness to know, that he is not extreme to mark what has been done amiss, es­pecially through Ignorance. We believe the Sacra­ments to have been instituted by Christ, as Means "generally necessary to Salvation;" but because the People called Quakers, through a mistaken Judg­ment, are without the Sacraments, are we to con­clude, that all the worthy and pious Persons of that religious Denomination, shall fail of Salvation? And yet if our Opponents believe in the Manner that they argue, they must look upon the most vir­tuous Quakers upon Earth, as incapable of Hap­piness. The Truth is, whoever believes in Christ, and endeavours to obey him, however mistaken he may have been in some Instances of his Obedience, we trust will be accepted. Whoever makes it the Business of his Life to fulfil the Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant, notwithstanding any apparent or unknown Defects in the Performance of his Duty, may expect the Blessings of that Covenant, through the Merits and Mediation of Jesus Christ. There are undoubtedly many such Persons, among Chris­tians of every Denomination.

BUT notwithstanding, Mens Sincerity in the Be­lief of erroneous Principles and in Practices formed thereupon, can never be equal to Sincerity in right Practices established upon just Principles. A sin­cere Heathen or Mahometan is by no Means to be considered as upon a Level with a sincere Christi­an; and among Christians, we must give the Pre­ference to those that come nearest to what we believe to be the true Standard of Faith and Practice, on Supposition that their Sincerity is equal. A Man who imagines he has the King's Commission, but [Page 72] has it not in Reality, may endeavour to execute the King's Pleasure, and otherwise act the Part of a good Subject, and as such he may be treated by his Sovereign; but still, an authentic Commission is a better Thing than one that is spurious. And it greatly concerns every Man bearing a Commissi­on, to the Authenticity and Legality of which Ob­jections are made, to examine carefully in what Manner, and from what Authority, he has receiv­ed it.

THUS I have ventured, perhaps more freely than prudently, to express my own Sentiments on this delicate Subject, and the Substance of them may be reduced to the following Propositions: The Commission to ordain, &c. in the Christian Church, can be derived only from Christ—this Commission was originally given exclusively to Bishops—it has been brought down to the present Age by a regular uninterrupted Succession of Bishops—those who are without Bishops are consequently without this Com­mission—notwithstanding, where the Want of this Commission has been fairly owing to the Impracti­cability of obtaining it, it will not be imputed as criminal—and farther, where there is an Opportuni­ty of obtaining it, and Men neglect it, through a mistaken, but honest, Belief, that they are already in Possession of it, it is hoped that the Goodness of God will overlook the Defect.

SHOULD I now be charged with wanting Chari­ty, I must try to bear it as well as I can. I am conscious that what I have said, has been offered with a Disposition that is friendly to the whole human Race, by no Means exclusively of those, upon whom it bears hardest; and I hope it is not inconsistent [Page 73] with the Charity of a Christian, which does not require us to believe contrary to Evidence, but only to put the most favourable Construction upon Men's Actions, which they will fairly admit of. It would be well for the World, if we all cul­tivated this divine Temper more than we do. We should then take a Pleasure in thinking, and speak­ing, and writing of each other, as well as we can; and we should be careful not to carry on our Con­troversies, when they should happen to arise, espe­cially those wherein Religion is concerned, with the Malignity and Ferocity of Barbarians. If we were all under the Influence of that genuine Charity, which the Gospel so clearly explains, and injoins, and inspires, we should not admire a Writer for saying the bitterest and severest Things of those that differ from us, however materially; and I much question, whether a large, ill-natured, abusive Pam­phlet, written professedly with the Design of lead­ing Men to believe, that ‘the Church of England and Church of Jesus Christ, are Constitutions of a quite different Nature,’ would have run through so many Re-Impressions in this Country, and the Author have been so frequently mentioned with singular Marks of Respect and Approbation.

BUT to proceed: The Doctor objects, that, ac­cording to the Doctrine of an uninterrupted Suc­cession in the Line of Bishops, if the popish Bishops, at the Reformation, had stuck to their own Principles, and discontinued the Succession of the Ministry by re­fusing to consecrate, or ordain any but those of their own Communion, it would have been the Duty of Protestants to have contented themselves, without public Worship and the Ordinances of Religion. I believe the popish Bishops always stuck to their [Page 74] own Principles so far, as not to consecrate or or­dain any but those of their own Communion. The Doctor's Supposition therefore will not answer the Purpose without another to second it, namely, that none of the popish Bishops, ordained at the Time of the Reformation, had turned Protestants after their Ordination; for if they had, the Succession might have been continued to us by such reformed Bishops, notwithstanding the Refusal of the popish Bishops to ordain any but those of their own Com­munion: And while we are supposing, we may put the Case, upon other Principles, that all the popish Presbyters had refused to ordain any but Persons of their own Communion; and it will equally prove, that it would have been the Duty of Protestants, not to have formed themselves into religious As­semblies. There is no guarding any Cause or any Argument, against such Suppositions as these. But why must we have been without a Succession, if we had not received it from that Quarter? Might we not have applied to the Creek Church, or to the Waldenses, and have received it from them, as the Bohemians afterwards did?

BUT the worst of the Doctrine of an uninterrup­ted Succession is still behind; for it is derived through the Bishops of Rome, who for a hundred Years to­gether, were, as Baronius confesses, ‘Monsters for Ignorance, Lust, Pride and Luxury.’ Now I cannot conceive that Christ's Authority is more contaminated by a Derivation through the Bishops of Rome, than it would have been, had it been de­rived through the Presbyters of Rome, whose moral Characters were as infamous as those of the Bishops. But it is a strange Conceit, that the personal Defects of the Ministers of Religion, should invalidate their [Page 75] Administrations. It is utterly inconceiveable that either the Ignorance, or the Pride, or the Lust, or the Luxury of the popish Bishops, or all of them together, could render the Commission of Christ in their Hands ineffectual; provided we mean by it any. Thing different from their moral Integrity. This Matter is put in a proper Light by Bp. Burnet. ‘Though we have separated from many Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome, and in particular have thrown out many superstitious Rites out of the Forms of Ordination, that we might reduce these to a primitive Simplicity; yet as we acknowledge the Church of Rome holds still the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion; so we confess She retains the Essentials of Ordi­nation.—Therefore we do not annul their Orders, but receive such as come from that Church, and look upon them as true Priests by the Ordination they got among them, and such were our first Reformers, from whom we have derived our Ordination ^†’.

I KNEW very well what the Dissenting Gentleman, whom the Doctor calls one of the best Writers upon the Subject in Controversy, said, about our calling the Church of Rome in our Homilies, a Harlot, an old withered Harlot, &c. without the Assistance of his long Extract: and I know very well what Mr. White said in Answer to it. But to my great Sur­prize, the Doctor appears to be intirely unacquaint­ed with Mr. White's Defences of his Three Letters, against the Attacks of that Gentleman. I will there­fore give him, by Way of Specimen, Part of his Reply to the Passage under Consideration. ‘We indeed, says Mr. White, for our Parts are [Page 76] not so nice, as to decline calling her (the Church of Rome) by her proper Name a Harlot, when there is reasonable Occasion for it. But here, it is only a scolding Word, and brought in without any Reason, as contributing nothing towards putting an End to the Controversy between us. For Harlot as She is, She may bring forth Chil­dren, as well as an honest and virtuous Matron, and sometimes Children far better than their Pa­rent. And if I must derive my spiritual Pedigree from a Harlot, I had rather it should be an old whithered one, of an ancient and honourable Line, than a young Strumpet, of no Name and Fami­ly, and who came into the World but Yesterday ^*.’ In a Word, I see no Reason why Orders derived from the Papists should, on that Account, be inva­lid, any more than that Arguments derived from the Papists should be so: And this very Objection a­gainst our Ordinations, appears to have had a popish Origin. For a very reputable Author, who perhaps was as well acquainted with the Arts and Schemes of the Papists as any Man of his Time, informs us, that ‘the Jesuits, popish Priests and Fryars condemned our Ministers, because they derived not their Ordination from the Church of Rome. Now, says he, they turn the Scales, and affirm them to be no lawful Ministers, but antichristi­an and popish upon this false Pretext, that they derive their Ordination and Ministry from the Pope and Church of Rome ^‡.’

WE now come to the Doctor's Objections to the Arguments in Favour of Episcopacy, which were sketched out in the Appeal; but I have alrea­dy [Page 77] been detained so long in settling Preliminaries, that I presume the Reader will freely consent to my passing over, for the present, this Part of his Per­formance. At the Time of writing the Appeal, it was imagined that giving a Summary of the Evi­dence in Support of the Doctrine of Episcopacy, and an Explanation of the several Branches of the episcopal Office, would contribute to place the Plea for an American Episcopate in a fuller and fairer View, than could otherwise be had; but I am now convinced, that what was said on the general Subject, however just in itself, or proper in Theory, had been better omited. Our Adversaries have eagerly laid hold of a Subject, which has been already de­bated for almost 200 Years, and will probably be debated for 200 Years to come; and by this Means have kept the principal Object of this Controversy, which is an American Episcopate, at a Distance, and as much as possible out of Sight. The Doctor seems to have acted upon this Plan, exerting him­self upon the Subject of Episcopacy, as if it was his chief Business in answering the Appeal; where­as the Curiosity of the Public called him to pursue another Object—an Object, from which therefore I propose to be no longer diverted, by an endless Dispute concerning Episcopacy. Whether we are right or wrong in our Notions of Episcopacy, yet that we believe Bishops to have been of apostolical Institution, and that they are an essential Part in the Constitution of our Church, is sufficient to intitle us to an Episcopate; unless Reason can be shewn, which it is the grand Business of our Opponents to shew, why the Church of England, in the Colo­nies, should not be suffered to enjoy its own religi­ous Institutions, while every other Denomination of Christians is compleatly tolerated. I propose [Page 78] therefore, as has been intimated, to pass over all that has been said on the general Subject of Epis­copacy, so far as it relates to the Evidence of Scrip­ture and the primitive Church. Nor let the Doctor complain that I decline this Debate; for I mean only to defer it to a more convenient Time. When we shall have settled the Point of an American E­piscopate, I will endeavour to hold myself in Rea­diness to answer his farther Demands.

AN Extract from Chillingworth's Demonstration of Episcopacy concluded the first Section of the Appeal. This the Doctor does not attempt to con­fute; but he discovers half a Mind to get rid of it another Way, by serving it as he before had served St. Ignatius's Epistles ^*. It is, says he, p. 30, strange —that be should write in the Manner he is here REPRESENTED to have done in Relation to Episcopacy. Does he then demur to the Authenticity of the Demonstration, and suspect that Chillingworth was not the Author of it! If he can make this appear, he will not be obliged to encounter with the Au­thority of so great a Name, which is the only Ad­vantage to be expected from it; but the Demonstra­tion will still remain, and the Argument in Favour of Episcopacy will be as conclusive, whoever may have been the Author of it. He confronts the Extract I had given with a Passage from the great Work, The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation; in which Passage the same Au­thor declares, that ‘the BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants;’ but this is not inconsistent with any Thing advanced in the Demonstration. Where he allows us to appeal to "the Bible ONLY," he is speaking of the Rule of Faith in its strictest Sense; [Page 79] and he uses no more than the common Language of Protestants, of Episcopalians, as well as others. But with Regard to Matters of a different Nature, we find him allowing proper Weight to the Testimony of Antiquity. Thus in Chap. v.82. speaking of the various Sects of Protestants, he says, ‘They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by catholic written Tradition; which Rule the Re­formers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow.’ I might produce from him many other Expressions to the same Purpose. And although he mentions ‘Popes against Popes, Coun­cils against Councils, some Fathers against o­thers,’ &c. yet he is not there speaking of the pure and primitive Ages of the Church, but of those succeeding ones which had grossly departed from the original Standard.

BUT notwithstanding the Pretence that Chil­lingworth is on his Side, the Doctor, upon the whole, not liking his Sentiments, appeals from him to much greater Men in the Knowledge of Antiquity, and particularly to that great Antiquary, the learned Arch­bishop Usher, who, it seems, in a Letter to Dr. Ber­nard, says, ‘I have ever declared my Opinion to be, that Bishop and Presbyter differ only in De­gree, not in Order.’ The Letter goes on in these Words, omited by Dr. Chauncy— ‘and con­sequently that in Places where Bishops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters standeth va­lid; yet on the other Side holding as I do, that a Bishop hath Superiority in Degree above a Presbyter, you may easily judge that the Ordi­nation made by such Presbyters, as have severed themselves from those Bishops, unto whom they had sworn canonical Obedience, cannot possibly [Page 80] by me be excused from being schismatical; And howsoever, I must needs think that the Churches, which have no Bishops, are thereby become very much defective in their Government, and that the Churches in France, who living under a popish Power, cannot do what they would, are more excusable in this Defect, than the Low-Coun­tries that live under a free State’ —and then come the other Words cited by the Doctor, with which the Archbishop concludes his Letter.

THE Reader can hardly avoid remarking here, that, in the Opinion of that learned Antiquary, al­though Ordination by Presbyters in Cases of Neces­sity may be valid, yet Ordination by Presbyters in other Circumstances is not to be ‘excused from being schismatical’ —that all Churches without Bishops are "very much defective in their Government"— ‘and that the Churches in France are in this Res­pect more excusable than those in the Low-Coun­tries,’ because they are less able to remedy this Defect. As so full an Explanation immediately fol­lows the Declaration of his Opinion, ‘that Bishops and Presbyters differ only in Degree,’ we may safely conclude that the Primate was rather singu­lar in his Mode of Expression, than in his real Senti­ments, with Regard to Episcopacy. There is a Passage in the History of the Council of CONSTANCE ^*, which will, in some Measure, account for this Peculiarity of Expression. The Historian, giving an Abstract of Gerson's Book concerning ecclesiastical Power, informs us, that ‘Gerson observes there is some Difference between the Sentiments of the Lawyers and Divines concerning Episcopacy. The Lawyers, says he, call Episcopacy an Order, [Page 81] because 'tis above the Priesthood. Though the Di­vines agree, that Episcopacy is a hierarchical Power above the Priesthood, yet they do not say that it is an Order, because it adds nothing to the Power of the Priest over the true Body of Jesus Christ, therefore it is not a new Order, but a new Power.’ From this Account it appears that be­fore the Reformation although it was the general O­pinion that ‘Episcopacy is a hierarchical Power above the Priesthood,’ or "a new Power" added to that of Presbyters, which Power was known al­ways to have been communicated by a new Ordina­tion; yet in the Language of the Divines, in Con­tradistinction to that of the Lawyers, it was not called a distinct Order. Now it is natural enough to suppose that an Antiquary, one that is conversant in the Writings of those Divines that lived Ages before him in the Times of Popery, although a sound Protestant as the Primate was, may have fallen into some Part of their Phraseology, and consequently that he may have used the particular Words, Order and Degree in a Sense somewhat dif­ferent from that wherein they were used by his Co­temporaries. A real Difference between Bishops and Presbyters he certainly admitted, and perhaps al­lowed the Difference to be as great as is contended for; and in that Case it matters not whether it be expressed by the Word Order, or Degree. It may assist us in forming a Judgment of the Archbi­shop's Opinion concerning this Point, to bear in our Minds that he fully believed the Epistles of St. Ignatius to be genuine; for it is impossible for any Man, with this Belief, to doubt, whether in the Beginning of the second Century, the Church was governed by Bishops, as distinct from, and su­perior to, Presbyters.

[Page 82]THIS Reasoning, and the Conclusion to which it leads, are abundantly confirmed by Dr. Bernard, who was the Archbishop's Chaplain for many Years, and most intimately acquainted with his Sentiments relating to this Subject, as well as to others. In Order to prevent any Misinterpretations of the Archbishop's Opinion concerning Episcopacy, as ex­pressed in the Letter, Dr. Bernard says: ‘For that Superiority only in Degree which he (the Primate) saith a Bishop hath above a Presbyter, it is not to be understood as an arbitrary Matter, at the Pleasure of Men, but that he held it to be of apostolical Institution, and no more a Diminution of the Preheminency and Authority of Episco­pacy, than the Denomination of Lights given in common by Moses, to all of them in the Fir­mament, detracts from the Sun and Moon, whom he calls the greater, and were assigned of God to have the Rule of the rest; though the Difference between them be only gradual, yet there is a derivative Subordination, as the Preheminency of the First-born was but gradu­al, they were all Brethren, but to him was given of God the Excellency, or Supremacy of Digni­ty and Power, to him they must bow, or be sub­ject, and he must have the Rule over them: And that this Gradus is both derived from the Pattern prescribed by God in the Old Testament, and from the Imitation thereof brought in by the Apostles, and confirmed by Christ in the Time of the New, the Primate hath so fully con­firmed in that learned Tractate of his, of the Original of Bishops, which he hath deduced from the apostolical Times, that I know not what can be added ^*.’

[Page 83]AS to Bishop Burnet, to whom we are refered; whatever he was inclined to believe when he wrote his Vindication of the Church of Scotland, his sub­sequent Writings afford innumerable Proofs, that he afterwards believed the Doctrine of Episcopacy to be supported, both by the Evidence of Scrip­ture, and the Practice of the primitive Church. If Stillingfleet, when he wrote his Irenicum, and before he was 24 Years of Age, was, as the Doctor pro­nounces, as well versed in the Fathers as any Man; how much superior to any Man, in this Respect, must he have been 20 or 30 Years afterwards, con­sidering the almost uninterrupted Application of his great Abilities to Studies of this Nature? Now at, and long before, that Period of his Age and Inquiries, this celebrated Writer condemned the whole System of his Irenicum; as indeed he great­ly departed from it within two or three Years of its first Publication. The Doctor may be inclined to pay more Deference to Stillingfleet Rector of Sutton, than to Stillingfleet Dean of St. Paul's, or Bishop of Worcester; but others, I believe, will consider such Partiality as absurd and preposterous.

I HAVE arrived, at length, to the End of this Section. And upon reviewing what has passed between us, I can honestly declare, that I am now more established in my Adherence to Chillingworth's Conclusions in direct Contradiction to those of the Doctor, than at the Time of writing the Appeal; more firmly believing that ‘episcopal Govern­ment’ having ‘been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles Times,’ there could be "no such Alteration as is pretended" by Dr. Chauncy and others; and that ‘therefore Epis­copacy’ is not only "ancient and catholic," but truly "apostolic."

SECTION II.

SECT. II.THE Objections that have been made to the second Section of the Appeal, wherein ‘the Powers peculiar to the episcopal Of­fice are shewn;’ as they relate chiefly to the Evi­dence of Scripture explained by the Practice of the primitive Church, so far shall be passed over, they coming not within the Intention of the present De­fence. But a few Things of another Nature have been interspersed with these Objections, of which it may be proper to take Notice.

THAT the Reader might conceive justly of the true Nature of the episcopal Office, I had thought proper to make a Distinction between ‘the several Things that had been added as Appendages’ thereunto, and those ‘which originally and essen­tially belong’ to it. The Doctor seems to have no­thing to oppose to this Distinction; but yet to car­ry on the Appearance of differing from me in Opi­nion, he takes Occasion from it to object, in p. 33, that it is highly unreasonable to add such Appendages to the Office, and as much so to expect, if they are added, that Christian Professors (Professors of what?) Should not complain of it as an intolerable Grievance. Whether the Addition of such Appendages be rea­sonable or unreasonable, is nothing to me; and, which is more, it is nothing to the Case of such an Episcopate as is proposed for America. I had said nothing, nor was it my Business to say any Thing, of its being reasonable that these Appendages should [Page 85] be added; nor is it his Business as an Answerer to me, to say any Thing of its being unreasonable. Much less was it his Business to object Appendages of this Kind to an Episcopate, which it certainly is, and ever was, intended, shall exist without them. And yet both the Doctor and our weekly Adversaries, have expended a great deal of Time and Paper in very impertinent Declamation upon this Subject.

I HAD Occasion to observe, that ‘he who has a small Diocess, has the same episcopal Powers, as he that has a large one; and it Matters not, as to the Validity of the Act, whether it be per­formed’ by one or the other. The Doctor ans­wers, that it certainly does as to his Capacity to serve the great Ends of his Office—and that there is, in Proportion, the same Incongruity in placing Bishops at the Head of large Diocesses, as in having an uni­versal One. This, considered likewise as an Ans­wer to me, and in no other Light are we authoriz­ed to consider it, amounts to no more than this; that although what I said is allowed to be true, yet Something that I did not say is certainly false. The Thing which I did not say is, that a Bishop is as able to serve the great Ends of his Office in a large Diocess, as in a small one. And yet if I had said this, unless the large Diocess is supposed to be lar­ger than the largest in any protestant Country, or in the primitive Church, to which only I had Refe­rence; and the small one, smaller than the smallest, it would not have been so very exceptionable. The larger Diocesses in England have commonly been as well taken Care of, as the smaller ones; and should any of them hereafter, by an Increase of the Inha­bitants, be found to be too large for the Diocesans, [Page 86] Provision is made that they may be assisted by Suf­fragans, in Proportion as they are wanted. The Doctor seems to judge of the episcopal Charge, upon congregational Principles, confounding the Office of a Bishop with that of a Parish Minister; which is like confounding the Duty of a Lord Lieutenant of a County, with that of a Mayor of a Corporation.

I SHALL now pass on to his Exceptions in p. 42, to what I had said of Aërius and Colluthus; name­ly, that they were ‘the first Contrivers of Ordi­nation’ by Presbyters. Concerning the former, the Doctor endeavours to console himself with these Reflections, that Epiphanius was the first that found Fault with Aërius, and that Aërius was condemned not only and meerly for his Opinion concerning the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters. But as to Epi­phanius's being the first Person that found Fault with Aërius, why might not he have been the first, as well as any other Person? The Doctor, I hope, knows, that Aërius and Epiphanius were Cotempo­raries; the former broached his Heresy under Va­lentinian, who was invested with the Empire, in 364, and Epiphanius was made Bishop of Salamis, in 366, according to Du Pin. If an Intimation is in­tended that Epiphanius was the only Person that, at first, considered the Doctrine of Aërius as excep­tionable, or, in other Words, that the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters was generally admitted in the fourth Century, the Suggestion is groundless. The united Voice of Antiquity, and even the Concessi­ons of our most considerable Adversaries, prove the contrary with invincible Evidence. If the Mean­ing be, that Epiphanius was the first that wrote against Aërias; the Chronology of the Facts ought [Page 87] to be more exactly ascertained, before any Thing material can be collected from this Circumstance. Epiphanius began to write his Book of Heresies, according to Du Pin's Account, in 374, but when Aërius first made himself obnoxious, except in ge­neral that it was in the Reign of the Emperor Va­lentinian, extending from 364 to 375, I do not find. Perhaps it may have been but a short Time before Epiphanius wrote against him:—Or, supposing it otherwise, perhaps Aërius himself, and the Progress of his Doctrine, were at first too inconsiderable to deserve Notice:—and perhaps there may be Some­thing in the Case, which, at this Distance, we can­not account for. If the Doctor thinks this last Sup­position can be of any Service to him, he is hear­tily welcome to it.

IF Aërius was not condemned only and merely, it is sufficient for my Purpose that he was condemned chiefly, for his Opinion concerning the Parity of Bi­shops and Presbyters. And that this was the prin­cipal Cause of his Condemnation, appears from all the Accounts I have met with. The learned Mosheim gives this brief Account of the Matter: ‘About this Time, Aërius, a Presbyter, Monk and Semi-Arian, erected a new Sect, and exci­ted Divisions throughout Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, by propagating Opinions different from those that were commonly received. One of his principal Tenets was, that Bishops were not distinguished from Presbyters by any divine Right; but that, according to the Institution of the New-Testament, their Offices and Authority were absolutely the same. How far Aërius pur­sued this Opinion, through its natural Conse­quences, is not certainly known ^*.’

[Page 88]THE Doctor thinks I had no Need, nor any Rea­son to join Colluthus with Aërius; for he did not act in the Capacity of, what Episcopalians would call, a meer Presbyter, in the Business of ordaining; but as a Bishop. But I thought it a very sufficient Reason for joining him with Aërius, that he acted in that Capacity, when he was, in Reality, no more than what Episcopalians would call, and the Orthodox of that Age did call, a meer Presbyter. The true State of the Case of Colluthus may be gathered, from the synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia and Pentapolis—and from a joint Letter of the Clergy of the Province of Mareotis, both preserved in the Works of Athanasius. The synodical Epistle of those African Bishops, speak­ing of the Case of one Ischyras, whom Colluthus ordained, observes: ‘This is the famous Ischyras, who was neither ordained by the Church, nor reckoned among the Presbyters, ordained by Meletius, whom Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, received. How then came Ischyras to be a Pres­byter, and by whom was he ordained? Was it by Colluthus? For that remains to be said. But Colluthus died a Presbyter, so that all the Im­positions of his Hands were invalid and null; and all those, whom he ordained in his Schism, are well known to have been reduced to the Laity.’ The Clergy of Mareotis give the like Representation of the Matter. ‘ Ischyras who calls himself a Presbyter, is not a Presbyter, since he was ordained by Colluthus, who assumed an ima­ginary Episcopacy, and was afterwards com­manded by Hosius, and other Bishops synodically assembled, to return to the Order of Presbyters, whereto he was ordained. And consequently all those, whom Colluthus ordained, returned to their [Page 89] former Stations, and Ischyras himself became a Layman ^*.’ I leave it now with the Reader to judge whether Colluthus acted in the Capacity of a meer Presbyter, in the Business of ordaining, or as a Bishop; and whether it was improper to join him with Aërius, or not. If after all, the Doctor chooses to give up the Example of Colluthus, as not fa­vouring the Cause of Ordination by Presbyters, I certainly can have no Objection.

IT was said in the Appeal, ‘that there is not an Instance of Ordination by Presbyters to be found in the Church for several Ages.’ Dr. Chauncy in his Reply, after remarking that these Words imply that there are numerous Examples of episcopal Or­dination within the same Period, calls upon me in p. 44, very emphatically to produe ONE Instance, within the long Period of 150 Years from Christ, of an Ordination by any Bishop, in any Part of the Christian World; meaning by a Bishop an Of­ficer in the Church of a superior Order to that of Presbyters. So far all is very fair. But behold, Reader, a Curiosity. This very same Challenge he made in his Dudleian Lecture, p. 70; to which a formal and direct Answer has been given by Mr. Leaming. His Words are as follow: ‘I will com­ply with his (Dr. Chauncy's) Demand; and I hope he will allow the Authority of my Author. I might produce many, but for Brevity's Sake, shall mention but one Instance: And that is the Ordination of Titus by St. Paul. That Titus had an episcopal Ordination, appears from the Charge St. Paul gave him, Tit. i.5. For this Cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in Order the Things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in [Page 90] every City as I HAD APPOINTED THEE. St. Paul charged him also to rebuke with all Authority; and again, a Man that is an Heretic, after the first and second Admonition, reject. Here St. Paul commits to Titus the whole Power of ordaining Elders in Crete, and of governing them and all the Chris­tians in that Island. This Authority is clearly expressed, and the Bounds, in which he was to exercise it, distinctly marked out. Thus it ap­pears, that this was an episcopal Ordination in our Sense of the Matter. Our Bishops claim nothing but the very same Power, that St. Paul gave to Titus over the Island of Crete ^†.’ Is not this a fair and full Answer to the Doctor's Demand? Ought he then to be unsatisfied, when all that he asks has been given him? Is it not very extraordi­nary that he should so roundly repeat the Demand, without the least Notice of Mr. Leaming's Answer? I have sometimes met with Persons who would al­ledge the Arguments of others that had been ans­wered, and the Objections of others that had been confuted, without taking Notice of the said Ans­wers and Confutations; but Dr. Chauncy is the first Man I have found in any of the Regions of Con­troversy, that could, without any Symptoms of Perturbation, deal thus with his own Arguments and Objections, after they had been formally ans­wered and confuted. As this and some other Things are against him, it is a Pity he "undertook" the "Work" of answering the Appeal, without consulting his Brethren; and "that he was" not "assisted in it, as—to the Management" of some particular Parts of it, ‘by Direction from so learned and able a Body of Men.’ Had he ‘been favoured with such distinguishing Advan­tages,’ [Page 91] the few Blemishes upon the Face of his Composition might have been avoided.

THE Doctor, in p. 45, pronounces me to have been egregiously mistaken, in saying, that from the fourth Centu­ry, until the Beginning of the Reformation in the sixteenth, ‘no Instances worthy of Notice occur, to favour Ordination by Presbyters:’ And to convince me of my egregious Mistake, he points out, by the Assistance of Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Thomas Walter, the Example of the Waldenses. But upon Examination it will be found, that those two Gen­tlemen happened to be egregiously mistaken them­selves. We have already seen, that the Bohemians had Bishops consecrated by the Waldenses; which shews that the Waldenses then really were, and by o­thers were known to be, Episcopalians. They were moreover such High-Flyers, that they claimed an uninterrupted Succession in the Line of Bishops, as superior to Presbyters. The Bohemian Church, in their Preface to the Book called, Ratio Discipli­nae, Ordinisque ecclesiastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohe­morum, say: ‘And whereas the said Waldenses did affirm that they had lawful Bishops, and a lawful UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES unto this Day; they created Three of our Ministers solemnly Bishops, and confered upon them Power to ordain Ministers. ^*’ One of the most celebrated modern ecclesiastical Histo­rians, [Page 92] who is far from being partial to the Cause of Episcopacy, giving an Account of the Waldenses in the twelfth Century, says of them: "The Go­vernment of the Church was committed by the Waldenses, to Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons; ‘for they acknowledged that these three ecclesi­astical Orders were instituted by Christ himself ^‖.’ But of all Authors, Dr. Allix appears to have made the most effectual Examination into the History of the Waldenses, and to have understood it the most perfectly. This very eminent Writer in his Re­marks upon the ancient Churches of Piedmont, has abundantly proved, that the Waldenses always pre­served, under all their Persecutions and Dispersions, the same Form of Church-Government, from the Time of their Separation from the Church of Rome in the eleventh Century; and that they distinguished their Clergy into three Orders, viz. Bishops, Priests and Deacons. He proves this even from the Testi­monies of those Enemies, who endeavoured to fix upon them the Reproach of allowing the Laity to preach and administer the Sacraments. He proves it more fully from their own Writers, and even from the Example of that very Leger, whom Dr. Chauncy, following Mr. Walter, has introduced to give Evidence to the contrary. For Leger himself was a Waldensian Bishop for twelve Years before his Death, exercising all the Powers that belong to the episcopal Office. Thus having examined all that has been offered on the other Side, I find my­self more firmly established, by the Doctor's Op­position, in my Belief of the Proposition advanced in the Appeal, ‘that the uniform Practice of the Church for 1500 Years, may be added to the [Page 93] Evidence of Scripture, in Support of the Ne­cessity of episcopal Ordination.’

WE now come to the Subject of Confirmation. The Doctor passes over what I had said of its Na­ture and Usefulness; the Reason for which, is left to the Reader's Sagacity to discover. But he favours me, in p. 47, with some critical Remarks upon the Paragraph, wherein I had made an Observation, that the Church of England declares of Confirmation, ‘that it hath been a solemn, ancient and laudable Custom, continued from the Apostles Time;’ and wherein I endeavoured to shew the Meaning of that Expression. My reasoning upon this Head he styles eminently curious, and cries out, demonstrably argued! Is Infallibility the PECULIAR Privilege of the Church? But had he attended to the Paragraph, he might have seen that my Design therein was, to prove what the Church of England believes concerning the Antiquity and Origin of Confirmation; and not to ascertain the Truth of a disputed Fact, by the Au­thority of the Church of England's Assertion. However the Doctor has gained this Advantage by his Mistake; he has shewn that he is able occa­sionlly to enliven and embellish his Style with rhe­torical Decorations. By his interrogating whether Infallibity is the peculiar Privilege of the Church of England, one would be apt to imagine, that he claimed the Privilege of Infallibility for other Churches, and particularly for those of the Colo­nies; but I hope this was not intended, and that there is in Reality nothing more in it than a small Slip of his Pen.

