**9*- 
 
 #• 
 
^:^ a 5:::i^ L^. .^^;^ i:a. ^2^ 
 
 OF THE 
 .\T 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 SAMUEL AONEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA, 
 
 Qyf'o 
 
 "PTi^i^i/i/c^/d^/i^^^tt, 
 
 V 670 .B29 1813 
 tearwick, Edward. 
 
 f treatise on the church 
 chiefly with respect to its 
 
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH, 
 
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH, 
 
 CHIEFLY WITH RESPECT TO ITS 
 
 GOVERNMENT: 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY 
 
 IS MAINTAINED, 
 
 THE SUPREJMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME 
 
 PROVED TO BE 
 
 CONTRARY TO THE SCRIPTURES AND PRIMITIVE FATHERS; 
 
 AND THE 
 
 REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 IN 
 
 ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND, 
 PROVED TO BE A SOUND AND ORTHODOX PART OF THE 
 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH, 
 
 Compiled from the most Eminent Divines. 
 
 By EDWARD BARWICK, M. A. 
 
 OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 g^econO eflitton, 
 
 CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED AND IMPROVEO. 
 
 BELFAST: 
 
 PRINTED AND SOLD BY GEORGE BERWICK, I. NORTH STREET, 
 F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST PAUL's CHURCHYARD, J. HATCHAUD, 
 PICCADILLY, LONDON ; A. CONSTABLE AND COMPANY, EDIN- 
 BURGH ; AND W. WATSON, AND C. P. ARCHER, 
 DUBLIN. 
 
 1813. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 
 I A3I persuaded that the following Treatise, which 
 attempts to explain the nature of the government 
 which Christ has established in his Church, will 
 require no apology, since all who profess them- 
 selves christians are so closely interested in the 
 subject. 
 
 That gross ignorance on this subject prevails at 
 present among all, even among the members of 
 the Church (for whom this treatise is principally 
 intended,) is too evident to require any proof. 
 And how unnatural is it, that the members of any 
 society should be ignorant of its origin and esta- 
 blishment, the principles on which it was institut- 
 ed, and the rules by which its credit and dignity' 
 have been supported. This ignorance (as a lay- 
 member of the Church of England observes *,) 
 which, on other occasions, is only extremely ab- 
 surd, — when applied to the principles of our ec- 
 clesiastical constitution, is highly reprehensible 
 in itself, and attended with the most dt^ngerous 
 consequences. 
 
 * Treatise on the Church, h\j William Stevens, Esq, 1799- 
 
VI PREFACE TO THE 
 
 Many will be surprised, and look upon it as a 
 novelty to be told (what yet is the old and true 
 doctrine,) that to that sound and catholic part of 
 Christ's Church, which is established in the coun- 
 try where he was born, or where the providence 
 of God has fixed him, he is bound to adhere, — 
 that to all its ordinances in indifferent matters, all 
 those rules which it has directed to be observed for 
 the purpose of edification, it is his duty to con- 
 form, — that he who separates from such a particu- 
 lar church, does it at his peril, — that he is com- 
 mitting an act for which he must be seriously and 
 deeply accountable at theday of judgment, — that, 
 in short. Schism, independently of all considera- 
 tions of doctrine, though it should be no part of 
 its object to work any express corruption of the 
 truth, is in itself^ grievous and heinous sin, hurt- 
 ful in the greatest degree to the general interests 
 of Christianity, and big with the most serious con- 
 sequences to the individual. 
 
 Custom indeed, the loose writing of some of the 
 clergy, and the general silence of the body upon 
 the constitution of the christian church, have so 
 far reconciled us to the divisions that have taken 
 place among christians, that they are no longer 
 seen in the light in which they were seen in the 
 primitive days of the church ; whilst charity, for- 
 bidding us to speak harshly of the spiritual con- 
 dition of our brethren, has in a manner tended to 
 efface the sin of schism from our minds. In the 
 liturgy of the church we pray against schism ; if, 
 by their writings or conduct^ the clergy at the same 
 
FIRST EDITION. VII 
 
 time give encouragement to it, — will they not, by 
 so doing, be thought to be acting in contradiction 
 to the profession which they have made ? But 
 this, it is to be feared, is the case with all those 
 who, instead o?2^ointing out to the laity the dan- 
 ger attendant upon their officiously meddling with 
 the ministerial office, and the duty of submitting 
 to those teachers, who by authority are set over 
 them, by their loose writing or irregular practice 
 lead them to the very opposite conclusion. And 
 what reasonable hope can^be entertained, that the 
 unity of the church will, in any degree, be preserv- 
 ed, whilst those whose office it is to preserve it, 
 become the instruments of its dissolution ? 
 
 When, therefore, such loose opinions as these 
 prevail, entirely destructive of the unity of the 
 christian church, — when every one must perceive 
 the increasing defection from the communion and 
 authority of this church ; silence on the part of its 
 friends, whether clergy or laity, becomes criminal, 
 and a cold neutrality is inexcusable. To use the 
 the words (with the alteration of a single word) 
 of Archdeacon Daubeny : When I see so many 
 apparently idle and unconcerned, whilst the ene- 
 m.y is digging and undermining the very ground 
 on which they stand; and at the same time consi- 
 der, that they who help not to support the church 
 when she is in distress, do in reality contribute to 
 pull her down; in writing as an honest lay-member 
 of that chiirch ought to write on her subject, I 
 feel that satisfaction which must ever accompany 
 a conscientious discharge of duty. 
 
ViU rnEFACE TO THE 
 
 I am sensible that the doctrines maintained in 
 the following pages are become unpopular in this 
 age of boasted illumination; that they are too con- 
 tracted for the expansive liberality, or (to speak 
 more justly) the religious indiiferenceof the times, 
 and that the maintainers of them are branded with 
 the name o£bigoU. Professing myself to be one 
 of those bigots, and being perfectly satisfied with 
 the company in which I am placed, my only hope 
 is, that I may.be thought worthy to continue in it. 
 
 To this important st^bject, the attention of the 
 English and Scotch clergy has been turned for 
 some years past, and by them-the world has been 
 favoured with some excellent treatises. I shall 
 mention three in particular : 1. A Guide to the 
 Churchy by the Rev. C. Daubeny, Archdeacon of 
 Sarum, 2d edit. 1 804, strongly recommended by 
 the Bishops of Gloucester and Lincoln. S.'Pn- 
 mitive Order Vindicated^ in answer to Campbell's 
 Lectures, by the Right Rev. Dr Skinner, Bishop 
 of Aberdeen, 1803. 3. The Nature and Guilt of 
 Schism^ &c. in eight sermons, preached before the 
 University of Oxford, by the Rev. T. LeMesurier, 
 1808. — It is to be lamented, that very few indeed 
 of these, or of similar publications have been im^ 
 ported' into this country. 
 
 The following treatise, the reader will perceive, 
 is almost entirely compiled from the writings of 
 our celebrated divines. This method of compila- 
 tion I preferred, not only on account of the success 
 which appears to have attended some late com- 
 pilations of a similar nature, particularly Bishop 
 
FIRST EDITION. ix 
 
 Himtingford's Call to English Protestants^ — ^but, 
 to use the words of DrWake, " I hoped that quo- 
 tations from departed writers of great and deserv- 
 ed fame, would find a more general and unpreju- 
 diced acceptance w^itli all sorts of men, than any. 
 thing that could be written by any one now liv- 
 ing, who, if esteemed by some, is yet in danger 
 of being despised by more." Accordingly, as it is 
 in general collected from authors, many of whom 
 flourished above a hundred years since, the reader 
 is to expect, not elegance of style, but a plain and 
 correct statement of facts, accompanied, I hope, 
 with correspondent reasoMng. At the same time, 
 although I have managed this dispute in a man- 
 ner somewh.at different from other authors, and 
 have endeavoured to reduce the tedious and in- 
 tricate disputes about schism, church authority, 
 church establishments, &c.' into a clear, regular, 
 and consistent method ; yet it will easily be per- 
 ceived, that my principles are the very same, that 
 have been constantly received and maintained, 
 wdth very few exceptions, by all the learned di- 
 vines of our church'^. 
 
 * The opinions mantained in this treatise are absurdly described 
 as belonging to the high church school, as if there were noio such 
 parties in the church as high church and low church. The latter, 
 as every one knows, has for many ,years disappeared ; it did not 
 flourish greatly even in the days of Hoadley, and seems to have ex- 
 pired with Archdeacon Blackburne. It could never in fact have 
 been in high repute, — for it must always have borne the appearance 
 of hollowness and treachery. See Le Mesuriers Bampt, Led, p. 43 ] . 
 — Even papists themselves acknowledge that, at present, " botli 
 Teamed and unlearned doctors condemn the Hoadleyan theory* on 
 
X PREFACE TO THE 
 
 If any of our Romanists will be pleased to con- 
 sider what I have said with respect to the supre- 
 macy of the Bishop of Rome, with that attention 
 and impartiality which is due to religious sub- 
 jects, I presume to think he will perceive, that 
 the christian religion does not oblige him to ac- 
 knowledge the Bishop of Rome's authority in this 
 kingdom. It will plainly appear, that such uni- 
 versal authority has no foundation in the scrip- 
 tures, and that it was unknown to the primitive 
 Fathers, who conceived themselves obliged to hold 
 communion with him (or any other Bishop,) only 
 so long as he continued catholic and orthodox ; 
 but when he became an heretic, we find that the 
 Bishops of those pure ages anathematized him, 
 and refused to have any copimuni cation with 
 him. How much more excusable, then, are our 
 Reformed Churches for rejecting his communion, 
 since he not only invades the primitive rights 
 of Bishops, but attempts to obtrude on us, as 
 articles of faith, his decrees, which are contrary 
 to reason, scripture, and the primitive Fathers *. 
 
 the nature of church government. Protestant Apology, &c. 1809, 
 p. 36. 
 
 * Those men must surely be very ignorant of the nature and 
 spirit of Popery, who suppose that there is no necessity, at pre- 
 sentj of exposing the pernicious errors of the Romish Church, and 
 of guarding our people against being infected by them. Let such 
 men consider well the following words of Bishop Stillingfleet :— 
 « While we have such restless adversaries (as the Romish priests) 
 to deal with, part of our danger lies in being too secure of the good- 
 ness of our cause," Dedication to Anthony, Earl of Shaftsbury^ 
 Vol. V. 117. 
 
FIRST EDITION. XI 
 
 As for the performance itself, I must expect 
 from the christian reader some favourable allow- 
 ances, for any oversights and imperfections that 
 may be found in it. And if at any time I have 
 either mistaken or misrepresented the church, in 
 defence of which I write, I shall, upon informa- 
 tion, with all due submission acknowledge the 
 error. To conclude, I earnestly beseech Almighty 
 God of his infinite mercy, to make all those who 
 shall peruse this book, honest and impartial, di- 
 ligent in the search of truth, and heartily willing 
 not only to receive, but also to acknowledge con- 
 viction. 
 
 Trinity College, Dublin^ 
 May 1. 1811. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The decided approbation given to the Treatise 
 on the Government of the Church by characters 
 of the first eminence, and the rapid sale of it 
 beyond my expectation, have induced me to pre- 
 pare for the press a new and improved edition, 
 in which I have spared neither labour nor ex- 
 pence in rendering it still more deserving of the 
 approbation of the Friends of the Church. 
 
 It must be highly gratifying to all true lovers 
 of Primitive Truth and Order to find that, in this 
 age of indifference and lukewarmness, the prin- 
 ciples which I have contributed my endeavours to 
 restore, have met with even a tolerable reception, 
 when the very contrary might have been ex- 
 pected. Yet still, it will require no ordinary 
 exertions in all the friends of the church, with 
 the assistance of God's holy spirit, to bring back 
 their erring brethren to that blessed state of 
 unity described in the Acts, in which the chris- 
 tian people are represented as " remaining sted- 
 fastly^ not only in the doctrine and worship of the 
 apostles^ but also in their Fellowship." 
 
XIV PREFACE TO THE 
 
 It has been observed of late, that there is 
 much less of Infidelity among us, than there was 
 some years ago ; but that there unfortunately 
 prevails among Protestants in general, a sort of 
 imperfect Christianity, which, supposing a certain 
 knowledge of the fundamentals of doctriiie^ con- 
 siders every thing else as totally unimportant. 
 This observation is extremely just, and perfectly 
 applicable to the present times. But let us ab- 
 ply it more explicitly to the respective bodies of 
 those who profess the tenets of Protestancy. 
 
 The Protestants of Great Britain and Ireland 
 are divided into two great bodies. Viz, those who 
 are not members of the church and those who are. 
 Of the former the Presbyterians, Independents 
 and Methodists are the most numerous ; and it 
 is of importance in the present case to observe, 
 that, beside the profession of the true faith, they 
 all appear to admit the necessity of church so- 
 ciety and church governors of same description 
 or other. Some among them even contend zeal- 
 ously for the divine right of their respective forms 
 of church government ^, but it may be observed, 
 that in general they consider this as totally un- 
 important, and left undetermined in the scrip- 
 tures. But this is an extremely unscriptural and 
 
 * The independents have of late years manifested a wonderful 
 zeal in inculcating the necessity of attending to church government 
 tmd unity. The following extract from what is entitled the Scrip- 
 ture Magazine, edited by the Scotch Independents, will, I am con- 
 fident, be readily subscribed by every true Churchman ; "Another 
 thing, which greatly tends to hinder the progress of the gospel, is 
 the glaring inatteniion to the nature of a Church of Christ, mani- 
 
SECOND EDITION, XV 
 
 dangerous sentiment. Christ and his holy apos- 
 tles, as I think I have clearly proved, instituted 
 but one form of church government and commu* 
 nion, and confined the covenanted means of sal- 
 vation to the living members of this one commu- 
 nion, and to none other. The characteristic mark 
 by which this communion is distinguished from 
 all other societies, is, that it is governed by the 
 order of Bishops maintaining the true faith and 
 worship. To separate from this society without 
 the strongest reasons constitutes the sin of schism 
 so pointedly condemned in the scriptures, and 
 with the nature of which Protestant Dissenters 
 of all descriptions appear to be entirely unac- 
 quainted. " He that is not with the Bishop, 
 (as the celebrated Bishop Taylor remarks,) is not 
 in the church, that is, he that goes away from 
 him willingly and separates himself, departs from 
 God's church ; and whether he can then be with 
 God, is a very material consideration, and fit to 
 be thought on by all that think heaven a more' 
 eligible good than the interests of a faction, and 
 the important desire of rule can countervail. — 
 (Consecration Serm. Dub. 1660. Pref ) Or to use 
 
 fested by those who profess to be most deeply interested in the 
 conversion of sinners. The common opinion on this subject is, 
 that if sinners are brought to the knowledge of the truth, all is 
 well ; and as to forms of social institution and worship, they are 
 deemed quite unnecessary, or, at any rate, of but trifling import- 
 ance. But how can the effects of Christianity be expected to fol- 
 low in assemblies, where the union and/ellowship of the body of 
 Christ do not appear?— Edinb. 1809. p. 192. 
 
XVI PREFACE TO THE 
 
 the words of another luminary of the church in 
 Ireland, the great Archbishop Usher, and which 
 are applicable to the present time: Schism, says 
 he, a thing deeply to be thought of by the Is- 
 maels of our time, who forsake the fellowship of 
 the saints, and by a sacrilegious separation break 
 this bond of peace. Little do these men consi- 
 der, how precious the peace of the church ought 
 to be in our eyes (to be redeemed with a thousand 
 of our lives,) and of what dangerous consequence 
 this matter of SchiSxM is unto their own souls. — 
 For howsoever the Schismatic, secundum affec- 
 tum (as the schoolmen speak) in his intention and 
 wicked purposes, taketh away unity from the 
 church ; yet secundum effectum^ in truth and in 
 very deed, he taketh away the unity only from- 
 himself; that is, he cutteth himself off from being 
 united with the rest of the body ; and being dis- 
 severed from the body, how is it possible that he 
 should retain communion with the head ? Ser- 
 mon on the Universality of the Church. See also the 
 Homily against Contention, 
 
 Such are the deplorable consequences of rejec- 
 ting or being in a separation from Orthodox Epis- 
 copal Communion, and which ought to be care- 
 fully attended to by the Presbyterians, Methodists, 
 &c. of the present day. With their bible in their 
 hands, and prejudice laid aside, let the subject be 
 brought to a fair and impartial hearing. With 
 this view the bible is put into their hands ; and 
 they are required, after the example of the noble 
 
SECOND EDITION. XVU 
 
 Bereans, to searcli and examine, whether what 
 has been said on the subject of the church be 
 agreeable to the tenor of the apostolic writings. 
 For this is the standard to which all opinions up- 
 on the subject must ultimately be referred. 
 
 It Kas been, I must confess, a considerable in- 
 jury to the cause of Episcopacy, that its defend- 
 ers have not paid, in general, sufficient attention 
 to the scripture proofs of its divine institution, 
 but have relied too much on the testimony of 
 the Fathers, and other human authorities. Such 
 has been the general outcry of Presbyterians, &c. 
 against Episcopalians, and often with too much 
 foundation. " Advocates of proper Episcopa- 
 cy (says a late Presbyterian writer) do rest its 
 claim to a divine right principally, if not solely, 
 on the writings of the Fathers, virtually admit- 
 ting that the scriptures are not so clear and de- 
 cisive on the subject, but wise and good men 
 may disagree in their interpretation of them." 
 
 Another considerable objection to the general 
 prevalence of Episcopacy, has arisen from that 
 absurd idea, entertained by its adversaries ever 
 since the Reformation, that it is unfavourable to 
 civil liberty, and that it can only subsist under 
 an absolute monarchy. 
 
 Thus, the last mentioned writer lays it to the 
 charge of Episcopacy, that she contends that 
 Presbytery is too democratical in its constitution 
 to have any pretensions to a. divine origin. It 
 «eems, indeed, to be one of that church's theo- 
 logical axioms, that no form of government,' civil 
 
Xviii PREFACE TO THE 
 
 or ecclesiastical, is of God^hut absolute monarchy 
 alone. Doubtless there have been Episcopalians 
 who have maintained such opinions, but then the 
 blame ought in reason to be laid to their charge, 
 and not to that of Episcopacy. Christ did 
 not institute any particular form of government, 
 nor require his apostles and their followers to 
 establish a monarchy wherever they establish- 
 ed a church, but merely to live in rational obe- 
 dience to the ''powers that are^'' whether monar- 
 chical or republican. In short, Episcopacy is per- 
 fectly compatible with an universal religion. For 
 " an Episcopal Church may or may not be incor- 
 porated with the state ; and Episcopacy has in fact 
 adapted itself to all the forms of civil government 
 that have existed in the world since the com- 
 mencement of the christian aera." British Critic^ 
 1812. p. 475. 
 
 The cause of Episcopacy has likewise suffered 
 much from not " attending to what is original 
 and apostolic in its constitution, and distinguish- 
 ing what is accidental from what is essential." 
 A learned Bishop found it necessary to request 
 the attention of all parties to this necessary cau- 
 tion, at a time when the cause of Episcopacy had 
 sunk very low indeed. For, says he, he that 
 takes things in gross (as most do) without exa- 
 mination, and looks upon Bishops as persons dig- 
 nified with titles of honour, possest with lands 
 and revenues, having under them (as the late 
 Covenant set them out attended) Deans, Arch- 
 deacons, Chancellors, Commissaries, &c. for the 
 
SECOND EDITION. xix 
 
 exercise of jurisdiction, will peradventure think 
 there can be nothing apostolical in Episcopacy. 
 (Episcopacy and Presbyterij considered^ by H. 
 Feme, D.D. Lond. 1647.) See Note, p. 135 .of 
 this Treatise. 
 
 Such is the nature of the scriptural Episco- 
 pacy for which I contend ; and again I entreat 
 our adversaries not to be too wise in their own 
 conceits, but to ''search the scriptures whether 
 these things he so" and not to give up their rea- 
 son so entirely to their own guides as if they 
 conceived them to be infallible. And, to use the 
 words of Mr Dodwell, for God's sake, for your 
 souVs sake, for the church's sake, I beg of you 
 that you w^ould not reject these things for my 
 sake, because i\\e pi^oponent is contemptible. The 
 question is not, whether you should be of my 
 opinion, but whether you should not bev/are of 
 being guilty of the sin of schism, and being acces- 
 sai^y to those divisions which you do so seriously 
 deplore ^ ? Our Saviour did not deny the scrip- 
 ture when quoted by the Devil, — and I hope you 
 
 * The evil consequences arising from divisions are acknowledg- 
 ed by all parties. " They are among the chief obstacles to the 
 progress of the gospel. ScoflFers triumph in our divisions, and the 
 world in general is stumbled. Ausiver to Etoing, hy A, Carson (an 
 independent teacher,) Edinb. 1809. Pref. " I am persuaded (says 
 Bishop Stillingfleet,) that all the arguments in Bellarmin,'and other 
 books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Pa- 
 pists in this country, as the multitude of sects among ourselves." 
 Unreasonableness of Separation^ Pref. 
 
 Since the Papists thus derive such benefits from the divisions 
 among Protestants, we may conclude, that they do all in their 
 
XX PREFACE TO THE 
 
 will not disown the truth from a christian, though 
 weak and unworthy to be called so. St Augus- 
 tine never got more honour by any thing than 
 by his Retractations. And I know I need not 
 tell you that no victory is more glorious than to 
 be overcome by truth. 
 
 With respect to the great body of Protestants 
 who are members of the Episcopal Communion, 
 it must be mentioned with pleasure, that a 
 large majority of them are pious and stedfast 
 adherers to the Church, cautiously avoiding even 
 the appearance q/*that evil Schism, against which 
 they are taught to pray ; and that both among 
 the clergy and laity, there are many now alive 
 who have been highly instrumental in guarding 
 their brethren against false principles, and have 
 considerably promoted the cause of genuine Chris- 
 tianity, and the credit of our Reformed Church. 
 But still it cannot be denied, that too many of 
 her members appear to be totally unacquainted 
 with the necessity and advantages of church com- 
 munion. And even in the Episcopal Church in 
 
 power to increase them, and prevent their uniting in the same com- 
 munion. Thus, they have sent their emissaries amongst us, under 
 the garb of puritans, to preach against the church and the common 
 prayer ; and it is a positive fact, the Quakers owe their origin to 
 those abominable arts of the Papists. See The Missionaries Arts 
 Discovered, 1688, and Foxes and Firebrands. Hubert Languet, Am- 
 bassador of tlie Elector of Saxony at Vienna, wrote from thence in 
 1574, that " the Pope dreaded nothing more than our Union, which 
 he declared would be the cause of his destruction, if it took place." 
 E])isc. Commenius, De Bono Unitatiset Ordijiis, Amst. 1662. p. 54. 
 dedicated to Charles II. 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXI 
 
 Scotland (the discipline of which has always been 
 preserved stricter than in her sister churches,) it 
 has become, as a zealous Presbyter of that com- 
 munion laments, a prevailing opinion, that there 
 is no difference of any moment between the pre- 
 sent (Presbyterian,) Establishment and the Epis- 
 copal Church; and consequently that there is no 
 ground for preferring the communion of the one 
 to the other, except in taste or convenience ; and 
 what renders the matter worse, they who enter- 
 tain this opinion are confident in asserting, and 
 zealous in recommending it ; and at the same 
 time take to themselves no little praise for being, 
 as they phrase it, charitable, moderate, and liberal 
 in their sentiments. See The Difference between the 
 Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Establish- 
 ment in Scotland, 1811. 
 
 Such opinions and practices are undoubtedly 
 evils of the greatest magnitude, and which re- 
 quire the united exertions of the clergy and laity 
 to counteract in due time. It is not so much to 
 the efforts of her enemies, as to the long continu- 
 ed supineness of her own sons, that this general 
 laxity of principle in the church is to be imputed. 
 The clergy have solemnly promised at their ordi- 
 nation to " be ready, with all faithful diligence, 
 to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange 
 doctrines contrary to God's word," and it is. chief- 
 ly to their exertions we must look for the preser- 
 vation of the unity of the church. " It is incum- 
 bent Qn usy stewards and ministers of the gospel 
 
 h 
 
XX41 PREFACE TO THE 
 
 (says tlie present apostolic Bishop of St Davids,) 
 to see, that tlie people committed to our charge, 
 especially our poorer brethren, be not left igno- 
 rant of so essential a part of the knowledge and 
 duty of a christian, as the knowledge of the na- 
 ture and constitution of the Church of Christ, and 
 of the duties of church fellowship and christian 
 Unity. Ignorance is the foundation of Schism : 
 Ignorance of the great duty of christian unity, 
 and the great sin of dissension and disunion. It 
 is ignorance wdiich exposes men to be " cwried 
 uboiit with every wind of doctrine ^^^ and to be con- 
 founded by " oppositions of science, falsely so call- 
 ed,'' First Principles, Pref. 
 
 There are two extremely improper practices I 
 shall here take notice of, which have arisen from 
 that general ignorance of sound principles so pre- 
 valent at present, and have contributed more than 
 any thing else to the increase of schism and dis- 
 union. The first I allude to is the scandalous 
 practice of the members of the church occasion- 
 ally frequenting the meeting-houses, and chapels 
 of Methodists, Papists, and other Sectaries. No- 
 thing almost can be more unscriptural and more 
 at variance with the discipline of the purest ages 
 of the church, (See p. 145.) If a member of our 
 communion be even invited to attend a charity 
 sermon at such places, let him send his alms (if 
 he is so inclined,) but let him not scandalise his 
 christian profession by countenancing those who 
 " make divisions contrary to the doctrine which he 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXIU 
 
 has learned. That excellent little book, The 
 Faith and Practice of a Church of England-Man^ 
 by Dean Stanley, very explicitly represents the 
 opinion of a churchman on this head: " I consci- 
 entiously forbear going to any irregular unlaw- 
 ful assemblies, though only out of curiosity, be- 
 cause my being there but once, and out of no bad 
 design, is a giving them countenance send encou- 
 ragement, and is also a putting myself out of 
 God's protection, by tempting him in running 
 myself into evil and danger, which he may justly 
 suffer me to fall into ; and again, I religiously ab- 
 stain from communicating with any heretical or 
 ^c/i25ma^/c«7 congregation, for they break the unity 
 of the body of Christy and disobey lawful authority 
 in the church," &c. See the 5th Dublin Edition^ 
 1733, published by the Bishop of Kilmore, p. 
 34. 
 
 Nearly in an equal degree injurious to the 
 unity of the church, and unpropitious to the cause 
 of Christianity, are those societies formed lately 
 for the purpose of distributing bibles to the poor, 
 and composed of Churchmen and Dissenters of all 
 descriptions ^. For can we consider any society 
 to be propitious to the cause of general Christiani- 
 ty, which presents the novel spectacle of Church- 
 men and Dissenters of every kind, not even ex- 
 
 * I allude in particular to the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 It is not from the distribution of bibles that the adversaries of the 
 mixed societies apprehend danger. On the contrary, they are all 
 unanimous in asserting that the more widely the scriptures are dis- 
 seminated, the greater in all respects must be the good produced. 
 
Xxiv PREFACE TO THE 
 
 cepting Socinians, joiijing hand in hand to pre- 
 sent the Bible as the common standard of tiieir 
 respective opinions. Can any thing be more 
 likely to produce a total indifierence to all the 
 modes of faith, than this strange and unnatural 
 combination ? And will they not lead the objects 
 of their bounty to suppose, that each admits the 
 peculiar tenets of the rest to be really contained 
 in scripture. A more ingenious project for neu- 
 tralising the sacred pages never was invented. — 
 But the poor are not only thus exposed to the 
 hazard of confounding true and false doctrine by 
 the provision of such societies, but their reverence 
 for the priesthood is also necessarily diminished 
 by it. When they are told that every clergyman 
 is, on account of his sacred function, a member of 
 the committee, and that every Dissenting teacher 
 and Methodist preacher is, for the same reason, 
 invested with the same privilege ; — what infer- 
 ence must they be expected to draw, but this, that 
 in the opinion of this great and increasing society, 
 there is no diiference between the characters and 
 pretensions of those various persons, to w^hom it 
 has thus given equal rank in its committee. 
 
 But even without arguing from its proper 
 and natural consequences, it is the bounden duty 
 of every true churchman to oppose such combi- 
 nations, being plainly contrary to those com- 
 mands of the apostles, which forbid us to consent 
 to go hand in hand, and have one common object 
 in religiovis matters, with heretics or schismatics 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXV 
 
 of any description '*. I am sorry, observes the zea- 
 lous Wordsworth, to recognise the names of se- 
 veral clergymen of known respectability, vdiose 
 precipitance and ill-disciplined disposition to be 
 doing good, without due enquiry concerning the 
 means^ has drawn them in to become dupes of this 
 indigested and pernicious undertaking; I intreat 
 they will re-consider their doings. If, says Dr 
 Marsh, churchmen in general resolved to act by 
 themselvesin the distribution of bibles and prayer 
 books, and Dissenters formed another society for 
 the distribution of bibles alone, the two socie- 
 ties might act, without mutual bitterness, and 
 without an. encroachment on each others rights. 
 — Surely harmony may be preserved without 
 requiring that one party shall sacrifice to the 
 other. 
 
 Having now distinctly shewn in what manner 
 this Treatise is applicable to Protestants in gene- 
 ral, I shall next consider it in reference to the 
 members of the Romish Church. The corrupt 
 religion of this once powerful sect, we must re- 
 collect, is not extinct. It has indeed, of late years 
 wonderfully revived, and rears its crest in these 
 realms with all the ardour of confidence. Mi- 
 racles, too, are pretended to be wrought in testi- 
 
 * The Committee of the Belfast branch of this Bible Society 
 {Address, Belf. 1812. p. 3.) speak of it in very appropriate terms: 
 *< Do we not here behold a new thing upon earth ? Christians of 
 different denominations forgetting their diiferences," &c. A new 
 thing indeed (novum monstrum in terris^J totally unknown since 
 the first prealching of Jesus Christ to the present time ! 
 
XXVI PREFACE TO THE 
 
 mony of what is called the Catholic Church, and 
 every endeavour is used to seduce individuals 
 from our communion. The exposing of the false 
 and pernicious tenets of that church may there- 
 fore be considered as being now especially our 
 duty, not only as we are bound at all times to 
 oppose falsehood and to maintain truth, but as 
 it is again become a necessary measure of self de- 
 fence. 
 
 Although every possible method ^ is exerted 
 
 * Whoever reads any books written by heretics (or Protestants,) 
 without permission of the holy See, by virtue of the Bulla CcencBy 
 incurs excommunication ijjso facto. See Arsdekin. Theologia, p. 
 174. " Sublato omni proprio judicio, paratus semper sit animus 
 ad obediendum Ecclesiae." Exercit. Spirit. Ig. LoyolcB^ ^^g- !• — 
 " Si quod ocuHs nostris apparet album, Ecclesia nigrum definierit, 
 debemus quod nigi-um sit prdnunciare." Reg. 13. — The chief way 
 by which the Roman Church keeps her sheep within her fold (as 
 Dr Geddes observes,) is that of having brought them under aper^ 
 feet bondage of thought to her, by teaching them magisterially, that 
 the having the least doubt or scruple in their minds concerning the 
 truth of any of her dictates, is a most damnable sin. Neither is 
 there any doctrine so frequently and so powerfully driven and ri- 
 vetted into the people by their confessors, as this : The sinfulness 
 of all the mortal sins, being neither so exaggerated, nor punished 
 with so severe and long a penance as the having had any doubts 
 concerning the Roman Faith, And must not all who are held in 
 Popery purely by the bondage of thought (which is the care of the 
 great body of its professors,) if they had been born of Jewish or 
 Heathen parents, and had taken the same meritcu'ious course, been 
 of the Jewish or Heathen religion ? See Geddes s View of the me- 
 ihods by ichich the Roman Church keeps her peajile from coming t9 
 the knotdedge of her great and manifold errors, Sec. Tracts, Vol. IIL 
 And it may be farther remarked that the belief of the Romish doc- 
 trines does not consist altogether in the truth of them, but in the 
 faith of the believer : for let them be true or false, if tliey be receiv- 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXVii 
 
 to prevent their members from using their private 
 judgment in religious matters, yet I am humbly 
 of opinion, that if any of them will be pleased to 
 read what I have said concerning the marks of the 
 church, and the rule of faith, they will perceive 
 clearly that they are obliged, on their own prin- 
 ciples, to compare their doctrines with the only 
 infallible rule of faith, the Word of God. Ac- 
 cording to that rule, they will discover that they 
 are undoubtedly bound to " believe not evet^y spi- 
 rit^'' but to ^^ search the scriptures^^ ^'' and ''examine 
 themselves whether they be in the faith ;'' by this 
 rule they will perceive that, although the apostles 
 were infallible in delivering the faith they had re- 
 ceived from the Holy Ghost, yet their successors 
 in the ministry were infallible, only as far as they 
 adhered to the sacred deposit ; they will perceive, 
 that many even of the immediate successors of 
 the apostles erred in matters of faith and disci- 
 pline, — that the Bishops and Clergy, in subjec- 
 tion to the Bishop of Rome, have also erred in 
 
 ed with an affected ignorance and blind obedience, the party shall 
 be quite secure : " If a simple person believe his Bishop when he 
 preaches any heretical doctrine, in believing this falsehood, he shall 
 perform a meritorious act." Card, Tolet. De Instrudione Sacred. 
 Lib. IV. 6. 3. 
 
 * This they may have an excellent opportunity of doing by the 
 perusal of our uncorrupt reformed translation of the holy scriptures. 
 The Reformed Church is certainly much indebted to the Rev. 
 Richard Grier of Middleton for his clear and masterly defence of hey 
 authorized versions of the scriptures, lately published, in answer 
 to Ward's Pretended Errata of the same. 
 
XXVlll PREFACE TO THE 
 
 matters of faith and discipline, — ^and that every* 
 true christian is under the strongest obligations 
 to " mark and avoid " those Bishops and Clergy, 
 v^ho^caiise divisions contrary to the doctrine'^ they 
 have learned, and hold ^' accursed even angels them- 
 selves^ who teach any other doctrine *' than that 
 which the apostles themselves delivered. 
 
 It is on these grounds that we call on the 
 members of the Romish Church, to forsake their 
 heretical Bishops, and return to the unity of 
 Christ's Catholic Church, as maintained in the 
 Reformed Church. For it preserves not only an 
 undoubted succession of Bishops, but what is in- 
 finitely of more importance, a succession of apos- 
 tolic doctrine and worship ; for their doctrine and 
 worship are plainly such as the apostles them- 
 selves professed, and taught in the holy scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 I refer the reader however to the Second Part 
 of this Treatise, in w^hich our Reformed Church 
 is, I hope, evidently proved, in opposition to the 
 Romish party, to be a sound and orthodox por- 
 tion of the Catholic Church ; and to which all 
 Romanists are bound, at their peril, to unite 
 themselves. 
 
 It has been enquired of me, why I have paid 
 such particular attention to the confutation of 
 the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, and neglected 
 others which are more immediately of dangerous 
 consequence to the souls of the Romanists. To 
 this I shall answer in the words of one who was 
 
^ SECOND EDITION- Xxix 
 
 once a member of the Romish Church : As I have 
 ever believed, says he, that the chief and most 
 important point among all the contjroversies be- 
 twixt the Catholic Reformed and the Romish 
 Church, is that of the Primacy of the Pope, and 
 whether he be Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, 
 universal and general Bishop of all christians, and 
 be head and superior of the Catholic Church, — 
 so it was the first motive of my conversion, and 
 that which I esteemed to have most need to be 
 well considered, as being the ground of all Ro- 
 mish belief, which once overturned, she must of 
 necessity fall to the ground. And howsoever 
 there may be many other points of great import- 
 ance, this nevertheless is as the centre, where all 
 the rest do meet, and the axletree on which they 
 all move, and the foundation that upholdeth them. 
 The Christian and Catholic Verity^ or the Reasons 
 andMannerofthe Conversion of Fr. de Neville ^for- 
 merly a Capuchin Preacher^ &c. Lond. 1642. p. 46 *. 
 It is unnecessary to enumerate here all the ad- 
 ditions and improvements that have been made 
 in this Second Edition. They are all, I am 
 convinced, of the utmost importance and neces- 
 sity. I hope, that the repeated intimations I 
 
 * We look on the supremacy of the Pope, and his unjust usur- 
 pation over kings and his fellow-bishops, as the fundamental article 
 of Popery, and it is required by the second canon of the Church of 
 Ireland, of every preacher to the utmost of his wit, knowledge, and 
 learning to preach againgt it four times a year. Bishop Sheridan s 
 ^erwiiii at St Wnrburghs, Dublin, 1685. 
 
XXX re E FACE TO THE 
 
 have made, that the Church is at present in a 
 state of clanger, will appear to none unseason- 
 able. My object is not so much to alarm as 
 io forewarn. In this opinion, in which I am not 
 alone, I am sorry to be obliged to dissent from 
 the learned and zealous Archdeacon of Stafford 
 in his Charge to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry, 
 June 1812*. "I have no manner or degree of 
 apprehension (says he,) that this sect, or these 
 sects of Methodists, wall continue to be extend- 
 ed, to the serious injury or ultimate subversion 
 of the Church." I should heartily agree with 
 the learned Archdeacon in this conclusion (to use 
 the words of the Critic,) did I not perceive in all 
 orders of men in the Established Church, — in the 
 clergy as well as the laity, — a lukewarmness and 
 indifference ; which, as they were the cause of 
 removing the candlestick of at least one ancient 
 church out of its place, may be productive of a 
 similar effect in the Church of England, (British 
 Critic, May 1813, p.458t.; 
 
 * The Archdeacon has been pleased to honjour the first edi- 
 tion of this Treatise in the following terms : " See an excellent di- 
 o-est of all the best works on this subject, lately published at Dublin 
 under the title of A Treatise on the Government of the Church, 
 &c. By Edward Bariviclc, Esq. of Trin. Coll. Dublin:' p. 9. 
 
 f It is a matter equally of surprise and concern (says DrMagee, 
 speaking of the Methodists, ) that a system, which no longer covertly 
 but openly and avowedly, works in continued hostility to the esta- 
 blished religion, has not met with more effectual resistance from 
 those who may be supposed to take an interest in the well beir^g 
 of the establishment. Discourses 07t Atanement, I. p. 159. 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXXI 
 
 In order, if possible, to obviate such serious 
 calamities, I have taken the liberty of making a 
 few remarks (in Appendioj,^ o.llL) which, if sea- 
 sonably attended to, would,! am convinced, es- 
 sentially serve ta promote the good of the Church, 
 and repress the growth of Schism. But let me re- 
 mind the reader, that it is not the aid of the civil 
 power, or the revival of schism bills I should de- 
 sire to see called in (as some may insinuate,) in or- 
 der to obtain these desirable ends ; unless I had 
 been fully convinced that the Church is able to 
 defend and support herself, even in a state of 
 total independence on the legislature, I should 
 never have written a line in defence of her. We 
 surely mistake the spirit of the gospel, says the 
 late excellentBishop Wilson, when we would esta- 
 blish and defend the Church by human policy and 
 carnal means, by friendship of great men, credit, 
 reputation, splendor, riches, &c. God will have 
 us to use other sort of arms, namely, patience, 
 humility, meekness, prayers, suffering, and spiri- 
 tual censures, to which he will join his own al- 
 mighty power. — 2 Cor. x. 4. 
 
 It has been justly observed, and it is confirmed 
 by experience, that a correct use of terms of de- 
 nomination is of more importance to the cause of 
 truth than is generally supposed. I shall explain 
 my reasons for using certain terms in a different 
 manner from that of the generality of our divines. 
 It were much to be wished, that they were all una- 
 nimous in this respect. I have taken the liberty 
 
XXXll PREFACE TO THE 
 
 of applying to the Episcopal cliurclies in general, 
 the title of the Reformed or Reformed Epis- 
 copal Church, in opposition to the Unreform- 
 ED, or rather Deformed Church of Rome, and 
 likewise to the merely negative term Pf^otestanU 
 * — " As to the general term Protestant (says the 
 learned Bishop Lloyd,) I am not at all satisfied 
 with it, and I have both reason and experience to 
 warrant me in this dislike," (See his Refor. Catk, 
 Lond. 1679. p- 3.) I cannot admit the word 
 Protestant, (says another zealous writer,) as a 
 name whereby to distinguish my church or profes- 
 sion. I think that, if I were asked, what church 
 are you of^ or, ivhat r^eligion do you profess^ and I 
 answered / am a Protestant^ this v^^ould be a very 
 imperfect account of myself and my faith ; and 
 all that could be gathered from such an answer 
 would be, that I were of a negative religion, or ra- 
 ther of any, no matter which, so it be not Popery. 
 Let us in God's name protest to the utmost against 
 Popery, but let not that name (which is pretend- 
 ed to unite us,) by shuffling away all distinction, 
 betray us into a schism from best apostolic mother. 
 True Churchman and Loyal Subject, Dedicated 
 to the Clergy. Lond. 1710. p. 3. 9. 
 
 I have cautiously abstained from giving to the 
 Romish Church the title of the Catholic Church, 
 or to the Papists or Romanists that of the Catho- 
 lics. The application of this term, observes Mr 
 Bowles, amounts to nothing less than an admis- 
 sion that they constitute, exclusively, the universal 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXXIU 
 
 church of Christ, and that Protestants form no 
 part of that church. That, by the assumption 
 of the term, the former should endeavour to in- 
 culcate such a doctrine, proves that there are no 
 bounds to the exorbitancy of their claims ; but 
 that the latter should recognise a claim of this 
 description, which they do whenever they deno- 
 minate the members of the Romish Church Ca- 
 tholics, is a proof of inconsideraticn or rather of 
 folly, which scarcely admits of an adequate de- 
 scription. Letter to Whitbread, Lond. 1807. — 
 See also Le Mesurier's Addi^ess^ Lond. 1810. 
 
 The title of Established Church and Establish- 
 ed Religion, and Establishment^ applied as an epi- 
 thet of distillation to the Church in England and 
 Ireland, is of dangerous consequence, and leads 
 one to imagine that the church is merely a civil in- 
 stitution, and solely dependent on the magistrates' 
 will. This epithet ought to be dropped, at least 
 by the members of those churches *. The Scotch 
 Kirk herself cannot bear that it should be applied 
 to her, but conceives that the application of it 
 amounts to no less than " unchurching all the 
 inhabitants of this land," (i. e. Scotland,) except- 
 
 * It ought to be more known, than it appears to be at present, 
 that the title of established cannot with propriety be appUed exclu- 
 sively to the church. For are not the Dissenters protected by the 
 legislature, and their ministers paid by it equally with those of the 
 church? "Dr Stock might have known (says Dr Campbell, a dis- 
 senting teacher at Armagh,) that there are two established churches 
 in England and Ireland, and that the Dissenters mode of worship 
 is established." 
 
XXxiv PREFACE TO THE 
 
 ing those who are not established. Mitchell's 
 Presh. Letters, 1809. p. 9 *. 
 
 In short, let us lay aside all such narrow schis- 
 matical terms, which have an evident tendency 
 
 * The application of the term the " Church of England" to the 
 episcopal Church in Ireland and in Scotland, nay even in America, 
 is ridiculous, and extremely unnatural in the mouth of a Reform- 
 ed Episcopalian. It was partly by applying the term the Church 
 of Rome to all those churches which she converted or brought 
 into subjection, that produced that absurd title, the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church. In the primitive times, christians were never deno- 
 minated such from the particular country in which they happened 
 to be born (as a member of the Church of Carthage, &c.) but from 
 their christian profession : Christian is our name, says Pacian, and 
 Catholic our surname. — I could wish (says Mr Grascome) that we 
 did make use of the good old words, as well as stand up for the 
 good old truth, and not give the Romanists the advantage to shel- 
 ter their errors and ill practices under good old names, to whom 
 they are unjustly applied. I know no reason why, whilst we main- 
 tain the catholic faith we should not denominate ourselves catho- 
 lics (or English Catholics,) and this would oblige the Romanists 
 for distinction's sake to call their proselytes (English) Roman Ca- 
 tholics, the absurdity whereof would, in a great measure, appear 
 from the very terms. Answer to Huddlestone, 1703. — That which 
 distinguishes a true Papist from a true Protestant is no more than 
 this, that the former will needs be a Roman, and the latter only a 
 Catholic. Pott-ers Charity mistaken^ Ox. 1633. — The title of Pope 
 as applied to the Bishop of Rome ought likewise to be laid aside 
 amongst us, and the primitive title Bishop of Rome substituted. 
 For this name Pope, which the silly people adrnire, God wot, as a 
 most sacred things and for all that, know no more what it means, 
 than how far it is to heaven, was given of old indifferently to all 
 
 Bishops. Thoynas Bell's Trial of the Netv Religion, Lond. 1608 
 
 The civil terms. Lord Bishop, Rector, Vicar, Incumbent, Digni- 
 tary, &c. might likewise be used less seldom, and the apostolic ones 
 Bishop and Presbyter adopted. Bishop Burnet remarks, that ac- 
 cording to the gross, but common abuse of our language, the names 
 of cures or parishes, which are the ecclesiastical names, are now 
 
SECOND EDITION. XXXV 
 
 to mislead the wavering and ignorant, and as we 
 have restored the true apostolic faith and wor- 
 ship, let us also restore and adopt the primitive 
 terms and epithets, since we find by experience 
 that so much depends on a proper use of them. 
 
 If any of our sectarian brethren, either Pro- 
 testant or Popish, will be pleased to consider this 
 Treatise deserving of an answer, I earnestly en- 
 treat them to adhere as close as possible to the 
 subject in debate, and to lay aside every thing 
 that is irrelevant and unnecessary. Let us, to 
 use the words of Dr Hickes to his Popish adver- 
 sary, strip ourselves of all superfluous words, di- 
 gressions, jests, or other artifices of prolonging 
 the dispute, and shut ourselves up to be tried by 
 the force of our reasons alone, which if we have 
 the assurance to do, we shall soon see the arms 
 drop out of the hands of one of us. — Let us re- 
 member also, that we must give an account of 
 what we write to that great judge, who searches 
 the heart and tries the reins ; and consider that 
 every false colour, every disguise, and much more 
 every gross falsehood, is an affront to God him- 
 self, and an injury to the souls of our neigh- 
 bours ; and that bitterness and calumny are not 
 only inconsistent with a christian spirit, but 
 deaden the force of our argument. 
 
 swallowed up into that of living, which carries a carnal idea in the 
 very sound of the word, and I doubt not a more carnal effect on the 
 minds of both clergy and laity. Pastoral Con-e. 
 
XXXVi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Before I conclude, I make it my request to the 
 reader, who wishes to derive any benefit from this 
 Treatise, to suspend his judgment, till he has 
 read with some attention one Part of it at least. 
 For there are many passages which, if taken out 
 of their connection, may be liable to gross mis- 
 interpretations, and chargeable with the most ab- 
 surd consequences. 
 
 Trinity College , Dublin ^ 
 July 1. 1813. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pack. 
 
 Introduction xxxvii 
 
 PART L > 
 
 Chap. I. — On the Nature and Constitution of the Catholic 
 
 Church 1 
 
 Chap. II. — The Three Distinct Orders of Bishops, Presbyters 
 (or Priests,) and Deacons, proved from the Scrip- 
 tures and Primitive Fathers 20 
 
 Chap. III. — Of the Necessity of the Order of Bishops to the 
 
 Constitution of the Catholic Church 53 
 
 Chap. IV. — Of the Necessity of Church Communion, and the 
 
 Sin of Schism 86 
 
 Chap. V. — The Reformed Episcopal Church in England, 
 Ireland, and Scotland, a Sound and Orthodox 
 Portion of the Catholic Church ; and the Ne- 
 cessity of a Strict Adherence to its Commu- 
 nion , Ill 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Chap I. — The true State of the Question between the Re- 
 formed Episcopal Church and the Romanists, 
 respecting the Catholic Church, and the Method 
 of preserving its Unity,, ,,„,„, .., 157 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Chap. II. — The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome confuted 
 from the Scriptures^, with an Account' of the 
 Apostohc Method of preserving the Unity of 
 the Church 167 
 
 Chap. III. — The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome confuted 
 from the Primitive Fathers, with an Account 
 of the primitive Method of preserving the Unity 
 of the Cathohc Church 192 
 
 Chap. IV. — A General Defence of the Reformation of the 
 Episcopal Church in England, Ireland, and 
 Scotland 234 , 
 
 Chap. V. — The Impracticability of an Union between the Re- 
 formed Episcopal and present Roman Church..,. 277 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I SOS 
 
 No. II S09 
 
 No.111 3J9 
 
 The Rule of Faith '. 329 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1 HERE is no article of the Christian Faith, as laid 
 down in our public creeds, that seems to be so strangely 
 misunderstood, and so little attended to, as that in 
 which we are taught to profess our belief of the Holy 
 Catholic Church, And the mistakes and inattention 
 so prevalent in regard to that important point are the 
 more to be regretted, as the baneful consequences aris- 
 ing from this unhappy cause, daily exhibit an increas- 
 ing tendency to disorder, confusion, and every evil 
 work. 
 
 On this important subject all information that is ab- 
 solutely necessary, is to be obtained from an accurate 
 examination of the Word of God alone. "Because 
 (says Chrysostom,) at this time heresy has infected the 
 Church, the Divine Scriptures only can afford a proof 
 of genuine Christianity, and a refuge to those who are 
 desirous of arriving at the truth of Faith. Formerly, 
 it could be evinced by various means which was the 
 true Church of Christ, — which the Church of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Gentiles; but at present there is no other method left 
 to those who are willing to discover the true church of 
 Christ, but the Scriptures only, — and why ? Because 
 heresy has all outward observances in common with hen 
 If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true 
 Church of Christ, how will he be able to do it, amidst 
 so great a resemblance, but by the Holy Scriptures 
 only? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a 
 great confusion of things would take place in the lat- 
 ter days, orders the christians who are desirous of ar- 
 riving at the firmness of Faith, to have recourse to no- 
 thing but the Holy Scriptures ; for if they look up to 
 any thing else, they will be scandalized, and will perish, 
 as not understanding which is the true Church*." 
 
 * How St Chrysostom could write the above passage and yet 
 regard the doctrine of private judgment as heretical, is a paradox 
 (as a convert from the Romish Church observes,) which all the 
 fine spun subtleties of modern schoolmen, would find it difficult t» 
 unravel. Rev, H. WJiartons Repli/ to Carrol^ p. 29. 1788. 
 
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH, 
 
 PART FIRST 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 1 o understand the nature and design of the CathoHc 
 Church, we iniist consider the worhl at large as lying 
 in wickedness, and consequently in a state of con- 
 demnation before God. Out of this wicked society, 
 of which all are by nature born members, God has 
 been pleased to call men into another society very 
 different from it ; the object of which is to minister 
 to their salvation, by so purifying them from the 
 corruptions of a fallen world, that they may not be 
 condemned with it. This society is sometimes called 
 the Church of Christ, because he purchased it with his 
 blood, — sometimes his Kingdom, because he is the 
 king and governor of it,-*-and sometimes, as in the 
 apostles' creed, the holy Catholic Church ; which term 
 Catholic was early applied to it, not only to declare its 
 universality, and that it is not confined to one natiou 
 
 A 
 
9 
 
 or country, as the Jewish church was ; but, more es- 
 pecially, to signify the orthodox faith and communion 
 it maintains, and to distinguish it from the assemblies 
 of heretics and schismatics. 
 
 In general, the Catholic Church maybe thus defined: 
 It is the one universal Society of all christian people ^in- 
 corporated by the nexv covenant in baptism, under Jesus 
 Christ its supreme head, — and distributed under lawful 
 governors and pastors, into par ticidar churches holding 
 communion with each other, in all the essentials of chris- 
 tian Faith, and Worship, and Government, Or more 
 briefly. It is the Society of all faithful christians, under 
 their lawfid Bishops and Pastors *. < 
 
 This is agreeable to the characteristic marks or notes 
 of the church given in the holy scriptures, where the 
 primitive christians are represented as having adhered 
 to the apostles' Doctrine, Worship, and Fellowship, i, e. 
 in their communion and under their authority. ^'They 
 co7iti?iued stedfastly,'^ ssijsStl^uke, " i?i the apostles' doc- 
 trine, and fellowship, mid in breaking of bread, and in 
 prayers,^' (Acts ii 42. — 1 Johni. 3.) In strict conform- 
 ity with this is the definition given by our Reformed 
 Church in the 19th Article, in which " the Visible 
 Church "is described to be " a congregation! oi faith- 
 
 * Although this definition of the Catholic Church is applicable 
 merely to the church militant on earth, yet there is a more exten- 
 sive signification of it, and of the greatest importance in our disputes 
 with the Romanists. For the Catholic Church includes not only the 
 orthodox christians of this age, but of all ages since tlie first plantation 
 of christian churches, I do not, says that accurate Scotch divine, 
 Bishop Sage, take the Catholic Church of Christ to be any thing noxvy 
 nor its communion to be another communion than it was in St Paul, 
 St Ignatius, St Cyprian, or St Augustine's age. 
 
 f The term congregation m this place, did not, when the Articles 
 were made, imply a single assembly of christians, as the Independents 
 
ful men, in which the pure word of God is preach- 
 ed, and the sacraments duly administered according to 
 Christ's ordinance, in all things that of necessity are 
 requisite to the same." For the sacraments cannot, 
 in the judgment of our church, be duly administered 
 according to Christ's ordinance, but by those minis- 
 ters who are <*lawfully called and sent into the Lord's 
 vineyard," (Art. 23. compared with the Offices of Or- 
 dination.) — That these are the true notes or marks 
 by which the Catholic Church is to be known, is the 
 opinion of our most eminent divines * : Wherever 
 (says Dr King, Arrhbishop of Dublin) we find \he faith 
 of Christ, and the persons professing it, living in sub- 
 mission to their regular pastors, there we have found 
 a branch of the Catholic Church. It is by these marks 
 we must find the Catholic Church, if we would not 
 mistake the society of schismatics and heretics, nay 
 of heathens for her. We maintain (says Dr Bramhall, 
 Archbishop of Armagh) that an entire profession of 
 saving truth, a right use of the xvord and sacraments^ 
 and an union under lauful pastors, being taken jointly, 
 do distinguish the church essentially from all other 
 , societies in the world. 
 
 assert, but had precisely the same signification as the term Catholia 
 Church. Indeed the two terms were at that time considered so'per- 
 fectly synonymous, that, in the translation of the bible then used, 
 Christ is called, <' the head of the congregation, which is his bodi/,'* 
 and is mentioned as saying to Peter, " on this rock I tvill build my 
 congregation" 
 
 * Kings Anstver to Manhy, Dub. 1687, p. 5. 54. BramhaWs 
 Works, p. 143. Bingham's Works, Book VI. 3. and XVI. 17. Field 
 of the Church, p. 31. 80. Sherlock's Discourse on the Notes, and Find, 
 of do. in the Preserv. against Popery, Vol. I. KettlexvelVs Works, I. 
 663. 679. II. 582. Archbishop Usher s Sermon before King James I. 
 p. 6. 7. 12. Archbishop Hamptons Inquisition of the true Churchy 
 and those that revolt from it. Dub. 1622. - o ' ' \' V ' 
 
The first part of the above-mentioned definition is 
 generally acknowledged, viz. 
 
 I. That the Catholic Church is the one universal so- 
 ciety of all christian people, incorporated by the new 
 covenant in baptism, under Christ its supreme head. 
 — For the scriptures expressly tell us, that the church 
 is a body, whereof Christ is the head : " He gave him to 
 he head over all things to the church, wJiich is his hody^^ 
 (Eph.i. ^2. £3.) Into this society Christ commanded his 
 disciples to admit ^'' all nations, baptising them,'^ and "/o 
 jpreach the gospel to every creature,'^ (Matt, xxviii. 29.) 
 The legal bond which iinifps the church, and renders 
 its members one regular corporation, is the new co- 
 venant ; and as God ratified his covenant with the 
 Jews in the visible solemnity of circumcision,-^so, in 
 place of this, Christ introduced the sign, of baptism 
 to ratify the new covenant between God and us^ For 
 having by baptism entered into the service of the liv- 
 ing God, we are directed and have promised to resist 
 and renounce the enemies of our salvation, the world, 
 the flesh, and the devil -, that, by a sincere performance 
 of the baptismal covenant, we may be entitled to the 
 blessings and privileges of the holy gospel, viz. pardon 
 of sin, and eternal life through Jesus Christ. And hence 
 we are said ** to be baptised into the body,^^ or church of 
 Christ, (1 Cor. xii. 13.) becaus.e baptism, which is our 
 admission into the christian covenant, is only, in other 
 words, pur admission into the christian church, which 
 is the body of christian people confederated by the new 
 covenant. But, until we are baptised, the new covenant 
 is not struck between God and us, nor have /we, ordina- 
 rily, any right or title to any of the blessings promised 
 in it, even although we should perform all the duties it 
 requires. — -That which makes all christian people "o/?e 
 body'' or society, is their being all united under on^ and 
 
the same supreme head and goverrton Accordingly 
 St Paul tells us, that as there is but " one body'' L e. 
 one church, so there is but "072e Lord'* or supreme 
 Governor of that church, (Eph. iv. 4. 5. — Col. i. 18. 
 — Eph. V. 23.) 
 
 11^ The Catholic Church is the society of all chris- 
 tian people distributed into particular churches -, which 
 distribution is made for the convenience of divine wor- 
 ship.— At first, indeed, the whole Catholic Church was 
 only a single congregation, but this in a short time in- 
 creased so fast, that the members of it could no longer 
 exercise the public worship of God in one place or 
 assembly ; and therefore they were distributed into 
 several congregations, which, in scripture,, are called 
 by the name of churches, as being similar parts of the 
 Catholic Church, even as every breath of air is called 
 air, and every drop of water, water. These single 
 congregations were not permitted to be independent 
 of each other, but were all, at first, under the juris- 
 diction of their lawful governors, the apostles; and 
 soon after, for the convenience of government, many 
 of them (especially of those that were neighbouring) 
 were collected into one body under one head or Bishop, 
 who w^as the common guide of all the members of it, 
 both clergy and laity. And these collections of se- 
 veral congregations, under their several Bishops or 
 Governors, are also frequently called churches, and, 
 in truth, are the only true form of a gospel church : 
 For instance, the Church of Corinth contained in it 
 several congregations, and therefore, though in the de- 
 dication of his epistle, the apostle calls it " the Church 
 of God which is at Corinth,'' (1 Cor. 12.) yet in the 
 epistle, he enjoins " that their women keep silence in the 
 churclieSy" (1 Cor. xiv.34,) from whence it is evident. 
 
that in that church there were several churches or con- 
 gregations. And thus we also read of the Church of Je- 
 rusalem, of Antioch, of Ephesus, &c. which churches 
 doubtless consisted of several congregations in and 
 about tliose populous cities, which were all united in 
 one body, under the inspection of one apostle or go- 
 vernor, whom we now call Bishop. 
 
