WHEN the Author of an Appeal to the Public, in Behalf of the Church of En­gland in America, published his general Defence of it, he was in Hopes of having no farther Occasion to appear in the Controversy about AMERICAN BISHOPS. Not that he looked upon what he had written as unanswerable; for he knew that there is a Sort of People that can answer any Thing; but he believed that enough had been said on the Subject, on both Sides, to enable the Public to judge of the Matter in Dispute. The Case of the American Episcopalians had been fair­ly stated, in Order to shew the Reasonableness and Necessity of their having resident Bishops; on the other Hand, Objections in sufficient Quantity, had been offered against such an Appointment; and a particular Reply had been made to every Objection that had been urged or suggested: And when a Controversy is carried on thus far, the By-standers, in his Opinion, are commonly as able to form a proper Judgment of the Merits of the Cause, as after the Disputants have proceeded to Rejoinders, Sur-rejoinders and Rebutters.

[Page 2]WHETHER Dr. Chauncy is of a different Opinion or not, is best known to himself. As he has not thought proper to tell what Motives excited him to resume his Pen in this Controversy, the Reader is left to discover them for himself, as well as he can; and if he should happen to mistake, in a Matter of such high Curiosity, it may not be his own Fault. Surely it could not be the Pleasure attending such an Employment! For my Part, I am unable to conceive that any Man can be fond of the rough and disagreeable Work of public Controversy, more especially at the Doctor's Time of Life:—Unless he should be in the Condition of old Henry Valesius, of whom his Biographer informs us, in Words which I shall leave for the Doctor to translate, that ‘natus Annis septuaginta, nec sibi ipse videbatur Senex, nec aliis videri volebat;’ and that he candidly confessed, that ‘ante acceptas quasdem a Gronovio Literas, Se de Senectute sua nunquam cogitavisse.’ And therefore I ra­ther suspect that Dr. Chauncy was sensible of the Insufficiency of his former Exertions against an American Episcopate, and found it necessary to make another Effort to support the Cause he had undertaken to maintain. And if he had a farther View of retrieving his own literary Character, he is not to be blamed; for, in the Opinion of many sensible People, that, as well as his Cause, had considerably suffered, by the Appearance and Ope­ration of a certain noxious Pamphlet, known by the Title of—THE APPEAL DEFENDED.

BUT I will not spend Time in trying to account for what, after all, may be unaccountable; nor in­deed can the Doctor expect me to take the Trouble of settling his Affairs with his Readers. It is more [Page 3] properly my Business, at this Time, to assign the Reasons why I request again to be heard ‘before the Tribunal of the Public,’ after having offered my Plea in Behalf of the American Episcopalians, and made my DEFENCE.

AND here I might plead the natural Right every Man has to defend himself as often as he is attack­ed; and that it is the proper Business of a Respon­dent to reply to every Thing objected by his Oppo­nent: But I shall not avail myself of these Consi­derations, because I must confess that I have not been governed by them myself. In the Doctor's last Piece, now coming under Examination, the Attack never appeared to me to be so formidable as to make a regular Defence necessary; nor the Objections a­gainst an American Episcopate to be of such Con­sequence as to deserve a formal Reply. I could very freely, without Anxiety or Reluctance, have sub­mitted the Matter in Dispute to the Judgment of the impartial, without offering another Sentence on the Subject.

BUT the Misfortune is, that, while many undertake to be Judges, in this Case, without any Desire or Inclination to examine what is said on the other Side, there are but few Persons, in those Colonies wherein Dr. Chauncy's Pamphlets have chiefly abounded, (and for which I have an Affection as well as he) who have an Op­portunity of reading what has been offered in Favour of the Episcopate proposed. With Re­gard to those Colonies therefore, which are the chief Objects of the Doctor's Concern, he and his Adherents, one would think, might have been very quiet and contented with so considerable an Advan­tage. [Page 4] But no: They were alarmed, it seems, for what he calls, p. 141, the great Cause of their An­cestors; and it was feared that even the Report, or oral Tradition, of what had been urged in Behalf of American Bishops, might render the People of New-England favourable to the Plan for introduc­ing them into the Colonies. It was therefore thought proper, by Way of Prevention or Anti­dote, and perhaps at the same Time as a Cordial for the Doctor after so great a Fatigue as he had lately undergone in answering the Appeal; that the Thanks of his associated Brethren should be formally voted him for the Exploit; and that this Vote should be circulated through the Country in the public Pa­pers: By which Contrivance much greater Force was given to his Pamphlet than it originally posses­sed. For the Body of the People in New-England, who had heard so little in Behalf of the Bishops proposed, and so much against them; upon seeing this Decree of a public Triumph or Ovation made in Favour of the Doctor; had it hardly in their Power to conceive otherwise, than that the Author of the Appeal had been fairly vanquished, and that the episcopal Clergy and their Friends, under the Cover of plausible Pretences, had formed a Plot to deprive them of their religious Liberties, to esta­blish over them an ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of a tyrannical Nature, and to raise high Contributions upon them, for the Support of—it as had been originally objected.

IN Order therefore to undeceive them, and any others who have been imposed upon by these or the like Arts; and to shew that, notwithstanding the Pretence, none of these Objections have been to­lerably supported, and indeed that no Objection of [Page 5] any Consequence can be reasonably made against an Episcopate on the Plan that has been offered; the Author has been urged by many of his Friends, to make this farther Defence of it; which they think to be necessary under such Circumstances. As his own Opinion differed not greatly from theirs, he soon consented to submit to the Task ^*; and in per­forming it he will endeavour to shew, among other Things, that there is a fairer and better Way of judging of the Matters in Dispute, than either from the public Vote of Thanks before-mentioned, or from the Doctor's confidently saying, in his Title Page, that in his Reply to the Appeal defended, the Author's Mistakes are rectified, his false arguing refuted, and the Objections against the planned Ame­rican Episcopate shewn to remain in full Force, not­withstanding all that he has offered to render them invalid.

THE Doctor's Pamphlet is entitled, A Reply to the Appeal defended; but the Reader must not con­clude from hence, that it is, in any Sense, a Reply to the whole of it. The larger Part, containing many Things that are very material in this Con­troversy, is passed over without the least Notice. I shall not follow the Doctor's Example in this; intending, since I have undertaken a Review of his Performance, not to pass by any Thing that can be thought to be either pertinent or plausible.

IN taking my Leave of him, I proposed, in Case the Dispute about an American Episcopate [Page 6] should be farther continued, ‘that the Debate should be reduced within a narrower Compass; that nothing which does not immediately relate to the Merits of the Cause, should be offered on either Side ^†.’ But he will not allow that I had any Right to propose such a Limitation; since in the Appeal and the Appeal defended, I had not strictly adhered to the Point of an American Episcopate myself. But I know of nothing in the Appeal that does not immediately relate to this Point, except the two first Sections, wherein a 'Sketch' of the general Arguments in Favour of Episcopacy was given, and the Nature of the episcopal Office was explained. These were introductory to the Business in Hand, and were thought to have a Tendency to put the Plea for the Episcopate requested in a pro­per Light, by shewing that the late Application of our Convention for American Bishops proceeded from their real Principles; which was certainly the Case. But seeing the ill Use made of these intro­ductory Sections by my Adversaries, in my Defence, I passed over all that had been said on the general Subject of Episcopacy, so far as relates to the E­vidence of Scripture and the primitive Church; being desirous of reducing the Controversy to one Point; namely, the Reasonableness and Propriety of an American Episcopate.

DR. Chauncy, in his first Pamphlet, had not only enlarged on the introductory Sections, but had rambled beyond the Bounds of the Appeal, in a long Episode about the Sentiments of our first Reformers, (to say nothing of other Instances) in Order invidiously to represent the episcopal Clergy in the Colonies as having departed from the origi­nal [Page 7] Principles of the Church of England: And I found it necessary to spend no inconsiderable Part of my Reply in setting this Matter in its proper Light.—After what had thus passed between us, I think I had a Right to ‘propose a new Plan of Operations,’ in Case Hostilities should continue; which I did—not intending, as he misrepresents the Matter, to put it out of the Power of others to re­mark upon the greatest Part of what I had been pleased to offer,—but only desiring that a due Regard to the Patience of our Readers, upon which we had trespassed, might, for the future, be more care­fully maintained. The Doctor is of Opinion in­deed, that if I had taken the whole of the above­mentioned Misconduct upon myself, no one would have thought it an ASPERSION. I am of the same Opinion too; because no one before him ever did think of calling That an Aspersion, which a Man takes upon himself. It is possible he intended to say a Self-Aspersion.

I HAD farther proposed, should the Controversy be continued, ‘that no Invective or Abuse,—no­thing that savors of Bigotry or Barbarity, should be suffered to mingle in the Debate; but that inge­nuous, sober Reasoning should decide it.’ The Doctor thinks I could have made the Proposal with a better Grace, if I had more fully exemplified it myself. Indeed he immediately confesses, p. 6, (I request the Reader to take particular Notice of the Passage, because it is the only one in which he seems to be in a tolerably good Humour, while he speaks of me) that my Air in writing sometimes carries the Appearance of Mildness and Moderation; nor is it generally misbecoming the Gentleman, or the Christian. I will give him all due Credit for this [Page 8] Concession; and I think it concerns me to make the most of it.

BUT in the next Words he cries out concerning me: Will any pretend that his Manner is not too often very like their's who are actuated by a Spirit of Bigotry? Perhaps in some Instances this may have been the Case, although I am not conscious of it myself, and am unable to point out in what particular Passages. I know the extreme Difficulty of carrying on a Controversy with peevish and cap­tious Adversaries, without sometimes dropping Ex­pressions that may appear, to an indifferent Person, to savor of Bigotry, or a blind Confidence. But I can truly declare, that I have endeavoured to guard a­gainst this Kind of Failings.—He goes on: Has he no where treated his Opponents with Invective and Abuse? With some little Invective on certain Oc­casions, I confess; but not with Abuse, as the Word implies unkind or severe Treatment that is undeserved. Are there no Instances in which he has had Recourse to evasive Art, rather than solid Ar­gument? Not a single one, I affirm, to the best of my Knowledge. Again: Has he never substituted popular EXCLAMATION in the Room of good Reason­ing? —The Doctor most probably meant here po­pular Declamation; as in p. 85, he complains of my having made a declamatory Application to the Passions. Popular Declamation is too often the Fault of controversial Writers; but as to popular Exclamation, it is ‘novum Crimen, et ante hunc Diem inauditum.’ How far the Appeal defended was a Composition of a declamatary Nature, is freely submitted to the Judgment of the Impartial.

[Page 9]BUT farther: Do we never find him disingenuously endeavouring to make others think he has answered POWERFULLY, when he himself knew he had said no­thing to the Purpose? Nay, has he never so disho­voured his own Character as only to laugh loud when so pressed as to be unable to make a just or sober Reply? As the Doctor has not attempted to point out par­ticular Instances of this Conduct, I can only say, in general, that in answering him I never thought myself so pressed as to be unable to make a just or sober Reply; and consequently that I was under no Temptation to put off upon the Reader what was nothing to the Purpose, for a powerful Answer. Even laughing loudly on some Occasions is no Crime nor Dishonour; and in the Appeal defended, I am not conscious of having laughed at all, but in such Cases as would dispose every attentive Reader to laugh with me. In a Word, I meant nothing in any Part of it, but to treat both the Doctor and the Public fairly; and if I failed in any Instances, it was contrary to my Desire and Intention, and it is more than hitherto I have been able to discover. What the Sentiments of my Friends are, upon this Head, I shall leave for them to express as they think proper. I know not that they have made any Complaints, either as to the Matter or Manner of my former Defence; and I trust they are not disposed to complain of any Thing, like the Doctor's Friends, on Account of its being candid. For he tells us, that some of his Friends have complained of his Manner in answering the Ap­peal, as over-mild and CANDID. p. 10, 11.

WITHOUT enlarging farther on what is meerly personal, between the Doctor and me, I shall now proceed to consider such Passages of what he calls [Page 10] his Reply, as are most worthy of Notice. And the first that occurs is in p. 11. In an introductory Observation I had requested of every Reader to take Notice, that Dr. Chauncy, as well as my other Opponents, had given up the great Point in Dispute. To support this Observation, I quoted several Pas­sages which were supposed to be a full Proof of it. The Doctor now denies that they contain that in them which LOOKS LIKE his giving up the main Point in Debate. p. 12. As this is a Matter of great Importance in this Controversy, and what he calls p. 13, the most essential Part of the Dispute, I beg Leave to review it with particular Care, be­lieving that it deserves the Reader's Attention, as much as any Thing contained in the following Sheets.

THE particular Passages alledged in Proof of the Doctor's having given up the great Point in Dispute, by consenting to the Episcopate in Ques­tion, are the following. We desire no other Liberty, than to be left unmolested in the Exercise of our reli­gious Principles, in so far as we are good Members of Society. And we are perfectly willing Episcopali­ans should enjoy this Liberty to the full. If they think Bishops, in their appropriated Sense, were con­stituted by Christ, or his Apostles, we object not a Word against their having as many of them as they please, if they will be content to have them with Au­thority altogether derived from Christ ^‖. Again: It is not simply the Exercise of any of their religious Principles that would give the least Uneasiness, nor yet the Exercise of them under as many PURELY SPI­RITUAL Bishops as they would wish to have; but [Page 11] their having Bishops under a STATE ESTABLISH­MENT ^§.

THE Doctor allows the Quotations to have been fairly made; and the Question here is, whether in these Passages, he does, or does not, consent to our having the Episcopate proposed in the Appeal. In order fairly to determine this Point, Recourse must be first had to the Appeal, that it may be seen what Sort of an Episcopate it proposes, and whether it be the same that the Doctor consents to. Now this is clearly and fully described in the fol­lowing Words. ‘It has been long settled by our Friends and Superiors at home, and the Clergy of this Country have often signified their Ap­probation thereof, and Acquiescence therein— that the Bishop to be sent to America, shall have no Authority, but purely of a spiritual and eccle­siastical Nature, such as is derived altogether from the Church, and not from the State—that this Au­thority shall operate only upon the Clergy of the Church, and not upon the Laity nor Dissenters of any Denomination—that the Bishops shall not interfere with the Property or Privileges, whe­ther civil or religious, of Churchmen or Dissen­ters —that, in particular, they 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, that they shall ONLY exercise the original Duties of their Office as before stated, i. e. ordain and govern the Clergy, and administer Con­firmation to those who shall desire it. This, without any Reservation or Equivocation, is the exact Plan of an American Episcopate which has [Page 12] been settled at home; and it is the only one, on which Bishops have been requested here, either in our general or more particular Addresses ^*.’ Nor is there any Thing, in any Part of the Appeal, from which it can be infered, that a different E­piscopate from this was intended or desired.

NOW the Doctor, in the Passages quoted, de­clares for himself, as well as in Behalf of others, that he is willing we should have as many Bi­shops as we want, provided only, that we are content to have them with AUTHORITY ALTOGETHER DERIVED FROM CHRIST—that they are PURELY SPIRITUAL—and not upon the Footing of a STATE ESTABLISHMENT. But these are specifically and ex­actly the very Bishops proposed in the Appeal. The Bishops requested are those expressly said ‘to have no Authority, but such as is derived altogether from the Church,’ and consequently ALTOGETHER FROM CHRIST. Their Authority and Powers are to be intirely 'of an ecclesiastical Nature,' they being intended only ‘to ordain and govern the Clergy, and to administer Confirmation;’ and consequently they are to be PURELY SPIRITUAL.

THE Government is not expected or desired to give them any Support or peculiar Protection; and consequently they are not to be on the Foot­ing of a STATE ESTABLISHMENT. From these Pre­mises every Reader can, and every unbiassed Reader will, draw the Consequence for himself, that THERE­FORE Dr. Chauncy allows of the Episcopate propo­sed in the Appeal, and has given up the great Point in Dispute.

[Page 13]HE asserts notwithstanding, that the Bishops in the above-mentioned Plan, and those he spoke of in the above recited Passages, are ESSENTIALLY DIF­FERENT — as widely different, as this World is from another. But what Assurance is this! A Man that can affirm at this Rate, is fit to undertake, what a common Genius will not attempt, to prove that 'Darkness is Light, and Light Darkness.' I would willingly put the most favourable Construction upon this Conduct; and therefore I impute it to the Perplexity he was under, which did not permit him to see what is so evident to others.

AND indeed he seems to have puzzled and con­fused himself not a little, with the Term spiritual Bishops. For sometimes he uses it in the Sense wherein all Mankind have ever understood it, as signifying Bishops that have ‘no Authority but of a spiritual and ecclesiastical Nature, such as is derived altogether from the Church and not from the State,’ which are the Bishops of the Appeal. Thus he allows, p. 92, that we might have purely spiritual Bishops, by applying to the Bishop of Ca­nada or the Moravians. But why then may we not have Bishops as spiritual, if we receive them from England? Ordination to the same Office, by any one Bishop in Christendom, conveys exactly the same Authority, to the same Degree, as Ordinati­on by any other Bishop, according to the Opinion of the Church in all Ages; and the Powers thus conveyed are not temporal, but spiritual. The tem­poral Powers which Bishops possess in any Coun­try, are not derived from their Ordination, but confered upon them by some Law or Act of the State. Where Bishops receive such Powers, they are in Part temporal Bishops; but where they re­ceive [Page 14] none, they are purely spiritual. Before the Time of Constantine all Bishops were such; and since his Time, Bishops, without any temporal Au­thority, are as purely spiritual as they were before it, every Power which belongs to them as Bishops be­ing of a spiritual Nature. The original and pecu­liar Powers of Bishops, are those of Ordination, Government and Confirmation. Now the Doctor himself, p. 103, calls ordaining and governing Power spiritual; and for the same Reasons, confirming Pow­er must be spiritual likewise. And when Bishops possess these Powers, without any Mixture of tem­poral Authority, they are purely spiritual. But in other Places, and particularly wherever he denies that spiritual Bishops are the same with those of the Appeal, he uses the Words in a Sense that is exclusively his own; and by purely spiritual Bi­shops, he evidently means Bishops that are pure SPIRITS, without any bodily Qualities; which last, it seems, are the only Bishops he is now willing to allow us.

HE appears to have been equally embarrassed with the word Establishment. The Establishment of a Religion, or of any particular Order of Men always implies, at least, some peculiar Countenance and Pro­tection from the State, but all that is desired for the Bishops of the Appeal, is a Consent to their Exi­stence, or, at most, the Approbation of the Legis­lature, and that common Protection which is freely granted to the various religious Denominations throughout the British Dominions. Nothing but wilful or natural Blindness can avoid seeing, that there is a wide Difference between such a Tolera­tion, and a State-Establishment. The Doctor some­times uses the Word Establishment in the Sense [Page 15] wherein others use it; and it was not suspected that he departed from its common Acceptation in his Answer to the Appeal. And therefore when he signified his Consent to our having Bishops that should not be under a State-Establishment, I made no Scruple to affirm, that he consented to the E­piscopate of the Appeal, which was not to be under a State-Establishment, and consequently that he had given up the main Point in Debate—which had he used common Language in its common Acceptation, was certainly the Case. In order to extricate him­self, he now declares in his Reply, that he signi­fied no such Consent; and to my Question— ‘Does this Plan propose an Establishment of the Church?’ —He roundly answers, it undoubtedly does. p. 142. So that by Establishment now, he means no more than what is proposed in the Ap­peal for an American Episcopate, which is exactly neither more nor less than what all consistent Wri­ters mean by the word Toleration. And such are the Fervors of his anti-episcopal Zeal, that he is un­willing American Bishops should be established in his Sense, i. e. tolerated, or suffered to exist in any Form, excepting perhaps that of pure Spirits.

I HAVE proceeded on the favourable Suppositi­on, that the Doctor was perplexed himself in the Use of these Terms. If this was not the Case, it was still worse; for he must have intended to per­plex his Readers. 'Phenomena' of this Kind some­times do appear 'in the Regions of Controversy.' When a Writer is dextrous in playing Tricks with Words, he can, at any Time, raise a Mist, and make his Escape; and when we think that we have secured him in Cords of his own twisting, we are surprized to find, that— ‘ [Page 16]Effugiet tamen haec sceleratus Vincula Proteus.’

THE Doctor complains that my Representation of the Matter makes him to have wrote [written] many Scores of Pages in Opposition to that, against which he had not a Word to object. p. 12—and to have acted a weak, ridiculous and inconsistent Part. p. 13. The Fact is truly represented, whatever it may imply; and I am not answerable for the Con­sequences. I am disposed to think as favourably of him as possible, and I could wish for no Occa­sions of treating him otherwise than respectfully. And as to the Inconsistency before us, I am willing, as I have said, to ascribe it, not to any Malice prepense, but to the Embarrassment he was under from the Badness of his Cause, and the urgent Necessity of his still defending it. The same Kind of Inconsistency, proceeding from the like Embar­rassment, has appeared in all our Opposers; par­ticularly in the American Whig, the Remonstrant, and another great Stickler against American Bishops, in the London Chronicle, who signs himself Atlan­ticus. They oppose that against which they have no Objections; they give their Consent, and after­wards deny that they ever thought of consenting at all.

THE last-mentioned Writer, in Order to ‘do Justice to the Americans,’ says, that ‘they only object to Lords Bishops being sent over by Authority from the Legislature of Great Britain, with Power and Titles of worldly Pre-eminence.’ And the Doctor in p. 104, seems chiefly to fear, that the Bishops described in our Plan, should come from the King or State; for he is there very willing that we should have them from the Bohemians, or [Page 17] Waldenses, or Moravians, or even from Canada. But it can be a Matter of no Consequence to those, over whom they are to exercise no Jurisdiction, whether our Bishops, under the Limitations propo­sed, are of Bohemian, Moravian, or English Extraction. Bishops may be sent by "the Legis­lature of Great-Britain" without any temporal Power; and such only have been desired for Ame­rica. As to their Titles, which may give Pain to the envious and malicious, they will imply no Pre-eminence but what arises from the Nature of their Office, considered as purely ecclesiastical or spiritual, and will undoubtedly not exceed what were given to Bishops in the primitive Ages of the Church. "The Legislature of Great-Britain" has never been requested to send Bishops to America; nor is the Parliament desired to interfere any far­ther, than, if it should be found that the national Establishment will naturally give American Bishops, when appointed, more Authority than is proposed, to circumscribe it according to our Plan.

AS to the KING indeed, it is the Duty both of the Clergy here, and of the Bishops at home, to apply to him for his Consent and Warrant, before they proceed to carry such a Scheme into Execution. This Duty arises from that Supremacy of the Crown, to which the Bishops and Clergy have sworn Sub­mission, in all such Cases, agreeably to the Laws of the Realm; and although we find ‘the Minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended’ at it, it is no more, to use the Words of the ARTICLE, than ‘that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes by GOD himself.’

[Page 18]AMONG the original Articles of the Doctor's Complaint, it was represented, that the Arguments in Support of the PETITIONS for an American Epis­copate had been kept secret; and that an authentic Knowledge of them, though applied for, was rejected. It was replied in the Appeal defended, 'I know no­thing of such an Application, or Rejection.' He now rejoins, p. 14, I am now disposed to think he here wrote as he thought. But, if he had taken Time for Recollection, it is probable he would have called to Mind what he might not then have had in actual Remembrance. Did he never hear of a formal Ap­plication made by Dr. Stiles in a Letter to the Clerk of the New-York Convention, desiring a Copy of their Petitions, especially their Petition to the King, and of the formal Negative put upon this reasonable Request? Did he never hear of any Controversy between the American Whig, and this Clerk of the Convention, relative to the Petition to the King, wherein he was called upon to put an End to the Dispute, by producing the Words of the Petition, which he refused to do? To all this I answer in the Negative. I neither heard of Dr. Stiles's Application, nor of the Dispute between the American Whig and the Secretary of our Convention, till considerably after the Time of the Doctor's making his Complaint; and therefore I naturally supposed that what is here mentioned could not have occasioned it, it being not com­mon for Effects to go before their Causes. The Complaint was published by the Middle of March 1768, and must have been printed in February, and written before it was printed—Mr. Seabury's Ad­vertisement, as Secretary of the Convention, which brought on his Dispute with the American Whig, did not make its Appearance in New-York before March 28—And Dr. Stiles's Application for Copies of [Page 19] the Petitions, was not made till several Weeks af­terwards. So that the Reader sees it was not owing to my Want of Recollection, but to my Ignorance of the Doctor's Abilities in Prognostication, that I made such a Reply. But if this Gentleman was above making Distinctions between past and future, he ought in Justice to have told us so, upon his engaging in the Controversy.

IT was farther said in Answer to him: 'The Complaint is altogether groundless; for the Plan upon which it was proposed that Bishops should be sent to America, and the Arguments afterwards made Use of in Support of the Petitions, actually were published, a considerable Time before the Petitions were sent.' The Doctor replies, What is all this to the Purpose? p. 15. I must confess it appears to me to be greatly to the Purpose, to shew that particular Matters were published, in answering a Complaint that they were not published. It is true, says he, such Arguments, in Support of the Plan for American Bishops as were thought fit to be pub­lickly used, we have been (he might have said had been) made acquainted with. But the Question is, are these the ONLY ONES that enforced the Petitions that were sent home? Will the Doctor venture to say, NO OTHERS were used? I assure him, that such Arguments as had been publickly used in Support of our Plan, included the ONLY ONES that were used to enforce the Petitions; and therefore I need not add, that NO OTHERS were made Use of for that Purpose. All this has been publickly asserted over and over. If so, says the Doctor, What possible Harm can there be in giving Copies of them?—It is generally supposed that some Things are said in Support of these Petitions, which the Clergy who sent them [Page 20] are not willing should be publickly known. No great Harm, I imagine, could have been expected from the Publication of our Petitions; and if the Clergy had been treated with Decency on the Occasion, it is not improbable that Copies of all of them would, long since, have been laid before the Public. But after having been openly bullied and abused, upon no other Evidence against them than that of uncha­ritable Suspicions, and after the Petitions had been magisterially demanded by anonymous Scriblers, they thought proper to refuse them. In these Cir­cumstances the Request of Dr. Stiles, however reasonable in itself, or however decently made, could not prudently be granted, as his Connecti­ons with a certain Party were known.

THE Doctor proceeds: If any Credit is due to the Word of a Gentleman, of well established Repu­tation, who was favoured with a Sight, though not with a Copy of one of these Petitions, it contained that in it which has never been made public. I would not say any Thing to lessen the well established Re­putation of any Gentleman; but such an imperfect Testimony can, by no Means, be admitted in the present Case. If the Gentleman, here meant, had the Sight of a true Copy, it is possible that he may have misapprehended some particular Passages, or his Memory may have deceived him. But perhaps he saw only the first Draft of a Petition, before it had undergone the Corrections of the Convention; and from this he could form no Judgment of the Petition that was afterwards actually sent. Perhaps he saw a spurious Copy (and why may there not be fictitious Petitions, as well as fictitious Letters from Members of the Society?) written with a View, either of making Mischief among the Dissenters, [Page 21] or of raising an Odium against the episcopal Cler­gy. To this must be added, that the Gentleman himself is not known, and consequently but little Regard can be paid to his Testimony, at any Rate. Now, to borrow a little of the Doctor's Phraseolo­gy from p. 168, this poor, lame, lank Evidence is all that he has to oppose to the positive and pe­remptory Declarations of our Convention to the contrary, and particularly by the Pen of their very worthy Secretary; the Members of which Con­vention must be supposed to know what they themselves did in the Affair, and can, whenever they please, have Recourse to the original Papers.

BUT as what could not prudently be done, at that Season of epidemic Presbyterian Vehemence against the Clergy and the Church of England in the Colonies, may not be altogether improper now—when the Passions of Men have greatly sub­sided, and their Prejudices have abated, in Pro­portion as their Eyes have been opened; in order to gratify the Curiosity of the Reader (not forget­ting Dr. Chauncy) I will lay before him true Co­pies of our Petitions to the King, and the Arch­bishop of Canterbury, without any Comment or Explanation: And if our late Adversaries should continue to preserve their present apparent good Temper, (here I do not forget, but must except, the Doctor) the other Petitions may possibly see the Light on some future Occasions.

HAVING gone through the Doctor's preliminary Articles, I shall now proceed to consider the Sub­stance of his first Section, amounting to a third Part of his Pamphlet; although there is but little in it that is immediately connected with the Episco­pate in Question. And here, upon a Prospect of the Work before me, I am ready to shrink back, and to repent that I have undertaken it. Were the Bu­siness only to debate Matters of some Consequence with a candid Opponent, I should enter upon it with less Reluctance, and could promise the Reader more Satisfaction. But where much Time and Labour must be spent in the unprofitable Drud­gery of comparing Pamphlet with Pamphlet, of balancing Sentence with Sentence, of shewing that I said so, or said not so—that the Doctor said this, or meant that, or mistook, or misrepresented the Matter, I fear it will be a Trial indeed. And yet to more than a little of this Kind of Labour am I unavoidably destined, in the present Undertaking.

IN the Appeal defended, I regreted that I had in­troduced the Plea for American Bishops, with a Sketch of the general Arguments in Favour of E­piscopacy; and confessed ‘that what was said on the general Subject, however just in itself, or proper in Theory, had been better omited’ —for [Page 28] Reasons that need not be repeated. And yet, says the Doctor, he has wrote [written] not less than 98 Pages—more than one third Part of the whole—in Support of that, concerning which he was convinced it had been better if he had said nothing. p. 17. But in the 98 Pages, to which he refers, I said but little upon what was contained in the Sketch, and carefully avoided saying any Thing on the Evi­dence of Scripture and the primitive Church, which is the most essential Part of the general Controversy; because I was for hastening to the Subject of an American Episcopate. And that I reached it no sooner, was owing to the Doctor's needlessly obstructing my Passage with, what he pretended to be, the Sentiments of our first Re­formers, the Opinions of some eminent Moderns, the Case of the Waldenses, of the foreign Churches, the King's Supremacy, &c. These were the Sub­jects of those 98 Pages, and not the Jus divinum of Episcopacy, which was that, concerning which I was convinced it had been better if I had said nothing. And yet a Subject that had been better omited in the Appeal, might very properly come under Con­sideration in the Appeal defended, as it was profes­sedly written ‘in Answer to the Objections and Mis­representations of Dr. Chauncy and others.’ This I take to be a sufficient Reply to all that is said in three prevaricating Pages, wherein the Doctor far­ther exercises his Talents, and labours to prove me to have been guilty, not only of what he calls in­judicious Unfairness (he may possibly think his OWN Unfairness to have been judicious) but also of In­consistency.

IN the Appeal, the divine Right of Episcopacy was asserted. The Doctor denied this to be a Doc­trine [Page 29] of the Church of England. It was replied, in the first Place, that were this really the Case, and ‘if it be by Virtue only of the Jus humanum of Episcopacy that Bishops are necessary, still the Ends for which they are necessary cannot be ob­tained without them, so long as we are subject to the Authority that requires them.’ He now rejoins: As the Authority requiring is by Supposition merely human, no Complaints can reasonably be made by those who could have none to make, if they ac­knowledged and honoured no one but Jesus Christ as supreme Head of the Christian Church. p. 20. But does not the Doctor know that none admit of a supreme Head of the Christian Church upon Earth, but Papists? I hope he did not mean to insinuate, that the episcopal Clergy in the Colonies believe the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy. The su­preme Head of a national Church is a very differ­ent Thing from the supreme Head of the Christian Church; and, by the former, the Church of En­gland means no more than the Prerogative given to our Princes, of ‘ruling all Estates and Degrees commited to their Charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal ^†,’ in Opposition to the Pope's Usurpation: And, whether this is in­consistent with Christ's absolute Supremacy, let com­mon Sense judge. An Authority to govern the na­tional Church in Subordination to Christ, is the most that the Church of England ever ascribed to Christian Princes; and the Claim of subordinate Authority is so far from denying, that it actually acknowledges and establishes, the Supremacy of the Principal. But more will be said upon this Subject in its proper Place. Supposing now, but not granting, that we esteemed Bishops to be ne­cessary [Page 30] by Virtue only of a Jus Humanum; it is evident, at first View, that the Ends for which they are thus made necessary cannot be obtained with­out them, ‘so long as we are subject to the Au­thority that requires them,’ and ‘look upon our­selves to be bound in Duty and Conscience to obey’ it. And the Case of Episcopalians in A­merica, conscientiously obedient to the national Authority, must be hard without an Episcopate, in Proportion to the Necessity or Importance of those Ends, for which Bishops are necessary. To tell us that we are wrong in our Notions of the King's Supremacy, if true, would be nothing to the Purpose.

IT was farther said in Reply, that, with Regard to Episcopacy, the Doctor mistook the Principles of the Church of England, which always acknow­ledged a divine Right. And here he was referred, in particular, to the Preface to the ORDINAL. Part of this Preface was recited, wherein, as was ob­served, ‘the DISTINCTION of the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons is fully asserted— the ANTIQUITY of this Distinction is deduced from the Apostles Times—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. ^§.’

THE Doctor attempts not to shew that these Ob­servations are ill-grounded, nor to point out the In­conclusiveness of this Reasoning, in his own Words, as he was apprehensive it might expose him to be censured for Prejudice, Obstinacy and perverse Blind­ness; [Page 31] but he chooses to answer in the Language of two famous episcopal Writers. What then do these two famous Writers say? The first is Bishop Hoadly, in his Reasonableness of Conformity, writ­ten with the laudable View of reconciling the Non­conformists to the Church of England. In the Course of his Work, he represented the Difference that divided them from the Conformists to be, in Reality, much smaller, in many Instances, than had been commonly pretended. Dr. Calamy had offered, as an Objection against ministerial Con­formity, that the Subscription required from the Clergy, implies ‘an Allowance and Approbation of that Assertion, that Bishops, Priests and Deacons are three distinct Orders by divine Ap­pointment.’ Mr. Hoadly answered, that this Quotation from the Preface to the Ordinal was not fairly made. ‘ By divine Appointment, says he, You add yourselves;’ which was certainly true, these Words being not in the Preface. ‘For, continues he, all that the Sentence, which you quote, says, is that that these Orders have been in the Church from the Apostles Times.’ He then proceeds in the Words cited by the Doctor, the Force of which is contained in this one Assertion: ‘ There is some Difference between the two Sen­tences, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, are three distinct Orders in the Church by DIVINE APPOINT­MENT, and,—From the Apostles Times, there have been these Orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons:’ Which Distinction is un­doubtedly just, when the Dispute is about the Words of the Ordinal. But he does not deny that the Preface asserts the Distinction of the three Orders—nor that it deduces the Antiquity of this Distinction from the Time of the Apostles—nor [Page 32] that it says the EVIDENCE of it is contained in holy Scripture and ancient Authors—nor that it main­tains the Clearness of this Evidence to all diligent Inquirers; which is all that I affirmed, or am obli­ged to support. Nor does it appear in his Dispute with Dr. Calamy, that he himself did not fully be­lieve the apostolical Institution of Episcopacy. But on the contrary, in this same Book, which the Doctor has the Assurance to quote, he expressly declares: ‘We think we can demonstrate that in the primitive Times the Administration of ec­clesiastical Affairs was in the Hands of Bishops, who had Presbyters subject to them ^*.’ And a­gain: ‘Imagining our Method (of Ordination by Bishops) to be the orderly and settled Method from the primitive Ages; where we see it neg­lected, when there is no Necessity, we think in Justice, we cannot acknowledge those who depart from it approved of God, in setting apart them­selves for the Ministry ^‖.’ This approaches near­ly to the most high-flying Expressions used in the Appeal; in which the Author went not much far­ther than this eminent Writer, whose Moderation has been known and celebrated throughout the Christian World. In his Defence of episcopal Ordi­nation, he undertakes to prove, and does prove, that it is of APOSTOLICAL INSTITUTION. And he introduces Mr. Baxter himself, as making this very important Concession: ‘that there were fixed Bi­shops in some Churches in the Days of one of the Apostles; that neither the Apostles, nor any of their Disciples, nor any Christian, or Here­tic in the World, spake, or wrote a Word a­gainst Episcopacy, till long after it was generally settled in the Churches.’

[Page 33]THE other famous episcopal Writer, in whose Words the Doctor chooses to express himself, is Mr. Ollysse, in his Answer to the same Dr. Calamy. After making the same Distinction with Mr. Hoadly about the Words of the Preface to the Ordinal, he says, as quoted by the Doctor, that the Preface "does not prove a divine Appointment." That Pre­face does not undertake to prove any Thing. It was drawn up as an explicit Declaration of the Doctrine of the Church of England, relating to the three ecclesiastical Orders which were esta­blished, and it says the Evidence in Favour of this Form of Church-Government is contained in Scrip­ture, as well as in ancient Authors. This looks some­what like an Acknowledgment of a divine Ap­pointment. But not to insist upon this. No farther Evidence is required to prove that Episcopacy is of divine Appointment, than that it is of apostolical Appointment. The Apostles were inspired Men, and peculiarly conducted by the Spirit of God in the public Execution of their Office; and for the same Reasons that their Writings are of divine Authority, the ecclesiastical Government they settled, as to all its essential Parts, must be of divine Au­thority. But that Episcopacy was of apostolical Ap­pointment, Bishop Hoadly thought he could de­monstrate, and Chillingworth did demonstrate, even from the Concessions of its Enemies: And Epis­copacy differs as essentially from Presbyterianism or Congregationalism or Independency, as Monarchy does from Aristocracy or Democracy.

BUT, says Mr. Ollysse, as the Doctor quotes him, there were ‘other Things, in the Apostles Days, which yet for all that are not allowed to be of divine Appointment.’ This is not accu­rately [Page 34] expressed; but I take the Author's Meaning to be, that the Apostles injoined and practiced some Things, that are generally allowed not to have, at this Day, the Authority of a divine Appointment. This may be true: But if we may judge of others by St. Paul, whenever they gave Directions relat­ing to the Church that were occasional or local, and not of general and perpetual Obligation to prevent Mistakes, they were careful to signify it. This, we know, in particular, was the Practice of the great "Apostle of the Gentiles;" who found­ed more Churches, and issued out more ecclesiasti­cal Injunctions, than any other Apostle. And as to Authority to govern the Church, and to ordain, it must, in the Nature of Things, have continued in those Hands wherein it was originally placed, and in the Hands of such Successors, from Time to Time, as it was regularly conveyed to. There is not the least Intimation in Scripture that the ori­ginal Form of it might be changed; nor is there any Appearance that the primitive Church thought it could be changed.