IN p. 49, I am accused of unfairly quoting a Text of Scripture; a Crime which I hold in Abhorrence. [Page 94] Designedly to misrepresent any common Author, is a Species of Injustice which no honest Man will ever consent to practice; but to treat the inspired Wri­ters of holy Scripture in this Manner, is impious and abominable. I am sorry Dr. Chauncy could think me capable of committing such a flagrant Act of Impiety, knowingly and wilfully; and yet from some of his Expressions, I conclude that he thought me, or, at least, that he intended his Rea­ders should think me, capable of doing so. The Text which I am charged with misquoting, is Acts xix. 6, which he has heedlessly marked Acts xx. 7. The whole Verse is thus: ‘And when Paul had laid his Hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with Tongues and prophesied.’ I am charged with suppressing the latter Part of the Text, because if I had given the whole Verse, it would have been, at once, visible to the Reader, that it would have been nothing to my Purpose. Would not any one from hence conclude, that I looked upon the latter Part of the Verse, as overthrowing the Doctrine which I was aiming to establish by the former Part of it? Would he not infer, that I had carefully concealed from the Rea­der those Words which made against my Design? Whereas, in Truth, I neither looked upon the Words at first omited, as really unfavourable to my Argument; nor did I mean to conceal them, for that or any other Reason; nor did I, in Fact, conceal them, but soon after produced them in the Form of an Objection, and gave them all the Con­sideration I thought necessary.

TO set this Matter in a proper Light, I must observe, that the former Part of the Verse in Ques­tion, in p. 21, of the Appeal, is introduced as be­ing [Page 95] exactly parallel with another Text quoted in the preceding Page. Without going on to the End of the Verse, but only to the End of the Parallel, I made a Stop (the Doctor says I shamefully stopped short) to point out, how exactly the one Descrip­tion answered to the other, and to shew that they both manifestly related to the same Office of Con­firmation. I then went on to answer the Objections that might be supposed to arise, against my Inter­pretation; and amongst these Objections, I placed before the Reader those very Words, which I am accused of having kept out of Sight. Whoever will be kind enough to turn to p. 23, of the Appeal, will find that I acted fairly with the Objection, and endeavoured to do it Justice. From whence it is evident, that I could have had no Design to sup­press or conceal the Words in Dispute; or else that I failed of my Design, since I actually did not sup­press or conceal them. I might indeed have quoted them in close Connection with the preceding Part of the Verse; but I thought it sufficient to quote them, when I should come to consider them. When I considered them, I supposed no Person would ob­ject them, who did not know their Connection as used by the sacred Historian; the Knowledge of which I had no Desire to conceal from any one. By this Time I hope the Reader is satisfied, that I am free from the Guilt imputed to me; and that the Doctor has, I will not say, shamefully, but however not much to his Honor, misrepresented the whole Matter.

HE concludes what he has to say on the Subject of Confirmation, with a long Extract from the Dissenting Gentleman's Answer to Mr. White; the Design of which is to shew, that the Bishop has no Warrant to pronounce, in the Administration of that [Page 96] Office, a Man's Sins all forgiven, and himself re­generated by the Holy Ghost. In Answer to this Harangue, it will be sufficient to give the Words of Mr. White. ‘I have now, says he, only to clear up one or two Passages in the Office for Con­firmation, and to rescue them from the perverse Interpretation of this Writer. The first is that, wherein the Bishop declares, concerning those that come to Confirmation, that God has vouch­safed to regenerate those his Servants by Water and the Holy Ghost, and given them the Forgiveness of all their Sins. This he is pleased to understand as a Declaration concerning their present State, and an Assurance that they are, all, though some of them may be absolute Strangers to the renewing Influences of God's Spirit, and fast bound in their Sins, in a State of Grace and Acceptance, and need not doubt of their Salvation. Whereas, it is very plain, from the mention of Water, and their being regenerated thereby, that it is only declarative of the State they were put into by Baptism, they having received therein, or being thereby intitled to the Holy Spirit, and the Forgiveness of all Sin.—But though the State which they were put into when they received their Baptism, was, doubtless, the State which is here meant, yet, for Argument's Sake, I will admit what this Gentleman begs me to admit (for he offers no Proof of it) that the Bishop means the State they are supposed, at present, to be in. And now we will see, if this Decla­ration from the Bishop, even in this View, be really such an unwarrantable and presumptuous one as our Author represents it to be, and is not fairly defensible.’

[Page 97] ‘LET it then be observed, that this Declara­tion is made, not separately to each Individual, but to the whole Assembly, the whole Multitude of those who present themselves for Confirma­tion. And as the far greater Part of these are very young Persons, whom the Bishop may rea­sonably, or in the Judgment of Charity, believe not to be yet defiled with the Pollutions that are in the World through Lust, and most of the Rest, who are of advanced Years, Men seemingly serious, and having a Disposition to real Holiness, and he does not know for certain, there are any amongst them, but can only presume, that, in so great a Number, there may probably be some of another Character, I do not see but the Bishop is sufficiently warranted to make such a Declara­tion concerning them, as he does here. Nor can I apprehend there is the least Danger that a few Individuals, who are yet unholy, and in their Sins, getting in amongst them, will take Encouragement, and conceive false Hopes of the Safety of their Condition, from any such Decla­ration; which they cannot but be sensible was never meant to be applied to themselves, or such Kind of Persons, as they must needs know them­selves to be.’

MR. White then goes on to shew, in the Words of Dr. Doddridge, that the same Form of Expres­sion which is blamed in our Office for Confirmation, was commonly used by Christ and his Apostles. ‘Our Lord, says Dr. Doddridge, tho' he knew the Wickedness of Judas, often addresses himself to the whole Body of his Apostles, as if they were all his faithful Servants, and makes gracious Declarations and Promises to the whole Society, [Page 98] which could by no Means be applicable to this corrupt and wretched Member of it.’ Other Quotations to the same Purpose, from the same Author, are given us by Mr. White. He then remarks: ‘If this be admitted (as I fancy it will) by my Answerer; if he grants that Gentleman (Dr. Doddridge) that our Lord, on divers Occasions did speak to the Twelve in such Terms as were, and, which is more, he knew, were no Way ap­plicable to the Traitor—how can he think it wrong, and such an unwarrantable Thing, as he pretends to do, in the Bishops, at Con­firmation, to declare, before the whole Assem­bly offering themselves to be confirmed, that God had vouchsafed to regenerate those his Ser­vants by Water and the Holy Ghost, and to give them the Forgiveness of all their Sins, &c. If indeed he (the Bishop) was to declare to each indivi­dual Person, by himself, that God had regenera­ted him in particular, with the Holy Ghost, and forgiven him all his Sins, it would be a different Case.’

IT might have been not amiss, if the Doctor, who so often flourishes away with Extracts from the Dissenting Gentleman and Mr. Peirce, had care­fully attended to Mr. White's Defences against the Objections of the former, and to Dr. Grey's Answer to the latter; in which Case, I cannot but think that some of his Quotations from those Authors would have been spared.

SECTION III.

THE Design of the next Section of the Appeal was to shew, SECT. III. by a particular Application of the general Doctrine of Episcopacy, ‘that the Church in America, without an Episcopate, is necessarily destitute of a regular Government, and cannot enjoy the Benefits of Ordination and Con­firmation.’ This is a natural Consequence of our Principles; and one would think that no Person would venture to dispute it. But yet Dr. Chauncy, who seems to have proceeded upon the Plan of disputing every Thing that is advanced in the Appeal, has shewn that he is able to offer Objections even to this.

I passed over the subject of Confirmation without Enlargement, designedly; because I supposed, that, with some of my Readers, the Importance of that sacred Rite would not be acknowledged—or, in the Doctor's Phrascology, that the Subject was not suited to the Colony-Taste. It is not a Matter of Wonder to me, that an Instance of such Com­plaisance to the Reader, should be disagreeable to such an Answerer as the Doctor; who hints his Dislike that the more important Points of Govern­ment and Ordination are, as he says, ‘immediately proceeded to,’ making a Participle passive from "a Verb neuter—Liberties of which Kind, I find him frequently taking without Ceremony.

[Page 100]BEFORE he enters upon the proper Business of this Section, he thinks fit to make Two Remarks. The first, in p. 56, and running on to p. 59, was occasioned by my saying, that ‘none but Bishops have a Right to govern the Church:’ Whereupon he represents the Church of England as having no Authority that is purely spiritual, every Thing of that Kind being considered by him as absorbed in the King's Supremacy. But this Matter has al­ready been placed in so full and clear a Light, that to enlarge upon it here would be paying but an ill Compliment to the Reader's Understanding.

HIS other Remark in p. 59, which he confesses to be not essentially important, relates to the Dif­ference betwixt the Complaint as made at the Head of this Section, and its Appearance in the Explanation that follows. The Ground of the Complaint, says he, as there specified, is this, the Church of England in America, being without Bishops, must for that Reason 'be without Government and Ordination:' Whereas the Justification of this Complaint does not proceed upon the supposition either that they have 'no Govern­ment,' or can have 'no Ordination;' but that their Government without Bishops is incomplete and insuffi­cient, and that Ordination cannot be had without Difficulty, Danger and Expence, p. 60. By the Head if the Section, I should understand the Title of the Section, or at least its first Paragraph. But the Complaint as specified in the Title of the Section is, that without an Episcopate the Church in Ame­rica 'is destitute of a regular Government;' implying that it might be under a Government that is im­perfect and irregular. If therefore, as the Doctor says, the Justification of the Complaint proceeds upon the Supposition, that without Bishops the Government [Page 101] of the Church is incomplete and insufficient, it exactly answers to the Title of the Section. Indeed in p. 27, I had said that ‘the American Church, while without Bishops, must be without Government.’ If he had this general Expression in his View, he did wrong in saying it was at the Head of the Section; for few of his Readers, I believe, would ever think of looking for the Head of a Thing, in the Middle of it.

I TOOK Notice that this general Proposition, ‘that without Bishops the Church of England in America is without Government,’ is to be under­stood in a qualified Sense: But surely there can be no Inconsistency in this. It is very common, and agreeable to strict Method, first to lay down a general Proposition, and then to mark out the Exceptions and Limitations with which it is to be understood.

AS to Ordination, the general Proposition is true without any Exception. For without Bishops, upon the Principles of the Church of England, 2there cannot be Ordination in a single Instance. The Doctor here distinguishes; no Ordination, and Ordination with Inconvenience and Charge, are quite different Things. But he seems to labour under a great Confusion of Ideas, whenever he talks upon the Subject of Ordination. The Position which he controverts is this, that there can be no Ordinati­ons in America without Bishops in America; in Opposition to which he argues, that we may have Ordinations in America, with Inconvenience and Charge. But how can we, without Bishops, have Ordinations in America? Why, says my very logi­cal Opponent, by having them in England. Yet [Page 102] he unluckily acknowledges in p. 56, as to Confir­mation, that we must be in Want of it without Bi­shops, because they only can perform this Piece of Service. If so, one would be apt to think, in like Manner, as to Ordination, that we must be in Want of it without Bishops, because they only can perform this Piece of Service. But no: Or­dination, it seems, may be had still, with Inconve­nience and Charge; and so say I, may Confirma­tion. But the Truth is, neither of them can be had in America, otherwise than by having them in Europe. Let us suppose, for an Illustration, that the civil Authority should put a Stop to every Printing-Press in England; and that some Person should complain of the Hardship of this, that so constitutional a Right as the Liberty of the Press should be refused to Englishmen: Would not an Objector appear in a ridiculous Light, that should affirm the Liberty of the Press was not refused, but only attended with Inconvenience and Charge; and explain himself by saying that a Man might go to Holland or Russia, and there find a Press that would serve him? And yet I cannot conceive that it makes any material Difference, whether the Subject of such reasoning be Ordination, or the Liberty of the Press.

UNDER the Head of Government, I attempted to shew, that although Presbyters may have a subor­dinate Authority, yet unalienable episcopal Au­thority was moreover necessary to answer the Ends of Government in an episcopal Church —and that the Church of England in the Co­lonies greatly suffers for Want of this Authority. The Doctor's Remark is, that if Presbyters may have a subordinate Authority, the Church is still in [Page 103] a less deplorable State than was represented by the Complaint, as at first worded. How the Complaint was at first worded, has been shewn; but if the State of the Church here is not so deplorably bad, with Respect to its Government, as if Presbyters could have no subordinate Authority at all; yet that is no Reason why we should not endeavour to make it better than it is, nor is it any Reason why others should oppose the Attempt.

THE Doctor affects to think the Matter would not be much mended, by the Residence of Bishops. The Church at Home, says he, is in this Respect, in as lamentable a State as the Church in America. The Liturgy itself supposes their Discipline to be in a wretched Condition, p. 62—alluding, I imagine, to the Commination-Office. That the Discipline of the Church of England is defective in some Res­pects, and below the primitive Standard, She has the Candor to confess: If others, whose Discipline is by no Means more perfect, would confess the same, it would be much for their Credit. But the Want of primitive Discipline in the Church at Home, is no Proof that the Want of it is not still greater in the Colonies, nor that the Want cannot in some Degree be remedied by the proposed Epis­copate. We think that a strict Discipline, with Regard to the American Clergy, might be exer­cised under an Episcopate. This is certainly ex­pected; it is an important Part of our Plan; and that American Bishops would disappoint us in this Respect, none have a Right to declare, until the Experiment shall have been made.

TO shew that these Expectations are vain, the learned Dr. Whitby is quoted for these Words: "the Church of England observes no Discipline." [Page 104] But if it be true, that the Church observes no Discipline at Home, it will not follow, that, in very different Circumstances, She will not exercise the Discipline here which is proposed and expected, when Bishops shall be appointed to reside in Ame­rica. But is the Doctor certain, that the learned Commentator says what he ascribes to him? I ask the Question, not only because Whitby mentions not "the Church of England" in the Passage refered to, but because it appears to me, that what is there said of a Church without Discipline, the Commentator says not in his own Person, but in the Character of a Dissenter, who is introduced as assigning it for a Reason of his Separation from the Church of England. Whether I am right in this Opinion, let the Reader judge. After men­tioning the Case of a Jew, who was governed by an erroneous Conscience, Dr. Whitby observes: ‘this is so far from being an unparallel Case, that it is the very Case of the Romanists, using still the anointing of the sick—of the Anabaptists, dipping them that are baptized—of the Greek Church, refusing to eat Things strangled and Blood, out of a Reverence to the apostolical In­junction—of the Dissenters, using Prayer by the Spirit, or conceived Prayer, out of Reverence to the Command, to pray in the Holy Ghost, and abstaining from Communion with that Church which observes no Church Discipline, out of Res­pect to the Command, to purge the evil from among us; for all this is done by them out of a mistaken Reverence to a divine Authority, which they conceive obliging to them ^†.’ Now what is here probably, at least very possibly, in­tended [Page 105] only to express a Conceit of the Dissen­ters, the Doctor, by a Stretch of his Preroga­tive, after making the necessary Corrections and Amendments, forms into a positive Assertion, and puts it into the Mouth of Dr. Whitby, giving it all the Marks of a literal Quotation. Yet after all, supposing Whitby had taken it into his Head to assert, what the Doctor, or rather Mr. Peirce, from whom the Quotation appears to have been taken, makes him to assert; it will only follow, that he asserted of the Church of England, what is not true of that, or any other Church in the Universe. For there is no Church but has some Canons and Laws to regulate the Behaviour of its Members, and sometimes, at least, puts them in Execution; and in so doing, observes and exercises Discipline. Un­less therefore it can be proved, that the Church of England has no Laws, or that none of her Laws are ever inforced, it cannot justly be asserted that She observes no Discipline.

IN explaining the Nature of ecclesiastical Au­thority, I had advanced this Proposition, ‘the Power of the Church is of a spiritual Nature.’ The Truth of this is admited by Dr. Chauncy; but then he immediately rouses himself and his Readers with the following Exclamation. It is really asto­nishing, that he (the Author of the Appeal) should make spiritual Censures the utmost Effect of the Power of the Church of England! And it is equal­ly astonishing to me, that he should not see, that, in the Place refered to, I was considering the Church in its original State, before it was taken under the Protection of the civil Power. I was not speaking of the Church of England in its present Situation, supported and established by the Laws of the King­dom; [Page 106] nor of any other Church, in similar Cir­cumstances. All Churches, whether Episcopalian or Presbyterian, which enjoy the Benefit of a civil Establishment, have their Decrees seconded and inforced, in some Instances, by the secular Arm. And if the Church of England rejects not the friendly Assistance of temporal Authority; neither does the Church of Scotland, nor that of Geneva, nor any other, to whom it is offered. This Obser­vation I beg Leave to illustrate and confirm by an Example from Geneva, which was produced in the Conference at Hampton-Court. ‘One Balthasar, a rich Widow in Geneva, had a Ball in her House. This Diversion is a great Crime by Calvin's Discipline. It happened that a Syndick, one of the Four chief Magistrates, and one Henrick an Elder, were Two of those that danced. When Calvin understood what was done, he convented them before a Consistory; and tho' they were delated by no Body, the Oath ex Offi­cio was put to them to extort Matter of Fact.— In short, Henrick the Elder—was turned out of his Office, and imprisoned for three Days. The Syndick was likewise suspended from the Execu­tion of his Office, 'till he had given some Proofs of his Repentance for being at the Ball. This Man resigned to the Consistory, did Penance upon their Admonition, and so prevented his Commitment. There were several others, who being examined by Calvin upon their Oath, con­fessed they were at this dancing Entertainment, upon which they were all sent to Prison ^*.’ We see here that Calvin scrupled not to make Use of that temporal Power granted him by the Repub­lic, but would depose and imprison Men, as he [Page 107] thought it would best answer the Purposes of his Discipline. And now, before I return from Gene­va, I will only observe, that the temporal Effects of Excommunication there, are as dreadful, as the Doctor, in the Words of the Dissenting Gentleman, has represented them to be in England.

IN speaking of Excommunication and ecclesi­astical Censures, I had observed, that in this Age they have lost much of their Weight; which is owing to certain Causes that were briefly intimated. The Doctor briskly replies, it is readily acknow­ledged the Discipline of the Church is held in Con­tempt by Multitudes. But surely he must know, that Men may despise Things that are not in them­selves contemptible, and that they may affect to des­pise Things, at the same Time that they really look upon them to be venerable. I have met with Per­sons who appeared to hold the Discipline exercised by the Churches in the Colonies in as great Contempt, as the Doctor, or any of his Party, can hold that of the Church of England. If Infidels and Liber­tines laugh to see how it is exercised; we may, in a great Measure, thank those, who have taken so much ungenerous Pains to represent it in a ridicu­lous Light.

IT would be a Shame, says the Doctor, for a Man to speak in its Defence. We acknowledge the Discipline of the Church to be defective, and so far we undertake not to defend it:—I wish some others had the same Ingenuity. But although we pretend not to defend it in every Respect, yet much may be said, and has been often said, to excuse it. The Doctor takes for granted that no Attempt for Redress has been ever made. But in this he assumes [Page 108] more, than we choose to allow him. He must be a Stranger to our History, who knows not that some Attempts have been made with this View; and there may have been some secret ones, of which History does not inform us. Does he think that nothing can be attempted, without public Noise and Clamour? Or, is it reasonable to be noisy and clamorous, when it is known that it can answer no valuable Purpose? May not an indiscreet Zeal, in this, as well as in other Cases, do more Mischief than Service? We are not ashamed to confess, that we wish for the farther Improvement of every Thing belonging to the Church; of our Disci­pline, of our common Translation of the Bible, of our Liturgy and public Offices; which we hope in due Time to obtain, in a regular and peaceable Way; until which Time we shall continue to Use them in their present State:—Looking upon the Discipline of the Church, defective as it is, to be equal with that of our Neighbours—considering our Translation of the Bible, however erroneous in in some particular Passages, as tolerable upon the whole—and esteeming our Liturgy, although ca­pable of still farther Improvement, to be the best upon Earth.

THE Doctor spends some Pages more, in display­ing the Qualities and Condition of a Thing, which he professes to believe has no Existence, i. e. Discipline in the Church of England; but as they consist chiefly of Extracts from the Dissenting Gen­tleman, I must refer those, who are desirous of see­ing particular answers to those Extracts, to Mr. White. I shall take Leave of this Subject with observing, that in this Part of his Performance, the Doctor suffers his unbridled Imagination to [Page 109] run away with his Reason; and that his whole Representation is manifestly so uncandid, so par­tial, so hyperbolical, so ranting, and, I may add, so impertinent to his proper Business, that it merits a Rebuke, rather than a Refutation. If he should ever again undertake to give the Character of the Church of England, or of her Clergy; I recom­mend it to him seriously to attend to the Apostle's Direction: ‘Let all Bitterness, and Wrath, and Anger, and Clamour, and Evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all Malice ^*.’

IN p. 69, I am charged with Inconsistency, and the Charge is thus supported. I had said; ‘In this State of Things, the Restoration of the pri­mitive Discipline seems to be a Matter rather to be wished for and desired, than to be rationally attempted by those in Authority.’ And yet, says the Doctor, it is proposed, that this very Thing which cannot RATIONALLY BE ATTEMPTED, should not only be attempted, but carried into Effect. The Thing that in our Opinion, cannot rationally be attempted, is the Restoration of the primitive Disci­pline; the Thing therefore proposed, according to this Representation, is not only to attempt, but to carry into Effect (as indeed most Attempts are proposed with a View of carrying Something into Effect) the Restoration of the primitive Discipline. And yet, notwithstanding that we are allowed to have proposed this, we are in the very same Page blamed for not proposing it—for forming a Plan not adapt­ed to the Gospel-Institution of Discipline, which we all know was the primitive Standard. The Task, I own, is somewhat difficult, to justify ourselves for proposing and not proposing, for attempting [Page 110] and not attempting, the same Thing; and it is rather unkindly imposed upon us. But if we might be allowed to proceed in our own Way, we believe we could satisfy all reasonable Persons. Our Opi­nion is, that in the present State of Things, the Restoration of the primitive Discipline cannot be attempted, with any Prospect of Success. If the Doctor thinks otherwise, let him try the Expe­riment with his own Congregation, which I sup­pose to be not more than commonly intractable; and when the Attempt is fairly carried into Effect, if he will publish a Narrative of his Process, so successful an Example may animate and direct o­thers; and then, if they refuse to follow it, he may blame them with a better Grace. We are farther of Opinion, that although it is proper and adviseable, for many Reasons, to leave the Disci­pline of the American Church, so far as it relates to the Laity, in its present State; yet, that it is necessary, and at the same Time very practicable, with the Advantage of an Episcopate, to establish a strict Discipline over the Clergy; and therefore it is intended that ‘the Bishop's Power over them shall be as full and compleat, as the Laws and Canons of the Church direct.’

BUT, is not godly Discipline as needful for the Laity as the Clergy? Some godly Discipline for the Laity we already have; we can repel from the Communion those whom we discover to come with an unworthy Disposition; and, in this Country in particular, we DARE to repel, any Blasphemer the three Kingdoms afford, even when he comes to demand it as a Qualification for an Office in the Ar­my or Fleet. Other Acts of Discipline we are able to exercise over the Laity; and, considering the [Page 111] Provision made by our Laws for the Punishment of many of those Crimes, which in the primitive Ages had no other Restraint than the Discipline of the Church, any farther Exertion of ecclesiastical Authority over the Laity, is perhaps rendered less necessary. These Sentiments are not contradicted in the Appeal; for therein I did not make it one main Article of my Complaint, that ‘the People, being sensible of the Clergy's Want of Power, find themselves free from all Restraints of eccle­siastical Authority;’ I only represented this as being in Reality the Case.

BISHOPS undoubtedly, as Successors to the A­postles, are as much vested with Authority to govern the Laity as the Clergy; but, after the Example of St. Paul, they may think themselves not obliged to exercise it with Severity, since it is given them "to Edification, and not to Destruction ^†." If therefore they should judge any Plan, for a greater Extension, or a more vigorous Exertion, of eccle­siastical Power over the American Laity, would tend more to Destruction than to Edification, they are warranted to reject it; and if they have a Right to reject it, they may give Assurances of such a Rejection. But does not this Distinction imply that the Church-Clergy are much worse than the Laity? All that I can conceive to be implied in it is, that greater Advantages are expected from increasing the Restraints of the Clergy, than of the Laity; or, at least, that in the Case of the Clergy, it is more practicable.

The long Extract from Bishop Burnet, begin­ning p. 70, shews that the Bishop, at the Time [Page 112] of writing it, thought there were many Things in the Church that wanted Amendment; and if he had undertaken, with the same Freedom, to give his Opinion of the Dissenters, he would probably have presented us with a no less dark and gloomy De­scription. The Quotation from Mr. Peirce, about the Right of Patronage, is as foreign from the Doctor's Business, as an Argument would be about the Colour of Aaron's Linen Ephod. Therefore passing over this, and, for the same Reason the Quotation from Dr. Croft's ^§, which he might have told us he borrowed from the Dissenting Gen­tleman, I shall proceed to what more nearly con­cerns me.

WHETHER we are right or wrong in that Part of our Plan which relates to the Laity, it might be expected that a Proposal for bringing the Clergy under a strict Discipline, would meet with no Ob­jections from those, who frequently reproach us with the Want of it. For certainly it is better that some Part of any Society should be duly governed, than that no Part should. But we are so unlucky as to be opposed, as well in our Scheme for exer­cising Discipline over the Clergy, as for not exer­cising it with more Severity over the Laity.

IN p. 75 and 77, the Doctor thinks to incum­ber us with this Objection, that our Plan for the Government of the Clergy cannot be executed in the Manner we propose, unless the established Mode [Page 113] of Discipline should be so changed, as to be quite dif­ferent from what it is in England. I am glad to see it granted that the Church of England has an established Mode of Discipline, so soon after a De­nial that She has any Discipline at all. It shews that the Doctor is not incapable of seeing and re­tracting his Errors. But as to the Mode of our Discipline, he need not give himself any Concern on that Account. It has always been intended, that the Mode of it here, under an Episcopate, shall be different from what it is in England. The Essen­tials will be the same, but the Manner of Admi­nistration will differ, in many Respects. The Bi­shop's Authority here, will be purely Ecclesiasti­cal; but at Home, temporal Power, a Non-Es­sential, is joined with it. There, many tedious Forms must be attended to and observed; but here, every Thing may be done in a more summary Way, and no farther Delay will be necessary, than what will be required for a due Information, con­cerning the Facts upon which Camplaints shall be founded.

BUT, says the Doctor, p. 77, if an Alteration is to be made, in the Mode of exercising Discipline, it is infinitely reasonable, it should first take Place at Home, where it is most needed. When it is effected there, it will be Time enough to desire it here. All Changes of ancient and established Usages in any Country, are found to be extremely difficult; and the Doctor seems not to be aware, how many Laws must be repealed before such a Plan of Discipline, as may be easily carried into Effect here, can be executed in England—nor how nearly, such an Al­teration may be thought to affect the State. The whole System of ecclesiastical Laws must be new-modeled, [Page 114] and one half of the national Constituti­on must undergo a very considerable Change, in Order to which, not only the Bishops and Clergy, but all the Branches of the Legislature, must be convinced of the Utility and SAFETY of the Mea­sure—before this Proposal can take Place in En­gland. But at the first Settlement of an Episco­pate in the Colonies, the proposed Alteration of the established Mode may be introduced, without any such Difficulties, and even with as much Ease as the Mode that is practised at Home can be intro­duced. There is therefore no Reason at all for waiting to see it effected there, before we desire it here; much less is it infinitely reasonable to do so. If the proposed Mode is eligible in itself, and may easily be obtained by us, why should we wait for those who cannot easily obtain it, to set us the Ex­ample?

IN speaking of the Clergy under the Distinction of the Virtuous and the Vicious, it was observed in the Appeal p. 32, that ‘the Want of Bishops to superintend and govern them, is obvious at first View. If one Sort have no need of a Bishop to keep them to their Duty, yet some Cases will arise in the Discharge of it, in which his Directi­on will be useful—and many Cases, wherein his Support and Encouragement will be needful— and in all Cases, his Friendship and Patronage will give Life and Spirit to them in undergoing the Difficulties, and performing the Duties of their Stations.’ Upon this Passage Dr. Chauncy makes the following Animadversion. But what is all this to the Affair of Discipline, the grand Point in View? The Doctor's Business here was, to shew it to be necessary that strict Discipline should be esta­blished [Page 115] with Respect to the Clergy; and he begins his Argument with a Case, wherein it is not needed at all, p. 76. I have no Objections to being re­minded of my proper Business, when I happen to forget, or mistake it; nor to being called to Order, when I wander from the grand Point in View. I can take such Interpositions kindly, even from Dr. Chauncy, although he has forfeited all Right to interpose in this Manner, by his own frequent Aberrations from the Point in View. I would only reserve to myself the Privilege of being con­vinced of my Error, before I retract it; which in the present Case I am not. If a Person were speak­ing of the Necessity and Advantages of civil Go­vernment; it would be natural for him, and not impertinent, to make such Observations as these: That Subjects may be distinguished into the Virtu­ous, and the Vicious—that, although Government is more immediately necessary to restrain the Lat­ter, it will also have a good Effect upon the For­mer—not indeed in the same Way, but by the Ap­probation, Encouragement and Direction they will, in general, receive from their Superiors; and by this means Benefit will redound to all with whom they are connected. Now as Discipline in the Church answers to Government in the State, I see not why the same Method of Illustration may not be equally proper in both Cases; nor why the Sen­tence here quoted from the Appeal, may not be pertinent to the proposed Subject in Debate. If the Word Discipline indeed included only the Idea of Punishment, the Animadversion would be just; but since, upon the Authority of the best Wri­ters, it may be extended to Government in gene­ral, in which large Sense I manifestly used it, it is hyper-critical.

[Page 116]BUT, it seems, the Advantages expected from an Episcopate are chiefly imaginary. For was there now a Bishop in whatever Part of America he would choose, the Clergy would notwithstanding be variously distant from him some Hundreds of Miles; insomuch that but few of them could reap much Benefit either by his Direction, Encouragement or Patronage. I am glad to find it allowed that some few of them may be near him, and reap the Advantages proposed. I hope also that some Hundreds of Miles will be found, upon the Trial, not to be equal to some Thousands. If all the Clergy were to be kept at the Distance of some Hundreds of Miles, and were to have no Intercourse or Correspendence with the Bishop, the Advantages expected would be truly chimerical; but according to our Plan, there will not be a Clergyman within his Jurisdiction, but must be personally acquainted and maintain an In­tercourse, with him, in a greater or less Degree.

AS to the Effects of the proposed Discipline upon vicious Clergymen, it is argued in p. 77, that they are not to be expected here, because it is ob­served that Multitudes of Clergymen escape Pu­nishment at Home. The Doctor's Multitudes may perhaps, with more Propriety, be called some; and that some should escape, that deserve, Punish­ment, where the Number of Clergymen amounts to twelve Thousand, is not to be wondered at. Are there not some Instances of this Kind, under the Presbyterian Discipline? Have there not been some, even in New-England? But supposing the Number to be greater in Proportion in England, than in Scotland or New-England; it may be owing to o­ther Causes, than the comparative Insufficiency of episcopal Government, or the Inattention of the [Page 117] Bishops. There are in England some Places that are exempted from the Bishop's Jurisdiction; and it is greatly owing to the Refuge and Protection which those Places afford, that some vicious Cler­gymen escape Punishment. But the Case of the Clergy here, will always be different from what it is in England in so many Respects, that it can never be justly argued that the Bishop's Power over them will be ineffectual here, from any Failure of it there. It is possible that we may be too sanguine in our Expectations; but if an Episcopate will produce one half of the good Effects which we ex­pect from it, it must be very desirable; and we cannot but look upon every Attempt to defeat the Measures taken to obtain it, as ungenerous and unchristian.

AS to all the Purposes of Government, the Doc­tor thinks they might be as well answered by Com­missaries; but both Reason and Experience teach the contrary. Some Branches of the episcopal Au­thority cannot be communicated to Commissaries; and where it is otherwise, Power in the Hands of a Delegate of an inferior Rank, has never that Weight and good Effect, as when exercised by the Principal. For these and other Reasons, when Trial was formerly made of American Commissari­es, they were found by no Means to answer the Purposes of their Appointment.