 III. The Catholic Church is the one universal so- 
 ciety of all christian people, distributed into particular 
 churches holding communion with each other. — What 
 these lawful governors and pastors are, I shall fully 
 explain hereafter. By particular churches holding 
 communion Avith each other, I mean, acknowledging 
 each other as parts of the same body, and admitting 
 each other's members, as occasion serves, into actual 
 communion with them in all their religious offices. 
 The communion which particular churches are oblig- 
 ed to maintain, as they are similar parts of the Ca- 
 thoHc Church, is, that they shoidd not divide into 
 separate churches, so as to exclude each other's mem- 
 bers from communicating in their worship, whenever 
 they have occasion to travel from one church to ano- 
 ther. For, so long as there is no rupture between 
 distant churches, no declared disowning of each other, 
 no express refusal of any act of communion to each 
 other's members, they may be truly said to maintain 
 all necessary communion. 
 
 The Catholic Church is one by the communion of 
 all its parts ; and therefore they who break commu- 
 nion with any one part, must necessarily disunite 
 themselves from the whole. For when two churches 
 separate from one another, it must arise, either from 
 the one requiring such terms of communion as are not 
 catholic, or from the other refusing such as are. Now 
 
that church, which requires shiful or wicatliolic terms 
 of communion, does hereby exclude not only one, but 
 all parts of the Catholic Church from its commu- 
 nion, (because they are all equally obhged not to 
 communicate with any church on such terms;) but, 
 in doing so, separates itself from the communion of 
 the Catholic Church. And so, on the other hand, 
 that church, which refuses the communion of any 
 other church upon lawful and catholic terms, does 
 hereby separate itself from the communion of all parts 
 of the Catholic Church. All those particular churches, 
 therefore, into which the Catholic Church is distribut- 
 ed, must be in communion with each other, otherwise 
 they are so far from being parts of the Catholic Church, 
 that^they are only so many schisms and divisions from 
 it.— But it must be observed, that in a divided state 
 of the church, there may be different communions, 
 and yet both continue parts of the Catholic Church ; 
 as in the ancient excommunications concerning the 
 observance of Easter ; and in case of a precipitate 
 sentence, when one Bishop takes upon him to excom- 
 municate others ^ox little or no causes and against the 
 consent of his brethren. 
 
 IV. Lastly, the communion which those particular 
 churches, into which the Catholic Church is distri- 
 buted, hold with each other is three fold, * viz. In all 
 the Essentials of christian Faith, and Worship, aiid Go- 
 vernment, 
 
 * It is granted on all hands that every part of divine truth is not 
 in itself equally important, although all is sanctioned by the same 
 authority. We ought carefully to distinguish between those ordi- 
 nances and precepts which are of a local and temporary nature, and 
 those which ai'e of universal and perpetual obligation. — Davies on 
 Ch. Union, p. 7. BramhalVs Works, p. 144* 
 
8 
 
 I. In all the essentials of christian Faith. — By the 
 essentials of christian Faith* , I mean those doctrines^ 
 the belief of which is necessary to the very being of 
 Christianity ; for as in all arts and sciences there are 
 some first principles, upon which the whole scheme 
 of their doctrines depend, and the denial of which, 
 like removing the foundation of a building, dissolves 
 and ruins the whole structure, — so in Christianity, 
 there are some principles so essential to it, that the 
 removal of them shakes the whole scheme of it in 
 pieces. Now the great essential, as St Paul tells us, 
 is Jesus Christ, ^'for other foundation can no man lay, 
 than that ichich is laid, 'which is Jesus Christ,' ' (1 Cor» 
 iii. 11.) and the apostle pronounces those apostates 
 from Christianity, who ** hold not the head,'^ which is 
 Jesus Christ, (Col. ii. 19.) But yet the bare belief of 
 Jesus Christ, or of this proposition, that Jesus Christ 
 came from God, is not all that is ess3ntial to the 
 christian faith, which includes not only his mission 
 from God, but also the end of his mission, viz. to be 
 a mediator between God and man ; and whatever 
 proposition, the 77iediatorship of Christ necessarily and 
 immediately implies, is a fundame7ital article of the 
 christian faith, which no man can deny without inno- 
 vating on the whole religion, and turning it into a quite 
 different doctrine from true and real Christianity. 
 
 For, if we believe Jesus to he the Christ and Media- 
 tor, we must believe all the holy scriptures as his word, 
 and they contain every article. But it more especi- 
 ally implies his incarnation, passion, resurrection, and 
 
 * See Kettlexueirs Works, I. p. 671. Sherlock's Find, of his Defence 
 of Bishop StilUngfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, 1682, p. 250* 
 Field of the Churchy p. 77. 
 
9 
 
 other great articles of the Creed, which must be ex- 
 pressly acknowledged by every one who rightly un- 
 derstands it. And accordingly, in the various repe- 
 titions of this grand article in the scriptures, one or 
 other of these is oftentimes added, and given as the 
 instance of it, (1 John iv. 15. &c. v. 1.) " Believing 
 Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, you may have life 
 through his name,'' says St John, showing ih^necessi- 
 ty of this main foundation, (John xx. 31.) But St 
 Paul, speaking of this grand article, says, " / deter" 
 mined to know nothing among you, hut Jesus Christ, and 
 him crucified ;" setting forth the knowledge of Christ, 
 in the knowledge of his passion, (1 Cor. ii. 2.) And, 
 " if thou confess the Lord Jesus, and believe God raised 
 him from the dead, thou shall be saved ;" exemplifying 
 the saving knowledge of Jesus, in the belief of his re- 
 surrection, (Rom. X. 9.) " And when he commanded 
 us to preach him,'' says St Peter, " he commanded us 
 to preach and testify that it is he who is ordained ofGody 
 to be the judge both of qidck and dead ;" illustrating 
 the preaching Christ, by preaching the future judg- 
 ment, (Acts X. 42.) " Every spirit that confesseth Jesus 
 Christ is come in the flesh, is of God ; and every spirit 
 that confesseth it not is antichrist, and not of God," says 
 St John, explaining the confession of Christ by the 
 confession of his incarnation, (1 Johniv. 2. 3.) And 
 speaking of the record, or witness, which God has 
 given to the christian doctrine, he thus declares what 
 was attested by him : ''This is the record, that God hath 
 given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son, He that 
 hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath 
 not life ;" setting forth the christian religion, and the 
 saving faith, by the belief of the life everlasting, (1 John 
 V. 10. 11. 12.) And as for the necessity of the belief 
 
10 
 
 of the Holy Ghost, and of our dependence on him, to 
 make a man a christian, this has been sufficiently ex- 
 pressed by our Saviour, by ordering our very baptism, 
 which initiates us into Christianity, to be " i7ito his 
 name,^'' (Matt, xxviii. 19.) 
 
 All the remaining articles in the creed (adds Mr 
 Kettlewell,) are only necessary appendages of this 
 grand and comprehensive article, of Jesus being the 
 Christ and Saviour. And all these points, together 
 with others in the creed, concerning God the Father, 
 and the Holy Ghost, are essential to the faith. For they 
 are the very ground and foundation of our subjection 
 to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (the parties with 
 whom we contract in the christian covenant,) of all 
 our adoration, trust, and submission to the blessed 
 Jesus ; of our w^orshipping and serving God by him ; 
 of all that holiness which is the great design of all re- 
 ligion ; on all which accounts they are necessary and 
 essential articles of christian faith, and properly called 
 fundamentals*. 
 
 In short, the believing Jesus to he the Christ, is, in 
 more explicit words, to believe the Apostles^ Creed, 
 since in that summary of our faith all the above-men- 
 tioned articles are recited. It has always been the 
 form of faith at baptism, and was held by the ancient 
 fathers, as the <' canon," the "sum," the " perfect sum 
 of faith ; that token which was sufficient to shew those 
 who preached Christ according to the doctrine of the 
 apostles, and distinguish believers from infidels." 
 
 * See Sherlock's Defence, p. 278. where he proves that Salvation 
 by Christ is a fundamental doctrine, or nothing is fundamental in 
 the christian faith ; and yet the doctrine of Salvation by Christ is 
 necessarily founded on the belief of the Holy Trinity, each sacred 
 person being peculiarly concerned in the economy of man's salvation 
 
11 
 
 Now, whosoever believes not, or at least denies any 
 essential part of the christian faith, is not a christian ; 
 and that, not only because he wants a part of that 
 faith which denominates men christians, but also by 
 disbelieving that part, he does, by necessary conse- 
 quence, overthrow the whole of Christianity. And 
 hence it is that heretics, who are such as obstinately 
 deny any fundamental article of Christianity, are in 
 scripture ranked with heathens and infidels ; for all 
 true christians are required to " shun and avoid them 
 as unclean persons,'' (Rom. xvi. I7.) and the governors 
 of the church are required to anathematize and exclude 
 them from all christian communion, (Gal. i. 8.) to 
 " reject them,'' (Tit. iii. 10.) and ** mthdraxv themselves 
 from them," (1 Tim. vi. 5.) that is, to treat them as 
 heathens and infidels, who have no right or title to 
 christian communion : and if heretical persons are to 
 be treated in this manner, then much more so are he- 
 retical churches, and consequently, as such, must be 
 unqualified for christian communion *. Therefore, a 
 common agreement in all the essentials of christian 
 faith, which is the opposite of heresy, is necessarily 
 included in catholic communion ; accordingly, the 
 scripture frequently urges all christian people to this 
 common agreement, as a most essential part of their 
 communion with each other, for they are required to 
 " mind, or think the same thing, to be joined together 
 in tlie same mi^id and in the same judgment," (Phil. ii. ^. 
 —2 Cor. xiii. 11.— Phil. i. 27— 1 Cor. i. 10.), '' to hold 
 fast the form of sound xicords," (2 Tim. i. 13. — Phil. i. 
 27.) to *' keep tJmt which is committed to us," (I Tim. 
 vi. 20.) which is " that one form of doctrine which was 
 
 * See KettlexveWs Works, II. 590. 
 
12 
 
 delivered to us,^' (Rom. vi. I7.) the meaning of/which 
 is, not to oblige us to be of one mind and judgment 
 in all points of religion ; for that is no more in our 
 power than to be all of one stature ; but that we should 
 imanimously consent in all the essentials or fundament- 
 als of christian faith. So long then as the essential 
 doctrines of the gospel are secured between neigh- 
 bouring churches, no corrupt doctrines on either side 
 can warrant a breach of communion betw^een them. 
 It is true, if the erring church impose the belief o^ its 
 errors as a condition of its communion, (which few 
 churches do, but upon their own immediate members, 
 excepting the Church of Rome ;) no church or chris- 
 tian, that believes them to be errors, can lawfully com- 
 municate with it, be those errors ever so small or 
 inconsiderable : Not that in themselves they are a 
 sufficient cause of separation, but because they who 
 do not believe them, cannot profess they do w^ithout 
 telling a lie, which is a condition that is simply un- 
 lawful. 
 
 As, for instance, the Lutheran doctrine of consub- 
 stantiation is as false, though not as absurd, as the 
 Popish doctrine of transubstantiation ; but yet we may 
 lawfully communicate with the Lutheran church, be- 
 cause it does not oblige us to profess our belief of con- 
 substantiation. If the errors be such as are not merely 
 speculative, but corrupt their w^orship, then w^e must 
 not join in those acts of worship that are corrupted 
 by them, as the Popish mass is by the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation. 
 
 So that there is no error can separate any church 
 or christian from the catholic communion of Faith, 
 but only heresy, which is a perverse renunciation of 
 some essential ^dixi or fundamental article of that faith. 
 
18 
 
 II. The particular churches, into which the Catholic 
 Church is divided, hold communion with each other 
 in all the essentials of christian Worship. — By these 
 I mean the invocation of the one eternal God through 
 the one Mediator Jesus Christ, — and the participation 
 of the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's sup- 
 per. Hence the apostle tells us, that as there is but 
 " one " common ''faith^'' in which all true christians 
 communicate with each other ; so, there is but " one 
 Lord'^ (Eph. iv. 5.) to address to, and "one Mediator 
 between God and man,''^ for us to address by, (Tim. ii. 5.) 
 and therefore, to address this one God by this one 
 
 Mediator, is an essential part of christian worship 
 
 The same apostle teUs us, that there is but " one bap- 
 tism,*' (Eph. iv. 4.) and th^ "cz/jp of blessing,'* and 
 *< bread, qfwhich'we are all partakers,'* (1 Cor. x. 16. I7.) 
 and therefore to participate in these sacraments, must 
 also be essential to christian worship. So that all those 
 particular churches, that admit each other's members 
 upon lawful terms, to communicate with them in wor- 
 shipping this one God through this one Mediator, and 
 in this one baptism, and one eucharistical bread and 
 cup, are so far in communion with the Church Catho- 
 lic ; for, in these acts of worship consists the principal 
 part of christian communion. On the contrary, that 
 church which refuses either to admit other churches 
 to communicate w4th her in these acts of worship, 
 or to communicate with them upon lawful terms, 
 doth so far separate itself from the christian commu- 
 nion. I say, upon lawful terms, because if it either re- 
 quire unlauful or refuse lawful ones, it utterly excludes 
 all other churches from its communion. If, on the 
 one hand, it has corrupted its worship with any un- 
 lawful intermixtures, so that it is impossible to par^ 
 
14 
 
 ticipate in the one, without partaking of the other, — 
 if we cannot pray with her to the one God by the 
 one Mediator, without praying to creatures too, or 
 praying by othe\' mediators also, or in a language 
 we do not understand, — if we cannot participate 
 in her baptism, without partaking of some sinful rites 
 of baptism, — if we cannot be admitted to receive 
 the Lord's supper with her, without receiving it by 
 halves, or being obliged to pay divine homage to its 
 elements, — in this case, I say, all christians and chris- 
 tian churches are utterly excluded by her, from com- 
 municating with her in the essentials of christian wor- 
 ship. And so, on the other hand, if a churchjbrbid 
 its members to communicate occasionally with any 
 other church upon lawful4:eYms, in so doing, it divides 
 itself from the communion of the Catholic Church ; 
 and although that church it refuses to communicate 
 with, should, through the neglect of its discipline, to- 
 lerate many corrupt and scandalous members ; though 
 it should require the observation of a great many in- 
 different rites and ceremonies ; — yet, so long as the 
 essentials of its worship are preserved pure and entire 
 without any sinful intermixtures, to refuse to com- 
 municate with it, is to separate from the communion 
 of the Catholic Church. For, for the same reason 
 that any church refuses to communicate with this 
 church, it must refuse to communicate with all other 
 churches in the world ; because w^e cannot to this day, 
 nor ever could communicate with any church in the 
 world, in which there were not some intermiiJttures 
 of bad men with good, and some indifferent modes 
 and ceremonies of worship. 
 
 III. The two principal marks of the Catholic Church 
 have now been explained, viz. the essentials of the 
 
15 
 
 apostolic Faith and Worship. I proceed now to the 
 third mark, by which the true CathoHc Church is dis- 
 tinguished from the congregations of schismatics, as 
 by the two former it is distinguished from those of he- 
 retics.— ^I mean the Essentials of christian Govern- 
 ment, in which all true Catholic Churches commu- 
 nicate with one another, and, as St Luke expresses it, 
 " continue stedfastly in the apostles' Fellowship,^* The 
 particular modes and circumstances of government 
 and discipline, I admit, are not determined by divine 
 institution, but left for the most part free to the pru- 
 dent disposal of the governors of particular churches ; 
 yet, there is a standing form of government and. disci- 
 pline in the church, instituted by our Saviour himself, 
 which, as I shall prove hereafter, is this, that there 
 should be an Episcopacy, or order of men, authorised 
 in a continued succession from the apostles (who were 
 authorised by himself,) to oversee and govern all those 
 particular churches into which the Catholic Church 
 should be hereafter distributed ; to ordain inferior 
 ministers to teach, and instruct, and administer the 
 holy offices to particular congregations ; and having 
 ordained them, to guide and direct them in the dis- 
 charge of their functions ; to prescribe the particular 
 rules of external order and decency to the people of 
 the respective churches committed to their charge ; 
 to confirm the weak, admonish the disorderly, and 
 correct the obstinate, by excluding them from the 
 communion of the Church of Chiist. These things 
 therefore, being all of divine institution, are the essen- 
 tials of christian government and discipline, in which 
 all churches are obliged to communicate with each 
 other. And this being the standing government and 
 discipline of the Catholic Church, no particular church 
 
16 
 
 can refuse to communicate in it, without dividing 
 itself from the communion of the Catholic Church ; 
 I ^2,y ^refuse to communicate in it, because it is possible 
 for a church to be without this government, which 
 yet neither refuses it, nor the communion of any other 
 church for the sake of it. A church may be debar- 
 red of it by unavoidable necessities, and against its 
 consent, and, under this circumstance, I can by no 
 means think such a church to be separated from the 
 Catholic Church ; it is, indeed, an i77iperfect and defec- 
 tive part of it. Yet it is a plain case, that if it reject 
 the Episcopacy and separate from the communion of 
 it, it thereby wholly divides itself from the Catholic 
 Church. For whether Episcopacy be of divine insti- 
 tution or not, this is matter of fact granted on all 
 hands, that for 1400 years at least, all those churches 
 into which the Catholic Church has been distributed, 
 have been subject to the episcopal government and 
 discipline ; therefore, they who now separate from the 
 episcopal communion as such, must, in so doing, se- 
 parate themselves from the communion of all churches 
 for 1400 years together : And then either all those 
 churches must be out of the communion of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, and consequently, during all that time 
 there must have been no such thing as a visible Ca- 
 tholic Church upon earth ; or else those communities 
 of christians which separate from all those churches, 
 must be schisms and separations from the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 These three marks then, the Essentials of Faith, 
 Worship, and Government, are the characteristic 
 notes, by which the pure Catholic Church is every 
 where distinguished from the congregations of he^ 
 retics and schismatics, The primitive christians "cow* 
 
17 
 
 Unued stedfast in the apostles* Doctrine [^ e, faith,] and 
 Fellowship [^'.e. under their government,] and in break- 
 ing of Bread, andin Prayers \j. e. worship, ] ( Acts ii. 42. ) 
 And these (says Bishop Beveridge, on this text) are 
 plainly the true marks or notes of a Christian Churchy 
 whereby it may be distinguished from all other as- 
 semblies or bodies of men, and which, consequently, 
 all persons must be stedfast in, who desire to conti- 
 nue real and sound members of that church, which 
 Christ Jesus hath established in the world. 
 
 All parties of professing christians, however, are not 
 inclined to concur in these sentiments, relative to the 
 marks of the Church. The Papists * extend their num- 
 
 * See J)r Sherlock's Discourse on Bellarmines Fifteen Notes, and 
 his Defence of do. in the Preservative. Grascome's Answer to Hitd- 
 dlestons short and plain Way, 8^c, Lond. 1703, p. 64- to 80. Dr De la 
 Hogue and others reduce the number to Jour, One, Holy, Catholic, 
 and Apostolic ; by the first, they mean Unity to the Bishop of Rome ^ 
 and by the third, Universaliiy, neither of which are essential notes 
 of the church. — Nothing can be a note of a church, but what is 
 essential to it by institution ; for whatever institution makes proper 
 and necessary — it makes essential. I confess this is a very impro- 
 per way of speaking, to call the nature and essence of any thing 
 the note of it, — for a note or sign ought to be different and distinct 
 from the thing shewn or signified by it ; and thus we ought to deny 
 that there are any notes of a church, or that the church can be 
 found out by notes. But, in compliance with the Popish way of 
 speaking, we call those the notes of the church, which are not pro- 
 perly notes, but the rule and standard of the church, by which all 
 societies, which pretend to be christian churches, are to be tried. 
 And it is certain there can be no other rule or standard of the 
 church, but its Institution, as to Faith, and Worship, and Government, 
 Common sense will tell us, that there is no way to try an instituted 
 society, but by the rules of its institution : That church, which 
 conforms to the original rule and standard of its institution, is a 
 true church ; and every church is more or less corrupt, as it varies 
 from it. Sherlock's Disc* p. 54. BramhaWs Works, p. 143. 
 
18 
 
 ber to fifteen ; the generality of Dissenters, on the 
 other hand, Hmit them to two, and consider Church 
 Government merely as expedient, but not at all neces- 
 sary. Even the Presbyterians, who formerly contend- 
 ed so vehemently for the Divinvm Jus of Presbyterian 
 government, have now abandoned it, and maintain, 
 that " with respect to a particular form of Church 
 Government, Christ appears to have left this point 
 undetermined, and has only required, by express law, 
 that all things should be done decently and in order*. 
 Some even go so far as to affirm, that a man may be 
 a good catholic christian, without uniting himself to 
 church governors of any denomination. But the dan- 
 ger and absurdity of this notion, and the necessity of 
 *'^ contmidng stedfastly in the apostles* fellowship,'*^ ^nd of 
 avoiding the sin of schism, I shall fully demonstrate 
 liereafter. 
 
 In the mean time, I shall now proceed to prove, 
 that the Episcopal form of Church Government was 
 instituted by our Saviour and his apostles, as a dis- 
 tinguishing mark of the true church, — that it was 
 to correspond with the nature of the faith it was in- 
 tended to presei've, that of being the "same yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever," — and consequently, that all pro- 
 fessed christians are bound to receive " that particu- 
 lar form, and cannot adopt any other without in- 
 curring the charge of disobedience to Christ as King 
 of Zion, and consequently incurring his wrath." — 
 But before I proceed, I must remind the reader, that 
 the question is not what form of Church Government 
 appears to this or that lover of novelty, the most e^r- 
 
 * The Nature of the Preshylcrian Form of Church Government, 
 hy B, M'Dovoel,D.D^ Dub. 1808, p. 54. 11. 
 
19 
 
 pedienty but what was the government established by 
 Christ and his apostles. This is confessed by a late 
 violent opponent of Episcopacy : If it can be proved 
 saysDr Mitchell {Pre slnjterian Letters, p. 28, 1809,) 
 that Episcopacy is of divine institution, our rejection 
 of it would be ahsolatelij "ivithout eaxuse, although we 
 should never discover that it is good for any thing. 
 Jesus Christ had an unquestionable title to prescribe 
 the form of government, without instructing us in the 
 reasons on which he acted ; and we may well beheve, 
 that what he prescribed, is the fittest for us and the 
 best. — But from whence are we to derive our infor- 
 mation with respect to tliis important point? Un- 
 doubtedly from the scriptures ; and no man (to use 
 Dr M.'s words) shall ever persuade me to beheve, 
 that what is not to be found in scripture as a con- 
 dition of salvation, is one of the terms of acceptance 
 with God, through Jesus Christ. " Instead then of 
 forming a system agreeable to our views of expedi- 
 ency, and then searching for passages of scripture 
 to support it, let us begin by ascertaining particular 
 facts in regard to the apostohc churches.'' Haldane's 
 Socml Worship, Edin. p. 100. 
 
20 
 
 CHAP IL 
 
 THE THREE DISTINCT ORDERS OF BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS 
 OR PRIESTS, AND DEACONS, PROVED FROM THE SCRIP- 
 TURES AND PRIMITIVE FATHERS. 
 
 I CONFESS, indeed, that the orders which we now call 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not distinguished 
 in scripture by these names. The orders themselves 
 are plainly distinguished in scripture, but each name 
 is not particularly and constantly applied to a distinct 
 order. For those whom we now call Bishops, were 
 then distinguished by the name of apostles ; and the ' 
 names of Bishop and Presbyter are there promiscu- 
 ously used for that order, which we now call Pres- 
 byter or Priest. It is not to be wondered (says King 
 Charles I. in his Second Answer to the Presbyterian 
 Ministei^s,) if it shoidd happen, that, in the New Tes- 
 tament, the word Episcopus or Bishop is usually ap- 
 plied to Presbyters, who were indeed overseers pf the 
 flock, rather than unto church governors, who had 
 then a title of greater eminency, viz. Apostles. But 
 w^hen the government of churches came into -the 
 hands of their successors, the names were, by com- 
 mon usage, very soon appropriated, — that of Bishop 
 to the governor of a diocese, — that of Presbyter to 
 the ordinary minister or priest. — This is a distinction 
 I would desire the reader carefully to observe, be- 
 cause, upon the community of the names Bishop and 
 Presbyter in scripture, depend most of the arguments - 
 
^1 
 
 of Presbyterians. But it is not the distinction of 
 names, but of the office for which we contend. I shall, 
 therefore, briefly prove from scripture, that there were 
 three orders instituted by Christ and his apostles,— 
 and then shew, from ancient authors, that the names. 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons have, from the apostles' 
 time, been constantly appropriated to these orders *. 
 We read, (Matt. iii. 5. 6.) that John the baptist 
 had a great multitude of disciples ; but Jesus made 
 and baptised more disciples than John. ^^And of them 
 he chose twelve, whom he named apostles, and sent them 
 to preach tJie kingdom ofGod,^^ (Luke vi. 13.) After 
 these " the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent 
 them two and two before his face into every city and place, 
 "whither he himself would come,^"* (Luke x. 1.) So that 
 during our Saviour's abode here on earth, there were 
 three orders of ministers in the church, — first, Christ 
 himself, '' the shepherd and Bishop of soids, an high 
 priest called. ofGod,^^ — ^then the twelve apostles, — and 
 after them the seventy disciples, who are so distin- 
 
 * The wTlters on this head are very numerous, but I would par- 
 ticularly recommend Dr Brett' s Account of Church Governraent, 2d 
 edit. 1710, and his Divine Right of Episcopacy, 1718. Burscough 
 on Church Government, 1692, a book which well deserves to be better 
 known, says jBz^Ao/? //flre. Bishop Parker on do.lGSS. Brief Account 
 of Church Government, (with Remarks on Jus Div, Min. Evang, 
 BlondelU Apologia, and Stillingfleefs Ireniczun, ) strongly recommend- 
 ed by Mr Hoadly in his excellent Defence of Episcopal Ordination, 
 1709. But above all consult Dr Drurys Ansxver to Boyse, and hig 
 Vind, of do. Dub. 1709. and his Divine Right of Episcopacy, (in an- 
 swer to Boyse* s Clear Account of Episcopacy,) Dub. 1714. — I beg 
 leave to guard the reader against adopting Dr Hammond's, System of 
 defending Episcopacy, as expressed in his Notes on the New Testa- 
 ment. His odd notions, as Mr Hoadly observes, are hardly followed 
 by one Episcopal divine of any consideration. 
 
00 
 
 o-uislied from one another, that it impUes a distinc- 
 tion in their office ; they are mentioned apart by dif- 
 f erent names, and sent forth at different times. And 
 that the apostles were superior to the seventy, is 
 farther evident^ not only from our Saviour's particular 
 intercession for the twelve, and the care he took in 
 instructing them more than the rest of his followers^ 
 but from hence also, that the successors of the apostles 
 were chosen out of the seventy. Now, if the apostles 
 knew that the seventy were equal in power and autho- 
 rity with themselves, to what purpose were they so 
 solicitous to fill up their number from among the dis- 
 ciples ? To what purpose was Matthias chosen in the 
 place of Judas, if he could receive no more power than 
 he possessed in his former commission ? From all 
 which it is evident, I think, to a demonstration, that 
 the twelve apostles received, in their commission from 
 Christ, some ecclesiastical power which the seventy 
 did not. — In this establishment of three orders in his 
 church, our Saviour adhered as near as possible to the 
 form in use among the Jews, who had their High- 
 priest. Priests, and Levites. 
 
 It is very evident from the holy scriptures, that, 
 during his residence on earth, our Saviour executed 
 the whole Episcopal authority in his own person, and 
 gave no power to any to ordain, or send, or commission 
 others till after his resurrection. During all that time, 
 the apostles were in the situation of Presbyters only; 
 and although superior to the seventy, and possessing 
 authority ** to preach " and " baptise,'' yet they had no 
 authority to commission or send others to perform the 
 same functions. For, as Christ alone had authority 
 to send them, so he alone had authority to send otlier 
 seventy also. And of this he informs them at the 
 
23 
 
 time of his sending them forth ; " Tlie harvest triil^ 
 is plenteous^ but the labourers arefeiv. Pray ye there- 
 fore the Lord of the harvest, tJiat he mU send forth 
 labourers into his harvest,'* Now these words being 
 spoken both to the twelve and to the seventy, at the 
 very time he gave them their commission to preach, 
 was a plain intimation to them, that if they found more 
 assistance necessary, they should not take upon them 
 to commission others, but desue him, who was the 
 Lord of the harvest, to send a further supply of la- 
 bourers. An evident argument, that whosoever has au- 
 thority to minister the word and sacraments, has not 
 ):herefore authority to ordain and commission others 
 to that office ; since Christ, when he gave his apostles 
 a commission to do the former, so plainly restrained 
 them from performing the latter, and required them 
 to apply to himseli' on that occasion, as to the Lord 
 of the harvest. 
 
 Thus we have clearly discovered three orders of 
 ministers in the christian church, while Christ was 
 upon earth : First, Christ himself, the head or Bishop ; 
 secondly, the twelve apostles, answering to the Priests, 
 or second order; and lastly, the seventy disciples, an- 
 swering to the Deacons. But then it is to be observ- 
 ed, that when our Saviour settled this economy in his 
 church, he had confined it to the Jewish nation, for 
 when he sent his disciples forth to preach, he charged 
 them, saying, <* go not into the tvay of the Gentiles, and 
 into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather 
 to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,'' (Matt. x. 5.) 
 And being raised up by God to be *' a prophet like 
 unto Moses," (Deut. xviii. 15. Actsvii,37.) he thought 
 proper, while he saw it convenient to have his church 
 confined to the Jewish countrv, to adhere strictlv to 
 
£4 
 
 the Mosaical economy in the government of it ; and 
 therefore, as Moses had under him ^' twelve princes^ 
 heads of the tribes, and seventy elder s,^^ (Numb, xi v. 11. 
 16.) to whom God imparted a share of Moses' spirit, 
 that they might assist in ruling the people under him, 
 so Christ also chose twelve apostles and seventy dis- 
 ciples. And therefore, after the resurrection, the 
 apostles, being commanded not to depart from Jeru- 
 salem for some time, did, by divine direction, fill up 
 the number to twelve again, when a vacancy was oc- 
 casioned by the death of Judas, that, so long as the 
 church was confined to Judea, they might preserve an 
 economy exactly parallel to that settled by Moses, 
 even so far as to confine themselves to the same num- 
 ber of officers. But when they had begun to enlarge 
 the church beyond the bounds of Judea, though they 
 preserved the sacred economy settled by Christ, so as 
 to retain the divers orders of ministers which he first 
 established, yet they had no longer any regard to the 
 numbers twelve and seventy, for St Paul and Barna- 
 bas, and many others, were added to the number of 
 the apostles ; and as for the seventy, we hear nothing 
 of them after the resurrection. 
 
 I have already intimated that th^ sacred economy 
 of the three distinct orders continued in the church, 
 while it was under the government of the apostles, as 
 it had been whilst under the immediate government 
 of Christ on earth : For as our blessed Saviour, dur- 
 ing his state of humiliation in this world, wis the 
 chief governor of his church, and executed the Epis- 
 copal authority in his own person, and gave no au- 
 thority to any to ordain or send others till after his re- 
 surrection ; so, a short time before his ascension, he 
 enlarged the commission of the apostles, and gave them 
 
25 
 
 autJiority to rule and govern the church in his stead, 
 and ordain and send others, as he had sent them, for 
 a perpetual succession to the end of the world. — " As 
 my Father ^^^ says he, " hath sent me ^ so send /t/om," 
 (John XX. 21.) and when he had said this, " he breath^ 
 ed on them, saying, receive ye tJie Holy Ghost.'* But 
 it was not uijtil they had received it in a visible man- 
 ner on the day of Pentecost that they began to govern 
 the Church by those rules they had received from 
 Christ : it was then, and not before, that they offered 
 to ordain others, according to their second commis- 
 sion from their master, and that with reference both 
 to Presbyters and Deacons. Thus, they ordained 
 Deacons " to take care of the widows and the poor in 
 the daily administration,''' (Actsvi.) These had also 
 authority (as they now have with their Bishop's li- 
 cence,) to preach and to baptise j for Philip, who was 
 one of them, (Acts viii. 5.) w^ent to preach at Sama- 
 ria, where he made many converts, and baptised them ; 
 but his authority extended no farther, for, possessing 
 no power to lay on hands, either to confirm those 
 whom he had baptised, or ordain ministers among 
 them, he was under the necessity of informing the 
 apostles of what he had done, who sent Peter and John, 
 two of their own order, to perform those things which 
 Philip, a mere Deacon, had no authority to do. The 
 apostles *' ordained also Elders (which word ought to 
 have been rendered Presbyters, or Priests,) in every 
 city,'' (Acts xiv. 23.) These Presbyters are likewise 
 called Bishops, for so St Paul styled the Presbyters of 
 Ephesus, when he sent for them to attend his Epis- 
 copal or apostolicVisitation at Miletus, saying, " take 
 heed to yourselves and to tlie whole Jlock over which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you (Bishops or) overseers," 
 
I 26 
 
 (Acts XX. ^8.) Thus, after the resurrection as well 
 as before, we find three orders of ministers in the 
 church; first, the Apostles, who were chief gover- 
 nors 'y next, the Presbyters (then called Bishops ;) and 
 lastly, the Deacons, answering to the lower order of 
 the seventy disciples. 
 
 The Apostles, therefore, were the Ijrst Bishops 
 (as the word is now used,) of the christian church, 
 and governed it under our Saviour, who gave them 
 their commission for that purpose. But, although 
 the authority bestowed on them by our Lord was com- 
 mon to them all, so that they v/ere each of them Bishops 
 and governors of the whole Catholic Church, and at 
 liberty to exercise their Episcopal power in any part 
 of it ; yet they soon found it necessary to limit the 
 universality of their power, as to the executive part, 
 that one might not interfere with another ; and this 
 in all probability they did, by the direction of the 
 Holy Spirit, who is " the God of order, not of coivfusion, 
 in all the churclies of the saints ^ The first division we 
 find made by them, is mentioned by St Paul, who says 
 that some of the apostles were appointed by mutual 
 agreement (and not by any command of St Peter,) 
 to take charge of the Gentiles and others of the Jews, 
 (Gal. ii. 9.) And having thus settled, by mutual 
 agreement, that <' James, Cephas (or Peter,) and 
 John,^^ should undertake the government and inspec- 
 tion of the Jewish, and St Paul and Barnabas of the 
 Gentile christians, they then proceeded to make a fur- 
 ther limitation, and gave to each apostle his particu- 
 lar district or diocese. 
 
 Thus they appointed St James, the Bishop of Je- 
 rusalem ; and whether he was one of the twelve or 
 not, this is beyond dispute, that he was by compact 
 
27 
 
 and agreement fixed at Jerusalem, to exercise his 
 Episcopal and apostolic authority in that city, and the 
 country adjacent. Tliis is evident from St Paul, (Gal. 
 i. 18. 19.) who, three years after his conversion, went 
 up to Jerusalem, and found James resident there ; and 
 eleven years afterwards, on his return to Jerusalem, 
 he found him.still upon his charge, (Gal. ii. 1.9.) and 
 I do not find that he ever removed from thence. — In 
 the synod held at Jerusalem, in order to discuss the 
 necessity of circumcising the Gentile converts, Peter 
 delivers his opinion as one who was a member of the 
 assembly, but James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, speaks 
 with authority, and his sentence is decisive ; and, ac- 
 cording to his determination, the decree was enact- 
 ed. Moreover, some of the Church of Jerusalem, who 
 came to Antioch, are said to be " certain who came 
 from James y*' which implies that James was head of 
 ^ that church, otherwise they should rather have been 
 said to come from Jerusalem, or from the church of 
 that place ; and when St Paul arrived at Jerusalem, 
 <* he went In unto James,^^ as the Bishop, *' and all the 
 Freshyters,'*^ who were next in authority to him, "rcer^ 
 present,''^ (Acts xxi. 18.) Why unto James? (says 
 Bishop Taylor,) why not rather unto the Presbytery, 
 if James did not eniinere, was not the Prepositus or 
 Bishop of them all ? — Why does St James direct his 
 epistle " to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,*' but be- 
 cause he looked upon all the Jewish christians, who 
 still thought it their duty to come to Jerusalem to 
 worship, to be vmder his jurisdiction. Upon this ac- 
 count, all the writers of the first ages "unanimously'* 
 (says Blondel, Apologia, p. 50.) style him Bishop of 
 Jerusalem. On the death of St James, the Episcopal 
 chair was filled by Simeon, the son of Cleophas, men- 
 
28 
 
 tloned in St John's gospel (xix. 25.) who was placed 
 by the apostles, who were then alive, with the same 
 authority as his predecessor. He remained Bishop till 
 his death. This is an important fact, as it ascertains 
 the opinion which the companions of our Lord enter- 
 tained of the necessity of regular succession, and of 
 the use of Episcopal authority. After Simeon, there 
 succeeded thirteen Bishops of the Jewish race (before 
 the final excision of the Jews by Adrian,) whose names 
 Eusebius has inserted into his history from the ancient 
 monuments of the church. 
 
 It is objected by some (not at all to the credit of ♦ 
 Christianity,) that the Church of Jerusalem was con- 
 fined to a single congregation. But, it is utterly im- 
 possible, that the many thousands from time to time 
 converted in Jerusalem alone, and the daily increase 
 of them *, could worship God in one and the same 
 place together. Hence the necessity of their being 
 divided into several congregations, though still but 
 the one Church of Jerusalem, " a persecution hemg 
 raised against the church J'* From whence it follows, 
 that the Bishop of Jerusalem must have had many con- 
 gregations of christians under his superintendence at 
 a time, and consequently many Presbyters officiating 
 under him for the discharge of ministerial purposes, 
 (Acts xxi. 18.) But yet it does not at all affect the 
 point in debate, whether there were more congrega- 
 tions there than one, or not ; for since there were 
 many Presbyters there, and one apostle or Bishop, 
 their constant president, there is an end of Presby- 
 by terian equality in the time of the apostles. The 
 
 * Acts i. 15. — li. 4-1. 47 — iv. 4. and vi. 7. See Maurices Bcf, 
 ef Dioc. Episc, against ClarJcson, p. 9. 3d ed. 1717. 
 
29 
 
 state of the question relating to Episcopacy being, as 
 I shall hereafter shew, not concerning a diocese, — 
 but whether the apostles left the plenitude of their 
 ecclesiastical power to some single persons, who were 
 called apostles and afterwards Bishops, — or whether 
 they gave it in commission to every Presbyter they 
 ordained. 
 
 As St James had Jerusalem and the adjacent country 
 for his diocese, so the other apostles (though each had 
 a general authority in, and concern for the whole 
 church,) had certain places for their districts also, 
 and exercised a particular authority over the churches 
 which they had planted. Thus James, Peter, and John 
 had, in a more particular manner, the care of the Jew- 
 ish, and Paul and Barnabas of the Gentile christians, 
 (1 Pet.i. 1. — James i. 1. — Gal. ii. 9.) The apostle Bar- 
 nabas seems, upon his separation from St Paul, to have 
 settled himself in Cyprus his native country, (Acts xv. 
 39.) St Paul had the government of many churches 
 which he founded, and was their proper Bishop himself, 
 (and even, at the same time, officiated as pastor of 
 ^ome congregations,) till he found it necessary to 
 commit the care of them to others. That he exer- 
 cised this authority over Presbyters, is manifest from 
 his sending for the Presbyters of Ephesus to come 
 to him at Miletus, (Acts xx. 17.) and giving them a 
 charge to perform their duties faithfully, as our Bi- 
 shops do in their visitations. And in another place, 
 (Acts XV. 36.) he visits the churches wherein he had 
 ordained Presbyters before ; ^'Let us returriy^^ says he 
 to Barnabas, " and visit our brethren in all cities, where 
 ive preaclied the *iCord of the Lord, and see how they doJ^ 
 And again, '^Besides those things xvhkh are without, that 
 which cojneth upon me daily, the care of all the churches,'* 
 
so 
 
 And that he judged hhnself to have no superior or 
 equal in spiritual matters, within his own district, 
 ** tlie measure oftlie rule "which God had given to hiniy'* 
 (2 Cor.x.l3.)is no less manifest from what he writes 
 to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. iv. 15.) where he says, 
 «« Although ye have ten thousand instructors in Christy 
 yet ye have not many fatliers ; for in Christ Jesus I have 
 begotten you through tJie gospel. Wlierefore I beseech 
 yoUy be yefollo*wers ofme^^ (1 Cor. iv. 19.) and " Am 
 I not an apostle ? if I am not so to otherSy yet doubtless 
 I am to youy' (1 Cor. iv. 16.) 
 
 Thus, for some time, the Episcopal authority was 
 exercised exclusively by the apostles themselves ; but, 
 because the number of the faithful daily increased, 
 they proceeded to communicate all the branches of 
 the apostolic office to other persons, who should sup- 
 ply their places at their decease, and continue the suc- 
 cession to the end of the world. 
 
 That the apostolic office, in its ordinary and essen- 
 tial parts, was to continue for ever in the church, is 
 evident from the commission given to the apostles by 
 our Saviour after his resurrection. For having chosen 
 the eleven out of above five hundred, to whom he ap- 
 peared at that time, he spoke to them saying, ** All 
 po*wer is given to me in heaven and earth, go ye there^ 
 fore and mahe proselytes of all nations^ baptising them^ 
 teaching them to observe all things xvhatsoever I Imvc 
 commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even un^ 
 to the end of the world, amenJ^ Such, as Dr Graves* 
 
 * Sermon at the consecration of Bishop Warburton (of Limerick,) 
 in St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, by Dr Graves, S. F. T. C. D. 1 806, 
 p. 8. See also Bishop Skinners reasoning on this text, Primitive 
 Tridh,^,l5h 
 
31 
 
 observes, was the solemn delegation of divine autho- 
 rity to the apostles, commanding them to form and 
 establish the visible Church of Christ, and enabling 
 them to convey to their successors in its administra- 
 tion and government, all such powers as might be ne- 
 cessary to extend and sustain it, even to the end of 
 the world. — And that this promise was made to the 
 office or order with which he had invested them, and 
 not to their persons, is evident, — because otherwise 
 it must have failed at their deaths, which happened 
 within less than an hundred years after that time ; 
 and therefore Christ would not have fulfilled his pro- 
 mise to them, to be ** "nith them alxcays eten to the end 
 of the world.'^ Consequently this promise must ne- 
 cessarily extend to others, who should succeed them 
 in this office, and therefore implies a power in them 
 to elect and set apart others for the discharge of it.— - 
 And therefore, that the apostolate might be successive 
 and perpetual, Christ gave them a power of ordina- 
 tion, that, by imposing hands on others, they might 
 impart that power which they received from Christ. 
 Bishop Taylor on Episcopacy, p. 13*. 
 
 But it is objected, "that the nature of the office 
 of the apostles was such, as to require extraordinary 
 and miraculous endowments for the discharge of many 
 parts of it; and it is impossible that they can have any 
 successors in those services, who are not impowered 
 for the execution of them, as the apostles themselves 
 were," Doddridge's Course of Lectures, Vol. 2. p. 34^8, 
 But in answer to this, let us consider what it is pro- 
 perly to be an apostle, or wherein the office purely 
 
 * See also Grotius Com. in Matt, xxviii. 20. Jus Div, Min, Evang. 
 ■part 1. p. 26. 27. Daiihenys Guide, p. xviii. 
 
82 
 
 Apostolic consisted. For in the apostles, (Bishop Tay- 
 lor, On Episcopacy ^"^^ 13 *.) there was something eMra- 
 ordinary ; something ordinary. Whatever was extra- 
 ordinary, as immediate mission, infaUibihty, tongues, 
 and a power of working miracles, was designed only for 
 the first plantation and propagation of the gospel, and 
 therefore not necessary to the perpetual government 
 of the church, for then the church w^ould necessarily 
 fail when these extraordinary privileges ceased. Be- 
 sides, these extraordinary qualifications did not pecu- 
 liarly belong to the apostolic office, but w ere possess- 
 ed by other ministers who were not apostolic, (1 Cor. 
 vi. IS. 13. Acts vi. 8. viii. 7.) by Presbyters as well as 
 Deacons, Yet when these privileges ceased, the or- 
 der and mission of Presbyters did not cease likewise, 
 but still remained, and ought to remain to the end of 
 the world. And therefore these privileges could not 
 possibly be esteemed any parts of the apostolic office, 
 being only extraordinary gifts bestowed on them, the 
 better to enable them to perform that office. 
 
 But there are other things w^hich are ordinary and 
 essential to the apostolic office, without which they 
 could not have been apostles, and which are neces- 
 sary to the government of Christ's Church till his se- 
 cond coming. This is the power which I stffirm to 
 be permanent and perpetual, and by this the apostles 
 were distinguished from all subordinate officers in the 
 
 * See also Bishop Beveridges Sermons, Vol. 1. p. 9. Bishop Bit- 
 sons Perpetual Government of Chris fs Church, Lond. 1593. in his 
 Address to the reader. Bishop Shinner's Prim. Truth and Order, 
 1803, p. 190. Biirscough on Church Government, p. 40, 78. Dr 
 Barrotvs mistakes on this head (in his Treat, against the Pope's Su~ 
 p)remacij, quoted against Episcopacy by Doddridge, Lectures IL p. 
 348.) are ably confuted in Brurifs 2d Ans. to Boyse,p. 80. 
 
 2 
 
s^ 
 
 o 
 
 church. Now therefore, that which particularly dis- 
 tinguished them, and which was the true character- 
 istic of an apostle, was the supreme spiritual power 
 and authoriti/, and apower ofor6/<2mm^>', i, e. of trans- 
 mitting this authority to others, according to the com- 
 mandment of Christ. And therefore to make the apos- 
 tolic office temporary, is to defeat our Saviour's pro- 
 mise, which could not be accomplished, if those offi- 
 ces had not remained in the church, without which 
 it could neither be nor continue. Whatever belonged 
 to them as apostles or officers of Christ, was to be de- 
 rived from them to other officers of the church for 
 ever, unless we can suppose that men maybe christians 
 without having the seal of Christianity ; that men may 
 become priests and ambassadors for God, without be- 
 ing sent by such men as he gave power and commis- 
 sion to. 
 
 Having thus proved that the office of the apostles 
 was to continue to the end of the world, it remains to 
 be considered what persons they appointed as their 
 successors ; whether, as Episcopalians affirm, they 
 constituted single persons with the whole ecclesiasti- 
 cal power, and others with part only, — or whether, as 
 Presbyterians would persuade us, they bequeathed 
 it equally to the whole body of Presbyters, without 
 any distinction or superiority of one over another. — 
 Now, in answer to this, I assert, — 1. That the apostles 
 could not, by virtue of their commission, bestow this 
 authority equally among all Presbyters ; because our 
 Saviour himself had not done it, but had instituted 
 another form of government, and by his example, 
 taught them to continue it for ever after his ascen- 
 sion. — 2. That the apostles did actually invest the 
 whole of their power, not in every Presbyter, but in 
 
34 
 
 some single persons of every church ; and appointed 
 them to rule and govern with the same authority as 
 they had done, and ordain others for the same pur- 
 pose to all succeeding generations. These single 
 persons we now call Bishops, and, as I shall prove, 
 are the immediate successors of the first apostles. 
 
 But before I proceed, I must remind the reader 
 that the ea:tent of a diocese is not essential to the office 
 of a Bishop ; and when I say that the Bishops suc- 
 ceed the apostles, I do not mean that it is necessary 
 that they should succeed to this or that particular dis- 
 trict, but in their power and jurisdiction. When 
 therefore, Presbyterians and Independents upon all 
 occasions make so much noise about diocesan Bishops 
 and diocesan Churches*, it is only to darken the cause ; 
 for the question is not about a diocese, but whether 
 the apostles left the plenitude of their ecclesiastical 
 power to some single persons, who were called apostles 
 
 * Thus Doddridge argues against the divine right of diocesan 
 Episcopacy, and never states the question in any other form ; and 
 Dr Mitchell brings forward Bishop Skinner asserting, that " no 
 scheme of Ecclesiastical polity can conduct christians to salvation 
 but diocesan Episcopacy," p. 1 85. Certainly, ( observes Mr Drury, ) 
 they cannot be in earnest, or think that they dispute against the 
 order of Bishops, when they thus violently set on their dioceses only : 
 And they cannot but acknowledge, that both the apostles and 
 seventy disciples had a spiritual power and jurisdiction distinct 
 from each other, given by Christ at their ordination, before they 
 had either parishes or dioceses as their peculiar charge. No divine 
 of our church ever argued for the positive divine right of diocesan 
 Episcopacy; nay, Dr Maurice, in his Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy 
 against D. Clarkson, does not pretend to it. He only complies with 
 his adversary so far as to let him see how groundless his suppo- 
 sition of congregational Episcopacy is, since, should it be conced- 
 ed to him, it would do our cause no injury. ^eeMaurice, p. 
 5 6.7. 
 
35 
 
 and afterwards Bishops, or whether they gave it in 
 commission to every Presbyter they ordained. If 
 they left it to some single persons, as it is evident 
 they did, it signifies nothing to the question in de- 
 bate whether they exercised that power in a large 
 diocese or in a single congregation, for this is wholly 
 owing to compact and agreement ; which gives a very 
 easy and natural solution of that question, why St Paul 
 ^^ besought Timothy to abide at EphesuSy'' (1 Tim. i. 3.) 
 because, as he was aBishop of the Church of Christ, the 
 exercise of his authority could not be limited to Ephe- 
 sus or any particular district, imless he had consent- 
 ed to it himself; and therefore St Paul did not com- 
 mand, but ^^ beseech'' him to abide at Ephesus, and 
 there exercise his apostolic jurisdiction. In short, it is 
 not the being pastor of one or of many congregations 
 that constitutes a Bishop, but the order. 
 
 It has already been intimated, that as the apostles 
 were superior in authority to the Presbyters * whom 
 
 * That the apostles were 5«^?mor both in order and m office to Pres- 
 byters, no unprejudiced person, I think, can deny. Dr M'Dowel 
 indeed, in his late pamphlet in defence of Presbyterianism, seems 
 to assert the- contrary, where he says, "that the apostles themselves, 
 as well as those whom they ordained to the ministry, were Presby- 
 ters, and acknowledged themselves such ;" and, in confirmation of 
 this, quotes the text " The Presbyters which are among you, I Peter 
 exhort, who am also a Presbyter" ( Pet. v. 1 . ) — If the Dr means by 
 this, that the apostles were not suj^trior to Presbyters ; or, in other 
 words, that every Presbyter was an apostle, he is greatly mistaken. 
 For although a superior order frequently includes all its relative in- 
 ferior orders, yet in no case does the contrary take place. Thus, 
 with respect to University degrees, it is well known, that the de- 
 gree of Doctor or Master in any faculty presupposes and includes 
 the degree of Bachelor in the same faculty, — and so it is in the 
 ministerial orders ; the apostolic, or (as it is now called) the Epis- 
 copal order including the order of Presbyter, and also of Deacon, 
 
86 
 
 they ordained,---so they selected some of those Pres- 
 byters to whom they communicated all the branches 
 of the apostolic office, in order that they might supply 
 their places at their decease, and continue the suc- 
 cession to the end of the world. This argument, that 
 
 but not e contra. No conclusive proof then can be drawn from the 
 above-mentioned text, of the equahty of the order of Presbyters 
 with the apostolic or Episcopal order, but only that the word Presy 
 hyter was sometimes applied to that order, by way of humility or 
 condescension ; and this, I think, will appear to have been the mo- 
 tive of Peter's styling himself Sy^Tr^gaCyTe^©-. 
 
 But farther, to shew the weakness of the inference drawn by Pres- 
 byterians and others from the above-mentioned text, I desire it may 
 be considered, that if St Peter's application to himself of the word 
 Presbyter, be a sufficient argument to prove that all Presbyters pos- 
 sess apostolic power, and consequently the power of ordination, — 
 then it must be allowed, that St Paul's applying to himself, (and 
 that more than once, see Eph. iii.7 — Col. i. 23 — nay even to Christ, 
 Kom. XV. 8.) the word Deacon is as sufficient an argument that all 
 Deacons are invested with apostolic power, and so with the powfer 
 of ordination. And thus it is evident, that their own method of 
 inference will force them much farther than they are willing to pro- 
 ceed, according to their own principles. Similar to this Presbyterian 
 argument is that one, (so repeatedly answered,) by which it is at- 
 tempted to be proved, that "Bishops and Presbyters are in scripture 
 the very same, and not a distinct order or office in the christian 
 
 church," (Phil. i. 1 Tit. i. 5. Y—Acts xx. 27. 28.) Totvgood's 
 
 Third Letter, p. 58. Palmers P. Dissenters Catech.ip. SO. Monaghan, 
 1791. — This argument has also been taken up by the Methodists, 
 w lio profess such regard and esteem for the Episcopal Church ! ! See 
 Benson s Answer to Riissel, p. 62. 1793, and A. Scott o?i the Lord's 
 Supper, and on the propriety of administering it among the Methodists, 
 Belfast, 1803. " The terms Bishop and Elder," says Mr Scott, 
 "are promiscuously used in scripture, to signify persons in the same 
 
 office," p. 15 Answer . I have already granted, that Presbyters are 
 
 called Bishops in several places of the Nev/ Testament. But then 
 it must be acknowledged, that the Presbyters mentioned in those 
 places w'ere subordinate to other pastors ; and, consequently, a con- 
 
S7 
 
 the apostolic office was really continued, entirely over- 
 throws the conceit of its beingpersonaland temporary, 
 and this I shall prove by several instances from scrip- 
 ture. And first, those of Matthias, Barnabas, and Paul. 
 The apostleship of Matthias is recorded in Acts i. 
 where we read, that immediately after our Saviour's 
 ascension, the apostles and disciples (before the Holy 
 Ghost had come upon them and empowered them with 
 miraculous and extraordinary gifts,) met together to 
 elect one into the place of the apostle Judas. The ne- 
 cessity of this is urged with great earnestness by Peter, 
 who tells them, it could not be neglected, " it must 
 be done'^'y^ and for this reason he calls it apart of the 
 ministry and apostleship t, that is, such a part of the 
 
 tinuance of their office supposes a continuance of such superiors 
 to the end of the world. 
 
 Again, it is affirmed by Dr M'Dowel, that " the Presbyterian 
 doctrine of the sameness of order and equahty of power among the 
 ministers of Christ, is fully established by Christ himself, irt the fol- 
 lowing words : " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
 them, and tkey that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it 
 shall 7iot be so among you : but tuhosoever xvill be great among you, let 
 
 him be your minister a?id tvhosoever tvill be chief ainong you, let 
 
 him be your servant, even as the Son of man came not to be ministered 
 unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many," (Matt. 
 XX. 25.) But I have already proved, that, in fact, a distinction of 
 orders in the church was established by Christ, and exercised by 
 his apostles ; and therefore this single text is entirely insufficient 
 to overthrow what appears to be the whole tenor ofthe New Testa- 
 ment, with respect to the government of the church. The apostles 
 indeed, were all equal, and possessed no superiority of order or au- 
 thority over one another, and it is these our Saviour addresses not 
 to exercise superiority over each other, '■^for there was a stinfe among 
 them, vohich of them shoidd be greatest.'' See a farther explanation 
 of this text in Bishop Potter on Church Government, p. 57. 2d edit 
 1711. 
 
38 
 
 church's patnmony as was not to be alienated or suf- 
 fered to go to decay ; and likewise mentions, that it 
 is written in the book of Psalms, " Let his habitation 
 be desolate, and his bishopric let another take.'' From 
 all this it is evident, that the apostolic office was not 
 personal, for then Judas could have had no successor j 
 but since Matthias did succeed Judas in his apostle- 
 ship, it is no absurdity to say, that the rest of the 
 apostles may have successors as well as he. And in- 
 deed it appears pretty evident to me, that the apostles 
 and 120 disciples, who were met together on this oc- 
 casion, never so much as doubted of the continuance of 
 the apostolic office in the church for ever. For if they 
 had not been fully persuaded of our Saviour's inten- 
 tion in this particular, they ought not to have put it 
 to lot, whether Barnabas or Matthias should succeed 
 Judas ; but they should have first put it to lot, and 
 sought for some clear direction from the Lord, whcr 
 ther Judas shoidd or could have a successor at all. 
 
 The apostleship of Barnabas, who was one of the 
 seventy, is also evident, for he had a formal ordina- 
 tion to the apostolic office, at the same time with St 
 Paul, (Act. xiii. 2. 3.) They are both styled apostles, 
 (Act. xiv. 14.) and constantly employed in apostolic 
 works, (Act. xiv. 23. xv. 39. 40.— 1 Cor. ix. 4. 5. 6.) 
 Hence it is evident, that the apostolic office was not 
 limited to those twelve, whom our Saviour appointed. 
 Indeed, to an unprejudiced person it will appear no 
 more necessary that the apostles should be limited to 
 twelve, than that there should be always seven dea- 
 cons, and that they should be invested for ever with 
 extraordinary and miraculous powers, (Act. vi. 3. 8.) 
 
 There are also several other instances of men suc- 
 ceeding in the apostolic order, before the canon of 
 
39 
 
 scripture was finished. Besides Epaphroditus, whom 
 St Paul styles the " apostle,'' Phil, ii. 25. (though 
 our translators render it messenger,) as well as his 
 ** brother, and companion in labour, andfelloiso-soldier^^ 
 titles, which he does not give to the Presbyters and 
 Deacons of PhiHppi, (Phil. i. 1.) and whom the an- 
 cient fathers affirm to have been Bishop of the Philip- 
 pians, — and others whom St Paul calls " apostles,'* 
 and the ancient fathers for that reason speak of as 
 Bishops of the churches, (2 Cor. viii. 23.) w^e have 
 a remarkable example in Timothy, who was Bishop 
 or Chief Governor of the Church of Ephesus, plant- 
 ed by St Paul. The authority which Timothy exer- 
 cised in this church, was conferred on him, not by any 
 agreement or vote of the people, but by the imposition 
 of St Paul's hands, (2 Tim. i. 6, — 1 Tim. iv. 14.) By 
 virtue of this authority he ruled the whole Church of 
 Ephesus, Presbyters as well as private christians, in 
 the same manner as the apostles had done. For he 
 was empowered not only to " command and teach" the 
 laity, but also exercise jurisdiction over the Presby- 
 ters, — ^to receive accusations, not only against private 
 christians, but also against Presbyters, though in the 
 latter case he was to proceed with more caution : 
 ^^AgainstaPresbyter receive not an accusation, butbejbre 
 two or three witnesses," He was likewise empowered 
 to ordain those whom he found properly qualified to be 
 " Bishops and Deacons," and to *' lay hands suddenly 
 on no man," and in this manner, to continue the un- 
 interrupted succession of church officers: " The things 
 which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to 
 faithful men, who may be able to teach others, (2 Tim. 
 ii. 2.) Here is an entire account of almost all the 
 parts of the apostolic authority, as it was exercised by 
 
40 
 
 Timothy, whom the ancient fathers constantly style 
 Bishop of Ephesus, and the Bishops of that See are 
 called his successors ; and twenty-seven of them are 
 said to be derived from him in a continued line of 
 succession, at the celebration of the great Council of 
 Chalcedon. 
 