THE Doctor informs us (in a Note, p. 21) that, after long seeking, he was so lucky as to obtain a Sight of the OLD Ordinal. The Year in which it was printed is not mentioned, but he looks upon it to be one of the first printed Copies, or a Reprint from one of these, in the Reign of EDWARD VI. The Rea­sons assigned for his Belief of its Antiquity are, that it is printed in the Old English Letter, and that he finds at the Bottom of the Title-Page, ‘Lon­don, printed by R. Barker and J. Bill, Printers to the King's most excellent Majesty.’ This, I believe, will not procure him an Election into the Society of Antiquarians: For to say nothing of [Page 35] the Old English Letter, which on some Occasions is used to this very Day, Barker and Bill were Prin­ters to CHARLES I, almost 100 Years after the old Ordinal was first printed. But this is a Matter of no Consequence, if they did but give a faithful Reprint from a true Copy. Well: Upon comparing the Preface as it there stands, with that which is now prefixed to our Ordination-Offices, he finds that it underwent a very material Alteration in the Time of CHARLES II. He points out the Variations; but they appear to be of little Consequence, as nothing is expressed in the latter, which is not strongly im­plied in the former, and which was not as clearly expressed both in the English and Latin Articles of 1552, and of 1562.

BUT he urges, that although none under the pre­sent Ordinal may be looked upon as a lawful Minister without episcopal Ordination, it does not appear that this was the Case under the old—and that the Re­viewers afterwards did not think this an indisputable Point; otherwise they would not have made an Alter­ation, the principal Design of which was to put this Matter beyond all Doubt. I am glad to find that he allows it to be the Design of the Preface to the present Ordinal, to put this Matter beyond all Doubt: For hereby he admits that the Church of England ever since the Restoration has maintained the apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, contrary to his frequent Assertions. Nor has he been able to prove that before the Restoration she held other­wise. But why then was such an Alteration made, if the Point was already secured? A famous episco­pal Writer, whose Words, the Doctor knows, it may sometimes be prudent to use, instead of one's own, will help us to a proper Answer to this Que­stion. [Page 36] It was because of ‘the unhappy Necessity some learned Men imagined themselves under, to contradict and obscure it’ ^*. This Author goes on to observe, that ‘the Desire they had that it should not appear of great Consequence, hath helped mightily to the clearing it. Archbishop Usher may very well appear at the Head of those who have added great Evidence to this Propo­sition (viz. Bishops, Priests and Deacons have been in the Church from the Apostles Days).’ ‘If he differed from other episcopal Men, the Difference may well be thought verbal and not real; if we consider the Service he hath done to Episcopacy, in Opposition to the Presbyterians. Bishop Pearson and others followed. Dr. Ham­mond's Dissertations against Blondel (saith Mr. Chillingworth who uses not to speak unreasonably) never were answered, and never will.’ As to what the Doctor says farther in this Note, that under the old Ordinal, those were admitted to officiate as Mini­sters in the Church of England, who were not episco­pally ordained; it will be sufficient here to refer the Reader to the Appeal defended, p. 42, where this Point is properly stated and explained; to which the Doctor, for a very good Reason, has thought proper not to say a Word in Reply.

IN another Note, p. 24, (for I must pick up Mat­ters in the Order wherein I find them) he tells us, that the upper House of Convocation, no longer [ago] than [in] 1702, appear to have been of Opinion, that Episcopacy, upon the Footing of DIVINE APOSTOLICAL INSTITUTION, was not the Doctrine of the Church of England, notwithstanding all that is said in the Preface to the Ordinal. For this he brings no other [Page 37] Proof, than what Dr. Calamy represents to have passed in an Altercation between the two Houses of Convocation; wherein, the lower House, repre­senting that they had been SCANDALOUSLY represented, by the upper House, as Favourers of Presbytery, in Opposition to Episcopacy, make a formal Declaration, that they acknowledged the Order of Bishops, as supe­rior to Presbyters, to be of DIVINE APOSTOLICAL INSTITUTION; and afterwards complain, that, on this Account, they were accused of ascribing TOO MUCH to Episcopacy. But as I can obtain no par­ticular Account of that Affair, upon which I can depend, I must content myself with observing, in a general Way, that this Representation is incred­ible in itself, both from what has been already said, and from its being well known that the Majority of those, who must have been Members of the upper House at that Time, fully believed the apostolical Institution of Episcopacy—as appears from their Writings. Yet were the Case exactly as it is here represented, we know that Words, used in the Warmth of Passion, are no Proof of the real Sen­timents of those that utter them. I hope every Expression that has escaped the Doctor, during the Heat of the present Controversy is not to be con­sidered as an Evidence of his real Opinion.

AS he advances in the Dispute, he waxes stouter and more vigorous in his Opposition to Episcopacy. For, in p. 26, he has the Courage to affirm, that the Book of Ordination, the Preface to which we have been considering, is formed upon the Supposition, that Presbyters have the Power of Ordination in common with Bishops; nor can it in any other View be made consistent with itself. To this I will reply, in the Words of the celebrated Hooker: ‘With us, [Page 38] even at this Day, Presbyters are licensed to do as much as that Council (the 4th of Carthage) speaketh of, if any be present. Yet will not any Man thereby conclude, that in this Church others than Bishops are allowed to ordain. The Association of Presbyters is no sufficient Proof that the Power of Ordination is in them; but rather, that it never was in them we may here­by understand; for that no Man is able to shew either Deacon or Presbyter ordained by Presbyters only, and his Ordination accounted lawful in any ancient Part of the Church ^§.’ This may serve, at present, as a general Answer to the Doctor's general Assertion. But we shall soon come to Particulars. For he intends to dilate upon the Matter, as it is a Thing that has not been com­monly considered, by giving a large Extract from Mr. Ferdinand Shaw's ‘Judgment of the Church of England.’ He chuses to exhibit this Extract the rather, because it is taken from a Pamphlet he lately received from the other Side [of] the Atlantic, and [which] is, perhaps the ONLY ONE in America; meaning the only Copy of that Pamphlet, for sure­ly he must know that there are other Pamphlets in America.

BUT previously to this Dilatation, in Answer to my desiring him to try the Experiment, whether he could 'honestly and consistently' declare his own Sentiments, concerning Episcopacy, in the Words of the Preface to the Ordinal, he says that he has tried it, and finds that he can; i. e. as we are to understand him, with the Allowance only of 'Explanations' more natural, and 'Interpretations' less softening than Ninety-Nine in a Hundred (mean­ing, [Page 39] of those that do subscribe) are obliged to recur to, before they can, if they pay any Regard to Consci­ence, subscribe to the 39 Articles, &c. The Justice and Propriety, are equal to the Charity, of this Reflection. It is no Proof that he can subscribe to the Words of the Preface 'honestly and consist­ently,' that he can do so with less Prevarication than is practiced by many others, on certain Oc­casions. Nor do Ninety-Nine in a Hundred pre­varicate, in subscribing to the Articles of the Church: So far from it, that none, whom he means to asperse, have Occasion to prevaricate at all. The Church of England is not, nor was it ever, founded upon Calvinistical Principles, as its Enemies take Pleasure in asserting:—Unless Cal­vinism admits, of a Possibility of falling from Grace, as in Art. xvi—of conditional Promises, as in Art. xvii—and of universal Redemption by Christ, as in Art. xxxi. It is not my Business now to undertake the Proof of this Point; but those that desire to see it proved, in a full and satisfactory Manner, may have Recourse to the proper Authors; particularly, to Bishop Montague's Appello Caesa­rem —Dr. Heylin's History of the quinquarticular Controversy—Bishop Bull's Apologia pro Harmonia— Dr. Waterland 's Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscriptions—An Apology for the Church of En­gland, printed in 1732— Three Letters to the Author of the Confessional—and Dr. Nowel 's Answer to Pietas Oxoniensis.

I COME now to attend upon Mr. Ferdinand Shaw. He affirms that in the old Ordinal, the Form of committing to Bishops and Presbyters their Office and Work, made no Distinction at all in the Order, to which they were admitted. And again: What­ever [Page 40] spiritual Powers the one had given them, to the other were given the same. Had Bishops the Power of Ordination committed to them, so had Presbyters too, who received the same Commission, by the same Solemnity, in Words of the same Importance, and therefore must be invested with the same divine Of­fice. Such an Assertion must be amazing, to any one that has seen the old Ordinal, or that has any Acquaintance with our ecclesiastical History. This indeed was objected by the Papists, in the Reign of CHARLES II, which, together with other false and groundless Assertions, occasioned Bishop Bur­net, then a private Clergyman, to write his Vindi­cation of the Ordinations of the Church of England. The popish Writers, especially such of them as are singled out for Disputants, have a Way of their own, and professedly make no Conscience of say­ing any Thing that has a Tendency to advance their Cause. But Mr. Shaw, I hope, is a Protes­tant; and Protestants have no Right, contrary to their Profession and Principles, to practice this Art. However, a brief Examination of what is here advanced, may be expected by the Reader.

IF by the Form of committing to Bishops and Presbyters their Office and Work, this Writer means the Offices used at their respective Ordinations, he grossly misrepresents them. For the Titles of the two Offices, the Offices themselves in almost all their Parts, and the whole Face and Appearance of them, are widely different; and they clearly point out and distinguish a Difference of Order. In the Prayer to be used at the End of the Lita­ny, at the Ordination of Priests, God is said to have ‘appointed divers ( i. e. more than Two) Orders of Ministers in the Church.’ How many, [Page 41] and what, these divers Orders are, is declared in the general Preface. When a Person presents him­self for Ordination according to the Form of the second Office, he knows that he can be made by it no more than a Presbyter. He is asked: ‘Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you, following with a glad Mind and Will their godly Admonitions, and submitting yourself to their godly Judg­ments?’ And he answers: ‘I will do so, the Lord being my Helper.’ And although the Word Order, as it now stands in the new Ordinal, is not al­ways to be found in the corresponding Places of the old; yet it is a Matter of no Consequence, as other Words, such as Ministry and Office, are used in an equivalent Sense. Thus, when the Archdeacon says to the Bishop, ‘I present unto you these Persons present to be admitted to the Order of Priest­hood,’ the Bishop, immediately addressing the People, says: ‘these be they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this Day into the holy Of­fice of Priesthood;’ and before the Sentence is concluded, he calls it the "holy Ministry," and, in another Place, "the Ministry of the Priesthood."

IF it be the Meaning of this Writer, that those particular Words in the Office, by which the Au­thority is more immediately conveyed, make no Distinction in the Order, it is also a Misrepresenta­tion. A Distinction actually is made, and as much as is necessary, even on the Principles of the strict­est Episcopalians. The Words at the Ordination of Priests are; ‘Receive the holy Ghost: Whose Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of [Page 42] God and his holy Sacraments; in the Name, &c.’ The Bishop, then delivering a Bible, says: ‘Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to administer the holy Sacraments in this Congregation, where thou shalt be ap­pointed.’ But in the Ordination of a Bishop, the Words are these: ‘Take the Holy Ghost: And remember thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee, by Imposition of Hands; for God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear, but of Power, and Love and Soberness.’ Then de­livering to him the Bible, the Archbishop charges him ‘Give Heed unto Reading, &c. Be to the Flock of Christ a Shepherd, not a Wolf: Feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost; be so merciful that you be not too remiss: So minister Discip­line, that you forget not Mercy, that when the Shepherd shall come, you may receive the im­marcessible Crown of Glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ Who does not here see a very wide and material Difference? The Words, ‘receive, or take, the Holy Ghost,’ are indeed the same in both Offices; they are general, and make no Distinction. But in the Ordination of Presbyters, a Distinction, of their Office from that of Bishops, immediately follows. They are declared to have, and the Declaration implies that they only have, in Virtue of that Ordination, the Power of ab­solving Penitents, and of dispensing the Word and Sacraments, and that in such Congregations only as they should be appointed to. Here is not the least Appearance of episcopal Powers, nor of any Authority which is not at this Day given, by the Church of England, to Presbyters. But in the [Page 43] Ordination of Bishops, there is none of this Re­straint; the Words are left general, as they were used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles; and all the ordinary Authority, which they were original­ly intended to express, is conveyed by them without Diminution. So that in one Case, there is only a limited Commission given; but in the other, a Commission without any Restriction or Limitation, and consequently extending to all ecclesiastical Of­fices, which, in Fact, is also intended.

FOR it may be added, that were the Words ex­actly the same in both Cases, provided they were general, as in the original Commission given to the Apostles; it would not follow, that no farther Powers were given in the Ordination of a Bishop, than in that of a Presbyter. For a new Ordination necessarily supposes an Intention to convey some new Powers. Bishop Burnet justly argues on the Subject, in the following Manner: ‘It is to be considered, that ecclesiastical Orders being from the Influence and Operation of the Holy Ghost, which being one, yet hath different Operations for the different Administrations; therefore the concomitant Actions, Words and Circumstances must shew, for which Administration the Holy Ghost is grayed for, since that general Prayer is made for all; but the Functions being dif­ferent, the same Holy Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore it is plain from the Prac­tice of our Saviour, that there is no Need of expressing in the very Words of Ordination, what Power is thereby given, since our Saviour did not express it, but what he said both before and after, did determine the Sense of those ge­neral Words to the apostolical Function. The [Page 44] whole Office of consecrating Bishops (for In­stance) shews very formally and expressly, what Power is given in these (general) Words. Now though the Writers of the Church of Rome, would place the Form of Consecration in some imperative Words; yet we see no Reason for that, but the Complex of the whole Office is that which is chiefly to be considered, and must determine the Sense of those Words. So that a Priest being presented to be made a Bishop, the King's Mandate being read for that Effect, he swearing canonical Obedience as Bishop Elect, Prayers being put up for him as such, together with other Circumstances which make it plain what they are about; those general Words are by these qualified and restrained to that Sense ^†.’

HERE, in a Note, the Doctor steps in with his old Reprint, and endeavours to prove from it that Bishops and Presbyters were esteemed one and the same Order, by the Compilers of that Ordinal. For it is worthy of special Remark, says he, that previ­ous (meaning previously) to the Ordination of Priests, Acts xx. from the 19 th to the 24 th Verse (he should have said, from the 17th to the 35th inclusive) was appointed to be read for the Epistle; which must be esteemed highly impertinent, if they were not, as EPISCOPOI to RULE (POIMANEIN) as well as feed the Church of God. That Portion of Scripture contains an Account of St. Paul's Interview with the Elders from Ephesus; at which he informs them in what Manner he had conducted himself in the Execution of the apostolical Office, gives them a solemn Charge to attend to the Duties of their Mi­nistry, and concludes with an affectionate Leave and [Page 45] Benediction. Such an Example, and such an Ex­hortation, might, I conceive, very properly be recommended to the careful Consideration of every Candidate for the Orders, either of a Bishop, or a Priest, or even of a Deacon. St. Paul sometimes proposes his own Example as a Pattern for Christi­ans in common; and it may, with peculiar Pro­priety, be proposed for the Imitation of Clergy­men. This is hinted, on the Supposition that the Elders from Ephesus were possessed of those Pow­ers, which are appropriated to Bishops. But there is no Certainty that they were more than Presbyters. Many learned Men, and Hooker and Hoadly a­mong others, are clear in the Opinion, that the Elders above-mentioned were nothing more: And this may have been the Opinion of the Compilers of the Ordinal.

THE Door farther urges, that Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. or else John xx. 19—24, is appointed for the Gospel; both which Passages of Scripture con­tain the highest Commission of Gospel-Officers. But if the Commission for the subordinate Degrees of ec­clesiastical Officers is included in this general Com­mission to the Apostles, and if they can produce no other original Commission than is contained in this; then, these Passages of Scripture might, with no Inconsistency, be appointed to be read at the Or­dination of Presbyters. And the Reviewers of the old Ordinal, after the Restoration, might have re­moved them into the Office for the Ordination of Bishops, not because they believed them to be not proper to be used at the Ordination of Priests, but, from an Opinion that they were more proper at the Consecration of Bishops.

[Page 46]In another Note, p. 28, the Doctor farther ar­gues to the same Purpose, from the Additions in the new Ordinal. At the Ordination of Priests, after the Words, "receive the Holy Ghost," these Words are added, FOR THE OFFICE AND WORK OF A PRIEST;—and, at the Consecration of Bishops, after the like Words, these Words are added, FOR THE OFFICE AND WORK OF A BISHOP. By this he seems to think, that, according to the old Ordinal, Bishops were not ordained for the Office and Work of Bishops, nor Priests for that of Priests, because those particular Words were not used on the Occa­sion. But with the same Force and Propriety he might have argued, that the Apostles were not com­missioned, by our blessed Saviour, for the Office and Work of Apostles, because these Words are not found in the Commission. But it was sufficient, that the Compilers of the old Ordinal declared, in the Front of it, their Acknowledgment and Belief of three distinct Orders in the Church—that they com­posed a particular and distinct Office for the Ordina­tion of each Order—that there could be no Dispute to which of these Orders, any particular Person, by his Ordination, was admitted, nor what were the pe­culiar Duties of his Office—and that all this was ap­proved of, and consented to, by the Bishops and Clergy, and established by the King and Parliament. After all, it is not denied that the Alterations and Amendments, introduced into the new Ordinal, were a real Improvement; and particularly, as Words are therein used with greater Precision.

THE Doctor has another Note in the like Strain, in p. 29; but after what has been said in Answer to the preceding, it would be a needless Expence [Page 47] of Time, Paper and Patience, to make a particu­ar Reply to it.

I NOW return to Mr. Shaw. His Design in the remainder of this Extract, extending from p. 29 to 35, is no less than to prove, that the Church of England at this Day allows Presbyters to have the Power of Ordination, as inherently and essentially as Bishops themselves. The Attempt is arduous and romantic, and should it appear that he has miscarried in the Execution, still it may be said of him, as was said of a notable Adventurer be­fore him, ‘—magnis tamen excidit Ausis.’

THAT the Church of England allows to Presby­ters the Power of ordaining, he endeavours to prove, in the first Place, from the Rubric in the Office for the Ordination of Priests, which requires that the Bishop with the PRIESTS present shall lay their Hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the Order of Priesthood. This Rubric, as well as every other Rule or Injunction, ought to be inter­preted according to the Sense in which it is estab­lished by Authority, if that Sense can be certainly known. But could it be the Intention of the Church in this Rubric, to contradict the whole Tenor of the Ordinal, and every Declaration and Intima­tion that she had made and given, relating to the Subject? Was there ever an episcopal Church, in any Age, that allowed the Power of Ordination to be in any other Hands, than of Bishops? Was it the Opinion of those who were commissioned to review the old Ordinal, and frame the new one, or of any Individual in that Commission, that all the [Page 48] Presbyters in the Kingdom, convened in one Body, could effectually ordain a single Presbyter?—Or, that any Bishop in the Kingdom had not, as essential to his Office, the full Power of Ordination in him­self? If this was not the Opinion of those Review­ers, nor of the Governors of the Church, nor of the civil Authority, at that Time; we may be certain that the Rubric means no such Thing, and is an Evidence of no such Thing, as it is alledged to prove. It requires indeed that the Bishop shall admit the Priests, that are present, to join with him in the Imposition of Hands; but it does not say, nor give the least Intimation, that it is with a View of rendering the Ordination more valid and compleat, than it would have been by the Imposi­tion of the Bishop's Hands only. Every Imposition of Hands is not with a Design to ordain; and there is the highest Evidence, that, in this Case, Ordina­tion is not the Design of the Church in general, nor of the Bishop that officiates, nor of the Presby­ters themselves who practice this Rite. If the Presbyter convey any spiritual Authority, it is without their own Knowledge and Intention, and by a barely mechanical Operation.

THE Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters, in Conjunction with those of the Bishop, has been practiced in every Age of the Church, in a greater or less Degree; but it was never thought to be any Part, much less an essential Part, of Ordination, as this Writer calls it. The Practice was common and almost universal, in the fourth Century. A Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage, is thus worded: ‘Presbyter cum ordinatur, &c. i. e. when a Presbyter is ordained, while the Bishop pro­nounces the Blessing, and lays his Hand upon his [Page 49] Head, all the Presbyters that are present shall lay their Hands, by the Bishop's Hand, upon his Head also.’ At that Time flourished St. Jerom, who was thoroughly acquainted with the Customs of the Church, and knew that the Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters, at the Ordination of a Fellow-Presbyter, was the daily Practice. But did he believe that the Power of Ordination, or any Part of that Power, was exercised by Presbyters? So far from it, that in his famous Epistle to Eva­grius, wherein he endeavours to exalt their Order as high as possible, he confesses, that, from the Acts or Offices which they perform in common with Bi­shops, Ordination must be excepted. If therefore the Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters in St. Je­rom's Time, was no Proof of their having Power to ordain, it can be no Proof now ^†.

THIS Writer insists upon it, that the Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters, in this Case, must be for the Purpose of Ordination; because it cannot be pretended that it does only signify their witnessing to, or approbating, the Thing done. But why not witnessing? This, he says, might as well be done by the Laity who are present, or the Deacons All that are present are undoubtedly Witnesses of the Trans­action, but in some Cases chosen Witnesses may be thought proper, as is appointed in the Office of Baptism for Adults, although the whole Congrega­tion are Witnesses at the same Time. Or, why not approbating? Is there any Impropriety in calling upon the Clergy that are present, to signify their Consent to, and Approbation of, the Ordination of [Page 50] a particular Person to that sacred Office, with which they have been invested themselves? And may not the Imposition of Hands, in the Manner required, be the established Sign of it? It is true, the Church has not said that this is the Intention; nor certainly has it said that Ordination is the Intenti­on. And where no explicit Declarations are made by the Church of its Views and intentions, every Person is left to judge of them by the Evidence he can collect.

ANOTHER Argument that Presbyters in the Church of England have ordaining Powers, is founded by this Writer on the Use of the Word OUR, in the Act of Ordination, where the Bishop says: ‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of OUR, Hands.’ To this a very brief Answer is suffi­cient. There are Instances of the like Use of the same Word in our public Offices, which if they will not prove what it positively does mean, will however enable us to determine what it does not mean. At the Baptism of Infants, the officiating Clergyman prays: ‘Grant that whosoever is here dedicated to thee by OUR Office and Ministry, &c:’ —And at the Baptism of Adults: ‘Grant that they being dedicated to thee by OUR Office and Ministry, &c.’ Now in these Places, the Word OUR certainly does not mean, that those who are present assist in the Administration of Baptism, or that this Ordinance is not administer­ed by the Priest only; And therefore we may de­pend upon it, that at the Ordination of a Presby­ter, it does not mean, that the Ordination is not performed by the Bishop only. What the Word [Page 51] actually does mean, is not my Business here to de­termine.

I HAVE now done with Mr. Shaw; having shewn the Weakness of his Arguments, and having ans­wered or obviated all that he or the Doctor says in Support of them. Indeed I might have taken No­tice, that both of them seem to proceed on the Supposition, that whatever is ordered by Autho­rity, is injoined as equally necessary or important. According to this Mode of thinking, the Church of England makes wearing a Surplice as necessary as the public Service; and the Circumstance of kneeling at the Communion to be as essential, as the great Duty of receiving that holy Sacrament. And then, to be sure, the Imposition of the Hands of Presbyters at the Ordination of a Priest, must be as essential to the Validity of the Performance, as the Imposition of the Bishop's Hands, since both are ordered in the same Rubric. But such an absurd Way of Reasoning deserves not a formal Refutation; and I am under some Apprehension that I may be thought, by the sensible Reader, to have been alrea­dy too particular in replying to Things of this Na­ture. I shall therefore not stop a Moment to make any Reflections upon such a gross Misrepresentation of the Ordinal, and of the Church of England; but proceed immediately to other Matters.

IN his Answer to the Appeal, the Doctor urged, that if the Preface to the Ordinal were explained by what appears to have been the Sentiments of those that compiled it, it would not prove that the Church of England was episcopal, at that Time, in the Sense of the Appeal. It was replied, that the Sense of any Church must be taken from [Page 52] her public Offices and Declarations, and not from the known or supposed Sentiments of Individuals. It was farther observed, that as to the Compilers of the English Ordinal, it did not appear that their private Sentiments were different from what they publickly expressed; but, on the other Hand, that there was sufficient Evidence to convince the im­partial, that the principal Persons employed in that Service believed the divine, or apostolical Institu­tion of Episcopacy. In Order to shew this, I en­tered into a particular Examination of the Subject, and took proper Notice of all that Dr. Chauncy had alledged, in Support of the contrary. I con­sidered the Evidence contained in the INSTITUTI­ON, and ERUDITION, of a Christian Man, com­posed and published under the Direction of Arch­bishop CRANMER, in the Reign of HENRY VIII, as far as I could collect it from Collier's Abstract, and from other Accounts.

ON this Examination, the INSTITUTION ap­peared favourable to the Doctrine of Episcopacy; and a Passage was produced, wherein, among other Things, it is said, that ‘Bishops are authorised by our Saviour to continue the Succession, and perpetuate the HIERARCHY.’ The Doctor in­deed had quoted Dr. Calamy's Quotation, from the INSTITUTION and ERUDITION of the follow­ing Sentence: ‘Priests and Bishops by Gods Law are one and the same; and the Power of Or­dination and Excommunication belongs equally to them both.’ These two Sentences are con­tradictory; and the true Way of settling the Point, whether they are fairly extracted or not, would be to have Recourse to the Books themselves, which is not in my Power. But, from Collier's Account, [Page 53] I suspect there is some Mistake made, either by Dr. Calamy or Dr. Chauncy, and that if their Quotation is made fairly, it is from the ERUDI­TION only, and not from the INSTITUTION. If the Doctor will prove that I am mistaken, and that the Sentence quoted is contained in the INSTI­TUTION, I will allow that it greatly weakens the Evidence I produced from it on the other Side, as, on that Supposition, he argues justly, in p. 37. But since I have as high an Opinion of Collier's Honesty, as he has of Calamy's, he must not ex­pect me to give up the Testimony of my Author, because it is contradicted by his. But if it should be found on the other Hand, that the Doctor's Quotation, from Calamy, is not fairly made from the INSTITUTION; and mine, from Collier, or the Substance of it, is: Then my Argument is con­clusive, and all that he says in Reply to it falls of Course.

AS to the ERUDITION, I allowed that it had, in Collier's Abstract, such a doubtful Appearance, that nothing could be justly concluded from it, but that the Principles of the Reformers were, at this Time, with Regard to some Points, in an unset­tled, fluctuating State. It contained Passages, if not directly contradictory, yet which I knew not how to reconcile, to one another. In one Place it says: ‘the Scripture speaks expressly of no more than the two Orders of Priests and Deacons.’ And yet, in other Places, according to Collier, ‘that the two Orders (of Bishops and Priests) were distinct and subordinate, is plain from this ERUDITION.’ But then, as was observed farther, this Book was drawn up only by a Committee ap­pointed by the King, and did not express the gene­ral [Page 54] Sense of the Church as the INSTITUTION did, which was formally consented to by both Houses of Convocation. The Doctor says, p. 39, there is no Difficulty in reconciling the Passages I had quoted. For if, as these Reformers say, ‘the Scripture makes mention of only the two orders of Priests and Deacons,’ Bishops cannot in their Opinion be a distinct Order from Priests; and conse­quently, what is ascribed to the Bishop, is ascribed to an Officer of the same Rank with Priests. On this Supposition, the Conclusion indeed is just. But if, as Collier asserts, who knew more of the Matter than either of us, it ‘is plain from this ERUDITION, that the two Orders are distinct and subordinate;’ I fancy it will puzzle a Man, even of the Doctor's Dexterity, to reconcile all the Parts of that Book, or so much as the Passages quoted.

AFTER all, the Sentiments of the Bishops and Clergy at this Period, were not considered as of any great Consequence in this Dispute. The INSTITU­TION was published in 1537, and the ERUDITION in 1540, for temporary Use, while the Nation was but just emerging from Popery, and before it had Time to purge itself from the old Leaven ^(§). To perform so great a Work properly, required much Time and Caution. Of this, Cranmer and his Associates were duly sensible; and, for the Honour of the English Reformation, they pro­ceeded with much greater Coolness and Delibera­tion, than the Reformers in any other Country had done. And the Method they pursued was, to con­sider distinctly one Doctrine after another, with the [Page 55] closest Attention, until the whole System should be examined, and placed on the sure Basis of Scrip­ture Authority, as was observed in my Defence. As a Proof of this, the several Questions given out to the most eminent Divines for their Examination and Decision, were pointed out. ‘For it was at this Time, and not Ten Years afterwards, in the Reign of EDWARD VI, as Dr. Chauncy, follow­ing his blind Guide the IRENICUM, asserts, that these Questions were given out for Discussion, as is plain from Bishop Burnet ^‡,’ with whom Strype a­grees ^†. To this he replies, p. 40, If this is plain from Bishop Burnet, he is the blind Guide to the Doctor, and not the Irenicum to me. For it is observable, these Questions with the Resolutions of them are pub­lished by Bishop Burnet ‘ex. M. S. S. D. Stilling­fleet,’ as his own Words are.

IT is a Matter of great Importance in this Dis­pute, to settle the Time when these Questions were given out and answered. Bishop Burnet says it was in 1540; the Author of the Irenicum, that it was long afterwards in the Reign of EDWARD VI. One of them must be wrong, and the Question is, which of them is the blind Guide. It ought not to be sup­posed that either of them intended to deceive his Readers; but one of them must have been de­ceived himself. Which then, was most likely to have made the Mistake?

AND here it deserves Notice, that Stillingfleet wrote his Irenicum with evident Haste and Precipi­tation, and under the Influence of a Zeal bordering upon Impetuosity. The Doctor knows, that Wri­ters [Page 56] in these Circumstances are liable even to mis­take Facts; and Dates are more easily mistaken by them, especially when they appear not to affect the chief Object in View. Thus the Author of the Irenicum, when he became cooler, and took a Re­trospect of his Performance, candidly confessed, that it contained many Passages that shewed his Youth, and want of Attention.

BUT the History of the Reformation was the Work of Time, written with Composure and Caution. In adjusting the materials for his History, which chiefly consisted of original Manuscripts, the Author was obliged carefully to attend to the Circumstance of Dates. In this Way he became so minutely ac­quainted with the Progress of the Reformation, that, from the very Nature and Words of those Questions and Answers, he must have been able to arrange them in their proper Place, even if the Date had been omitted. And what renders his Account the more credible is, that he assigns a special Reason for issuing out the Questions, viz. That the Committee, which was appointed to review and correct the Institution, might be able to do it to bet­ter Purpose. For he represents them to have been given out during the Course of that Work, and when the Part relating to the Doctrine of the Seven Sacraments, as they were then called, came under Consideration.

BUT notwithstanding these obvious Remarks in Favour of the History, the Doctor is positive that Stillingfleet must have been right, and Burnet wrong, because the latter made Use of the Manu­scripts of the former. It is strange, that a Man of Sense can think this has any Appearance of Reason­ing. [Page 57] If Burnet had transcribed from the Irenicum, his Date must have been corrected by it; but to infer, that, because he consulted the same Manu­scripts that the Author of the Irenicum had consult­ed, THEREFORE his History must be corrected by the Irenicum, in the Instance before us, is a Specimen of new Logic, and curious it is. For my Part, I think it much more reasonable to conclude, that the Irenicum, in this Particular, should be corrected by the History; because the Historian consulted the same Manuscripts, and yet altered the controverted Date as published in the Irenicum; which he would not have done without sufficient Reason while the Author, who was his intimate Friend, was liv­ing, and might contradict him if he could. But more direct Evidence shall be produced presently.

LET us at present attend to the Doctor. Nay, says he, Bishop Burnet himself was of the same Mind, viz. That the Questions and Answers above­mentioned passed in the Reign of EDWARD VI: And to prove it, he transcribes from him, Words which make it evident that his own Assertion is false. Let the Reader see with his own Eyes, and wonder! ‘I find, says the Historian, another In­stance like this, in the Reformation that was far­ther carried on in the succeeding Reign of EDWARD VI; of many Bishops and Divines giving in their Opinions under their Hands, upon some Heads then examined and changed ^‖.’ The Author is here evidently speaking of the very Questions and Answers under Consideration, a Copy of which he inserts in his Appendix to the first Volume of his History, and part of which had been published in the Irenicum. He says that they were [Page 58] given out at the Time when the ERUDITION was preparing. He speaks of such a careful Method of proceeding, as an Evidence of the great Prudence used in the English Reformation. He takes notice indeed, that there was another Instance of the like Care in the next Reign. But the Papers that passed, in like Manner, in the next Reign, are so far from being the same with those under Considerati­on, that here is not the least Intimation that they re­lated to the same Subjects; it being only said, that the Bishops and Divines at that Time, gave in their Opinions upon some Heads, then examined and changed. It would have been very natural for him to have said, the same Heads, unless they were different.

WHEN he comes to the Time, to which he re­fers, in the Reign of King EDWARD, he says: ‘This Winter (1548) there was a Committee of selected Bishops and Divines appointed for exa­mining all the Offices of the Church, and for reforming them.—The Thing they first examin­ed was the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which being the chief Symbol of Christian Communi­on, was thought to deserve their chief Care. And here they managed their Enquiries in the same Manner that was used in the former Reign; in which when any Thing was considered in Or­der to a Change, it was put into several Queries, to which every one in Commission was to give his Answer in writing. It is no Wonder if the Con­fusions, that followed in Queen Mary's Reign, have deprived us of most of these Papers; yet there is one Set of them preserved, relating (N. B.) to some Questions about the Priests single communicating ^‖.’ What was naturally to be in­fered [Page 59] from the former Passage, is fully expressed in this. The Historian says plainly, that the Ques­tions given out in the Reign of King EDWARD, and to which he had refered in his former Vo­lume, related to the Eucharist, as it was thought at that Time "to deserve the chief Care". HERE, says he, i. e. in examining the Doctrine of the Eu­charist, they proceeded ‘ in the same Manner that was used in the former Reign.’ He does not in­timate that the Queries now given out related to any other Subject, than that of the Eucharist; so far from it, that the Words, and the whole Struc­ture of the Passage, necessarily imply that they did not. He moreover says, that most of the Papers that passed on that Occasion, are lost; however, that one Set of them has been preserved, a Copy of which he publishes in the Appendix to his se­cond Volume. The Questions, in this only Set of Papers remaining, he tells us, related to ‘the Priests single communicating;’ and upon In­spection, there is not one of them that appears to have any more Reference to the Doctrine of Epis­copacy, than to that of the Copernican System. It is now as clear as the Meridian Sun in an uncloud­ed Sky, that Bishop Burnet himself was NOT of the same Mind with my Opponent, but affirmed and proved the contrary—that, with Regard to the Date in Question, the Irenicum was the ‘blind Guide’ —and that the Doctor is blinder still, who out-faces a much brighter Evidence than was at­tended to by the Author of the Irenicum. ^§

[Page 60]HAVING settled the Date of the Questions and Answers aforesaid, and fixed it to 1540, I must again remind the Reader, that it was ‘about Ten Years before the Offices for Ordination were com­posed,’ and before Cranmer appears to have settled his ecclesiastical Principles. It is therefore no won­der that, as Bishop Burnet observes, ‘in Cranmer's Paper, some singular Opinions of his about eccle­siastical Offices will be found.’ But it deserves special Notice, that as this Historian goes on to inform us, ‘afterwards he changed his Opinion. For he subscribed the Book that was soon after set out [ the ERUDITION] which is, (the very thing that Collier affirmed of it) directly contrary to those Opinions set down in these Papers ^*.’

AS a farther Proof that Cranmer altered his Opinion soon afterwards, it was alledged, on the Authority of Doctor Durel, that he subscribed to the Two Opinions of Dr. Leighton, in these very Papers, that were favourable to Episcopacy. That Author says, that upon examining the original [Page 61] Manuscript, he found Th. Cantuariensis subscribed to both; which is omitted, either negligently or un­accountably, in Bishop Burnet's Copy. The Doc­tor objects to the Evidence of Durel, which, says he, p. 42, is no Evidence at all, if Mr. Boyse may be believed, who speaks of him as ‘an Author too notorious for his many Falsehoods and mis­takes in this Kind to be depended on.’ But some have given the same Character of Mr. Boyse himself. Be that as it may, Dr. Durel's Character is not to be taken from Mr. Boyse, nor from any other Writer against Episcopacy. He had said and done too much in Favour of it, to expect fair Treatment from such as oppose it. He had shewn that this Form of Government was held in high Veneration by all the reformed Churches abroad; that the Church of England was greatly com­mended and honoured by them for establishing it; and that the English Dissenters were utterly con­demned by them for disobeying and rejecting it. For this he was treated, in his Life Time, with the grossest Scurrility by Hickman, and plentifully abused by Dr. du Moulin; but it ought not to be forgotten that the latter of these Writers had the Grace to repent of this Conduct, and retract it, in his "LAST WORDS." Some People since have co­pied his Abuse, but not his Repentance. Durel was well known in almost all the reformed Churches in Europe. In some of them he received Prefer­ment, and might have received it in others; and the many Letters still extant, written to him by the most eminent foreign Protestants of his Time, demonstrate that his Reputation was great, and his Character respectable. Having thus shewn the Credibility of this Witness, it is not doubted but the candid will admit, upon his positive Testimo­ny, [Page 62] that the two Opinions of Dr. Leighton were actually consented to by Cranmer, and signed Th. Cantuariensis; notwithstanding the negative Evi­dence of Bishop Burnet.

FROM that Time, viz. 1540, ‘I find in this great Reformer no Fluctuation of Principles; but many Proofs appear of his settled and steady Belief, that Bishops are superior to Presbyters, by apostolical Institution ^*.’ Here Reference was particularly made to the Catechism he published in 1548, in which, Bishop Burnet who had seen it says, ‘he fully owns the divine Institution of Bi­shops.’ To this the Doctor replies. p. 46; Could a Sight of this Catechism be obtained, it is PROBABLE it might be in our Power to refute what it here said from Bishop Burnet. We see, that, however firmly the Doctor relies upon the Bishop's negative Evidence, when in his Favour, he will allow but little Weight to his positive Evidence, when it makes against him; and that he offers his own bare groundless Supposition, as sufficient to confute it.