THE Public has been assured, from Time to Time, that none of those Spiritual Courts, against which there is so general a Prejudice, will be con­nected with an American Episcopate. Some have pretended to suspect, that our real Intentions are different from our Professions; and Dr. Chauncy [Page 118] thinks he has at last detected us. For he has sa­gaciously discovered, that if an immoral Clergy­man is to be tried and condemned, there must be Courts for his Trial and Condemnation. Where, says he p. 78, is the Case to be tried? Can it be tried any where, conformably to the Mode of the esta­blished Church, but in a SPIRITUAL COURT? We are under no peculiar Attachment to the Mode of Practice in the ecclesiastical Courts at Home, nor will American Bishops be obliged to follow it. And as to such Courts as may be erected in this Coun­try, for the Trial of the episcopal Clergy ONLY, the Doctor, I again say, need give himself no Concern about them, unless he expects to become an episcopal Clergyman himself. For none have Reason to object against Things, but upon the Supposition that they are to be, in some Manner, affected by them. The popular Objection against spiritual Courts, is altogether founded on the Opi­nion of their being injurious, not to the Clergy, but to the Laity; but where spiritual Courts take no Cognizance at all of the Actions of the Laity, as it is intended that they never shall in America, this Objection vanishes.

IT is observed, says the Doctor, that ‘the Cler­gy's being under the Eye of their Bishop will naturally tend to make them, in general, more regular and diligent in the Discharge of the Du­ties of their office.’ And what Objection can he make to this? Why, if their being under the Eye of the omnipresent, omniscient God, will not make them regular and diligent, it is a vain Thing to expect that their being under 'the Eye of the Bishop' should do it. And with equal Truth and Propri­ety he might have said, of all but Atheists, that [Page 119] if their being under the Eye of the omnipresent, om­niscient God, will not restrain Men from the Crimes of Fraud and Injustice, it is a vain Thing to expect that their being under the Eye of the civil Magis­trate should do it. That the perpetual Presence and Inspection of the Supreme Being ought to have a greater Effect upon Men, than the Presence of any earthly Superior, I freely allow; but that it does not actually produce this Effect, in innumer­able Instances, is a melancholy Truth, and upon one Moment's Recollection, the Doctor must con­fess it. What then is to be done? Must Men be left to do "what is right in their own Eyes," because they will not consider themselves as under the Eye of the omnipresent, omniscient God? Ought Criminals to go unpunished, because they will not govern themselves by the great Motives of Religion? Or where these are ineffectual, is it impossible that Men should be governed by Motives of a temporal Nature; or can it consist with public Wisdom and the Safety of Society, that such Persons should not be restrained by human Laws? According to this Scheme of Politicks, it is unreasonable to expect any Benefit, either from Discipline in the Church, or from Government in the State.

FARTHER Exception is taken at the Expression, that the American Clergy will be under the Eye of their future Bishop, as highly figurative. But fi­gurative as it is, it may be justified by common Usage. To say of a Clergyman who is even in the immediate Presence of his Bishop, that he is under his Eye, is a figurative Expression; and is never, I believe, understood in a strict literal Sense. To be under the Eye of a Superior, in common Language signifies, to be within the Compass of [Page 120] his Observation and Notice. And this will, in some Degree, be the Case of every American Clergyman, under the proposed Episcopate. Allowing that a Number of them will be fixed in Cures, some Fifty, some a Hundred, and some two or three Hundred Miles from the Place of the Bishop's Residence; yet by Means of Visitations, and a free Correspondence, nothing very material can arise in a Clergyman's Situation or Conduct, without the Bishop's having early Notice of it:—Very early, in Comparison with what it would be, if he were at the Distance of a Thousand Leagues.

WHAT follows upon the Subject of Discipline, is either of no Consequence, or has been answered already: I shall therefore now attend upon the Doctor, in his Objections to what was advanced, under the Head of Ordination.

AMONG the Disadvantages, to which the Church of England in America is subject, for Want of Ordination, the Danger of crossing the Atlantic, for the Purpose of obtaining Holy Orders, was re­presented as worthy of Attention. For an Illustra­tion of this Point, the following Fact was related. ‘The exact Number of those that have gone Home for Ordination, from these northern Colonies, is Fifty-two. Of these Forty-two have returned safely, and Ten have miscarried; the Voyage or Sickness occasioned by it, having proved fatal to near a fifth Part of them.’ The Doctor replies; I have never heard of more than Two to whom the Sea proved fatal. If Eight more lost their Lives by Sickness, it is no more than they might have done if they had tarried at Home, p. 81. If he knows but of Two, to whom the Sea proved fatal, I can tell [Page 121] him of several. Within a Year of the Time of writing the Appeal, Two perished in one Ship upon the Coast of New-Jersey, almost in Sight of their Port; one of whom left a Wife and Family of small Children in New-York, without any other Means of Support, than the charitable Assistance of their Christian Neighbours. As to those that lost their Lives by Sickness, it is true, they might have died if they had tarried at Home; as those who pe­rished at Sea might have been drowned at Home in fresh Water. But the Assertion is, not that they died abroad; but that they died of ‘Sickness oc­casioned by the Voyage,’ — i. e. of Sickness, to which, in all Probability, they would not have been exposed, were it not for the Voyage. And this is strictly true of them in every Instance. Per­haps the Doctor may not think much of our Can­didates dying of contagious Disorders, since such are no more than what are called natural Deaths, and all must die sooner or later. If he can be of this Opinion after recollecting, that such Persons have been taken off in the Prime of Life—just as they were entring into public Stations, in which they flattered themselves that they should be useful to the World—that they died in a foreign Land, at a Distance from their dearest Friends and Connec­tions—I will not dispute it with him. But what does he think, of our Candidates being carried into Captivity—thrown into noisome Prisons in an Ene­my's Country—and there languishing, for many Months, under the most hideous Forms of Distress and Wretchedness? Even this has happened in se­veral Instances, and may happen again.

BUT be the Danger great or small, says he, there is good Reason to believe, the going to England for [Page 122] Ordination is rather an Advantage, than Disadvan­tage to the Church in Regard to its being supplied with Ministers. If going to England for Ordinati­on, notwithstanding the Danger and Expence that attend it, is an Advantage to the Church of En­gland in America; why would not going thither for Ordination, be also an Advantage to all the Churches of the Colonies? And why is not this Ad­vantage generally pursued? For although their Candidates may be ordained here, there is no Doubt but, if they should be found qualified, they might be ordained in England, as well as ours. The Doctor declares that HE should esteem it a happy Cir­cumstance in this Case, was he inclined to take Orders, that he must go to England for that Purpose. If he was always of this Way of thinking, why did he not go to England to receive such Ordination as he has? It is no sufficient Answer to say that he could be ordained here; for if he was at Liberty to go to England, and if his going was considered by him as a Thing desirable on the whole, it was ab­surd in him not to go. Nay, if he is of such a cu­rious or adventurous Turn, why does he not gra­tify it by a Voyage now, although he is not inclined to take Orders? For, as I understand him, he speaks in the present Tense. If a Man desires to go to England for a Thing which he might as well ob­tain without going; he must be equally desirous of going thither, if that Thing were intirely out of the Question.

BUT all Men have not the same Disposition with the Doctor; and if many, to whom he has menti­oned the Matter, have declared themselves to be of the same Mind, there are certainly many others, I imagine a great Majority, who have different Sen­timents. [Page 123] When Dr. Cutler, Dr. Johnson and Mr. Browne, declared their Conformity to the Church, and went Home from Connecticut for Ordination; it is well known, that an Apprehension of the Dangers of the Voyage, was what prevented se­veral other Dissenting Ministers of that Colony, whose Names I could mention, all Men of the like excellent Character with those Gentlemen, from declaring also their Conformity, and going with them. This is a Fact which Dr. Chauncy must be supposed to have heard of, and he can hardly have forgoten it. There have been frequent Instances of the like Nature, of which probably he has not heard. Now with Regard to all such Persons, it is a great Hardship upon them, that they cannot obtain what they are desirous of having; as it is a Hardship upon the Church, to be precluded from the Benefit of their Services, while they are so greatly wanted.

AGAINST the Complaint of the Expensiveness of a Voyage to England for Ordination, the Doctor advances an Objection, which carries with it the most tremendous Appearance. As this Matter be­tween him and me has afforded some Speculation to the Curious, I will state and explain it with par­ticular Care.

IT was said in the Appeal, p. 34, that ‘the Ex­pence of this Voyage cannot be reckoned at less, upon an Average, than a hundred Pounds Sterling, to each Person’ —and that it ‘must generally fall upon such, as having already expended the greatest Part of their Pittance in their Education, will find it extremely hard to raise a Sum suffici­ent for the Purpose.’ In Answer to this, the [Page 124] Doctor very candidly supposes I had never seen, or, if I had, did not remember at the Time of writing, the Account of the Society published in 1706, in which they say, ‘all young Students in those Parts ( the Colonies) who desire episcopal Ordination, are invited into England; and their EXPENCES in coming and returning are to be defrayed by the Society,’ p. 82. Again, he repeats this Ob­jection in p. 90; the Society, says he, has publickly invited into England all young Students in these Parts, who desire holy Orders; declaring THAT THEIR EX­PENCE IN COMING AND RETURNING IS TO BE DE­FRAYED BY THE SOCIETY. This is the Fact truly stated. The Complaint made in the Appeal is, that the Voyage is expensive; the Answer by Dr. Chauncy is manifestly contrived to excite the Idea, that it is not expensive. The Complaint says, the Expence upon an Average, is a hundred Pounds Sterling, to each Person; the Answer leads the Reader to believe, that it is not a Farthing. But this is not the worst of it; the Answer appears to me to be artfully calculated to lead the Reader also to believe Something farther—namely, that con­cerning a plain Matter of Fact, with Regard to which it is impossible that any Missionary can be mistaken, I have published to the World an abso­lute, wilful Falshood; a Falshood, which I knew might be easily detected by any of our Adversaries; a Falshood, which was known to be such, not only by every Missionary on the Continent, but by every Member of the Society both here and at Home, and by every Bishop in the Kingdom. So that I fear the Doctor really intended to lead his Readers to believe me to have been in this Matter, both a notorious Liar, and abominably stupid. I have freely mentioned what I strongly suspect, and what [Page 125] I know to be suspected by many others. If he can exculpate himself, I think it greatly concerns him to do it: Or if any of his Friends can clear him, it is in their Power to do him a most material Ser­vice ^*. Nothing less, in my Opinion, can excuse him to the World and to his own Conscience, than proper Evidence that he himself believes, and has Reason for believing, that I have actually been guilty of such base and absurd Conduct, as his Insinuations manifesly imply. But that he believes any such Thing himself, he does not say: He only says, that the Society HAS, meaning upwards of 60 Years ago, publickly invited over young Students, promising to defray their Expences. This, not­withstanding its Appearance, is not in Reality any Contradiction to my Assertion, which evidently related to the present State of the Church, and not to the State of it in the Beginning of this Century.

THAT the Society published such an Invitation in 1706, I believe to be true; but it appears that the Invitation was only occasional, and that none complied with it. It was not until several Years af­terwards, that the first Candidates from this Coun­try went Home for holy Orders, before which [Page 126] Time the Invitation was recalled, or rather had ex­pired; and neither they, nor any of their Succes­sors, so far as I can learn, received Benefit from it. If the Doctor knew this, he must have known that this antiquated Invitation of the Society, which never took Effect, was no more an Answer to the Complaint against which he alledged it, than if he had quoted one of the ancient English Statutes a­gainst the Lollards. If he knew it not, he ought to have suspected his own Ignorance, and to have inquired into the Matter, when he found that it was so publickly and boldly asserted.

IN a Word; the Truth of Fact is, that the So­ciety are under no Engagements to defray the Ex­pences of Candidates in going home for Ordina­tion, and do not defray them, and, I believe, ne­ver have, so much as in one Instance, defrayed them, either wholly or in Part. In a few Cases they have made Donations to Candidates, in Considera­tion of some extraordinary Losses or Distresses suffer­ed in their Voyage, but never more that I know of, than a Compensation for such extraordinary Losses; and they make it a Rule to advance half a Year's Salary to their Missionaries, before their Embark­ation for America, to enable them the better to de­fray their own Expences. As this Matter is far­ther explained in a late well-received Pamphlet, written in Vindication of a Sermon of the Lord Bishop of LANDAFF, I need not enlarge upon it.

THE next Thing the Doctor controverts with me, is the following Observation. ‘Other Rea­sons may have contributed to this general Want of Clergymen in America, but it has always been principally owing to the great Difficulty of ob­taining [Page 127] Ordination.’ This Opinion might be a­bundantly supported both by Authorities and Ar­guments; but it is sufficient to consider what is objected against it. The Doctor, after telling us that the New-England Missions are generally filled, asks, upon my View of the Case, why should the Diffi­culty be so great in other Provinces, and none at all in the New-England ones, or so inconsiderable, as to be easily got over? If it was in itself a real and great Difficulty, its Operation would be as powerful in these Colonies as the other, p. 83. I never before heard, that the Difficulty of supplying the New-England Missions with Clergymen, is none at all, or so inconsiderable as to be EASILY got over. I be­lieve the Missionaries themselves, and the People of their respective Missions, will agree in telling a very different Story. I will point out to the Doc­tor one Case, which of itself is more than suffici­ent to confute all that he has said, or can say, a­bout the Easiness of supplying the New-England Missions. The Members of the Church of En­gland at Hebron, in Connecticut, exerted themselves for near twenty Years, and were at great Expence in sending home four Candidates successively, be­fore they had the Satisfaction of enjoying a resident Missionary. They first sent home Mr. Dean, in 1745, who was admitted to Holy Orders, and ap­pointed by the Society their Missionary for Hebron; but in returning to his Mission, and to a Wife and several small Children who depended upon him for their daily Support, he is supposed to have pe­rished at Sea, neither the Ship nor any Person on board having been ever heard of. The next, was Mr. Colton; who in 1752, died on his Passage from London to New-England, and was buried in the Ocean. The third Candidate sent Home by [Page 128] this unfortunate People, was Mr. Usher; who, in his Way to England, in 1757, was taken by the French, thrown into Prison, and at last died in the Castle of Bayonne. The fourth was Mr. Peters; who in 1759, not long after his Arrival in En­gland, was taken with the Small-Pox, from which he had the good Fortune to recover—and at length, to the great Joy of the People, he arrived at He­bron, where he is at present the Society's worthy Missionary ^†. If any Presbyterian or congregati­onal Society in the Colonies had suffered in this Manner; much more, if all of them were ren­dered liable to suffer in this Manner, through the Want of such a full Toleration as was allowed to all other religious Denominations; I am much mis­taken, if the whole British Dominions would not resound with, at least, Lamentations and Com­plaints. And if the Legislature should not speedi­ly interpose for the Relief of such Sufferers, these very Writers, who can consider the Matter as a meer Trifle in the Case of the Church, would, if I know any Thing of their Genius and Disposition, be found to make endless Outcries of Injustice and Cruelty. But such is the Blindness of some con­troversial Bigots, that on one Side they mistake Mountains for Mole-Hills, and on the other Side, Mole-Hills for Mountains!

AFTER all, should I allow that, according to the Doctor's Representation, there is no Difficulty, or rather that notwithstanding the Difficulty, the New-England Missions are commonly supplied; it will by no Means follow, that Difficulties which are surmounted by the People of New-England, [Page 129] would not intimidate and deter others, in the southern Colonies.

THE Doctor, not liking the Reason assigned in the Appeal, for the great Want of American Cler­gymen, proceeds to assign Reasons of his own. One is, that the Society neglect the southern Colonies, that they may be more able to episcopize those of New-England. But this is stale common-place Abuse, and the Charge has been confuted over and over. It has been most thoroughly confuted in a very full and compleat Answer to Dr. Mayhew's ‘Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the Society.’ A Sentence indeed is quoted from the Bishop of Landaff's Sermon, to prove that this is the grand Object of the Society; but the Applica­tion of it to that Purpose is a manifest Perversion. The Bishop says: ‘This Point (the proposed E­piscopate) obtained, the American Church will go out of its infant State; be able to stand upon its own Legs; and without foreign Help to support and spread itself. THEN the Business of this Society will have been brought to the happy Issue intended.’ This last Sentence is what the Doctor alledges, as a Proof of the Society's Intentions. But let any impartial Person view its Connection with what preceded, and he will find it impossible not to see, that the Bishop says no such Thing as he is made to say. His Lordship men­tions a Time, wherein ‘the Business of the Soci­ety will be brought to the happy Issue intended;’ but when does he say this Time will be? No other Answer can fairly be given to the Question than this: He says ‘the Business of the Society will have been brought to the happy Issue intended,’ when "the American Church" shall ‘be able to [Page 130] stand upon its own Legs, and without foreign Help to support and spread itself.’ But how does Dr. Chauncy answer the above Question? Let us take it in his own Words: The View indeed of the Society, says he, has been to episcopize these Colo­nies, and this they have made their great Business: Insomuch that should it be accomplished, ‘it will THEN have been brought to the happy Issue in­tended, as we are told, in plain Words, by the Bishop of Landaff.’ Does then the Bishop of Lan­daff tell us in plain Words, that ‘the happy Issue intended’ by the Society is, according to the quaint Phraseology lately introduced, the Episcopization of the New-England Colonies? Does he say any Thing that implies it? Cannot the Church of En­gland in America stand upon its own Legs and sup­port itself, until the Presbyterians and Congregati­onalists of New-England shall be made Proselytes to it? Do not the congregational Churches at this Day stand upon their own Legs and support them­selves in the Colonies without unepiscopizing the Members of the Church? In Order therefore to maintain his Charge against the Bishop of Landaff, even after an Abatement of what is said about plain Words, will not the Doctor be obliged to have Recourse to Lord Peter's Invention, of mak­ing it out totidem Literis, since he must fail in the Method of attempting it totidem Verbis, and even totidem Syllabis? But enough of this.

ANOTHER Reason given by the Doctor for the Want of American Clergymen, is the Backward­ness of the Church People to educate their Sons for this Service. But if their Backwardness is much owing to the great Difficulty of obtaining Ordinati­on, as I am persuaded it is, although the Doctor [Page 131] supposes otherwise, it contradicts not, but coin­cides with, the general Reason assigned in the Appeal.

HIS last Reason is, the Insufficiency of the Temp­tation, in most Cases, to influence Candidates of other Denominations to conform to the Church. They have, says the Doctor, a better Prospect in continu­ing with us, than they would have should they change Sides, and become Episcopalians. This, I believe, is, and hitherto has been, the Case; and now that it is confessed on the Part of our Adversaries, I hope we shall no longer be reproached with con­forming to the Church from mercenary Motives. Those Candidates who have given up the better Prospect in continuing with them, certainly ought not to be considered as Men of no Consciences, however mistaken they may be thought to have been with Regard to their Principles. Many such we have already had; others are coming over to us daily; and had we Bishops in this Country, I should not doubt of a full Supply for all the Churches in America.

IT was observed in the Appeal, p. 36, that a very ‘glaring Disadvantage, to which the Church in America is manifestly subject, arises from the Impossibility that a Bishop residing in England, should be sufficiently acquainted with the Cha­racters of those who go home from this Country for Holy Orders. To this it is owing, that Or­dination has been sometimes fraudulently and sur­reptitiously obtained by such Wretches, as are not only a Scandal to the Church, but a Dis­grace to human Nature.’ Upon this, and more to the same Purpose said of such Persons, the Doc­tor, [Page 132] with his usual Sagacity, observes, in p. 85: Had such a Charge been publickly exhibited against the Society's Missionaries, by those of the Presbyteri­an or Congregational Persuasion, it would have been disregarded at home, and esteemed by Episcopalians here a sure Argument of inveterate Enmity against the Church. The Doctor is right here; it would undoubtedly, and very justly, be so disregarded and so esteemed. But will he venture to affirm, or does he mean to insinuate, that I had exhibited such a Charge against the Society's Missionaries, or against the Body of the American Clergy? Did I so much as mention the Missionaries? In short, did I utter a sin­gle Word that implies, or carries the least Intimation, that I entertained an unfavourable Opinion of the American Clergy? On the other Hand, did I not declare my Belief to be, that their ‘general Cha­racter is truly respectable’ —that ‘they are sound and steady in their Principles, and regular in their Behaviour?’ But what I said was, that Ordinati­on had been SOMETIMES, or, as it was expressed in another Place, IN SOME INSTANCES, fraudulently obtained by Wretches, who, in my Opinion, ans­wered the Description there given of them. When this was said, it was with Reference chiefly to Per­sons that never were admitted into the Society's Service. Indeed there was one Instance among the Missionaries that could not be overlooked; an In­stance, which was the Subject of common Con­versation at the Time of my writing, of a Person then lately ordained and appointed to a Mission in New-Jersey—said to have been ordained upon Tes­timonials from this Country, which Testimonials it was commonly thought must have been forged, as his Character here was so notoriously infamous. But before this Person embarked for his Mission, [Page 133] his true Character was discovered, and the Society immediately discarded him. Now of such Clergy­men as these, who sometimes creep into the Church, those of the Presbyterian or Congregational Persuasion, may speak as reproachfully as they please, and no Episcopalians, either here or at home, will esteem it an Argument of inveterate Enmity to the Church. We think no Description too bad for such Wretch­es; we never spare them ourselves; we blame not the Dissenters for any Severity of Language to­wards them. But what we blame them for, is, their indiscriminate Invectives against the Episco­pal Clergy in general—against the whole Body of the Missionaries—and, which has been very frequent of late, against all those that have met together in voluntary Convention. The Doctor has not run the Length of some others; but I could mention cer­tain periodical Writers, who have signalized them­selves by the most undistinguishing and illiberal Abuse of the Clergy, of the Bishops, and indeed of every Thing that relates to the Church; and if some of their Accounts might be taken, the Con­clusion would naturally be made, that there is not a Clergyman in the Colonies who is of a tolerable Character, any more than a Bishop in the Kingdom who is not a spiritual Tyrant, a lordly Oppressor, a Friend of Persecution, &c. &c. &c.

AS to the Matter of Testimonials, the Doctor supposes the Case would be the same was there A Bi­shop in America, as it is at present; since he could not be particularly acquainted with the Characters of the Candidates. One Bishop only is not thought sufficient for all the Colonies in America; but had we Bishops, they might be personally acquainted, if not with all the Candidates, yet with all those [Page 134] from whom Testimonials must come; and such an Acquaintance would enable them to make ne­cessary Distinctions, and to give to each Recom­mendation the Weight respectively due to it. One Clergyman's Recommendation is equal to another's, if they are both considered only as Clergymen; but if they are considered under their distinguishing Characters, the one being perhaps a Person of un­common Penetration and inflexible Integrity, the other but of an ordinary Capacity, and easily bi­assed and deceived, their different Testimonies will have a very unequal Force, with the Bishop who knows them. But as what might properly be said here, has been anticipated already; I beg Leave to refer the Reader to it, rather than to repeat it. Upon the Whole, had we Bishops in this Country, I am firmly persuaded, that with proper Care, and due Regulations, it would be next to impossible for a Man of an exceptionable Character to obtain Ordination. One general Regulation, if I might take the Liberty, I would humbly propose, viz. That, when the proposed Episcopate shall be settled, the Plan marked out in the Directions of Archbi­shop Wake to the Bishops of his Province in 1716, so far as it relates to the Subject of Testimonials, with a few Alterations, should be an established Rule for the American Bishops ^*.

IT is certain, says the Doctor, in p. 87, many notoriously wicked Persons in England, vastly more in Proportion than in America, have found Ways—to get into Orders; and he endeavours in many Places to establish a Belief, that the Clergy at home, under the immediate Government of Bishops, are worse, [Page 135] than they are here without an Episcopate. And he leaves his Readers to draw for themselves this natural Inference, that American Bishops will be more likely to corrupt, than to reform the Cler­gy. But what he calls certain, is a Matter concern­ing which others may possibly think that he cannot obtain Certainty. But allowing it to be true, that there are in Proportion more immoral Clergymen there than in America; unless he can make it ap­pear, that more Persons, in Proportion, of bad Characters at the Time of their Ordination, are ad­mited from a common Diocess in England, than from America, the Observation will not answer his Purpose. The Point under Consideration, is the Case of bad Men's obtaining Testimonials, and imposing upon the Bishop; but if a Man, of a fair Reputation, at the Time of his being ordained, afterwards relapses and becomes Profligate, he is not within the Compass of the present Argument. But should we grant all that the Doctor contends for; it has been already shewn, that the Case of the Church here, under an Episcopate, will be so very different from what it is in England, with Re­spect to the Bishop's Superintendency, that the In­ference intended will not follow.

DR. Chauncy closes his third Section with this Observation: Should the whole of what the Dr. has offered be allowed its full Force, (which, by the Way, is an Acknowledgment that hitherto he had not allowed its full Force to what I had offered) without the least Abatement, (and why should there be any Abatement of the real Force of my Argu­ment or Observation?) There is no other Hardship, or Difficulty, in the Case, than what naturally re­sults from professed Principles, and must unavoidably [Page 136] follow upon them, unless an Establishment is pur­posely made in their Favor, p. 88. I am not clear that I understand the Meaning of this Sentence. What an Establishment has to do with the Subject in Debate, I know not. This has never been re­quested—It is no Part of our Plan—nor is it ne­cessary to the Execution of it; Ordination by a Bishop no more supposing, or implying, or depen­ding upon, or being connected with, a civil Esta­blishment, than the Administration of Baptism by a Presbyter. As to the other Part of the Sentence, there is something in it that looks extremely ill-favoured. There is no other Hardship, or Difficulty, in the Case, than what naturally arises from professed Principles! This looks as if, in the Doctor's Opi­nion, Men were not to be pitied, when their Suf­ferings result from their Principles. The most dreadful Persecutions are no more than Sufferings inflicted upon Men for, and consequently, in some Sense resulting from, their professed Principles. But does the Doctor mean that we should be left to suffer, because it is on Account of our Principles? Or that Men, of whose Principles HE does not ap­prove, ought to be persecuted? From arguing upon the Matter a priori, I cannot believe that he means this; from arguing a posteriori, I know not what to believe.

SECTION IV.

THE Design of the fourth Section of the Ap­peal, SECT. IV. was to shew the unparalleled Hardship of the present Case of the Church of England in the American Colonies. That for Want of an Epis­copate, the American Church of England is really in a suffering State, the Members of it feel, in in­numerable Instances; and by this Time it must be so evident to others, that a formal Proof of it is needless. That the particular Species or Mode of this Suffering is unparalleled, is as evident as that we suffer at all. It is in this Respect, and not on Ac­count of the Degree of Suffering, that the Word unparalleled was used. This was sufficiently ex­plained in the Appeal by the Word unprecedented, and it is inconceivable that any can mistake it, un­less they mistake wilfully.

AGAINST what was said of the Church of Eng­land's being in a most wretched and deplorable Condition in the Colonies, Dr. Chauncy objects: It may, on the contrary, be affirmed, as a most unques­tionable Truth, that the Episcopal Churches in most of the Colonies, are favored and distinguished far beyond any other Churches of whatever Denomination on the Continent, p. 92. The Reason which supports this Assertion immediately follows: They are preserved in being by a vastly extensive Charity. By the Way, it is no Evidence that a Church is not in a deplorable Con­dition, that it owes the Preservation of its very Be­ing, [Page 138] to Charity. The Charity here meant, is that of the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, of the Greatness of which, we are as sen­sible as the Doctor. The Charity of this Society is as unprecedented in Degree, as the Sufferings of the American Church are in Kind; and when­ever we consider it, it prevents, in a great Mea­sure our sighing out Groans (or groaning out Sighs) as it presents to us abundant Reason for the most grateful Acknowledgments. But notwithstanding the Care the Society has taken to provide proper Cler­gymen for destitute Congregations, and the Expen­ces it has been at in supporting them; without an Episcopate, the Church wants an essential Part of her Constitution, some of her most important Of­fices cannot be performed at all, and her common ones are frequently not performed so well, as might be expected under the Superintendency of resident Bishops. This, I will venture to say again, is a deplorable Condition for any Church to be in, whether she has Revenues of her own, or subsists upon Charity; and none can be more sensible of it, than the Society itself.

THIS State, which is deplorable in itself, is also unprecedented and unparalleled. That other Chur­ches have not been as great Sufferers as the Church of England in the Colonies, was never pretended. Perhaps all really persecuted Churches have, upon the whole, suffered as much, and many certainly have suffered infinitely more; while the Members of some, have made loud Complaints of Persecu­tion, who have not had so just Reason to complain, as we have. But if the Suffering of the American Church of England is not uncommon as to the De­gree of it, yet all must allow that it is of a very [Page 139] extraordinary Nature. In what Age, in what Part of the World, can a like Instance be found, either among Christians or Pagans? Where, and when, did any Nation suffer its own Religion, the Reli­gion which it had freely chosen and established at Home, to be upon a worse Footing, than all other Religions, in its Colonies? In Colonies consisting, not of conquered Enemies, but of Children that had issued from its own Loins? If an Example can be found, let it be pointed out. We will then confess that our Case is not unprecedented; but still, that it is not very hard, we will never confess.

BUT says the Doctor, it is unaccountably strange that he (the Author of the Appeal) should mention it as 'an unprecedented Case,' and describe the Church as 'singled out for the first Example of it'. We say, and believe, it is the first; if he knows of another, let him produce it. Why, says the Doc­tor, did he never hear of the infinitely more distressed Condition of the great Numbers that were deprived, fined, imprisoned, and, in other Ways, most cruelly dealt with, in the Days of those hard-hearted Arch­bishops, Parker, Bancroft, Whitgift, and Laud? Yes, I have heard of these Things; and I assure him, that whatever I think of Deprivations in some Cases, I am no Friend to Fines and Imprisonments on a religious Account. But I never heard before, that the Case here mentioned, was parallel with the present Case of the Church of England in Ame­rica, or that it was a Precedent of the like Nature; which it is here his only Business to shew. I have heard also of the Babylonish Captivity; and I be­lieve it to be a Precedent as much to the Purpose, as the Instance he has mentioned. But whether the Instance was pertinent or not, seems to have [Page 140] been thought no Matter of Consequence; it was sufficient for his Purpose, that it afforded an Op­portunity of introducing a Number of Archbishops, in order to blacken their Characters.

AS to the Archbishops Parker and Whitgift, they superintended and conducted the Affairs of the Church, during the greatest Part of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. As they were Men of Firmness and Resolution, so they appear to have been not wanting in Temper and Moderation at the same Time. The Doctor represents them under the Idea of Persecutors: But we meet but with few Acts of undue Severity, and many of exemplary Mildness and Gentleness, in the Course of their Proceedings, In the Appendix to the Life of the former ^*, Strype has given us a Letter from the Queen to him, in which she blames him and the other Bishops, for their Backwardness in urging Conformity.

AS to Whitgift, even Wilson, who was more than half a Puritan himself, says of him, that ‘he strove to prevail on the Puritans with Sweet­ness and Gentleness; and died—leaving a Name, like a sweet Perfume behind him’ ^†. We learn from Strype, that his natural Temper was mild, and that he treated even his great Antagonist, Cart­wright, when he had him in his Power, so courteous­ly and kindly, that the Earl of Leicester, the Pa­tron of the latter, thanked the Archbishop for his remarkable Civility to him. One of his worst and most implacable Enemies was the fiery Udal, a Leader of the Puritans: When this Person was [Page 141] under Sentence of Death for Felony, the Archbishop made Interest in his Favor, and actually obtained his Pardon, according to the same Historian. But I need not be particular, as the general Conduct to­wards the Puritans under the Reign of Elizabeth, and therein the Behaviour of the Archbishops was fully vindicated by Secretary Walsingham, who was as good a Judge of it as any Man in the Kingdom, and being always inclined to favor the Puritans, he cannot be suspected of Partiality against them ^‡.