 The same authority, which Timothy had at Ephe- 
 sus, was exercised in the Churches of Crete by Titus ; 
 whence he is declared, by the concurrent testimony 
 of all antiquity, to be the first Bishop of Crete. So 
 Eusebius (Lib. 3. c.4.) affirms, that he received Epis- 
 copal authority over the Churches of Crete *. To 
 j:his office he was ordained and appointed, not by the 
 people's choice, but by St Paul ; ( Tit. i. ) and by 
 him he was empowered " to teach all degrees of men, 
 to exliort and rebuke mtJi authority, to take cognizance 
 of heretics y and to reject from communion such as did 
 not repent upon the second admonition, — to set in order 
 whatever St Paid had left wanting, — and lastly, to or- 
 dain Presbyters in every city. 
 
 Now, if Presbyters might have ordained others of 
 their own order, I can see no reason, why these two 
 apostolic men were left by St Paul, the one at Crete, 
 and the other at Ephesus, for that purpose. For it is 
 most certain, that there were Presbyters at Ephesus 
 before Timothy was left there, and probably in Crete 
 also t, before Titus was settled in that island \ for it 
 
 * Tw> E'er* KpyyTij? exxXijfXtwv iinay.otffiv £t?n9%£va»» 
 
 \ But if there were no church officers of any denomination at 
 that time settled in Crete, then, it is evident, Titus must have or- 
 dained in that island, without any Presbytery (as Timothy had at 
 Ephesus) to assist him in it. Slater s Original Draught of the Pri- 
 mitive Church, p. 191, 3d edit. Dublin^ 1723, in answer to Sir P. 
 Kings En^iiir^, Sec. 
 
 t 
 
41 
 
 was St Paul's custom to ''ordain Presbj/ters in every 
 church," (Acts. xiv. 23.) and if these could have or- 
 dained others, as the number of converts increased, 
 it was unnecessary to set any person over them to 
 perform that office. Suppose, (says Mr William Law * ) 
 when Timothy was sent to Ephesus to ordain Presby- 
 ters, the church had told him,— we have chosen Pres- 
 byters already, and laid our hands on them, — ^would 
 such a practice have been allowed of in the Ephesians, 
 and would ministers so ordained have been received 
 as the ministers of Christ ? And (observes Dr Brett,) 
 had any such authority belonged to the whole body 
 of christians in any church, or to the Presbyters, — can 
 we think, that among so many epistles in the New 
 Testament, sent to several churches, we should not 
 have one word concerning ordination in any of them, 
 but only in the two epistles to Timothy, and in that 
 to Titus ? This, I think, is a reasonable argument. 
 I shall now consider the arguments against the 
 apostleship or Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus : 
 
 I. It is objected, that ** they were a kind of itine- 
 rant officers, called evangelists, who were assistants 
 to the apostles," Doddridge's Lectures II. p. 34^3 1. — 
 With respect to Titus, there is not in scripture the 
 least pretence for such an assertion. And that Ti- 
 mothy had not this power committed to him as an 
 evangelist, is most certain, because mere evangelists 
 had not such power ; for then Deacons might have 
 ordained and governed Priests. PhiHp the evange- 
 list was a deacon, — yet it is certain that he pretend- 
 ed not to any such authority, (Act. xxi. 8. vi. 5.) 
 
 * Second Letter to the Bishop of Bangor, p. 97. 10th edit, 
 t See Dr Graves' remarks on this head, expressly in answer to 
 Doddridge's objection. Consecration Sermon^ 1806, p. 12, 
 
42 
 
 << But is not Timothy called an evangelist ?*' (Q, Tim. 
 5 .iv. 5.) I answer, no ; for the text does not say, 
 do the office, but the work * of an evangelist, which 
 no more makes him a mere evangelist, than the 
 words following make him a mere deacon, for he is 
 commanded **/oyw^/ his deaconshipf,'' — But he might 
 be, at the same time, both Bishop, Evangelist, and 
 Deacon. — What this work of an evangelist was, may 
 be seen in the second verse of this chapter ; ^^ preach 
 the word, he instant in season, out of season, reprove^ 
 rebuke,'*' &c. All which every Bishop is obliged to 
 perform ; therefore this can be no proof that Timothy 
 was an evangelist, and that his office was temporary, 
 — and there is not a single duty which Timothy, as 
 a minister of Christ, was obliged to perform, that was 
 temporary. 
 
 11. Their occasional attendance on St Paul in his 
 travels, can be no objection to their Episcopacy.— 
 For granting that they did not continually reside, yet 
 it is evident that they were invested with Episcopal 
 power, a right to ordain and exercise those acts of 
 government in the churches to which they were sent, 
 which Presbyters have no right to exercise, and wliich 
 Bishops now justly challenge, as appropriated to their 
 order. For (as Mr Hoadly remarks,) it is to the office 
 of Timothy (whether fixed at Ephesus during life or 
 not,) that the Episcopal function, for which we con* 
 tend, answers. It is not essential to a Bishop that he 
 should be fixed at one place during life, but that he 
 manage the business of ordination and government 
 over whatsoever church he is placed, and for what- 
 ever length of time. — These frequent removals, there- 
 
48 
 
 fore, cannot deprive them of that power, which they 
 had superior to other Presbyters ; and they might, 
 nay, if we give any credit to antiquity, they certainly 
 did return to Ephesus and Crete, and died there, as 
 the reader will find sufficiently proved by Dr Cave, 
 in his Lives of the Fathers, p. 51. 63. 
 
 Timothy and Titus then, had that authority in the 
 church which our Bishops now challenge ; wherefore 
 St Paul, writing to the Philippians, joins Timothy 
 with himself, as a person of the same order and degree, 
 ** Paul and TimotJieus the servants of Christ, to all the 
 saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the 
 Bishops and Deacons,'^ (Phil. i. 1.) In this verse we 
 find mentioned the three distinct orders, viz. Paul and 
 Timothy of the first order, that is, the order of Bishops, 
 as they are now called ; the Priests or Presbyters then 
 called Bishops, of the second order ; and lastly, the 
 Deacons : For, as I intimated before, those whom 
 we now call Bishops, were then styled apostles ; so 
 says Theodoret expressly, (Com, in 1 Tit, iii. 1.) ^' the 
 same persons were anciently called Bishops and Pres- 
 byters promiscuously, whilst those who are now call- 
 ed Bishops were styled apostles. But in process of 
 time, the name of apostle was appropriated to such 
 only as were more strictly apostles (viz. the twelve,) 
 and then the name of Bishop was given to those 
 who succeeded them." Thus he says, " Epaphroditus 
 was the apostle of the Philippians, Titus the apostle 
 of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asiatics ;" and 
 this he repeats in several other places, (Com, in PhiL 
 i. 1. ii.25.) In like manner, Clemens Bishop of Rome, 
 who was a disciple of the original apostles, is called 
 by Clemens Alexandrinus, " Clemens the apostle," 
 (Strom, lib, 4. J Ignatius Bishop of Antioch is called 
 
44 
 
 by St Chrysostom " apostle and bishop ;'* and Thad- 
 deus, who was sent by St Thomas to the Prmce of 
 Edessa, " apostle Thaddeus," by Eusebius ; and so 
 are also St Mark and St Luke by Epiphanius. And 
 as the Bishops were styled apostles by St Paul, so they 
 are called Angels by St John, which is another Greek 
 word signifying a messenger : for it is evident that 
 the angels of the seven churches were the apostles oi* 
 Bishops of those churches, their office being such as 
 we now call Episcopal, and the same w^hich is exer- 
 cised by our present Bishops. Episcopal authority 
 is intimated in the rebuke given to the angel of the 
 Church of Thyatira, for permitting a false prophetess 
 to seduce the people ; and this would not surely have 
 been done, unless this angel had the power and au- 
 thority of a Bishop, to exclude such a person from 
 church communion. The angel of Ephesus, (Rev. 
 ii. 2.) is particularly commended for " trying those 
 "who called themselves apostles and xvere not so," i, e, 
 who pretended to have authority to preach without a 
 commission ; and this seems to imply that he had ju- 
 dicially convicted them of being impostors. The angel 
 of Pergamus, (ii. 14.) is reproved for having in his 
 church those that held the doctrine of the Nicolai- 
 tans, and he is severely threatened unless he repent- 
 ed, which shows that he had authority to correct these 
 disorders, otherwise he could not justly have been 
 punished for them. And the angel of Sardis is com- 
 manded to be watchful, and to strengthen those who 
 are ready to die, otherwise our Lord threatens to come 
 on him, as a thief, at an hour which he should not 
 know ; plainly alluding to what he says in the gospel 
 to " his stexmrds,'' i, e, his apostles and other ministers 
 whom he made '''rulers over his household the church.'* 
 
45 
 
 It is pretended by some of our adversaries, that 
 " these angels of the churches held their office for a 
 limited time, as mere chairmen or' moderator's of the. 
 Presbyters." But we may justly infer the contrary to 
 be true, from what is said to the angel of the Church 
 of Smyrna, " be thou faithful unto death, and I "will 
 give thee a ci^oxai of life,'' (Rev. ii. 10.) which must 
 surely be understood of being faithful in his office, 
 since he is here spoken to, not as a private man, but 
 as an angel or Bishop of the church, and if his office 
 had not been for life, then this precept had been nu- 
 gatory. It will likewise be hard to shew, (says Mr 
 Hoadly) how a prim^ Presbyter, by being only chosen 
 president or moderator of the college of Presbyters, 
 for the more orderly management of their joint coun- 
 sels, should become chargeable with the faults of their 
 churches, with which, according to this supposition, 
 he had nothing to do. For it is manifest he could 
 be no more accountable for any congregation but his 
 own, than any of the other Presbyters, had he not the 
 care of others committed to him in some peculiar man- 
 ner : and this lie could not have, if he were only mo- 
 derator in the college. — It cannot, with any show of 
 reason, be alleged, ** that these angels were but simple 
 Presbyters or parish priests in their several congrega- 
 tions," as Doddridge pretends, (^Lectures ILip, 344. J 
 for such eminent cities as these seven could not be 
 supplied by a single Presbyter. Nay, it is certain that 
 in Ephesus there were several Presbyters, whom St 
 Paul sent for to attend him at Miletus, (Acts xx. I7.) 
 consequently the angel of Ephesus cannot signify the 
 Presbyter of that church, because the angel was but 
 one, and the Presbyters were many. It may be far- 
 ther observed, that the angels are every where spoken 
 
46 
 
 to in the singular number as to single persons, except 
 where there is an apparent apostrophe to the churches. 
 This apostrophe is very plain in all those places where 
 the plural number is used, but in that to the Church 
 of Thyatira there seems to be a plurality of persons 
 spoken to, before the apostrophe to the church, " but 
 unto you I say, and to the ?^est in Thyatira,'** (Rev. ii. 
 4.) To this we answer, that in the best Greek MSS. 
 the and is omitted, and then the apostrophe is very 
 plain here too, '' to you, I say, the rest in Thyatira J* 
 So that, (says Archbishop Potter) the angels of the seven 
 churches having appeared to be single persons, invest- 
 ed with chief authority, wx need not scruple to call 
 them with St Austin, in one of his Homilies on the 
 Revelation, and other ancient fathers, Episcopos sive 
 Prepositos Ecclesiarum, the Bishops or Presidents of 
 the churches *. 
 
 From the instances alleged t, (and the objections 
 against them being answered,) we may see enough 
 
 * I mentioned (says Dr Buchanan, in his interesting conversa- 
 tion with the present Bishop of the Syrian Churches, which have 
 continued uninterruptedly orthodox, from the first ages to the pre- 
 sent day,) that there was a Presbyter Church, (viz. the Presbyte- 
 rian, ) in our kingdom, in which every Presbyter was equal to another. 
 " And are there no Deacons in holy orders ?" — None. " What ! 
 Is there nobody to overlook the Presbyters ?" — Not one. " And 
 who is the Angel of the Church ?" — They have none. " There 
 must be something imperfect there," said he. — Ecclesiastical Re- 
 searches in Asia, Lond. 1812. p. 123. Dr B.'s attempt to apologise 
 for Presbyterian church government, by alleging the identity of the 
 terms Bishop and Presbyter in the Syrian translation, is very futile, 
 and evinces his ignorance of the divine foundation of the Govern- 
 ment of that Church, in which he is himself a Presbyter. 
 
 •j- Stilsmans Episcopal Authority, a Visitation Sermon preached 
 at Leicester, Lond. 1708, p. 9. — The following text has been urged 
 by some against our doctrine of the three orders : " Christ gave 
 
47 
 
 to satisfy our own, and, in reason, the consciences of 
 others, of the fairest proof from scripture, for this 
 superior order above Presbyters ; because we plainly 
 see this power of ordaining church-officers and go- 
 verning the churches, expressly applied to Timothy 
 and Titus and the angels of the seven churches, and 
 we do not see the same so applied to any of those 
 understood as Presbyters by our opponents. Not to 
 the Presbyters in Ephesus, nor to those in Crete — 
 because only Timothy in the one, and Titus in the 
 other, are said to have i:his authority ; not afterwards 
 to those in the seven Asian churches, — because it is 
 applied particularly to the angel of each church ; not 
 to those in the acts and the epistles, called by the pro- 
 miscuous names of Presbyters and Bishops ; for the 
 most that is expressed of them is, the oversight or 
 
 i 
 some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some teach' 
 ers," &c. (Eph. iv. 11.) But, in the first place, these were not 
 distinct offices, which required so many distinct officers ; for the work 
 of a prophet ai>d an evangelist was sometimes performed by the 
 apostles themselves, sometimes by Presbyters and Deacons, (Acts 
 ii. 18. — XV. 32.) In the second place, these were only several de- 
 nominations conferred on the standing officers of the church in their 
 different capacities, and were all included in the names Apostles and 
 Presbyters ; as appears when the different degrees of church-officers 
 were convened at Jerusalem. (See Acts xv. 2. 4. 6. 22. 23. xxi. 18. 
 Deacons are not mentioned here, their office being very limited. 
 See Bishop Potter, p. 227.) In short, they were only occasional 
 commissions to execute some branches of the apostolic office, which 
 could not be executed as things then stood, Without an extraordinary 
 potver ; and whenever God sees such to be necessary, he may grant 
 similar commissions again, — As for those ecclesiastical officers among 
 Presbyterians, called Lay Elders, their name and function were to- 
 tally unknown in the time of the apostles ; and we may justly say 
 with Bishop Hall, that there were no such things in rerum natura 
 for 1500 years after Christ. 
 
48 
 
 rule of the people, Cfied thefloch of God, and the like,) 
 but not of the ministers of God. To all which, if we 
 add the united testimony of the church historians and 
 fathers, and the universal consent of all churches for 
 the space of I7OO years together, we may well con- 
 clude with the assertion- of our church : It is evident 
 unto all men diligently reading holy scriptures, and an^ 
 cientfathers, that, from the apostles' time, there have been 
 three orders of ministers in Chrisfs Church, — Bishops^ 
 Priests, and Deacons. 
 
 But although, during the first century, the name of 
 apostle or angel was generally applied to tho^e per- 
 sons who were of the first order in the church, and 
 that of Bishop or Presbyter to the second order ; yet 
 immediately afterwards, these tw^o names became dis- 
 tinguished. The succeeding governors of the church 
 humbly abstaining from the name of apostles, because 
 they were not sent * so immediately from Christ, and 
 appropriating to themselves that of Bishops. This is 
 the very reason given by Ambrose (in his Commenta- 
 ries on Epistle to Timothy, as he is quoted by Salma- 
 sius, De Primatu, p. 40.) ** On the decease of tlie 
 blessed apostles," says he, " those that were ordained 
 to preside over the churches after them, were not 
 equal to those first, nor could they attain the same gift 
 of miracles; but, appearing inferior to them in many 
 other things, thought it not becoming to challenge to 
 themselves the name of apostles, w4ierefore they di- 
 vided the names, and left to them (i, e, the inferior 
 order) the name of Presbyters ; and the others (i. e.the 
 governors) were styled Bishops, and w^ere endued with 
 the power of ordaining, that they might know them- ' 
 
49 
 
 iSelves to be set over the churches in the fullest rigJit,^' 
 From that time Presbyters were seldom or never call- 
 ed Bishops, and we find the three orders distinguish- 
 ed by the names of Bishops, Priests (or Presbyters,) 
 and Deacons, as they are at this day ; and the title 
 of Bishop was thenceforth appropriated to those who 
 hadthepower of Ordination, Government, and Con- 
 firmation. — This I shall briefly prove by some few 
 instances from the Fathers who lived before the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, A. D. 325. I say, some few instances, 
 because if I should collect all the numerous instan- 
 ces which may be produced to this purpose, from the 
 Fathers of the three first centuries only, I might write 
 a volume upon this one head *. 
 
 The first testimony I shall produce from the Fathers 
 shall be taken from St Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, 
 who was thrown to wild beasts by order of the empe- 
 ror Trajan, A.D. 107, only four years after the death 
 of John the apostle. In the beginning of his epistle 
 to the Magnesians, he speaks of Damas their Bishop, 
 of Bassus and Apollonius their Presbyters, and of So- 
 tion their Deacon. To the Philadelphians he writes : 
 
 * On this head, consult the books referred to in page 21, and also 
 Brokesbyon the Government of the Prim. Church, in answer to Blon- 
 del, &c. 1 7 1 2. Maurices Vind* of the Prim, Church, against Baxters 
 History of Bishops, and Treatise of Episcopacy, &c, 1682. Slaters 
 Original Draught of the Primitive Church, in answer to Sir P.King's 
 
 Enquiry, 3d edit. Dub. 1723 This work of Mr Slater convinced 
 
 Sir P. King of his errors, and entirely brought him over to that 
 author's opinions. Dr M'Dowel had possibly never heard of the 
 Original Draught, otherwise I presume he would not have spoken 
 of the Enquiry, as an " excellent work," and which has proved Pres- 
 byterianism to have been the primitive church government ", by 
 the most incoptestible authorities ! !" M^Dowel on Presb. Gov. Dub. 
 1808, p. 63. 
 
50 
 
 « Let the Deacons obey the Priests, and both Priests 
 and Deacons the Bishop, the Bishop Christ, as Christ 
 obeys the Father." "Do nothing without the Bishop, 
 love unity, flee divisions, be followers of Jesus Christ, 
 as he is of the Father." — There are many other pas- 
 sages in the epistles of this glorious saint and martyr 
 to the same purpose, wherein he distinguishes Bishops 
 from Presbyters. And as for the cavils made against 
 the genuineness of his epistles, or some passages of 
 them, they are all most satisfactorily answered, and 
 the honour of this holy martyr vindicated by Vossius, 
 Archbishop Usher, Bishop Pearson, and Cotelerius. 
 
 Clemens Romanus, (mentioned by St Paul, Phil. 
 iv.3.) in his genuine epistle to the Corinthians, written 
 long before the death of the apostle St John, clearly 
 distinguishes the Governors and the Presbyters. And 
 after informing us, that our Lord appointed the per- 
 sons who should minister to him in holy things, he 
 proceeds in a clear and strong allusion from the Jew- 
 ish to the christian priesthood, to name three orders, 
 and after them the laity: "To the High-priest proper 
 offices are committed, — to the Priests their peculiar 
 office is assigned, — theLevites(orDeacons)have their 
 own ministries, — and a laym^an is bound to laic per- 
 formances. Let every one of you, brethren, in his 
 proper station, give thanks to God, living conscien- 
 tiously, and not transgressing the prescribed rule of 
 his service or. ministry." Sect. 40. 41. — edit. Cleric. 
 Antv. 1698. 
 
 St Iren^us Bishop of Lyons, A. D* I67, says, — 
 "We can enumerate those who were instituted Bishops 
 in the several churches by the apostles, even to our- 
 selves," (Lib.S.c.S.— edit.Oxon.p.200.) And "that 
 the apostolic state of the church is known through all 
 
51 
 
 the world by the succession of Bishops, to whom the 
 apostles gave power to rule and govern the church," 
 p. 360. For an answer to the objections against Ire- 
 naeus, taken from the ambiguous meaning of the word 
 Freshyter^ see Drury's Second Answer to Boyse, p. 7^> 
 and Third Answer, p. 136, and also Brokesby, pref. 
 p. 23. 
 
 St Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 250, writ- 
 ing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, says, " This, bro- 
 ther, is and ought to be our principal labour and study, 
 even as much as we are able, to take care that unity 
 may still obtain, which was delivered by our Lord 
 and his apostles to us (Bishops) their successors." 
 And as he thus speaks of Bishops as successors of the 
 apostles, so he also shews that they are superior to 
 Presbyters : " How great reason have we to be afraid 
 of the wrath of God, when some Presbyters, neither 
 mindful of the gospel, nor of their own station, nor 
 thinking on the future judgment of God, nor consi- 
 dering that they have a Bishop now their governor, 
 dare to assume all to themselves, to the contempt of 
 their governor, — a thing never before attempted under 
 any of my predecessors." (Epist. 16. — edit. Oxon.) 
 But whoever desires to see the judgment of St Cy- 
 prian explained in the fullest extent, he may consult a 
 book called The Pri?iciples of the Cyprianic Age, luond, 
 1695, and The Vindication of it, I7OI, written by J, 
 Sage, formerly Bishop of Aberdeen. 
 
 Cornelius in his epistle to Fabius affirms, that in 
 his Church (or, as we generally say. Diocese) of Rome, 
 there were forty-six Presbyters and seven Deacons, 
 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 
 
 From the testimonies of particular persons, I pro- 
 ceedto those of entire churches. The apostolic Canons 
 
;o 
 
 were made by several councils in the three first cen- 
 turies. The 1st Canon is this : *' Let a Bishop be 
 ordained by two or three Bishops," — the 2d, " Let a 
 Presbyter or Deacon be ordained by one Bishop," — 
 the 5th, *< A Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon must not 
 put away their wives under pretext of religion," — the 
 39th, " Let neither Presbyters nor Deacons perform 
 any thing without the Bishop's permission." — Council 
 of Laodicea, A. D. 321. " Let no clergyman travel 
 without his Bishop's consent." 
 
 I might soon fill a large volume with citations from 
 the Fathers and Councils within the first four centu- 
 ries ; for we have scarcely any writings of antiquity, 
 which do not clearly distinguish the three orders of 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
 
53 
 
 CHAP. Ill 
 
 OF THE NECESSITY OF THE ORDER OF BISHOPS TO THE 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 It has already been proved, that there are distinct 
 Offices in the church ; it follows then that there must 
 be distinct Powers appropriated to each of them. And 
 therefore, although the scriptures had been silent on 
 this head, we might have safely concluded, from the 
 different kinds of officers whom Christ has entrusted 
 with the care and government of his church, not only 
 that private christians are excluded from the exercise 
 of any ecclesiastical power, but that some powers are 
 appropriated in such a manner to the chief officers, 
 that they cannot be lawfully exercised by those of 
 inferior orders *. 
 
 The exclusion o^ private christians from the work of 
 the Ministry, and the disfmction between Clergy and 
 Laity, is pretty generally admitted. " The adminis- 
 tration of ordinances, (as a late Methodist writer t 
 justly observes,) belongs to those only who have been 
 
 * Potter on Church Gov, p. 214. Leslie on the Qualifications 
 requisite for Administering the Sacraments, reprinted in the Scholar 
 Armed, vol. 1. 1812. Wotton, Lewis, Turner, Hill, and Bennet's 
 Answers to TindaVs Rights of the Church, 1707-8. 
 
 f Mr A. Scott in a tract On the Lord's Supper, and the Propriety 
 of administering it among the Methodists, Belfast, 1803. This tract 
 has had an extensive circulation throughout the North of Ireland 
 otherwise I should not have taken notice of it. 
 
54 
 
 called and separated to the work of the ministry. To 
 none else hath Christ given authority. It was to mi- 
 nisters that Christ said, " Go into all the "world, and 
 preach the gospel to every, creature, baptising them in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, teaching 
 them to observe all things ^whatsoever I have commanded 
 you,''' Men are required to acknowledge that minis- 
 ters possess this sole authority, ^^Letaman account of 
 us (says the apostle,) as ministers of Christ and stewards 
 of the mysteries of God,'' (\ Cor. i v. 1 . ) Suitable gifts 
 for the work of tlie ministry are not given to all, but 
 only to some : ''He gave some apostles, some prophets, 
 some evangelists, some pastors, some teachers, for tlie 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
 €hrist," (Eph. iv. 11. 12.) As there is a diversity of 
 gifts, each should keep his own station in the church, 
 and exercise in that way for which he is fitted, and 
 to which he is called. " But are all apostles ? are all 
 prophets? are all teachers?" (1 Cor.xii.-20.) A diversi- 
 ty among the teachers of the church is as essential as 
 it is among the members of the body: And if all were 
 the eye, where w^ere the hearing? If all were the hear- 
 ing, where were the smelling ? If all were the pastors, 
 where were the flocks? If all were the ministers, where 
 were the people to be ministered unto ?'* 
 
 I shall not insist farther on the proof of a distinc- 
 tion between Clergy and Laity, since I have already 
 demonstrated that there actually existed in the time 
 of the apostles, three distinct orders of ministers, viz. 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; and that these 
 offices were not personal, but were intended to be 
 continued, and have, in fact, continued uninterrupted 
 
 to the present day, — I proceed in the next place to 
 prove : 
 
55 
 
 1. That in order to undertake lawfully the office of 
 a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, a Call or Commission 
 from Christ the Head of the Church, is absolutely 
 necessary. 
 
 2. That this Call or Commission can only be had 
 from Bishops, to whom alo?ie Christ conferred this 
 power. 
 
 With respect to the first then, that a Call or Com- 
 mission is absolutely necessary before a man can law- 
 fully undertake the work of the ministry : We are 
 told in express terms, that "72o ma7i taketh this honour j 
 (j, e. of being an officer in God's church,) hut he "who 
 is called and commissio7ied hy God, as xvas Aaron,"" — 
 (Heb. V, 4.— Exod. xxviii. 290^^7 ^^'^^ ^^^^ Lord, 
 who was both God and man, ^^ glorified not hiinselfto 
 he made an High-priest, but he that said unto him, Thou 
 art my Son — Thou art a Priest,*' (Verse 5. 6.) Ac- 
 cordingly we find that he assumed no part of that 
 office, which he came into the world to execute, till 
 after that outward commission given to him by a voice 
 from heaven at his baptism, (Matt. iii. 170 ^^i' ^^ ^^ 
 written, (Matt. iv. 170 ^'fiom that time Jesus hegan to 
 preach.''^ ** So that (to use the words of a Presbyterian 
 Doctor, in which all true churchmen will agree, but 
 which, I fear, the Doctor will be unable to reconcile 
 with his practice,) even Christ, as priest, was not self- 
 created or self-appoiiited : No, — he received his desig- 
 nation, his appointment from the Father, and under 
 this commission he acted. And after this declaration, 
 and in the face of tliis inspired record, shall poor self- 
 conceited presumptuous worms dare, without any ap- 
 pointment, to invade the sacred office ! Ought not this 
 passage to make many novices amongst us, who, from 
 pride, vanity, or impatience of manual labour, start 
 
56 
 
 at once into preachers, — and, without any regular 
 appointment, arrogate to themselves the ministerial 
 character, to tremble,'' (M'Dowel's Nature ofPresby- 
 ierian Government, Dub. 1 808. p. 60.) In the necessity 
 of a call to the sacred o^ce,\he Methodists also agree : 
 *« St Paul maintains that a call is necessary, where he 
 says, ^'How can they preach except they be sent?'* The 
 ground of God's complaints against some of the pro- 
 phets, is not their want of abilities, but their want of 
 authority, " / have not sent them (says he,) yet they 
 ran, — / have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied, ' 
 (Jer. xxiii. SI.) — Scott, ut supra. 
 
 Thus far we all agree, as to the necessity of a divine 
 call or commission from God, before a person can law- 
 fully undertake the work of the ministry ; the ques- 
 tion is. What constitutes this divine call ? Some think 
 that it consists in, what they call, an inward call -^ by 
 which, if they mean any thing, they must mean a 
 man's being inwardly prompted by the Spirit of God 
 to undertake this office. And I do not deny, but that 
 this good Spirit may, and often does stir up a pious 
 man to it, in the same sense that it excites him to 
 other good duties. And these motions may be argu- 
 ments to himself to enter into this sacred employment. 
 But we are now enquiring after such a call as may 
 satisfy others that a person is a lawful pastor ; and 
 that must not be an inward call. For no man can 
 satisfy others, that he is inwardly called, so fully, as 
 that they may rely on him as their lawful pastor, 
 without the outward call, unless he prove his inward 
 call by miracles ; which, I suppose, they who allege 
 it, do not pretend to. 
 
 It may be observed throughout the New Testament, 
 that the gifts or abilities of church-officers are every- 
 
57 
 
 where distinguished from their outward commission, 
 and described as previous qualifications to it. Not 
 only Bishops and Presbyters are required to have se- 
 veral qualifications, and give sufficient proof of them, 
 and after that to wait for a coTwmmf on, before they pre- 
 sumed to govern the church ; but even the Deacons, 
 however endued with natural and spiritual abilities, 
 could not assume their office, till they had been ap- 
 proved and authorised by the apostles, or others in- 
 vested with apostolic authority. Hence we are told, 
 that the apostles directed the people to " hole out seven 
 meuyfull of tlie Holy Ghost and of "wisdom, "whom we 
 (say they) may appoint'' (Acts. vi. 3.) Stephen, one 
 of their number, is said, in particular, to be " a man 
 full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,'' yet they were not 
 permitted to exercise this least of all church-offices, 
 till the apostles had ordai7ied themhy prayer and lay- 
 ing on of hands. Whence it is manifest, that no qua- 
 lifications whatever are sufficient to empower any man 
 to exercise any office in the church, who has not been 
 first approved and commissioned by those whom God 
 has invested with this authority for that end. 
 
 The opinion of the generality of our Protestant 
 Dissenters is, tha£ " Gifts for the ministry, and an in- 
 clination from a sense of duty to use them to that end, 
 constitute a divine call, and that the church is to 
 judge of a person's qualifications, and appoint him 
 or not appoint him to the work, according to their 
 judgment; and that both ministers and people should 
 unite in the w^ork of ordination," (Scott ut supra, p. 
 13.) " What do the Dissenters (says Palmer, P. Diss. 
 Catechism, p. 32,) in general think concerning ordina- 
 tion ? — They apprehend that every man who is qua- 
 lified for the ministerial office, by ability and piety^ 
 
58 
 
 has a right to exercise it in any society that calls him 
 to it ; and that ordination is hi/ no memis necessary to 
 the discharge of it. Accordingly, many of their mi- 
 nisters preach several years before they are ordained. 
 But they think it is very decent and useful, and agree- 
 able to the scripture model, when they are about to 
 settle with any people as pastors, to have their appro- 
 bation, and the prayers, and the advice of some of 
 th^ir brethren, who pretend to no authority to con- 
 stitute them pastors, that being only derived from 
 Christ, and the choice of the people." 
 
 According to these schemes, it is plain that since 
 the ordainers pretend to no authority to constitute 
 their ministers, they must have their authority before 
 they are ordained, all the after-solemnity being mere- 
 ly for order's sake. 
 
 1. But this notion is extremely absurd, and opens 
 a gate for all impostors to preach the gospel without 
 any ordination or commission. For if they possess 
 " S^ift^i ^^d an inclination from a sense of duty to use 
 them," they are, without any farther ceremony, ac- 
 tually authorised ; and so men, women, and all sorts 
 of people may set up for God's ministers. How easy 
 is it for them to get some of their followers to say 
 they are qualified by ability and piety, and if so, they 
 immediately commence ministers of the gospel. As 
 for their ordination by pastors, it is maintained that 
 *' it is by no means necessary to the discharge of the 
 ministerial office ;" so that, according to this hypothe- 
 sis, I can see no reason why a qualified person should 
 be hindered from exercising his faculties, or from put- 
 ting in execution that authority which God hath given 
 him, only because some men will be so refractory as 
 not to recognise it. 
 
59 
 
 2. This notion of ordination invests the power of 
 ordaining in all men, laity as well as clergy, which is 
 no where to be found in holy scripture ; for any man 
 may declare another qualified for the office of a minis- 
 ter, and then, without any farther ceremony, he may 
 dispense the sacraments of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which is a notion that will leave the whole frame of 
 church government at the mercy of every man's jpower. 
 
 3. A third reason against this notion is, that it gives 
 not to the ordainers that po'wer and authority which 
 Christ gave them. For Christ tells them, '< as my 
 FatJier sent me, so send I you,'' that is, as my Father 
 gave me power to constitute a church here on earth, 
 and appoint the governors and officers of it, so I give 
 yon po-wer to make proselytes to it, and appoint gover- 
 nors and officers over it, to the end of the world: ''For 
 lo! lam with you always, even to tlie end of the world;'* 
 which is a general commission to them as his ambas- 
 sadors, to act his part upon earth when he was gone, 
 and therefore must be applied to every part of that 
 power which he left them ; for immediately when he 
 said this he breathed on them, and said ''receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost," (Johnxx. 22.) In this sense the apostles 
 themselves understood it, as appears from their put- 
 ting this power in execution. They thought they had 
 received power from Christ to commission others, 
 without which commission none could act as his am- 
 bassadors ; and therefore whenever they ordained, they 
 laid on their hands, which was a ceremony constantly 
 made use of to signify the giving of power and au- 
 thority. Thus St Paul tells Timothy that he gave 
 him his authority " by the putting on of his hands," 
 (2 Tim. i. 6.) So that whatsoever power Timothy 
 
60 
 
 received as a minister of Christ, he received by the 
 hands of his ordainer. 
 
 We may then, without hesitation assert, that those 
 gifts, to which ecclesiastical power is really conse- 
 quent, are not ordinarily given by God, but by human 
 interposition. And as for those gifts and qualifications 
 which God bestows on men before ordination, they 
 are not, nor ever were, such as entitled those who pos- 
 sessed them to any ecclesiastical office or authority. 
 God may bestow his gifts to whom, and after what 
 manner he pleases; but if he has constituted any par- 
 ticular sort of men his proxies, to admit others into any 
 sacred office, we must seek our authority from them, 
 if we expect any blessing from him in the discharge 
 of our office. If we have not our commission sealed 
 by such men as he has appointed in his stead upon 
 earth, we shall be looked upon as intruders and re- 
 bels, instead of agents for Christ. And though the 
 ordainers be no more than instruments, which God 
 makes use of to convey his power to others, yet they 
 are such instruments, without which no man can ordi- 
 narily receive any power as an officer or minister of 
 Christ's Church, because he himself has made that 
 the rule. 
 
 And how displeasing it is to God, for any man to 
 assume any office in the church xvithout his commission^ 
 is thus clearly stated by Dr M*Dowel in his late Ad- 
 dress on Presbyterian Ordination, (Dub. 1812,) "Un- 
 der the Old Testament, not an individual of any rank 
 was permitted to approach the altar, and take any 
 part in the public service, even in the meanest office, 
 either in the tabernacle or temple, who had not been 
 consecrated or set apart to that particular service, ac- 
 
61 
 
 cording to the commandment of God. Not so much 
 as a vessel was to be employed in the service of the 
 sanctuary, which had not been consecrated or set apait 
 from a common to a holy use. Nay, even the gar- 
 ments in which the priests officiated, were to be con* 
 secrated for the holy services, and the judgments of 
 God inflicted upon Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and 
 their associates, with several others upon record, (1 
 Sam. xiii. — 2 Sam. vi. 6. — 1 Chron. xiii. 9.) furnish 
 an awful lesson to succeeding ages, and strikingly 
 mark the guilt and danger of those who dare invade 
 the office of the priesthood without a divine call and 
 appointment thereto." Indeed, under the christian 
 economy, they who violate the laws of God are seldom 
 punished in a visible and miraculous way ; but then, 
 (says Archbishop Potter,) they are reserved to the fu- 
 ture judgment of God, which, though it is more dis- 
 tant, and consequently less apt to affect unthinking 
 men, is no less certain, and, if duly considered, far 
 more terrible than any punishment inflicted in this 
 life. And as the offices of the christian church are of 
 divine appointment, as well as those of the Jewish, — 
 and as much more sacred and honourable than they, 
 as the substance is preferable to its own type or sha- 
 dow; so they who usurp these offices, though their pu- 
 nishment may not be so sudden, will undoubtedly find 
 themselves in a worse condition in the next life, which 
 is the proper season of punishment for offences against 
 the gospel, than those who invaded the rights of the 
 Jewish priesthood. 
 
 It has now been proved, that a call from Christ is 
 absolutely necessary to undertake lawfully the work 
 of the ministry ; and that neither an inward call, nor 
 excellent spiritual abilities, nor an appointment by a 
 
62 
 
 congregation constitute this sacred commission from 
 the head of the church, the fountain and origin of all 
 power. It can only be derived from Christ in these 
 two ways. 'Either immediatelT/, that is, from Christ 
 himself interposing in the call of every minister, — or 
 mediately, that is, from a succession of men to whom 
 the apostolic charge and authority, delivered by our 
 Saviour before his ascension, has been transmitted 
 down from the first apostles *. 
 
 In the time of the apostles, many persons received 
 their commission immediately from God, without any 
 human ordination. Thus, Matthias was admitted to 
 the apostleship by God*s immediate appointment, 
 (Acts i. 26.) and likewise St Paul was called to it by 
 Christ himself from heaven, (Acts ix.) And accord- 
 ingly he declares, that he was ** an apostle, not qfmerij 
 neither by man, hut hy Jesus Christ,''^ (Gal. i. 1.) In like 
 manner, the members of the Church of Jerusalem, who 
 were scattered abroad, (Acts viii. 4.) both preached 
 and planted churches ; and, if they were not commis- 
 sioned by the apostles, (which we have no positive rea- 
 son to deny,) it is evident that they acted in conse- 
 quence of their miraculous endowments only, — and 
 had no other mission than the extraordinary effusion of 
 the HolyGhost, (Actsii. 1.5.) and consequently, their 
 gifts with their commission, they received immediately 
 from God himself. And when any of our modern 
 lay preachers, (who are so fond of quoting their ex- 
 ample) shall exhibit the divine attestation, in the same 
 manner as these spiritual persons did, (viz. by work- 
 
 * See Bennefs Rights of the Clergy, p. 59. 377. and some sensible 
 remarks on this subject in the Presbyterians' t/M5Z)mi\fi«.£vawg. 
 p. 114. Lond. 1654. 
 
 2 
 
63 
 
 ing miracles, the gift of tongues, &c.) I will readily 
 allow them the same authority, and acknowledge that 
 they act by an equally valid, and apparently divine 
 commission. 
 
 Whether any more of the clergy received authority 
 immediately from God, I shall not now enquire. But 
 it is evident, that there were many who received it 
 mediately from him, viz. by the appointment of the 
 apostles, to whom he had given full power to invest 
 others with it ; and tliis was the constant practice of 
 the apostles. Wheresoever they converted men to the 
 faith, they ordained ecclesiastical officers (as I have 
 already shewn,) and consequently those officers de- 
 rived their authority from God by the mediation of 
 the apostles. It appears absolutely necessary there- 
 fore, that there should be a Continual Succession 
 of men invested with the same author itij as the^?-^^ 
 apostleSy and deriving power from them to ordain and 
 keep up a lawfully commissioned clergy to the end 
 of the world. Our blessed Saviour promised to be 
 with the apostles and their successors to the end of 
 the world ; wherefore it is his will, that others should 
 succeed the apostles in their office, till that time ar- 
 rives. And indeed, there is, and ever will be the same 
 reason for continuing a succession of clergymen, as 
 there was for the first institution of them. The same 
 ecclesiastical affairs must always be taken care of; 
 the same ordinances must always be administered ; 
 and consequently, there will always be the same ne- 
 cessity for the same sort of officers for the same pur- 
 poses. 
 
 And accordingly we find, that the apostles not only 
 continued the succession themselves, but also directed 
 their successors to commit the things wliich they had 
 
64 
 
 heard from them, to ^'faithful men who should he able 
 to teach othet^Sy'' (2 Tim. ii. 2.) And thus in all parts 
 of the christian church, those who had themselves re- 
 ceived their authority from the apostles, conveyed it to 
 others, and in that manner continued a succession of 
 regularly commissioned clergy. And by these means, 
 from the beginning of Christianity down to our times, 
 the clergy have derived their authority from Almighty 
 God, by the mediation of the apostles and their suc- 
 cessors, who from time to time were authorised ta 
 convey it to them, and to invest them with it*. 
 
 The manner of conveying this authority, was, from 
 the beginning, done by solemn imposition of hands, ac- 
 companied with fasting and prayer* I confess, that 
 imposition of hands was anciently used for other pur- 
 poses also ; but that it was particularly made use of 
 in ordination, no one can doubt. Thus were the first 
 Deacons ordained, and Timothy Bishop of Ephesus 
 is particularly directed to " lay hands suddenly on no 
 man,^^ (1 Tim. iv. 14. v. 22.) From thence it is evi- 
 dent, that ordination by imposition of hands was to 
 continue in the church after the time of the first 
 apostles. Moreover, this rite was always retained in 
 
 * The grand objection against the Succession, (according to Mr 
 Palmer, ProL Dm. Cfl^ecA. p. 32.) is, that the ''scriptures no where 
 mention it as necessary to render ordination vaHd." But even 
 granting that I have alleged no direct proof from scripture, yet is 
 not the necessity of it fairly deducible from scripture ? And \& not 
 every fair inference from scripture the mind of the Spirit ? Do not 
 the scriptures incontrovertibly establish the validity of evidence from 
 ifiference? See some sensible remarks on this subject in A, Carson, 
 a dissenting teacher's, Anstver to Etvings Attempt, &c. Edinb. 1 809, 
 p. 28. and also A Relation of a Conference held by Bishop Stillingfleet 
 and Bishop Bur net J with some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome. J^onA. 
 1676, p. 75, 
 
65 
 
 all parts of the christian church, though ever so far 
 distant from each other ; so that this universal practice 
 demonstrates the apostolic use and institution of it. — 
 See Jus, Div, Min, Evang, p. I70, and Bishop Potter^ 
 p. 125. 
 
 I have now proved the necessity of an outxcard di- 
 vine commission, — and that this cannot at present 
 be procured from any, but those who derive their au- 
 thority in an uninterrupted succession from the first 
 apostles, who received it from Jesus Christ. This suc- 
 cession, as has already been shewn, is continued in the 
 order of Bishops ; consequently the authority or com- 
 mission to undertake the office of the ministry, can 
 only be procured from Bishops. And it clearly ap- 
 pears from scripture, that ordination was the pecu- 
 liar privilege of one of the clergy superior to Presby- 
 ters, whom we now call Bishop. For we find (says 
 Mr Nelson) no commissions granted, no orders con- 
 ferred, no church-officers deputed to the exercise of 
 spiritual powers, — ^but by those who had Episcopal 
 authority, and who were superior to ordinary Pres- 
 byters. Our Saviour, after his resurrection, gave the 
 apostles their commission to be the supreme gover- 
 nors of his visible church ; and being invested with 
 this power, they not only ordained Presbyters and 
 Deacons, but conveyed this authority, not to every 
 Presbyter, but to certain select persons, as Timothy, 
 Titus, &c. And thus the succession has been con- 
 tinued in the persons of Bishops (and not of Presby- 
 ters,) to the present day*. 
 
 * The most absurd notion of ordination, is that which derives the 
 power of ordaining from the people. In matters merely human, I 
 grant, the people may invest one of themselves with civil power, 
 
 £ 
 
66 
 
 Thus therefore it is (says Bishop Beveridge,) that 
 the apostolic office has been handed down from one 
 to another, ever since the apostles' days to our time ; 
 and so it will be to the end of the world, — Christ him- 
 
 as is the case in elective kingdoms ; but it is very different in things 
 which relate immediately to God ; and the reason is, because the 
 business of government depends on the law of nature and nations, 
 — ^but the ordination of pastors is founded on a divine and positive 
 institution. This is a power which Christ received from his Father, 
 and gave it to his apostles. None can claim this power by any law, 
 either of nature or of nations, or in any other manner than as Christ 
 has conveyed it. And since Christ bestowed this power of ordina- 
 tion to none but the apostles, with a command of doing as he had 
 done, it is plain that none can receive this power, but from those 
 that are invested with it themselves. 
 
 To use the words of a late Presbyterian writer : No individual, 
 no society of men can convey to another a power which they do not 
 themselves possess ; but a congregation, a society of laics have not 
 the power, and, according to the doctrine of scripture, cannot war- 
 tantably exercise the duties of the ministerial office. No, this be- 
 longs exclusively to those who have been publicly and solemnly set 
 apart and ordained to the work. How then, can the people invest 
 with a power, an authority which they do not themselves possess ? 
 The idea is absurd. This would be to make the stream rise higher 
 than the fountain from which it springs, fM^Doivel's Presb, Mode of 
 Ordaining f Dub. 1 8 1 2, p. 24.^ This is excellent reasoning, but recoils 
 strongly against its author and his associates. For I desire to know 
 (since authority is absolutely necessary to the formation of a mi- 
 nister, ) whence the present Presbyterian ministers received their 
 authority ? If they have it not by a succession from the first apostles, 
 I desire to know from whence they have procured it ? Not from 
 the people, for this they disclaim. If they will say, they derived it 
 from those ministers who ordained them, I ask then, whence did 
 they receive their authority ? The answer must be, by a succession 
 from those Presbyters who received this authority from our Saviour. 
 But it has been already proved, that the power of ordination was, 
 in the apostles' time, the peculiar privilege of one of the clergy 
 superior to Presbyters, whom we now call Bishop, — and that the 
 
67 
 
 self being continually present at such imposition of 
 hands, thereby transferring the same spirit, which at 
 first he breathed into his apostles, upon others suc- 
 cessively after them, as really as if he was present 
 
 succession has been continued only in the superior order, and not in 
 that of Presbyters, who never received any such authority. 
 
 , But let us examine the texts which are brought to prove that 
 Presbyters then possessed the power of ordination. It is alleged, 
 that Timothy was ordained " h^ the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery i' (1 Tim. iv. 14.) To this I answer, that St Paul, 
 who was certainly superior to Presbyters both in order and power, 
 was pfesent, and laid his hands on Timothy, (2 Tim. i. 6.) Conse- 
 quently this was no Presbyterian ordination, but one performed by 
 a Bishop with the assistance of Presbyters, for the greater solemni- 
 ty of the action; and this is the custom of our church also. More- 
 over it is evident, that the ordination could not have been valid 
 without St Paul's concurrence ; for, in 2 Tim. i. 6. the preposition 
 used is ^ta by the imposition of my hands, — but in 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 it is only /^cera mth the laying of the hands of the Presbytery. And 
 in producing effects, ^la denotes the principal, and /^ira the assist- 
 ant causes. — The imposition of hands, mentioned Acts xiii. 3. which 
 was performed by prophets and teachers, was no ordination, — but 
 a peculiar benediction of two apostles, on entering on a peculiar 
 expedition. See Bishop Potter, p. 287. 
 
 Such are the texts produced to prove that the first Presbyters 
 possessed the power of ordaining ; but in truth they prove the con- 
 trary. Therefore, since the power of ordination did not belong to 
 the first Presbyters, it cannot belong to the (pretended) Presbyters 
 of the present day, — and consequently " they cannot invest a man 
 with a power which they do not themselves possess. The idea is 
 absurd. This would be to make the stream rise higher than the 
 fountain from whence it springs." — On the subject of Episcopal 
 ordination, see Thomas's Answer to J. Owens Plea for Script. Ordi- 
 nation, 1711. Bishop Sages Reasonableness of a Toleration, 1705. 
 Invalidity of the Dissenting Ministry, in answer to Peirce, Owen, and 
 P. King, in two parts, 1717-18. Episcopal the only Apostolical 
 Ordination J in answer to The Case of Ordination, 1713. Hoadlys 
 
 Defence of Episcopal Ordination against Calamy, 1707, 
 
68 
 
 with the apostles themselves, when he first breathed 
 it into them. Insomuch that they who are thus or- 
 dained, are said to be made Bishops by the Holy 
 Ghost himself, as well as the apostles were, (Acts xx. 
 28.) By which means, the holy Catholic Church al- 
 v/ays hath been, and still is truly apostolic, as it is 
 called in the Nicene Creed. And the several parts 
 of the apostolic office are now as effectually perform- 
 ed by their successors and others ordained by them, 
 as they were while the apostles themselves lived. For 
 it w^as not the persons of the apostles, but their office^ 
 influenced and assisted by the Spirit of God, that made 
 the sacraments they administered to be valid, and 
 their preaching so prevalent upon those that heard it. 
 <' Though Paul himself planted, and Apollos wateredy 
 it "was God only that gave the increase,'^ (1 Cor. iii.6.) 
 And so it is to this day. All the efficacy that is or can 
 be in the administration, of any ecclesiastical office, 
 depends altogether upon the Spirit of God going 
 along with the office, and assisting at the execution 
 of it ; without which, the sacraments we administer 
 would be but empty signs, and our preaching no more 
 than beating of the air. Bishop Beveridge's Sermons^ 
 Vol. I. p. 20. 
 
 I have, as I think, proved that there is a divine 
 commission required to qualify any one to exercise 
 the priestly office, and that seeing this commission 
 can only be had from such particular persons as God 
 has appointed to give it, therefore it is necessary there 
 should he a continual succession of such persons, in 
 order to keep up a commissioned order of the clergy. 
 For (says Mr Law,) if the commission itself be to de- 
 scend through ages, and distinguish the clergy from 
 the laity, it is certain the persons who alone can give 
 
69^ 
 
 this commission, must descend through the same 
 ages ; and consequently an uninterrupted succession is 
 as necessary, as that the clergy have a divine commis- 
 sion. Take away this succession, and the clergy may 
 as well be ordained by one person as another ; a num- 
 ber of women may as well give them a divine com- 
 mission as a congregation of any men ; they may in- 
 deed appoint persons to officiate in holy orders, for 
 the sake of decency and order, but then there is no 
 more in it than an external decency and order ; they 
 are no more the Priests of God tlian those that pre- 
 tended to make them so. If we had lost the scrip- 
 tures, it would be very well to make as good books 
 as we could, and come as near them as possible, but 
 then it would be not only folly, but presumption to 
 call them the word of God. 
 
 If it should be asked, ** how it can be believed 
 that the succession has been continued in our own, 
 or any other Episcopal Church ?" I answer in the 
 words of Mr Law, why (to speak in his own terms,) 
 it is morally impossible the succession ever should have 
 been broken in all that term of years, from the apostles 
 to the present time. The reason is this : It has been 
 a received doctrine in every age of the 'church, that 
 no ordination was valid but that of Bishops. This 
 doctrine has been a constant guard upon the Episco- 
 pal succession ; for seeing it w^as universally believed 
 that Bishops alo?ie could ordain, it was morally im- 
 possible that any persons could be received as Bishops 
 who had not been so ordained. Now is it not mo- 
 rally impossible, that in our churcji any one , should 
 be made a Bishop without Episcopal ordination ? Is 
 there any possibility of forging orders, or stealing a 
 Bishopric by any other stratagem ? No, it is morally 
 
70 
 
 impossible, because it is an acknowledged doctrine 
 among us, that a Bishop can only be ordained by 
 Bishojys. Now as this doctrine must necessarily pre- 
 vent any one being a Bishop without Episcopal or- 
 dination in our age, so it must have the same effect 
 in every other age as well as ours ; and consequently 
 it is as reasonable to believe that the succession was 
 not broken in any age since the apostles, as that it was 
 not broken within these 40 years. 
 
 And by perusing * the canons of the Primitive 
 Church, it is obvious to perceive what a regard it 
 had to the preservation of the succession. For in- 
 stance : — In the canons of the ancient councils it is 
 enjoined, that a Bishop should be ordained bi/ three 
 at least, and likewise, that "he should be constituted 
 with the approbation of his metropolitan and com- 
 provincials ;" which practices were certainly a very 
 great security to the right succession ; it being very 
 unlikely that all the Bishops of a province should be 
 so careless as to suffer an irregular consecration, and 
 the persons concerned in it aU void of that character ' 
 which they pretended to bestow. Now, although three 
 Bishops were required at the consecration of a Bishop, 
 yet it must be granted, that only one is essentially ne- 
 cessary. Let us suppose then, that one who was never 
 consecrated himself should take upon him to conse- 
 crate others, that is, to convey an authority which 
 he never received from Christ ; yet since two others 
 would be joined with him, one of whom, if not both, 
 
 * See Three Letters to ( Hoadly ) the Bishop of Bangor, hy W. Laiv, 
 Author of the Serious Call. DodweWs Reply to Baxter, Lond. 1681. 
 Johnsons Clergyman s Vade-Mecum, Part II. pref. p. 84. Clarke's 
 Sermon at the Consecration of Bishops Sharp, Moor, Cumberland, 
 and Fovoler, 1691. Humes Sacred Succession, p. 243. Lond. 1710* 
 
71 
 
 would without all doubt be a lawful Bishop, the or- 
 ders of the persons so ordained must necessarily be 
 valid; and, although the church of this usurper would, 
 during his life, want a lawful Bishop, yet that want 
 would be made up in his successor ; unless we should 
 suppose that possible to be done every day in former 
 times which we now find impossible to be done once^ 
 viz. that such intruders should continually creep in- 
 to the offices of Bishops undiscovered or unnoticed. 
 So that, notwithstanding such single interruptions in 
 the succession, it is still uninterrupted, and sufficient 
 to convey to us our orders mediately from Christ, the 
 fountain of all church power. 
 
 But it is objected, that the succession of Bishops 
 in the western churches must have failed, because de- 
 rived thraugh the idolatrous Church of Rome, "which 
 therefore has no authority to convey sacerdotal cha- 
 racters and offices in Christ's Church : the characters 
 and offices therefore which she pretends to convey, 
 are spurious, and of no validity or efficacy therein.'* 
 — Towgood's Letters, 
 
 To this we answer *, that the corruptions which 
 for so long a period so unhappily prevailed in the 
 western nations did not, and could not effect the va-' 
 lidity of the apostolic commission, or put an end to 
 the ministerial power, which it was designed to con- 
 vey. The Church of Rome, with all her errors and 
 abuses, did not cease to be a church, any more than 
 a man whose soul is corrupted by vice, and his body 
 with diseases, ceases to be a man, while his soul and 
 body continue united. The Jewish Church, though 
 frequently infected with idolatry and oveiTun with 
 
 * Dr Breifs Divine Right of Episcopaci/^i^. 80. 
 
7^ 
 
 corruptions, never ceased to be a church so long as 
 that economy continued; and though God frequently 
 raised up prophets to threaten them for their idolatry 
 and their sins, yet he never raised a new priesthood, 
 nor authorised any but the sons of Aaron to appear in 
 his holy place, and oifer the sacrifices prescribed by 
 the law. Their idolatry and corruptions did not divest 
 them of the priesthood nor make any breach in the 
 succession of it, but only made their sacrifices unac- 
 ceptable, till those corruptions were reformed and cut 
 off. In like manner the Church of Rome, though 
 overrun with idolatry and corruptions, yet retaining 
 the holy scriptures, the belief of certain essential ar- 
 ticles of faith, &c. together with a regular succession 
 of Bishops, cannot cease to be a church, nor its Bishops 
 cease to be Bishops, and as capable of conveying that 
 character to others after them, (as the idolatrous Jew- 
 ish priests could and did convey it to their success- 
 ors,) although it would be unlawful to communicate 
 with them tilltheyhad forsaken their idolatry; besides, 
 the word Reformation (which all Protestants have ap- 
 plied to their own communion,) obliges us to acknow- 
 ledge the Church of Rome to be, in a certain sense, 
 a church : for that is what we say we have reformed. 
 And could we reform that which is not ? We did not 
 pretend to erect a new church, but to reform and cor- 
 rect the old one, which we found to have been over- 
 spread with notorious errors and abuses ; these we 
 justly cast off, but we pretend to cast oif no more. — 
 And therefore, as the succession of Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons was no corruption, but an institution of 
 Christ and his apostles, we judged it as necessary to 
 preserve that succession as any thing else. It is true 
 abuses had crept into the manner of conierxing these 
 
70 
 O 
 
 orders, yet since the essential parts remained in their 
 form of ordination, we only lopped off the superfluous 
 adjuncts, not thinking ourselves any more obliged to 
 reject the orders themselves for the sake of the cor- 
 ruptions, than to reject the word and sacraments be- 
 cause they had corrupted them also *. 
 
 From what has been said, I think it will appear 
 evident to the unprejudiced reader, thatthe power of 
 ordination belongs only to Bishops, and consequently 
 
 * The principles maintained in this paragraph, passed for sound 
 and current doctrine among the Presbyterians in the 17th century. 
 They zealously asserted " that the ministry which is an institution 
 of Christ, passing to us through RomCi is not made null and void, 
 no more than the scriptures, sacraments, or any other gospel ordi- 
 nance which we now enjoy, and which also descend to us from the 
 apostles, through the Romish Church." This doctrine they affirm 
 to be ^' a great truth, necessary to 1>3 known in these days," and 
 direct that it should *< be fully made out to their respective con- 
 gregations," Jus, Div. Min. Evaiig. Lond. 1654, Part II. p. 433. 
 They likewise prove the necessity of a succession from the apostles ; 
 and say that ^' their ministry is derived to them from Christ and his 
 apostles, by succession of a ministry, continued in the church for 
 1600 years." If this principle be given up, they confess that they 
 *' must be forced to renounce their ministry, and take it up again 
 from the people, who have neither commandment nor example 
 in all the New Testament to authorise them to ordain them," ib. 
 p. 45. 31. Some of the Methodists have hkewise concurred in the 
 opinion of the necessity of deriving their orders from an uninter- 
 rupted succession ; but this succession they confess is peculiar to 
 Bishops alone. " It would not be right, (says John Wesley) for 
 us to administer either baptism or the Lord's supper, unless we 
 had a commission so to do from those Bishops, whom we apprehend 
 to be in succession from the apostles." Journal fron\ 1743 to 46, 
 p. 348. Their preachers seize all opportunities of procuring Epis- 
 copal ordination. See Jones Life of Bishop Home, p. 157. Life 
 of S. Stanfoiih, who, with three other Methodist preachers, wae 
 ordained by a Greek Bishop, p. 37. Dub. 1802. 
 
74 ' 
 
 that no man can lawfully undertake the ministerial 
 office, or preach and administer the sacraments *with 
 (my effect, without an Episcopal commission. As for 
 baptism and the Lord's supper in particular, they are 
 Inot only religious actions, but seals and conveyances 
 of grace. They have their blessed effects, not through 
 the inherent virtue and tendency of their own nature, 
 but by positive institution only : and God is not bound 
 to communicate his heavenly influence by them, other- 
 |wise than as they are performed by his authority, and 
 are thereby his own immediate acts. What impiety 
 then must not that man be guilty of, who affixes God's 
 seals without a commission so to do ? — And as for 
 preaching in church assemblies, it is acting in God's 
 name and taking the character of his ambassador. Thus 
 the apostles and seventy were sent forth to preach, and 
 were thereby made God's messengers during our 
 ' [Lord's abode on earth ; and our Saviour vested the 
 iapostles, and in them their successors, with a commis- 
 sion to teach all nations ; so that the preachers of the 
 gospel act " in Christ's stead,'' and as his «' amhassa^ 
 dors," (2 Cor. v. 19. SO.) to whom he has peculiarly 
 committed the ministry and word of reconciliation, 
 and not to all christians in general, (ver. 18.) and 
 therefore they are distinguished from lay christian^ 
 as being '' stewards of God's mysteries," (\ Cor. iv. 1.) 
 I appealthen(saysDr Bennet)to any considering man, 
 how great a sin it must necessarily be for any person 
 that is not sent by God, to take upon himself the of- 
 fice of his messenger and ambassador, — to act as a 
 steward of his spiritual blessings, — and to arrogate the 
 dispensation of that which was never committed to 
 him. How dreadful must the account of those lay 
 preachers be, who come into church assemblies with 
 
75 
 
 a lie in their mouths, pretending to an office which 
 was never conferred on them, and thereby affront that 
 great God whose authority they despise by acting 
 without it, and whose household they disturb by vio- 
 lence and intrusion into its most sacred employments *. 
 