I AM not able to obtain a Sight of that Cate­chism, any more than the Doctor. It is extremely scarce at this Day; however, some Copies are ex­tant, and there is one, in particular, in the Arch­bishop's Library at Lambeth. A Gentleman of eminent Integrity, and whose literary Fame is well known both at home and abroad, writes, in a Let­ter dated Feb. 16, 1770, that he had read this Copy more than once, and had made Extracts from it, among which he finds the following. ‘First, it is necessary to our Salvation to have [Page 63] Preachers and Ministers of God's Word to in­struct us in the true Faith and Knowledge of God. Secondly, that Preachers must not as­sume this Honour to themselves, but must be ordained and appointed to this Office. For as it is impossible to be saved without Faith, and we cannot believe without being taught of o­thers, so Teachers, except they be sent, cannot fruitfully teach. For the Seed of God's Word doth never bring forth Fruit unless the Lord of the Harvest do give Increase, and by his Holy Spirit work with the Sower: but God doth not work with the Preacher whom he hath not sent.— To know who are sent, you are to understand that when our Lord Jesus Christ began to preach, he called and chose his 12 Apostles; and afterwards besides these Twelve, he sent forth Three Score and Ten Disciples and gave them Authority to preach the Gospel. And a little before his Death and Passion he made his Prayer to his heavenly Father for them, and for all those who should believe through their preaching. John xvii.— And after Christ's Ascension, the Apostles gave Authority to other holy Men to minister God's Word. Where they found Men fit to preach God's Word they laid their Hands upon them and gave them the Holy Ghost as they them­selves received the same Holy Ghost of Christ to execute this Office. And they that were so ordained were indeed, and also were called the Ministers of God as the Apostles themselves were. And thus the Ministration of God's Word (which our Lord Jesus Christ himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles Time to our Days. And this was the Consecra­tion, Orders and Unction of the Apostles, where­by [Page 64] they at the Beginning made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church to the World's End.’

THIS Passage, which is undoubtedly a faithful Transcript, is sufficient to prove Bishop Burnet's Assertion. For it maintains a Difference of Orders by divine Institution, between the Seventy, who could only minister the Word, and the Apostles, who could also appoint others; and it asserts that the Power, whereby Bishops and Priests were ori­ginally appointed, shall continue to the End of the World. I shall make no farther Remarks upon it; the curious Reader can examine the Passage at his Leisure.

IT was mentioned as a farther Proof that when Cranmer had once settled his ecclesiastical Princi­ples, he steadily adhered to them; that in his Ser­mon, of the Authority of the Keys, published to­gether with his Catechism, ‘his Notions of Epis­copacy and Church-Government are so high, that even the high-flying Dr. Hicks reprinted it at large, in his Preface to, ‘the divine Right of Episcopacy asserted.’’ The Doctor replies: This Sermon is, I conclude, the very one repaired to by Mr. Drury in Order to prove that Cranmer re­tracted his Opinion about Bishops and Priests; to whom Mr. Boyse replies, ‘the Passage he has cited in this Sermon no Way asserts Priests and Bi­shops to be at the Biginning two distinct Orders.’ So then; the Sermon, it seems, does not prove the Point for which it is alledged, because a parti­cular Passage in the Sermon does not prove it; and that Passage does not prove it, because Mr. Boyse says it does not. But any one, who is acquainted [Page 65] with Dr. Hicks's Character and Writings, must know that he was as good a Judge, in this Case, as Mr. Boyse; and his Inducement to publish the Sermon, if it made not for his Purpose, surely was not equal to Mr. Boyse's Temptation, after it was published, to say that it was not for his Pur­pose, when it really was.

THE Doctor after denying that the Reformed Church of England was originally episcopal, had said, in the Words of Mr. J. Owen, that the Doc­trine of Episcopacy, as now contended for, was ‘FIRST promoted in the Church of England by Archbishop Laud.’ It was answered: ‘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 the Reformation, was doing some­thing to promote it ^*.’ In his Reply, p. 48, he thus explains himself: Archbishop Laud, without all Doubt, was the first—in Opposition to any nati­onal Establishment, or its being at all a Principle, much less a fundamental one of the Reformation, that openly asserted and pleaded for the Doctrine. This Response is more oracular and mysterious than the former. If the Reader can understand such Language, I am free to confess, that he has more Sagacity than falls to my Lot. Laud never assert­ed and pleaded for this Doctrine in Opposition to any national Establishment, but in Conformity with our own, as he proved at his Trial ^‖. I said not [Page 66] that he pleaded for the apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, as a fundamental Principle of the Church of England, which I know not that he ever did, in so many Words; but what I said was, that its having been established as such, proves that it had been promoted before his Time. But I will not enlarge. As I understand not this con­fused Sentence, I may mistake its Meaning, or give it a Meaning where it has none.

IT was farther answered, that ‘if the Meaning of the Word promoted, be, that none before Arch­bishop Laud contended for the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, by divine Appointment, in their Writings, I must still deny it; as I am able to produce abundant Evidence to the con­trary.’ This, I believe, was Part, if not the whole, of the Doctor's original Meaning; and I proved his Mistake, by producing many Authors before Laud, that contended for this Doctrine in their Writings. He now half confesses his Mistake▪ by saying that for this Assertion he depended upon the Authority of Mr. J. Owen. I advise him to be more careful for the future, upon what Authors he puts his Dependence; for some of them, if trusted too freely, will bring one into Trouble. The Doctor comforts himself however, that, in the present Case, his Mistake is but trifling. Of what great Importance is it, says he, whether he (Laud) was the first, second, third or fourth that contended for this Doctrine? In his former Pamphlet he urged it as a Point of great Importance. This brought on the Dispute, whether the Fact was as he asser­ted it. In this Dispute, such as it is, the only Question was, whether Laud in Reality was the first that maintained the Doctrine, or not. If he [Page 67] was the second only, he could not be the first, in the Sense of the Question. So plain a Case has but little need of Illustration: However, let us suppose the Doctor had asserted that Lord Anson was the first that had sailed round the Globe, and had insisted upon it as a Matter of great Conse­quence; and that another had taken him up upon this Point, and shewn, from the best Authorities, that Drake, Cavendish and many others had en­compassed the Globe long before him:—Would it have been deemed a just Reply if he had said, it is a Matter of no Importance, whether Anson was the first, second, third or fourth? Although this might be said perhaps truly, yet it could not be said pro­perly, with Reference to a Debate where it was the only Point in Question.

THE Persons introduced as prior to Laud in as­serting the divine Right of Episcopacy, were Whitgift (under the Patronage of Archbishop Par­ker and Bishop Cooper,) Bancroft, Hutton, Bilson, Hooker and Saravia. This List might have been easily enlarged, but it was thought sufficient; and it was clearly proved, that they all contended for the divine Right of Episcopacy. Dr. Chauncy says in Reply: They were, it is true, Episcopalians on the Foot of divine Right, in a QUALIFIED, MI­TIGATED Sense; but not in the Sense in which Laud and the Doctor plead for this Right. p. 49. This Gentleman has the best Knack I have ever met with, of shifting for himself, and repairing his Losses. After having been obliged to give up the Point in Dispute here, and to allow that the above­mentioned Persons were Episcopalians on the Foot of a divine Right, contrary to what he had strenu­ously insisted upon as a Matter of Importance; he [Page 68] gets a Reinforcement from Stephen Lob, or some other Author of an anonymous Pamphlet, and re­turns with his Distinctions, and explains away his Concession—by saying that the divine Right for which those Episcopalians contended, was not a divine Right properly, but a divine Right in a qualified, mitigated Sense. How many Sorts of di­vine Right there are in his Opinion, and what De­gree of Mitigation he intended, he ought to have told us; for it is in vain to dispute with him, with­out understanding his Distinctions.

HE attempts not to shew that the Principles of Hutton, Bilson and Saravia were misrepresented; but what was said to prove that Whitgift, Bancroft and Hooker believed and maintained the divine Right of Episcopacy, he confronts with Evidence brought in by Stephen Lob, tending to prove, in his Opinion, that they were Episcopalians, not of the first Rate like Laud, but in a qualified, miti­gated Sense. The first of these Writers is quoted, p. 50, as distinguishing between Things that are so necessary that without them we cannot be saved, and such as are so necessary that without them we cannot SO WELL and CONVENIENTLY be saved; and then saying that it is only by this second Kind of Necessity, that Government, or any particular Form of it, is necessary for the Church. But this, which is given as the Opinion of Whitgift, by no Means implies, that he thought Episcopacy not to be of apostolical Institution—much less, that he thought Men might depart from it without evi­dent Necessity—and least of all, that they were at Liberty to set up a Form of ecclesiastical Go­vernment in Opposition to it. Nor does it contra­dict the Declaration he made to Beza in the fol­lowing [Page 69] Words: ‘We make no Doubt but that the episcopal Degree, 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.’ I know of no Episcopalians that esteem any Form of ecclesiasti­cal Government to be so absolutely necessary, that without it we cannot be saved. Even Laud him­self, who was an Episcopalian of the first Rate, was not of this Opinion. He treated the foreign Protestant Churches, that were without episcopal Government as Members of the same Body with the Church of England, and maintained with them a friendly Correspondence. ‘See his Letter in 1639, to the Swiss Divines in the Praestantium Virorum Epistolae, Ep. 552, where they are cal­led by him Confratres mei charissimi: And of their Letter to him he saith, it was agreeable to him on a double Account, as it was theirs, and ex­horting to Christian Peace. Such Men ought they to be who are Members of the same Body, and who believe and profess the Communion of Saints. And in 1629, he writes to Vossius with great Mildness and Concern for the whole reformed Church, and for Peace among Divines, in Ep. 471. And he saith to him in 1633, It is a mere Invention that the English Bishops desired to ex­tend their Jurisdiction over the foreign protestant Churches: A Thing which they never so much as dreamed of ^*.’

WHAT has been observed hitherto, is on the Supposition that Whitgift spoke in the Sense in which the Doctor understands him. But upon a [Page 70] closer Examination I believe it will be found, that he had no particular Reference to Episcopacy, in the Passages quoted. When he used those Expres­sions, he was combating a known Maxim of many of the Puritans, viz. That every Thing relating to the Government or Discipline of the Church, or to public Worship, that is not clearly expressed in Scripture, is unlawful. This was one of the Pil­lars, on which their famous Admonition to the Par­liament was erected, rotten as it was ^¶. Neal, their Historian and Advocate, tells us, that ‘ Mr. Cart­wright maintained that the holy Scriptures were not only a Standard of Doctrine, but of Discipline and Government; and that the Church of Christ in all Ages was to be regulated by them. He was therefore for consulting his Bible only, and for reducing all Things as near as possible to the apostolic Standard ^§.’ In confuting this Princi­ple, as it was applied by the Puritans, Whitgift might have said: ‘There is no certain Kind of Government or Discipline, prescribed to the Church; but that the same may be altered as the Profit of the Churches requires.—I do deny, that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Kind of Government in the Church to be perpe­tual, for all Times, Persons and Places without Alteration:’ I say, he might have used these and the like Expressions, speaking in the Sense of the Puritans, and yet have believed the Doctrine of Episcopacy in as high a Sense as Laud himself did.

TO prove that Bancroft was not episcopal, on the Footing of a divine Right, except in a quali­fied, [Page 71] mitigated Sense, and that he allowed Ordination by Presbyters to be valid, the Doctor, in p. 51, mentions the Case of the three Scots Presbyters who were consecrated Bishops with his Consent, without any previous Ordinations by the Imposi­tion of episcopal Hands. This Case he had men­tioned in his former Pamphlet with the like View; and it was said, in Answer, that those Persons were immediately consecrated Bishops on this Principle, ‘that the episcopal Character, as it included those of a Presbyter and a Deacon, might be conveyed by a single Consecration, as in the Case of Am­brose and Nectarius.’ He now replies, as this is rested on no other Proof than the Doctor's own Affirmation, it ought to be considered as nothing. Experience has taught me not to be surprised, in this Controversy, at the most unexpected and ex­traordinary Assertions; and therefore I can, with the utmost Calmness, assure the Reader, that what is here said to be rested on no other Proof than my own Affirmation, was rested altogether on other Evi­dence; and that Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II. p. 701, and Grey's Answer to Peirce, p. 143, were particularly quoted for this Account, as any one may see, upon turning to the Appeal de­fended, p. 46, 47. If Spotswood gives a different Account of this Affair, it only follows that it is a disputed Case; and it is a much fairer Method to judge of Bancroft's Principles by what he clearly says in his Writings, than from the doubtful Evi­dence of a disputed Fact. Every Man must be supposed best to know his own Principles; and his own Declaration must be the best Proof of what Doctrines he believes. Let the Reader then attend to Bancroft himself explaining his own Principles, relating to this Head, and placing them as the Foun­dation [Page 72] of his capital Work. ‘As God himself, says he, appointed an Inequality amongst the Priests of the Old Testament: As in Christ's Instituti­on, the Apostles were superior to the Seventy Disciples: As the Apostles, when the Gospel began to spread itself, appointed sundry Timo­thies and Tituses, to govern the Churches in divers Countries and Territories: As all the ecclesiastical Histories do record the Superiority of Bishops, and do set down the Catalogues of many of them, and which of the Apostles and apostolical Bishops, and in what Cities and Countries, they succeeded: As all the ancient general Councils, and all the antient and godly learned Fathers have allowed of Bishops, and of their Superiority over the rest of the Clergy: As Bishops have been accounted generally throughout the World, to be the Apostles Suc­cessors, and have continued in the Church ever since the Apostles Time: As there was never any one of all the ancient Fathers, nor any learn­ed Men for 1500 Years, but Aerius the Here­tic, that ever held that there ought to be no Difference betwixt a Bishop and a Priest, &c. ^*’ — THEREFORE, we may fairly conclude, Bancroft, who believed all this, was an Episcopalian on the Foot of a divine Right, without any Qualification or Mitigation.

I WILL not detain the Reader with a particular Defence of Hooker, as being episcopal in the Sense of the Appeal. ‘His immortal Work the Ecclesiastical Polity’ is in many Hands, and his Principles are well known. As to the Passages [Page 73] quoted to prove the contrary, they were in Answer to the above mentioned Maxim of the Puritans, as is evident from the whole third Book: and there­fore what has been said in the Case of Whitgift, is equally applicable to Hooker. In other Places, where he has no immediate Reference to that Con­troversy, he clearly and strongly expresses his Be­lief of the divine Institution and Obligation of e­piscopal Government. ‘A Bishop, says he, is a Minister of God, unto whom with permanent Continuance, there is given not only Power of administering the Word and Sacraments, which Power other Presbyters have; but also a far­ther Power to ordain ecclesiastical Persons, and a Power of Chiefty in Government over Presby­ters as well as Laymen, a Power to be by Way of Jurisdiction, a Pastor even to Pastors them­selves ^†.’ Again ‘That so ( i. e. as the Ordi­nance of God)’ the ancient Fathers did think ‘of episcopal Regiment; that they held this Order as a Thing received from the blessed Apostles themselves, and authorised even from Hea­ven, we may perhaps more easily prove, than obtain that they all shall grant it when they see it proved ^‡.’ And he concludes the Section with these memorable Words: ‘Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any Thing in the Church's Government, surely the first Institution of Bishops was from Heaven, was even of God; the Holy Ghost was the Author of it.’

THE Doctor had also argued that Reordination was not practised in the Church of England before [Page 74] the Time of Archbishop Laud. This occasioned the Case to be fully considered and fairly stated, as may be seen in the Appeal defended. p. 42. Among other Things I said, that it was an established Law from the very Beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, that none should be admitted as lawful Mi­nisters in the Church of England without episcopal Ordination; using the very Words of the Preface to the Ordinal, and meaning the Act of Uniformity which established the Book of Common-Prayer and all that it contained. The Doctor replies, p. 55, this is said in direct Contradiction to the Act of 13 Elizabeth; from which he gives an imperfect and unfair Extract, that it may furnish him with a Pretence of saying something in Opposition to me. That one Act of that Reign was contradictory to another, without a Design of repealing it, ought not to be supposed without good Evidence; and it is not denied, that the Establishment I refered to was made. But it might much more plausibly have been objected, after the Example of Bishop Bonner, that the Act of Uniformity, although it in general established the Book of Common-Prayer, yet took no particular Notice of the Ordinal, which many of our Acts of Parliament distinguish as a different Book. However, could it be proved that the Preface to, or other Parts of, the Ordinal re­ceived no legal Force from the Act of Uniformity; yet it had the Support of Art. xxxvi. in 1562; and there was an Act in the 8th of Elizabeth, that par­ticularly injoined, ‘that such Order and Form for the Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and for the making of Priests, Deacons and Mi­nisters, as was set forth in the Time of the late King Edward the Sixth, and authorised by Par­liament in the Fifth and Sixth Years of the said [Page 75] late King, shall stand, and be in full Force and Effect, and shall from henceforth, be used and observed in all Places within the Realm, and other the Queen's Majesty's Dominions and Countries ^*.’

THAT the Reader may judge, whether what is here ordered was repealed, or contradicted, or con­travened by the Doctor's Act of 13 Elizabeth, I will give an Extract of so much of that Act as relates to the Subject before us, supplying the material Omissions in his Quotation of the same Passage, which, that they may be distinguished, are printed in Italics. ‘Be it enacted—that every Per­son under the Degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest, or Minister of God's holy Word and Sacraments, by Reason of any other Form of Institution, Consecration or ordering, than the Form set forth by Parlia­ment in the Time of the late King—or now used in the Reign of our most gracious sovereign Lady, before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ next following, shall in the Presence of the Bi­shop —declare his Assent, and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion—and shall bring from such Bishop—in writing, under his Seal authen­tic a Testimonial of such Assent and Subscrip­tion —upon Pain that every such Person which shall not before the said Feast do as is appointed, shall be (ipso Facto) deprived ^‡.’ The Doctor says that this Act, meaning this particular Clause of it, continued in Force till Charles II; whereas it is evident, beyond Contradiction, from the Words he endeavoured to conceal, that it was to [Page 76] have no Force, and could have none, after ‘the Feast of the Nativity of Christ next following’ the Time of its passing. He also says it is a full Proof that it was not her (Queen Elizabeth's) Opi­nion that Ordination was, by divine Appointment, appropriated to Bishops in Distinction from Presbyters, so that Ordination by Presbyters only was invalid: Whereas there is no Appearance of its having any Relation to the Validity, or Invalidity, of Ordina­tion by Presbyters. The Design of it was chiefly to provide for such Clergymen, as had received episcopal Ordination according to the popish Or­dinal, in the Reign of Queen Mary; with a farther View to such as might have received, what was esteemed a valid, Ordination abroad. But what was esteemed a valid Ordination, is neither said nor implied. The Act does not provide that all, who had received any Kind of Ordination, other­wise than by the established Ordinal, should be made capable of holding Preferment; but that none, ordained otherwise, without qualifying themselves in the Manner prescribed, should be admitted as such. ‘Whether those ordained by foreign Pro­testants, where Necessity, not Choice, made it impossible to have episcopal Ordination, were (qualified to hold Benefices) this Act doth not say. And supposing the first Paragraph be un­derstood to indulge such till the Christmas fol­lowing, upon subscribing, and after that Period to refuse them: On this supposition, the Rejection being perpetual, and the Indulgence only for a short Term, the Act is rather against the foreign protestant Ordination, as not valid in this Church†:’ And consequently, however Whittingham might have availed himself of the [Page 77] Indulgence, Travers, who was too late, could re­ceive no Benefit from the Act.

THE Subject of the King's Supremacy was the next in Course; but as the Doctor chooses to con­sider it in another Place, I shall not object, as I am not disposed to contend with him for Trifles. He gives here, p. 57, an Extract from Burn's Ec­clesiastical Law, under the Title Supremacy, which, without being first garbled according to his usual Manner, he knew could not answer his Purpose; of which I shall take no farther Notice.

‘SHOULD it now be asked, what is all this to the Business of an American Episcopate? My Answer is, I know not, but perhaps Dr. Chauncy does.’ This Observation was made in the Appeal defended, after I had rambled from the main Point 50 or 60 Pages in Pursuit of my Opponent, who ought, if any one, to have been able to assign sufficient Rea­sons for it, as he alone was the Cause of the Devi­ation. It was my Business, as Matters were circumstanced, to attend upon him through all his Aberrations; and Duty required me, as well as I could, to defend the Church of England against all his Attacks, which I had very undesignedly occasioned. The same Observation I have too much Reason to repeat, at this Time. I have been long pressing forward, but have not yet been able to come to the main Point in Dispute. This I again lay to his Charge; as by the Introduction of Fer­dinand Shaw, and Stephen Lob, and his old Reprint, and his new Distinctions, he has brought not only upon me, but also upon the Reader, much need­less Trouble.

[Page 78]WHAT was intended as Proof of the Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Officers in the Church, the Reader may see in the Appeal defended, p. 59. The Doctor allows what was said on the Subject to be even self-evident, p. 58; but then he contends that it is no Proof of the Point, because it was raised upon a bad Foundation. For I had taken for granted, that Authority, if conveyed MEDI­ATELY, must be conveyed by PERSONAL SUCCESSION, which ought, it seems, first to have been proved. He says farther; I can assure him—it is the Opinion of the non-episcopalian Colonists, that the Power of perpetuating the Ministration of the Word and Gospel Ordinances, is so lodged with the Christian Churches, that, whenever the Case requires it, they can begin a Succession de novo, which Succession will be as truly vested with Authority from Christ, as if it had been uninterruptedly handed down from the Apostles: And he pretends that Hooker was of the same Opinion. I shall not spend Time in inquiring whether the Sense of the non-episcopalian Colonists is truly repre­sented in these Words, or not. I could easily prove, that several of their most sensible Writers have thought otherwise; but it is enough for the present Purpose, that what is here expressed is the Doctor's Opinion, on which Account only an Examination of it in this Place is necessary.

HE readily allows that ‘none have Authority in the Christian Church, but those who derive it from Christ, either mediately, or immediately.’ An im­mediate Conveyance of ecclesiastical Authority from Christ, we have at present no Concern with. We are only to inquire, in what Manner that Power, which Christ formerly bestowed for the Edification of his Church, can now be obtained, for those [Page 79] Purposes for which it was then granted. Now, I think it will not be disputed, that wherever that Power was lodged, from thence it must be received, if it be received at all. The most material Question then is, to whom was this Power originally com­mitted by Christ? It will be said by some, that it was given to the Church. In one Sense this is true; as whatever is given to any Members of a Society, for the general Benefit of that Society, may be said to be given to the Society. But if we examine the original Grant of ecclesiastical Power, it will appear, that it was not made to the Church diffusively, but to certain Persons, under whose Care and Government the Church was immediately placed. Those Persons, who undoubtedly under­stood what Authority they received, proceeded forthwith to exercise it, in Discharge of the great Trust reposed in them. Now the whole Conduct of the Apostles necessarily supposes and implies, that the Government of the Church here on earth was left intirely in their Hands. The Acknowledgement and Submission of all Christians also prove the same Point. As, on the one Hand, the Apostles made Laws for the Government of the Church; so we find, on the other, that those Laws were univer­sally obeyed. All disputed Matters were referred to their Decision, from which there was no Appeal. In short, they exercised, in the Name of Christ, an uncontroulable Authority in the Church; and, as Occasions required, they appointed particular Persons to act as subordinate Ministers.

LET the Case be carefully and closely examined, and, I think, there can be no Difficulty in deter­mining, whether, in the first Instance, the Autho­rity of Christ was lodged in the Hands of the [Page 80] Apostles only and exclusively, so that none could act as Officers or Ministers without their Consent and Appointment: Or, whether it was lodged in the Church diffusively, in such a Manner, that the Members of it, met together in a popular Assem­bly, might reject or displace an Apostle, and put another in his Stead, by Virtue of the Commission given by Christ. If the whole Power at this Time is allowed to have been in the Hands of the Apostles, it will go very far towards deciding the Matter in Dispute. For when was this original Constitution altered, and who had a Right to alter it? Who could reduce that, which Christ had formed into a regular Society, with proper Officers to govern it, from an organised Body into a confu­sed Mass? To say that the Apostles could make this Alteration, is to ascribe to them a very extra­ordinary Power, without any Shadow of Evidence that they ever had it—a Power, which implies that they were better Judges of what was a proper Constitution for such a Society as the Christian Church, than the divine Founder himself. But supposing them to have had such a Power, when, and on what Occasion, did they exert it? Where is the Proof, where are the Records, of this remark­able Event? But, on the other Hand, if the very Nature of Things, and every Monument remaining testify against it, as they certainly do; we may be assured, that the Constitution of the Church was the same when the Apostles left it, as when they were at first intrusted with the Care of it. And if it was not changed by them, and they had no Power to change it, any more than Aaron could change the primitive Constitution of the Jewish Church; whether others, since their Time, can have had such a Power, may safely be left for [Page 81] common Sense to decide. To this may be added, that if the original Constitution of the Church has been altered, it is so far another Society, and not the same that was founded by Christ.

WHERE a Society is constituted under a particular Form of Government, and designed for Continu­ance, it is essential to it, that the Officers have a Power of perpetuating themselves, by appointing Successors, if they are not particularly appointed by the Founder of the Society. This was evi­dently the Case of the Christian Church, if we may judge from the Practice of the Apostles. Where they were present, none received ecclesiasti­cal Authority, but immediately from them. In distant Places, none received, or could receive, such Authority, but from those Persons whom they had duly authorized to impart it. Upon this Maxim Timothy was sent to Ephesus by St. Paul, and Titus was left in Crete, to ordain Elders in every City.

THE Christian Church was thus originally consti­tuted under Officers of divine Appointment, as evidently as the Jewish Church was; and Christians, in the Time of the Apostles, had no more Right to set up an Authority different from theirs, or in Opposition to it, than the Israelites had, in the Rebellion of Korah, to gainsay Moses and Aaron in these very popular Words: ‘Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the Congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the Congregation of the Lord? ^*’ Let it now be observed, that what were the Rights of Christians [Page 82] in the Apostles Days, the very same, neither more nor less, are the Rights of Christians at this Day. If therefore the Church at Ephesus, for Instance, could not ordain Elders, without, or in Opposi­tion to, the Authority given to Timothy; neither can the Church now, in any Country, ordain Mi­nisters, without, or in Opposition to, the Authority of those, who are in the same Station that Timothy was ^*.

FROM what has been said it appears, that in the Apostles Time, and consequently at this Day, the [Page 83] Authority to govern and order the Church, which was lodged in the Hands of particular Persons, and not in the Body diffusive, could be derived in the first Instance, in no other Way than by personal Communication; and in after Instances, could, and can be derived from the Aposties in no other Way than by personal Succession, in a Line that has never been interrupted. By personal Succession is here meant a Succession of particular Persons in the Government of the Church, to whom the Power of Ordination has been regularly conveyed, by those that have regularly received it, in this Manner, from the Apostles themselves; and by its being uninterrupted is meant, that throughout the Succession, ecclesiastical Authority has been handed down by those who were duly authorised to convey it.

THE Point which was taken for granted before, is now, I trust, sufficiently proved. If the Reader is of the same Opinion, let him take Notice, that Doctor Chauncy allows, p. 58, that it is the only Thing that needed Proof, and that, upon this Prin­ciple, the Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession is self-evident. I have therefore no Need to enlarge farther on the Subject. I can freely trust what has been now said, in Conjunction with what was for­merly offered, to the Judgment of every Reader that is not grossly partial.

THE Doctor has a Number of other Observa­tions relating to the Subject of an uninterrupted Succession, and many other Objections against what was said in Favour of it, but they appear to me to be but of little Consequence. His Quota­tion from Hooker, is introduced in such a Man­ner [Page 84] as to pervert his Meaning: His Quotation from M. Claude, is unworthy of his Character: And his Quotation from Dodwell, is contrary to the known Principles of that Author. With the like Liberties, a Man may undertake to prove any Thing from any Writer.—As to what may be done in Cases of Necessity, it will be Time enough to consider it, when the Necessity happens. We know that Necessity never could be pleaded by the Dissenters at home, and their non-episcopalian Bre­thren in the Colonies are anti-episcopal ^*. At the same Time they care as little, the Doctor tells us, p. 62, about an uninterrupted Succession of Presby­ters, as of Bishops. For they not only believe and are confident, but they KNOW they have Power from Christ to constitute Officers for all the Purposes of the Gospel Ministry, whenever there shall be Occasion for it.—As to our Saviour's Promise to his Apostles to be with them to the End of the World, it implies that he intended that they, and their Successors in the same Office, should continue to the End of the World. This Promise therefore is a sufficient Security, that the Succession in Ques­tion has not been, and shall not be, interrupted. Besides, ‘it is incumbent on the Objectors to prove,’ that the Interruption has happened; for until this be proved, the Presumption will be that it never has. Indeed it appears from the very Na­ture of Things morally impossible that it ever should have happened. For it has been the Doc­trine of the Church in all Ages, that no Ordina­tion [Page 85] was effectual, but what was performed by Bishops. This has been a perpetual Guard to the Succession contended for, because no Ordination would be accepted of, but such as was thought to be valid.—These Hints are offered as a sufficient Answer to all that is said in the Doctor' s Reply, from p. 59 to p. 65.

IN his former Pamphlet he had endeavoured, in the Words of the Dissenting Gentleman, to prove the Church of England to be inconsistent and ab­surd, in maintaining the Validity of Orders de­rived through the Church of Rome, while she is called in the Homilies, "an old withered Harlot," &c. To this I thought it sufficient to oppose that Part of Mr. White's Reply to that Gentleman, where he says: ‘If I must derive my spiritual Pedigree from a Harlot, I had rather it should be an old withered one, of an antient and honour­able Line, than a young Strumpet of no Name and Family, and who came into the World but yesterday.’ This, I confess, is rather ludi­crously said; however, a more serious Answer was scarcely deserved. The Doctor replies, that in both Cases we must be born of Fornication. Is it possible, says he, a Whore, a foul, filthy Whore, should, being an Adultress, bring forth any other than a base-born, spurious Race? A real Whore, while she continues such, cannot; but perhaps a metaphorical Whore may. The Church of Rome is called a Harlot in the Homilies, in Conformity to the Language of Scripture. The Jews were said to "play the Harlot," and to ‘go a whor­ing after their own Inventions,’ when they cor­rupted their Religion with a Mixture of idolatrous Rites and Practices. In the New Testament we [Page 86] read of ‘the great Whore which did corrupt the Earth with her Fornication;’ by which ‘great Whore’ is intended, in the Opinion of most Commentators, either Rome Heathen, or Rome Christian. In speaking therefore of the Church of Rome, and her superstitious and idolatrous Corruption of Christianity, at a Time when the Nation was still smarting under the Wounds re­ceived from her galling Yoke, it was very natural for the Composers of the Homilies, and not im­proper, to call her a Harlot; in the Sense wherein the Jewish Church was so called by the Prophets. But they never intended to signify that her Mini­strations were invalid; for they knew, that, at the Time of her Whoredoms, the Sacrifices and other Ministrations in the Jewish Church, when duly performed, were effectual to those Ends for which they were appointed. They were far from adopt­ing the Opinion of the ancient Donatists in these Matters; and what they believed of Churches and Bishops, of corrupt Principles and Practices, we may judge from what they believed of Priests in such a Case. Those that composed the Homilies, were soon after employed in framing what are called King Edward's ARTICLES; in one of which they say: ‘Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief Authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments: Yet for as much as they do not the same in their own Name, but do minister by Christ's Commission and Authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving the Sacra­ments. Neither is the Effect of God's Ordi­nances taken away by their Wickedness, nor the Grace of God's Gifts diminished from such, as [Page 87] by Faith rightly receive the Sacraments minister­ed unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ's Institution and Promise, although they be ministered by evil Men.’ It need not be added, that this is equally applicable to Ordination by a popish Bishop.

WERE it worth the Reader's Attention, I could shew that the Doctor is much mistaken in his Opinion of the Sentiments of Archbishop Usher and Bishop Burnet concerning Episcopacy, and that he judges from partial and imperfect Evi­dence. Enough, I believe, was said of Usher, for the impartial Reader's Satisfaction in the Appeal defended; but as the Doctor seems to require far­ther Satisfaction, I must refer him to a Book written in Answer to Dr. Bernard's, intitled, Res­pondet Petrus, by Dr. Heylin. As to Burnet, it is sufficient that he affirms in his Exposition, ‘that Christ appointed a Succession of Pastors, in different Ranks, to be continued in the Church for the Work of the Gospel, and the Care of Souls; and that as the Apostles settled the Churches, they appointed different ORDERS, of Bishops, Priests and Deacons ^†:’ And, in his History of the Reformation, in a Passage that has been held out to public View ^‡—that to deny Bi­shops and Priests "to be two DISTINCT ORDERS," is not only heretical and popish, but some of the worst Part, "THE VERY DREGS OF POPERY." But, that after the Time of writing his Vindication of the Church of Scotland, which I have not seen, he was truly episcopal in his Principles, in the full Heighth and Depth of the Expression, I may ap­peal, [Page 88] not only to particular Passages, but to the whole Tenor of his subsequent Writings.

IT is an easy Thing, by the Help of single Sen­tences, with here and there Scraps of Sentences, artfully arranged and properly managed, to prove almost any Authors to be, what we choose they should be. In such a Way, I could easily prove Dr. Chauncy himself to be an Episcopalian, from the Pamphlet before me. I could collect Sentences, wherein he acknowledges the fundamental Prin­ciples of an uninterrupted Succession of Bishops to be self evident. I could shew that he is an Advocate for the Sentiments of Whitgift, Bancroft, Hooker, Usher, Burnet, and a great Majority, nineteen in twenty of the Members of the Church of England, relating to the Subject, which are noto­riously episcopal—that he is so convinced of the Usefulness and Necessity of an American Episcopate, that he is not only willing that it should be estab­lished, but blames the Clergy of the Church of England in the Colonies for not having exerted themselves more in Order to procure Bishops, and thinks they should have applied for them to the Moravians, or even to the Papists in Canada, ra­ther than be without them. But such an Amusement I will not pursue, as it would interfere too much with Business, and be too great a Trespass upon the Reader's Indulgence. For these two Reasons I shall take no farther Notice of what he says con­cerning Usher and Burnet, but seek for more useful Employment in his next Section.

HERE my Opponent begins thus: The Doctor has seen fit, for Reasons BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF, to pass over almost every Thing this (second) Section [Page 89] relates to, that was material, p. 57. But the Reasons for my doing this are as well known to the Reader, as to my self. The Passage, in which he was informed of these Reasons, must have been immediately under the Doctor's Eye when he made the Remark, as it stands in the Front of the Section, to which he was preparing to reply. What was there said, is in these Words: ‘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.’ Why this was not within the Intention of my Defence, was carefully explained in p. 77, and the Reasons there assigned have ap­peared to be abundantly satisfactory to the Public. What can we now think of the Fairness and Candor of such a Remark?

IN discoursing of the Nature of the episcopal Office, it was thought proper to distinguish, between those Things that belong to it originally and essen­tially, and such external Appendages as had been added in after Times, and which have no necessary Connection with the Office itself. The Doctor, in his Answer, attempted not to invalidate the Dis­tinction, but impertinently remarked, that it is highly UNREASONABLE to add such Appendages. In my Defence it was replied: ‘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 [Page 90] reasonable that these Appendages should be added; nor was 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 *.’ He now rejoins: Why then, in the Name of Wonder, did he say any Thing about these Appendages? If it was nothing to him, that is, to the Cause he is de­fending, and nothing to the Case of an American Episcopate, it is certainly to no Purpose to say a Word about them, p. 72. Fair and candid again! without any Mixture of Sophistry! But however, the Subject of such Appendages, and the Reasona­bleness of making them, are different Things. In the Appeal, the Appendages were distinguished from the Office itself, because it was necessary in Order rightly to conceive of the episcopal Office, as proposed to be exercised in America; and in my Defence I did not say that the Subject, or the Dis­tinction, was nothing to me, but that the Reasona­bleness or Unreasonableness of adding such Appen­dages to the episcopal Office, was neither my Business, nor his, to consider. How then, in the Name of Wonder, could Dr. Chauncy shew so little Regard to his own literary Character!

IN explaining the Nature of the episcopal Office it was observed, that the Office is exactly the same in a large Diocess as in a small one, and that this Circumstance affected not the Validity of any Act performed by the Bishop. The Doctor answered, that if the Validity of the Bishop's Acts is not affected by the Largeness of his Diocess, his Capa­city to serve it undoubtedly is. It was said in Reply [Page 91] to him, the Answer amounts to 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 the Bishop is as able to serve the great Ends of his Office in a large Diocess as in a small one.’ Let us now hear the Doctor's Rejoinder. It is true, he did not say this; but it is as true, that it was with Propriety, and IRRESISTIBLE FORCE that I said it, p. 72. What­ever Opinion my Opponent may have of the IRRESISTIBILITY of his own Force, in this Instance it was certainly misapplied. Nor could there be any Propriety in an Answerer's thus shifting the Question, from the Validity of an Act, to the Capacity of the Agent.

IT was farther said in Reply to him, that he was also wrong in his Opinion relating to the Bishop's Capacity of taking due Care of a large Diocess, as he judged ‘of the episcopal Charge upon Con­gregational Principles, confounding the Office of a Bishop with that of a Parish Minister.’ He still insists upon it, that it is highly improper, and an intolerable Grievance, that Bishops should be at the Head of large Diocesses; because it destroys their Capacity to serve the Ends, designed by Christ in the Institution of their Office. This confirms the Ob­servation I made upon his wrong Method of pro­ceeding. He believes the Design of the Institution of Bishops was, that they should take the spiritual Charge of single Congregations, and perform the parochial Duties. Accordingly he looks upon himself to be a proper Bishop, agreeably to the Institution of Christ. In this Sense, it is confessed, Bishops ought to be confined to narrow Districts, as their Incapacity to serve large ones, such as [Page 92] common Diocesses, cannot be disputed. But the Bishops in Question are an ORDER of Men very different from that of Bishop Chauncy, and the Ends of their Office are as different as their Order. Parochial Duties they may occasionally perform; but the proper Business of their Office is, Ordi­nation, the Superintendency and Government of the Clergy, and Confirmation. Now if a Diocess is not so large but that a Bishop can duly perform all these Offices, it cannot be justly objected that he has not a Capacity to serve it. In an episcopal Church the Number of Parish Ministers is as great as it would be, if the episcopal Order had no Existence; and the Addition of Bishops to super-intend the parochial Clergy and oblige them to perform their Duty, is so far from being an intole­rable Grievance, that such an Institution, in its Nature and Design, is an invaluable Advantage. Here the Doctor quotes and misapplies our blessed Saviour's Declaration, ‘my Kingdom is not of this World;’ which has no more Relation to the Subject under Consideration, than these Words of Moses, ‘In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.’

I SHALL not spend much Time in controverting what he says about Aerius and Colluthus. These I had represented to have been ‘the first Contri­vers of Ordination by Presbyters;’ but herein I may have been mistaken, as I find the learned Dr. Lee points out an Instance of the like Nature, among the Montanists, in the latter End of the second Century, of one Blastus, a Greek Presby­ter, who formed, says he, ‘the first Presbyterian Church we read of;’ for which he was duly re­primanded [Page 93] by St. Irenaeus ^§. That Aerius was condemned as an Heretic, ‘ chiefly for his Opinion of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters,’ is a­greeable to the Account given by all the most con­siderable ecclesiastical historians, and the Opinion of all the most considerable Writers, that have mentioned the Case. That Jerom, Austin, Am­brose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom and The­ophylact were of the same Opinion with Aerius, with Regard to the Parity of Bishops and Presby­ters, as the Doctor pretends was the Belief of Reignolds, Jewel, Bridges, Whitacre, and Stilling­fleet, whom he calls episcopal Writers of the first Figure, but some of whom were notorious Puri­tans; is, as he says in another Case, in direct Op­position to as known a Truth as is contained in History.