BANCROFT was more rigorous in his Measures than his immediate Predecessor, and the Times required it. Laud was still more severe than Ban­croft, and his Provocations were greater. I un­dertake not to justify all their Proceedings; for I abhor every Appearance of Intolerance and Cruelty, even in an Archbishop. These Appearances are the greatest Blemishes of their Characters; and they are the general Reproach of the Age in which they acted. There was not a Puritan in the Kingdom at that Time, nor had there been from the Begin­ning, who did not give incontestible Evidence, that if he had been armed with the like Power, he would have pressed Conformity to his own System, with as unrelenting Zeal, as either of those Prelates. Not long afterwards, the Puritans became possessed of Power; Conformity then was urged with a Venge­ance. In the Collection of Sermons preached before the long Parliament, Toleration is professedly con­demned by Burgess, Case, Calamy, Baxter, Newco­men, and many others, as one of the greatest Evils.

BUT to return to the Two Archbishops: If we conceive of them under the Idea only of rigorous [Page 142] Exacters of Conformity, we do them Injustice. It ought to be remembered that they were Men of eminent Abilities, of invincible Integrity, of undis­sembled Piety, and zealous Advocates for the Pro­testant Religion. ‘Bancroft, says Fuller, was a most stout Champion to assert Church Discipline.’ But to shew that there was something amiable in his Disposition, and that he could mingle Kindness with his Severity towards such as appeared to be truly conscientious, he gives the following Instan­ce: ‘An honest and able Minister privately pro­tested to him, that it went against his Conscience to conform, being then ready to be deprived: Which Way, saith the Archbishop, will you live, if put out of your Benefice? The other answered, he had no Way but to go a begging, and put himself on Divine Providence. That, saith the Archbi­shop, you shall not need to do, but come to me, and I will take Order for your Maintenance.’ ^*

WHAT I conceive to be the true Character of Laud, I will give in the Words of a masterly and candid Writer, in Answer to the Confessional. ‘Here, Sir, give me Leave to pay a Debt due to Truth, and to the Memory of Archbishop Laud, whom You treat in a Manner very unbecoming his Character and your own. He was undoubted­ly much too vehement in his natural Temper; and the general Disposition of the Times on both Sides increased his Heat. He was also too fond of Externals in Religion. But some Regard ought to be paid to his Learning, his Liberality, his excellent Book against Popery, and the suc­cessful Pains which he so kindly took to recover Chillingworth back from it. His very candid [Page 143] Treatment likewise of the famous John Hales, and the Esteem of that great Man for him, who mourned for his Death in a most remarkable Manner, and wished he had died in his stead, prove him to have had, together with his very blameable Rigors, no small Merit of the good-natured Kind; to which, Persons in after Times, who could not know him so well, have by no Means done sufficient Justice’ ^*.

THE Doctor goes on: Did he never hear of any barbarous Acts passed in the Reign of King Charles II. subjecting Multitudes of Clergymen and others to Hardships and Sufferings, not to be thought of with­out Horror? This Question I must also answer in the affirmative. I have heard of all those Acts which are here called barbarous; and I have seen the Reasons assigned for framing and passing them— which Reasons, if not altogether sufficient to justify, will go very far towards excusing, them.

WE are told in a Note, that by one of those Acts (meaning the Act of Uniformity) no less than Two THOUSAND Ministers, many of them Men of shining Accomplishments, and ALL of them well spoken of for their Piety, were turned out of their Livings in one black Day, whereby both they and their Families, became liable to starve for Want of the Necessaries of Life. The Character of the ejected Ministers as given by Walker, who made the most indefatigable Examination into the personal History of those Times, is very different from what the Doctor here publishes, after Calamy and others. His Account is too long to be inserted; but the Substance of it, as extracted by Grey, and given in his Answer to [Page 144] Peirce, is in these Words: ‘But to consider the Number and Characters of the Persons a little far­ther, we learn from an Historian of good Credit, that those who gave up their Livings to the right Owners, which had been usurped from them, and which in Right and Justice were to be restored, and the Curates who were prevented having any Preferments, without Conformity, made up above half of the Number; and amongst them there were not a few Mechanicks, and Fellows bred to the meanest Occupations; many more who had seen neither of the Universities; several Troopers and others who had served in the Re­bels Armies; besides, some had run in with, and vented many of the distinguished Enthusi­asms, Errors, Heresies, and other monstrous Opinions, not to say Blasphemies of the Times; many had no Orders at all, nor were there want­ing amongst these, such as had been so far from pretending to any, that they utterly exclaimed against them; some had a Thousand Times for­feited their Lives to the Law, by having their Tongues and Hands stained in Treason and Blood, as well of their Prince himself, as Fel­low-Subjects. Nay, the same Author informs us, that to the best of his Remembrance, he had not met with an Instance of more than one single Person, who had any other Title antece­dent to the urgent Necessity of the Act of 1660, to the Places from which they were removed, than what Sequestration, Plunder, Usurpation and Rebellion had given them. So that the Case is not so lamentable, as this Gentleman and his Brother Calamy would have it; and when they pretend that the Sufferings of these Men will scarce admit of a Parallel in any Age or Nati­on, [Page 145] they little consider that the Numbers of the opposite Side exceeded them at least seven to one, being according to the most moderate Computation above SEVEN THOUSAND; and taking into the Account such as Mr. Peirce and Dr. Calamy account sufferers on their Side, fall very little short of Ten Thousand ^*.’ Arch­bishop Bramhall, who lived in those Times, gives a similar Representation. ‘Let Mr. Bax­ter, says he, sum up into one Catalogue, all the Nonconformists throughout the Kingdom of Eng­land, ever since the Beginning of the Reforma­tion, who have been cast aside or driven away at any Time, because they durst not use the old Ceremonies or the new, or rather because they found it advantageous to them to disuse them. I dare abate him all the rest of the Kingdom, and only exhibit the Martyrologies of London and the two Universities, or a List of those who in these late intestine Wars, have been haled away to Prisons, or chased away into Banishment by his own Party, in these three Places alone, or left to the merciless World to beg their Bread, for no other Crime than Loyalty, and because they stood affected to the ancient Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England; and they shall double them for Number, and for Learning, Piety, Industry and the Love of Peace, exceed them incomparably. So as his Party which he glorieth so much in, will scarely de­serve to be named the same Day. And if he compare their Persecutions; the Sufferings of his supposed Confessors will appear to be but Flea-Bitings in Comparison of theirs. But after all this, the greatest Disparity remaineth yet un­touched, [Page 146] that is, in the Cause of their Suffer­ings. The one suffered for Faith, and the other for Faction ^*.’ These Things, it must be con­fessed, have but little Connection with the Subject. They ought also, if possible, for the Honour of the national Character, and the protestant Religi­on, to be buried in eternal Oblivion. But I have been forced to mention them; and those who have obliged me to it ought not to blame me; while others who see the Provocation, I trust, will at least think me excuseable.

AS to the Test-Act, the Doctor need not be told the only Design of it, was to prevent the Enemies of the Church from geting Power to destroy Her. This Security it was thought necessary to provide; and Rapin, who was a Presbyterian himself, has in Effect justified the general Policy of that Act. For he makes no Scruple to declare, in his Dissertation on the Whigs and Tories, not that there is a Proba­bility, for he knew it to be more than probable— but, that ‘ 'tis certain, if the Presbyterians can ever act without Controul, they will not be sa­tisfied till the Hierarchy of the Church of En­gland be intirely demolished.’ That such Persons therefore should be so far controuled, as they are by this Act, will not, I believe, be pronounced to be unjust or improper by any, but those who find themselves disappointed by its Operation. But I will not inlarge upon this Subject, since writing in Favour of the Test-Act, or some other equivalent Security, is as needless, as writing against it will be useless, after what has been said in Vindication of it by the late Bishops Sherlock and Ellys.

[Page 147]WHAT the Doctor's Question insinuates about the Removal of our Fore-Fathers from their native Land, may be true of some of them; but it by no Means appears to be true of all of them, es­pecially of the Settlers of the Massachusetts Colony, that they were forced abroad by the oppressive Power of the Bishops. But were it the Case ^*, they are, on this Occasion, introduced very imperti­nently.

THE Doctor concludes this Affair of Precedents in a Strain truly consistent with his whole Repre­sentation. This double Decimation of our Can­didates, or the Loss of so great a Proportion of their Lives, is no more in his Estimation, than one of the few comparatively small Inconveniencies, to which the American Church of England is subject, p. 94. And as to the Expence of crossing the Atlantic for Ordination, what is a Hundred Pounds Sterling, says he, for Fifty-two Clergymen each, in the Course of Sixty Years, in Comparison with the Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling, many Times told, that Dissenters have paid, towards the Support of the episcopal Clergy, besides maintaining their own? [Page 148] p. 95. That what the Dissenters have paid, in the Way of TITHES, towards the Support of the episco­cal Clergy, ought not to be included in this Ac­count, has been proved in the Tenth Section of the Appeal, which the Doctor, for a certain Reason, has thought fit not to controvert. After this De­duction, he will find it difficult to make all his Items amount to the Sum of a Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling, many Times told, within the Course of Sixty Years, unless he takes into his Computation the Posts of Profit in the Kingdom of SOUTH-BRI­TAIN, from which Dissenters may have been ex­cluded. As he seems to look upon these as their natural Rights, it must be confessed, that, in this View of the Matter, there is no Impropriety in considering all that might have been gained by such Posts, under the Notion of Loss, and passing it to the Credit of the Dissenters Account. But this will not be admitted as fair, by the World in general, which has a different Idea of natural Rights.

NATURAL Rights, when the Expression is used properly, can signify nothing less than such Rights as Men are born to—such as they are intitled to upon the common Footing of Humanity, without any Distinction of Christian or Pagan, Protestant or Papist. Whatever therefore is the natural Right of one Man, is the natural Right of another; and if Dissenters may justly complain of being deprived of a natural Right, in the Case before us, so may Pa­pists, Jews and Mahometans; their natural Rights being the very same with those of the Dissenters, and, I may add, of the Members of the esta­blished Church. This is so evident, that all Au­thors have either asserted or admitted it, a few [Page 149] Instances only excepted. The American Whig is obliged to confess ^*, that if by natural Right be meant any Right in Contradistinction to municipal or political Rights, i. e. to such as are not natural Rights, it may with equal Propriety be predicated of Episcopalians, and of all Men. For no Man has a na­tural Right to a political Privilege. What the Dis­senters municipal or political Rights are in England, and how far they intitle them to those Preferments, from which they are excluded by Acts of Parlia­ment, is not my Business to inquire.

I AM next led to review a Passage in the Appeal, which uncommon Pains has been taken to pervert, with a Design of making me appear to have been an Impeacher of the LOYALTY of the Dissenters in America. The obnoxious Passage is this: ‘We i. e. the Members of the Church of England, are conscious of no Crimes, with Regard to the State. On the other Hand, we claim a Right to be considered as equal with the Foremost’ (the American Whig, to answer a Purpose of his own, quotes it, the MOST Foremost) ‘in every due Ex­pression of Fidelity and Loyalty. We esteem our­selves bound, not only by present Interest and Inclination, but by the more sacred Ties of our religious Principles and Christian Duty, to sup­port, to the utmost, the national civil Esta­blishment. Accordingly no Trumpet of Sedi­tion was ever heard to sound from our Pulpits— no Seeds of Disaffection have been suffered more privately to be sown in our Houses. As our Re­ligion teaches us, in the first Place, and above all Things, to fear God; so, while we can preserve it, it will be a full Security to the Government [Page 150] for our honouring the King, and not meddling with them that are given to Change,’ p. 41. In this Passage it is evident, that the Loyalty of the Church of England in the Colonies, is strongly asserted; which Loyalty our Enemies have never pretended to dispute. The American Whig ^* is so just as to take Notice of the Author of the Ap­peal's "professed Loyalty," and of ‘that Zeal for the Constitution and Government at Home, to which he and his Brethren avow a warm At­tachment.’ Dr. Chauncy allows the Loyalty of Episcopalians to be equal with that of other Deno­minations of Men in this Country. Now no more than this is directly asserted in the Appeal. But the former insists ^† that the Author, in the above Pas­sage, ‘ plainly intended to insinuate, that some other Denominations among us are conscious of Crimes with Respect to the State.’ The Doctor is not positive as to this Matter, but cautiously says, some are DISPOSED to think he (the Author of the Appeal) would not have expressed himself in this Manner, unless he had intended an Insinuation, that something of this Nature had been done by others. p. 96. The Reader can examine the Passage for himself, and judge, whether the Interpretation of it, concerning which the American Whig is positive, and the Doctor doubtful, is not forced and unna­tural. For surely, to say that our Loyalty is equal with that of others, implies not that it is superior, or that the Loyalty of others is defective, unless Words are perverted from their natural Meaning: It rather implies, on the contrary, that the Loyal­ty of others is not inferior to ours.

[Page 151]THIS seems to be admitted by the periodical Writer last mentioned. But then he interrogates, why I was not satisfied with simply avering that my Brethren were as loyal Subjects as others? I doubt not but the candid and impartial have been able to see the following Reason for it, and that it suffici­ently Accounts for the Mode of Expression. The Paragraph is introduced with this Observation, that notwithstanding the suffering Condition of the A­merican Church, we, who are Members of it, ‘are not apprehensive that it can be owing to the Dis­pleasure of our Superiors.’ Why not apprehen­sive of their Displeasure? Because we are conscious of no Crimes that have deserved it. ‘No Trumpet of Sedition was ever heard to sound from our Pulpits—no Seeds of Disaffection have been suf­fered more privately to be sown in our Houses.’ These Crimes, or the Suspicions of them, are the common Causes of the Displeasure of Government, against particular Classes or Denominations of Men, in all Countries. But we are intirely innocent, and such Crimes have never been so much as imputed to us. On the other Hand, our Interest and Incli­nation conspire with our religious Principles, to se­cure our Loyalty. We consider it as a Matter of strict Duty and of religious Obligation to ‘honor the King,’ and ‘not to meddle with them that are given to Change,’ as really and essentially as to "fear God." This appears to me to be the natural Construction of the Paragraph; and it cor­responds exactly with my View in writing it, which was only to maintain, by a short Induction of Par­ticulars, that we are free from those Crimes and Imputations, which are commonly assigned as Rea­sons for the Frowns of Government; and conse­quently [Page 152] that we have no Cause to suspect the Go­vernment at Home is displeased with us.

IN transcribing for the Press, I saw what Use might be made of the Passage by ill-disposed Per­sons; and therefore, not thinking it necessary to alter the Structure of the Paragraph, added this Note, to secure it against Misinterpretation and A­buse. ‘This Declaration is not intended to imply any Accusation of others; who are able, it is hoped, to make their own Defence, whenever the Occasion shall require it. His Majesty's A­merican Subjects, of all Denominations, belong­ing to the old Colonies, have always professed Sentiments of Loyalty; and the Author believes they have generally been sincere in those Profes­sions.’ I then proceeded to account for some late undutiful Appearances, in a Manner consistent with the Loyalty professed. Now, does this look like an Impeachment of American Loyalty? Is it not in Reality, a Defence of it? How unfair and unrighteous then is it, to endeavour to raise a po­pular Clamour against me, on the sole Evidence of this very Passage; a Passage, which proves that I have acted the Part of a true Friend, where I am abused for having acted as an Enemy! Upon the whole: If the Words in the Text naturally carried an Insinuation against the Loyalty of some Ameri­cans, which Insinuation was not intended; the Ex­planation in the Note intirely removes it, and places the Matter in the most favourable Light. Nothing worse is said of Americans, including the various religious Denominations, than that they have always professed Sentiments of Loyalty ^*, and that the [Page 153] Author believed them to have been generally sin­cere in those Professions.

THE Doctor will not allow, that the Church of England in the Colonies is ‘distinguished and stig­matized by a Want of those religious Privileges which are granted to all other Denominations.’ His Objection is this: The Truth is, Episcopalians are allowed the same Liberty with all other Persuasi­ons, and do, with as much Freedom from Molestati­on, worship God in the precise Way they themselves are pleased to chuse, p. 97. But can he be serious when he says this? Or does he mean to insult us? Is it the Truth, that we have the same Liberty with all other Persusions? Do they not all enjoy their own religious Systems compleatly, and in every Part? But can this be predicated of the Church of England? We complain that we are destitute of the Power of Ordination, and are not allowed to enjoy several of the Institutions of our Church, which we hold in great Esteem and Veneration: The Doctor answers that we worship God in our own Way without Molestation. But does this Ans­wer come up to the Complaint? Did we ever pre­tend that the Privilege of worshiping God, ac­cording to the Liturgy of the Church of England, was refused us? Does our Enjoyment of this Pri­vilege prove, that we are not under those peculiar Disadvantages which the Complaint specifies? And if we are under Disadvantages which are peculiar to ourselves, and from which all other Denomina­tions are free, having all of them the full Use of their respective Forms of ecclesiastical Discipline [Page 154] and Government, have we not Reason to complain that we ONLY are not permitted the Use of ours? Why should there be this glaring Distinction? Where our Claims are, at least, equal with those of our Neighbours, why should a Difference be made in their Favour?

ALL the Difference, says the Doctor, is, our Principles do not hamper us with those objected Diffi­culties, their's expose them to. With equal Candour and Propriety it might have been said, by the Mem­bers of the established Church, in the Days of those hard-hearted Archbishops Parker, Bancroft, Whit­gift and Laud: Why do these Puritants complain? Are they not treated upon the same Footing with ourselves? We know of nothing that has been grant­ed to us or others, but what is equally granted to them: All the Difference is, our Principles do not hamper us with those objected Difficulties, their's ex­pose them to. And this the greatest Persecutors that ever existed may have as pertinently said, of those whom they harrassed and put to the Torture— they are only hampered by their own Principles, and they may thank themselves.

I MEET with nothing farther that is worthy of Notice, untill we come to the concluding Para­graph of this Section, in p. 100, where I am charg­ed with having been ungrateful and undutiful. My Ingratitude, it seems, consists in uttering Com­plaints, ‘in Behalf of the Church of England in America,’ after Thirty Thousand Pounds Sterling, have been expended in England to promote its Growth. But by whom has this Sum been ex­pended? Not by the Nation, but by a particular Society. I know not that the Nation has ever been at any considerable Expence, to promote [Page 155] the Growth of the Church in the Colonies; and as this was not expected, so their not doing it has never been mentioned as Matter of Complaint. But what we complain of is, that the national Re­ligion in the Colonies has not been made the Object of greater national Attention, in some other Res­pects; and particularly, that such Relief has not been given it, as it was known greatly to suffer for the Want of and as might have easily been granted, without any public Expence. So much, we think, we had Reason to expect; and I can see nothing unbecoming or improper in the Complaint. If I had complained of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the Doctor then might justly have branded me with Ingratitude. Our great Bene­factors are the worthy Members of that Society; it is they who have expended the large Sums for the Support and Promotion of the Church here, which the Doctor has seen fit to transfer from their, to the national Account. But we shall always remember that it is to them, that our Gratitude is immediately due; and if the least Symptom of Ingratitude to that venerable Body can be discovered in the Appeal, I hereby promise, that I will never attempt any far­ther Defence of it.

AS to the other Charge of Undutifulness, it is made out in this Manner. It lies with the King, whether we shall have Bishops or not; therefore to complain of the Want of Bishops, is to reflect upon the King; and to reflect upon the King is un­dutiful. The Author of the Appeal has com­plained of the Want of Bishops: Ergo, the Au­thor of the Appeal has been undutiful to the King. I could wish, says the Doctor, he had expressed more dutiful Reverence towards his Sovereign, than [Page 156] to charge him as he does VIRTUALLY and in Reality of Construction, with treating the Church here with unparalleled Hardship, &c. I assure the Doctor, it gives me the utmost Pleasure to find him so zea­lous for maintaining a dutiful Reverence towards our most gracious Sovereign, and so ready to bear Testimony against every Thing that appears, vir­tually and in Reality of Construction, to reflect upon his sacred Person. Let me tell him however, that he is probably somewhat mistaken, with Regard to the Matter before us. It has been all along sup­posed and believed, that the Want of an American Episcopate has not been owing to any Backward­ness in our Kings to grant it, but to the Neglect of others, whose Duty it was to prepare the Way for such an Appointment. The Complaint can be a Reflection on those only, who have neglected their Duty; but as our Kings appear not to have been negligent of theirs, it is no Reflection upon them: —Much less, upon our present most excellent Sove­reign, who has condescended to express himself on the Subject, in the most obliging Terms, and in whose favourable Disposition we have an intire Confidence.

ALTHOUGH the King can, as the Doctor ob­serves, by Virtue of that Supremacy which the Constitution allows him, grant an American Epis­copate at any Time; yet a wise King will not choose, and his real Friends will not desire him, to exert this Prerogative, until the Way is duly prepared, and there is a rational Prospect of its answering the Purpose. In Order to this, it has been thought requisite, even by our CONVENTION, as zealous as it has been, still is, and I trust will be, in the Pro­secution of this Plan, that the Nature of the pro­jected Episcopate should be fully understood, and [Page 157] generally approved of, by the various Denomina­tions of People in America. And it is one good Effect of the present Controversy, for which I now return Thanks to my Opponents, that our Plan has been more attentively considered, and more fully understood: Another is, that it has produced such Testimonies of Approbation as were wanted. It was indeed always believed the Dissenters would not object to our having such Bishops as are proposed for America; but we had no public Declarations that those of the Presbyterian or Congregational Persuasion approved of our Plan, until Dr. Chaun­cy and the American Whig, who have appeared in their Behalf on the Occasion, were pleased to make them. These Writers, it is true, still object, in their Names, against an American Episcopate, supposing it may be different from what has been pretended and explained to the Public. But as to the Episcopate really intended, concerning which alone their Opinion was desired, they have clearly expressed themselves, and said as much in Favour of it as could be reasonably expected. So that now, whatever may be the Fate of particular Parts or Passages of the Appeal, the great and immediate Design of it has succeeded, and the Author has no Reason to repent of his having undertaken it.

SECTION V.

SECT. V.THE Business of the fifth Section of the Ap­peal, is to assign Reasons why the Church in America has been so long neglected. The Doctor confesses he has no Concern with the immediate Con­tents of it: However, there are some Matters of Intelligence, it seems, intermixed with the Reasons assigned, which he thinks worthy of his Animad­version.

THE first Passage that disturbs him is the fol­lowing: ‘The Colonies were generally settled by private Adventurers; and some of them by those who had an Aversion to episcopal Government. The Propriety of not sending a Bishop to Co­lonies of the latter Sort, will be disputed by none’ ( Appeal p. 47.) He does not attempt to shew that this Observation is unjust, or improper, or imper­tinent; but yet he speaks of it as no more than a Rattle to please Children with, and then asks a Number of Questions relating to New-England, which are not at all to the Purpose, but upon the Supposition that there are, at this Day, no Epis­copalians in those Colonies. For what I had ad­vanced was this, that the Propriety of not sending Bishops to those who had an Aversion to episcopal Government, is indisputable. Let us try notwith­standing, whether any Thing can be made of his Questions and Remarks, however foreign or out of Place. Quest. If a Bishop is sent, will he have [Page 159] nothing to do in these the New-England Colonies? Ans. Nothing at all, but with such Persons as shall be desirous of his Administrations. Quest. Will they not be Part of his Diocess? Ans. Not in such a Sense, as to bring the Dissenters under his Jurisdiction. Quest. Will not the episcopal Churches in them, at least their Clergy, be under his Inspection and Government? Ans. They most certainly will; but this can do no Harm to him, or any others of the Congregational or Presbyterian Persuasion. He will then, says the Doctor, be as compleatly settled at the Head of the episcopal Clergy, within these Bounds, as in the other Colonies, and will have the same Right of su­perintending and governing them. Very true; but why should not the episcopal Clergy of New-Eng­land be superintended and governed, as well as those of the other Colonies? They do not desire to be exempted themselves, and it never has been proposed by others. But attend then to the Con­sequence: If his (the Bishop's) Place of Residence should not be here, says he, his Power will: And it will be the same in all its Exercises, as in any other of the Provinces. But if the Exercises of his Power are to be confined to the episcopal Clergy, other People, as has been observed, need not be anxious, whether even the Place of his Residence should be in New-England, or not. It is really surprizing to find a Man of Sense and Reputation caviling at this Rate—resolved to be satisfied with nothing—at one Time blaming us, because, under the proposed Episcopate, no peculiar Power is to be exercised over the Laity—at another, finding Fault that it is to be exercised over the episcopal Clergy—and then peevishly declaring that a Bishop, as odious and detestable as he is, may as well reside in New-England altogether, as superintend and govern the [Page 160] Clergy belonging to the Church. Such invincible Prejudice is hardly to be met with in the present Age. It reminds me of an Instance in ancient History: ‘ John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he hath a Devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a Man gluttonous and a Wine-Bibber, a Friend of Publicans and Sinners’ ^‡.

THE next Piece of Intelligence the Doctor takes in Hand, relates to the Endeavours of the Society to obtain an Episcopate for the Church in America. But I find not that he is able to say much against it, or to infer much from it. I sat down to write this Defence, with a determined Resolution to treat Doctor Chauncy with all possible Respect. Hitherto I have adhered to it with great Firmness and Punc­tuality, and have taken Notice of many Things, which I should have passed over as unworthy of Observation, in many other Writers. But as I think it high Time to shew some Respect also to the Reader, the good Doctor will excuse me, if here­after he should not find me so minutely attentive to him, as I have been. Every Thing however in the succeeding Parts of his Performance, that ap­pears to me to have either of the two Qualities, Weight or Plausibility, shall be duly noticed.

THE last Article of Intelligence, says he, relates to the external Circumstances of the Bishop that is desired to be sent to America. A Seat has been purchased for his Residence, at Six Hundred Pounds, Sterling, Ex­pence, in a convenient Mansion-House and Lands, situ­ate at Burlington, in the Jersies; and large Legacies have been left for the Support of an American [Page 161] Episcopate, p. 104. This is the Substance of the Intelligence. Let us now attend to the Use that is made of it. It is, says he, unquestionable, if a Bishop is sent to America, that such Provision must be made for his Support, as will enable him to appear in all the Grandeur of a Bishop in England. The Place of his Residence (does he mean the City of Burlington?) and Manner of living, must exceed a common Clergyman's in Proportion to his more exalted Station in the Church, p. 105. If £. 600 Sterling laid out in the Purchase of a Mansion-House and Lands, for an American Bishop, excites in the Doctor the Idea of Grandeur and Magnificence, it will probably have a contrary Effect in the Minds of other Persons. There are several Instances in America of Mansion-Houses and Lands, or, in other Words, of Parsonage Houses and Glebes, which could not be purchased for twice the Sum; and I believe that there are but few episcopal Palaces in England, even exclusive of their Regalia ^*, the Cost of which has not exceeded it. So that it does not follow from the above Intel­ligence, that with Respect to the Article of his Mansion-House, the American Bishop is likely to ap­pear in all the Grandeur of a Bishop in England, or vastly to exceed in Appearance some common Cler­gymen. Perhaps the intended Grandeur of the Ame­rican Bishops is infered, from the large Sums that have been given for their Support. But until it be known how many Bishops are to be thereby sup­ported, and how much each is to receive, the Infe­rence is not conclusive.

AFTER all, why should not a Bishop be sup­ported, in Proportion to his more exalted Station in the Church? Is it not agreeable to the common [Page 162] Sense of Mankind, and to the Fitness of Things, that Men in eminent Stations should be enabled to make a greater external Appearance, than others of an inferior Degree? Ought not every Office to be respected, according to its Dignity and Impor­tance? And is not the general Temper and Dispo­sition of Mankind such, that Respect will be paid to an Office, in some Degree of Proportion to its out­ward Figure and Appendages? And is not this in Reality the Case, with Respect to ecclesiastical Offices, as well as to any other? It ought farther to be con­sidered, that the necessary Expences of a Bishop greatly exceed those of a common Clergyman. A Bishop ought, in a peculiar Manner, to be ‘given to Hospitality.’ He ought eminently to distin­guish himself by Works of Charity. These Things will certainly be expected from him; and how can such Expectations be answered, unless a more am­ple Provision be made for him, than is requisite for common Clergymen?

BUT such Bishops were unknown in the Christian World, in its first Days of Purity. This is not disputed, with Regard to their external Circum­stances; and the same may be said of the Clergy in general. In those Days there was perhaps not an Instance, of a Clergyman so comfortably situated and so well accommodated, as I suppose Dr. Chauncy to be in Boston. Now what are we to infer from this? That the Doctor's Parishioners have done wrong, in providing for him such un-primitive Accommo­dations? Or, that he does wrong in accepting, and making Use of them? Can it be thought the Duty of Bishops and Clergymen, at this Day, to court "Stripes and Imprisonments," because they were inflicted on the Apostles and first Ministers of the [Page 163] Christian Religion? Or is it the Duty only of Bi­shops, and not of the common Clergy and private Christians, to be in these primitive Circumstances? One would be apt to infer this, from some Men's Reasonings; so glaring is their Partiality against the episcopal Order. Julian the Apostate, as was observed to the same Purpose by Archbishop Whit­gift, in Excuse for some of the Arts he had used to undermine and destroy Christianity, ‘said in De­rision, he did that which was most meet and pro­fitable for Christians, viz. That they being made poor, might sooner come to the Kingdom of Heaven: Seeing the Gospel promiseth the King­dom of Heaven to those that be poor, and that Christ saith, that none can be his Discples, un­less they forsake all, and follow him ^*.’ I do not accuse the Doctor, of having the same inveterate Enmity against our Bishops, that Julian had against Christians in general; but in some Appearances there is a striking Resemblance. And in Conside­ration of that Example, it may not be amiss in him to examine, whether what he has offered in the like Strain, be not the Dictate of Prejudice or some evil Passion, rather than of real and impartial Judgment.

I KNOW very well that the Gospel requires of Bishops, and it as indispensably requires of all o­thers, not to hold Houses, or Lands, or any world­ly Enjoyments when they come into Competition with a good Conscience: And every Bishop who does not choose to part with them, rather than to deny, or forsake, or disobey Christ, is utterly un­worthy of the venerable Character. But the Gospel requires not of its Disciples, not even of Bishops, to renounce the temperate Enjoyment of these [Page 164] Things, excepting when particular Reasons make it necessary. It allows us to possess ‘this World's Goods,’ when they can be obtained honestly; it teaches us to consider them as the Gifts of Hea­ven, and to be thankful for them on that Account, cautioning us only so to use, as not to abuse, them. And what it makes a Rule for any, it injoins upon all Men, without any Distinction of Persons or Characters.

NOR do we read of such Bishops, says the Doctor, until Christians had grossly departed from that Simpli­city of living, which was their primitive Glory. In a State of Persecution, nothing more than what is here called Simplicity of living, can be expected; and where it is submitted to for the Sake of a good Conscience, as it was by the primitive Christians, it is undoubtedly Men's Glory. That Christians, in general, in this Age, have too far departed from a decent Simplicity of Manners, and are too apt to indulge themselves in excessive Luxury, is not to be denied, and ought to be lamented. All Orders of Men seem to be infected with this epidemical Evil, and it is to be feared, even that the Bishops and Clergy have not altogether escaped the Infec­tion; and they, in particular, ought to make it their Study to recover themselves, and all whom they can persuade. But that Nations now ought strictly to regulate their Manners and Mode of living, by the Customs of any former Age, I do not believe; and if Individuals should attempt it, it would answer no good End, and they would appear ridiculous. The primitive Christians, for Instance, had no Glass-Windows in their Houses; and we are under as strong Obligations to adopt their Simplicity of Living in this Respect, as in many [Page 165] others. The Bishops in the primitive Church were very differently situated, from what Bishops now are in the Church of England; but it does not ap­pear, that, in Case the civil Powers had been dis­posed to bestow upon them the like Favours, with those which are enjoyed by our Bishops, that they would have been unwilling to accept them. On the other Hand, it does appear, from repeated Trials, that many of our Bishops have been as ready to give up, and sacrifice, all their worldly Advantages, when their Duty required it, as any Bishops in the primitive Church.