 It has been lately enquired, "what particular c/enca/ 
 gift is conveyed to a Presbyter by the laying on of the 
 hands of a Bishop, which the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytery cannot convey ? Is the Episcopal 
 gift different from the other in kind ? Or is it only 
 superior in degree ? Does it take possession of a man's 
 head, and guide him without the labour of much study, 
 to all necessary truth, and inspire a divine eloquence 
 in preaching Christ crucified ? Does the person or- 
 dained by a Bishop, find himself endowed with more 
 of the graces of the Spirit, or with greater talents for 
 communicating knowledge, than the same person 
 would do if he were ordained by a Presbytery ?" &c. 
 Mitchell's Presbyterian Letters, 1809, p. 17- 
 
 To this we answer explicitly t, that it appears from 
 the scriptures and the writings of the earliest Fatliers 
 that those only who are now called Bishops, derive 
 authority from the apostles to '^open and shut the kiiig^ 
 
 * I grant that the laity may lawfully recommend Christianity to 
 their brethren, in ordinary conversation ; but they must not preach 
 authoritatively, because they have not God's commission. This is 
 absolutely appropriated to the clergy ; and so is offering to God 
 the prayers of the church, which has always been reckoned one 
 
 chief duty of the priestly office, (Acts vi. 4. xiii. 3 James v. 14. 
 
 — Rev. v. 8. ) See Bishop Potter, p. 229. Bennetts Rights, p. 239. 
 312. Burscoughon Schism, p. 144. Brett's Div. Right ofEpisc.Tp, 
 56, to 99. 
 
 t Review of MitchelVs Presh, Letters. — British Critic, Jan. 1810. 
 See also Revieiv of CooJcs Hist, of the Reformation in Scotland. — 
 Brit. Crit. May 1812, p. 474'. 
 
76 
 
 dom of heaven,'*^ or, in other words, to admit men into 
 the church, of which Christ is the head ; and when 
 such men '' "walk urvucorthy of the vocation therewith 
 they are called^' to cast them again out of that sacred 
 society. We say explicitly, that the particular clerical 
 gift conveyed to a Presbyter by the laying on of the 
 hands of a Bishop, is authority to that Presbyter to 
 open and shut the kingdom of heaven, or the church, 
 in subordination to the Bishop under whom he mi- 
 nisters. We say explicitly, that though there may be 
 Presbyters, who, without receiving this particidar gift, 
 by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop, pretend 
 to open the kingdom of heaven, or the church, we find 
 no evidence in the New Testament, or in primitive 
 antiquity, that such Presbyters have any authority to 
 do so, or that their ministrations can be of any effi- 
 cacy. And we have no hesitation to say, that with 
 respect to ordination, the Episcopal gift is as different 
 in Iii?id from the other, as the judgment of a court 
 is different from the opinion of a lawyer at the bar. 
 But while the church says all this, she is far from 
 wishing to limit God's mercies ; or, as you and your 
 associates falsely accuse her, far from dealing dam- 
 nation round the land, on those who consider the au- 
 thority of the clergy, and of course, the efficacy of 
 their ministrations as of no importance. She thinks 
 them herself of the highest importance. She thinks 
 that every man, who has leisure and ability to inquire 
 into the original constitution of the church and the 
 authority of her ministers, is bound to do so without 
 suffering himself to be biassed by interest or prejudice, 
 or the rude railings of a polemical latitudinarian. She 
 even presumes to say, that ignorance of such things 
 can never be innocent, but when it is invincible; and 
 
77 
 
 that he who wilfully misleads the ignorant, incurs a 
 sin of the deepest dye. But while she thus bears her 
 testimony to what she believes to be the truth, she 
 leaves those who differ from herself to stand or fall, 
 each to his own master. 
 
 The other questions in this extract about kno'wledge^ 
 and eloquence^ and graces, and talents, are nothing to 
 the purpose ; for so far as man is capable of judging 
 o^ graces, we may venture to say, that as great a de- 
 gree o^ grace, and knoxioledge, Sindtalents, and eloquence, 
 may be occasionally found in an honest Quaker as in 
 a high Churchman. The Quaker was never baptised. 
 Shall baptism therefore be banished from the church, 
 because it does not always produce a manifest superi- 
 ority in such as have by it been admitted into Christ's 
 fold, over those who reject that sacrament entirely ? 
 For communicating knowledge, the talents of Socra- 
 tes probably surpassed the talents of any man at this 
 day in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- 
 land, — ^but Socrates was no christian. Is Christianity 
 therefore preferable to heathenism ? 
 
 But it is objected (and a popular objection it is,) that 
 by maintaining the divine right of Episcopacy, w^e must 
 consider Presbyterians and others who reject it, as en- 
 tirely destitute of a lawful ministry, and consequently 
 deprived of the sacraments, and cut off from Christ's 
 Catholic Church. And is not it very uncharitable 
 to think so ? — This is a very strange way of reason- 
 ing, as the learned Bishop Sage remarks. It is to 
 make practice the standard o^ principle, and not prin- 
 ciple the standard o^ practice. It is to bring the rule 
 to the example, not the example toHhe rule. What ! 
 must we throw up a solid priTwiple, because such or 
 such a church's constitution is not consistent with it ? 
 
78 
 
 Must we disown a rule founded on so much reason, 
 and so universally received by theCatholic Church for 
 so many ages, because the owning of it seems to strike 
 hard against the practice of some particular modern 
 churches? It may with as good reason be said, that we 
 ought not to insist decidedly on any doctrine what- 
 ever ; for there is no doctrine of the church which 
 will not meet with parties to whom it is obnoxious. 
 For my part (says Dr Brett,) I cannot but think it 
 the duty of every honest clergyman, to insist on such 
 doctrines as we have received from Christ and his 
 apostles, whomsoever the consequences may reflect 
 upon. I can never think it charitable to sooth men 
 in their mistakes, and give them cause to think I be- 
 lieve them right, when I know them to be in error. 
 I am willing to believe as well of Presbyterians abroad 
 and at home, as any man, — neither will I condemn 
 them ; they must stand or fall to him that is the 
 master of us all. But as I think them to be in a 
 dangerous error, I think it my duty to let them know 
 it. I hope and pray that God will have mercy on 
 all of them who offend in this or any other point, 
 through ignorance, prejudice, or an unhappy educa- 
 tion, and not of malicious wickedness. But I conceive 
 the nature of christian charity obliges us upon catholic 
 principles, to write them up to our church, — and not 
 as the manner of some has been, to write our church 
 down to them *. 
 
 And after all, can it be thought reasonable, or in- 
 deed lawful, for us to lay aside this primitive order 
 
 * See Dr Hiches excellent remarks on this head, — Two Trea- 
 tisesy pref. p. 192, Lond. 1707, — and Br MarshalVs Visitation Ser- 
 mon, entitled A regular Succession of the Christian Ministry asserted, 
 p. 21, Lond. 1719. We may as well (as Mr Reeves observes,) re- 
 
79 
 
 of Bishops ? Or so far to comply with Presbyterians 
 and others who reject Episcopacy, as to allow thieii 
 ordinations to be valid ? This would be to act con4 
 trary to a plain divine institution, and the constant 
 practice of the w^hole Catholic Church in all ages and 
 in all places, from the first estabhshment of Christian- 
 ity to the time of there formation ? Our adversaries 
 (as our countryman Mr Skelton justly observes,) ne- 
 ver considered whether it was in the power of man 
 to abohsh, at his discretion, an order of the church, 
 instituted by God himself ;— and what was equally 
 bold, to begin a new ministry with hardly any other 
 mission than such as a number of men, and sometimes 
 one man only, wholly unauthorised, should assume., 
 From men thus sending themselves, or sent by we 
 know not whom, we are to receive the sacraments. 
 And, what is marvellous beyond all conception, this 
 new species of ordination, though apparently of hu- 
 man institution, is now become too sacred to be in- 
 terrupted, while that which seems at least to be of 
 Christ, is laid aside. But why, in the name of won- 
 der, may we not as well have a new mission every day ? 
 Hath the church, or rather the multitude, lost its fa- 
 culty, so proHfic 200 years ago, in the unequivocal ge- 
 neration of missions? We must not forget, however, 
 that these new orders lay claim to scriptural institu- 
 tion and primitive example. What, all of them, and 
 without succession? Do we hear of any man in scrip- 
 ture who ordained himself, or who presumed to take 
 
 form ourselves out of the inferior orders of Presbyter and Deacon 
 as that of Bishop. And that if any one of these apostoUc institu- 
 tions might be nulled by human authority, so might the rest,~and 
 so we might have a new form of church government every moon, 
 or, if that seem best, none at all. Pref, to The Apologiesy p. 32. 
 
80 
 
 the ministry of God's word aifd sacraments upon Itim, 
 without being sent either immediately ovsuccessivelij,hy 
 Christ ? Or can an instance of this nature be assigned 
 during the first fourteen centuries of the church ? Or 
 will even those Protestants, who adopted a new mission 
 at the reformation, now suffer any one to administer the 
 sacraments among them, without ordination, obtained 
 in succession from that adoption? Do they not by this 
 strictness practically confess, at least, the expediency 
 of such a succession ? But if a succession of this na- 
 ture may be warrantably founded on their invention, 
 "why not on Christ's institlition *? 
 
 Indeed many poor well-meaning Presbyterians are 
 possessed with a false notion, that " Episcopacy is a 
 jelic of Popery," as they are pleased to term it.— 
 This indeed is so far from being true, that I look on 
 Episcopal government as the best way to keep out 
 Popery, or any other error ; for Episcopacy, as esta- 
 
 * SJceltons Sermons, published by Clapham, Lond. 1808, p. 215. 
 All other churches have considered Ordination as of the greatest 
 ijiiportance. The Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Arme- 
 1 lian Church, and even that pure Church of Syrian Christians dis- 
 (lovered by Dr Buchanan in Malabar and Travancore, which never 
 heard of the claims of the Pope, until the Portuguese came for a 
 tmrse among them in the sixteenth century ; all these consider Ordi- 
 nation by imposition of hands as essential to the constitution of a 
 Church of Christ. Of such importance is this rite esteemed by the 
 l^lyrian Christians, that their Bishop would not listen to the propo- 
 s;al of an union with the English clergy, until he was convinced that 
 t lieir orders are derived by Episcopal succession from the apostles. 
 British Critic, May 1812, p. 475. Buchanan s Christian Researches 
 
 in Asia, p. 120 And upon this principle, when, about 30 years 
 
 s.i|^, Reformed Episcopacy was about to be settled in the Inde- 
 pendent States of America, the persons who were elected by the 
 . clergy to be the first Bishops, previously came from America to 
 receive consecration from the hands of British Bishops. 
 
 2 
 
81 
 
 blished in its just rights, utterly overthrows the papal 
 pretences. And one thing proposed as a ground 
 of our reformation, was, the retrieving the original 
 rights of Bishops, which the Bishop of Rome had 
 injuriously invaded, whilst he challenged the whole 
 power of governing the Catholic Church, and making 
 the Bishops only his curates. In order to diminish 
 the powers of the Bishops, he used many methods, 
 such as exempting the monasteries from their juris- 
 diction, and making them wholly dependent on him- 
 self, that the monks might be tools to secure his au- 
 thority over the Bishops, in which service the order 
 of Jesuits was chiefly instrumental ; and for this pur- 
 pose too, the schoolmen were set to work, to level 
 Bishops as near as possible with Presbyters, by their 
 subtle and nice distinctions. And it is certain, that 
 in the council of Trent, the Italians made great efforts 
 to have it decreed, that Bishops as distinct from Pres- 
 byters were not jure divhio ; and Lainez the Jesuit 
 made a long harangue of above two hours to that pur- 
 pose *. These men were sensible, that the asserting 
 the true original power of Bishops, would evince the 
 unreasonableness of the Bishop of Rome's encroach- 
 ments on their just rights, and shew how justly they 
 acted, who endeavoured to retrench his exorbitances. 
 — As for the objection of a " Popedom being unavoid- 
 able from the Episcopal constitution of church go- 
 vernment," it is contrary to matter of fact, and stands 
 now confuted by the consentient testimony and prac- 
 tice not only of the Episcopal churches of England, 
 
 * It is a mere contradiction (said he, ) to say the Pope is head of the 
 church, and the government monarchical, — and then maintain, that 
 thereisapower or jurisdiction in the church not derivedfrom him, but 
 receivedfrom others. HisL Cone. Trid, hb. 7. BramhaWs Works, p. 6 1 9. 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 Scotland, Ireland, North America, Sweden, &c.*&c. 
 but also of the Greek and Oriental churches. 
 
 I fear that if the church should ever lose this pri- 
 mitive government of Bishops, it would lose^ its pri- 
 mitive doctrine, and change Christianity for Socinian- 
 ism, which has at this time infected many of the 
 church's enemies, who labour to overturn Episcopa- 
 cy, that they may more easily spread their false doc- 
 trines. For it is observable (says our learned Dr 
 Maurice,) that in these last ages there have been no 
 heretics, who have not been likewise Anti-Episcopal, 
 and at the same time that they have become enemies 
 to the truth, they declare war against the Bishops 
 w^ho are the guardians of it. And there were more 
 heresies started up in England in the space of four 
 years after Bishops had been laid aside, than there 
 have been known in the universal church since the 
 foundation of it to that time. This is acknowledged 
 by Mr Edwards, a Presbyterian divine, who (in his 
 Gangroenay dedicated to the Parliament in 1646,) says, 
 " In these four last years we have surpassed the deeds 
 of the Prelates, and justified the Bishops, in whose time 
 never so many nor so great errors were heard of, much 
 less such blasphemies and confusions ; we have w orse 
 things among us than ever were in all the Bishop's days, 
 more corrupt doctrines and unheard-of practices than 
 in eighty years before. The Bishops and their chap- 
 lains (who were accounted time-servers,) opposed the 
 errors of the times, but the Presbyters suffered all kinds 
 of errors and schisms to come in, when they were in 
 place ; certainly the Bishops and chaplains shall rise up 
 in judgment against the ministry of this generation." 
 
 I might here produce the words of many eminent 
 men among the foreign Protestants wanting Bishops, 
 
8S 
 
 acknowledging that the government of the church 
 was Episcopal in the next age after the apostles, — 
 particularly the famous M. Le Clerc, whose words 
 (in his book De eligenda inter dissentientes christianos 
 sententia^ subjoined to his edition o^ GrotiusdeVeritate, 
 &c.) are these : They who mthout prejudice read what 
 remains of the most ancient christian writers, know 
 well enough, that the Episcopal form of chuixh go- 
 vernment, such as it is in the southern parts of Great 
 Britain, obtained everywhere in the next age after 
 the apostles ; whence we may collect that \i is of 
 apostolic institution. — M.LeMoyne, preacher to the 
 reformed congregation at Roan, confesses that "truly 
 I believe it is impossible to keep peace or order in 
 your church, withoutpreservingthe Episcopal dignity. 
 I confess I know not by what spirit they are led, that 
 oppose that government, and cry it down with such 
 violence. For I beseech you, let us not flatter our- 
 selves in France, where we have a Presbyterian go- 
 vernment, that we are not subject to many divisions, 
 which the equality of pastors is not able to compose ; 
 and which a synod consisting of equal persons, and 
 of Elders and Deacons, who often have but little skill 
 in ecclesiastical government, is not able to stop ; be- 
 cause the authors of the evil hold themselves to be «f 
 equal power with those that are of prime note, and de- 
 spise them that are ordinarily employed to heal those 
 distempers. It is Episcopacy which upholds the Luthe- 
 ran churches ; for in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, 
 they are very quiet under the Episcopal discipline, and 
 seldom are seen to slander and tear each other *." 
 
 * DureWs Government of Reformed Churches abroad, p. 126. I 
 have, in this edition, omitted Calvin's and Beza's testimonies for 
 Episcopacy. See The Lidep, Pov:cr of the Church, Lond. 1716, p. 35.- 
 
84 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that when the Presbyterian 
 Assembly at Westminster, under the influence of the 
 Scotch Covenanters, appUed to the learned Blondel 
 to bring forward what could be said in favour of the 
 Presbyterian form, with the view of giving counte- 
 nance to the plan in agitation for overturning Epis- 
 copacy in England, he concluded his Apologia pro 
 sententia Hieronymi with these words : "By all that 
 we have said to assert the rights of Presbytery, we 
 do not intend to invalidate the ancient and apostolic 
 constitution of Episcopal pre-eminence ; but we be- 
 lieve, that wheresoever it is established conformably 
 to the ancient canons, it must be carefully preserved ; 
 and wheresoever, by some heat of contention or other- 
 wise, it has been put down or violated, it ought to be 
 reverently restored." This conclusion not being suited 
 to the object the assembly held in view, was, in conse- 
 quence of very pressing remonstrances against it, kept 
 back, — though injustice to truth it ought to stand on 
 record, as it here does. See Durell, utstcpra,ip. 339 *. 
 
 Upon the whole. Episcopal government is neces- 
 sary, not only because it is the form instituted by our 
 Saviour and his apostles, — but because, without an 
 Episcopal commission, the word cannot be preached, 
 
 * Almost every book or pamphlet published against Episcopacy, 
 within the last hundred years, contains that unfounded assertion, 
 that Bishops, in the opinion of our Reformers, were merely of hu' 
 man institution. For a refutation of this falsehood, see Drurys 
 First and Second Anstvers to Boyse. Hume's Sacred Succession, p. 285. 
 Bishop Stillingflcet is also asserted to have maintained such opinions 
 in his Irenicum. But this great man lived to retract that produc- 
 tion, (see Pref. to his Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 81.) and 
 " I hope it will be a good example to some others." See Drurys 
 Second Ansvier, p. 87. 
 
85 
 
 nor the sacraments administered with any effect or ^va- 
 lidity ; and therefore those divines in oiu; Episcopal 
 churches, who speak of Episcopacy as a matter of 
 mere expediency, and that church government may 
 be accommodated to the exigencies of the state, differ 
 as widely from the holy scriptures, as from the articles 
 they have subscribed. We do not (says the cele- 
 brated WilHam Law,) say, that Episcopacy cannot be 
 changed, merely because we have apostolic practice 
 for it, — ^but because such is the nature of the chris- 
 tian priesthood, that it can only be continued in that 
 method, which God has appointed for its continu- 
 ance. Episcopacy is the only instituted method of 
 continuing the priesthood ; therefore Episcopacy is 
 unchangeable. The apostolic practice, indeed, shew5 
 that Episcopacy is the order that is appointed ; but 
 it is the nature of the priesthood that assures us that 
 it is unalterable. So that the question is not fairly 
 stated when it is asked whether Episcopacy, being an 
 apostolic practice, may be laid aside ? But it should 
 be asked, whether an instituted particular method of 
 continuing the priesthood be not necessary to be con- 
 tinued ? Whether an appointed order of receiving a 
 commission from God, be not necessary to be observed 
 in order to receive a commission from him ? If the 
 case were thus stated, as it ought to be fairly stated, 
 any one would soon perceive, that we can no more 
 lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the christian 
 priesthood, than we can alter the terms of salvation, 
 and yet be in covenant with God. 
 
86 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 OF THE NECESSITY OF CHURCH COMMUNION, AND THE : 
 SIN OF SCHISM. 
 
 Having now explained the nature of the Visible Ca- 
 tholic Church, I proceed next to inquire into the ne- 
 cessity of Church Communion and the Sin of Schism, 
 by which I mean the necessity of entering into, and 
 continuing stedfastly in the external communion or 
 society of the church, and the sin of separating, or be- 
 ing in a state of separation from it *. 
 
 Some men, (as Archbishop Potter observes,) have 
 conceived the christian church to resemble a society 
 of philosophers, where many useful and excellent truths 
 are taught, — ^but no man is obliged to come into it, or 
 to continue in it ; and if any man has learned the 
 truths which are there delivered by any other means, 
 it is all the same as if he had lived in the society. In 
 their opinion, there lies no farther obligation on any 
 man to be a member of the christian church, than 
 as this is a means to the knowledge of the christian 
 religion : which being once obtained, they think men 
 may be saved by keeping God's commandments, with- 
 out associating themselves with anybody of christians. 
 
 For the confutation of these notions, I assert that 
 
 * See Potter on Church Gov, p. 12. Burscough on Schism, Loncl. 
 1699. Sherlock's Def. of Still. ^.138. and Viiid. of do. \). 89. Sher- 
 locVs Discourse of Religious Assemblies, p. 132 4th edit. 1726. Ne- 
 cessity of Church Communiou, against N. Taylor^ 1702v Bennet's 
 Rights of the Clergy, 1711. 
 
87 
 
 it is necessary for every person, to whom the gospel is 
 preached, to become a member of the one, holy, per- 
 petual. Catholic Church of Christ. I say, it is necessary 
 for every person to whom the gospel is preached, be- 
 cause I do not, by any means, presume to determine 
 any thing concerning the final condition of those who 
 never heard of the gospel, and wanted an opportuni- 
 ty of embracing it. The ignorance of such persons 
 is involuntary and invincible ; and their not associat- 
 ing themselves with Christ's disciples, is an instance, 
 not of obstinacy and disobedience to God's cajl, but of 
 incurable Uindtiess and moral incapacity. And there- 
 fore we charitably hope well of their final condition, 
 considering that they are in the hands of a compas- 
 sionate God, who will not suffer his creatures to perish 
 eternally, otherwise than by their own fault. 
 
 But as for those who have enjoyed means of convic- 
 tion, it is undoubtedly necessary for them to be so ef- 
 fectually wrought upon by it, as to become members 
 of Christ's Church. For God's promulgation of the 
 gospel to them, is a divine command to embrace it ; 
 and our Saviour's authority in founding the church, 
 obliges them to enter within its pale. And if they 
 act otherwise, they forfeit the blessings which are pro- 
 mised to Christ's disciples ; they lie subject to that 
 wrath from which the blessed Jesus came to set them 
 free, and provoke God to pour on them judgment 
 without mercy, by adding all possible aggravations to 
 their guilt. So that, if it be a matter of consequence, 
 to obtain the greatest happiness, and escape the 
 greatest misery, it is necessary for them to become 
 Christ's disciples, or members of his church. 
 
 It is in vain to pretend, that they may repent and 
 amend their lives, and consequently escape that into- 
 
88 
 
 lerable vengeance, although they are not united to 
 the church* For it is impossible for them to amend 
 without the assistance of God's Grace, and his grace 
 is ordinarily promised to none, but those who are mem- 
 bers of " his body the church,'' (Col. i. 24.) This I 
 shall attempt to prove by shewing, that the Visible 
 Church is a Society of God's appointment, — that we 
 cannot otherwise become members of Christ, than as 
 we are members of his church, — andfrom the heinous- 
 ness of the Sin of Schism. 
 
 The Church is a Visible Society of God's appoint- 
 ment. — Although this has been sufficiently proved in 
 the preceding chapters, 3^et there are some objections 
 to be taken notice of. For some having observed, that 
 the kingdom or church oi Christ is plainly distinct from 
 all worldly kingdoms ; that the graces, whereby our 
 inward communion with Christ is maintained, are 
 invisible ; and that some who live in the church's ejc-* 
 ternal communion, have no title to the chief privi- 
 leges of the church, by reason of their wicked lives, 
 have hence concluded, that the true church consists 
 only of such men, as have a title to God's favour by 
 their faith and other christian virtues, the sincerity 
 whereof is invisible to the world ; and that whoever 
 is adorned with these inward qualifications, does by 
 them maintain a strict communion with Christ, and 
 enjoy all the privileges of the christian church, though 
 he has never associated himself with any visible body 
 of christians *. 
 
 * This distinction between the visible and invisible state of the 
 church, is very important. Many are really members of tlie visible 
 church, who are not members of the invisible, — that is, many are 
 professed ouitjoard members of the church, although not regenerated 
 and united to Christ, and continue members of it, till cast out by ex- 
 
89 
 
 It is true, that to live in the external communion 
 of the church, though it confer a right to all its out- 
 ward ordinances, yet, unless it be accompanied with 
 faith and obedience, does neither entitle us to any of 
 the imvard blessings, which are conferred on the wor- 
 thy receivers of those ordinances here, nor to eter- 
 nal life hereafter. Neither shall we deny, that it is 
 possible for men to be excludedfrom the external com- 
 munion of the church, and at the same time maintain 
 an uninterrupted invisible communion with Christ ; 
 which is the case of all those who are unjustly ex- 
 communicated. Yet still we affirm that the Catholic 
 Church, whereof every one is obliged to be a member, 
 is an External and Visible Society of God's appointment; 
 for it is constantly mentioned as such in the scriptures. 
 Thus, " Tell it to the church " ^'ifhe neglect to hear 
 the church,^' (Matt, xviii. I7.) Paul and Barnabas 
 are said to be " brought by the church, and received by 
 it at Jerusalem,''' (Acts xv. 3. 4.) The Presbyters at 
 Ephesus are commanded to ^^feed the church ofGod^ 
 over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers,'^ 
 (Acts XX. 28.) And God ^^ added to the church daily ^ 
 such as should be saved,'* Since then the church is 
 an External Society of God's appointment, it follows 
 that all men are obliged to become members of it : 
 for he who does nothing in vain, would not have in- 
 stituted a society, into which he did not intend that 
 men .should enter. And therefore whoever neglects 
 to be made a member of the church, contributes to 
 frustrate the design of God, by whom it was founded. 
 
 communication. Our adversaries themselves allow, "that men who 
 have no religion, provided they have the apjoearance of it^ are to be ad- 
 mitted to the sacred ordinances." See this point argued in Aliens Ca- 
 tholicism, 1683; also Lamb's Fresh Suit against Independency, 1677. 
 
90 
 
 Moreover, the church is a body of that nature as 
 consists of a variety of different offices and officers, 
 which are of no manner of use without actual and vi- 
 sible communion of all its members. For, to what 
 purpose has he instituted a standing ministry to offer 
 up the prayers of the faithful to God, to instruct, ex- 
 hort, reprove, and administer the sacraments, if pri- 
 vate christians are not bound to maiiitain communion 
 with them in all religious offices? Moreover, the chris- 
 tian people are expressly charged, ^^ not to forsake the 
 assembling of themselves together,^' but ^'with one heart 
 and with one mouth to glorify God," " to come together, 
 mth one accord in prayer and praise,''^ and at the same 
 time, " to obey them that have rule over them, and to 
 submit themselves, for they watch for their souls," (Heb. 
 xiii. 17.) 
 
 I observe further, that the union of particular chris- 
 tians to Christ, is by means of their union to the christian 
 church. The church is " the body of Christ," and every 
 christian, by being united to this body, becomes a 
 member of Christ, as the apostle tells the Corinthians, 
 (1 Cor. xii. 27-) ^^ Now ye are the body of Christ and 
 onembers in particular ;" an allusion which at the same 
 time implies, that all the members must be united to 
 the body, through which life and aliment are supplied ; 
 and all must likewise be united one to another, that 
 the several functions of the body may be properly dis- 
 charged. The church is the '' temple of God," ''built 
 upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ being the chief corner stone," and every christian 
 is a lively stone in this spiritual building. The church 
 is Christ's ''fock," and every christian who is of this 
 fold, is one of Christ's ''sheep" The church is Christ's 
 <* spouse," and every christian is a member of that so- 
 
91 
 
 ciety which Christ acknowledges as his spouse. Thus 
 also, Christ is called the *' rme," of which he is the 
 root, and christians the " bramhes,'' (John xv.) A 
 secret and private faith in Christ therefore, is not or- 
 dinarily sufficient to make any man a christian ; but 
 faith in the heart, and the confession of the mouth are 
 both necessary, (Rom. x. 9- 10.) Christ himself hath 
 appointed the public sacrament of our initiation, and 
 our church teacheth her children, that in their bap- 
 tism (which is their solemn admission into the chris- 
 tian church,) "they are made members of Christ, the 
 children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of 
 heaven.^' 
 
 This is farther confirmed by the institution of the 
 sacraments, which our Saviour has instituted as sym- 
 bols of our union with him. Thus Baptism (at which 
 we make a public profession of our faith in Christ,) 
 is the sacrament of our admission into the christian 
 church, ^^for hy one Spirit, we ar^ all baptised into one 
 body ;" and more expressly, (Eph. iv. 4.5.) " there is 
 07ie body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope 
 of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism;^' — 
 that is, the christian baptism is but one, and is a sa- 
 crament of union, making us all the members of that 
 one body of Christ; and this is called being " baptised 
 into Christ,'' i. e, admitted into the christian church 
 by a public profession of faith in Christ. In like* man- 
 ner, ^le Eucharist k a sacrament of unio7i, and signi- 
 fies that close conjunction between Christ and his 
 church, and the mutual fellowship of one christian 
 with another. Hence the apostle calls " the cup of 
 blessing, the communion of the blood of Christ,'' and " tJie 
 bread, the communion of the body of Christ; for nice being 
 
952 
 
 mcnuf', are one bread * and one body, (one body repre- 
 sented by this one bread, )^r XL-e are all partakers of 
 that ojie breadj"^ (1 Cor. x. 16. I7.) For the intention 
 of our Lord and Saviour in what he did and suffered 
 for us, was not merely to reform and save some single 
 persons, but to erect a church and combine all his dis- 
 ciples into a public society, to unite them by holy mys- 
 teries, and engage them to a mutual discharge of all 
 christian offices, whereby *' the 'whole body might edify 
 itself in love;^' and therefore, our Saviour does not or- 
 dinarily own any relation to particular men as such, 
 but as they are members of his body, ^^for he is the 
 Saviour of the body, and redeemed his church with his 
 oum blood,*' (Eph. v. Q5, — John x. 11. xi. 2o. — 1 John 
 ii. 1.) It will not suffice, therefore, that we make 
 Christ our own, by a fanciful application of liis merits 
 to ourselves, which would quickly overturn the church, 
 and render useless the institutions of our Saviour, as 
 we find this conceit has in a great measure done al- 
 ready ; but we must receive Christ and all his blessings 
 as he is pleased to bestow them. — But then we must 
 observe farther, that although Christ is our Lord and 
 governor, yet he does not govern us immediately by 
 himself, but has left the visible and external govern- 
 ment of his church to Bishops and Pastors who pre- 
 
 * By these words, There is one bread, " the apostle (according 
 to Calvin, in locum,) admonishes the Corinthians that it is their du- 
 ty to maintain that unity they have in Christ, by an external pro- 
 Jcsdon (/. e. by an external and visible communion, ) for so he adds : 
 " That they must all meet together to celebrate that feast, which 
 is a symbol of that sacred imity." See also the opinion of the Fa- 
 thers on this subject, in Sherlock's Def. of StilL p. 203. and Arch- 
 bishop Ushers Sermon on 1 Cor, x. 17. 
 
93 
 
 side in his name, and by his authority : which is a 
 plain demonstration that the union of particular chris* 
 tians to Christ, is by means of their union with the 
 christian church, which consists in their regular sub- 
 jection to their spiritual guides and rulers, and in con- 
 cord and unity among themselves. For if our union 
 to Christ consists in our subjection to him as our Lord 
 and master, our headdLndi husband ; and this authority 
 is not immediately exercised by Christ himself, but by 
 \\\e Bishops and Pastors of the church, — it necessarily 
 follows, that we cannot be united to Christ, that is, 
 cannot acknowledge his authority and government/ 
 till we unite ourselves to the public societies of chris- 
 tians, and submit to the public instructions, authority, 
 and discipline of the church ; as no man can be said 
 to submit himself to his prince, who denies subjection 
 to those subordinate magistrates who act by his com- 
 mission. 
 
 This is confirmed beyond question by the scripture 
 notion of ^fellowship and communion with God, which 
 signifies what we call a political union, — that is, to be 
 members of that society which puts us into a particu- 
 lar relation to God : that God is our father, and we 
 his children, — ^that Christ is our head and husband, 
 our Lord and master, we his disciples and followers, 
 his spouse and body. Thus, in 1 John, i. 3. " That 
 which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that 
 you also may have Felloxvship with us, and truly our Fel- 
 lowship is with tlie Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.** 
 Wliere we may observe, that our fellowship with the 
 Father and Son, is first founded on our fellowship with 
 the christian church, i, e, on our profession of the faith 
 of Christ, obedience to his laws, subjection to his go- 
 vernment and discipline, which he now exercises by 
 
94 
 
 by the Bishops and Pastors of the church, and which 
 unites us into one society and body politic ; and by 
 virtue of our fellowship with the christian church, we 
 have fellowship with Christ, who is the supreme hiead 
 and governor of it *. Thus also, in 1 Cor. i. 9. '* God 
 isfaitlrful, by xehomye are called into the Fellowship of 
 his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,'' where the fellowship 
 of Christ can signify no more than the fellowship of 
 the christian church, whereof Christ is Lord and head ; 
 and therefore the apostle immediately adds in the next 
 verse, " Now I beseech you, bi^ethren, by the name of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing j 
 and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be 
 perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the 
 same judgment." Where he argues from the nature 
 of their faith in Christ, to the obligations of peace 
 and unity, which plainly evinces that this fellowship 
 with Christ, is that relation we stand in to him, as 
 members of the christian church, whereof he is head. 
 And that the first apostles considered the external 
 communion of the church as essential to salvation, is 
 evident from their proceedings. For into the church 
 or spiritual society under their government, all were 
 baptised, all were required to pay obedience to its in- 
 stitutions, and hold communion in its prayers and or- 
 
 * If this profession be only external and visible, without the con- 
 formity of our hearts and lives to the laws of Christ, it gives us only 
 an external fellowship or relation to Christ, i. e. such men only ap- 
 pear to be in fellowship with Christ, maintaining a visible fellow- 
 ship with his church, when in truth they are perfect strangers to 
 him, and such as Christ will not ovon as his disciples, as St John 
 adds, ver. 6. 7. ^^If ixie say that tioe have feUowship xvith him^'' &c. 
 Sherlock's Def. and Contin. of the Disc, on the K^iotblcdge of Jesus 
 Christ, hond. 1615,^. 115, 
 
95 
 
 dinances; and ^^they remained stedfastly in the apostles^ 
 doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bready and 
 in prayers,** Acts ii. 42. 
 
 But here a popular objection arises : That Christ 
 has promised salvation to all that call upon his name, 
 and that to love God and our neighbour as ourselves^ 
 is the fulfilling of the moral law, — and this too, with- 
 out any mention of church communion. — Answer, By 
 this argument, both baptism and the eucharist may 
 be dispensed with, as well as church communion ! — 
 But how can we love God, unless we serve and honour 
 him in the manner he has instituted, viz. by entering 
 into his church, and joining with it, when it is in our 
 power, in all the acts of public w^orship. When it is 
 in our power, I say, for church communion is not 
 ubsolutely -necesssiry, neither is baptism, nor the eu- 
 charist. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, indeed, is 
 absolutely necessary, for '^without Faith, it is impossible 
 to please God," (Heb. xi. 6.) — But the institutions of 
 Christ are only ordinarily or generally necessary, that 
 is, necessary where they can be procured ; and who- 
 ever wilfully neglects them, is guilty of a damnable 
 sin. 
 
 This (to use Archbishop Potter's words,) is plainly 
 the doctrine both of the scriptures and of the Catho- 
 lic Church in all ages ; and to say that a man may 
 repent of his sins and keep God's commandments, 
 without being thus admitted into the christian church, 
 implies a manifest contradiction ; this being one of 
 the first ani chief commandments of God, that all 
 men be so admitted. 
 
 The knowledge of these great truths ought to make 
 it a leading object of christian duty, to embrace and 
 continue stedfastly in the external communion of the Ca-* 
 
96 
 
 tholic Church. The salvation of all the faithful mem- 
 bers of it, is secured to them by a covenant, " They 
 are under promise, and he is faithful *who promised,'^ 
 (Heb. X. 23.) But it is impossible to speak with the 
 same assurance of faith, of those who hold no com- 
 munion with any apostolic church, who, as they do 
 not enter into thefelloxvship of Christ's religion, have 
 no right or title to its glories and rewards. It is of 
 infinite consequence (says the late Mr Jones,) that 
 we should be able to know with certainty, whether 
 we are in the church or out of it. If we are out 
 of it, we are in the world. If we had been out of 
 the ark, we should have been drowned. It is true 
 we may be i7i the church, and yet be lost, — for was 
 not Ham in the ark, who was a reprobate ? But if 
 we are out of the church, how can we be saved ?-— 
 This account of our union to Christ, is a plain demon*- 
 stration of the evil and danger of Schism ; for if our 
 upion to Christ, as our head, necessarily requires our 
 union to the christian church, which is his body, — so 
 to divide from the christian churcli, or from any true 
 and sound part of it, not only makes a rent in the 
 body of Christ, which is in itself a very great sin, but 
 divides us from Christ, as a member which is separated 
 from the body, is separated from the head also. 
 
 There are (as Mr Kettlewell observes,) two kinds of 
 Schism: l.The schism of particular mew^er^ from their 
 own churches, in throwing off subjection and depend- 
 ance on their Bishops : 2. The schism of particular 
 churches from their sister churches, in rejecting frater- 
 nal communion with them. The former I shall chiefly 
 insist on at present, being more prevalent than the 
 latter, and much more destructive of the unity of the 
 church, and the external interests of the individual. 
 
 8 
 
97 
 
 The great duty of preserving the unity of the church, 
 in obedience to the command of our divine master, 
 was, in the apostohc age, emphatically asserted and 
 zealously maintained, inasmuch as this church is re- 
 presented as " 07ie body," of which Christ is the head 
 andSaviour, (Eph. iv. 15. 16.— Col. ii. 19.) This St Paul 
 makes a powerful argument to unity, *' endeavouring 
 to hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond ofi^eace ; there 
 is one body and o?ie Spirit, even as you ai^e called in one 
 hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism,''* 
 (Eph. iv. 3.) Wliat does this bond of peace signify, but 
 the external communion of the church, when chris- 
 tians live together as members of the same body, and 
 united to each other, as members of the same body are 
 by nei*ves and sinews ? All those expressions, where- 
 by the scriptures describe the unity of the church, 
 signify one communion ; as our Saviour prays for his 
 disciples, " that they all may be one,''* and for all those 
 who in future ages should believe in him, " that they 
 also may be one,** and that so visibly, " that the xcorld 
 may ** perceive it, and thereby know and " believe 
 that thou hast sent me,** (John xvii. 20.) From whence 
 it appears, that our Saviour speaks of an external and 
 visible union, which may be taken notice of in the 
 world, and so become an inducement to encourage 
 men to embrace the christian faith. Therefore (ob- 
 serves Bishop Grove,) as we would avoid the harden- 
 ing of men in atheism and infidelity, and making the 
 prayer of our dying Saviour, as much as in us lies^ 
 wholly ineffectual, we should be exceedingly cautious 
 that we donot wilfully divide his holy Catholic Church. 
 
 This external visible union consists in maintain- 
 ing one communion ^Ji^felloivship, i, e. a readiness to 
 pray and communicate together, and join in all acts of 
 
98 
 
 christian vrorsliip, faith, and charity with each other. 
 " By this shall all men Amow that ye are my disciples^ if 
 ye love one another :^^ that is, if ye love so as to unite, 
 not only in faith and affection, but in worship also. 
 For a readiness to worship God together must evince, 
 as much as any thing else, our unity in discipleship, 
 and that we are all servants of one and the same Lord 
 and master, (John xiii. 35.) And 3iCC0Tdmgly, prayers 
 and sacraments are set dowTi among the bonds of union, 
 which unite together the members of this one church. 
 Of the eucharist St Paul says, ^'xve being many are one 
 bread and body, being all partal^ers of that oneh^ead,^^ 
 (1 Cor.x. 17.) and of baptism, " we are all baptised into 
 one body,^* (1 Cor. xii. 13.) and ^^as many as hat^e been 
 baptised into Christ, are all one in Christ Jesus,'' (Gal. 
 iii. 27. 28.) And among those various ways, where- 
 by the church becomes one body, he lays down as 
 *^ one faith'' whicb they all profess : so "ow^ baptism" 
 whereof they partake, — *« one God and Father of all " 
 whom they all invocate ^vith one hope, — and *' ojie 
 Lord " whom they all serve and worship, (Eph. iv. 
 4. 5. 6.) And how pathetically does the same apostle 
 exhort us to christian love and unity, by all the mutual 
 endearments that Christianity affords : *' If there be, 
 therefore, any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of 
 love, if any fellowship oftlie Spirit, if any boxvels and 
 mercies,— fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, hav- 
 ing the same love, being of one accord, of one mind,'^ 
 (Phil. ii. 2.) 
 
 Thus it appears, that the Church of Christ is a well 
 organized body, in which every member has its due 
 place and office, and the several parts have a mutual 
 subserviency, and co-operation to the good of the 
 whole. Wherefore St Paul exhorts « that thei^e be no 
 
99 
 
 schism in tlie body, but that the members should have the 
 same care one for another," (1 Cor.xii.25.) In another 
 place he says, ^'GodisJaitJiful, hy whom ye were called 
 unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, — 
 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that 
 titer e be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly 
 
 joined together in the same mind and in the samejudg^ 
 7nent*," (1 Cor.i.9. 10.) Andin what manner this unity 
 was preserved among the primitive christians, we learn 
 from the first pattern of the christian church, <« and 
 they continued stedfastly in the apostles^ doctrine, and 
 
 fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," 
 (Acts ii. 42.) that is, they continued perfectly united 
 with the apostles and with each other, in the congre- 
 gations of the faithful, in the use of the sacred ordi- 
 nances, and in the form of worship. 
 
 Having thus briefly explained the necessity of an 
 external visible unity in the Catholic Church, I shall 
 next shew in what manner this is to be preserved by 
 the members of particular churches t. The Catholic 
 
 * It is well worthy of remark, that the apostle does not, in this 
 instance, charge his converts with rejecting or betraying any ma- 
 terial point of doctrine J but reproves them for dividing into parties, 
 formed more in admiration of particular teachers, than from any 
 discrepancy of opinion, or contrariety of religioi^ faith. For he 
 immediately adds, in order that no one might evade his reproof, or 
 repel his accusation, <' Novo I say,' or mean, by charging you with 
 these contentions, « that every one of you saith, I am (a. disciple) of 
 Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ" — Nances 
 Address, p. 18. 
 
 f See Kettlexvell, Of Christian Communion to be kept in the Unify 
 of Christ's Church, and arnong the Professors of Truth and Holiness, 
 Works II. p. 570. Bishop Sages Reasonableness of a Toleration, 1 705, 
 a very accurate work, and well deserving of repubhcation, with an 
 
100 
 
 Church consists of similar parts, that is, of particular 
 churches, each of them like to one another in frame 
 and constitution. A particular church is an organiz- 
 ed body. Everybody (political as well as natural,) 
 duly organized, has a head. On this head all the 
 members must depend, — to it they must adhere^ — 
 with it they must be united^ otherwise they cannot 
 continue living members. Now I affirm, that in every 
 particular church, a Bishop, continuing in the unity 
 of the Church Catholic, is this head. All the other 
 members, whether subordinate officers or single chris- 
 tians, are bound in their respective stations to depend 
 on him, to adhere to, and be subject to him. 
 
 The union of the cAwrcA (Kettle well. On Christian 
 Communion, Works II. 270.) as one particular society 
 which schism breaks, consists chiefly in keeping united 
 to church heads and governors. Church rulers are the 
 heads, which make the several parts one with another, 
 or, as the scriptures sometimes speak, \he joints and 
 ligaments, which tie the respective members, and com- 
 pact the whole body together. *'TAe whole body '* of 
 the church (says St Paul,) " is fitly joined together, and 
 compacted by tJiat which every joint,'* ^ i, e. each pastor 
 or church governor, " supplies," (Eph. iv. 16.) And 
 " we are all the body of Christ and members in par ticu- 
 lar," as he says again, since we are under the same 
 governors, which he has set over that body ; having 
 in the church set ^^ first, apostles," and after them the 
 inferior orders, for the standing government and ad- 
 ministration thereof, (1 Cor. xii. 27-) 
 
 alteration of the title. Principles of Church Unity y in which is proved 
 that Catholic Bishops are the Centre of Unity y and essential to a true 
 Churchy by Matthias Earbery, Presbyter of the Church of England^ 
 Lond. 1716. 
 
101 
 
 More particularly, the heads o^ union in any church 
 societies are the Bishops in their respective churches. 
 For, since the death of the original apostles, the Bi- 
 shops are the chief spiritual heads, and the ordinary 
 and permanent governors of Christ's Church. They, 
 above all others, are those " guides " or " rulerSy* 
 whom the members of the church are called on to 
 " remember and obey^'^ (Heb. xiii. 7* 17-) They are 
 those angels of the churches, unto whom, as the heads 
 thereof, our Lord directs himself, when he sends the 
 letters to the churches, (Rev. ii.) and they stand as 
 heads of the members of Christ, to unite them toge- 
 ther under Him, the chief Bishop of the universal 
 Church. So that they who adhere to the communion 
 of their orthodox Bishop, and of those Presbyters who 
 officiate under him, and by his permission, may be 
 truly said to live in the communion of Christ's Ca- 
 tholic Church *. This was the unanimous opinion 
 
 * The necessity of living in the Bishop's communion will, I hope, 
 sufficiently appear from the preceding pages ; and consequently, the 
 absurdity of the Independent or Congregational notion of a Church 
 and Church Communion, viz. that the scriptures require men, as chris- 
 tians, merely to unite themselves to a single congregation, independ- 
 ent of the Bishop's authority. But, in confutation of this scheme, 
 I have already shewn that all the congregations mentioned in scrip 
 ture, were under the immediate inspection of the apostles, and that 
 the Bishops succeed them in this office. 
 
 In order to support the Independent scheme, it is urged, that 
 " Christ has promised his presence to " tvoo or three met together in 
 his name,'' and this too without any mention of a Bishop's authority 
 or superintendence." — But they must meet in Christ's name, that is, 
 under his authority, and in obedience to his latvs and ordinances, 
 and consequently, in the fellowship of those church governors 
 whom he has appointed. Indeed, should we maintain that this single 
 text contains a complete description of a christian church, we must 
 reject not only Bishops, but also Presbyters and Deacons, nay even 
 
1052 
 
 of the earliest fathers, who, in enforcing the great 
 duty of unity on the primitive christians, enjoin them 
 most expressly to adhere to their Bishops. " Take 
 care all of you (says that blessed martyr Ignatius,) to 
 
 baptism and the eucharist, for none of these are mentioned in it ! 
 Again they tell us, (Matt, xviii. 17.) that " Christ has ordered that 
 offences should he told to the church" by which they insist that he 
 meant an Independent congregation. But why should it not rather 
 be understood of a Bishop assisted by his Presbyters, determining 
 matters of dispute in the presence of his^oc^, — since, in this very 
 place, our Saviour gives his apostles (and in them their successors,) 
 authority to excommunicate and pronounce absolution in such cases, 
 
 (Matt, xviii. 18 1 Cor. v. 3. — Rev. ii. 2. 8. 20.) The apostolic 
 
 practice is certainly the best exposition of Christ's words, and ac- 
 cording to this rule, we shall find that a congregation is not, and 
 cannot be called a church, while independent of the Bishop's juris- 
 diction. See Sherlock's Answer to Ovoens Orig. of Churches, in his 
 Def. of Stillingfleet, p. 343. 
 
 Lastly, it has been lately maintained, that not only apostles, but 
 even Presbyters are unnecessary in a church; for that "the apostles 
 left without Elders ( or Presbyters, ) churches which they had plant- 
 ed in various places, ( Acts xiv. ) and did not ordain Elders among 
 them till their return." But even supposing that these churches had, 
 for a time, no Presbyters resident among them, (which is very im- 
 probable, see Bishop Potters Disc.ip. 101. 102.) it will not prove 
 that there were none who acted for them in that capacity at all, 
 for the apostles themselves acted in that capacity ; and this will 
 appear not to be inconsistent with their office, when we consider 
 that all the inferior orders were included in theirs, (1 Pet. v. 1 — 
 Acts. vi. 2.) To the formation of a church. Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons are not so necessary as apostles or Bishops, — for these may 
 lawfully exercise the functions of the former, but not e contra. 
 
 The jurisdiction and superintendence of the apostles, as I inti- 
 mated above, was so very extensive, that no congregation in the 
 Catholic Church was exempt from it. Thus Peter and John were 
 sent to confirm the disciples at Samaria, (Actsviii. 14.) Paul ^^went 
 through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches," (xv. 41.) '^ se?it 
 to Ephesus, and called the Presbyters of the church" (xx. 17.) "tuewf 
 
103 
 
 follow the Bishop ; — ^wheresoever the Bishop appears, 
 there let the multitude be with him." " As many 
 as belong to God, and Jesus Christ, adhere to thp 
 Bishop," says he in another place, exhorting them to 
 
 over all the country ofGalatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening 
 the disciples" (xviii. 23. — xx. 7.) gave " orders to the Churches of 
 Galatia and Corinth, " (1 Cor. xvi. 1.) " So ordain I in all churches,'* 
 says he, (vii.l7.) and again declares that he had ^Hhe care ofAi^Lthe 
 churches,'' (2 Cor. xi. 28.) In conjunction with Barnabas, he " con- 
 Jirmed the disciples at Antioch," (Acts xi. 23. 26.) " and at Lystra, 
 Iconium, and Antioch," &c. (xiv. 22. 23. 28.) visited their brethren 
 *' in every city," where they had preached, (xv. 36.) This univer- 
 sal jurisdiction they committed to their successors in the same of- 
 fice, (1 Tim i.3.v.l7.— 1 Cor.iv.l7.— 1 Thess. iii. 2.— Heb. xiii. 23. 
 — Tit. i. 5. — 2 Cor. viii. 23.) and was the undoubted doctrine and 
 practice of the primitive Bishops. Thus Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch 
 (in the beginning of the second century,) admonishes the christians 
 of Smyrna, " that nothing relating to church affairs should be done 
 without the Bishop's permission," and that the " eucharist is to be 
 esteemed valid, when celebrated by the Bishop, or by one appointed 
 by him." See Burscough on Schism, p. 77. 
 
 From thence we may reasonably conclude, that what are now 
 denominated independent churches were entirely unknown in the 
 apostolic age, — and that such, even professing the pure faith and 
 worship, would not then have been recognised as christian churches. 
 For, to a perfectly formed church, there are required generally the 
 orders of Presbyters and Deacons, but indispensably and in all cases, 
 that of apostle or Bishop. Accordingly the Church at Phihppi is 
 defined by St Paul to be '' the Saints at Philippi mth the Bishops 
 and Deacons," (Phil. i. 1.) Here we have the Deacons and Pres- 
 byters (then called Bishops,) with the christian people, acknowledg- 
 ing the authority of St Paul, with whom Timothy is united as partak- 
 ing of thesame authority; — and such is the form of a perfectly con- 
 stituted church. Thus likewise was " the Church which tvas in " or 
 " at Jerusalem" constituted, (Acts xi. 22. viii. 1. xxi. 17. 18. xv. 
 4.) and also " the Church o/Ephesus," (Rev. ii. 1. — Acts xx. 17.) 
 
 In short, the absolute necessity of living in the communion of 
 the apostles and their successors the Bishops, was the unanimous 
 
104 
 
 union, and warning them against schism *. Now, if 
 christian love and unity be so necessary a duty of 
 Christianity, what must the evil of schism be, which 
 rends the seamless coat of Christ, and divides his 
 church into so many little parties and factions ? In- 
 deed there is the greatest reason to ask this question 
 at present, when we observe with what little conside- 
 ration most christians engage in it, — how^ wantonly 
 they forsake the communion of the church, as if it 
 were perfectly indifferent whether they come to 
 church, or go to a conventicle, — as if it were no more 
 than to leave their own parish church and go to ano- 
 ther, where there is a preacher whom they like bet- 
 ter. It is plain, that such men as these never under- 
 stood what christian unity is, nor ever considered the 
 guilt and danger of schism j that is, they have not act- 
 ed honestly and sincerely in a matter of such vast im- 
 portance. 
 
 To explain away the sin of schism, it is argued, that 
 **as there were schisms among the Corinthians, when 
 it does not appear that there was any separation, — so 
 
 opinion of the first and purest ages of the church ; and I defy our 
 adversaries to adduce, in those ages, a single instance of a congrega- 
 tion independent of a Bishop's jurisdiction, and esteemed as chris- 
 tian by any cotemporary writer. The following quotation, from 
 Bishop Wilson's Charge to his Clergy in 1721, clearly expresses the 
 real Catholic sentiment on this head ; I think it absolutely neces- 
 sary to put you in mind of the authority with which God hath in- 
 vested the Bishops of his Church ; that if any attempts should be 
 made to lessen that authority, or to make the clergy or laity inde- 
 pendent of their Bishop, you may see the danger of closing with 
 such designs, which would effectually ruin all order in the church, 
 and separate youfrcmi Christ, See his Life prefixed to his Works, 
 * Ignatii Epist. ad Eph, Edit. Voss. p 21. ad Philad. p. 43. ad 
 Smyrn, p. 6. Cypriani Operas Epist. 33. 59. 6€, Kettle-welVs fVorks, 
 Vol. II. p. 570. 
 
105 
 
 there may be a separation where there is no schism ; 
 because christians may still be united in heart and af- 
 fection, though they perform the offices of religion in 
 different places and in difterent ways." 
 
 With respect to the iirst part of this objection, it 
 must be acknowledged that the christians of Corinth 
 were not divided into different or opposite commu- 
 nions. The schisms mentioned by the apostle, were 
 not more than misunderstandings, debates, and dis- 
 cordant opinions among them ; but yet even these, 
 according to the apostle, were extremely reprehen- 
 sible, and of bad tendency; " For are ye not caima}'^ 
 says he, ^'- for there is among you envying, strife^ and 
 division," kc, (1 Cor. iii. 3. 4.) If then schism was 
 .considered by St Paul of so heinous a nature, while 
 confined to the communion of the church, what shall 
 we think of it when broken out into open separa- 
 tion ? ^\Tien the mutiny has broken out into open 
 rebeUion, must it not be much more reprehensible ? 
 To suppose it less, is to contradict the reason of 
 things ; as if it should be argued, that because we 
 may hurt a man without killing him, therefore we 
 mav kill a man without hurtinc^ him. But althoucrh 
 we cannot give examples from scripture, of schism a- 
 tical churches estabhshed under separate pastors, (for 
 schism had not yet made so great a progress as to form 
 regular societies, professing the true faith and worship, 
 in opposition to the apostles' fellowship,) yet, if all the 
 faitliful are obliged to live in external communion as 
 visible members of the same body, then such a division 
 in the body as causes a breach of that communion, 
 must be criminal Such divisions St Paul foresaw 
 would be formed among christians ; and when he de- 
 sires the Romans '* to mark tJie?n that came divisiunSy 
 
106 
 
 and avoid (hem,^^ he may very properly be understood 
 to condemn all causeless separations of whatsoever 
 nature, and consequently schisms, in the ecclesiasti- 
 cal sense of the word, as one of the worst and most 
 mischievous species of division. Indeed, wherever 
 concord is recommended and dissension condemned 
 in the New Testament, there all separation of commu- 
 nion, when no sinful terms are required, must be sup- 
 posed to be condemned also ; particularly in John xviii. 
 20. 21. where Christ prays that his church may be one, 
 ''that the "world may know thatGod has sent him ;" unity 
 of communion must be included in the unity he there 
 prays for, because it is more visible, — and therefore, 
 to the generality of men, a more striking proof of 
 Christ's mission thsin internal love, which may be 
 counterfeited when it is not real, and may be conceal- 
 ed for a long time where it exists *. 
 
 As for the second pretence, that " christians of 
 opposite sects may be united in heart and affection,'* 
 we ought to consider how preposterous it is to sup- 
 pose, that if we sow in schism we shall reap in unity ^ 
 or, in other words, that if we murder and mangle the 
 body of the church, we shall preserve charity, which 
 is the life and soul of it. By carefully examining the 
 scriptures we shall find, that one great object in the 
 establishment of the church, was to unite men by the 
 bond of charity in constant communion with God and 
 each other; and that the grand reason why schism is 
 so pointedly condemned is, because it is entirely de- 
 structive of that charity and love so frequently and 
 
 * See A Friendly Address to the English- Ordained Episcopal Cler- 
 gy in the Diocese ofEdinb. tvith Strictures on Schism and Heresy, in 
 answer to Professor CamphelVs Dissertations, by Dr Drummond, late 
 Bishop of Edinburgh, Lond. 1789. 
 
107 
 
 so strictly enjoined *, and wliich greatest of virtues 
 is always recommended in conjunction with faith 
 and obedience. It is impossible that a catholic spirit 
 of universal cliarity^ and amicable fellowship, can be 
 kept up among those of different sects and persuasions 
 in religion. This we all know from experience. On 
 the contrary, the unity of the christian church will as 
 certainly lead to a catholic spirit o^ good-mil and ami- 
 cable fellowship, as does the division of it to the oppo- 
 site disposition ; and consequently the more attention 
 that is paid to the unity of the christian church, consi- 
 dered as a societyof divine institution, the more of true 
 
 * John xiii. 34. 35.xvii. 21 Eph. iv. 3. 15. 16. v 1 Cor. xiii. 
 
 Christian love and charity must be such a love as is visible to all 
 men, and may distinguish christians from all other sects and pro- 
 fessions of men. *' By this shall all men knofo that ye are my dis' 
 ciples, if ye love one another.'' Nothing can do this, but that Chris- 
 tianity which unites christians into one communion ; for those who 
 refuse to worship God together, can never be hiown to be the dis- 
 ciples of the same master, — unless you can persuade the world to 
 believe, that Christ instituted as many several ways of worship, as 
 there are schisms and divisions in the church. It cannot be the 
 bare loving one another, which makes men christians, for we see 
 heathens and publicans, and the vilest sinners, love one another ; 
 but it is loving one another in the communion of the christian church, 
 (1 Cor. xii. 25. 26.) See Dr Sherlock's Def. of Stilling fleet, p. 184. 
 — An external visible unity of the church (says a late Presbyterian 
 writer,) which is best seen in the unity of her government, worship, 
 discipline, and external communion^ is not to be despised, — but 
 should be eagerly sought after, for the sake of promoting the in- 
 ternal unity of the church, or that great end, the edification of the 
 body of Christ. Nicholsons ie^^er^, Belfast, 1810, p. 20. I hope this 
 author will attend to what he says, p. 79. " We should beware of 
 entertaining any particular notions concerning church government, 
 which might render us schismatical churches, divided from the church 
 universal." 
 