TO what was said concerning Colluthus, from the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia and Pen­tapolis, and the Clergy of Mareotis, he opposes the evasive Distinctions of Blondel, given in the Irenicum, as a sufficient and full Answer. Blondel, it seems, thought fit to say, the pronouncing such an Ordination (as that of Ischyras by Colluthus) null doth not evidence, that they looked on Ordination as belonging, of divine Right, only to Bishops. For it might, says he, have been condemned as contrary to the Canons, as not performed in the proper Diocess, as being without a Title, &c. Whereas the Bi­shops above-mentioned, in their synodical Epistle, say expressly, in the Extract I had given, that the Ordination was null, because it was performed by a Presbyter. ‘How came Ischyras, say they, to be a Presbyter, and by whom was he ordained? [Page 94] 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 the Clergy of Mareotis, in their joint Letter, from which also I had given an Extract, say: ‘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 former Stations, and Ischyras himself became a Layman.’ Let the Reader now judge, whe­ther, nothwithstanding the Doctor's full Answer and Proof to the contrary, the Condemnation of that Ordination was not founded on an Opinion of its essential Nullity and Invalidity, because it was performed by a Presbyter, or one who assumed only an imaginary Episcopacy.

IN speaking of Ordination as one of the pecu­liar Branches of the episcopal Office, I took No­tice there is not an Instance of Ordination by Pres­byters to be found in the Church for several Ages after Christ; and that Aerius and Colluthus, in the latter End of the fourth Century, were the first that endeavoured to introduce that Kind of Ordination. The Doctor, in his Answer, demand­ed one Instance, within the long Period of 150 Years from Christ, of an Ordination by any Bishop. It would have been a more compleat Answer to have said, that there was not an Instance of episcopal Or­dination to be found within the same Period that I [Page 95] had mentioned, than to say there was no such In­stance within the long Period of 150 Years; which long Period was shorter by more than Half. How­ever, not insisting upon this most material Diffe­rence between my Period and his, I replied, that he had made the same Demand some Years before, in his Dudleian Lecture, to which a direct and for­mal Answer had been given by Mr. Leaming ^†, whereof he had not taken the least Notice. This appeared to me to be a 'Curiosity,' and indeed such as I had never met with ‘in the Regions of Controversy.’ I then gave Mr. Leaming's Re­ply, which I esteemed to be a full Answer to the Demand. If the Doctor himself thought other­wise, still there was something curious in his tak­ing no Notice of the Answer that had been at­tempted to this Challenge, when he came to re­peat it.

HE now says, p. 78, by Way of Excuse: I did not esteem it worthy of the least Notice, OR (meaning, that he did not imagine) that any one else would, that had any considerable Degree of intellectual Dis­cernment. Yet in the next Words he tells us, that Mr. Welles thought it worthy of Notice, for that he nullified this produced Instance, and all that was said upon it. This, by the Way, looks like treating Mr. Welles very ungenerously, after the many kind Offices and Compliments he had received from him; as the Words fairly imply an Opinion that Mr. Welles had no considerable Degree of intel­lectual Discernment, at least in that particular Case. Again: He tells us he did not choose to take Notice of Mr. Leaming's Answer, because, as he informed the Public, in his Letter prefixed to Mr. [Page 96] Welles's Piece, that was he inclined to engage in the episcopal Controversy, he should choose for his Oppo­nent, one that is better able to manage the Dispute, than he appears to be. But the Dealers in public Controversy have not always the Liberty of choosing their Opponents. And as to Mr. Leaming, he is well known to be abundantly able to manage the Dispute about Episcopacy, against any that may oppose him. This same prefixed Letter contains illiberal Reflections, upon a Gentleman of a very amiable and respectable Character. And here, as we are on the Subject of ‘Curiosities in the Regions of Controversy,’ it may not be amiss to point out a very remarkable one, to be found in that short Letter to Mr. Welles. Says the Doctor: I have NO OTHER KNOWLEDGE of this Gentleman (Mr. Lea­ming) than what may be collected from this small Work of his (his Defence, &c.) Yet within the Distance of a single Page he also says: by THE ACCOUNT I HAVE of Mr. Leaming, he is not equal to the Performance that comes out in his Name. But to return from this Digression in Pursuit of Curi­osities.

THE Doctor contends that Mr. Leaming's An­swer was improper, because the Example of episcopal Ordination wanted, and desired, was to be selected, not from the Scripture, but from one or another of the Fathers of the Two first Centuries. But this does not appear from the Challenge, in which there is not a Word said of those Fathers. The Dudleian Lecturer had been saying, that he could find nothing in Favour of Episcopacy in the Scriptures, nor in the Fathers before Clemens of Alexandria, except a Sentence in Irenaeus, which he endeavoured to explain away. Upon this, he called upon Episco­parians [Page 97] to favour him with only one Example of episcopal Ordination, in their Sense of it, within the Time above-described ^*. The Demand therefore, by all the Rules of fair Construction, must have been, to produce the Example from those Writings wherein he was unable to find it himself; which were the Scriptures and primitive Fathers of the Church. If then Mr. Leaming was able to point out an Example in Scripture, he complied with the Demand, as directly as if he had produced it from any of those Fathers.

THE Doctor argues that the Example given is not to be admitted by him, because such an Example would, on our Side, be rejected. For if, in An­swer to a Declaration in the Appeal that no Instances of Presbyterian Ordination are to be found in the Church for several Ages, he had replied, in Words like those of Mr. Leaming; that he could produce many, but for brevity Sake he would mention but one Instance, viz. The Ordination of Timothy, by "the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery," producing only those Arguments that had been used a Hundred Times over, in Support of it; he imagines he should be laughed at by the Doctor, and that convened Body which first put him upon writing. But a Man is seldom laughed at for producing Argu­ments, notwithstanding they may have been used frequently, provided they are produced and applied properly. Good Arguments will wear a long while, and not be the worse for it. But when a Man uses Arguments that have been refuted a Hundred Times over, in Opposition to plain Facts, and the settled Belief of the Church for 1500 Years; I will not answer for myself, nor am I authorised to [Page 98] answer for our Convention, that he will not be laughed at. If it could be made to appear, by any Kind of Arguments, that the Consecration of Timothy was an Example of presbyterian Ordina­tion, I believe we should consider it as a very serious Matter, and allow that it would answer the Purpose of our Adversaries.

BUT whether the abovesaid Answer was proper or not, of which the Reader must judge for himself; the Doctor goes on to challenge me, with the Ap­pearance of greater Intrepidity than ever, and more in the Style of a Champion, to produce one single Instance of episcopal Ordination, in the appropriated Sense, from some or other of the Fathers within 150 Years from Christ, p. 80: And he allows me to call in the Assistance of any of the episcopal Clergy on the American Continent; and promises to admit as genuine any Instance that may be brought from Ignatius's Epistles, although certainly spurious or interpolated. But he has no Right to expect that I will take Notice of this Defiance, daring and provoking as it is, until he makes some Answer to a Challenge I gave him ^‖, to support a certain Charge he brought against the episcopal Clergy—or else to retract it. However, with him I will not insist upon the Strictness of established Forms, and therefore I now give him the following Answer.

1. IF he himself will point out any Instance in those Fathers, wherein a particular Ordination is mentioned, I do, by these Presents, engage to prove, without the Assistance of any Clergyman on the Continent, that such Ordination was properly and strictly episcopal.

[Page 99]2. IF no such Instances are to be found, the Cause of Episcopacy may be supported without them. The Doctor, I suppose, will not give up the Cause of Infant-Baptism, because he can pro­duce no Instances of it, within 150 Years after Christ. The Fathers, within the Period prescribed, of whose Writings any Part is now extant, are but few, and there is not one of them whose Works are intire. The Works of Papias, Bishop of Hi­erapolis, are lost; the same Fate has attended the Writings of Hegesippus—a few Fragments of both, preserved by Eusebius, excepted. The literary Productions of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, which were numerous, and chiefly relating to ecclesiastical Subjects; of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth; of Quadratus, Aristides, and Agrippa surnamed Castor, besides many others that might be menti­oned, have all perished. Were they now extant, especially the Works of Hegesippus, the particular Intelligence wanted, might reasonably be expected. For Eusebius and Jerom, who saw the Works of the last-mentioned Writer, inform us, that he composed a compleat Body of ecclesiastical History, in Five Books, wherein he related all the principal Occurrences that happened in the Church, after our Saviour's Passion to the Time of his Writing.

AS to those Works, belonging to the Doctor's. Period, which are extant, they might all be con­tained in a Pocket-Volume. Some short Epistles to particular Persons or Churches, exhorting to Perseverance and Patience—one catholic Epistle, partly written with the like View, but chiefly giv­ing an allegorical Explanation of the ceremonial Law—one practical Discourse—a Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, proving that Jesus is the true [Page 100] Messiah—a few Apologies for the Christian Reli­gion, in Answer to the Calumnies of its Adver­saries— two or three Discourses against the Gen­tiles, exposing their Errors and Idolatries—with a Fragment or two concerning the Resurrection—are all the Works of St. Barnabas, St. Hermas, Cle­mens Romanus, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian and A­thenagoras, which have survived the Wreck of Time; a great Part of their Writings having been irrecoverably lost. Now as nothing that remains is of an historical Nature, we could hardly expect that they would give us historical Accounts. Yet,

3. FROM these very Writings, and others of the second Century, we are abundantly able to prove, that there were three Orders of Officers in the Church at this Time, viz. Bishops, Priests and Deacons; and that the Church was under the Go­vernment of Bishops, as an Order distinct from, and superior to, the other Two:—from whence it follows, that Ordinations were performed by Bishops.

IT cannot be expected, in a Work of this Na­ture, that I should collect all the Passages in those Writings, which relate to the Subject; however, a few of them by Way of Specimen, I beg Leave to present to the Reader. Clemens Romanus, who was a Fellow-Labourer with St. Paul, and one of those ‘whose Names were written in "the Book of Life ^*,’ in his celebrated Epistle to the Co­rinthians, speaking of the Christian Ministry, which he illustrates by the Jewish Priesthood, says: ‘the chief Priest has his proper Services; and to [Page 101] the Priests their proper Place is appointed; and to the Levites belong their proper Ministries ^†.’ Here are evidently three Orders in the Christian Church pointed out, corresponding with the like Distinctions in the Jewish Church; and to the high­est Order belongs the Superintendency and Go­vernment of the whole.

IGNATIUS, in his Epistle ^‡ to the Magnesians, says: ‘Forasmuch as in the Persons before-men­tioned (viz. Damas their Bishop, Bassus and Apol­lonius, their Presbyters, and Sotio their Deacon) I have seen all of you in Faith and Charity, I ex­hort you that you study to do all Things with divine Concord; your Bishop presiding in the Place of God; your Presbyters, in the Place of [Page 102] the Council of the Apostles, and your Deacons, being intrusted with the Ministry of Jesus Christ ^§.’ He also exhorts the Trallians, to do nothing with­out their Bishop; to be subject to their Presbyters; and to reverence their Deacons; and says, ‘he that does any Thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters, and Deacons, is not pure in his Con­science ^‖.’ To the Philadelphians he says: ‘I cried whilst I was among you: I spake with a loud Voice; attend to the Bishop, and to the Presbytery, and to the Deacons ^¶.’ In his E­pistle to the Smyrnaeans, he salutes their ‘very worthy Bishop, and their venerable Presbytery, and their Deacons,’ whom he calls his Fellow-Labourers ^‡. And in an Epistle to Polycarp, the Bishop of the Smyrnaeans, he says: ‘My Soul be Security for them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presbyters, and Deacons.’ Such is the Testimony of this venerable Martyr, in Favour of the Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters; and it is no Wonder, that the Enemies of Episcopacy use every Effort to weaken its Force.

THE Doctor acted very wisely in not extending his Period any farther downwards, than 150 Years after Christ; for he knew that his Cause would too evidently suffer by an Examination of the Au­thors that immediately followed; whose Testimo­ny in Favour of Episcopacy no Arts could evade, and the Authenticity of whose Writings he was un­able to dispute. I shall notwithstanding venture, with his Leave, or even without it, to step over the Line which he has marked out for me, for a few Moments, to point out some Passages in those Authors, that are directly to my Purpose; but [Page 103] still confining myself within the Limits of the se­cond Century.

HEGESIPPUS, in a genuine Fragment of his Works preserved by Eusebius, says: ‘when I came to Rome, I composed a Succession ( i. e. a History of the Succession) of the Bishops of that City to the Time of Anicetus (about the Year 153 ^*) whose Deacon Eleutherus was at that Time. After the Death of Anicetus, Soter suc­ceeded him, and Eleutherus succeeded Soter, &c ^†.’ The regular Succession of Bishops, in the Time of Hegesippus, we see, was spoken of, not as Novelty, but as a Thing commonly known; and in composing his ecclesiastical History, he vi­sited the most eminent Sees, and wrote his Ac­count of their Bishops upon the Spot, where he had the Advantage, not only of common Infor­mation, but of consulting the Records of the Church.

THE Three Orders of Bishops, Priests and Dea­cons, are frequently mentioned by other Writers of the second Century. Clemens of Alexandria, who was instructed by those who had seen the Apostles ^§, says: ‘There are many other Precepts concerning the elect ( i. e. Christians) which are written in the Scriptures; some relating to Pres­byters, some to Bishops, and others again to Deacons—of which I shall take another Oppor­tunity to speak ^‡.’ Again says he: ‘In the Church, the Orders of Bishops, Priests and [Page 104] Deacons, are, I suppose, Imitations of the angelic Glory; and of that Oeconomy which the Scrip­tures say those expect, who, following the Steps of the Apostles, have lived righteously, accor­ding to the Gospel ^†.’

IF we go on to Irenaeus, we shall find him boldly declaring: ‘We can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained Bishops in the several Churches, and their Successors down to own our Times. And if the Apostles had known any hidden Myste­ries —they would have committed them to these Men, to whom they committed the Churches themselves. For they were very desirous that those should be perfect and unblameable in all Things, whom they left as their Successors, and to whom they committed their own Authority ^‖.’ He then, as an Example, enumerates the Succession of Bishops at Rome in the following Order: Linus, (mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy) Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus, Alex­ander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Ani­cetus, Soter, and in the 12th Place Eleutherius, who was the Bishop at that Time. And in another Place, he speaks of a regular Succession of Bishops [Page 105] from the Apostles, as an essential Mark of the true Church ^*.

THESE Passages, to which many other of the like Tendency, from Writers of the second Cen­tury, might have been easily added ^§, prove directly and immediately, as well as unanswerably, that throughout the second Century, Bishops were distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters, and had the chief Government of the Church; and, by necessary Consequence, that ORDINATION was their peculiar Office. For there never was in Fact, so far as we can discover by the Light of History, nor indeed in the Nature of Things can there be, an episcopal Church, wherein any other than epis­copal Ordination was, or can be, allowed of. In every Society, the Appointment and the Commis­sions of the various Degrees of Officers, must proceed from those that govern it. This is so evident, that there never was, I believe, an Advo­cate for the Presbyterian Parity, but would readily grant, that whensoever and wheresoever the Govern­ment of the Church was episcopal, the Ordinations were also episcopal. Therefore the above-recited Passages, although they do not inform us of any single Ordinations that were performed by Bishops, yet do more; they give sufficient Evidence, that all Ordinations were thus performed.

WE come now to the Case of the Waldenses. It was said in the Appeal, that until the Beginning of the Reformation, no Instances worthy of Notice occur, [Page 106] to favour Ordination by Presbyters. The Doctor alledged the Example of the Waldenses to the contrary. I replied, that it appeared from Com­menius, that the Waldenses pretended always to be episcopal, and that the Bohemians applied to them as such, for Ordination; which they would not have done, had there been Reason so much as to suspect, that they had not the Authority that was wanted. And, besides the Account given from a very respectable Writer in Answer to Mr. Owen, I quoted Dr. Mosheim and Dr. Allix, the latter of whom probably understood the Waldensian History better than any Writer of his Time, to prove that they were episcopal.

THE Doctor now, in p. 81, endeavours to sup­port his former Assertion, by the Assistance of Two more Authors. The first is Paul Perrin, whose Book I have not seen; nor does he say, or intimate, that he has seen it himself. But if he has seen it, why may he not mistake that Author even where he speaks plainly, as he does Bishop Burnet? Let the Reader also judge how far his Testimony should be admitted in such a Case, after he has represented that, in the Church of England, Presbyters have as much Authority to ordain, as Bishops. But Allix and Mosheim had seen Per­rin's Book, and they both believed notwithstanding, that the Waldenses were episcopal: From whence I infer, that Paul Perrin proves not the contrary.

HIS other Author is that famous Episcopalian, (he should have said, Leader of the Puritans) Dr. Reignolds, [Reynolds] who more than equaled in Learning (because he was a Puritan) either Mosheim or Dr. Allix; and he peremptorily affirms in his [Page 107] Letter to Sir F. Knolls (Knollys) that the Waldenses were of the same Opinion with Aerius (the Heretic) as to the Identity of the Order of Bishops and Presby­ters. This is pompous indeed, and calculated to lead the Reader to believe, that this Letter contains such a clear and particular Account of the Matter, as would convince the most stubborn. But the very Letter, unless I am greatly mistaken, as much as the Doctor has seen of it, is in Neal's History of the Puritans; and to gratify the Reader's Curiosity, I will present him with as much of it as has any Relation to the Subject. ‘All that have laboured in reforming the Church for 1500 Years, says the Letter-Writer, have taught, that all Pastors, be they intitled Bishops or Priests, have equal Authority and Power by God's Word; as first the Waldenses, next Marsilius Pativinus, &c †.’ The Reader here sees the whole of the Evidence afforded by Reynolds; and feeble as it is, the Doctor is forced to place upon it a great Part of his Confi­dence. He produces nothing but a Reference to this Extract, and his Account of Paul Perrin's History, to oppose to the great Names of Allix and Mosheim.

HERE I might safely rest the Matter; but as it is now in my Way, I will farther confirm what I think already well established, by one or two ancient Authorities, out of the many I have at Hand. In an ancient Abridgement of the Opinions of the Waldenses, recorded by Wolfius, at the Year 1160, it is said: ‘They absolutely deny the Pope's Pri­macy over all Churches, and more especially his Power over all Policies, that is, his Power of both Swords; neither do they hold, that any [Page 108] other Orders ought to be retained in the Church, but those of Priests, Deacons and Bishops ^‡.’ And Mr. Limborch produces out of the Book of the Sentences of the Inquisition of Tholouse, passed in that Court, from the Year 1307 to 1323, the following Charge, which, among many others, was brought by the Inquisitors against the Waldenses, viz. That they held ‘that in the Church there are but three Orders, namely, Bishops, Priests and Deacons ^*.’ When the Doctor shall have invalidated these antient Authorities, by shewing, either that they are certainly interpolated or spurious, or that they are no Evidence of what they are alledged to prove, others shall be at his Service.

ON the Subject of Confirmation he says but lit­tle. He had objected against the Practice in the Words of the Dissenting Gentleman, and I had answered him in the Words of Mr. White. He now requests the Reader, and I heartily join in the Request, that he would compare the Objections and the Answer; and if the latter will not be found adequate to the former, I can only say that I am greatly mistaken. He concludes with decla­ring, that Mr. Towgood was a Man of much greater Abilities than Mr. White, and Mr. Peirce than Dr. Grey. One Reason for this Opinion is obvious; Mr. Towgood was a Dissenting Gentle­man, and—so was Mr. Peirce ^‖.

[Page 109]HIS next Section contains all that he says in Reply to five Sections of the Appeal defended, writ­ten in Support of as many Sections of the Appeal; wherein it was shewn, that without an Episcopate the Church of England in the Colonies must ne­cessarily be without Ordination, Confirmation and a regular Government—that so considerable a Part of a national Church, suffering so long under the Want of its own Institutions, was an unparalleled Case—and that Application for an Episcopate at that Time was apprehended to be peculiarly sea­sonable, for many Reasons that were there assign­ed, and particularly on Account of the American Heathens, whose Case was largely explained. These Subjects all directly tended to the Point in Hand, and were necessary Parts of such a Publi­cation as the Appeal; and as so little is now said relating to them by my persevering Antagonist, what was advanced in those Sections may now be considered as generally established. But notwith­standing their being thus secure, I shall attend to the few stragling Exceptions still remaining, that have any Appearance of Force or Plausibility.

IN this Number can hardly be included what is said in p. 86, in Opposition to an Observation made in the Appeal, that none but Bishops have a Right to govern the Church. This Proposition was affirmed of the Church in its simple, original State, considered barely as a spiritual Society; and the [Page 110] Government spoken of was evidently such as is purely spiritual. The Doctor objected that the Church of England has no Authority of a spiri­tual Nature, because She acknowledges all Man­ner of Jurisdiction to flow from the Crown. In­stead of a direct Reply to the Objection in that Place, it was thought proper to refer the Reader back, to where the Subject had been formally considered ^†, and where it was clearly proved that the Supremacy of the Crown was never thought to include spiritual Power, in the Sense of the Objection. And I still think ‘it would have been paying but an ill Compliment to the Reader's Understanding,’ to repeat to him what had been said but 50 Pages before: And I beg Liberty a­gain to refer to it, as a sufficient Refutation of all the Doctor said on the Subject in his Answer, p. 56, and of all he now says in his Reply, p. 86, and in­deed of all that he can say.

NOR do I think it worth while to follow him through his Disquisition about the Head of a Thing, and the Middle of it: Not that I mean to retract what I said about his mistaking one for the other, but because it can be of no Consequence to our Readers I had advanced, in what, if he pleases, he may call the Head of my third Section, this general Proposition, that without Bishops the Church of England in America must be without Government. This Proposition, I observed, was not meant absolutely and strictly, but in a quali­fied Sense. The Doctor objected to this in his Answer; to which it was said in Reply, that it is ‘agreeable to strict Method, first to lay down a general Proposition, and then to mark out the [Page 111] Exceptions and Limitations with which it is to be understood.’ He now rejoins, p. 89, that it is neither consistent with Method, or (nor) good Sense to limit a Proposition that is not capable of Limita­tion. I know of no general Proposition that is in­capable of Limitation. Indeed universal Propo­sitions, in Strictness, do not admit of Limitation; but yet, as they are sometimes used by the most cor­rect Writers and Speakers, they must be taken in a qualified Sense. The Psalmist says: They are ‘ all gone out of the Way, they are altogether become abominable; there is none that doeth good, no not one.’ And yet this Proposition, predicated of "the Children of Men," although it be an universal Affirmative, guarded both by positive and negative Terms, was never true in any other than a limited Sense. But as to general Propositions, as distinguished from universal ones, a Capacity of Limitation is essential to their Na­ture; for a Proposition that admits of no Limi­tation, is not general, but universal. However, the Limitation of which a general Proposition is always capable, is not always required. For,

‘AS to Ordination, the general Proposition, that without Bishops the Church of England in America must be without Ordination, is true without any Exception,’ or Limitation. In Ans­wer to this the Doctor said, that notwithstanding our Want of Bishops, we might have the Ordina­tion we wanted in America, attended with some Inconvenience and Charge. This, considered as an Answer to the Complaint, I thought amounted to saying, that we might have Ordination in America, by having it in England. Dr. Chauncy says in Reply, the Doctor is here illogically insensible that [Page 112] he is sneering at himself. p. 90. That I am here sneering at myself, I am truly insensible; but whe­ther my Insensibility be, according to this admi­rable Distinction, of the logical or illogical Kind, must be left to the Decision of the learned Rea­der. The Complaint was, that Ordination cannot be had at all in America, and that a Voyage to England for that Purpose is attended with great Inconvenience, Danger and Expence. What could put it into the Doctor's Head to dispute this, and to oppose it with a Number of Distinctions, which after all amounted to no more than saying, that we might have Ordinations in America by having them in England, I am unable to conceive.

BUT we are now shewn that there is no Reason for either Part of the Complaint; and we are di­rected how we may have Ordination in America, without having it in, or from, England. Not­withstanding this mighty Outcry, there are at least two Bishops now residing in British America, one in the North, the other in the South Part of it, from either of which it is reasonable to think, the episco­pal Office might be conveyed, with incontestible Vali­dity, to an episcopal Presbyter; which would, at once, put an End to all farther Complaint of the Expence and Hazard in going to England to have Ordination in America. p. 91. We do not dispute the Vali­dity of Orders given by any true Bishop, whether he be Moravian or Papist; and I had rather re­ceive Ordination from such an one, than from all the Presbyters, or Presbyteries, in the Christian World. But we have other Objections against applying either to the Moravians or Papists, some of which, as the Doctor appears to be serious, I will mention.

[Page 113]1. WE are neither Moravians nor Papists our­selves; and therefore we cannot consistently think of making this Application to them, until we have no Prospect of Relief from the Bishops of that Church to which we belong.

2. SUCH an Application, before we know that our Petition for Bishops will be absolutely and fi­nally rejected, much more while there is a fair Prospect of its Success, might be construed as un­dutiful, both by our civil and ecclesiastical Gover­nors, whom Providence has placed over us, and to whom we, the Clergy in particular, have sworn to behave dutifully and obediently.

3. IT would be schismatical. We should there­by separate and withdraw ourselves from that sound Part of the Catholic Church, which justly claims us as its Members, and is intitled to our Obedience. And we look upon Schism in the Church of Christ to be as criminal as it was in the Jewish Church, although it be not immediately punished by the like visible Interpositions of Hea­ven. We look upon Schism in the Church to have much of the same Nature with Rebellion in the State; and the Guilt of both is so flagrant in our Opinion, that we constantly pray in our Lita­nany, to be preserved from it— ‘from all false Doctrince, Heresy and Schism,’ as well as ‘from all Sedition, privy Conspiracy and Rebel­lion.’ Were the British Colonies independent of their Parent-Kingdom, the Episcopalians in this Country would be a Society independent of the national Church; and in that Case they might seek for an Episcopate from any Part of the Globe, from which they could expect most easily to obtain [Page 114] it. But such an Independency they do not affect— they wish not to see; they desire no more than the common Rights of British Subjects, and the com­mon Privileges of their Fellow-Christians; or, in other Words, such a Toleration as the Government allows to the Dissenters from its own religious Es­tablishment.

4. WE have also a great Regard for the ancient Canons of the Church, which required that Three Bishops should impose Hands at the Ordination of a Bishop. Although this may not be absolutely necessary, yet it has been always canonical; and we have such a Veneration for the Church in its pri­mitive Ages, that we would rather submit to the Trouble of going to any Part of Europe for an Episcopate, than depart from the Example She has set us:—especially in the Consecration of our first Bishops, from whence, in that Case, all our future ones would probably proceed. Now the Bishops in the British Colonies are but Two; and they are so remote from each other, and their Prin­ciples, as well as Interests, are in many Respects so opposite, that it would be extreme difficult to persuade them to come together, and to join in such a Consecration.

5. THE Bishop of Canada and the Moravian Bishop in Pennsylvania, are both British Subjects, and both tolerated by a peculiar Indulgence; and they would probably conceive it to be very unbe­coming in them, without the Consent of Govern­ment, to convey the episcopal Character to the Church of England in the Colonies, the Tendency of which would be to render it independent of the national Church. And before the Government [Page 115] would consent to this, it would undoubtedly con­sent to our having an Episcopate in such a Manner as is requested.

THUS our not having applied to the Moravians or Papists for a Bishop hitherto, has been a Mat­ter both of Prudence and Conscience; and the following Reflections are very unjust, and very un­charitable. It may reasonably, and will be strongly suspected, says the Doctor, Something more than that which is purely spiritual is hankered after, if the poor Church of England in the Colonies, is suf­fered to continue in a lamentably perishing Condition for Want of a Bishop, when She may have one, with­out any Hazard of Life, and at a small Expence of Pocket, by only repairing to an American Bishop. Surely the Cry of Distress and Misery, for Want of a purely spiritual Bishop, will be disregarded, as it ought to be, until it be made evident, that due Ap­plication has been made to one or other of the conti­nental Bishops, and that they have refused to conse­crate a Bishop for the Colonies, or to ordain Candi­dates for holy Orders. If the episcopal Clergy had been as zealous in their Application to the Bishops in America, as they have been elsewhere, they might without all Doubt, have had one from among them­selves vested with the episcopal Powers of Ordination and Government long before now. p. 92.

THE Doctor now takes a Leap over more than 20 Pages of my Defence, and lights down upon that Part of it, where the Society's offering to de­fray the Expences of going to England for Ordi­nation was considered. He complains bitterly, p. 93, of what he calls the scurrilous Treatment he received in one of the New-York periodical Papers, [Page 116] on Account of his Answer to what I had said of the Expensiveness of such a Voyage to our Candidates. As I was not the Writer of that Paper, I will leave it to the Author to defend it, if he thinks proper, or to give the Doctor Satisfaction. But he complains bitterly of me too, for having remarked upon it in a Manner much below the Gentleman, not to say the Christian Divine. How the Matter was, will appear presently. He hopes the Reader will bear with him, while he explains the Affair; and I hope the Reader will also bear with me, while I consider that Explanation.

WHAT relates to this Subject in the Doctor's former Pamphlet, is in p. 81, in the following Words. Another Reason (of Complaint) is, ‘the Expence of the Voyage, which cannot be reck­oned at less, upon an Average, than One Hun­dred Pounds Sterling to each Person.’ And this is aggravated by the Consideration, that ‘the Ex­pence 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 sufficient Sum for the Purpose.’ I candidly suppose the Dr. had never seen, or, if he had, did not remember at the Time of writing, the Account of the Society, published in 1706, in which they say p. 74, ‘all young Students in those Parts ( meaning the Colonies) who desire episcopal Ordi­nation, are invited into England; and their EXPENCES in coming and returning are to be defrayed by the Society.’ According to this In­vitation, there is no Hardship as to the Article of "Expence," that can be complained of, unless ab­surdly, but by the Society themselves; and they cannot have just Reason for Complaint, as the Money they [Page 117] expend in this Way is as properly bestowed, as in Sup­port of the Missionaries themselves.

BEFORE the Reader proceeds farther, I beg of him to review this Passage, and to mark its appa­rent Design and Tendency. Is it not manifestly worded in such a Manner, as to excite the Idea, that the Voyage to England is not expensive to the Candidates? I know of several, that upon reading the Passage, understood that the Doctor absolutely affirmed this; and I know of but one Person, who at first perceived that he did not affirm it. It had been asserted, that ‘the Expence upon an Ave­rage was no less than £. 100 Sterling to each Person;’ does not the Answer lead one to be­lieve that it is not a Farthing? Nay does it not ‘ap­pear 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 published to the World an ab­solute wilful Falsehood?’ —and that I was so ‘a­bominably stupid,’ as to publish ‘a Falsehood 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 ^§?’ This is what I asserted; and the Assertion is true, that to me it had that Appearance. It was not affirmed that the Doctor intended, but only that I feared it was his Intention, to lead his Readers thus to con­ceive of me. The Suspicion, if there had been no Foundation for it, would, I confess, have been injurious to his Character, as such Conduct is in­consistent with common Honesty; but as the [Page 118] Words, in my Opinion, naturally suggested it, and I had no other Way of judging of his Design, than from the natural Tendency and the known Effect of the Passage, he has no Reason to com­plain; as I formed my Judgment according to the Evidence which he himself afforded.

MY Representation of the Expensiveness of the Voyage to Candidates I knew to be true; he could not know it to be false, or unfair; why then did he dispute it? And by disputing it, why would he appear to contradict me? By alledging against me the Society's Invitation to Candidates in 1706, he appeared to say, while he seemed careful to avoid expressly saying, what was yet strongly insinuated by the whole Structure of the Paragraph, that the Expence fell upon the Society, and not upon the Candidates. He knew that if what was thus art­fully insinuated was received as true, what I asserted must have been received as false; and that I must have been thought a Liar, in a Case wherein I could not possibly have been mistaken, and consequently a wilful Liar. In this View of the Case, his sup­posing that I had not seen, or had forgotten, the Society's Invitation, was no more than supposing, that I did not recollect that such Evidence was in the Hands of the Public, as was a Proof of the Falseness of my Assertion. A very candid and charitable Supposition truly!

HE conceits that I was inconsistent with myself, in pretending to suspect him in this Manner, while I allowed that he candidly supposed I had not seen the Society's Invitation. But to speak plainly, and without a Figure, I did not imagine that there was Candor in any Part of the Affair. The Word [Page 119] candidly was his own; I used it as such with the Mark of Quotation, and returned it to him in an ironical Sense. In Order to heighten the Irony, I introduced it with very, a Word of my own, say­ing that he VERY candidly made the Supposition; which ironical Use of the Word I would not have made, I assure him, had I imagined it could have possibly been mistaken.

IN explaining himself upon the Subject he now declares, in these Words: in direct Contradiction to this ACKNOWLEDGED CANDOR, he (Dr. Chandler) would lead the Reader to think, that it was my In­tention to represent him as an abominably stupid Liar. It was in Truth my real Design, explicitly as well as candidly signified, to guard him against enter­taining any such Thought. p. 97. Some People have a strange Way of puting their Designs in Execution. What the Doctor says was his Design, I candidly believe to be true, in the Sense wherein he means it. But whether I, or a common Rea­der, can come at that determinate Sense, there is Room to doubt. A Man may be a Liar, and yet not a stupid one; he may be stupid, and yet not abominably stupid: And whether he means, that he endeavoured to guard against the Reader's con­ceiving of me as a Liar, or as a stupid Liar, or only as an abominably stupid one, he has not said with sufficient Precision. And why should he have endeavored to guard against this, if he was not conscious of having said what would otherwise tend to lead into the Mistake?

THAT I made not a fair Representation of the Matter, he still insinuates, without positively af­firming. For, says he, though I neither said, nor [Page 120] intended to say it before, I say it now in plain Words, that he did not declare the Truth—IF—(if what? Why if) he intended to make his Readers believe, agreeably to the evident Import of his Words, ‘that the Expence of the Voyage to England for Or­ders, was, to each Person,’ out of his own Poc­ket without Exception, ‘One Hundred Pounds Sterling.’ I never meant to say this; nor do my Words import, that without Exception, every Can­didate expended in his Voyage to England £. 100 Sterling, out of his own Pocket. I knew very well, that every Candidate's Pocket does not contain £. 100 Sterling, and that what it does not contain cannot be expended out of it. But this I said, that the Expence of the Voyage, on an Average, is £. 100 Sterling to each Candidate; it being to some more, and perhaps to some a little less. This Expence has never been defrayed by the Society; the Candidates have generally born it themselves: But in those Instances wherein they have been un­able, Donations for that Purpose have been made by their Friends, or Money has been advanced by the Congregations in which they were to officiate; and in this Case it is most commonly deducted af­terwards, if they live to return, either wholly or partly from the stipulated Salary, so that thus far it finally falls upon the Candidates themselves.

BUT it seems that, in New-England, it is com­mon for Candidates to be much assisted in their Voy­age. This much Assistance, except in the Case be­fore mentioned, seldom amounts to more than the Sea-Stores for the Passage to England, if I have been rightly informed. But supposing it to be otherwise, £. 100 Sterling is the Expence attend­ing the Voyage of each Candidate; and whether [Page 121] it falls upon himself, or his Friends, or his future Congregation, it does not weaken the Complaint. What an intolerable Burthen would the Congrega­tionalists in New-England esteem it, if every Or­dination of theirs was loaded with the Expence of £. 100 Sterling, to be paid, either by the Candi­date, or his Friends, or the Congregation? Were this the Case, if I know my own Heart, I should be ashamed of appearing to oppose, but would heartily join in promoting any proper Plan for their Relief.

AS to the Defence of the Doctor's Conduct, in the Instance under Consideration, attempted by the Author of ‘a fictitious Letter from a Mem­ber of the Society,’ (the Letter is called fictiti­ous, because the only Member of the Society, with the initial Letters of whose Name it was signed, disavowed it with abhorrence) I am not sensible that I said any Thing relating to it, that was in­consistent with the Character of a Gentleman or Christian Divine. What I said was, that without 'an abler and fairer Advocate' than the Author of that Letter, ‘the Doctor's Reputation must suffer,’ by the Charge of Falsehood, which a Writer in one of our periodical Papers had brought against him, on Account of the Passage that is still before us. The Falsehood charged upon him was, his publishing ‘that all the Candidates for holy Orders in the Church of England, have the Expences of the Voyage home paid by the Society ^*.’ The Doctor did not directly say this; but the above-mentioned Writer thought, as most People did, that he attempted to prove it, and that attempting publickly to prove a Falsehood, [Page 122] was equal to publishing a Falsehood, and might justly be called so. It had been alledged by the Doctor as a Medium of Proof that the Voyage to England was not expensive, as was represented in the Appeal, that the Society published such an In­vitation to Candidates in 1706, as he mentioned. The Fact was not denied; but such an Applica­tion of it was the Object of the Censure. The Vindication therefore that took no Notice of this wrong Application, fell short of the Accusation; on which Account it was imperfect and feeble, and insufficient to secure the Reputation that was at Stake.

THE Doctor affects to think that the Society's Invitation in 1706 is still binding to them, unless it has been formally recalled. But as it was not expressed in Words that extended it forward, it expired of Course. It appears upon the Face of the Invitation, that it was only an occasional Act. All is expressed in the present Time, without a single Word to intimate an Intention of its being a standing and perpetual Rule. I believe that e­very Vote or Law of a Body Corporate, that is designed for Continuance, has some Words that clearly express that Design; and where no such Words are used, that it is always understood to be only occasional, or to serve for the present Time. But, says the Doctor, the Society Five or Six Years afterwards ordered the same Account, &c. contain­ing this Invitation, to be reprinted with a Conti­nuation; so that the Invitation, by their Order, was printed and reprinted: From whence he would have his Readers to infer, at least, that the Invi­tation was in Force Five or Six Years after it was first made. But the Book might have been order­ed [Page 123] to be reprinted, without any particular View to this Passage; and the Passage might have been designedly presented again to the Public, to shew a Step that had been formerly taken, in Order to supply the Church in America with the Missiona­ries wanted. It appears that none accepted of the Invitation when it was first made, and that it ne­ver was repeated, any farther than every new Edi­tion of the History that records it, made by the Society's Order, may be called a Repetition of it.

