• ■%• 
 
REGULATIONS 
 
 l^ibrari) of % Jfrtcral-strttt Soddu 
 
 IN BOSTON. 
 
 Tlie I.ibiary is open to tlic use of all llie Members of 
 llir Fnicral-sdv.'et Congregational Society. 
 
 II. 
 IJooks are delivered from the Library at the close of 
 tlie morning service on every Sunday. Books must be 
 rt'turnod at the same time. 
 
 III. 
 Each person may take two volumes at a time. 
 
 IV. 
 
 No volume can be taken from the Libi'ary, until its 
 title, together with the name and residence of the person 
 on whose account it is taken, has been recorded in a book 
 k«pt for the purpose. 
 
 v. 
 
 Oclavo and duodecimo volumes may be kept four 
 weeks; other books, only two weeks. 
 
 Thi< book was placed in the Library 
 
 No. 
 
Dr. Chauncfs 
 
 REPLY 
 
 T O 
 
 Dr. Chandler's 
 
 APPEAL defended; 
 
REPLY 
 
 T O 
 
 Dr. Chandler's 
 ' APPEAL DEFENDED ( 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 His Millakes are rcaified, his falfc Arguing 
 refuted, and the Objections againll 
 the PLANNED American Episcopate 
 fhevvn to remain in full Force, notwith- 
 ftanding all he kas oifered to render 
 them invalid. 
 
 B Y 
 
 Charles Chauncy, D, D. 
 
 Pallor of the Firil Church in Boston. 
 
 * Whenfuch as our T>\octUx\s fprcng up^ the Church 
 was prefently broke into Pieces, and by odious Contenti- 
 ons and Divifions became a Scandal and Scorn to Unbe^ 
 it ever s. To read but the J^s a f Councils ^and the Hijlsry 
 tfthe Churchy and there find' the horrid Contmtiens of 
 Prelates again/1 each other ; theParties which they mad^^ 
 their running up ard down the World to Princes^ and 
 Ruler iy and Synods^ to bear down one another ; it iviU 
 do as much to grieve and amaze the Soul of a fiber Chrif 
 tian, as aipiojl any Hifcry in the World he can ps-' 
 rufe.* Baxter'j Ireatife of Epifcopacy^ F. 165. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 Printed by Daniel Kneelawd, oppofite tbe Fro- 
 bate-Ofiiice, in Quecn-Sti^eta for Tkc:.:A5 
 
 jLsverett, in Corn-Hill, 
 
 Md^CCjLXX, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 D 
 
 R. Chandler propofes, at the clofe of his 
 H- defence, (p. 266) ' that the debate 
 be reduced within a narrower compafs, and 
 that nothing that does not immediately re- 
 late to the merits of the caufe be ofterea . 
 on either fide.' Had he made this propo- 
 fal, when he undertook to open the plan tor 
 an American epifcopate, faying nothing but 
 •what direaiy tended to give it ad million in- 
 to the mind as reafonable, he would at once 
 have leffened my labour, and prevented the 
 trefpafs that has been committed upon the 
 patience of thofe who have been our rea- 
 ders. If, in his ' appeal,' in my ' an- 
 fwer* to it, and in his ' defence' of it, ma- 
 ny paecs are filled with have no more relati- 
 on to an ' American Epifcopate,' than the 
 difpute ' whether Aaron's hnnen Ephod 
 was of blue, or a fea-water-green, the 
 Doaor very well knows where the blame 
 ought to be laid. No one would have 
 thought it an afperfion, if he had taken ic 
 wholly to himfelf. The limitation he propo- 
 fes though proper at firft, does not now weaf 
 fo equitable an afpeft.at leaft.as comingfrom 
 him. He has ttken the fuUeft liberty, not 
 
vi I N T R O D U C T I O 1^,^ 
 
 only in his * appeal,* but in his ' vindica- 
 tion' of it ; and now he would reftrain 
 others, keeping them within thofe bounds 
 he has leaped over, and putting it out of 
 their power to remark upon the greateft 
 part of what he 4i as been p^eafed to ofier* 
 This does not look fair. However, from 
 ajuftfenfeof that refpedt which is due to 
 the Publick, I fnall endeavour to make the 
 tryal of their patience as light as may be ; 
 ftill depending fo far upon their candor, as 
 to fay what may be nccefTarv in juftice to 
 inyfelf, though it iliould not always imme- 
 diately relate to the grand point in difpute. 
 
 The Do^or further propofcs, '* that no 
 invcdive or abufe, nothing that favors of 
 bigotry or barbarity, be fuffered to mingle 
 in the debate •, but that ingenuous, fober 
 reafoning fhould decide it.**' He would 
 have made this propofal with a better grace, 
 if he had more tully exemplified, in his own 
 conduct, what he has here recomcnded. 
 It is true, his air in writing fometimes car- 
 ries the appearance of candor and mildnefs ; 
 nor is it generally mifDecoming the gentle- 
 man, or the chriftian. But will any pre- 
 tend, that his' manner is not too often very 
 like their's who are aduated by a fpirit of 
 ' bigotry ?' Has he no where treated his 
 opponents with ' inv"66live and abufe ?* Are 
 there no inftanccs, in which he has had re- 
 courfe to evafivc art, rather than folid argu- 
 ment ? Has he never fubftituted popular 
 exclamation in the room of good realoning ? 
 
 Do 
 
INTRODUCTION. vii 
 
 Po we never find him ' difingennoufly' en- 
 deavouring to make others think he has an- 
 fwered powerfully, when he himfelf knew 
 he h»d faid nothing to the purpofe P Nay, 
 has he never fo difhonoured his own charadler 
 as only to laugh loud, when fo prelTed as to 
 be unable to make a juft or fobsr reply ? 
 The intelligent reader, I doubt not, has ob- 
 ferved indances in all thefc kinds -, and we 
 Ihali have occaQon, in proper time and place, 
 to hold them up to publick view. After all, 
 the propofal here made is not objedled to, fa 
 far as 1 am concerned in it. 1 efleem it a 
 chriftian as well as reafonable rule of conduct, 
 and fhall accordingly endeavour to govern 
 myfelf by it in what may follow. Should the 
 Doftor think fit to write again, it will be 
 eminently proper in him not to forget to do 
 hitnfeir, as he propofes that others ihould do 
 in this debate. 1 would advife him to 
 bear it habitually on his mind, that Epifco- 
 palians as truly as other denominations of 
 chriftians, may be fo ftrongly biafled in fa- 
 vor of their own fide, as to be equally in- 
 capable of perceiving the force of the moil 
 pov/erful argument ; and that it may, with 
 «s much truth, be faid of them, that * ift 
 feeing they will not fee,' and ' in hearing 
 they will not underftand.' 
 
 I SHALL not think it impertinent to 
 fubjoin here, that it ought not to be 
 looked upon as any fault of mine, if the 
 reader fhould be detained from the grand 
 2P0INT in difpuie, longer than he might 
 
 rcafonably 
 
viii INTRODUCTION; 
 
 reafonably expert. 1 chufe particularly to 
 mention this, that the Dodor may be up- 
 on his guard for time to come, and not a6t 
 fo unfair a part as to endeavour to fallen 
 that blame, in this refpeft, upon others, 
 M^hich he only, in juftice, is accountable 
 for 5 as he has put them upon taking 
 notice of what he has faid that is fo- 
 reign to the MAIN SUBJECT, Or to pafs it 
 over as impertinent. 
 
 I now go on to offer what I have to fay 
 in reply to the Dodor's ' defence ;' and in 
 the doing of it, I ihall follow the order in 
 which he has given us his thoughts. 
 
 Reply 
 
Reply to Dr. Chandlers 
 Introdudory Obfervations. 
 
 HE complains bitterly, in this part of 
 his defence, cfpccially of the manner^ 
 in which he has been oppofcd. As I 
 am not the named pcrfon againft whom thefe 
 complaints are made, and feel within my felf 
 a confcioufnefs of not having given any jull 
 ©ccafion for them, it would be impertinent 
 in me to remark upon them. The W^hig 
 ^ndCefjtincl, who are particularly pointed oac» 
 have evidenced to the world their ability to 
 vindicate themfelves *, and, it is probable, th* 
 Doctor will hear from them, if they fhould 
 think it worth while to take notice of the 
 charges he has exhibited againft them. I 
 would not be taxed with officioufly going out 
 of my own line to do that which is the pro- 
 per bufinefs of others, and for the doing of 
 'i^hich they are much better qualified than I 
 can pretend to. be. 
 
 None of the Doflor's obfervations have 
 any fpccial reference to me, until we come 
 to the laft, which he calls " a moft mate- 
 rial one," and to which he "rcquefts the 
 attention of every reader." I alfo, in my 
 turn, could make a requeft. It is only this 
 jreafonable one, that the reader, while he 
 jattends to the lDo(5tor's '* moft material obfer- 
 yation,** would impartially confidcr what 
 inay be offered, wherein it relates to mc, ia 
 iuifwcr to it. 
 
 After a • dead filence/ for a while, a$ 
 ■ B » 
 
lo REPLY TO THE 
 
 to any * difT^tisfaflion* relative to the plant 
 that had been propofed, ' it was at length 
 dircovefed (fays the Dodtor) that a number of 
 perfons had entered into a combination to run 
 down the appeal, and vigoroufly to oppofe, 
 at any rate, the refidencc of Bifhops in 
 America.' The Combination he here Ipeaks 
 of, with as pofitiY^- durance as though he 
 himfeif had been an aiTociate, has nor, tak- 
 ing me into it, the leaft foundation in truth ; 
 but is wholly a phantomofhisovvn imagination. 
 1 never heard of a ' fettled plan of operation/ 
 in which I was to bear a part, and make what, 
 the Doctor fays, ' may, in fome fcnfe, be called a 
 regular attack upon the appeal,' till I had this 
 information of it from him. The honeft truth 
 is, I undertook to anfwer the appeal, becaufe 
 J could hear of no one at New-York, Philadel- 
 phia, or in any part of New-England, who ap- 
 peared difpofed to engage in this v/ork. Had I 
 then known what thcDoclor fays was ' at length 
 ^ifcovered,' 1 (liould certainly have flood by a 
 fptdlator only. As it had been pubiiflied, ' thac 
 if no objections were offered againft the propof. 
 cd american Epifcopatc, it would be taken for 
 granted all parties were fatiificd,' 1 was unwill- 
 ing /i?/^/^y^/^;?r^ fliould be condrued an argument 
 of gateral fatisfa^lioft, when I knew nothing 
 was more contrary to the truth 5 and it was for 
 this fpecial reafonthat I entred upon an affair, 
 which I faid,in the advertifcment to my anfwer, 
 ^ would cxpofc me to much ill will,' This 
 has beeii fhamefully verified fince by the 
 fcurrilous treatment I have met with in fome 
 of the New- York periodical papers, occafi- 
 pned by my attempting to comply with an cpif- 
 lopal defire publickly made known j although 
 
 th« 
 
M P P E A L D E F E'NBEP.' U 
 
 thcmanmr in which it was done ha sbccncomj^ 
 plained of by fome as ovcr-n^ild and candid. 
 In confequence of the Doftor's imaginary 
 plan of operation, a furious onfet has beea 
 made on the harmkfs well-naeant appeal, be- 
 gun by Dr. Chauncy in * regular form/ and 
 fupportcd by the Whig and Centinel in * week- 
 ly fldrmifhes,' in which they were alTifted 
 by * occafional falUes of a number of volun- 
 tiers,' and the whcxle performed with ' a$ 
 inuch fpirit and warmth as the friends of thefe 
 adventurers could wiQi/ And what was the 
 fuccefs ? Shockingly bad on the fide of its 
 opponents ! Fcr, lays the Do^or, * notwith- 
 ftanding all their refolution, alertnefs, and cau- 
 tion, they have been obliged to give up the 
 grand ©bjed of the conteft as above explain- 
 ed.' And here he particularly brings me ia 
 as giving up this grand point in difpute. 
 Says he, ' Dr. Chauncy declares for himfelf 
 and his brethren (p. iSo) in the following 
 words ; JVe dejire no other liberty^ than to be 
 left unrejifained in the exercife of our religioujr 
 principles^ in fo far as we are gc&d members of 
 fociety. And we are perfc5fly willing Epif* 
 copalians fheuld enjoy this liberty to the fulL 
 If they think Bifhop^ in their appropriated fi^ifi^ 
 were conflituted by CHRIST, or his ^pof- 
 tieSy we obje^ not a word againjl their havr 
 ing as many of them fls they pleafe^ if they 
 will be content to have them with authOri- 
 
 -TY ALTOGETHER DERIVED FROM CHRI^T.^ 
 
 So again, in p. 189, ^ It is not simply the 
 exercife of any of their religious principles tkat 
 would give the leafi uneafinefsy nor yet the 
 exercife of them under as many purely spi- 
 KiTUAL Bi(ldop as they would w\fh to have ; 
 B 2 14 
 
it REPLY TO THE 
 
 l^ut their having Bi/bops uvder a state 2"^ 
 STABLiSHMENT.* Thefc, it IS acknowledg- 
 ed, are my words ; but with what truth, 
 or jufticc, the Dodor couid fay, they contain 
 that in then> which looks like my ' giving 
 vjp the main point' in debate, is bed known 
 to himfelf. He muft have been ftrangely 
 jnattentivcj if he did not perceive, that the 
 Bifhops in his plan, and thole I fpakc of, were 
 DSSENTiALLY different, arid confequendy that 
 I might oppofe the former, while I had no 
 objedion againft the latter. What he has 
 here introduced with no fmall parade, and pe- 
 remptorily affirmed for truth, amounts to no 
 more than a declaration of the {tw^t he is plea- 
 ' fed to put upon my words ; which fenfe it 
 may be worthy of notice, 1 had purpofely ta- 
 ken care to guard againft, in as explicit a man- 
 ner as I well could. The Bifliops I had ' ilot 
 a word to objed: to,' the Bifhops that * would 
 give no uneafinefs/ were particularly defcri- 
 bed as having ' authority altogether^ 
 FROM CHRIST,' and as being ' purely spi* 
 kitual' Bifhops. Thefe, the Do^or could 
 not but know, were, in my apprehenfion, quite 
 different from the Bifhops propofed in his. 
 plan, and that 1 had largely endeavoured to 
 ihow wherein l^at^ were fo. And yet, at the 
 very entrance upon his defenc<s, and before be 
 had fo much as attempted to offer a word iii 
 proof that his BiHiops, and thofe I expreffed 
 my approbation of, were the same, he would 
 prepolTefs his readers with the thought, that 
 this was the real truth ; and confequently that' 
 I had wrote many fcores of pages in bppofi- 
 tion to that, againft which * I had not a word/ 
 to objcd.' Is this ' ingenious V Would nob 
 
 the 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 13 
 
 £he Dodor have done himfelf more honour, 
 and his caufe more fervice, if, in a way of ' fo- 
 ber rcafoning,' he had endeavoured to make 
 it evident, that I had afted a weak, ridiculous, 
 ^nd inconfiftent part, before h€ virtually told 
 the world that I had fo done. Notwithftand- 
 ing this boafted alTurance, enough was laid 
 in'^the anfwer to the appeal to fatisfy any rea- 
 fonable man,that the BiQiops propofed by Dr, 
 Chandler, and thofe ' not objeded to' b) Dr. 
 Chauncy,were as widely different, as this world 
 is from another ; and it may hereafter appear, 
 ihat the afiigned reafons for this difference 
 have not been in the lead invalidated by any 
 thing the Dodor has offered in his long la-, 
 boured defence. He has indeed very High-, 
 tily pafTed over this most essential part 
 of the difpute ; though more than once called 
 ViDon to make out the right of Epifcopalians 
 to fuch Eilhops as are fpecified in his publifh-? 
 cd plan. If he would do juttice to his owa 
 charader, and promote the caufc he is en-. 
 gaged in, he muft not fubftitute arbitrary mif-. 
 conftrudion in the room of folid reafoning^ 
 5knd upon this footing triumphantly afTure his 
 readers, ' the nxatter being brought to this 
 iffuc,hc might gi7e up all further controverfy.^ 
 The Dodor, having faid (p. 11) that ' his 
 chief bufinefs was witfa me,' goes on to ' con- 
 traft his own difSdence with my gigantic con- 
 fidence.' What gave the occafion for this ? 
 The reader may wonder when I tell him us 
 T^fe. The Dodor introduced his appeal by in- 
 forming the Publick, ' that he was appointed- 
 to this^fervice by the convention of the cler- 
 gy of New- York, and the Jerfies, with fomo 
 of their brethren from the neighbouring pro, 
 
 Tinces; = 
 
Ji l^EPLY TO THE 
 
 vinces :• Whereas, I introduced mj anfwer to 
 .he appeal by faying, . that I could not rtend 
 to fuch dift,ngu.fhing honour, but was prevail- 
 ed upon to engage in the caufe by the defire of 
 
 infers herefrom, that he is a man of ' diffi- 
 dcnce,' but that I am a « giant for confidence ' 
 
 r^ t A "7^^ T *° ^•"i"<="''y important, as 
 to be feleaed by a venerable body of the 
 
 borne of his readers may poffibly efteem this 
 inccnfe offered to himfelf an illuftration of his 
 Angularly modeft' diffidence ;' but, I am fure. 
 none of them can account his treatment of me 
 a jult fpccimen of that 'ingenious reafoning' 
 ftr.pt of all ' abufe,' which he recommends fo 
 others in the management of the prcfent dif- 
 pute. It would be eafy, becaufe it would 
 be natural, bj- comparing the manner of the 
 JJoftors ' coming forward' with mine,to maice 
 reprifals by inverting the order of the contraft 
 he has brought to view, but theoccafion is too 
 tnfliBg,and I an'tdifpofed to deal in that which 
 may look like returning ' railing for railing.' 
 I HAD complained, ' that the arguments in 
 fupport of the Petitions for an^ American 
 Epifcopate had been kept fecret,' and that ' an 
 authcntick knowledge of them, though appli- 
 ed for, was rejeaed." To this the Doftor re- 
 phes (p. .2); 1 know nothing of fuch appli- 
 cation, or rejeaion.' 1 am difpofed to think, 
 he here wrote as he thought. But, if he had 
 taken time for recolleaion, it is probable he 
 would have called to mind what he might not 
 then have had in aSual remembrance. Did 
 be never hear pf a formal application made 
 
 by 
 
.APPEAL DEFENDED.' I5 
 
 , Dr Stiles in a letter to the Clerk of 
 the New-York convention, defiring a copy of 
 h irpetltions, efpecially the.r Re""on ;«^he 
 K,nL and of the formal negative put upon 
 rh"^;eafonable rcqueft ? D.d he -ver hear 
 of any controverfy between the Americaa 
 Wh gjand >hisClerk of the convention, relat.ve 
 
 1 could were it proper, name one tnember at 
 leaft of this convention who was applied to for 
 
 Sen the^ applications' and ' rejedions' com- 
 5 bed of, fh'ough he knew no^^ing of them 
 But favs he, ' the complaint is aUogethcr 
 !rounE ; V«r the plan upon which it was 
 ? opofed that Bilhops fhould be fent to A me- 
 nca andthe arsumems afterwards ma^c uje^fxn 
 fumrtof oJpetifms, aitualiy were pubhfh- 
 V/a confiderable time before the petitions 
 v/er- fent.-And afterwards it was voted by 
 our convention, that more particular informau, 
 onftZld be publi(hed,andthe whole matter ex- 
 Sd,forthe fatistadion of a I parties ; m con- 
 - CuTnce of which the appea was drawn up. 
 and publilhed.' What is all this to the pur- 
 pofe^ It is true,- fuch arguments, in fuppprc 
 Ke plan for American B.lhops. as were 
 Sought'^fit to be publickly ufed wc have 
 teen made acquainted with. But the quef. 
 
i6 REPLY TO THE 
 
 tion is, are thefe the only ones that enforced 
 the petuions that were fent Home ? Will 
 the Doaor venture to fay, no others were 
 ijfed ? jfthis is the truth, how comes it to 
 pafs, that thefe petitions are fccicted to this 
 day ? If ALL that they contain has been al- 
 ready publilhed, what pofTible harm can there 
 be in giving copies of them ? It ought not to 
 be taken amifs, if, in this view of the cafe, k 
 is generally fuppofcd,that fome things are faid, 
 in fupport of thefe petitions, which the Cler- 
 gy who fent them, are not willing Oiould be 
 publickly known. It cannot ocherwife be 
 accounted for, that they fhould thus fleadily 
 refufe a copy of them. ' If any credit is due 
 to the word of a Gcnticman of well eftablifhed 
 reputation, who was favoured with a fight, 
 though not with a copy, of one of thefe peti- 
 tions, it contained that in it which has never 
 i)ecn made publick, by any who have wrorc 
 in fupport of the plan for an Epifcopate in the 
 Colonies* I am fully fatisficd, in common 
 with many others^ that the true caufe, at bot- 
 tom, why we can have no * authentic know- 
 ledge' of the contents of thefe petitions is, 
 their having that inferted in them, whi€h tht 
 Epifcopal Clergy, for reafons beft known 
 to ihemfelves, do not chufc the publick 
 iliould be let into. The Doaor would 
 iiave aded a more fair and honourable part, 
 if he had plainly faid fo, and not endeavoured 
 to turn his readers off with difguifedamufcment. 
 He now proceeds to the ' defence* of his 
 * appeal;' which leads me, in purfuit of his 
 town method to naake fome futabie reply t^ 
 what he has fccn fit fo offer. 
 
Reply to Dr. Chandler's 
 Firft Seaion. 
 
 THIS feaion hs dcfigned as a defence, in 
 part at leaft, of the ' Ilcetch of argu- 
 mcnts' he had brought to view, m his ' ap- 
 peal,' in favour of Epifcopacy m general. K 
 is a pity he put himlelf to the trouble ot 
 ei^in? us this flcetch. 1 rcmonarated againft 
 ft, in my anfwer, p. U, and for thefc rea- 
 fons. The plea, in what he had undertaken 
 would, by his own confeffion, ' be equally valid, 
 whether thefe principles were fciunded right- 
 ly, or wrongly •,' and no valuable end could oe 
 anfwered bfthis trouble, unlcfs to increafe the 
 number of his pages, which would detain 
 his readers from attending to the main point 
 he propofed for debate ; and ncediefsly too as 
 he gave us only a repetition of arguments thac 
 had been before repeated over and ovex agiun 
 fo as to be even naufeous. He has feen fit 
 frankly to acknowledge, defen. p. 77' ^^^^ ^e 
 was convinced what was faid upon the general 
 fubitft, however juft in itfelf, or proper m the- 
 ory, had been better omitted.' And yet, he 
 has wrote no lefs than ninety-eight Pj>S« (fo^« 
 a great deal than one third part of the ^.'hok of 
 what he has offered) in fupport of that, concern- 
 ing which he was 'convinced' It had been bet- 
 teFif he had faid nothing. And what is afto- 
 p niining 
 
i8 REPLY TO THE 
 
 mfhing, not being fatisficd with barely infinu- 
 sting, he has peremptorily declared, p. T'], that 
 tis ' adverfaries have eagerly laid holi of a fub- 
 jcft vrhich has been already debated for almoft 
 «oo years, and will probably be debated for 200 
 years to come •, by this means keeping the prin- 
 cipal OBJECT of this controvcrfy, which is an 
 American Episcopate, at a diftance, and as 
 much as pofiiblc out of fight.' Who could have 
 imagined, that one who profeflcs a regard to his 
 own honour and charadtcr, could be capable of 
 refleding blame upon others, not only in am 
 inftance wherein he himfelf has been groLly faul- 
 ty, but wherein the faultinefs of others, if in- 
 deed they are at all faulty, is v/hoUy owing to 
 him as its ical and only occafional caufe ? Was 
 not the Dodlor the very perfon, who, by his 
 necdlcfj ' fketch of arguments' to fupport Epif- 
 copacy in general, * kept out of fight the grand 
 objcdt in purfuit ?' And did he not hereby 
 render it necefiary for thofe who anfwered hini 
 10 do the like, at lead for a while, and until 
 they might, with allowance from him, bring this 
 objcd into view ? He is iiill incxcufably in- 
 attentive upon this head ; for, fays he, p. 77, 
 * the Dodor feems to have a^cd upon this plan, 
 exerting himfelf upon the fubjed of Epifcopacy 
 as if it was his chief bufinf fs in anfwering the 
 appeal \ whereas the curiofity of the Public cal- 
 led him to purfue another object.* — I had em- 
 ployed but about 50 pages in 200 upon the ge- 
 neral fubjcdl of Epifcopacy \ and this, after hav- 
 ing remonftrated againft the Dodor's obliging 
 me to take this needlcfs trouble, and excufing 
 myfelf, on this account, to the Public, for poft- 
 poning, for a while, the confideration of the 
 grand point in viev/ : And yet, he unaccounta- 
 bly 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 19 
 
 biy brings mc in making that my chief bvsi- 
 NESS, which wai only a Imall part of it,and would 
 not indeed have been any part, if he had not 
 unfeafonably and needleisly called mc to it. 
 The ' other objcdt', which, fays the Dodtor, in 
 the next words, * the curiofity of the Fublick 
 called him to purfuc, is an objedl from which I 
 propofc to be no longer diverted by an endlcfs 
 difpure concerning Epifcopacy.* And yet, if the 
 leader can give credit to it, he has ftill gone 
 on, in contradidion to his €wn purpofc, for 
 more than to pages -, though he had before 
 wrote upon the fame fubjedt more than 70. Per- 
 haps, when he calmly rcfleds upon his injudi" 
 cious unfairneis, not to fay inconfiftency with 
 himfclf, as above opened to him, he may be 
 put to the blufh. It is impoflible he fhould 
 think, he has ihewn himfclf fo ' ingenuous* as 
 might rcafonably have been expedtcd : Nor will 
 it, after this, appear any thing ftrange, if we 
 fhould meet with ftill more grofs mifreprefcn- 
 tations. 
 
 The Dodor introduced the firft fedion in 
 his ' appeal' with obferving, ' that the church 
 of England is epifcopal, and confequently holds 
 the ncccfTny of Bifhops to govern the church, 
 and to confer ecclclialtical orders.' It v/as faid 
 in anfwcr, ' that the church of England neither 
 holds, nor is obliged to hold, the divine right 
 , of Biiliops in the appropriated {cnk, to govern 
 the church, or confer holy orders ; and that none 
 of her public offices, or any part of the fydem 
 of her condud, are founded on this principle.' 
 The Doftor replies, def. p. 16, ' If it be by vir- 
 tue only of the jus humanum of Epifcopacy that 
 Bifhops are necefTary, ftill the ends for which 
 thev are^ncccifary cannet .be obtained withou: 
 
io REPLY TO THE 
 
 them fo long as we are fubjedl: to the authority 
 that requires them,' It is at once eafy and ftif- 
 ficient to fay here, as the authority requiring is 
 by fuppofition meerly human, no complaints can 
 reafonably be made by thofe who could have 
 none to make, if they acknowledged and ho- 
 noured no one but JESUS CHRIST as su- 
 preme HEAD of the chriftian church. 
 
 But the jus divinum of Epifcopacy is what 
 the Doaor has all along pleaded for, and it is 
 THIS RIGHT only 1 ever pretended was not the 
 do6lrine of the church ofEngland. And,upon fur- 
 ther e'xamination, in confcqaence of what theDoc- 
 tor has oflFered,! am abundantly confirmed in the 
 pcrfuafion, that this do6lrine was never intend- 
 ed to be delivered as her faith, in any of her 
 public offices •, no, not in her ' preface to the 
 book of ordination, 'which hasthe (Irongeft afped: 
 this way. The Dodlor thinks the divine right 
 of Epifcopacy is .clearly and fully afferted in this 
 preface. Having cifed thofe words of it he fup- 
 pofes make for his purpofe, which I (hall 
 throw into the margin, * he obfervcs upon them 
 
 as 
 
 4^ 
 
 « It IS evident fo all men diligently reading holy 
 fcripture,a[id ancient authors, that, from the apoftles 
 time, there have been thefq orders of minifters in 
 CHRIST'S church ; Bifliops, Priefts, and Dea- 
 cons. Which offices were evermore had in fuch re- 
 %'erend eftimation, that no man might prefume to 
 execute any of them, except he were firft called, 
 tried, examined, and known to have fuch qualities 
 as arc rrquifite for the fame ; and alio by public 
 prayer, with impfofition of hands were approved and 
 admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And there- 
 fore, to the intent that thefe orders may be continu- 
 ed, and reverently ufcd and efteemed in the church 
 of England, no man ihaii be accounted or taken to 
 
 be 
 
• APPEAL DEFENDED.'. 2^: 
 
 as follows, * If the reader will now carefully con-- 
 fider this paffage, let him fay. Whether it is eafy 
 to conceive a more direft, pofitivc, and compleat 
 teftimony in favour of Epilcopacy, than is here 
 given by the coaipilers of the ordinal. The dil- 
 rinftionofthe three orders of BiOiops, Pricfts, 
 and Deacons, is in this preface fully aflerted ;— 
 the antiquity of this diftinftion is deduced from^ 
 the Apotlles time j'-the evidence in favour o. 
 it is faid to be contained ' in holy fcripture, and 
 ancient authors ;'— and the clearnefs of this evi- 
 dence is fuch that it muft appear ' to all men di-- 
 ligently reading the holy fcripture.* In conle- 
 quenceof this doarine,' no man is to be account- 
 ed a lawful * Bifcop, i^ieft, or Deacon in tne 
 
 churciji 
 
 be a lawful Bllhop, Prieft, or Deac.n, in the church 
 of England, or fuffered to execute any o; thi fa.d 
 funaions, xcept he be called, tried, exam.ned, and 
 admitted thereunto, according to .he forn. hereafter 
 foUowing, or bath had formerly epifcopal confecrati- 
 on. or ordination. , , ,• i • i 
 
 • I would give notice here, that, after long feeicmg, I 
 y.Z at length helped to a fight of the old ordma . 
 from the library of the long deceafed veneraWe Dr. 
 hcuafe Mather. Whether it was one of the firft 
 nrinted copies, or a reprint from one of ttiele, I 
 cannot fay j becaufe the year in which it was prmt- 
 ed Ts not^mentioned. But, by its being printed m 
 the Old Englith letter, it muft be of ancient date. 
 At the bottom of the title page are thefe words 'Lon- 
 don, printed by Rokrl B»rker ^rA John Bid, Vrxn- 
 te?s o^he King's moft excellent Majefty. Upoa 
 compaiing thiI with the present ordinal I find 
 th^'in c'onformity to the co-m,flion e-n^d by 
 Kins CharUi the 2d t9 feveral Bifhops and 
 S Divines, to review the book or common pray- 
 e and the book of the form and manner of mak- 
 Si'd confcciatingofBifhops, Prufts, and Deacons, 
 
93 XEPLY TO THE 
 
 churchof England.'— If I ftodd, ;„ my own 
 words, point out the inconclufiycnefs of the 
 Doaors reafoning here, he and his friends might 
 
 be 
 
 and to prepare fuch alteratiens and addition! at 
 they thought fit to offer that they did acceXg^J 
 inake and prepare a number of alteration, and addl! 
 tions, and lome very momentous ones ; which were 
 ,p.roved by h.s Majefty. and eftablifl;e7by aSTf 
 Parliament in the 14th year of his reign. IThiV i, 
 the ordinal that has been in ufe ever ffnce. I Iha 
 haveoccafion to point out moft of thefe alterations, 
 in margmal notes, upon what may follow. One 
 
 Inl^T^ 'J'"fT 1 «>»" t»te notice ofh„^ 
 In the OLD ordinal the words, in the orefarf =.r, 
 •which offices were evermore had in f^ ^'eren? 
 
 might prefume to execute any of them fthe before 
 mentioned offices] except he were iirft called-and 
 alfoby public prayer and impof.tion of hands, ap- 
 proved and admitted thereunto. And therefore L 
 the intent that thefe orders ftould be continued, ^nd 
 reverently ufed and efteemed in this church ofEng- 
 
 r' !. «-l^''"'''-'.*ll" "° '°^" ("ot ""^ing « this 
 prefcnt, Biftop, Prieft, nor Deaco.) fhall execu e 
 
 and admitted, according to the form hereafter fol- 
 lowing. In the NEW, they are thus altered, ' which 
 
 rifn'lT" ^''"'""'■f ''"'^/" f"ch reverend eftima- 
 tion, that ni, wan might prefume to execute any of them 
 except he were iirft called-and alfo by publif 0*^-* 
 er and impofition of hands were approved and admit 
 ed thereunto by lawfuUuthority. And therefore to 
 ; '"i?'^r ""n/haUie accounted, or taken to be, 
 , Uwfut B.Jhop Prteji, or Deacon, in the church of 
 England, orfuffered to execute any of the faid fumf ions, 
 except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted 
 VTu f S°''''"8 '^ t^ fo™ hereafter f#Ilowing, 
 «r hath had formerly epfcopal confecration or orii^a. 
 tion. It IS obvious, ,t firft fight, according to the 
 WisiNT wdinal, that neman maybe lookfd upon 
 
 as 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED.' 2j 
 
 be difpofed to cry out prejudice ! obftinacy ! 
 pervcrfc blindnefs ! 1 (hall therefore give the 
 proper reply, at leaft in parr, in the language of 
 two famous epifcopal writers. Bifhop Hoad* 
 ly, who has defended Epifcopacy in a more maf- 
 tcrly way than any one I have ever yet met with, 
 in anfwer to Dr. Calamy^ thus cxprelTcs 
 himfclf upon this very pafTagc in the preface to 
 the book of ordination, f 'You wholly alter 
 the form of that fentence in the preface to the 
 ordinauon-office, on which you ground this ob- 
 jcdlion ; and fecm to me to mifreprcfent the 
 plain defign and intent of it. For there is fomc 
 difference, I think, between thefe two fentenccs, 
 *Bi(liops, Priefts, and Deacons, are three diftindt 
 orders in the church, by divine appoint- 
 ment \ and 'from theApoftlcs times,there have 
 been thcfc orders in CHRIST'S church, Bilhops, 
 Priefts, and Deacons.* The former of thefe is 
 your's ; and leads people to think, that the 
 principal intent of this fent«nce you fcruple, was 
 to lay it down for an undoubted truth, that Bi- 
 fhops, Priefts, and Deacons, are three diftincl 
 
 orders, 
 
 as a LAWFUL minifter of the church of England, 
 who has not had epifcopal ordination ; but it it does 
 not appear, that this was the cafe while the old or- 
 dinal was in ufc. Certain it is, that the com- 
 miflioncd reviewers, King and Parliament, did 
 not think this an indifputable point : otherwife they 
 would not have made an alteration, the principal de- 
 fign of which was to put this matter beyond all doubt. 
 It is in fa£l true, that, under the old ordinal, thofe 
 were admitted to officiate as miniftcrs in the church 
 of England, who were not epifcopally ordained i 
 whereas, I fuppofe, an inftance of this kind cannot 
 be produced fmce the 14th of Charles the fecond. 
 t Vid. his rcafonablcnefs of conformity, p. 57, ^S. 
 
24 REPLY TO THE 
 
 orders, (in the mod drift fenfc of that word,and 
 in oppcfition to thofe cpifcopal men, who did 
 roc approve of that word taken in fo (lri(5l a 
 fenfc) and that by divine appointment. The 
 latter is the fentence, as it is cxprefled by the 
 church itfeif ; and the defign of it is plainly no 
 more, but to fignify, that liifhops, Prielts, and 
 Deacons, have been in the church from the be- 
 ginning, diflinguillied from one another by 
 their peculiar offices. But, if you take a plea- 
 furc in rcprefenting, and underllandmg, every 
 thing in the way which carries moil difficulty 
 2long with it, we cannot help it.' Another 
 champion in the caufe of the church ofEngland, 
 ipeakmg in reply to ihis lame difiicuity objcded 
 by Dr. Cdamy againft miniflerial conformity, 
 obfcrves, ^ with reference to the words on which 
 this difficulty is grounded, than they ' fay nothing 
 
 of DIVINE RIGHT or APPOINTMENT ; but Only 
 
 that, from the Apodles times, there have been 
 thefe orders :• — from which, the mod that can be 
 inferred is,that in fuch churches where there has 
 been need of them, or occafion for them all, 
 there have been three fuch ranks of minifters 
 for the government and indrudion ofCHFJST's 
 church, from the times of the Apodles ; vvhich 
 yet, by Mr. Calamy\ leave, does not prove a 
 DIVINE APPOINTMENT cf all,— there having 
 been other things, in the Apodlcs days, whicq 
 yet for all that are not allowed to be of divine 
 appointment.' § 
 
 The 
 
 * Vid. OMsfs againfl Cahmy. 
 § It may ^'^^ improperly be further faid, the upper 
 ho'jfe of convocation, no longer than 1702, appear 
 to have been of opinion, that Epifcopacy, upon the 
 foptina: of divine apostolical imjtitution, 
 
 has 
 
«APPEAL DEFENDED.* 125 
 
 Thi Doflor may perceive, by thefc quota- 
 tions from two famous writers in behalf of the 
 church of England, that thole who canroc, in 
 the prefent Cnfe, be taxed wiih ' prtjodices that 
 might influerxe them to mifrcprcrentation,* 
 could difcern nothing in this * orciinarion-prc- 
 face' that ' Teemed to have an afpefl' in favour 
 of the DIVINE RIGHT ot Epifcopacy. It is 
 true, it accounts no one a lawful Bifl-iop, 
 or Pried, or Deacon, of the church of England, 
 unlefs admined to office by lawful authority, 
 in I he manner prefcribed. But there is a wde 
 difierence between lawful, and divine autho- 
 D riry: 
 
 was not the do£lrinc of the church of EngiancI, not- 
 withftanding a)l that is faid in the preface to tha 
 ordinal. For, it is obftrvable, the lower houfe^ 
 this year, in an addrefs to their Lordfhips begg«d 
 that the declaration they had made, and figned, 
 might be entered on their books,th.e purport of whicU 
 was, * that whereas they had been fcanialcufly repre- 
 Icnted as favourers of Prefbytery, in oppofition tcr 
 Epifcopacy, they now declared, that they acknow- 
 ledged the ORDER of Bifhops, as superior to Pref- 
 byters, to be of divine apostolical insituti- 
 ON.'— -The fame day they prefcnted an additional 
 addiefs, ngnifying that whereas this their declaiaticn 
 had given new offence, and that from having been 
 traduced for allowing Too LITTLE to Epifcopacy, 
 they were accufed of ascribing too much to it, 
 they begged therefore that their Lordftiips would 
 take the do£lrinc aforefaid into their mature confi- 
 deration. — Calamys abridgement, p. 637, 638. It 
 is poilible, the upper houfe of convocation might 
 be as well acquainted with the preface to the ordi- 
 nal, and its true meaning, as Dr. Chandler ; and vet, 
 they accufe the lower houfe of afcribing too muck 
 to Epifcopacy, in fpeaking of the order of Bifhops 
 as SUPERIOR to Prefbyteis by Divine apostoli- 
 cal INSTITUTION, 
 
»^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 r'i7" ,h.?T '^'' ^''\'' ='®™' ''"'' the Doc 
 
 //«« are by GOD appropriated to Bilhops, and 
 fo appopnated to them a3 that they ought o Se 
 cxerc,f.d by no other, and, ,f rhey arc. That ^icy 
 
 i a r;"'"'"/ • ^'' '''•"' if he can, give he 
 caft rhadow of proof that this idea wa^ iSdcd 
 
 EnlnH Tr'^lf '''' l'"^' °f'he church of 
 fyf,nlna "'S-'^' '' '^^' '° ^° 'his, it will be 
 a vain thing in him to pretend, that this is the 
 Qoanne ot the Englifa church, as held forth in 
 .h.s preface. The plain truth is, the ' book o£ 
 
 7onrT°"' '^V^'^'r'' '°-'^'^'' -^ have been 
 confiderrng ,s formed upon the fuppofition, that 
 Prefbyters have the power of or Ja' ion in com- 
 nion w.ch Bifcops ; nor can it in any other view 
 be made confiftent with itfclf. This, becaufe 
 a matter of importance, even in relation to the 
 grand point m debate, and not commonly ton- 
 
 by giving the Pobl,c a large extraft from Mr 
 P^rfand .sWs 'judgment of the church of 
 England m point of ordination ;' wherein it is 
 lhewn,th.t • fte allows a divine inherent rifih? 
 )n the Prefbyter's office to ordain.' And fhc 
 rather chule to exhibit this extraft, becaufe i i' 
 
 £ZtTc,^ I""?*;'" -^ ^'''^y '•'^"i^^d from 
 the other fide the Atlantic, and is, perhaps the 
 cn.y one in America. pcrnaps, me 
 
 Onlv, before I proceed, I would take leave 
 juft to inform the Dodor, that I have tryed the 
 -hon'^ftf"' h^propofes. and find, that I can 
 honeftly and confutently fubfcribe' to this or- 
 dinatK.n preface, with the allowance only of 
 thtf'TrT/ -'°'' """^'''' '""' ' interpreta- 
 «!rcd are obliged to recur to, before they can. 
 
 if 
 
'APEAL DEFENDED.' 2^ 
 
 if they pay any regard to confcience, fubfcrlbc to 
 the thirty-nine arciclts of |the Englifh church, 
 not to fay any thing of the book of common- 
 prayer, and other forms to which they are obli- 
 ged to afltnt and confent. — To go on. 
 
 Says the writer above-mentioned, ' It is vcrjr 
 obfervablc, that, for above an hundred years 
 after the happy reformation in England, the 
 form of committing to Biihops and Frefbyters 
 their office and work made no diftinflion at all 
 in the prder ; as is evident to all who have 
 perufed the former book of ordination. In 
 the ordination of a Deacon, the office sn^% ex-, 
 prefTed, take thou authority to execute the office of 
 a Deaccn. This v/as a diftindl office, and the 
 perfon was ordained to a diftinft order in the 
 church. But in the ordination of a Bifnop, or 
 9 Prefbyter, it does not appear, by the commif- 
 (ion that was given (hem, that they were cftcem- 
 cd diftind orders. ^^ For there was no men- 
 tion 
 
 f It appears, ©n the contrary, that they were cfteemed 
 one and the fame order- it may to this pur^ofe be 
 worthy of fpecial remark here :— In the old ordi- 
 nal, previous to the ordination of Priefts, yft^s 
 XX. from the 19th t© the 24th verfe, was appointed 
 to be read, for the cpiftie ; which mud be efteenaed 
 highly impertinent, if they were not, as episcopoIs, 
 to RULE [poimanein] AS wcll as feed the church 
 of GOD. For the gofpe), it is faid fhall be read. 
 Matt, xxviii. verfe i8, 19, 10 ; or elfe John xx, 
 from the 19th to 24.th verfe, bsth which pafTagesof 
 fcriprurc contain the higheft commilion of gofpcl- 
 ©flicers ; and the laft of them that power of binding 
 and loofin;^^ which none may prefume to cx^rcife, 
 who are not intruded with the government of the 
 church. The reviewers of the old ordinal were 
 clearly and fully fatisiisd of this, and have according- 
 
 lyp 
 
iS REPLY TO THE 
 
 tion made in the words of ordaining them, thst 
 k was for the one, or the other office. in 
 both it was faid, * receive thou the HOLY 
 GHOST ;•— but it was not added (as it is in 
 the PRESENT book of orders) ' ior the office 
 and work of a Piieft, or for the office or work 
 of a Bifhop :f So that it is plain, there was 
 no real intrinfic difference granted by the ordi- 
 nation commiffion to thofe of the firft or fccond 
 order. The powers granted to the one, for 
 ought appears, were granted to the other ; for 
 as the Gommiffion they received made no diffe- 
 rence in the name or fu n<5lion, fo neither did 
 it in their authority. Whatever fpiritual pow- 
 ers the one had given them, to the other were 
 given the fame. Had Bifnops rhe power of or- 
 dination committed to them, fo had Prtfbyters 
 too, who received the lame commifiion by the 
 fame folemnity, in words of the fame impor- 
 Eanre, and therefore muil be invefted with the 
 fame divine powers/ 
 
 And 
 
 !y, in the new book of or^ers^ taken sway thefe 
 texts from the ordeiing m Prief^s, and infer ted them 
 *s the ep'f^les and and gofpels to be read previous to 
 the conlccration of Biflicps. 
 