108 
 
 christian faith and charity will be found in the world, 
 (Eph. iv. 15. 16.) " I thought once (said that noted 
 nonconformist, Mr Baxter,) that all that talk about 
 schism and sects, did but vent their malice against the 
 best christians under these names. But since then, I 
 have seen what love-killing principles have done, I 
 have long stood by while churches have been divided 
 and subdivided, one congregation of the division la- 
 bouring to make the other contemptible and odious, 
 and this called the preaching of the truth, and the 
 purer worshipping of God." 
 
 Besides the grievous sin of schism, there is also a 
 farther disadvantage attending it, as I mentioned be- 
 fore, viz. The obvious danger of losing the benefit of 
 God's ordinances for our salvation, as a limb severed 
 from the body loses the life of the body. The pro- 
 mises of the gospel are exclusively directed to the 
 ifaithful, the obedient, and the charitable members of 
 Christ's one apostolic church ; and those who lightly 
 separate themselves from this church, and yet hope 
 for salvation, must hope without promise and without 
 scripture. * For they who leave the church are no 
 more in communion with Christ its head, nor have 
 any better title to the privileges of the church, than 
 they who were never admitted into it. We find in the 
 natural body, that whatever member is cut off' from the 
 
 * Archbishop Patter on Church Gov, p. 17. — One reason why the 
 gospel has confined salvation to the communion of the church, and 
 threatened such severe punishment against schism, may be (since 
 the church is not armed with any secular coercive power,) to make 
 her authority/ sacred and venerable, that no man should dare to 
 divide her communion, or separate from her Bishops and Pastors 
 without great and necessary reason. — Infallibility, whether real or 
 pretended, cannot secure a church against schisms and separations* 
 
109 
 
 body, does as entirely lose all the life and motion 
 which is imparted from the natuial head, as if it had 
 never been a part of that body ; and in all civil cor- 
 porations, they who renounce their freedom, do by 
 consequence forfeit all the privileges to which that 
 gave them a title ; neither can it be otherwise in this 
 spiritual society, but that whoever does without cause 
 separate himself from it, must be deprived of the pri- 
 vileges which his admission entitled him to, '' as not 
 holding the head, from "which all the body by joints and 
 bands, having nourishment ministered, and knit together ^ 
 increaseth with the increase ofGod,^* This is also con- 
 fessed to have been the constant doctrine of the pri- 
 mitive church, that, to use St Austin's words, "Who- 
 ever is separated from the Catholic Church, however 
 worthy of praise he may think that he lives in other re- 
 spects, yet by reason of this wickedness alone, that he 
 is disjoined from the unity of Christ's church, shall not 
 have life, but the wrath of God abideth in him." Aug. 
 JEpisL quoted in Potter, ut supra. Moreover, there is 
 yet a farther evil in separation, viz. that the common 
 cause of Christianity suffers, when the church is de- 
 prived of men who are otherwise good and virtuous. 
 Our loss is double, when they who should be for us 
 are against us ; and the characters of such being 
 specious, are held up to the world, as a proof tlxat 
 schism is no sin. 
 
 I shall perhaps be called upon to state, whether I 
 would set up an absolute authority in the church ;— 
 whether I would contend that, under no circumstan- 
 ces whatever, a man may lawfully separate from church 
 communion? Undoubtedly there may be circum- 
 stances which will not only excuse, but justify such 
 a separation. But then, whenever such a separation 
 
110 
 
 takes place, there must be guilt somewhere. If he 
 who separates is innocent and justifiable, then he who 
 has so acted as to oblige his brother to separate from 
 him, is the person guilty and liable to punishment. 
 In short, when any sinful things are imposed on us 
 by any society of christians, as the condition of our 
 commimion, we are then to " obey God rather than 
 TYmn^^^ and " comie out from among them and be sepa- 
 rate,'' since an union on unlawful terms is a combi- 
 nation against God and his truth ; and it is on this 
 account that Protestants rejected the communion of 
 the Roman Church. 
 
 But let it be carefully recollected, that nothing but 
 shftd terms of communion c^n justify separation from 
 a church ; and that to separate upon little piques, un- 
 certain scruples, and blind prejudices, is a very great 
 and dangerous sin against the gospel ; it is a manifest 
 violation of the law^s of union, and an open rebellion 
 against Christ's authority in his church. 
 
 When the teaching or direction of the guides of 
 any church appears, not in the mere private opinion 
 of the party, but upon evident and substaiitial reasons, 
 1 o be contrary to the revealed w411 of God, it can no 
 longer be a proper rule of duty ; in such case the 
 member of the church exercises the right of private 
 judgment. Upon this subject, we make the revealed 
 will of God the sole standard of judgment, and call 
 for no submission to the clergy that may be proved 
 to be incompatible with it ; but in doubtful cases, up- 
 on which a difierence of opinion prevails, we claim 
 that degree of deference to the determination of the 
 appointed guides and teachers of the church, which a 
 respect for their station demands, and the end for 
 which their office was instituted, absolutely requires. 
 
Ill 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN ENGLAND, IRE- 
 LAND, AND SCOTLAND, A SOUND AN£) ORTHODOX POR- 
 TION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ; AND THE NECES- 
 SITY OF A STRICT ADHERENCE TO ITS COMMUNION. 
 
 Having now explained at large the nature of the 
 Catholic Church, and the necessity of living in her 
 communion, I proceed next to prove, that the So- 
 ^ciety of Christians in England, Ireland, and Scotland, 
 .which adheres to the communion of the Reformed 
 Bishops in those respective countries, is a sound and 
 orthodox portion of the Catholic Church. — In order 
 to establish this point, I shall examine the terms of 
 her communion, and prove that she retains the marks 
 or notes of the Catholic Church (as laid down in the 
 first chapter,) viz. the essentials of Apostolic Faith, 
 Worship, and Government, and imposes no unlawful 
 or sinful terms of communion upon her members ; 
 and consequently that it is the duty not only of her 
 x)wn members to hold constant communion with her, 
 but also that of the members of other Protestant as- 
 semblies, to unite themselves to her, in order to par- 
 take of those spiritual blessings, which (as I have 
 shewn,) are exclusively promised to the faithful 3.nd 
 obedient members of Christ's Catholic Church. 
 
 I do not intend to speak of the terms, upon which 
 persons are to be admitted to the exercise of the 
 functions of the ministry, — but only of the terms of 
 lay -communion, that is, those which are necessary for 
 all persons, to join in her prayers, and sacraments. 
 
112 
 
 and other offices of divine worship. And this must 
 be carefull}' attended to, for there has been a great 
 deal of art used to confound these two, — and I dare 
 say, a great occasion of all our separation, has arisen 
 from the not understanding the diflerence of these 
 -two cases. For although subscriptions and declara- 
 tions required of ministers, may, in some instances, 
 operate so powerfully on the mind, as to discourage 
 a man from entering into holy orders ; yet it ought 
 not to be inferred from thence, that the people can- 
 not join in our public worship with a good conscience. 
 I. With respect to Faith, the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church in England, Ireland, and Scotland, maintains, 
 that man is a fallen, depraved, and ruined creature ; 
 that he is involved in guilt, pollution, and misery, in 
 a state of spiritual bondage, from which he has neither 
 power nor will to extricate himself. But she exhibits 
 the great deliverer in all his glorious excellence and 
 sufficiency to save. She lays the foundation of our 
 hope and confidence in his incarnation, obedience, sa- 
 crifice, and intercession. She requires us to worship 
 him as our Lotd and our God, to renounce every other 
 plea, and to make mention of his name, his biood, and 
 his righteousness alone, both for our present and final 
 acceptance. She teaches, that we are justified only 
 by the merits of Christ's death and sacrifice, as the 
 only expiation and atonement for our sins. That no 
 works of righteousness which we can do, can make 
 satisfaction to God for our sins, nor merit eternal 
 life, wliich is the gift of God. That no impenitent 
 unreformed sinner, though he profess to believe in 
 Christ, and be baptised into his church, shall be saved 
 by him ; and therefore, though repentance and a holy 
 life do not merit the pardon of sin, nor eternal re- 
 
113 
 
 wards, yet they are necessarily required in all those 
 who shall be forgiven and saved by Christ. She there- 
 fore warns the professed believer, that the sincerity of 
 his faith must be evinced by good works, (Art. xii.) and 
 therefore calls upon him to abound in all the fruits of 
 righteousness, as the only sure way to ascertain and 
 prove his dependence upon Christ, and his spiritual 
 union with him. To this end she introduces to our 
 view the gracious interposition and almighty aid of 
 another divine agent, the Holy Ghost ; and exhorts 
 us that prayer be ever made unto him, that by his 
 influences, all her children may be renovated, sanc- 
 tified, and preserved, — and that by increasing mea- 
 sures of his grace, they may daily be growing in a 
 meetness for the heavenly kingdom. 
 
 The excellency of the church with respect to her 
 doctrines, appears in this, that she looks upon " the 
 holy scriptures as containing all things necessary to 
 salvation, (2 Tim. i. 13. iii. 16. I7. — Jude iii.) So that 
 whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved there- 
 by, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
 be believed as, an article of faith, or be thought re- 
 quisite or necessary to salvation," (Art. vii.) And 
 therefore (says Bishop Beveridge,) in order to your 
 ^"^ continuing stedfastly,'' as the first christians did, **m 
 tJie apostles* doctrine,*^ the surest way is to keep close 
 to the doctrine of our church, which is plainly the 
 same with that of the apostles in all points ; by which 
 means, as our minds may be enlightened, and our 
 hearts purified by that faith which was once delivered 
 to the saints, — so we are secured from falling into 
 any damnable heresy, and from being corrupted or 
 perplexed with any of those new and dangerous opi- 
 nions, which the ignorance and superstition of afler 
 
114 
 
 ages have brought into the church. — And let it be 
 recollected, that the grand doctrines of the church 
 are not to be gathered from any private sentiments 
 and interpretations of individuals, — not from this or 
 that preacher or commentator, — but from her own 
 authorised forms, her catechism, her creeds, her ar- 
 ticles, and her homilies. 
 
 It is alleged by some, that *' although the church 
 professes in her articles the doctrines of the gospel, 
 yet the clergy do not preach them," and on this pre- 
 tence many have separated from the church. When 
 we hear such barefaced assertions, as that the gospel 
 is not preached in our congregations, who would not 
 suppose that the name of Christ was never mentioned 
 among us, and that our clergy were all heathens or 
 deists ? But it is urged that ** they preach on moral 
 subjects." This I admit, and they are right in doing 
 so, whenever they think necessary ; and in this they 
 have the example of our Saviour and his apostles, 
 who enjoined to the first christians the observance of 
 moral duties. It is again replied, " that they place 
 man's hope of salvation on his moral performances.'* 
 To this I answer, that the discourses of the present 
 clergy do not justify, generally speaking, this serious 
 charge. They preach, I trust, " Christ crucified,''^ (1 
 Cor. i. 23.) as the foundation of the christian building, 
 and " otlierfoundation can no man lay,^^ (1 Cor.iii. 11.) 
 They look, generally speaking, to the Cross, as to 
 fallen man's only hope and only title to salvation. — 
 But, it being the office of the christian ministry right- 
 ly to divide the word of truth, they are not always 
 haranguing on one or two points of the gospel, to the 
 neglect of others, which they think of no importance 
 to their hearers : they give to every part the portion 
 
115 
 
 of attention, which its relative importance, and the 
 opinions and circumstances of their hearers demand, 
 blending faith with practice, and the doctrinal with 
 the practical part of Christianity. Indeed, should any 
 minister of the church be so presumptuous, as to rest 
 man's hopes of salvation on his moral performances, 
 I allow that he does not preach the gospel, that he is 
 in reality a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that all law- 
 ful methods should be used, to procure his deposition 
 from the ministerial office *. 
 
 'Should this remedy fail in any instance, yet still the 
 parishioners may take great care of their souls, and 
 live in the apostles' doctrine, without separating from 
 the church ; and in such a case may be more secure 
 in the church's communion, than they can be out of it. 
 —It is melancholy to admit the possibility, that any 
 thing but the truth, and the whole truth of the doc- 
 trine of God our Saviour should be delivered by those 
 who have subscribed their hands thereto ; but if the 
 fact cannot be denied, it is a consolatory reflection, 
 that the people in such a case necessarily hear the 
 word of truth. They are sure to have the genuine 
 doctrines of the gospel, in the daily appointed service 
 
 * Salvation hy grace, in its proper and scriptural sense, will al- 
 ways, I trust, be preached in the church. It is the doctrine of the 
 church, and woe be to those ministers who preach it not ! Dau- 
 benys Guide, II. p. 510 — We have, in fact, lost many of our peo- 
 ple to sectaries, by not preaching in a manner sufficiently evangelical. 
 
 Archbishop Seekers Charges, p. 299 To preach practical sermons, 
 
 i, e. sermons upon virtues and vices (says the late Bishop Home,) 
 without inculcating those great scripture truths of redemption, grace, 
 &c. which alone can i7icite and enable us to forsake sin, and follow 
 after righteousness, what is it but to put together the wheels, and set 
 the hands of a watch, forgetting the spring which is to make them 
 all go. Life of Bishop Home by the Rev, W, Jones, p. 376. 1799. 
 
116 
 
 of the church ; for, in this they have an opportunity 
 of hearing large portions of the word of God read to 
 them at every season of public worship, and devout 
 and pious prayers in a language which they under- 
 stand ; and in these truly evangelical petitions, every 
 devout supplicant may read his duty and the motives 
 of his duty. Indeed it argues no great opinion of the 
 sufficiency of the scriptures, our only rule of faith, to 
 speak so meanly .of the ordinary service of the church, 
 in which the scriptures are daily read, and the prin- 
 cipal doctrines of faith piously and judiciously ex- 
 plained in the catechism and homilies ; and surely 
 people, who have such advantages as these, are not 
 in such a desperate state for their souls. At the be- 
 ginning of the reformation, this was esteemed a sin- 
 gular blessing, and would be so still, did men either 
 understand what kind of preaching was used in the 
 church in the early ages, or took not more pleasure 
 in gratifying a wanton curiosity, than in saving their 
 souls. So that even supposing a clergyman to be in- 
 sufficient in this respect, there is no absolute neces- 
 sity for his congregation to forsake the communion 
 of the church. 
 
 II. The second mark of an apostolic church is, to 
 profess the essentials of christian Worship ; and this 
 strictly applies to the Reformed Episcopal Church. 
 For she teaches us to invoke the one eternal God, 
 through the one mediator Jesus Christ,— -to acknow- 
 ledge and adore the eternal majesty of the adorable 
 Trinity, by continually ascribing glory to the Father, 
 and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, — to humble 
 ourselves before God with deepest contrition and self- 
 abhorrence, — and to depl'ecate his wrath, as those who 
 deserve- to perish, « O Lord have mercy upon us, mi- 
 
117 
 
 serable sinners." Her sacraments (viz. baptism and 
 the Lord's supper,) and other ordinances are likewise 
 in essentials, in strict conformity to the commands 
 of Christ, and the precepts or practice of his apostles ; 
 and her members need not have the least doubt of 
 the validity of her preaching and sacraments, for they 
 are " duly ministered" by clergy who have received 
 their sacred commission in regular succession from 
 the apostles themselves. 
 
 Now, is there any thing which may prevent any 
 true Protestant from joining in the public prayers of 
 the Reformed Episcopal Church ? May they not par- 
 take in the public worship, without partaking in any 
 thing sinful ? This I shall now examine, putting the 
 reader in mind of the grand rule of Catholic unity, 
 that nothing can justify a separation from the church, 
 but something absolutely sinful, and which may tend 
 to endanger the salvation of those who partake in it. 
 For St John assures us, that nothing is sinful, but what 
 is a transgression of the law of God, (1 John iii. 4.) 
 but the rules of our church require nothing of them 
 that is a transgression of God's law ; and therefore 
 they require nothing that is sinful. 
 
 The principal thing objected to in the church,^is 
 prescribing a Form of Prayer to be constantly used 
 in divine worship * j but surely no person will say that 
 it is unlaufuL 
 
 As for the lawfulness of a form, we have the prac- 
 tice of our Saviour and his apostles, who joined in the 
 Jewish worship, where a set form was used. Christ 
 also taught his disciples to pray by a form, " When 
 ye fray, say. Our Father,'' &c. and although we should 
 
 * See Bennetts History of Set Forms, l708,--his Discourse of 
 Joint Prayer j-^md his Tivo Letters to B, Robinson, 
 
118 
 
 suppose that they were not always bound to use it, it 
 plainly proves that the christian religion does not^r- 
 bid praying by a form. They are almost universally 
 used in aU reformed churches, as the Reformed Epis- 
 copal Church in Germany, Bohemia, Sweden, Den- 
 mark, America, &c. and also in the Protestant churches 
 of Holland, France, and in many of our Dissenting 
 congregations ; and the ministers of the Kirk of Scot- 
 land, it is said, are not unwilling to use them in their 
 meetings, but " are afraid that the prejudices of the 
 people would not bear the introduction of them." — 
 See Christian Observer^ Oct. 1809. 
 
 Let us now consider the manner of performing pub- 
 lic worship in those congregations where no form is 
 used. By this means we shall easily perceive how 
 much they conduce to promote devotion. In these, 
 there is no public form either of confession, prayer^ 
 or thanksgiving ; consequently the congregation have 
 not the opportunity to join in the worship of God ; 
 they are hearers only ; it is the minister (so called,) 
 who prays, and not the people, it being scarce possible 
 for them to join in petitions, or to lift up their voice 
 with " one accord^* in the celebration of praises which 
 they are unprepared to accompany, because ignorant 
 of what may be uttered. How great soever therefore 
 the fervour and devotion on the part of the minister 
 may be, and how acceptable soever his form of prayer 
 (if the public prayer of any self-appointed minister may 
 be acceptable at the throne of grace,) the congrega- 
 tion nevertheless, in consequence of their being little 
 concerned in the service performed, can in reason have 
 little to expect from their attendance. But this is 
 their error, viz. they think it is their minister's busi- 
 ness to pray, and theirs to sit or stand and listen to 
 
119 
 
 him. Thus they regard a prayer in the same man- 
 ner they do a sermon, expecting instruction and en- 
 tertainment from it. 
 
 In the public worship of God in the church, the 
 congregation may all become actual partakers, and 
 may join in the solemn sacrifice of prayer and thanks- 
 giving, with humble, penitent, and contrite hearts, 
 and, in the words of David, ^^ worship, and bowdown, 
 and kneel before the Lord their maker ;'^ the service 
 performed consequently is what it ought to be, the 
 joint service both of minister and people, — all sinners 
 before God, all supplicants for pardon, all petitioners 
 for blessings. Besides, in the church service there is 
 no danger of such unwary expressions, arising from 
 confusion or incoherent conceptions, as may degrade 
 the solemnity of prayer, or insult the majesty of hea- 
 ven, by offering up prayers to the throne of grace in 
 a confused and unprepared manner. " Be not rash 
 (says Solomon,) mth thy mouth, and let not thy heart 
 he hasty to utter any thing before God.'* 
 
 But there is this further consideration attached to 
 an established form of prayer in preference to any 
 other, namely, the promise of favourable attention be- 
 ing paid to it by the Deity, — ^^ If two of you (says our 
 Lord,) shall agree upon earth as touching any thing that 
 they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father 
 which is in heaven, (Matt, xviii. 19.) It is to this agree- 
 ment in prayer, that denominates our public worship 
 Common Prayer, that Christ has promised his presence : 
 for how can two or three, that is, a congregation of 
 christians, agree together in what they shall ask, ex- - 
 cept they ask in a set form, which they are all ac- 
 quainted with before the prayer is offered, in order 
 that all may know what petitions are to be made ? — 
 
120 
 
 Yet this is the case of those who meet together, to 
 ]iear an extempore prayer, which not one of them 
 knows one petition of beforehand, except the speaker 
 himself, if he does. 
 
 It is a very prevalent objection to a liturgy, that 
 *' the constant repetition of the same prayers tends to 
 deaden the devotion of the worshippers." I confess, 
 indeed, that if the attention, which ought to be exer- 
 cised in prayer, were only an attention to what ano- 
 ther speaks (and not what it really is, an attention to 
 ourselves, and not to another person,) then the repeat- 
 ed use of the same prayers would create dulness, and 
 cause the minds of the congregation to wander. And 
 this is the fault of Dissenters, who generally regard a 
 prayer with the same sort of attention they do a ser- 
 mon, and expect from the one the same sort of instruc- 
 tion or entertainment that they look for from the 
 other; which the perpetual repetition of the same 
 prayer not affording, they are disgusted at it, and na- 
 turally fall into a drowsy attention to it. Whereas if 
 they would lay aside all expectation of having their 
 judgments informed, or their imaginations entertain- 
 ed and diverted by the prayers of the church, and 
 look for nothing in them but a representation of the 
 real wants and desires of a christian to almighty God, 
 m proper and suitable expressions, the frequent rehear- 
 sal of them would not be such a weariness, and they 
 would join in them with great devotion and delight. 
 Moreover, if it were in the nature of a form, as such, 
 to cause a coldness and indifference in the use of it, all 
 forms,those of divine as well as of human composition, 
 and therefore the Lord's prayer, the psalms of David, 
 and even the holy scriptures, would have that effect. 
 But who will presume to fix that imputation on them ? 
 
121 
 
 These considerations are sufficient to shew the ex- 
 pediency of performing the public worship by a form 
 of prayer, which being deliberately composed by men, 
 eminent for knowledge and abilities, must be a great 
 relief against the insufficiency or imprudence of those 
 who officiate, — and, being previously known, may 
 readily be joined in by every christian, without fear 
 of being misled by the minister. 
 
 As for the Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer of 
 the Reformed Episcopal Church, one would be apt 
 to think (says Archbishop Hort,) that it should be no 
 small recommendation of it, that many of the first 
 compilers of it suffered as martyrs for the Protestant 
 faith ; and as for the exceptions that have been made 
 against it, the most that can be urged are some sup- 
 posed inco7weme}ices, which, if w^e would grant to be 
 real, cannot make our commnmoiiunlawful ; and then, 
 as I have intimated, it must be a sin to separate from 
 it ; and we may not commit a sin to decline an in- 
 convenience; this would be "to do evily that good may 
 come of it.'' These objections I shall briefly examine *. 
 
 The liturgy may be divided into two parts, viz.— 
 The Ordinary Sunday Service, and the Occasional 
 Offices of Baptism, Confirmation, &c. 
 
 1. As for the Sunday service, some object to Bodily 
 Worship ; but for this we find an express command, 
 
 * See The Lawfulness of Conformity y in answer to Oxvens Plain 
 Dealing, and Lay Nonconf. justified, 1717. Greys Answer to Pal- 
 mer's Vind.qfthe Dissenters, 1720. Bishop King on the Inventions 
 of Men in the Worship of God, in the London Cases; and his Two 
 Admonitions against Boyse and Craghead. Hart's Answer to GilVs 
 Reasons, 1801. Woodward's Causes and Pretences for Separation 
 Examined, 1802. Hoadlys Reasonableness of Conformity, and his 
 Defences of do. against Calamy, 
 
122 
 
 (Psalms xcv. 6.) **0 come let us "worsliip, and bow doxvn^ 
 mid hieel before the Lord our maker, ''^ And that this is 
 meant of public worship is evident from the second 
 verse, ** Let us come before his presence with thanksgiv* 
 ing,'' Agreeably to this, St Paul expressly commands 
 us to ^'glorify God in our Body and in our Spirit,^* (1 
 Cor, vi. 20. xiv. 25.) We find in scripture some act of 
 this bodily worship accompanying every religious per- 
 formance. Thus prayers are generally offered kneel- 
 ing, and that so constantly that "to bow the knee" in 
 scripture language is to pray, (Luke xxii. 41. — Acts 
 vii. 60. xxi. 5. xxii. SQ. — Eph. iii. 14.) And praises, 
 thanksgivings, and confessions are offered standings 
 (1 Kings viii. 14.— 2 Chron. xxix. 26.— Neh. xii.40. ix. 5. 
 —Rev. vii. 9.) In conformity to this, our church di- 
 rects us to stand up at praises, thanksgivings, and con- 
 fessions of faith ; and at confessions of sin, and at 
 prayers, to present ourselves before God on our knees. 
 It is observed by a Dissenter, (in the Monthly RepO" 
 sitory, 1807, P» 629.) that <« the praying attitude in 
 the New Testament is always a kneeling one ; and 
 that Dr Enfield (a Dissenting teacher,) judging of 
 the propriety of an humble posture in a creature when 
 addressing his God, as well as of the beneficial use of 
 liturgies, for enabling the congregation to take a re- 
 quisite share in the devotions with the minister, had 
 introduced into his meeting-house prayer books and 
 hassocks for kneeling." — Bowing at the name of Jesus 
 is piously enjoined by the eighteenth canon of the 
 English Church, to " testify by these outward cere- 
 monies and gestures, that inward humility, christian 
 resolution, and due acknowledgment, that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the true eternal Son of God, is the only 
 Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies. 
 
123 
 
 graces, and promises of God to mankind for this life, 
 and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised." 
 It is not required of the people by the canons of the 
 Irish Church. — In the Athanasian Creed all that is 
 required of us, as necessary to salvation, is explained 
 in the third and fourth verses, but all that follows from 
 hence to the twenty-sixth verse is only brought as an 
 illustration of it ; and therefore no more requires our 
 assent, than a sermon does, which is made to prove 
 and illustrate a text. The text is the word of God, 
 and therefore necessary to be believed ; but no per- 
 son is, for that reason, bound to believe every parti- 
 cular of the sermon deduced from it, upon pain of 
 damnation, though every tittle of it may be true. All 
 the rest of the creed, from the twenty-seventh verse 
 to the end, relates to our Saviour's incarnation, &c. 
 which are essentials of the faith, and as necessary to 
 be believed as the former part of it. [This explana- 
 tion is fully vindicated in Dr Bennet on the Common 
 Prayer, p. 262. where he clearly proves that the be- 
 lief of the Procession is not necessary to salvation, and 
 that in the use of this creed we do not condemn the 
 Greek Church.] — Although the greater part of the 
 Old Testament is ordered to be read over once in every 
 year, and the New Testament thrice (the revelation 
 excepted,) and although there is more canonical scrip- 
 ture read in our congregations in any two months 
 (even though we should except the psalms, epistles, 
 and gospels,) than in a whole year in the largest Dis- 
 senting meeting, yet we are charged with " making 
 a bad selection of lessons," and especially of " ap- 
 pointing the apocrypha to be read, as if of equal au- 
 thority with scripture." But the church has express- 
 ly declared (Art. vL) <« That she reads those books 
 
19A 
 
 only for example of life and instruction of manners, 
 but doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." 
 Nor is there any Sunday in the whole year that has 
 ^any of its lessons taken out of the apocrypha. And 
 is it really unlawful to read in a public religious as- 
 sembly, any uninspired writings ? Why then do some 
 of the Dissenting teachers read to their congregations 
 written sermons ? Or, if they preach without notes, 
 is not what they deliver a human composition and wi- 
 i7ispired? As for some relations in the apocryphal 
 Jbooks that are pretended to be fabulous, see Falkner's 
 Lihertas Ecclesiastica, p. 164. and Bennet, ut supra. 
 
 Kneeling at the Eucharist we consider more agree- 
 able to the primitive institution than any other pos- 
 ture. At the paschal supper our Saviour and his dis- 
 ciples used a table posture ; but in what posture the 
 apostles received the eucharist at its institution, is un- 
 certain ; but we may probably conjecture that they re- 
 ceived it in a posture of adoratmi. For it is plain that 
 our Saviour, who was always remarkable for outward 
 reverence in devotion, gave thanks for the bread and 
 wine in an adoring posture ; and we cannot but con- 
 clude that the disciples joined with our Saviour in 
 those prayers, and therefore used the same posture : 
 and there is great reason to suppose that they re- 
 mained in that posture while receiving the eucharist. 
 Consequently the church very wisely appoints kneel- 
 ing, which with us is the most solemn posture of ado- 
 ration. Nay, though it were granted that the ador- 
 ing posture used at the institution was standing, yet 
 still it was an adoring, and not a table posture, as Dis- 
 senters contend. Palmer pretends thatkneeling "looks 
 greatly like the adoration of the elements, and took its 
 rise from transubstantiation," (Diss, Catech. p. 57. J 
 
125 
 
 and Doddridge is of the same opinion, (Lect 11. p. 
 400,) although the church has expressly declared that 
 " no adoration is thereby intended," and that " it 
 would be idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful chris- 
 tians." See Dr Bennet's Paraphrase, p. 302. and the 
 London Cases, III*p. 174. where it is shewn that kneel- 
 ing was used long before transubstantiation was heard 
 of. — For the lawfulness of Instruments in the praises 
 of God, see Psalms, cl. 3. — Exod. xv. 20. — Rev. v. 8. 
 and xiv. 2. Organs are not required by any rule of 
 our church, and therefore it is the people's choice 
 whether they will use the help of them or not. 
 
 2. The Occasional Offices. — In these the principal 
 things objected to are : That in the office of baptism 
 children are said to " be regenerated, and grafted in- 
 to the body of Christ's Church." So in scripture we 
 are said by baptism to be made members of Christ's 
 body, ''by 07i€ spirit xve are all baptised into one body,'** 
 (1 Cor. xii. 13.) And baptism is called the washing 
 of regeneration, and is joined with the renewing of 
 tlie Holy Ghost, (Tit. iii. 5.— Acts ii. 38.) But then 
 it must be observed that many who are baptised prove 
 false to their engagements in baptism, and forfeit their 
 interest in the blessings of the baptismal covenant : 
 For does not the scripture suppose that we may quench 
 the Spirit ? And that we may grieve the holy Spirit, 
 whereby we are sealed (alluding probably to our re- 
 ceiving it in baptism,) unto the day of redemption. 
 See also Heb. vi, 4.6. 
 
 The Cross made on the child's forehead after bap- 
 tism is not designed as an act of worship to God, but 
 is done " in token that hereafter he shall not be 
 ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified." — 
 Although the objections to this have been repeatedly 
 
126 
 
 answered, yet the same outcry is still made, that " to 
 use this sign in baptism is to make a sacrament of it^ 
 according to the church's definition of a sacrament 
 (as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spi- 
 ritual grace,)" and moreover, that we ** make it es- 
 sential to the administration of baptism," (Palmer's 
 Diss, Cateclu p. 56. and Doddridge's Lect 1. 2.) But 
 both these aspersions are notoriously false. How often 
 must these sectaries be told that the ^sign of the cross 
 neither is nor can be a sacrament, either upon our 
 or their own principles. For it is agreed on both sides 
 (indeed is expressly declared in the church's defini- 
 tion of a sacrament,) that nothing can be a sacrament, 
 which is not instituted hy Christ, as a means to convey 
 grace. Now I appeal to our adversaries, whether 
 our church ever pretended that the sign of the cross 
 was instituted by Christ, as aoneans to convey grace. 
 Consequently it cannot be a sacrament. — We do not 
 make it essential to baptism, for in the 30th canon of 
 the English Church, it is declared, ** that it is no 
 part of the substance of this sacrament, and that bap- 
 tism is full, perfect, and satisfactory without it." If it 
 be said that " the Papists use this sign, and therefore 
 it is unlawful," I answer, that the Papists repeat the 
 apostles' creed and ten commandments. Is it there- 
 fore unlawful for us to do the same? The primitive 
 christians, as TertuUian and others inform us, on every 
 important occasion signed themselves with the cross 
 on the forehead. And why is not the example of the 
 primitive christians as good an argument for, as that 
 of Papists is against the use of the cross. Besides, it 
 IS with us no condition of lay-communion, because 
 the people are not required to sign with the cross, 
 but the Priest only. 
 
127 
 
 *« But the parents are excludedfrombeing Sponsors ;" 
 but are they excluded also from a full power, and re- 
 leased from their obligations to bring up their chil- 
 dren well ? No, surely ; an4 where then is the fault 
 of the church, in taking the best care she can, that 
 several godly, wise, and grave christians shall either 
 assist the parent in the education of the child, or, in 
 case of the parent's death or neglect, take the whole 
 care of it on themselves ? The pious Dr Bray assures 
 .us, he has known many instances of persons, who owe 
 that understanding they have of religion and the fear 
 of God, purely next under God, to the care of their 
 godfathers and godmothers. If it be said, that god- 
 fathers and godmothers are frequently chosen without 
 due care, — I answer, that the parents are to provide 
 the sponsors ; and if they are so careless about that 
 great affair, who can help it ? The fault is personal, 
 and must be charged upon themselves, and not upon 
 the church, which has made the most effectual pro- 
 vision she could. — As for the office of Confirmation, 
 we are not said to be regenerated upon being able to 
 say the catechism, &c. (as a sneering Dissenter insi- 
 nuates,) but by water and the Holy Ghost in baptism. 
 The form of Absolution, in the office for visitation 
 of the sick, even supposing that it relates to absolu- 
 tion from sins, yet must be imdiev^ioodi conditionally ^ 
 for it manifestly supposes that the person absolved 
 does truly and heartily repent and believe in Christ ; 
 now of this the Priqst cannot be absolutely certain,* 
 and therefore he absolves the sick person on condition 
 that he is truly and heartily penitent. It is well known 
 (affirms Bishop Wetenhall,) that divers of us have re- 
 fused, and daily do, to absolve such persons, touch- 
 ing whose penitence we are not satisfied ; — and this 
 
128 
 
 he proves to be the sense of the rubric. — It is plain 
 (says Dr Bennet,) that the Burial Office was never 
 intended to be used at the burial of such persons as 
 die in a state of notorious impenitence, and if any 
 clero'ynien use it at the funeral of such, they act against 
 the manifest design of the church. Yet still the of- 
 fice is capable of a very charitable construction. — 
 There is no impropriety in saying that *' it pleased 
 God to take unto himself the soul of our brother," 
 (see Eccl. xii. 7.) The words *' in sure and certain 
 hope of the [not of his\ resurrection to eternal life," 
 mean the general resurrection of all the dead \ and 
 by " eternal life," we also mean eternal life in gene- 
 ral, as the life everlasting in the creed implies. The 
 ^'hope'* that *' our dear brother rests in Christ," is ex- 
 pressive of hopeful resignation of the deceased into the 
 hands of God. Yet should any clergyman through 
 ignorance, use this office improperly, it can be no ob- 
 jection to lay-communion, since every lay-member is 
 perfectly at liberty to be absent from any funeral he 
 pleases *. 
 
 I have now examined the objections which have 
 been brought against all the offices in the liturgy, and 
 I am persuaded, that the most rigid Dissenter will 
 not say there is any thing sinful in them ; and it is 
 only in the use of some of them that the laity are re- 
 quired to join. I am confident (says Bishop Grove,) 
 that one man, without any great pains, may find more 
 
 * This office manifestly supposes the exercise of Church Disci- 
 j)line. I wish with all my heart (observes Dr Sherlock,) that some 
 expressions were altered, to prevent any scandal to the scrupulous 
 or to the profane ; or, which is more desirable, that discipline were 
 revived, which would soon answer all these objections. Defence of 
 Stillingfleet p. 103. 
 
129 
 
 things really exceptionable in any prayer made occa- 
 sionally and extempore by the ablest of the opposite 
 party, than the several parties of Dissenters have been 
 able to discover in the church service for more than 
 100 years. And yet some of our brethren, that seek 
 industriously for scruples in the common prayer, will 
 readily join in other sudden conceived prayers without 
 any scruple ; when they cannot tell, but that there may 
 be some dangerous heresy in every sentence, and some 
 great indecencies and absurdities in every word. This 
 is such partiality and unfair dealing as cannot easily 
 be excused. 
 
 There still remain a few popular objections to the 
 Liturgy, the unreasonableness of which I beg leave 
 to point out. The grand argument made use of to 
 terrify the minds of the ignorant, and prejudice them 
 against our worship is, that " it is Popish, and that 
 the common prayer is taken out of the mass book." — 
 Never (says Dr Trapp, an excellent writer against Po- 
 pery,) was any charge more absurd, as well as odious 
 and invidious. We have rejected every thing that 
 is unlawful in the Church of Rome, every thing that 
 is contrary either to scriptures or to primitive Chris- 
 tianity, — and that, one would think, should be suffi- 
 cient. For if every thing be Popery which the Papists 
 do, then it is Popery to pray, and to preach, and to 
 administer the sacraments, — nay it is Popery to eat 
 and drink as well as to use the cross in baptism, and 
 to wear any clothes at all as well as to wear a sur- 
 plice. Will it not be enquired (says a convert from 
 Popery ) whether I be not gone from Popery to Popery, 
 it being objected, that the constitutions of this ohurch 
 are framed out of Popery, and the common prayer 
 taken from the mass book ? I answer : — The devil 
 
150 
 
 hath many devices to carry on his own interest, and 
 the Papists contrive many engines to distract Protes- 
 tants ; and I look upon this objection to be hammered 
 in their forge, to make us worry one another, and to 
 break our communion. But let me tell you, that 
 I think I understand the mass book better than any 
 here, and I can assure you the argument is vain and 
 unworthy: First, all is not Popery that is in the mass 
 book ; there are several parts of the primitive liturgy 
 that is not Popery. There are places taken out of 
 the Holy Bible, neither is that Popery. — Secondly, 
 there are several other good things in the mass book ; 
 and if it were not so, the cheat would be eiident to 
 every eye. You know the devil tempted our Saviour 
 in scripture language, — shall we therefare expunge 
 these scriptures because the devil used them ? The 
 reformation quarrels not with the Church of Rome for 
 any thing that is good, but what is really bad*. 
 
 The ceremonies in general, used in the w^orship of 
 the Reformed Episcopal Church, have also been un- 
 reasonably charged with a close resemblance to those 
 used in the Roman Church, both as to jiirnibersind qua- 
 Utij. But, in both respects, there is a material differ- 
 ence between them. The Roman Church has noto- 
 riously abused her right \ of prescribing her own ex- 
 ternal forms of worship. Their worship (as Bishop 
 Gibson observes,) is overcharged with a vast variety 
 of superstitious rites, in which the true spirit of de- 
 votiorf is sw^allowed up and lost ; — and our reformers 
 had just occasion to complain, that *' the great ex- 
 cess and multitude of them had increased so much 
 (at th« time of the reformation,) that the burthen of 
 
 ♦ Recantation Sermon of Anthony Egan, late Confessor-General 
 of Ireland J Lend. 1673. p. 19. t See Appendix, No. I. 
 
ISl 
 
 them \^2iS intolerable ; that the excessive multltude.oi 
 them was so great, and many of them so dark, that 
 they did more confound and darken, than declare and 
 set forth Christ's benelits unto us*." On the contrary, 
 the ceremonies of the Reformed Episcopal Church are 
 few in number, plain, grave, and manly. Indeed, if 
 anv church has been so judicious as to keep the golden 
 mean, between loading the service of God with exter- 
 nal forms on the one hand, and stripping it so bare on 
 the other, as not to leave sufficient for tlie purposes 
 of bodily worship and- mental contemplation, — this 
 chuixh may justly lay claim to this distinction t. 
 
 * Sse the Advertisement before the common prayer, relating 
 to ceremonies. — The Roman ceremonies are jjistly stigmatised by 
 our reformers, as " serving more to confound and darken, than to 
 declare and set forth Christ's benelits to us ;* ' and this censure is, 
 even still, perfectly applicable to them. To give a few instances 
 from (what is called) The Manual of Catholic Piefi/, hiiBev,J. Gahan, 
 Dublin. 1 804, Suppl. p. 45. " At the celebration of Mass, the priest 
 bowing down before the altar, and saying the Conliteor, represents 
 our Saviour loaded with the sins of mankind, prostrate at his pray- 
 ers in the garden, and failing into a bloody sweat and most painful 
 agony. The priest going up to tlie altar and kissing it, represents 
 our Saviour going to meet his enemies, and receiving the treacher- 
 ous kiss from Judas. When he goes to the book at the comer of 
 the epistle, form§ the sign of the cross, and reads the Introit, he 
 represents our Saviour seized, bound, and led captive to the courts 
 of Annas and Caiphas, where he was struck across the face, blind- 
 folded, buffetted, spit upon, and treated with the greatest indignity 
 by the servants of the High-priest." A truly lively representation 1 
 *rheir ceremonies (as Sir Edwin Sandys most justly observes) are 
 so childish and unsavoury^ that they argue^ great silliness and rate- 
 new in their inventors ; so can they naturally bring no otlier than 
 disgrace and contempt on those exercises of religion, wherein tliey 
 * are stirring. — Europce Speciduniy 1638, p. 3. 
 
 f There is but one ceremony retained by our church, which can- 
 not be reckoned amons? the necessary circumstances of action, viz. 
 
132 
 
 There is a farther and more important difference 
 between the Reformed and the Roman ceremonies. 
 The latter, after being appointed by the church, be- 
 come necessary parts of worship, but the Reformed ce- 
 remonies are esteemed as things in their own nature 
 indifferent and changeable, and appointed only for de- 
 cency and order. Many of the Roman ceremonies 
 are asserted, by the divines of that church, to have 
 a purifying and cleansing facidty as to the souls of 
 men,notforjustificationofmenfrom mortal sins, but 
 for other spiritual effects, and taking away the guilt 
 of venial sins, (Bellarmin. De Effect, Sacram, Lib. II. 
 31.) But our church utterly rejects any such spiritual 
 efficacy. In short, the Roman ceremonies are (what 
 ours can never be proved to be,) for their number in- 
 tolerable, and, for their nature, such as vilify, poUute, 
 and deprave the worship of God. Hickes' Sermons, 
 
 I have now examined the objections which are 
 commonly urged against the liturgy, and have given 
 such a solution of them, as I think is sufficient to sa- 
 tisfy any conscientious mind. I hope, however, it 
 will not be understood, that I consider the liturgy as 
 absolutely perfect. It is a human composition, and 
 there is nothing human that can claim so high a title 
 as that of absolute perfection ; and I agree decidedly 
 with most of our eminent divines, that the liturgy is 
 still capable of improvements. But yet, have we not 
 abundant reason to be thankful for it ? Let its ex- 
 cellencies be fairly weighed, and its blemishes will 
 sink into nothing, — let its excellencies be duly appre- 
 
 that most expressive one, the Sign of the Cross, which (says Bishop 
 Taylor,) as it is in compliance with the practice of all ancient 
 churches, so it is very innocent in itself; and, being one and alone? 
 is in no regard troublesome. Ductor, Dubit. Lib. III. Cap. 4. 
 
133 
 
 ciated, and every person in the kingdom will acknow- 
 ledge himself deeply indebted to those, who, with so 
 much care and piety, compiled it. 
 
 III. Besides the pure Faith and Worship, the Re- 
 formed Episcopal Church retains also the essentials of 
 Government, viz. the three distinct orders of Bishops, 
 Priests (or Presbyters,) and Deacons. Under this 
 government, we can be in no doubt of the validity 
 of the ordination of ministers, or of the validity of 
 the sacraments by them administered. For they have 
 their orders by a continued succession from the an- 
 cients, and so from the apostles ; which is the only 
 ordinary way, that I know of, for a man to be com- 
 missioned to act in Christ's name. Dean Stanley. — 
 And it is what the Episcopal Church chiefly glories 
 in, that she is able to make out her claim to an unin- 
 terrupted succession of ordination from the apostles 
 to these times ; and, whoever asserts the contrary, 
 only betrays his own ignorance in church history. 
 Dr Wells. — Wherefore, if any one disaffected to our 
 church shall ask a Presbyter or Deacon for his autho- 
 rity ? his answer is ready, — I had it from my Bishop 
 who ordained me, and admitted me to this particular 
 ministry. From whence had he authority so to do ? 
 From such as were his predecessors in the same au- 
 thority ; and they from others, and so upwards, until 
 we ascend to the apostles, who received their autho- 
 rity from Christ, the head of the church, the fountain 
 of all church power. Clarke's Consecration Sermon^ 
 1691*. 
 
 * The Popish objections against our ordinations have been con- 
 futed by Bishop Burnet in his Vindication of the OrdinatioJiSy 6:c. 
 and by Messrs Whitfield, Seller, Milbourne, Prideaux, and Browne, 
 in 1688. On the subject of the Nagshead Consecration (which 
 
134 
 
 But has it not been said, " that our Bishops in 
 England and Ireland * derive their authority from the 
 king, and not from the apostles ?" It has, but it is a 
 very wicked and false assertion. The nature of these 
 powers being purely spiritual, can only be conveyed 
 in that way Christ has appointed, who delegated them 
 only to his apostles and their successors. When an 
 English, Irish, or Scotch Bishop says to the person 
 to be consecrated, ** Receive the Holy Ghost for the 
 office and work of a Bishop in the church of God, 
 and remember that thou stir up the grace of God 
 which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands,'* 
 it is evident that he possesses the same spiritual power 
 which the apostles and primitive Bishops had, and 
 holds it independent of the civil magistrate, without 
 deriving any part of it from him t. His Episcopal 
 office and his spiritual relation to his church, are still 
 conferred on him by the spiritual governors of it ; and 
 unless this be done by them, aU the civil magistrates 
 
 even if true, can only affect the English succession, ) see the an- 
 swers to Ward hy Williams in 1721, Earherym 1723, and finally 
 by Dr Elrington, Provost of Trinity College Dublin, 1808. See 
 also an Anstver to Mannings Reformed Churches proved destitute, &c, 
 by fT. BrevHerJ a, Presbyter of the Diocese of Berry — -The Epis- 
 copal Succession in Ireland was never questioned. At the succes- 
 sion of Queen Elizabeth, there were no fewer than three*Arch- 
 bishops, and at least six Bishops who conformed. 
 
 * This objection cannot take place with respect to the Bishops of 
 the Scotch Church, who are not, as those of the EnglisJi and Irish 
 Church, established by law, nor invested by the state with any sort 
 of jurisdiction whatsoever. 
 
 t The words of our Lord, ^^ Receive ye the Holy Ghost" adopted 
 into our Ordination Service, may be justified, not only as supplica- 
 tory, but as in some degree authoiitative, on the j[)art of those who 
 have the due appointment to convey the ministerial powers in their 
 ordinary extent, and may presume on the divine ratification of a 
 
1S5 
 
 in the world are not able to invest Iiim with spiritual" 
 authority over any people whatsoever. The king's 
 commission only authorises him to exercise his func- 
 tions as a Bishop of the church established hy laxi\ in 
 such a manner as may exempt him from the penalty 
 of the temporal law *. 
 
 There are several other offices in .the English and 
 Irish Church, viz. Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deans, 
 &c. but these, as w^e have always acknowledged, are 
 not divinely instituted orders, but merely temporary f . 
 The office of Archbishop, in particular, is expedient 
 in a national church, because if the Bishops of a pro- 
 vince meet in council, some one of them must take the 
 
 form consecrated in agreement with the sacred institution. — The 
 words '• Tio you trust yon have the Holy Ghost " do not imply the 
 necessity of a miraculous impulse, but such pious resolutions and 
 views, as may be suited to the faithful discharge of the ministerial 
 •office. GraysBampt, Lect. p. 156. 
 * See Appendix, No. II. 
 
 + Mr Baxter argues against the divine right of the three orders of 
 Bishop, Priestj and Deacon, from their insiifficiency to perform all the 
 necessary duties in the church, without the assistance of Archdea- 
 cohSjDeans, &c. But (says Mr Dodwell in answer to him,) I do not 
 doubt but that you know better than I can tell you, that even Dio- 
 cesan Government may and actually has been administered without 
 Deans, Archdeacons, <S:c. in the primitive times. Answer to Baxter, 
 1681, p. 143. — :Mr Dodwell, Dr Brett, and several other learned 
 writers appear to have had no great objection to the entire abolition 
 of these comparatively modern offices, on the supposition of the di- 
 vision of our dioceses, and the appointment of an additional number 
 of Bishops. If (says the learned Bingham, speaking of the English 
 Church at the beginning of the last century) she thought fit to add 
 forty or an hundred more Bishops, she would not be without prece- 
 dence in the Primitive Church. — To multiply dioceses as^ecetsity 
 requires, and divide the great care and burden of the Episcopal 
 function into more hands, would be for the greater bencjtit and 
 advantage of the Church. Antiqidt, B. 9. c. 8. 
 
136 
 
 chair, and lead the business to prevent confusion, as in 
 other assemblies. Thus St James Bishop of Jerusalem 
 acted as Archbishop or Primate, in the first convo- 
 cation held at that place, and gave sentence upon it. 
 
 Our adversaries will perhaps be surprised to hear, 
 that I have not mentioned the Election of the Clergy 
 by the people, as an essential of church government; 
 for they expressly contend, that the **liberty of choos- 
 ing their own pastors is the people's inalienable right," 
 and that " consent is essentially necessary to form the 
 relation between pastors and people." Now I assert 
 that the laity have no divine or inalienable right to 
 choose either the persons that shall be ordained, or 
 their respective pastors in particular ; and therefore 
 the people's consent is not essential or inalienable*. 
 
 For it is manifest from the manner in which elec- 
 tions were performed in the time of the apostles, that 
 the people's consent was never considered as essential. 
 Christ constituted his apostles and the seventy, with- 
 out any imaginary appearance of a popular choice or 
 approbation. Thus we see that the Catholic Church 
 was founded upon governors and pastors ordained to 
 rule over every part of it, before there was any formed 
 congregation in the world to have a hand in it. Bar- 
 nabas and Saul were chosen by the Holy Ghost ; and 
 the apostles were guided by it alone in choosing their 
 successors, and never asked the people's advice whom 
 they should ordain for pastors, " but (as St Clement 
 says,) they constituted Bishops and ministers for such 
 
 * See Bennefs Rights of the Clergy, p. 1 28. Sherlock's Def. Still, 
 .p.'473 to 553. in answer to Baxter, &c. Breviters No Democracy in 
 the Church, Dub. 1735. Dissenters Represented by T, Dorrington, 
 late a Dissenting Teacher. Johnsons Clergyman s Vade Mecum,pref, 
 p. 59. 
 
137 
 
 as (were not yet converted, but) should hereafter be- 
 lie v^e." 
 
 The choice and approbation of the clergy in Ephe- 
 sus and Crete, were committed by St Paul to Timo- 
 thy and Titus, (2 Tim. ii. 2. — Tit. i. 5.) and there is 
 not the least direction given to either of them to call 
 in the assistance, or wait the consent of the people ; 
 on the contrary, they had the strongest cautions given 
 them against popular elections. For St Paul, instruct- 
 ing Timothy in the genius of the people of the pro- 
 vince in which he had placed him, in plain terms for e- 
 tels how they would one day act, if left to the liber- 
 ty of choosing pastors for themselves : " The time uiU 
 come (says he,) te'^ew they mil not endure sound doctrine^ 
 but after their own lusts, shall heap up to themselves 
 teachers, having itching ears, (2 Tim. iv. 3.) And that 
 Titus had a caution to the same purpose, is evident 
 from the character given of the Cretans by St Paul, 
 as '' always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies,'^ (Tit. i. 12.) 
 This is meant of the members of the church, for Ti- 
 tus is ordered to ^^ rebuke them sharply, that they might 
 be sound in tlie faith,'' which surely was to judge and 
 censure them, for St Paul disowns his right of judg- 
 ing " them that are without,'' (1 Cor. v. 12.) If the 
 laity of the Cretan Church therefore had such a cha- 
 racter given of them by the apostle himself, (which at 
 least must affect a considerable part of them,) let any 
 man judge what probability there is that Titus should 
 have had instructions to let the people choose their 
 pastors, or that he should take up that method him- 
 self in conferring holy orders in that island. From 
 these particulars I conclude that the laity, in the time 
 of the apostles, possessed no divine or essential right, 
 either to elect those who were to be ordained, or their 
 
138 
 
 respective pastors. Their duty towards the clergy is 
 frequently inculcated. They are required to ** avoid 
 false teachers and seducers,'' and consequently they 
 are commanded to adhere to the orthodoa: ministers 
 of the gospel ; but not a syllable of information is 
 given concerning the election of them. 
 
 In succeeding ages, the Presbyters appointed to 
 parishes were (with very few exceptions,) chosen by 
 the Bishop, and whensoever the people were present 
 at elections, it was chiefly in order to attest the piety 
 and good behaviour of the persqns to be promoted* 
 In the Church of England and Ireland, the generality 
 of the clergy are likewise appointed by the Bishops ; 
 but many are nominated by patrons. For in ancient 
 times, to give greater encouragement to the building 
 of churches in country places, th^ founder of any 
 church, who settled an endowment on it, was allow- 
 ed to retain the right of presentation to himself; but 
 then the Bishop was to take care that the clergyman 
 was qualified before he admitted him ; and if the pa- 
 tron did not nominate one in a limited time, the pre- 
 sentation devolved to the Bishop, and so it continues 
 to this day *, So that the right of patronage was at 
 first founded upon a very reasonable consideration, 
 and has been ever since received by as universal con- 
 sent as any law among us. 
 
 * Suppose (says Pr Sherlock,) there be so many drunken pa- 
 trons, as the Dissenters intimate, they can present none but or- 
 f/aiwec? ministers; and if they be not qualified for such a charge, it is 
 the Bishop*s fault who ordains them, not the patron's who presents 
 them. And if the Bishop be duly informed, that the person pre- 
 sented be either so vicious or ignorant, that he is not qualified for 
 such a Cure, he may refuse to grant him institution, or may suspend 
 or deprive liim afterwards, and therefore the patron's presentation 
 can do no injrry, if other persons concerned do their duty. 
 
139 
 
 In the primitive ages, the Bishops were in general 
 chosen by the Presbyters of the cathedral where the 
 deceased Bishop had presided, and the choice gene- 
 rally fell upon the eldest Presbyter of the cathedral, 
 if qualified for the office ; if not, the Presbyters of 
 that church chose another out of their number ; how- 
 ever it cannot be denied that in times of persecution, 
 the people, upon extraordinary occasions chose their 
 ow^n Bishop, but in order to prevent the acts of vio- 
 lence and even of bloodshed, which were occasioned 
 by these popular elections, the emperors were oblig- 
 ed to interpose, and nominate the Bishops themselves. 
 And it is true, that the people's approbation has al- 
 ways been thought so far necessary, that when hands 
 were to be laid on any for their admission into any 
 sacred function, if they were known to be of a scan- 
 dalous character, the people might object it, and by 
 that means hinder their promotion \ and this practice 
 is still retained in our church. 
 
 The nomination of the Bishops of the Church of 
 England and Ireland belongs to the king, as being the 
 founder and endower of the Episcopal Sees. But yet 
 Episcopacy is still the same, for it is not the nomma- 
 tion, but the ordination that makes the Bishop. But 
 if the civil magistrate shall abuse his authority by pre- 
 ferring an unqualified person to the Episcopal oiSce, 
 the Bishops whom he orders to consecrate such a per- 
 son, ought to suffer any penalties rather than obey him. 
 
 The only pretences for popular elections in the 
 scriptures, are the instances of Matthias and the se- 
 ven Deacons. But the former was chosen, as the 
 other apostles were, by God himself. The 120 that 
 nominated him and Barnabas, were not one-fourth of 
 the church, which consisted at that time of 500 at 
 
140 
 
 least, (1 Cor. xv. 6.) The eleven apostles and the 
 seventy disciples make eighty-one of this number ; 
 and granting that some of the laity were present, yet 
 nothing can be urged for elections by the laity, with- 
 out the concurrence of the clergy. The seven Dea- 
 cons, I grant, were nominated by the people, whose 
 treasure they were to be entrusted with ; but even 
 here, the determination was in the apostles, who might 
 have rejected those who were chosen if they pleased. 
 But even allowing, for argument sake, that Matthias 
 and the seven Deacons were elected by the people, 
 yet these two instances cannot establish the divine 
 and inalienable right of the people, since I have al- 
 ready shown, that others of the apostolic clergy were 
 ordained and promoted without the smallest appear- 
 ance of the people's election or consent. Consequent- 
 ly popular election cannot be essential or inalienable. 
 
 But the grand pretence for separation (among 
 Methodists in particular,) is, that "the clergy of the 
 church are ungodly and lead wicked lives.'' They 
 tell us that " ungodly ministers are unfit to adminis- 
 ter the ordinances of religion. That there are many 
 ungodly ministers is as evident as it is lamentable. 
 These have no commission from God." Now in an- 
 swer to this I assert, that to charge even the genera- 
 lity of the clergy with leading wicked lives, is a most 
 notorious falsehood ; and I appeal to the consciences 
 even of the accusers themselves, whether they believe 
 this to be true ? Nay, whether they do not see and 
 know the direct contrary ? I allow that a wicked and 
 profligate clergyman is (in the words of Bishop Por- 
 teus,) a monster in nature: even a gay and trifling one 
 is inconsistent with the sanctity of the ministerial cha- 
 racter : And although I grant that characters of this 
 
141 
 
 kind may be found among the clergy, yet I must pro- 
 test against that generalizing spiritofilliberality which 
 condemns the whole body for the faults of a few. — 
 The blessed apostles themselves were but men, sinful 
 men, of like passions with ourselves. All of them were 
 so, and one of them was the worst man that ever lived. 
 And we may with great modesty affirm, that not one 
 in twelve among our clergy is near so wicked a man 
 as Judas : Yet I never heard that his bein^ a traitor 
 was any imputation upon the other apostles. 
 
 But these objectors pretend, that " ungodly minis- 
 ters are unfit to administer the ordinances of religion." 
 What ! does the efficacy of the ministry depend on 
 the personal worth of the administiiitor, and not on 
 the institution of Christ ? To suppose it, would be to 
 transfer the glory from God to his weak instrument, 
 as if any the least part of the divine virtue which he 
 has annexed to his sacraments, did proceed from his 
 minister, (Acts iii. 12.) To obviate this pretence, 
 our Saviour ^^ chose a dev'iU^^ (John vi. 70.) to be one 
 of his apostles, and he received a commission to bap- 
 tise and work miracles, no less than the other apostles. 
 And there can be no doubt that the baptism admi- 
 nistered by him, was equally effectual with that admi- 
 nistered by any other apostle. From whence it is to 
 be observed, that the power of divine grace, happily 
 for mankind, is not limited by the poorness of the in- 
 strument appointed to convey it, and that a minis- 
 terial act performed by proper authority^ may be valid 
 to the parties to whom it is applied, be the performer 
 ever so unworthy : Just as a sentence or pardon pass- 
 ed by an immoral judge are looked upon as valid, be- 
 cause the efficacy depends not upon the qualiiications 
 of the judge, but upon the sovereign authority from 
 
142 
 
 whence he receives his commission. Such is the 
 principle laid down by our church in her twenty-third 
 article, and was also the opinion of the old Noncon- 
 formists. 
 
 To this it may be replied that " a Bishop must he 
 Uameless,'' &c. (1 Tim. iii. %) and what then ? Must 
 not a civil magistrate also be blameless, ? It is cer- 
 tainly the duty both of our spiritual and temporal su- 
 periors to be holy ; but it will not follow from thence 
 that such as are not holy and blameless, are not en- 
 dowed with authority to be clergy or judges, or that all 
 who are holy, &c. are lawful clergy or judges, whether 
 they have authority or not. St Paul (observes Mr 
 Leslie,) rejoiced in Christ being preached, though 
 not sincerely by those who did it ; because God can 
 bring good out of m/, and by wicked instruments pro- 
 pagate his gospel, turning their malice (even of the 
 c?m/ himself,) to the furtherance of the faith ; other- 
 wise the apostle could have no cause to rejoice in the 
 preaching o^ "wicked men, if none could receive bene- 
 fit by it. And he plainly supposes, (1 Cor ix. 27.) 
 that a man may save others by his preacJiing, and yet 
 himself be a castaway. Therefore let us lay no stress 
 upon the instrument (more than was upon the waters 
 of Jordan to heal Naaman,^ but trust wholly to the 
 commission which conveys the virtue from God, and 
 not from his ministers ; — that all the glory may be to 
 God and not to man. It is true, the personal qualifi- 
 cations of the instrument are lovely and desirable ; 
 but they become a snare where we expect any part 
 of the success from them. This was the ground of the 
 Corinthian schism, (1 Cor.i. 11.) and, though unseen, 
 of ours at this day. 
 