AT so great a Distance from apostolic Times, says the Doctor, as the third Century, tho' Corruption had then crept into the Church, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was deposed, among other Things for this, ‘that having been poor before he was a Bishop, he had after that grown very rich, born secular Dignities, passed the Streets with a Train of Attendants, and erected to himself a magnificent Seat in the Church.’ —For which Eusebius is quoted, p. 105. The Epistle of the Council of Antioch, partly given by Eusebius, in the Place refered to, does not say that Paul was deposed, among other Things, for having been very rich; but it charges him with having amassed incredible Wealth unjustly, by Oppression and Sacrilege. For want of Greek Types, I must produce to the Rea­der the Latin Translation by Valesius, ‘ Nunc ad incredibilem Opulentiam pervenit, per Scelera ac Sacrilegia, Fratrumque Concussiones: dum Injurid affectos decipit, promittens quidem sese illis accepta mercede Opem laturum: fallens autem ipsos, et ex Facilitate litigantium, qui ut negotio liberentur, quidvis dare parati sunt, Lucrum inaniter captans, [Page 166] et Pietatem Quaestum esse existimans.’ The Com­plaint goes on specifying, not barely that he had born secular Dignities, but that he had born them with unbounded Pride and Insolence: ‘Neque quod Fastu et Arrogantia supra Modum elatus saeculares gerit Dignitates’ —not simply that he had passed the Streets with a Train of Attendants, but that in thus passing the Streets, he had disco­vered unsufferable Arrogance and Disdain, to the Disgrace of the Christian Religion:— ‘Stipatusque maxima Hominum Multitudine, partim praeeun­tium, partim subsequentium; adeo ut illius Fastu et Arrogantia incredibilis Invidia odiumque multo­rum adversus Fidem nostram conflatum sit.’ In short, he is here represented by the Council, to have been the greatest Monster for Wickedness, that ever disgraced the Christian Church; and I am very cer­tain, that a Bishop of his Character in the Church of England, at this Day, would not be punished with less Severity, than this Bishop was in the Third Century. Nor do I believe that the Council of Antioch condemn­ed any Thing in his Character or Conduct, but what would be as loudly condemned in an English Convoca­tion. It is evident therefore, upon the whole, that this Instance will not answer the Purpose for which it is quoted.

The Doctor proceeds: A good while after this, though the Church had grown still more corrupt, the Fourth Council of Carthage decreed, ‘That the Bishop shall have a little Dwelling-House near the Church; that he shall have coarse house-hold Stuff and Diet, and seek his Reputation only by sound Doctrine, and a good Life; that he shall not spend his Time in caring for his Family, but be employed wholly in reading, praying and [Page 167] preaching the Word of God,’ p. 106. Some Part of what is here decreed, is very commendable. A Bishop ought undoubtedly to apply himself chiefly to the proper Duties of his Function. He ought to avoid every Appearance of a vain Extra­vagance, and of an undue Attachment to the Plea­sures, the Honours, and Interests of the World. But that he should literally be confined to mean Diet, coarse Furniture, and a small House, if Piety or Generosity have provided for him better, no unbiassed Person can think necessary. And so again, if he is to have no Regard at all to the Welfare and Interests of his Family, he must act an unnatural Part, and become, according to the Apostle's Estimation, "worse than an Infidel." Nor is it necessary, that he should never concern himself in publick Affairs, as, of late, we have seen it frequently asserted. ‘Must a Person who knows well the Interest of his Country, and is capable of serving it, be silent only because he is a Minister ( or a Bishop?) Is he nothing else? Is he not a Subject of his Prince, and a Member of the Common-wealth?—Mr. Colman was full of the Sentiments of the Rev. Doctors Increase and Cotton Mather, his Pastors and Predecessors, on this Head—viz. That Opportunities to do good not only legitimate the Application of our Capacities to do it, but also oblige and require us to do it. That upon publick and pressing Emergencies, Ministers may apply their superior Talents to some Things of secular Im­portance. The great Selden is quoted by them in Vindication of such a Practice.—'Tis a foolish Thing (says he) to say, a Minister must not meddle with secular Matters because his own Profession will take up his whole Man. The [Page 168] Meaning is only, that he must attend his Cal­ling’ ^*. If the Council of Carthage intended those Decrees should be understood literally, allow­ing of no Exceptions from the general Rule, they contradicted the Sense of Councils in purer Times, before the Church had grown so corrupt. Such In­junctions favor not so much of Piety, as of Barba­rism and MONKERY, into which the Church now was beginning to degenerate, and with which this very Council appears, from other Evidence, to have been infected. For ‘in the 4th Council of Car­thage, there are three Canons immediately fol­lowing one another to this Purpose, that they (the inferior Clergy) should provide themselves with Food and Raiment at some honest Trade or Husbandry, without hindering the Duties of their Office in the Church; and such of them as were able to labour, should be taught some Trade and Letters together. And the Laws of the State were so far from hindering this, that they en­couraged such of the Clergy to follow an honest Calling, by granting them a special Immunity from the Chrysargyrum, or lustral Tax, which was exacted of all other Tradesmen. ^†’ It is evident from hence, that this Council had run far into an Extreme with Regard to the Clergy in gene­ral, as well as to Bishops; so that no Example or Instruction taken from thence, can be of much Weight in any modern Controversy. If the Canons of this Council relating to Bishops ought to be re­garded, why not as well those that relate to the inferior Clergy? If these are to be a Rule for the Clergy of this Day, why does not the Doctor become a Mechanick, and practice some Trade himself? [Page 169] Or, if his Age exempts him from the Duty of bodily Labor, why does he not exhort those of his Brethren who are in full Vigor and Strength, and especially all young Candidates for the Ministry, respectively to regulate and qualify themselves, ac­cording to this African Standard?

THE Extracts from Cranmer and Hooper, with which we are next presented, if properly under­stood, are not inconsistent with any Thing for which we contend. Passages of this Kind are not to be interpreted rigorously, but according to the known Sentiments of the Authors: And it is well known that those great Reformers objected not a­gainst Bishops being supported, agreeably to their Rank and Dignity in the Church. Men are too ready, as the Doctor observes, if they are much raised above others in worldly Circumstances, to grow big in their own Apprehensions, to be haughty and imperious; treating those below them with Insolence and Contempt, p. 108. This general Proposition is unquestionably true, but what Inference are we to make from it? Not, that all Men should be re­duced to the same Level, but that those Persons who are thus situated should be sensible of this Danger, and guard against it. Affluence and Power, if they fall into the Hands of ill-disposed Persons, are dangerous Things—dangerous to the Possessors, and dangerous to Society; but they are in both Respects useful, when they meet with a Disposition to employ them for the Benefit of Mankind. As I hope and believe the Majority of protestant Bishops and Clergymen, of every Denomination, have such a Disposition; I am free to declare it my hearty Wish, (and why may not I wish, as well as the Doctor?) to see in general, especially the worthy [Page 170] Part of them, well supported, i. e. much better supported than they commonly are in this Coun­try. I wish this, not only in Regard of the episcopal Clergy, but the Clergy of every Denomination on the Continent; yea, the whole Christian World. And in particular with Respect to every American Bi­shop that shall be hereafter appointed, although I think it unnecessary that he should appear in all the Grandeur of a Bishop in England. I am ready to confess, that I should not be sorry to see his Place of Residence and Manner of Living, exceed a common Clergyman's, in some due Proportion to his much more exalted Station in the Church.

SECTION VI.

WHEN the Appeal to the Public was drawn up, SECT. VI. it was apprehended that the Time was peculiarly favourable to an Application for an Ame­rican Episcopate; the Reasons for which Appre­hension were assigned and explained in SECT. VI, and are as follow: ‘The Tumults of War have ceased, and the public Tranquility is restored, without any reasonable suspicions of a speedy In­terruption—the greatest Harmony subsists be­tween our Mother-Country and most of the Co­lonies—the Plan of an American Episcopate has been previously settled and adjusted in such a Manner, that the religious Privileges of none can be violated or endangered—and, which we should ever acknowledge with all Thankfulness, we are, at this Time, so happy as to have a Prince on the Throne, from whose most unques­tionable Disposition to promote the general In­terests of Virtue and Religion, from whose sincere Affection for the Church, and from whose most gracious Declarations on the Subject before us, we cannot possibly doubt of the Royal Appro­bation and Concurrence.’

IT is the Business of an Answerer to shew, that these Circumstances of the Public were not then real, but imaginary; or that they were not, in Reason, to be looked upon as favorable to such an Application, or else candidly to confess the Force and Propriety of the Representation. Dr. [Page 172] Chauncy thinks fit to dispute the Reality of those favourable Appearances, in the Sense wherein it is maintained in the APPEAL. He does not indeed deny that the Tumults of War were then ceased, but shrewdly asks, was this never the Case before? This Question alludes to the introductory Obser­vation, ‘that the favourable Opportunity—was such, in several Respects, as the Circumstances of the Nation had never, until then, afforded.’ But it was not pretended that the Temple of the British Janus had never been before shut, nor that the favourable Opportunity was, in every Respect, without a Precedent. He goes on: Are there no rea­sonable Suspicions of a speedy Interruption of the present Tranquility? The Question, ought not to have been put in the present Tense. The Appeal was drawn up in February 1767, and the Doctor wrote in the Beginning of 1768, it being about a Year afterwards; within which Time the Appearance of public Affairs was greatly changed. And I can as­sure him, that, whatever Alarms of a French or Spanish War had reached him and impressed his Imagination at the Time of answering, I neither saw nor heard of any Appearances of such a Thing at the Time of writing. With Regard to the ‘Harmony subsisting between our Mother-Coun­try and most of the Colonies,’ the Doctor says: It is true the Dispute relative to the STAMP-ACT, has been happily terminated. But has nothing inter­vened since, that has disturbed the Harmony? If he will be pleased to review the Chronology of the doings at Home which relate to the Colonies, he will find that in the Beginning of 1767, we knew here of nothing that had intervened, after the happy Ter­mination of the great Dispute about the STAMP-ACT, which had the least Tendency to disturb our Har­mony. [Page 173] Indeed before the Appeal was printed, it was found that the Mother-Country had expressed her Resentment of the Proceedings of one of our provincial Assemblies; and this occasioned a small Alteration to be made in the Copy, most of the Co­lonies being inserted, instead of, the Colonies. The Doctor has some Declamation under this Question, which as it is founded on a Mistake, I can readily excuse.

AS to the Plan for American Bishops, according to which the religious Privileges of all Denominati­ons are to be left untouched, the Doctor has the Curiosity to inquire: By whom has this Plan been settled and adjusted? And then adds, we have no good Reason to think that it has been done by those who have any constitutional Right to meddle, of their own meer Motion, with Matters of this Nature. This Subject will come more properly under Con­sideration afterwards; in the mean while, I will give him this general Information, that the Plan for such an Episcopate as is explained in the Ap­peal, was settled by those who were warranted by a Royal Commission constitutionally issued.

AS to the King's favorable Disposition, from which we have such Expectations of Relief, the Doctor thinks it will do us no Service. We can, says he, chearfully rely on the impartial Justice and Goodness of the British Sovereign, not in the least doubting his equal paternal Regard to all his loyal Colonists of whatever Class. And may not the Mem­bers of the Church of England rely upon him, as well as others? Will impartial Justice and Good­ness be partial against the Church? Will not the equal Regard of our Sovereign, at length raise us [Page 174] to that Equality with our Fellow-Colonists, which alone we request? Will not a paternal Regard to loyal Colonists raise those Colonists, whose Loyalty has been unimpeached, and which it is hoped will be able to stand every Trial, from the Condition of Aliens into that of Sons? How unkind and un­generous is it to tell us of our Equality, when the World sees that our Condition is cruelly unequal!

AS the Concurrence of many peculiar Circum­stances was apprehended to be favorable to the Scheme of an Episcopate in the Colonies, so it was observed in the Appeal, ‘that the Arguments for sending Bishops to America, were never so strong and forcible as they are at present.’ Under this Head, the Number of those who belong to the A­merican Church of England, and who will receive Benefit from this Appointment, was particularly insisted on. This Number was intimated to be NEAR A MILLION. The Writers against the Ap­peal, particularly Dr. Chauncy and the Centinel, have exerted themselves to prove, that the Account is aggravated beyond the Bounds of Truth and Pro­bability; and, in my private Opinion, the most plausible Things that have been written against any Part of the Appeal, have been offered on this Subject. It may therefore be proper to lay before the Reader the Evidence upon which the Expression was grounded.

IF any one will take the Trouble to turn to the Appeal, p. 55, he will find, that any exact Cer­tainty as to the Number of Church-Men in America was not pretended to; so far from it, that it was expressly acknowledged, ‘that in a Country so widely extended and unequally peopled,’ it was not to be expected. However, as it had been frequent­ly [Page 175] said by our most sensible Writers, and was report­ed to have been assumed as Fact in the Parliament of Great Britain, that the King's proper Subjects in America amounted to THREE MILLIONS; it was thought that the Assertion, ‘that the Church of England in America contains now near a Million of Members,’ might be justified on the Ground of that general Assumption. At the Time of writing, I had Reason to believe, and am still of Opinion, that those who profess themselves to belong to the Church of England in the American Colonies and Islands, are not less than a third Part of the Inha­bitants, exclusively of the Blacks; and I had Arith­metic enough to know, that a third Part of what was assigned as the whole Number, was one Million. But as I suspected that the general Number was exaggerated, an Abatement was made on the Side of the Church, and it was intimated that the Mem­bers of it amounted, not to a full Million, but to near a Million. Now this, I imagine, might be said, not improperly, after a Deduction of 500,000, from the Sum total as currently received, a third Part of which would be upwards of 833,000: And this was actually the very Number that I had in View. And wherever the Expression of near a Million has been applied to the Number of American Church-Men, by the Clergy of our Con­vention, it has been upon the same View and Principle.

MY continuing to use the Expression, after hav­ing seen the Account of an actual Survey said to have been made in 1762, which was mentioned in the Appeal, p. 56, remains to be accounted for. The Number of Inhabitants expressed in that Ac­count, of which I knew no more than that a Gen­tleman [Page 176] of Credit told me it had been carefully taken, fell short of my Expectations, it making the Members of the Church, not including the Blacks, to be no more at the Time of the Survey, than between Four and Five Hundred Thousand. But then it was considered, that the Americans are found to double their Numbers in 25 Years in the Course of natural Generation—that five Years had elapsed since the Survey was said to have been made, and consequently that a fifth Part of the whole was to be added to the Number, that the Account included not the Colonies lately ceded, in which there are probably some Thousands of Church-Men—that a farther yearly Addition had been made by the coming over of Europeans, and, as some think, by Proselytes from the Dissenters —and that of the Blacks, not less than 600,000 must be the Property of Episcopalians, of which Number it was conjectured that about a fourth Part might be said properly to belong to the Church: I say, the above Particulars being consi­dered, I was of Opinion that the Expression of near a Million, might still be retained, consistently with the Account of the actual Survey.

SOME of my Opponents have affected to be witty upon what was said of the Blacks, ridiculing the Notion of their being Members of the Church. But, with Regard to the Admission of Members, the Church of England, like the Gospel of Christ, makes no Distinction of Jew or Greek, Bond or Free, Black or White; and we are not ashamed to confess, that many of those who are doomed to Slavery, and upon whose Necks we have fastened the Yoke of Bondage, are Members of the same religious Society with ourselves. Dr. Chauncy says [Page 177] of me, in a Note, p. 112, the Dr. for Reasons best known to himself, did not chuse to say, in plain Words, that NEGROES, knowing nothing of Religion, make a very large Part of his Million of the Mem­bers of the Church of England. But it is evident he has these in Reserve to save the Truth of his Affir­mation. As I did not say in plain Words, neither did I give the least Intimation, that Negroes, know­ing nothing of Religion, constituted any Part of the supposed Number of American Church-Men. If I had intended to include such, I should not have spoken of near a Million, but of many more than a Million, belonging to the Church. Al­though I had observed, in p. 57, of the Slaves in general, that ‘they may be said in an imperfect Sense, to belong to the respective religious Classes of their Owners;’ yet I meant not to in­clude in the Account of near a Million, more of them than were supposed to have been actually ad­mitted, or were desirous of being admitted, to be Members of the Church by Baptism: And such, it was hoped, might amount to the fourth Part of the whole Number.

THUS I have accounted for our having said, that the Church of England in America contains near a Million of Members. After all, I am not positive but we may have spoken improperly; for which Reason, for my own Part, I shall be contented hereafter to change the Mode of Expression, and instead of saying, that the Church of England in America contains near a Million of Members, to say it contains a third Part of all the Inhabitants of the British Islands and Colonies in America, without including the Blacks; which Expression, I believe, can be fairly defended.

[Page 178]THE Doctor, in Order to confute the Account given in the Appeal, is pleased to spend four or five Pages in Exhibitions of his own political Arithme­tic; but he appears not to be, any more than the Author of the Appeal, a BREREWOOD or a PETTY. I could easily point out many Mistakes in his Cal­culations; but I find it necessary to spare the Rea­der's Patience wherever I can. The Effect of his Operations is, in his own Opinion of the Matter, that it is questionable, whether the Amount of episco­pal Professors, in all these Colonies will be more than about 270,000, p. 115. This Computation, I am persuaded, would be found greatly defective upon a strict Examination; but even allowing it to be just, the Number is not contemptibly small. For 270,000 Members of the national Church in the American Colonies, are too many to be neglected. If any other Denomination of Protestants in this Country, consisting of but a tenth Part of that Number, were to be refused the Enjoyment of its own Form of ecclesiastical Government and Disci­pline, I doubt not but it would occasion a general Clamor throughout the Colonies, and perhaps throughout the whole British Empire.

THE deplorable State of the American Slaves was mentioned in the Appeal, and it was repre­sented, that probably the proposed Episcopate would have a good Effect upon that wretched Class of our Fellow-Creatures, for whose spiritual Interests we are under peculiar Obligations to be sollicitous. The Doctor replies: Could he have hit upon nothing but an Episcopate for their Relief? This, at best, is a far-fetched, round-about Expedient, p. 116. I could undoubtedly have hit upon some other Ex­pedients; but as the Case of an Episcopate was [Page 179] under Consideration when these Blacks were intro­duced, it was then most natural to hit upon that. And although he seems to think the Expedient far-fetched and round-about, yet any one may see that I did not go far, nor much out of my Way, to meet with it. What he proceeds to say upon the Subject of Slavery, as it is not offered in Opposi­tion to any Thing advanced in the Appeal, how­ever it may deserve the Consideration of the Pub­lic, is no particular Concern of mine, and therefore I shall pass it over.

IT was represented in the Appeal, p. 58, that ‘another Argument for granting an American E­piscopate, arises from the Obligations of Grati­tude; a national Sense of which, ought, at this Time, to have a peculiar Efficacy in Favor of Religion in the American Plantations.’ It is no round-about, but a direct Course, that leads to this Inference. 'For the divine Goodness having been most eminently displayed in America, where can it be so proper to erect some suitable Monument of religious Gratitude for this Goodness, as in Ameri­ca? What Method of doing this is so natural, as farther to secure and extend that Religion, whereby the Honor of God is believed to be best promo­ted? This must be the Religion, which in the O­pinion of the Nation, is the best and most perfect; or, in other Words, the Religion of the Church of England. But what does he State of the Church of England in America require to be done, for its Welfare and Happiness? Why, this Church is, in a Manner perishing for Want of common Necessaries. She has long been imploring Relief, under such Diseases as must prove fatal to her, if much longer neglected. She therefore earnestly re­quests, [Page 180] and She only requests, that proper Reme­dies may be provided for her present Sufferings. This Request is made with full Confidence of suc­ceeding, as She wishes for nothing that shall be thought inconsistent with the Rights and Safety of others. She asks for nothing but what has been granted to others, without any ill Consequences; and She cannot but rely on the common Affection and Jus­tice of the Nation to raise her to this Equality.' This is the Substance of the Argument as it stands in the Appeal.

THE Doctor pretends that he cannot easily dis­cern any special Connection the victorious Success of the British Arms in America has, with the Establish­ment of an Episcopate here. But this Connection has been clearly pointed out; and it is sufficient for my Purpose, if it is visible to others. Is the Reli­gion of the Church of England, says he, p. 119, the only true Religion on the American Continent? I shall not now enter into a Disquisition about the Number of true Religions, nor how far any Thing that contra­dicts the Truth may be true itself, but answer di­rectly to the Question: The Religion of the Church of England, is evidently the purest and best in the national Opinion, or it would never have been re­ceived as such, and established at Home. But is Religion, in none of the other Forms, to be regarded? In my Judgment of the Matter, Religion under e­very Form ought to be regarded, in a greater or less Degree, as perhaps the worst Form of it is better than none at all; and under all Forms it ought to be tolerated, as far as is consistent with the public Safety. But as no Man, nor Society of Men, can be under Obligations to promote or pro­pagate any Religion, which is believed by him or [Page 181] them to be false; so all Men are obliged to promote the Interests of what they believe to be the true Religion, and more especially after any signal In­terpositions of divine Providence in their Favor.

WE do not esteem it a Duty, says the Doctor, much less an indispensible one, in Consequence of these Conquests, to provide for the Security or Support of the Religion of Episcopalians, any more than the Re­ligion of other Denominations of Christians in the Colonies. But he, and those of his Persuasion, ought to esteem it a Duty to provide for the Security of their own Religion, MORE than for that of the E­piscopalians, or of any other Denominations of Christians in the Colonies. The Case is the same, with Regard to the Members of the Church of England; it is their Duty, in the first Place, and more especially, to provide for the Welfare and Se­curity of their own Religion. A proper Sense of this general Obligation in the Members of the Church, is all that we require; we claim no Rights for ourselves, but what we allow to all others. Both they and we ought undoubtedly to endeavor to se­cure and promote our respective Religions; but we should all remember, what we are generally too apt to forget, that it is our Duty to attempt this, only in a fair and honorable Way, on either Side, and so as not to interfere with the religious Privileges of those who differ from us. This is putting the Mat­ter upon a fair and equitable Footing, and is do­ing to others, as we would have them do to us. And upon no worse a Footing than this, did the Argument of the Appeal proceed. It was not pre­tended that the late Display of the divine Goodness in America, was any Reason why the Dissenters should support and propagate the Religion of the [Page 182] Church of England, in America; but it was, and still is, insisted, that it is a good Reason why the Members of the Church should: And as those who have the Direction of our public Affairs, are chiefly Persons belonging to the Church of Eng­land, it is a good Reason for them to engage im­mediately in Behalf of this Church in America, and even to provide for it an Episcopate, since it is a Provision so manifestly necessary for its Welfare and Prosperity.

THE Doctor goes on for some Pages, endea­voring to destroy the Force of the preceding Ar­gument; but what he has said with this View, ap­pears to me to be the weakest of all the weak Things he has offered in his Performance. In p. 121, he conceits that I was under the Influence of an undue Warmth of Spirit, when I urged the Consideration which is now in Question. I confess, I can hardly write upon, or consider, the "maimed State" in which the American Church of England is still suf­fered to continue, without some Warmth of Spirit; but that I have been influenced by an undue Warmth, I am not conscious, nor do I believe. A Zeal for its Interests, so far as they interfere not with the just Right of others, I profess; but no farther. But until it can be proved that my Zeal has led me to propose unwarrantable Measures for the Re­lief of the Church, or that I have not shewn a pro­per Regard for the Principles of religious Liberty; I shall not be convinced that I have discovered any undue Warmth of Spirit. But if there can be such a Thing in Nature, it most glaringly and notori­ously shews itself in the Writers against the Appeal; and if it appears, in any Degree, in the Author of it, they certainly, of all Persons, have the least [Page 183] Right to be his Accusers.— ‘First cast out the Beam out of thine own Eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy Brother's Eye.’

THE Doctor proceeds: I scarce know how to speak upon the Matter seriously, it is placed in so ludicrous a Light. He should rather have honestly confessed, that he scarce knew how to reason upon the Matter justly, or to make any plausible Oppo­sition to the Argument, it was placed in so convinc­ing a Light. Whether there was any Thing ludi­crous in my Representation, is freely submitted to the Reader's Judgment. In what Manner it ope­rated on the Doctor's Seriousness, and how far he could have been in a gay or comic Humor when op­pressed with the Weight of the Argument, may be easily conjectured. That in this Situation he knew not how to reason upon the Matter justly, appears from the very next Sentence.

NOTWITHSTANDING the ‘diseased perish­ing’ State of the American Church, have not Praises and Adorations, according to the ‘purest and best’ Forms of Devotion, been offered up to Al­mighty God, in all the episcopal Assemblies on the Con­tinent, for the marvellous Interpositions of his Pro­vidence, in our Behalf, in the late War? The na­tural Import of which Sentence I take to be this: The episcopal Assemblies on the Continent have offered up Praises, &c. and therefore the American Church is not in a diseased perishing State, as is pretended. But whether this was really meant, I am not cer­tain. Perhaps the leading Sentiment was, that the public Thanksgivings at the Conclusion of the War, were a suitable Monument of Gratitude for [Page 184] the Successes that attended it; and therefore that there is no Need of an Episcopate, considered as a Monument of Gratitude. If this was the Mean­ing, it was improperly expressed; and the Me­thod of reasoning is as obnoxious as the Manner of expressing it. A Monument is always under­stood to be Something that is permanent, and visi­ble to the World; it must necessarily be a WORK, and not an ENERGY, or transient Act. The ge­neral public Thanksgiving was a suitable Tribute of Gratitude, but it could be no Monument. But even if it was, it might have been our Duty to raise other Monuments of Gratitude, and that of an Episcopate among the rest. The Doctor mentions grateful Hearts and well-ordered Conversations as be­ing suitable Monuments on that Occasion. I intirely agree with him in this; and I believe the Obliga­tion to erect them, was not in the least superseded by the Monument, if we are so to call it, of a public Thanksgiving. The Truth is, as I conceive, all possible Honor ought to be paid to the supreme Ruler of Events, and EVERY proper Monument of religious Gratitude ought to be raised, whenever his Providence calls us to proclaim, and perpetuate, to the World, our Sense of his great and distin­guishing Goodness.

SECTION VII.

THE next Section of the Appeal treats of the Obligations we are under as Christians, SECT. VII. to propagate the Gospel amongst the American Hea­thens, and of the Advantages that might be ex­pected from an Episcopate, in the Conduct and Execution of that good Work, whenever it shall be undertaken upon that extensive Plan, which many worthy Members of the Society propose. As to what was said concerning our Obligations to this Duty, I am so happy as to find Dr. Chauncy mostly agreeing with me in Sentiments; but with Regard to the proper Methods of performing it, and the Usefulness of an Episcopate to that End, we differ, as is usual.

THE first Thing he controverts in this Section, is the Propriety of civilizing Savages in Order to their Conversion. I had assigned some Reasons, and produced some Authorities, to support what appears to have become the general Opinion; namely, that Humanity, or Civility of Manners, is, in some Degree, previously necessary, that Christianity may have its proper Effect upon the American Heathens. Against what was offered to this Purpose, the Doctor opposes the Experience of New-England, telling us, p. 125, that many Tribes of them (the Indians) in the Massachusett' s Province, have, by this Means, viz. The English Way of Living, been so depopulated, that there are now [Page 186] scarce any Remains of them to be seen. From whence he seems to be positive in this Conclusion, that there is not any Need of what is called civilizing them, in Order to their embracing Christianity. Their being Savages, says he, and living in a Way different from what we do, is no Reason why their Conversion may not be expected, if suitable Means were used with them, p. 126.

AS to the Depopulation of some Tribes of In­dians within the Bounds, or on the Borders of New-England, it may have been greatly owing to some Vices, which their Intercourse with the Eng­lish furnished them with an Opportunity to indulge. But there is no natural Connection, I hope, between Civility of Manners, and the Practice of such de­structive Vices. I cannot learn that the Indians thus destroyed were greatly civilized. Barely com­ing once in a while amongst the English Inhabitants, disposing of their Peltry, and purchasing such Ar­ticles as they commonly received in Exchange, could not much improve the Manners of Savages. They must know something of Letters, reside in fixed Habitations, practice Husbandry and the necessary mechanic Arts, before they can be said to have come out of their savage State. Now it is incon­ceiveable that either of these Particulars, or all of them, can have a Tendency to destroy any Part of the human Species. If any of the Tribes in the Massachusetts-Province, which were so far civilized, have been depopulated; it cannot have been owing to their English Way of living, but to other Causes, perhaps to such as were accidental or local. I have met with several New-England Writers who differ widely from the Doctor; ascribing the Depopula­tion of so many Indian Tribes, not to the Cause [Page 187] assigned by him, but to the immediate Hand of God, who thought fit to cut off those idolatrous Nations, to make Room for the Settlement of his chosen People. Be this as it may, the Nature and Disposition of Savages, of all Ages, of all Countries and Complexions, are so nearly the same; that all the Trials which have been made with any of them, as well as what has happened in New-England, will afford Light to the present general Subject.

CHRISTIANITY, as was observed from Dr. Bray, flourished or declined in the early Ages of the Church, in almost an exact Proportion to Men's Improvement in Letters and civilized Manners. In modern Ages, the most judicious and experi­enced Missionaries, have judged that the Gospel can have but little Effect with Barbarians and Sava­ges. It was a Maxim with Father Labat, who had been a celebrated Missionary in the American I­slands, ‘that in Order to make the Americans CHRISTIANS, it was previously necessary to make them MEN ^*.’ Hans Egede, a Danish Missionary, who had resided 25 Years in Greenland, was of the same Opinion. ‘It is a Matter that cannot be questioned, says he, that if you will make a Man a Christian out of a mere Savage and wild Man, you must first make him a reasonable Man.—It would contribute a great Deal to forward their Conversion, if they could, by Degrees, be brought into a settled Way of Life ^†.’ Father Hennepin, for many Years a Missionary in Canada and the interior Parts of America, among the Ob­stacles in the Way of converting the American In­dians, [Page 188] mentions their savage Manner of Life. ‘They are not fixed in a Place, tarrying no longer in their Villages, than till Harvest is over, which is but a small Time; all the rest of the Year they pass in Wars and hunting: Then they carry all their Families with them, and are absent eight or nine Months; their Children then for­get all, and return to their former Manner of Living ^*.’ These are the Sentiments of some of the most famous Missionaries of these latter Ages, in different Parts of the World. The most celebrated Writers, both at home and abroad, have joined in the same Opinion. The very learned Mosheim says: ‘As to those Indians, who live more remote from the European Settlements, and wander about in the Woods without any fixed Habitation, they are absolutely incapable either of receiving or retaining any adequate Notions of the Christian Doctrine, unless they be previ­ously reclaimed from that vagarant Manner of Life, and civilized by an Intercourse with Persons, whose humane and insinuating Manners are adapted to attract their Love and excite their Imitation ^‡.’ The more learned Author of the DIVINE LEGATION of Moses, says: ‘Christianity, plain and simple as it is, and fitted in its Na­ture for what it was designed by its Author, re­quires an Intellect above that of a mere Savage to understand. Something then must be previ­ous to it. And what is that Something but CIVIL SOCIETY ^†.’ Again, he complains that some Men, "having taken it into their Heads" (like Dr. Chauncy) ‘that the Vices of improved [Page 189] Life would more indispose the Indians to the Precepts of the Gospel, than their present Bru­tality incapacitates them from comprehending the Doctrines of it, have concluded it best, upon the whole, to keep their Eyes shut to the Ad­vantages of civil Life ^*.’ I might easily produce the Authority of many other great Names, to the same Purpose; but the above, I apprehend, are suf­ficient to counter-ballance the Weight of Dr. Chaun­cy's, who barely gives his Opinion, without offer­ing his Reasons.