 «f In the OLD orciinal, when the Eirn«>ps and the 
 Prieif^s prcfenf lay their hands on tlic pcrfoo to be or- 
 dained a Prieft, thr Bijf^iop is dire(n:ed to <ay, ' Re- 
 ceive the HOLY GBOS F : whofe fins,* &c.— In 
 the WEw, the words fee muft ufc are thefe, 'Re- 
 ceive the HOLY GHOS F forth^ office and work of 
 
 I SI Prif/i in the church of GOD noixj commitud to thee 
 h the imppfitioa of cur hands, Whofe fins,* &c.— 
 So alfo in ordering; a Biftiop, there is the hke alte- 
 ration. In the OLD book, the Arch- Bifhop and Bi- 
 ftiops prefent fhall lay their hands ©n the elcdtcd Bi- 
 fliop, the Arch-Biihop faying, * Take the HOLY 
 
 GHOSr, 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.' 29 
 
 And that the church of England conti- 
 nues in the fame mind to this day, I doubt not 
 to make appear from the prejent book of or- 
 ders ; J to which every Clergyman is obliged 
 to give his ' unfeigned aflent and confent/ 
 This therefore cannot be pretended to be only 
 
 the 
 
 GHOST, and remember that thou ftir tip the 
 pitV, &c.— In the new, the v/ords are, < Receive 
 the HOLY GHOST /^r the work and office of a 
 Bijhop in thi church of GOD now committed unto thee by 
 the impofition of our hands^ in the name of the FA-- 
 THERy and of the SON, and of the HO ir GHOST. 
 Amen* And remember, &c. 
 } This, it is true, has been grfatly altered by the ap- 
 pointed reviewers, in the reign of Charles the 
 fecond ; and, no doubt, with a direct view to exalt 
 Bifnops, an^ deprefs frefbyters. Some of thcfc al- 
 terations have been already pointed out. There 
 are yet many more. It may not be improper to no- 
 tice them here. In the old book, Pricfts were 
 called, in the exhortation, ' MefTengers, Watch- 
 men, Stewards, and Pastors of the Lord ;' but in 
 the Niw, the word PAfTORs is defignedly left oat, 
 taking from Priefts the pajhral power, and making 
 them little or nothing more than Bi(hop*3 Curates. — 
 In the OLD the Bifhop afked the Prieft, whether he 
 did think in his heart, that he was truly called, ac- 
 cording to the will of GOD, and the order of the 
 church of England, to the minifiry of Priefthood : 
 in the new, it is to the order, as well as miniftry ; 
 making priefthood an order q{ itfelf diftindt froaa 
 deacenfhip and Epifcopacy. — In the old, the tw« 
 Biftiops who prefcnt the ele6led Bifliop to the Arch- 
 biftiop, fay, ' Moft reverend father in GOD, wc 
 prcfent unto you this godly and well learned man to 
 be confccrated a Bifhop :* In the new it is, to bs 
 ORDAINED as wcll as confecrated; intimating here- 
 by, that he was to be commiffioned to a new, dif- 
 tindj and higher oiHcc in the church. In the old» 
 
JO REPLY TO THE 
 
 the particular opinion of fome private p^rfons; 
 but muft be owned to be the cftablifhed doc- 
 trine of the church, to which all her fons are by 
 a mod facred vow bound to cpnform. 
 
 The Kubrick^ immediately tfccr the ordina- 
 tion-prayer fays, ' the Bifhop with the priests 
 prefent (hall lay their hands feverally upon the 
 head of every one that recelvcth the order of 
 
 pricflhood.' 
 
 that part of the litxny was read, which fays, « that 
 it may pleafc thcc to illuminate all Bifhops, Pas- 
 tors, and Minifters of the ^church with true know- 
 ledge. — In the NEW, the words arc, * Give grace, 
 we befeech thee to all Bifhops, the Pastors of 
 THY CHURCH ;*■»— as though none were Pastors 
 liut Bifhops. And whereas, in the old book, the 
 prayer for the Bifliop was, * that it may pleafe thee 
 to blefs this our brother, and fend thy grace upon 
 kim, that he may duly execute the office whcrcunt* 
 he is called to the edifying thy church ; — In the 
 NEW it is, • that he may faithfully ferve thee in this 
 office to the edifying, and well governing, «f 
 thy church/— 
 
 It is glaringly evident, from thefe alterations, tkat 
 the reviewers of the old ordinal were much higher 
 in their notions of Epifcopacy than the firft reform- 
 ers, in whofe days it was compiled and eftablifhed. 
 And it is plain likewife, that thty were m Laud'% 
 fcntiments concerning Epifcopacy, and intended to 
 laake thefe the doctrine of the church of England. 
 But they happily failed herciR. Whether this was 
 ©wing to inattention, or to a non-acceptance of the 
 other alterations, they might have made, either by 
 tke King, or Parliament, 1 cannot fay. Certain it 
 is, notwithflanding all the alterations that now ap- 
 pear, and have been eftab'ifhcd, that the power of 
 ordaining, which is pretended to be the moft es- 
 sential one belonging to Biftiops, is ftiil left un- 
 touched, or rather ftands confirmed in the pr.es ent 
 •rdinal ; as may be fecn abundantly proved in the 
 aboy« extract from Mr. ^havi^ 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED' 51 
 
 pricfthood.' As pricfts arc not to ordain with- 
 out the Bifiiop, fo neither is the Bifhop to or- 
 dain without Priefts. If the former would be 
 cftecmed invalid, fo, for ought I can fee, muft 
 the latter too : I am fure, it would be exprcfsly 
 contrary to the rules of the church, by which 
 fomc Priefts are required to be always prefcnc 
 with, and afiifting of the Bifhop in all ordina- 
 tions ; as appears by the Rithrick abovcmention- 
 cd, compared with other parts of the cfficc, and 
 Can. 31, 34, 
 
 It cannot, with any colourable pretence, be 
 faid, that the joining of Prcfoyters with the Bi- 
 fhop in this folcmn ad does only fignify 
 their witncffing to, or approbating, the thing 
 done. If this were all, it might as well be done 
 by the laity who were prefenr, or the Deacons 5 
 and yet, it is certain, they are not permitted to 
 lay on hands in ordination (as the Priefts are) -, 
 though they are permitted to be fpedators, wit- 
 nefles, or approvers, as well as they. Befidcs, 
 it is evident from the ordination-commiflion,thar 
 the office of Prieft is conveyed by the Bifhop 
 and Prc(byters jointly. * Receive the HO- 
 LY GHOST for the office and work of a Prieft 
 in the church cf GOD, now committed unto 
 thee by the impornion of our hands.' From' 
 whence it is as plain as words can make it, that 
 prieftly orders in the church of England are to 
 this very day conferred by the Bishop and his 
 Presbytbrs together ; that the office is re- 
 ceived from their joint authority ;^ that 
 the Bifnop ought not to ordain without his Pref- 
 byters, any more than without prayer, or impo- 
 fition of hands, which are all made efientially 
 neceflary.-, yea, that he cannot do it without a 
 very material, but abfolutely unwarrantable, 
 
 alteration 
 
32 REPLY TO THE 
 
 alteration of the words in the commiffion, and 
 perverting the defign of it, changing ihe word 
 OUR into MY, and faying, ' by the impofition of 
 MY hands, inftead of our hands •, by which 
 variation, how fmall foever it may feem, the Bi- 
 Hiop would lodge the fole power of ordaining 
 in himfclf, contrary to the lerter and intention 
 of the office, which neceffarily fuppofes, rhac 
 Prefbvters have the fame intnnfic power with 
 the Bidiop : otherwif(fit would be no other than 
 a folemn piece of mockery to deliver the commif- 
 fion in the name of thePrefbyters equally with 
 the Bifliop. For how couid they convey pow- 
 er to othersvvhich they had not in themfelves ? 
 None certainly fhould lay on hands at all in giv- 
 ing miniflcrial authority, buc fuch to Vv'hole of- 
 fice it belongs to commit the lame dodrine to 
 others, which themfelves have received a com- 
 milTion to be teachers of, no more than any 
 Ihould confecrate the elements in the euchariit, 
 who were never impowcrcd to adminiHer the 
 facrament. 
 
 There is not the Icaft appearance of any dlf- 
 tin5lion by the words in the office, that the 
 granting the commiffion is only from the Biiliop, 
 and that what the l^refbytcrs do in conjundlion 
 with him is only confenting to what he does. 
 The church, in the preface to the book of or- 
 ders, fuppofes impofition of hands necefiary to 
 the conveying the office of the prieflhood. She 
 therein requires priests, by the Ruhkk, to lay 
 on hands together with the Bifhop : and, upon 
 the performing of that a£lion, the Bifliop de- 
 clares in exprcfs words,' that the office and work 
 of a Pried is committed unto thee by the impo- 
 fition of OUR hands ; which can never be meant, 
 in any proper way of fpcaking, of the Biffiops 
 
 bands 
 
* APPEAL DEFENDED/ 33 
 
 hands alone, but incluc'e his Prcfbyters, who 
 were partners in laying hands with him, a^ hav- 
 ing a (hare aUb in conveying the power which 
 was by granted by that acftion, by a right inhe- 
 rent in iheir office ; though, by the ecclcfiaftical 
 conftitution of the country, the-y are reftrained 
 fronn exercifing it alone, as the Bishop him- 
 self ALSO IS. He may indeed ordain a Dea- 
 con without the concurrency of his Prefbyters, 
 and in this cafe the impofition of his own hands 
 alone is required : whence it is plain, that the 
 church nriakes a manifeft diliindion betwixt what 
 the Billiop can do alone, and what he cannot 
 do WITHOUT his Prefbyters. She allows hiia 
 to ordainDcacons by his sole power, and there- 
 in the office is conferred only by the impofiti- 
 on of his own hands': but when he "s to or- 
 dain Prielts, he mull then have the concurrence 
 of his Prefbyters with him, and the office is faid 
 10 be conferred by the impofirion of our hands, 
 that is, of Bifhop and Prefbyters conjunctly. 
 Thatisdoneby both together, which thechurch 
 allows not to be done by either separately. 
 This may be illuftrated from the office of 
 ' confecrating Biffiops,' which is made exadly 
 to correfpond with that of ' ordering Priefls/ 
 and therefore muft be allowed to be a parallel 
 cafe. In this office, conformable to the other, 
 (mutatis mutandis) the * Kubrick*, juft after the 
 ordination-prayer, requires the Arch-Bifliop and 
 Bifhops prefent (of whom there mufl be two at 
 lead) to lay their hands upon the elefted Bi-. 
 (hop, upon which adion the Arch-Bilhop im- 
 mediately pronounces the commiffion, (as the 
 Bishop does in rSe ordination of Pricfts) but 
 declares, * the office is committed by the impo- 
 fition of OVR. hands j' that is, ihc epifcopal func- 
 
 E «wa 
 
34 REPLY TO THE 
 
 tion is conveyed by the impofition of the hand^ 
 of the Arch-Bifhop and Birfiops together, with- 
 out whom he ought not to confecrate a Bi- 
 fhop. Now, if a Bifhop can no more ordain a 
 Pried without the concurrence of his Presbyters, 
 than an Arch-Bifhop can confecrate a Bifhop 
 ■wkhout the concurrence of his Bifhops ; if Pref- 
 byters are required to ufe the ' fame action' to- 
 gether with the Bilhop in the ordination of 
 
 * Priefls,' as Bifhops are with the Arch-Bifhop 
 5n the confecration of a ' Bifhop,' viz. impofi- 
 tion of hands ; and if the commifTion granted to 
 
 * PrieHs' by the Bifliop and his PrefDytcrs be in 
 the ' fame words' with the commilTion granted 
 to Bifhops by the Arch-Bifhop and his Bifhops, 
 viz, ' committed unto thee by the impofition 
 ef OUR hands j' it mufl undeniably follow, that 
 Prefoyters have as much an inherent right in 
 their ofHce (in the opinion of the church of 
 England) for ordaining Friefls, as Bifhops have 
 in their's for confecrating Bifhops.* 
 
 It cannot be pretended, that the Arch-Bifhop 
 iiLONE conveys the power, and that the Bifhops 
 who join with him in laying on of hands do it 
 rneerly as witneffes to, or approvers of, his a6l ; 
 becaufe the Arch-Bifnop*s power over Bifhops is 
 granted to be mcerly ecclcfiaftical, I mean owing 
 to human inflitution, and not to a divine right. 
 Let men make what pretenfions and 
 cvafions they will, it is certain, from ib^ 
 
 * book of orders,' and the pra£lice ef the church 
 of England, that ihe allows Preibyters to ordain 
 in conjundlion with their Bifhop, which muft 
 be iinderflood, if words and adtions have any 
 determined fenfe, by virtue of a divine right 
 inherent in their office. 
 
 If this be not her fenfc^ what an abfurdity 
 
 muft 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.* S5 
 
 muft flic be guilty of in ordering their concurrence 
 in the fign, who have no manner of intereft or 
 right in the minifterial conveyance of the thing 
 fignified by it ? Juft as if ic Ihould be Hiid, a 
 Deacon hath powtr to ufe the words of inftitu- 
 tion in Bapcifm, and to apply the proper ele- 
 ment, but yet hath not power to baptife ; or 
 that a Preibyter may confecrate the euchariftical 
 .elements, according to CHRIST'S inftitution, 
 and diftribute them to the People, and yet not 
 have power to adminiftcr the LORD'S fupper. 
 
 If impofition of hands in ordination be a 
 meer cypher, and empty formality, in Prefby- 
 ters, will ic not be concluded, that fo it is in 
 Bifhops too, and that the laying on of the hands 
 of the one and the other is but a needlefs ce- 
 remony, and fignifies no more to the convey- 
 ance of minifterial authority, than if the hands 
 of mcer laymen wereimpofed ? But, if this ex- 
 ternal rice be fuppofcd to convey the minifterial 
 commiinon from the Bifnop, why does it not 
 import the fame thing from Prefbyters, who are 
 enjoined it by the fame authority as the Bifnop, 
 and in conjundtion with him ? Will not every 
 one naturally conclude, that fince the a^ion is the 
 Jame, fmceit is done ^x the fame time ^ in the fame 
 manner^ with ih^ fame words^ and declared by 
 the Biftiop himfelf to be for the fame end, that 
 k conveys i\iQ fame powers r Thus Mr. Shaw^ 
 
 Upon the whole, if there is no inconfiftency 
 between the eftabliihed ordinal^ and the preface 
 to it, the Bilhops fpoken of, in the latter are not 
 Bidiops in the Dolor's fcnfe, that is, Bi- 
 Ihops who are divinely vefted with the exclufii}e 
 right to convey holy orders. For, according to 
 the appointed rule, no man can be ordained a 
 Prieft without the laying on of the bands of 
 
 Preibytcxs 
 
36 REPLY TO THE 
 
 Prefbyters as well as of the Bifhop. The or- 
 daining power is lodged, not in the Bifhop 
 ONLY, or EXCLUSIVELY, but in the Bilhop^ and 
 Prefbyters conjunct;.y. If Frcfbyters cannot 
 ordain by then^ielvcs alone, neither can the 
 Bifliop. There mud be, according to the book, 
 the concurrence of both. It is from hence evi- 
 dent, thart the reilraint laid both upon B.fliops 
 and Prefbyters, as to the exercife of their ordain- 
 iBg power, is meerly eccleriaflicaL The church 
 ot England certainly allolvs an inherent right in 
 BOTH to ordain, thougji fhc allows neither to 
 ex-ercile this right but within certain limitations. 
 Aad thcugh fiie accounts none lawful Bi- 
 fnops or Prefbyters but fuch as have been law- 
 F-iTLLY a ImitLcd, to office, fhe is far from nul- 
 lifying rhe orders given by either. She no- 
 where d. clares ordination by Prefbyters to be 
 invalid, t^hough fl^^e efl:eem?5 it not lawful. And 
 hercm (he differs from thole few of her highflying 
 fons, who would make their own uncharitable 
 piOtions her avowed dodrme. 
 
 What has been above offered in proof, that 
 tht jus aivinum of Fpifcopacy, according to the 
 Dodor's fcnfe of it, is not contained in the ' pre- 
 face to the book of ordina.ion,' will receive fur- 
 ther illallration» if we confider what were the 
 fenriments of the firil r formers, thofe of them 
 in ^"p:'C al who had a hand in compiling the ordinal. 
 
 I HAD fatd, from Dr. Calamy^ (anfw. to the 
 appeal, p. 8 j ' thai in the year 13^7, the Arch- 
 Biihops, Bifhops, Arch-Deacons, and Clergy of 
 England, in their book injtitled, ' the inflruc- 
 tion of'achriftian man,' fubfcribed with all their 
 hands, and dedicated to the Ki'ig^ exprefsly re- 
 ft)lve, that i^'rietls and Bilhops, by GOD's law, 
 arc oi^£ and the same.' To this the Doctor re- 
 plies 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED/ 37 
 
 plies ( def. p. 21)^ Collier hai given an ab- 
 ftraft of the moft eflential parts of this book. 
 In this abftrad there is nothing like what the 
 Dodlor would prove from it, but fomething 
 extremely unlike it/ C^///>r's filence is to lit- 
 tle purpofe. Meerly an omiflion of his, which 
 might have been defigned to ferve his own ends, 
 ought to be efteemed as nothing, when oppofcd 
 to dired pofitive evidence given in the cale by 
 one of an eftabliihed reputation for veracity, 
 cfpecially as he has quoted the very words of 
 the book itfelf. And as to the pafTage in this 
 abftraft, which is ' fo extremely unlike* to what 
 I had brought to view, it can have this appear- 
 ance to thofe only who are difordered in their 
 -fight. If there is any ' unlikencfs,' it muft be 
 in the following words, which the Do6tor has 
 diftinguifhed by the manner of printing, * Bi- 
 shops are author if ed hy eur Saviour ta continue 
 
 THE succession, ^«^ PERPETUATE THE HI- 
 ERARCHY.* But It ought to be remembered, 
 it had been faid before, ' Bidiops and Friefts are 
 one and the fame thing' : and, if fo, ics being 
 faid afterwards, * that Bifliops >are authorifed to 
 continue the fucctdi )n,* conveys precifely the 
 fame idea as if it had been faid, ' Pricfts are 
 authorifed' to do this. This pafTage ^cannot be 
 made at all ' unlike' to the other, unlefs the 
 whole Clergy of the church of England in that 
 day are made to contradidl themfelves; for which 
 no reafon can be affigned but that of ferving a 
 prefent turn. 
 
 The Dodor allows, that the book intitlcd, 
 * a neccflary erudition for any chriftian man,* 
 which though ' drawn up by only a committee 
 of the King's nomination,' was yet authorifed by 
 both houfcs of Parliament, prefaced by the King 
 
 himfclf. 
 
'^ REPLY TO tHE 
 
 himfelf, and publifhed in 1543 by his com-^ 
 mand ; I fay, the Dodor allows (p. 23) that, 
 in this book, it is declared, ' that the fcripturc 
 fpcaks cxprefsly of no more than the two orders 
 of Fricfls and Deacons j' confcquently, Bifhops 
 nouft be, in the apprehenfion of thefe reform- 
 ers, of the fame rank and order with Priefts, 
 their officethe fame,and the fuperiority of the one 
 above the other by the ordinance of man, and 
 not of GOD. But, fays the Doftor, from Coh 
 Her * the erudition makes orders one of the 
 fcven facraments, and defines it a gift of grace 
 for adminiftracion in the church ; that it is con- 
 veyed by confecration and impofition of the Bl- 
 fhop's hands ; that in the beginning of chritti- 
 anity, this charader was given by the Apoflles/ 
 He then adds, ' how to reconcile thefe pafTages 
 may be difficult 5 and until this be done, they 
 can prove but little on cither fide.' There is 
 nothing to reconcile in thefe paffages. If, as 
 thefe reformers fay, ' the fcripture makes men- 
 tion of only the two orders of Priefts and Dea- 
 cons,' Bifhops cannot, in their opinion, be a 
 diftind order from Priefts ; confcquently, when 
 they further fay, ' the gift for ad minift ration in 
 the church is conveyed by confecration and im- 
 pofition of the Bifhop's hand,' by Biftiop they^ 
 muft mean an officer of the fame rank or order 
 with Priefts, unlefs they arc made foolifhly, as 
 well as needlefsly, to contradict themrclves,when 
 their words are as capable of a confiftent con- 
 ftruflion. 
 
 It is evident then, beyond all reafonable dif- 
 pute, from the * inftilution' and * emdiricfi,* 
 that,in the reign of Henry the Eighth, ' Biftiops 
 and Priefts were one and the fame order' in the 
 ©pinion of the church of England, Bux, fays 
 
 the 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 39 
 
 tlie Do<5lor, (p. 25) *atthis (lagc of the reforma- 
 tion, it is no wonder that we nneet withfome crude 
 cxpreflions relating to Epifcopacy.' And again, 
 (p. 24) ' among the dodrines that had not been 
 fully canvafied, byCranmer and his friends, muft 
 bs reckoned that of ecclefiaftical government/ 
 But the plain truth is, the fentiments of the 
 church of England,relative toBilhops andPrieffs, 
 were much the fame in the reign of Edward the 
 Sixth, as they were in the days of Henry the 
 Eighth, ; in order to evince which 1 had re- 
 courfe (anf. to app. p. 9) to the ' feled aflem- 
 bly called by King Edward for the refolution of 
 feveral queftions relative to the fettlemenc of 
 religion.' To which the Do6tor replies/ It was 
 at this time [in the reign o^ Henry the Eighth] 
 and not ten years afterwards, in the reign of £i- 
 ward the Si.th, as Dr. Cbauncy, following his 
 blind guide, ^ the Irenicumy aflferts, that thefe 
 
 queftions 
 
 « ThcDr. would not have difcovercd too much reverence 
 for a celebrated Biftiop of the church of England, 
 if he had here ufcd a fofter epithet. This is not the 
 firft time he has difhonored himfelf by fpeaking too 
 flightily of one, who was every way his fuperior. In 
 a marginal note, (p. 17) he adopts the fentiments, 
 of a puny writer, in one of the New- York peri- 
 odical papers, concerning this truly great man, by 
 calling the account he .gives of his Irenicum ' a jull 
 one.* Says he, < I do not fcruple to declare, that I 
 look upon the Irenicum to have been a hafty, indi- 
 £efted, partial account of principles and fafts/ If he 
 had poflTeffed a tolerable rfiaie of modefly, he would 
 not have declared his opinion in fo harfh and crude 2 
 manner concerning a work, which has been read, 
 applauded, and fo often recurred to, by many of the 
 moft learned men in Europe. It is to little purpofe 
 to fay, * he wrote it at the age of X4 i' or to bring 
 
 nini 
 
40 REPLY to THE 
 
 queftiohs were given out for difcufHon ; as ij 
 plam from B.lhop Burnet.' If this is plain from 
 B.fhop W,he .sthe « blind gu.de' to the 
 Doftor and not the Irenkum to me. For, it is 
 obferjablc, thcfe queftions with the refolutions 
 
 MS. S. \i Sulitvgjlut: as his own words arc.f 
 And It IS undeniably evident, from what is faid 
 ot thefc manufcripts, and quoted out of them, by 
 Dr. Mitn^fim, that this ' feleft affcmbly' was 
 called by K>ng Edward the Sixth, and not by 
 Henry the Eighth, % Nay, B.fhop Burnet him- 
 felf was of the fame mind. For, fays he, S ' I 
 find another inftance like this, in the reforma- 
 tion that was further carried on in the suc- 
 ceeding REIGN of Edward the sixth of 
 niany B.lliops and Divmes giving in their opi- 
 nions undertheirhands.uponfameheads thenex- 
 smined and changed. InCa anmer's papers feme 
 lingular opi.iions of his about the nature of cc 
 clcfiaftical offices will be found'.- Dr. Chandler 
 has mferted (in p. 27) from Bifhop- BurrTS^ 
 other words in the above paffage I have, for thil 
 
 reafon, 
 
 him in faying, « there were many things in it, which 
 .f he was to wnt,, again, he would Jt fay ' It^-, 
 upon the -fsows truth oi x.\,<, faas he has related ""j 
 the fohd reafon that fupports the W„l/' he ' , 
 tains, that we depend 5 and not uponTe n ' 
 
 authority of the man. Until the bo'ok a"Cered' 
 which has never yet been done, and 1 wi! venZ to 
 % never will, .t will remain with us in fdl feV 
 For/.^,a,e ftubborn, and reajor^ is the fame wl?!* 
 ther men are old or young, or however ^.l 5 
 ments with their intereft may alt«. """' J'^'S- 
 
 +Hift. reformation.vol. iftn te.t VM^a. c j . 
 
 t Vid. Jrenicum d ,8ft!fi lei.Collea. of records,' 
 t Hift „f"^"'"'. P- 380 and onwardi, 
 3 "Ut. reformation, p. 189. 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED' 41 
 
 i-eafon, omitted quoting, in order to weaken the 
 evidence of Cr^«;»^r : and yet taking ncT notice 
 of the former part, he places thefe queftions gi- 
 ven out to be difcuffed about ten years back- 
 ward from their true date, and in dircd concra- 
 didtion to Bifhop Burnet \ affirming, at the 
 fame time, that it was ' plain from him/ that he 
 had fixed the time right. He is able to fay, 
 whether this was done with defign, or through 
 inattention. I would candidly artribute it to the 
 latter, however flrange it may appear, that he 
 lliould quote one part of a pallage, and fuffer 
 another, he lays fo great ftrcfs upon, to efcapc 
 his obfervation. 
 
 He acknowledges (p. 26) that Cranmer's an- 
 fwer to the tenth queftion m thefe words, ' Bi- 
 fhops and Priefts were at one time, and were 
 not two things, bat one office in the beginning 
 of CHRIST'S religion,' are to be found, as I 
 had quoted them, in the manufcript publilhed 
 by Burnet ; but then adds, ' the reader will not 
 forget the time of his giving this anfwer, whick 
 was about ten years before our preient offices for 
 ordination were compofed.' To which I would 
 only fay, this memento to the reader is the etfcct: 
 of his ' blindly' following a true guide. For 
 it appears from what has been laid above, thac 
 the very author whofe authority he relies oa 
 fpeaks of thii artfwer of Cranmer*^ as given, not 
 ' about ten years before the ordinal was compil- 
 ed,* bue in the reign of Edward the Sixth ; and 
 as this book of ordination was publifhed in the 
 third year of this King's reign, it could be but 
 a very little time before its cornpofition ; which 
 is the more worthy of fpecial notice, becaufe, as 
 the Do6tor himfelf obfcrves * Cranmer was the 
 principal perfon concerned in thac work.* 
 
 F He 
 
j^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 He goes on (p. ibid) ' Hoyvevcr ftrange 
 Cranmer\ opinion may appear to have bcei,thcrc 
 is ftrong proof that he altered it immediately. 
 This * ftrong proof follows in thcfc words, 'For 
 in the fame copy of qucftions and refolutlons. 
 Dr. Leighton\ anfwcr to the eleventh queftion 
 is ; 'I fuppofe that a Biihop hath authority of 
 GOD, as his minifter, by fcriptvire to make a 
 Prieft ; but he ought not to admit any man 
 to be a Prieft, and confccrate him, or to appomt 
 him to any miniftry in the church wiihout the 
 Prince's licence and confent. And ^^^^ ^"T 
 other man hath authority to make a Prieft by 
 fcripture, I have not read, nor any example there- 
 of To the twelfth queftion Leighton anfwer?, I 
 * i fuppofe that there is a confecration required,as 
 by impofition of hands •, for fo we be taught in 
 the cnfamples of the Apoftlcs.' Now BureK 
 in his Vindicia^, fays, 'That, havmg had an op- 
 portunity of examining the ongmal manulcript, 
 he found that Cranmer gave his confent to thtje 
 two opinions (?/ Leighton, fubicribing to each 
 ^h : Cantuaritnfis.' It is obfervable, the ^ ftrong 
 proof that Cranmer changed his opinion is rcfted \ 
 upon the evidence of DurdU which is really no 
 evidence at all, if Mr. Boyfc maybe bchcvcd, 
 who fpeaks of him * as ' an author too notorious 
 for his many falOiopds and miftakes in this 
 kind to be depended on/ And the Dodor him-^ 
 felf has unwarily given us ftrong realon to pre- 
 fume, that Boyfe\ account oi Dur ell is a juft one. 
 For, fays he (p. 27) ' Why Sttllingfleet Ictc out 
 this paflage is plain -, it interfered with the de- 
 fign of his Iremcum : but why BurnH omitted it 
 is doubtful/ There can be no deulic in the 
 
 cafe. 
 
 * Account of the ancient Epifcopacy, p. ai* 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.* -4$ 
 
 cafe. If this paflage was not in the original 
 manufcript the rcafon of his not inftrting it is 
 at once evident. If it was there, he muft, with-^ 
 out all controverfy be cfteemed a dilhoneft pub- 
 lifher of original manufcripts j which would, in 
 this cafe, be very extraordinary, as it would have 
 been to his purpofe to have given us thefc 
 words, and he could have no imaginable tempta- 
 tion thus unfairly to fupprefs them. But ihould 
 it be fuppofcd true, that Cranmer fubfcribed his 
 con fen t to the opinion of Leigh ton, as fignified 
 in the above quoted anfwers to the tenth and 
 twelfth queftions, it would not argue that he 
 had changed his fentiments as to this, that ' Bi- 
 fhops and Priefts were not two things, but one 
 ©ffice in the beginning of CHRIST'S religion.* 
 The only words upon which fuch a change of 
 .©pinion can be grounded arc thefe, * I fuppofe 
 that a Bifhop hath authority of GOD, as his 
 minifter, by fcripturc to make a Prieft — and that 
 any other man haih authority to make a Priefl: 
 by fcriptuie I have not read. — But for aughc 
 any thing that is here faid, Bifhops and Priefts 
 might, in Leigbton^s opinion, be on« and the 
 fame order of officers in the church of CHRIST ; 
 and nothing appears in any of his other anfwcrfi 
 in contradidion hereto. And as to the words, 
 * That any other man hath authority to make a 
 Pcieft I have not read,* it is evident that ' by 
 any other man is meant, any other man not veil- 
 ed with clerical authority. The general ilraia 
 of all the anfwers to this eleventh queftion plain- 
 ly leads to the thought, that it was intended for 
 the rctticinent of this point, whether the power 
 of making Prisfls was appropriated to the 
 Clergy, fo as that it might not be cxercifed 
 by mccr laymen. It v/a§ by no mttn% defigned 
 
 m 
 
V4 REPLY TG THE 
 
 to decide the qucftion. Whether ordination 
 was pppropriated to Bifhops in oppofition to, or 
 cxclufion of, Prefbyters ? This is put beyond 
 difpute by the anl'wer particularly of the Arch- 
 Bifhop of York to that queition, which is this, 
 ' That a Biihop may make a Pried may be de- 
 duced from fcripture — And that any othrr 
 THAN Bishops or Priests may make a Prieft 
 we neither find in fcripture, or out of fcrip- 
 ture. 
 
 The plain truth is, it does not appear from 
 any one of the anfwers, to any of the propofed 
 queftions, that there was a difference in the fen- 
 time'nts of thefe Bifhops and Divines as to the 
 
 ONENESS, or SAMENESS, of the ORDER of Bi- 
 
 fhops and Prelfbyrers ; though they might dif- 
 fer in their opinion about the degree in the 
 fame order. The Arch-Bilhop of York's anfwer 
 to the tenth queftion/ Whether Bilhops or Priefts 
 were firfl,' will convey to us a clear and juft 
 idea of this ; as we find in it fuch words as 
 thefe, ' the name of a Bfhop is not a name of 
 ORDER but a name of office, fignifying an over- 
 feer. And although the inferior Shepherds have 
 alfo csre to overfcc their fiock, yet forasmuch as 
 the Bi (hop's charge is alfo to overfec the She- 
 pherds, the name pf overfeers is given to the 
 Bifhops, and not to the other ; and as he is in 
 DEGREE higher, fo in their confecration we find 
 difference even from the primitive church.' I 
 fhall yet add ; to the 13th queftion, ' Whether 
 (if it fortuned a chrif^ian Prince learned to con- 
 quer certain dominions of infidels, having none 
 but temporal learned men with him) if it be de- 
 fended by the law, that he and they fhould 
 preach and reach the word of GOD there, or 
 no ? and alfo make and conftitutc Priefts, or no ? 
 
 I 
 
* APPEAL DEFENDED.^ ^5 
 
 I fay to this 13th queftion, Lsighton's anftver is, 
 * I fuppofe the afErmative thereof to be true ; 
 quamvis poteftas clavium rejidet pr^ecipue in Ec- 
 defia.^ And to the fourteenth queftion, Whe- 
 ther it be forefended by the law (if it fo fortune 
 that all the Bifliops and Pricfts of a region vere 
 dead, and that the word of GOD fhould remain 
 there unpreached, and the facrament of baptifm 
 and others unminiftred) that the King of the re-- 
 gion fhould make Bifhops and Priefts to fupply 
 the fame or no ?' His anfwcr is, * I fuppofe 
 the affirmative to be true,incafc that there cannot 
 Bifhops or Priests be had forth of other coun- 
 tries conveniently.' Thefe anfwers are cfTential- 
 ly different from what the Docftor would have 
 given to thefe queftions, and abfolutely incom- 
 patible with the divine right of Epifcopacy in 
 his fenfe of it. And yet, thefe feleded Bifhops 
 and Divines were perfedlly unanimous in faying, 
 that, in the cafe propofed, * learned laymen not 
 only may, but ought to preach and teach 
 GOD's word;* and the greater part of theca 
 declare it to be their opinion, thaf the ' Prince, 
 (in this fame cafe) and his temporal learn- 
 ed MEN may make and inftitute minifters, or 
 Priefts.' ^ How dlfTonant are thefe fentiments of 
 our reformers from thofe exprelTed in the ' ap- 
 peal,' (p. 4) in thefe words, * If the fuccefTion 
 [that is, in the line of Bifhops, who only have 
 autI>ority to ordain] be once broken, and the 
 power of ordination [that is, by Bifhops only] 
 once loft, not all the men on earth — not all the 
 Angels in Heaven, without an immediate com- 
 mifTion from CHRIST, can reftorc it ! 
 
 The 
 
 » Burnetts Hift. reform, p. 231, 232, 233, 234; 
 Coll€<^. of Records. 
 
46 REPLY TO THE 
 
 The Doctor has not yet done with Cranmer. 
 (Says he, p. 3©) "■ Afttr the time of his fubfcrib- 
 ing to Dr. Leighton's opinions concerning Epif- 
 copacy, I find him in no fludtuacion of princi- 
 ples •, but m^ny proofs appear of his iettled 
 and fteady belief that Bifhops are fuperior to 
 Prefbyiers by apoftolical inltitution.' Enough, 
 1 truft, has been alrcauy fa:d to fhow, that no 
 valid proof has been given, that Cranmer fub- 
 fcribed Leighton^s anfwers ; or, if he did, that 
 this was fufficient to faften on him a change 
 of fentiments relativre tp Epifcopacy : nor am I 
 yet perfuaded to think, that there are any proofs 
 from which it Wiil appear, that it was ever his 
 * fettled belief that Biiliops are -fuperior to Pref- 
 byiers by apoftorical infiitution.' It is a piry 
 the Dodor has not (Quoted the pafiagcs in Cran- 
 m^r^s writings, upon which he finds that there 
 was * no Hiiduanon in his principles on this 
 head.' He fpeaks of a ^CaUcbi/m he compiled, 
 in which, if we may believe Bifhop Burnet^ he 
 fully owns the divine indicution of Bifhops and 
 Priefts.' Could a fight of this catcchifm be ob- 
 tained, it is probable it might be in our power to 
 refute whac is here laid from Bifhop Burnet : 
 Hov/ever this may be, thus much is certain, if 
 we would form a right judgment in this matter, 
 it mud be from what is laid in the catcchifm it- 
 felf, and not by implicit faith in the opinion of 
 another, who, perhaps, never faw it himfclf. 
 The Dodlor likewife tells us of a ' fermon in 
 this catcchifm, or large indrudion of young pcr- 
 fons, concerning the authority of the keys^ upon 
 Rom, X. 13, i4, 15, in which fermon his no- 
 tions of Epifcopacy and church-govcrnmcnt arc 
 fo high, that even the high-flying Dr. Hicks re- 
 printed it at large in his preface to the divins 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED.' 47 
 
 r's^bt of EpifcDpacy ajferied: This fermon is, I 
 conclude, the very one repaired to by Mr. "Dru- 
 ry in order to prove that Cranmtr retrafled his 
 opinion about Bifhops and Priefts-, to whom Mr. 
 Boyfe replies ^ ' the pafiage he has cited in this 
 fermon no way affcrts Priefts and Bifhops to be 
 at the beginning two dillina: orders/ If the 
 Dodor will bring to view this, or any other paf- 
 facre, in this fermon, or in any other writmg of 
 Cranmer, and from thence point out to us the 
 affirmed change in his fcntimcnts, we will rea- 
 dily fubmit •, but until then we Ihall beg leave 
 to think, that he ever adhered to the opinion, 
 *■ that Priefts and Biftiops were at one time, 
 and not two things, but one office m the be- 
 ginning of CHRlST's religion. 
 
 I HAD faid, Cani: to app. p. it) from Mr. /. 
 Owsn, and upon his authority, '' that the noti- 
 on of the right of Biftiops to govern and ordain, 
 as being officers in the church lupcrior to Prciby- 
 ters,bydivine'appointmcnt, was firft promoted in 
 the church of England by Arch-Bifhop Laud.' 
 The Dodor takes occafton from hence to play 
 with the word promoted to make his readers 
 merry. He is utterly at a lofg what to make of 
 it. Ic is a ' myfterious' word -, it contains in \l 
 * fomc fecret meaning, which he does not com- 
 prehend •,' it ' muft b|f unfolded,' or, notwith- 
 ftanding what may be the meaning of this un- 
 fcarchable word, ' he muft take the liberty to 
 believe, that the national eftabliOi men t of this 
 dodrinc again and again, and making it a fun- 
 damental principle of our reformation, was do- 
 ing fomething to promote it.' 1 affure the 
 Dodor i would not have ufed this word, which 
 
 appeared 
 
 ? Ancient Epifcopacy, p. 8, 
 
4$ • REPLY TO THE 
 
 appeared to me a harmlefs, well meaning one, 
 could 1 have forefeen the ftrangc influence ic 
 would have on him. It has certainly very much 
 obftrufled his difcerning faculty : otherwife, ic 
 would not have appeared to him, that the fupe- 
 riority of Bifhops to Prefbyters, by divine ap- 
 pointment, was a dodlrine that had been ' again 
 and again nationally cllabliflicd •,' much kfs 
 that this was a 'fundamental principle of the re- 
 fcrmation.' Arch-Blfliop Laud^ without all 
 doubt, was the first, 1 will not fay that pro- 
 moted this do6lrinc, left a word of fo profound 
 a meaning fhould puzzle the Do6lor ; but he 
 was the first, in oppofition to any ' national 
 eftabUflim.ent,' or its being at all a principle, 
 much lefs ' a fundamental one of the reforma- 
 tion,' that openly aiTertcd, and pleaded for this 
 doftriae. Perhaps the Dodlor, now I have fub- 
 ftitutcd a plain word, inflead of a ' myftcrious' 
 one, will be convinced of this by what has been 
 offered to his view : it he is not, I am fatisfied, 
 the impartial Public will. 
 
 He goes on, 'if the meaning' of this incom- 
 prehenfible word promoted ' be, that none before 
 Arch-Bifliop Laud contended for the fuperiori- 
 ty of Bifhops over Prefbyters, by divine appoint- 
 ment, in their writings, 1 muft dill deny it ; as 
 I am able to pfoduce abundant evidence to th« 
 contrary.* The readef will remember, I brought 
 in Arch-Bifhop Laud, sls the fir ft promoter of 
 Epifcopacy upon the plan of a divine right, from 
 Mr. y, Owen, depending on his authority. Of 
 -what great importance is it, whether he was the 
 firft, fecond, third, or foprth that contended for 
 this dodrine ? And yet, the Doflor has taken 
 up eight or nine pages in endeavouring to prove, 
 that a fsw othcri wrcc before Laud ia pleading 
 
 for 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 49 
 
 the divine right of Epifcopacy. But the unhap-- 
 pinefs is, he is grofsly midaken in the idea he 
 has given of the fcntiments of ihs men he has 
 reamed. They were, it is true, Epifcopaiians 
 upon the foot of divine right, in a quahfied, mi- 
 tigated fenfe V but not in the fenfe in whicfi 
 Laua znd the Dodor. pkad for'this right. It 
 was not the opinion of any one of thtn)p that 
 the right of Bifhops^ by diviiie appointment, to 
 , govern and ordain, was fuchj as that ic could 
 nor, as the cafe might require, be altered : and 
 they were clear and full m fignlfying their fen- 
 timents to this purpoie I have by me a book, 
 intitled, ' A rtprelcntation of the government of 
 the church of Erg-ana, according to the iudg- 
 inenc of her Bifhops unto the end of Qj^itea 
 Elijabttb^s reign,* by htefben Loh^ as I h.:\d, his 
 name infcrted, in the title page, by Dr, Increajd 
 Mathtr y in vvhicl> are CAUads, irorn all the 
 writers Dr, Chandler has mentioned^ and many 
 more, making it evident, beyond denial, that 
 their notion of EpilcopacyjUpon the jure divino-^ 
 Jhip plan, was fo qualified as to be con^ftent with 
 an intire change in the eAtrcife of governing and 
 ordaining power : but it muft fufficc, that i may 
 not take up too much room, to bring to view a 
 few of thefc cxtrads, fram only two or three of 
 lYit moft illdltriciiis of thefe writers/, and l have 
 feitdled thefe principally for i.iilrudion to the 
 Do6tor, and to kc him and the Public know, 
 that he is highei. in his church-principles than 
 the HIGHEST ic was in his power to name, v/hen 
 HIGH notions of Epifeopacy firfi began to be 
 broached. 
 
 He celebrates Arch-Bidiop Wbhgift as aa 
 eminent writer in favour of the divine right of 
 Epifeopacy j but, whetner the Arch;Bi(liop's 
 
50 REPLY TO THE 
 
 notion of a dtvine right does at all agree with Ms, 
 may eafily be determined by the following paf- 
 fages in his book againft CartwrMt, Havino 
 cJiltmguinied baween fuch thing, 2., fo' nea(]a?y 
 tmt Withcut tioem we cannot be laved, and fuch 
 as are fo necejjary that without them zve cannot so 
 WELL and CONVENIENTLY be Javcd, he adds 'I 
 confels, tnat in a church colltaed together in 
 one place, and at liberty, government is necef- 
 lary wuh the (cccnd kind of r.ectfTity ; but that 
 any kind of government is la necelTary, that 
 wuhout It the church cannot be faved, or that 
 It may not be altered mo Jome other kind, thouchc 
 to be more expedient, I utttrly deny ; and the r'ea- 
 fons chat move me fo to do be thefe. The firft 
 IS, becaufe I find no one certain and perfect k'nd 
 or government, prefcribed, or commanded, in 
 the -cnptures to ihechurch of CHRIST; whxh^ 
 nof. doubt fhoul i have been done, if it had been 
 a^^cnattcr nceei?a?y to the falvation of the church, 
 'i here is no certain kind of government, or dif- 
 ciphne, prcfcribtd to the church ; but that the 
 fame may be airtred as the profit of the churches 
 rcqiKres —I do deny, that the fcriptures do fer 
 dov.n any one certsin kind of government in 
 fne church o be p'.rprSual,' for all times, per- 
 Jons, and places, without a!t'^ration.~-It is well 
 known, that the manner and form of govern-- 
 ir.ent ufed in the apoiiles time, arid exprefled in 
 me icripcures, neither is new, nor can, nor oughc 
 to heobcrve:J, either touchm^^ the perfons or 
 thefunaions-^We {c^ tnanifcftly that, in fun- 
 cry pomts, the government of the church, ufed 
 Jn the Apoftles time, is,, ^nd' hath been of ne^ 
 cefiity altered, and that it neither may,- nor can 
 be revoked ; whereby it is plain, that any one 
 ^ind of external government, perpetually to be 
 
 obfcrvedj 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.' ^f 
 
 is no where in the fcripture prefcribec! to the 
 church, but the charge thereof is letc to the Ma- 
 gistrate, fo that nothing be done contrary to 
 the word of GOD. This is the opinion of the 
 beft writers ; isErTHirR do I know any lear- 
 ned MAN OF A CONTRARY JUDGMENT. Ei- 
 ther WC Riuft admin another form now of go- 
 verning the church, than was in the Apoftlt3 
 time, or clfe we mul> icclude the chriftian Ma- 
 giftrate from all auihoriry in eccleuaftical mat- 
 ters.— I am pcrfuaded, that the external govern- 
 ment of the church under a chriilian Magillrate 
 muft be according to the kind and form of go-, 
 vernmentufed in the commoa-wcakh ^ elfe how 
 can you make the Prince fuprcam Governor of 
 
 all Hares and caufes eccicfiaftical ?' * 
 
 Arch-Bishox^ i?^;7^r^//is hkewife m.entioned 
 by the Dodor as having fignaiifed himielf in 
 defending the caufe of Epifcopacy -, but it 
 could noc be Epifcopacy in the the fcnfe plea- 
 ded for in the ' appeal,' and its ^ defcjice/ 
 lor ic IS evident, from the cafe of the three 
 Prefbyters that were confecrated Bifhops for 
 Scotland, at London, that Bancroft allowed or- 
 dmation by Prefbyters to be valid. The Doc- 
 tor indeed .s ple.ifcd to fay, (p 46} * They were 
 not confecrated on the principle that ordinarion 
 by Prefbytrrs was valid, but upon the belief 
 that the epifcopal charadtr, as it included thofe 
 of a Prefbyter ind Deacon, might be conveyed 
 by a fmglcconfecracion'— .Bur,as this is reded on 
 no other proof than the Doftor's own amrmati- 
 on, it ought to be confidcrcd as nothing, when 
 
 compared 
 
 ^ The plates referred to in LoFs reprefentat. are, 
 'Defence traa, C 3, Divif. ^g, 35, 4a, 41. And 
 
!0, ^EPLY TO THE 
 
 compared with the evidence we have, that Bancroft 
 . dire£l!yexprcricd his acknowledgment of the val)- 
 -dity of ordination by Prefbyters. Arch-Bi{liop5p^/r}^ 
 .v:ocd declares this in fo many words. Says he, ^ 
 '*A quedion was mov^d by Dr. /indrcws* Bilbop 
 *of Eiy, touchirig.the cciifccration of the Scottifh 
 ^Bifliops ; who, as he (aid, -muft be/r/? ordained 
 
 Prefiyters^ sg having received no crdination from 
 , a Bijtop. The ArcS-Bifhop of Canterbury, Dr. 
 