 From what has been said on this subject, I would 
 
us 
 
 not have it understood that I mean to apologise for 
 the scandalous lives of any church clergymen, or to 
 intimate that the Dissenting teachers are entirely ir- 
 reproachable, and the clergy worldly-minded and dis- 
 sipated. Nay, Dissenting teachers themselves con- 
 fess the very contrary : I not only think (says one,) 
 that there may be good ministers in the church, but 
 that I have a much higher opinion of some of them, 
 than of many of them among ourselves, (Newton's 
 Corresp. with a Dissent. Minister, 1809, p. 44.) But 
 whose fault is it that wicked ministers are allowed to 
 remain in the church ? It is the fault of the people, 
 and it were to be wished that all parishioners were 
 convinced, and would do their duty in this respect, 
 before they think of separating from the church. If 
 by humble entreaties and a pious example, they can- 
 not prevail with their minister to perform what the 
 law of God and the church enjoins him, they ought to 
 complain to the Bishop of the diocese, that " being 
 found guilty, he may by just judgment be deposed,'* 
 Art. 23*. ' 
 
 * There is one ♦thing (says Bishop Wliite,) of great moment 
 to persuade the people to live in conformity and in the unity of 
 the church, viz. the holy and religious conversation of conformable 
 men. When people shall observe conformable Ministers, diligent 
 and industriousin serving God, and promoting the salvation of chris- 
 tian souls, committed to their charge ; — when they behold in them 
 peaceable, sober, and virtuous conversation ; and that they are no 
 less diligent in sowing the seed of grace ^ than heretics and schismatics 
 are in sowing tares ; — this will prevail very much to persuade them 
 to honour the present church, and the discipline thereof. Now, on 
 the contrary, no one thing hath been a greater scandal and occasion 
 of withdrawing many from conformity, than the profane negligence 
 of some conformable ministers, than their looseness of life y their 
 avarice and ambition in heaping together benefices and promotions, 
 
144 
 
 As for Discipline, it is to be lamented that it has not 
 been, long before this, restored to its primitive vigour, 
 and exercised against those members of the church 
 who disgrace their christian profession. This neglect 
 however cannot be imputed to the lay -members, but 
 to the governors of the church. Neither are the mem- 
 bers answerable for the wickedness of any of their 
 brethren, provided that they*are so far from joining in 
 it, that they do all in their power to prevent or pu- 
 nish it*, (John vi. 23. — Acts xxvii.35. — Gal.vi. 4.5.) 
 
 I have now examined the principal objections 
 against the Episcopal Church, and I think this should 
 be no small satisfaction to men's minds that it pro- 
 fesses nothing contrary to the nature and design of 
 Christianity ; from wlience it follows, that men may 
 be very good Catholic christians while they live in her 
 communion, and then I am certain they cannot be 
 such when they forsake it, for nothing but apparent 
 and manifest danger of committing sin can justify 
 such a separation. 
 
 Since then to remain in the unity of the Catholic 
 Church (of which the Reformed Episcopal Church in 
 England, Ireland, and Scotland, is such a sound and 
 orthodox portion,) is of the utmost importance to the 
 
 .—and than a gross neglect in discharging their duty either in their 
 own persons, or in entertaining and rewarding able and sufficient 
 curates. Treatise on the Sabbath, in the Dedication to Archbishop 
 Laud, Lond. 1635. 
 
 If a clergyman be eager after pleasures, the world and its idols, 
 trifling and vain in life, all he says from the pulpit will signify no- 
 iJiing, More sinners have been converted by hol^/, than by learned 
 men. It is the greatest presumption to pretend to heal anvOther of 
 a distemper I labour under myself. Bishop Wilsons Sacra Frivata, 
 
 * See Appendix, No. III. 
 
145 
 
 eternal interests of the individual. Schism, or an un- 
 necessary separation from it, must, as I have already 
 proved, be a sin of a very heinous nature ; and' con- 
 sequently every OccasionalT Separation, that is, oc- 
 casionally attending the meetings of Separatists of 
 any denomination, must be sin in a similar point of 
 view. It is the commission of an acknowledged sin ; 
 and the only difference between the constant separatist 
 and the occasional one appears to be, that the one 
 continues in the habitual practice of that sin, which 
 the other occasionally commits. 
 
 Communion with schismatics is most plainly for- 
 bidden in scripture. " I wish they were even cut off 
 (i. e, at least refused your communion,) who trouble 
 you *," says St Paul, (Gal. v. 12.) Again, " we com- 
 mand you, brethren, in the name of our Lor djesus Christy 
 that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that 
 xmlketh disorderly, and not after the traditio?i which he 
 receivedfrom us,'' (2Thess.iii.6.) Now, who can walk 
 more disorderly, than he that breaks the unity of the 
 church, and sets up a separate communion in oppo- 
 sition to the Catholic ? ''And if any man obey not our 
 word by this epistle, 7iote that man, and have no com- 
 pany with himf, that he may be ashamed,'' (ver. 14.) In 
 short, what can be a plainer precept than that, (Rom. 
 xvi. 17.) '*Mark them which cause divisions and offences 
 contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid 
 them," Or that (Tit.iii. 10.) ''A man that is an heretic 
 after the frst and second admonition, reject;" where 
 the word heretic naturally signifies what we mean by 
 
 * 'Ot ' avaa-rov-jn^ ^vixccc, i. e, those who endeavour to crumble you 
 into factions, and divide your unity. 
 
 f Mr (Tvva,vu^ji,iyvvc^r„ do uot mix with him, especially in religious 
 assemblies. 
 
146 
 
 the word schismatic. For, in the first ages, heresy 
 ajid schism were indiscriminately used to signify any 
 communion opposite to the Catholic communion*. 
 Should a man sometimes join with his prince's forces, 
 and sometimes with his enemies, and fight sometimes 
 on the one. side, and sometimes on the other, — is he 
 not a rebel ? (Gal. v. 12. — James i. 8.) 
 
 Hence appears the absolute necessity of all true 
 churchmen adhering to the fellowship of their Bishops 
 and clergy, and carefully avoiding the meetings of 
 Protestant sectaries of all denominations, — and this 
 for the two following reasons : 1. The sectaries have 
 710 ministry, 2. They are schismatics* 
 
 I. We must recollect that those pretended ministers 
 who officiate in the meetings of Methodists, Presbyte- 
 rians, &c. have not" been ordained by Bishops. And 
 consequently (as I have already demonstrated,) these 
 men have not been sent by God; and therefore it must 
 be utterly unlawful to attend their ministry. ^'For 
 how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they 
 preach ej^cept they he se7it?^^ (Rom. x. 15.) The Lord 
 forbids us to hear them, because *' he hath not sent 
 them, and therefore they shall not profit this people,'^ 
 (Jerem. xxiii. 32.) To hear then, in such a case, is 
 
 * The primitive christians of the three first centuries were decid- 
 edly hostile to the scandalous practice of Occasional Communion : 
 " If any one pray with one that is excommunicated, though in a pri- 
 vate house, let him be suspended from communion," ( Apost. Can, 8. J 
 " Let the Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, that only prays with here- 
 tics, be suspended; but if he suffer them to oflSciate as clergymen, 
 let him be deposed," (Can. 37.) To the same purpose are the 9th, 
 33d, and 37th Can. of the Co, of Laodicea, held A. D. 367. The 
 sentiments of the Fathers on this head are collected in KettlexvelVs 
 Works, Vol. 11. p. 613. The canons of the English and Irish Re- 
 formed Church express similar sentiments. 
 
147 
 
 rebellion against God, and utterly unlawful, and is 
 countenancing them, and hardening their presump- 
 tion and daring imposture. (See ^Modern Pleas for 
 Schism and Infidelity reviewed, by J. Smith, a Layman, 
 Lond. 1717, 3d edit.) It is (observes Mr Smith,) a 
 hard saying, and though I cannot run into our modern 
 charity of soothing and flattering them in their per- 
 verseness, yet I wish from the bottom of my soul, it 
 were not a true one. Our men of temper may use 
 what arts they please to blind this matter, and excite 
 the passions of honest and good-natured men about 
 it ; but the importance of the point exacts of us not 
 to dissemble here. And we must plainly insist, that 
 federally speaking, not one of the Dissenters have such 
 a thing as either the word or sacraments among them. 
 For let them be as noisy as they will, it is impossible 
 for that which is allowed to be invalid in the agents 
 to be valid in the subject. Nemo dat quod non habetj 
 is a maxim that hath not only the authority of schools, 
 but the reason and eternal nature of things on its side. 
 Will any man be so absurd as to say, that my assum- 
 ing the title of a justice of the peace would make me 
 so, with respect to those I shouldpretendto command? 
 Would not every body laugh at the folly, as well as im- 
 pudence of such a pretence ? If then the priesthood be 
 an honour, ^'no man taketh to himself,buthethat is called 
 of God, as was Aaron,'' — if our Lord has ^' given some 
 apostles, some pastors and teachers, S^cfor the perfect^ 
 fng of the saints, for the work of the ministry,'' &c. cer- 
 tainly we may venture further to interrogate with the 
 apostle, " How can they preach except they be sent?'* 
 If not preach, neither can they administer the sacra- 
 ments; and consequently, whatever they presume to 
 do of that kind is null and void. 
 
148 
 
 The case being thus, the nonentitij of these unhappy- 
 people's church appears upon a double account '.Jirstj 
 as wanting a ministry, — and second, as wanting the diLe 
 jt7r^^^/«'/2jg'of the pure word, and right administration of 
 the sacraments, which our church, in her nineteenth 
 Article, makes the essential part of a church. So that 
 the difference between us and this people, as already- 
 considered, is a ministry and no ministry, a church and 
 no church, 
 
 II. But even supposing that our Dissenters were 
 Episcopalians, and had a true ministry (like the an- 
 cient Donatists and Novatians,) yet we ought to ab- 
 stain from communicating with them, because they 
 are alxvays schismatical, and, in many instances, heretical. 
 This I shall briefly prove with respect to the two lead- 
 ing sects of the present day, the Methodists and Pres- 
 byterians. 
 
 In the first place, I assert that the Methodists are 
 schismatics. They have wilfully, and without suffi- 
 cient reason, established congregations and (pretend- 
 ed) pastors, entirely independent of the authority of 
 the lawful Bishops of England and Ireland ; and in 
 this, as I have before proved, consists the sin of schism. 
 *' Different and variable as their doctrines are (says Dr 
 Randolph, the present Bishop of London, Charge to 
 his Clergy, 1810,) they all agree in the pernicious 
 practice of gathering to themselves congregations, 
 drawn aside from their lawful teachers. In fact, it 
 is the very essence of schism, and shews plainly that 
 vanity and ambition in the leaders, the love of no- 
 velty and opposition in the followers, and not any con- 
 scientious difference of opinion, is that which is at the 
 bottom of these dissensions." And what renders their 
 separation moreinexcusable, they profess themselves 
 
149 
 
 members of the church, and occasionally frequent its 
 worship. For, by their occasionally coming to church, 
 they plainly shew, that there is nothing in our public 
 service which they do not approve pf, or at least 
 which is unlawful, — therefore they have no excuse for 
 separating from her. But there is a more important 
 reason, why all communication with the Methodists 
 should be avoided, namely, because they profess se- 
 veral heretical and dangerous doctrines. They dwell 
 (says the acute Dr Hales,) almost exclusively on some 
 grand articles of cmhtidimty, justificationhj faith, re- 
 generation, sanctification, &c. and magnify them to such 
 a degree, as to attach little importance to others. — 
 Thus, while they magnify the saving power of faith, 
 they undervalue hope, and circumscribe charity. Not 
 content with that humble, modest, diffident, " trem- 
 bling hope,'^ which becomes the frailty and imperfec- 
 tion even of the best men to entertain, they aspire 
 to, and inculcate a hardy assurance of salvation, — an 
 experimental hiowledge of ihe forgiveness of sins, by 
 sensible impressions of the holy Spirit ; arrogating to 
 themselves and to their hearers the ejctraordinary gifts 
 atid graces of the Spirit, shed forth plenteously on the 
 apostles. (Methodism Inspected,T>uhA804^.) We have 
 great reason indeed to affirm, that the principal object 
 of the Methodists, in professing such regard for the 
 church, has been merely to serve as a decoy to draw 
 away her members, and thus by degrees to increase 
 their ranks, and form themselves into anestabhshment. 
 Not unlike to them did their predecessors, the old 
 Puritans, act. " They formed a sect (says Hume,) 
 which secretly lurked in the church, but pretended 
 at first not to any separate worship or discipline.'* 
 Wliat the consequence was of such double dealing 
 
150 
 
 is too well known. In like manner, these new Puri- 
 tans most ostentatiously and hypocritically profess to 
 be real and true members of the Church of England; 
 while, at the same time, they treat with the most wan- 
 ton abuse, and the most outrageous contempt, the 
 clergy of the church, nay and even her discipline. 
 The conduct of the Methodists (says the editor of the 
 Ecclesiastical Register,^. ^4^5, Lond. 1810,) in profess- 
 ing to be members of the Church of England, is allied 
 to their general practice in other matters. So far from 
 their being a component and sound part of our holy 
 church, it is their uniform practice to vilify its clergy ; 
 to creep into the confidence of their more ignorant 
 parishioners; and either, with pernicious insinuations, 
 insidiously whisper doubts as to the credit, or openly 
 attack the morals of such as are too wise to be duped 
 by their promises, or alarmed by their anathemas ! — 
 And with all this, shall the Methodists presume to be 
 a sou7id part of the Church of England ? At a time 
 too, when one of their most furious and authorised 
 bigots have stigmatised our clergy by declaring, that 
 " in one century they would have obliterated all the 
 remaining practical religion in the church, had it not 
 been for the Methodists." — Surely the impudence of 
 this sect rivals its ignorance ! 
 
 In the second place, those who go under the general 
 name of Presbyterians, are equally to be avoided with 
 the Methodists. Although their standard of faith as 
 preached by their ministers*, is purer and approaches 
 nearer to the church than that of the Methodists, yet 
 
 * I say as Preached hy their ministers, for their doctrines, as con- 
 tained in the Confession of Faith, are widely different from the Ar- 
 ticles of the Reformed Episcopal Church. '' The system of the Pres- 
 byterians h fatalism of the sternest aspect; and the cruelest rigour, 
 
161 
 
 we must recollect, that **a very great number of those 
 who still claim the name of Presbyterians, have sadly 
 departed from the faith of the gospel. In both coun- 
 tries (Scotland and Ireland,) Socinian, Arian, and Ar- 
 minian errors, with a keen opposition to all confes- 
 sions of faith, as tests of orthodoxy, prevail among 
 several classes of Protestant Dissenters." Yet still, 
 whether Presbyterians retain the true faith or not, 
 they cannot be excused from the charge of schism. 
 Unity of faith, as I have shewn before, by itself is 
 not sufficient to unite all christians into one society. 
 People may profess the same essential articles of faith, 
 and yet make different and opposite communions : 
 Thus the Novatians and Donatists, in the primitive 
 ages, professed the same essential articles of faith 
 which the Catholics professed, and yet they were di- 
 vided from the Catholic Church *. In the same man- 
 ner Presbyterians, at least those who profess the true 
 faith, are in a state of unjustifiable separation from 
 the lawful Bishops of these countries, and consequent- 
 ly are cut off from the apostles' fellowship, and from 
 Catholic communion 5 and therefore they are justly 
 
 and is, of course, attended with its inseparable horrifying train of 
 consequences." — See The Difference stated betwixt the Presbyterian 
 Establishment and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, by Rev. J. Milne y 
 Presbyter of the Episcopal Congregation, Banff. Aberdeen, 1811. 
 * The unity of the Catholic Church consists at least of two parts: 
 the one in our creed, called in scripture the Unity of Faith, the 
 breach of which is heresy, — and the other in our practice, called the 
 Bond of Peace, the breach of which is schism ; and either heresy 
 or schism are sufficient to cut any body of people from being parts 
 of the Catholic Church. Aud therefore^ though the Presbyterians, 
 &c. were not chargeable with breaking the Unity of Faith, yet they 
 are excluded from the Pale of the Catholic Church by only break- 
 ing the Bond of Peace* Smith's Pleas, p. 36. 
 
152 
 
 charged with schism, for keeping up uncharitable di- 
 visions, and unnecessarily rending the Church of God 
 for trifles. For trifles, I say, for I have already proved 
 our terms of lay-communion to be laxvful, and nothing 
 but sinful terms of communion can justify separation. 
 Indeed, the generahty of Dissenters do not think that 
 lay-communion with our church is unlawful. This 
 is evident, not only from their occasionally joining 
 with us as lay-persons, and some of them for many 
 years, but also from the approbation of the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterians of Scotland. For, in 
 their memorial to the House of Commons, A.D. 1790, 
 they expressly allow that " the members of the Kirk 
 of Scotland may conscientiously communicate occa- 
 sionally wdth the Church of England." So that the 
 people are condemned in their separation by their 
 own teachers. And it is justly remarked by the Pres- 
 byterian Assembly of England in 1648, in their writ- 
 ings against the Independents, who had separated from 
 them without sufficient reason, "that to separate from 
 those churches, with whom occasionally you may join 
 without sin, seemeth to be a most unjust sepa^ation,^* 
 Truly I know not how the Presbyterians of Scotland 
 can excuse their separation from the lawful Bishops 
 of that country ; they surely do not imagine that the 
 act of Parliament, by which they are established, can 
 take aw^ay the sin of schism. And it is acknowledged 
 by Irish Presbyterians of the present day, that " Epis- 
 copalians belong to the true Church of Christ as well 
 as Presbyterians," that " w^e are brethren wdth them 
 in Christ ;" they have even given up the divine right 
 of Presbyterian government (for which they contend- 
 ed so vehemently in the seventeenth century,) they 
 say " it is not essential, — that the plan of government 
 
153 
 
 may be accommodated to existing circumstances ;" 
 and moreover, that " difference upon that subject, 
 where men are agreed in the fundamental truths of the 
 gospel, is no sufficient reason for breaking the unity 
 of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and tor withdraw- 
 ing from communion with each other." M'Dowel ut 
 supra, p. 11. 
 
 To this author, and to those who agree with him on 
 this subject, I address the words of the late Rev. and 
 pious Philip Skelton : As to you who regard church 
 government, and the other differences between your- 
 selves and us as nothing, surely you must look on 
 peace and unity on one side, and schism on the other 
 as less than nothing, if you continue to dissent. Your 
 safest way then must be to join with the church, be- 
 cause by that means you avoid the sin of schism at 
 least, which must be a great and real sin in you, 
 while you dissent. — Or to make use of their own rea- 
 soning against the Independents : "If we be a church 
 of Christ, and Christ hold communion with us, >vhy 
 do yoLi separate from us ? If we be the body of 
 Christ, do not they that separate from the body, se- 
 parate from the head also ? We are loath to speak 
 any thing that may offend you, yet we entreat you 
 to consider, that if tlie apostle calls those divisions 
 of the Church of jCorinth (wherein christians did not 
 separate into divers congregations,) schisms, (1 Cor. 
 X. 10.) may not your secession from us, and profess- 
 ing you cannot join with us as members, and setting 
 up congregations of another communion, ^be more 
 properly called schism ? You gather churches out of 
 churches, and set up churches in an opposite way to 
 our churches, and all this you do voluntarily and un- 
 warrantably, not having any sufficient cause for it." 
 
154 
 
 But it may be replied that " Dissenters in general 
 have never examined the terms of communion with 
 the church, or have been ignorant of the sinfulness 
 of divisions ; and surely, then, you will not say that 
 they are without hope of mercy and salvation, because 
 they are not members of Catholic communion." — 
 Now, although I assert that the one visible body of 
 Christ is the only communion wherein the covenanted 
 mercies of God can be expected ; yet I never meant 
 that schismatics are incapable of God's unco'vena7ited 
 mercies. I believe that God is infinitely merciful, 
 and that his mercy is over all his works ; and that in 
 cases of real and unavoidable necessity, God will con- 
 fer upon conscientious believers (although separated 
 from the church,) all the benefit of his sacraments*. 
 And the same, I am willing to believe, of all those 
 who attend unauthorised administrations, through in- 
 vincible ignorance, and a natural incapacity to judge 
 of these matters. But as for those who are capable 
 
 * After a rest of one hundred years, the controversy respecting 
 the vaUdity of baptism administered by Presbyterian teachers and 
 other laymen, has again been brought before the pubhc ; and 
 many thanks are due to Mr Daubeny for the able manner in which 
 he has defended God's truth, against the decisions and encroach- 
 ments of the civil magistrate. See his Exam, of the Judgmetit de- 
 livered by Sir J, Nicholl, L, L. D. against Rev, J. Wickes,Jbr refus- 
 ing to bury a child ivhich had been baptised by a Dissenting Minister^ 
 Bath, 1811. Laurences Lay Baptism Livalid, in two parts, 1709- 
 1713. Dr Trapps Review of the Controv. betvoeen Laurence and 
 Bingham^ Discourses II. p. 110. 1722. Laurence's Dissenters Bap- 
 tism Nidi and Void, by the Articles, 8fc. of the Church of England, 
 
 Reprinted, Lond. 1810 With respect to the question, whether 
 
 baptism should be administered to converts to the church, who 
 have already received lay-baptism, I refer the scrupulous to Dr 
 Trapp,^, 117. Bennetts Rights, p. 352. Laurences Lay-baptism 
 Invalid. 
 
155 
 
 of examining into these subjects, they are certainly 
 inexcusable. And therefore I intreat all such Dis- 
 senters seriously to consider. Whether they will be 
 able to justify these dreadful effects of their separa- 
 tion at the last day ? — Will they then be able to say, 
 that they laid aside every prejudice, and did all that 
 "was possible to prevent them ; and that they would 
 never have caused or kept up these disturbances, if 
 they could with a good conscience have complied with 
 the church ? — Will they then think that a christian 
 ought esteem the supposed inconveniences of a sur- 
 plice, a form of prayer, kneeling at worship, or the 
 like, more grievous and intolerable than rending and 
 tearing the church, which is the body of Christ, to 
 pieces. 
 
TREATISE ON THE CHURCH, 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 THE TRUE STATE OF THE QUESTION BETWEEN THE RE- 
 FORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND THE ROMANISTS, 
 RESPECTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THE ME- 
 THOD OF PRESERVING ITS UNITY. 
 
 In the former part of this treatise I have stated, and 
 have endeavoured to defend the true notion of Christ's 
 Catholic Church, viz. that it consists of all Faithful 
 christians, adhering to the communion of their Or-^ 
 tJiodox Bishops, and those clergy authorised by them, 
 under Christ its supreme head. This definition I have 
 applied to the respective bodies of professing chris- 
 tians which pass under the general name o£ Protes- 
 tants, and proved at large that the society of chris- 
 tians in England, Ireland, and Scotland, which is de- 
 signated by the title of Reformed Episcopal, alone 
 corresponds with the above-mentioned definition. — 
 I have, at the same time, vindicated her against the 
 
158 
 
 cavils and objections of Protestant Dissenters, espe- 
 cially those of Presbyterians and Methodists- 
 It could not, however, have been expected (seeing 
 that the existence of numerous heresies and false pro-^ 
 pljets has been foretold by our Lord,) that these should 
 be the only adversaries against whom the Reformed 
 Episcopal Church has to contend, and from whose 
 aspersions she is bound to vindicate herself. There 
 is also another party of professing christians, who for 
 several hundred years past have maintained (in the 
 opinion of all Protestants,) the most pernicious errors 
 with respect to the doctrines and worship of real Chris- 
 tianity; yet have presumed to assert, that the society 
 of christians or church adhering to the Bishop of 
 Rome is the Catholic Church ; that all Bishops, and 
 private christians owe subjection to him by divine 
 right ; and that whoever maintains opinions contra- 
 ry to those maintained by him, are cut off from all 
 ordinary hopes of salvation. Such is the modern 
 system of the Catholic Church, set up some hun- 
 dred years ago by this aspiring Bishop and his flat- 
 terers, in direct opposition to the scriptural and pri- 
 mitive system, as I shall soon demonstrate. In con- 
 formity with these notions, each member of that 
 communion is bound explicitly to ** acknowledge the 
 holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mo- 
 ther and mistress of all churches, and promise true 
 obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St 
 Peter, Prince of the apostles, and Vicar of Jesus 
 Christ.'^ 
 
 In opposition to these novel smd schismatical notions 
 I shall lay down a few principles of Catholic Unity, 
 as instituted in the apostles' times, maintained in 
 the primitive churches, preserved by many orthodox 
 
159 
 
 churches during the darkest ages of Popery, and final- 
 ly adopted by all Reformed Episcopal Churches since 
 the grand reformation *. 
 
 I. The first grand principle of ujiity is, that all 
 Bishops are originally o^ equal poxcer and autlwrity ; 
 and that each Bishop, with his clergy and the laity 
 united to them, professing the true christian faith 
 without the addition of false doctrine, and practising 
 the necessary christian worship without corruption, 
 constitutes a particular church, wherein the Bishop 
 presides as the principle of unity. 
 
 II. Every Bishop has the chief power of govern- 
 ment in his own diocese or church, independent of all 
 others. But, in order to understand properly the li- 
 mits of this power, we must distinguish between the 
 substantial and the ritual part of religion. For it is 
 in the latter chiefly, that Bishops possess an absolute 
 power in their own church, being at liberty to use 
 what indifferent rites they think proper, without be- 
 ing accountable to any other. Their independency 
 was so absolute in the beginning, that it extended to 
 all matters whatever, relating to the internal economy 
 of the church, to rites and ceremonies, to the form of 
 prayer which was used, nay to the particular terms 
 of the creeds, with all that was necessary in order to 
 enforce and to preserve uniformity. In matters of 
 Faith, indeed, when they corrupted the truth by 
 heretical doctrines, or introduced any rituals that 
 were destructive of it ; they were obnoxious to the 
 censure of all other Bishops, and every individual of 
 
 * See KettlevoelVs Worlcs,^o\. II. p. 588. 613, Sherlodcs Vind. 
 of some Protestant Principles of Church Unity, 2d edit. 1688. Bing- 
 ham s Antiquities, Book 16. ch. 8. B. 2. ch. 5. 6. 16. B. 16. ch. 1.— 
 Leslies Worhs, I. p. 575. Barroiv on the Unity of the Church, 
 
160 
 
 the whole catholic college of Bishops was authorised 
 to oppose them. 
 
 III. Although all Bishops are supreme in their own 
 dioceses, yet they are bound to live in catholic com- 
 munioii, and preserve close fellowship and constant 
 communion with each other. Indeed, this is a conse- 
 quence of that unity which our Lord commanded to 
 be observed between all his disciples ; so that the se- 
 veral particular churches, however almost of neces- 
 sity having separate and independent rites and cus- 
 toms, yet agreeing in all essential and fundamental 
 points, make up the one Catholic Church of Christ. 
 — It follows also, from this sort of connexion (nay, 
 from the command of Christ to the first Bishops, " Go 
 ye therefore and disciple all nations,'*' &c. Matt, xxviii. 
 19.) that every Bishop, although only ruling his own 
 church, has a concern in seeing that those articles of 
 faith, by the consent in which the connexion was kept 
 up, and made to answer its proper end, should be^ 
 preserved pure and inviolate ; and this gives him a 
 warrant to interpose with his advice and remonstrance, 
 whenever, in any of the churches, he perceives a dis- 
 position to run into heresy and to corrupt the genuine 
 doctrines of the gospel. In this sense (says Bing- 
 ham,) every Bishop was an universal pastor and Bishop 
 of the world, as having a common care and concern 
 for the whole Church of Christ *. And this was the 
 
 * This power of censuring heretical and schismatical Bishops, 
 does not impl}'^ a power and authority of declaring them to be he- 
 retics, and obliging all men to submit to their decrees. Therefore 
 the effects of these censures must depend on the opinion of the 
 people, those who beheve the censure just, will withdraw from the 
 communion of their Bishop ; — those who do not believe it just, will 
 still communicate with him. For whoever pronounces the sentence. 
 
161 
 
 sort, and the only sort of interference, which in the 
 beginning was allowed to any Bishop, whether the 
 Bishop of Rome or any other, in common with his 
 fellows. The dignity of that See, indeed, owing to 
 the opulence and extent of the metropolis to which 
 it belonged, might give a particular weight to his opi- 
 nion, but still he was only considered as a simple in- 
 dividual, among many who were his equals. Nor did 
 this or any other circumstance give to him more than 
 to any other Bishop, a power to repress disorder in 
 any diocese but his own. He might admonish, re- 
 prove, or exhort ; but the judgment upon such mat- 
 ters, when it became necessary to pass any such judg- 
 ment, was reserved to the assembly of all the Bishops, 
 whether of the province, of the nation, or of the em- 
 pire, all which assembHes obtained the name of Synods 
 or Councils. 
 
 So that the unity of the Catholic Church consists 
 not in the subjection of one church to another, or of 
 all churches to one supreme Bishop on earth, but in 
 the profession of the same faith, and in the agreement 
 and concord of their Bishops in acknowledging each 
 other's churches, and maintaiiiing communion with 
 them upon CathoHc principles, and governing their 
 own churches, as far as is expedient, by common rules 
 of worship and discipline *. 
 
 the people must execute it ; and, if they will still adhere to their 
 Bishop, he may defy his deposers and all their power, as the 
 reformed Bishops and people do all the anathemas of the Bishops of 
 Rome. Sherlock's Vind, p. 29. 
 
 * As for General Councils, there is no necessity of them to Ca- 
 tholic communion. The christian churches maintained a very strict 
 alliance and communion with each other for above 300 years with- 
 out them, — and Catholic communion was better preserved then, 
 
162 
 
 It must not be omitted, that for the further main- 
 tenance and regulation of this concord and correspon- 
 dence of the Bishops among themselves, it was found 
 expedient in the ^purest ages, and is still maintained 
 by the modern Reformed Episcopal Churches, that 
 neighbouring Bishops (as those of the same province 
 or nation,) should unite into one ecclesiastical bod^, 
 and govern their churches by mutual consent, all un- 
 der the inspection of one of themselves (styled Arch- 
 bishop,) whom they have invested with a power of 
 calling and presiding in provincial synods, a principal 
 interest in the ordination of Bishops in his province, 
 and the like, which are determined and limited by ec- 
 clesiastical canons. 
 
 Such was the true primitive and apostolic consti- 
 tution of the christian church, till the time of Con- 
 stantine the Great, A. D. 3^5, when the civil govern- 
 ment of the empire becoming united in one head. Pa- 
 triarchs were set over the Archbishops in particular 
 nations, in the same manner as the Exarchs had the 
 civil rule over their respective provinces ; and if the 
 Bishops of several Patriarchates met, the precedence 
 of these Patriarchs was adjusted to avoid contests. — 
 But this disposition was only among the Bishops of 
 the Roman empire, and who might the more conve- 
 
 than it has been since ; which is a demonstration, that such a su- 
 preme governing power over the whole church is not necessary to 
 CathoHc communion, for thenCathohc communion could never have 
 been maintained without it : and yet thus it was in St Cyprian's 
 days, who was as zealous an asserter of Catholic communion as any 
 before or since. (Sherlock's Find. p. 52.)— In truth, there never 
 was yet (nor at all necessary that there should be,) a council com- 
 posed of Bishops from all parts of the world. See Leslies JVorh,. 
 I. 576. Preserv. III. 39. 
 
168 
 
 niently do it, as being all under one emperor, and 
 therefore, with his allowance, might meet in any part 
 of his empire. Of these Patriarchs, the Bishops of 
 Rome and Constantinople were the most considerable 
 in authority and grandeur, on account of their re- 
 sidence in the imperial cities. They were often en- 
 gaged in violent disputes for the superiority of their 
 respective Patriarchates, but the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople both claimed and in the end preserved his in- 
 dependence, in spite of the repeated efforts which 
 were made by the Bishop of Rome to bring him into 
 subjection. 
 
 This short account of the government of the church 
 by Patriarchs, will help to give the reader an insight 
 into the origin of that power in the Roman Bishop 
 (as shall be more fully explained hereafter,) by which 
 he has been enabled to introduce an alteration in the 
 government of the church in the western parts of the 
 world, — to trample on the divinely -instituted right of 
 his fellow Bishops, — and to maintain that the Catho- 
 lic Chui'ch consists of those only who are subject to 
 his jurisdiction and authority. 
 
 In such a case, then, I desire to know why these 
 oppressed Bishops and churches may not vindicate 
 their own rights and liberties, — cast off such an into- 
 lerable yoke, — and restore primitive Catholic unity ? 
 My Lord (says the celebrated Mr Leslie, in reply to 
 Bossuet,) we think it incumbent upon every Bishop 
 of the church, to assert his own primitive power given 
 to him by our Lord, and to restore the discipline of 
 the primitive church, which leaves him supreme in his 
 own diocese, not hurt or infringed in the least by the 
 regulations made among the Bishops themselves, for 
 their mutual correspondence and management of the 
 
164 
 
 fiffairs of the Episcopal college. We consider with St 
 Cyprian, " Quam periculosum sit in clivinis rebus, ut 
 quis cedat jure suo et potestate," Epist, *^S, 
 
 I shall now proceed to prove that the Popish sys- 
 tem of the Catholic Church, by which the Bishop of 
 Rome claims " the full power of feeding, ruling, and 
 governing the whole church," has not the least foun- 
 dation in scripture and pure antiquity. On the con- 
 trary, the reformed system of church unity, as laid 
 down in this chapter, will appear clearly to have been 
 the primitive apostolic system, which Romanists can- 
 not reject, without rendering the commandments of 
 God of none effect by their traditions, and continu- 
 ing schismatically cut oiF from Catholic communion. 
 
 But before I begin, I must desire the reader to bear 
 in mind the two following observations, with respect 
 to the true state of the question. 
 
 I. The question is not whether a supreme pastor 
 is necessary to preserve the unity of the church, but 
 whether a supreme pastor, in the person of Peter and 
 his successors, was instituted by Christ. For, is our 
 mere supposition of the expediency and necessity of 
 the thing sufficient to build such vast pretensions on, 
 which ought only to be grounded on divine institu^ 
 tion? Is it not more modest rather to argue the con- 
 trary, that because there is no divine institution of 
 such an office, that therefore it is not necessary, how- 
 ever we may mistake the conveniency of it ? In short, 
 Christ only had an unquestionable title to prescribe 
 the form of government, without instructing us in the 
 reasons on which he acted, and we may well believe 
 that what he prescribed, is the fittest for us and the 
 best. 
 , II. The true/ state of the question respecting tlie 
 
165 
 
 Bishop of Rome's supremacy, is not to be derived 
 from the writings of this or that Popish author, who, 
 in Protestant countries, talk loosely about " the suc- 
 cessor of Peter, and centre of the Catholic commu- 
 nion," in order to ensnare us if possible ; but from 
 the authorised documents of the Romish Church, viz. 
 their creeds, catechisms, and general councils, of 
 which (as said to be ifijaUible,) no Romanist can dis- 
 believe the smallest word, without ceasing to be a 
 Romanist. The sense of the council of Trent in this 
 matter I have stated already ; the (pretended) gene- 
 ral council of Florence is more express, " We define 
 (says the canon,) that the holy apostolic See, and Ro- 
 man Pontiff, is invested with the primacy over the 
 'whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the suc- 
 cessor of St Peter Prince of the apostles, and that 
 he is the true Vicar of Christ, and head of the whole 
 church, and the father and doctor of all christiaiis; and 
 that the full poxver of feeding, ruling, and governing 
 the universal church was given to him in St Peter, by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, as is contained in the acts of 
 general councils, and in the sacred canons." 
 
 In order to secure these powers, he not only re- 
 quires an acknowledgment of ^^ true obedience" to him 
 from all the laity, as mentioned above in the Trent 
 creed, but exacts the most solemn oaths (totally un- 
 heard of in the primitive ages,) from the Bishops sub- 
 ject to him. For, since the Council of Trent, A .D. 
 1546, his dominion over his brother Bishops is carried 
 to such a height, and so confirmed, that in truth they 
 are become little better than his vicars. They swear 
 obedience to him in as strong terms, as any subject 
 can use towards his sovereign ; and even oblige them- 
 selves to appear in person beforehim every three years, 
 
166 
 
 or to excuse themselves by a sufficient deputy, ^ith 
 such care is this vassalage enforced ! 
 
 This being the true state of their doctrine concern- 
 ing their Pope's supremacy, and that which I would 
 call nalced Popery, I am sure (to use the words of Dr 
 Gee,) I have a commission from the Church of Eng- 
 land (nay, from all Episcopal churches,) to declare 
 that she cannot, without betraying the rights of all 
 Bishops, and the interest of the Catholic Church, es- 
 pouse the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome's supre- 
 macy, which we of her communion do believe is al- 
 together without foundation, either in scripture or 
 primitive antiquity. Gee's Vind, of Answer to Nuhes 
 Testium, 1688. 
 
167 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME CONFUTED 
 FR03I THE SCRIPTURES, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE 
 APOSTOLIC METHOD OF PRESERVING THE UNITY OF 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 1 HE Bishop of Rome claims a supremacy over the 
 whole christian church, because it is pretended, that 
 our Saviour made the apostle Peter the head and 
 supreme governor of it. This we deny, having un- 
 doubted proofs, that all the apostles were placed by 
 Christ in equal power and authority over his church*. 
 And here it must not be denied, that some of the 
 apostles were superior to the rest, both in personal 
 merit, and in order of place. Of these were '^ James, 
 Peter, andJohn, who seemed to be^pillars,^^ (Gal.ii.9.) 
 and were accounted " chief apostles,'' (2 Cor. xi. 5. 
 xii. 11.) Farther, it is acknowledged by many of 
 our divines, that Peter in general is preferred before 
 the rest, and oftentimes acted as their foreman or 
 prolocutor, at least for some time after Christ's as- 
 cension. This is attributed by some of the fathers 
 to his being first called to be an apostle, or to his 
 age ; but it was most probably owing to his extraor- 
 dinary forwardness and zeal. Whatever was the true 
 
 * Bishop Patrick's Examination of the Texts for the Supremacy, 
 and his Sermon in Answer to Goddens Sermon on St Peter s Day, 
 1687. Bishop Stratford's Discourse, in answer to Cknche and God- 
 den, 1688. Collins' Defence of Bishop Andrews' Tortura Torti, 1617. 
 
168 
 
 reason, it is certain that nothing was founded on it 
 but a mere priority oi place, and that neither Peter 
 nor any other apostle had 2iny power or authoiity over 
 the rest. 
 
 And here, in a matter of such infinite importance, 
 and which they make the very *' sum of Christianity," 
 we might expect to meet, not only with the Bishop 
 of Rome's name in scripture, but also the time and 
 manner of his instalment, and the deed of convey- 
 ance to his successors, in the plainest and most sig- 
 nificant terms. But they are not able to produce 
 any such ; the whole stress of the evidence is laid 
 upon a few obscure and metaphorical passages. 
 
 The arguments, on which St Peter'spretended supre- 
 macy and authority over the other apostles is founded, 
 are of two kinds: 1st, Such words of Christ as seem 
 to imply or give this authority : 2d, Some great pri- 
 vileges granted. 
 
 I. Such words of Christ as seem to imply or give 
 this power ; and these are two texts, viz. Matt. xvi. 
 18. 19. — John xxi. 15. — St Matthew relates, that upon, 
 St Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son 
 of God, Christ said to him, " Thou art Peter, and up- 
 on this rock I will build my church, kc, and I will give 
 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever 
 thou shall hind on earth, shall he hound in heaven.'' — 
 Now, were we to consider this passage by itselft 
 without adverting at all to what is its proper com- 
 ment, the subsequent conduct of Peter and the other 
 apostles, yet even then it would be difficult to con- 
 tend, that our Lord's saying was to be applied ex- 
 clusively to Peter. For the question which led to that, 
 was put to all the apostles ; and Peter when he an- 
 swered must, according to fair construction, be con- 
 
169 
 
 sidered as answering in the name of all. There is 
 nothing particular to Peter, but that he is addressed 
 by name, and that to his name our Lord makes an 
 immediate allusion. 
 
 As to what is meant by the word rock, which the 
 Romanists interpret as making Peter the supreme 
 governor of the church, it is plain that, 1st, there is 
 no certainty Peter is meant by the rock, upon which 
 Christ promised to build his church : Nor, 2d, if he 
 were, that Christ intended, by calling him a rock, to 
 invest him with supremacy over his church. 
 
 1. I say there is no evidence that Peter is here 
 meant by the rock *. The whole text in dispute is 
 thus exactly translated in the Latin Vulgate, accord- 
 ing to the original Greek, Tu es Petrus, et super hanc 
 Petra77i cedtficaho ecclesiam meam. Now if Christ had 
 said, Tu es Petrus, et super hunc Petrum aedificabo 
 ecclesiam, it might have been of some service to sup- 
 port the supremacy of Peter ; although even so, it 
 would not have included his successors, who are here 
 not so much as pointed at. But hanc Petram, being of 
 
 * riETp?, Peter, does not mean a rock, as it has been incautiously- 
 translated, but a stone. Christ is the Rock (llsTp,) Peter rJerpoq) 
 is only a little piece of a rock, or a stone that has been dug out of 
 the rock. Thus is the dignity of Christ preserved, and Peter pro- 
 perly kept at a due distance from him. The passage, therefore, 
 truly means, Thou art Peter (or Cephas, both meaning a stone,) 
 a fragment from that sacred rock (tcrsrpa, which thou hast confessed) 
 on which I will build my Church. — This important remark I have 
 extracted from the review (in the British Critic, 1812,) of a tract 
 lately published on this very subject by Granville Sharp, Esq. en- 
 titled. Remarks on a passage (Matt. xvi. 18.) "ijchick has long been 
 perverted by the Church of Rome, in support of her vain and baneful 
 pretensions to a superiority or sup>reme dominion over all other Epis' 
 copal churches, 1812. 
 
170 
 
 a different gender, most plainly shews that Petrus or 
 Peter was not the Petra or rock, of which our Saviour 
 speaks. The word Petra is never made use of to de- 
 note the apostle Peter, But, in its metaphorical sig- 
 nification, it is several times applied to Christ, And 
 therefore, if, in the text now under consideration, it 
 may fairly be so applied according to the connexion 
 of the whole passage, it ought to be applied to Him ra- 
 ther than to Peter, Now, whenever St Peter is spoken 
 of as a pillar or foundation of the church, it is ne- 
 ver hy himself^ but always in conjunction with others, 
 (Gal. ii. 9.— Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21.) but Jesus Christ 
 is set forth unto us, as the single and sole foundation 
 of his church, (1 Cor. iii. 2.— Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21.)— 
 Let any man, therefore, read the whole context with- 
 out prejudice, and compare it with other passages of 
 scripture, particularly with those which I have now 
 quoted, and it will plainly appear, that hy hanc Petram, 
 or this rock, our Saviour did not mean Peter himselfl 
 but only the Faith, of which he had just then made 
 profession, which was, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
 of the living God. This is the fundamental principle 
 of the christian, church, — this is the sure foundation 
 or rock upon which it is built : for " other fowidation 
 can no man lay, than that is laid, wMch is Jesus Christ,*' 
 (1 Cor. iii. 11.) 
 
 This interpretation is countenanced by a large ma- 
 jority of the ancient fathers. Even they who apply 
 these words to Peter, do not really differ from this 
 exposition ; for they had respect (in calling him the 
 rock,) to his preaching the doctrine of Christ, and 
 having the honour to be the first preacher of it to the 
 Gentiles. And in this sense, even admitting Peter 
 himself to be the rock on which the church was built. 
 
171 
 
 the meaning of the words may probably be this, viz. 
 that Christ would make Peter a great and faithful in- 
 strument in planting the gospel, and this he might 
 very easily be, without having the least supremacy 
 over the other apostles. And if this were what our 
 Lord intended, it was accordingly verified, for Peter 
 actually laid the first foundation of the church both 
 among the Jews and Gentiles, (Acts ii.41.x.9.xv.7.) 
 But in this work Peter could have no successors, be- 
 cause that would be in effect to say, that thefounda- 
 tions of the christian church were not yet laid, which 
 was fully accomplished above 1 700 years ago ; and 
 moreover, that each Bishop of Rome (many of whom 
 have been monsters in wickedness,) has in succes- 
 sion become the rock on which Christ's Church is 
 built, in the same manner as St Peter was in the be- 
 ginning. 
 
 Farther, continuing the same supposition, we have 
 not the least reason to believe, that the comparison 
 of the rock implies a superiority of power smd govern- 
 menu For what resemblance is there between a rock 
 and a governor ? Can our adversaries produce any 
 instance, in which a supremacy of power was ever 
 conferred by comparmg any person to a rock ? Or, 
 is it the office of 2i foundation to govern ? If so, then 
 all the apostles were governors of the whole church 
 as well as Peter, being all "foundations," (Eph.ii. 20.) 
 enjoying the very same power given to them by Christ, 
 which we now suppose was here promised to him alone. 
 As for the other promise, that '*/AeA:^z/5 andthe power 
 of binding and loosing'' (which are the same, accord- 
 ing to the Roman catechism,) should be given to Peter, 
 it is certain that our Lord cannot be supposed by this 
 to give him a supremacy over the apostles, or over 
 
172 
 
 the whole church ; since we find, that it was actually 
 conferred by Christ on all the twelve, without any 
 distinction, (John xx. 21. 22. 23.) And accordingly, 
 when the Holy Ghost descended, it was imparted to 
 each of them alike, without preferring one to another, 
 (Acts ii. 3. 4.) So that if we may explain our Lord's 
 promise by its completion, what was promised to Peter 
 by name (because he had then spoken for them all, 
 in answer to Christ's question proposed to the whole 
 company,) was equally promised to all the rest. And 
 if this promise was not fulfilled to Peter at the same 
 time and in the same manner as it was to all the rest, 
 we do not find that it was fulfilled at all. 
 
 If it be said, that " this promise was performed im- 
 mediately, and therefore that there was something 
 extraordinary (Conferred on Peter here, since he is in- 
 vested with those keys, which the other apostles did 
 not receive till a short time before our Saviour's as- 
 cension ;" — I answer, that the rest of the apostles 
 were here undoubtedly invested with the same power 
 of the keys which w^as conferred on Peter ; because 
 in the next chapter but one to this (Matt, xviii. I7. 
 18. xix. 28.) our Saviour addresses them all as already 
 invested with the keys, and this is agreeable to the 
 opinion of the fathers, " who (according to Dupin, 
 De Ant, Eccles, Discip* Diss. 4.) say unanimously that 
 the keys were given to the whole church in the person 
 of Peter." St Austin particularly " inculcates this an 
 hundred times," (as his words are,) a proof of which 
 may be seen in the epistles of Launoy, (Epist. 73 J 
 who has collected twenty-six places out of St Austin's 
 works, to show that he taught this " openly, frequent- 
 ly, and constantly." 
 
 I cannot forbear to mention one of them, says 
 
173 
 
 Bishop Patrick *, because it affords us many consider- 
 able remarks : *' As some things (says Austin, Enarr. 
 in Psal. 108.) are spoken which may seem properly 
 to belong to the Apostle Peter, and yet have not a 
 clear sense but when they are referred to the church, 
 whereof he is acknowledged to have represented the 
 person in a figure (because of the primacy he had 
 among the apostles,) as that is, < / xvill give thee tlic 
 keys,' and if there be any like: — So Judas sustains, 
 after a certain manner, the person of-the Jews, the 
 enemies of Christ," kc. Here the Romanists are very 
 forward to catch at these words, which signify a place 
 o^ priority that Peter had among the apostles (which 
 no one denies,) but are not willing to take any notice 
 of the rest, which entirely overthrow that primacy 
 they would advance him unto from this place. For, 
 ist, he says some things that seem to belong to Peter, 
 
 which in truth ought to be referred to the church 
 
 2d, That their sense is not clear, till they be carried 
 beyond him. — Among which things, 3d, he reckons 
 what Christ here says, " / "will give thee the keys,'' 
 which Austin says are not plain, unless we refer them 
 to the church. — Wliose person, 4th, he says he repre- 
 sented, not by virtue of any authority he had above 
 the rest, but in a figure, to signify unity, as the an- 
 cients interpret it. — And it is further remarkable, 5th, 
 that Christ did not promise him the primacy in pro- 
 mising him the keys, for he had the primacy here 
 spoken of before ; and with respect to that, Christ di- 
 rected these words to him rather than to any of the 
 rest, because he was already the first not in office, but 
 
 * See also Th Collins Eppliata to F. T, 1617, p. 12. in which St 
 Austin's opinion is fully explained. 
 
174 
 
 in order; and so the fittest person to be singled out 
 to represent what Christ intended. And to convince 
 every one that there is no authoritative primacy meant 
 in these words of Austin, he adds, that *' Judas sus- 
 tained the person of Christ's enemies, as Peter did of 
 the church." Will any one infer from hence, that 
 Judas had a jurisdiction over all the wicked, and left 
 it to his successors, one of whom now possesses the 
 same ? If any will be still so perverse as to dispute, 
 because St Austin does not mention Judas's primacy 
 as he does Peter's, let them learn that Prosper, one 
 of Austin's scholars, upon the very same psalm, says 
 expressly, that " Judas bore the primacy of Christ's 
 enemies." Which, if they will not expound to sig- 
 nify a supreme authority to govern Christ's enemies, 
 let them no longer interpret Peter's primacy to sig- 
 nify such an authority over his friends. He had none 
 here promised him, is as certain as any thing can be ; 
 but the keys to commend unity w^re promised, w^hicb 
 were in truth given to all the rest. 
 
 But it may be asked " why our Lord directed this 
 promise at first to Peter singly ?" — To this we may 
 answer, that, as he was the first to confess Christ to 
 be the Messiah, he should have the honour of first 
 opening the gate of the kingdom of heaven to the 
 Gentiles, and admitting them into the church ; and 
 this honour we find, in fact, that he had. But then 
 it is evident that both James and John exercised this 
 office, independently on Peter, in converting those 
 of the circumcision as well as lie ; and that St Paul 
 was, by way of excellency, and by virtue of his mis- 
 sion, the apostle of the Gentiles, (Rom. xi. 13. xv. 
 16. — Gal. i. 6. ii. 8.) and had the key of the kingdom 
 of heaven given to him as much as to St Peter. 
 
175 
 
 . The other passage adduced to prove Peter's supre- 
 macy, is John xxi. 15. where our Saviour bids Peter 
 thrice 'Ho feed his sJieep and lambs J' If this place be 
 forced to bestow any authority on Peter, it will make 
 him not chief, but sole pastor of the whole church, and 
 in this sense the above mentioned Council of Florence 
 seems to have understood these words. In like man- 
 ner, Dr De la Hogue of Maynooth College, gravely 
 informs us, that the *' primacy of Peter over the other 
 apostles is very manifestly collected from these words, 
 for Christ committed to him the care not only of the 
 lambSy but also of the sheep or mothers of the flock, 
 that is, of the ^«5^or5 themselves, and therefore o^all 
 churches, and of everything belonging to them!'' (Tract, 
 de Ecclesia, p. 324.) So that they who were pastors 
 no less than Peter himself, are here turned into simple 
 sheep, to be led by him ; which is confuted by the 
 whole history of the gospel, and by all antiquity. Did 
 he feed those apostles on whom the same Holy Ghost 
 fell, who had the same commission given at the same 
 time and in the same words : 'Wo preach the gospel 
 to all nations," or *' to every creature ?" (Matt, xxviii. 
 19. — Mark xvi. 15. — John xx. 21.) If not, they w^ere 
 not in the number of the sheep whom Peter is here 
 bid to feed ; or did all pastors receive commission 
 from Peter to feed Christ's sheep ? Did St Paul, who 
 so solemnly declares he had his commission " notfrom 
 man, neither by man?" (Gal. i. 1.) Did any of the 
 Bishops of Asia? — No. Paul assures us, the Holy 
 Ghost had made them overseers of the flock of Christ, 
 (Acts XX. 28.) *«No (saith Ambrose, DeDign, Sacerd. 
 p. 336.) not Peter only, sed 7ios cum eo, but we with 
 him have received commission to feed Christ's sheep ;" 
 and " what is here said to Peter, feed my sheep, ad 
 
176 ' 
 
 mines dicitur^is said to all," (says St Austin, Z)e Agone 
 Christ, c. 30.) *' and (says St Basil,) Christ here gave 
 the same power to all ensuing pastors and teachers.'* 
 Constit. Mon, c. 2^. 
 
 If it be enquired " to what purpose was this three- 
 fold question and charge to Peter ?" Not for the pur- 
 pose of advancing him to a higher dignity than the 
 rest, but, on the contrary, as a mark of inferiority and 
 reproach. It is observable, that the honourable name 
 of Peter is here dropped, and that of Simon substi- 
 tuted in its place, which doubtless carried some re- 
 proach with it. The question three times put, insi- 
 nuates a distrust of him, and was occasioned by his 
 thrice denying and at last forswearing Christ ; the 
 charge three times given, savours strongly of the same, 
 and St Peter's being grieved at the repetition shews 
 undeniably that in this sense he understood it. And 
 this also clears up the words of Christ immediately 
 following, (ver. 18.) Here therefore, as I said, there 
 is nothing of superiority of power, nor of honour given 
 to Peter, but of inferiority and reproach. None other 
 of the apostles were questioned in the same manner, 
 or received such reiterated, and therefore such dis- 
 trustful charges to go forth and preach the gospel. — 
 " In that speech of our Lord, "feed my sheep" (says 
 St Cyril,) there was a kind o^ renewal of the apostle- 
 ship formerly bestowed on him, doing away the in- 
 famy of his fall, and blotting out the cowardice of 
 human infirmity." Cyril does not /here say that our 
 Lord augmented his dignity (which is the new doc- 
 trine,) but that he renewed it, or restored him to it. 
 Wliich dignity he had said, in the beginning of this 
 discourse, Peter was advanced into, when our Lord 
 named liim not prce aliis, above others, but cum aliis, 
 
 2 
 
177 
 
 with other disciples to be an apostle ; and. therefore 
 did not now give him more than the rest, but only 
 declared, he did not take the forfeiture he had made 
 of that dignity, but reinstated him in it, together with 
 the rest. 
 
 These metaphoricahipeeches then, which I have ex- 
 amined, are the whole direct evidence by which the 
 principal Romish writers support this lofty structure; 
 and I leave it to the unprejudiced reader to judge, 
 whether they are sufficient to establish the least au- 
 thority of Peter over the other apostles, much less that 
 extravagant claim raised on them by the pretended 
 infallible Councils of Florence and Trent. 
 
 II. I come now to examine those great privileges 
 granted to Peter, " which (as they say) plainly point 
 at his supremacy over the other apostles." They tell 
 us that " Peter's name is alwai/ s iplsiced first." This is 
 false, (See John i. 44. — Gal. ii. 9. — 1 Cor. iii. 22.— 
 1 Cor ix. 5, — 1 Cor. i. 12.) And although we grant 
 that Peter was first in order or place, yet it will not 
 follow that he had a supremacy of power.'* This is 
 plain from experience 5 for instance, the peers of Eng- 
 land take place according to their several degrees, and 
 the seniority of their creation : yet none will imagine 
 that the first peer has a supremacy oi^ jurisdiction over 
 all the rest. And, for the same reason, it is of no 
 service to their cause to allege " that the act of first 
 preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was performed 
 by Peter, — that he spoke first to urge the necessity 
 of filling up the place of Judas, — or that he accused 
 Ananias and Sapphira of falsehood," &c. This only 
 proves that he was, in the beginning, spokesman or 
 prolocutor of the apostles, i, e, that he had Siprimaci/ 
 of order (which we have been always very willing to 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 grant,) but by no means implies, that he was invest- 
 ed with 2i supremacy of jurisdiction over the rest — It 
 is alleged also, " that Paul went to visit Peter, and 
 abode with him fifteen days," (Gal. xviii.) And what 
 then ? Does a visit from Paul suppose a man univer- 
 sal governor? If so, then James was universal go- 
 vernor, for Paul went to James when all the Presby- 
 ters were present, and moreover gave him a particular 
 account of his ministry, (Acts xxi. 18.) Again they 
 say, that "he spoke first in the Council of Jerusalem." 
 But the scriptures assert, that " *when there had been 
 Ttvuch disputing, Peter said to them,^^ — Lastly, they al- 
 lege " that he walked on the sea, that his name was 
 changed, that he taught the people out of a ship,"^ 
 &;c. — It is certainly (says Bishop Potter) an argument 
 that their cause is very defenceless, when they have 
 recourse to such weak proofs for the support of an 
 article which, in their scheme of religion, is essential 
 to the constitution of the christian church. 
 
 I might add here, that some of the other apostles 
 had very peculiar privileges, and some of them of 
 much greater consequence than those of Peter 5 but 
 I shall not insist on such trifles. In like manner, 
 it is very frivolous to allege the titles given by the 
 Fathers (particularly St Jerom) to Peter, as a proof 
 of authority, since we may observe with Dr Barrow, 
 1. That such turgid eulogies on Peter are not found 
 in the more ancient Fathers, as Clemens Romanus, 
 Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, 
 Firmilian, he. 2. That they adorn other apostles with 
 the like titles, equalling those of Peter. 3. That the 
 Fathers, by calling Peter prince, &c. of the apostles, 
 do not mean authority over them, may be argued from 
 their generally joining Paul with him in the same ap. 
 
179 
 
 pellations. 4. If any of the apostles might claim 2fc 
 supremacy over the rest, James appears to have the 
 best title thereto, for *' Jerusalem was the mother of 
 all churches," (Hieron. in Isa, 2.) and " James first 
 received the Episcopal chair, and to him our Lord 
 first entrusted his own throne upon earth." Epiphan. 
 Hcer. 78 — See Barrow's Works, I. 59^. 
 