WHEN the first Candidates went home from hence, which was not until many Years afterwards, they received no Benefit from the Invitation in Question. The Society knew that, both in its Nature and Design, it was then antiquated; other­wise, if they chose not to fulfil it's Promise, they would have taken Care to recall it. About Eight Years after the Time now spoken of, Dr. Berke­ley, who had resided a considerable while in this Country, in his Sermon before the Society, speak­ing of such Missionaries as had been born and edu­cated in America, says: ‘I verily think it might increase the Number of such useful Men, if Provision were made to defray their Charges in coming hither, to receive holy Orders; passing and repassing the Ocean, and tarrying the neces­sary Time in London, requiring an Expence that many are not able to bear.’ This implies that he knew nothing of any Provision then in being, by Virtue of any Order, or Vote, or Invitation of the Society, for defraying the Expences attending the Voyage of Candidates: And as the Sermon was ordered to be printed, without a Correction of this Passage, or any explanatory Note, we may be certain that the Society, as a Body, knew no­thing [Page 124] of it neither. But I will not enlarge farther in so plain a Case. I will only return to Dr. Chauncy some of his own Language, relating to this Head, it being not so much my Property, as his. The Doctor, perhaps, may in Time make high­er Attainments in Learning of this Kind, than he is at present possessed of.—For it is no infrequent Thing with him to affirm that, both publickly and boldly which he never would have done, had it not been for want of more Knowledge. p. 102.

IT has always been thought very hard, that the Church of England in the Colonies should be dis­tinguished, and, as it were, stigmatized by a Want of those religious Privileges, which are granted to all other Denominations of Christians. The Doc­tor, whom I will warrant—as the most compleat and universal Opponent that ever dealt in Contro­versy, denies this Fact too. He affirms, that it is the exact Truth, that the Episcopalians ‘have the same Liberty’ with all other Persuasions. The same Liberty to do and enjoy some Things, they undoubtedly have: But have they the Liberty of enjoying their own peculiar Form of ecclesiastical Government, in the same Manner that other De­nominations have? Can their Candidates be or­dained without great Loss of Time, Hazard and Expence, as those of the Presbyterians and Con­gregationalists may? If they cannot, says the Doc­tor, it is not owing to any Want of Liberty, but to their not using that Liberty which is equally granted to all Denominations without Distinction. p. 103. What we have not a Liberty to enjoy consistently with our Principles, we have no Liberty to enjoy at all. But, says this professed Defender of LIBER­TY, it is then from your Principles only that you [Page 125] are hampered with Difficulties. This, as I told him before, is the Language of Tyranny and Perse­cution, but notwithstanding he repeats it. But what can he mean, by being hampered by Princi­ples? If we are allowed to enjoy and practice what our Principles require, we are not hampered by them: But, if we are not allowed this, we have not an equal Liberty with those, who are permit­ted to enjoy and practice all that their Principles do require. If no public Worship were permit­ted in the Colonies, but according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, the Dissenters might be told, according to the Doctor's Mode of rea­soning, that they had the same Liberty with the Members of the Church; meaning that they had Liberty to do, contrary to their Inclination, what the Members of the Church chose to do. But would such Liberty as this content them? Would telling them that it was only from their Principles that they were hampered with Difficulties, silence their Complaints? I trow not. The great Com­plaint is that we are hampered by Difficulties, from, or on Account of, our religious Principles. We wish to have such Embarrassments removed, and to be upon the same Footing with those that are not thus embarrassed.

THE Doctor, who is so lucky as never to want for Distinctions, says, that we are under no more Restraint, than the other Denominations, by any in­terposing ACT OF THE STATE. p. 104. But what is this to the Purpose of proving, that we have the same religious Liberty with Christians of other Denominations? If we are not under Restraint from any Act of the Legislature, yet if we are under peculiar Disadvantages on some other Ac­counts, [Page 126] which render us incapable of enjoying what our Fellow-Christians of all other Denomi­tions enjoy, why should not a Remedy be provi­ded for those peculiar Disadvantages? Nay, should it appear that our Principles and Connections are such, that a proper Remedy could not be provi­ded, without an interposing Act of the State in our Favour, we humbly conceive that this would be an Object not unworthy of the Attention of the Legislature, and that we should have a Right to petition for such an Act: And as barely religious Liberty, and not any Authority over others, is the End in View, no true Friends to religious Liber­ty and Toleration ought to oppose us. Religious Li­berty consists in a Freedom to perform all the Of­fices and public Duties which Men's Religion re­quires, without Molestation or Restraint. And the Enjoyment of this Liberty may be interrupted or prevented by other Ways, as well as by the In­terposition of Government. The Effect may be the same, whatever Cause, or Concurrence of Causes, may have produced it. The Episcopali­ans in the Colonies know and perpetually feel, that they have not the same Liberty, which they see others around them possess and exercise. They do not enjoy some of the most necessary Instituti­ons of their Religion, and of this they complain. But they never have complained, that they had no Dominion over any of the religious Sects in the Colonies:—They have never complained of not being distinguished by any superior Advantages:— They only request, and they only wish, to be rai­sed to an Equality. They think themselves inti­tled to so much, by the common Rights of Chris­tians, which they are not conscious that they have forfeited.

[Page 127]THE Doctor goes on to speak of me, in the following high and figurative Language. He can perceive no Difference between Difficulties, suffered upon Principle, in Consequence of the Non-bestowment of distinguishing Favour, and Difficulties that are suffered for not complying with the arbitrary, tyran­nical Precepts of Men, in Violation of the Rights of Conscience: Yea, he would make us believe, that Difficulties suffered, upon Principle, through Want of a Grant of Favour, may, with as much Perti­nency, be complained of as any of the Tortures the Saints of the most High have been harrassed with, for their Adherence to their God, from the greatest Per­secutors that ever existed. p. 104. All this is occa­sioned by the Animadversion I made upon a cer­tain Assertion of his, in his former Pamphlet, that there is no other Hardship or Difficulty in the Case (of the Episcopalians in America) than what na­turally arises from professed Principles. This, I told him, looked, as if in his 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 (as I proceeded) 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 ^‡?’ Such was the Provocation given him! Upon so slight Basis is this massy Column of Misrepresentation e­rected! There ought, no Doubt, to be a Difference made between Difficulties, although suffered upon Principle, in Consequence of Non-bestowment of Fa­vour, absurdly here called distinguishing, when the [Page 128] Design of it is to put an End to Distinctions, and Difficulties that are suffered from arbitrary and ty­rannical Precepts. But Difficulties are still Diffi­culties: and when Men, who are under no Difficul­ties that can interfere with the full Enjoyment of all their religious Privileges, endeavour to obstruct the Removal of Difficulties in the Way of others, because they do not approve of their Principles; they so far are actuated by the Spirit of Inquisitors, and so far discover that very Disposition, which has in­flicted the severest Tortures, the Saints of the most High have been ever harrassed with. It concerns some People to examine their own Hearts, whether they have not, in Reality, too much of this abo­minable and accursed Spirit.

THE Doctor now takes another Leap that is prodigious indeed, from p. 136 to p. 196 of my Defence, containing the whole fourth, fifth, sixth, and the far greater Part of the seventh Sections. As he professes himself in his Title-Page to be a Rectifier of my Mistakes, and a Refuter of my false arguing, it will naturally be concluded, that he could find no Mistakes, in those 60 Pages, that he was able to rectify, nor any false arguing that he was able to refute; or, at least, none that was of material Consequence. He therefore passes on to the Case of a Negative put upon the Request of the Non-Episcopalians in Boston, for a Royal Charter, to enable them to conduct and manage a Fund of £. 2000 Sterling raised by Subscription, for the Support of Missionaries among the Indian Natives. The Defeat of this Application he insi­nuated to have been occasioned by episcopal Influ­ence. What he meant by this Expression, I col­lected from a Passage in his REMARKS on the Bi­shop [Page 129] of Landaff's Sermon, wherein he says: It is hoped the Accounts we have had are not true, that the Negative upon this Act (of the Boston Assem­bly) was principally owing to the Influence of some of the most important Members of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. I replied in the Words of an able Writer, in his VINDICATION of the Bi­shop of Landaff's Sermon, wherein the utter Im­probability of such a Suspicion was pointed out, and an Extract of a Letter from one of the most important Members of the Society was given, de­claring, that the Scheme sent home was rejected on Account of its internal Defects, and that ‘ the Society, MADE NO OPPOSITION TO IT.’ I also produced a Declaration from Mr. Apthorp, ano­ther Member of the Society, who affirmed, after due Inquiry and upon proper Authority that the Rejection was ‘meerly 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 ^*.’

THE only Evidence of the Interposition of epis­copal Influence to defeat the above-mentioned Pe­tition, was the Testimony of an unknown Letter-Writer; and even he affirms only that there is Reason to think, that the Case was as he represented it to be. Such a Testimony, in Proof of a Fact that was important in its Consequences, no rea­sonable Person could think worthy of Notice, es­pecially after direct Evidence was produced to the contrary; wherefore I treated it with the Con­tempt [Page 130] it deserved. The Doctor now does not en­deavour to establish the Reputation of his unknown Witness, nor to introduce any new ones; but he attempts to weaken the Influence of mine. The Archbishop, he conceits, prevaricated; Mr. Ap­thorp was a Quibler; and neither of them answer­ed directly to the Point. However, he seems to allow, that the Society in their Character as such "made no Opposition" to the incorporating Act under Consideration. Nay, he confesses, it may, in like Manner, be true, that, although Episcopalians might use their Influence against the passing this Act, yet they might not do it as SUCH. But if Episco­palians, in their Opposition, acted not as such, or in Consequence of their episcopal Principles, the Opposition they made, cannot, with any Propriety, be called an Exertion of episcopal Influence; that not being episcopal, which has no Relation to, or Connection with, the Doctrine or Cause of Epis­copacy.

BUT notwithstanding the Want of Evidence to support it, and notwithstanding his own Concessi­ons against it, the Doctor appears to be resolved not to give up his Suspicion, that the Plan of the Bostonians received an episcopal Overthrow. The Society, he is sure, could wish it no good; but were jealous of the Success that would probably attend it, if suffered to proceed. I am heartily sorry, says he, I am obliged to say that this ‘Num­ber of eminently pious Men,’ have given the Pub­lic so little Reason to think, that they have the Con­version of Savages much at Heart. Had this been the real Truth, it is impossible but they should have done much more than they have ever yet done to promote their Conversion. They have made it abundantly e­vident, [Page 131] that they had at Heart the PROPAGATION OF EPISCOPACY much more than the Conversion of Savages; and if we may be permitted to judge from their Conduct, we shall naturally, and almost neces­sarily, be obliged to think, they would be in Readiness to oppose any Plan for the Conversion of Savages, that did not propose to convert them by episcopising them. p. 105.

LET us consider the Particulars of this candid and charitable Representation. The Society appear not to the Doctor to have the Conversion of Savages at Heart, because they have done no more in Or­der to effect it. He judges of their Inclination from their Attempts, and of their Attempts from their Success; and he allows not their Success to have been so considerable as it really has been. And yet they have always declared their earnest Desire of christianising the American Heathens; and their Declarations have been made under such Circumstances, from Time to Time, as gave no Room justly to suspect their Sincerity. Their At­tempts also to convert them were early, and fre­quently repeated; and they have constantly, from their first Incorporation to this Day, sought for Opportunities, and have never neglected one that has offered with any Prospect of Success, to pro­pagate the Gospel among the native Heathens of America.

THEY were no sooner formed, than they inqui­red for, obtained, and sent a Missionary to South-Carolina, to see what religious Impressions might be made upon the Indians in that Quarter. This was in 1702, the very next Year after their Incor­poration. In 1704, having tried without Success [Page 132] to persuade both an English and a Dutch Clergyman in this Country, that were conveniently situated for the Purpose, to engage in such a Service, they provided and sent over a Missionary from England, of an excellent Character, to the Mohawks; with Information that another Minister might be ex­pected for the Oneidas, and one for every Tribe in Alliance with them, ‘as soon as proper and wil­ling Persons could be found.’ This Missiona­ry, meeting with a very unfavourable Reception, thought proper, after a Year's fruitless Trial, to give over the Attempt. Notwithstanding, another was sent over and introduced to them in 1709, but to little Purpose; yet, in the Year following, the Request of the Four Sachems, then in En­gland, being thought favourable to the Society's Intentions, it was agreed forthwith to send over Two Missionaries, with an Allowance of a Salary of £. 150 Sterling to each, besides an Interpreter and School-Master to attend him. One actually was sent; another probably could not be found to accompany him: But after a Course of unavail­ing Efforts to answer the great Ends of his Missi­on, and finding himself to be in Danger of his Life, this Missionary also was obliged to leave them. I might continue the like Account to the present Time; but as the Society's Conduct re­lating to the Indians has been clearly and justly represented, by a Writer of eminent Abilities and Candor, in his Answer to Dr. Mahew's Observati­ons, nothing farther need be said in Vindication of it.

AND here it deserves special Notice, that pro­pagating the Gospel among the American Savages was not the primary and principal Design of the [Page 133] Society, if we may judge, either from the Words of their Charter, or the Views of those worthy Persons who petitioned for it, or the Opinion of its leading Members from that Time to this. The Society was erected in Order ‘to promote the Glory of God, by the Instruction of OUR PEO­PLE in the Christian Religion.’ It was to pro­vide for the King's LOVING SUBJECTS in the Ame­rican Plantations, who are repeatedly spoken of in the Preamble to the Charter, as the great and im­mediate Object of the intended Charity; and the Indians are not so much as once mentioned on the Occasion. The religious State of the King's Sub­jects in most of the Colonies, at that Time, was lamentably bad. Many of them had no Oppor­tunies at all for public Worship, and were as desti­tute of the Christian Sacraments as the Heathens themselves. Accounts were sent home, by Persons of the best Character amongst them, that for Want of public Instruction People were daily falling a­way, even from the very Profession of Christianity into Heathenism, or a State of Nature. Now the Design of the Society was to stop the Progress of this Apostacy; and to recover the lapsed, by send­ing orthodox Clergymen to reside and officiate a­mong them. And let Envy itself say, whether there could be a more worthy and charitable De­sign than this!

THE Prevention of a Christian's Apostacy to Heathenism, is of as much Consequence in itself, at any Time, as the Conversion of a Heathen to Christianity. The Recovery of an Apostate is as great an Acquisition, as the gaining of an origi­nal Heathen. The Conversion of a civilized Hea­then or Infidel, and such were many of the King's [Page 134] Subjects, was as good a Work as the Conversion of a Savage one. It was therefore highly necessa­ry that the Society's Charity should begin at home, among our own People—with a View, at the same Time, of extending it farther, as their Cir­cumstances and Opportunities should permit.

SUPPOSING the Society had been at Liberty to expend as much of their Fund in propagating the Gospel among the Indians, as in supporting and propagating it among our own People, which was by no Means the Case; yet it would have been right and judicious Conduct, in the Exercise of such a discretionary Power, to expend the far greater Part of their Money in providing for the King's Subjects. For many of the latter were not only willing to accept of Missionaries, but sincere­ly desired them, and earnestly requested to have them: Whereas the very Reverse of this good Temper appeared in the Indians. There was there­fore Reason to expect, that the same Sum expend­ed in the Colonies would be far more useful, and produce a much better Effect, than if expended among the neighbouring Tribes of Indians. In­deed, as St. Paul observes, Men cannot hear with­out a Preacher; but if they have Preachers, and will not hear them, it is impossible that they should believe in Consequence of their preaching, or be proselyted to that Faith which comes by hearing. This seems to have been the general Temper and Disposition of the Indians, with Regard to Chris­tianity.

DR. Wheelock, who has thought much upon the Subject of propagating the Gospel among the Indians, says: ‘There is no such Thing as sending [Page 135] English Missionaries, or settling or maintaining English Schools to any good Purpose, in most Places among them, as their Temper, State and Condition have been ^‡.’ Again: ‘As to most Places, there is no such Thing at present as introducing either English School-Masters or Missionaries to continue with them; such are their Prejudices in general, and such the male­volent and ungovernable Temper of some, that none but an Indian would dare to venture his Life among them ^*.’ Such is the Character and Disposition of the Indians in general, and such it has been ever since the Incorporation of the Society, according to Dr. Wheelock.

THAT the Society have made it abundantly evi­dent, that they had at Heart the Propagation of Episcopacy, much more than the Conversion of Savages, is a vile Reflection on that venerable Body. Dr. Mayhew, taught by another, and instigated by his own anti-episcopal Zeal, was guilty of this Abuse some Years ago, for which he received public Correction. Dr. Chauncy has the Hardiness to repeat it, notwithstanding a Vindication of the Society, that has been deemed fully satisfactory by the candid and impartial; for which I beg Leave to refer to the before-mentioned Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observations.

IF the Society had the Propagation of Episcopacy at Heart, in the Sense wherein it is objected, they would undoubtedly have instructed their Missiona­ries to make this a considerable Part of their Business. It can never be supposed that they would [Page 136] send Persons abroad, at a great Expence, with a View to any particular Service, without informing them that such Service was expected from them. But nothing of this Kind has ever been given in Charge in their public Instructions: On the other Hand, their Missionaries are directed to ‘keep always in View the great Design of their Under­taking, viz. To promote the Glory of God, and the Salvation of Men, by propagating the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour;’ and it is required of them, ‘that the chief Subject of their Sermons be the great fundamental Principles of Christianity, and the Duties of a sober, righteous and godly Life, as resulting from those Principles ^†.’ And as to private Directions, although from the very Nature of them I cannot be so positive about these, as their public ones; yet I most firmly believe, from every Thing that I can recollect or learn upon Inquiry, that no Missionary was ever instructed, either verbally before he came abroad, or by any Letter or Letters afterwards, to endeavour to pro­pagate Episcopacy, or any of the distinguishing Principles of the Church of England. And if any Missionaries have made the Attempt, or have behaved in such a Manner as to give just Umbrage to any of their Neighbours, it has been their own free and voluntary Act, and what the Society have never required at their Hands.

THE Missionaries wish, that all the King's Sub­jects, throughout the British Dominions, would become Episcopalians and Members of the Church of England: But, as they are not employed to molest any Protestants in the Enjoyment of their own Principles, so I believe they seldom do—far­ther [Page 137] than their own necessary Defence may require▪ Within the Compass of my Knowledge, I am verily persuaded, that for every Instance of an Attack made upon the Dissenters by any Missionary or Member of the Church, Twenty at least are made by Dissenters upon Churchmen. I know more of their Conduct of this Kind than perhaps they ima­gine; and I have often been surprised to discover, to what low and pitiful Arts some, who think themselves Men of Consequence, can descend, in Order to prevail with the most insignificant Person, and sometimes even with a stupid Negro, to leave the Church and go to their Meeting.

THE Assertion, that we are naturally and almost necessarily obliged to think, from the Society's Conduct, that they would OPPOSE any Plan for the Conversion of the Savages, that did not propose to convert them by episcopising them, I should not have expected from a Gentleman of the Doctor's Cha­racter, as it is worthy of a Savage only. Unless the Society look upon Presbyterianism, for Instance, to be no better than Indian Heathenism, they would choose rather that the Indians should become Presbyterians, than remain in their present State. They undoubtedly wish, in the first Place, that every Indian may be converted, and that every such Conversion may be compleat; i. e. that every pro­selyted Indian may become not only almost, ‘but altogether such,’ both in Faith and Practice, as the Rules and Precepts contained in Scripture are thought to require. If they cannot be persuaded to become altogether such, they wish, in the next Place, that they may become almost, and as nearly such as possible. The Society wish to be instru­mental in converting all the Indian Tribes: But, as [Page 138] they know that they are unable to carry this into Execution, they envy none the Honour of being Sharers in this good Work, that are able and wil­ling to promote it in any Degree. If they had rather the Indians should become Members of that Church which they prefer, than stop short of it, they are not censurable for this; for, at the same Time, they had rather they should become Pro­testants, of any Denomination, than Papists—and they had rather they should become Papists, than continue to be Heathens. I could produce, from their History and annual Abstracts, many Proofs of this Disposition; and I defy their bitterest Ene­mies, even Dr. Chauncy himself, to bring any Proof of the contrary.

THE Indian Mission at Stockbridge, under the Direction of the Commissioners (of the Society in Scotland) residing in Boston, is indebted to Mem­bers of our Society for considerable Donations. It is more indebted to the Members of the Church of England; who have given more to promote that single Mission, than I believe the Dissenters have ever given to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, from its first Existence to this Day. If Missionaries from New-England should receive Checks from Government in any Part of their Pro­ceedings, this cannot, with any Justice or Propri­ety, be charged to the Account of the Society. If Government should hereafter discover, or have Reason to suspect, that any of those Missionaries endeavour, together with the Propagation of their Religion, to establish a political Interest of their own Party, different from the general Interest of the Nation; or, that they incumber the Sale of Lands to the British Crown, by stipulating with the Indians [Page 139] for certain Conditions in Favour of their own Schemes; they will have no Right to expect the Countenance of Government in such Proceedings. The Doctor knows that Things of this Kind may hereafter happen, for this good Reason, that they lately have happened; he will therefore do well to be cautious in blaming the Society in such Cases ^§.

IT was thought strange that he should insinuate that the before-mentioned incorporating Act was defeated by episcopal Influence, without taking No­tice of Mr. Apthorp's Declaration to the contrary, which he could not have been ‘such a Stranger in Israel’ as not to have seen. The Matter is now clearly accounted for, in p. 108. It is at once solved, replies the Doctor, by only saying, it was none of my Business to take Notice of this Evidence, until it had been produced. The Reader here sees in what Manner he has rendered himself so very exceptionable, both in his Reasonings and Repre­sentations. He neglected all Evidence on one Side the Question, how fully soever he was ac­quainted with it, unless I had produced it; and he thought it was not his Business, to ballance and compare counter Evidences, but to rake together every Thing that had an unfavourable Aspect only; in Order to vilify and abuse the Church of England, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, with a farther View of obstructing the Progress of [Page 140] our Plan. After this honest and artless Confession, his Readers will know how to make proper Al­lowances, for what he advances in a controversial Way.

IN the eighth Section of the Appeal, a full and fair Account was given, of the only Plan on which it was requested than an American Episcopate might be granted, with Expostulations on the Rea­sonableness of such an Appointment. In Answer to this Section the Doctor seemed really to exert himself; and he called in, to aid his own Efforts, what he says was POWERFULLY offered by the late excel­lent Dr. Mayhew. In my Reply, particular Notice was taken of every Thing produced, either from his own Store or the late Dr. Mayhew's Magazine, that appeared to have Force; and enough was said to shew, if I am not greatly mistaken, that every Objection exhibited was either groundless or imper­tinent. The Doctor in his Rejoinder, which he miscalls his Reply, seems to say a great deal in Sup­port of his former Objections. It is here, if any where, that he aims his Blows directly at the Vitals of the Episcopate requested, and does his utmost; for which Reason I shall take a particular Review of what, in this Place, he has done and said.

BEFORE he proceeds to an immediate Attack, he has some Observations of a miscellaneous Na­ture, several of which I shall pass by as utterly im­pertinent. He begins with endeavoring to raise, in the Minds of Readers, but an indifferent Idea of what I had said upon the main Point. He tells them that he was greatly disappointed, that I fell short of his Expectation, and that what I said on the Subject was less convincing than what I had of­fered [Page 141] in any Part of my Performance. p. 109. This, I think, discovers his Heroism, rather than his Policy; for according to the apparent Weakness of his Antagonist, the Honor of a Victory will be proportionably abated.

HERE he again takes Notice of our Conventi­on's Address to the University of Cambridge, on the Subject of American Bishops; and he seems to to think, that, because some of his Friends have published a spurious Copy of that Address, therefore he is intitled to a true one. He is determined not to be satisfied until he sees a Copy that is genuine, and will continue to suspect that the obnoxious Expressions contained in the false Copy were also in the true one, notwithstanding our Declarations to the contrary. This is treating us rather unge­nerously, as the Testimony of a Number of Per­sons that have seen and are acquainted with any particular Writing, is always allowed to have more Weight, than the Testimony of a single Person, perhaps an unknown one, that has never seen it— where the Dispute is about the Contents of that Writing. If therefore he determines not to submit to the Evidence of our Testimony, I advise him, for the present, to suspend his Judgment of the Matter, until he shall obtain a Sight of the Ad­dress, and to wait with Patience; as Time may possibly bring forward, what it is not in his Power to hasten.

AMONG a Number of paradoxical Things ad­vanced in his Answer to the Appeal, it was said: Some of the most respectable Episcopalians, in these Parts, for Sobriety, good Sense, and a steady Attach­ment to the Interest of the Church of England, have [Page 142] declared it to be their Opinion, that Bishops would be of no Service here, and they did not desire they should be sent. What was meant by the indefinite Word some, whether Two or Two Hundred, I was unable to determine. The Doctor says I might have known the Meaning of it, i. e. its precise Meaning, if I had attended to the following Sentence. Let us see then how the Matter is cleared up in the explanatory sentence. And it is to me, as well as to MANY I have conversed with on this Head, EPIS­COPALIANS among others, very questionable, &c. Here the Word many is imposed upon the Reader, as an Explanation of the Word some in the fore­going Sentence: Whereas many Episcopalians are not here mentioned, but only many People, some of whom were Episcopalians; so that the Word some is still left as indeterminate as ever. I then questioned whether there was an Episcopalian on the Continent, justly so called, that was averse to American Bishops on the Plan of the Appeal. I knew of none, had heard of none, could conceive of none. Such a Character is so absurd, that I did not imagine it had an actual Existence. An Episcopalian is one that, at least, approves of the Government of the Church by Bishops; but he that only approves of the Government of the Church by Bishops residing at the Distance of 3000 Miles, can hardly be said to approve of it at all, or to be an Episcopalian in any Sense. An Epis­copalian is one that also approves of Ordination by Bishops; but he that only approves of episcopal Ordination under the Circumstances of a long, dangerous and expensive Voyage to obtain it, may be thought by the Doctor to be respectable for his good Sense, and may be esteemed by him for SUCH an Attachment to the Interest of the Church of [Page 143] England in the Colonies; but as an Episcopalian he will appear to all its real Friends to be truly ridi­culous. It was therefore natural to interpret the Word some in as scanty a Sense as it would any Way bear; and it was paying great Regard to his Testimony, in so incredible a Case, to believe his Assertion in that Sense.

BUT what is all this to the Point: says he. It is a Fact, not a speculative Truth, we are now upon, p. 112. This is calling the Credibility of a Fact a speculative Matter; but it is speculative in no other Sense than that, wherein the Persons he mentions are Episcopalians—a Sense, which will never be admitted by those, who content themselves with Words in their common Acceptation.

BUT, where is the Difficulty of supposing, that most Episcopalians on the Continent may have a quite dif­ferent Notion of the Plan for an American Episco­pate, from that the episcopal Clergy have of it, who were its ONLY FORMERS, and the ONLY PETITIONERS that it might be carried into Execution? If by the episcopal Clergy he means those of America, it is not true that they were the only Formers of the Plan in Question. They do not pretend to have formed it at all; but they have adopted it when formed by others, not exclusively of the Laity. Nor were they the only Petitioners in Favour of it; for seve­ral of the most considerable Lay-Gentlemen in the Colonies have recommended and petitioned for it, although not jointly with the Clergy of our Con­vention. Many others were also consulted, who signified their Approbation of it, before our Peti­tions were framed. All of them could not be consulted in a private Way, and therefore it was [Page 144] thought proper to publish it to the World, before it could be put in Execution; that all might have an Opportunity to consider it, and to offer their Objections if they had any.

THERE were many Members of the Church that were, upon the whole, averse to an Episcopate in this Country; imagining it would either expose them to considerable Expence for its Support, or put them to some other Inconveniencies. But when they came to see, that every Thing of this Kind had been carefully guarded against, and that from its Design and Tendency it would be mild and beneficial in its Operation, which appeared as soon as it was explained to them; their Aversion immediately ceased, and from that Time they have generally viewed it in the same Light with that wherein it is seen by the Clergy.

ALTHOUGH what has been said of the Episcopa­lians in these Parts is universally true, without an Exception, to the best of my Knowledge, the Doctor however has this to comfort him, that the Episcopalians in and about Boston, are of a different Opinion. For, says he, that the Mission of Bishops into the Colonies would do more Hurt than good, I KNOW, is, in Fact, the Opinion of MANY Lay-Epis­copalians, and, I believe, of the greater Part of them in the New-England Colonies. What is here said of the Episcopalians in New-England, must not be understood to extend to Connecticut, which contains more in Number than the three other Co­lonies, and where they are unanimous in wishing for an Episcopate. As to the Episcopalians in Massachusetts, New-Hampshire and Rhode-Island, they are not yet universally acquainted with the [Page 145] Plan. It is therefore not improbable that the Doctor may know, either personally or by Infor­mation, of many, i. e. of Eight or Ten, for the Word does not necessarily mean more, that still think unfavourably of an American Episcopate. But it is remarkable that he does not yet say, that any are averse to an Episcopate on the Plan of the Appeal, who are acquainted with it otherwise than by Misinformation. I fancy it would be difficult to find many such, or even some. I have inquired of Persons that are not Strangers in Boston, and I have never heard of but one such Episcopalian; and he is generally looked upon by Churchmen, and frequently by others, to be a Disgrace to his Pro­fession. While he calls himself a Churchman, he associates and connects himself with the bitterest Enemies of the Church, is governed by their In­fluence, and suffers himself to be used as an Instru­ment in their Hands to injure its Reputation and destroy his own.

AND here it may deserve Notice, that there are many People in New-England, besides Episcopa­lians, that have no Aversion to an American Episcopate. This may be justly said of the Quakers in general, unless they differ widely from their Brethren in Pennsylvania and New-Jersey, where they are more numerous and more respectable than in any other Parts of his Majesty's Dominions, compared with the other Inhabitants. And a Wri­ter in Favour of the Baptists in New-England, who is supposed to express the general Sentiments of that Denomination of Christians, says, with a Tartness that seems to have been excited by an Opinion of their Oppression: "The Fraternity," (meaning the Presbyterian or congregational Mi­nisters) [Page 146] ‘last Year have sent Letters to Baptist Ministers in New-England, requesting their Aid against the Church of England. But truly it is the Interest of the Baptists that the Church of England should multiply in Massachusetts and Connecticut, so far as to form a Ballance of ecclesiastical Power there, as in other Colonies. And as for Bishops, they are welcome there; their coming thither is an Object worthy of PE­TITIONS; we cannot be worse off; we may be better: they are Gentlemen at least, and have some Generosity for vanquished Enemies. But the New-England People (of a certain Deno­mination) are supercilious in Power, and mean in Conquest. I will venture to say, that all the Bishops in Old England have not done the Bap­tists there so much Despite for 80 Years past, as the Presbyterians have done this Year to the Baptists of New-England ^*.’ And that the latter are not inconsiderable in Number appears from what this Writer tells us, who asserts that ‘there are 37 Congregations of them in Massa­setts’ only; to say nothing of Rhode-Island, where they are more numerous and much more powerful than in any of the other Colonies.

THE Doctor objected against our Plan, that it had been illegally settled. This Objection, if just, more nearly concerns the Friends of the Plan, than its Enemies: And while he objects the Ille­gality of the Plan, he says much to persuade us to put it far more illegally into Execution. But why was it illegally settled? Because, says he, it was projected and formed, to the intire Neglect of his Majesty, without whose LICENCE, not even the Con­vocation [Page 147] have any Right to settle such a Plan, or so much as ATTEMPT to form it. p. 113. In Reply to this he was told, that under whatever Restraints a Convocation might be laid, the Plan was not the Work of a Convocation. But he argues, that if the Convocation, without a special Licence, cannot attempt such a Thing, much less can it be attempted by Clergymen out of Convocation— Clergymen of less Distinction perhaps, and fewer in Number. But this Argument is by no Means conclusive. The Parliament of Great Britain, for Instance, when met together upon public Business, are tied up to the Strictness of Rules and Forms; but when the Members meet together occasionally or designedly, in their private Character, they are free from those Restraints to which they were sub­ject in their parliamentary Capacity. The like may be said of the Convocation; the Members of which, at a private Meeting, may lawfully do many Things, and in such a Way, as are not per­mited to be done at all, or in that Way, in Con­vocation.

NOR has his Majesty been intirely neglected in this Affair. Indeed the Prince upon the Throne was never neglected, when the Scheme for an Ameri­can Episcopate was made the Object of Attention. The Case of the Episcopalians in the Colonies was duly considered by the Society, and the Plan for an Episcopate, peculiarly fitted to their Circum­stances, was brought nearly to its present Form, in the Reign of Queen Anne—when an Order was issued by the Crown, for a Bill to be drawn and presented to the Parliament for the Confirmation of it ^§. An American Episcopate was proposed [Page 148] long before this Time: The Subject then was brought before the King's Privy Council, so that we have no Reason to think his Majesty was neg­lected, at that Time. The same venerable Per­son, who furnished the Extract from Cranmer 's Catechism, in another Letter of Feb. 28th, 1770, to a different Person, says:— ‘that he had met with an original Letter, that fell into his Hands by Executorship, from Dr. Alexander Murray, in which he found that the Council had come to a Resolution to establish Episcopacy in Virginia; that he himself (Dr. Murray) who had attended Charles II. abroad, should be the first Bishop; that the Plan of Establishment was referred to the Bishop of London and Sir Orlando Bridg­man, and this was, so far as he could recollect, Oct. 16, 1673. And he supposes the Matter then died, by the Cabal's throwing out Sir Or­lando in the November following, before the Bishop and he made their Report ^*.’ He adds, that he had returned the Original to the Duke of Bedford, with several other Papers belonging to the Duke's Family, but had taken a Copy of it. To say nothing farther of the intermediate Reigns, the Plan was properly laid before his present Ma­jesty, and he heartily approved of it; and of this Royal Approbation some Members of our Con­vention had received authentic Evidence, before their Petitions were voted. As therefore our Friends have no just Reason to blame us for proceeding illegally, to the intire Neglect of his Majesty, our [Page 149] Enemies have certainly no Right to reproach us with it.

WHY then was not the Plan introduced with par­ticular Notice of so important a Point of Deference to the Royal Supremacy? p. 118. Because it was not needful. The Design was to inform the igno­rant of the true Plan that was proposed for an A­merican Episcopate, and to convince the preju­diced of the Reasonableness of it; and it would not have promoted either Part of the Design, to have told the Reader what the King thought of it. But afterwards, in replying to the Doctor's Objec­tions, this Information became proper, and he doubtless received from it no small Consolation. However, he is not altogether satisfied, for he in­quires farther: Why is there not now exhibited in Form some authentic Proof of the King's LICENCE to contrive and publish the Plan we HAVE HAD HELD out to View? p. 116. The King could give no Licence to contrive a Plan that was contrived long before he existed; but authentic Proof of his Ap­probation of it, and that he does not look upon the Steps that have been taken as any Infringe­ment of the Royal Supremacy, we are able to give. We pretend not to have proceeded in all the Forms of a Convocation, which would have been a ridi­culous Affectation, nor to have received a Licence under the great Seal. Such a Licence was not necessary; it was sufficient for our Convention, that his Majesty had considered and was favorable to the Episcopate in View, and that our Evidence of his favorable Disposition was such as could not be questioned. Our Evidence of this important Fact we have not laid before the Public, because this would be taking a Liberty that has not been [Page 150] granted; and we are resolved to do nothing but what is strictly warrantable.

IF nothing else could be said to justify the Con­duct of those who proposed the Plan, yet ‘the Charter granted to the Society for the Propagati­on of the Gospel, has the Nature and Efficacy of a Royal Commission,’ and warranted them to concert any Plans that might be thought necessary, in Order more fully to answer the Ends of their Incorporation. They soon were convinced that an American Episcopate would be highly useful to this Purpose. They mention the Matter as early as the Abstract annexed to the anniversary Sermon preached in 1703, by Bishop Burnet. From their entering so soon upon the Subject, it may fairly be concluded, that, in their Opinion, the Charter gave them the Authority in Question.

INDEED the Doctor allows, that the Society had a Right to form a general Plan for sending Bishops to America, and that this may be perfectly consistent with due Honor to the Royal Supremacy; but not to plan such an Episcopate as that of the Appeal. For, it seems, the Bishops therein proposed, are to carry on the Business of ecclesiastical Government and Discipline in a Manner quite different from that which is injoined by the Authority of the King and Parliament. p. 117. The King and Parliament have prescribed in what Manner ecclesiastical Go­vernment shall be administred in England; but the Statute is not quoted, wherein they have in­joined any Form of it for the Colonies. Indeed he alledges the 73d Canon, which is pointed against those that impeach or deprave ‘the Government or Discipline established in the Church of England;’ [Page 151] but nothing which has not this Tendency is for­bidden by the Canon. The Canon could have no Reference to the Colonies, because they were not settled at the Time of framing it; and therefore it is not violated, by proposing an Episcopate for the Colonies, that is peculiarly adapted to the Cir­cumstances of the Inhabitants.

BUT, says the Doctor: Why do Colony-Episcopa­lians glory in being Members of the Church of En­gland, if there is no Church of England here? And if there is, it is as reasonable to suppose the Canon was intended to guard its established Form of Go­vernment against Impeachment and Depravation here, as at home. p. 118. We glory in being Mem­bers of the Church of England, because we e­steem it to be the purest and best Church upon Earth. We are Members of that Church, not­withstanding our distant Situation, because we not only receive her Articles and embrace her Liturgy, but more especially because we submit to her Au­thority, and all our ecclesiastical Offices are per­formed by Power derived from her Bishops. The Church of England therefore extends itself into the Colonies, and partly exists here; although at present in such an imperfect State, for Want of an Episcopate, as to be a proper Object of the cha­ritable Interposition of all its Friends.

BUT if the Church of England exists here, it is argued, that the Canon must have been intended to guard its established Form of Government here, as well as at home. But how could the Canon be intended to guard its established Form, where no Form is established? The Canon was evidently designed to extend, and it can extend, no farther [Page 152] than to where the Church was, or is established. It may be established here by the same Authority that has established it at home, and yet under a different Form, in many Respects, without im­peaching or depraving any Part of the Establishment which it has in England. For in framing Laws for the external Regulation of a Church, as well as of any other Society, Reference ought always to be had to the Circumstances of the Country, and the Opinions or Prejudices that generally prevail in the Minds of People. On this Account, the Government of the Church may require one mode of Administration in England, and another here; and such a Difference will be no Impeachment on either Side. For while it is allowed, that a certain Mode of Administration is the fitest for that Coun­try in which it obtains; it is no Reflection to say, that it is not fit for a different Country, with a View to which it was never framed. The present ecclesiastical Government in England, although perhaps in some Points capable of Improvement, yet, upon the whole, may be better adapted to that Kingdom, than any other Form that can be devised. At the same Time, the Episcopate pro­posed for America, may be fiter for America, than such an Episcopate as is established in England. In these Cases, the American Episcopate will imply no Reflection upon the English Episcopate, nor the English upon the American; as each may be best fited, in such different Countries, to answer the great Ends of the general Appointment.