 - Bancroft ^ who was by, maintained, 7/^^/ /^<rr^o/ 
 there was no neceffity^ j^^''^g% '^here of Bybops 
 
 . CGuld not be bady the ordiruition given by Pre/by ters 
 
 , muli he efteenied Idwful ; otherwife^ that it might 
 
 ,h€ doubted if there were any taivful 'vocation in mojl 
 
 of the reformed churches, -This applanded to by 
 
 ^the other Bi/hops^ Ely acquicfced, and at the day, 
 
 and in the phce appoinitd, the three Scottilh 
 
 ^ Biihops v^ere cohiecra^ed.' 
 
 As for /iZ^tf^ifrj'i!: isV plainly evident, from a 
 . ccnfiderable number of large ex cra6ls from his 
 . ^ imrQOrtal wcrk, the ecclefjaftical polity,' to be 
 met with inX^^*s,.reprefentation, that, in his opi- 
 nion, the fcriptures do nor make the Epijco- 
 pal^ or any other particular kind of government, 
 
 - UNALTERA-BLE ', that the powet of Conferring 
 orders is not, by any divine law, so appropri- 
 ated TO -Bishops, that in no cafe, ordmation 
 by Fresb^ters can be valid ; and that the 
 church vifible is the trus original JubjeB of all 
 power, and c^n aker the* government of the 
 church. Among, the extracts to this purpole, 
 the two or three following ones only .muft fuf- 
 ,fice for the prefent. ' ■ 
 
 Tp^e firftis taken from- his feventh book, in 
 
 thefe 
 
 '^ Hi{^. of Scotland, Lib. 7, p» 514^ as quoted by 
 Zo^ ia his rcj^fslenc. p. 3^. 
 
« APPEAL T5EFE-RDED' '51 
 
 thefc words, * Bifliops, albeit they may avouch 
 v/ich conformity of truth, that their authority 
 
 -hath thus 'iefcendcd even frooi the very Apoftles 
 themfelves ; yet the absolute and iverlast- 
 ING CONTINUANCE of It they cannot fay any 
 <:oiTimanJment of the LORD enjoins -, and 
 therefore mufl acknowledge, that the church 
 
 'hath power by univerfal confent, upon urgent 
 cauie, to TAKE IT AWAY, if thcreuoto flie be 
 conftrained through the proud, tyrannical, 
 
 AND unreasonable DEALINGS OF HER. Bl^ 
 
 SHOPS. Thtrrerore, left Biihops fliould for- 
 get themfelves, as if none on earth had au- 
 thority to touch their ftates, let them conti- 
 .nually bear in mind, that it is rather \.\\q force of 
 -cujlem, whereby the church, having fo long 
 found it good to continue under the regiment 
 •of her virtuous Bifhops, doth (liU uphold, main- 
 tain and honor them in that rcfpedl, than that 
 any Coch true and heavenly law can be lliewed, by 
 the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, 
 that the LORD hmfelfhath appointed Prefbyters 
 for ever to- be under the tegiment of Bifbops in what 
 fort fo ever they behave themfelves,^ 
 
 In the (ame book, he fays, 'There may be fome- 
 times veryjull andfufficient reafons toaii ordinati- 
 on made without a Bifhop. The whole church 
 vifiblc,belng the true original fubjeft of all pow- 
 er. It hath not ordinarily allowed any other than 
 Bilhops alone to ordain : Howbeit, as the ordi- 
 nary courfe is ordinarily in all things to be ob- 
 ferved, fo it may, in fonr.e cafes not unnccefTary," 
 that we decline from the ordinary ways.' 
 
 In the fame book fliil, v/e meet with thij 
 paflTagc ' We are not fimply without excep- 
 tion to urge a lineal descent of power' 
 FROM THE Apostles by continued suc- 
 
 CESSIOI* 
 
'54 R E P L Y T O T H E 
 
 CESSION OF Bishops in every effectual 
 ORDINATION.' ^ I (hall fuHjoin here, that 
 Stillinzfleet fays, * They who pleafc but to con- 
 fuk the third book of Hooker'^ ecclefuftical hif- 
 tory, may fee the mutabihty of the form of" 
 church government largely alTerted, and, fully 
 proved.' Leb makes the fame obfervation ; and 
 with exad truth, as I can myfelf teilify, 
 having had opportunity, fincc the penning 
 "what has been above offered, to look into Hoo' 
 ^^^that I might be fatisfied what his fentiments 
 were upon this head. 
 
 Until the Dodor fees fit to profefs his rea- 
 dinefs to fall in wi^h thefe fgntiments, 1 Ihall 
 think myfelf at Hberty to believe, that Lqud was 
 the FIRST vyho promoted Epifcopacy, conforma- 
 bly to the idea, he, and the very fmall party he 
 is joined with, entertains concerning it. 
 
 As, upon the point of Re-ordination^ he * dees 
 rot undertake tocontradid: me, (to ufe his own 
 words, p. 42) but to place it in a proper point 
 pfligh%*I fhall only daj^rc the reader to take 
 notice of- one thing he has omitted, which is of 
 far greater importance than any thing he has 
 offered. It is the adl of the thirteenth of £ i- 
 /abetb^v^hjch runs thus,f ' That every per Ton un- 
 der the degree of a Bifliop, which doth or fhaU 
 pretend to be a Pried or minlfter of GOD's 
 holy word and facramcnts, by reafon of any o- 
 THER FORM of inftituiion, confecrarion, or or- 
 dering, than the form now used in the reign 
 of our mod gracious iovereign Lady — (liail— ^ 
 declare his affent, and fubfcribe to ail the arti- 
 cles 
 
 * Vi<3. Loh*s reprefent. p. 41, 43, 45. 
 f Lob's reprefent. of the govcinmcnt of the church of 
 Englanflj p. 59, 60, 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.' 55 
 
 des of religion.'-[Thefe concern only the pro- 
 fcffion ot Che true chriftian faith, and the doc- 
 trine ot the facraments, compriftd in a book en- 
 med, ArtKles y. ./^. Thir.y-nine articles] 
 Thepenalty .s ' That every fuch perfon which 
 null not fubfcribelhall beCipfo fafto) deprived, 
 and ail his eccl^-fiaftical promotion fhall be void 
 as if he had been naturally" dead.' Jn confc-* 
 quence of this ,&, TVhiningham and 1 ravers 
 tho not ordained according to the form the^ 
 IN USE, might notwithftandingbc lawful hm- 
 ni lers of the church of England. I mention 
 this to let the Daaor know,1hat he waTmifta- 
 ken in his declaration, (p. 45; ' that through- 
 out the v/no,e reign (that is of Queen Elifa- 
 hei^) we are confidering,_it vas^ an eftablilhed 
 law— that no man fnould be accounted or taken 
 to .e a lawful Bilhop, Pried, or Deacon, in 
 the church ot England, or (uffered to exe- 
 cute any of the fajd funftions, without epis- 
 copal ordination.' This isfaid in dire^T: 
 contrad.a.on to the abovementioned aft of th 
 thirteentn of £/^.^.,^, ,.hi,h continued in foro 
 X'WCbarles the iccond; when, by another aft 'eve- 
 ry one, nor in holy orders by episcopal or- 
 PINATION,' was difabled from 'holding anv 
 padonage wnatever as if he had been'natu^ 
 r.lly dead.' IVbtUngham and Gravers were there 
 forcLAWFt'L miniiltrs in the church of England 
 tho not EPiscoPALLY ordained ; and "thei;^ 
 holding benefices was not -by permiffion thro' 
 the neceffityof thetimes,'butin prrfeaaorec- 
 ment with the then eftablilhed lawof thena^tion. ' 
 
 1 SHALL not think it improper to add here 
 more efpecially for the ufe of theDoflor, and £ 
 
 IS a full proof, that it was not heropinion that ordi- 
 
 nation 
 
 e 
 rce 
 
•5\5^ REPLY TO 'THE 
 
 nation was,by divine appointment,.appropriated to 
 Bifhopsin diftindlion tfomPrcfbytcrs^fo as that or- 
 dination byPrelbytcrs only was invalid, ilad this 
 been her fentime'nr, fiie could ^ riot in confiftency 
 herewith have given ht^t fiat to this ad. Now, let 
 it be particularly renienjbcred, iheDodor has told 
 us, f p. 41) he Has 'proved, that the do6lrines 
 of the Bifhops and Clergy, in the reign of Qpeen 
 Biiifaheih^ m'jft have been agreable to ihe Queen, 
 and to the principal perlons about her court.' 
 If To, WhvtX'^ft^ Bancroft, Bilfcn:, a^jd other epif- 
 copal wricers in this reign, were not for ordi- . 
 nat-cn by Billiops, fo as ro nullify ordination 
 by Frtfhyters •, nor couid they tiifov^n ar:y as 
 LAWFUL miniilers of the church of England 
 MEERLv becaufe they had b.;en ordained by 
 Prefbyters only. The' divine right of Epikop'a- 
 cy, iii the Doftor's ^cvSq^ could not therefor;^ 
 be th^ dodliiae of the church of England in the 
 reign ofQaeen hlijabeth (as 1 have before prov- 
 ed It vi^as not in the reigns either of Henry the 
 Eighth, or Edward the Sixch) ; and to fay thac 
 it could, would be to fay, thar two contradic- 
 tory eltabliiliments were in force at one and the 
 lame time. 
 
 Th £ Do6lor now proceeds to fhov(^, that there 
 is ' ii'jthoricy in the church of England purely 
 tcclefiafticil ;'— Bur, as in reply (p. 211) to 
 rny third objedion to the plan of an American 
 Epifcopate, he only fays ' it has been anfwtred 
 already, [he mull mean in this part of his de- 
 fence, or ic is no where endeavoured to be an- 
 fwered] 1 (liali potlpone what might have been 
 offered here, until I come to juftify the force of 
 this objection. Only, 1 (hall think it proper 
 to inicrr, in this place, a few pertinent words 
 from turn^ who is an author the Do(5tor will 
 
 J>Qt 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' ^f 
 
 not fufped to have been wanting in his regard 
 to the church of England. ^ Says he, « • Ihs 
 truth iSjthat, after the abolition of the papal pow- 
 cr,therc was no branch cffovereignty with which 
 the Princes of this realm, for above a century 
 after the reformation, Wvre more delighted 
 than that of being the fupream head of the 
 church : imagining (as it fccmeth) that all 
 the power which the Pope claimed and exerci- 
 fed (fo far as he was able) was, by the flatutes 
 abrogating the papaH authority, annexed to the 
 imperial crown of this rcahn. — The Pope arro- 
 gated to himfelf a juiifdidion fuperior, not only 
 to his own canon law, but to the municipal laws 
 of kingdoms. And thefe Princes of this realm 
 abovementioned f(^m to have conddered them- 
 felves as Pop£s in their own dominions.*-^ 
 The Dodlor, after he had wroie (ifcy eighc 
 pages^ very pertinently introduces his reader, 
 afking, ' What is all this to the purpofc of an 
 American Epifcopate ?' And then as pertinent- 
 ly anfwers the quedion by faying, * I know 
 not.'^ Why then did he commit fo grofs a tref- 
 pafs upon the patience of the Public ? It is true, 
 he faid nothing, in his appeal, ' about the opi- 
 nion of the reformers upon the points of'Epif- 
 copacy, and the King's fupremacy. ;' but it is as 
 true, that he faid that which contradided their 
 opinion, and made it neceflary in anfwering his 
 appeal, to fet this matter in a juft light. He 
 has therefore really, though undcfignedly, fneer- 
 cd at Kimfclf \i)\is Jkesch of argumtnts * was 
 to the purpoje of an American Epilcopaie,' it w^s 
 Eo the furpsje to make anfwer to it j if it was not 
 PI to 
 
 J EccleSaftical laws v®L 2* under the w«rd fuprcma* 
 cy. 
 
58 REPLY TO THE 
 
 to this purpofe, as is certainly the truth, he Icnowg 
 as well as 1, that he only is the objeft of ridi- 
 cule for giving occafion to that which was im- 
 pertinent, as not being to the purpofe of the 
 main point to be difputed. ^ v 
 
 He now comes to defend his darling dodlrine 
 of an uninterrupted fuccefTun in the line of Bi- 
 fhops. And here he has funk much below my 
 expeclatioas ; not having offered any one thing 
 that will bear being examined, though in a cur- 
 lory way only. 
 
 I HAS allowed, * tliat none have amWbrhy in 
 th-e chriflian church but thofe who derive it 
 from CHRIST, either ;/W/^/^/y, or immediate- 
 ly 'y fuggeftmg, that this was ' the opinion of 
 lue Colonilh of whatever denomination :' up- 
 on which the Do.51.or, taking it for granted that 
 authority, if conveyed mediately, mult be con- 
 veyed by perfonal jucceJJicn^Xzboxxxs hard to prove 
 a klf-cvident truth, napely, 'that where a thing 
 is to be conveyed froip one perfon to another, 
 not immediately, but by a fucccflive communi- 
 cation through a number of intermediate hands, 
 if any one in the fucceffion fails of making the 
 conveyance, the thing evidently (tops, and pafTt^s 
 not on to the perfon to whom it is intended*: 
 Who ever difputed this, which is fo evident, up- 
 on the bare propofal, that it cannot be made 
 more lo by any method of reafoning whatever ? 
 It is a pity the Doctor did not think it proper to 
 prove the only ihin'^ tliat here needed proof, viz^ 
 that authority can be conveyed mediately from 
 CHRIST, in no way but by perfonal facceflion. 
 Until he is able to prove this, it is to no pur* 
 pole to fay, ^ if the authority firit given to A 
 is to pafs on fuccelTively^to B, to C, to D, and to 
 E i ihould the conveyance flop, or be interrupt- 
 ed 
 
^^ A P P E A L D E F E N DE D.* 59 
 
 ed at C, Co that it pafTes not on to D ; in ibat 
 cafe D does not receive it, and theretore cannot 
 convey it to E, uoicfs D is able to give what in 
 has not.' This pompous {hew of demonftra- 
 tion may delude we^k minds, but is altoge- 
 ther a rope offand, iinlefs it be firft proved, that 
 the auihority is fo given, that it can in no medi- 
 ate way be conveyed, but in fucceffion from A 
 to B, and fo on. We join with theDoclorin fay- 
 ing ' T-hat no number of men on earth, nor all 
 the Angels in Heaven, can give authority from 
 CHRIST not given to them, or renew this au- 
 thority if iotl' And whst then ? Is it not ob- 
 vious to the moft vulgar underftanding, that the 
 g:and pomt in difputc is here begged, and fup- 
 pofed to be granted, namely, that authority is 
 given by CHRIST to be communicated by per- 
 fonal fucceiTion, and that there is no other vis- 
 diate way in which it c^ be communicated ? 
 The Doclor might have known, as he pretends 
 an acquaintance with Hooker^ ' immortal v/ork,' 
 that the church, at lead in his opinion, is the 
 trus original fuhje^i of all power flcm CHRIST; 
 and that fhe may take it *away even from Bi- 
 fiiops> if th:y are proud, tyrannical, and unre- 
 formable in their dealings^'z^ GOD knows has too 
 often been the cafe. He accordingly declares, 
 we are not /imply, and wiihout e^cepticn to urge 
 a lineal dcjcent of power from tht Apoltlcs by con^ 
 tinned fuccejjion of Bifhops in every tffeflual ordi^ 
 nation, "^ And 1 can affure him ftiil further, ic^ 
 is the opinion of the non-cpiftopalian Colonifis, 
 that the pov/cr of perpetuating the miniftration 
 of the word and gofpel ordinances, is fo lodged 
 
 v/ith 
 
 * VId. Quotation rrom Hooper^ in the forc^c'n^ 
 53d. p.^c. _ 
 
oo 
 
 REPLY TO THE 
 
 with chriftian churches, that, whenever the cafe 
 requires ir, they can begin a rucctfTion de no- 
 'VD^ * vyhich fuccefnon will be as truly vcUed 
 wich authority from CHRIST, as if it had been 
 uninterruptedly handeci.down from the Apoftles, 
 The Dodor, inftead of attempting to difprovc 
 thefe tenets, takes it for granted, that autho- 
 rity from CHRIST can be conveyed in no mt- 
 ^ ' dials 
 
 5 Monfitur Claude has clearly expreffed, and cencifely 
 prov^ed, our fcntiments upon this head- Says he, in 
 his defence of the reforrnatien, part 4, p. 94, 95->-~ 
 <f Wherein the fcriptuve recommends to tt^e fAithful, 
 the taking diligent heed to the prefervation arfd c&n- 
 lirm^ion of their faith, and to propogate it to their 
 children, it gives them by that very thing a fuffici- 
 cnt right to make ufe of all proper means in or^er 
 to that end ; and every body knows the miniitry is 
 ©ne of thole means, and ttrer^fore the obligation the 
 faithful are under to preferve and propagate the 
 faith, includes that of creating to thernfelves Paf- 
 tors when they cannot have them otherw.fe : in 
 ihort, when the fcripture teaches that the faithful 
 have a right to- chufe their Pallors, it teaches there- 
 .- by that ihey have a rigVit to inftal them into their 
 om^e in c Ac of neceility -, for that call confifting 
 more efT ntially in eU^ion than in injiallalion- which 
 is but a formality, tht re is no reafon to believe that 
 GOD Vi^ouid have given the people a *tight to 
 chufe their Pafto^'Sj and to' have them .inftalied by 
 cth::rs, and that he ha« not given them at the fame 
 time a power of injialnn^ thsm themfshssj v/hcn it can- 
 not be done ftther'A^ife, fmce naturally that which 
 wc have a right to do by another, we have a right to do 
 by Gurfelves.' Nay, even Dodwell himfelf, that 
 high-fi) ingEpifcopaiian fecms to have exprclTed near- 
 ly t^e fame ftntiments, [whether ♦•it be, or be not, 
 cor.fui-nt with the other parts of his fcheme] in his 
 \ jcparation of church eu Says be, as he i» quoted by 
 Mr. M, if's. enquiry into the nature of fchifrn^ 
 
 (?• 49) 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.^^ €i] 
 
 dlaie way, but by perfbnal fuccefTion in his no- 
 tion of it ; and then neediefsiy blots fevcral pa- 
 ges in p oviitg wha| no man in hia fenfcs ever 
 did, or could deny; 
 
 I 
 
 (p 49,)-—* Whenever any perfDn is invefted into 
 1 th; ("uprv-am power, and the fociety over which he 
 is placed is independant on other fociedes, fuch a 
 perfoa can never be placed in hs power if not by 
 them wno maft after be his fubj-as, unlefs by his 
 predecefFj-, viriicti iao fociety can depeni upon for a 
 conjiant rule sf fuccejUt^n.-^^i a^n apt to think, t. \ 
 muft have be^n the way of making BiJJjops at firft, 
 howabfjlute fjever f conceive theca to be when they 
 are once miJc.— Phis f:eni^ bjft to a^ee with th^ 
 abfolutenefi of particular churches ^ before they had by 
 compad united thennf?Jves under metropoiitans .and 
 exarchs, intp provincial and diocefan churches ; and 
 this feems to have been fitted for the frequent perfe- 
 fecutionsofthofe eafjieragco, when every church was 
 able to fecure tts own fucce/Jimy without depending on 
 the u.iccrtain opport^initles of meeting the Bilbops 
 of the whole province : and the alteration of this 
 prailice, the giving the Bifhops of the province an 
 iiitereft_ in the choice of every particular CoHeaguc, 
 feems not to have been fo much from want of power 
 in the pa'-ticular chii'-ches to do it, as for the fecurjty 
 of compHifts that they might ba certain of fuch 2 
 colleague as wou'd obf^rve th-m — It is probable that 
 it^was in i-mtation of thz philofophers fuccefftom^ x\\2Lt 
 thefe ecclefiadical juccejfims were framed ; and when 
 the philofophers fiilca to nomnate their own fuccef- 
 fors, the elc6ton was in the fchoo's/ My authar's 
 remark upon thefe wo.ds is, « If every particu- 
 lar church had ori finally 3. power within iijef to chufe 
 and invcft its iJ.fhops, and the conrurrence of Gthar 
 Bifhops herein was not for want -y. p-^iuer in that par- 
 ticular church, but only for fecu. fng the agreement 
 of 3 (hops among them^?^lve§, wc have done with the 
 neceflicy of a continueo ine of ep (copal ordinatLon, 
 and there may bs true miiiion without it»' 
 
62 REPLY TO THE 
 
 I HAD fiid of the fucceflion pleaded for in' tlse 
 appeal, ' that it is not capable of any good proof, 
 nor is there any probability, that fo long a chain, 
 running through fo many ages of ignorance, vio- 
 lence, and all kinds of impofture,has never once 
 been broke,' (p. 15.) TheDQ.6tpr replies, ' This 
 aficrtion militates as forcibly againlt the fuc- 
 celTion which the churches in the Colonies certainly 
 heiieve^ as againft ^he epifcopal,* The colony- 
 churches are fo far ' from, certainly believing* 
 what the Do£l:or would here make them believe, 
 that they care, nothing abaut an uninterrupted 
 line, either of Bifhops or Prefbytcrs ; as they 
 know they have power from CHRIST to cpn- 
 llitute ciiicers for all the purpofes of the gofpel- 
 miniftry, fliould it fo happen, that the line of 
 fuccefTion, in regard of Prefbyters, af well as Bi- 
 fhops, had been interrupted and broken. 
 
 The Dodor goes on, ' as to the fucceffion in 
 the line of Bifhops, I am Hill of opinion, that 
 it is incumbent on the oi:xje6hors to prove, that 
 ir has been interrupted'. One would naturally 
 be difpofed to think, ft was incumbent on thofe, 
 who urge iht abfolute neceflicy of the non-iotcr- 
 ruption of this line, in oider to the validity of 
 golpcl-adminiflrationS; to prOvd that it has not 
 befen interrupted ; cfpecially if they are the admi- 
 niftratois. For myfeh^, I am free to own, i fliould 
 rjDt dare CO meddle with the difpenfation of gof- 
 pel-ordinances, upoathe du^li-ineof an uninter^ 
 rupred line, \^n\t\% I was able, fairly to prove, 
 that I was tnyi^cl^ in this line Witjiout inter- 
 ruption. 
 
 Th3 Do61:or here mentions fome things po- 
 Jltively in favour of the line's being unmter- 
 rupted. Says he, * We know, by the bell hif- 
 torical evideuce, that ic \\x% been the univerfal 
 
 pradicc 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED.' €^ 
 
 practice of the church, from the time of the A- 
 podles to the prefent hour, to acknov/ledge none 
 for Biiliops who were not ordained by other Bi- 
 Ihops.' It is impoffible he, or his party, (hould 
 be pofTeffcd of this knowledge, unlefs in imagi- 
 nation only *, becaufe it can have exiftence no 
 where elfe, having no reality as a truth, from 
 the practice of any one chridian church for the 
 firft two hundred years. Throughout this long 
 fpacc, no proof can be given, that ' none were 
 acknowledged forBlfliops, who v/ere not ordain- 
 ed by Bilhops* in the impleaded fenfe. If there 
 can, let it be produced. It has never yet been 
 done, and I challenge the Do6lor to do it : nor 
 indeed was it ever the ' univerfal pradlice,' in 
 any age, even to this day, to ' acknowledge none 
 for Blfliops, but thofe who were ordained by 
 Bifhops,' upon the plan ofa divine right. He 
 goes on,* the confecration of Bifhops was a public 
 ad— efteemed to be a matter of fuch importance 
 that the report of it was immediately carried ^vcn 
 to diftant places — and, in difputed cafes, it was 
 eafy to difcover, whether the perfoti was, in re- 
 ality, a Bifhop or not -, or, fuppofing the con- 
 trary, that no one would /eceive epiicopal con- 
 fecration from fuch hands.' I fhall leave it with 
 cofbmon fenfe to judge, whether this is any ether 
 tiran a fandy bottom to build one's faith upon, 
 in a matter of fuch elTeniial concern as the un- 
 interruption of this line is made to be. And 
 what the Dodlor yet adds is as weak an one. 
 Says he, ' We know from fcripture, that if 
 fuch a {occtiTion is as ncccifary, as, upon a fpe- 
 culativc examination, it appears to be, CHRIST 
 has promifed to preferve and continue it to the 
 end of the world.' That is, in plain englidi, if 
 it be fuppofed^ allowed, and taken for granted, 
 
 thac 
 
64 REPLY TO THfi 
 
 that CHRIST has ma^e an iininterrupred ftic- 
 cefTion necefTary, he will take care, in virtue of 
 his promife, to prcferve and continue it. A nota- 
 ble dilcovcry this ! Who, befides the Do(5lor, 
 that regards his charadler, would declare in the 
 face of the w^orld, that he was ' abundantly fatis* 
 fied with thefe viirlous kinds of ev-dnce/ in an 
 affair eilentially connedcd,in bis \iew, withever- 
 lafting falvation, which, when examined, appear 
 to be meer nothing ? 
 
 I HAD faid, that, to make the very being of a 
 church, and all covenant hopes of falvation, to 
 reft upon fo precarious a foundation as an unin* 
 terrapied fuccefnon in the line of Bifhops, was 
 to expofe the religion of CHRIST to ridi- 
 cule •, — That it would follow upon this doc- 
 trine, that the public worfhip of the non-epifco* 
 paiian Colonifts, cf all the diffenters in England^ 
 and of all the reformed churches who had no mi- 
 nifters baifuch as were ordained by PiCibyters, 
 v/ould bj an affront to CHRIST ; and that, at 
 the reformation, if ihe popifh Bifhops had fluck 
 to their old prineiples, and diicoiTtinued the fuc- 
 ccITion by refufing to ordain any but thofe of 
 their own communion, it would have been the 
 duty of the laity to have lived without go f pel 
 ordinances till a new commifiion was fcnt from 
 Heaven to give authority to adminifler them ;-- 
 And I am greatly confirmed in the propriety 
 and force of thefe objedions by what the Doc- 
 tor has faid in anfwer to them. Let the reader 
 compare what we have both offered, and judge 
 for himfeJf, And, perhaps, he wdl nOt judge 
 differently from Monfieur ClaudCy in the like 
 cafe ; whofc words are thefe. "^ * To fpcak 
 
 my 
 
 ♦ Hift. dcf. of the reform, pait 4, p. 97# 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.^ ^ 
 
 9 
 
 my thoughts fffcly, it feems to me that this 
 confident opinion, of the abfolutc necefTicy of 
 Epifcopacy, that goes fo high as to own no 
 church, or call, or minillry, or facraments, or 
 falvation, in the world, where there are no epif- 
 copal ordinations, although there fhould be the 
 true doflrine, the true faith and piety there ; 
 and which would make all religion depend up- 
 on a/formality, and on fuch a formality as wc 
 have fhewn to be of no other than human infti- 
 tution ; that opinion, I fay,cannot be looked on 
 oiherwife than as the very worft character and 
 mark of the higheft hypocrify, a piece of pha- 
 rifaifm all over, that ftrains at a gnat and 
 fwallows a camel •, and I cannot avoid having, an 
 lead, a contempt of thofe kind of thoughts, and 
 a companion for thofe who fill their heads with 
 them.' 
 
 It was further obferv^d, in anfwer to the ap-'^ 
 peal, ' That the worft of this doctrine of an unin- 
 terrupted fucccfiion is, its being derived through 
 the church of Rome •,' concerning which it is 
 declared by the church of England in her ho- 
 milies, ' that as at prelent it is, and hath been 
 for nine hundred years, itis-/^ far from being 
 of the nature of the true church, that no- 
 thing CAN BE MORE-,* bcfidcs which, fhe ex- 
 plicitly fpeaks of this church as a joul, fil- 
 thy, OLD, WITHERED HARLOT, the FOULIST 
 
 and FILTHIEST that was ever seen.' Whac 
 ROW is the Doctor's reply ? He gives it in a paf» 
 fage he quotes from Mr. Whitt^% defence, the 
 whole force of which, fo far as there is any, lies 
 in thefe words, ' Harlot as (be is, (he may bring 
 forth children, as well as an honeft and virtuous 
 matron, and fometimes children far better than 
 their parent. And if I muft derive my fpiritual 
 
66 REPLY TO THE 
 
 pedigree from a harlot^ I had rather It fhould be. 
 an old withered one, of an ancient and honoura- 
 ble line, than a ycung ftrumpct of no name and. 
 family, and who came into the world but yef- 
 ttrday.' The Do61or cannot be more lurprifed 
 at my being ' unacquainted with this defence of 
 Mr. White^ as he thinks 1 ' appear to be,' than 
 I am at his injudicioufncfs in bringing it into 
 view. If Bifhops derive their cxiftence, ^w ///<r/^, 
 from an acknowledged whore, they mufi, with- 
 out all controverfy, be horn of fornication. Is io 
 polTible a whore, a foul, filthy whore 
 Hiould, being an adulteress, bring forth any 
 Other than a base-born, spurious race ? And 
 it matters not, whether flic be 2, young whore, or 
 an c\d "dvitbered QUQ, The Dodor may prefer an^ 
 €pif copal pedigreeSvom a withered whore-^ having 
 cxiiled luch for many hundreds of years, being 
 on thisaccount, an ancient whore, and an koncurable 
 one,(ifthisi$not a moral impoflibility)to a defcent 
 from zyoungflrmnpet of no name or family. He fl:!all 
 have his choice for all me ; but let him remem- 
 ber, in either of thefc cafes, the defcendants will 
 be haflards, and not fons. Befides, he has not 
 feen fit to fay a word, cither from himfclf, or Mr. 
 White, by which we ii^ay be informed, hew that 
 church can communicate true genuine orders^ 
 which the homilies, he has lubkribed to, de- 
 clare to have been' nine hundred years 
 pad so FAR from having the nature of the 
 true church, that nothing can be more. 
 As the dilTenting Gentleman ^ reafons with great 
 propriety and flrength, ' What miracles arc 
 here ! That which is no true churchy nor has 
 heen any thing like it for a thoufand ^ears faft ; 
 
 yet 
 
 J Anfyy. to Whttt^ p. to/^ ^ 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ €; 
 
 yet c6nveys true, regular offices and powers ! 
 An anti-apoftolic church imparting genuine tf/>^- 
 ftolic orders ! The fynagogue of fat an becomes 
 the f acred repofitory, wherein the power o{ ordina- 
 tion to holy offices, in CHRIS F's church, for 
 more than ten centuries^ principally reded, and 
 was almoit only to be found ! The church of 
 Rome^ which, by apoftacy harh cut itfelf off from 
 the l^ody of CHRIST^ hath neverthclcfs his fpi- 
 r// and authority dwelling in it -, and is com- 
 iniffioncd by CHRIST to examine, ordain, and 
 fend minifters into his church, for the edifying 
 his body, and perfecting his faints ! How in 
 every view marvellous and tranfcendant is this 1* 
 
 The Doctor fays nothing further, m this fee- 
 tion, in his own defence, that calls for enlarge- 
 ment by way of reply. 
 
 Though he had needlefsly introduced an ex- 
 traft, in his appeal, from Chil/ingfworth's de- 
 monft ration of Epifcopacy, I thought it proper 
 to take fome notice of it. What lie has offer- 
 ed in his defence, is, as I apprehend, very little 
 to the purpofe. 1 dcfire therefore nothing more, 
 than that the reader would examine what we 
 have both laid, and then judge between us. 
 
 He docs not deny, thit Bilhop Burnet^ when 
 he wrote his vindication of the church of Scot- 
 land, ' believed Biffiops and Prefbyters to be fc'* 
 vcral degrees of the fame office.' But he adds^' 
 * his fubfequent writings afford innumerablG 
 proofs, that he afterwards believed the dodrine 
 of Epifcopacy, both by the evidence of fcrip- 
 ture, and the pradice of the primitive church.* 
 When he wrote his vindication, he believed the 
 dodlrinc of Epifcopacy in the fenfe that nineteen in 
 twenty of the members of the church of England 
 believed it then, and believe ic now ^ but thac 
 
 he 
 
6S REPLY TO THE 
 
 he ever believed It in the Do(?l:or's fenfe, or that 
 be ever wro.c any thing from whence this can 
 be made evident, I fhaii noc be perfuaded to 
 think, until I have bccter proof of it than bare 
 affirmation ^ : nor i (hajl believe, ih^tS liliin^fleei 
 ever departed fo far from the fentiments or his 
 
 Irenicum^ 
 
 * It is ftrangc the Do£lor has given us no pr«of from 
 anv of the ' writings' of Bifhop Burnet, as they 
 * afford innumerable proofs/ that he believed the 
 ^odtrine of Epiicopacy, in the impleaded fenfe. It 
 may reafonably be luppofed, it was net in his power 
 to do this ; and the rather, becaufe the Biflicp de- 
 clared the fcntiments mentioned in the anfwcr to the 
 appeal, when Epiicopacy was in its zer.ith, and it 
 might be cxpeded, on that account, that he \vov;ld 
 have fpoken as highly of it, as his ccnTcience would 
 permit. And yet, he is particularly exprefs in mak- 
 ing Bifnop and Prtibyter, not diftin^f orders, but dif-^ 
 ferent degrees only in the Tame office. His words' are 
 thefe, which 1 choofe to quote, that the reader may 
 fee in how full and ftrong a m.anner he delivers his 
 fcntiments upon this head. Sa)s he, Vjnd. of the 
 the church of Scotlan'i, p 310, ' I do not a'ledgc a 
 Bifhop to be a diftirtSl ofHce from a Pre(b)ter, but a 
 different degree of the fame cffice.' — And again, p. 
 33 [, ' 1 acknowledj^e Bifhop and Prtfoyter to be one 
 arid the far^e ciHce, and To plead for no new cfficc- 
 bearer in cne church. 1 he firfl branch of their pow- 
 er is their authority to publifh the gofpel, to manage 
 the woifhip, and difpenfc the facraments j and this 
 is ALL that IS of DiviNH RIGHT in the mini- 
 ftry, in which Bifliops and Prefbyters are 
 equally fharcrs : But befides this, the church cJaim- 
 £tn a power of juiifdi6tion, of making rules for di(ci- 
 pUne, and executing the fame ; all which indeed is 
 lutabietothe common laws of focieties, and the ge- 
 laeral ruUs of fcripture, but hath no pofitive warrant 
 from any fcripture precept — Therefore, as to the 
 managerricnt of this juiifdidion, it is in the church's 
 pew^r to caft it into what mould ihc will*'-' * 
 
' ^APPEAL defended; % 
 
 Irenicum, as to fall in with the Do6lor in his no- 
 tion ofihcjure divinino-fkip of BiHiops in diftinc- 
 tion from Prefbyters, before I fee it otherwife 
 evidenced than by his naked affertion. 
 
 1 SHALL take this opportunity to afiure the 
 Dodlor, that I am not afhamed openly to de- 
 clare, that I pay ' more deference to btihinzfleet, 
 Reftor of Surton, than to Stillingfleet^ Dean of 
 Sc Paul's, or Bifhop of Worcefter, in the difputc 
 relative to Epifcopacy.' He may call this ' par- 
 tiality, abfurd, and prepofterous :' But it may 
 be, the Public will think with me, that a ree- 
 torjkip^ or bifhopric might have fome influence 
 to enlarge his notions of the power and dignity 
 of Bifhops, though never that I know of, to the 
 height the Dodor would carry them. 
 
 As to /irch-Bifliop UJher^ that known and ce- 
 lebrated antiquary, it is as evident as a fadt of 
 this nature can be, that it was his fettled opini- 
 on, 'That Bifliops and Prefbyters differ only in 
 degree, not in order. What the Do(5l:or has faid 
 tends only to difguife, not to invahdate this 
 truth. 1 never faid, or thought, that the Arch- 
 Bifhop eiteemtd ordination k>y Prefbyters regular^ 
 where there were BiQiops by whom it might be 
 obtained. But it is indifputable, even from 
 the very words omitted by mc, in the Arch-Bi- 
 fhop's letter to Bernard^ but cite^ by the Doc- 
 tor, that he accounted ordination by Prefoyters t9 
 he valid in placjs where Bijhops cannot he had ; 
 which is cfTentially inconfiftent with the Dodor's 
 fcheme. The plain truth is, the Afch-Bifhop 
 neither thought Bifhops were a dif^indl order 
 from Prefbyters, or that ordination was, by di- 
 vine appointment, appropriated to that order. 
 This is, beyond all reafonablc difpute, evident 
 from his own words, profelTedly ufed in arguing 
 
 upon 
 
*j6 REPLY TO THE, ^c. 
 
 upon this point, as produced by Dr. Parr who 
 •wrote his hfc. * They run thus. ' The intrin- 
 fical power o^ ordaining proceeds not fron^Jurif. 
 dt^Iion, but only from order. But a Prelbytcr 
 hath xhcfame order in fpecie with aBilliop. Er- 
 go, a Prcfbyter hath equally an intrinfical power 
 io give order ^ and is equal to him in the power of 
 crders : The Bifliop having no higher degree 
 in refpc^l of the intention or extenfion of the cha- 
 racter of order, though he hath an higher degree 
 (i. e. a more eminent place) in refpedl of^«- 
 thority znd juri/di^ion in fpiritual regiment.* 
 
 The Dodtor fini(hes this firft ledtion by de- 
 claring, ' That he is more eftabiiflied than ever 
 in the belief that Epifcopacy is not only an- 
 cient, and catholic, but truly apoftolical.' But 
 this faith of his, and the publication of it, arc 
 to no purpofe. He made his appeal to the 
 * impartial Public ;' and to this tribunal the 
 difpute, on both fides, is fubmitted. They 
 therefore arc our Judges, and it muft be kit 
 with them to decide in this matter. 
 
 * Appendix to his life, p. 6> 
 
 Reply 
 
Reply to Dr. Chandler's 
 Second Sedlion. 
 
 THE Dodlor has fcen fit, for reafons bed 
 known to himfelf, to pals over almoft eve- 
 ry thing, (his fedion relates to, that was mate- 
 rial ', choofing to detain his readers, from the 
 main point, by calling their attention to that 
 which is of comparatively fmall importance. 
 
 He thought it proper, in his appeal, to makq 
 a diftindion ' between the feveral things that 
 had been added to the epifcopal office, and thofe 
 which originally and eiTenrially belong to it.* 
 It was faid in reply, ' The queftion is not, whe- 
 ther thefc and fuch like appendages to the epif- 
 copal office will be deftrudive of the powers 
 which effentially belong to it ; but whether they 
 do not unfit the perfons veiled with it for the 
 proper difcharge of the duties of it ? infomuch 
 that it would be unreafonable to add fuch ap- 
 pendages, and as much fo to expe£l, if they arc 
 added, that chriftian profeiTors fhould not com- 
 plain of it as an intolerable grievance,' The 
 Doftor affeds, to be at a lofs to know, who I 
 meant by ' chriftian profefTors,* by his crying 
 ©uc ' Frofeflbrs of what 1* I will tell him, pro- 
 
 lefTors 
 
^z^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 feflbrs of faith in CHRIST, as the one only si/- 
 PRE ME HEAD of.the church, in opposition to all 
 other claims, whether they arc made by the 
 Pope, or any chriftian Princes or states 
 whatever. He then lays, ' Whether the addi- 
 tion of fuch appendages be reafonable, or un- 
 rcafonable, is nothing to me ; and, which is much 
 niore, it is nothing to the cafe of fuch an Epif- 
 copat« as is propoled for America.' Why then, 
 in the name of v/ondcr, did he fay any thing 
 about thefe appendages ? If it was nothing lo 
 him,, that is, the caufe he was defending, and 
 nothing to the cafe of an American Epifcopate, 
 it was mod certainly to no purpofe for him to 
 fay a word about them. 
 
 In profecuting the diftinflion he had made, 
 he obferved, ' He who has a fmall diocefs has 
 the fame epifcopal powers, as he that has a largs 
 one ; and it matters not as to the validity of the 
 ^6t, whether it be performed by the one or the 
 other.' To which it was anfwered, as he has 
 fummed up the anfwer, * It certainly does as to 
 his capacity ro ferve the ends of his office •, and 
 there is, in proportion, the fame incongruity in 
 placing Bidiops ac the head of lar^e diocelTeSj 
 as in having an univerfal one.' What now fays 
 the Do6lor to this .? His reply is, ' This confi- 
 dcred as an anfwer to me, and in no other light 
 arc we authorifed to confider it, amounts to no 
 m©rethan this -, that although what I faid is al- 
 lowed to be true, yet fomething that 1 did not 
 fay is entirely falfe. The thing which I did not 
 fay is, that a Bifhiop is as able to ferve the great 
 ends of his ofHcc in a large diocefs as in a fmall 
 one.' It is true, he did not lay this; but it is as 
 true, that it was with propriety, and irrefiftablc 
 
 forcf 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED. 
 
 71 
 
 force that I faid ir. He knows, ,or is grofs!/ 
 ignorant, that wc never difowried the validity of 
 cpifcopai ads, where Bifhops had large dioceires. 
 He knows alfo, unlefs he i^ an utter (tranger to 
 the non-epifcopaiian fentiments,that we judge ic 
 higbly im^ roper, and an intolerabl. grievance, 
 that Bi(h(5ps fhould be at the head of large dio- 
 celTes \ becaufw ic dellroys their capacity to 
 Icrve the ends, defigned by CHRIbiT in the in- 
 flitution of their ofnce. His only bufinefs 
 therefore was to fhow, that this appendage did 
 not affctf): the Biihop*s capacity to aniwer the 
 ends of h'.s appointment. As the ' validity' of 
 epifcopal ads was never called in qucflion, on 
 account of the largtnefs, or fmallnefs, of their 
 diocefies, his mentioriing this appendage was 
 quite imperiincnt, unlefs wieh a view to prove, 
 in oppofidon to us,thac ic v/ould confift with the 
 Bifhops duty *, which, it flaould feem, he does 
 think was any part of what he was called to. 
 However, he goes on, ' If I had faid this [that a 
 Bidiop is as able to ferve the ends of his office 
 in a large diocels, as a fmall one,] unlefs the 
 large diocefs is fuppofed to be larger than in any 
 protellant country — it woald not have been fa 
 very exceptionable.** — Much might be faid here, 
 but I (hall make no other anfwer than 'this, that 
 when the Doftor underdands the full meaning 
 ofthofe words of our Saviour, ' My kingdom. 
 is not of this world,' and has his mind imprefTed 
 with ajufi fenfc; of the duty incumben: on a Bi- 
 fhop in the'churchof CHRIST, I have no doubc 
 but he Will alter his fentimenis upon this head. 
 