 I shall take notice in this place of a passage from 
 Jerom, on which the Romanists place great depend- 
 ance. " One of the twelve is elected, that a head 
 being constituted, an occasion of schism might be 
 taken away," {Adv. Jovin. c. 270 — Answer. In the 
 words immediately preceding, Jerom. has the follow- 
 ing: "But thou say est that the church is founded on 
 Peter, although the very same in another place is done 
 upon all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church 
 is solidly established on them equally ;''^ consequently, 
 by " the appointment of one to prevent schism," he 
 cannot possibly mean any other primacy than a pri- 
 macy of order, and such as is among equals, and not 
 any supremacy o^ power over them. And certainly 
 (says Bishop Stillingfleet,) you think the apostles very 
 unruly, who would not be kept in order by such a 
 primacy as this, unless Peter had full jurisdiction over 
 them. And so far are we from seeing such a supre- 
 macy of power, as you challenge to the Pope, to be 
 necessary for preventing schisms, that we are suffi- 
 ciently convinced, that the usurping of it hath caused 
 one of the greatest ever was in the christian world. 
 If then Jerom affirms, that *' the firmness of the church 
 is established on them all equally,'' then not more emi- 
 nently on Peter than the rest. And though he gives 
 the first place to "Peter, *' by reason of his age,'- yet 
 
180 
 
 he tells us," that he was only an apostle," and that 
 John was on several accounts to be preferred before 
 him, " for John was both an apostle, and an evange- 
 list, and a prophet," (Ihid,) And, v/hen he calls 
 Peter, princeps apostolorum, he explains it so as to 
 exclude all pretence to authority over them : " For as 
 Plato (says he,) was the princeps of the philosophers, 
 so Peter was of the apostles," ( Adv, Pelag, B. I. c. 2.) 
 Now I appeal to any one, whether Plato had dominion 
 over the rest of the philosophers. The most, then, 
 that Jerom could mean, was no more than this, that 
 Peter was the^r^^ of the apostles, prmceps 2indp7^mus 
 in ancient authors being vv^ords of the same significa- 
 tion, and this primacy of order we never denied to 
 Peter. 
 
 And now, reader, thou hast all the scripture proofs 
 which they are able to adduce for the supremacy of 
 St Peter ; and how wonderful is that delusion which 
 can cause them to receive this for a truth, and found 
 almost the whole of Christianity upon it ? But indeed, 
 if they had really contained any thing which, by fair 
 inference might be construed to give a superiority to 
 Peter, this is so guarded against by the whole tenor 
 of scripture, that it could never, with any show of 
 reason, be ultimately maintained. 
 
 I. They^e is not the least mentmi in scripture, of a su- 
 preme governor over the whole church, but many strong 
 intimations to the contrary; and if God had designed 
 St Peter and his successors to be *' the true Vicars of 
 Christ and heads of the whole church, the fathers and 
 doctors of all christians ; and that the full power of 
 feeding, ruling, and governing the whole church was 
 given to them in Peter by Christ," (as the Council of 
 Florence defines,) and that the belief oi this point is 
 
181 
 
 necessary to salvation, it may reasonably be supposed 
 that he would have expressly declared it, it being a 
 point of the greatest importance of all that concerns 
 the administration of his church. 
 
 On the contrary, it is evident beyond a doubt that 
 neither Peter nor any other apostle had any power or 
 authority over the rest ; but that they all enjoyed an 
 equality in this respect, under the supreme and only 
 head of the church, Jesus Christ. "Wlien they were 
 first separated from the rest of our Lord's followers, 
 they were all distinguised by the same common name 
 o^ apostles, and there was not the least difference in 
 their commission or instructions. Afterwards they 
 were all equally commanded to commemorate our 
 Lord's death, and received the same authority to 
 ** teach and baptise all nations,^' to '' remit and retain 
 sins,*' and to execute all parts of the apostolic office ; 
 and the Holy Spirit descended on them all without 
 any distinction, and ** sat upon each of them,'' 
 
 As they were admitted to the same office, so they 
 were all of the same order, there being no order above 
 that of an apostle. For when Christ ascended on 
 high, " he gave,Jirst apostles," — again, " And he gave 
 some apostles, some prophets, ^c.for the edifying of the 
 body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith,'* 
 (Eph. iv. 13. — 1 Cor. xii. ^7.) And certainly, if the 
 apostles were all first, it is very probable that none of 
 them was before the rest. And it is to be particularly 
 remarked, that St Paul in this place speaks of the unity 
 of the whole church in one body, and of the compact 
 communion of the saints and the faithful ; which ne- 
 cessarily required that he should speak of the }}£ad, 
 which joins and keeps that body in unity, if God had 
 appointed such ahead in his church, Again^ << Pi^elve^ 
 
182 
 
 thrones " were appointed without any difference, in 
 which they should '^ judge the twelve tribes of IsraeV^ 
 Some of these, indeed, must of necessity be nearer to 
 the royal throne of Christ than others ; and conse- 
 quently, the persons who sit in them must be supe- 
 rior in place to the rest : and this was the honour to 
 which James and John aspired, when they desired to 
 "5?*/, one on our hordes right hand, and tJie other on his 
 /^," but they were all to be placed in the same rank 
 and order, and none exalted above the rest. And 
 we may fairly conclude from this request of James 
 and John, that none of Christ's disciples imagined he 
 had promised the supremacy to Peter by those words, 
 " Thou art Feter,'^ &c. for then neither would these 
 two persons have desired it, nor would the rest have 
 contended for it afterwards, (Luke xxii. 24.) Besides, 
 all the ten were equally moved with indignation at 
 this request, thinking it an injury to them all. 
 
 If we consider the Practice of the apostles in the 
 administration of spiritual affairs, we shall find that 
 none of them pretended to exercise any authority 
 over the rest ; but they all acted with the same power, 
 and had an equal share in the management of eccle- 
 siastical matters. And we require you (says Bishop 
 Bramhall) to prove, that St Peter ever exercised a 
 single act ofjmisdiction over the rest of the apostles, 
 more than tuey over him, besides, and over and above 
 his primacy of orc?er. — And, 1st, of their transactions 
 while they lived together at Jerusalem. We do not 
 find any one instance of appeal to Peter, even in mat- 
 ters of the greatest difficulty and importance, Wlien 
 there. was a vacancy in the college of apostles, Peter 
 wafe not desired to fill it with some worthy person. 
 It is true we have his speech, but there is not the least 
 
183 
 
 air of authority in it. We are told that " they (viz. Peter 
 and all the rest, about 120) appointed two.'' — On the 
 day of Pentecost ''Peter stood up with the eleven,'' to 
 preach to the multitude; they who then received the 
 faith applied themselves to Peter and ''the rest of the 
 apostles," to know what they should do, — and after 
 they were baptised, " continued in the doctrine and fel- 
 lowship," not of Peter only or any other, but of all 
 ^'the apostles" (Acts ii. 14. 37.) — They who sold their 
 possessions for the use of the church, laid the price at 
 the feet of all "the apostles, who distributed to every 
 man according as he had need." — The appointment 
 of the deacons was managed by the " twelve " who 
 called the disciples, and directed them " to look out 
 seven men, whom " we (ssdd they) may appoint," and 
 all without any particular direction or special com- 
 mission from Peter. And, after having chosen them, 
 *' they set them before the apostles, who, when they Jiad 
 prayed, laid hands on them," (vi. 2. 6.) — When the 
 apostles had heard that Samaria had received the word 
 of God, (Acts viii. 14.) Peter did not order some of 
 the apostles to go and instruct them, &c. but, on the 
 contrary, " the apostles sent to them Peter and John.'* 
 It now remains to be considered, in what manner 
 the apostles governed the church, and maintained its 
 unity, when they left Jerusalem. And, in the first 
 place, lest the mother-church of Jerusalem should be 
 destitute of a Bishop, James was appointed to this 
 office ; but whether this was done by our Lord's ex- 
 press order, or by the free election of the apostles, is 
 not agreed. In the important transaction which took 
 place about that time at Jerusalem, about the ob- 
 servance of Mosaical institutions, there are several 
 
184 
 
 remarkable facts, which are decisive against Peter's 
 supremacy over the churck They did not appeal 
 to Peter as the judge of controversies, but sent to 
 " tJie Apostles and Presbyters " at Jerusalem. 2. Peter 
 neither called this assembly, nor did he preside in 
 it. 3. Peter delivers his judgment as one who was a 
 member of the assembly ; but James speaks with au- 
 thoritij, and his sentence is decisive, *« I judge,'' or 
 " my sente7ice /y," says James. 4. Peter did not send 
 his legates to Antioch, to signify what he and the 
 whole council had decreed, but ''the Apostles and Pres- 
 byters, and the xvhole church'' appointed and sent their 
 messengers. 5. The letters which are directed to the 
 Gentile churches, are inscribed thus : ''The Apostles, 
 Presbyters, and brethren send greeting,'^ Sec, without 
 any mention of Peter, the supposed judge of this and 
 other controversies, and the supposed governor of 
 these and of all other churches. 
 
 Of the proceedings of the greatest part of the other 
 apostles, or of the churches founded by them, the 
 scriptures give us little information ; but if we may 
 judge of the rest by St Paul, it is certain they exer- 
 cised the authority which our Lord gave them, with- 
 out any dependence on Peter, or any other apostle, and 
 preserved the unity of the church not by being all 
 subject to one visible head on earth, but by maintain- 
 ing the same faith and worship, and living in a friend- 
 ly correspondence and intercourse with their fellow- 
 apostles. — " And (as Dr Barrowvery judiciously ob- 
 serves) it was indeed most requisite, that every apostle 
 should have a complete, absolute, independent SLUthority 
 in managing the concerns and duties of his office, 
 that he might not in any wise be obstructed in the dis- 
 charge of them, — not clogged with a need to consult 
 
185 
 
 others, — not hampered with orders from those who 
 were at a distance, and could not well descry what 
 was fit in every place to be done. The direction of 
 him who had promised to be perpetually present mth 
 them, and by his Holy Spirit to guide, to instruct, to 
 admonish them upon all occasions, was abundantly 
 sufficient. They did not want any other conduct or 
 aid beside that special light and powerful influence 
 of grace, w^hich they received from him, which did 
 (according to St Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 5.) " render them 
 sufficient ministers of the New Testament,'* Accord- 
 ingly, their discourse and practice do thoroughly sa- 
 vour of such an independence, nor in them is there any 
 appearance of that being true which Bellarmin dic- 
 tateth, that *' the apostles depended on Peter as on 
 their head and commander." 
 
 St Paul, in particular, we find every where asserts 
 his independence on all others but Christ. He not 
 only affirms that he received his commission " neither 
 of men, nor by men,'* that is, neither from men as the 
 first authors of it, nor by their choice and designation, 
 but from Jesus Christ, who personally appeared to him 
 for this purpose, (Gal. i. 1.) but he tells us farther, 
 that " the gospel of uncircumcision was committed to 
 him, as the gospel of circumcision was to Peter,'* (Gal. 
 ii. 7.) that is, as Peter was by the direction of the 
 Holy Spirit, sent to convert the dispersed Jews, so he 
 himself, by the same direction and authority, was sent 
 to the Gentiles, on which account he calls himself in 
 other places the " apostle of the Gentiles," (Rom. xi. 
 13. XV. 15. 16.) After having received his commis- 
 sion from Christ, he immediately applied himself vi- 
 gorously to the work, without consulting or taking li- 
 cence from any man : < * Immediately I coif erred not with 
 
186 
 
 Jlesh and blood, neither xveiit I up to Jerusalem to them 
 that before me were apostles,'' (Gal. i. 16. 17.) And 
 so far was he from depending on Peter, that when 
 Peter dissembled with the Jews, he publicly reproved 
 him, and ^^ withstood him to the face,'' (Gal.ii.11.14.) 
 And in order to signify his absolute independence in 
 the execution of his office, he affirms (and in a man- 
 ner boasts) himself to be " hiferior in nothing to the 
 "very chief est apostles ;" (who were, ^' James, Peter, and 
 John," Gal. ii. 9-) in nothing, that is, in nothing be- 
 longing to the authority, or substantial dignity of his 
 place, for as to his personal merit, he professeth him- 
 self " much less than the least qfthe apostles," (2 Cor. 
 xii. 11. 5.) but as to the authority of his office, equal 
 to the greatest ; " being by the grace of God what he 
 was ; a minister of the gospel, according to the gift of 
 the grace of God, which was given him according to the 
 effectual working of his power," Eph. iii. 7. 
 
 The independence not of Paul only, but of all the 
 apostles on Peter or any other apostle, is clearly evin- 
 ced by their acts. Paul and Barnabas w^ere first sent 
 forth to convert the Gentiles, by the particular com- 
 mand of the Holy Ghost, (Acts xiii. 2. 4.) and per- 
 formed the functions of apostles, confirming the dis- 
 ciples in various countries, ordaining Presbyters in 
 every church, and preaching the word of truth, with- 
 out the least mention of Peter, or of the necessity of 
 adhering to him, as the centre of unity, (Acts xiv. 
 21. 23.) On their second departure from Jerusalem 
 they received no particular instructions from Peter ; 
 — when they disputed at Antioch, Peter was not ap- 
 pealedtofor thedecision of their disputes, butboth act- 
 ed independently of any apostle, and " departed asun- 
 der onefrom another," Barnabas to Cyprus and Paul 
 
187 
 
 " through Syria and Cilicia cojifirrmng the churches^'* 
 (Acts XV. 36. 39. xvi.4. xviii. 18. 23. xix. 21. xx. 4. 
 17. xxviii. 30.) In establishing churches, appointing 
 Bishops over them, (1 Tim. i. 3.— £ Tim. ii. 2. Tit. 
 i. 5.) and correcting irregularities, Paul professed to 
 act merely by his own authority : Therefore, being 
 absent, I write these things, that being present I may not 
 me severity, according to the authority which the Lord 
 hath given me, to edification and not to destrtiction, 
 (2 Cor. xiii. 10. x. 8.) 
 
 It may be farther observed with respect to the apos- 
 tolic method of governing and preserving the unity 
 of the church, that although every apostle exercised 
 a particular authority over the' churches which he had 
 planted, yet they had all a general concern for the 
 whole church of Christ. . This accounts for the dif- 
 ference between such of Paul's epistles as were writ- 
 ten to churches converted by himself, and those to 
 others. To the former he writes in a style of com- 
 mand and authority, exclusive of all others, (1 Cor. 
 iv. 14. 15. 16. 21. ix. 2.-2 Cor. x. 6. 7»— 1 Thess. ii. 
 7. 11. iv. 2.-2 Thess. iii. 4. 6. 10. 12.— Phil. iii. I7.) 
 but the latter he only exhorts, and persuades, and en- 
 treats, (Eph. i. 1. iii. 3. 7.) And in this latter sense 
 it is, that Paul declares " the care of all the churches 
 came upon him daily.*' Such was the method of pre- 
 serving the unity of the CathoKc Church in the time 
 of the apostles. 
 
 It does not appear from the proceedings of the 
 apostles that they acknowledged the superior autho- 
 rity of Peter, and depended on him as their head. 
 — Let us examine now whether they inculcated it on 
 their converts in their epistles. The apostles (says 
 the learned Bishop Morton,) in their epistles, are ur- 
 
188 
 
 gent in inveighing against the heresies of Judaism, 
 (Gal.i.8. — Col.ii.(Sadducism,)l Cor. 15,) of worship 
 of angels, (Col. ii.) against apostacy, (2 Thess. ii. 
 — 2 Tim. iv. 3. and Jude,) against divisions and 
 schisms, (1 Cor. xi.)and abuse of ecclesiastical orders, 
 (Rom. xii. — Eph. iv. 11. — 1 Cor. xii.) and yet in all 
 these there appeareth not one syllable or iota to prove 
 your article of " the Catholic Roman Church, with- 
 out union and subjection to which, and to the head 
 thereof, there is no salvation." No, nor yet so much 
 as to intimate any one of the parts of this article ; as, 
 1st, Not to signify that the Church of Rome was a Ca- 
 tholic, much less the Catholic Church, as being in 
 right (which you say,) " The mother and mistress of 
 all churches ;" nor that in the convincing of heretics, 
 christians ought to look to the faith of the Roman 
 Church ; nor that for the preventing of schisms, chris- 
 tians ought to be united to the Bishop of Rome. All 
 which those holy apostles, without doubt, ought, and 
 would have done, if (according to the iiow Roman 
 faith,) either the name. Catholic, had been appropri- 
 ated to Rome, or that the necessity of union and sub- 
 jection to the authority of the same head had been 
 so necessary, as '' without which no christian could 
 be saved*." 
 
 On the contrary, this is no where asserted or inti- 
 mated in the whole scriptures, — no, not even in the 
 large epistle to the Romans themselves. St Peter 
 himself wrote two Catholic epistles, and although he 
 
 * See>rAe Graiid Imposture of the (now) Church of Borne mani- 
 fested in this one Article of the new Roman Creed, viz. The Roman 
 Church, &;c. loithout union to rvhich there is no salvation, proved to be 
 New, False, Schismatical, Heretical, S^c. hy Thomas Morton, Bishop 
 of Lichfield and Coventry. Lond. 1628. 
 
189 
 
 .earnestly enjoins us to *' obey the king as supreme^ to 
 honour the Presbyters, and obey the governors'' of parti- 
 cular churches, yet the honour and obedience due to 
 himself in particular and his successors, are passed 
 over in perfect silence, as if no such thing had been 
 thought of. But, if Peter had actually been supreme 
 head of the church, he could by no means have ne- 
 glected to mention it, without exceeding injury to his 
 place and government (if he had any such,) because it 
 belongs to every one in his degree to maintain and 
 magnify the dignity of his ministry, as Paul teaches, 
 saying " I xvill magnify mine office, in as much as I am 
 apostle of the Gentiles J^ Upon which text, Gregory 
 Bishop of Rome collects a general lesson for the de- 
 fence of his own jurisdiction. " The apostle (says 
 he,) teaches us to carry humility in our hearts, that 
 we preserve the dignity of that order whereunto we 
 are called," (Epist, 36. Lib. IV.) But where does Peter 
 assume a higher dignity or title than that of apostle ? 
 1 Peter i.— 2 Peter i. 
 
 Dr Hawarden endeavours to apologise for the si- 
 lence observed by the sacred writers, especially St 
 Luke, respecting St Peter's supremacy*. But his ar- 
 guments are extremely trifling. He says *« St Chryso- 
 stom has already told us, that Peter shewed his su- 
 premacy." But"- where have the scriptures shewn it to 
 us ?. He says that *« the twelve first chapters of the 
 Acts give us only a short account of what the apostles 
 did in the first year after our Saviour's passion, with 
 the conversion of St Paul, the baptism of Cornelius, 
 and five or six things besides, and that the remainder 
 
 * Hatvardens True Church of Christ shewn j II. p. 49. Edit. Dub. 
 1808. 
 
190 
 
 relates only to St Paul, and that St Luke's design was 
 chiefly to relate the labours of St Paul." But why 
 has St Luke omitted to mention this, while relating 
 the many transactions in which Peter was engaged in 
 the first fifteen chapters of the Acts ? — Why has he 
 related other things of infinitely less importance ? — 
 And why not mention Paul's subjection and appeals 
 to " the Vicar of Jesus Christ ? " But we are told 
 that " St Luke might, if he pleased, have omitted it 
 altogether ?" But where has he mentioned it at all ? 
 He tells Theophilus, that he had ^' a perfect under- 
 standing of all things from the 'very frst,'^ and wrote 
 the acts of our Saviour and his apostles, that he might 
 *« know the certainty of those things ^wherein he had been 
 instructed,'' (Luke i. 5. 4. — Acts i. 2.) but no where 
 relates that Christ made Peter his Vicar, or the acts 
 of his pretended Vicar ; but does in the next verse tell 
 us in effect the direct contrary, where he speaks of 
 his charges to his apostles whom he had chosen, (Acts 
 i. 2.) His last argument amounts to this, " The sa- 
 cred writings have little or nothing concerning the 
 subordination of Priests to Bishops, and never inform 
 us that the civil governor is head of the church in 
 his dominions, and therefore we may as well reject 
 them as the supremacy of Peter." — Ans'iver: The sub- 
 ordination of Priests to Bishops is plainly set forth 
 in scripture, as I have already proved. We do not 
 maintain that the civil governor is head of the church 
 in his dominions. A moderate supremacy we con- 
 sider expedient in certain cases, but by no means ne- 
 cessary. In short, Peter's supremacy is either not 
 contained in scripture, or it is. If it is not (as Dr H. 
 is somewhat inclined to think,) it cannot be neces- 
 sary, and therefore we lawfully reject it. If it is, it 
 
191 
 
 remains for them to give us some plain and evident 
 proofs of it. 
 
 Upon the whole then, they have not the least proof 
 from scripture for the supremacy of St Peter, but we 
 have from thence the fullest confutation of it. It is 
 of such consequence, that we ought to demand the 
 clearest attestations for it ; but all that can be found 
 in scripture about it, is but one manifest contradic- 
 tion of it. And here the very argument upon which 
 the Pope's power is founded reverts most strongly 
 against them. There was no such government of the 
 church in the apostles^ time, and therefore there is 
 no such 710W ; and the Bishop of Rome's pretending 
 to this power, when he had no right to it, will be but 
 another argument of his presumption and falsehood, 
 by which he hath so wretchedly imposed upon a cre- 
 dulous and deluded world *. 
 
 * Loftus Controversy between the Churches of Rome and England* 
 Dub. 1770, p. 123. 
 
192 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME CONFUTED 
 FROM THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF 
 THE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF PRESERVING THE UNITY 
 OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 I PROCEED next to present the reader with a brief ac- 
 count of the method, in which the Bishops iminedi« 
 ately succeeding the apostles, preserved the unity of 
 the church, not, as I shall shew, by ruling their re- 
 spective churches in subjection to one visible head, 
 but in maintaining a friendly correspondence and in- 
 tercourse with each other. 
 
 However, I must beg the reader to observe, that 
 (even granting the Bishop of Rome to be the succes- 
 sor of St Peter,) I have already proved that St Peter 
 had no supremacy at all; and consequently, the pre- 
 tended supremacy of the Bishop of Rome must of 
 necessity fall to the ground. " The surest, if not the 
 only method of our adversaries (as Dr Hawarden, a 
 noted champion of the Church of Rome, maintains,) 
 to cut off the Pope's supremacy, is by denying that 
 of St Peter. For we cannot reasonably doubt, but 
 our blessed Saviour instituted a form of government, 
 which was always to remain in his church. To sup- 
 pose he left it without any certain rule, or form of 
 administration, would be a reflection on his wisdom, 
 and to thwart his institution would be downright sa- 
 crilege. So that if St Peter's supremacy be over- 
 turned, this of his successors must necessarily fall," 
 
193 
 
 (True Church of Christ, II. p. 84.) The scriptures, 
 therefore, in the opinion of this Romish divine, are 
 perfectly sufficient to decide this controversy. This 
 is true christian divinity. However, I have already en- 
 gaged to prove, not only that the scriptures, but that 
 the more ancient fathers, were decidedly of the opi- 
 nion of the Reformed Episcopal Church. But even 
 supposing that the contrary was maintained by the 
 primitive writers, yet we are not bound to receive it 
 as an article of the catholic faith, or is the belief of it 
 to be owned as necessary to salvation, unless it appear 
 to have been so taught by the apostles in the sacred 
 writings, according to the golden article of our church. 
 (Art. vi.) — To begin then at the First Age: 
 
 St Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from A.D.67 
 to A. D. 107. In his writings it no where appears 
 that the unity of the Catholic Church consisted in 
 subjection or necessary unity to the Bishop of Rome, 
 or that the Catholicism of churches depended on their 
 adherence to the particular Roman Church. On the 
 contrary, it is most apparent that its unity depended 
 on the friendly correspondence which the Catholic 
 Bishops and their churches maintained with one ano- 
 ther. This accounts for Ignatius' s epistles to the 
 churches of the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, 
 Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and toPolycarp 
 Bishop of the Smyrneans. In these epistles, he ex- 
 tols the dignity of Bishops to the highest pitch, and 
 speaks of them "as appointed unto the utmost bounds 
 of the earth," but never once mentions the head of the 
 Catholic Church. For the prevention o^ schisms he re- 
 peatedly exhorts them to adhere to their orthodox 
 Bishops, but is otally silent with respect to the pre- 
 tended centre of unity in the successor of St Peter. 
 
194 
 
 " Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the 
 people also be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Ca- 
 tholic Church." In his very epistle to the Romans, so 
 far from yielding any deference to their Bishop, he 
 does not even take notice of him. This epistle he in 
 scribes " to the church which presides in the place of 
 the region of the Romans," from whence this extra- 
 ordinary inference has been drawn, " that therefore 
 she is the head of all other churches." (De la Hogue 
 Tract de Ecclesid, p. 342.) Antioch is declared, in an 
 imperial edict, (^Ap,JoJu Antiochenum, p. 278.) to have 
 ^'presided in the East,'' but no man will thence in- 
 fer, that she was the head of all cities in the world. 
 If, indeed, Ignatius had asserted, that the Church of 
 the Romans had presided over all the churches in the 
 world, it might have served their purpose, but he 
 merelysays, " which presidedin the place of the country 
 of the Romans." So Tertullian says, that " the chairs 
 of the apostles are presided on in their places," i, e, 
 have Bishops governing them. 
 
 Clemens Bishop of Rome (f. e. of the diocese of 
 Rome, not of the whole Catholic Church,) wrote an 
 epistle to the Church of Corinth then engaged in 
 factions, in which the clergy were much affronted, 
 wherein, like a good Bishop and christian brother, he 
 earnestly persuades it by many inducements to peace, 
 but no where speaks imperiously as the " true Vicar 
 of Christ and head of the whole church." What a 
 thundering bull (says Dr Barrow,) would a modern 
 Pope have dispatched against outrageous contemners 
 of the clergy ? How often would he have spoken of 
 the apostolic See and its authority ? We should in- 
 fallibly have heard him swagger in his usual style, 
 " Whoever shall presume to oppose our will, let him 
 
195 
 
 know, that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty 
 God, and of his apostles Peter and Paul." And what 
 an excellent opportunity had Clement of mentioning 
 the prince of the apostles, where he speaks of the 
 " mission of the apostles by Christ, their preaching 
 through countries and cities, and appointing the first 
 fruits of their conversion to be Bishops and ministers 
 over such as should afterwards believe." But, with 
 respect to such an officer in the church, he is totally 
 silent. 
 
 The Apostolic Canons describe the state of the 
 church in very ancient times, though they were not 
 compiled in the time of the apostles. In these the 
 ranks, duties, and privileges of all ecclesiastical per- 
 sons are declared, yet they never give the least inti- 
 mation of this "Superintendent of the whole church," 
 or his prerogatives, or the respect due to him j which 
 is no less strange, than that there should be a body 
 of laws, or description of the state of any kingdom, 
 wherein nothing should be mentioned concerning the 
 king or royal authority. They prescribe, " that the 
 Priests and Deacons should do nothing without the 
 consent of their Bishop, for with him the people of 
 God are entrusted, and of him an account of their 
 souls will be demanded." They prescribe that " the 
 Bishops o^ each province should acknowledge him who 
 is first among them {i. e, their Archbishop,) and es- 
 teem him as their head, and do nothing extraordinary 
 without his consent ; and that each should meddle 
 only with those affairs that concerned his own diocese ; 
 and also that the Archbishop should not do any thiiig 
 without the consent of all, that so there maybe unity." 
 Now what place could be more opportune to mention 
 the Pope'5 jurisdiction over the whole church ? — But 
 
19fl 
 
 does not the canonist exclude it, assigning the su- 
 preme disposal (without farther resort,) of all things 
 to the arbitration of the Bishops of each province, 
 and placing the maintenance ofimity in that course ? 
 In all this age no trace is to be seen of the power 
 of the Bishop of Rome beyond the limits of his own 
 diocese, — no law given to the universal church, — no 
 appeal from any church. All the churches founded 
 immediately by the apostles, as those at Jerusalem, 
 Thessalonica, Antioch*, Rome, were' known above all 
 others, and were called the first and apostolic ; and 
 the churches that were planted by those first assumed 
 the same title, and were much honoured. Of these, 
 TertuUian {Troescr, B. II.) speaks thus : " They are 
 alljirst and apostolicy while the communion of peace, 
 and the name of brethren, and the common earnests of 
 hospitality shew the union that subsists among them 
 all." This age produced many heresies and schisms, 
 as the Simonians, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, 
 &c. If the Bishop of Rome had been head and go- 
 vernor of the church, it was undoubtedly his office 
 in particular, to have summoned these heretics, and 
 condemned them by the authority invested in him as 
 such; but of that not the least trace is found. Let 
 it not be said, that there was no occasion to mention 
 his supremacy, since it was then universally acknow- 
 ledged ; for the very existence of schisms and heresies 
 shew that it was not then considered absolutely ne- 
 cessary to be united to the Bishop of Rome, in order 
 to be in communion with the Catholic Church. The 
 necessity of Episcopal government was then acknow- 
 ledged by all parties. Catholics as well as Schismatics 
 (for the very schismatics had their Bishops,) but the 
 necessity of adhering to the Bishop of Rome by none- 
 
204 
 
 In the Second Age there are some remarkable in- 
 stances, that the communion of the Catholic Church 
 was not to be taken from conjunction with the Bishop 
 of Rome, as head of it. The case of Victor Bishop 
 of Rome, and the Asian churches, which took place, 
 A. D. 169. is the most remarkable. It is the first 
 instance only which the advocates of Popery can pro- 
 duce, of the Bishop of Rome exercising any authority 
 out of his own diocese ; but so far is it from implying 
 his supremacy (as they pretend,) that it is one of the 
 clearest instances in antiquity against it. 
 
 When the controversy concerning Easter began to 
 grow warm, there were several synods assembled con- 
 cerning it, which are mentioned in the following order 
 byEusebius: *' There is extant the epistle of the Synod 
 in Palestine, over which Theophilus Bishop of Caesa- 
 rea, and Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem presided,* — 
 another epistle of the Synod at Rome, having Victor, 
 the Bishop* s name prefixed to it, — another in Pontus 
 over which Palmas presided, — and an epistle of the 
 churches in France, over which Irenaeus was Bishop,'* 
 &c. and from them all together, not from the Bishop 
 of Rome or his synod, proceeded the rule of celebrating 
 Easter only on the Lord's day. This rule it is probable 
 Victor, being the most eminent Bishop in the West, 
 was desired to transmit to the Asiatic Bishops, in order 
 to recommend them to conform to the western cus- 
 tom. The Asiatics refused, and stated their reasons, 
 in an epistle written and sent by Poly crates of Ephesus 
 (one of the most respectable Bishops in the East,) to 
 the Bishop and Church of Rome ; which was so highly 
 resented by Victor, that he immediately put into ex- 
 ecution that which he seems to have threatened them 
 with in his former letter to them, and " pronounces 
 
198 
 
 them excommunicated." But this act of Victor did 
 not put the Asiatic Bishops out of a state of salvation ; 
 and it was so far from being approved of by those 
 Bishops, who agreed with him respecting the time of 
 celebrating Easter, that they all fell upon him for this 
 irregular and extravagant act, and *' commanded him* 
 to attend to those things that promote peace and unity 
 among neighbours." "Moreover (says Eusebius,) 
 their epistles are extant, wherein they have severely 
 reproved Victor." This behaviour, I think, does not 
 very clearly prove the supremacy of the Bishop of 
 Rome ; and this w^ould certainly have been very un- 
 accountable behaviour to Christ's trueYicsr, who had 
 ^^Jiill power of governing the whole church^'*^ and who 
 alone was able to judge what was fit to be done in 
 such cases. 
 
 " But (says Natalis Alexander,) Irenaeus does not 
 deny Victor's power of excommunicating the Asiatic 
 Bishops." It is true he does not, and, what is 
 more, he could not, since every Bishop in the Catho- 
 lic Church, and therefore the Bishop of Rome among 
 the rest, might refuse to communicate with any other 
 Bishop or church, against whom they thought they 
 had sufficient reason for such suspension of commu- 
 nion. So, John Bishop of Antioch, in the Ephesian 
 Synod, excommunicated Cyril, Patriarch of Alexan- 
 dria; and the African Bishops excommunicated Vigili- 
 us Bishop of Rome (<' a catholica communione reclu- 
 dunt," Victor. Tunens. Chronicon, p. 10.) The name 
 of Felix Bishop of Rome was expunged from thedip- 
 tychs of the church by Acacius Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, and Hilary anathematized Liberius an Arian 
 
199 
 
 Bishop of the same place ; and if these excommuni- 
 cations did not argue just authority over the persons 
 excommunicated, then neither could Victor's do it. 
 Farther, the power of excommunicating heretical or 
 schismatical Bishops did not then consist in judging 
 them by final and uncontroulable powers, as obliged 
 all men to believe that to be heresy, which the ac- 
 cusers decreed to be so, and in which the accusers 
 alone acted as judges, and the accused were esteemed 
 totally incompetent to judge, because forsooth they 
 were accused. No, the whole force and effects of 
 excommunication lay in the sense of the church ; for 
 by whomsoever the sentence was pronounced, if all 
 other churches observed it (as most commonly they 
 did, while the unity of the church remained entire,) 
 then the persons excommunicated were out of the 
 communion of the Catholic Church ; if not, then it 
 was only the particular declaration of those Bishops 
 who pronounced the sentence. And, in this case, the 
 validity of Victor's excommunication of the Asiatic 
 Bishops depended on the acceptance of it by other 
 churches, but as they did not consent to it, he could 
 not cast them out of the communion of the whole 
 church ; but only declare, that if they came to Rome 
 he would not admit them to communion in his diocese. 
 This action of Victor was so little regarded in the 
 Catholic Church, that it does not appear that any 
 christians refused to communicate with the Asiatic 
 churches. Whence (says Bishop Morton,) it is ma- 
 nifest that a christian may have communion with the 
 Catholic Church elsewhere throughout the world, 
 notwithstanding the excommunication of the Bishop 
 of Rome ; and therefore the Roman Church cannot 
 be called the head, whereunto all others ought to pro- 
 
200 
 
 fess union and yield subjection. And it is to be re- 
 marked, that in defiance of this decree of Victor, the 
 Asiatic Bishops retained their own customs until the 
 year 325, when the Council of Nice rendered the time 
 of celebrating Easter the same in all churches, and 
 this too, without any mention of Victor, and with- 
 out any regard to his authority. So much for the 
 first instance produced to prove the constant ea:ercise 
 of the Bishop of Rome's universal jurisdiction. 
 
 The second proof alleged by the Romanists from 
 the Fathers of the second century, is a passage in the 
 works of the above-mentioned Iren^us, Bishop of 
 Lyons. In his Book against heresies, endeavouring to 
 prove that the apostolic tradition had been preserved 
 entire in all the churches in the world, he thus pro- 
 ceeds : — '< Because it would be endless to trace up 
 the succession of all the churches, we allege the tra- 
 dition which that greatest and very ancient church, 
 (known to all, founded and established at Rome by 
 the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul,) has 
 received from the apostles, and the faith announced 
 to all, coming down to us by the succession of Bishops. 
 For to this church it is necessary that every church, 
 this is, the faithful who are round about should resort, 
 on account of the more powerful principality, in which 
 the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by 
 those that are round about.'* 
 
 Now, I defy the acutest Romanist to extract any 
 other privilege from the above celebrated passage 
 than this, viz. That the Church of Rome (that is, 
 merely the diocese comprehending the city,) being 
 one of the most ancient in the w orld, and one of the 
 most illustrious, being founded by the two most dis- 
 tinguished apostles, and the most frequented (as in- 
 
201 
 
 eluding the metropolis of world,) was the fittest for 
 Irenaeus's design to prove to mankind that its suc- 
 cession had been uninterrupted, and that the aposto- 
 lic tradition had continued pure till his time. There 
 is not a word concerning the supremacy of its Bishop ; 
 and it is quite impertinent in our adversaries to urge 
 the excellent and deserved testimonies given by Ire- 
 nagus to the then Roman Church {i. e. diocese,) in fa- 
 vour of the modern one, unless they can prove that it 
 retains the same pure faith and worship which it pro- 
 fessed in the time of Irenseus, and contains within its 
 compass the most powerful and frequented city in the 
 world. 
 
 But it will be replied, " Does not Irenseus de- 
 clare that it is necessary that all churches should 
 agree with this (particular) Church of Rome, on ac- 
 count of its more powerful principality, u e, the su- 
 premacy of its Bishop?" I answer: — 1st, He says 
 no such thing. — Sd, He attributes no more autho- 
 rity to that church, than he does to the other apos- 
 tolic churches. 
 
 1. Irenaeus does not say, that all churches must agi'ee 
 with the Roman on account of its more powerful 
 principality, but " it is necessary that every church, 
 that is, the faithful who are round about, should 
 7'esort to it, on account of the more powerful princi- 
 pality." Now this potentior principalitas (which is a 
 phrase never used in church polity,) is not that of the 
 church, but of the citi/ of Rome, because (says Richer 
 on this passage. Hist, ConciL I. p. 5.) " Rome was the 
 imperial city of the world, and the seat of the Roman 
 empire ;" and also being the seat of the senate and 
 chief judicatures, it must have caused, not whole 
 
 churches, but " the faithful round about" (as he ex- 
 
 t 
 
202 
 
 plains omnem ecclesiam,) to resort to it, and therefore 
 made this church a most visible and eminent church, 
 and well known to all the world, and consequently 
 best suited to answer his design against the heretics, 
 of reckoning up one church at least, which preserved 
 the pure apostolic tradition *. 
 
 II. He attributes no more authority to the Roman 
 Church, than he does to other apostolic churches. — 
 
 * The original stands thus : — " Ad hanc ecclesiam, propter poten- 
 tiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem Convenire ecclesiam, id 
 est, omnes qui sunt undique fideles." Convenire, which, in the 
 original, was probably c-mpp^Es-^ai, cannot here signify agreement or 
 assent, for which we say Convenit mihi tecum, not Ego convenio ad 
 te, and Irenaeus does not say convenire cum hac, but ad hanc. Our 
 sense of the entire passage is supported by the ancient writers. — 
 The 9th Canon of Council of Antioch, decrees that " the Bishop in 
 every province should acknowledge his metropolitan, propterea 
 quod ad metropolin omnes undique concurrunt, quibus sunt nego- 
 tia ;" and of Constantinople, Gregory Naz. says almost literally the 
 same thing as Irenaeus had done two centuries before, "Et? r,v 'jrccvla- 
 
 p^^o^av ay.^cx, crvvrps^ii, y.oci ohiv a,^y{\ui ua-'sxe^ l/ixTcToptf xon'tf ttj? ts-Kxlso)^,"^ 
 
 (Vol. I. p. 517.) " To which the people from the farthest parts of 
 the world run together, and from whence, as from a common empo- 
 rium of the faith, they take their rise " (or direction. ) This pas- 
 sage from Gregory is cited in Grabe's note on this text, and ob- 
 serve, the latter Popish editor Massuet, who professes to answer 
 Grabe, passes it over in perfect silence. 
 
 Now, if it was not for the sake of business that people resorted to 
 Rome, I ask, for what purpose did they go thither ? Not for the 
 CsLtholic Jaithy for that Irenaeus assures us every one had at home : 
 *< The apostles, after they had planted the churches, delivering to 
 them the true Jaith," which was then preserved by them inviolably, 
 as he assures us (Lib. III. c. 3.) Not for discipline, for " in the 
 several churches which they planted, the apostles ordained Bishops, 
 delivering to them (suum ipsorum locum majesterii,) their own 
 place and power of jurisdiction." And therefore there was no ne- 
 cessity to go to Rome, either for faith or discipline. 
 
203 
 
 For, in mentioning the Roman Church in particular, 
 he consulted his own ease, since he shews that he 
 might have proved his tradition from all other apos- 
 toHc churches, *' Valde longum esset enumerare ec- 
 clesias ;" and towards the end of the chapter he names 
 the succession of Bishops in the "churches of Smyr- 
 na and Ephesus, and all the churches of Asia, as wit- 
 nesses of the same tradition." Either therefore, our 
 adversaries must maintain that he conceived the tes- 
 timony of other apostolic churches divine and infal- 
 lible (which he certainly did not, neither do they pre- 
 tend that he did ; and if he had, the confessed errors 
 and heresies which they fell into aftei-wards, would 
 demonstrate plainly that he erred,) or else that he con- 
 ceived the testimony of the Roman Church only hu- 
 man and credible, though perhaps more credible than 
 any one church besides, for the reasons already men- 
 tioned. Now, if Irenaeus thought the testimony of 
 the Roman Church only Jiuma7i SindfalUble, then sure- 
 ly he could never think that adhering to it was a cer- 
 tain TwarA: of a Catholic, or separation from it a cer- 
 tain mark of an Heretic. Besides, had Irenaeus thought 
 that all churches must of necessity agree with the 
 Roman, and that she was an infallible preserver of 
 tradition, how could he and all other Bishops have 
 then pronounced that to be no sufficient ground of 
 excommunication, which Victor and his adherents be- 
 lieved to be so ? Therefore, he did not believe that 
 the particular Roman Church was a sufficient and in- 
 fallible judge of whatw^as universal tradition, and what 
 was not ;— of what was necessary to be believed and 
 done, and what not ;— what was a sufficient ground 
 of excommunication, and what not. 
 
 The ancient heretics and their opinions have been 
 
197 
 
 accurately described by the same Irenaeus, Epiphanius, 
 &c. but where do we find in their writings, that these 
 heretics were condemned for disobeying the Bishop 
 or Church of Rome ? Or where is the necessitt/ o^ ad- 
 hering to that church in particular, recommended to 
 them? Or can it be shewn, that the term Roman Ca- 
 tholic was then used to distinguish the Catholic from 
 the Heretic ? No such thing ; every orthodox Bishop 
 was in those times a centre of unity, and appeals for 
 the truth of doctrine were made as well to the churches 
 of Smyrna, Ephesus, and all the churches of Asia, as 
 to that of Rome. 
 
 About this time flourished Dionysius Bishop of 
 Corinth. His letters to the Church of the Lacedemo- 
 nians, Athenians, Gnossians, Cretans, Romans, and 
 to that in Pontus, &c. plainly evince the concei'n 
 which every Bishop then had for the faith, and the 
 weakness of the argument brought for the Bishop of 
 Rome's supremacy, from his writing similar epistles to 
 churches out of his own diocese. See Euseh, HisU 
 Eccl: B. IV. c. 23. and B. II. c. 25. 
 
 In the beginning of the Third Century lived Ter- 
 TULLiAN, who in his Apology, p. 39. thus describes 
 the unity of the church in his time : " We are one 
 body by agreement in religion, by our unity of discip- 
 line, and our being in the same covenant of hope;" 
 and in his Prcescrtptions, p. 19- that it consisted "in 
 adhering to that doctrine which was fii'st preached by 
 the apostles, who, having first delivered it in Judea, 
 and planted churches there, went and declared the 
 same to other nations, and settled churches in cities, 
 from whence other churches have the same doctrine 
 propagated to them, and are therefore called apostolic 
 ehurcheSy as the offspring of those that were founded 
 
205 
 
 by them. Therefore, so many and so great churches 
 are all that one first apostolic church, from which all 
 are divided. Thus they are all first and apostolic 
 whilst they maintain the same unity ; — whilst there 
 is the communion of peace, title of brotherhood, and 
 common mark of hospitality." Wherein we see that 
 which made churches, in Tertullian's sense. Apos- 
 tolic, was the embracing and continuing in that doc- 
 trine, which was first delivered by the apostles ; and 
 thus churches, though remote from the apostles' times, 
 may have the denomination of apostolic, from their 
 agreement in doctrine with those that were founded 
 by them ; and that which made them the one Church 
 of Christ, was by agreement in religion, unity of dis- 
 cipline, and being in the same covenant of hope ; but 
 here is not the least mention of the unity of the 
 churches consisting in adherence and subjection to 
 the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 It is urged by Challoner, that *' Tertullian confutes 
 all the prevailing heresies of those days by the doc- 
 trine of the Church of Rome." Granting that he did, 
 yet what relation has this to the Bishop of Rome's 
 supremacy ? It will only prove that the particular 
 church or diocese of Rome was then a competent and 
 credible witness of tradition, but not that it was always 
 to continue such, or that it was to be the centre of 
 doctrine as well as o^ juris diction, unless our adversa- 
 ries can prove that Christ has made it infallible. — 
 Probably they will assert its infallibility on the ground 
 of Christ's promise to be *' always with his apostles to 
 the end of the world." But w^ere there no successors 
 of the apostles but at Rome ? How comes this pro- 
 mise to be limited to the particular Church of Rome, 
 and the Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and the other 
 
£06 
 
 eastern churches, not to enjoy the equal benefit of it ? 
 And if these churches have failed in delivering ge- 
 nuine tradition, as the Romanists assert, then may the 
 Church of Rome fail, and consequently err. But does 
 TertuUian say that all heresies were then confuted by 
 the tradition of the Church of Rome only ? — No. Let 
 us hear his own words : ** Go now, run over the apos- 
 tolic churches, in which to this day the chairs of the 
 apostles are presided on, in which their authentic 
 epistles are recited. Is Achaia near thee? There 
 thou hast (the Church of) Corinth. If thou art not 
 far from Macedonia, there thou hast (the Church of) 
 Philippi. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast (the 
 Church of) Ephesus; But if thou be adjacent to Italy, 
 thou hast Rome, whose authority is near at hand to 
 us (in Africa, for TertuUian was an African,) happy 
 church, to which the apostles poured forth all their 
 doctrine with their blood," ( Prcescript, cSQ, compare 
 Adv, Marc, IV. c. 5.) Now might not this place 
 have been urged by a Corinthian, or a Philippian, 
 or an Ephesian, that in TertuUian' s judgment se- 
 paration from any of their churches was a certain 
 mark of heresy, as justly as this is alleged to vin- 
 dicate this privilege to the Roman Church only. 
 — If therefore, our adversaries stand to TertuUian's 
 judgment, they must either grant the authority of 
 the Roman Church to be but a fallible guide, as 
 well as that of Ephesus, Corinth, &c. or they must 
 maintain the infaUibility of them all; for although 
 he gives an honourable testimony to the Church 
 of Rome, yet in point of direction he makes them 
 all equal. 
 
 I proceed to the testimony of the iUustrious mar- 
 tyr St Cyprian, <« who (says Dr Field,) of aU others 
 
207 
 
 most clearly overthrows the error of the Romanists, 
 touching the Papacy." 
 
 In his book of the Unity of the Church, he teaches 
 us that there is but " one Episcopacy, part of which 
 every Bishop holds with full authority and power *," 
 by which he means, that each Bishop possesses a part 
 of this universal Episcopacy, which he has m solidum^ 
 i. e. he has his part to govern with the fulness and 
 plenitude of Episcopal power, without any superiority 
 or jurisdiction over him. In the same manner he says, 
 (jEp. 53.) " That as there is one church divided into 
 many members throughout the whole w^orld, so there 
 is one Episcopacy, diffused by the united multitude 
 of many Bishops." — Again (in Ep. 67.) " Although 
 we are many pastors, yet we feed one flock, and we 
 ought to collect and cherish all the sheep which Christ 
 hath purchased with his blood." 
 
 Another principle is, that each Bishop, with his 
 clergy and laity, form a complete church, possessing 
 all necessary authority "ivithin itself, and over which no 
 Bishop or CoUege of Bishops have a direct authority, 
 to compel it to submit to their decrees against its judg- 
 ment and conscience. He defines * ' a church to consist of 
 a Bishop, his clergy, and the laity, (Quando Ecclesia in 
 episcopo, et clero, et in omnibus stantibus sit consti- 
 tut." (See Goulart on this passage, Ep, 62.) " So that 
 if any are not with the Bishop, they are not in the 
 church," and that **from thence heresies spring, that 
 the Bishop who is one and is set over the church, is con- 
 temned by the proud presumption of some," (Ep. 66.) 
 
 * " Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tene- 
 tur." (JEp. 53.) " Quam sic a Christo una Ecclesia per totum mun- 
 dum in multa membra divisa, item Episcopatus unus Episcoporura 
 multorum concordi numerositate difFusus." 
 
108 
 
 In each church the Bishop was subordinate to nom, 
 but the great Bishop of Souls, Jesus Christ ; and there 
 is nothing more fully, more plainly, or more frequent- 
 ly insisted on by Cyprian than this great principle. 
 — 1st, He lays the foundation of it in the equality 
 which our Lord instituted among his apostles, " Christ 
 (says he,) gave equal power to all his apostles when 
 he said, as my Father sent me, so send I you ;'* and 
 again, " The rest of the apostles were the same that 
 Peter was, endowed mth an equal fellowship both of 
 honour and power." Now Bishops were, in Cyprian's 
 opinion, successors of the apostles ; consequently he 
 founds the equality of Bishops, and therefore every 
 Bishop's supremacy within his own diocese, on the 
 equality of the apostles. — 2d, The equality of Bishops, 
 In his epistle to Jubaianus : " These things, most dear 
 brother, I have written to you as I was able, neither 
 prescribing to nor imposing on any man, since every 
 Bishop may do what he thinks fit, possessing the free 
 power of his own will *." In the same manner he con- 
 cludes his epistle to Magnus. And what can be more 
 clear or full than his excellent discourse at the open, 
 ing of the Council of Carthage, A. D. ^5Q? More 
 than eighty Bishops were assembled, concerning bap^ 
 tism performed by heretics or schismatics. Cyprian 
 was president ; and having represented to them the 
 occasion of their meeting, he spoke in the following 
 terms : " It remains now that each of us speak his 
 sense freely, judging no man, refusing our commu- 
 nion to no man, though he should think otherwise. 
 For none of us constitutes himself a Bishop of Bishops, 
 or forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying him 
 
 * " Unisquisque Episcoporum, quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii 
 sui liberam potestatem." 
 
 2 
 
209 
 
 by a tyrannical terror ; since every Bishop has full 
 power to determine for himself, and can no more be 
 judged by others, than he can judge them. But we 
 all wait for the judgment of Christ, who alone hath 
 power to make us governors of his church, and to call 
 us to an account for our administration *." More- 
 over, by the principles of those times, every Bishop 
 " had a primacy in his own church," " managed the 
 balance of her government," was elevated to " the 
 sublime summit of the priesthood," ** possessed the 
 Episcopal authority in its vigour," in its *' plenitude," 
 and had a " sublime and divine power of governing 
 the church." Every Bishop was ** head " of his own 
 church, he and he only was her visible "judge," and 
 he did not stand subordinate to any visible superior t. 
 In short, the constitution of every particular church 
 was, in those times, a well-tempered monarchy ; the 
 Bishop was the monarch, and the Presbytery his se- 
 nate ; all the christians within his district depended on 
 him for government and discipline, and he depended 
 on no man. 
 
 Another grand principle of Cyprian is, that all Bi- 
 shops were colleagues^ and formed one college, which 
 he calls the Episcopal College, or the one Episcopate. 
 With respect to this, every Bishop, besides the su- 
 
 * Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum con- 
 fttituit, aut tjnrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatera CoUegas 
 8uas adigit ; quando habeat omnis episcopus, pro licentia Ubertatii 
 et potestatis siub, arbitrium proprium, tamque ab alio judicari non 
 possit, quam nee ipse potest judicare : Sed expectemus uniVersi judi- 
 cium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui uniis et solm habet et potes- 
 tatem et praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione et de actu 
 nostro judicandi. 
 
 t Seje Ep. 69. 68. 55. S. 59. Vn, Eccles. 59. 
 
 o 
 
210 
 
 preme government of his own diocese, had such a 
 relation to the whole Catholic Church, that he was 
 bound to give the christians of those churches, where- 
 in the Bishops had turned heretics or schismatics, 
 <^ the comfort of his aid and assistance," (Ep. 68.) 
 And this. is the reason he gives, why there were so 
 many Bishops in the christian church, (Ep.Gj.) "that 
 if any of our college should endeavour to broach any 
 new heresy, or tear and spoil the flock of Christ, the 
 rest may come to their aid, and like good and faith- 
 ful pastors, collect again the sheep of Christ into their 
 fold." Thus they could refuse the heretical or schis- 
 matical Bishop their communion, and thereby exclude 
 him from the Episcopal College ; and they could re- 
 ,quire all the christians within his district to abandon 
 his communion, and choose another Bishop, as they 
 valued the inestimable privileges of catholic commu- 
 nion. Transactions of this nature were, in those times, 
 carried on in the Episcopal College by " communica- 
 tory letters." Thus, in those happy times, while the 
 pure faith and worship were professed by a great ma- 
 jority of Bishops throughout the church, was catho- 
 lic communion strictly preserved, and as Cyprian ex- 
 presses himself, " united by the cement of Bishops, 
 adhering closely together*," but, as I shall shew^ more 
 fully hereafter, not consisting in a necessary union^\'\\h. 
 the Bishop of Rome, much less in subjection to him. 
 
 * The expressions used by Cyprian with respect to this unity of 
 the Episcopal body imply an union of love and charity, and no where 
 of subjection to one visible head. Thus, dilectio communis ; mens 
 juncta et individua concofdia ; pro charitate mutua, qua nobis in- 
 vicem cohaeremus, writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome ; and see 
 Ep. 30. on which Goulart has the following observation : Locus 
 de eximia ilia communione et mutua fraternaque ortJiodoxdrum 
 
211 
 
 The first argument Cyprian makes use of to prove 
 the unity of the church, is the unity of the apostolic 
 office ; and assigns this as a reason why our Saviour 
 in a particular manner committed the keys to Peter 
 (when he gave the same power, parem potestatem^ to 
 the rest of the apostles, which he did to Peter,) viz. 
 « to manifest the unity " f w^ unitatem manifestaret,) 
 of the apostolic office and power. ** Yet*, that he 
 might manifest unity, he appointed one chair and 
 one origin of unity beginning in one, for the rest of 
 the apostles were the same that Peter was, endowed 
 with an equal fellowship both of honour and of power, 
 (hoc utique erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, 
 pari consortio pr^diti et honoris et potestatis t,) but 
 the beginning {exordium J is from unity ± j and the 
 
 ecclesiarum charitate ; quae infelici hoc nostro seculo indies eva- 
 nescit : unde malorum Iliades. — The Bishop of Rome is repeated- 
 ly termed by Cyprian, his fellow -bishop and colleague; and mark, 
 colleague is never used to a Presbyier. The title Papa (which is 
 now appropriated to the Bishop of Rome, and impertinently used to 
 insinuate his supremacy,) was then common to all Bishops. Thus 
 the Roman clergy direct their letters to Cyprian, " To Pope Cy- 
 prian," or "to the most blessed and most glorious Pope Cyprian.'^ 
 
 * I give the entire passage as it stands in the last Popish edition by 
 Baiuze, which undoubtedly contains some interpolations of latter 
 ages, but still is unserviceable to the cause of Popery. See Cyprian, 
 de Uiiitate EcclesicBy editus cum annotationibus Jer. Stephanie S. T.B. 
 Lond. 1632. These interpolations were omitted by Baiuze himself, 
 but inserted by his editor. 
 
 f This declaration is so clear, that the Papists have used every 
 art in order to evade it. Nullum non artificium est non adhibitum, 
 si non elevando, certe obscurando, says Chamier, who has with great 
 patience, shewn the weakness of their objections. See his most 
 learned work against Popery, entitled Panstratia Catholicaj in four 
 vols, folio. VolII. p. 471. 
 
 X " From unity " i. e. from one not from several, by which the 
 unity of the church is signified. So Augustine, " Peter the first 
 
212 . 
 
 primacy is given to Peter, to shew that the Church of 
 Christ is one, and the chair one (e. e. the apostohc 
 office and power.) They are all pastors, and but one 
 flock is shewn, which is fed by all the apostles with 
 joint consent." The apostles, then, were equal to 
 Peter in honour and power ; this dignity, he says, 
 ought to be kept in particular " by us Bishops, who 
 preside in the church, that we inay prove the Episco- 
 pacy one and undivided," all equally we see. This 
 is the plain design of this passage (which has been 
 so much abused by the Romanists,) viz. that Christ 
 named Peter first, or rather instead of all the apostles, 
 to recommend that unity he intended to have in his 
 church ; and to instruct them, that though they were 
 many, yet their office and power was but one, which 
 they were to exercise as one man " with one con- 
 sent."** 
 
 And therefore when Cyprian says, that "Christ built 
 his church upon Peter alone," he does not and cannot 
 mean the person of Peter, but that apostolic office and 
 power, which was given to the apostles in the name of 
 Peter, as the church is said to be " built upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets," and as he 
 says himself (in TltJi Epist. where he is explaining 
 Tic es PetruSykc.) that the church is not "built" upon 
 one Bishop, but " upon Bishops, and that every act 
 of the church is governed by the same Bishops *." 
 
 of the apostles in order, one or singly, answered for many (unites 
 in multis,) unity among many," (Serm. 13.) — And Isidore, (^jt7. 10.) 
 <' Nothing is so pleasing to God as love; our Saviour making this ma- 
 nifest from the beginning, that he wished all his disciples should be 
 united as brethren." Where we see, 'cy^ooi^^ia and ro evo^^aa-^ai, are 
 used in the same sense as exordium and manifestare in Cyprian. 
 * Inde per temporum et successionum vices, Episcoporum ordi- 
 
£13 
 
 After enforcing the preservation of unity from the 
 one Episcopate, Cyprian returns to the church. '< The 
 church (says he,) is one, which is extended widely 
 into a multitude by the increase of fruitfulness, — as 
 there are many rays, but one light, and many branches, 
 but one stem founded on a tenacious root, — so the 
 church expands forth her rays through the whole 
 world. Yet the light is but one, which is everyw^here 
 diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. It 
 extends its branches over aU the earth, &c. yet the 
 head is but one, and the origin one, the mother one, 
 abounding in fruitfulness." Here we are told by 
 the advocates of Popery, that by the origin and roo^ 
 of the church is meant Peter, and from thence it is 
 inferred, that " Cyprian is here extolling Peter's pri^ 
 macy, as the necessary centre of unity," (De laHogue 
 DeEcclesid, p. S55.) In answer to such inference, 
 it will be sufficient to return the answer of Bishop 
 Andrews : Cyprian, says he, does not make Peter 
 the fountain of the church, but the church herself 
 the fountain rom whence spring many rivulets, and 
 the light from whence many rays, and the root from 
 whence many branches are propagated. We learn 
 from Cyprian himself, that «' the church spreads forth 
 her rays through the world." The church, he says, 
 not Peter. " Yet there is one light everywhere dif- 
 fused (is this light Peter too ? or is he ever}^vhere 
 diffused ?) nor is the unity of the body separated. 
 There is one origin and one mother," &c. Surely 
 you will not call Peter mother, nor head neither. For 
 it follows in Cyprian, " She produces us, we are fed 
 
 natio, et Ecclesiae ratio decurrlt, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos con- 
 stituatur : et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos guber- 
 BC tur. Ep. 27. 
 
^14 
 
 • 
 by ^er milk, and animated by her spirit." These 
 words cannot be said of Peter, but of the church, 
 and in this sense they are used by Augustin, (Lib. II. 
 Contr, Crescon, c. 35. SQ, and Lib.. III. contr, eund, 
 c. 58. Q5,) And therefore Pamelius, although he has 
 scraped together every thing from Cyprian for the 
 pui-pose of establishing the Pope's supremacy, has 
 passed this over in perfect silence. 
 
 Such is the plain meaning of this passage, which has 
 been brought forward to prove that the root, origin, 
 mother, and centre of unity of the church was placed 
 in the person of Peter (although Peter's name is not 
 mentioned,) and then it \?> p7'esiimedi\i2± the Bishop of 
 Rome succeeds in the office of being the root, origin, 
 mother, and centre of the Catholic Church ! Even 
 granting all this, from whence is the jurisdiction and 
 authority of Peter to be deduced ? Where is it men- 
 tioned ? In order to bestow some share o^ power on 
 the Bishops of Rome,DrDe la Hogue, after many use- 
 less distinctions, asserts, that **to preserve the unity of 
 the Episcopate, there is required some eminent autho- 
 rity in one over the other Bishops." But whei e do Cy- 
 prian or the apostles require any eminent authority 
 of Peter over the rest, or where does it appear to be 
 necessary in their opinion ? No where, as I have al- 
 ready abundantly proved from Cyprian's expressions. 
 