THE Church of England claims to herself a Right, and she allows the same to all Churches, to regulate or alter the Externals of Religion, as Cir­cumstances may require. Previously to the Settle­ment [Page 153] of ecclesiastical Matters soon after the Ac­cession of Queen Elizabeth, this Point was fully canvassed; and at a public Disputation between the protestant and popish Divines, the former con­tended for and supported this Proposition— ‘that every particular Church hath Authority to insti­tute, change and abrogate Ceremonies and Rites of the Church (meaning every Thing belonging to its Worship or Discipline that is not essential) so that it be to Edification ^*.’ Accordingly the Doctrine of this Proposition was soon after brought into Art. xxxiv. ‘It is not necessary, says the Article, that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all Places one or utterly like, for at all Times they have been diverse, and may be changed accor­ding to the Diversity of Country and Men's Man­ners, so that nothing be ordained contrary to God's Word.—Every particular or national Church hath Authority to ordain, change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by Men's Authority; so that all Things be done to edifying.’ The same Lan­guage is used in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer established by 14 CHARLES II, and in many other Places. According therefore to the Doctrine of the Church of England, ‘the Diversity of Country and Men's Manners’ may be a sufficient Reason, for settling an Episcopate in America under differ­ent Regulations, and a different external Form, from what may be esteemed preferable in England.

WERE the Circumstances of this Country the same with those of England, an Episcopate of the same Kind with that in England would have been the Object of our Plan; for we believe, as the [Page 154] Legislature at home believe, that such an Epis­copate is best fited for such a Country. Were the Circumstances of England the same with those of the Colonies, such an Episcopate as would be best for the Colonies, would also be best for the Mo­ther-Country. In that Case, I confess, it would be an idle Thing to say, ‘that Circumstances in America require that the Externals of an Epis­copate should be under a Regulation peculiar to this Country.’ But he that cannot see that the Circumstances of the Two Countries are widely different, must be blind with a Witness; and he that can argue for the Propriety of any Mode or external Form under certain Circumstances, be­cause it is proper under different Circumstances, is idle indeed. Strange! that the Doctor, who can frequently make Distinctions where there is no Difference, should not be able to distinguish so glaring a Difference!

BUT we are told, that no Circumstances, unless those of a meer worldly Nature, which have nothing to do with a purely spiritual Kingdom, can make it fit, suitable or reasonable, that the Mode of an Epis­copate should be different (here) from what it is at home, p. 120. It may be said, in the like Strain, that no Circumstances, but those of a mere wordly Nature, which have nothing to do with a purely spiritual Kingdom, can make it reasonable or fit, that the Mode of supporting the Clergy here, should be different from what it is at home, namely, by Tithes. This Proposition is in the same Style with the Doctor's, and is as unexceptionable as his. The spiritual Kingdom of Christ is indeed not of this World; yet it exists in the World, and as the Subjects of it are not pure Spirits, like the Bishops [Page 155] the Doctor allows us, it may be greatly affected by the Things of this World. But I will not enlarge on so plain a Subject. If the Episcopate now proposed, would be better received, and probably have a better Effect in America, than the English Episcopate; it is, of the two, the fiter for this Country. It is of no Consequence in this Debate, whether the Fitness arises from Considerations that are purely spiritual, or not. Fitness is Fitness; Reasonableness is Reasonableness; and whatever is fit and reasonable to be done, ought always to be done. It is therefore submitted to the Reader's Judgment, whether the Plan for an American Episcopate which has been offered to the Public, has any Tendency to impeach or deprave the estab­lished Government of the Church of England— any more, than a particular Mode of maintaining the Clergy in one Country, is an Impeachment of a different Mode of maintaining them in another Country.

AFTER all, what is this to the Doctor, or his Adherents? Are he and they, on a sudden, become so friendly, as to desire that the Advocates for the Episcopate in Question may not incur the Penalty of a Canon? He, good Man, seems to be under great Concern for us on this Account. We are obliged to him for his Friendship; but he may spare himself all his Uneasiness, as we are safe without it.

HIS Fulminations hitherto have resembled that distant Cannonading, which often precedes and introduces a close Engagement, where Noise and Smoak are the most that is expected. But now he proceeds to immediate Action. His Five capital [Page 156] Objections, like so many standing Batteries formerly erected, he again brings to bear upon the Plan that has been advanced—but, with what Force and Execution, will shortly appear from a distinct View of each.

OBJECTION 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, p. 121. He thought it injurious to the Church, because it was to have no immediate Effect upon the Laity. To this it was answered: ‘If the Laity are not to be affected by the Bishop's Authority, they are cer­tainly not to be injured by it; that, which does not operate at all, producing no Effect, either injurious or beneficial ^*.’ He now asks: Is this a fit Answer for public View? It was offered as such, and I see no Reason to be ashamed of it. No one, says he, I believe, before the Doctor ever said, it was not injurious to deprive the Laity of a spiritual Privilege they are supposed to be intitled to, and by a Grant from Jesus Christ. For my Part, I believe Dr. Chauncy is the first, that ever talked of depri­ving Men of what they never had in Possession. If the not bestowing a Favour may be called a Deprivation, it may be said of him, that he has been deprived of the Bishoprick of London.

THE spiritual Privilege, of which he supposes the American Laity to be deprived by our Plan, is that of being immediately under the Government of Bishops; but if they are not desirous of being under such Government, they certainly cannot con­sider it, nor ought it to be mentioned, in the [Page 157] Light of a Privilege. The Doctor often speaks of ecclesiastical Discipline, as only the Rule for pu­nishing, or the Punishment itself, of ecclesiastical Delinquents; according to which Use of the Word, the Privilege for which he contends, in Behalf of the American Laity, is the Privilege of being pu­nished for their Offences. So that his Privilege is of as new and extraordinary a Nature, as his De­privation. For tell a Criminal of his Privilege of receiving public Correction, and he will take it as an Insult. If the Doctor had contended for ecclesias­tical Punishment, which he means by the Word Discipline, as a Benefit to the Church in general, or sometimes even to the Delinquents themselves, and not as a Privilege to the Sufferers, he might have been free from Absurdity.

THIS Matter of Discipline seems to have been strangely misunderstood, or misrepresented, by my Opponent. It is not proposed that the American Laity of the Church of England, after the Settle­ment of an Episcopate, shall be under no ecclesi­astical Discipline at all; for they are not so at pre­sent. It is the Duty of the Clergy now, and it will be considered as their Duty under the proposed Episcopate, to make Use of public and private Admonition, and to repel from the holy Commu­nion, as Cases may require; and it does not ap­pear, that a more severe Discipline than this, would, in the present Age, and in this Country, tend to Edification. The Enemies of the Church of En­gland reproached the Establishment of it by Queen Elizabeth, with the Neglect of Discipline; but its celebrated Apologist maintained in Answer to them, that She was guilty of no criminal Neglect in this Respect. ‘ Nos—quantum his Moribus et Tempo­ribus, [Page 158] &c. i. e. as far as the present Times, and the present State of Manners, in this Age of general Corruption, will admit of, we do care­fully administer ecclesiastical Discipline ^*.’ This he thought a sufficient Justification of the Church of England; not imagining that She was obliged to make Use of a severer Discipline than the Times would admit of. The same Plea is offered for the Episcopate proposed for the Colonies. As much Discipline over the Laity as the State of this Country will admit of, is in the Hands of the Clergy; and therefore more will not be introduced by the Bishops of our Plan. Consequently, in this Respect, they will not be immediately beneficial to the Laity. However, as they will probably cause some of the Clergy to be more attentive to their Duty in general than they would otherwise be, and to that of Discipline, as well as others; in this Way they will be really beneficial to the Laity, by the Instrumentality of the Clergy.

UNDER this Objection the Doctor urged, that our Plan would be injurious to the Bishops proposed, by restraining their Power. It was answered, that if such a Restriction was not injurious to the Church, it could be no Injury to the Bishops. I could not conceive of the Authority of Bishops, under the Notion of so much private Property be­longing to them; in Consequence of which every Limitation of their Authority would be so much Damage sustained by the Bishops. This was men­tioned as an absurdity attending the Doctor's Posi­tion. He now refers to it, not as a supposed Ab­surdity of his, but as a Principle of mine; and makes a Flourish in the following abusive Excla­mation: [Page 159] It is amazing, one of the Doctor's Cha­racter should not be able to see, that Bishops were (are) capable of sustaining Damage in other Ways be­sides that of being touched in their private Property. p. 123.

TO what was said on this Subject in the Appeal defended, which stands in full Force notwithstand­ing the Doctor's Attempt to weaken it, I will now add, as worthy of his Attention, the following Con­siderations. The episcopal Order has Authority, given by Christ, to govern the Church. This Au­thority extends to all the Members of the Church, the Laity as well as Clergy; but its immediate Ac­tion or Operation was chiefly intended to take Place upon the Clergy. The Discipline of the Church, so far as the Laity are its immediate Ob­jects, has always been exercised by the parochial Clergy, except in some extrordinary Cases, and not by the Bishops in their own Persons. It appears therefore, that no great Innovation will be the Consequence of our Plan; it being intended only to provide, that no new Discipline over the Laity shall be introduced into America, nor the common Discipline exercised by different Persons, under the proposed Episcopate. And where it is said that the Bishop's ‘Authority shall operate only upon the Clergy of the Church, and not upon the Laity;’ the Meaning is, that it shall operate only upon the Clergy as its immediate Objects, and that others can have no Reason to dread its Effects. Not that the episcopal Authority over the Laity shall be intirely suspended; for when the parochial Clergy exercise an Authority, given them by the Bishops, and under their Superintendency, it is an Exercise of the Bishop's Authority. What a Bi­shop [Page 160] does properly and effectually by Means of his subordinate Officers, is his own Act; and there is no just Room to complain, that the Bishops of the Appeal are injured, by being divested of all Authority over the Laity. The Authority given by Christ to Bishops ought always to be exercised in such a Manner, as may best answer its original Intention, of which they are the proper Judges. If the Governors of the Church had not some dis­cretionary Power in Matters of this Nature, in many Cases the Exercise of their Authority would tend more to Destruction than to Edification, and thus defeat its own End.

OBJECTION II. The Bishops in this Plan are so widely different from the Bishops of the Church of England at home, that it is not reasonable they should be desired or sent, p. 124. In Answer to this it was said, ‘the Bishops in this Plan are essentially the same with the Bishops at home, how widely soever they may differ in some Circumstances.’ So far as they differ from the Bishops in England, they are more adapted to the State of the Colonies, and are proportionably more to be desired than such Bishops; the Difference being proposed for this very End, that they may be rendered more de­sirable in this Country. And I observed to this Objector, in Words that have not escaped his Notice, that ‘let them be ever so different, if such Bishops as are proposed are fiter for the Colonies, than such Bishops as are in England, and the Doctor will hardly say they are not; then it may be reasonable that they should be both desired and sent ^‖.’ But behold here, another Curiosity in the Regions of Controversy! The Doctor replies in [Page 161] these remarkable Words: The plain Answer is, they are not fiter for the Colonies, than—(than what? I dare say every Reader expects the next Words to be, such Bishops as are in England. But no such Matter; for thus it is in my Copy, than) for the Mother Country. See here, in a protestant Divine, an Instance of Jesuitical Sophistry, that is worthy of a FILIUCIUS or an ESCOBAR! The Bishops pro­posed were said to be fiter for this Country, than such Bishops as are in England would be; but they were not said to be fiter for the Colonies than they are for England, although this be undoubtedly the Case. The Proposition that I advanced, this accomplished Disputant was unable to deny; but in the Place of it he denied a Proposition that I had not advanced, that he might appear to contradict me.

UNDER this Branch of the Objection, the Doctor insisted, that it was unreasonable for a comparative Handful of episcopal Professors in the Colonies to expect, that the Powers and Appendages of Bishops should be so mightily abridged in Favour of them; when the Dissenters in England, and others who desired it, could not obtain this Gratification at home. To this I gave no particular Answer, as the same Point had been already considered, and what had been said was, in my Opinion, a full Answer to it. But WHERE (this was considered) says the Doctor, he has not told us; nor can I find that he has any where given such an Answer, or even attempted it, p. 125. As I frequently find Reason to suspect, that he has never read, with proper Attention, the Pieces he undertakes to refute, I shall not question the Truth of what is here as­serted, namely, that he knows not where I had [Page 162] obviated the Remark under Consideration. And as I am willing to give him any friendly Assistance he may think himself intitled to ask, I will inform him, that I had Reference in particular to p. 113, preceeding; for the Pertinency and Force of which, I appeal to every Reader, one only excepted.

THE Doctor also complains, that I took no No­tice of what he said, concerning the Inconsistency of our Plan with the Doctrine of Uniformity, which is, made so important a Matter in the Church of England. I assure him, that whatever in his Answer I passed by without Notice, was omitted, either from an Opinion that it had been already obviated, or that it did not deserve particular Notice. It was on the latter of these Accounts, that I made no Remarks upon the Passage referred to. And here I will only observe by the Bye, that Unifor­mity is not more strenuously required by the Church of England, than by every other national Church. An Uniformity of Worship and Doctrine, and even of Discipline in all its essential Parts, with what is established in England, will be maintained in the Church of England in the Colonies, under the proposed Episcopate. And as to the Difference in the Appendages of our Bishops, it will be no greater than has lately been proved, from the 34th Article—that, in the Opinion of the Church of England, ‘Diversity of Countries and Men's Manners’ will justify.

IT was farther objected, that if Bishops should be sent to the Colonies, with these restrained Powers (as mentioned in the Plan) undesirable Consequences might be naturally feared, both here and at home. The Consequence to be dreaded here, was said to [Page 163] be, that the Bishops would throw off this Restraint as soon as might be, &c. In Answer to this it was observed, that Men's endeavouring to free them­selves from Restraint, is no just Reason why they should not be restrained, on proper Occasions. It was also observed, that no Uneasiness under such a Restraint was justly to be apprehended in our American Bishops; for as they will know what to expect before they accept of the Office, there can be no Disappointment. I then proceeded in the following Words, which I beg Leave to tran­scribe; because I think them a sufficient Answer not only to all that was objected under this Head, but to all the Doctor now says in Support of his Objection. ‘Why should they (the American Bishops) be uneasy, because the Bishops at home are invested with civil Authority? The Bishops at home may be as properly uneasy and restless, because they are not, like some of their Order on the Continent of Europe, sovereign Princes. Perhaps the Uneasiness of 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 [Page 164] Clergy of the Church of England at home, are, in a great Measure, supported by Tithes; there­fore, it might have been said, at the first Settle­ment of the Colonies, if Clergymen of the Church of England are once admitted in this Country, under whatever Restrictions or Limitations, they will not be easy, until they shall have secured to themselves the Tithes of our Estates ^¶.’

IN Reply to this Illustration, the Doctor says: The Fact here supposed is, I believe, strictly true, that the Clergy of the Church of England will never be easy until they may have secured to themselves from our Estates here, what will be, in substantial Signification, the same Thing with the Tithes in En­gland. p. 129. I believe that the Clergy, of what­ever Denomination, as well as Men, of whatever Station in Life, will not, and cannot, be easy, without a competent Maintenance. And I agree with the Doctor, that a competent Maintenance in one Way, is, in substantial Signification, much the same Thing with a competent Maintenance in any other Way. But something seems to be here insinuated, to the peculiar Disadvantage of the episcopal Clergy in the Colonies, as if they were apt to be more restless, uneasy and rapacious, than other Men; or, at least, than the Clergy of other Denominations. But such an Insinuation is not more illiberal than unjust ^†; as I verily believe, [Page 165] from all that I know of such Matters, that it is intirely groundless. Why then should they be the Objects of any peculiar Jealousy? And why did the Doctor, on my happening to mention them, seize upon the Occasion to give this Evidence of his brotherly Affection towards them?

IT was pretended that Two undesireable Conse­quences would arise at home, from granting to the Colonies the Episcopate requested. One is, that vast Numbers of People there, meaning the Dis­senters and disaffected Members of the Church, would think themselves hardly treated, when they found such an Episcopate granted to the Ameri­cans, [Page 166] as has been refused to them. I think them very hardly treated by such an Objection as this; wherein they are represented as a Set of peevish and unreasonable People, disposed to behave weak­ly, absurdly and perversely, and in a Manner grossly unworthy of Men and of Christians. They are here supposed, in the first Place, to prefer such an Episcopate as is proposed for the Colonies, to the Episcopate in England—then, to have applied for such an Episcopate themselves, which has been refused them—and lastly, because they cannot ob­tain it in England, to be unwilling that the Ame­ricans should have it. The Doctor may be better acquainted with the Genius and Disposition of those People than I am; but I can hardly believe such an unfavorable Representation of them to be just, at least, without many Exceptions.

IN making this Objection, I thought my Op­ponent had forgotten his proper Business and Cha­racter; which was to answer the Appeal, upon the Principles of the Dissenters in this Country. Now if we may judge of them from their Writers, they would willingly inflame, rather than allay, the Discontent at home with the present ecclesiastical Establishment; and therefore they cannot consis­tently object, that the Execution of our Plan would increase that Discontent, or, in other Words, pro­duce an Effect which they wish to see. The Doc­tor says, that I had injudicously misplaced this Re­mark —that had I made it under the former Objecti­on, it would have appeared more plausible. p. 130. The Remark here was proper and pertinent; and by introducing it in this Place, I meant not to confine it to this particular Objection. And I expressly said, that the Doctor mistook his proper Business, [Page 167] not only where it was then pointed out, but IN MANY OTHER PLACES ^†. The former Objection was so glaring an Instance of this Mismanagement, that it was needless to mention it.

NOTWITHSTANDING, the Doctor thinks he had a Right to make Objections upon any Principles, as Objections of all Kinds were called for. But who called for all Kinds of Objections, in the Latitude wherein he has produced them? i. e. For good, bad and indifferent; pertinent and impertinent; consistent and inconsistent; reasonable and unrea­sonable? I will undertake to answer for the Au­thor of the Appeal, that he did not. But if, in Fact, he had made so absurd a Proposal, the Doc­tor should have had more Discretion than to have accepted of it. But to clear himself partly from the Charge of Inconsistency, he informs us, that he and those who are commonly called Dissenters, are in real Earnest that the episcopal Laity may not be imposed on by their planning Clergy—and that the Design of the Objection was to serve them. It appears to me that the Account would have been far more just and candid, had he said, that he and his Ad­herents were in real Earnest, to excite, in the Minds of the episcopal Laity, a Jealousy, that their Cler­gy have combined to impose upon and deceive them. For, I believe, it is not so much Friend­ship to the Laity, as Enmity to the Clergy, that has caused them to be so mightily in Earnest. Their planning Clergy! How often must this Ob­jector be told, that the Episcopate in Question was never planned by the American Clergy? It was shewn in the Appeal, that it was planned by others; and that the Plan is no otherwise ours, than as we [Page 168] we have adopted it, and are desirous of promoting it. But what is worst of all, he says it was a Scheme they had contrived FOR THEIR OWN SAKES. They must have been wretched Contrivers, if in forming a Scheme for their own Sakes, they could project no other Advantage to themselves, than that of being more strictly governed, and the Doctor's PRIVILEGE of being punished when they do amiss. That the Clergy have been influenced by mercenary Motives, in their Application for Bi­shops, is as groundless and unjust a Reproach as Malice can invent. If ever a disinterested and be­nevolent Resolution was formed by any Body of Men; this of our Clergy, to solicit and promote an Episcopate, calculated to bring themselves un­der Restraint, without the least Prospect of perso­nal Advantage, and with a View only to the In­terest of Religion, is fairly intitled to this glorious Character. The whole Plan is laid before the Pub­lic; let the Public judge of it, and say—whether the Ease, or the Wealth, or Authority of the Cler­gy, can be the Object in View. Jealousy, Envy, and a gloomy Tribe of malevolent Passions, are always ready to entertain unfavorable Suspicions; but the Suspicion, in this Case, has not the least Appearance of Evidence to support it. The Cler­gy therefore, conscious of the Rectitude of their Aims, will be neither detered nor disconcerted by any Abuses they may receive from the Enemies of the Church; but they will steadily pursue, and persevere in pursuing, what they judge to be their Duty with Regard to an Episcopate, through evil Report and good Report.

IN dealing with one Branch of this general Ob­jection, I expressed what I took to be the Sense of [Page 169] it in my own Words; in which I did not other Harm, than to express it in stronger Terms than were used by the Doctor. In speaking of the Dis­senters at home, he said they would think them­selves hardly treated; this I expressed by their being clamorous, substituting noisy Words for hard Thoughts, which was no great Disadvantage to his Argument. However, he says, and in Strictness of Speech it is true, that it was not mentioned as an Objection that Dissenters at home would ‘grow more clamo­rous in Consequence of the Settlement of the proposed Episcopate.’ But he is also of Opini­on, that there was no just Foundation for my sub­stituting the Word clamorous; and that there is a wide Difference between the Dissenters being clama­rous, and their thinking themselves hardly treated. The two Things, it is confessed, are different in themselves, and in some Cases should be carefully distinguished; but it appears from the History of the English Dissenters, that with them there is such a close Connection between their thinking themselves hardly treated, and their being clamorous, that mistaking the former for the latter is very excusa­ble. I speak not of Individuals; there are un­doubtedly many among them of amiable and excel­lent Characters; who are mild, gentle and peace­able; and who would suffer much, before they would make any public Disturbance, or act any Way disrespectfully towards Government. But hi­therto, this has not been the general Character of the Party.

WHAT was absurdly put into the Mouth of the Dissenters, I allowed that some others might con­sistently say; and for their Satisfaction, I thought it sufficient to refer them to what had been offered [Page 170] ‘to this Purpose—viz. That such an Episcopate might 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 Doctor tells us, all this is a Mistake. The proposed Episcopate could not be erected here with that Ease that is insinuated. But certainly it can be erected here with Ease, in a comparative Sense; i. e. with less Difficulty than would attend the Set­tlement of an Episcopate in any other Form. It will meet with no Opposition from the Friends and Members of the Church; and as to Opposition from those who have no Concern with it, it is un­reasonable and pragmatical, and not to be regarded.

AND as 'to subverting an Establishment,' and making ‘a visible Alteration in the national Consti­tution,’ the Doctor sees no Difficulty in the Mat­ter —it is one of the easiest Things in Nature. Some People may think the Subversion of the na­tional Establishment to be a good Work, and per­haps a pleasant Work; but I believe this Writer is singular in thinking it an easy Work. It is sur­prising, that he has not seen enough with his own Eyes, to convince him of the Grossness of this Mistake. Has he never known of Attempts to introduce Innovations in small Matters, where Re­ligion was thought to be concerned, that have been attended with violent Contests, and have ended in incurable Schisms? Has he never heard of Con­gregations that have been torn in Pieces, by the Endeavors of some, to substitute a new and better Version of the Psalms, for Instance, in the Place [Page 171] of an old one? And does he think that a general religious Establishment, to which the greater Part of the Nation is firmly attached, will be given up with more Ease, than a single Congregation can be persuaded to part with, or exchange, a Matter of but trifling Consequence? It seems to be almost impossible that he can be serious, when he talks at this Rate. He concludes this labored Paragraph with telling the Public, that he thinks it high Time that the national Constitution should be new-mo­delled: And if he could find a sufficient Party to support him, I doubt not but he would undertake the Work himself, without so much as ‘a trembling Hand,’ and that immediately, without a Mo­ment's Hesitation or Delay; for, says he, the soon­er the better. p. 132, 133.

THE other ill Consequence to be dreaded at home, I will lay before the Reader in the Doctor's Words, as he thinks I did not fairly represent it, when I undertook to express it in Words of my own. It can scarce be supposed, says he, it should escape the Thought of our English Bishops, that the Settlement of such an Episcopate in America, as is proposed, may prepare the Way for such a Change in the Power of Bishops at home, as they would not be very fond of. To the Objection thus expressed, it is a sufficient Answer to say—that the Bishops at home universally approve of the Plan ^†—that they have considered it in every Light, and viewed it in all its probable Consequences—and, that they [Page 172] are, in Fact, under no Apprehensions on this Ac­count. But, on the other Hand, they would have just Cause to be uneasy, should the proposed Ame­rican Episcopate not be granted; as there would be Reason to suspect, that such a Refusal proceed­ed from Hatred to the episcopal Order itself—a Hatred, which in Time might overthrow them and the Church of England together, as it once did.

OBJECTION III. The Church of England knows no such Bishops as are specified in the Plan, nor can they, in Consistency with its Constitution, be sent to the Colonies. p. 134. To this I gave no particular Answer before, as I conceived that what had been offered on the Subject of the King's Supremacy, from which the Inconsistency was infered, was a full Refutation of the Objection, and of all that was said to support it. But the Doctor will not be sa­tisfied, without a particular Answer. Let it then be observed, that what the Church of England allows of and has provided for, it not inconsistent with her Constitution, and what She has experienced, She may be properly said to know:—But, such Bi­shops as are specified in this Plan, She allows of, has provided for, and experienced:—Therefore, such Bishops are consistent with her Constitution, and She is no Stranger to them. The minor Pro­position is thus proved. The Bishops of our Plan are, and were originally called, Suffragan Bishops: —Suffragan Bishops are consistent with the Constitu­tion of the Church of England:—Therefore, the Bishops of our Plan are consistent with her Con­stitution. The Act of 26 Henry VIII, Cap. 14, to which the Bishops consented, makes Provision for Suffragans in the Church of England. Such [Page 173] Bishops were frequently appointed, during the whole Reigns of Edward VI, and Queen Eliza­beth ^‡. They are mentioned in the Canons that were framed in the Reign of King James, as be­longing to the Church, and were continued some Years afterwards: For in 1606, it appears that Dr. Stern, then Suffragan Bishop of Colchester, was suspended, for some Irregularity of Conduct. Af­ter the Restoration, the Bishops, in Answer to some Proposals made by the Presbyterian Divines, say, in Words which are recommended to the Doctor's particular Notice, on more Accounts than one: ‘We cannot grant the Extent of any Diocess is so great, but that a Bishop may well perform his Duty, which is not a personal Inspection of every Man's Soul, but the pastoral Charge, or taking Care that the Ministers, or other ecclesi­astical Officers within their Diocess, do their Duties; and if some Diocesses should be too large, the Law allows of Suffragans ^†.’ The Law equally allows of Suffragans at this Day ^§. It is evident therefore, that the Bishops of our Plan are consistent with the Constitution of the Church of England; and it is farther evident, that the Doctor, in talking of these Matters, be­trays his Ignorance, ‘understanding neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms.’

HE chooses here to introduce the Subject of the King's Supremacy, although the Consideration of it more properly belonged to another Place. He brings it in here, because it will swell this Part of his [Page 174] Performance, wherein he professes more immedi­ately to attack the Episcopate in Question. For by such a Manoeuvre the unwary Reader may be led to think, from the Number of Pages in this Sec­tion, that the Doctor has said much in direct Op­position to the proposed Episcopate; while, in Re­ality, he has said but very little that is pertinent to the Subject.

HE had objected, that, according to the Doc­trine of the Church of England, all ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is derived from the Crown; that as to Authority purely ecclesiastical, there is no such Thing in the Church of England; and consequent­ly, that the Bishops of the Appeal, who are de­scribed as having such an Authority as ‘is altoge­ther derived from the Church, and not from the State,’ cannot be Bishops of, nor be sent by, the Church of England to America. This occasioned me to consider the Subject largely, and to make a particular Examination whether his Assertion were true. And to prove that he was mistaken, I pro­duced a Variety of most authentic Evidence; par­ticularly, the Explanation of Henry VIII, to the Convocation of the Province of York, the Words of the Letters Patent granted by Edward VI, Queen Elizabeth's INJUNCTIONS, and the 37th Ar­ticle —with a brief historical Account of the Occa­sion, and Operation, of these several Declarations and Writings. And it was made abundantly evi­dent, that the Supremacy claimed by our Princes, given them by the Constitution, and maintained by the Church of England, allows to our Bishops a purely spiritual or ecclesiastical Authority, which is derived, not from the Crown, but from Christ himself.

[Page 175]THE Doctor says but very little to invalidate the Force of this Evidence. He says that all I at­tempted to prove is ONLY this, that, notwithstand­ing the King's Supremacy, it is from Christ, not the King, that the Authority of the Bishops, as such, in the Church of England, is conveyed to them. p. 137. This is all that I had Occasion to prove; and the Proof that I made, is sufficient to overthrow one of the main Pillars that supported his Opposition to the Episcopate requested. Notwithstanding, he affects to think very differently of the Matter. It is, to me, says he, beyond all Doubt, that his (the Author's) Labor on this Head is altogether vain. This is easily said in any Case; but his Manner of saying it in this Place, is justly suspici­ous. Here is a capital Point disputed between us; I had taken more than common Pains to place it in a proper Light, and to convince the Doctor of his Mistake; and his Reply is, that he thinks my Labor is vain. So far as his Conviction was the Object, I may probably have labored without Ef­fect; however, I have this Satisfaction, that al­though he is not convinced, he is in a Manner si­lenced. For he only repeats, and insists upon, the Words of the Statute, where all Manner of Ju­risdiction is said to flow from the Crown, &c. and refers to Dr. Burn' s Ecclesiastical Law, for the seve­ral Acts of Parliament relating to the Subject. p. 138. What was meant by that, and such like Ex­pressions, was explained in the Appeal defended; and it was shewn that this Language was consistent with the Doctrine and Belief of purely spiritual Power in the Church, in its strictest Sense. It were easy to support, by innumerable Authorities, what I advanced upon the Subject; but against Dr. Chauncy it needs no Support. I fear not but it [Page 176] will stand forever, by its own Strength, notwith­standing all the Attempts he may make against it.

SHOULD it be supposed, says he, not granted, that the Authority of Bishops does not flow from the Crown, but from the Church, which is the utmost the Doctor has endeavoured to prove, it will not fol­low from hence, that he has answered, or so much as attempted to answer 'all that is said in Support' of the Objection in Debate. But should it be sup­posed, not granted, that this is not an Answer to all that was said in Support of the Objection, yet enough for the Purpose had been said in other Places; and the Reader was refered to what had been said relating to the Subject in general, with­out being limited to any particular Passage.

WHAT was said to support the Objection, can­not be answered, says the Doctor, until it is shewn, how that Authority is altogether from the Church, and not from the State, which can be exercised, nei­ther in the Affair of Worship, Ordination, Govern­ment or Discipline, but by and under the Guidance, Controul, and sovereignly prescribed Order, not of the Church, but of the State. p. 139. But this was shewn too, and illustrated, in the Appeal defended, p. 55; and in such a Manner, as, I doubt not, will be allowed by the impartial to be satisfactory and convincing. The Origin of any Power is one Thing, and the Regulation or Obstruction of the Exercise of that Power is another. The Doctor himself claims an ecclesiastical Authority, origi­nally derived from Christ; but the Exercise of it is, in some Respects, regulated by the Laws of his Country. And had it a more particular Direction from the Government than it now has, it would [Page 177] still be the same, as to its Nature and Origin, as it now is. So plain a Case has but little Need of Illustration; however, with this View, I considered one particular Branch of ecclesiastical Authority, the Power to baptize. This Power is generally esteemed to be purely ecclesiastical, and not derived by a Commission from the State; and yet in com­mon it cannot be exercised by a Clergyman, with­out the Approbation and Consent of other Persons. But such Approbation alters not the Nature of the Power, nor is it the Source from whence it is derived; any more than my Consent and Submis­sion to the Operation of a Surgeon, is the Cause of the Skill with which he performs it. In like Manner, the episcopal Authority may be altogether from the Church, and not from the State; and yet it may be guided and controlled by the State; without losing its Nature or essential Character. If the Con­sent of the King or the State is necessary, in Or­der to a Bishop's coming over to America, so is the Consent of the Master of the Ship in which he comes over; and the former does not change the Nature of his Office or of his Authority, and more than the latter. I shall now pass on to

OBJECTION IV. We are in Principle against [...] 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. 140. It requires almost the Patience of a JOB, to deal with such an Objector. He argues against the Episcopate of the Appeal, which asks only for a Toleration, be­cause he would not encourage an Establishment; and he may as well object against Things that [Page 178] are strait, because he approves not of Things that are crooked.

AS to his desiring no Establishment in Favour of his own religious Sentiments, I am persuaded that he says it in a qualified Sense; especially as he undertakes to express the general Opinion of the Congregationalists in New-England. For that they had generally become, in Principle, against all Es­tablishments in Religion, in the common Extent of the Expression, was a Piece of Intelligence for which I was beholden to the Doctor. For, as I told him, I was in Possession of certain historical Accounts and Anecdotes (since which Time I have collected more, and of a fresher Date) from which one would naturally infer the contrary. However, supposing the Representation to be just, it may be proper so observe here, that so far as the Doctor and his Friends are against Establishments, they are Deserters from the Principles of their Ances­tors, the first Settlers of New-England; who were not only, in Principle, for an Establishment of their own Mode of Religion, but for an Esta­blishment without a Toleration. This Doctrine they received from the Puritans, who aimed at nothing less than such an Establishment in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, as was shewn from Bi­shop Maddox. The Doctor denies this; and says that the Puritans are herein injuriously misrepresented by Maddox. But if so, they are misrepresented by all our Historians, and even by their own Writings; and I could easily prove, from Neal's History of them, as much as is here asserted.

UPON this the Doctor is all on Fire, and his In­dignation flashes out in the following Language. [Page 179] He (meaning the hapless Author) must not take it amiss, if I tell him, that we are not surprized at his endeavoring to uncover the Nakedness of his An­cestors, as he is a DESERTER from that GREAT CAUSE which brought them over to this then desolate Land: Nor is it beyond what we expected, to find him, and many of the Society's Missionaries, who are either Proselytes themselves, or the Sons of Prose­lytes, fired with extraordinary Zeal in propagating High-Church Principles. This has all along been the Way, on this Side [of] the Atlantic, in which Con­verts to the Church, especially clerical ones, have en­deavoured to give Proof of the Sincerity of their Con­version. p. 141. Are all then, that mention the Bigotry and Intolerance of the first Settlers of New-England, to be charged with endeavoring to uncover their Nakedness? This will bear hard upon some of the most respectable Characters among their Descendants. For my Part, I wish that their Nakedness could be concealed, from a Regard both to their Honor, and that of their Posterity; but, in Truth, neither the Doctor, nor his Friends, will be able to find a Cloak large enough to cover it, in such a Manner, that ‘the Shame of their Nakedness’ (in this Part) "do not appear."

AS to deserting the great Cause that brought them over to America; if the whole of their religious System be here meant, Dr. Chauncy himself (if 'certain historical Accounts and Anecdotes' may be credited) must be reckoned among the Deser­ters, in several Respects. In one Respect at least, the Words of this Objection make it evident, that he is a Deserter from them. I do not indeed al­ways look upon such Conduct to be criminal; but he charges it upon me as a Crime: And therefore [Page 180] while he exemplifies it himself, he is condemned from his own Mouth—a much feverer Condemna­tion, than what proceeds from an Enemy. Ac­cording to my Way of thinking, the Doctor and I are under no greater Obligations to maintain all the religious Principles of our puritanical Ances­tors, than the Puritans themselves were, to adhere to all the Principles of their Popish Ancestors. I do not mean to insinuate any Comparison between the Puritans and Papists; nor to be wanting in any due Respect to the first Settlers of New-En­gland. For it gives me Pleasure to say, that I think they were, in general, Men of more Repu­tation, more Religion, and more Learning, than the original Settlers of new Colonies commonly are. But an undistinguishing Fondness for all their Sentiments, and, in particular, a Justification of their intolerant Spirit, are no Parts of that Res­pect which is due to them, from the Friends of religious Liberty, although their Descendants.

WHAT is here said of the Society's Missionari­es▪ who are either Proselytes, or the Sons of Prose­lytes, from Congregationalism, is too general a Charge to admit of a particular Reply. It seems to have been dictated by a Spirit of Resentment, occasioned by their Success in propagating the true Principles of the Church of England, invidiously and illiberally styled High-Church; in which, it has by no Means been yet made to appear, that they have generally used unjustifiable Me­thods. Their Zeal for the peculiar Doctrines of the Church, may sometimes have been excessive; but when this could justly be said, it may have been occasioned by the unreasonable Opposition they met with, in the Discharge of their proper Duty. [Page 181] However, we are not surprised—nor is it beyond what we expected, to find, that the Missionaries, who have been proselyted, or are the Sons of Pro­selytes, to the Church of England, are severely censured, by so strict an Adherer to, as well as so zealous a Defender of, the great Cause of his An­cestors, as Dr. Chauncy.

AS ‘the Presbyterians in Scotland, and the Cal­vinists in Geneva, Holland and other Places, have always been Friends to religious Establish­ments;’ I thought a full and particular Evidence was necessary in Order to convince us, that the Presbyterians or Calvinists in New-England have adopted a different Principle. For the more in­credible a Fact is, the stronger Evidence is requi­red, in Order to prove it. Dr. Priestley is of Opi­nion, that all Denominations of Protestants, ex­cept one, are fond of Establishments in their own Favor—and of something more, viz. Of depres­sing all other Sects. "This I own," says he (namely Confidence in their Moderation) ‘is more than I could promise myself from any other Bo­dy of Christians whatever’ (viz. Than the Qua­kers) "the Presbyterians by no Means excepted ^*." Accordingly he says, in another Treatise: ‘If I were to pray for the general Prevalence of any one Sect of Christians, it should be that of the Quakers; because, different as my Opinions are from theirs, I have so much Confidence in their Moderation, that I believe they would let me live, write and publish what I pleased un­molested among them.’ (I suppose the Church of England does not suffer Dr. Priestley to live, write and publish what he pleases, without Molesta­tion.) [Page 182] ‘And this I own, is more than I could promise myself from any other Body of Christi­ans, whatever; the Presbyterians perhaps (N. B.) LEAST OF ALL excepted ^†.’ The Congregati­onalists in New-England therefore, in the Opinion of this Writer, must, with Regard to Establish­ments and the Exercise of Power, differ from all other Denominations of Protestants, the Quakers excepted, and from the Presbyterians perhaps most of all, if the Doctor's Account may be credited: And how compleatly they have adopted the mild and tolerant Principles of the Quakers, the Quakers and Baptists in New-England know by Experi­ence, and the Public has been lately told. It is a Pity that Dr. Priestley had not heard of this great Revolution in the religious System of New-En­gland; for then he would not, on so fair an Occa­sion, have neglected to render it all due Honor.