 He now pafTcs on ro the trice worn-out in- 
 (lances of Aerius and Coliutbus, but without fay-* 
 ing any thing worthy of detaining us very long. 
 
 As to Acrius ^ I had faid, ' Tha: Eujpbanius 
 
t4 REPLY TO THE 
 
 was the firft that found fauk with him, for his 
 c^:)inIon of the parity of Bifliops and Prefbyrers.' 
 Upon this the Dodor, that he might make fome 
 Ihew of karning, egregiQiifsly trifies. The on- 
 ly thing that needs a remark is, his obfe^rving, 
 * If an intimation is intended, xhdit Ephiphanius 
 was the only perfon that, at firft, confidered the 
 doctrine of Aerins as exceptionable, cr that the 
 parity of Bifhops and Prefbyters was generally 
 admitted m the fourih century, the fuggeftion is 
 groundlefs. The united voice of ant'cuity, and 
 even the GGncefTions of our moll confiderable ad- 
 verfaries, prove tlie contrary with invincible 
 evidence.' This is riot the firft or fecond 
 time, that the Dodcr has difcovered his little 
 ■ acquaintance with antiquity -, though he fpraks 
 with pofiiive aiTu ranee, as though he was the mott 
 learned antiquary. Epifcopnl writers of iht 
 firft figure, luch as Re:g?:oldSy Jewel, Bridges, 
 Biiliop of O.xford, Whitaker, Regius Profeflor 
 of diviniiy in the Univerfity of Camh'idge, Stil- 
 hngfieet^ and others, would have informed him, 
 had he not read the original authors, that Je* 
 rom^ Auft'ui^ /!?}-hrcfe^ 6eciu!ius^ Fnwafius^ Clry- 
 fiftoiii^ Thccphy'.a^^ vere, as to the identity of 
 order upon the footing of divine right, of the 
 fame opinion with rjerius, diough they lived 
 much about the fame time ; and, 1 may add, 
 lo were CltmcJit of Rome, Polycarp^ Jtiftt^-^ and 
 Jren^us, who lived before him. It \6 not there- 
 fore in the leaR probable, that /lerius was con- 
 demned CHIEFLY, as the Do(5^or fays, for his 
 opinion concerning the parity of Bifliops and 
 Prefbyters. Plad this been the cafe, moft of 
 his contemporaries mull have been condemned 
 likewife, as they were chargeable with the fame 
 monflrous hercfy. It is far more reafunable to 
 
 think,. 
 
« A P P E A L D E F E N DE D/ yy 
 
 think, that he a£lcd in oppofuion to the then 
 general practice, exciting, in confequcnce of his 
 opinion, divifions and diicord ; and that this, 
 among other things, was the true reafon of his 
 condemnation. . And this indeed appears to be 
 the purport of the account, the Doctor himlelf 
 has given us from Aiofheim^ the only evidence 
 he has brought to prove, that Aerius was con- 
 demned, not ' meerly or only,' as I had faid, 
 fcut CHIEFLY for hi3 opinion concerning the 
 identity of BiO-iops and Prefbyters. 
 
 As to Collyihus ; he hasaddcdan' ex trad from 
 the fynodical epillle of the Bilhops of Egypt, 
 ^heha'is^ Lyhia, and Pontcipolis, and from a joint 
 Itiit^: of the Clergy of the Province of Mareo- 
 Sis^ both preferved in the Vv'orks of Athanafius^ 
 But ii he had I'een fir, as he was def.red, to con- 
 fult Biondei^s Apologia, or what is faid from it 
 in the Irenicum, he would have found a full 
 anfwer to thtfc extrads. 1 (liall here lay before 
 his view what is faid in the Irenicum as a fum- 
 mary of Blondelh reurefentation. It is in thefe 
 v/ords,*' Firft, the pronouncing fuch an ordina* 
 tion null doth not eVidence,ihat they looked on or- 
 dination as belonging, of divine right;, only to Bi- 
 lliops J for we find, by many inftances, that act- 
 ing m a bare contempt of ecclefialtical canons 
 .Wds fufficient to degrade any from being Pref- 
 byters. Secondly, if Ifchyras had been ordain- 
 ed by a Bifhop, there were circumilances enough 
 •to induce the council to pronounce it null, 
 Firll, as done out of the diocei's, in which cafe 
 ordinations arc nulled by council. Arei. c. 13, 
 Secondly, Done by open and pronounced Ichif- 
 matics. Thirdly, ^ox\q fne titulo^ and lo nulled 
 by t:;e dicn canons. Thirdly, CcU)tkus did 
 
 * Ircn. p. 381, 382, 
 
~j6 REPLY TO THE 
 
 nor aci: as aPrefoyter in ordaining, but as a Bi- 
 fhop of the Meletian party in Cynus, as the Cler- 
 gy of Mareotis Ipeakmg ot JJchyra.., his ordina- 
 tion by Cohythus a Pici'byfer, making (hew of 
 being a Bilhop ; and is fuppo.ed to have been 
 ordaincrd a Bilhop by Meiettus.^ 
 
 I NOV/ come,nniy readers, to hold out to your 
 view, not a ' curiosity,' but a m.irveiious 
 phe^nonicrnQn in the * regions of conirovcrfy/ 
 -The Dod:or had faid, in his appeal, 'No in- 
 {lanc€ of an ordination by meer Preibyters can 
 be found in the church for feveral ages.' It 
 was oifered m reply, ' We (lioald take it kindly 
 to have pointed cut to us fo much as one in- 
 fiance, within the long period of an hundred 
 and fifty years from CHRIST, of an ordination 
 by anyBiinop,in any part of the chriClian world •, 
 meaning by a BiQiop, an offictr in the church 
 fuperior to a Prefoyter. 1 have lately been 
 looking over the extracts I made twenty years 
 agro from the fathers of the two first 
 CENTURIES, and do not find a single exam- 
 .PLE of an ordination by Bifbops, in the appro- 
 priated fcnfe, within the time before fpccificd. 
 if the Dodor would prcleni us with one [that is 
 >from th:i FATHERS Within this time jit 
 y/ould be to me a great favour.' What now is 
 the Doftor's anlwer ? It follows in thele words, 
 * Behold, reader, a cu'riofity. 1 his very fame 
 challenge he made in his Dudltuin ledure, (p. 
 ?o ) to which a formal and diredl anfwer has 
 been given by Mr. Learning. H'S words areas 
 follow : I will comply with his (Dr. Chaur>cf%) 
 demand ; and I hope he will allow the autho- 
 rity of my author. I might produce many, but 
 for brevity's fake (hall mention but one in- 
 ftance ; and that is the ordination of T^iius by 
 
 St. 
 
« APPEAL DEFENDED.* 77 
 
 St. Paul. That Titus had an epifcopal ordina- 
 tion appears from the charge St. Paul gave him> 
 Tit. \[ 5. * For this caufc left I thee in Crete, 
 that thou fhouldeft fet in order the things that 
 are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as 
 1 HAD APPOINTED THEE.' St. Paul charged 
 him to ' rebuke with all authoriry / and again, 
 * a man that is an heretic, after the firftand fe- 
 cond admonition, rejed.' Here St. Paul com- 
 mitts to Titus the whole power of ordaining el- 
 ders in Crete, and of governing them, and all 
 the chriftians in that Ifland. This authority is 
 clearly cxprefTcrd, and the bounds, in which he 
 was toexer.ifc it, diilindly m«rked our. Thus 
 it appears, that this was an epijcopal ordination 
 in our fenfe of the matter. Our Biihops claim 
 nothing but the very fame po\^er that St. Paul' 
 gave to Titus over the Ifland of Crete.' Hav- 
 ing cited this palTage fr(3m Mr. Learnings he goes 
 on, ' Is not this a fair and full anfwer to the 
 Dodlor's demand ? Ought he then to be unfa- 
 tisfied, when all that he afks has been given 
 him?* UnlefstheDo6lor[ C-^^w^/tr] will allow me 
 to fuppofe, that he pofTcfTes underftanding but in 
 a very low degree, which I would not chufe to 
 do, I mud hold myfelf obliged to think, ihac 
 he KNEW that this was neither ^fair or full zw- 
 fwer •, and that 1 had no reafon to be fatisfied 
 with it, as NOTHING that I afked, inltead of 
 EVERY THING, had been given me. Was it 
 pofTible one of common difcernment fhould noc 
 perceive the grofs impertinence of Mr. Learn- 
 ing m bringing to view a pretended scripture 
 inHance ot epifcopal ordination, when the in- 
 ftance I defired, in as pkin language as I could 
 fpeak, was one from the Fathers of- the chrif- 
 tian church. Would the Do6lor have thought 
 
 I 
 
ya REPLY TO THE 
 
 I had given zfair Tini full anfwer to thatafiirma« 
 tion of his, ' There is not an inftance of ordina- 
 tion by Prefbyrers to be found in the church 
 for fcveral ages,' if I had only faid, * I might 
 produce many, bur for brevity's fake Ihall men. 
 tion but one inftance/ and that is the ordinaiioo 
 - of 'ri7notby by the laying on of the hands of the 
 Prefbytery •, producing only thofe arguments 
 that had been ufed an hundred times over to 
 prove, that this was an ordination by Prefby* 
 cers ? I am eiTentially miftaken in the Doclor, 
 and that convened body which firft put him up' 
 on -writing, if they would not. have laughed at 
 the menrion of fuch an inflance, in oppofiiiorj 
 to the above afiirmation, and treated it with 
 contempt as being altogether trifling. He pro- 
 ceeds, ' Is ir not very extraordinary, that he 
 (Dr. Cbauncy) fhould fo roundly^repeat the de- 
 mand without the leaft notice of Mr. Leamino^s 
 anfwer ?' The Doctor will not venture to fay, 
 he had not read the following words of mine 
 concerning Mr. Learnings in the letter prefixed 
 to Mr. Welles\ anfwer to him, ' Was I inclined 
 to engage in the epifcopal controverfy, 1 fhpuld 
 chufe for my opponent, one that is better 
 able to manage a difpute, than he appears lo me 
 to be.' This is fufBcient to'account for mv re- 
 petition of the demand, when lo fair an occafion 
 was offered for it. The Doilor will doubtlefs 
 think it fufncienc. And as to my doing this 
 * without taking the leaft notice c;f Mr. Leam- 
 ing's anfwer,' the plain truth is, I did not cReem 
 ic worthy of the leaft notice, or that any one clfe 
 would, that had any confidcrable degree of in- 
 telledual diicernmenr. Bcfides, the Docftor 
 knows Mr. IFelles had wrote an anfwer to Mr. 
 Learning, in v/hich he nullified this produced in- 
 i fiance 
 
^APPEAL defended; 79 
 
 ftance, and all that was faid upon it ; particu- 
 larly fignifying to him, and to the Public ihar, 
 the example of epifcopal ordination wanted, and 
 defired, was to be feleded, not from ihtjcrip. 
 ture^ but from one or another of the Fathers 
 of the two firfl: centuries : Notwithftanding 
 which, the Dodor has carefully avoided a com- 
 pliance with my demand \ though repeatedly 
 made, and fo particularly explained as not to be 
 capable of being mifunderftood. How then 
 could he, -v^ithout biufhing, go on, and fay, ' I 
 have fometimcs met with peiTons who would al- 
 ledge the arguments of others that had been an- 
 fwered,and the obje£lions oi others that had been 
 confuted [He is himfelf an eminent inftance of 
 this] without taking notice of the faid anfwers 
 and confutations ; but Dr. Cbauncy \s the firft 
 man I have found in any of the regions cf con- 
 troverfy, that could, without any fymptoms cf 
 perturbation, deal thus with his own arguments 
 and objections, after they had been formally an- 
 fwered and confuted.* — One cannot help think- 
 ing that the Dodlor found himfelf greatly puz- 
 ied, not knowing what to fay. To give the 
 defircd inilance was not in his power — To de- 
 clare that it was not, v/ould have had an ill af- 
 ped: on the caufe he was defending — To fay no» 
 thing might have kfiened his reputation as the 
 fcleded epifcopal-champion. The bed method 
 therefore was to fay fomething, though it fhould 
 not be to the purpofe \ but to do it in the ufe of 
 language that might lead ignorant readers to 
 imagine, that he had effcclually done the bufmefs. 
 If the Do6lor can give a better account of his 
 •^ondud, let him do ic. 
 
 He now knows, if he is capable of being 
 made to know, that what I defire is, an inflance 
 
 of 
 
to REPLY TO THE 
 
 of EPISCOPAL ORDINATION, in the appropna* 
 ted Icnle, from feme or other of the Fathers 
 within an hundred and fifty years fromCHRIST. 
 The demand, he owns ' is fair ;' and it is modeft 
 likewife, as one instance only is required, 
 which he may fetch from any part of the then 
 chriftian world. He is eiiher able to give an 
 inftance, or he is not. If he is able, lei him do 
 it •, and 1 will frankly acknowledge, in the face 
 of the world, that 1 have been millaken : If he 
 is not able,let him as frankly and openly acknow- 
 ledge it, and not divert his readers with telling 
 them oi curiof4ies and extraordinarks in the re- 
 gions of contro\?erfy, which have no exigence 
 but as creatures of imagination. 1 fhall only 
 add, as I am in fome follicitude for him, left he 
 fhould not be able, meerly of himfelf, to pro- 
 duce the defircd iniiance, I would advife him to 
 call in the aid of the learned convention, of which 
 he is a member ; or if they fhould not be fuf-^ 
 ficient, let him feek further help from any of the 
 .rpifcopal Clergy on the American Continent, 
 It is really worth his while to be at fome pains 
 jn this matter ; for unlefs he produces the de- 
 manded inftance of one episcopal ordination, 
 he cannot, with any tolerable face, in time to 
 come, afk for an example of ordination by Pres- 
 byters : Nor may he think he is at all wrong- 
 ed, if we give no credit to his v/ord, fhould he 
 hereafter fay, as he has done, (p. 63) That ' wc 
 know, by the bed hiflcrical evidence, that it has 
 been the universal pra6tice of the church, 
 from the time of the Apostles to the 
 present hour, to acknowledge none for 
 Bishops, wh^were not ©rdatned by other 
 Bishops.' And for his encouragement I now 
 publicly allure him, that I will receive as g9* 
 
 nuim 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.' Sr 
 
 nuine any inftance he may be able to bring from 
 the certainly /purious, or vaterpnJated^ epiftles of 
 Ignatius, the great oracle of Epifcopalians. 
 
 The Do6lor now comes to confider the ej^- 
 ample of the W^aldenfes^ which 1 had mentioned 
 in proof of ordination by Prelbyters. And he 
 lays here, in dire6t oppofition to as known a truth 
 as is contained in hiftory, ' That the JValdenfes 
 were Epifcopalians •, yea, * fuch high- flyers that 
 they claimed an uninterrupted fuccefTion in a 
 line of Biiliops as fuperior to Prefbyters.' If he 
 had affirmed this of the church of Scotlanc), ic 
 would not have been more diftant from the truth. 
 No[hing is more evident, than that, among the 
 Wa'denfes, long before they had that name, and 
 from the twelfth century when they were thus 
 denominated, ordination was performed by co- 
 ordinate Failofs, or Prefbycers, affembled in iy* 
 nods ; as may be feclh in the account of the 
 JValdenfes and AlhigenfeSy publifhed by Paul 
 J-'enin of Lyons, under the head of difcipline^ 
 Nay, that famous Epifcopalian, Dr. Reignotds^ 
 who more than equalled in learning either Mof-- 
 heim^ov Dr. Aliic^ perempu^rily affirms, in his leJ^ 
 ter to Sir Francis Kncllsy that the Waldeyifes w^erc 
 of the fame opinion with Atrius as to the identi- 
 ty of the order of Bifhops and Prefbyters, The 
 unknown writer of the anfwer to Mr. Owen^ to 
 v/hom the Dodfor is obliged for his account of 
 the Waldenfes, indeed fays, ' They did -affirm, 
 that they had la^Ovful Bifhops, and a lawful un- 
 interrupted fucccfficn from the Apoftles to this 
 day.' — But we all know the equivocal ufe of the 
 name Bifhops ; and that it may as well meaa 
 ofHcers in the church of the fame order with 
 Prefbyters, as of a fuperior order. In the latter 
 (cnfe, the tValdcnJes never pretended to have 
 
ti REPLY TO THE, 
 
 Bijheps^ or ^ fucceffion of them from the Apoftles,' 
 as is evident from the general ftrain of ccclcfi- 
 aftical hiftory ;• in the former, they might pof- 
 fibly affirm this. It is mod probable this author, 
 or the writer he quotes from, confounded the 
 Waldenfes with the Bohemians \ though k is not: 
 true, even in this view, that the Bifhops^ and (uc- 
 cejfion fpoken of, would be pleafing to the Doc- 
 tor. For the epifcopacy of the Bohemian church 
 was not fuch an one as he is a ftickler for. Says 
 the learned Comenius^ in* his rano difciplinae fra* 
 trum Bohemorum, (p. 19, 20.) ' It is true, the 
 Bohemians have certain Bifhops, or fuperinten- 
 dants, who arc conlpicuous for ago andgifts, and 
 chofen by fuffragcs of ail the minifters for the 
 keeping •of order, and to fee that all the reft 
 do their office, ^our, or fi\/e, oi^fix fuch have 
 they, as need requires; and each of thefe has 
 his diocefs. But then the dignity of thefe, be- 
 yond the other minifters, is not founded in the 
 prerogative of honours and revenues,' but in 
 that of labors and cares 4Deyond others. Accor- 
 ding to the canons of the ApolUes, a Prefbyttr 
 and Bifhop are one and the fame thing ; only 
 a Bifhop among them fignifies an infpedor, or 
 fuperintendant : And theiefore theBifhops of the 
 unity are in equal honour among thcmiclves, ex- 
 cept that one of them prefides for the fake of 
 order.* — Buoil mult not enlarge here. 1 may 
 have faid too much already. 
 
 The Dodtor concludes this fedion with a few 
 feeble attempts to defend fome part of what he 
 had faid upon the fubjcft of confirmation. Three 
 texts he brought to view, in his appeal, in fup- 
 port cf this rite of the church of England. I 
 was particular in taking notice of each of them. 
 ,To ihc firft and third of ihefc texts he has not 
 
 feen 
 
•APPEAL defended; Z3 
 
 fecnfit, no doubt for a very good reafon, to fay a 
 word. In anlwer to the fecond, he complains 
 of being ' accufcd of unfairly quoting a text of 
 fcripturc ; a crime (fays he) which I hold in ab- 
 horrence-— I am forry Dr. Chauncy could think 
 me capable of committing fuch a flagrant aft 
 of impiecy.' I have carefully looked over what 
 he has ofic^red to exculpate himfelf from the 
 crime, he fays, I had charged him with ; and 
 fliall be glad;if the impartialPubilc find reafon to 
 be fatisfied, ' that he did not fupprefs the latter 
 part of a text, becaufe if he had given the whole, 
 it- would have been at once vifible to the reader, 
 that it would have been nothing to his pur-? 
 pofe. I will not fay a word to weaken the effort 
 he has made to clear up his charadler in this 
 point ; but willingly fuffer it to be fecn in its 
 full force. 
 
 If the reader fhall think it worth while to 
 turn to the anfwer I was particular;. in making 
 to the two objedions againft -covfirmation, the 
 Do£lor endeavo.ired, in his appeal, to remove 
 out of the way, he may, perhaps, be let into the 
 true reafon why he paflTed over what was there 
 Oifered in total filence. 
 
 I CONCLUDED what I had to fay, on the rite 
 of csnfirmaiior^mth an extrad from the diflenting 
 Gentleman again (I Mr. PVhite, The Do6lor 
 has thought itfufficienc to give i]%, in anfwer, 
 the reply of Mr. JVbite. And I (hall think it fuf- 
 iicien.t, in return, only to beg the reader to com- 
 pare this reply of Mr. White^ with my exxraffe 
 from the diffcnting Gentleman ; and if he can 
 bring himlelf to think it worthy of the name oif 
 a reply, let him repair to what this famfe dififent- 
 ing Gentleman has faid in anfwer [o it, in his 
 fiith fcction ; more efpeciaily that part of it 
 
 ^ •' which 
 
84^ REPLY TO T HE, &c. 
 
 •which Is contained in p. 172, 173. He will then 
 need nothing iurther to convince him, anlefs he 
 is in a difpoficion not to believe that the fun 
 fliines, though he beholds it in its meridian luftre. 
 It only remains here to affure the Doilor, 
 in acknowledgment for his advice, that I have not 
 the opinion of Mr. ^i?//^ that he has; efteem* 
 ing him no more than a child in companfon with 
 yix. 'lowgood '- And this, I believe, is the real 
 fentimentof all, in the impartral world, who have 
 had opportunity to read their performances. As 
 toDr. 6r^jy, he wasu .doubtedly an inferior man, 
 in ail relpeds, to Mr. Pierce ; and particular- 
 ly appears to be fo in his controverfy with him. 
 
 Repl>: 
 
Reply to Dn Chandler's 
 Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth 
 and Seventh Sections. 
 
 THESE Se6lions, in the appeal, were prin- 
 cipally contrived to give opportunity for 
 a acclamatdry application to the paflions ^ and 
 they were abundantly employed to this purpofe. 
 Nothing that could be thought of, or hyperbo- 
 lically exprcffed, was wanting in order to im- 
 prefs the reader*s mind wich a deep fenfe of thac 
 wretched, deplorable, opprelTed, perfecuted, pe- 
 rilhing condition, the poor church of England 
 in America was unhappily reduced to, through 
 the want of Bifhops in this part of the world. 
 Thefe topics of harangue, enlarged on in the ap- 
 peal, were pariicularly replyed to in the anfwer 
 to it. The Dodlor has faid little ihai is new or 
 material in ' the defence' he has made. It would 
 therefore be a needlefs tryal of the reader's pa- 
 tience to detain him here i Plowever, he will, I 
 truft, bear with me while I take fome brief no- 
 tice of a few things, wherein he has grofsly fail- 
 ed in hU reafoning, or that fairnefs with which 
 he fhould have rcprefented fa^s. 
 
 I HAD feen fit to make two previous remarks; 
 
 J'he firll occafioned by his faying, ' none buc 
 
 1^ Bifhops 
 
86 REPLY TO THE 
 
 Bifiiops have a right to govern the church, was 
 to t'lis purpofe, ' That it was diffic ilr, or rather , 
 impoffible,to conceive how it fliould be believed, 
 that none but Bifliops have a right to govern 
 the church, while it is believed, at the farne time, 
 that the King h the fupremc Governor ot it, 
 according to the article ^the Dodor] referred 
 to, which declares that he hath the chief pow- 
 er, the CHIEF government in all ecclefiafti- 
 cal caufes.' — The only reply is, *'This matter 
 has already, been placed in lb full and clear a 
 light, that to enlarge upon jt would be paying 
 bu't an ill complimetit, to the reader's iinder- 
 ftanding.' i may rather with exaft truth, fay p 
 it v/ould ,be an affront to Ifis undvrftanding to 
 fuppof;^, that hd eould imaging* what had been 
 faid, in p. 50 and a few pages onwards, relative 
 to the Kkig's (uprcmacy, fhould have the lead 
 tendency to remove-away this difficulty, which 
 can be no otherwife done, than by making both 
 parts of a mod apparent contradidlion true. It 
 may be worthy of the reader's notice here, 1 had 
 laid, from the feveral afts of Parliament, relative 
 to the King's fa premacy, that he is veiled with 
 ALL POWER to exercife all manner of cccle- 
 fiaftical iurirdi(5tion, 'and that Arch Bifnops, Bi- 
 ihops, and all other ecclefiaftical perfons, have 
 NO MANNER of jurirdi6lion eccleflaifical but by 
 AND under the King's Majesty, who hath 
 full power and authority to hear and determine 
 all manner of causes ecclesiastical. To 
 this the Dodor has not thought fir to fay a 
 word. I hid alfo been particular in obferving, 
 * That whatever autHonty the Clergy of the 
 church of England, whether fuperior or inferior, 
 are ve (led with,it is, in all its branches, reftrained^ 
 by the state, within certain bounds, beyond 
 
 '^ which 
 
•APPEAL DEFEN£)ED.* ij 
 
 which they have no authority : Infomuch, that 
 all the Clergy of the Kingdom, with the Bifhops 
 at their head, have no conlt.tutional ri^ht to 
 make the lead deviation.'. To all this, and 
 much more of the like import, the Dodtor has 
 made no other anfwer, than by referring us to 
 what he had faid in fonie prcceeding pages con- 
 cerning the King's fupremacy, which is faying 
 nothing, becaufe nothing is there attempted to 
 be faid in reply to thefe difficulties. It will, I 
 am apt to think, be at once obvious to the rea- 
 der, why he did not chufe to point out to us, how 
 NONE BUT Bishops have a right to govern the 
 church, when they. are fo far from being her 
 ONLY Governors, that they are nothing more 
 Chan SUBORDINATE rulers, and can do nothing 
 in the church but accordins: to the authori- 
 tative prescriptions of the King and hu 
 Jr'arliamcnt, , ' - 
 
 The other remark, as the Do6lor has repre- 
 fentcd it, ' relates to the difference betwiiiC the 
 complaint as made at the head of this feftion, and 
 its appearance in the explanation that follows.* 
 The reader here meets with^ notable -initancc 
 of his critical ju {lice, and candid fairnef^, in fo 
 quoting my words as to find occafion.to remark 
 upon them. For I had, in exprefs terms, made 
 the difference between the complaint, and its 
 after -vindication, to confift, not meeriy, or only, 
 in what was faid ' at the head of this fedion •/ 
 but IN that paragraph, some vv^ords of 
 WHICH [namely thefe, none but Bijhops have a 
 right to govern the church} v/e have been 
 considering. This elTential part of the re- 
 marked difference the Dodor has been pleafed 
 intirely to leave out in quoting my words ; and 
 linlelis he had been thus unfair, there would 
 
 have 
 
88 REPLY TO THE 
 
 have been no propriety or pertinency in t^e re- 
 ply he has made to thfem : It is wholly ground- 
 ed on his unaccountably leaving that out, which 
 he ought to have put in. He owns indeed, that 
 he had faid, (ap p. 27) ' The Ati)>rican chur- 
 ches, while without Biihops, muft be without 
 government -,' upon which he fays, ' If he [Dr. 
 Chauncyl had this general expreffion in his view' 
 he did wrong in faying it was at ihe head of the 
 lection.' He is here chargeable with inexcufable 
 inattention, not to fay any thii.g worfe. How 
 oih'jrwife CO jld he have made the fuppofiiion, 
 * if he had this general expreffion in view, ? 
 '^'hcn/.n pointing out the difference between the 
 complaint, and its vincication,it was ,in the mofl: 
 plain language, direc'tly held out to view ? His 
 inlinuating, that ' I did wrong in faying it was 
 at the head of the fedion^' could be intended 
 only to make way fbr rhe fiogularly beautiful 
 piece cf wit that follows, ' Few of his readers, 
 1 be!i.::vc", won'd evtJ^ think cf looking for the 
 head of a thing in the i-riddle of i:.' One would 
 naturally luppcfe, from fo (Iriking a flight- of 
 fancy, that " this general expreiTion' was to be 
 found in the middle of xht fedion ; whereas, it 
 is the very fiji thing, atter what is briefly faid 
 by way of introduction, that we meet with. It 
 13 not eaiy' to conceive, how the Dcdlor cam^ 
 to ca:l the head cf a thing its 'middle •, and upon 
 a ntifrepref^cntation too, which any common 
 reader ♦night redify upon ocuiar inlpedion. 
 
 I'Ie goes on to fay, with reference to this ge- 
 neral propofition, without Bifhops the church 
 of England in America mufl be without go- 
 vernment, ' I CO A notice,that it is to be undcr- 
 flood in a qualified fenfe : But furely there caa 
 he no inconiiltcncy in this. It is very commoR, 
 
 and 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ t^ 
 
 and agreeable to ftrift method, firft to lay down 
 a general propofition, and then to mark out tho 
 exceptions and limitations with which it is to b© 
 underftood.' It is neither common, nor con- 
 fident with ftri6t method or good fcnfe, to limit 
 a propofition that is not capable of limitation. 
 The Dodor's propofition is ot ihis kind. Can 
 there be government with cxceprions and limi* 
 tations, when all right to exercile government 
 is denied, and for want of this right there is 
 'Wrctchednefs and milcry ? The ccmpJaini there- 
 fore (hould not have been in ablolute terms,when 
 a limited mirigated meaning only was intended. 
 This is whai I aimed to fhow in my remark^ 
 and principally with a view to give particular 
 diftinft notice to the reader, that it was in a 
 * qualified limited fenfe only,' that I was called 
 to confider this complaint It was accordingly 
 in this qualified fcnfe that I did confider it up- 
 on the head of ordination as well SLt government^ 
 and in perfe<^t conformity to the fcnfe in whick 
 the Doctor himfclf endeavoured to vindicate his 
 own complaint. If the reader will only carry 
 thit in his mind, when he reads what he 
 has faid (p loi, iOz) he will at once perceive, 
 that the whole of it is a meet vain (hew, altoge- 
 ther unworthy of any one who pretends to 
 reafon fairly. We fliall examine what is hero 
 oiferr.iI. 
 
 Says he, * As to ordination, the general pro- 
 pofition is true without any exception.^ For 
 without Bilhops, upon the principles of the 
 church of England, there cannot be ordinati- 
 on in a fingle inftance.* And what then ? 
 Who eYcr faid there could be an inftance of cpif- 
 f opal ordination Without a Bilhop I He is here 
 M beating 
 
^f REPLY TO THE 
 
 bearing the air, having no one living to confnd 
 tvith. He goes on, * The Dodtor [Chauncyl 
 diftinguilhes ; no ordination^ and ordination with 
 inconvenience and charge^ are quite different things^ 
 Who in his fenfes ever thought, or iaiJ other- 
 vife ? Inftead of ' laboring under a great con- 
 fufion of ideas,' my antagorifl n.ufi: have no ideas 
 but what are different from the ideas of all other 
 perfons, if he can difpute this. But, fays he, 
 * The pofition which he controverts is this, that 
 there can be no ordination in America, without 
 Biflieps in America.' It he here means, that I 
 difpute whether epifcopal ordination can be 
 obtained by Americans, unlcfs there are Bi- 
 fhops in America ; it is neither true, nor con- 
 fident with his own vindication of his own com- 
 plaint ; or with my anfwcr to it. If the mran- 
 ing is, that I controvert this pofition, that no 
 ordination can be performed by Bifhops in /ime- 
 rica, unlcfs there are Bifhops here, he is chal- 
 lenged to point put the place in which I difpute 
 this, or was called upon by him to do fo : If 
 he cannot, he mull be looked upon as ridi« 
 culing himfelf, by endeavouring to bring me in 
 difputing as felf-cvident a truth, as that two and 
 two make four. He goes on, * In oppofition 
 to which [the pofition, there can be no ordina- 
 tion in America without Bifhops in America] he 
 argncs, that we may have ordinations in America 
 vjtth inconvenience and charge But how can we, 
 without Bifhops, have ordination in America I 
 Why, fays my very logical opponent, by having 
 them in England.* The Do<i;tor is here illogical- 
 ly infcnfiblc.thathc is fncering at himfelf. For it 
 was HE that Ipake of inconvenience, danger^ and 
 chargt^xn having c-dinat'ons m mertca by having 
 them luEnglani. For thcfc arc the confidcrations, 
 
 and 
 
-r> •■* 
 
 •APPEAL DEFENDED.' jf 
 
 and the only ones, in the virtue of which he 
 endeavours to lupport hiS complainc upon the 
 head of erdinaiion. If therefore there is any 
 thmg ridiculous in faying, * We may have or- 
 dinations in America by having them in En- 
 gland,' he only muft bear the ridicule -, for he. 
 is the only perfon that made this a matter of 
 complaint ; and he is HKire clamwous upon this 
 fuppofed grievance than aty other. 
 
 /\s he never once complained, that cpifc@pal 
 ordination could not be obtained ^ but ground- 
 ed his con plain SOLELY ujoi the inconveni^ 
 gnce, Jauj^er, and expcnce of being obliged lo go 
 to England for it, there being no Bifhop in 
 America, this only I was called to confider, and 
 this only I did confider. The illuftration iherc- 
 fore he has given us ^Tom^ printing prefsmHoUand 
 or Pruffiay can Itrvc no purpofs unkfi to {how, 
 chat he did notunderftand his own argument. 
 
 I shall not ihifik it improper vq add here,' 
 nocwithftanding the Do6lor, and a few others 
 have made a mighty noife about ' having ordi- 
 nations in America by having them m England,' 
 and at a vaft cxpence, and the hazard of life, 
 there being no other way in which holy orders' 
 can be epifcopally conferred on this fide the 
 Atlantic ; 1 fay, notwithftanding this mighty 
 outcry, there are at leaft two Bifhops now rea- 
 ding in the Britifh America, one in the north, 
 the other in the fouth part of it, from either of 
 which ic is reafonable to think, the epifcopal of* 
 fice might be conveyed, wi h incontelhole vali- 
 dity, to an epiicopal Prefbyter i which would, 
 at once, put an end to all further complaint of 
 expcnce and hazard in * going to England to 
 have ordination in \merica.' 
 
 The Dottor will not efteem it an obje(5lion of 
 any weight aga'nfl; derivinpt the eoifcopal office 
 
 from 
 
pt REPLY TO THE 
 
 from the Canadian Bifliop, bccaufe he is a ?•- 
 prsH one. For he has cxprefsly aflured us> 
 (p. 7t)) * That he knows of no rc^h;n why or- 
 3PEfts derived trotp the Papists fhould, on .hat 
 account, be invalid, any more than arguments 
 derived from ihem (hould be \o ' And he knows 
 alio, for he has declared it, ' 1 hat the church 
 «[ Rome, though an old harlot, even in the 
 opinion of the church of England, may ytt bring 
 forth children, harlot as fhe is, as well as an ho- 
 ricft and virtuous mairon, and fometime^ chil-^ 
 dren beticrthan their parent ' As a pc pish Bi- 
 fhop is, by an extraordinary ad of Brinlh fa- 
 vor, permitted to refide, and cx^rt his i fficial 
 powt-r, in Canada, now in fubjc6lion toEngland % 
 It cannot eafily be fuppcfed, that be would be 
 fo ungrateful as to refufc to comply with fo rea- 
 fonabie a requtft as this of yefting an Ame- 
 rican Prtfbyter with the epifcopaf order. Or 
 if he fliould ungeneroufly retufe to d^/th!S,there 
 is no good realon to think, but thai: the fou- 
 thcrn Bifhop would willingly perform lo chiif^ 
 tian a deed of kmdnels. It is true, he is a Bi- 
 fhop according to the Moravian mode ; f ut he 
 is notwirhftanding vefted with epilcopal pow- 
 ers, as handed to him in a dlrcdl line from the 
 Apoftlcs. It is true likewifc, he can convey no 
 human dignny, temporality, or worldly appen- 
 dage J but this can be no difficulty, as purely 
 SPIRITUAL powtro are the ONLYones that arc 
 van:ed, or fo mlich as dcfired ; f r thrle he 
 can communicate as well as -ny Bifliop in En- 
 gknd It rray rcafonably, and will be (irong- 
 ly 'u^pijiUed, f me thing more than that which 
 is PURiLY SPIRITUAL is hapkercd after, if the 
 poor chur< h A England in the Colonies, is luf- 
 fcrcd lO contmuc m a * lamentably diftreffed 
 
 perifliing 
 
«APPE AL DEFENDED/ gs 
 
 pcrifliing condition' for want of a Bifliop, when 
 fhe may have one, without any hazard of life, 
 and at a fmall expencc of pocket, by only re- 
 pairing to an 'MERiCAN Bjfh'p. Surely, the 
 cry of diftrcfs and m-fery, for want of a pure- 
 ly SPIRITUAL B'fliop will be difregarded, as it 
 ought to be, until it is made evident, that due 
 application has been made to one or other of 
 the continental Bifti )ps, and that they have re- 
 fufed to confecrate a BiOjop for -"he Colonies, 
 or to ordain Candidates for holy orders. If the 
 epifcopalClergy had been as zealous in their appli- 
 cations to ihe Bifhops in America, as they have 
 been elfe where, they might, without' all doubt, 
 have had one from among themfelves veiled 
 with the epifcopal powers of oidinacion and go- 
 vernment long befo e now. 
 
 The DodlDr, in his ' appeal, p, 34, had com- 
 plained of the expence of a voyage .0 England 
 for ordinatio.) ; to wh'cn the reply was made 
 that is contained m p. 82 of the ' appeal an- 
 fy/cred.* f his reply, hcwcver candid andjuft, 
 gave occasion to my being very fcurriioufly 
 treated in one of the New- York periodical pa- 
 pers : And Dr. Chandler himlelf, m his' ap- 
 peal defended,' has remarked upon it in a man- 
 ner much below the gentleman, not to fay the 
 chriftian divine. The reader will bear with 
 me, while I fet this matter in a clear and full 
 point of light. 
 
 It was faid, in the * appeal,' p. 54, ^5, in 
 order to reprefent the difadvantage of being 
 obliged to go to England for orders, * That 
 the expence of this voyage cannot be reckoned 
 at lefs, upon an average, than one hundred 
 pounds fterling to each pcrfon, lo men of 
 fortune this is an inconfidcrablc fum j but men 
 
 of 
 
j4^ RfePLYTOTHE 
 
 of fortune mud not beexpe6le J to dtTOte tlicm* 
 felvcfs ro r ae iervicc ot the church in America, 
 when t..e profp«-ct is fo dhCJura^ingT and fo 
 many dilagreeable circumftances are known to 
 at ten I ic. T;ie C;ipcuce rruft iiiC rfo-e gene- 
 rally fall upoa lucn, a^ having alrca y expend- 
 ed the ^fv atr t pare of th- ir putance »n their 
 education, \\\\ fi ;d it extrerncly hard co raife a 
 fu.ii lufficiem t )r the purpolc * Thefc are the 
 Doctor's words, and rt.e whole of ihem. In 
 reply hereto it WaS laid, ' appeal anlwcred, p, 
 82, * Anorh r x^^^i'on (that is, of the difadvan- 
 tage ?! tending ihr aiTair of ordination] is, the 
 e^peace of the voya^^e, which cannor be reck- 
 oned at Jef., upon an average, than oriC hundred 
 pounds (I fling to each perlbn.' And this is 
 aggravated by rthc confiderat on * that the ex- 
 perc:' muft generally fall upon fuch, as, hav- 
 ing a rrady expended the greateft part of their 
 pitance in hrir education, w.ll find ic extreme- 
 ly hard to raile a fufficient fura for the purpofe.* 
 1 candidly Tuppoie the Do6tor had never feen, 
 or, if he had, did nor remember, at the tim« of 
 writing the account of the Society, publifhcd in 
 1706, in which they fay, (p. 74)* All young 
 ftudents in thofe parts (meaning the Colonies^ 
 who defire epifcopal ordination, are invited into 
 England •, and their expences in coming and 
 returning are to be detrayed by the Society.* 
 According to this invitation there is no hardfhip, 
 as to the article of ' expenc c* that can be com- 
 plained of. unlefs abfurdiy, but by the Society 
 themfelves •, and they can have no juft rea- 
 fon for complaint, as the money they expend in 
 this way is as properly beftowt-d, as in the fup« 
 port of the mifTionaries themfelves.' This, ver- 
 Vatim, IS what I faid, and ail that 1 faid. Who 
 
 could 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED.' 55 
 
 could have imagined, that what is here offer- 
 ed, in fo candid a manner, without lo muc^« as 
 m harfh or provoking wo^d, fhoul i have b en 
 made an handle for the bafe and injuri' u- re- 
 fiedtions that have been caft upon me !— But let 
 us hear what the Do6lor has faivl, in his ' ap- 
 peal defended/ Having owned, (p. izw) 
 * That I very candidly fuppofed he nad never 
 feen, or, if he had, did not remember, at the time 
 of writing, the account of ihe Society, publiihed 
 in 1706 ; — he goes on to argue, ' The com- 
 plaint made in the ' appeal* is, that the voyage 
 is expenftve ; the anfwer by Dr. Cbauncy is ma- 
 nifeHly contrived to excite the idea, that it is not 
 cxpenfivc.* It is really unaccountable be fhould 
 be able to move his pen to write thus, wh^n he 
 could not but know, if in f'-emg he would fee, 
 that my anfwer, in the whole of it^ was ground- 
 ed upon the fuppofition that the voyage 
 was attended with expence ; nor is there a 
 word m it, from whence it can be inferred, 
 that I did not think this to be a certain 
 truth. He proceeds, * The complaint fays, 
 the expence, upon an average, is an hundred 
 pounis ftcrhn.q: to each perfon *, he anfwer leads 
 the reader to brhcvc, that it is not a farthing.* 
 He (hould rather have faid, it leads the reader 
 to believe, that it would not be a farthing, if 
 tiie Society defrayed the charge conformably 
 to the promife they publifhed for the encourage- 
 ment of Colony-ftudents 10 go to England for 
 orders. And, as they have never revokt d this 
 promife that we non-cpifcopaLans know of, 
 (for fuch revokation is no where contained, that 
 we can find, in the publifhed accounts of their 
 proceedings) we ought, in honor to them, to 
 fuppofc, that they, and not the ftudents they 
 
 have 
 
p6 REPLY TO THE, 
 
 have invited into England, are at the cxpence 
 of the voyage^ unl^fsit is othcrwile defrayed. 
 He lays yet further, ' But this is not the worft 
 of it •, the anfwer appears to me to be artfully 
 calculated t^ leaJ the reader alfo to believe 
 lometliing furrhtr-^namely, that concerning a 
 plain matfer of tad, with regard to which it is 
 inipoflible any Miffionary can be miftaken, I 
 publifhed to the world an abfolutc, wilful fal- 
 lliood \ a fairhood, which was known to be 
 fuch, not only by every Miflionary on the Con- 
 tinent, but by every member of the Society 
 both here and at home, and by every Bifliop 
 in the Kingdom. So that I fear the Doftor 
 really intended to lead his readers to believe me 
 to have been in this matter, both a notorious 
 liar, and abominably itupid. I have freely 
 mentioned what 1 ilroni.dy lufpedl, and what I 
 know to be fufpeftrd by many others. If he 
 can exculpate himfclf, I think it greatly con- 
 cerns him to do it : Or if any of his friends can 
 clear him, it is in their power to do him a molt 
 ciTential fervice. Nothing Icfs, in my opinion, 
 can excufe him to the world, and to his own 
 confcience, than prop r evidence that he him- 
 fclf believes, and has reafon for believing, that 
 I have adually been gudty of fuch bafe and 
 abfurd condudt, as his infinuations manifeftly 
 imply ' — It mull, I Ihould think, appear to the 
 reader, that the Dodor, inftead of being * very 
 candid,' has difcovered a total want of candor in 
 what he has here faid. He exprcfsly declares, 
 *That I had very candidly fuppofedjhe had not feen, 
 or did not remember, the Society's engagement 
 in i;o6 ; and yet, in diredt contradidtion to 
 this acknowlcdgL-d candor, he would lead the 
 reader to think, that it was my intention to 
 
 rcprefcnc 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED/ 57 
 
 reprefent him as an abominably flupid liar. It 
 %vas in truth my real clefign, explicitly as well 
 as candidly fignificd, to guard him againll en- 
 tertaining any fuch thought. What other 
 imaginable end could I have had in view ? I 
 fhould have aded the part, not of an ' art- 
 ful calculator,' but cf a U-eak filly perfon, 
 to have made the fuppofnion, the Dodtcr 
 himfclf calls a ' very candid one,' if it had 
 been my intention to make the reader believe 
 he was ' a notorious liar,' as having piiblifned a 
 knov/n v/ilful falfliood. What fhould lead him 
 * (Irongly to fufped' this was my dciign, I am 
 not able to conjedture, unlefs he fck within 
 himfelf a confcioufne^s of guilt in this raattcr ; 
 which might be the Cafe. For though I neither 
 faid, nor intended to fay ic before, Ifay it now in 
 plain words, that he did not declare the truth, how- 
 ever ' impoffibleic was that anyMiffionary iliould 
 miftake in fo plain a mattercf fad,' if he intend* 
 ed to make his readi^rs believe, agreeably to the 
 evident import of his words, ^ That the expcnce 
 of the voyage to England for orders, v/as, to 
 each perfon,' out of his own pocket, withouc 
 exception, 'one hundred pounds ileriing.' I am 
 fere he did not know this to be true, becaufe I 
 know it fo be falle : Nor does any Miffionary 
 on the Continent know it to be true, becaule 
 the confciences of fome of them will tell them 
 to their faces, that pious donations have wholly, 
 or in great parr, defrayed the expence of their 
 going home for holy orders. Itis^.lndeed com- 
 mon in thefe parts, however it may be where 
 the Dodlor refides, for candidates to be much 
 aiTilled in their voyage : I believe there are 
 thofe, who have croiTed the Atlantic for ordi- 
 nation, wichQUt being at ajiy epxence of their 
 " ~ ^ "" N own.' 
 