THE next Thing he controverts, is my Account of the Society's Plan for a more general and vigo­rous Attempt to convert the American Heathens. Not that the Fact is denied, or the Propriety of the Resolution disputed; but it is pretended, that this Account contradicts what had been before as­serted, namely, ‘that the Support and Propagation of the Gospel among our own People in America, was the immediate and princpial Design of their Incorporation.’ Whether the Conversion of the Heathens was, or was not, the Object primarily and more immediately in View, when the Society was incorporated, may be easily seen. The Charter of Incorporation, and an authentic History of the Rise and Progress of that charitable Institution for near thirty Years, are extant, and Copies of them are in many Hands. It would be very extraordinary indeed, if the Charter should have mistaken its own immediate and primary Object; and equally extraordinary, if the original Members, who ap­plied for it, should not have known their own In­tentions. The Charter mentions the great End in View to be no other, than ‘to promote the Glory [Page 190] of God, by the Instruction of OUR PEOPLE in the Christian Religion.’ In the Preamble it speaks no less than thrice of the King's LOVING SUBJECTS, as the great and immediate Object of the intended Charity; and says not a Word of the American Heathens. And it appears from the His­tory of the Society, from their yearly Abstracts, and anniversary Sermons, that the Members of that venerable Body, never understood, or imagined, that the Conversion of Heathens was to be their principal and more immediate Work. The Case is so uncommonly plain, that even Dr. May­hew, was compelled by the Force of Evidence, contrary to his own Inclination and the Scope of his Argument, to confess, that ‘it appears that the British Plantations, &c. were really the prima­ry, more immediate Object of this Institution, or the King's SUBJECTS ^*.’ But at the same Time it is farther evident, although not from the Charter as Dr. Mayhew pretended, that the Con­version of the American Heathens was notwith­standing an Object more remotely in View, with many of the original and principal Members, and very probably with the Royal Founder himself. And, from the Beginning to this Day, the Society have always understood that they have a discreti­onary Power of employing such a Part of the Do­nations intrusted with them, as their more immedi­ate Duty to the King's American Subjects would admit of, for the Propagation of the Gospel amongst the Indians bordering upon our Settlements. Accord­ingly ‘they have always employed some Persons in this Service; and I believe it may be truly said, that they have never neglected any fair Opening to introduce the Gospel amongst the American [Page 191] Heathens, especially if proper Persons could be found, to engage in such a Mission.’ Where now is the Inconsistency in all this? May not the Conversion of the Indians be properly an Object constantly aimed at by this worthy Society, although not its primary and immediate Object? Is not pri­mary a relative Term, supposing Something that is secondary, or to follow it? Has it ever been said on the Side of the Church, that the Society, so far as they have engaged in propagating the Gos­pel amongst the Savages, have acted improperly? Or, that they undertook what was not their proper Work? And, now an Episcopate is in View, is it said or insinuated, that it is their primary and im­mediate Object? Where then is the Contradiction that is pretended? And how utterly groundless is the following Reflection? The Writers on the epis­copalian Side, have the Advantage beyond all others. They can make Use of the same Argument, with a good Grace, to contrary Purposes, p. 127.

AS to the Advantage here mentioned, if it had been really claimed or made Use of by the Wri­ters on the episcopalian Side, it cannot justly be said that they claim, or make Use of it, BEYOND all others. I can point out an Example that is equal to it, which has been Matter of common Obser­vation. The Doctor well knows that the Writers on the anti-episcopalian Side, for several Years before the Publication of the Appeal, had asserted and stre­nuously contended, that the Church of England has no general Establishment in the American Co­lonies. But, now an Episcopate is in View, they can tell us a different Story,—arguing, that the proposed Episcopate must operate here in the same Manner that episcopal Government operates in [Page 192] England, because of its general Establishment. They do not indeed commonly go so far as to say, direct­ly and in plain Words, that the Church is thus esta­blished in the Colonies; but their Way of reason­ing manifestly implies it. So that, we see, the Writers against the Church have also the Advantage of making Use of the same Argument, to contrary Pur­poses, or rather, of opposite Principles to the same Purpose; but I cannot say that they do this with a good Grace.

INSTEAD of the Advantages expected from car­rying on the Attempts to proselyte the American Heathens, under the Direction of a resident Bishop, the Doctor says, this superintending Business might, to better Purpose, be put into other Hands, p. 128. He then introduces the Society in Scotland, for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, and the honor­able Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New-England, who manage their Affairs by Commis­sioners, consisting of the Laity as well as Clergy, as Instances to prove, that the Superintendency of a Bishop would be no Advantage to our Society, with Regard to the Conversion of the Indians. It might as well be proved, from the Example of the Churches in the Colonies, that a Bishop is not necessary for the Purpose of Ordination, since, with them, that End is also obtained without a Bi­shop. But it should have been remembered, that although a Bishop in neither Case is necessary on their Principles, yet in both Cases he may be neces­sary on ours.

THE Example of those two Societies can be expected to have but little Effect upon the World, until their Conduct shall be better known to the [Page 193] Public. An Account of their Constitution, of the Condition and Management of their Funds, of the Persons employed in their Service, and the Places and State of their particular Missions, is a Desideratum which has been long looked for; and until it is obtained, many Persons will entertain unfavorable Suspicions. The Doctor tells us, in general, that they have, at this Day, within the Massachusetts-Province—Sixteen Clergymen, English and Indian, statedly labouring, either as Pastors of so many Indian Churches, or as Preachers to Assemblies of Indians that meet together for divine Worship; Nine English Lecturers, and Seven stated School-Masters, besides occasional ones, p. 129. But this general Intelligence is by no Means satisfactory; it rather raises our Curiosity to know how Twenty-five Pastors, Preachers and Lecturers are employed, as well as where, to what Numbers, and to what Pur­pose, they are respectively sent. For according to Mr. Hutchinson's Account ^*, the Indians in the Massachusetts and Plymouth, are so greatly wasted a­way, that they amount to no more than about 80 Families at Mashapee, the same Number at Martha's Vineyard, 70 Families at Stockbridge, and 15 at Nantucket, besides a few scattered Families in dif­ferent Parts of the Province. But how Twenty-five Pastors, Preachers and Lecturers can be properly employed, only in the four Places of Mashapee, Martha's-Vineyard, Stockbridge and Nantucket, con­taining about 245 Families of Indians, requires some Explanation. It might be not improper also to inform the Public, what the Difference is be­tween their Preachers to Assemblies of Indians, and the English Lecturers employed in the same gene­ral Work of ministering to the Indians; for at [Page 194] present it is unintelligible to many People. In saying this Information is wanted, and has been long expected, I do not mean to condemn the Con­duct of those two Societies. From the respectable Characters of some who are said to be Members of them, I cannot believe them to be guilty of any sinister Intentions. But why is the Light of a good Example concealed from the World? Why do they not publish an Account of their Proceed­ings, that all injurious Suspicions may be obviated or removed?

AS to the Society for the Propagation of the Gos­pel, the Doctor fears whether, in what is proposed to be done by them, a Regard to the Church, as esta­blished in England, may not be too much mingled with the common Cause of Christianity. A friendly Cau­tion of this Nature would undoubtedly be well ac­cepted, as all Christians are more or less liable to mingle the Interests of Party with the common Cause of Christianity. But this Society is as irreproachable in this Respect, as any Society that can be mention­ed, without Exception. Its Members hitherto appear to have acted as disinterestedly, and to have mingled Considerations of a private Nature with their pub­lic Proceedings as little, as can be expected from the best of Men. They are disposed to be upon friend­ly Terms with all Denominations of Christians in the Colonies; and if there is any Danger of their acting contrary to such a Disposition, it must arise, not from themselves, but from those who make it in some Degree necessary, by an unreasonable Op­position to all their Measures. It is natural for Men to defend themselves; and so far as Self-De­fence shall oblige them to regard the peculiar In­terests of the Church of England, they may be ex­pected [Page 195] to be cautious. But I dare risque all my Interest and Reputation upon it, that they will never be backward to cultivate, on their Part, a friendly Correspondence with every Denomination of Protestants, whether here or elsewhere.

‘As America is the Region wherein the divine Goodness has been more remarkably displayed in Favor of the British Nation,’ the Doctor con­cludes that Americans are the proper Persons to erect 'some suitable Monument of religious Gratitude,' on that Account, p. 130. But if that Goodness was not displayed in Favor of Americans, Americans are under no Obligations of Gratitude on Account of it. If it was ‘displayed in Favor of the British Nation,’ the British Nation is under Obligations to erect ‘some suitable Monument of religious Gratitude.’ The Truth of the Case is, as the British Nation in general, and the Americans in particular, were remarkably favored by divine Pro­vidence in the late War, the Duty is incumbent upon both; and saying that the Americans are o­bliged, is not proving that the Nation is not obliged, to perform it. The Doctor seems to allow of my Position, that ‘ America is the very Ground, on which some suitable Monument of religious Gra­titude ought to be erected;’ and he differs not greatly from me, when he says, what more suitable one, than a visible perpetually standing Testimony of their pious Concern, and earnest Care, to spread the Knowledge of their only Lord who has done such great Things for them? The chief Difference between us is, that he seems, in this Passage, to make that to be the whole of the Testimony of their pious Concern and 'religious Gratitude,' which I would have to be but a Part of it.

[Page 196]HE goes on to complain, that the Endeavors of the non-episcopal Clergy and Laity in the Massachu­setts-Province, to do something in this Way, upon the Conclusion of the late War, were defeated at Home. For he tells us, that after a large Sub­scription was made in Boston for a Fund to support Missionaries in the Mohawk Country, &c. Upon Condition that there might be an incorporated Society among ourselves (says he) for the conducting and ma­naging this important Affair: An incorporating Act was prepared, and passed by the several Branches of the Go­vernment here, and sent Home for the Royal Sanction, without which it could not continue in Force. But it soon met with a Negative, by which Means this whole Money was lost. And he intimates that the Disap­pointment was occasioned by EPISCOPAL Influence. What he means here by episcopal Influence, in his RE­MARKS on the Bishop of Landaff's Sermon, he must be supposed to explain in the following Words: It is hoped, says he, the Accounts we have had are not true, that the Negative upon this Act, was principally ow­ing to the Influence of some of the most important Mem­bers of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Now to the Accusation evidently implied in these Words, the very sensible Author of A VINDICATION of the Bishop of LANDAFF's SERMON, has thus re­plied: ‘The Doctor may be assured that his Hope is well founded, and the Accounts he had, not true. Besides the utter Improbability that a Num­ber of eminently pious Men who have the Con­version of the Savages much at Heart, would op­pose such a Measure for that Purpose; I will here subjoin an Extract of a Letter from one of the most important Members of the Society to his Friend in this Country, dated Oct. 1762, and which confutes that Calumny. Speaking [Page 197] of this Affair, he says— The Plan as presented, was liable to several Objections; particularly that the Members were to be accountable only to them­selves. However the Society made NO OPPOSI­TION TO IT ^*.’ The Letter here quoted I have seen, and from an Acquaintance with the Hand-Writing, know it to be genuine. The Author of it was no less a Person, a no less important Member of the Society, than their PRESIDENT at that Time; whose eminent Integrity, Abilities, and Attention to the Affairs of the Society, leave no Possibility of suspecting that he could either misrepresent, or mistake, the Matter. And from his short Account, these Things appear, viz. That the Plan was not so properly rejected, as the Draught that was pre­sented—that the Draught was rejected, not be­cause the Design of it was disliked, but because it was improperly framed—and, that the Rejection, whether justifiable or not, was not owing, in any Degree, to the Society. Mr. Apthorp, another Member of the Society, after inquiring upon the Spot, goes farther, and says: ‘I can affirm, on very good Authority, that neither the Society nor any Episcopalians, as such, opposed the Act of the Boston Assembly for the Purpose here mentioned. It was rejected merely on political and commercial Reasons, which arose from the Manner of drawing it up, and were represented by the Board of Trade to the Privy-Council, who unanimously disapproved it, when there was not one Bishop present; as appears from the Council-Books ^§.’ Now that Dr. Chauncy should take no Notice at all of so clear and full an Evi­dence of the Society's Innocence, with Regard to [Page 198] an Accusation that bore so hard upon the Reputa­tion of that most respectable Body—an Evidence, that carries double Conviction to those who are ac­quainted with Mr. Apthorp's excellent and amiable Character, to which the Doctor can be no Stran­ger; but that notwithstanding, he should still go on, from Pamphlet to Pamphlet, intimating black Suspicions of Guilt, and throwing out Reproaches, founded at best upon distant hear-say, as if the Ballance of Proof were against the Society; is one of those strange, modern American Phoenomena which admit not of an easy Solution. The most natural and favorable Way of accounting for it perhaps, is to suppose that the Doctor wrote in such a Hurry, both against the Bishop of Landaff's Ser­mon and the Appeal, as not to give himself Time to recollect many Things which materially concern his Subject. But I forbear.

SECTION VIII.

THE next Section of the Appeal contains ‘the Plan on which alone American Bishops have been requested, fairly stated, SECT. VIII. with Expostu­lations on the Reasonableness thereof.’ Dr. Chaun­cy, in his Answer to it, begins with taking Notice of what he calls, a Copy of the Petition that was sent, by a Number of the episcopal Clergy, to the University of Cambridge, which had lately appeared in one of the public Papers at Boston; in which Copy there are several Expressions which he looks on as highly exceptionable. This Copy I have seen; its Editor and Annotator pretended that it was the Transcript of an Address drawn up and sent, by a Convention of the episcopal Clergy of New-York, and New-Jersey. But the Doctor must have since heard that the Convention disclaims it; and I can and do assure him that it is fictitious and false, and that the Convention sent home no such Address, nor any that contained similar Expressions with those which he censures.

HE informs us, in p. 135, that some of the most respectable Episcopalians in New-England— have de­clared it to be their Opinion, that Bishops would be of no Service here, and that they did not desire they should be sent. Whether he has any Thing pecu­liar in his Idea of respectable Episcopalians, and of a steady Attachment to the Interest of the Church of England, which he makes to be part of their Cha­racter; [Page 200] and what we are to understand by the in­definite Word some, whether Two or Two Hun­dred, is impossible for me to say. He may have met with, or heard of, some, i. e. Two or more respectable Episcopalians, who were not desirous of having Bishops in America, meaning Bishops with such temporal Powers as they exercise in England: But I much question whether there is an Episcopa­lian upon the Continent, either of a more or less respectable Character, including in it some Degree of Attachment to the Interest of the Church, that has objected against an Episcopate upon the Plan of the Appeal. If there be any such, I will ven­ture to affirm, that they have acted a very unna­tural, inconsistent Part. For how absurd is it for a Man, who is attached to the Interest of the Church of England in America, not to wish it Soundness and Health? But how can it be sound and healthy, while its Constitution is broken, and deprived of that which is essential to its Well-be­ing? Where can be the Harm of having episcopal Ordination administred in the Colonies? ‘What is the Fear,’ from having the Clergy brought under a stricter Discipline? "What the Danger," in giving an Opportunity to such as are desirous of Confirmation, to receive it in this Country? These are the ONLY Ends proposed by an Episcopate; and every Episcopalian must allow that these are real Advantages. And since the Power of American Bishops is to be confined to the Clergy of our own Church, and will bring no Burthen or Expence upon any Part of the Country, or upon Individu­als; it is inconceivable that any Episcopalians should not desire it, excepting such clerical Delin­quents as fear, by Means of such an Episcopate, to be brought to Punishment. For my Part, I have [Page 201] met with no such Episcopalians, nor have particu­larly heard of any such: But on the other Hand, I have been told by many of the Dissenters, and by several of their Clergy, and even by some of their Clergy belonging to New-England, that they thought it unreasonable that any should object to our Propo­sal.

I MEET with nothing farther worthy of Notice, after what has been already animadverted on, until we come to p. 138. The Doctor there objects to our Plan, because he thinks it has been illegally settled. He takes it for granted, that what has been done by our Friends and Superiors at Home relating to it, has been done without the King's Approbation. And he argues that it is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Church, and the established Doctrine of the King's Supremacy, to take such a Step; and that even the CONVOCATION, when convened by the King's Writ, hath no Authority to settle any Plan without his Con­sent, nor indeed so much as to ATTEMPT to form one without HIS LICENCE. What the Rights and Powers of an English Convocation are, is not my Business to enquire; as it is not pretended that the Plan in Question was settled in Convocation. Al­lowing that the two Houses of Convocation, ac­cording to the Declaration of the upper House in 1702, as quoted by the Doctor, ‘without a royal Licence, have no Authority to attempt, enact, promulge, or execute any CANON by whatever Name it might be called,’ which is the Lan­guage of the Statute of the 25 Hen. VIII; yet not­withstanding, the Clergy, even in Convocation, ‘are still in several inferior Instances, left prefectly free ^*.’ The two Houses of Parliament, cannot, without a [Page 202] royal Licence, attempt, enact, promulge or exe­cute any Statute, more legally than the two Houses of Convocation can enact a Canon; but I hope the Members both of Parliament and Convocation, whether legally convened, or not convened, as they happen to meet with one another, may confer upon and propose Plans for the public Good, and agree to carry them into Execution, as soon as the royal Licence shall permit them to act in their legisla­tive Capacity. Every Association of disaffected Persons ought to be suppressed; but Consultations for the public Happiness, held by Persons of the utmost Fidelity, with a due Deference and Sub­mission to the Wisdom of Government, will always be encouraged by prudent Princes, and under wise Administrations. If nothing farther than this, could be said in Favor of those who settled the Plan for an American Episcopate, it would be suf­ficient to justify them: And the Doctor would have no Reason to cry out, as he does, p. 139, in the following supercilious Language: Is this Man­ner of Conduct, in any Degree, conformable to the constituted Order of the Church of England? Dare Bishops, or even Archbishops, at home, venture upon a Method of acting so repugnant to the SUPREMACY in all ecclesiastical Matters, with which, by repeated Acts of Parliament, the CROWN has been vested? That he is much mistaken in his Notion of the King's Supremacy, as maintained by the Church of England, has been already proved; that he is also mistaken in his Notion of the general constituted Order of that Church, is too plain to require any Proof.

HE has pronounced all Consultations of our Bishops for the Interest of Religion, to be, in ge­neral, [Page 203] an Infringement of the King's Supremacy, unless a Licence for that Purpose is formally grant­ed by the Crown. But can any Man believe this to be true, in the Sense wherein it is affirmed; and without any Exceptions? Supposing the King were made acquainted with the particular Subject of any such Deliberation, and privately consulted upon it, and he should give undoubted Proofs of his Approbation of the Measure; would the Doctor still call it an Infringement of the Supremacy? If not, neither should he thus speak of the Plan in Question, as it has been honored in this Manner, with the royal Approbation. And here it may be proper to explain what has been before said; name­ly, that the Plan was settled by those, who were warranted by a royal Commission constitutionally issued. The Charter granted to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, has the Nature and Ef­ficacy of a royal Commission. By this Charter or Commission, the Members are warranted to concert Measures and to settle Plans, for carrying on the Design of their Incorporation in the most effectual Manner. The Society soon saw, that an American Episcopate was highly expedient to this Purpose; they therefore sketched out a general Plan for send­ing Bishops to America, which Plan was publickly approved and patronized by her Majesty, Queen ANNE. Many Causes concured to delay the Exe­cution of it, at that Time, and through the Two succeeding Reigns; but Marks of the royal Appro­bation were not wanting in either of them. Of late Years the Plan has been resumed and digested with peculiar Attention, and our present most gracious Sovereign has given it particular Encourage­ment. Surely, after this Explanation the Doctor will not say, a Plan for an Episcopate thus formed, [Page 204] settled and published, ought to have no great Regard paid to it. For were it inconsiderable in itself, it is still respectable on Account of its honorable Origin.

IN p. 140, he goes on, fulminating against the Audaciousness of those Persons, who ventured to form and encourage the Plan; and (Risum tenea­tis?) construes it to be a direct Violation of the 73d CANON. The Canon injoins, ‘that no Priests, or Ministers of God's Word, nor any other Persons shall meet together in any private House, or elsewhere, to consult upon any Matter or Course to be taken by them, or upon their Mo­tion, or Direction by any others, which may any Way tend to the impeaching, or depraving of the Doctrine of the Church of England, or of the Book of Common-Prayer, or of any Part of the Government or Discipline now established in the Church of England, under Pain of Excommu­nication ipso Facto.’ Whoever knows any Thing of the History of the Times in which the Canon was framed, must be sensible that it was designed against a very different Sort of Persons from those venerable Prelates, who formed and settled the Plan for an American Episcopate. And as it was designed against a different Sort of Persons, so the Words of it clearly point out a very different Con­duct. I know not but the Doctor may laugh at me, for seriously replying to what is evidently in it­self so highly extravagant, I might rather say, to a great Degree ludicrous; but yet I am really unable to determine, whether he was, or was not, serious himself, at the Time of his writing. However, on the favorable Supposition that he was serious, as I presume he ought to have been, I will proceed to ob­serve, [Page 205] —That what the Canon condemns, are fac­tious Combinations and Consultations which tend to impeach and deprave the Doctrine, Liturgy or Government of the Church of England. If there­fore the forming of the Plan for an American Epis­copate has no such Tendency, it comes not within the Words, any more than within the Intent of the Canon.

BUT, says the Doctor, it is a Plan for altering the Government and Discipline of the Church of Eng­land in the Colonies. Does he then believe the Ca­non was intended to secure the Government and Discipline of the Church of England in the Co­lonies? Without this Intention, the Proposal of any Alteration of the Form of ecclesiastical Go­vernment here, can be no Violation of the Canon. But what is the Nature and Tendency of the Alte­ration proposed? Is it to deprave the Government of the Church of England at Home? No, it is in Reality to honor it, by endeavoring to bring the Government of the Church here much nearer to her Pattern and Example, than it is, or can be, while destitute of Bishops. Nor is the Plan for a different Mode of an Episcopate for the Church of America, any Impeachment of that under which it exists in England. As to such Externals, the Church of England has always allowed them to be Things that are alterable, and that they ought to be altered, according to the Circumstances and Opinions of different Countries, or even of the same Country in different Ages. To say therefore that Circumstances in America require, or make it ex­pedient, that the Externals of an Episcopate should be under a Regulation peculiar to this Country, is saying no more than the Church of England has [Page 206] always, in Effect, said and implies no Reflection upon the Establishment at home, which also may be best fitted for a Church situated as the national Church is in England.

IN p. 141, the Doctor, although he is of Opi­nion that he might be reasonably excused from taking any farther Notice of this Plan, as it is, not only destitute of all Authority, but comes HANDED TO CONSIDERATION, in evident Contradiction to it; yet, upon the whole, thinks proper to go on, and dis­tinctly mention the Objections WE have, says he, to make against it. Here then the most essential Bu­siness of his Publication comes forward; in which, he not only lays out his own Strength, but calls in to his Aid what was POWERFULLY offered by the late excellent Dr. Mayhew. His own Objections he distinguishes, ranges and numbers, as follows.

OBJECT. 1. THE Government and Discipline of the Church of England under the proposed American Episcopate, is injurious, both to the Church, and the Bishops that are to preside over it. But how is it injurious to the Church? Why, it seems, by the Limitation of the Bishops Authority to the Clergy, so that it shall not operate on the Laity. But if the Laity are not to be affected by the Bishops Autho­rity, they are certainly not to be injured by it; that which does not operate at all, producing no Effect, either injurious or beneficial. With Regard there­fore to the Exercise of Discipline over the Laity, no Benefit is proposed, and no Injury is to be fear­ed; but with Regard to the Government of the Clergy, much Advantage is proposed, expected and foreseen; so that in this Respect, and upon the whole, the Plan is not injurious, but be­neficial, to the American Church. Why no farther [Page 207] Discipline is to be exercised over the Laity when Bishops shall be appointed, has been shewn in a former Section, and need not be repeated here. It is thought by much better Judges than either the Doctor or myself, that it will be more advantageous to the American Church, to leave the Laity as they are, than to introduce any Degree or Species of Discipline over them, with which Americans are unacquainted.

THE proposed Plan is represented as injurious to the Bishops themselves, because thereby they are, in a meer arbitrary Manner, restrained in the Exercise of that Authority, which properly belongs to them, both by the apostolic Appointment, and the Constitu­tion of the Church of England, p. 143. But if such a Restraint is not injurious to the Church, it will be difficult to prove that it can be injurious to the Bishops. Are we to consider the Authority of Bishops as so much private Property, which belongs to them, and every Limitation of it as so much Damage sustained by the Bishops? And yet, unless we consider it under some such Idea, I see not how it can be made out, that any prudent Restraints of their Authority can be an Injury to them. He that is fond of exercising Power for the Sake of exer­cising it, without regarding whether it tends to E­dification or Destruction, is unworthy of it.

OBJECT. 2. THE Bishops in this Plan, are so widely different from the Bishops of the Church of England, that it is not reasonable they should either be desired, or sent, p. 144. The Bishops in this Plan, are essentially the same with the Bishops at Home, how widely soever they may differ in some Circumstances. But let them be never so different, [Page 208] if such Bishops as are proposed are fitter for the Colonies than such Bishops as are in England, and the Doctor will hardly say that they are not; then, it may be reasonable that they should be both de­sired, and sent. This I take to be a full and suf­ficient Answer to the Objection as it stands; and what has been before said, I take to be a sufficient Answer to all the Doctor has offered under this Head, excepting one Consideration, in p. 146, which may require more particular Notice. The Consideration is this: That if Bishops should be sent to the Colonies with these restrained Powers, undesirable Consequences might be naturally feared, both here, and at home. The Consequence to be feared here, he tells us, is, that our Bishops would be uneasy under such a Restraint, and be disposed to throw it off as soon as might be. But was it ever before offered as a Reason why exorbitant Power should not be limited, (and such the Doctor esteems to be the Power of Bishops in England) because the Persons curtailed would en­deavor to throw off the Restraint, as soon as may be? But why are we to suppose, that the American Bishops will be uneasy under such a Limitation of their Power, as the Plan specifies? Those who have been in actual Possession, or even in Expectation, of any great and extensive Power, will naturally be uneasy under any remarkable Abridgment of it; but this will not be the Case of our American Bi­shops. Whatever Powers or Privileges they shall once possess, by Virtue of their Office, they will continue to hold, as long as they shall remain in the Office; and as they will know the Terms before they accept of it, there can be no Disappointment. And why should they be uneasy, because the Bishops at home are invested with civil Authority? The Bi­shops at home may as properly be uneasy and rest­less, [Page 209] because they are not, like some of their Or­der on the Continent of Europe, sovereign Princes. Perhaps the Uneasiness of the American Bishops may be supposed to arise from the Reflection, that destitute as they are of civil Power, they are Bi­shops of the same Church with their Brethren in England. But they will not be able to avoid the farther Reflection, that they are Bishops of the same Church in different Countries, and under dif­ferent Circumstances; which essentially alters the Case. And no better Reason can be given, why they should not be contented with less Power than belongs to the Bishops in England, than why the other Bishops in England should not be contented with less Power than belongs to the Bishop of Dur­ham. This same Kind of reasoning would operate as strongly against episcopal Clergymen in America, as against Bishops. The Clergy of the Church of England, at home, are, in a great Measure, supported by Tythes; therefore, it may be said, if Clergymen of the Church of England are once admitted in this Country, under whatever Restrictions and Li­mitations, they will not be easy, until they shall have secured to themselves the Tythes of our Estates.

THE Doctor also mentions Two ill Consequen­ces to be feared at Home: One is, that the Peo­ple there who dislike the present Power of the Bi­shops, will be apt to be clamorous, and to make Disturbances, when they shall find that an Episcopate is settled here in the Form that they desire, while they are refused the like Indulgence in England. The Reader can hardly avoid remarking, that here, and in many other Places, the Doctor forgets his proper Business and Character. His Business is [Page 210] to answer the Appeal upon the Principles of the Dissenters; but instead of this, he frequently en­deavours to raise Difficulties and Objections, which cannot properly be made but upon Principles op­posite to his own, and of those whom he represents in this Controversy. This shews the Disposition with which he undertook to oppose the Episcopate in Question, and that he came prepared with a Resolution to object at any Rate, rather than not to object at all. It will never be admitted as an Objection coming from the Dissenters here or in England, that many at Home will grow more cla­morous against the present Power of the English Bishops, in Consequence of the Settlement of such an Episcopate here as is proposed for the Colonies. But should the Objection be made by any who have a Right to make it, it is sufficient to refer them to what has been already said to the Purpose, viz. That such an Episcopate may be erected here with Ease; but it cannot be effected in England, without subverting an Establishment, and making a very visible Alteration in the national Constitu­tion—a Work never to be undertaken but in the greatest Extremity, and even then, not without a trembling Hand.

THE other ill Consequence suggested is, that the Bishops in England will be jealous, that an Invasion of their Authority is farther intended. In Reply to which, I will only remind the Doctor of one Circumstance which he happened to forget; namely, that this very Plan has been formed and introduced by those Bishops themselves, and con­sequently, should they be jealous that any Invasion of their Power is therein intended, they must be jea­lous that they have intended to invade it themselves.

[Page 211]OBJECT. 3. THE Church of England knows no such Bishops as are specified in this is Plan, nor can they in Consistency with its Constitution, be sent to the Co­lonies, p. 149. This Objection, and all that has been offered to support it, has been fully answered already.

OBJECT. 4. WE are, in Principle, against all civil Establishments in Religion; and as we do not desire any such Establishment in Support of our own religious Sentiments, or Practice, we cannot reasonably be blamed, if we are not disposed to encourage one in Favor of the episcopal Colonists, p. 152. If by WE, the Doctor means those of the congregational Per­suasion in New-England in general, the Objection contains an Article of Intelligence that is to me NEW. That some particular Writers among the va­rious Denominations of Dissenters, both in Eng­land and in this Country, have expressed a Dislike of all religious Establishments, I well know; but I have been of Opinion, that a large Majority of those several Persuasions, excepting the People cal­led Quakers, notwithstanding the Declamations that have been published against Establishments in the gross, had always a Reserve in Favor of the Establishment of their own Religion. The Puri­tans, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ‘did not desire a Toleration, but the Establishment of their own Scheme; such an Establishment of it as would have kept all others, in particular the Lutherans, and the Friends of Edward's Refor­mation, out of the Church; and as they did not desire a Toleration for themselves, so they would not grant it to others. The full Establishment of their own Plan, absolute and universal Com­pliance with it, without any Favor or Indulgence, [Page 212] was what they wrote for, and earnestly endea­voured to obtain ^*.’ In the last Century, when they were able to seize upon the Power of the State, they pressed it into their Service, and according to the Doctrine of their Fathers, an Establishment without a Toleration was urged and practiced, as a Matter of indispensible Duty. The Doctor's An­cestors and mine, who planted themselves in New-England, brought with them the same Principles; upon which they made farther Improvements, not suffering even those of their own Persuasion, except they were in full Communion with them, to enjoy some of the most essential Rights of Englishmen. The Presbyterians in Scotland, and the Calvinists in Geneva, Holland and other Places, have al­ways been Friends to religious Establishments, and strenuous Advocates for the Magistrate's Protecti­on of the true Religion. And I imagine, from certain historical Accounts and authentic Anecdotes in my Possession, that it must have been within a very few Years only, that the Doctor's PRINCIPLE, against all civil Establishments in Religion, has been generally adopted New-England, if it has been adopted at all.

I INTIRELY agree with him, that if he, and those of his Persuasion, do not desire an Establishment in Support of their own religious Sentiments, they can­not reasonably be blamed, if they are not disposed to encourage one in Favor of the episcopal Colonists. They are not desired to do this; nay, when it shall appear that the American Episcopalians endeavour to introduce any farther Establishment of the Church in the Colonies, than it now has, I will not blame them if they oppose it, provided the Opposition be [Page 213] made fairly, and they confine themselves within the Limits of Truth, Candor and Decency. After all, what has the Case of religious Establishments to do with the Plan for an American Episcopate, which has been offered to the Public? Does this Plan propose an Establishment of the Church? Will the Execution of it imply, or amount to, any such Thing? Will the Introduction of Bishops, who ‘shall have no Authority, but purely of a spiritu­al and ecclesiastical Nature, such as is derived altogether from the Church and not from the State’ —whose ‘Authority shall operate only upon the Clergy of the Church, and not upon the Laity, nor upon Dissenters of any Denomination’ — who ‘shall not interfere with the Property or Privileges, whether civil or religious, of Church­men or Dissenters’ —who ‘in particular, shall have no Concern with the Probate of Wills, Let­ters of Guardianship and Administration, or Marriage-Licences, nor be Judges of any Cases relating thereto’ but who ‘shall only exercise the original Powers of their Office, i. e. ordain and govern the Clergy, and administer Confir­mation to those who shall desire it;’ I say, will the Introduction of such Bishops as these (and no others are proposed in the Plan, or intended by its Advocates) amount to an Establishment? Nay, can it have any more Effect against the civil or re­ligious Privileges of the Colonists, than against those of the Crim Tartars? If not; then whatever has been offered upon this Subject in Answer to the Plan, by the Doctor or others, and much has been offered by all that have written against it, is abso­lutely foreign from the Point, and has no Manner of Connection with it.