DR. Chauncy still affects to be terrified with an Apprehension, that the proposed Episcopate will establish the Church of England in the Colonies. I had asked, ‘Does this Plan propose the Esta­blishment of the Church?’ He answers: It undoubtedly does. I also asked: ‘Will the Execu­tion of it imply, or amount to, any such Thing?’ His Answer is ready: Yes; or it can never be car­ried into Execution (i. e. the Execution can never be carried into Execution.) To shew that no such Thing was intended or implied in the Plan, I held it up once more to public View; asking, of the whole, and of all its material Parts, whether there was any Appearance of an Establishment. An Answer is not wanting: Surely, says he, the Doctor could not but know, before he asked these Questions, [Page 183] that it was only asking, whether we thought there was any Weight, or Force, in the produced Objection. p. 142. I still insist upon the Propriety of the Questions. To decide whether the Plan mention­ed or implied an Establishment or not, it was pro­per to refer to the Plan itself; that the Reader might see with his own Eyes, whether there was any such Thing:—In the same Manner, that, if a Person should affirm to me that the Sun was not risen, when I knew that it was visiblely above the Horizon, I should point to the Body of the Sun, and ask if he did not see it.

MY logical Opponent proceeds, expressing his Surprize: How unaccountable is it, that he could imagine, that he had said any Thing to the Purpose, by BARELY puting these Questions! They are really nothing more than so many strongly expressed Affir­mations; and will he call this arguing? The put­ing proper Questions, may be saying something to the Purpose, especially when they have the Force of strongly expressed Affirmations. Every Affirma­tion is a Proposition; and Propositions that are pertinent to the Business in hand, and duly metho­dized and arranged, may justly be called arguing. The Questions appear to me to have been perti­nent, and I conceive that I acted with no Impro­priety in the Case. At least, the Doctor has made none appear, nor has he attempted to invalidate what was offered directly to the Point, any farther than in the Words I have quoted. But were he able to prove, that an Establishment would be the Consequence of executing our Plan, which he can­not do in any Sense; yet, unless it were such an Establishment as would tend to abridge the Liber­ties, or interfere with the Rights, of some of his [Page 184] Majesty's Subjects in the Colonies, it would be un­reasonable to make it an Objection. It is possible, at least in Theory, that there may be an Establish­ment of one Religion, without any ill Consequences to the Professors of other Religions. Mr. Neal says: ‘The King may create Dignitaries, and give suf­ficient Encouragement to those of the public Religion, without invading the Liberties of his dissenting Subjects. If religious Establishments were stript of their judicial Processes, and civil Jurisdiction, no Harm could be feared from them ^*.’ Now the Bishops proposed, whether established or unestablished, are to carry on no ju­dicial Processes, but against the episcopal Clergy, and are not to have the least Shadow of civil Juris­diction; and therefore, according to Mr. Neal, and according to common Sense, no Harm can justly be feared from them, by Dissenters of any Denomination.

THE Doctor had affirmed that there is no Evi­dence, that Christ has intrusted the State with a Right to make religious Establishments; and argued, that if England had such a Right, so had China, Turkey, &c. the Consequence of which he ima­gined, would, upon the whole, be more injurious than beneficial; and therefore, that States had no such Right. To shew the Weakness of this Argu­ment, I applied it to the Right of private Judg­ment; and made it evident, that all he said against Establishments, might as properly be urged against Men's Right to think and judge for themselves. To this he replies: Surely the Doctor does not believe, that the Right of States to make religious Establish­ments, is as clearly and indubitably a Grant from [Page 185] God, as the Right of private Judgment. p. 144. But indeed I do believe, that God has given to States the Right in Question, as clearly and indu­bitably, as he has given to Men the Right of private Judgment. But be this as it may; the Doctor's Argument will conclude as strongly against the Right of private Judgment, as against the Right of States to make Establishments. For if the ill Consequences arising from the Abuse of a Thing, invalidate the Right to make a proper Use of it, then such ill Consequences may destroy all Rights whatever. Establishments, without a Toleration of Dissenters, are intirely out of the Question: I never contended for such Establishments, nor do I think that States have a Right to make them. But that they are authorised to make Establishments, that do not violate the private Rights of Conscience, is as clear to me, as any Proposition relating to civil Society. For it means no more than this, that the Magistrate has a Right to give some pecu­liar Countenance and Encouragement, to what he es­teems to be the true Religion; or, in other Words, that a Christian Magistrate has a Right to shew more Favour to the Christian Religion, than to Mahometism or Heathenism. And I will venture to add, that he has a Right to shew as much Favour to his Religion, as is necessary to support it, and is consistent with a full and free Toleration.

AND if only such a Right had been claimed, and exercised properly, in China, Turkey, or in any, or all the Kingdoms of the Earth; there would have been but little Reason to complain of any ill Consequences. It is better that almost any Reli­gion should be supported, than that there should be no Religion in a Nation; and such a Support [Page 186] as is contended for, would still leave to those of righter Judgment than the Magistrate, the Liberty of acting according to it. The Doctor speaks of CHRIST's not having intrusted the State with a Right to make Establishments; not adverting to the Im­propriety of such Language. It was never pre­tended that this Right was given by Christ. The Authority he exercised was altogether of a spiritual Nature. He never interfered with the Rights of States, either to abridge or enlarge them; and the Rights of Kingdoms and States, before the Gospel, were exactly the same that they now are, under the Gospel. He gave not the Right of private Judg­ment, for he found Men already in Possession of it. He only directed them in the Use of it; and their being liable to err in the Exercise of it, is no Argument against the Existence of the Right. In like Manner, the Fallibility of the State, and its being liable, in Consequence of Mistakes, to make wrong Establishments, proves not that it has no just Authority to make right ones.

OBJECTION V. The Church of England in the Colonies, in its comparative low State, instead of an Episcopate upon this or any other Plan, needs rather the charitable Assistance of its Friends to support its present Ministers, and others that are still wanted, p. 145. To this it was answered, that the Church of England, in several of the Colonies, is not in that comparative low State here spoken of; but is able to maintain its Clergy, and actually does main­tain them, as liberally, as they are maintained in any Part of the British Dominions. This may properly be said of a considerable Majority of the Episcopal Clergy in the Colonies; and therefore, [Page 187] with Regard to them, the Objection is not only weak, but utterly impertinent.

THE Doctor replies, that he had no Reference to the southern Colonies, for this very good Reason, because it did not appear, that the Church of England in any of these Colonies had complained for Want of Bishops, or were disposed to petition for them, p. 146. But the Petitions from hence, were in Behalf of the Church in those Colonies, as well as in these; and although we were not authorised by the southern Co­lonies to petition in their Names, nor did we pre­tend to such a Commission, yet we had a Right to mention them, on the Occasion, as equally suffer­ing for Want of an Episcopate. The Appeal was made, 'in Behalf of the Church of England,' not only in the northern Colonies, but 'in America;' and this Objector had no Right to consider the proposed Episcopate in a partial View, when the Design of it, and the Want of it, were known to be general, extending to all the Colonies within the British American Dominions.

IF the Clergy in some of the Colonies had not yet petitioned for an Episcopate, yet as the Cir­cumstances of those Colonies equally required it, it was proper to include them in the Representation, that was intended to shew the general Want of an Episcopate. I hope Men may sometimes be con­sidered as needing Assistance, especially of a reli­gious Kind, before they formally request it. But since the Doctor looks upon the actual petitioning of the Clergy in all the Colonies, as of so much Consequence to the Cause of a general Episcopate; I can now give him the Pleasure of hearing, that the Clergy in Maryland have, some Time since, [Page 188] generally united in petitioning the King, the Bi­shops, &c. in Favour of the Episcopate proposed; and that their Petitions have expressed as much Earnestness in the Cause, as those of our northern Conventions. And in a short Time, I doubt not but I shall be able to give him the farther Pleasure of hearing, that the Clergy of the few remaining Colonies have petitioned to the same Purpose. I trust he will take due Notice of this, and shape his future Objections accordingly.

I observed to him also, in Answer to the Ob­jection, that ‘supposing the Church throughout the Colonies needed the charitable Assistance of its Friends to support its Ministers, yet this would be no Proof that it does not need also an Episcopate.’ His Reply is, that notwithstanding, it would fully prove, that the episcopal Clergy, in the Colonies, are boundless in their Desires of Charity. And he seems to be well satisfied, that, although his Argument fails of proving what it was alledged for, yet it will luckily prove something else. I would not rob him of any well-grounded Satis­faction; but I must take the Liberty to observe, that what has been said by him does not yet prove, that the Desires of the Clergy are more boundless than the Necessities of the Church.

THE Doctor had urged that the Money, by which an Episcopate must be supported, might be much more usefully expended in supporting Mis­sionaries in Carolina (I suppose he meant North-Carolina) where the religious State of Things, by all Accounts, is deplorably sad. In Answer to this, I thought proper to observe as follows: ‘When other Ends are to be answered (alluding to an [Page 189] Expression of his own) the Writers against the Church can tell us, that the Society have no Power to apply their Funds to other Uses, than were intended by the Donors.—But now an Epis­copate is in View, it is thought reasonable and just that the Society should alienate a Fund, more strictly appropriated to a particular Use than any other in their Power (for this may be truly said of the Fund for the Support of American Bi­shops) and expend it upon Missionaries to be sent to Carolina, and other Places, provided always, that such Places be at a due Distance from New-England ^*.’ The Doctor calls this a strange Remark; and he affirms, that not a Word was said of the Fund appropriated for the Support of American Bishops, or of the Society's expending one Farthing of this Fund to [for] other Uses than were intended by the Donors, p. 147. But how can that Money, which is designed for the Support of Bi­shops, be expended in maintaining Missionaries, without taking it from the appropriated episcopal Fund, in which alone is deposited all that is known to have been thus intended? This would be, to apply to one Use, what was particularly given for another. The episcopal Fund consists of Legacies, and the Monies arising from them by Interest, given for the sole Purpose of maintaining American Bishops; and the Trustees of these Legacies, I humbly conceive, have no Right to apply them to any other Use, than that for which they were intended, and to which they were limited, by the several Testators.

BUT the Doctor, who can best explain his own Meaning, now pleads, that he was apprehensive [Page 190] the Society might take from the common Fund, to make up any Deficiency in the episcopal Fund; and by that Means, the Support of an Episcopate would lessen the Number of Missionaries, which the Rea­der knows, he always wishes should be encreased. If this, and this only, is what he had in View, I mistook his Meaning; and the Answer I gave was founded on a Mistake. But upon reviewing the Passage in his former Pamphlet, I find that the Mistake was not my Fault but his; as I am still un­able to make any other Inference from his Expres­sions, as they there stand.

AND here he thinks proper to ask my Opinion, whether the Society might not consistently with Fidelity to their Trust, make Use of such a Liberty, and apply Part of their common Fund to the Sup­port of an Episcopate. It is not my Province to prescribe to that wise and venerable Body; but if I may express my Opinion, it is clearly this—that, as they are known to have a Fund that is appro­priated to the Purpose of an American Episcopate, whatever is not particularly given to that Fund, is not intended for that Use, and the Society have no Right to employ it in that Service. I can also declare, that I have sufficient Reason to believe, that no Members of the Society have ever intended or proposed, that Money should be taken from their common Fund for the Support of an Episcopate in the Colonies.

THE Doctor says, that if I had looked within, he can scarce think that my Conscience would have suf­fered me to insinuate, that he spake of Missions in Carolina, because at ‘a due Distance from New-England.’ p. 148. I confess it was not by look­ing [Page 191] within, but without, that I was led to suspect, that he was fonder of Missionaries at the Distance of Carolina, than in his own Neighbourhood. If he will declare to the contrary, I will acknowledge that I have been mistaken. It has often struck me, in reading the various Productions of the anti-episcopal Writers in New-England, from the Let­ter of the Hampshire Ministers to the Bishop of London in 1734, with Dr. Coleman's Letter that accompanied it, down to Dr. Chauncy's last Pub­lication ^*, that they were all very uneasy at the Neighbourhood of the Missionaries, and very in­genious at contriving Employment for them at a Distance. They speak of the episcopal Clergy as their Enemies; and it is natural for every Man to choose that his Enemies should be ‘at a due Dis­tance,’ rather than within Reach of his Person. I think therefore, upon the whole, that it was no unnatural Conclusion, that those Writers (not ex­cluding Dr. Chauncy) were desirous that the Missi­onaries should be employed as far from New-En­gland as possible.

IT is the real Truth of Fact, says the Doctor, to whatever Cause it may be owing, that they (the Society) have employed few Missionaries, next to none, in [North] Carolina, where they were most needed, and multiplied them where there was little, if any Need at all of them; and in some Places they have supported, and are still supporting them, where the Churches to whom [which] they minister, are [Page 192] abundantly able, without any Assistance from them, to support the Gospel. p 149. As to North-Caro­lina, it is confessed that there never have been so many Clergymen there as were needed; but it does not appear that this was owing to any Inat­tention or Neglect of the Society. The Society's Fund is not an inexhaustible Treasure, enabling them to supply the Wants of all People in the Colonies. As they have never been able to gratify all the Petitioners for their Favour, it has been their Study to give the Preference where it was due. Those Congregations which discover the greatest Willingness to exert themselves towards the Support of their Ministers, the greatest Desire to obtain the Society's Favour, and the best Dispo­sition to improve by it, provided they appear at the same Time to be unable to raise a sufficient Support themselves, must naturally be thought by the Society to be the properest Objects of their Charity. A Fund that is insufficient to answer all Necessities for which it is wanted, must be careful­ly husbanded, that it may go as far as possible. Now it is evident that the Society may do all that is needful to support Two Missions, where the Peo­ple will be equal Contributors with them, at the same Expence that would be necessary for the Sup­port of one Mission, where the People are unable, or unwilling, to contribute; to say nothing of the greater Prospect of Success, in a Mission of one Sort than of the other. This accounts for the Multiplication of Missions in the Northern Colo­nies, beyond the Proportion that has obtained in North-Carolina; where the People made no Of­fers, and used no Importunities, that could stand in Competition with those that went home from these Colonies. To this may be added, that pro­per [Page 193] Persons could seldom be found, that were wil­ling to enter upon Missions in North-Carolina. The Climate and the Circumstances of that Colo­ny, are generally esteemed by Strangers to be dis­agreeable; and for Want of an Opportunity for an academical Education, but few of the Natives have offered themselves as Candidates for holy Or­ders. Yet notwithstanding these Disadvantages, the Society have, for more than 30 Years past, found out Methods of sending some Missionaries thither; and it appears by the last Abstract, that they have now no less than Twelve Missionaries employ­ed in that Colony. And while Strangers may won­der that they have done so little, those that are acquainted with their History and Circumstances, wonder that they have been able to do so much, as in Reality they have done, in North-Carolina.

BUT the Misrepresentation goes still farther. It makes the Society to have multiplied Missionaries, where there was little if any Need at all of them; while they have neglected those Places where they were most needed. The Doctor undoubtedly thinks that there can be but little, if any Need at all of Missionaries, in those Places where there are Preachers of the presbyterian or congregational Class: But it is happy for the Members of the Church of England in these Colonies, that the So­ciety govern themselves by their own Opinion, and not by his. However, in one Sense at least, what he says but two Pages afterwards, is a full Justifi­cation of the Society's Conduct, with Regard to New-England. For he asserts that the Missions there, are, by far the greater Part of them, in so weak and low a State, that there would be no Hope of their continued Existence, if that Charity was [Page 194] withdrawn, which, at first, gave Being to them, and has all along supported them in Being. p. 131. The Society, it is hoped, will make a proper Use of this Information, which corresponds with the Accounts from the Missionaries: And it is not doubted but their Affection for the Churches to which they have given Being, and which are known still to depend upon them for the necessary Support of it, will strongly plead in Favour of them, and prevent their being deserted, in this dependent, feeble State. In Time these Churches may become able to support themselves; and when this shall be the Case, they will cease to be proper Objects of the Society's Charity. Whenever the episcopal Congregations in New-England shall appear to have arrived to that State, we may judge what the Society will do, from what they have done, in a like Case.

IN South-Carolina, the Society were early in es­tablishing Missions. About 30 Years ago they had ten Missions in this Colony, supported at the annu­al Expence of £. 450 Sterling. But as the Church there has become able ‘to stand upon its own Legs, and without foreign Help to support it­self ^§;’ the Bounty of the Society has been withdrawn, and at present they have but one Missionary in the whole Colony, and he is employ­ed altogether among the poor Palatines. Let the Reader consider this Case which is directly in point, and attend to what has been said of the Society's Conduct relating to the adjoining Colony of North-Carolina, together with what will be soon said of Nova-Scotia; and he will be able to form a satis­factory Judgment—whether they are disposed, or [Page 195] not, to multiply Missions where there is but little Need of them, and to neglect those Places which have most Need of them, as Dr. Chauncy very de­cently charges them.

HE censures them for supporting Ministers in Places, where the Congregations are able to sup­port them, without any Assistance. But according to his own Account, there can be but very few such Places in New-England. And it has never been fairly proved that the Society have done this, in a single Instance. I know that several such Instances have been pointed out by the Enemies of the Church; but the Congregations themselves, which ought to be the best Judges of their own Abilities, declare the Case to have been otherwise, and the Friends of the Church believe their Declarations to be true. Whether it be so or not, the Society must judge according to the Evidence they receive; and it can hardly be expected, that the Testimony of their Enemies, in such a Case, will weigh more with them, than the Testimony of their Friends, agreeing with the Declarations of the Congregati­ons more immediately concerned.

HE also accuses the Society of having strangely neglected Canada; and for Proof of it, refers to a Passage which clearly proves, that they have made that Colony the Object of their Attention. What he refers to, is an Abstract of a Letter from Mr. Delisle, Chaplain to the Garrison at Montreal, dated Sept. 30, 1767. If the Society had been under no Concern for the religious State of Canada, they never would have published to the World the Con­tents of such a Letter. It is probable that the Letter was sent to them, in Consequence of their [Page 196] Inquiry; as it contains partly a Notitia parochialis, such as the Society require from their Missionaries. I know that they had the Subject under Consider­ation, before the Time that the Letter was dated. Although the Doctor speaks of me, as a Person not having that Christian Concern for the Propa­gation of the Gospel, which might have been expected from a Missionary; yet so early as in 1766, I joined with my worthy Brethren in CONVENTION, in re­presenting the religious State of Canada to the Society, and in recommending it to their Attention. This was no great while after the Cession of that Colony, by Treaty, to the British Crown.

AT that Time, although something was proper to be done in Favour of the protestant Religion in Canada; yet the Circumstances of the Country did not require, nor would they with any Propriety admit of, so much to be done, as many People are apt to imagine. There were then but few Protes­tants in the Colony, that were Natives of it; and but few English People, except the Military; and those few seated chiefly in Quebec and Montreal, where divine Service was regularly performed by the Chaplains of the Garrisons. If therefore Mis­sionaries at that time had been sent to other Places, it must have been in Order to proselyte the Cana­dians who were Papists, and Strangers to the Eng­lish Language. But the Papists would have been alarmed at such an Attempt, when it was peculiarly necessary to quiet and compose their Spirits; and they would have construed it to be a Violation of the Treaty of Surrender, which provided that they might continue to enjoy their Religion, without Molestation. It would therefore have been a very hopeful Project in the Society, to multiply Missions [Page 197] in such a Country, at such a Time, and under such Circumstances. Especially if it be considered, that in Order to send Missionaries to Canada, as the Society's whole Fund was already engaged, and no new Resources appeared, they must have broken through their former Engagements, and have re­moved their Missionaries from other Places, where they were thought to be usefully employed; or have discharged some of them, that they might be able to support others in Canada—where there could be but little Prospect of their Usefulness, and where there was much Danger of their increasing that Discontent, which required all the Skill of Go­vernment to keep within Bounds.

BESIDES: Had the Society been ever so able, and the Prospect of Success much greater than it was; it would not have been proper for them to croud Missionaries into Canada, as soon as its Sub­jection to the British Crown was confirmed. It would have been decent at least, to wait some Time, to see whether the Government, upon settling the Police of that new Colony, would not make some suitable Provision for the Encouragement and Sup­port of the protestant Religion in that District, so far as it should appear to be expedient and proper. Until the final Resolutions of Government were taken, and it was known that no Provision of this Kind was to be expected from thence, there are many Persons that would have charged the Society with intermeddling in Matters out of their Province, and not treating their Superiors with proper Res­pect, had they assumed the Management of the religious Affairs of Canada into their own Hands. On similar Occasions, where there have been new Acquisitions of Territory, the Society was actually [Page 198] told, that it was irregular and improper for them to act, until the Designs of Government were known. I say not this at random, but upon the best Authority.

SINCE the Society have thought the proper Time was come, for them to interpose in Behalf of Ca­nada, they have not been inactive. Government has been sollicited to send protestant Clergymen into that Country; in Consequence of which, three are actually appointed, one for Quebec, one for Montreal, and a third (I think) for Trois-Riveirs— which are the only Places at present, in which much Advantage can be expected from Protestant Cler­gymen. The Society have also sollicited for School-Masters; and have already sent consider­able Packets of Books, at their own Expence, into different Parts of the Province. As Opportunity and Ability will admit of, more will be done; and indeed every Thing that is practicable in Favour of the protestant Religion may be expected, from the Vigilance and Activity of that charitable and vene­rable Body.

WE may fairly judge of their Disposition towards Canada, from the Care they have taken of Nova-Scotia. Not many Years ago, the religious State of that Colony was nearly the same, with what the religious State of Canada now is. And it appears from the Abstracts, that the Society, although their Progress at first fell short of their own Wishes, as well as of some People's Expectations, have in their Employment in Nova-Scotia no less than thirteen Missionaries and School-Masters, at the yearly Expence of £. 495 Sterling, to say nothing of the large Sums annually expended in Books, [Page 199] &c. By this Time I hope the Doctor begins to be ashamed of the unrighteous Abuse, with which he has treated a Society, that deserves to be honoured, applauded and admired by the whole Christian World.

DR. Chauncy often speaks of the Church of England in the Northern Colonies as inconsiderable, not worthy of Notice, and in a State little better than Non-existence. And yet if we were to judge from the mighty Efforts that have been made to stop its Progress, and the Alarms it has occasioned to the Bigots, we should imagine that it had, not only the Rage, but the Strength, of a Lion, and threatened the speedy Destruction of every other Religion in the Country. In his former Pamphlet he said, that it has grown but little in Comparison with the other Denominations in New-England. This I disputed, and this he thinks proper still to maintain. But among the other Denominations, that have thus increased in New-England, especially in the Massachusetts, he must not reckon his own, the Congregationalist. For Time was, when they not only claimed, but actually kept Possession of that whole Dominion, to themselves; and as other Denominations since have obtained Footing, the Congregationalists must have proportionably lost Ground.

AND here again I am obliged to uncover the Na­kedness of my Ancestors, for which the Doctor is answerable. In Order to maintain their exclusive Right to the Country, the Congregationalists trans­ported, as Criminals, such as were found to retain an Affection for the Church; and the Quakers, that had the Luck to escape hanging, were banished [Page 200] by them, on Pain of Death. I need say nothing of the latter, as their History is well known: But I beg Leave to lay before the Reader, a Passage relating to the former, extracted from a valuable Book ^† which is now scarce, in which there appears to be no Partiality in Favor of the Church. ‘Some of the Passengers, says he, that came over at the same Time (1629), observing that the Ministers did not at all use the Book of Common Prayer, and that they did administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper without the Ceremonies, and that they professed also to use Discipline in the Congrega­tion against scandalous Persons, &c. they began to raise some Trouble: Of these Mr. Samuel Brown and his Brother were the Chief, the one being a Lawyer, the other a Merchant, both of them amongst the Number of the first Paten­tees, Men of Estates, and Men of Parts and Port in the Place. These two Brothers gather­ed a Company together in a Place distinct from the public Assembly, and there sundry Times the Book of Common-Prayer was read unto such as resorted thither. The Governor Mr. Endicot taking Notice of the Disturbance that began to grow amongst the People by this Means, he convented the two Brothers before him. They accused the Ministers as departing from the Or­ders of the Church of England, that they were Separatists, &c. but for themselves, they would hold to the Orders of the Church of England. —The Governor and Council—finding these two Brothers to be of high Spirits, and their Speeches [Page 201] and Practices tending to Mutiny and Faction, the Governor told them that New-England was no Place for such as they; and therefore, he sent them both back to England at the Return of the Ships the same Year ^†.’ We see the Crime of these Men, and we see their Punishment. Their Speeches, because they were in Favor of the Church of England, and their Practices, because they made Use of the Liturgy, were interpreted as tending to Mutiny and Faction. It was solemn­ly decreed, that New-England was no Place for such People, i. e. for Churchmen; and then, nei­ther their Right as original Patentees, nor their Abilities, nor Wealth, could screen them from the Punishment of Transportation.

BY these Methods, the Congregationalists kept the Country intirely to themselves, for a consider­able while; and had not a general Toleration been introduced by the Authority of Government at home, it is impossible to say, how long it would have been, before any other Denominations of Christi­ans had been suffered to live among them. There may be still some few of their Descendants, that have inherited the same Sentiments and the same Spirit; but, in general, the Times are now great­ly altered for the better, in this Respect. Men of different Persuasions can live together in the same Neighbourhood, and maintain a friendly Inter­course with one another, in a Country where none but Congregationalists were suffered to exist; and were it not for some hot-headed Leaders of the People, and some scribbling Incendiaries (I have no particular Reference to the Doctor) the Peace and Harmony of Society would not be disturbed by [Page 202] Difference of Principle. Episcopalians, Baptists, Quakers and others, have ventured to come into the Colony; many of the Congregationalists have adopted their Principles; and the rest commonly entertain more favorable Sentiments of those they differ from, than they received from their Ances­tors. Although they have a Veneration for their Fore-Fathers, yet they are not so blind as to be unable to distinguish the Defects in their Charac­ter; which Defects they think themselves under no Obligations to vindicate. This candid Temper has been, as such a Temper always will be, favor­able to the Church; and there are, at this Time, not less than 20 Churches actually built, and a still larger Number of episcopal Congregations, in this anti-episcopal Province.

AS to Connecticut, the Doctor allows the Church to have increased there, beyond the Proportion of other Denominations; but he affects to be of Opi­nion, that what I said upon the Subject was hyper­bolical, and beyond the Bounds of literal Truth. My Words were these: ‘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 was literally true at that Time; and as I could then recollect no such Example, so none has occured to me since. If the Doctor knows of any, let it be pointed out.

[Page 203]HE was pleased to represent the Church of En­gland in the Colonies as being in her Infancy, and so far from a State of Maturity, as to make it not worth while for a Bishop to come here. And it was answered: ‘Infant and feeble as She is, he has allowed that She may be 270,000 strong in the Colonies, exclusively of the Islands, after reducing her Numbers as low as possible. Now can he possibly think, when he gives 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 Balance, in so contemptible a Light ^†?’

HE replies, that when he spake in this Manner, he had Reference only to her Existence in the Seven Colonies, extending from Pennsylvania to the North­ward. p. 152. I have again examined the Passage as it stands in his Pamphlet, and I see nothing that shews that he confined his View within this limited Compass. Besides, he had no Right to answer a general Representation of the Church in all the Colonies, by a partial Account of it as existing only in some of the Colonies. He might as pro­perly have confined his View to the Province of Massachusetts, or to the Town of Boston only. The Plea for an Episcopate was made in Behalf, at least, of 270,000 People in the Colonies, be­sides [Page 204] many Thousands in the Islands; and to shew the Invalidity of it, he urges that it is not necessa­ry on Account of 26 or 27 Thousands of that Number, according to the Calculations of his own Arithmetic—throwing more than nine Tenths of the whole intirely out of the Question. This he may call reasoning, but there is a more proper Name by which others will call it.

HE acknowledges that the Governor, in most of these Colonies, is commonly in Name an Episcopalian; but he respectfully says, that they are sometimes destitute of every Thing that looks like Religion. p. 153. Some Men can seize upon the slightest Oc­casions, to "speak evil of Dignities." I do not believe there is at this Time a Governor on the Continent, who pretends to be an Episcopalian, that has given any just Ground for this Reflection. Their Characters in general are irreproachable. Some of them are as eminent for their Virtues, as their Stations; the Examples, as well as Patrons, of whatever is amiable and excellent in private Life; the Ornaments, as well as Friends and Pro­tectors of Religion, But were it otherwise, their Rank renders them important, and gives a Weight to that religious Society, of which they profess themselves Members.

THE Doctor proceeds, in IAMBICS: It is quite remote from Truth to say, that most of the principal Persons in the Colonies, are of this Persuasion, unless by principal Persons are meant, those who are ap­pointed to their civil Posts from home. What was said is most unquestionably true of the Colonies to the Southward of New-England, and probably true of the Colonies in general, exclusively of those [Page 205] Persons that are appointed to civil Posts under the Government. But why, in the Name of common Sense, should these be excluded? Does the Doctor imagine, that a civil Employment, held under the Government, degrades a Man from his former Rank and Character in Life? Such Ebullitions of an anti-monarchical Spirit ought, in Prudence, to have been suppressed.

HE continues: In general there are 50 principal Persons to one, in the non-episcopal Colonies, who are not Members of the Church of England, but of Churches of other Denominations. By the non-epis­copal Colonies he means here, I suppose, as he explains himself elsewhere, New-England, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania. In the three last-mentioned Colonies, the Gentlemen of Fortune and Character belonging to the Church of England, are, I believe, as numerous, as those of all other Denominations, excepting the Quakers in Penn­sylvania. And as to New-England, there are as many Persons of Distinction belonging to the Church, (some say many more) in Proportion to the Number of Episcopalians, as of any other Profession. But if we suppose the Proportion to be but equal throughout these Northern Colonies in general; then, in Order to make the Number of principal Persons of other Persuasions 50 Times greater than of those belonging to the Church, those different Denominations must be 50 Times as numerous as the Members of the Church. Now the Doctor allows, that in these seven Colonies, there may be 27,000 Episcopalians: Consequently, according to his Representation, there must be, within the same Compass, 1,377,000 Inhabitants. But if the Number of Episcopalians is much [Page 206] larger, as it undoubtedly is, then the Inhabitants, from Pennsylvania to the Northward, without in­cluding Canada and Nova-Scotia, can be but little less than 2,000,000. The notorious Falsehood of the Conclusion, argues a Defect in the Doctor's Premises.

IN answering the Appeal, Dr. Chauncy had introduced a long Extract from one of Dr. Mayhew's Pamphlets, to which Mr. Apthorp had given a direct and particular Answer, whereof not the least Notice was taken. This Conduct appeared to me to be extraordinary; and in speaking of it I used the following Words: ‘Was it treating his Readers generously, or fairly, or honestly, to present them with Dr. Mayhew's Objections, broadly hinting, although not directly affirming, 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?’ He now says, that there was no Need of any Excuse for such Conduct. In Compliance with the Invita­tion given in the Appeal, my Business was, not to answer Objections, but to bring them that they might be answered by the Doctor. There is something very curious in this Account of the Matter. He offered Objections that had been publickly refuted, without any Intimation that a Refutation had been attempted, because it was not his Business to answer Objections. Would then his taking Notice that Mr. Apthorp had replied, have been an Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Objections? If so, although I never thought there would be much Difficulty in answer­ing them, the Work is more easy than I imagined. If it was not his Business to answer Objections; neither was it his proper Business to bring Objecti­ons, [Page 207] in that Manner, that had been answered. The Invitation in the Appeal, can be no Justification of such Conduct, as it proposed only ‘a fair and can­did Debate.’ An Objection that has been shewn to be weak, is no better than a Fact that has been proved to be false. If the Weakness of an Ob­jection has been only attempted to be shewn; it is still upon the same Footing with a Fact that has been contradicted: And it is not 'fair and candid,' in such a Case, to offer the Objection as sound, without clearing it of the Imputation of being defective; any more than to assume the Truth of a Fact that is contradicted or denied, without clear­ing it of the Imputation of Falsehood. He thinks it was his Business to bring Objections to be an­swered by me: But the bringing such Objections as he has often exhibited, looks more like an Amusement of Idleness, than the proper Business of any Man, especially of the Doctor's Character and Station. The Truth, I believe, is, that he hoped Mr. Apthorp's Review had escaped me, and that I was unable to answer those Objections of Dr. Mayhew as effectually as Mr. Apthorp had done. Indeed he seems to have a strong Desire, that nothing which that Gentleman had written, in Vindication of the Church, should be repeated or remembered. Such a careful and studied Neglect of Mr. Apthorp, is the greatest Honour that the Enemies of the Church can pay him.

BEFORE the Doctor retired to make Room for Dr. Mayhew, he proposed an Expedient to com­promise Matters between the Episcopalians and their Adversaries. It was, that the King should grant a Commission to some of the Clergy here, to per­form the Office of a Bishop. I told him his [Page 208] Expedient wanted even Plausibility. ‘It can nei­ther answer the Ends of Episcopalians, nor 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 ^†.’ In Reply to this, he only says, that if the Reader will examine what he said relating to the Subject, he will be convinced, that under pretence of saying Something, I had really said nothing. To so feeble a Reply, I shall not pretend to say any Thing. Therefore

I SHALL pass on to consider the Reasons assigned, for Dr. Mayhew's not replying to Mr. Apthorp. Neither he (Dr. Mayhew) or [nor] his Friends thought it (Mr. Apthorp's Review) worthy of such Notice. This is but a poor Justification of any Man, from a Charge that lies against him. Others think, per­haps as justly, that he made no Reply, because he was afraid of the Consequence. He had Sense enough to know that it was Time to stop; I wish that some others may improve by his Example. Another Reason assigned for his not making a Reply is, that it was imagined that Mr. Apthorp, wrote principally with a View to recommend himself to a certain great Man, whose Favour might be advan­tageous to him. Were there no other Motives then, that could induce Mr. Apthorp to review a Contro­versy that he himself had occasioned, and in which he had been so often mentioned on both Sides, than to recommend himself to the Favour of a certain [Page 209] Superior? Or is there the least Evidence that he was at all influenced by the Consideration, whereby it is insinuated that he was principally governed? How ungenerous then, how low and illiberal is it, to ascribe to a Gentleman of his Character such a mercenary Motive? If any one should charge Dr. Chauncy with having written Two huge Pamphlets against American Bishops, principally with a View to recommend himself to the Favour of some great Demagogue in the Town of Boston, would he not think such a Reflection unworthy of a Gentleman? And yet, I believe, the Evidence of this, both internal and external, is as clear and authentic, as can be produced against Mr. Apthorp. But what­ever Object this latter Gentleman might have had more immediately in View, it is nothing to the Pur­pose. His Review bore hard upon Dr. Mayhew's Performance; the Reputation of the latter, and of his Cause, was at Stake; and it concerned him to vindicate both himself and his Cause, as well as he could.

BUT this he neglected to do, and Dr. Chauncy attempts it. And as I have occasioned Mr. Apthorp to be brought into this Debate, in his Absence; I esteem it my Duty to repair, as well as I can, the Injuries he has suffered on my Account.

THE Answerer to Dr. Mayhew' s Observations had explained the Plan, on which only it had been proposed to send Bishops to America. Dr. May­hew allowed that the Proposal was set in a more unexceptionable Point of Light, than he had seen it in before; but he objected to the Information, as not coming from sufficient Authority. Yet at the same Time he appeared to believe, what is now [Page 210] universally known, that his Informer was no less a Person than the late Archbishop of Canterbury. To shew that the Plan there presented to the Pub­lic, was no peculiar Scheme of the Answerer, Mr. Apthorp declared that the same Plan had been a­greed upon by many Persons of high Rank in the Church, and that all who appeared to have con­sidered it, heartily approved of it—the Evidence of which he was ready to produce. Among others, Bishop Butler had drawn up a Scheme for an A­merican Episcopate, in 1750: this was published as a Specimen, and it exactly agreed with the Plan contained in the Answer; and enough was said, in all Reason, to silence Dr. Mayhew's affected Suspi­cions. Nor does Dr. Chauncy offer any Thing, that shews the Impropriety of Mr. Apthorp's Repre­sentation.

INDEED he says of these Plans, that they are not to be looked on as Schemes set forth on the Foot of proper Authority. p. 157. All the Authority want­ed, is sufficient Evidence that such an Epis­copate as was specified, and no other, had been proposed for the Colonies. But if by proper Au­thority he means that of the King and Parliament, what he says is true, but not to the Purpose. For the Question was not, what Kind of an Episcopate was intended, or whether any was intended, by the King and Parliament; but what Kind of an Epis­copate had been proposed by those that had taken the Subject into Consideration, and were desirous that Bishops might be sent to America. Now the Bishops at home, and many of the principal Friends of the Church, both there and here, had agreed upon a Plan of an Episcopate for the Co­lonies, which was formed with a View of relieving [Page 211] the spiritual Necessities of the Church, without affecting the Liberties of others, or interfering with the civil Government; upon which Plan it always appeared probable that an Episcopate would be granted. That some Plan had been concerted, was commonly known; the Nature of the Plan, the Answerer explained; and his Explanation Mr. Apthorp confirmed, proving it to have been fair and just. This is all that could be required or expected, as the Plan had not been presented and recommended to the Government, and consequent­ly could not be set forth on the Foot of the Autho­rity of Government. If the only Plan that had been proposed was unexceptionable, Men ought to have been satisfied; for nothing can be more absurd than to oppose it, because reasonable Ob­jections may be offered against some other Plan, that never has been proposed for the Colonies.

BUT the Doctor says: Whatever the Planners might intend or pretend, if ever an Episcopate is au­thoritatively settled in America, it may be, for aught any of them all can say, upon a Plan very different from what they have proposed. If the Antiepiscopa­lians had the Wisdom to signify their Approbation of this, which in their own Consciences they know can never hurt them, or the Discretion not to op­pose it; there could be no Room to doubt, that whenever an Episcopate should be authoritatively settled in the Colonies, it would be according to a Plan, that had been offered on one Side, and admited on the other, as unexceptionable. But what Alterations unreasonable Opposition, attend­ed with the vilest Abuses of the national Church, may occasion, is more difficult to say: Although we still hope, that Allowance may be made for [Page 212] Prejudices, and that no Resentment of such Treat­ment may be shewn, when the Design for an Ame­rican Episcopate shall come to be put in Executi­on. We wish to give no Offence to others; we hope no just Offence will be ever given. We are willing to forget the Injuries we have received. We would avoid every Appearance that might ex­cite Jealousy; and we should think ourselves hap­py in the Friendship and Confidence of every re­ligious Denomination in the Colonies. As one Proof of this Disposition, our cordial Consent to, and our earnest Desire of, an Episcopate upon the Plan under Consideration, are offered to the Public.