^i! REPLY TO T HE 
 
 own. It does not therefore belong to me, but 
 to the Dodlor, to ' exculpate hiniklf.' or to geC 
 feme friend to do it for him : Nor otherwife 
 can he ' excufe himfelf to the world, or his 
 own confcience,' for what he has here publifh- 
 cd that is not agreeable to truth. How far he 
 might do this ' wiifuliy,' or ' ftupidly' or ' no- 
 torioiilly,' or ' abominably,' is beft known to 
 himlelf •, though 1 am fo candid as to think, 
 that he did it rather through want of due con- 
 fideration, v/hich is a fault he is too apt to be 
 betrayed into. 
 
 Ke has been pleafed, in a note, at the bottom 
 of p. 125, to infcrt the following words, ' The 
 author of a fMiticus letter from a member of the 
 Society, which has been publiflied in one of the 
 New-York papers has endeavoured to vindicate 
 Do6lor Chauncy from the charges of falfnood 
 and iniincerity, which had been brought againft 
 him [in, another of thefe papers] on account of 
 his coDdu(5l in this affair. Bur, unlefs he fhould 
 have the good luck to meet with an abler and 
 fairer advocate, his reputation mud fuffer, 
 v/hcrever the cafe fliall be known.' I cannot 
 help faying here, 1 did not think Dr. Chandler 
 was fo little of a Gentleman as to infinuatc to 
 to the Public, from the fcurriious writer in 
 Gaines^ Gazette, that i v^as ' chargeable with 
 falfhood in this affair/ and to declare ' my 
 reputation mud fiifi(er, unlefs I met with an 
 abler and fairer advocate, than that member of 
 the fociecy,' v;ho wrote in my vindication/ He 
 knew, as he had eyes to fee. that this charge 
 of falfhood brought againfl me was grounded 
 upon a/^2//<? repreicntatlon of what I had faid — 
 He knew alfo, that neither that writer, or any 
 other, to this day^, has To much as attempted to 
 
 > return 
 
^APPEx4.L DEFENDED.' 99 
 
 return an anfwer to what was offered by my ad- 
 vocate to juftify me againil this charge — And 
 he knew further, that, as ' good luck' would 
 have it, * fo able and fair an advocate,' as Dr. 
 Chandler himfelf, has appeared in my vindica- 
 tion : For he has declared, in cxprefs words, (p. 
 12^) ' That the Society publifhed fuch an in- 
 invitation, in 1706, I believe to be true.' How 
 then could he endeavour tc> lead the Public 
 to believe, that it was falfe ? Is this confiftent, 
 with that honeft fairnefs which might reafon- 
 ably be expc<5led from one v/ho profeflcs to be 
 a chriftian Divine. 
 
 It may deferye the reader's fpecial .notice; 
 though the Do6lor v/ould, from a Ji5fitcui 
 writer, infinuate, that I was chargeable with fal- 
 fhood, he has not ventured, in his own reply, to 
 exhibit fuch a charge. Inliead of this, his charge 
 is, thac I had artfully endeavoured to make the 
 reader believe, that ke had been guilty of fal- 
 fiiood. He fays not a word tending to faftea 
 falfhood upon me ; but his zeal is wholly fpenc 
 in throwing blame upon me for leading the 
 Public, as he imagines, to think, that I intend- 
 ed to reprefent him as ' a notorious v/ilful liar.' 
 How ftrangely different is the charge the Doc- 
 tor has brought againft me. from that he refers 
 to in the margin ? And how unaccountably in- 
 confiftent is he with himfelf, in mentioning :r!S 
 latter charge as hurtful to my reputation, whea 
 he has himklf declared it to be falfe ? For this 
 is the meaning of his acknowledgment, ' thae 
 the Society publiilied fuch an invitation, in 
 1706, I believe to be true.' 
 
 Having made this acknowledgment, he gees 
 on to reprefent the * invitation of the Society'* 
 as nothing to my purpole. Says hcj, ^ It ap- 
 pears 
 
100 ^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 pe^ars that it was only occafional' — Very true 5 
 but what was the occafion P The reader will be 
 beft cible to judge from the invitation itfelf, 
 which 1 fliall here infert at large -, and the ra- 
 ther, that the Public may, from what they Ihall 
 fee with their own eyes, be indifputably con- 
 vinced, that I have been treated with great dif- 
 ingenuity and bafenefs. 
 
 In an account of the Society for propagat- 
 rrg the gofpel in foreign parts, ^c. London, 
 printed by jcfepb Downing^ 1706, p. 74, y^^ ic 
 is laid, ' All young iludtnts in thofe parts [the 
 Colonies] who dcfire epifcopal ordiniition, are 
 invitdd into England, and their expences of 
 coming and returning are to be defrayed by 
 THE Society, in purfuance of an order madj? 
 TO THAT EFFECT. AvA the fcmi of a letter 
 was prepared, and allowed to be fcnt to the Go- 
 vernor OF New-England, and one of the 
 like importance to the episcopal Clergy in 
 thofe parts, encouraging the lending over hi- 
 ther fuch young iludents as are inclinable to be 
 crcained, and to embrace the miffion.' - 
 
 In an abdradt of the proceedings of the So- 
 ciety, annexed to Dr. Kemiet's fermon, Feb. ry, 
 IV I i, J712, p. 44, is the following paffage, 
 * The^ Society apprehending that nothmg would 
 more effectually tend to juflify their good en- 
 deavours, and to promote the fucccfs of them, 
 than to iNFORr.i the world of their founda- 
 tion, eftablifliment, and continual progrefs, did 
 agree, that the book, called, ' An account of the 
 Society for propagating the gofpel in foreiga 
 parts, with their p ececdings and fuccefs, Lon- 
 don, for Jo/eph Downing, 1706, 410/ fhould be 
 reprimed With a continuation dowu to the pre- 
 k^i time/ 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ loi 
 
 From thefe extrads, ic appears, with a meri- 
 dian luftre, that the Society wanted and de- 
 lired Colony Miflionaries, and that this was the 
 OCCASION of their pubHfhing their invitation, 
 wherein they promise to defray the expence 
 of fuch as (hall be incHncJ to go home for holy 
 orders : and this ' invitation' and ' promife* 
 were, without all doubt, commu/icated in the 
 * letter' that was prepared to be fentto the epis- 
 copal Clergy, that they might communicate 
 them to the Colony-fludents for their encou- 
 ragement to go home for ordination. And it 
 is obfervable,five or fix years after the firft pub- 
 lication of the ' account' in which this invita- 
 tion and promife arc contained, it was agreed 
 and ordered by theSociety, that itfhould be re- 
 printed to promote the fuccefs of their pro- 
 ceedings. Who now can fuppofe, that the 
 printed and reprinted invitation and pro- 
 mise of the Society ought not to be looked up- 
 on as an obligation lying on them, in point of 
 honour and juftice, to defray the expence of the 
 voyage to England for orders, unlefs it is made 
 known to them that it has been defrayed feme 
 other way ? 
 
 But, fays the Dodlor, before the firft candi- 
 dates from this Country -went home for holy- 
 orders, the invitation was recalled, or rather had 
 expired.' He would do well to tell us, how 
 it (hould expire, if it was not recalled. And 
 let him, if he can, produce its revokation in 
 any account the Society have given of their 
 proceedings. Until he is able to do this, he 
 mud excufe us Non-epifcopalians, if we are not- 
 able to fee, but that the Society is still as 
 (Irongly obliged as ever to make good their pro- 
 mise to the Colony-ftudents, unkfs it may have 
 
 been 
 
loi REPLY TO THE 
 
 been vacated in any inftances by the payment 
 of cheexpencc of the voyage by their cpifcopal 
 friends here. The Dodtor may, if he pleafes, 
 call this invitation of the Society an * antiquated* 
 one, and compare it to * one of the Englifh 
 ftatutes againft the Lollards ;' but it is eafy to 
 perceive, that he here fubftitutes laughter in th^ 
 room of fober argument, and for a very good 
 reafon no doubt. He would juftify the invita- 
 tion as ' antiquated' by faying, ' That neither 
 the firil candidates that went home for holy or- 
 ders, nor any of their fuccefTors, fo far as I can 
 Jeanty have received benefit from it.' This, if 
 true, is really ft range, and refieds no fmall dif- 
 honor on the Society. But the Do6lor, per- 
 })aps, may in time make higher attainments in 
 learning of this kind, than he is at prefent pof- 
 feiTed of, and find that both the ' firfl: candi- 
 dates,' and ' fomc of their fuccclTors' too, have 
 received benefit from this invitation and promife 
 of the Society. I am the rather difpofed to be- 
 lieve, that this is the truth of the cafe, from that 
 refpe^L which is due to fo venerable a body of 
 men ; and afTure the Doftor, though he ' has 
 * fo publicly and boldly afferted' the contrary, it 
 has no influence to put me upon ' fufp^^ing 
 my own ignorance' in this matter. For it is 
 no infrequent thing with him to aftirm that, 
 both ' publicly and boldly* which he never 
 would have done, had it not been for want of 
 more knowledge. 
 
 He very juilly afTures the Public, (p. 153) 
 That ' I will not allow that the church of En- 
 gland, in the Colonie?^, is diftinguilhcd and ftig- 
 matifed by a want of thofe religious privileges, 
 which are granted to all other denominations */ 
 and for this very good reafon, becaufe * Epil- 
 
 copalians 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 103 
 
 copalians are allowed the fame liberty with all 
 other pcrfuafions, and do, with as much free- 
 dom from moleilation, worihip GOD in the pre- 
 cife way they themfelves are pleafed to chufe :* 
 Upon which he cries out, ' Can he be ferious 
 when he lays this ? Or does he mean to infuk us ?* 
 I mean to infult no body •, but I ferioully fpake 
 a real truth. ' Is it the truth, that we have the 
 fame Uhrty with all other periuafions ?* I af- 
 firm it is the exaft truth. ' Do not they all en- 
 joy their own religious fyftems ccmpleatly, and 
 in every part ? But can this be predicated of the 
 church of England ?* If it cannot, it is not ow- 
 ing to any want of liberty, but to their not ufing 
 that liberty" which is equally granted to all deno- 
 minations without diflindion. ' We compjain 
 that we are deflirute of the power of ordination, 
 and are not allowed to enjoy feveral of the inilitu- 
 lions of our church, which we hold in great e- 
 deem and veneration*. The anf^er is fhort and 
 eafy. Epifcopalians are as much allowed, as 
 other denominations, to procure for themielves 
 the full enjoyment of all the fpiritual privileges 
 of the Kingdom of CHRIST. Nothing rellrains 
 them from deriving, whenever they pleafe, or- 
 daining, governing, or any other religious pow- 
 er, in ic*s pure, naked, fimple, fpiritual nature, 
 which i3 all they defire, from the Bifnop in Cana- 
 da, or Pennlylvania j or from, a Bohemian or Wal- 
 denfian BiQ-iOp; [it will be no difficulty with the 
 Dodtor that he is an high-flying one] if they 
 cannot derive thefe powers from an Engliili 
 one : They are indeed at full liberty to ranfack 
 the whole earth, that they may enjoy their tru- 
 ly apoftolic Epifcopacy. Ifoiher denominati- 
 ons have their own Pallors and Teachers, their 
 own religious .wprfliip, government and difci- 
 
 pline. 
 
i©4 REPLY TO THE 
 
 pline, it Is the refult of nothing more than 
 that PERMISSION, I might fay right^ which 
 Epifcopalians arc equally favoured with ; 
 and, in confequence of this permifTion, or right, 
 they alfo might have their Bifhops, and their 
 own apoftolic form of epifcopal government. 
 What fliould hinder ? They are no more under* 
 reftraint, than the other denominations, By any 
 interpofing a6l of the ftate, either in England, 
 or America ; but are at full liberty to provide 
 themfelves with fuch fpiritual officers, difcipline, 
 and woifhip, as they fliall think agreeable to 
 the will of CHRIST; and if they do not, or 
 will not, thus provide themfelves, what imagi- 
 nable reafon have they for complaint ? Should 
 it be faid, their principles reilrain them from 
 the procurement of apoftolic Epifcopacy in any 
 way but from theKing or fLate,and by beingdiftia- 
 guiQied from all the other Colony-denominati- 
 ons : In this cafe, the reply was given in tha 
 anfvver to the appeal, in thefe words, ' It is 
 from their principles only that they arc hamper- 
 ed with difficulties.' The Dodor, upon this, 
 has difcovered, as he had often done before, 
 that his peculiar talent is not that of reafoning. 
 He can perceive do difference between difficul- 
 ties, fuffered upon principle, in confequence of 
 the non-beftov/ment of diftinguifbing favour,* 
 and difficulties that are fuftered for not com- 
 plying with the arbitrary, tyrannical precepts of' 
 men, in violation of the rights of ccnfcience s 
 Yea, he would make us believe, that difficulties 
 fuffered, upon principle, through want of a 
 grant of favour, may, with as much pertinency, 
 be com.plained of, as any of the tortures the 
 Saints of the Mofl High have been harrafled 
 with, for their adherence to theit GOD, from 
 
 the 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 105 
 
 the greateft perfecntors that ever exifted. I 
 lliall only fay here, for once borrowing'che Doc- 
 tor's own police words, ' This is the weakeit of 
 all the weak things he has faid.' 
 
 It was obfervcd^ ap. anf. p. 150, 135, « That 
 the Non-epifcopalian Clergy and Laity, in the 
 tbwn of Bofton, in one week only, fubfcribed 
 two thoufand pounds freriing for a fund to fup- 
 port MifTionarics among the Indian natives, up- 
 on condicion there might be an incorporated 
 fociczy among chemf-lves for conduding and 
 managing this important affair ; chat an incor- 
 porating ad: was prepared, and paffed by the 
 ^ feveral branches of the government here, and 
 fent home for the Royal fandion, without which 
 it could not continue in force : But that it foon 
 met with a negative, by means of which this 
 whole money was loll, and as much more w« 
 had ^good reafon ,to expe^ would be fubfcri- 
 bed.' This was complained of as a grf-at hard- 
 ftip. And it was then -added, ' We fhculd 
 cfteem the hardlhip much greater, if, in any 
 meafure, it was brought upon c,s by episcopal 
 influence. I will not too pofitivcly lay it was ; 
 but this I will fay, and in the words of a letter 
 from home.'-^Thc words were infertcd at Uyoq 
 What now fays the. Doclor? Inftead of taking 
 the .lead notice of this letter, he mentions it, 
 from one he calls the very frnfible author of a 
 vindication of the BiOiop of Landaff's fermon, 
 as ' an utter improbability, that a number of 
 eminently pious men, who have the converfion 
 of the Savages much at heart, would oppofe 
 fuch a meafure for that purpofe ' I am htar* 
 tily forry 1 am obliged to fay, that this^ num- 
 ber of eminently pious men'" have given th« 
 Public lo little rcafon to think, that they have the 
 !? €Qnverfioa 
 
loS REPLY TO THE 
 
 converfion of the Savages much at heart.' Had 
 this been the real truih, it is impoflible but they 
 fhould have done much more than they have 
 ever yet done to promote their converfion. 
 They have made u abundantly evident, that 
 they had at heart the propagation of Epis- 
 copacy, much more than the ' converfion of 
 the Savages •/ and, if we may be permitted 
 to judge from their condu6l, we fiialLnaturally, 
 and almoft neccfifarily, be obliged to think, they 
 would be in readinels to oppofe any plan for the 
 converfion of the Savages, that did not propofe 
 to convert them by episcopising them. He 
 fubjoins, from the fame very fenfible authpr, 
 an extradt of a letter, from ore of the mofl im- 
 fortant m.embers of the Society to his friend in 
 this Country, in which it is fai^, * The plan, as 
 prefented, was liable to feveral objedions ; par- 
 ticularly, that the members were to be accoun- 
 table only to themfelvcs. However, the So- 
 ciety made iso opposition to it.' It was 
 not faid, the Society, in their, charader as fuch, 
 made oppofition to our incorporating a6l. It 
 may be true, as this letter declares, that the 
 Society made no oppofition ; but it may be as 
 true, notwithfl:anding what is here affirmed^ that 
 fome of its members, and its mofl: important 
 ones tco,in their private capacity, might oppofe 
 it with their whole influence. The Dodor al- 
 fo brings in Mr. Afthorp^ 'after enquiry upon 
 the fpot' as faying, ' 1 can affirm upon very 
 good authority, that neither the Socieiyy nor 
 any Epilcopalians^ as such, oppofed the ad 
 of the Bolion afifembly.' — This may be true, 
 and not inconfiftent with the account that has 
 been given us by others, who were upon the 
 fpot as well as Mr, Jphorp^ and as capable of 
 
 making 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 107 
 
 making enquiry as he can be fuppofed to be. 
 The letter the Dodlor has palled over in filcnce 
 fays, ' There is reafon to think, an account of 
 the incorporating adl was fent to Lambeth as 
 early as to- — The Arch-BiQiop was prejudic- 
 ed — Umbrage was taken at the new Ibciety — 
 The lead attempt to take fubfcriptions here 
 would have blown up the fulpicions of the church, 
 and foclety, into an open flame.' This account 
 we had from one, who, to fay the lead,, was 
 under as good advantages, as Mr. Apthorp^ to 
 know the truth of the affair. And it is obfer- 
 vable, Mr. Apthorp\ affirmation is defignedly 
 worded with particular guard and caution. 
 'Neither the Society^ nor any Epifcopalians, as 
 SUCH, oppofed the a6l.' No one ever faid, the 
 Society^ as such, made oppofuion ; though, not- 
 withftanding what is here affirmed, fome of its 
 members, and even the Arch-Biffiop of Canter- 
 bury, its Prefidtnt, might be in the oppofition : 
 And it may, in like manner, be true, that Epif- 
 copalians might ufc their influence againft the 
 paffing this a6t, though they might not do it as 
 SUCH, His faying, ' it was rejcdled upon po- 
 litical and commercial reafons, when there 
 was not oneBiffiop prcfent/ may, to weak minds, 
 have a plaufible appearance -, but the difguife 
 is thin, and eafily feen through. It was never 
 imagined, had there been episcopal influence, 
 but chat it would be kept out of fight, in the 
 management of the affair at ihe board of trade. 
 They muft been blunderers indeed, if they could 
 not have affigned fome other reafons of their 
 condudt, than that they had been applied to by 
 Bilhops, or an Arch-Biffiop, though not in their 
 capacity as members of the Society, or as vefl;ed 
 wuh the cpifcopai office. The Dodlor now 
 
 fpcaks 
 
i®g REPLY TO THE, ^h. 
 
 fpeaks of my taking no notice of ' (o clear 
 and fuU evidence of the Society's innocence, as 
 one of the ft.ange modern phenomena, Vk/hich 
 admit not of an ealy iolution.' It is at once 
 folved by only faying, it was none of my bufi- 
 nefs ^o take notic^^ ot this evidence, uncil he had . 
 produced x -^ upon which 1 have made ic very 
 plainly to appear, that, inftead of being > clear 
 and full cvidenc©',' it is in reality no evidence at 
 ail. The reader will, I believe, thinic it very 
 extraordinary, in the Dodor, to call me to an 
 account for raking nq notice of evidenx:e he had 
 not laid before me, and knew not that I hac}\ 
 ever ieea, while, at the fame timie, he is himleif 
 chargeable v/ith raking no notice of the let er 
 he had placed before his eyes, containing muca 
 (Ironger counter-evidence, 1 will" not account 
 for this, by iiippofing ' he wrote in a hurry, and 
 did not give himftlf time for recollection :VA 
 much better reafon may be affigned, namely, 
 his finding himfelf unable to return a juft anfv/er 
 to the contenis of fo material a ktrer. '' 
 
 M^NY other things, contained in this part of ■ 
 the Dodoi's defenc(r. are juilly liable to excep- 
 tion ; but he dcfircs ' the controverfy may be 
 brought into- a narrower compais ; and the rea- 
 idef, 1 imagine,^will ihink with me, that it would.^ 
 be needlefs to take any further notice of what i$ 
 here laid, as being remote from the grand 
 roiNT m difpute. To this therefore 1 ihall 
 now immcdiaiely proceed. 
 
 Reply. 
 
Reply to Dr, Chandler's 
 Eighth Sedion. 
 
 THE Do£lor comes. In this fedtion^ to in« 
 valiciate the objections that had been 
 brought againil the propolcd plan for an Ame- 
 rican-Epifcopaie. And here it might have been 
 expcded to find him exerting himfeif with the 
 greatell vigor and ftrcngth. But we are greatly 
 difappointed. He dlfcovers lefs fpirit, and is lefs 
 convincing, in what he has offered upon this 
 MAIN POINT in controverfy, than in any pare 
 of his performance. He feems indeed to have 
 kept this GRAN0 OBJECT out of fight as long 
 as he could, if we 'may judge from the 19S 
 pages he v/rote before he came to it. And it 
 would have been, perhaps, as much to his ho- 
 ror, if he had wholly paffed it over in filence, 
 unlcfs what he has faid had carried mere weight 
 with it. 
 
 Before he enters upon the confideration of 
 the objedions to the epifcopal plan for Ameri- 
 ca, he takes notice of two or three other things, 
 which muil detain us a while. 
 
 In the « appeal anAvered,' in a marginal note 
 £t the bottom of p. 133, mention was made of a 
 copy, that had appeared in one of the public 
 news-papers, of the petition that was fent by a 
 
 number 
 
iio REPLY TO THE 
 
 number of epifcopal Clergymen to the Univerfity 
 at Cambridge, in which lome things juftly ex- 
 ceptionable were pointed out. The Doctor's 
 reply is, ' J can and do afTure him [Dr. Chaun- 
 ey\ that it is ficLitious and falfe ; and that the 
 Convention feat home no fuch addrcfs, nor any 
 that contained fimilar. ex prciTions with thefe he 
 cenfnres.' I alio can and do alTure Dr. Chand- 
 itr, that it would have given both myfelf, and 
 the PubHc,much greater f«tisfadion) if he had here 
 inlertcd a copy of the petition itielf, properly au- 
 thenticated. We might then have judged forour- 
 felves, and uot been puc upon yielding implicit 
 faith in his bare word ; which though true,m his 
 own apprehcnfion, might, poffibly be otherwife 
 in the view of oihers. Whatever the, Dodor, 
 or theConvention may think, it carries with it no 
 good afpcd', that they <b refolutely keep fecret 
 their petitions, when copies of them have been 
 defired', putting us ©fF by telling us, they do not 
 contain that in th^'m which we have heard they 
 'do, and in fucH^ ways that we fliali believe v/hac 
 Vv'e have heard, until we have opportunity to 
 fee with our ov/n eyes. 
 
 It v/as faid, ap. anfw. p. '35, ' Some of the 
 inoft refpedable Epifcopalians, in thbfe parts, 
 for fobriery, good fenfe, and a fteady attachment 
 to the interelt of the church of England, have 
 declared ic to be their opinion, thatBifhops would 
 be of no fervice here, and that they did not de- 
 fire they fliould be lent.* The Dc<^or, upon 
 this, affeds to b? at a lofs to know what ' pe- 
 culiar idea' 1 intended to convey by the phrase 
 
 * refpcctable Epircopal.ans ^* v;hich could not 
 cafily be accounrej for in any other peifcn, as I 
 was particular in leprcfenfing them refpCLlable 
 
 * for their fobriery, <^ood frnfc, and licady at- 
 
 tachment 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED.' iii 
 
 tachment to the church of England/ He is 
 much puzled to underftand the meanuig of the 
 * indefinite word, some"-/ whether I intended 
 by it ' two, or two hundred.' It could not well 
 have been * impclTible' for him to have known 
 my meaning, in the u{c of this innocent word, if 
 he had only allov/ed himfelf to read the imme- 
 diately following fentence. * And it is to me, 
 as v;ell as to many I have converfed with upon 
 this head, EpiscoPALrANS among others, very 
 queftionable, whether, if the m'^mbers of the 
 church of England, in thcfe northtrn Colonies, 
 were to give their votes,and to do it v*rithout pre- 
 vious clerical influence, they would be found 
 to be on tlie fide of an American Epifcopate.* 
 One might ' poliibly' have guefied at what I 
 meant by the word, some, after this explana- 
 tion of myfelf. But the Do6lor chofe rather to 
 make a fnew of being witty, than to argue ; 
 though his wit is wholly grounded upon a par- 
 tial rtprcfentation of what I had faid. He goes 
 on, ' I queftion whether there is an Epifcopalian 
 on the Continent, either of a more or lefs re- 
 fpedtable chara61er, including in it fome degree 
 of attachment to the inierell of the, church, that 
 has objcdted. agaiafb an Epifcopate upon the plan 
 of the appeal '—What he here fays, put into 
 plain EngliOi, is this •, he queftions whether 
 truth can be fpoken unlefs by himfelf, and a few 
 others who fpeak as he would have them. But 
 why does he qucftion, whether any Epifcopalian 
 has objeded to an Epifcopate upon his plan ? 
 The realon is, bccaufe * he muff atft a very un- 
 natural, inconfiflent pare. For how abfurd is it 
 for a man, who is attached to the church of En- 
 -gland in America, not to wifh its foundnefs and 
 health ?' And here he goes on repeating, in a 
 
 way 
 
til REPLY TO THE 
 
 way of argument, what he had often urged be- 
 fore in favour of his American EDifcopate. But 
 what IS all fhis to the point ? It is a fa^^, 
 Tiol 2i fpeculative truths Y7t are now upon. And 
 theDoclor muft know, tinlefa he is a great ftran- 
 ger to the world, that faBs and JpecuUtive argu- 
 ments do not always harmonifc with each other. 
 Befides, wttere is the difficulty in fuppofing, that 
 mod Epifcopaiians on the Continent may have 
 a quite different notion of the plan for an Ame- 
 rican Epifcopate, from that the episcopal 
 Clergy have of it, who were its only for- 
 mers, and the only petitioners that it 
 might be carried into execution ? Might they 
 not be apprehenfive of danger from a plan con- 
 trived by the Clergy, and fent home for ratir 
 fication, without their confcnt, or being applied, 
 to for it ? Surely, ic is not impofTible they (liould 
 think, notwithltanding all the Doftor has faid, 
 that the miffion of ^i^^ops into the^ Colonies 
 would do more hurt *than good. ^' This„ : I 
 know, is, in fafl, the opinion of many Lay-epif-, 
 copahans, and, I believe, of ..the greater part 
 of them in the New-Engiand Colonics. I Ihall 
 only add here, fpeculative arguments are no more 
 futedto invalidate the truth of this fa^t, than they 
 would be to prove that there were no Epifco- 
 paiians on the Continent. For it would be a 
 much eafier tafk to prove it fpeculatively abfjrd 
 there fhould be any, than that they ihould be 
 againft the propofcd Epifcopate. 
 
 The Dodlor animadverts upon nothing fur- 
 ther, until becomes top. 138, where he fays, 
 that ' I objedcd to their plan becaufe I thought 
 it had been illegally fettled.' And for aught 
 any thing he has proved to the contrary, thcX)b- 
 jedlion to the plan,forthis reafon, Hands firm and 
 
 wnfliakeD 
 
APPEAL DEFENDED.' 113 
 
 unfliaken. He fays, ' I take it for granted, 
 that what has been done by our friends and 
 fuperiors at home relating to it [the plan] has 
 been done without the King's approbation/ 
 And well I might, as we were told ot a fcheme 
 fbrthe miiTion of Bifhops to the Colonies, fettled 
 by Clergymen at home, and approbated by 
 Clergymen here, to the intire n~gle£l of hu Ma^ 
 jefiy, without vvhofe licence, not even the Con- 
 vocation have any ng'-it to fettle fuch a plan, 
 or fo much as attempt to form it. The Doc- 
 tor allows, ' that the cwo houfcs of Cpnvocatioit 
 have no authority, without a Royal licence, 
 10 attempt, enadl, promulge, or execute any 
 canon, by whatever name it might be called, 
 which fhould concern either doflrine or difci- 
 plne/ But fays he, ' This notwithftandng, the 
 Clergy, even in convocation, are ftill, in feveral 
 inferior inftances, left ptrfefily free.' It would 
 be ftrange, if they were not/ But how does 
 this prove, that ihey are * left pertedly free' in 
 fuch SUPERIOR inftances as the fettlcment of 
 a plan for the new modelling the power of Bi- 
 fhops ? The Kmg*s fupremacy, as head of the 
 church, is not more nearly concerned^in any ec- 
 clefiaftical afFart whatever. He goes on, * The 
 two houfes of Parliament cannot, without a Roy- 
 al licence attempt, ena6l, promulge, or execute 
 any ftatute, more legally than the two houfes of 
 Convocation can enadt a canon.* This is ex- 
 prefTed very much as it would have been by 
 one who did not underftand the proper rights 
 of Parliament. If the thing meant is, that the 
 two houfes ofParliament,and the two houfes ofCon- 
 vocation,are under the fame conftitutional reft rainr, 
 he 13 entirely miflaken. The two houles of Parlia- 
 ment arc perfedtiy at liberty, without any Royal li- 
 • P cencc;! 
 
^14 REPLY TO T HE 
 
 ccnce, notonly toATTEMf T,but adually to form, 
 any ftatutc, plan or canon, in order to its being en- 
 a6ted,promulged,and executed in corififtency with 
 the conftitution : Whereas the two houfes of 
 Convocation are reftraincd, by the ftatute,of 
 the twenty- fifth of Henry the eighth, called the 
 adt of fubmifiion, from fo much as attempt- 
 ing any law, or canon, or whatever other name 
 may be given to it, without licence first 
 
 GRANTED TO THEM BY THE KiNG *, and hav- 
 ing, in virtue of his licence, agreed on any can- 
 on, or conftitution, they are not permitted/to 
 PUBLISH it, until it has obtained his 'confirma- 
 tion. * And if it is accounted inconfiftent 
 with the King's fupremacy in ecclefiaftical mat- 
 ters, for even the Convocation to attempt to 
 form, fettle, or publifh a plan for the regulation 
 of the church, wkhout his granted per- 
 mission, though, in fo doing, - they ihould pro- 
 fefs the higheft regard to ' the public good y it 
 ought certainly to be eReemed much mqre. fo 
 for other Clergymen to do this, efpecialiy in bo- 
 dies convened for the purpofe, not by authori- 
 ty from the King^ but of their own hc:ads : And 
 it makes no alteration in the cafe, whether 
 they are fup rior or inferior Clergymen, or a 
 mixture of both, unlefs in the degree of dilho- 
 nourthatis hereby, reflefted on his Majefty as, 
 under GOD, the fupream head of the church. 
 They may fpeak of themfclves as * confulting the 
 public happinefs,' and doing it ' with the utmofl: 
 fidelity,' and all ' deference and fubmifTion to 
 the wifdom of government ;' but time was, 
 when they would, notwithftanding fuch a com- 
 pliment on themfelves, have been called * difaf- 
 fedcd affociations,' and as fuch been ' fup* 
 prcflcd 5* as has often been the cafe. 
 
 The 
 
 f Vid, Burn'i Eccki, lawjundcr the word Convocation^ 
 
r «APPEAL DEFENDED.* 115 
 
 The Do6lor takes occafion here perempto- 
 rily to declare, ' That I have pronounced all 
 confultations of their BiQiops for the intereft of 
 religion to be, in general, an infringement of the 
 King's fupremacy, unlefs a licence for that 
 purpofe is fot-mally granted from the Crown.* 
 He has been fo wile as not to refer to the page 
 in which 1 fay this ; and/ until he is pleafed to 
 do it, I fliall think myfclf at full liberty to 
 cltcem what he has offered as a grofs mifrcprc^ 
 fcntation. 
 
 He feems to look upon * confultations for the 
 intereft of religion,' and laying plans for a new 
 regulation of the power ot Bilhops, and the cx- 
 crcife ofdifcipline in the church of England, as 
 meaning one and the fame thing. But he 
 ought to have known, that no Royal licence 
 is made neceilary for confultations to promote 
 the general intereft of religion ; whereas, cvea 
 the whole body of the Clergy, fuperior and in- 
 ferior, are not permitted, though legally affem- 
 blcd in Convocation, fo much as to attempt 
 a plan for ncW modelling, in any parr, the cc- 
 clefiaftical Gonftitution, without a licence for- 
 mally granted herefor by the King. Can it thea 
 be fuppofed allowable, for a dcputifed Qergyman 
 to proclaim it to the world, without the leafthint 
 of any granted licence from the King, that 
 fuch a plan has been ' privately formed and 
 fettled by fome fuperior Clergymen at home, 
 and approbated by the epifc9pal Clergy here,* 
 and in convened bodies for the purpofe ? — He 
 would now fuggeft, ' That the King had been 
 confultid, and given undoubted proofs of his 
 approbation of the meafure.' Why then was 
 noi the plan iutroduced with particular notice of 
 io iimportaat a poiru of deference to the Royal 
 / - fupremacy ? 
 
ii6 REPLY TO THE 
 
 fupreniacy ? Was it more proper to tell the 
 Public, ihac the cpifcopal Clergy here were 
 agreed in this plan, than that his Majcly had 
 approbated it ? And why is there not n w ex- 
 hibited in form fome authentic proof or the 
 King's licence to con live aid puoiilh the 
 plan we have had held out to view ? This would 
 ^ave been much moie faiisfadtory, than barely 
 to infmuate, or fay, ' Thai i: had been honoured 
 with the King's approbation.' 
 ., Sensible, -i fuppofe, of the infufficiency of all 
 that had before b en offered, the Dodor now- 
 .gives us the foilowing very extraordinary infor- 
 mation. Says he, * The charter granted to the 
 Society for propagating the gofpel, has the na- 
 ture and efficacy of a comiiiinion.' For what ? 
 Why, ' by this charrer, or comnaiflion, the mem- 
 bers are warranted to concert meafures, and to 
 fettle plans, for the carrying on the defign of 
 that incorporation in the: mod effe6tual manne?.* 
 Very true- ; but was it any part of .he defign- 
 of that incorporation to ' fettle plans' for a new 
 jRiodelled churcti of England ? The Doctor is, 
 I believe^ the firft man that ever dreamed of a 
 * Royal com million' in *he Society's charter, em- 
 powcririg its niwmber-. ro contrive fchemes for 
 governing t :c church of *Eng5and m a manner 
 different from thar which has been ordained by 
 the King and Parliament. They might pro- 
 bably thiiik, ' That an American Epifcopate was 
 highly expedient' in ord-.-r to their propagating 
 Epifcopacy, inftead ot religion in general ; and 
 they might hereupon ' feetch out a general plan 
 for fending Bifhops 5:0 America, which ,plaa 
 might be pubhciy approved, and patronifed by 
 her Majeily Queen ^}i^^ All this may be true, 
 *nd peffectly coiiIiPcenc with -due honour to the 
 
 Royal 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED.' 117 
 
 Royal fuprpmacy. For it is not meerly a plan 
 for iending Bifhops to Am rca, fhat is incon- 
 liltent herewith •, but a plan thar propofes their 
 niifil)n to carry on the bufincfs of ecclefiaftxal 
 -government and tlifciphne in a manner quite 
 "different from that whic h is enjoined by the au- 
 thority or the King and Parliament. The pro- 
 pored plan, as ' r fumed and digeded with pe- 
 culiar a'trntio ) ;' IS of this fcTC •, and there- 
 'fore a d.red violation of the fcventy-third can- 
 on, which enjoins, ' That no Priefts, or Mini- 
 ftcTs of GOD*s word, nor any other perfons (hall 
 meet together in any private houfe, or elfewhere, 
 to confjlc upon any matter, or courfe to be ta- 
 ken by them, or upon their motion, or diredion 
 by others, which may any way tend to the im- 
 peacbin^^ or depraving of the doftrine of the 
 church of England, or of the book of common 
 prayer, or of any part of the government or dlf- 
 cipline now eftabliihed in the church of En» 
 glan.l, undrr pain of excommun cation ipfo fac- 
 W The Dofttor fays here, ' Whoever knows 
 anything of the hiftory of the times in which 
 the canon was framed, muil be fenfible that ic 
 was dcCigaed againft a very different fort of per- 
 fons from thole venerable prelates, who formed 
 and fettled the plan for an American Epifco- 
 pa^e.' If venerable prelates at home formed 
 this plan, and epifcopal Clergymen here appro- 
 bated it in convened bodies for the purpof«, 
 they are chargeable with the very crime this can- 
 on was defigned to guard againft ; and it is • 
 more aggravated in them, than in ' the different 
 fort of perfons' it might be fuppofcd would be 
 liable to condemnation by ic. He adds, ' And 
 as it was defigned again (l a very different fore 
 of perfons, lo the words of it cUarly point otii 
 
 a 
 
;ii8 REPLY TO THE 
 
 c very different condua: The conduft of the 
 pcrfons concerned in the forming and approba- 
 ting this plan, is as like that pointed out and 
 condemned, in the canon, as [words can make 
 it. ^ There has been ' the meeting together of 
 Priefts and others •,'-— they have met together 
 
 * m private houfes or elfewhere ;— and the de- 
 fign of their meeting was * to confult upon a 
 courfe to be taken by them, or upon their mo- 
 tion,' in order to affeft an alteration * in fome 
 part of the goirernment, or difcipline, now efta- 
 bhfhed in the church of England :' which, 
 without all difpute, is the very fault incended to 
 be teftified againft in the canon. There is no 
 way, indeed, in which this eftabii(hed mode of 
 government in the church of England can be 
 more diredly and efTedtually impeached, or de- 
 praved, than by practical endeavours to get it 
 changed. And it will not be pretended, that 
 this IS not the tendency of the propofed and 
 publifhed plan. Whether the ' Combinations 
 and confultations,' to this end, * are fadious,* 
 or not, muft be determined by the canon itfcif j 
 which certainly fuppofes them to be fo. 
 
 I SAiB, in my anfwer to the appeal, the pro- 
 pofed plan ' is a plan for altering the govern- 
 ment and difcipline of the church of England 
 m the Colonies.' To which the Dodor replies, 
 
 * Docs he then believe the canon was intended 
 to fecure the government and difcipline of the 
 church of England in the Colonies ? Without 
 this intention thepropofal of any alteration in the 
 form of ecclefiaftical government here can be no 
 violation of the canon.' Why doColony-epifcopa- 
 palians glory in being members of the church of 
 England, if there is no church of England here. 
 And if there is, it is as as reafonablc to fup- 
 
 pofc 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED/ 119 
 
 pofe the canon was intended to guard its cfta- 
 blifhcd form of government againft impeachment 
 or depravation here, as at home. Bur, fays the 
 Dodor, ' What is the' nature and tendency of, 
 the alteration propofed ? Is it to deprave the 
 government of the church of England at home ? 
 No ; it is in reality to honour it, by endeavour- 
 ing to bring the government of the church here 
 much nearer to her pattern, than it is, or can 
 be, while deftituie of Bifhops.* One, having no 
 biafs on his mind, would not think it refleded 
 much honour on the government of the church 
 at home to make alterations and amendments in 
 ir, before it is thought fit to be cxercifed here. 
 And the fuppofed alteration mod certainly de- 
 f raves it, as it reftrains Bilhops from the exer- 
 cife of that government over the Laity^ they arc 
 entitled to, not only from the grant of the King 
 and Parliament, but, as the Do(Stor believes, of 
 JESUS CHRIST and his Apoftles. He goes on, 
 * Nor is the plan for a different mode of an Epif^ 
 copate for the church of America, any impeach- 
 mens of that under which it cxifts in England/ 
 The proposing, and endeavouring, an alteration 
 cfTentially carries in it the idea of an impeach- 
 ment. It is not pofTible it Ihould be altered 
 without being impeached. What imaginable 
 reafon can there be for a change in any mode of 
 government, unlefs it be fuppofed, infufHcicnr, 
 imperfedl, and not futable to be excrcifed, ia 
 thofc refpeds at leaft, wherein a change is dc~ 
 fired and endeavoured. And this is the verj- 
 thing here meant by its being impeached. But, 
 fays the Dodor, * As to fuch externals, the 
 church of England has always allowed them to 
 be things that are alterable, and that they ought 
 <o be altered, according to the circumdances and 
 
 opinions 
 
120 REPLY TO THE 
 
 opinions of different Count ies, or even of the 
 fame Country in dilfefent ages. When fhe has 
 fnade this alteration in ' fuch externals* ar home, 
 America will of courfe r ap the benefit of it, 
 fliould an Epifcopatc be fttiled here ; but until 
 this is done» it vvill bean mpcachnent of the 
 mode of government in the church of England 
 at home, to propofe a different one for the faT.« 
 church here, it is an idle thing to fay, ' That 
 circumdances in Anserica require that the ex- 
 ternals of an Epilccpate (hould be undrr a re- 
 gulation peculiar to this country,' Epif opa- 
 \\^x\s here aid in England are members ofons 
 and the fame church -^ and no circumftmces, un- 
 lefs thole of a meer worldly nature, which have 
 nothing to do with a purely fpiritual kingdom, 
 can make it fit, futable, or reafonable, that the 
 mode of an Epifcopate Hiould be different from 
 what it is at home. 
 
 The reader v/ill, perhaps, by this time be dif- 
 pofed rather to wonder, than ' hugh/ at the 
 Da6lor's ' audacioufnefs' in making fo light of 
 the ' fulminations' of an ellabiifhed ca,non-»gainfl 
 impeaching^ or depraving the conftitutional go- 
 vernment and difcipline of the church of En- 
 gland. He, together with the other framers, 
 approbators, and pubJifhers, of the propofed 
 plan of impeachment would do well to confider, 
 whether they are nor, by the determin^tioa of 
 their own church, ' excommunicated' perfons. 
 
 Th*e way being thus prepared, we now come 
 to the GRAND POINT in debate, the propofed 
 plan for an American Epifcopate. According 
 to thcDodlor's defire, in his ' appeal to the Pub- 
 lic,' objc£l:ions were brought againfl this plan. 
 He has endeavoured in his * appeal defended,' 
 to take off the force of them. We (hall impar- 
 tially 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 121 
 
 tially examine what he has faid upon each ob- 
 jedion diftindly. 
 
 Objection I. * The government and difcl- 
 pline of the church of England, under the pro- 
 pofed American Epifcopatc, is injurious both to 
 the church, and the Bilhops that are to prefide 
 over it.' 
 
 ' It is injurious to the church.' * And why ? 
 *Becaufc it is to operate on the Clergy only. 
 1 he lay-members of the church of England may 
 not be favoured with the benefit of the governing 
 autliority of the BiQiops to be fcnt.' What fays 
 the Jbodor in reply ? He reafons thus, ' If the 
 Laity are not to be affeded by the Bilhops au- 
 thority, they are certainly not to be injured by 
 it ; that which does not operate at all, produc- 
 ing no effed cither injurious,or beneficial. Wuh 
 regard therefore to the exercife of difcipline o- 
 v«r theLaity, no benefit is propofed, and no inju- 
 ry is to be feared.' Is this a fit anfwer for the 
 public view ? Are not Bifhops appointed, in the 
 fenfe even of the church of England, for the be- 
 nefit of the Laity, as truly as theClergy ? Are 
 not the Laity as capable of receiving benefit 
 from Epifcopal authority, duly cxercifed, as the 
 Clergy ? And if they are capable of being bene- 
 fited by the exercife of this authority, muft they 
 not be injured, if a (top is put to its operation, 
 in relation to them ? Its not being permitted to 
 operate at all, in regard of them, is, in the na- 
 ture of the thing, injurious, and in proportion 
 to the greatnefs of the benefit that is loft by this 
 non-pcrmilTion. No one, 1 believe, before the 
 Doctor ever faid, it was not injurious to deprive 
 the Laity of a fpirituai priviledge they are fup- 
 pofed to be entitled to, and by a grant from 
 JESUS CHRIST. And if CHRIST has grant- 
 
^22 REPLY to THE 
 
 ed thcrn this privilege, for their fpiritual good",' 
 what power on earth can juftly deprive them of 
 it ? If fuperior Clergymen at home, and infe- 
 rior ones here^ fnould combine together, and 
 projed a plan to prevent their being under th^ 
 governing aiuhoricy of Bi (hops, they would cer- 
 tainly pho away an indubitable ps'ivilege 
 they are entitled to as members of the church 
 of England ; and, if they arc really Epifcopa- 
 lians, ihey mud look upon fuch treatment as 
 highly injurious and abufivc. The Do6lof, in 
 antwering this part of the obje£licn, has done n^ 
 great honour to himfclf. He could fcarce have 
 faid any thing that would have more expofcd 
 the weakncfs of v/hat he undertook to defend. 
 