[Page 214]FOR this Reason I shall pass over what is said, in p. 153, about the general Right of States to make religious Establishments, with this Observation; that the same Argument, with which the Doctor endeavours to overthrow it, is as forcible against the Right of private Judgment. This will evident­ly appear from the following Experiment. If a Person in England has this Right, must it not be owned, that a Person in China, in Turkey, in Spain, has this Right also? What should make the Differ­ence in the Eye of true Reason? Have Persons in England been distinguished by Heaven by any peculiar Grant, beyond Persons in other Countries? If they have, let the Grant be produced. If they have not, all Persons have, in common, the same Right. And as they must severally be supposed to exert this Right, in forming their own Sentiments in Religion; what can the Consequence be, but infinite Damage to the Cause of God and true Religion? And such in Fact has been the Consequence of this pretended Right of private Judg­ment, in all Ages, and in all Places. What Absurdities in Sentiment, and ridiculous Follies, not to say, gross Immo­ralities in Practice, have been occasioned by the Exercise of this Right; in some or other Nations of the Earth? Thus the Reader sees the Force of the Doctor's Argument against Establishments; if he chooses to see what can be said in Favor of them, let him consult, among other Authors, Bishop Warburton' s, Alliance between the Church and the State, Dr. Stebbing 's Essay concerning civil Govern­ment, Dr. Rogers' s Vindication of the civil Esta­blishment, Bishop Ellys on spiritual Liberty, Tract III, and a late elegant Essay on Establishments in Religion, in Answer to the Cofessional.

[Page 215]OBJECT. 5. THE Church of England in the Colonies, in its comparative low State, instead of an Episcopate, upon this Plan, or any other, needs ra­ther the charitable Assistance of its Friends to support its present Ministers, and others that are still wanted, p. 154. The Doctor forgets, that the Church of England in several of the Colonies, is not in that comparative low State he here speaks of; but is able to support and does support, its Ministers in general, as amply as any Set of Clergymen are supported in the British Dominions. But supposing it were otherwise, and that the Church throughout the Colonies need­ed the charitable Assistance of its Friends to support its Ministers, as is assumed in the Objection; yet this would be no Proof, that it does not also need an Episcopate. The deplorable Sadness of the religi­ous State of Things in North-Carolina, where there are so few Clergymen, instead of answering the Objector's Purpose, is, on the contrary, a strong Ar­gument to prove the Necessity of American Bishops.

BUT, says he, that Charity, which might be suf­ficient for the Maintenance of as many Missionaries as would be needful there, would be swallowed up by one Bishop only. And would this so much tend to the Honor of God, and the Good of Souls, as if it was expended in Support of Missions that are really neces­sary? It is surprizing to see what Advantages are claimed by some People; how they can make Use of the same Argument to contrary Purposes! When o­ther Ends are to be answered, the Writers against the Church can tell us, that the Society have no Power to apply their Funds to other Uses than were intended by the Donors—that ‘the Money given must be looked upon as strictly appropriated by the pious Donors to particular Uses; and may [Page 216] not on any Pretence, be diverted to other and different Uses, though those other Uses may seem to have Something pious and charitable in their Nature ^*’ —that the Society are Stewards, and that ‘Stewards are not allowed to use the Goods or Money with which they are intrusted, but for those Ends and Purposes for which they are committed to them. If they knowingly ap­ply them to any others, however good in them­selves, they are unfaithful in their Trust ^†.’ But now an Espiscopate is in View, it is thought reasonable and just, that the Society should alienate a Fund, more strictly appropriated to a particular Use than any other in their Power, (for this may be truly said of the Fund for the Support of Ame­rican Bishops) and expend it upon Missionaries to be sent to Carolina, or other Places, provided always that such Places be at a due Distance from New-England. But as the Society have never acted the Part of unfaithful Stewards in other Cases, we can be under no Apprehensions that they will in this.

IN p. 155. the Doctor represents the Church of England in the Northern Colonies, as having grown but little in Comparison with the other Deno­minations of Christians. If this were really the Case, it would not be strange, since it might na­turally be accounted for, from the peculiar Disad­vantes to which the Church in the Colonies has al­ways been subject; and whether it is the Case or not, the Plea for an Episcopate is exactly the same, it being not founded on the comparative Increase on the Church, but on its present State, with Res­pect [Page 217] both to the Numbers it now contains, and the Necessities it is under. But I conceive he must be mistaken, as to the Fact. In Pennsylvania, New-Jersey and New-York, I will not be positive that the Church has increased beyond the Proporti­on of other Denominations, for 50 Years past. In some particular Towns and Districts it undoubted­ly has, but perhaps in others it may have propor­tionably decreased. But in the New-England Co­lonies, it appears from good Accounts, that the Church has considerably increased, and that the Number of its Professors at this Day bears a great­er Proportion to the Number of Inhabitants, than it ever has before. I may be mistaken with Regard to some of the New-England Colonies; but my Opinion is founded upon credible Report, strength­ened by this Argument—that it is a common Thing there, for Families of Dissenters to conform to the Church; whereas it seldom happens that a Family is known to leave the Church, and join with the Dissenters. But as to Connecticut, of which I can judge from my own Observation, the Church has increased there most amazingly, for 20 or 30 Years past. I cannot at present recollect an Example, in any Age or Country, wherein so great a Proportion of Proselytes has been made to any Religion in so short a Time, as has been made to the Church of England in the Western Division of that populous Colony; unless where the Power of Miracles or the Arm of the Magistrate was exerted to produce that Effect. This Progress of the Church has greatly alarmed the more rigid Dissen­ters in New-England; and however the good Doc­tor may affect to despise it, I think that I can discover, in some of his late Writings, that he is not a little alarmed by it himself.

[Page 218]IN p. 157, he intimates, that it is not prudent yet a while for us to desire an Episcopate, since it will be attended with a vast Charge, which must be defrayed some Way or other. If Americans were to support the Episcopate, and are not yet able, it were wrong in them, I will not say, to desire, but to request it. But this is not to be the Case. And since there is an appropriated Fund for this Pur­pose, which will go far towards defraying the Charge—since there is no Reason to doubt but it will be sufficiently augmented by voluntary Dona­tions—and especially, since the Doctor and his Friends are not to be taxed to raise it to a sufficien­cy; they have no Cause to be uneasy on that Ac­count. Under this Head he argues against an E­piscopate, from the American Church's being yet in its Infancy—in such a feeble State as not to be able to stand upon its own Legs—and, in short, as being so far from a State of Maturity, as not to make it WORTH WHILE for a Bishop to come here. But infant and feeble as She is, he has allowed that She my be 270,000 strong in the Colonies, exclu­sive of the Islands, after reducing her Numbers as low as possible. Now can he possibly think, when he allows himself Time for Consideration, that the Church of England in America, containing 270,000 Members (besides many Thousands more in the I­slands) in which are included most of the Gover­nors and principal Persons in the Colonies, is so in­considerable, that it is not worth while for a Bishop to take Charge of it? Would he look upon an e­qual Number of any People upon Earth, however low in their Circumstances, or however light when weighed in the political Ballance, in so contempti­ble a Light?

[Page 219]DR. Chauncy's other Objections, it seems, coincide with what has been powerfully offered by Dr. May­hew; he therefore thinks proper to bring that pow­erful Objector upon the Stage, and to retire himself, during a Scene of 17 Pages. But before he makes this Exit, he complains that I suffered what was wrote in Answer to this very Plan, by Dr. Mayhew, to lie unanswered, without having lisped a Word in Reply to him. This Appearance is against me, I freely confess. It was the professed Business of the Appeal to obviate and remove Objections against an American Episcopate, and Dr. Mayhew was too considerable a Writer to be overlooked. But the DEFENCES of his Observations I had not then seen; and although I made much Inquiry, and sent as far as into Connecticut, I was unable to pro­cure them. I was told however by one that had read them, that they contained nothing material upon the Subject, but what had been sufficiently answered by Mr. Apthorp, and nothing but what I had considered in the Course of my Papers; upon which Information I proceeded to publish. This Excuse I now offer to the Public, not doubting of its being candidly accepted. But what Excuse can Dr. Chauncy make, for taking no Notice of what was powerfully offered by Mr. Apthorp, in Answer to these very Objections of Dr. Mayhew, and for not having lisped a Word in Reply to him? Was it treating his Readers generously, or fairly, or ho­nestly, to present them with Dr. Mayhew's Objec­tions, broadly hinting, although not directly assert­ing, that they had not been answered; when he must have known, that they had not only been ans­wered, but that no Reply had been made to the Answer? Unless some satisfactory Account shall [Page 220] be given of this Conduct, he must bear the Re­proach of it, as well as he can.

BEFORE he introduces Dr. Mayhew, he suggests an Expedient to compromise Matters between Episco­palians, and other Denominations, in the Colonies, p. 158. The Expedient is, that the King should grant a Commission to some of the episcopal Cler­gy here, to perform all the Offices of a Bishop. Every plausible Expedient for compromising Dif­ferences between the various Denominations of Christians, ought to be attended to; but Plausibi­lity cannot be predicated of this. It can neither answer the Ends of the Episcopalians, nor even those of the Projector and his Adherents. The Powers wanted by the American Church are ‘pure­ly of a spiritual Nature,’ which therefore the King cannot give; such Authority as can be given by the King, is altogether temporal, which is the very Thing that the Dissenters dread: So that nei­ther Episcopalians nor Dissenters, can possibly ac­quiesce in the Expedient.

I SHALL now lay before the Reader Mr. Ap­thorp's Reply to what has been produced from Dr. Mayhew on the Subject; first begging that worthy Gentleman's Pardon, for making free with his Property.

"THE Doctor affects to doubt, says Mr. Ap­thorp, whether the Scheme proposed by his Ans­werer, be not merely his own; instead of being, as is asserted, the real and only one that has been in View; and says, that if this Assertion be true, he and others have been misinformed. Therefore, let his or their Informers say on what Grounds [Page 221] they have ever affirmed a different one to have been framed; or else let them take Shame to themselves, for inventing Falshoods, or venting Imaginations for Facts; and let the Doctor set a Mark on them, and be more cautious whom he believes hereafter."

"SUCCESSIVE Proposals for American Bishops have been made at different Times, through a long Course of Years, by Men of high Rank and Cha­racter in the Church; and are ready now for the Perusal of any worthy Person, who shall declare himself unsatisfied in this Point: All which agree with what the Answerer has avered. One of them perhaps may have peculiar Weight with the Doctor; I mean that made in the Year 1750, by the excel­lent Bishop BUTLER, in the Doctor's own Judg­ment ‘a great Ornament of the Episcopal Order, and of the Church of England.’ This Scheme, with which the Writer was favored by a Gentleman of Distinction in Boston, is in the Bishop's own hand­writing, of which the following is an exact Tran­script."

I. ‘THAT no coercive Power is desired over the Laity in any Case; but only a Power to re­gulate the Behavior of the Clergy who are in episcopal Orders; and to correct and punish them according to the Law of the Church of England, in Case of Misbehavior or Neglect of Duty, with such Powers as the Commissaries a­broad have exercised.’

II. ‘THAT nothing is desired for such Bishops, that may in the least interfere with the Dignity, or Authority, or Interest, of the Governor, or any other Officer of State. Probates of Wills, Li­cence [Page 222] for Marriages, &c. to be left in the Hands where they are: And no Share in the temporal Government is desired for Bishops.’

III. ‘ THE Maintenance of such Bishops not to be at the Charge of the Colonies.’

IV. ‘No Bishops are intended to be settled in Places where the Government is in the Hands of Dissenters, as in New-England, &c. But Au­thority to be given, ONLY to ordain Clergy for such Church of England Congregations as are among them, and to inspect into the Manners and Behavior of the said Clergy, and to confirm the Members thereof.’

"THIS Plan is so exactly similar to that in the Answer to Dr. Mayhew' s Observations, that it can­not be doubted, they are the same, and that it is the only one intended to be put in Execution. And it is such a simple and beautiful Model of the most ancient and moderate Episcopacy, that it should, not only remove all the Doctor's Apprehensions, but the Scruples of every rational and learned Dissenter against that apostolic Form of Govern­ment."

"SUPPOSING this to be the real Scheme, the Doctor owns that it sets the Matter in a less excep­tionable Point of View, than he had seen it in be­fore. Yet he cannot forbear going 50 Years back, to ridicule some harmless, though ill-chosen, Phra­ses, in which the Substance of it is expressed; and expose to scorn, with burlesque Gravity, what he calls a Matter ‘so sublime, mysterious and sacred, as the Imposition of the Bishop's Hands.’ Yet, [Page 223] he well knows, or easily may, that we ascribe no more Efficacy to the laying on of Bishops' Hands, than his Brethren do to the laying on of Presbyters' Hands. And if we apprehend ourselves bound to admit it in one Office, which they have rejected, I mean Confirmation; we may indeed be mistaken in it, but surely cannot be Objects of Derision for it. The same is the Case of episcopal Ordination, and episcopal Visitation of the Clergy of our Church. We think them all appointed, and useful to us: We are sure they are injurious to no other Persons. And therefore according to those Principles, for which the Doctor avows the warmest Zeal; we are en­titled to have these Offices performed for us by Persons of that Order, to which we conceive they are committed: Else, we do not enjoy ‘that full entire Liberty in religious Matters,’ which the Doctor desires for himself, and ‘which all Men, whose Principles or Practices are not in­consistent with the Safety of Society, he says, have a Right to enjoy.’ He tells us indeed, that we do enjoy it without American Bishops, "though under some Inconveniences," as he gently calls them. The BUFFOONERY that immediately follows, in Order to prevent any Compassion for our Case, I omit. So he thinks we are possessed sufficiently of the whole Exercise of our Religion, because our young People may be confirmed, and Clergymen ordained for us, and properly inspected afterwards; provided they will all go from Ameri­ca to Europe for these Purposes. Can the Doctor say with a good Conscience, that Liberty like this is all that he should desire for himself and his Brethren? Let me intreat him to read over again some Words of his Answerer, to which he has made no Reply: Whether, because they deserve [Page 224] none, or because they admit of none, let others judge. ‘The American Dissenters from our Com­munion, would think it insupportably grievous to have no Ministers but such as received Ordi­nation in England or Ireland; or to be withheld from the Use of any religious Rite, which they esteemed as highly as we do Confirmation; or to have their Churches destitute of a Superinten­dency, which they conceived to be of apostoli­cal Institution. I should in such a Case be a zea­lous Advocate for them, as not yet enjoying the full Toleration to which they had a Right. And surely they ought to ask their Consciences very seriously, why they oppose our Application for such Indulgence, as they would claim for themselves; and whether indeed such Opposition is not downright Persecution; and that, in a Matter merely spiritual, without the Mixture of any temporal Concern.’ Ans. p. 60.

"THE Doctor, still flying to Ridicule in Defect of Argument, intimates, how much the Epis­copalians in America need to be well ruled and governed,—how much the Clergy need to be united, and reduced to Order. On which I would only observe, that the American Clergy are known to be unanimous in their Wishes to be under the immediate Inspection of Bishops resident among them: Which Concurrence implies quite the con­trary to a present disorderly State of that Clergy; who are perhaps, as faithful to their Trust, and as blameless in their Manners, as any Body of Men in the Christian Ministry."

"HE says, that great Inconveniences are likely to follow from the sending Bishops to America. [Page 225] But he says also, ‘It is readily owned that our Apprehension of what may possibly or probably be the Consequences of it, ought not to put us on infringing the religious Liberty of our Fel­low-Subjects and Christian Brethren.’ Nay, he adds, ‘neither have we any Power to do so; if we were unreasonable and wicked enough to desire it; our Charter granting such Liberty to all Protes­tants.’ Therefore, Bishops may, by that Char­ter, settle even in New-England. And if the having Bishops among them be Part of the religious Li­berty of the Episcopalians, as it evidently is; the Dissenters ought not to oppose it on Account of apprehended Consequences: Much less ought they to oppose the Settlement of them in other Provin­ces, totally independent on New-England; or their resorting to the New-England Episcopalians occa­sionally. For any Thing of this Kind would be doing evil on Pretence that good may come ^*."

‘BUT why are bad Consequences apprehended? Bishops, he tells us, are ambitious and unquiet.’ But so are Presbyters, and all Sorts of Men too often. Bishops partake of just the same Nature with the Rest of the Species: And the Doctor will own, that they are now, and long have been, as quiet an Order of Men, as any in his Nation. But who knows whether they will continue so? And who can know with Certainty any such Thing concerning any Persons whatever? Who knows whether the New-Englanders will not hang Quakers ^† and Witches again? But why should either be suspect­ed? The Clergy of England are in general Friends [Page 226] to religious Freedom: The People of England, Whigs and Tories, are unfavorable to clerical Power; and a far greater Danger, than the Doc­tor's imaginary one, is, that of their laying aside all Regard to the Christian Ministry, in every Shape, and to Christianity itself. Surely then, there never was so little Prospect, that a Spirit of reli­gious Intolerance would revive here. Or if it should, it might not extend to New-England; for it did not, in the Reigns of JAMES and CHARLES the First. But even supposing it to reach thither, its Effects would be very little diminished by the Cir­cumstance of no Bishops being already placed in America. They might soon be sent, and with much greater Authority than is asked for them now; and perhaps with some RESENTMENT at the Opposition made to them before. But the whole Ap­prehension is groundless. The English Dissenters, who have Six and Twenty Bishops established a­mong them, fear no Harm from them. Why then should the New-England Dissenters fear any, if one or two should be established, with much less Power, in one or two neighboring Provinces? Those Pro­vinces are not inhabited by Bigots; far from it. Governors, Assemblies, Dissenters, nay Church­men, and even Clergymen, would be all on their Guard against episcopal Encroachments. Add to this, that so public a Declaration as has been made of the Model of Episcopacy, proposed to be fol­lowed in America, will itself be an effectual Bar­rier against any undue Extension of ecclesiastical Power; of which the Doctor affects to be so ap­prehensive."—

"BUT he has one Objection against Bishops in our Colonies, which I had almost overlooked. He [Page 227] knows not how they are to be maintained. ‘Nor, as he thinks, will they run this Risque, unless they have more Faith in God, and less Love to the World, than most of their Order have had, since Constantine the Great became a nursing Fa­ther to the Church, and the pious maternal Coun­cil of Nice suckled her with the clear and pure, the uncorrupt and sincere Milk of Homoöusianity, that she might grow thereby.’ One might be at a Loss to find out the Association of Ideas be­tween the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, and the Maintenance of Bishops in America. We can only suppose that the Doctor has an equal Love for them both. But if no proper Maintenance can be found for them, he needs not be uneasy at the Pro­ject of sending them: And that it is not to be at the Expence of the Colonies, he has seen in Bishop Butler's Scheme, with which the others agree."

"HE imagines that appointing Bishops for A­merica, would probably increase the episcopal Par­ty there; and then great Evils might follow. I can­not discern in what other Way it can increase that Party, than by supplying them more easily with a competent Number of Ministers; taking Care that those Ministers should be diligent and exemplary; and promoting an early Sense of Piety among their young People. These are no Evils; and what can one or two Bishops, on a Continent 600 Miles long, do besides? The Doctor says indeed, that Pretexts might easily be found for enlarging their Powers, and increasing their Number. But enlarging their Powers would immediately raise a Clamour that could not be withstood. If a few Bishops proved disagreeable, more would not be added. And though they should prove agreeable [Page 228] and useful; more would be sent, only to such Pro­vinces as chose them. In the short Stay which one of them would choose to make in New-England, he could not bring over many Persons to our Church. And therefore how terrible Things soever Episcopalians, if they should become the Majori­ty, may attempt and perform there, they will be almost, if not quite, as likely to accomplish, without ever seeing a Bishop among them, as with seeing one now and then. But indeed there is very little Likeli­hood of their ever becoming the Majority there; and still less, of their carrying Points in their own Favor, as the Doctor fancies they may, while they continue a Minority; for all Parties, though di­vided among themselves, will be sure to unite a­gainst them. Nay, had they Power, there is no Reason to think they would be oppressive; for they are not oppressive in the Colonies where they actu­ally have it: Or that they would attempt—for they could not, with any Modesty, or any Hope of Success—such Laws against the Dissenters, as the Dissenters have not attempted against them. And if the Zeal of the New-England Clergy threatens any Danger, Bishops would temper it, as they have done in England, instead of inflaming it. Therefore upon the whole, I hope the Doctor will, on considering farther, endeavor to reconcile our Countrymen to their Admission: A Request, in my Opinion, somewhat more reasonable than his, that the Society should reconcile the Members of our Church to being contented without episcopal MINISTERS ^*."

[Page 229]AT Length Dr. Chauncy re-enters, telling us, p. 178, that it is evident by this Time, that Objections can be offered against such a Plan as has been pro­posed. To which it is a sufficient Reply, that it is also evident BY THIS TIME, that those Objections can within a much smaller Compass, be answered and confuted.

I AM unable to account for so great a Confusion of Ideas, as discovers itself in the two next Para­graphs. The Doctor seems very strenuously to deny, that the Church of England in America has any RIGHT to the Episcopate proposed: But then he declares himself perfectly willing that we should have it—choosing perhaps that it should be granted us as a Matter of Favor, rather than of Right. But what need is there of this Distinction, and to what Purpose will it serve, if it is not to operate against us? Our Claim is, that we may be upon an equal Footing with the other religious Denominations in America. In Order to this, it is necessary that we be allowed the Enjoyment of our ecclesiastical Constitution, in the same compleat Manner as it is enjoyed by them. Of our ecclesi­astical Constitution Bishops make an essential Part; and therefore, without an Episcopate we cannot enjoy it. Our Claim is justified by the common Principles of human Nature, of the Christian Re­ligion, and of civil Society. We call it a RIGHT, because all good Writers agree in calling a Claim thus founded by that Name. But for Words we do not contend. What we insist upon is this, and no more than this—that the Church of England is, in all Respects, fairly intitled to as full a Toleration in the Colonies, as other Churches in the Colonies [Page 230] enjoy; and it cannot be thus tolerated, unless it be suffered to exist in all its Parts. It is therefore the Business of our Opponents to shew, that we are an Exception from the general Rule, and that we ought not to be treated in the same equal Man­ner with others. Unless they are able to shew this, they cannot prove that our Request for Bishops is unreasonable.

BUT says the Doctor, p. 180, the American E­piscopalians want to be distinguished by having Bi­shops upon the Footing of a STATE-ESTABLISHMENT. If we want what is unreasonable, so far it is right to oppose us; but still our reasonable Wants or Desires ought to be gratified. But where did he learn, that we want Bishops upon such a Footing? Not from the Appeal; for therein the direct con­trary is expressly and repeatedly asserted. Did he learn it from any Thing that has been published on the Side of the Church? Let him then inform us from what, and by whom. I know of no such Thing, I can solemnly declare. I have seen no­thing that has been written, since the Plan was pro­jected in the Reign of Queen Anne, either in Eng­land or America, in Print or in Manuscript, that indicates such a Desire. I will go still farther and say, that I have met with nothing in the Course of Conversation, with Clergymen or Laymen, in or our of Convention, from whence I can learn or sus­pect, that there is an Episcopalian within the Bri­tish Dominions that aims at, or expects an Episco­pate here, upon the Footing of a State-Establish­ment. And yet without Hesitation, or any appa­rent Remorse of Conscience, we are all charged with aiming at it, and are abused for it by many [Page 231] 'petulant Tongues and abusive Pens;' although not the least Evidence has yet been produced, by the Managers against us. Our Comfort is, that the unwarrantable Condemnation we have received from these Writers will avail but little; our Ap­peal is made to the impartial Public, from which we doubt not of a favorable Sentence.

THE Doctor affects to doubt, p. 181, whether the late Dr. Samuel Chandler ‘gave his Consent to, and Approbation of, American Bishops, in the Manner they have been requested.’ But a Person of high Rank and equal Integrity, in a Letter dated May 1764, says, ‘Lord Willoughby of Parham, the only Dissenting Peer, and Dr. Chand­ler, have declared, after our Scheme (for Ame­rican Bishops) was fully laid before them, that they saw no objections against it:’ And a Gen­tleman who is now in America, was present at the Conversation in which the latter made that De­claration, and has heard him express the same Sentiments on other Occasions. Well then, if it was so, the Doctor wonders at it, and accounts for it by supposing, that he was too complaisant to some high Dignitary of the Church. But why should he wonder at it? Whoever is acquainted with the candid and generous Sentiments of that eminent Dissenter, would much rather wonder, if he had not approved of a Plan, so beneficial to the Church, while it is harmless to all. To suppose him over-complaisant to any Dignitary of the Church, is more than we can suppose would be the Case of some of his Brethren, on this Side the Atlantic. But there is no Need of the Sup­position, to account for the Fact. Dr. Chauncy [Page 232] himself, who seems to be as little addicted to the Sin of Complaisance to the Church, as most Men, has, in the Page immediately preceding, said full as much in Favor of the proposed E­piscopate, as Dr. S. Chandler is represented to have said: The only Difference is, that he has not said it with so good a Grace.

SECTION IX.

THE Design of the Ninth Section of the Ap­peal is to shew, SECT. IX. ‘that the Episcopate pro­posed cannot hurt the Dissenters, and is free from all reasonable Objections.’ In Answer to this Section, instead of replying to any Thing ad­vanced in the Appeal, the Doctor begins, with combating his own Phantom of a State-Establish­ment; of which, no more is needful to be said. He then introduces the fictitious Address to the U­niversity of Cambridge, in Order to confront me with a Passage, which I do again assure him was not contained in any Address of our Convention to that University, or to any other Body of Men, or to any single Person.

IN Opposition to what was said of the ‘Mild­ness, Tenderness and Moderation of the English Bishops, for a long Course of Years’ past, the Doctor tells us, p. 187, of the Rejection of the Pe­tition of the Presbyterian Church at New-York for a Charter from the King; the Miscarriage of which he supposes to have been owing to the Interpositi­on of the Lord Bishop of London. I have no Concern in that Affair, and am not very particu­larly acquainted with it. But according to the New-York Gentleman's Account of it, which the Doctor has inserted, it appears, that the Grant of the Favor was considered as a Breach of the Coro­nation Oath ^*; and that it was reported by the Board [Page 234] of Trade, that general Policy was against the Peti­tioners having greater Privileges than are allowed by the Laws of Toleration. How far the Grant would have interfered with the King's Coronation Oath, it becomes not me to say; those to whom it was refered were the proper Judges; and in their Opi­nion the Petition could not consistently be granted. It is the unquestionable Duty of his Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, to advise him against what­ever is thought by them to imply a Breach of the Coro­nation Oath; it is a Duty more peculiarly incumbent upon any such Bishops as his Majesty thinks fit to call up to that high Trust. If therefore the Bishop of London, upon the above Principle, was it more active than others in opposing the Measure, it was because his Station required it. If general Policy, in the Opinion of the Lords of Trade, was also against the Grant, they were obliged to discounte­nance it; and the Petitioners, I conceive, ought to rest satisfied, especially as it was a Matter of meer Favor, which was requested, and more than was thought to be allowed by the Laws of Tolera­tion. I have been moreover told, that besides the Reasons assigned, a particular Policy, with Regard to the Presbyterians in New-York, concurred to defeat the Petition. It was the Belief at Home, that the Church of England had been treated with peculiar Malevolence, by some of those very Per­sons [Page 235] whose Names were annexed to the Petition. It was therefore not unnatural to suspect, that any additional Power put into the Hands of such Persons, would, as Opportunity should offer, be exerted against the Church.

IN Proof of the present mild Spirit of the Church of England and of the Prelates who pre­side over it, Reference was made in the Appeal, to the general Sense of it confessed by the Dissenters at Home. ‘The late Dr. G. Benson, a very learn­ed Dissenter,’ was given as an Instance to this Pur­pose; who ‘did not scruple to make the following Declaration:’ ‘The Church of England, with its present Candor, Spirit of Toleration and Charity, appears to me, to be the best Establish­ment on the Face of the Earth.’ Here the Presbyter in Old England furiously falls upon me, charging me with having been guilty of a Misquota­tion, and an artful Deception, thereby imposing upon the Americans. Take it in his own Words: Our Mis­sionary (Pray, Mr. Presbyter, why your Missionary?) ought to have given the Testimony its full Scope; for these are the Words of Dr. Benson following in im­mediate Connection— ‘to which I would conform most gladly and with all my Soul, provided they would admit me, without requiring any Thing, which appears to me unreasonable, or unscrip­tural. But, as long as such Things are con­tained in her Articles, and mixed with every Part of the common Forms of Worship,’ (meaning, I suspect, the Doctrine of the Trinity) ‘my Conscience obliges me to dissent, and avoid Communion with her. I sincerely wish her a thorough Reformation, and that speedily.’ What must now be thought of this Missionary from the [Page 236] Society, thus imposing on the Americans, not capable, for the general, of coming at Dr. Benson's Book, nor of detecting the misrepresented Testimony; which when fairly given, is as full against his Church System, as the Power of Language can express. This is the Ob­jection, in its full Scope. Before I saw this Presby­ter's Performance, a Friend who had read it, upon my Inquiry, told me, that he met in it with but one Passage that could deserve Notice; which is the Passage I have quoted. When I came to see it, it appeard to me to be in itself not worthy of a Reply, as I still think; however as some officious Zealot has caused it to be re-printed in one of the Boston Papers, for this Reason it may be proper briefly to answer it.

Whenever an Author is quoted, to shew his Opi­nion upon any particular Point, common Sense teaches us that it is unfair to quote him imperfectly; or in such a Manner that his Opinion on that Point is mis­represented. At the same Time, no Person of com­mon Sense will quote farther than relates to the Point under Consideration. Let us then examine, for what Purpose Dr. Benson was quoted in the Ap­peal; from whence only we must judge whether he was quoted fairly or not. Now if any one will be at the Trouble of turning to the Appeal, p. 90, he will see, that his Testimony was manifestly produced, as an Evidence of the ‘Mildness, Tenderness and Moderation’ of 'the English Bishops' for a 'Course of Years' past; and for no other Pur­pose. But had Dr. Benson ever declared his Opi­nion upon this Point? Yes, directly and fully, in in the Words quoted. Did the Quotation include the whole of his Declaration, and fairly express the whole of his Opinion? I affirm that it includ­ed every Word relating to the Subject, and conse­quently [Page 237] conveyed the whole of his Opinion there­upon, so far as he thought proper to express it. What then is the Presbyter's Objection? That I gave not the Testimony its full Scope. In what Manner does he attempt to support it? He al­ledges my Omission of Words that follow in imme­diate Connection with those quoted. What is the Tendency of the Words omited? To account for Dr. Benson's not conforming to the Church. Was the Reason then of his not conforming, that the Church appeared to him to be defective in Mild­ness and Moderation? No, a quite different Thing, it was because ‘such Things are contained in her Articles,’ &c. as appeared to him to be ‘un­reasonable or unscriptural.’ The Objector was able to see this, for he observes that the Words omited contain a Testimony—against what? Why, not against the Moderation of the Bishops and Clergy, the only Thing then in Question; but— against the Church-System. I am sorry that he was not able also to see, that I was not upon the Sub­ject of Church-Systems, but of the Church of Eng­land's Mildness to Dissenters:—And that I might, with as much Propriety, have quoted any other Passage in the whole Book, as that which I am blamed for omiting, although it was in immediate Connection with the Sentence transcribed. It is now submitted to the Reader, whether my Quotation was unfair, or the Presbyter's Animadversion unjust and impertinent.