OF this Mr. Apthorp spake, as ‘such a sim­ple and beautiful Plan of the most ancient and moderate Episcopacy,’ that it ought to remove the Apprehensions and Scruples of the most Sus­picious. The Doctor says it can be no just Plan of the ancient Episcopacy, because the Bishops are to have no Authority over the Laity. But as this Subject has been considered already, I have no Occasion to repeat what has been said.

DR. Mayhew had ridiculed, "with burlesque "Gravity," some Expressions in the Society's Abstract of 1715, wherein Confirmation was spo­ken of. Mr. Apthorp remarked, that ‘he well knows, or easily may, that we ascribe no more Efficacy to the laying on Bishop's Hands, than his Brethren do to the laying on of Presbyter's Hands.’ Dr. Chauncy replies, that Mr. Ap­thorp is mistaken with Regard to this Point. For, says he: Do Episcopalians never speak of an INDE­LIBLE CHARACTER as impressed by the Bishop's Hand in Ordination?—implying, that the Congregati­onalists [Page 213] pretend to no such Thing. I imagine the Doctor here spake without Attention or Recol­lection; for I am not willing to suppose, that he does not understand the Principles of ‘his Bre­thren.’ They believe, or used to believe, that an indelible Character is, in some Cases, conveyed by themselves, as firmly as we do that such a Cha­racter is ever given by our Bishops. By an indeli­ble Character is meant, a Character that continues through Life, and of which a Man cannot divest himself. Such, for Instance, is the baptismal Cha­racter; which, in the Opinion of all that adminis­ter or receive it, can never be laid aside. He that is once baptised, is always considered, in all Cir­cumstances, as a baptised Person. Should he dis­regard the sacred Character himself, should he a­postatize from Christianity, or be excommunicated from the Church, yet his Baptism still remains. For should he return to his Duty, and give suffici­ent Proofs of his Repentance, so that it would be thought proper to restore him to the Privileges of a Christian, a new Baptism would not be required: The Reason of which is this, and can be this only, that the baptismal Character is considered as indeli­ble. This, I believe, is the Opinion of Congre­gationalists, as well as of others. The Case of Or­dination, in this Respect, is much the same with that of Baptism. According to good Information, there have been Instances in New-England, of or­dained Ministers, that after a while have given up their sacred Employment, and become perfectly secularized—pursuing, like other Persons some of the common Occupations of Life—and afterwards have resumed their ecclesiastical Functions; to which they have been admited, without Reordina­tion. This is a Proof that, in New-England, the [Page 214] sacerdotal Character is also thought to be indelible. And indeed when that Character is once commu­nicated, why should it be more circumscribed, with Regard to Time, than to Place? Why should it not continue with a Man as long as he lives, as well as accompany him wherever he goes?

MR. Apthorp fairly concluded from Dr. May­hew's Performances, that he was not willing that Episcopalians in the Colonies should have that Liberty, without which he and his Brethren would not be satisfied themselves. In controverting this Point, Dr. Chauncy builds upon this rotten Foun­dation, that the American Episcopalians have, in Reality, the same Liberty with other Denomina­tions, in all Respects; of which nothing farther is needful to be here said.

IT had been mentioned as one Advantage ex­pected from an American Episcopate, that the Clergy here would be under a proper Government. Dr. Mayhew treated this with his usual Candor and Charity, insinuating that the Episcopal Clergy in America peculiarly required to be "reduced to "Order." Mr. Apthorp answered, that the con­trary was rather to be infered, from their unani­mous Desire of such an Episcopate. Dr. Chauncy does not deny the Justness of this Inference, nor dispute but that the Clergy, who have petitioned for Bishops, are unanimous, at least in Appearance, in their Wishes to have them; but he still comforts himself, that the Clergy in the Episcopal Colonies have not petitioned for, nor shewn themselves to be desirous of American Bishops; and consequently, that they have not given this Proof of their not being a disorderly Set of People. How long this [Page 215] Consolation is like to continue, the Reader may judge from what has been said; and how much, in the Doctor's Opinion, the Reputation of the Clergy depends upon their petitioning for Bishops, is wor­thy of Notice, as he undertakes to express the Sentiments of his Brethren in general.

THE Task of answering all the Objections and Cavils in the Pamphlet before me, is like that of teaching Children to read in their Primers; it re­quires much Time and Patience, and after all, the Profit is but inconsiderable. This Observation was naturally suggested by other Parts of the Doctor's Performance; but here, where a Reply to Mr. Apthorp is attempted, it forces itself so irresistably upon me, that I am unable to suppress it. The Exceptions of our Author in general, appear to me to be so very weak and trifling, not to mention the almost perpetual Repetitions of what had been before said, that I know not how to reconcile them with his reputed Judgment and good Sense. How­ever, amidst these, there are a few Particulars that deserve not to be intirely slighted.

DR. Mayhew had objected against an American Episcopate, because Bishops had sometimes proved to be ambitious and troublesome. Mr. Apthorp answered, that "so are Presbyters—too often;" and therefore Presbyters might as well be excluded from the Colonies as Bishops, on that Account. Dr. Chauncy replies: This proves nothing, unless he could have said farther, that their Sphere of In­fluence was equally extensive, in Consequence of which there was equal Danger, from their intriguing with great Men at home, or with Governors or principal Men here, of carrying into Execution such Schemes as [Page 216] might be greatly hurtful, both in a civil and religious Sense, p. 163. Presbyters must always be supposed to have some influence; and in Proportion to the Degree and Extent of it, this Objection is equally conclusive against them, as against Bishops, accord­ing to Mr. Apthorp's Argument: Nay, it will equally conclude against the Toleration of any Episcopalians at all, in Proportion to their Influ­ence. For the Principle is this—that wherever Men of other Persuasions are supposed to have an Influence, that may be used against the Congrega­tionalists, the latter are to oppose their Existence, at least, in the same Country with themselves, and to refuse them the common Rights of Christians: On which Principle alone the Opposition to the Bishops of our Plan can be justified. The Influence of a Bishop is undoubtedly greater than that of a Presby­ter; but the Influence of a Bishop without any temporal Power, like those in Question, has never been esteemed formidable in any Country. To object against such, is like objecting against a Man's natural or acquired Abilities; and it may as justly be contended, that no Clergyman should be tolera­ted in America, whose Capacity exceeded a certain Size, or whose Learning exceeded such a limited Standard. Supposing the Influence of an American Bishop to be equal to that of Twenty Presbyters; yet if there will be a Hundred Presbyters in Ame­rica to one Bishop, then this Objection will have Five Times the Force against the Order of Presby­ters, as against the Order of Bishops. If the Doctor would be ashamed of the Objection in one Case, he ought not to urge it in the other.

THE Unreasonableness of the Objection farther appears, from what Mr. Apthorp justly observes, [Page 217] viz. That the Temper of the English Bishops is now, and has been for a long Time, such, as af­fords no Room for Jealousy, but intitles them to Confidence. The Doctor is not willing to ac­knowledge this; especially if it be true, as Dr. Mayhew had been informed, that High-Church Tory Principles are [have been] lately revived in England, p. 164. This Information may have been not true; and such Principles may have been revived in England, and not countenanced by the Bishops. The Bishops at home may have embraced them, and yet Bishops of other Principles may be sent to America. Besides, High-Church Principles (to use the Doctor's Cant) are not necessarily into­lerant; and no Principles but those of Intolerance are justly to be dreaded. That the Bishops at home are Friends to religious Liberty, and disposed, not to oppress, but to oblige the Dissenters, the most considerable of the latter have candidly confessed. The late excellent Archbishop Secker was, in the Doctor's Phraseology, a High-Flyer in his Principles; and yet he was as forward to do kind Offices to Protestants of other Principles, as they themselves could reasonably wish. An Instance of this Kind, and of the Christian Temper and Generosity of the whole Bench of Bishops, that ought never to be forgotten, is published in his Life. In 1743 ‘his Lordship (then Bishop of Oxford) received a Letter from Dr. Wishart, Provost of Edinburgh College, recommending to him his Brother and Mr. Wallace, Deputies from the established Clergy of Scotland, to promote a Bill in Parlia­ment for providing a Maintenance for their Widows and Children, which many of them imagined the Bishops would oppose. Dr. Secker paid them all the Civility, and did them all the [Page 218] Service he could. None of the Bench opposed their Bill either publickly or privately, and it was moved for by a Bishop at each of its three Rea­dings in the House of Lords ^*.’ The late Dr. S. Chandler, who was intimate with his Grace and several of the Bishops, and knew them all, thought there could be no Danger from their Disposition, nor from any other Quarter, that would justify an Opposition to the Episcopate of our Plan; and therefore, like a wise and honest Man, and a real Friend to religious Liberty, he freely signified his Approbation of it.

DR. Mayhew objected, that supposing Bishops should be at first sent in the Manner proposed, yet there was no Certainty that they and their Succes­sors would remain contented, very long, under such Limitations. Mr. Apthorp replied: ‘Who knows whether the New-Englanders will not hang Quakers—again,’ as, in one of their Colonies, they did formerly? This was a sufficient Answer to so unreasonable an Objection; especially as Dr. Mayhew himself had administered an Anti­dote against the Poison of his own Argument, in these Words: ‘It is readily owned, that our Ap­prehensions of what may possibly or probably be the Consequences of Bishops being sent hither, ought not to put us on infringing the religious Li­berty of our Fellow Subjects, and Christian Bre­thren ^†.’ But Mr. Apthorp proceeds: ‘The Clergy of England are in general Friends to religious Freedom: The People of England, Whigs and Tories, are unfavourable to clerical [Page 219] 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.’

THE Reader will observe, that the preceeding Objection does, in Effect, admit of an Episcopate on the present Plan; for it is made only on the Supposition that this Plan may be altered; and the possible or probable Alteration is its only Object. But of any material Alteration of the Plan we see no Probability. In this Country, we do not desire it; at home, there appears no Disposition to make it: And after a Plan of such a Nature has been once put in Execution, especially if Men on all Sides shall appear to have been satisfied with it, every Day will render an Alteration more difficult. The general Disposition, as Mr. Apthorp observed, is friendly to religious Liberty: It is far more likely to increase than diminish; and therefore it is most probable, that no Alterations will be made, in this or any other Plan, that are unfavourable to the religious Rights of any Denomination of Christians. Upon this general Disposition of our Superiors, which is a Security to others, we also depend—for the full Enjoyment of the Institutions of the Church in the Colonies; in Order to which, an Episcopate is absolutely necessary. An Episco­pate therefore we claim, as one of the common Rights of Christians, and as Subjects of a free Government. Every Opposition to our Claim is an Infringement of religious Liberty; we cannot but look upon it in this Light ourselves, and we doubt not but the Government, when the Subject shall be taken into Consideration, will look upon it in the same Light.

[Page 220]TO the foregoing Representation of Mr. Ap­thorp, the Doctor replies: All this being taken for granted, yet MAY not Times alter, and Administra­tions change? p. 165. This is bringing the Argu­ment back, from Probability to Possibility. If the general Disposition is more favourable to reli­gious Liberty than it ever has been, Appearances are on the side of religious Liberty. Times do not easily alter in such Respects. A national Character is not soon lost; Changes of Administration, unless it falls into the Hands of Foreigners, seldom affect it. There can be no greater Security to any Privi­lege or Right, than that the Sentiments and Dis­position of the Public are known to favour it. To object therefore the Possibility that the best Security may fail, shews the Situation and Temper of our Adversaries. Their Situation is such, that, for Want of plausible Objections, they are obliged to use those that are monstrous and shocking: And their Temper is such, that they are determined, at any Rate, to oppose our Enjoyment of equal Pri­vileges with themselves. They clearly discover, that they will never consent to our having an Epis­copate in any Form, by opposing one in the most unexceptionable Form that can be mentioned. In­deed the Doctor has consented that we may have Bishops from the Moravians; but he may as well retract this, as his other Concessions. And if our Plan had been to have Moravian Bishops, he would probably have contended as furiously against them, as against those that have been requested.

HE urges, in the Words of Dr. Mayhew: We are certainly more sure against Oppression (by Bi­shops) in the Absence of Bishops, than we should be if they were once fixed here. It appears then, as I [Page 221] have just observed, that no other Security will sa­tisfy some People, than our having no Bishops at all. However, as there is no Probability, hardly a Possibility, that such an unreasonable Opposition should prevent it, it concerns them to consider the following Words of Mr. Apthorp: ‘They (Bi­shops) may soon be sent, and with much greater Authority than is asked for them now; and perhaps with some RESENTMENT of the Opposi­tion made to them before.’ Should this be the Case, which I hope it may not be, the blind and impetuous Zeal of these Sticklers against Bishops, may in some Measure excuse, but it can never atone for, the Mischief they will have occasioned to their own Party.

MR. Apthorp proceeds: ‘English Dissenters, who have Six and Twenty Bishops established among them, fear no Harm from them. Why then should the New-England Dissenters fear any, if one or two should be established, with much less Power, in one or two neighbouring Provinces?’ The Doctor replies, that if the Dis­senters at home fear no Harm from the Bishops, yet they suffer it. They are, and ever will be, in suf­fering Circumstances; unless the Establishment of the Church of England is dissolved, or greatly altered. p. 166. Whatever they suffer from the national Establishment, is here charged to the Account of the present Bishops. But did they make the Esta­blishment? Is it in their Power to alter it? Or if it was, would it be right in them to give up the legal Advantages of that Church, with the Inter­ests of which they are intrusted, before they find it to be agreeable to the Generality of its Mem­bers? Indeed were those Advantages founded in [Page 222] the Oppression of other People, the Bishops ought in Duty to use their Influence that the Oppression might be removed. But the English Dissenters feel themselves to be not oppressed; and many of them are sensible of the peculiar Mildness and Moderation, not only of the Bishops, but of the national Establishment. No Dissenters from the established Religion in any Country on Earth, have less Reason to complain of their suffering Circum­stances, than those in England. If the Doctor has Reference to what they contribute for the Support of the parochial Clergy, exclusively of Tithes, it amounts to but a Trifle; and what they pay in Tithes, is not, nor has it ever been, any Part of their own Property, as was shewn in the Appeal. If he refers to their Exclusion, from civil Offices under the Government; many of them find Ways to evade the Law, so that the Exclusion, in Effect, is far from being general. But were it universal, their Suffering would consist only in not being ad­mitted to certain political Favors; Favors which are not granted them, on Account only of their known Disposition to abuse them, to the Injury of the national Establishment. In the mean Time, they have every Indulgence that is requisite to the full Enjoyment of religious Liberty. They are al­lowed to exercise their own Form of ecclesiastical Government—they are allowed to ordain their own Ministers (Privileges which the Episcopalians in America still want, and may for ever want, with the good Will of some People)—they are allowed to worship God in their own Way without Con­trol—they are allowed to make Proselytes, if they can, from the national Church—and, notwith­standing certain Statutes and Canons, they are not restrained by the Government from publickly a­busing [Page 223] the national Establishment, to the Mildness of which they are indebted for these Indulgences. After all this, they can have no great Reason to complain of their suffering Circumstances.

DR. Mayhew pretended to be apprehensive, that the Bishops proposed might be supported by a Tax upon the Colonies. Mr. Apthorp answered, that until a proper Maintenance could be otherwise provided, none would be sent; as was evident from Bishop Butler's Plan, with which all the others a­greed. Here Dr. Chauncy seems to have been ex­hausted; and he says in Reply, or rather instead of a Reply: It is not possible any one should have a Conception of the Pertinency, Force, and ELEGANCE of the Doctor's Objection, as set forth at large in his reasoning upon it, by reading only this cursory, slighty, and, I may say, triflng Answer to it. p. 167. Here is a new Quality ascribed to Objections. I have heard of elegant Expressions, and elegant Compositions; but of elegant Objections I have ne­ver before heard. It seems then, that as an Ob­jection may be pertinent and not forcible, or forci­ble and not pertinent, so an Objection, that is nei­ther forcible nor pertinent, may still be elegant; and on that Account be worthy of Attention. Mr. Apthorp, I believe, confined himself to the Con­sideration of the Pertinency and Force, without thinking it worth while to attend to the ELEGANCE, of the Objections before him. But enough of this.

THE Doctor goes on for three or four Pages more, in his Controversy with Mr. Apthorp— nib­ling at here and there a Sentence which he is pleased to pick out; but he says nothing of any Conse­quence, [Page 224] nor does he introduce Dr. Mayhew as say­ing any Thing of Consequence, that has not been fairly obviated in the Course of the preceding Pages. Although I am tired of the Drudgery I have undergone, yet I beg Leave to assure the Reader that my Resolution continues, to pass by nothing that can deserve his Notice: But after his Kindness, in accompanying me thus far through a disagreeable Road, I think it would be ungenerous to detain him with Trifles, especially when he is so near to the End of his Journey. I shall therefore pass over what has been farther offered in Reply to Mr. Apthorp; and examine what remains, relating more immediately to myself; which consists almost intirely of Repetitions, and partly of double Re­petitions, of what has been said before.

AND nothing worthy of Attention appears, be­fore we come to p. 173. I had said: ‘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.’ The Doctor replies, that such a compleat Enjoyment of it, is not agreeable to the proposed Plan; for that it must be attended with spiritual Courts, and the Exercise of episcopal Authority in the same precise Way and Manner that has been established by King and Parliament. But this is a manifest Perversion of very plain Language. The Word ecclesiastical has two Meanings: In a strict Sense it means what belongs to the Church originally, as a spiritual Society, without any Re­lation to the State. It also means, in a larger or laxer Sense, whatever belongs to the Church; and [Page 225] includes all those external Circumstances and Re­gulations, which the Church may receive from the civil Authority. These two Senses are materially different; and when the Word is evidently used in one of them only, it is unfair and sophistical to interpret it in the other. The Plea for the Epis­copate in Question, from the very Beginning, con­sidered the Episcopalians in America as a religious Society; and what was asked or proposed in Favor of it, was purely of a spiritual or ecclesiastical Na­ture, in the first and strict Sense of the Word. The Appendages added by the Government to the same Church in England, were never considered as any Part of its real Substance, or as essential to its in­ternal Constitution, even there. The Church has a Constitution of its own, given it by its divine Founder, which continues the same, both in Pros­perity and Adversity, whether favored or perse­cuted by the Powers of the World; and the Doc­tor knows, that it was the compleat Enjoyment of this Constitution only that was spoken of. To talk therfore of such spiritual Courts as have been erected in England, and such Modes as have been established by the civil Authority, as Parts of our ecclesiastical Constitution, is a poor quibbling with Words, and utterly unworthy of a fair Disputant.

ALL that was claimed as a Right, in Behalf of the Episcopalians in America, amounted only to a Toleration—such a Toleration as suffers the Church to exist here 'in all its Parts.' The like Perver­sion is made of this Expression; for the whole Tenor of the Appeal, and the Defence of it, shew­ed my Meaning to be, all its essential Parts, or all its Parts considered barely as an ecclesiastical Soci­ety, unallied with the State. To countenance the [Page 226] Abuse, the Doctor has added, in Capitals, IN ALL RESPECTS; as if I had insisted, that the Church should not only be allowed to exist here ‘in all its Parts,’ but in all Respects as it does in England. But as I did not use the Expression myself; so I said nothing that could justify the Doctor's Use of it, in such a Manner.

HE next introduces, once more, a State-Esta­blishment, which has been already considered; and on which therefore I shall not enlarge in this Place. He contends that the Episcopate proposed necessa­rily implies such an Establishment; and his Me­thod of arguing is recommended to the Attention of such Readers as are fond of 'Curiosities.' A­merican Bishops, says he, shall have no Authority over the Laity;—their spiritual Courts must not be held in this Part of the World;—and they them­selves are to be confined in their Power within certain prescribed Boundaries. How is all this to be accom­plished? Must there not be the Interposition of the State? Can it be affected in any other Way?—And what is this, in real Meaning, but an Establishment? p. 176. I know not that the Interposition of the State is at all necessary, in Order to the compleat Execution of our whole Plan. If it be necessary, it is only to limit and circumscribe the Authority of the intended Bishops. Such an Interposition is properly a Restraint, and not an Establishment; and the Act of Toleration may, with much greater Pro­priety, be called an Establishment of the various tolerated Sects, in England. I cannot conclude this Remark without observing, that if the Doctor will have a Language peculiar to himself; if he will use Words in such a Sense as no Mortal ever used them before him; he ought to publish a [Page 227] Glossary, wherein the Singularities of his Phraseo­logy are carefully explained.

I HAVE now considered every Thing in Dr. Chauncy's Pamphlet, that could with any Propri­ety, be brought before the Public, as worthy of Notice. I have attended to the Pertinency and Force, although not to the ELEGANCE, of all his Objections against an American Episcopate, on the Plan of the Appeal, as well as against the Church of England, and the truly venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. I am not consci­ous that I have misrepresented his Sentiments or his Arguments in any Instance. I have passed over nothing, because I found it difficult to be ans­wered. And if I may be allowed to express my own Opinion, it is clearly this, that all he has of­fered relating to these several Subjects, is either weak or impertinent; and if this has not been shewn, to the Satisfaction of the impartial Rea­der, I am greatly mistaken. Indeed the Doctor speaks of his own Performance with high Confi­dence, and with still higher Confidence, of his own Abilities. He says that I have not written in such a Manner, as to give him an Opportunity for the TRIAL OF STRENGTH. p. 178. Such a Brag­ger I have not met with, since I was a School-Boy. He may conceit himself to be an Hercules; but in this Pamphlet however, he appears, like the real Hercules at the Court of Omphale, to have acted unworthily of such a Character.

HE intended, it seems, to have come to a Conclu­sion HERE (by not concluding here, but) by present­ing to the Reader, in one View, the Sum of what has been said on both Sides, that he might the more [Page 228] easily make a Judgment in the Case. But he was di­verted by what he calls a Matter of much greater Importance, the Treatment of the Presbyterian Church at New-York, in Relation to the Charter they peti­tioned for. This he thinks sufficient to spread an Alarm through all the Colonies on the Continent, giving them solemn Notice what they may expect, should Episcopalians ever come to have the Superiori­ty in their Influence. And he gives a partial His­tory of the Affair, contrasted with the Proceed­ings of the Boston Assembly in passing an Act, in Consequence of which, the Church of England in the Massachusetts receives Benefit.

THE Disappointment of the Presbyterians in New-York, with Regard to a Charter, he had mentioned in his former Pamphlet; and enough was said in Answer, to shew that they have, upon the whole, no great Reasons for Complaint. A­mong other Things, it was observed, in the Appeal defended, that ‘it was the Belief at home, that the Church of England had been treated with pecu­liar Malevolence, by some of those very Persons 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.’ If nothing farther could be said, yet so long as this was believed to be the Case, whether justly or not: it was of itself a sufficient Reason—not for abridging the religious Liberty—but for not enlarging the Power, of the Presbyterians in New-York. And yet Dr. Chauncy takes not the least Notice of this Observation, nor of any Thing I said relating to the Subject; but sounds a false Alarm to all the Colonies, to prepare [Page 229] for a Defence, against the oppressive Designs of the Church of England.

BUT the Refusal of Favors by the Government, to particular Persons who had made themselves ob­noxious to Government, by a supposed scurrilous Abuse of the national Establishment, which ought always to be treated with Decency, is no Proof of the ill Temper of Episcopalians, nor an Argu­ment of the Unwillingness of Government to grant Favors to other Persons, although of the same re­ligious Denomination, that have not discovered the same Disposition:—Much less does it prove any Design, to deprive such Persons of any Privileges, of which they are in fair and legal Possession. If the Conduct of the Presbyterians in New-York has been mistaken, or misrepresented, let it be made to appear. If they, or their Friends, can prove, or make it probable, that they have not publickly vilified and abused the national Church, and that they have been free from all secret Intrigues and Combinations against it; in my Opinion, they, as well as other Protestants, are intitled to all Favors from the Patrons of the Church, that are con­sistent with Safety, or the Constitution. But on the other Hand, if they are conscious of their own evil Intentions and Practices against the Church of England, and know that some of them have been actually discovered; it is surprising that they can expect, much more that they can have the Assu­rance to ask, particular Favors, to the granting of which, the Consent of those, who regard the In­terest and Honor of the Church, is necessary. I will not enter farther into the Conduct or the Case of the Presbyterians in New-York. Let them but clear themselves of the Charges and Suspicions [Page 230] with which they are loaded; and then, if any rea­sonable Favors are refused them, barely on Ac­count of their religious Principles, the Dissenters throughout the Colonies will have just Reason to expect the same Treatment, and not before.

AS to the above-mentioned Act of the Boston Assembly, it shews, according to the Doctor's Ac­count of it, a Generosity that is highly commenda­ble and worthy of Imitation. As I am unwilling to entertain any unfavorable Suspicions in such a Case, I should not question the Fairness of the Representation; were it not that the Doctor tri­umphs so unmercifully in the Act, and takes occasion from it to vilify and abuse the Church of England. I shall therefore take the Liberty to observe, that the chief Object in View, was evidently to favor certain Pastors and Deacons, and not the Church— and that, although the Church was benefited, yet if the Clauses in its Favor were inserted, as some suppose, in Order to secure to the Bill a Passage through all the Branches of the provincial Legisla­ture, or a Confirmation in England, the Favor was granted on mercenary Principles, and the Merit of the Act, in Point of Generosity to the Church, is nothing at all. Whether this, or any other private Advantage, was the prevailing Mo­tive, with the Boston Assembly, for favoring the Church of England, the Doctor probably knows; and if it was, others know, that the Act deserves not the Praise that he ascribes to it.

AS the Doctor was diverted from his Intention of suming up what had been said on both Sides; in Order partly to supply his Omission, I will conclude, [Page 231] with a short Account of the Rise, Progress, and present State of this Controversy.

IT began with the Appeal to the Public, which was made in Behalf of the Episcopalians in Ame­rica, amounting, in the Colonies and Islands, as was believed, to near a Million of People. While every other Denomination of Protestants in the British Dominions had an unrestrained Enjoyment of their respective Systems of ecclesiastical Govern­ment, and could perform within themselves all those religious Offices and Acts which their Prin­ciples required; it was thought to be a great and very extraordinary Hardship, that the American Episcopalians, in Communion with, and Mem­bers of, the national established Church, should continue to suffer for Want of the like Privileges —which they could not enjoy without resident Bishops.

THE Disadvantages they were under, were con­sidered under the three Heads, of Ordination, Go­vernment, and Confirmation. As to Ordination, they were unable to obtain it for their Candidates without sending them to England, with great Ex­pence, and Danger to their Persons, to say no­thing of the Loss of Time. The Expence of such a Voyage, was known to be often more, and seldom less, than £. 100 Sterling to each Candi­date. The Danger of it was such as had actually produced a double Decimation of the Candidates, Ten out of Fifty-Two, who at that Time had gone home from the northern Colonies, having pe­rished in and by the Voyage; not to mention several others, that have been deprived of their Liberty, and dragged into miserable Captivity, [Page 232] where, for a long while, they suffered all that could be suffered, in Prisons and Dungeons. Under the next Head, it was shewn, that the Clergy of an episcopal Church cannot be properly and regularly governed, without Bishops; and that the Influence of an Episcopate, at the Distance of England from America, can be but little better, in this Res­pect, than none at all. It was also made abun­dantly evident, that the general Reputation of the Church in the Colonies, and the Prosperity and Hap­piness of particular Congregations, greatly depend upon an American Episcopate. As to Confirmati­on, which is an ecclesiastical Institution, autho­rized by the Practice of the Apostles, and the Per­formance of which has always been appropriated to Bishops; the Church of England esteems the Be­nefits arising from it to be great and important, and the Want of them must be proportionably affect­ing to its Members.

IN Order that these peculiar Disadvantages of the Church of England in the Colonies might be removed, it was requested that Bishops might be allowed to reside in America. But as in most of the Colonies, the Episcopalians were intermixed with a larger Number of People of different reli­gious Principles, the Impropriety of such an Epis­copate here as was established in England, was ob­vious on all Sides. It would naturally abridge some of the religious Liberties, of which the va­rious Denominations in the Colonies had been long and fairly in Possession; and this probably would be attended with Discontent and Clamor, and might be productive of unhappy Consequences.

[Page 233]TO guard against these Inconveniencies, a Plan for an Episcopate had been formed, that was pe­culiarly adapted to the Circumstances of such a Country; and by the Execution of which it was imagined that the spiritual Necessities of the Church of England in the Colonies might be relieved, while no Harm could be done to other Christians; and no just Cause of Offence would be given. The Bishops proposed were to have no temporal Pow­er, and consequently to hold no Courts for the Ex­ercise of it—they were to have no Jurisdiction at all over any of the Dissenters, but to govern the epis­copal Clergy only—they were to have no Mainte­nance from the Colonies in any Form—they were not to interfere in any Matters of civil Govern­ment, but to be confined to the Exercise of their spiritual Functions only. This general Plan had been honored, at home, with the Approbation of all the Patrons of an American Episcopate, for a long Course of Years; it had been cordially adopted by all the Clergy in the Colonies, and their Friends, that had attended to the Subject; and many Petitions in Favor of it had been trans­mited to our Superiors in England.

WHILE the Matter was thus in Agitation, and before it should proceed farther, it was thought by the Clergy of the united Convention of New-York and New-Jersey, that it would be received as a Proof of their upright and candid Intentions, if an Account should be published, by their Directi­on; seting forth the Necessity of an American Episcopate, explaining the Nature of the Episco­pate proposed, and assuring the Public that no­thing was designed against the Liberty or Property of any Kind of People whatever:—And the Au­thor was appointed to perform this Service. He [Page 234] executed the Trust reposed in him with such Abi­lities as he had; and he was certainly faithful in the Discharge of it. At the same Time he studied to give no Offence to any Denomination of Christians; and, as he had Occasion to mention any of them, he treated them always respectfully. The Nature of his Work led him to consider such Objections against an American Episcopate, as he had heard of, or supposed might be naturally made, by Peo­ple of different Views and Interests; and all such as occurred to him were carefully considered, and, as he thought, shewn to be groundless. However, as he knew that others might be of a different Opi­nion, if any were dissatisfied with what had been said, or had any new Objections to offer, they were invited to signify it, and ‘to propose them in such a Manner, that they might be fairly and candidly debated, before the Tribunal of the Public.’

THE Appeal was published: And what shortly after ensued on the Occasion, what inflammatory periodical Papers and Pamphlets ^* from different Quarters, were issued in Answer to it, is well known. An Alarm was sounded throughout the Colonies, that a general Invasion of their religious Liberty was projected—the Minds of the Popu­lace were inflamed, by Arts that were wicked and infamous—the Church of England, the whole Or­der of Bishops, and the Clergy of our Convention, were shamefully abused in the common News-Pa­pers—and a double Portion of the Abuse naturally fell upon the Author of the Appeal. However un­expected [Page 235] and undeserved a Reception his Publica­tion met with from some People, he was resolved notwithstanding to take it patiently, and carefully to observe whatever might be said by his Adversa­ries, that might deserve Attention, and in due Time to reply to it.

BEFORE the Publication of the Appeal, the prin­cipal Objections against an Episcopate here, and the chief Source of Men's Disaffection towards it, were these Two; that in Consequence of such an Appointment, they should become subject to the Payment of Tithes, and to spiritual Courts; of which they had met with tremendous Descriptions.

THE Case of Tithes, which was generally misun­derstood, was therefore carefully explained; and it was proved, that Tithes in England which are not paid to the Bishops, but to the parochial Clergy, are claimed by Virtue of an ancient Gift, whereby they were made the Property of the Church— that in this Country, as no Tithes had been given to the Church, none could be demanded; and were it otherwise, that they would belong to the Cler­gy, and be as recoverable without an Episcopate as with—and as to the proposed Bishops, that a Fund in England was raised for their Support, and that no Part of their Maintenance was ever intended to be drawn from the Americans. The Subject was placed in so clear and convincing a Light, that none of my Opponents have insisted upon the Objection. The Point has been given up on all Hands; and People in general are intirely easy on this Account, being abundantly satisfied, that they shall be subject to no Inconvenience for the Support of such an Episcopate, as has been requested.

[Page 236]AS to spiritual Courts, the Plan absolutely ex­cludes all Foundation or Pretence for them. For if the Bishops are to exercise no Authority over any but the episcopal Clergy, none but the Clergy themselves can be brought into their Courts; and neither the Laity of our own Communion, nor any People of other Communions, can be injured in this Respect. All that has been said in Opposition to this Evidence, has been either trifling or im­pertinent.

WHEN it was found that nothing of Consequence could be objected against the Plan itself, it was in­sisted that such a Plan was never intended to be put in Execution, but that a different Episcopate was really designed; and Dr. Chauncy intimated, that he had discovered some Secrets that would justify the Charge. He was called upon to pro­duce Evidence of any Kind, that the Friends of an American Episcopate acted deceitfully, and to lay before the Public his pretended Secrets; but in his Reply, he very sagaciously takes Care to say no­thing at all of the Matter: And, considering his Disposition and Situation as a Disputant, it is from thence as certain as any Demonstration in Euclid, that he could say nothing to the Purpose. And here it may be proper to repeat, what was said re­lating to this Objection, in my former Defence. p. 265. ‘Important as it is, it has nothing more so­lid to depend upon than malevolent Conjecture; for whatever may be their (our Opponents) Pre­tences, every Reader knows that they have hi­therto intirely failed in the Article of Proof. On our Side, the strongest Evidence that the Nature of such a Case will admit of, has been laid be­fore the Public. We have produced, as Wit­nesses, the Society's anniversary Sermons, their [Page 237] Abstracts, and indeed all that has been publish­ed on the Subject, by such as could be supposed to understand the Case, for half a Century past; all which, without one Exception, testify in our Favor. We have added our solemn Declarati­ons, which must have a Weight proportionable to what is allowed to our Characters. The Tes­timony of our Vouchers is clear and express, uniform and consistent, and directly to the Point; while not one counter Evidence has appeared, on the other Side, to weaken it. To the Weight of our Declarations nothing has been opposed, but ungenerous Reflections and pretended Sus­picions.’

IT has also been contended, that in Case the present Plan should at first be actually put in Exe­cution; yet the Danger is great, that, in Time, it may degenerate into an Episcopate that is bur­thensome and oppressive. But nothing has been said, that proves more than the Possibility of this, and which might not as fairly be objected against the most harmless or useful Institution, that was ever proposed. If it could be made probable that such an Alteration would ensue, as would be inju­rious to others; we would give up the Prosecution of our general Design. For we mean nothing that is unfriendly to any human Creature:—We desire nothing more for ourselves than that harmless Li­berty, which we wish all others to enjoy, and which all the other Protestant Subjects, and many Popish ones, of the British Empire, actually do enjoy. But ‘we see not the least Probability of this (prognosticated Alteration) and we absolutely deny that any such Thing is intended: So far from it, that the Friends of the Church would even join with its Enemies, were that necessary, [Page 238] in guarding against it. All the Assurances, all the Evidences, all the Securities, which we have in our Power to give to prevent Uneasiness, we are wil­ling to offer; and all that is not beneath the Dig­nity of Government to give, we are willing to sol­icit. We want not an Episcopate on the Footing of a State-Establishment; we desire no more than a compleat Toleration, which we have not at pre­sent; and thereby to be raised to an Equality with other religious Denominations in the Colonies ^*.’

UNDER these several Heads, all the Objections that have been offered directly against the Episco­pate in Dispute, may be fairly reduced. The Church of England, and the Society for the Pro­pagation of the Gospel, have been violently forced into this Controversy, and violently treated; but every Thing that has been said against either one or the other, in Case it could have been suppor­ted, has no more than an oblique and remote Relation to the Bishops in Question. All the Objections of this Kind, that have not been given up, have been brought before the Public in the present Defence, and mostly in the Words of my Opponent, and distinct Answers have been given; so that what real Strength they contain, the Reader is now able to judge.

AND here I beg Leave to observe, that, whatever may have been attempted in Opposition to our Plan, nothing that is plausible has been offered, and but little has been attempted against our Plea for an Episcopate of some Kind. It has not been shewn, nor can it be shewn, that going to England for Ordination is not as expensive, and has not been productive of as many Deaths, as was urged in the [Page 239] Appeal. It has not been shewn, nor can it be shewn, that such a Burthen and such Losses are not Grievances, which all other Denominations of Christians in the Colonies, were it their own Case, would think intolerable. It has not been shewn, nor can it be shewn, that the Episcopalians in America should everlastingly be doomed to bear Burthens, from which all others are exempted. In a Word, it has not been shewn, nor can it be shewn, that they ought not to be admitted to an equal Enjoyment of religious Privileges with other Christians, although many of those Privileges are inseparable from an Episcopate.

ON the other hand, it wants not to be shewn, that they have never done any Thing, whereby the common Rights of Christians are forfeited. Their general Principles and Conduct are such, and have been such, with Regard to the Public, as can justly occasion no Distinction to their Disadvantage. They are, at least, as friendly to Liberty, both civil and religious, as any of their Opposers. They are 'equal to the foremost,' in Loyalty to the King, and Submission to the Government.

AND while their Pretensions and Claims are as fair, in all Respects, as those of their Neigh­bours, there are some Circumstances in their Fa­vour, which, in Addition to their common Right, render it impossible, in their Opinion, that they should be finally disappointed. They consider themselves as Members of that Church, the Con­stitution of which peculiarly harmonises with the civil Government of the Nation, and which is therefore intitled to the peculiar Affection of Go­vernment. They consider our gracious Sovereign as their Defender and Patron, by Duty as well as [Page 240] by Inclination. They consider that the Nation in general has given to the Religion they profess, pe­culiar Proofs of Esteem and Preference at home; and therefore cannot consistently treat it worse than all other Religions abroad. And they consider, that there never was an Instance, in any Age of the World, or any Nation on Earth, in which such a reasonable and moderate Request would have been refused, to such a Body of People, in such a Situation, and in such a Relation to the national Establishment.

THEY cannot therefore but flatter themselves, that, notwithstanding the unreasonable and malici­ous Opposition they have met with, an Episcopate will be granted them on the Plan that is proposed, which they think much the fitest for this Coun­try; and that, so far as the Interposition of Government may be requisite, it will not be refused. If any distinguishing Favours were requested, if any Dominion or Superiority over others were aimed at, it would intirely alter the Case. But, as was said in the Appeal: ‘The Church of England in America— only requests, that proper Remedies may be provided for her present Sufferings.— She wishes for nothing, which shall be thought inconsistent with the Rights and Safety of others. She asks nothing but what has been granted to others, without any ill Consequences; and she relies on the common Affection and Justice of the Nation, to raise her to this Equality. And whether there be any Thing presumptuous or unreasonable in these Expectations, let Heaven and Earth judge!’