 The propofed plan was faid to be ' injurioi^s 
 alfo to the Biihops it would have fent to i\v^ 
 Colonies.' And for this reafon, ' Becaufe thty 
 are, in a meer arbitrary manner, reftrained m 
 the excrcife of that authori*y, which, in tas 
 judgmiCni: of thefc very planners, properly be- 
 longs to them, both by apoiiolic appointmenr^ 
 and the conllitution' o\ the chuich ot Engli:^nd.* 
 The Dodor replies, ' If fuch a reftraint is fi;:>t 
 injurious to the church, it will be difficult to 
 prove that ic can be injurious to the Bifhops.'— i 
 It is not poflible ic fnould be any other thin in- 
 jurious to the church, as it deprives its Laity of 
 a privilege they arc as certainly- entitled to as 
 the Clergy, and that might be as advantagious 
 to them. But he fays further, 'Are we tocon- 
 fidcr the authority of Bifhops as lo much pri^ 
 vate property^ which belongs to them, and every 
 limitation of ic as fo much damage fuftained by 
 the Bifnops ? And yet, unlefs we confider ic 
 under lome fuch idea, I {at not how ic can be 
 made our, that any frudc7it rcftraints of their 
 
 • authority 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' lag 
 
 authority can be an injury to them.* Ocular de^- 
 monft ration only could have convinced me, that 
 the Dodor was capable cf finking fo much be- 
 low a man of common undcrllanding in his rea- 
 foising here. Does he not believe, has he noc 
 S^^rnuoufly pleaded, that the governing autho- 
 i V of Biiliops is derived fromjESUS CHRIST 
 hi'n'df^ And if CHRIST has veiled Bifhopj 
 v/'ith tbeir governing authority, is no ifijury 
 dont to them, arbitrarily to reftrain them in the 
 ^YMcliC of this authoruy ? If CHRIST has 
 empowered, and commanded Bidiops to exer- 
 Ci^ authority over th;r Laity, as v/ell as Clergy, 
 ihJi it be deemed no irjury to be confined ia 
 die cxcrcife of this authority to the Clergy only ? 
 It is amazing, one of the Do6lcr*s charadler 
 iiiould not be able to fee, that Bilhops were ca- 
 pable of ' futlaining damage* in other ways be- 
 fidcs that of being t9uched in their ' private 
 property 1* If he had allowed bimfelf to con- 
 fidcr, he mud have known, that a good BiilTiop 
 would have efteemed himfelf more highly hjured 
 by being reftrained in the juil exercile of the au- 
 thority commiiied to him by CHRIST, than 
 by fuiTering in his private property.' A Islal 
 reftrainc of authority over the Laity is here cal- 
 led jj ' prudent one- ; but it can be fo, only 
 in regard of political worldly ends to be anfwer- 
 cd by i^ I entirely agree with the Do6lor in 
 what he adds, ' He that is fond of excrcifing 
 ■power for the fake of excrcifmg it, w^ithout re- 
 garding whether it tends. to cdiiication or de- 
 Itrudion, is unwortliy of it.' But what he aims 
 ac provin^^ by this is beyond me to find out. 
 Surely he will not fay Bithops are lb fond of th'' 
 dcllruclivc'powerjjicre deicribed, as to make it 
 e:.j; ed:-:riC to reflui::) them from the exercife ot 
 
ii^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 any power at all over the Laity ! And unlefs he 
 means this, I fee not to vvhac end he has made 
 the remark. And, in every conceivable view ' 
 ol ir, ic holds as ftrong againfl their having pow- 
 er over the Clergy as over the Laity. This is 
 ijil he has thought fit to fjy in anlVer to the firll 
 objeclion. The reader can have nojuft idea 
 •of the inter iniuiiiciency of this reply, unlcls he 
 compares ic Vv'ith the objedtion, as ilated and il- 
 luilraied in the ^ sppeal anfwercd.* 
 
 Objection II. *■ The Bifhops, in this plan, 
 are lb widely ditferent from the Bilhops of the 
 church of England at homr, that it is not rea- 
 fonable they fnould be dcfircd, or fcnt.* The 
 Doctor fays, in anfvver, ' The Bilhops, in this 
 plan, are eJferJialiy the fsme widi the Bilhops at 
 home^how widely foevcr they may dificr in lomc 
 Circumftanccs ' -Can they be ejjentially the lame, 
 if they are ejfentially reftrained in the exercifc 
 of that authoriry which is pioper to their office, 
 and they have full icope to exercilc ac home ? 
 And yet, this is thecxattt truth. It is cxprcfsly 
 •propofed, that they fliall have no rule over the 
 Laity ; that is, that they fliall be deprived of 
 one half of that authority, as to its exercife, 
 which is ejfentia! to them as Bifnof^s. He goes 
 on, * But let them be never fo dirferent, if luch 
 Biflidps a^ are propofed are fitter for the Colo- 
 nies, than luch Bifhoos as are in Enf^jand, then 
 it may be reaibnable that ihey fliould be both 
 delircd and fent/ Tt\c plain anfwer is, they 
 are not fitter for the Colonies, than for the Mo- 
 therXountry ; and it is unreafonablc they 
 fi:i0uld be dtfi red for, or fent to, the Colonies, 
 nnrjl ihey arc firft enjoyed at home. It was faid 
 in i.klliating this objcdion, * Shall a compara- 
 tive !.-ndfuiof epifc opal prof c:irars;iricft of whom, 
 
 in 
 
'APPEAL DEFE N DED* 125 
 
 in many of the Colonies, are (o infufiicicnt as 
 that they are upheld in Being, with refped to 
 their religious denomination, at the charitable 
 cxpence of a diftanc Society ; — fhall thcfe ima- 
 gine themfelves fo important as that, for their 
 Jakes, the powers and appendages of Bifhops 
 fhall be fo mightily abridged ? Surely the whole 
 body of Diflcncers in England, and a very con- 
 fiderable part of the cilablifhed church there, 
 are as well worthy the national attention ; and 
 it is as fir, their requefts, often repeated, fliould 
 be anfwered. When this is done ic will be 
 time, and not before, to exped that this plan 
 fhould be confidered, and brought into cited.' — 
 To this, and much more of the like import, the 
 Dcdor has only laid. That he ' had before giv- 
 en a full and fufficicnt anfv/cr :' But where, he 
 has not told us ; nor can I find that he has any 
 where given fuch an anfwer, or even attempted 
 to do ip. He has alio filently pafTed over whac 
 was argued from the dodrine of uniformity^ made 
 fo, important a matter in the church of En- 
 gland ; as that it would mar the glory of this uni- 
 formity to clothe the fame officers of the fame 
 church not with the fame, but widely differing 
 powers ; and that there would not, in this cafe, 
 be the appearaRce of confiftent regularity in one 
 and the fame ecclefiailical conftitution. — This 
 filence of the Doctor, in anfwer to objcdions he 
 openly ' invited objedors to make, that they 
 niight be fairly and candidly debated before the 
 tribunal of the Pubhc,' will, I fear, be conftf ued 
 to his difadvaniage, if not to the hurt of the 
 caufe he is defending. 
 
 He goes on to the next confidcration,' 
 which is, ' That if Bifliops fhould be fent to the 
 Colonies, with thefc reftiaincd powers, undefira- 
 
 blc 
 
,^S REPLY TO THE 
 
 ble confequenccs might be naturally feared^ 
 both here and at home' 
 
 An undefirable confequcnce to be feared here 
 is, ' That the Bifliops would tbrov/ off this re- 
 ilraint as foon as might be ; embracing all op- 
 portunities, and ufing all likely means, to reco- 
 ver thofe appendages to their ofKce they had 
 been deprived of.* This was faid, and lliewn, 
 to be no unrealbnablefuppofition. The Do£lor 
 replies, ^ Was it ever before offered as a real'on, 
 why exorbitant power fnould not be limited, 
 (and fuch the Dodlor efteems to be the power 
 of Biiliops in Epgland) becaufe j:he perfons cur- 
 tailed would endeavour to throw off the reflrainC 
 as loon as may be ?* This queftion, as thus ge- 
 nerally put, is quite befide the cafe. We nersr 
 objed:ed to the propofl-d limitation of the power 
 of Bidiops, as being in itfelf, in its own pr©^ 
 per nature," unreafonable and unfit ; but to the 
 confinement of it to the Colonies : and for this 
 good reafon, among others,that it would ttrong- 
 ly tend to defeat itfelf. The Eifhops under a 
 reftraint of their power hen^ would naturally be 
 difpofed to throw it off, if the like redraint did 
 not take place at home ; and they would have 
 this plaufible plea to make in their own juftifi- 
 cation, that they a^imed at nothing more than 
 was allowed to be reafonable and proper in En- 
 gland. The plain trudi is, if the cxorbiraiu 
 power of Bilhops ought to be reflrained at all, 
 'it is as reafonable it lliould be reftrained at home 
 as here\ and it is a good reafon, why it Qiould net 
 be rcftrained there, that fuch an unfair, partial, 
 and unjuit reftraint would,, in all probability, 
 throucrh the luft of power, which even Eifhops 
 arc not totally delivered from, foon come to no- 
 thing here. But fays the DoClor, * Why are 
 
 we 
 
. * APPEAL OEFENMD.' iti 
 
 >^t to fuppofe, that the American Billiops will 
 be uneafy under fuch a limitation of their pow- 
 er, as the plan exprelTes ?' The rcafon is obvi- 
 ous, namely, bccaufe Bifhops have difcovered, 
 in all paft ages, that corruption was fo far unmor- 
 tified in thetrij as to confift with a Itrong incli- 
 nation to enlarge the fphere of their power, 
 whenever they had any plaufible pretence here- 
 for \ as they certainly would have in the pre- 
 fent cafe. But * whatever power or privilege^ 
 they [the propofed Bifhops] (hall once pofTcfs, 
 by virtue of their office, they will continue to 
 hold, as long as they (hall remain in the office ; 
 and as they know the terms before they accept 
 of it, there can be no difappointment. And why 
 fhould they be uneafy, becaufc the Biffiops at 
 home are invefted with civil authority ? The 
 Bifliops at home may as properly be unqafy and 
 rcftlels, becaufe they are not, like fomc of their 
 order on the Continent of Europe, fovereigm 
 Princes.' Some Bilfaops at home, in times pall, 
 whatever may be the truth at this day, were un- 
 eafy and rcftlefs fof^ want of more honour and 
 power ; and, without all doubt, would have 
 tifed any means, could they probably hoped for 
 fuccefs in the ufe of them, in order to their be- 
 ing as * fovereign Princes' as any ' Bifliops on 
 the Continent of Europe.' And no fecurity can 
 be given us, if the dcfired Bilhops fhould be 
 fenr, and upon the propofed plan too, that they 
 would not be foon fo * relllefs and uneafy,' as 
 toaffed that very change, in their retrained dig- 
 nity and power, which is fo much feared. The 
 Dodtor goes on, * Perhaps the uncafincfs of the 
 AmericanBifliops may be fuppofed to arife fr^m 
 the reSedion, that, deftitutc as they are of civil 
 power, they are Bifhops of the fame church with 
 
 thcit 
 
isS REPLY TO THE 
 
 their brethren In England,* And it may natu- 
 rally be fuppofed, they would be ' uneafy,' if 
 not at firft, yet, in a little time, -from the re- 
 flexion, that they were deprived of that power^ 
 it is as reafonable they fhould be vcfted with, as 
 their brethren of the fame church, and in pre- 
 cifely the fame office, at home. But ' they 
 will not be able to avoid this further "rcfledion, 
 that they are Bifhops of the fame church in dif- 
 ftrtnt countries, and under different circum- 
 fbanccs ; which efTcntially alter the cafe.' Ic 
 is not probable they would ever make (this re- 
 fledionjas there would be no juft reafon for their 
 fo doing. It is, in truth, nothing better than a 
 vain pretence. The fame epifcopal-mode of 
 church government is as proper for the Mo- 
 £her-Country, as the Colonies. Nothing in the 
 fituation of America, or in the circumftanccs of 
 the Country, or of the Epifcopalians in it, can 
 make it reafonable, or fit, that the epifcopal- 
 mode fnould be ' different* here from what it 
 ©UGHT to be at home, tnlefs it be fuppofed, 
 that the Kingdom of CHRIST is not that fpi- 
 ritual one he has declared it to be, but a King- 
 dom whofc government is founded on worldly 
 policy, and is to be fupported upon principles 
 of the fame kind. What but the wifdom of 
 this world could ever lead any man to think, 
 that the profelTcd difciples of the fame LORD, 
 of the fame religion, and of the fame fubjedion 
 to the fame fpiritual government, Ihould be dif- 
 ferently governed, bccaufe they happen to live 
 in different places ? No confiderations, but thofc 
 of this world, can be mentioned, that will juf- 
 tify, as reafonable, that epifcopal mode of go* 
 vernment here, which will not render it equally 
 fit in England. Says the Doctor yet farther, 
 
 ' This 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 129 
 
 ^ This fame kind of reafoning would operate as 
 flrongly againil epifcopal Clergymen in America* 
 as againft Bilhops. The Clergy of the church, 
 of England at home, are, in a grea: mieafure, 
 fupported by tythes ; therefore, it may be faid, 
 li Cle^^ymen of the church of Engfandare once 
 admitted in this Country, under whatever re- 
 Itridlions and limitations, they will net b^ eafy,' 
 until they fhall have fecured to themfelves the 
 tythes of our edates.' The fa£l here fuppafed 
 is, 1 believe, ftridlly true, that the Clergy of the 
 church of England will never be "• eafy until 
 they have fccupect to themfelves ' from cur 
 cftates here, what will be, in fubftantial fignifi- 
 carion, the, fame thing with the tythes in En- 
 gland. The Do6ior himfclf very obviouHy,' 
 hoA^ever undefignedly, led us to fufped: this in 
 fome hints he dropped in his appeal ; and that 
 is attempting to b.^ done, or actually is done, at 
 home, refpeding GLEBE-LANas for the church 
 of England in Amerka, which puts it beyond all 
 doubt. But this notv/ithflanding, v;e objecSt 
 not againft the admiffion of epifcopal Clergy- 
 men, or even Bifliops, into America, if they 
 have no authority, but that which is ' altogether 
 from CHRIST,' and not from this world. 
 
 At home^ it was faid, two ill confequence? 
 might be looked for. One was, * Thit vafi: 
 numbers there, who have long complained of 
 the too largely extended power claimed and ex- 
 ercifed by Bifliops, might think themfelves hard- 
 ly treated, that no regard fhould be paid to their 
 intreaties, while a comparatively few inconfi- 
 derable profefibrs of the church of England in 
 America are heard, and an Epifcopate fettled for 
 them according to their rnind.' To this the 
 Dodor anfwers, ' The reader can hardly avoidi 
 R remarking,' 
 
120 REPLY TO THE 
 
 remarking, that here, and in many other pkccs,' 
 the Dodor forgets his proper bufincfs and cha- 
 ra6ler. His bufinefs is to anfwer the appeal 
 upon the principles of the Diilcnters ; but in- 
 flead of this, he frequently endeavours to raife 
 difficukies and objections which cannot pro- 
 perly be made, but upon principlei oppofite to 
 his own, and of thofc whom he reprelents, in 
 this controverfy.* The Do6lor has injudici- 
 aliy naifplaced this remark. Had he made ic 
 under the former objedtion, it would have ap- 
 peared more plaufiblc. As brought in here, 
 it is really a blunder. Surely, Diflentcrs at 
 home might, in their proper charadcr as fuch, 
 complainofhird treatment, (liouldtherequeft be 
 granted to a few comparatively inconfidcrable 
 American Epifcopalians, which, for a long time 
 has been, and (till is, denied them ; though the 
 requeft from them is equally reafonable. It is 
 fcarce poffible but that they fhouid feel, and 
 groan under, fuch partiality. But, upon what- 
 ever principles this, cr any other, difficulty is 
 raifed, it is proper, if a real one, it fhouid be 
 mentioned by way of objedion, as objtr6lions of 
 all kinds were called for. And the Doctor is 
 now informed, if he needs information, that 
 thofe he improperly calls Dipntirs in this pare 
 of the world, are, upon chriftian principles, in 
 real earnefl: that the epifcopal Laity may not 
 be impofed on by their planning Clergy. The 
 former obj-dlion, under which the Doclor's prc- 
 fent remark would have been more pertinent, 
 was principally made with a view to ferve them -, 
 as there has been a combination of their Cler- 
 gy to carry Into execution, fo far as they were 
 able, a fcheme they had contrived for their own 
 fakes, to the iniirc negleifl of them 3 though 
 
 much 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 131 
 
 much more worthy of the mod ample pro- 
 vifioR they could have made for their fpritu- 
 al profit, under the government of the dc- 
 fired Biihops. The Doftor goes on, ' It will 
 never be admitted as an objedion ceming from 
 ibc Bijftnters here., or in England, that many 
 at. home will grow more clamorous againft the 
 prefent power of the EngUfb Biihops, in confe- 
 quence of the fcttlement of fuch an Epifcopare 
 as is propofed for the Colonics.' What bufmefs 
 had the Do6lor with thofe he calls "Bijfenters 
 here^ when the objected difficulty was the un- 
 eafinefs the propofed plan might give the T)if' 
 [enters at home ? Bv^fides, he ought to have 
 known, there are no Dtjfmters in any of the Co- 
 lonics to the northward of Maryland, unlefs epif" 
 copal ones. Mbrtover, it was not mentioned 
 as an objection, that Diffcnters at home would 
 * grow more clamorous in confequence of the 
 fettlement of the propofed Epifcopate.' This 
 be reprefents as my objedion, but without any 
 juft ioundacion from what I had faid. There is 
 a great and wide difference betwixt DifTenters 
 being ' clamorous againft the power of the En- 
 glifh Bifhops,' upon the fettlement of the pro- 
 pofed Ej-ifcopate hcrc,and their ' thinking them- 
 fclves hardly treated, that no regard Tiiould be 
 paid to the r intrcaties, while a fev/ compara- 
 tively inconfiderable Epifcopalians, in Amierica, 
 are heard, and an Epifcopate fettled for them 
 according to their mind.' Thcfc were my words j 
 and they contain a juft rcafon for fuch fenfati- 
 ons as naturally arife from hard and partial treat- 
 ment, which there may be. without being at: 
 all * clamorous.' 1 he Do6lor has only this to 
 fay further here, 'Shouldthc objedion be made by 
 any who have a right to make ir, it is [ufficienc 
 
 19 
 
in REPLY TO THE 
 
 O 
 
 to refer them to what has been already faid to 
 the purpofe.' — Sgrdy, if he had a right to ' in- 
 vite objc6tors to propofe their objections, that 
 they niight be faiily debated before the tribunal 
 of the Pubhc' they mud be fup poled, at leafl 
 by him, to have this right which he feems to 
 queftion. His bufinefs was to point out the 
 impropriety, or inluiiiciency, of luch objedtions 
 as any might make, not to fuggeli ihat they had 
 no right to make them. But what is it he had 
 already laid, to which he refers us ? It is in thefe 
 words, ' That fuch an Epifcopate may be trad- 
 ed HERE with eafe ; but it cannot be effeded in 
 England, without fubvtrnqg an eilablifli- 
 ment, and making a veiy \rifible alteration ia 
 the national conftitution — a work nevtr to be 
 undertaken Lul in the grcateil extremity, and, 
 CMtn then, not without a trembling hand.' We 
 luve nothing more here ihan an affirmation of 
 his own opinion j though he knew it was the opi- 
 iiion.ofoihers.equaily capable of judging, that he 
 is certainly and grolsly miftaken. — fhe propofed 
 Epifcopaie could not be erected i'^r^ with that 'eafe* 
 he would ijifinuate. It would, without all doubt, 
 bc.theoccafion of effecfU fnnilar tothofcjit wouid 
 have, v^ti'G k to be erected at heme ; a{;d they 
 would probably be, in proportion, as great and 
 general. As to its ' fubverting an eftablifli- 
 rnenr, and making a vciy vihble alteration in 
 the national conliitution,' he has himfclf given 
 us a full and fufficienc anfwer. For he has told 
 us, (p. 205) That ' as to fuch externals [as the 
 plan for an Ariierican Epifcopate would propofe 
 Inould be altered] the church of England has al- 
 Vv'ays aJlowed them to be things ihat>are alterable, 
 and that they ought to be altered, according to 
 die circun^ilances and opinions of dificrcnt coun- 
 tries. 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED/ ijg 
 
 tries, or even of the fame Country in differen: 
 ages.' Perhaps, he will allov/, if he will not the 
 impartial Public will, that the circurnl^ances and 
 opinions of the prefent age make it as reafona- 
 bk and lit, as they w^ll can do, that thefe al.- 
 
 TERABLE EXTERNALS fhould be ALTERED. 
 
 And I will venture to fiy, it is, in the prefent 
 day,e;<tremely neceffary Rich an alteration fhould 
 be undertaken. The fooner the better. And 
 it might, withoutJQiuch difficulty beaccomplilhed, 
 if gone upon, not ' with a trembling hand,' but a 
 refolution of fpirit becoming men and Chrifiians. 
 The other ill confequence, as the .Dodor has 
 been pleafed to rcpfefent it, is, * That the Bi- 
 fhops in England mil be jealous, that an in- 
 vdfion of their authority was intended'. I nei- 
 ther faid, nor intended to fay, that any in- 
 vafion of their authority was intended, but on* 
 ly that they * might eafily and naturally argue 
 from what was done here to what might, with 
 as much reafon, be done there :' Upon which 
 account, it was further faid, ' It can be fcarce 
 fuppofcd, it fhould efcape the thought of our 
 Englifh"*Bifhops, that the fettlement of fuch an 
 Epilcopate in America, as is propofed, may pre- 
 pare the v/ay for fuch a change in the power of 
 Biiliops at home, as they would not be very 
 fond of To which the reply is, ' I will only 
 retnind the Doctor of one circumftance which he 
 happened to forget -, namely, that this very plan 
 has been formed and introduced by thofe Bi- 
 fhops themfelvcs, and confcquendy Ihould they 
 be jealous that any invafion of their power is 
 therein intended, they jnufl: be jealous thac 
 they have intended to invade it themfelve^i". 
 I can affure the Doctor I did not forget, 
 that a few Bifhops at home might have an 
 hand in the formation of this plan j but 
 
 that. 
 
J34 REPLY TO TFIE 
 
 that they ^11, or generally, had, 1 have never 
 yet leen reafon to believe. Buc if it was the 
 pint contrivance of them all, it would only ar- 
 gue this, that they were inattsntive to what 
 might be the refult of this plan in the natural 
 courfe of its operation ; or that they were above 
 fearing confequenccs •, or, in fine, that they 
 defigned this plan as only an entering wedge to 
 make way for the creation of more Bidiops, 
 who, in proper time, might be clothed wich 
 like dignity and power with themfelves. 
 
 The impartial public will judge, whether the 
 Doctor hai fucceeded better in his anrwerto this, 
 than the foregoing objedion. I could wifh, for 
 his own fake, he had acquitted himfclf more 
 like a man of thorough underfcanding, ' that 
 came prbparcd' to plead for the truth only, and^ 
 Bot ' to objeift at any rate, rather than not to 
 objedt at all' 
 
 Objection III. ' The church of England 
 knows no fuch Biiliops as arc Ipecified in this 
 plan, nor can they, in confiftency with its con- 
 ftitution, be fent to the colonies'. As this is an 
 objedion cfTentially deftrudlive of the propofed 
 plan, if it exhibits the real truth, it wa^juflly 
 expcdtcd the Do6tor would have been particu- 
 larly careful to demonftrate that it did Rot. 
 And yet, to the furprife. of his readers, the 
 whole he has thought fit to offer is contained- 
 inthefe words, 'this objc£lion, arvd all that has 
 been faid to fupport it, has been fully anfwered 
 already'. What tnuft the public fay of his fo- 
 Icmn call for objtflions to be fairly debated be- 
 fore their tribunal, when, upon this call's being 
 complied with, by mentioning, and fupporting, 
 an ellentially important objedion, he virtually 
 declines debating on it by dogmatically affirm- 
 
APPEAL defended; 155 
 
 ing, ' that it has^ been fully anfwcred already, 
 and all that has* been laid to fupporc it? And 
 this is the more extraordinary, as he has not re- 
 ferred to the page, or even the part of his book, 
 in which this full and very particular anfvvcr is 
 to be found. I have carefully looked over the 
 whole he had ' already' wrote, and cannot find 
 any thing that refemblesthe anfwer he defcribes. 
 What he has offered upon the King's fuprcma-- 
 cy, page 49, and three or four pages onwards, 
 looks the mod this way ; and this, 1 conjedture, 
 is what he refers to : But it is far, very far, 
 from being an anfwer to 'all that was faid' in 
 fupport of the prefent objedion. This I fhall 
 no\4r endeavour to make evident to the reader ; 
 and may venture, in the doing of it, to engage 
 his attention for a while, without being charged 
 with keeping out of fight the grand point in 
 controverfy. 
 
 The plan fays, * The Bifliops to be fent to 
 America fhall have no authority, but purely of 
 a fpiritual and ecclefiaflical nature, fuch as is de- 
 rived ALTOGETHER from ' the CHURCH, and 
 not from the state. The objection againll 
 this plan is, * The church of England knowi 
 no fuch Bifhops, nor can they, in confiftency 
 with its conftitution, be fent to the Colonies.* 
 And why ? Becaule the conftitutional fupre- 
 macy of the King is fuch, that there can be no 
 Bifhops without his licence for their ele;5tion ; 
 nor, when cle(5led, and confccrated, can they 
 cxercife any authority,not in purely fpiritual mat- 
 ters, but BY and under him, and within the 
 limits that have been pointed out by the state. 
 They may not vary a title in any one thing per- 
 taining to the cxercife of their authority. How 
 then c*a their authority be altogether, from 
 - ^ ^ - the 
 
136 REPLY TO THE 
 
 the CHURCH, not from the state ? If, con- 
 fidently with the confiifution, they can ex- 
 ercife no authority, as officers in the church 
 of England, but by and under the King 
 as SUPREME Governor, and in exad confor- 
 inity to the orders of the state, how is it 
 pofTible- their authority fhould be ' fiich as is 
 altogether from the church, not at all from 
 the state ? This, to ordinary underftandings, 
 looks-very like a dire6l contradidion. In this 
 way of [arguing the objedlion was largely fup- 
 ported. 
 
 Let us now (ce, whether what the Doclor 
 has offered upon the King's fupremacy is ' a full 
 anfwer to all triat has been here'faid.' He 
 has cited the thirty- leventh article of the 
 church of England, which conrains her doc- 
 trine of the King's lupremacy j he has cited al- 
 fo the Qiieen's injundions to which this article 
 refers : But, it is to be part-cularly obferved, in 
 his whole arguing upon this point, he attempts 
 to prove no more than this, that * the church 
 was believed to have certain powers of a fpi- 
 ritual nature, which this fupremacy does not in- 
 clude, and which our Princes are fo far from 
 pretending to convey, that all manner of right 
 to exercife them, in their own perfons, is there- 
 in formally and exprelsly difclaimed.' That 
 this is what he endeavoured to prove, is made 
 indifputably clear from the manner in which he 
 illuftratcs his argument. Says he, * Let it be 
 confidered, that every man is, in fome i^Qnk, a 
 King in his own houfc and family ; and no cler- 
 gyman has a right to come into it to perform 
 any ecclefiaftical offices, to adminifter baptifm 
 for inftance, without his leave and confenr. 
 Upon him it altogether depends, whether the 
 
 clergyman 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDEDED/ 137 
 
 Clergyman fliill have a proper and lawful &\i^ 
 thoricy to perform this ofiice in his family; 
 Bucisic not evident, that the giving him thac 
 auchoricy is a very different thing, from invefling 
 him with the general povv'er to adminifter the 
 facraments ? In like manner, as aKin?,dom may 
 be confidered as a large family, the Kmg is the 
 political father of this family ; and as fuch is fu- 
 preme over all perfons belonging to it, whether 
 Ipiritual or temporal. And without his cpnfcnc 
 or authority, no Biiliop, or ecclefiaClical perfbn, 
 can lawfully ouiciate v/ithiti his dominions. But: 
 th^ giving this auchority, by commiffion, or ia 
 any other way, does not convey to any man his 
 facred character; but alv/ays fuppofcs him to 
 have been previoudy inveded with it, by virtue 
 of a commiOion from CHRIST.' What the 
 Doftor has here faid, by way of illuilration, ia 
 highly exceptionable, and fervcs little to any 
 other purpofe than to make it certain, that all 
 he aims at proving is only chisjthatjnotwithdand- 
 ing the King's fupremacy, it is from CHRIST, 
 not the King, that the authority of Bifliops, as 
 fuch, in the church of England, is conveyed to 
 them. It is, with me, beyond all doubt, that: 
 his labor upon this head is altogether in vain* 
 The Queen's words, in her injunctions, as quo- 
 ted by the Do6tor, are thefe, ' Her Majeily nei- 
 ther doth, nor ever will, challenge any autho- 
 rity, other than thac was challenged and lately 
 ufed by the faid noble Kings of famous memo- 
 ry, King ]-Lnry the Eighth, and King Edward 
 the Sixth, which is, and was of antient (ime, 
 due to the imperial Crown of this Realm.* ' What 
 now is the authority thac was challenged and 
 ufed by thefe noble Kings ^ Ic is noihing lliorc 
 of this J that they were veiled with 'all pov/er 
 
 S to 
 
I3l REPLY TO THE 
 
 to exercife- All manner of jgrifd'^lion ; and 
 that Arch-Bifnops, Bithcps, Arch-Deacons, and 
 other ci-cleiiadical perlbns, hav^e no manner 
 of jurifdidlion eccUfiaJlicat' bnt ry and under 
 theKiNxj's Majesty, vrho hath full power and 
 authority to hear and determine all manner 
 dfcaufes ecclesiastical, and to reform and 
 corre<5V all vxe, irn, errors, hcrefies, enormities, 
 ablTlt;^ whatfoever, which, by a^ny p^ianner cf 
 spiritual AUTHORiTY or iurif*h<::tion, oughc 
 or may be lawfully reformed, ^ Who that be- 
 lieves fuch power is veiled in the King, as fa- 
 p!ehT^ head of rhe church, can-, at the fame tlmt, 
 believe, that the authority of Biihops, in 
 their dcckTiaHical" charader, is altog£TH£r 
 from the CHURCH, not from the state ? i^ 
 the Doiftor iiiould be able to prove this to be 
 wuhin thc^ compafs bf pdlTibiiMy, he wotUd dif- 
 cover a tar lifigher reach of thought than he 
 has ever yet done. But we ha-^c no need to 
 ciii^rge here. Siiould it be iuppoled, not grailt- 
 c:i, ihiit the authority of Bifhops docs noc'floM^ 
 from the Crown, bat from the church, which 
 is the uimolt th^ Dodor has endea/oured to 
 pr.>ve. It will not foHow^ irom hence, that he has 
 s^nfwtrcd, or fo rji-4ch as attemp:ed lo anfwer, 
 ■' ail that is faid u\ rapport' of the objection in 
 cicbatc. Dare he lay, that the authority of tu<J 
 clergy of the church of England^ wheiher fupc- 
 nor or interior, kt him derive ic from whaE 
 foutce he plcalcs can be conilitutionally exerci- 
 iej in any oiic niltance, but as pointed out by the 
 
 King 
 
 * Vi^. Burn3 ercltiinftlcal ]aw, under the worel,ytt- 
 premacy^ wHcreio the feveral a«£^s of Pailiamcnt re- 
 jaiive to this fubjcia, in the icign of Henry ths 
 Ei'^hta and iiiuard the 5i&tii are cit«^« ' 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.* i^f 
 
 King and Parlriment ? Can the whole Clergf 
 of England, v/ih all the power they are vefled 
 vHth from CHRIS 1\ make the lead alteration 
 in the eftablhlitd fortrj ot worfiiin, crdination, 
 or government ? Is there any one thing, in 
 thefe moil jmporrant religious points, thar thry 
 can de':^a!t or vary froan ? If now iheir autho- 
 rity, as to ITS EXEP.CI3E, is intirely under 
 trie djredion, reltr^inr, and TpveTeign controul 
 of the King and Fariiament, how j^rofsly abt 
 lord muft it b,e cppropofe the miffion of Bifiaops, 
 with fuch authority only, as is altogether. 
 fiom the CHURCH, and -not at all from the 
 STATE I Tnere are no fuch Biiliops in the 
 church of England, ncr can there be till tho 
 Kjng is deprived of that fupremacy, which has 
 been granted to him by a^ls of Parliament, 
 and the prefeat ecclefiaftical eftabliiliment h ei- 
 taer riuUified, or eilcntially altered. It will noc 
 be in the power of the Do^ijr fully to^ an^- 
 fwer 'ail that has been fiid ', until ht has in- 
 telTg'iby informed us, how that ainhority is 
 Af^TOGETHER from th^ cjiURCH, 2nd not fiom 
 the STATE, which can be ccerciled, neither 
 in the aifair of vvcrlliip, ordination, govern- 
 ment, or dilcipiine, but by and under the 
 guidance, controul, and ioverrgnly prefcribed 
 order, not of the ^ church, but of the state; 
 This is his proper biiOnclL — This he fbould 
 h»ive undertaken in his reply to this ob- 
 je::lion — And this is (till incufTibent on him, 
 if he would entertain the ^Jeaft hope, upon 
 juft grounds, of fupporting fo firange a pro- 
 ppfal as ihzt o£ the mifiion of fuch Bifhops to 
 America, as are unknown to the churclrof En- 
 gland, and cannot be fent but upan the fubver- 
 lion, or great alrcration, 6f the prefent eccied^ 
 aliiciil cltabiifhmtnt. i 
 
REPLY TO THE 
 
 I SHALL only add, the objedion in debate 
 was enforced by oblerving, ' That rhisdepen- 
 dance on the state, notwithllandlng . the de- 
 fircd anthority'ALTOGETHER from thecHURCH, 
 is the true fourcc of all the hardOiips and grie- 
 vances, on account of the want of Bifliops in 
 America, that have been To bitterly complain- 
 ed of. Did Bimops of the church of England 
 no more d'jpend on the state, than our mi- 
 niilers do, the cpifcopal churches here might 
 ss well be fqpphed with Bifhops, as our's are 
 with Faftors/ &c. To all which the Dodor 
 lias no where (dropped a word, though he has 
 ' fully aniwered ail that was faid,' it certainly 
 lojks as though he did not know what to fay, or 
 be vv'ould have faid that which would have had 
 a better tendency to fervc his ca*bfe. 
 
 Objection. IV^ 'We are in principle, againfl 
 sil civil cftabliQiments in religion ; and as we do 
 rot defire any fuch ellablifliment in lupport of 
 our own religious fentimcnts, cr pra61ice, we 
 cannot reafonably be blamed, if we are not dif- 
 pofed to encourage one in favour of the cpifcopai 
 Colonics" The Dodor obferves upon this, 
 * if by We, I mean thofe of the congregaiional 
 perfuafion in New-England in general, the ob- 
 jedion contains an article of intelligence that is 
 to him NEW.* Nothing more follovvo from hence, 
 than that he is informed of fomething he did 
 not know before. But though he would affed to 
 be ignoi-anc of a real truth, he is frtc to declare 
 his faith in an imaginary one, namely, ' That « 
 large majority of the feveral perfuafions, ex- 
 cepting the people called Quakers, notwith- 
 Randing the declarations that have been publifh- 
 ed agamft eitablilhments in the grofs, had aU 
 >vay3 a rcfervc in favour of the eftabiiihment of 
 
 thc:i* 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.* 141 
 
 their own religion.' Was it to the purpofe of 
 the prclent argument, I coLild eaniy, notwith- 
 (landing ' the hidorical accounts, and authentic 
 anecdotes, in the Doctor's pofTeflion,' make it 
 appear, with a meridian luilre, ' That the Pu- 
 ritans, in the reign of Queen Elijabeth^ are in- 
 jurioufly milVeprefented in what he has here 
 given us ' from Maddox\ anfwerto NeaU^ And 
 he mud not tii^e it amifs, if i tell him, that we 
 are not furprifed at his endeavouring to unco- 
 ver- ihe nakednefs ' of his anceftors/ as he is a 
 DESERTER from that great cause which 
 brought them over to this then defolate land : 
 Nor is it beyond what we expefled, to find him, 
 and many of the Society's MifTionaries, who are, 
 either profcUtes themfelves, or the [ons of pro- 
 /elites, fired with extraordinary zeal in propa- 
 gating high-church principles. This has all a- 
 long been the way, on this fide the Atlantic, in 
 which converts to the church, efpecialiy clerical 
 ones, have endeavoured to give proof of the fm- 
 cerify of their convcrfion. 
 
 Ke now comes to the point in debate, and 
 agrees with me, ' That if I, and thofe of my pcr- 
 fuafion, donotdcGrean eihabiifhment in fupport 
 of our religious fentiments, we cannot be rea- 
 fonabiy blamed, if we are not difpofed to en- 
 courage one in favour of the epifcopal Colo- 
 riiits.' But fays he, * What has the cafe of re- 
 ligious ciiabliiliments to do with the Araericaa 
 Epiicopate, which has been offered to the Pub- 
 lic ?* He knew, or might have known, that the 
 objection fuppo fed they had a great deal to do 
 with it ; and, inftead of afking fuch a needlefs 
 queftion, he fliould have evinced, upon the foot 
 of folid argument, that they had no connection 
 with, ©f relation to, each other. But he con- 
 tents 
 
i4t f.EPLY TO THE 
 
 tents hlmfelf with only going on afKing, ' Does^ 
 this plan propofe an eitabliQimentof the church ?* 
 It undoubtedly does. ' Will the exe-cu lion of ijt 
 iraply,or amount to, ^ny fuch thing ?' Yes ; or it 
 can never be carried intoexecution. 'Willihein- 
 trodudion of Biihops, who fhall have no authority, 
 but purely of a fpiritual and tccl jfiaftipal nature, 
 iuch as is derived altogether froi?i thechurch, 
 and not from the 0. ate ; [and fo on to the con- 
 clufion of the plan •,] I fay, will the introdudti- 
 oi3 of fuch Bifliops as thefe amount to an cfta- 
 bhfhment ? N^y, can It have any more afpedt 
 againft the civil or religious privileges of the 
 Coloniiis, th^n againit tbofs of the Crim Tar- 
 tars'? Surely the Dodtor could not but know, 
 before he aflced th:?fe queRions, that it was only 
 aildng, whether we thought there was any 
 weight, or force, ia the produced objedion. 
 How unaccountable i-herefore is it, that he could 
 imagine, that he had faid any thing to the pur- 
 pofe, by barely putting theie qucllions ! Thty 
 are really nothing more than fo many ftrongly 
 ovprcfTed affirjniations : and will be call this argu- 
 ing ? He propofed, that every objection fhould, 
 be fairly debated before the tribunal of the 
 Public •, butj inftcad of debating upon this, he 
 roundly and repeatedly affirms, by way of que- 
 ry, that it has no validity in it. His proper 
 work was, to make it clearly evident, by gcod 
 reafoning, that the propofed plan did not imply 
 an eilablilhmc nt, and that it could, without one, 
 be carried inco cffcd 5 the contrary to, y/hich 
 will, without all doubt, be found the truth cf 
 fad, if ever this plan takes place. If it fnould, 
 h muft be by tne cojillitution oi a new church 
 of Eegland in the Colonits •, but how this 
 caa be cffeirted without an eltabliflimcntjaccorvj- 
 
 ing 
 
^APPEAL D E FENDED.' i>3 
 
 ing to the true idea of this word, no one, unlefs 
 ic be the Dodcr, can explain. This is what h« 
 ought to have done in anfvver to the prefent 
 objedion ; and until we are thus favoured, we 
 fliall take the liberty to think, we are perfcc'Uy 
 confident with ouriclves, while v\c arc not dif- 
 pofed to encourage the planned epifcopal efta- 
 blifhmenr, as we defire no eftablifhment of our 
 own mode of rcKgious goYerniPiCnr, or diici- 
 pline. 
 
 The Doflor now gives us a curious fpecimen 
 of his talent at nice, {Xnd:, cbfe reafoning. 1 
 had faid, '^ It does not appear to lis, that CHRIST 
 has entrufted the Hate with a right to make 
 religious eftabliilimtrits. ]f the flats in England 
 has this delegated authoritv, mufl it not be 
 owned, thic the (late in China, in Turkey, in 
 Spain, mud have this 'authority alfo ? What 
 ihould make the difference in the eye of true 
 reaf^jn ? Hath the ftate in England been diftih- 
 guiilied by Pleavca by any peculiar grant, be- 
 yond the (late in other Countries ? If it has 
 let the grant be produced. If it -has not, all- 
 flatcs, have, in common, the fame authority. 
 And as they niuft fcverally be fuppofed to exert 
 this authority in eftablilhments conformable to 
 cheir own Icntimenrs in religion ; what can the 
 confequcnce be^ But infinite damage to the 
 caufe of GOD, and true religion ? And fuch in 
 fadhaa been the confequence of thefe cilabHlh- 
 mencs, in aJlages, and in all places'. Some of 
 thefe bad conlequences were then particularly 
 mentioned. Let us now fee the Do6tor's reafon- 
 ing to invalidate what was thus offered againft 
 the rig bi of ftatcs to make religious eftabhili- 
 raents. Says he, ' The fame argument witlx 
 whioii the Dod:<jv endeavQurs to overthrow it 
 
 ■ [this 
 
,44 REPLY TO THE 
 
 [this right ofdatcs] is as forcible agamfl ths 
 right of private judgment. This will evidently 
 appear from the following experirnent. If a 
 pe^fon in England has this i ighr, muPi it not be 
 owned that a perfon in China, in Turkey, in 
 Spain, mull: have it alfo', and fo on, applying 
 what i had offered againft the right ef ft ales to 
 make religious eftabiiiliments, to the right of 
 private jucigrr;ent ; as though the argument was 
 equally forcible againd the latter as the former.' 
 But furtly the Dodtor does not believe, that the 
 right of ftates lo make religious efiablifh merits 
 is as clearly and indubitably a grant from GOD, 
 as the right of private judgment ! And if he does 
 not, what doih his arguing prove ? The cafes 
 irjuft be parallel, or the reafoning from the one 
 to the other cannot beppnclufive. It is allowed, 
 the bad efleds that 'follow from the exercife of 
 private judgment are no proof, that men have not 
 univcifally a right to judgf for themfelves. And 
 why ? Becaufe they have this right granted to 
 them by GOD himfelf, and we aic as fure of it 
 jis that he has granted them any other right 
 whatever. Is the caf^i the fame with refpe6t to 
 the right of ftates to Inake religions eftablifh- 
 ments ? Is not their pretended r/g/^/ founded en- 
 tirely on its fuppofed connedion with th* real 
 intsrell of religion ? It is therefore a good argu- 
 ment againft this rights though none at all againd 
 the ri^ht of private judgment^ that, inftead of 
 being advantageous, it has been infinitely hurt- 
 ful to the caule of GODJ and true virtue. The 
 religion of Jcfus, in particular, has fufftred 
 more from the exercife of this pretended right, 
 than from all other caufes put together ; and 
 it is, with me, patl ali doubr, that it will never 
 be rcllored to its primitive purity, fimplicity; 
 
 «nd 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 145 
 
 and glory, until religions eftablifhments are fo 
 brought down as to be no more. In {hort, 
 when the Doftor fhall make it evident, that the 
 Jiate-right we are confidering ftands upon the 
 fame bottom, and is as inconteflably a grant 
 from GOD, as the right of private judgment, we 
 fhall then allow, that the bad confequences flow- 
 ing from the exercife of thefe rights arc as for- 
 cible an argument againft the one as the other, 
 that is, no argument at all ; bur, until then we 
 fhall think this afguing altogether below one, 
 who would be efteemed a gentleman endowed 
 with a good capacity for rcafoning* I am obli- 
 ged to (ay, the Dodtor feems to have no great ta- 
 lent at anfwering objedions, or has been unac- 
 countably carelefs in the doing of it. Inftead of 
 recommending to the reader what has been 
 wrote againft religious efiiihlilhments^ I would ad- 
 vife him to confult his own reafon, and to pay 
 a regard to the didates of common sense, and 
 he need not then fear being led afide cither by 
 'Bifhop Warburton\ alliance between the churcli 
 and the ftate, or Dr. Stebbing's eflay concerning 
 civil government, or Dr. Roger\ vindication of 
 the civil eftablifhment, or Bifliop EUys on fpi- 
 ritual liberty, or a late elegant eflay on cfta- 
 bliflimcnts in religion, in aniwer to the confef- 
 donal.' 
 