FROM the English Dissenters, I passed on to shew the favorable Opinion of the Church of England, which was entertained by some of the most emi­nent Reformers and foreign Protestants; and by CALVIN amongst others. In Answer to this, Dr. [Page 238] Chauncy denies that Calvin had any Friendship for Episcopacy. The plain Truth is, says he, Calvin was in Principle as real an Enemy to the divine Right of Episcopacy, as to the divine Right of Popes, p. 188. But Enemy as he was, to say nothing now of his Testimony in Favor of Episcopacy which was produced in the Appeal, he acknowledges that it was the Government of all the Churches upon Earth, from the Times of the Apostles, for 1500 Years together ^†. ‘But his extraordinary Opinion of E­piscopacy will farther appear in a Letter, which he and Bullinger, and other learned Men beyond Sea, wrote Anno 1549 to King Edward the Sixth, offering to make him their Defender, and to have Bishops in their Churches for better Unity and Concord amongst them, as may be seen in Mr. Strype's Memorial of Archbishop Cranmer; as likewise, by a Writing of Archbishop Abbot's, found amongst the Manuscripts of Archbishop Usher ^‡.’ Archbishop Abbot's Manuscript, to which the learned Answerer of Peirce refers, in the above Passage, has the following Words: ‘Pe­rusing some Papers of our Predecessor Matthew Parker, we find that John Calvin, and others of the protestant Churches of Germany and else­where, would have had Episcopacy, if permit­ted.—And whereas John Calvin had sent a Let­ter in King Edward the Sixth's Reign, to have conferred with the Clergy of England about some Things to this Effect, two (popish) Bishops, viz. Gardiner and Bonner, intercepted the same; whereby Mr. Calvin's Offerture perished. And he received an Answer, as if it had been from the reformed Divines of those Times; wherein [Page 239] they checked him, and slighted his Proposals. From which Time John Calvin and the Church of England were at Variance in several Points; which othewise through God's Mercy had been qualified, if those Papers of his Proposals had been discovered unto the Queen's Majesty during John Calvin's Life. But being not discovered until, or about the sixth Year of her Majesty's Reign, her Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner: Which she expressed before her Council at the same Time, in the Presence of her great Friends Sir Henry Sidney, and Sir William Cecil ^*.’

ALMOST all the foreign Protestants, of any Distinction, have been Friends to Episcopacy; al­though many of them have been unable to obtain that primitive Form of Government for their Churches. ‘Luther professes that if the popish Bishops would cease to persecute the Gospel, we would acknowledge them as our Fathers, and willingly obey their Authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.’ ‘ Melancthon lays the Blame on the Cruelty of the popish Bi­shops, that that canonical Polity was destroyed, which, saith he, we so earnestly desired to preserve: And bid the Papists consider what Account they will render to God for thus scattering his Church.’ 'And Heerbrand, Chancellor of Tubingen, says, ‘it had been a salutary Thing if every Province could have had its Bishops, and they their Metropolitans.’ —"In the French Church Spanheim witnesses, ‘nec obscuri sunt in Galliâ ipsa reformatâ illi Theologi, quorum si Votis fuisset Locus, nec intercessissent Obices re­moveri [Page 240] nescii, accepissent plerique Formam episco­palis Disciplinae.—Citareque hanc in Rem, Ca­saubonos, Camerones, Diodatos, Bochartos. Lan­glaeos, ac vivos etiam Testes, proclive fore.’ — ‘Even the Synod of Dort, by their President Bo­german, expressed their Approbation of the Church of England, and of Episcopacy, which they were desirous to establish in their Churches, but the Times would not then permit them to make this Change; complaining of their Want of it as a Misfortune: ‘ Nobis non licet esse tam beatis.’ And Le Clerc says, he professes his Belief to be, that Episcopacy is of apostolical In­stitution, and that none have a Right to depart from it, unless in Cases where the Corruptions of the Church cannot be remedied without it: And that those, who live in protestant Countries where they have Bishops, as in England, are greatly to blame ‘to separate themselves from them; and more so, if they endeavor to overthrow Episco­pacy in Order to introduce Presbytery, Fanati­cism or Anarchy ^*.’’

GROTIUS, not only the Glory of Holland, but the Honor of the human Species, asserts, that ‘Episcopacy had its Beginning in the apostolical Times. This, says he, is testified by the Cata­logues of Bishops left us by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret and others, who all begin from the apostolical Age. But to detract from the Faith of such Writers, and so agreeable to one another in their Assertions in an historical Matter, is the Part only of an irreverend and ob­stinate Mind. It is as much as if you should deny that to be true, which all the Roman His­tories [Page 241] deliver, that the consular Authority began upon the driving out of the Tarquins ^†.’ But no Testimony of this Kind is more extraordinary, than that of David Blondel, who had concluded his Apologia pro Hieronymi Sententia, with Words to this Purpose: ‘By all that we have said to assert the Rights of the Presbytery, we do not intend to in­validate the ancient and apostolical Constitution of episcopal Pre-eminence. But We believe that wheresoever it is established conformably to the ancient Canons, it must be carefully preserved; and wheresoever by some Heat of Contention or otherwise, it hath been put down or violated, it ought to be reverently restored.’ 'But that Book having been written at the earnest Request of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and of the Scots especially, who had their Agents at Paris to strengthen their Party, by misinforming the Pro­testants of France, and winning them to their Side: When these Agents saw this Conclusion of Mr. Blondel's Manuscript, they expostulated with him very loud; for marring all the good he had done in his Book, and never left importuning him, till they had prevailed upon him to strike out that Con­clusion.' This Piece of Intelligence was given to Dr. du Moulin by Archbishop Usher, Anno 1651 ^*.

IF we come down lower, to the Beginning of the present Century, we find the Church of Geneva, in their Correspondence with the U­niversity of Oxford, and the Bishop of Lon­don, expressing Sentiments of the greatest Res­pect for the Constitution and Government of the Church of England; "We are so far," say [Page 242] the ecclesiastical and academical Assembly of Geneva Anno 1706, ‘from having any Antipathy against the Church of England, that at all Times we have held her in very high Esteem, and not one of our Assembly, during his Stay in England, ever absented himself from their Congregations, and Ceremonies ^*’. About the same Time, Dr. Nichols carried on a Correspondence with Daniel Ernest Jablonski, a celebrated protestant Divine, who was Minister, ecclesiastical Counsellor, and President of the Society of Sciences, in Berlin. In a Letter to Dr. Nichols, dated 1708, President Jablonski says: ‘I spent my Youth in Prussia and Poland, among British Subjects, who were averse from the Church of England, and had been Par­ties in the Disputes betwixt the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Converse with them had filled my tender Mind with such Prejudices against your Church, that when I came a young Man into England, in 1680, I had an utter Abhorence of it, and thought her public Places of Worship were as much to be avoided as those of the Pa­pists. Soon after, in endeavouring to learn the Language, I happened on the XXXIX Articles; the pure Orthodoxy of which I so approved of, that, doubting of my former Opinion, I more closely examined the whole Controversy; your ecclesiastical Constitution, your Liturgy, the Objections made to each, and the whole Foun­dation of the Schism. The longer I communi­cated with that Church, the more I grew con­firmed [Page 243] in the Opinion that her Articles had no Heterodoxy▪ her Liturgy no Idolatry or Super­stition, her Government much good Order and Decency; and that on this Account, among all the reformed Churches, She came nearest to the Patern of the primitive Church, and was de­servedly esteemed the brightest Star in the Christian Heaven, the chief Glory of the Reformation, and the securest Defence of the Gospel against Popery; and that no one can refuse her Communion without SCHISM. Yet I so follow and honor the Church of England, as not to hate, but pity, your Presbyterians; the greater Part of whom, I be­lieve, trained up in hereditary Prejudices, act with a good Conscience; but that some amongst them abuse the Simplicity of the Rest ^*.’

SECTION X.

SECT. X.ONE Section of the Appeal was devoted to the Consideration of the grand popular Objecti­on against an American Episcopate, that it would subject the People of this Country to the Payment of TITHES. To this Section, which was one of the most important in the Appeal, Dr. Chauncy at­tempts no Answer at all; evading it by saying, p. 191, that it has no immediate Connection with the present Subject. But he knows that before the Pub­lication of the Appeal, it was commonly thought to be most closely and intimately connected with the Subject, and that it was one of the most general Objections against American Bishops that was mentioned. When People were asked their Opi­nion of such an Appointment, there was not per­haps one in Fifty, of those who knew not what Kind of an Episcopate was proposed, but would answer, that we should all in that Case be subject to the Payment of Tithes. This was frequently offered as the only Objection, and almost always as the first; and there were but very few of the com­mon People that had any other Objections to offer, than this of Tithes, and that of Spiritual Courts. It was therefore one principal Design of the Ap­peal, to remove these two Objections; in the Exe­ecution of which I have been so successful, that even the Doctor can find nothing to say in Sup­port of either of them. We are told now, that [Page 245] the Affair of Tithes has no immediate Connection with the general Subject in Debate. This is unfair and ungenerous. If the Doctor had set out, and proceeded, with as much Candor as is due, I will not say, from one Christian and Clergyman to ano­ther, but, from Man to Man, he would have con­fessed, that these two popular Objections had been so intirely confuted in the Appeal, that they ought not any more to be mentioned in this Controversy. It would have been no Injury to his Character, or his Cause, to have made this candid Acknow­ledgment; for in the Case of every literary En­gagement, a decent Retreat is the next best Thing to a Victory.

TO strengthen what was said upon the Subject, and to confirm the Doctor in his present Opinion, I will present him with the full and explicit Decla­ration, of one of the most judicious and cele­brated Writers, that ever treated of the Laws of England. In speaking of the British Colonies in America, he says: ‘It hath been held, that if an uninhabited Country be discovered and plant­ed by English Subjects, all the English Laws then in being, which are the Birthright of every Subject, are immediately then in Force. But this must be understood with very many and very great Restrictions. Such Colonists carry with them only so much of the English Law, as is applicable to their own Situation and the Condition of an infant Colony; such, for In­stance, as the general Rules of Inheritance, and of Protection from personal Injuries. The ar­tificial Refinements and Distinctions incident to the Property of a great and commercial Peo­ple, (such especially as are inforced by Penal­ties) [Page 246] the Mode of Maintenance for the established Clergy, the Jurisdiction of spiritual Courts, and a Multitude of other Provisions, are neither necessary nor convenient for them, and there­fore ARE NOT IN FORCE ^†.’

AS none of my Opponents have hitherto thought proper to revive the baffled Objections of Tithes and Spiritual Courts, I shall immediately proceed to the concluding Section.

SECTION XI.

THE Design of the last Section of the Ap­peal was to remove the few remaining Ob­jections and Suspicions: SECT. XI. Of which the first was, that, in Case of an Episcopate, Laws may hereaf­ter be made to subject us to the Payment of Tithes. To this it was answered, that ‘there can be no more Reason to be apprehensive, that new Laws will be made under an Episcopate, to subject us to this Burthen, than if Bishops were not to be sent hither. For Tithes are not paid in England to Bishops, but the Incumbents of Parishes.’ Dr. Chauncy would be thought to be of a different Opinion, and to be apprehensive of this Evil; e­specially if the Support of most of the episcopal Clergy, in many of the Colonies, should continue to depend on the Charity of Benefactors at Home, as would proba­bly be the Case, p. 192. Thus it seems, the Impo­sition of Tithes for the Support, not of Bishops, but of the Clergy, is the Evil to be dreaded. But the Clergy will have the same Need of Support, with, as without, an Episcopate; and if their Support is the Object, the Appointment or Non-Appointment of Bishops, which has no Connecti­on with it, will not have any great Influence upon the Pursuit of it. To suppose that two or three Bishops in America will be able to turn the Scale so much in Favor of the Clergy, implies, either that the Ballance is nearly equal without them; or that these Bishops will have much more Weight, [Page 248] than Persons, so destitute of civil Power, were ever known to have. Were every Member of the Legislature, both at Home and in the Colonies, firmly and zealously attached to the Church; nay, if there were not a Dissenter, Papist or Infidel, within the British Dominions, the Imposition of Tithes upon Americans for the Support of their Clergy, would be an Imagination perfectly wild and chimerical. A large Majority of the King's Sub­jects in England and the Colonies, are at this very Time Episcopalians; but there is no Reason to be­lieve that in so large a Number there is a single Person that wishes it; and if they were all Church­men without Exception, it is more that probable that there would not be one Advocate for such a Measure.

BUT, says the Doctor, without all Doubt, this Law, or some other less offensive in Sound, would take Place here, as soon as the State of Things would allow of it. I find it much harder to ascertain the Meaning of many of his Objections, than to ans­wer them, when the Sense is ascertained. If he means in these Words, that some other Law, less offensive only in Sound, but equal in its Effect, with the Imposition of Tithes, will without all Doubt be made for the Support of the Clergy; it is answered above. And, what are we to under­stand by the Expression, as soon as the State of Things will allow of it? The State of Things which in his Opinion would amount to this, re­quires an Explanation previously to an Answer. The Doctor seems here to have shifted the Idea of Tithes, or of some Equivalent, for the Support of the Clergy, for that of a Tax to support the Bishops. For he immediately observes, that I had incauti­ously [Page 249] dropt that, which naturally leads to such a Thought, viz. A Tax for the Support of American Bishops. And then I am introduced as answering the next Objection, which is no other than this very Suspicion or Apprehension. Thus the Reader sees, that by an unexpected Transition, whether artful or artless, I will not determine, we are carried to ano­ther Point.

IN speaking to the Subject of an imaginary Tax for the Support of American Bishops, nothing which I meant or wished to conceal, was incautiously dropt. For in answering the Objection, I denied that such a Tax was at all intended or desired. I moreover shewed that it could not be much wanted—that it was always proposed, that the Bishops should be supported without any Expence to this Country— that a considerable Fund was already raised for that Purpose—and, so far as it should be deficient, that there was no Doubt entertained by the Friends of the proposed Appointment, of its being easily made up by voluntary Donations. But farther to shew that Americans have no Reason to be terrified on that Account, I considered the Matter under the most unfavourable Supposition that could be made; namely, that the Deficiency of the episcopal Fund should be answered by a Tax upon the Inhabitants; and declared it as my Opinion, that such a Tax would be inconsiderable, and amount to no more than Four Pence in a Hundred Pounds. ‘This, as I went on to observe, would be no mighty Hardship upon the Country. He that could think much of giving the six thousandth Part of his Income to any Use, which the Legislature of his Country should assign, deserves not to be considered in the Light of a good Subject, or [Page 250] Member of Society.’ This Observation I still believe to be as true, as any Proposition in the Ap­peal, or in the Doctor's Answer to it ^*. But there­upon he apostrophises and harangues ad Populum, in the following rhetorical Strain: You see here, ye Colonists, the Opinion of the Dr. and, we reasonably presume, of the episcopal Clergy under whose Direc­tion he wrote, that the Country might IN EQUITY, be taxed for the Support of Bishops, p. 193. But I affirm that the Colonists see no such Thing. Such an Opinion I never expressed, either cautiously or incautiously; and never once intimated that I thought such a Tax would be equitable. If he will but re­view the Passage, he must be convinced of this himself, unless he is in the Condition of those, who "having Eyes, see not;" and if he will re­view his own Conduct relating to it, perhaps he may be convinced of—Something else.

THE Argument he uses to prove, that a good Subject and Member of Society might consistently refuse to pay the six thousandth Part of his Income, towards the Support of American Bishops, in Case such a Tax should be constitutionally imposed; by proving too much, unfortunately proves nothing. If the Country might be taxed Four Pence in a hun­dred Pounds, says he, it might for the same Reason, [Page 251] and with AS MUCH Justice, if it was thought the Support of Bishops called for it, be taxed Four Shil­lings, or Four Pounds in the Hundred, and so on to Ten Pounds, until the Tax of Tythes was compleatly fastened on us, p. 194. To say nothing of the ab­surd Notion, that we may with as much Justice, or with as little Injustice, transgress the Rules of E­quity greatly and notoriously, as in a small Degree; which is equivalent with this, that a Man that has aberrated 100 Miles from his proper Road, is not farther out of his Way, than he that has deviated one Mile: The same Argument will equally con­clude against every Degree of civil Authority. Thus, for Instance, if a Country may be taxed Four Pence in a hundred Pounds, it may, for the same Reason, and with as much Justice, if it was thought that the Support of GOVERNMENT called for it, be taxed Four Shillings, or Four Pounds in the Hundred, and so on to the whole. Again, if a Man's personal Services may be justly claimed by the Public for one Day in the Year, they may as justly be claimed for a Week, a Month, or even the whole Year. Any Man that should reason at this Rate, and act according to the Tenor of such reasoning, I fancy, would not be esteemed a good Subject or Member of Soci­ety, in any State or Kingdom on the Face of the Globe. And yet, this Kind of reasoning the Doctor teaches!

THE next Subject of his Animadversion, is the Answer given in the Appeal to the Objection or Suspicion, that probably the Power of American Bishops may be hereafter augmented. But what was then said, I conceive, remains in full Force, [Page 252] notwithstanding the Doctor's Attempts to weaken it ^*. If he has said any Thing upon the Subject which is worthy of Notice, it has been abundantly answered, in the different Parts of this Defence, which I need not repeat. Nay, much more that was said upon the Subject by Dr. Mayhew, who pushed the Objection to Extremity, has been fully answered by Mr. Apthorp; and, I may add, was powerfully answered and confuted by himself, in Words quoted incautiously by the Doctor, in p. 174. ‘It is readily owned, says Dr. Mayhew, that our Apprehension of what may possibly or probably be the Consequence of Bishops being sent hither, ought not to put us on infringing the religious Liberty of our Fellow-Subjects, and Christian Brethren.’

TO shew that Americans need not be frightened with the Imagination that our Bishops may in Time [Page 253] be invested with civil Authority, I explained in what Manner it would probably operate, on Sup­position that the Case should actually happen. My Words are these: ‘But should the Government see fit hereafter to invest them with some Degree of civil Power, worthy of their Acceptance, which it is impossible to say they will not, al­though there is no Appearance that they ever will; yet as no new Powers will be created in Favor of Bishops, it is inconceivable that any would thereby be injured.’ The Doctor says, this has unwarily opened the Workings of my own Heart. And in p. 202, he goes farther and says, that I suppose, i. e. believe (as his Use of the Word necessarily implies) that the American Bishops will be invested with civil Authority; but with what Justice, is submitted to the Reader. Is such a Be­lief deducible from my having made the Supposi­tion? Things confessedly improbable, and even impossible, are frequently supposed, for the Use of Illustration. Is it infered from my declaring it to be ‘impossible to say, that Bishops will not be in­vested with civil Authority?’ I can also truly de­clare, that it is impossible to say that Dr. Chauncy will not be made an American Bishop; but it would be unjust to infer from thence, that I believed so extraordinary a Thing would happen; especially if I should add, as I did in the other Case, that 'there is no Apearance that he ever will.'

IN p. 196, the Doctor turns aside to shew, that the Ministers of Christ's Kingdom, which is not of this World, should not concern themselves with temporal Matters; and he quotes St. Paul, to sup­port his Opinion. But how far he means to carry the Doctrine, whether as far as it was carried by [Page 254] the Fratricelli, or the Disciples of Herman Pongilup, in the 13th Century, he does not say; but he evi­dently carries it much farther than the venerable Doctors Increase and Cotton Mather and Dr. Cole­man, whose Opinion we have seen. As it is not my Business to enter into a Discussion of this Subject, which has no Relation to that of American Bi­shops, I shall pass it by; thanking the Doctor for recomending to me good old Bishop Latimer's Sermon of the Plough; and promising him to read it carefully, if he will be so kind as to direct me where I can meet with it; if perchance he himself hath met with any more of it than is quoted by Mr. Peirce.

THE Doctor now, drawing towards a Conclusi­on, looks back upon his Performance, and seems to be mightily satisfied with what he has been do­ing. I fear I have somewhat broken in upon his Repose; the Apprehension of which, I assure him, gives me no Pleasure. If I could have done Jus­tice to the Cause I have undertaken to plead, without disturbing him, I would most willingly have avoided it. I have a Veneration for his Years, and much Respect for his Character, which I am sorry he has exposed by engaging in so wretched a Cause. He has written with Reputation on other Subjects, but he is manifestly unequal to the Diffi­culties he had to encounter with on this. And in­deed, where is the Man that is equal to such a Task? Who is able to prove, that good is evil, and evil good—that Darkness is Light, and Light Darkness—as well as to call them so? Until a Per­son of such a Genius and Abilities can be found, it never can be proved, that it is not cruel and un­righteous to oppose our having such an Episco­pate, [Page 255] as is requested for the Church in Ame­rica.

THE Doctor has a few other Things to say, of which some Notice must be taken. I had insisted that Reasons of Policy demanded from our Supe­ors and Governors at Home, peculiar Attention to the Complaints of Episcopalians in the Colonies: Because ‘the Church of England here is insepara­bly connected with the Church at Home, or ra­ther, is essentially the same with it’ —and because this Church ‘in its external Polity, is so happily con­nected and interwoven with the civil Constituti­on, that each mutually supports and is supported by the other; no Form of ecclesiastical Govern­ment so exactly harmonizing with a mixed Mo­narchy, as that of a qualified Episcopacy.’ The Doctor answers, that according to my own Ac­count of Bishops, they are absolute Monarchs in the Church; and such must Kings be in the State to make out a proper Analogy, p. 198; and much has been offered to the same Purpose by one of my weekly Antagonists. But to all that they have said, it is a sufficient Reply, that according to the Representa­tion of the Appeal, Bishops are invested with an Authority for which they acknowledge themselves to be accountable,—an Authority limited and re­gulated by fixed Laws, which is incompatible with the Idea of an absolute Monarch; who knows no other Law than his own arbitrary Pleasure ^*. The true Parallel between ecclesiastical and civil Go­vernment, as I concieve, runs thus: Independency answers to Democracy—Presbyterianism, to an Aris­tocracy—primitive, or protestant Episcopacy, to a mixed Monarchy—and Popery, to an absolute Mo­narchy. [Page 256] From hence it follows, that in the View of meer Policy, it is absurd to encourage episcopal Go­vernment in Republicks and democratical States; and as much so, to prefer Presbyterianism or Inde­pendency, where the civil Government is regal, or monarchical.

THE Doctor is pleased to say, p. 199, in the true Spirit of Contradiction, what I believe has never been said by any before him, that the Go­vernment of the Church, by such Bishops as I had described, is MORE UNLIKE the Government of the State, by Kings, Lords, and Commons, than any Form of Government of the Church that was ever known in the Colonies; and perhaps, is MORE naturally and powerfully adapted to SUBVERT it. But whither will these extraordinary Flights at last carry him? He forgets that he set out upon the contrary Prin­ciple, in the Beginning of his Book; stoutly con­tending that Episcopacy was established at the Time of the Reformation, not upon the Footing of a divine Institution, but upon Account of its being best fitted to the Form of Government in the State. The civil Constitution of the British Mo­narchy is, in all essential Points, the same now that it was at that Period, and Episcopacy is the same; so that if they were peculiarly adapted to each other then, they are now. That this was, and is, the Case, I fully believe; and Reasons for this Belief were given in the Appeal; which Rea­sons the Doctor has not attempted to invalidate.

IT is well known that the same Opinion has been maintained, by the greatest and best Writers upon the Subject. ‘For the Government of Bi­shops,’ [Page 257] says the incomparable Lord Bacon ^†, ‘for my Part, not prejudging the Proceedings of other Churches, I do hold it to be warranted by the Word of God, and by the Practice of the ancient Church in better Times, and much more convenient for KINGDOMS, than a Parity of Mi­nisters, and Government by Synods.’ It was an Observation of the noble and learned Philip de Mornay, who was not only a Calvinist, but a principal Support of the Protestant Religion in France; ‘that although the presbyterian Govern­ment might do well enough in popular States, such as Geneva and Switzerland, yet in King­doms or Monarchies, episcopal Government is rather to be chosen.’ ‘And the same Opinion in much stronger Terms, and with a particular View to England, was professed by another Fo­reigner, who understood Politicks as well as most Men of his Time, and was both a good Pro­testant and had great Candor in Matters of Re­ligion; I mean the celebrated Passendorf, who expresses himself in the following Words: ‘In this Respect likewise not a little Blemish is thought to lie upon many of the Calvinists, as being too much inclined to affect Democracies, and being on the contrary averse to Monarchies, and forward to subvert them.’’ ‘When Puffen­dorf says that the Calvinists are too much inclined to Democracies, he is not to be understood as if he represented all of that Sect as being at all Times thus disposed; for no doubt, while the Kings under whom they live encourage and favor them, they may so long be well enough pleased with their Government, and willing to support it. The Baron's Meaning I take to have been, [Page 258] that the popular Forms of their Church-Govern­ment, have a natural Tendency to raise Disposi­tions, which, when either they are soured by un­favorable Treatment, or not enough sweetned by personal Interest under Monarchies, are apt to lean much towards popular Schemes ^*.’ I might quote innumerable Authorities to the same Purpose; but I will content myself with one more. ‘The established Religion, and the established Go­vernment,’ says a Writer of great Candor and Penetration, ‘are in their Constitution and Inter­ests so interwoven and linked together, that they who would subvert the Government, have no surer Way to compass their wicked Ends, than by endeavouring to ruin the Church first. The greatest Strength of the Government ever did and ever will lie in the Fidelity and Affection of the Members of the established Church: As the Government knows this to be true, so do its Enemies, who therefore are as ready by all Ar­tifices and Attempts to weaken it, as our Go­vernors can be to favor and protect it ^†.’

WE are neither so void of Discernment, says the Doctor, or unacquainted with the Intrigues of those who are most zealous for an American Episcopate, as not to be fully satisfied, they have much more in De­sign than they have been pleased openly to declare, p. 201. But notwithstanding his Opinion of his own Discernment, he should remember that this Charge brought against us before ‘the Tribunal of the Public,’ ought to be supported, at least, with an Appearance of Evidence. It is no small Thing pub­lickly to accuse of Prevarication and Falshood, [Page 259] such a Number of Men, who have always been respected for their Integrity; and something more than arbitrary Suspicions will be needful, to justify so high an Impeachment. But he tells us, he is not unacquainted with their Intrigues. Let him then, for the Sake of his own Reputation, discover them to the World. This is what he owes both to the Public and himself; and it is expected from him, as he would not betray the Cause, for which he professes to be uncommonly zealous. Let him mention some one Intrigue, some over-Act, from which it can reasonably be concluded, that our Designs are contrary to our Declarations, and we will take Shame to ourselves; but if he can offer no other Proof than his pretended Discernment of our secret Intentions, he will be considered as no better than a false Accuser of his Christian Bre­thren, who have given him no just Cause of Pro­vocation. This Matter is of so great Consequence in the present Debate, that we cannot give it up, but must insist that he comes to a particular Expla­nation. Much, very much, depends upon it. The Uproar about Bishops has been, in a great Mea­sure, excited and continued by this very Pretence. If we are guilty of what he charges us with, we deserve to be opposed; if we are innocent, we ought to be acquitted. I therefore call upon him in a pub­lic Manner to produce his Evidence, or to retract his Charge.

THEIR ultimate Views, says he, whatever they propose to begin with, have not been so perfectly se­creted in their own Breasts, but that they have been whispered about from one Friend to another, so that we are at no Loss to form a true Judgment of them. And again: Things have transpired from those, who [Page 260] did not know how, or were not able to keep a Secret, p. 202. I once more affirm, that we have no other Views than what we have published; and I defy any of our Adversaries to prove the contrary. I can, at least, answer for myself; I can answer also for our Convention, with whose Views and Inten­tions it will be allowed that I am acquainted— that we have no Secret in the Case; that we have no ultimate Views that are contrary to our immediate ones; and that these are not contrary to our pub­lic Declarations. But to answer to such an inde­finite Charge of private Whispers, by no Body knows whom or when, about no Body knows what; is more than I will undertake, as I am conscious of my Want of the necessary Discernment. And if the Doctor has no other Evidence, it is meer trifling with the Attention of the Public, to insist upon this. It concerns him to shew that some Discovery has been made, either with or without Design, by some Person who may be supposed to be acquainted with all Secrets of the Kind, that the Clergy have been acting a deceitful, double Part with the World, and are aiming at a different Episcopate from that of the Appeal. This is the grand Point; and upon his Proof of it, I will venture to risque the whole Controversy.

I HAVE now done with Dr. Chauncy for the pre­sent, having replied to every Thing material in his Performance, whether it relates immediately to the proposed Episcopate, to the Church of England, or to the Appeal; excepting what he has said upon the general Subject of Episcopacy:—And even to some Things that are not material, any farther than as they are thought so by some ignorant, pre­judiced Persons. I have passed over nothing, from [Page 261] any Opinion of Difficulty in replying to it; and I have endeavored to obviate all the Objections of o­thers, in answering the Doctor's. Different Lan­guage from his has been frequently used in the late periodical Exhibitions against the Church; but the Objections have been much the same; and I am mistaken, if I have not done Justice to the Ar­guments and Representations of those Writers, as well as to his.

THERE is indeed one Objection started by them, which has not yet been considered; and I hardly know, whether it is worth considering. The Ob­jection is, that such an Episcopate as is proposed for the Colonies, is an impossible Thing in its own Nature. The Impossibility of the Thing is represen­ted by one Writer, to be so glaringly evident, that it is utterly incredible that they (the Clergy) should be so excessively ignorant, as not to know it ^*. It is a sufficient Answer to this Objection, supposing it to have been made seriously, that those eminent Per­sons who first projected the Plan, and those who have from Time to Time been its Patrons—many of whom were much better acquainted with the Constitution of the Kingdom and its Colonies than these Objectors—could see no Impossibility or Dif­ficulty in the Matter. Nay, as to the Impossibility of the Thing, Dr. Chauncy himself, who, in the Ame­rican Whig's Opinion, is one of the most learned and able Writers in America ^† ▪ was, about a Year ago, so excessive ignorant as not to know it. For it is ut­terly incredible, that, if he had known or suspected the Impossibility that such a Plan could be executed, he would not have availed himself of so capital an [Page 262] Objection. To this may be added: It is a good Evidence that the proposed Episcopote may exist in America, that such an Episcopate has actually exist­ed, and does now exist, in America, among the Moravians; and if it may in one Church, why not in another? It has been said that the Church of England is an Exception, because its Bishops by the Law of the Land, are intitled to certain Powers and Preheminences wherever they are settled in the British Dominions; which Powers are disclaimed in the Plan. The Law of the Land in this Objecti­on, I suppose, means the Laws of England, and not any Laws peculiar to this Country; and if by the Laws of England Bishops, contrary to the clear Opinion of Dr. Blackstone, will be invested with such Powers and Preheminences in America, as soon as they shall be sent hither; it must be owing to this only Reason—that the Laws of Eng­land establish the Church throughout the British American Colonies, in the same Manner that it is established in England. But will the Objectors ad­mit of this Doctrine? Have not the ablest Writers of their Party, always insisted upon the contrary? Does not this Doctrine necessarily imply, that we have, besides an equitable, a legal, Right to an Episcopate; and that our Opposers transgress the Law of the Land, as well as the Laws of Equity? But still, an Establishment in Favor of the Church here, which they insinuate in this Controversy that we have, but which they mean not to allow on any other Occasion, would by no Means exclude an Episcopate in the very Form that is specified; for such an Episcopate, I believe, may, at any Time, be erected, or rather, restored, in England. It was shewn in the Appeal, that the Bishops pro­posed for America, were first mentioned by the [Page 263] Title of Suffragans; and those who are acquainted with the History of the Church, and the ecclesi­astical Laws of England, know, that the Bishops marked out in our Plan, whatever they may be called, are in Reality no other than Suffragans. If therefore the Laws of England admit of Suffra­gans, which they as certainly do, as of Diocesan Bishops, they then admit of such an Episcopate as we contend for; even were we to suppose the Church of England to be as fully established in the Colonies as it is in England, and by the same Laws. Suffragans have been frequently appointed at Home, under the present ecclesiastical Establish­ment; and the Consequence is unavoidable, that they may be appointed here. But after all, were the Case in every Respect as the Objection repre­sents it to be, which it is not in any Respect; yet an Act of Parliament would make our Plan prac­ticable; and there can be no Doubt but its Friends have Interest enough to obtain such an Act, should they find it to be necessary.