 Objection V. ' The church of England in 
 the Colonies, in its comparative low ftate, in- 
 ftead of an Epifcopate, upon this plan, or any 
 other, needs rather the charitable afliftance of its 
 friends to fupport its prefenc Minifters, and 
 others that arc ftill wanted.* The reply be- 
 gins, * The Doflor forgets that the church of 
 England, in fcveral of the Colonies, is not in 
 that comparative low ftate he fpcaks of 5 but is 
 T able 
 
146 REPLY TO THE 
 
 iiblc to fuppbrt, and does fupport, its Miniftcrs 
 in general as amply as any fee of Clergymen arc 
 fupported in the Brltifh dominions.* This 1 did 
 not forget, though I took no notice of it, for this 
 very good reafon, becaufc it did not appear, that 
 the church of England in any of thefe Colonies 
 had complained for wane of Bilhops, or were 
 
 • difpofed to petition for them. The only com- 
 plainers and petitioners are rcfidents in the other 
 Colonies, where the church of England is in the 
 comparatively low (late that was reprefcnted. 
 Neither Clergy, nor Laity in the Colonies 
 where epifcopal Miniflers are fo ' amply fup- 
 
 ^ ported/ have made any ftir, that we know of, 
 about the want of Bifhops, or fignified their de- 
 fine of their miflion. But, fays the Do(5lor, 
 * Suppofing the' church throughout the Colonies 
 needed the charitable afliftance of its friends to 
 fupport its Minifters, yet this would be no proof 
 that it docs not need alfo an Epifcopate.' If 
 it would be no proof of this, it would fully prove, 
 that the epifcopal Clergy, in the Colonies, are 
 boundlefs in their defires of charity. One would 
 think, the amazing funi that is annually, and 
 charitably, expended in fupporting MifTionaries, 
 
 ■ might fatlsfy the fturdiell beggars, without han- 
 kering after as much more charity as would be 
 fufficient for the fupport of Bifhojps. Befidcs, 
 they cannot have Blfhops, upon the propofed 
 plan, unlefs the church of Englaad is, by the 
 
 Jiate^ differently conftitutcd here from what it 
 IS at home. 
 
 I HAD faid, ' In North-Carolina, the religious 
 ilatc of things, by all accounts, is deplorably 
 fad — They have few, very few, Minifters to of- 
 ficiate in gofpel-adminiftrations. That charity, 
 which might be fufficient for the maintenance of 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDEDED.' 147 
 
 as many Miffionaries as would be needful there,' 
 would be fv/allowed up by on« Bifliop only. 
 And would this tend fo much to the honour of 
 GOD, and the good of fouls, as if it was ex- 
 pended in fupport of miiTiOns that are really nc- 
 ceffary ?' Upon this the Do6lor cries out,' It 
 is furprizing to fee what advantages are claimed 
 by fome people ! How they can make nfe of 
 the fame argument to different purpofcs ! When' 
 other ends are to be anfwcred, the writers 
 agamft the church can tell us, that the Society 
 have no power to apply their funds to other 
 ules than were intended by the donors — But 
 now an Epifcopateisin view, itis thought reafona- 
 ble and juft that the Society fhould alienate a 
 fund, more ftriflly appropriated to a particular 
 ufe than any other in their power, (for this may 
 be truly faid of the fund for the fupport ofAme- 
 rican BiHiops) and expend it upon MiiTionaries 
 to be fcnt to Carolina, and other places, provi- 
 ded always, that fuch places are at a due dif- 
 tance from New-England.' It is not eafy to' 
 conceive, what could give occafion for this 
 ftrange remark. Not a word v/as faid of the 
 fund appropriated for the fupport of American 
 Biihops, or of the Society's expending one far-- 
 thing of this fund toother ufes than were intend- 
 ed by the donors. It was only faid in gene- 
 ral, ' That charity which might be fufHcient for 
 the maintenance of as many Miffionaries as 
 were wanted v/ould be f.vaUowed up by one Bi- 
 fhop only.* Has the Society nothing put into 
 their hands for the fupport of the gofpel in 
 America, bcfides what is appropriated for the 
 fupport of Bidiops here ? And as the fund icr 
 the fupport of American Bifhops is infofficienr, 
 might not the Society, wiihfidciity to their uuft. 
 
^,48 REPLY TO THE 
 
 in the Dodlor's opinion, make up this deficien- 
 xy, (hould Bifliops be lent ? This, and this on- 
 ly, is what 1 had in view. And as Mifliona- 
 ries were peculiarly wanted in Carolina, and 
 other places, it was fuppofed, and 1 believe, up- 
 on juft grounds, that it would be more for the 
 honour of GOD, it (liould be expended this 
 way, than in fupporting Bidiops. What the 
 Doctor has here faid is therefore quite aliene 
 from what was really intended, nor m the leaft 
 an anfwer to it. Had he looked within, I can 
 fcarce think his confcience would have fuffcred 
 him to infmuare, that 1 fpake of miffions to Ca- 
 rolina, becaufe at ' a due diilance from New- 
 England.' He knows, that the cxprefsly nam- 
 ed objed: of the Society's care is, the miffion of 
 Clergymen for the adminiftration of the word 
 and iacraments in thole Colonics, where there 
 was no provifion at ail, or a mean one, for the 
 publick worfhip of GOD. And he muft know 
 likewife, unlefs he is ftrangely ignorant, that 
 Carolina is the Colony, if there is any one on 
 the American Continent, where, as we have of- 
 ten been told in the fociety-fermons, they had 
 fcarcely any form of public worfhip j where even 
 the lord's day was hardly diftinguifhcd from 
 other days, but by greater idlcnefs and profane- 
 nefs jand where baptifm and the LOKD's fup- 
 per were fcarcely known to be adminiftred. 
 Why then would he fuggeft, that I mentioned 
 Carohna, becaule ' duly diftant from New-En- 
 gland ?' He has not herein difcovered that 
 chnltian concern tor the propagation of the gof- 
 pcl, according to the acknowledged defign of 
 the Society's charter, which might have been 
 cxpcded from a Mifiionary in virtue of it. He 
 adds, ' As the Society have never a&d the pare 
 
 of 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 149 
 
 of unfaithful (lewards, in oiher cafes, we can be 
 under no apprehenfions that they will in this.' 
 I fay not, that they have adled an unfaithful part • 
 but this 1 will fay, it is the real truth of fadt, to 
 whatever caufe it may be owing, that they have 
 employed few Miffionanes, next to none, in 
 Carolina, where ihey were moft needed, and 
 multiplied them wher? there was little, if any 
 need at all of them -, and in fome places they 
 have fupported, and are dill fupporting them, 
 where the churches to whom they miniftcr are 
 abundantly able, without any alfiftance from 
 them, to fupport the gofpel. And though 
 guarding the Colonics againft, or delivering 
 them from, the delufions and fuperftitions of 
 Popery, is one eiTcncial part of the budnefs of 
 the Sccicty, as pointed out in their charter, they 
 have fo ftrangely ncgledted Canada, which, ever 
 fincc the conclcfion of the lalt war, has been a 
 Province in fubjedlion to the Britifh Crown, as 
 to give occafion for a letter to them, from the 
 Chaplain to the garrifon at Montreal, wherein 
 he fays, ^ ' That the R-omifh Priefts avail 
 thcmfclves greatly of the negleded (late of the 
 church of England in thofc parts ; perfuading 
 the Canadians, that we have not religion i'o 
 much at heart as they.' Let the impartial 
 Public judge, wheihcr it would not be a much 
 flronger argument of the Society's faithfulnefs 
 as ftewaras, to take effectual care that Carolina 
 and Canada have a full fupply of Miffionaries, 
 rather than New-England, New-York, the Jer- 
 fics, or Pennfylvania, where there is no pretence 
 
 of 
 
 * Abftraa of the proceedings of the Society, annex- 
 ed to the fociety-fermon preached Feb, 17, 17^9* 
 by the Bifhop of Briflel, 
 
ic^o REPLY TO THE 
 
 of any want of them, but mcerly to uphold a 
 different mode of adminiftration in one and the 
 fame religion. 
 
 I HAD faid, ' As to the Colonies, extending 
 from Pennfylvania to the northermoft bounds 
 of the Mafrachufetts-Province, notwithftanding 
 ihe pious care of the Society at home, and the 
 vail charity they have been annually expending 
 in favour of the church of England, from their 
 firft incorporation to this day, it has grown but 
 little in comparifon with the other denominati- 
 ons of chriftians, not having got as yet beyond 
 its infant ftate.' Says the Dodtor in reply, ' I 
 conceive he mud be miftaken as to the fadl. In 
 Pennfylvania, Ncv/-Jerfey, and Nc^-York, I 
 will not bcpofitive that the church hasxcncreafed 
 beyond the proportion of other denominations 
 for fifty years pad — But in the New-England 
 Colonies it appears, from good accounts, that 
 the church has confiderably increafcd ; and that 
 the number of its profcfTors at this day bears a 
 greater proportion to the number of inhabi- 
 tants, than it ever has done before. I may be 
 niiftaken with regard to fomc of the New-En- 
 gland Colonies : But' — . He has hitherto fpoken 
 cautioufly, but not like one .who appears to have 
 a fufficient acquaintance with x\\^ real truth of 
 fa6t. Upon the itridleit examination, it would 
 be found, that the increafe of other denomina- 
 tions, beyond the increafe of Epifcopalians, is 
 greater in New-England, than in New-York, 
 New-Jerfcy, or Pennfylvania •, and this greater 
 increafe is rapidly goin^ on in all the Colonics 
 that conlfitute wiiat is called New-England, ex- 
 cepting the Colony of Conncfticur, in which 
 there has been the greaiefl: increafe of the 
 church of England i but there is nothing * amaz- 
 ing* 
 
^ ^APPEAL D EFENDED/ 151 
 
 ing,' as the Do(5lor*s epithet is, in this increafe : 
 Nor had he the leaft reafon to go on faying, ' I 
 cannot at prefent recoiled an example, in any 
 age or country, wherein fo great a proportion of 
 profejites has been made to any religion in fo 
 jfhort a time, as has been made to the church of 
 England in the weftern divifion of that populous 
 Colony ; unlcfs where the power of miracles, 
 or the arm of the Magiftrate, was exerted to pro- 
 duce that effed.' Notwithftanding the hyper- 
 bolical mode in which theDodor here flouriihes, 
 there are not one tenth part fo many Epifco- 
 palians, even in the weltern divifion of Con- 
 nedicLit, as there have been fterling pounds ex- 
 pended in order to profelitc them : Nor are 
 there more epifcopal churches in all the New- 
 England Colonies, than there have been thou- 
 fands of pounds tterling fpcnt to found and fup- 
 port them. And they are, by far the greater 
 part of them, not excepting thofe In the above- 
 mentioned ' weftern divifion,' in fo weak and 
 low a ftate, that there would be no hope of their 
 continuedexiftence, if that charily was withdrawn, 
 which, at firft, gave being to them, and has all 
 along fuppotted them in being : Whereas, the 
 churches of other denominations, without the 
 help of charity from abroad, or the expectation 
 or defire of any, are become numerous, and 
 continually increafe in number, beyond what has 
 been known in any age, or place, fincc the firlt 
 ages of chriftianity. 
 
 I HAD fpoken of the church of England here, 
 * as being in its infancy, not able to ftand upon 
 its own legs, and fo far from a ftate of matu- 
 rity, as not to make it worth while for a Biftiop 
 to come here.' The Dodor replies, ' infant 
 and feeble as (he is, he has allowed that ftic may 
 
 b« 
 
!5£ REPLY TO THE 
 
 be 270,000 ftrongin the Colonies — Now can he 
 pofllbly think, when he allov/s himfeif time for 
 confideraiion, that the church of England in 
 Anficrica, containing 2 7 0,000 members, in v;hich 
 are included moll of the governors and princi- 
 pal perlbns in the Colonies, is (o inconfidcrable, 
 that it is not worth while for si Bifhbp to take the 
 charge of it ?' When 1 fuppofed the church of 
 England might contain 270,000, 1 took inro the 
 computation all the Epifcopaltans on the Ameri- 
 can Continent. But when I fpake of her as in 
 * an infant feeble Rate, not able to (land upon 
 her own legs,' my view was ( as may be leen in 
 the paiTagcs with which ihefe words are connect- 
 ed) to her exiftence in the feven Colonies, ex- 
 tending from Fennfylvania to the utmoft north- 
 cail bounderies of the MafTachufetts- Province ; 
 in all which, though they contain by far the 
 greatefr number of inhabitants on this Conti- 
 nent, there are not more than 26 or 27 thoufand 
 profeflbrs of the church of England, who arc 
 fcattered over an extent of 600 miles in length, 
 and more than an lOO in breadth. And * of 
 thefe, (as was oblerved in my anfwer, pag. 156, 
 to which the Dodorhas made no reply) it woulJ 
 be no wrong to the truth, if it fhould be faid, a 
 very confiderabie part went over to the church, 
 not fo much upon lober inquiry and real princi- 
 ple, as from difguft at the parifn-miniiler, or 
 unhappy prejudxes arifmg from the placing s, 
 meeiing-hoLiie, or fome fuch important difficul- 
 ty in tiie towns where they lived.' In this view 
 of the church uf England, which is certainly a 
 jufl: one, what occafion is there for Bifhops, at 
 lead in ihefe parts of America ? l.had nothing 
 ^to do with the Colonics to the (buthward of 
 Peunrylvania.'They have neither complained for 
 
 wans 
 
APPEAL defended; 153 
 
 want of Bifnops, or defired rhe miflion of ihcm. 
 When this is the cafe, we fhall doubtlcfs fay that 
 upon the matter, which isjufland rtafonable. 
 The above delcribed feven Colonies only, contain 
 the complaincrs and petitioners •, and as the So- 
 ciety's chief folicitude, as well as charity, has 
 been laid out to cpifcopife thefe Colonics, they 
 arc cminently,if not folely, theColonies for which 
 Bifhops have been fo carneftly fought after. Buc 
 the church of England mu(t make a more re- 
 fpeitable figure in thefe Colonies, before fhc 
 may hope for fuch a fuperior order of men as 
 Biil:^ops. Will it become their dignity to be 
 f'jpported by charity, and to be placed at the 
 head of churches fo dependant on charity, as 
 thac if it is v/ithheld, they mud, by far the grea- 
 ter part, of them, fall into non-exiftencc ? The 
 church (as the Dodor loves to call it — as though 
 there was no other church) muft wait until it 
 arrives at a flate of much greater maturity, be- 
 fore ic will be worth while for Bifhops to come 
 here. It is acknowledged the Governor, in mod 
 of thefeColonics, is commonly in name, an Epil> 
 copalian ; though Sometimes deftitute of every 
 thing elfe that looks like religion. — Surely fuch 
 Governors cannot be luppofcd to have much at 
 heart the affair of an Epifcopatc, unlefs they 
 fhould view it as conneded with their worldly 
 interefl in one fhapc or another. Jt is quite re- 
 mote from the truth to fay, that ' molt ef the 
 principal perfons in the Colonies' arc of this 
 perfuafion, unlefa by principal perfons are 
 meant, thofe who ar« appointed to their civil 
 pofts from home. In general there are 50 prin- 
 cipal perfons to one, in the Non-cpifcopal 
 Colonies, who are not members of the church 
 of England, but of churches of other denomi- 
 natioiis, U Th^ 
 
154 REPLY TO THE 
 
 The Do6lor now leaves me for a while, in or- 
 der, to confider the obje(5tions I had iiitroduced 
 ias offered by Dr. Mayhew againft'this plan, iri 
 reply to a fuppofed high dignitary of the church 
 of England. As it was the profefTed defign of 
 the * appeal' to remove objedions againi'l the 
 Americm Epifcopate, * the faffering thefe ob- 
 jedions to lie againd it, without lifping a word 
 to takeoff the force of them, 'was mentioned 
 as a failure. The Dodor has excufed himfcif 
 by faying, ' He had not feen thefe objedions, 
 though he had in vain made inquiry after them.' 
 The fxcufe is ' candidly accepted' as a good 
 one. ' But (fays he) what excufe can Dodor 
 'Chauncy make for taking no notice of what was 
 powerfully offered by Mr, Apthorp in anfwer to 
 ihrfe very objedions of Dr. Aiayhew "^^ There 
 is no need of making any excufe, as, in compli- 
 ance with the invitation given in the ' appeal,' 
 my bufinefs v/as, nor. to anfwer objedions, buc 
 to bring them that they might be anfwered by 
 the Dodor. Now he has adopted what he ima- 
 gines was ' powerfully offered by Mr; /tpthorp' 
 it is become proper 1 fhould take nciicc of it ; 
 bur, had I done this before, I might have been 
 taxed with officioufnefs ; I fhould certainly have 
 aded out of charader as an objedor, and pre- 
 vented myielf in that which ought not to have 
 been expeded until now, 
 
 Befor E the Do6tor brings in Mr. Apthcrp^ 
 he fays a few words, which, I fuppofe, he intended 
 fhould be looked upon as an anfwer to ihe ' ex- 
 pedient I fuggerted ro compromife matters be- 
 tween Epifcopalians and other denominations in 
 the Colonies j' but as he has filencly paffed over 
 vhat I had largely offered in illuflration of the 
 propriety and reaignablenefs of this expedient, f 
 '*" " ^ have 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDEDED.' '155 
 
 'have nothing to do here but to defire the reader 
 ■to turn top. J50, iLg^ 1 60 of the anfwer to 
 the 'appeal ;' and he rnult then be convinced,' 
 that the Dodor, under the pretence of faying 
 foniething, has really (aid nothing. 
 
 Now comes in Mr. Jplbcrfs anfwer to Dr, 
 Maybezv^s objections. This anfwer was publifh- 
 ed before the Doctor's death, and the only rea- 
 fon he made no reply to ic was, that neither he, 
 or his friends, thought in worthy of fuch notice. 
 In was, as they imagined, wrote principally with 
 a view to recommend himrclf to a certain great 
 man, whofe favour might be advantagious to 
 him. However, if he had been permitted, in 
 the alwife government of Heaven, to have lived 
 until this time, he would, doubtlefs, upon this 
 oceafion, have pointed out the utier infuiScien- 
 cy of this Genilemari's anfwer to his objeflions. 
 And though he might have done it to betier pur- 
 pofe than J can, divine Providrnce has put a fa- 
 tal bar in the way of the Public's having this fa* 
 tisfadion. The reader, while he remembtrs in 
 is the Dodor's friend that appears in hi:s behalf, 
 will not attribute to him any dcttct he may dif- 
 cern in the vindication of his objcflions. 
 
 'The Dodor, (fays Mr. Apthorp) affeds to 
 doubt whether the fcheme propofed by his an- 
 fwerer be not rneerly his own, inftead of being, 
 as is afllTtedjthe real and only one that has been 
 in view ; and fays, thset if this aflertion be tiive^ 
 be and others have been mifinfgrmed.* The 
 reply is, 'Let h.s cr their irformcrs fay on whac 
 grounds they have ever affirmed a diffijrent one 
 tv) have, been fraiTrCd •, or elfe let them take 
 fliame to themfelves fcr inventing falfnoods, or 
 venring imaginations for fads ; and let the 
 Pjdor fee a mark on them, and be more cauti- 
 ous 
 
fjS REPLY TO THE 
 
 ous whom he believes hereafter.' What was 
 faid by the Dodlor is here fet in a very partial 
 and unfair light, Inftead of properly quoting 
 his words, as he ufcd them in a conneded courfc 
 cf reafoning, this writer has given them, or ra- 
 ther the fcnfe in which he undertiood them, in a 
 difjoined abfoluteform. The writer the Doder 
 rephes to, »fcer he had propofcd a fchcme for a 
 Colony-Epiico'pate, aillir.i-a uSg * This is the real 
 and only fcheme that hath been planned for Bi- 
 ihops in America -, and whoever hath heard of 
 any other hath been mifinformed through mif- 
 takc or dcfign.' Says the Doctor in anfwer, 
 * To fpcak for mvlelf, then, I am one of thofe 
 who have been thus mif.nformed -^ and I know 
 of others who have been fo, in common with 
 ine -r-Hc fpeaks of this fcheme with great af- 
 furance, as if he were at head-quarters^ and cer- 
 tainly knew ic to be the real and cnly one. ^oi- 
 fibly, this may be the care. But he is not 
 known j nor has he informed us upon what 
 ground or authority he goes in giving this ac- 
 count of tliC matter. The declaration of an 
 anonymous writer, how confidently foeverlie 
 may cxprefs himfelf, is not, furely, fuffieient to 
 fatisfy us, that this is the true fcheme plann'cd. — « 
 It may pcfh )iy be only his own Ichemc, the 
 fcheme of a private man ; and until it comes 
 with better authority, or in a more authentic 
 way, we may confidcr it as an imaginary one,' — • 
 Let Mr. /if thorp ' take fhame to himftrlP for 
 pretending lo anfwer an objcdion, without fo 
 much as faying a word to invalidate fuch perti- 
 nent and folid reafoning in fupport of it. I can- 
 not fuppofe Dr. ChandUr himfelf will think, that 
 what is here faid is * powerfully offered ;* tf he 
 fhould, without all doubt, the impartial Tublic 
 will judge othcrwife. He 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 157 
 
 He goes on to tell us of ' fucccfTive prcpofais 
 for American Bifhops, made at different xiines, 
 through a long eouifc of years, by men of high 
 rank and charafler in the church 5 all which 
 agree with tvhat the aniwertr has avered.' He 
 like wife gives us at large ^ Bifhop Butler's 
 fch-:me, as one ' that might have peculiar v;eighc 
 with the Dodor ;' and ipeaks of it as exadlly (i- 
 milar to that in the anfwer to his obfervations.* 
 "What is all this to the purpofc ? We know, and 
 the Dodor knew, there has long been a dt^ign 
 to introduce Bifhops into the Colonies, and that 
 plans have been formed to accomplifh this defign. 
 Butfliould there have been a general agreement in 
 thefe plans, they may be nothing mdre than the 
 fchemes of private men ; and this indeed is the 
 truth of fadl. They are not to be looked on as 
 fchemes fet forth upon the foot oi proper autho- 
 rity. The planners of them had no fuch au- 
 thority \ and whatever they might intend, or 
 pretend, if ever an Epifcopate is authoritatively 
 fettled in America, it may be, for aught any or 
 all of them can fay, upon a plan very dilFerenc 
 from that which they have propofed. Mr. Ap- 
 thorp is pleafed to fay of the propofed plan, 
 ' That it is fuch a fmiple and beautiful plan of 
 the mod antient and moderate Epifcopacy, than 
 it fhould, not only remove all the Doctor's ap- 
 prehenfions, but the fcruples of every rational 
 and learned Diflenter againd: that apoftolic form 
 of government.' Where does this writer find, 
 in any of apoftolic epiftles, the model of an epif- 
 copate without any authority to govern the JLa- 
 ity ? Let him, if he can, produce a text, in any 
 part of the new-teftamenc, wherein ruling the 
 Clergy, in dijlinBion from the Laity^ is made the 
 proper work of Bilhops. He would likewixc do 
 
 what 
 
J5S REPLY TO THE 
 
 what was never done before, if he would point 
 out that part of the chriftian word, where the 
 Biihop's diocefs, in the ' moft ancient times,' ex- 
 tended an hundred miles in breadth, and feveral 
 hundred in length. Until he it able to prove, 
 that fuch was ' the moil antient Epifcopacy,' no 
 rational or IcarnedDiiTenter 2gainft the propofed 
 plan, will entertain an opinion of it as, in any 
 meaiure/ agreeing wich the ' apoftolic form of 
 government.' This Gentleman has not difco- 
 vered here the mod intimate acquaintance, with 
 either xhe apoltolic Epifcopacy, or that which 
 look place fin the mott antient times. 
 
 He goes on, ^ Suppofing this to be the real 
 fcheme, the Dodtor owns that it jets the matter 
 in a lefs exceptionable point of vitw, than he had 
 Teen it in before.' Very trtie -, and I am ready 
 to own the fame thing. But this does not make 
 the fcheme unexceptionable. He now com^ 
 •plains, ' The Doctor cannot forbear going fif- 
 ty years back to ridicule fome harmiels, though 
 ill chofen, phrases, in v/hich the fubftancc of ic 
 [the fcheme J is expreiTed.' As he had occafioa 
 to fpeak of the Society's abilradl, printed in 
 1715, in which, among other reafons for an 
 Epifcopate in the Colonies, ' the blefling ail 
 manner of people fufceptible of kich holy im- 
 preffions as arc n:j.acle by the impofuioh of the 
 BiQiops hands/ is particularly mentioned ; ic 
 will, I believe, be thought excufabie in him, if 
 he has called this a matter^ fubhme, mytlenous 
 and lacrec],' pafiing it over with nothing more 
 than a contemptuous fneer. But, fays this wri- 
 ter, ' He well knows, or eafily m^, that we 
 afcribe no more efficacy to the laying on of Bi^ 
 fhops hands, then his brethren do to. the laying 
 on of Pfcfbyter's hands.' The Doctor could not 
 
 poiubly 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDEt).* 159- 
 
 poffibly know this, becaufe it is not the truth of 
 fad:. Mr. Aphorp muft be very ignorant of 
 the fentiments of Non epifcopalians, if he does 
 not know, that we conceive quite differently of 
 the laying on cf Prefbyters hands, from what 
 many, at kali, of the church of England do of 
 the laying on cf Billiops hands. Do Epifcopa- 
 lians never fpeak of an indelible chara5ler as im- 
 prefled by the Bifi:iop's hand in ordination ? 
 Do they never lead people to think, as if there 
 was an inftituted ccnnedlion between the impp- 
 fition of his hand in confirmation, and the be- 
 flowmenrof the Spirit in his gracious influences ? 
 Thefe are the falle and ridiculous notions they 
 deride, not ordination or confirmation, mcerly as 
 fuch, by the laying on of Bifhops hands. And, 
 perhaps, ridicule is the fittefl v/ay in which fuch 
 myfterioufly facred matters can be treated. Nei- 
 ther Dr. Mayhev), or any of his brethren, objecSt 
 to the performance of the ofRces of ordination or 
 confirmation by perfons of that order, to which 
 Epifcopalians conceive they are committed/ 
 But, fays this v^riter, ' The Doclor thinks we 
 are poffcfTed fufficierttly of the v/hole ex- 
 ercife cfour religion, becaufe our young peo- 
 ple m.ay be confirmed, and Clergymen ordained 
 for us, and properly infpedted afterwards •, pro- 
 vided they will all ^o from America to Europe 
 for thefe purpofes. Can he fay with a good 
 confcience, that liberty like this is all he fhould 
 defire for himfeif, and his brethren ?' And here 
 he is intreated ^ to read over fome words of his 
 anfwerer, to which he has made no reply'. The 
 words are thefe -, ' The American DifTenters 
 from our communion, would think it infuppor- 
 tably grievous to have no minifters, but fuch as 
 received ordination in England or Ireland ^ or 
 '^ '. ~ ' ■ " to 
 
,6o REPLY TO THE 
 
 to be witheld from the ufe of any religious rite, 
 which they edeemed as highly as we do confir- 
 mation -, or to have their church deftitute of a 
 fuper-intendency, which ihey conceived to be 
 of apoftolical infticucion. I (hould in fuch s cafe 
 be a zealous advocate for them, as not yet en- 
 joying the full toleration to which they had a 
 right. And furely they ought to afk their con- 
 fciences very feriou fly, why they oppofc oui^ ap- 
 plication for fuch indulgence, as they would 
 claim for themfelves ; and whether indeed fuch 
 oppofition is not downright perfecution , and 
 that in a matter meetly ipiritual, wiihout the 
 mixture of any temporal concern'. The rea- 
 fon why the Do(fl:or made no reply to thefe words 
 was, not becaufe ' lihey admit of none,' but be-, 
 caule they are quite befide the cafe in difpute. 
 The American Non^epifcopalians neither enjoy 
 or defire to enjoy, any other liberty than to 
 provide iuch Pallors, to officiate in fuch ferviccs 
 among them, as they think are agreablc to the 
 word of GOD. Such liberty is equally poffclTed 
 by Epiicopalians. If the other denominations 
 more tuHy and conveniently enjoy the exercife 
 of their religion, ii is not in the lead meafure 
 owing to their being favoured v/ith greater li- 
 berty, but to their greater care of thtmfelves 
 ^iindcr that permijfion^ which ^ rs equally^ granted, 
 to ail denominations. If there is any oatz purtly 
 Jpiritual privilege, which Epifcopalians do not as 
 iully enjoy as any of the other denominations, 
 it is owing to themfelves, and not to any want 
 of liberty in this refped:. Their liberty is pre- 
 cifeiy the fame with che liberty of the other per- 
 fuafions. Was it not, 1 fhould be as ' zealous 
 an advocate for them,' as this Gentleman could 
 be for us under like circun^ftances j as thinking 
 
 thac 
 
^APPEAL D EFENDED.' i^i 
 
 that they were hardly ufed. The true reafon 
 v/hy Epifcopalians do not as fully enjoy the 
 excrcife of their religion, as the other denomina- 
 tions is, not becauTe they are not poirefTed of 
 equal liberty, but becaufe ihey do not make the 
 lil^ full ufeofic. Thefe other denominations 
 would continue until dooms-day without Paftors 
 to officiate in any rel'gious fervice among them, 
 if they waited for their mifTion from the fiaie ^t 
 home: Nor would they complain ofrhisas a 
 burden, much lefs an iftfupportable one. ih-y 
 are intirely fatisfied, as they have the gra.it of 
 liberty to provide for themfelves the full enjoy- 
 ment of all the fpiritual privileges of the King- 
 dom of CHRIS r. Epifcopalians arc equally 
 partakers in the fame granted liberty 5 and they 
 Ihould be contented herewith, and not complain 
 of it as an iniuperable hardlhip, that the JIats 
 at home does not furnifh them with Biiliops iti 
 order to the eompleat cxercife of their religion^ 
 Did chriftian churches Jn the firn: ages of the 
 gofpcl, make fuch complaints ? If they might 
 be permitted to provide fpiritual officers for the 
 fpiritual fervices of chiiilianity, it v/as all they 
 dcfired \ and it is all that can reafonably be de- 
 fired at this day. And fuch permiffion is as 
 compleatly enjoyed by Epifcopalians, as by any of 
 the other denominations on the Continent, 
 
 Mr. Apthorp proceeds, * The Dodlor, (till 
 flying to ridicule in defcdl of argument, inti- 
 mates, how much the Epifcopalians in America 
 need to be welt ruled and gov erne d--^\\ow much. 
 the Clergy need to be united^ and reduced 10 cr^ 
 der\ The Dodtor did not undertake to argue 
 upon thefe things, as is here fuggefted. He 
 purpofely avoided it, left: he ftiould not ' exprefs 
 himfclf with quite fo much gravity and fulemni* 
 
i62 REPLY TO TH E 
 
 ty' as ibme might think proper. It is not there- 
 fore eafy to accoun^t for this remark upon what 
 the Doctor mentioned in tranfiru only, unlefs it 
 was that occafion might be herefrom taken to teil 
 us, 'that the Ametican Clergy are unanimous in 
 their wiilies to be under the immediate infpedion 
 of Bifliops refidcnt among ,them i v/hich con- , 
 cOrrence implies quite the contrary ;o a prqfent 
 difurdeily" fiate of that Clergy'. That thofe 
 among the Clecgf, who petitioned for Bifnops 
 are ' UHanimous" at leaft in pretence^ in their 
 widies to have them, is not dilputed -, bOc that 
 the wfeole American Clergy are thus, unanimous 
 is far from being a>' known' facl. No evidence 
 has yet' been gi'^cn, that the Clergy, any mere 
 t=han the Laity, in thofe Colonies which are cal- 
 led Epilcopal, are at all defirous of being upder^ 
 the 'imm.ediatc in.rpex^lion of Bifhops' ;, nor is it 
 thought to be a fa^ft capable of being evidence^. 
 How Ian this may imply ' a prefent difcj-deriy 
 Hate of that Clergy', I leave with this wri er to 
 fay. He adds, with reference to the Am^^ricanr 
 tpifcopal Clergy in commoi^, * they are, perhaps, 
 as faithful to their trull:, and as blamelefs in their 
 manners, as any body of men in the chriftian 
 miniilry'. It, would give me real and great plea- 
 fure, was 1 as fully fatisficd of thi^, as this 
 w Iter feems to be.-^ 
 
 He now brings in the Doclor faying, 'great 
 inconveniences are likely to follow from the fen- 
 ding Bidiops to America' ; and then anfwcrs, 
 ' He fays alfo, it is readily owned that our appre- 
 henfion of what may poflibly or probably be xjfiQ 
 confequences of it, ought not to put us oil' in- 
 fringing the religious liberty of our fellow-fub- 
 jedts and chrlllian brethren. Nay, he adds, nei- 
 ther have we any power to do to, if wc were 
 
 ^' unnafonabh 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDEDED.' 1^3 
 
 unreafoncihle and wicked enough to defire it ; our 
 charter granting fuch liberty to all protejlants^. 
 What now is the confcquence of thefe conceQi- 
 ons ? ' Therefore, fays this writer, Bifhops may, 
 by that charter, fettle even in New-England'. 
 So purely fpiritual Bifhops might without it, or 
 in any part of the chriftian world,- in virtue of 
 that liberty wherewith CHRIST has made the 
 profefibrs of his religion free. It follows, ' And 
 if the having BiQiops among th>=m bt part of the 
 religious liberty of the Epifcopalians, asirevi* 
 dentlyis; the Diflenters ought not to oppofc it* 
 on account of apprehended conftquenes'. There 
 is a great and wide difference (as has been abun- 
 dantly proved) between purely fpiritual- Bifhops, 
 arid fuch Bifhops as are fpecified in the propokd 
 plan. We make no oppodtion to Bifnops that 
 have ' authority altogether from CHRIST, and 
 not the date'.. If we oppofe BiQiops of a contra- 
 ry fpecies, we oppofe no part of that epifcopal 
 liberty which is RELIGIOUS ; and lliould greac 
 inconveniences be likely to follow from the fen- 
 ding fuch Bifnops, oppofition to their miffioa 
 would, on this account, be highly reafonabIe,and 
 not the leaftinfringenienton religious liberty. 
 But, fays this writer, * What are the bad 
 confequenccs apprehended l\ He anfwers, ' Bi- 
 fhops,- the Dodor tells us, are ambitious and 
 unquiet'. In reply whereto he fays, ' So are 
 Picfoytcrs, and all forts of ffeen too often.' Bus 
 this proves nothing, unlcfs he could have faid 
 further, that their fphereof influence was equally 
 extenfive, in confequence of which there was 
 equal danger, from their intrieguing with great 
 men at home, or with Governors and principal 
 mtn here, of carrying into execution luch fchcmes 
 ^s might be gready hurtful, both in a civil and 
 
 r£iigious 
 
lS4r REPLY TO THE 
 
 religious ^tnCe* li follows, ' The Do6lor will 
 own that Bifhops are now, and long have been 
 ss quiet an order of men as any in the nation.' 
 He will be far from owning this, ' if it be true, 
 as many affirm [thefe are the Dodor's words, p. 
 64] that i'ijs^b church \tory-principks are lately re- 
 'vived'm England, and greatly favoured by iome, 
 whofe influence may go far towards bringing 
 them into as much reputation, as they have been 
 in difgrace fince ihe death of Queen Ann,^ 
 
 The Dodtor had faid, ^Let hs fuprofe, that 
 Bifhops are to be at firfi fent to America with 
 fuch limited powers [as are mentioned in the 
 propofed plan,] to refide in the epifcopal Colo- 
 nies, and to have no concern, but with Eplfco- 
 palians. Have we fufficient ground to think, that 
 they and their fucceiTors would, to the day of 
 doom, or for a long time, remain contented^with 
 fuch powers, or under luch limitations ? In a 
 word, that they would continue fuch inoffcnfive 
 harmiefs creatures as this Gentleman fuppo^ 
 fes.'- — To this the reply is, * Who knows whe- 
 ther the New-Engjandlers will not hang Qua- 
 kers and Witche* again V It is conceded, no one 
 knows that they will not, Ihould the propofed 
 mifnon of Bifliops take place; for, in England, 
 where there is no complaint for v/ant of Bilhops, 
 both Quakers and Witches have been hanged 
 in much greater numbers than they ever were 
 here. This writer goes on ' The Clergy of En- 
 gland are in general friends to religious free- 
 dom : The people o^England, Whigs an4 To- 
 ries, are unfavourable to clerical power •, and a 
 far greater danger, than the Dodtor's imagi- 
 fiary one, is that of their laying afide all regard 
 to the chriftian miniilry, and to chriflianity it-- 
 felf.' The Dodlor himfelf, in anfv/ering a like 
 leply of his Antagoiiiil, fully anfwered what is 
 
 here 
 
<^APPEAL DEFENDED/ Us 
 
 herefaid •, though this writer, inflead of attend- 
 ing to ic as he ought, has only repeated, in cf- 
 fed, the fame thing over again. I have nothing 
 therefore to do here, but to quote the Dodor'a 
 own words. Says he, ' All this being taken for 
 granted, yet may not times alter, and adminiftra* 
 tions change ? Who knows what the next reign 
 and adminiftration may be ? or whether attempts 
 towards an oppreiTive enlargement of power, 
 may not be as much encouraged, ae it is fup- 
 pofed they would be frowned on, during the 
 prefent ?' Mr. Apthorp fays further, * There 
 never was fo little prorpe(5l, that a fpirit of reli- 
 gious intolerance would revive here/ that is, in 
 England. I heartily wifii there was no reafon 
 to fufped the truth of what is here affirmed.. 
 He goes on, ' If it fliould, ic might not extend 
 to New-England— But even fuppofing it to 
 reach thither, the effe6is would be very little 
 by the circumHance of no BiOiop being already 
 placed in America.' — The Doctor ftiall fpcak 
 for himfelf here alfo. Says he^, ' We are cer- 
 tainly much more fecure againft fuch opprcilion 
 in the abfence of Bifhops, than we (hould be if 
 they were once fixed here. 0^7?^ principiis was 
 never thought an ilimaxim by wife men,' and fo 
 on, with pertinency, the beft part of a page ; all 
 which, this writer has bsen fo wife as to pafs over 
 in filence. But, fays he, ^ The whole appre- 
 henfion [of bad confequences] is groundlefsV 
 And why ? ' The Engliih DifTenters, who have 
 fix and twenty Bifiiops eftabiiftied among them 
 fear no harm from them. Why then fhould 
 the New-England DifTenters fear any, if one or 
 two fliould be eftablidied, with much lefs pow- 
 er, in one or two neighbouring Provinces ?' It 
 is more than this wricer knows, that the DifTen- 
 ters 
 
166 REPLY TO THE 
 
 ters at home * fear no harm :' or fbould this be 
 true, it is far from being fo that they fuffer 
 none. They now are, and ever will be, in fuf- 
 fering circumftances -, unlefs the eRablifhmenn 
 of the church of England is difiblved, or great- 
 ly altered from what it is at prefcnt. And there 
 is nothing felt or feared by DifTenters at home, 
 but we, in this pare of the world, may feel, or 
 have reafon to fear, fhould the defired Bidiops 
 be fent to the Colonics. The paragraph we have 
 been confidering is thus concluded, ' So public 
 a declaration as has been made of the model of 
 Epifcopacy, propofed to be foDowed in Ame- 
 rica, will itfelf be an effedlual barrier againft any 
 undue extenfionof ecclcfiaftical power •, of which 
 the Do6lor aftetfts to be fo apprehenfive,' This 
 being a mcer naked, unfupported affirmation, 
 nothing more is needful to be faid upon it, than 
 only to affirm the diredl contrary, that it will not 
 be an effedual barrier, and that the Do^^or did 
 not affedl to be apprehenfivc, but really was foj 
 and upon juft grounds. 
 
 The Dodtor obferved, * If Bifhops are fent to 
 America,- they mud be well fupported ; this is 
 beyond doubt. By whom ? or by what means I' 
 And here he largely argued to fhow it to be 
 highly probable, ' that it would be, if not at firft, 
 yet in time, by a tax laid on the Colonies to* this 
 end/ Among other things, he pertinently Re- 
 marked, ' If Bifhops were fpeedily to be 
 fent to America, it Teems not wholly improba- 
 ble from what we hear of the unufual tenor 
 of fome late parliamentary a(5ls and bills, 
 for raifing money 'on the poor Colonies 
 without their confent,^ that provifion might be 
 made for the fupporrrof thefe Bifhops, if not of 
 all the church^ckfgy alfo, in the fame way,' To 
 
 ail 
 
'APPEAL DEFENDED/ iSy 
 
 all which Mr. Apthorp is pleafed to give us 
 the following weighty anfwer, ' If no proper 
 maintenance can be found for themjhe needs not 
 be uneafy at the projedl: of fending them \ andthac 
 it is not to be at the expence of the Colonies, he 
 has feen in Bifhop Butler'^ fchcme, with which 
 the others agree* It is not poffiblc any one 
 iliould have a conception of the pertinency, force, 
 and elegance of the Do(5]:or's obje^lion, as fee 
 forth at large in his reafoning upon it, by read- 
 ing only tnis.curfory, flighty, and, I may fay, 
 trifling anfwer to it. 
 
 Among the inconveniences that might refulc 
 from the appointment of Bifliops in America, the 
 Dc^cr mentioned ihefe, 'That, by the increafeof 
 theepifcopal party [v/hich might becfFeded by this 
 appointment, and is doubtlefs one principal rea- 
 fon why it is fo much defired] they might get a 
 majority in our houfes of aflTembly j that, in con- 
 fequence thereof, the church of England mighc 
 become the cftabliflied religion of all thefe Co- 
 lonies •, that a facraraental tcfl:, or fomething 
 like it, might cnfue, to exclude Non •coaformifl.4 
 from places, preferment, and civil oflices, ai in 
 England ; and that taxes might be impofed on 
 us all in common, for the maintenance of thcfe 
 Bifliops, and the epifcopal Clergy'. — Upon theie 
 inconveniences the Dodor argued largely, clofe- 
 ly, and cogendy. What now fays Mr. Ap- 
 thorp? In taking notice of this objedion, he 
 does as he had all along done before, that is, 
 contents himlelf with nibling at here and there 
 a fentence which he is pleafed to pick out, with- 
 out concerning himfelf with the Doctor's whole, 
 reafoning in connexion. Let us take a view of 
 his reply. Says he/ The Dodtor imagines, that 
 appointing Bifhops in America would probably 
 
 incrcafc 
 
i68. REPLY TO THE 
 
 ificreafe the cpifcopal party there ; and theit 
 great evils might follow.' What a poor, lame,- 
 jank reprelcntation is this of what the Do61or 
 had offered ! However, let us attend to what 
 follows. ' I cannqt difcern in what other way- 
 it can increafe their party, than by fupplying 
 them more cafily with a competent number of 
 mmifters ; taking care that thefe minifters fhould 
 be diligent and exemplary ; arid prcmoting arj 
 early fenfe of piety among their young people, 
 Thefe are no evils/— The Dodor never lifped 
 a woid in complaint of them as fuch. Btrt fure- 
 ]y this writer's knowledge of mankind is very 
 fcanty, if he is cap;.ble ot\' difceining' no other 
 ways, than thefe he has fpecified, in which the 
 cpifcopal party m'.ght be increafcd. Would 
 the glare of epifcopai dignity have no influence 
 upon fome fore of perfons ? Would the con- 
 nedtion of American Biihops with thofe at home, 
 and their power with great men there,' have 
 no effed upon the Tons of this world, who might 
 have in viev; this or the other pod of honor or 
 profit ? A variety of other ways might eafily be 
 mentioned, wherein the epifcopai party might 
 be increafed — But I forbear. He goes on, 
 * The Doctor indeed fays, that pretexts might 
 cafily be found for enlarging the power of thefe 
 Biihops, and increafing the number.' The re- 
 ply is, ^ But enlarging their power would imme- 
 diately raife a clamour that could not be wiih- 
 jlood.' Is not this as good a reafon, at leaft a 
 very good one, why they fhould not be fcnt at 
 all,'unlefs with fuch powers as are ' altogether 
 from CHRIST,not from the ftate P' Should they 
 be fent, would it not raife a clamour ? Andif it 
 could be withftood, it would not, perhaps, be 
 with To much cafe as fomc may be ready to ima- 
 gine 
 
APPEAL DEFENDED/ 16^ 
 
 gine. But ' if a. few Bifhops proved difagrcca- 
 bic, more would not be added.* This is more than 
 this Gentleman knows, or has any authority to 
 affirm. Nay, * though they (hou Id prove agree* 
 able and ufeful, more would be fcnt only to fuch 
 Provinces as chofe them/ Perhaps, by Pro- 
 vinces are meant the comparatively few Epifco- 
 palians that live in them ; and by their choice 
 of Bifhops, their being contented with having 
 them fent to them : In this fenre,it may be true, 
 ' more Bifhops would be fent only to fuch Pro- 
 vinces as chofe them' ; but, in the common and 
 ordinary fenfe in which thefc words are under* 
 ilood, it is not true, that even the firft propofcd 
 Bifnops would be fent, or chofen, by any Pro- 
 vince on the Continent. It follows, ' In the 
 fhort ftay which one of them would choofe to 
 make in New-England, he would not bring over 
 many pcrlons to our church. And therefore 
 how terrible things foever Epifcopalians, if they 
 Ihould become the majority, may attempt and 
 perform there, they will be almoll, if not quite 
 as likely to accomplifh, without a Bifliop a- 
 mong them, as with feeing one now and then.* 
 If Bifhops were fent, though New-England (hould 
 not be, at firft, the place of their refidence, in 
 would be the dioce/s of one of them ; and though, 
 when he came upon a vifitation, he mighc 
 • chufe to make but a fhort ftay,' he would, by 
 reafon of his fuperiority in dignity and influence^ 
 be able to efFedt more * terrible things' than all 
 the Epifcopalians put together, fliould they be 
 the majority. Moft certainly, he would not be 
 fuch a Biftiop as is defired, if this ' majority^ 
 would be ' almoft, if not quite, as likely' to ac- 
 complifh their fchemes * without ever feeing 
 him, as with feeing him now and then.* This 
 
1^0 REPLY TO THE 
 
 writer would make us believe, if Epifcopalians, 
 by becoming the majority, ' had power, there is 
 no reafon to think they would be oppreiTive ; 
 for they are not opprefTu'e in the Colonics where 
 they adually have it .; Or that they, would at- 
 temptyfor they could not with any modefty, or 
 any hope of fucctfs', fuch hws againft the Dtf- 
 fenrers, as the Diilenters have not attempted 
 againft them/ Is an eRablirnment, obliging 
 Diffenters to pay,in common with Epifcopalians, 
 towards the fupport df the church of England, 
 no degree of opprcfilon ? Such an. cltabiifn- 
 menn has been attempied ' v/ith fuccefs,' if not 
 with * modefty' in of.e or two of the Colonies, 
 where Epifcopalians are the m.sjority ; — Nay, e- 
 ven in ' New- York, v/hcre there are ten to one 
 that are not Epifcopalians, eptfcopal art and po- 
 licy, if 1 have not been mifinformed, has fubjec- 
 ttd one County to this fame kind of opprcffion. 
 So thatjinftcad of there being no reafon to think 
 there would be fuch opprefih'e efiabliiliments in 
 all the Colonies, there is the higheft reafon to 
 think this would be the cafe, if Epifcopalians 
 llioufd become the. majority. It is added, if 
 the zeal of the New-England Clergy threatens 
 any danger, Bidiops Vv'ouid temper it, as they 
 have doi)e in E,ngland, inftead of inflaming it.' 
 It would ttnd greatly to the eafe of our minds, 
 if this rould he as ftrongly proved, as it is here 
 aBirrrved. Bifliops have not been rem>arkable, in 
 any ages that are pall, for * tempering, inilead of 
 ir.Piaming', a zeai in theic Clergy that portended 
 danger. 
 
 Upon the whole, it appears, that this writer 
 had no good foundation for his hope, ' that the 
 Dodor v/ould, on confidering further, endea- 
 vour to recOiicile his Countrymen to the admif- 
 « fion 
 
« APPEAL DEFENDED/ '171 
 
 fion of BilKops* ; that is, fuch Bifhops as ihe-plan 
 propofes ''fiibDld be fent to the Colonies. Far 
 from being in the ieall dit'pofcd to this, he was 
 abundantly confirmed in the reafonableriefs of 
 what he had wroee to prevent fuch a recon- 
 ciliation, by the weaknefsof this lame effort t6 
 remove away the objections he had made againd 
 the planned American Epifcopate, 
 
 ,DocTO? Chandler now appears again in per- 
 ;ibn, and iVemingly pleafed, chat the offered ob- 
 jedions could, V. within a tnnch fmalier com- 
 pafs, be anfwered and confuted.' Without all 
 doubt, was he to be the.judge, the confutati- 
 on would be accounted abfolutely complete t, 
 but, it is 10 be renacmbered, not he, but the iaf- 
 parcial Public are the determiners in this cafe : 
 and, poiTibly they may think, the feeble attempt 
 he has made to invalidate thefe objections, is i-a- 
 iher a confirmation, than a confutation of them. 
 I COMPLAINED of the Dofior for giving us 
 only a long ft ring bf needlefs quefticns, inltead 
 of good reafoning, in order to juftify the propo- 
 .fed plan for an American Epifcopate. This 
 took up one paragraph. In the next, my de- 
 mand was, ' What right have they to this Epif- 
 copate ? How came they by it* ? And here I 
 .was explicit and large in endeavouring to fhovv, 
 that they had no fuch right. What fays the 
 Do6lor ? He replies, ' I am unable to account 
 for lo great a confufion of idt^as as difcoyers it- 
 felf in thefe t\vo paragraphs.' If the firft of 
 thefe paragraphs ' dlfcQ,vers any confufion of 
 ideas,' it mult be a confu(ion of them in his 
 own mind, or in.his manner of exprcfllng them ; 
 for it was nothing more than a repetition of his 
 own queftions, with this application of ihenis 
 ""_^ Surely he could not. imagine, that any man c«f 
 
 good 
 
i;2 REPLY TO THE 
 
 good underftanding would be otherwife moved 
 by them, than to wonder he fhould only harangue, 
 when ic was his bufinefs to argue !' As to the 
 
 * confufion' in the other paragraph, it is no- 
 where dilcovered, unlefs in what he has faid up* 
 on it. And, in truth, his arguing here very evi- 
 dently difcovers, that his conceptions of it were 
 indiliind, or rather that he did not underftand 
 it ; though it was expreifed as clearly and fully 
 3S any thing that was offered on the controvtr- 
 fy. Dr. Cbauncy, fays he, ' fcems very ftrenu- 
 ous to deny that the church of England inAme- 
 rica has any right to the Epifcopate propofed ; 
 but then he declares himfelf perfedly willing we 
 Jhould have it.' It is iinpoiTible, if he had en- 
 tertained in his mind a clear and juffc concep- 
 tion of what I had fald, that he fhould affirm ' I 
 Jiad declared myfelf perfedlly willing they fhould 
 Jiave the propofed Epifcopate,' unlefs he had 
 littered a downright faliliood. I challenge him 
 to produce any fcntence in^this paragraph, or 
 in any other part of my anTver, in which this is 
 declared either dircdly, or even confequentially. 
 It is indeed a flat contradi£lion to all that I had 
 faid What he means, in the following words, 
 by my ' choofmg, perhaps, that this Epifcopate 
 fliould be granted as a matier of favour, rather 
 than of right,' is beyond me to inveiligate. I 
 faid not a word about ' favour* in this refpedl •, 
 but confined myfelf wholly to the matter of 
 
 * right.' It mull: therefore be owing to fome 
 flrange '.confufion in hiS ideas,' that he fhoujd 
 go on, and inquire, ' What need is thereof this 
 diftindlion, and to what purpofe will it ferve, if ir 
 is not to operate againfl us ?' This is a ' diftinc- 
 tion' intirely of his own framing. Ic never en- 
 teied into my heart, nor is there a word con- 
 tained 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 175 
 
 tained in this whole paragraph that could lead 
 him to make it. It is to m« altogether unac- 
 countable, how he came to think of it* He 
 proceeds, ' Our claim is, that we may be upon 
 an equal footing with the other denominations 
 in America.' I have more than onee affirmed, 
 and abundantly proved, in thefe papers5that they 
 are upon this equal footing •, and call upon him 
 to prove the contrary. Says he, ' In order to 
 this, [our being upon an equal footing i it is ne- 
 cefTary, that we iliould be alioweJ the enjoymenc 
 of our ecclejiajiical conftiiution in the fame corn- 
 pleat manner, as it is enjoyed by them.' By 
 ^ our ecclefiajlical conflitution^ he mud mean here 
 the conftitution of the church of England ; but 
 to enjoy this in as compleat a manner, as other 
 denommations enjoy their's, is not to enjoy ic 
 agreeably to the propofed plan, but to the utter 
 fubverfion of it ; as will prefently appear. He 
 goes on, ' of our ccclefiaftical conftitution Bi- 
 fhops make an cflential part, and therefore with- 
 out an Epifcopale we cannot enjoy it.' Nei- 
 ther can they compkatly enjoy it with Bifhops, 
 vinlefs they have authority over the Laity as 
 well as Clergy -, for fuch authority >'S an ej^'ntial 
 part of the conftitution. Nay furth:.r, this con- 
 ftitution cannot be xr^npleatly enjoyed without 
 fpiritual courts, and the cxercife of epifcopal au- 
 thority in the precife way and manner that has 
 been folemnly eftablirtied by King and Parlia- 
 ment, The Dodor has here infenftbly endea- 
 voured to prove a great deal too much, unlefs 
 he intended to give us a remote infmuation of 
 what might be expedlcd, ftiould the propofed 
 plan be complied with, namely, that the church 
 of England was not yet in the full and compleat 
 enjoyment of her conftitution ; her enjoyment 
 cauft rife ftill much higher. He adds, ' Our 
 
 claim 
 
%74 REPLY TO T HE \ 
 
 tlaim is juftified by the common principles of 
 human nature, of the chriflian religion, and of 
 icivil Ibciety.' If fo, the claim is as well found- 
 ed as a claim can be. But what proof has he 
 given us 'that their claim is thus founded ? It 
 follows in thefe moft remarkable words, * We 
 call it a right becaufe all good WTiters agc,ee 
 in calling a right thus founded by that name.* 
 What is this to the purpofe ? Whoever quefti- 
 oned, whether a claim thus founded might be 
 called a right ? His bufinefs was to prove, that 
 their claim, or right, to the propofed Epifco- 
 pate was thus founded, that is, upon the princi- 
 ples he had before fpecified. But not a word -is 
 offered in proof of this. Tt refts upon nothing 
 more. than his naked affirmation. He fays yet 
 further, ' For words we do not concend. What 
 we infift upon is this, that the church of En- 
 gland is, in all refpecis, fairly entitled to as full 
 a toleration in the Colonies, as other churches in 
 the Colonies enjoy. And it cannot be thus to- 
 lerated unlefs it be fuffered to exist in all 
 •ITS PARTS.' If the church of England cannot 
 be FULLY TOLERATED in the Colonies, unlefs 
 it is fuffered to exist in all its parts, it is 
 at once evident, that we mult have in Ameri- 
 ca not only Bifhops, but Deans, Prebends, Arch- 
 Deacons, spiritual courts with their Chancellors, 
 and the whole train of officers employed in ma- 
 i^aging that spiritual authority which is ex- 
 crcifed over both Clergy and fealty : For thefe 
 are PARTS of the confticuted church of England. 
 It is ftrange the Doflpr, v;h:le arguing for no- 
 thing more than that limited Epifcopate he had 
 propoft^d, IhouM endsavour to do ic upon a 
 plan that would make it realbnable, that the 
 church of England iliould cxiil here in all re- 
 spects 
 
•APPEAL DEFENDED/ 175 
 
 fPECTS, and IN all its parts, as ic does ac 
 home. But he ought to know, that in order 
 io this, fomething more than ' a fair and iull 
 toleration' would be ncccfTaFy. There muft b^ 
 an ESTABLISHMENT, which he will not allow he 
 ever thought of ; as wc fhall lee pre fen tly. 
 The plain truth is ; as ic was ' our bufinefs as 
 opponents,' we have fhewn, that the Colony- 
 EpiTcopalians are treated in precifely ' the fame 
 manner' with the other denominations — They 
 are all, without exception, upon the fame foot- 
 ing of liberty, in virtue of the granted tolerati- 
 on ; and if Epifeopalians do not enjoy any fpi- 
 ritual privileges fo fully as any of the other de- 
 nominations, it is not owing, in the lead mea- 
 fure, to the want of a permission herefor ; for 
 the GRANTED PERMISSION is the fame to all j 
 making no manner ofdirFerence between one de- 
 nomination and another. 
 
 I HAD faid, appeal anfwered p. 180, ' If 
 Epifeopalians think Bifhops, in the appropriated 
 fenfe, were confticutcd by CHRIST, or his Apof- 
 tlcs, we objedl not a word agaihfl their having 
 as many of them as they pleafe, if they will be 
 content to have them with authority altoge- 
 ther fromCHRIST. But they both claim and 
 defire, a great deal more. They want to be 
 diftinguifhed ' by having Bifhops upon the foot- 
 ing of a STATE establishment'? I then went 
 on to argue fomewhat largely againil their having 
 a right to fuch an eltablifhmcnt. The Do6tor 
 replies, ' Where did he learn that we vvant Bi- 
 fliops upon fuch a footing ?' and affirms, * That I 
 could learn it, neither from the appeal, or from 
 any thing that has been publifhed on the fide of 
 the church •,' yea, he folemnly declares, ' I know 
 of no fuch thing, 1 have fccn DOthing that has 
 
 been 
 
175 REPLY TO THE 
 
 been written, fince the reign of Quecn/f;;», either 
 in England or America, in print or in manufcripty 
 that indicates fuch a defire*. He goes on yet 
 farther, and fays, ' I have met with nothing in 
 converfation with Clergymen orLaymenJn or out 
 of convention, from whence I can learn or fuf* 
 pe6t, that there is an Epifcopalian, within the 
 Britifh dominions, that aims at or expedls an 
 Epifcopate here upon- the footing of a ftate efta- 
 blifhment*. The Do6lor, when he wrote thus, 
 muft have had in his thoughts an eftablilliment 
 for the fupport af the epilcopal Clergy, cither 
 fuperior, or mferior, or bo:h. In this view, an 
 cftablifhment was not propofed in the 'appeal,^ 
 nor is it pleaded for in the writings on the fide 
 of the church that 1 know of ♦, nor can 1 fay, 
 that it was ever mentioned by the convention r 
 Though I am far from thinking it to be a truth, 
 that there is no Clergyman or Layman, in the 
 AmericanColonies, that does not expedl and wifh, 
 that an eftablilhment upon this footing, will be 
 brought into event fooner or later. I faid no- 
 thing about fuch an eflablifhmenr. .But an efta- 
 blifhment, and a (late one too, muft take place, 
 or the churctrof England here can never have 
 theEpifcopate that has been propofed anddefired. 
 The Doftor will own, the Epifcopate that has 
 been planned for the Colonies is widely different 
 from that which exifts at home. American Bi- 
 fhops Ihall have no authority over the Laity •,— 
 their fpiritual courts muft not be held in this 
 part of the world ; — and they themfelves are to 
 ie confined in their power within certain pre- 
 fcribed boundaries. How is all this to be ac- 
 compliftied ? Muft there not be the intcrpofi- 
 tion of the ftate ? Can it be cifeded in any 
 
 other 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED/ 177 
 
 Qiher way ? And if the ftate inrerpofes to con- 
 riicute a Colony Epifcopate, itmuit be under thcic. 
 patronage, guidance, and controul, as to the ex- 
 ercite of its powers. And what is this, in real 
 meaning, but an ellabliilinicnt ? The church of 
 England, in this cafe, will be diftinguiflied from 
 all the other denominations ; and, jnilead of be- 
 ing only tolerated as they are, will be as truly, 
 if not as fully, an eilablifned church here^ as it is 
 in Great-Britain. But Colony Epifcopalian* 
 have no right to be thus diltinguifhed •, as was 
 abundantly proved in anfwcr to the appeal, to 
 which the Doctor has faid nothing by way of 
 reply, for no other reafon, it may well be fup- 
 pofcd, but becaufe he could not. If he had here 
 pointed out, as it was his proper buiinefs to do, 
 the way in which the Epifcopace propofed in the 
 appeal, and by the writers on the (ide of the 
 church, couid be carried into effe^ withcut a 
 ftate-efiablijhment^ he would have faid fomething 
 to the purpofe ; bur, having wifely avoid- 
 ed tKis, we are left jo think, the American 
 Epifcopate they have planned is virtually, and 
 in realitf of fenfe, the fame thing with a planned 
 epifcopal eftabliOiment. Ic is to us incon- 
 ceivable, how their defired Epifcopate couldj 
 in any other way, take place in the Colonies. 
 In vain therefore does he complain, that ' they 
 are abufed by petulent tongues and abusive pens 
 for being charged with aimmg at a (late efta- 
 blifnment.' We fhould feel ' remorfe of con- 
 fcience, if we did not without hefitation' object 
 againft the propofed Epifcopate for this very 
 reafon, becaufe, by aiming at it, an eftablifti- 
 ment of Epifcopacy in America is equally aim- 
 ed at. The impartial Public are to determine^, 
 not T>v, Chandler, whether they arejultly char- 
 ged, or ^ unwarrantably corAdemned,' 
 
17^ REPLY TO THE 
 
 He ftill goes on, In his defence, a number 
 of pages ; bur, as there is fcarce any thing in 
 them that relaies to the grand pointy and nothing, 
 fo far as I am able to judge, of fufBcienc weight 
 to call for particular notice •, if the reader will 
 only compare what he has offered in thefe 
 pages, with the anfwtr to the appeal, I am per- 
 fectly willing, without faying a word more, to 
 leave the difpute.to the determination of his im- 
 parrial judgment. But, at the fame time, I 
 Would allure the Dodor, that his ' fear,' kali: he 
 f}:i0uld have ' fomewhat broken in upon my re- 
 pofe,'.is entirely groundlefs. He may fondly 
 imagine, he has * pleaded the caufe he under- 
 took' with fuch fupcriority of good fenfe, and 
 found reaioning, ss to give me ' d.fturbance i* 
 but he has been the occafion of no other unea- 
 finefs to me than that of difappointmcnt ; for 
 he has fallen much below my willies as well as 
 expedlations ; not having wrote fo ^s to give 
 opportunity for a tiyal of flrength. Pie has 
 candidly excufed my infufficiency, as it was my 
 hard lot to prove, ' that good is evil, and evil 
 good •, that darknefs is light,, and light ig dark- 
 nets, which could nqt be done without ' fiich a 
 genius and abilities as are not to be found'. I 
 wilh I 'could make fo good an apology for him. 
 His*taflc v^/as ealy. He had only to plead the 
 caufe of trutn i and ytt, he has done it with fo 
 i'ttie appeal ance of ingenuous folid arguing, 
 that, I fear, his caufe wiil fuffer in, the opinion 
 of all that are capable of difcernm>cnt/ 
 
 1 INTENDED to havecome to a conclufionhere, 
 by prefentlng to the reader, in one view, the fum 
 of what has been faid on both fides, that he 
 might the more eafily make a judgment in the 
 cafe. But I muft omit this, that I may have 
 
 room 
 
^APPEAL DEFENDED.' 179 
 
 room for a matter of much greater importance ; 
 £he trcfarment of the Pn-fbyterian church at 
 New- York, in relation to the charter they peti- 
 lioned for, both to the government there, and to 
 the King at horn?. And 1 the rather chule to 
 hold [his up to pLvblic view, as it is an alarm to 
 ail the Colonieg on the Continent, giving them 
 folemn norice wha^ they may expcd, fliould 
 Epifcopahans ever come to have the fuperioriry 
 in their influence. Nothing has been ofitred, 
 in a way of reafoning, againil the planned Ame- 
 rican Epifcopate, that carries with it fuch feel- 
 ing FORC£ as the negative to the prayer of this 
 petition, with the realoas upon which it is 
 grounded. 
 
 That the reader may perceive the propriety 
 of my introducing this anair, I would jud re- 
 mind him, that the Do6tor, in his appeal, had 
 fpoken of the * miidnefs, tendernefs, ard mo- 
 deration of the EnoViih B;iIiops for a courfe of 
 years pad j' infomuch, that they had ' fcarcely 
 afforded an inHance of reafonable complaint, 
 efpecially to Diiienters :' In aniwer whercro, he 
 was told of the rcjedlion of the petition, of the 
 Presbyterian church at Ntw-Yorjc for a char- 
 ter j' which was effeded through the interpofi' 
 tion, particularly, of the Biihopof London, oc- 
 cafioned, without aH doubt, bj ungenerous re- 
 prefentarions from Epifcopalians in America. 
 
 A3 I am noJt, from perfonal knowledge, ac- 
 quainted wJih this affair any more than theDoc- 
 tor, v/hat I propcf:^ is to hand to the Public, in 
 an apptnJix, the clear, full, and yet concife, ac- 
 count of ir, which has been tranfmitced to me 
 from Nevv-York : previouHy giving this indma- • 
 tion, that the fafts, contained in the account to 
 
 be 
 
Po REPLY TO THE, ^^; 
 
 ^56 exhibited, came with their proper vouchers, 
 copies of the original papers, which would have 
 been printed, but that they are moft of them 
 iong ; and it was thought, it would be too 
 great'a trefpafs on the readers's patience to call 
 his attention to them. They may, however, be 
 feen, fhould it bp defired, eiiher here or at New- 
 york. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 P. 1. 1. 17, for have r, what has-^p. 9, I. 45, for could 
 r. would — p. 12. L 38, for ingenious r. ingenuous — p. 
 14. i. 12, for ingenious r. ingenuous — p. 48. 1. 37, for 
 wree r. were — p. 52. I. 12, after where dele of — p. 54.. 
 i. 18, for entertains r. entertain — p. 69. 1. J 2, for rec- 
 torfnip, r. deanry. p, 126. I. 33, for there r. here— p. 
 x;^i, 1. 26, for were r. was. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 npHE true hiftory of the various applications of 
 •*- the Prefbyterians of the City ofNew-Yorlc for 
 a charter, and of their various dirappointments, is 
 fuccin^lly this. 
 
 A number of Gentlemen purchafed a lot of ground 
 in 17 19, for the creeling of a church to worfhip in, af- 
 ter the mode of the eftablifhed pcrfuafion in North- 
 Britain. There was not then in this Colony, nor is 
 there to this day, any general provifion made by law, 
 for the regulation of churches, or for the fupport of the 
 Mlnifters of the gofpel— It is therefore expedient in 
 this Country, for the prefervation of the temporalities 
 ©f every church, and the maintenance of good order, 
 that the congregation be incorporated—Charters for 
 fuch purpofes had been granted to the low Dutch, and 
 ^pifcopal churches ; and the Colony being peopled 
 from Scotland as well as England, the Scotch founders 
 of the Prefbyterian church in New-York, thought they 
 had reafon to hope government would not be lefs fa- 
 vourable to them, than to the Emigrants from South- 
 Britain ; and could not imagine that the fons of the 
 church of Scotland,, united to England by a<5l of Par- 
 liament, and the ties of allegiance as natural born 
 flibjedls, were not to have equal countenaace, with> 
 thofe of the foreign reformed church of the united Ne- 
 therlands, between which and the church of Scotland, 
 there is n9 efTential difparity, and very little even in 
 point of meer form. With confidence therefore they 
 prefented a petition to Col. Schyler^ who commanded 
 in chief in 1721, for letters of incorporation. The 
 Epifcopalians oppofed the grant, though they v/ere 
 themfelves thenjuft emerging from their obfcurity ; 
 for, at that time, the low Dutch congregations figured 
 
 as 
 
a APPENDIX. 
 
 as the 'firft churches in Town, and are ftill the mofi: 
 nuTJ^rous, though many of their richeft families are 
 gone ofF for the fake of the language, to the Englifh 
 churches. When Governor Burnet arrived, the Pr#fby- 
 teiians renewed their attempt, and the veftry of trinity 
 church iheir pppofition. They were heard againft the 
 petition, and to the fcandal of the council-board were 
 indulged in their contemptible narrow minded bigotry^ 
 TheGovernor, though/avorably inclined to his country-^ 
 xnen, was unwilling to proceed v/ithout dircdlion from 
 bome-T-He v/rote to the board of trade in 1714., and 
 .their Lordfhips confulted Counfelior IVeJi^ who iubfcri- 
 hzd. an opinion in the following terms. 
 
 * Upon conllderation of the fcvei:al a£ls of unifor- 
 mity thatbave pafTed in Great-Britain i am of opinion, 
 that they do not extend toNew-York,anQ confequentiy 
 an ad^ of toleration is of no ufe in that Province 3 and 
 therefore, as there is no provincial a£l for uniformity ac- 
 cording to the church of Eaglasd, 1 am of opinion, th§t 
 hy law fuch patents of incorporation rnay be granted 
 as by the petition is defired. 
 
 Richard JVefty A ug. 2 o. 1 7 2 4* 
 
 No charter could however be obtained, and difcou- 
 raged by fsixeff lefs foMicitations, the congregation fer 
 the prefervation of ta^ir rftate, veiled it in March 1730, 
 in the general afTembly of the church of Scotjand, 
 who /lili hold the fee^ but have ifiu^d a declaration 
 contimiing the application of it, to tae pious ufes, for 
 which it was originally purchafed. 
 
 Notwithstanding ail oppGiiUon,theScotch church 
 flourifhed undex the long and laborious minit1:ry of the 
 Rev. Mr. Pemberton^ who fettled here in 1717 ; and 
 when the Lutherans applied for a charter to Lieutenant 
 Governor Delancy in 1759, the Prefb^'terians made a 
 third application-* The Lutherans were encouraged by 
 gentlemen then in the council, who promifed to be- 
 friend them } and the Pfc-fb7t'."rians by favourable ex- 
 preflions from the Lieutenant Govsrnor, who had fre- 
 quently declared his abhorrence of th^; former oppofitioa 
 as illegal and unreafonabie ; and when the petition was 
 preferred, he received Mr. Bojiwick^ the then Minifter, 
 and his Elders and Deacons, politely,' and profelTsd 
 
 his 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 in 
 
 his readincfs to grant their rcqucft,if the Council would 
 concur. 
 
 Mr. Smithy fincc one of the Judges, was one of the 
 board, when the petition of the Presbyterians was read, 
 and referred to a committee ; but no opportunity was 
 given for a trial cf Mr Delanceys fincerity : for Mr. 
 Smith, the only Non-epifcopalian member, was chofen 
 chairman of the Committee, and was unable to pre- 
 vail upon the reft of the council to meet 5 and, if he 
 could, would have loft his own vote by being in the 
 chair. 
 
 Obliging theLutherans at that time,if any fuch in- 
 tention there really was, would have difcovered a parti- 
 ality too barefaced ; and therefore, while the Presbvte- 
 rlans petition was neglcded, thfat of the Lutherans was 
 flily pretended to be put in a way for obtaining the 
 royal order from home ; and thus the council were to 
 be behind the cuitain, and avoid popular cenfure. — It 
 fo happened hswever, and perhaps by intriegues from 
 this quarter, that the Lords of trade could not fee it ex- 
 pedient to advife the gratification of their requeft ; and. 
 accordingly a letter came from their Lordfhips to Mr. 
 Golden^ which cut cfFthc reafonable expe£lations of that 
 fociety of loyal Proteftants. 
 
 The Presbyterians had experienced many inconveni- 
 ences for v/ant of a charter ; and though the juft, and 
 generous adminiftration of Sir Henry Moare, prompted 
 them to make a fourth attempt, yet upon a doubt no;v 
 ilarted, whether his commiiuon authorifed him to 
 grant incorporating patents, and from a want of confi- 
 dence in his council, it was thought moft prudent to 
 lay the cafe, of this diftant difperfian of the church of 
 Scotland, before his Majcfty — A petition was accord- 
 ingly prepared, and tranfmitted with a draft ©f the 
 charter defired in March, 1767. 
 
 The negotiation of this bufmcfs was trufted to the 
 late Dr. Samuel Chandler, and Mr. Debert ., but it 
 fell folely upon the latter. Dr. C^tf«^Vr, dying about 
 the time of the arrival of the papers in London. The 
 Earl of Dartmouth, fo renowned for his catholicimi, 
 and readinefs to promote the intercft of our common 
 chrifilanity, then prefidcdat the board of trade, and en- 
 tered 
 
!r APPENDIX. 
 
 tered fully into an opinion of the reafonablenefs oftlid 
 rcqueft, and advifed Mr. Dehert to put the petition in- 
 to the King's hand, before the co-operation of cer- 
 tain friends, whofe aid was afked, could be obtained. 
 His Majefty was pleated to lay the petition before 
 the Lords of the privy council, and to refer it to the 
 board of trade. 1 he Lords Commiffioners for Plan- 
 tation af^'airs lufpended a report^ until they ha(^ an 
 ■anlwefj from Sir Henry Moore^ to a letter they wrote 
 to him on the 29th of July, 1766. 
 
 This letter was accompanied with a copy of the pe- 
 tition and the draft of the charter— -They were all com- 
 municated by the Go?err.©r to his council ; and on th? 
 -lyth of July, 1 767, the petitioners offered to attend 
 the call of the board, f^r the fupport of thei? allegati- 
 ons, by a petition which was that day read in coun* 
 ci), and left with their clerk, for the ufe of the com* 
 mittee. — A few days after Mr. Horfemanden^ as the 
 oldeft member of the board, was waited upon to ap- 
 point a time to receive a rcqueft for this purpofc, but 
 declined it. 
 
 No report was delivered until the 15th of April, al- 
 . though the letter from theLords of trade arrived here on 
 the 4th of November preceding, and there weremany in- 
 termediate meetings of the council. 1 believe the mi- 
 nutes will prove that the members met every week.-^ 
 At one of thefe meetings, in the latter end of March, 
 the Chief Juflice was called out, and in anfwer to an 
 intreaty for a fpeedy report to the Governor, faid with 
 tartnefs * That the matter need not be pujhcd^ and that he 
 wtjked the gDvernment had not troubled them with the peti^ 
 tisn. A Gentleman took the liberty to fay, that all 
 the Lords of trade required was to be informed, whe- 
 ther the allegations were true j to which he replied, 
 * Of that there is no doubt,'' 
 
 The report appears, however, by its date, to have 
 been hnidicd about that time. We do not learn, that 
 the committee were waited upon now by the vcftry of 
 trinity church, nor was it nceeffary, as their church 
 wardens were of the council. Mr. Chief Jufticc was 
 one, and Mr. Reade the other, and as chairman of the 
 committee had the honour to make their report. 
 * • That 
 
APPENDIX. ^ 
 
 That it was not earlier delivered, may be imputed to a 
 defirc to render the petition abortive, or to the thei\ 
 ticklifti (late of things, a difTolution of the sfRmbjy in 
 purfuance of a feptennial ad being at hand, and pmes 
 Delancey named as a candidate for the C;ty of New- 
 York, who had two uncles in council, zealous for the 
 public confidence, and interefted in retarding a report 
 which would naturallv give cftence ; but the Gover- 
 nor's importunitv forced them to fpeak o^t.—It docs 
 not appear that there was a fmgle member diir^ntmg 
 to this report. . u <r 
 
 The petitioners afked for a copy on the aoth ot 
 April, 1767, but tiil|iequeft was denied, and by this 
 means their adverfaries had frequent opportunity for 
 ex part3 reprefentations againft rhemeafure, in a courfe 
 of private correfpondence ; which w«s doubtlefs im- 
 proved by the Clergy, and the draftfmen who fabricated 
 the report. 
 
 Sir Henry Moore lof^ no time in tranfmitting it.— • 
 The petitioners (who one would imagine had a right 
 to be heard) were ignorant of its contents, and under 
 all pofTible difadvantages ; nor could give any futable 
 directions to their Agent. — Whether the council kept 
 the fecret from the Epifcopaiians without doors, judge 
 you. The Bifhop of London, notwithftanding the 
 boafted moderation of the order, appeared twice to op- 
 pofe the petition before the CommilTioncrs for trade 
 and Plantations, as though t he grant of the privilege, 
 of fecuring a houfe fet apart by Protcftants, woifhipping 
 according to the ufage in North Britain, was repug- 
 nant to the benevoler.ee enjoined by the gofpei ot 
 CHRIST : and though Lora Clare, whofe zeal for li- 
 berty, and the rights of private judgment, maybe ar- 
 gued from a well known event in the hiilory of his life, 
 was then premier at the board of trade, a report was 
 made to his Majefly, which foon after iiilied in a final 
 lejedion of the petition. In this report, the queflicn. 
 Whether his Majefly, confiftently with the obli- 
 gations he was under by his coronation oath, founded 
 on the aftofthe fifth of Queen Ann, entitled, ' an ad for 
 fecuringtheehurchofEnglandasbylaweftabh(hed,'could 
 
 iirantthe requeflsd charter, being left undecided i the 
 A a '^P^'^^^ 
 
vi A P P E N D I X. 
 
 report was, It would be ' inexpedient, upon the princi-' 
 pies of general policy, to give the Prefbyterian church 
 of Ncvv-Ycrk any other privileges than it is entitled 
 to by the Uw of toleration.* 
 
 Whatever liberties the people of England may 
 think fit to take at this day, in remarking upon the idiS 
 of their Sovereign, the Americans conceive themfelves 
 b(*uad to fpeak on fuch occafions, with the moft pro- 
 found deference. The light, however, in which his 
 fc-rvahts have thought: fit to hold up the requeft of the 
 Scotch church of New -York, eyery man ^ay never- 
 the'cfs confiJer and animadvert^mon with fome free- 
 dom. They are anfwerable ti^ne whole Vorld for 
 their conducl: ; and have proceeded upon a principle, 
 th'cit dcferves the corifiderslicn of all -the Colonies. No- 
 thing has contributed more to the ncquifition and cul- 
 tivation of thefe cdcntial parts of the Empire, than the 
 ftafonable and well policed afiurance we have had for 
 free, indulgence in matters of religion ; And a repug- 
 nant fpirit will be as ruinous to our peace and prcfpe- 
 lity, as it is difgraceful to a Gentlemsn, and incon- 
 fiftent with religion and philofophy, freedom of enquiry, 
 
 ri^d human f^=Mc;ty. We have feen an A-— m^f-- n 
 
 cf corrupt and d fIVutc M-n-— r?, mcrcilefsly grafp- 
 ing at cur lil ertics and eftates ; and it is feme confola- 
 t:on. that cur difappointment in a requeft friendly'to the 
 rights cf ccnfciernce, may be attributed to men, whofe 
 influer-ce at the court cf a good King, will probably 
 very focn be at an end. ^ 
 
 i ONLY add, that although there have long fmce 
 been petitions preferred 7;^ 7v, by theFrench Protcflants, 
 rnd the Low Dutch churches of Orange Town, New- 
 Hempfted, Marble Tovyn, Bot^heftcr and V/awarfing,^ 
 notrung tir/al is determined upon them ; while it 
 h the ufual pra^lice, to grant charters to the epifco- 
 pal churches without the Icaft htfitation. ^ It is not 
 long, iincw the little congregation at Albany was in- 
 corporated with power to hold an immenfe revenue. 
 /\;:oihcr pater.t i;> iilued to provide for Clergymen's 
 wkJow?, by an income of many ihoufands per annum ; 
 and at I his very jundurc the Society for propagating 
 the gcfj^el, though reltrained from taking real eftatcs at 
 home, are afkiDg for grants of the crown lands here 
 in niortmaia tor the cpifcopal churches, to the amount 
 
 of 
 
APPENDIX. vii 
 
 of thoufands of acres. In fome in{iances they have 
 been gratified already. Thefc fa6ts are mentioned, to 
 ihew the fpirit of the oppoiition to the pet'.tions of the 
 non-eDifcopal churches, who, inftcad of folic iting for 
 amp^e endowments, defire nothing more than purcha- 
 Jed c&ztesy barely fuffici^t for the fupport of the gof- 
 pel 5 and to juftify our f^Hs that the prefcnt liruggies of 
 the MiiTionaries and others to introduce Epifcopacy in- 
 to America, originate from ambitious deligns for efia- 
 bh'fhing an opulent hierarchy in this Country, with 
 ^relaticai diftinclion iind power. 
 
 The reader will not, I truO:, be out of patience, if 
 he is detained, while I cantrad the above account with 
 an a£i of the Mojjochujetti-gbvernmtnt^ confpicuc usiy 
 exempiifyino: that candour, faiincfs, and impartial equi- 
 ty in Ncn-EpijcDpaUanSy which were fo Ikm■^x\.zb\y 
 wanting in thait of the contrary denon;irat:on, with 
 leference to the affair that has btcn juft related. 
 
 ThI^ f7^, having had the Royal sanction, with- 
 out thelcaft obfirudtion fiom the il^miy prttcrtce of 'a 
 breach of the coronation-oath,' or a ' violation of 
 any acbs of un^iformity,' or its b:ing * incojiiiRent Vv'ith 
 found policy,* has, from the 28th of the. reign of 
 George the 2nd, been«^ {landing law of tlij^ Piovijice. 
 It v/as occajQoned by a motion made in the houfe of 
 reprefcntitives, in behalf of the Paflors and Deacon? of 
 the church to which I am related, that they miv'ht be 
 flrengthened in their endeavours to ftcure the payment 
 of an annuity, given to them by will, out of ihe rents 
 of a valuable farm, to be hy them yearly difpofcd of for- 
 ever for the benefit' of a well-dif|.ofed, and promifing^ 
 but needy, Hudent at Harvayd~Q.o\\Qgf:^ in Can,bridpc. 
 It was at once thought, that this v/as a matter of com- 
 rxion concern ; and, accordingly, an 2,&z was prepar- 
 ed, and paiHd by both houfes, (in \^hich, unlefs wc 
 ihould except one or .two, there were no cpifco- 
 pal members) and readily figned by the G/overnor ; 
 taking^, in all Proteftant denominations,, Episcopa- 
 XiANs by name : And the whole was done ef their 
 own mcer motion, under the infucnce of candor, ho- 
 nour, and a becoming ftnfe of ihc regard that oui^ht to 
 be paid to the rule of right, without partiality. /Epif- 
 ^co^wl applications \iziz no: needed^ npr v^'trc tb^y 
 
ym APPENDIX. 
 
 made. The z6ky wherein it is necefiary It fhould be 
 xccitcd, is as follows, 
 
 ' IVHERE/IS many grants and donations have heretofore 
 Veen made by fundry vuell-dlfpofed perfons^ in and by fuch 
 exprejfions ana terms as plainly Jhovj it "was the intent and 
 fxpctiation of fuch grantors an4 donors^ that their feveral 
 grants and donations pruld' take effcci jo as that the 
 ijlates granted Jhould go in fucceffizn : But doubts have 
 4srifen in tuhat cafes fuch donations and grants inay ope- 
 ratty fo as to go in fuccrffion : 
 
 For aicertaining whereof : 
 
 « Be it en-sftcd bv the GovrRNOR, Coun^cil, 2nd 
 Jioufe of Representatives, That the Deacons o( 
 all the feveral Proteliant chur-ches, not being epifcopal 
 churches, 2nd the Church IVardens of the feveral epij- 
 € op a! churches ^ arc, and /lisll' be, deemed fo far bodies 
 corporate, as to take \i\ fuccejjion. all grants and donations, 
 ivheiher real or perfonal, made either to their feveral 
 churches, x\-\z pcbr of tijeir churches, or to thlm and 
 their •uccffibrs, and tofueand QlZ.{t\'^<^ in ail actions touch- 
 ing the fanse; and wherever die Minifters, Elders or VeOry 
 fnalliafuch original grant? or donations have been joined 
 v/ith fuch D aeons or Churchwardens as donees or gran- 
 tees in faccellion, in fuch cafes fuch ofHcefs and their 
 iuccflTors, together v/ith the De icons or Church War- 
 dens, fhall be deemed the corporation for fuch purpofes 
 as afofcfaid. And t):\z Minirter or Minifters of the fe- 
 veral protef^^nt churches of whatever denomination, 
 are and Ihail be de-med capable 6f taking in fucce'lTion 
 ar^y parfonage land, or lands granted to theMjnifler and 
 bis iucc^fTors, or to the life ot the Minifrer?, sncoffuing 
 and (lefending all afti!">r:s touching the fame ; favin^ 
 that nothin;T m this i^cl mall 4)6 cjnitrued to make void 
 anv final ju-^graent of any court of common law or 
 Judge of probate j faving alfo, that no alienation of any 
 )?.n(k b/eiongin^ to churches hereatter macle by the 
 D'^r^cons without the con'fent of the church or a com- 
 nrttee of the church io.x that purpofe appointed, or by 
 Church Wardens v/ithout the confcnt of the Veflry, 
 fliali be fulH^ient to pafs the fame. And that no 
 alicnatioT her-nfter mide by Miniftcrs of lands by them 
 held ill fucctiTiC'n lb all be valid any longer than during 
 • • ■ fuch 
 
APPENDIX; , ML 
 
 fuel: al'iencr* continuing Minifters, unlcfs fuch Mini-^ 
 ftcrs be Miniftcrs of particular Towns, Diftrifts, or 
 Prccfn6ls, and make fuch alienation with the confent 
 or fuch Towns, Diftri<5ts, or Precin^ls, or unlefs fuch 
 Minifters roalieningbeMinifters of Epifcopal Churches, 
 aad the fame be done with the confent of the Vcftry*.— 
 
 H AT> EpifcopaUans at New- York been in the exercife 
 of like candor and impartiality with Non-epifcopalians in 
 this Province, their Prefbyterian brethren would have 
 met with no difficulty in obtaining, from the Govern- 
 ment there, the charter they defired : Nor, had they 
 fent no ungenerous unfriendly reprefentations to dig- 
 nified Clergymen at home, is it in the leaft probable 
 the King would hive rejected the petition they made 
 to him. As there was no epifcopal oppoiirion to thi 
 MaJfachufetU G5i^ it readily obtained the King's fiat. 
 And there is no reafon to think, but he would as rea- 
 dily have granted the charier petitioned for, by the 
 Nev/-York Prcfbyterians, as it meant precifely the 
 fime thing with the Majfachufetts-a^^ had not epifco- 
 palian Yoriccrs, in council, or out of council, or both, 
 tranfmitted fuch illiberal accounts, to great men inEng- 
 iandjas excited their zeal, and urged them on to endea- 
 vours to bring this petition to naught. 
 
 It is to be hoped, the generous candor, and impar- 
 tial jufticc, exemplified by the non-epifcopal MafTa- 
 chufetts-Province, will have fome good efFc£l: upon 
 Epifcopalians in the other Colonies. It is powerfully 
 adapted to fuch a purpofe ; and cannot well fail, if duly 
 cor)fidered,of putting to fhame that narrownefs of fpirir, 
 that bigotry of fentiment, and party-partiality, which 
 are inconfiftent with a freedom m doing to others, as 
 we wou!d they fliould do to us. It may reafenably be 
 expeded, the noble example of undiftinguifhed can- 
 dor and goodnefs, that has been brought to view, will 
 engage the New -York Epifcopalians, from a fenfe of 
 honour, fricndlinefs, impartiality, and jufticc, heaitily 
 to join with the Prefbytenans there in endeavours, that 
 they may be put upon the fams equitable footing with 
 themfelves, by bein^ favoured v/;th a charter of incor- 
 poration for the temporalities of their church. Unlefs 
 there fhould be the dhcovery of fuch a temper and con- 
 dud 
 
X APPENDIX. 
 
 du6l, in vain it will be (o expsS:, that our fears, ref- 
 peding the propofed American Epifcopate, {hould be 
 Sienccd. IfEpifcopalians of inferior ftation, and com- 
 paratively fmall importance, can, by handing accounts 
 to dignitaries at home, efFc£t fuch mifchief to the other 
 denominations, what may not be feared from the in- 
 liuence of Biftiopsj refiding in the Colonies ! 
 

 ■ii':^^trJf0-^:^ 
 
»*-!^^^::^r%^^ T'' 5'-^ • 
 
 ;;y^^.v- 
 
 Arlington 
 
 (Eljnrrli 
 
 ffiibrarg 
 
 * * 
 (gift of 
 
 S^ 
 
 ^li 
 
 f 
 
 - .V"*f fCf J 
 
 
,' "-wm ('■■ 
 
 m 
 
 '■'.f-sr-