 Let us now attend to a few of his transactions with 
 the Roman Bishop, and see whether Cyprian acknow- 
 ledged \h2it primacy o^ honour undi jurisdiction, which 
 the Bishop of Rome claims over the universal church 
 by divine right, — or whether he acknowledged his 
 right o^ making and directing decrees to all churches y 
 and that he was the centre of unity, so that in all cases 
 it was necessary to adhere to him; for these privileges 
 
215 
 
 belong to the See of Rome by divine right, according 
 to Dr De la Hogue. But observe, we ought not to 
 be surprised at the intimate correspondence between 
 Cvprian and the Bishops of Rome, or suspect that it 
 arose from any absolutely necessary alliance between 
 them. This intercourse w^as observed among all 
 Bishops in the church, and continued as long as they 
 retained the same faith, but was necessarily suspended 
 when any of them became an heretic or schismatic. 
 — -And we have the greatest reason to affirm, that if 
 Cyprian had lived in our days, he would have held 
 any intercourse with the Bishop of Rome, or any 
 other Popish Bishop, in the utmost abhorrence. 
 
 To proceed. — The schismatical party at Carthage, 
 having set up Fortunatus as a Bishop in opposition 
 to Cyprian, sent some of their partisans to various 
 churches, in order to justify their proceedings. They 
 apply ^r^^ to the African Bishops, but receiving no 
 encouragement there, they went to Cornelius Bishop 
 of Rome ; who, though at first unwilling, was finally 
 compelled by them to receive their letters. Upon 
 w^hich Cyprian whites to Cornelius, and exhorts him 
 « not to be moved them by their threats," and that 
 it is inconsistent with the powder of a christian Bishop 
 to fear <' the insidious dealings of impious men;" at 
 the same time, to encourage him, putting him in 
 mind of the commendations given by St Paid of the 
 Romans, and that such traitors and perfidious men 
 could get no support from them, " ad quos perfidia 
 non potest habere accessum." He then tells him, 
 that if the threats of such persons should relax the 
 church's discipline, all the power of it would soon 
 be taken away, and that " the ground of all schism 
 arises from disobedience to the Bishop ;" not the 
 
S16 
 
 Bishop of Rome, as Bellarmin pretends, but every 
 Bishop, for it was not Cornelius, but Cyprian that 
 was disobeyed. He then acquaints Cornelius, that 
 the cause had been ali^eady judged in Africa, and 
 therefore he had no right to interfere in it. " For 
 (says he,) since it is decreed by us all, and it is both 
 reasonable and just, that every one's cause should 
 be heard where the crime was committed j and since 
 there is a portion of the flock committed to every 
 Bishop which he is to govern, as he shall be account- 
 able (not to the Bishop of Bome, but) to the Lord *, 
 our subjects ought not to run about from Bishop 
 to Bishop, nor break the harmonious concord of 
 Bishops by their deceitful and fallacious temerity, 
 but to plead their cause there where they may have 
 accusers and. witnesses of their crimes ;" L e. that it 
 belongs not to Cornelius, nor any other Bishop, to 
 take cognizance of a cause already judged by Cy- 
 prian ; for, as he proceeds, " the authority of the 
 Church in Africa is not less than that of the Church 
 in Romet.^' Therefore, according to Cyprian, 1st, 
 Every Bishop was judge of his own people. 2d, That 
 no Bishop, not even the Bishop of Rome, was supe- 
 rior to another Bishop, nor could receive appeals from 
 his sentence. 3d, That this independency of Bishops 
 was founded on each having his portion of the flock 
 assigned to him, for the government of which he was 
 to be answerable to God alone. 
 
 In this epistle, Cyprian charges his schismatical 
 Presbyters, that having set up a Bishop in opposition 
 
 * Quam regat unusquisque et gubernet, ratione sui actus Do- 
 mino redditurus. Ep. 55. 
 
 + Nisi paucis desperatis et perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas 
 episcoporum in Africa. lb. 
 
217 
 
 to himself, "they had dared to sail to the chair of 
 Peter, and the principal church, from whence priestly 
 unity sprung;" and from hence our adversaries infer 
 that Cyprian (notwithstanding his strong assertions in 
 defence of his own independency,) acknowledged that 
 the See of Rome was the centre of unity. But the 
 unreasonableness of such an inference will soon ap- 
 pear, on examining into the circumstances of the case. 
 At this time Cornelius was the lawful Bishop of Rome, 
 in opposition to whom a schismatical party had set 
 up one Novatian. Consequently Cornelius being the 
 Catholic Bishop, held the chair of Peter, and unity 
 sprung from him, and not from Novatian who had 
 been the cause of schism, and therefore the true root 
 of unity was with Cornelius, and not with the schis- 
 matical Novatian. The term *' principal church," is 
 applied to the Church at Rome, because (as Rigaltius 
 remarks,) " it was constituted in the principal city 
 of the world," and quotes the 22d Canon of Chalce- 
 don to confirm it. — This explanation will serve also 
 as an answer to the passage in Epist. 55. where Cy- 
 prian orders those who sail to Rome **to liold to the 
 root and matrix of the Catholic Church;" i» e, to the 
 Catholic Bishop, and not to the schismatical one — 
 But you are so very unreasonable (says the learned 
 Stillingfleet,) that though no more be said of Rome, 
 than might be said of any other apostolic church, yet 
 because it is said of the Church of Rome, it must im- 
 port some vast authority, which, if it had been said of 
 any other, would have been interpreted by yourselves 
 into nothing; for because it is said that they who join- 
 ed with Cornelius preserved the unity of the Catholic 
 Church, therefore it must needs be understood, that 
 tlie Roman Church is the root of the Catholic, But 
 
^18 
 
 he must have a very mean understanding that can be 
 swayed by such trifles as these. For was there not 
 a cathohc and schismatic party at Rome ? And if 
 they who joined with Novatian, separated from the 
 Cathohc Church, then they who were in communion 
 with CorneUus must preserve the unity of it. And 
 would not this argument as well prove the catholic 
 party at Carthage to be the roo^ and matruv of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, as at Rome ? 
 
 Besides this(in his73depistle,) Cyprian speaks inhis 
 own person w^ith other Cathohc Bishops f?205 quieccle- 
 sice unius caput et radicem tenemus^J <« we who hold the 
 head2ind root of one church," by which it appears that 
 he could not make the Church of Home the root and 
 matrix of the Catholic Church, this being understood 
 of the unit!/ and society of the Catholic Church, with- 
 out relation to the Church of Rome ; and in the schism 
 at Rome about Cornelius and Novatian, Cyprian sent 
 two of his colleagues thither, " to endeavour to bring 
 the members of that divided body of the Church of 
 Rome, to the unity of the Catholic Church," which 
 is certainly a very different thing from the Catholic 
 Church deriving its unity from the particular Church 
 of Rome *. For no particular church can be the root 
 
 * The Church at Rome was, in the early ages, particularly infest- 
 ed by heretics and schismatics. Goulart therefore justly inquires : 
 <' If the Roman Bishop was so extremely negligent in preserving 
 order among the few churches of one city, how could he be expect- 
 ed to manage the innumerable multitude of the whole Catholic 
 Church ? Christ had other methods for ruling his church, than to 
 commit the care of his whole sheepfold to one, and that one gene- 
 rally the most inattentive of all." And Cyprian says, that there- 
 fore there were many Bishops in the church, that if one attempted 
 to introduce heresy, the rest might lend their assistance. The resty 
 not one.'' Nota in Cyprian, p. 200. 
 
^19 
 
 of the catholic, and if any, Jerusalem had better pre- 
 tensions to it than Rome ; and Cyprian and his bre- 
 thren dared not have suspended their communion at all 
 (as Baronius confesses they did,) if they had esteemed 
 the Church at Rome the root of the Catholic Church, 
 All this serves to confirm that, by this expression, was 
 not meant any authority or privilege of the Church 
 at Rome over other apostolic churches, which, in re- 
 spect of the lesser churches derived from them, are 
 called Matrices Ecclesias by TertuUian and others *. 
 To proceed to another instance of the independen- 
 cy of Bishops in Cyprian's age : About the year 255, 
 the Bishops of Africa and the East came to a deter- 
 mination to rebaptise all heretics on their admission 
 into the church. In order the better to maintain that 
 mutual love and concern which Bishops owed to one 
 another, the African Bishops informed Stephen Bishop 
 of Rome of their constitutions by a 'synodical letter, 
 in which they say that, " for their common honour^ 
 and the simplicity of their love, they sent them to him, 
 hoping that he would approve of that which is right, 
 — that, although they are conscious that some could 
 not readily alter their opinion, yet, preserving the 
 bond of peace with their colleagues, w411 retain what 
 they have once conceived, therefore, they did not 
 force or give law to any, since every Bishop had, in 
 
 * How would the advocates of Popery have exulted, if the follow- 
 ing expressions had been applied to Rome ? " Caesarea (says Na- 
 zianzen, ) is the mother (mater, ) of almost all churches ; and the 
 whole christian republic embraces and regards it, as the circle its 
 centre," Epist. ad Cces. " Think of the magnitude of the city (says 
 Chrysostom, speaking of Antioch, Horn. 3. ad pop.) that we speak 
 not now of one, or of two, or of ten souls, but of thousands without 
 end, of the head of the whole world, de totius orbis capite." 
 
220 
 
 the administration of his church, the free po'wer of Ms 
 mil, being to render to the Lord an account of his 
 actions." When Stephen was informed of this de- 
 termination, he behaved with the most unchristian 
 arrogance and violence, prohibited all the christians 
 of his church from affording the African deputies 
 lodging or entertainment, excluded Firmilian and 
 other Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia, 
 from the communion of the Church of Rome, and 
 pronounced Cyprian in particular " a false Christ and 
 false apostle." But did not Cyprian yield to Stephen's 
 declaration on this subject, and acknowledge him the 
 governor of the universal church ? — No. On the con- 
 trary he wrote a full confutation of his decree, and 
 affirmed that he had ** espoused tJie cause of heretics, 
 against the Church of God;'* and the Bishops who agree 
 with him, pronounce Stephen ^'cut off from the unity 
 of the church J"* The words of Firmilian Bishop of 
 Caesarea, are : How many strifes and dissensions have 
 you (Stephen,) caused through all the churches ? — 
 What a great sin you have heaped on yourself, by 
 cutting yourself from so many flocks ? For you have 
 cut yourself oif : be not deceived. Since he is truly 
 a schismatic, who has apostatized from the communion 
 of ecclesiastical unity ; for while you think that all 
 are excluded from you, you have only e.vcluded your-^ 
 self horn ^*r 
 
 * " Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a 
 tot gregibtLS scidisti ? Excidisti enim teipsum ; noli te fallere. St 
 quidem ille est vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiasticae 
 unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri 
 posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti." The Popish editors are 
 all somewhat troubled at these strong expressions of Firmilian, and 
 the last salves the credit of his cause, by saying that <« the father 
 
221 
 
 Now I desire to know, whether these Bishops be- 
 lieved the Roman Bishop to be the centre of commu- 
 nion in the Catholic Church ? — It is plain they made 
 him the cause of schism, instead of the cause of uniti/, 
 and never thought themselves excluded from the Ca- 
 tholic Church, by being excluded from the Roman 
 communion ; and so far w^ere they from receiving his 
 decrees on the subject of baptism (which were esteem- 
 ed so very necessary in Cornelius's opinion,) that they 
 pronounced them Heretical. This was that St Cy- 
 prian (says Bishop Morton,) who uttered that excel- 
 lent saying : No man hath God for his father, who 
 hath not the church for his mother ; little doubting 
 but a man might have the church for his mother, who 
 stood in opposition to the Church of Rome, and far 
 from thinking that separation from her communion 
 was a certain mark either of schism or heresy. More- 
 over, C}^rian to his last day held his former opinion * ; 
 and St Austin, (though disputing with the Donatists, 
 uses a kind of laudable tergiversation in this point, 
 says Baronius,) confesses elsewhere, that it is not 
 found that Cyprian ever changed his opinion. If then 
 
 was perhaps hurried by the messenger whom Cyprian sent to him, 
 so that he could not read his letter over- again," Vit, Cyjp, p. 117. 
 A most notable conjecture indeed! and that will do equally well for 
 all epistles as well as this, S2iy& Mr LeMesurier,BampULQcUp. 
 171. 
 
 * Even granting that Cj^rian and Firmilian changed their opi- 
 nion with respect to the baptism of heretics, yet it must not be infer- 
 red that it was done in compliance with Cornelius's opinion, or tliat 
 they thenceforth acknowledged his supremac}'. The very circum- 
 stance of their opposition to Stephen, and their declaring him cut 
 off from the unity of the church, sufficiently proves that they were 
 totally unacquainted with the modem notion of his being the centre 
 of unity. 
 
222 
 
 Cyprian being excommunicated by the Pope, was 
 notwithstanding still esteemed a Catholic, and has 
 ever since been registered for a saint ; then doubtless 
 the Reformed are much more secure who are excom- 
 municated for opposing not only the gross idolatry, 
 but also as many heresies of the Church of Rome, as 
 she hath new articles of faith, among which this, viz. 
 *« The CathoHc Roman Church, without union to 
 which there is no salvation," must not be held the 
 least. 
 
 EusEBius Bishop of Ceesarea has written a History 
 of the Church, from the birth of Christ to the year 325. 
 Yet this industrious compiler * of all passages relating 
 to the original constitution of the church, and all ec- 
 clesiastical transactions, never once mentions the 
 Bishops of Rome as possessing any authority over the 
 Catholic Church, or as being its centre of unity. This 
 principle we never find urged against the schisms and 
 heresies which broke out in the very city of Rome ; 
 particularly the No vatian schism, which began in Rome 
 itself and lasted 200 years. Bhistus and Florinus raised 
 a great schism in Rome, who (says Eusebius,) drew 
 away many from that church, and enticed them to 
 embrace their opinions; these heresies were quelled, 
 not by the Pope's authority, but by the arguments of 
 of Irenasus Bishop of Lyons. And in the same age, 
 
 * Eusebius's History abounds in quotations from more than twenty- 
 three writers of the three first centuries, yet there is no mention in 
 any one of them, of any superior authority belonging to the Bishop 
 of Rome. Nor is there the least intimation of it in the following 
 writers who lived within the same time, whose works remain to this 
 day : Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, TertuUian's Apol. &c. Minutius Felix, Origen, Ar- 
 nobius, Lactantius, &c. &c. Indeed these are always passed over 
 in silence by Roman writers. 
 
22S 
 
 while Victor was Bishop of Rome, a pestilent heresy 
 was raised in that city by a tanner and a banker, who 
 set up a Bishop, and settled a maintenance on him. 
 Surely the modern Romanists ought no longer to up- 
 braid our church with the preaching of mechanics and 
 tradesmen ! 
 
 There is a remarkable instance in Eusebius, (Lib. 
 VII. ^7. A. D. ^Q5,) which clearly proves in what 
 manner the unity of the church was preserved. It 
 is concerning the deposition of Paulus Samosatenus 
 Archbishop of Antioch, wherein it is to be observed 
 that the Bishops, assembled to examine the cause 
 of Paulus, did not meet by any authority or sum- 
 mons from the Bishop of Rome, but as pastors of 
 the same common flock, to take care that the faith 
 should receive no injury. In the next place, when 
 they had judged him guilty of heresy, they did not 
 wait for confirmation of their proceedings, or orders 
 from the Bishop of Rome how to proceed, but imme- 
 diately pronounced, by their own authority, sentence 
 of excommunication and deprivation against him, and 
 presently created Domnus Bishop of Antioch in his 
 place. When they had done this, they sent a syno- 
 dical epistle to the chief Bishops in the world, giving 
 an account of their proceedings, that as far as pos- 
 sible every thing might be done with the full consent 
 and approbation of the whole Episcopal College. 
 This epistle they directed " to Dionysius Bishop of 
 Rome, Maximus Bishop of Alexandria, and all our 
 fello'iV-bishops throughout the world, and to the whole 
 Catholic Church under heaven." They also say, " we 
 cited to Antioch many other distant Bishops, as the 
 Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of Caesarea," &c. Now 
 it is certain, that these Bishops bordering upon An- 
 
224 
 
 tioch pretended to no jurisdiction over the Bishop of 
 of Alexandria, &c. so that this was no summons of 
 authority, but of brotherly concern for the faith and 
 universal flock of Christ. Hence we may compute 
 the force of that argument brought for the supre- 
 macy of the Roman Bishop, in his convening many 
 Bishops upon a like occasion. And this synodical 
 epistle gives the Bishop of Rome no other title than 
 other Bishops, calling them their " fellow-bishops." 
 No authority in the Bishop of Rome more than others, 
 is so much as hinted at in this epistle, which is in- 
 conceivable, if they entertained that notion of his su- 
 premacy which has since prevailed, and which ought 
 to have been exerted in such a case, as the de- 
 privation of the third Bishop in the christian world. 
 These Antiochian Bishops give him notice, as well as 
 other Bishops, to direct no longer their communica- 
 tory letters to Paulus, whom they had deposed, but 
 to Domnus, whom they had elected in his place. — 
 Leslie's Preface to Parker's Abridgment ofEusebius, 
 Lond. 1720. 
 
 Here was the unity and security of the Catholic 
 Church in those ages. It consisted in the mutual 
 correspondence and good agreement of the Bishops, 
 the heads of the several churches. 
 
 Thus I have examined all the arguments that have 
 been lately produced to prove the universal jurisdic-- 
 tion of the Bishop of Rome in the first 300 years *, 
 
 * In my former edition (to which I refer the reader, ) I carried 
 the examination of the opinion of the ancient writers down to the 
 beginning of the fifth century, but have omitted it in this, partly 
 for the sake of uniformity, and partly for the introduction of more 
 important matter. The fathers of the three first ages are, in the 
 opinion of our best divines, perfectly sufficient to shew the opinion 
 
225 
 
 and the absolute necessity of adhering to his commu- 
 nion, and I think, have clearly shewn that such notions 
 were then totally unknown to the primitive christians. 
 This indeed has been candidly acknowledged by se- 
 veral learned Romanists ; but I shall content myself' 
 with the following confession of Mr Bower, who had 
 been once a Jesuit, but died in the reformed com- 
 munion. Speaking of his Lives of the Popes, he says, 
 " This work I undertook some years since at Rome, 
 and brought it dowai to the close of the second cen- 
 tury. As I was then a most zealous champion for 
 the Pope's supremacy, my chief design was to as- 
 certain that supremacy, by shewing, that from the 
 apostles' time to the present it had been acknowr 
 ledged by the Catholic Church. But, alas ! I soon 
 perceived that I had undertaken more than it was in 
 my power to perform. Nay, while in order to main- 
 tain this cause, I examined with particular attention 
 the waitings of the apostles, and of the many pious 
 and learned men who had flourished in the three first 
 centuries : I was so far from finding any thing that 
 seemed the least to countenance such a doctrine, that, 
 on the contrary, it appeared evident beyond dispute, 
 
 of antiquity on any controverted point; for soon after Constantine's 
 accession to the throne, the doctrines and practices of Christianity 
 became visibly corrupted. " I do not intend to go lower than the 
 Fathers of the three or four first centuries (says that eminent anti- 
 quary Dr Cave, ) for the life and spirit of Christianity did then visi- 
 bly decline apace," (Primitive Christianity , Pref. — Dr Brett's Div, 
 Right of Episc.Tp. 1. 13.) Speaking of Constantine's civil establish- 
 ment of Christianity, the late Bishop Newton remarks : Though it 
 added much to the temporal prosperity, yet it contributed little to 
 the spiritual graces and virtues of christians. It enlarged their reve- 
 nues, but proved the fatal 77iea7is of corrupting the doctrine and re- 
 laxing the discipline of the churrfi. O71 Projoh. II. p. 164. 
 
S£6 
 
 that, during the above-mentioned time, it had beem 
 utterly unknown to the christian world. In spite then 
 of my endeavours to the contrary, I began to look 
 upon the Pope's supremacy, not only as a prerogative, 
 quite chimerical, but as. the most impudent attempt 
 that had ever been made. I say, in spite of my en- 
 deavours to the contrary^ for I was very unwilling to 
 give up a point, upon which I had been taught by 
 Bellarmin that the whole of Christianity depended. 
 But great is the power of truth, and at last it prcr 
 vailed. I became a proselyte to the opinion which 
 I had proposed to confute, and sincerely abjured irt 
 my mind that which I had undertaken to defend." 
 Jref. 
 
 Before I conclude this chapter, I shall briefly point 
 ©ut at what time the unity of the church, as maintain- 
 ed in the first 300 years, began first to be changed ; 
 and by what means so groundless a pretence, as that 
 of the Bishop of Rome's universal supremacy, gained 
 belief and submission from so considerable a part of 
 Christendom *. Although the equality and independ^ 
 
 ^- See The Grand Forgery Displayed; Essay on the Roman Por.p 
 tificate, Heathen and Papal; Dissertation on the Papal Supremacy y 
 chiefly toith relation to the Spanish Church, among the Tracts of the 
 learned Dr M, Geddes. Dr Cave and Bishop Parker s Discourses^ on 
 Church Government. Answer to Hatvarden's True Chirch by F.,H. 
 Lond. 1716. On the subject of the Roman Bishop's Presidency, &c. 
 in General Councils, see Richerii Hist. Cone. Gew.Cologn. 1683, in 
 which the arguments of Bellarmin, Binius, and Du Val are parti- 
 cularly confuted; and Richardsoiis Preelections, Lond. 1726. On 
 Appeals, see Field On the Church, p. 56 1 . Barrovos Works, I. p. 71 1 . 
 Mortons Grand Imposture, p. 262. Richerii Hist^ Cone. Vol. I — 
 Richer judiciously remarks. Magnum esse positum discrimen inter 
 appellationes ^tc[\iQ petfugia clericorum. Bellarminus perfugium pro 
 appellatione usurpat, et vocis cequivocatione lectorem frustratur. 
 
£27 
 
 ency of Bishops was firmly believed and maintain- 
 ed in the first three centuries, yet it was found expe- 
 dient for the farther maintenance of unity, that the 
 Bishops of the same province should unite into one 
 body, and govern their churches by mutual consent, 
 all under the inspection of one of themselves, whom 
 they invested with a power of presiding in provincial 
 synods, consecrating the Bishops of the province, 
 and several other privileges determined and limited 
 by ecclesiastical canons. This moderator or presi- 
 dent of the Bishops of a province, was styled Arch- 
 bishop or Metropolitan, and is still retained as an 
 useful C9nstitutionby the modern Episcopal Churches. 
 It farther appears, that the office of Metropolitan 
 was generally conferred on that Bishop, who presid- 
 ed over the church established in the metropolis, and 
 it is a matter beyond all dispute, that the Bishops 
 of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, as residing in the 
 three most considerable cities, had a pre-eminence 
 above all others, and were distinguished by peculiar 
 rights and privileges. First, in this human order of 
 affairs, stood the Bishop of Rome, because residing 
 in the imperial city, the place of general resort ; and 
 it was principally owing to this circumstance that he 
 was enabled to establish his superiority over the great- 
 er part of Christendom. '' Rome (says St Cyprian, 
 Up, 42.) ought to have the precedency of Carthage, 
 on account of its magnitude." • " To the See of an- 
 cient Rome (says the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 .) 
 because that was the roi/al city, the fatliers justly gave 
 the privileges." The fountain of Papal eminence 
 was, in their judgment, not any divine institution, not 
 the authority of St Peter deriving itself to his sue-- 
 eessors, but tlie concession of the fathers, who were 
 
228 
 
 moved to grant it, because Rome was the imperial 
 city. To the same purpose, the Empress Placidia in 
 her epistle to Theodosius, in behalf of Leo Bishop of 
 Rome, says " It becometh us to preserve to this city 
 (v/hich is mistress of all countries,) a reverence in all 
 things." 
 
 In consequence of these advantages, the Bishop 
 of Rome had, in the time of the severest persecu- 
 tions, a numerous and opulent clergy ; or, as Corne- 
 lius expresses himself in a letter to Fabius, ** a rich 
 and plentiful clergy, with a great and, innumerable 
 people in his own diocese." Ammianus Marcellinus, 
 a Pagan historian, informs us *' their feasts exceeded 
 the tables of kings," (^Lib, 27.) and contrasts the po- 
 verty and humility of the country-bishops, with the 
 pride and pomp of the Bishop of Rome. On account 
 oftheir large incomes, they were extremely charitable, 
 and were accustomed to transmit very liberal contri- 
 butions to foreign churches, to relieve the necessities 
 of the brethren that were condemned to the mines, 
 as we are informed by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, 
 in his Letter to Soter of Rome, A. D. I74. Hence 
 they necessarily obtained great respect and venera- 
 tion. Hence in all common affairs, the privilege^of 
 presidence naturally devolved on them without com- 
 petition. The circumstance too, oftheir church being 
 founded by Peter and Paul, contributed to give it 
 a great reputation •, the christian world bearing an 
 extraordinary reverence to those great names, and 
 which the Bishops of that See knew well how to im- 
 prove and turn to their own advantage. For this 
 reason, Cyprian styled the Roman See " the Chair 
 of St Peter,'* and Firmilian, who had the firmness to 
 pronounce Stephen a schismatic," declares that he is 
 
S29 
 
 "justly indignant at such open and manifest folly of 
 Stephen, who boasts in such a manner of the place 
 of his Bishopric, and contends that he holds the suc- 
 cession of Peter." 
 
 It is natural, as Dr Barrow observes, and can hardly 
 be otherwise, but that the Bishop of a chief city, find- 
 ing himself to exceed in wealth, in power, in advan- 
 tages of friendships, dependencies, &c. should not 
 affect to raise himself above the level : it is an ambi- 
 tion that will seize on the most moderate, and other- 
 wise religious minds. — No wonder then, that after 
 the Bishop of Rome had arrived to some pitch of au- 
 thority over poor christians, especially those that lay 
 nearest him, he improved his eminency into power 
 and his pastoral charge into a kind of ^npire; accord- 
 ing to that observation of Socrates, that " long before 
 his time, the Roman Episcopacy had advanced itself 
 beyond the priesthood into a dynasty," (Lib.Yll.J.) 
 And the same he observes to have happened on simi- 
 lar grounds in the See of Alexandiia. 
 
 After the Roman Emperors became christians, in 
 the fourth century, the Bishops of Rome enjoyedmuch 
 better advantages of carrying on their designs. For 
 tiien, by the influence of the Emperor Constantine, 
 new degrees of eminence were (most unhappily for 
 Christianity,) introduced among the Bishops of the 
 Roman empire. Patriarchs, as I mentioned before 
 (p. 16^,) were placed over the Archbishops of the 
 several provinces. Of these, the most considerable 
 at first were the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alex- 
 andria, to whom the Bishop of Constantinople was 
 afterwards added, when the imperial residence was 
 transferred to that city. 
 
 In consequence of thexiches heaped on the chuixh 
 
S30 
 
 by the emperors, the Bishops of Rome surpassed all 
 their brethren in magnificence and splendour, in their 
 sumptuous manner of living, and in the richness of 
 their revenues and possessions. Hence the elevation ' 
 to that See became a principal object of sacerdotal am- 
 bition, and occasioned contests aud tumults as dread- 
 ful to the public peace, as contrary to every idea of 
 christian charity and humility. By the assistance of 
 the court, they were capable of sending out jnissio- 
 naries to various parts of the West ; and on this foim- 
 dation they built and advanced a claim to superiority 
 and dominion. Their power was much amplified by 
 the importunity of persons condemned or expelled 
 from their places, whether justly or unjustly : And 
 thus Cyprian'S)*chismatical Presbyters, whom he calls 
 '^paiccif desperati,perditi,'' being condemned in Africa, 
 fled to Rome for shelter, which (says Bishop Stilling- 
 fleet,) was apt to take advantage from such renegadoes 
 as these w^ere, by degrees to get more power into her 
 hands, and lift up her head above her fellow-churches. 
 —Moreover, pride appears to have been a vice more 
 peculiar to Rome than other places. It was this ex- 
 cited the old Romans to subdue the world,- — by this 
 the emperors tyrannised over it for some ages,- — and 
 when Rome changed its lords, it did not change its 
 task-masters. The ambition which the emperors laid 
 down, the Bishops of the city took up, and prosecut- 
 ed it by worse methods than ever the ancient Ro- 
 mans did. St Basil more than once complains of 
 the arrogance of the West, and expresses a passion- 
 ate resentment, that *' he hated the pride of that 
 church." 
 
 Furnished with these and many other advantages 
 (says Dr Cave,) they set up for themselves, and gave 
 
231 
 
 not over, till they had spread such an ecclesiastical 
 empire over the world (^. e, the Roman empire,) as 
 would admit neither superior nor equal. 
 
 Is it not plain (observes Dr Geddes *,) that the 
 Bishops of Rome, after they were in possession of that 
 primacy bestowed on them as Bishops of the imperial 
 city, were still stretching it, though for many years^ 
 but to little purpose ? So, in the fifth century, they 
 attempted to obtrude on the African churches a de- 
 cree of allowing appeals from them to the Roman See, 
 as if it had been made at the Council of Nice. But 
 the African BishopSj to the number of 270, and St 
 Austin at their head, surprised at this new pretence, 
 sent into Greece for authentic copies of the Nicene 
 Canons ; which, having examined, they sent letters 
 to the Bishop of Rome, informing him, " that the 
 Council of Nice had decreed, that all causes should be 
 determined in the places where they arose ; and that 
 it was unreasonable to think that God should enable 
 a single person (at Rome) to examine the justice of 
 a cause, and deny his grace t6 a multitude of Bishops 
 assembled in synod," &c. From hence (as DrCave 
 argues,) it follows, 1st, That whatever power the Bi- 
 shop of Rome claimed in Africa was founded on the 
 canons, and not as successor of St Peter. 2d, The 
 canons give the Bishop of Rome no power over fo- 
 reign churches, either to hear or decide causes, or to 
 send legates with authority, "for this, say the African 
 Bishops, we do not find commanded by any synod of ' 
 the fathers." 3d, That the Church of Africa, and 
 accordingly every national -church, has an inherent 
 power of determining all causes that arise within it- 
 
 * Tracts, Vol. II. p. 4. 1714. 
 
232 
 
 self. 4th, That appeals which they call improba re- 
 fugia, were not allowed even to Rome ; and they in- 
 form the Bishop of Rome, that his proceedings were 
 80 far from the humility and simplicity of the gospel, 
 that they tended only to nourish " swelling pride and 
 secular ambition in the church." Their epistle to 
 the Bishop of Rome (says Bishop Stillingfleet,) is a 
 noble monument of the prudence, courage, and sim- 
 plicity of the African Bishops, — enough to put any 
 reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an univer- 
 sal pastorship of the Bishop of Rome. I wonder not 
 that Cardinal Baronius says, there are some hard 
 things in this epistle, that Cardinal Perron sweats and 
 toils so much .to so little purpose to enervate the 
 force of it ; for, as long as the records of it last, we 
 have an impregnable bulwark against the usurpations 
 of the Church of Rome. — Stillingfleet's Works, IV, 
 p. 394 *. 
 
 Thus, by degrees the Bishops of Rome rose to that 
 height they have now obtained, and not content with 
 usurping over their fellow-churchmen, their next at- 
 tempt was upon princes; for being now esteemed 
 
 * In order to supply the defect of evidence in the first three ages, 
 for the authority of the Roman Bishop, the Decretal Epistles were 
 impudently forged in the eighth or ninth century ; and also the do- 
 nation of Constantine, wherein he gave away the Roman empire and 
 all its rights to the Pope. These false decretals, which exalt the 
 power of the Bishops of Rome during the first three ages to heaven 
 itself, «' were universally believed (says Abbe Fleury,) to be the 
 doctrine of purest antiquity from the eighth to the sixteenth century. 
 They made an incurable wound in the discipline of the church, by 
 the maxims they introduced concerning the judgments of Bishops 
 and the Pope's authority." Discourses on Ecclesiast, Hist.^p. 119. 
 They were believed in the Council of Trent, but are now everywhere 
 rejected as spurious. Fehron.de Statu Ecclesitc, p. 531. 
 
233 
 
 Christ's Vicars on earth, with other blasphemous titles 
 as Vice-God, yea and even Lord God, they thought 
 their power was limited as long as kings and emperors 
 were even in temporals, subject to them. And there- 
 fore, in the days of Gregory VII. (A. D. 1086.) they 
 pretended to a power of deposing princes, disposing 
 of their dominions to others, and dispensing with the 
 oaths of allegiance, which their subjects had sworn 
 to them. This exorbitant power has been challenged 
 by them for many successive ages; and, when oppor- 
 tunity served, has been frequently put in practice. 
 
 And it was easy for them (observes Bishop Burnet,) 
 to make crowns change their masters as they pleased, 
 for there were always other ambitious princes ready, 
 for their own ends, to invade the dominions of those 
 deposed kings upon the Pope's warrant, and the gene- 
 rality of the people were so possessed with the Pope's 
 power of releasing souls from purgatory, and from the 
 punishment due to sin, that they were easily pre- 
 vailed on to follow his thunders. And by that time, 
 the Pope had swarms of emissaries of the Begging 
 Orders, who, under shew of austere piety, gained 
 much reverence and esteem in the world, and so got 
 all subjected to the papal tyranny. 
 
 Thus did the empire of that usurping Bishop be- 
 come, throughout the greatest part of Europe, trium- 
 phant, till at length the impudence with which their 
 abominations were practised, and the length to which 
 they were carried, shocked the common sense of man- 
 kind, and providence was pleased to raise up a succes- 
 sion of men, by whose exertions many kingdoms were 
 rescued from the bondage in which they were held. 
 
£34 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 A GENERAL DEFENCE OF THE REFORMATION OF THE 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 Jtrom the foregoing examination of the scriptures 
 and primitive fathers, we may with the greatest truth 
 and justice make the following inferences, with re- 
 spect to the government of the Catholic Church : 
 
 1st, That it consisted, in the apostolic and primi- 
 tive ages, of all Jaitliful churches under their respec- 
 tive Bishops, who, by divine right, were accountable 
 to Christ alone for thei# administration. 2d, The 
 churches were preserved in unity, not by necessary 
 subjection to one visible head, but by their agree- 
 ment in the essentials of the apostolic faith and wor- 
 ship, and the correspondence and intercourse of their 
 Bishops. 3d, That as long as a church preserved the 
 essentials of faith and worship, it remained in catho- 
 lic unity, even although it differed from others in rites 
 and ceremonies (for uniformity in these was not re- 
 quired,) but when it corrupted the faith and worship, 
 it was excluded from catholic unity. 4th, That the 
 church (or diocese,) of Rome, with its Bishop, was 
 considered merely as a particular church, possessirig, 
 by divine right, no prerogatives above others, but liable 
 to be expelled from catholic unity when it corrupted 
 the pure faith or worship* 
 
 From these premises it clearly follows, that (since 
 the Bishop of Rome possessed no supremacy by divine 
 
235 
 
 right over other churches,) the Reformed Bishops and 
 people would have been perfectly justifiable in shak- 
 ing off the intolerable oppression of his jurisdiction, 
 even although no differences had existed between the 
 parties, with respect to faith and worship. But they 
 had more serious reasons for seceding from his com- 
 munion, and asserting their apostolic independency, 
 than the burthen of a foreign usurpation. They could 
 have remained no longer united with him, without 
 partaking in those scandalous corruptions of faith and 
 worship, which, for several hundred years, had defil- 
 ed the greatest part of Europe, and which had been 
 imposed on them as necessary to salvation, by the 
 overbearing power of this Italian usurper. 
 
 Accordingly, the first step towards the restoration 
 of their just rights, was the renunciation of the Bishop 
 of Rome's usurpation by the Bishops in England, who 
 determined in convocation, A. D. 1553, (even before 
 they had renounced the corrupt doctrines of Popery,) 
 " that it was many hundred years before the Bishop 
 of Rome could acquire any power of a primate over 
 any other Bishops, which were not within his province 
 of Italy ; and that the Bishops of Rome do now trans- 
 gress their own profession made at their creation, for 
 they solemnly vow that they shall inviolably preserve 
 aU the ordinances made in the eight first general 
 councils, among which it is especially provided, that 
 all causes shall be determined within the province 
 where they began, and that by the Bishops of the 
 same province, which absolutely excludes all papal, 
 i, e, foreign power out of these realms." They proceed- 
 ed next, upon mature deliberation, to reform (as far 
 as their influence extended,) those other corruptions 
 that had crept into the church. With respect to Faith, 
 
2S6 
 
 they renounced the groundless traditions of the Ro- 
 mish Church, and declared the inspired scriptures to 
 be the sole rule of faith, and that we are " account- 
 ed righteous only for the merits of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and not for our own works or deservings." — 
 As for Worship, they directed that it was to be offer- 
 ed to God only, and not to the Virgin Mary, to saints 
 and angels ; and that worshipping and bowing down 
 to images was idolatrous and sinful. They abolished 
 transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the 
 adoration of the consecrated bread and wine, restored 
 to the laity the cup in the eucharist, and directed that 
 the public worship of God should no longer be per- 
 formed in an unknown tongue, but in that with which 
 their flocks were best acquainted. Moreover, they 
 restored to the laity the use of the scriptures in their 
 native language, in order that they should not take on 
 trust whatsoever was declared to them by their pas- 
 tors, but, like the noble Bereans, " ejcamine whether 
 these things he so'* 
 
 But let us now examine, 1st, by what authority our 
 Bishops, inferior clergy, and laity, introduced these 
 alterations. ; and, 2d, whether in adopting them, they 
 cut themselves off from the Catholic Church. 
 
 I. ^y what authority our Bkho^s, clergy, and laity in- 
 troduced these alterations, for our adversaries inform 
 us that " it was never lawful for any nation to reform 
 the belief of the CatholicChurch,"(Hawarden's Tme 
 Church, &c. Part I. c. 1.) — Answer. They never at- 
 tempted to reform the belief of the Catholic Church 
 (that w^ould be impossible,) but to restore it to them- 
 selves and their flocks. They certainly reformed the 
 corrupt belief of the Romish Church in which they had 
 been educated, but the Romish Church was not then 
 
237 
 
 the Catholic C.iMch. And this the clergy had full 
 authority to do, by the law of God. For being " over- 
 seers" and ''ministers" of religion, and having the 
 charge of souls committed to them, and ** the glorious 
 gospel committed to their trust" (1 Tim.i. 11 . — 1 Thess. 
 ii. 4.) they were bound to " hold it fast" and ** in the 
 form of sound "words^ wherein it was delivered" (2 Tim. 
 i. 13.) they were bound as <' ambassadors of Christy** 
 (2 Cor. V. 20.) to " approve themselves as the ministers 
 of God by the word of truth," (2 Cor. vi. 4. 70 to '' tes^ 
 tify the gospel of the grace of God," and to ''fulfil the 
 ministry of the word;" as watchmen " to watchfor their 
 souls, as they that must give an account thereof " (Heb. 
 xiii. 17.) and *' to feed the flock, over which the Holy 
 Ghost had made them overseers," " to labour in" ad- 
 ministring " the word and doctrine" and " the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," (1 Tim. v. I7. — Jude 3.) 
 and " by sound doctrine to stop the mouths ofvai?i talk- 
 ers anddeceivers, who, for filthy lucre's sake, teach things' 
 which they ought not, and to convince gainsayers," (Tit. 
 i. 9. 10. 11.) If then the Bishops and pastors of the 
 church found it corrupted by unsound doctrines or 
 idolatrous worship, they were, by the law of God and 
 the charge of souls for which they were accountable, 
 and (as Cyprian says,) ** accountable to God alone, 
 and not to be judged by another," obliged to reject 
 these corruptions, and " take heed to their flocks, when 
 the speakers of perverse things arose to draxv away dis- 
 ciples after them," (Acts xx. 28. 29. 30.) 
 
 Moreover, not only the clergy are authorised by 
 the law of God to reform a corrupt church, and re- 
 store the Catholic faith and worship, but the laity are 
 obliged by the same law to forsake their communion, 
 in case of their refusing to promote a reformation, or 
 
£38 
 
 when it has appeared that they have introduced no- 
 torious corruptions *. For the holy scriptures ex- 
 pressly call such as corrupt Christ's rehgion, " de- 
 ceivers, seducers, wolves, makers of divisions, false pro- 
 phets and false teachers,'' The duty of the people to 
 adhere to them, is no longer than while they continue 
 to be ^followers of Christ.'' If they ''cause divisions 
 contrary to the doctrine which we have learned," the 
 people are commanded to " avoid them," (Rom. xvi. 
 17.) Although they appear "m sheep's clothing," they 
 are ordered to ''bexvare" of them, and tofleefrom them 
 as '' wolves ;" n2iy although they were '' apostles or 
 angels from heaven," yet if " they preach any other 
 gospel than that which we (the apostles) have preached," 
 they are to ''be accursed," Gal. i. 8 1. 
 
 The fellowship of Bishops with the apostles, and 
 our obligations to maintain fellow^ship with them, is 
 connected with their adhering to the apostolic declara- 
 tion of ** what they had heard or seen," (1 John i. 3.) 
 and to continue stedfastly in the " doctrine a7id fellow- 
 ship" will be of no service to us, unless we adhere ta 
 the "doctrine," which they taught, and the "worship" 
 which they practised, (Acts ii. 42.) Idolatry, in par- 
 ticular, is most highly displeasing to God. He de- 
 clares himself to be a jealous God, aifti refuses to ac- 
 cept of any worship in partnership with creatures, 
 and with respect to this St Paul declares the total in- 
 
 * See KettlexmlV s excellent Treatise Of Christian Communion, to ba 
 kept in the "Unity of Christ's Church, and among the Professors of Truth 
 and Holiness. Works II. p. 594. BramhalVs Works, p. 57. Leslies 
 Works, I. p. 770. Stillingfieet and Burnet's Conference tvith some 
 Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, Lond. 1676, p 178. Barro'w's 
 Works, I. p. 745. • 
 
 f See Appendix, No. V. 
 
^39 
 
 compatibility of communicating with Christ and Belial, 
 and commands all christians in such cases, to ^' come 
 outfrom among them, and be separate,'* 2 Cor. vi. I7. 
 In like manner in the primitive church, if a Catho- 
 lic Bishop fell into heresy or idolatry, he was desert- 
 ed not only by his brethren, but by his flock ; and 
 obedience was due to him only while he continued 
 orthodox. " We are to adhere (says Irenaeus,) to 
 those w^io, wath the succession of their bishoprics, 
 have received the gift of truth,'' (Charisma veritatis;) 
 or, as he says again, <* who preserve the doctrine o^ \he 
 apostles,'^ (qui. apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt, Lib. 
 IV. 0. 43. 44.) " They (says Ambrose,) are not 7;e/r5 
 of Peter, who have not the Jaith of Peter;" again, 
 ** if there be any church w^hich rejects the faith, and 
 does not hold the fundamentals of apostolic doctrine, 
 it ought to be forsaken, lest it infest others with its 
 heterodoxy," (in Lucam 9.) "We must not assent to 
 Catholic Bishops (says Austin,) if they hold any thing 
 contrary to the canonical scriptures ;" and although 
 he earnestly persuades his audience to render due re- 
 spect and obedience to their Bishop, yet he commands 
 them, "if he holds a wrong opinion, not to obey him, 
 although he were an angel," (See Bramhall's Works, 
 I. p. 746.) " The people may depart and separate 
 from the communionof their Bishop, when he preaches 
 heresy publicly in the church," (say the canons of the 
 Council of Constantinople, Can. 15.) And to with- 
 draw before synodical cognizance (observes Mr Ket- 
 tle well,) is not to incur canonical pains, but to shew 
 themselves worthy of that honour which belongs to 
 the orthodox. It is not to condemn Bishops, but 
 Pseudo Bishops their teachers, — not to rend the unity 
 of the church by a schism, but to study to free it 
 
240 
 
 from schisms and divisions. Tlius will the people^ 
 withdrawing from their heretical teachers " approve 
 themselves'' in the midst of ** heresies^'' by being sted- 
 fast in the truth, (1 Cor. xi. 19.) Thus will they be 
 secured from being " tossed to and fro y and carried 
 about with every mud of doctrine y'* (Eph. iv. 14.) by 
 means of " ^ false Christs a72d false prophets, who shall 
 arise and shall shew signs and wonders to seduce, if it 
 were possible, even the elect'' Mark, xiii. 22. 
 
 When the people have thus disunited themselves 
 from their heretical Bishops, they are then at liberty 
 not to cast off the government of Bishops entirely, 
 but to unite themselves to other orthodox ones; either 
 by substituting them into the place of the former, 
 as was done at the Reformation, or else by receiving 
 the benefits of Episcopal and ministerial acts from 
 any others they can meet with. " This they may do 
 (says Cyprian,) as well as mariners, who, when their 
 own port is insecure, pass it by and put in at ano- 
 ther, — or, as travellers, when their own inn is beset 
 with thieves, may take up their lodging at another, 
 which is more secure." 
 
 However, in our Reformation there was no neces- 
 sity to recur to this latter expedient, for it having 
 pleased God to open the eyes of many of our Bishops 
 and clergy, and vast numbers of the laity, to see how 
 far they had departed from the apostolic faith, wor- 
 ship, and government, they all united in the great 
 work of reformation, which was effected not in a tu- 
 multuary, but in a regular way, by the seasonable as- 
 sistance of the civil authority. 
 
 II. Hence appears the absurdity of the assertion 
 made by the Romanists, that our Reformed Church 
 separated from the catholic communion when it se- 
 
241 
 
 ceded from the Bishop of Rome, and that corrupt 
 part of the christian church under his jurisdiction. — 
 For what is cathoHc communion ? It is to communi- 
 cate in the apostoHc Faith, Worship, and Government. 
 If then, our church professes these, it is in cathoHc 
 communion ; on the contrary, the Romanists, who 
 have introduced the most dangerous corruptions into 
 these grand essentials of Christianity, are not in catho- 
 lic communion, but have schismatically divided them- 
 selves from it. It is they who divide from the aposto- 
 lic doctrine, and not those who faithfully adhere to it, 
 that are the schismatics. '' Mark them that cause di- 
 visio7U and offences contrary to the doctrine "which ye have 
 learned, and avoid tliem,^' (Rom. xvi. I7.) Such divisions 
 from " the faith once delivered to the saintSy' (Jude 3.) 
 are only to be cured by reformation, and return to the 
 old way, ''Ask for the old paths, "where is the good "way, 
 and "walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls,*^ 
 (Jer. vi. 16.) No time can give prescription against 
 truth ; and therefore, had any error been ever so an- 
 ciently received in any church, yet the pastors of 
 that church, finding it contrary to the " good old " 
 apostolic " "way,"' ought to reform it : and the more 
 ancient and inveterate any error is, the more it re- 
 quires; to be attended to. Thus, those^ nations that 
 were for many hundred years bred up in Arianism, 
 had good reason to reform from that error. Thus 
 will the Church of Rome herself acknowledge, that 
 the Greek Church or our own Church ought to for- 
 sake their present doctrines, though they had been 
 ever so long received. 
 
 In this dispute with the Romanists concerning 
 schism, we must particularly recollect, that the Ca- 
 tholic Church does not merely consist of the few 
 
242 
 
 christians who are now in existence on earth, but 
 also of our Lord, the apostles, and all the faithful 
 who have lived before us to the present day. It is 
 their principles we must profess, if we wish to con- 
 tinue in the unity of the Catholic Church ; and conse- 
 quently, unless v/e profess the religion of the apostles 
 as delivered to us in their writings, it is in vain to 
 boast of the name of Catholics. 
 
 But, say our adversaries, " how can you pretend to 
 be in communion with the apostles, but by becoming 
 members of the Roman Church, which has a con- 
 tinued succession of pastors and doctrine from the 
 apostles to the present time?" (Hawarden's Charity 
 and Truth, p. 85.) But we absolutely deny that the 
 Roman Church has a succession o^ pure apostolic doc- 
 trine. Her present doctrines were unknown to the 
 apostles and primitive church, were rejected by many 
 flourishing churches since the first appearance of them, 
 and were never formed into articles of faith, tiU the 
 packed conventicle of Trent. The Reformed Church 
 in England, Ireland, and Scotland, has not, I grant, 
 a succession o^ doctrines from the apostles' time to the 
 present day ; for (as we all know,) the apostolic doc- 
 trine and worship was, for several hundred years 
 before the Relbrmation, entirely obscured in these 
 countries by Popish corruptions. But what then ? 
 May not a church, which has been for some time 
 overrun with corruptions, become or recommence 
 Catholic, by returning to *' the old 'ways,''' and re-em- 
 bracing *< the faith once delivered to the saints,'' So 
 TertuUian (Z)e Prwscript, c. 81.) declares : "In this 
 manner (says he,) will they be tried by those churches 
 which, though they cannot shew any apostle or apos- 
 tolic man for their founder, yet agreeing in the same 
 
S43 
 
 faith are reputed no less apostolic for the consangiii^ 
 nity of their faith :" by this rule, therefore, the most 
 ancient churches are no longer to be accounted apos- 
 tolic and catholic, than while they preserve that faith 
 without innovations and corruptions, and *' teaching 
 for doctrines the commandments of men J ^ 
 
 This then, I think, is a sufficient justification of our 
 church in reforming its errors and corruptions, and 
 consequently in asserting the title of Catholic and 
 Apostolic to itself. For, can it be a fault to believe 
 as Christ has taught, and to worship God as he has 
 prescribed ? Is it possible that the true catholic 
 faith and w orship should ever be a crime ? If it be 
 not, then it can be no fault to make the doctrines and 
 institutions of our Saviour the rule of our faith and 
 worship, and that is all we mean by reforming ; not 
 to mend the christian religion, but to return to primi- 
 tive Christianity. It is true, we seceded from the unity 
 of the Popish Church by our Reformation, but then 
 this unity was not a pure christian communion ; and 
 if it were notf it is no separation from the christian 
 church, to leave its communion in those things which 
 are not christian. And therefore the whole contro- 
 versy will still turn upon this point, whether our Re- 
 formation be a true gospel Reformation ; for if we 
 reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed, 
 then we separated no farther than we ought to se- 
 parate, and such a separation, if it can be called a 
 separation, is no crime. Did Elias separate from the 
 Jewish Church, because he broke their unity in the 
 worship of Baal, and reduced them to the institutions 
 of the Mosaic law, which was the standard of their re- 
 ligion and communion ? Did the nation of the Goths 
 separate from the Catholic Cliurch, when it separated 
 
244 
 
 from the Arian heretics, after being infected with 
 Arianism above 200 years *. In the same manner, the 
 Reformed Church did not separate from the CathoHc 
 Church, when it seceded from the Roman heresy^ 
 and rejected those doctrines which w^ere not cltristian. 
 Some kind of separation, indeed, there must be be- 
 tween a pure and a corrupt cluu'ch, but it is the 
 church \Yhich Jbi'sakes the truth, which is criminal and 
 guilty of the separation, not the church which forsakes 
 
 * This is a remarkable precedent, which vindicates the proceed- 
 ing of our Reformation. The Gothic nation had been infected with 
 Arianism 218 years, when by the means of Leander Bishop of Se- 
 ville, the King Recaredus being duly instructed in the orthodox 
 faith, called a council at Toledo, A. D. 589, wherein Arianism was 
 renounced by the declaration and subscription of the king, bishops, 
 and great men ; after which, the council proceeded to make new 
 canons, which the king confirmed by his edict, declaring, " that if 
 any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon refused to observe them, he should 
 be excommunicated ; if any of the higher rank of the laity, the pe- 
 nalty was paying half their estates to the exchequer, if others, con_ 
 fiscation and banishment." Some of the latter Spanish historians 
 are much troubled to see every thing done in this Reformation by 
 the king, bishops, and great men, without the least mention of the 
 Bishop of Rome's authority. Lucas Tudensis therefore says, " that 
 Leander was the Pope's legate," but P.lariana confesses, " the very 
 acts of the council contradict it." He would have it believed 
 that they sent legates to the Pope, to have the council confirmed by 
 him : but Mariana acknowledges, " that nothing appears in history 
 to that purpose ;" and if any such thing had been, it would not have 
 been omitted in the epistles of Gregory, who wrote to Leander a 
 letter of congratulation for the conversion of Recaredus. But then 
 national churches were supposed to have power enough to reform 
 themselves, provided that they proceeded according to the decrees 
 of *^he four general councils. — And this is what we maintain .in be- 
 half of our cliurch, that it receives all the creeds which were then 
 received, and hath reformed those abuses only, which have wept in- 
 to the church since that time. Stilling/leefs Ans. to Cath. no Idola- 
 ters, prcf. and Geddess Tracts^ IL p. L 1714. 
 
S45 
 
 error ; and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge 
 those with the schism, who only forsook the compa- 
 ny, when those are the schismatics who forsake the 
 truth. And yet this is the only pretence for the 
 Church of Rome to charge us w ith schism, that they 
 did not leave us, but wc left them ; but it is because 
 they had Jirst forsaken the apostolic communion, by 
 corrupting the apostolic faith and worship. They 
 were the deserters and separatists, — ^we only returned 
 to the true christian communion, and were very sorry 
 to leave them behind us. The short of it (adds Dr 
 Sherlock) is this: If w^e cannotjustify our Reformation 
 we are schismatics, — if we can, we are none ; and I 
 would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short 
 answer, and stick to it ; for it is as certain as any de- 
 monstration in Euclid, that no man can be a schis- 
 matic, who forsakes no society of christians farther 
 than they forsake the truth. 
 
 But, was the Bishop of Rome endued with a por- 
 tion of infallibihty, or was it unlawful on any account 
 to separate from his communion in the primitive ages? 
 No, — all Bishops by divine right were equally succes- 
 sors of the apostles, and all equally liable to error\ 
 By falling into heresy or schism, they were excluded 
 from catholic communion, i, e, the communion of all 
 their orthodox brethren ; and on returning or reform- 
 ing themselves from heretical or schismatical doc- 
 trines, they became united to catholic communion. 
 The Bishops of Rome on several occasions incurred 
 the charges both of heresy and schism. For this rea- 
 son, their brethren were obliged, by virtue of their 
 share in the common Episcopacy, to separate from 
 them, and, if occasion required, to pronounce ana- 
 thema against them. 
 
246 
 
 Thus, in the second century the Eastern churches 
 abstained from communion with the Bishop of Rome, 
 who was guilty of a schismatical act. — In the third 
 century, the Bishops of Africa and Asia were in a 
 state of separation from him, and declared that he 
 had espoused the cause of heretics ; and Firmiliaa 
 Bishop of Cassarea pronounced him *' cut off from 
 catholic communion." — In the fourth century, the 
 Bishops of the Synod of Antioch ** promised to Julius 
 of Rome peace and communion, if he admitted the 
 deposition of those whom he had expelled ; but if 
 he resisted their decrees, they denounced the con- 
 trary," (Sozomen. III. 8.) The Eastern Bishops atSar- 
 dica excommunicated and deposed him. Liberius, on 
 his falling into the Arian heresy, was anathematized 
 by St Hilary, (Hilar. Fragm. p. 134.) and Acacius 
 Bishop of Constantinople renounced the communion 
 of Felix, — In the 5th century, the African Bishops ex- 
 cluded Vigihus from catholic communion, and their 
 example was followed by the Bishops of lUyricum *. 
 All this evidently proves, that they did not imagine 
 any single person to be the visible head of the w hole 
 church ; or that all churches and their Bishops were 
 obliged to be in communion with, much less in sub- 
 jection to the Bishop of Rome, whether he was a ca- 
 tholic or an heretic : But it manifestly proves the con- 
 trary, that there did not exist in those ages, a Visible 
 Head, as is now pretended by the Romanists, to 
 unite all the single churches of the Catholic Church 
 into one communion ; but that, in matters of faith, 
 
 * African! Antistites Vigilium Romanum Episcopum damnato- 
 rem capitulorum, synodaliter a Catholica communione, reservato ei 
 pajnitentiae loco, recludunt. Victor Twiens, Chron, p. 10. 
 
247 
 
 every Bishop was as much a guardian of the whole 
 church as the Bishop of Rome, and was obHged by 
 the law of God to *' preserve pure, that good thing 
 which had been committed to their trust," and reject 
 from his communion, and separate from, and ** avoid 
 all that caused divisions or offences, contrary to the 
 doctrine which he had learned *." 
 
 But here our adversaries are accustomed to inquire, 
 " If the church in communion with the Bishop of 
 
 * ''But (say our adversaries,) the church in communion with 
 the Bishop of Rome was the true church, when St Paul wrote his 
 epistle to the Romans, " Yonr Faith is spoken of in all the xvorldy'* 
 and is acknowledged by most Protestants to have continued so for 
 many ages. Therefore, unless it can be made out with demonstra- 
 tive evidence, that she has since forfeited her title, she must still be 
 acknowledged the same true church." Hawardens True Church,Tp,2, 
 Manning's Short Wai/, p. 84*. — If this be any argument at all, it will 
 prove a great deal more than our adversaries would have it, for it will 
 prove as strongly that the church in communion with that of Thessa- 
 lonica, is the only true church. For does not Paul declare that 
 ^^Jrom it sounded out the voord of the Lord, not only in Macedonia 
 <ind Achaia, hut also in every place your faith to God-voard is spread 
 abroad" (1 Thess. i. 8.) and thus it may be applied to the church of 
 Alexandria, and several others now in beings But the truth is, in the 
 primitive ages other churches were no more, or in any other manner 
 in communion with the church of Rome, than she was with them ; 
 nor was any one of them esteemed the centre of communion from 
 whence all the rest derived their unity. 
 
 Do not the scriptures plainly declare that the particular church 
 of Rome may be cut off from the church : '' If thou continue not in 
 his goodness; othermse thou shalt he cut o^" (Rom xi. 18.22.) — 
 Though the chair of Peter were overturned (says Bishop Patrick,) 
 and no where to be found, the Church of Christ would be where it 
 was, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Faith in 
 Christ Jesus, communion with our christian brethren, and subjection 
 to those pastors who are over us in the Lord, are sufficient to make 
 us a church, whether the Pope will or not, Serm, on St Peters da^. 
 
MS , 
 
 Rome, had so far degenerated from the purity of the 
 gospel for so long a period before the Reformation, 
 how did Christ perform his promise to his church, 
 that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. 
 Protestants therefore must shew us, before their Re- 
 ibrmation, a church with which they would have com- 
 municated, or else confess that the Catholic Church 
 had failed, contrary to Christ's promise." — Now, we 
 maintain that there did exist throughout all ages, a 
 church agreeing with our's in essentials, and to which 
 the promises of Christ must be applied. We do not 
 pretend that, during the dark ages, this church was 
 universally extended over the world, or that its ex- 
 ternal condition was extremely magnificent and pros- 
 perous, for these are not essential qualities belonging 
 to the true church, as our adversaries contend, but 
 only variable and changeable. Christ's promise ex- 
 tends no farther than this : that there shall always be, 
 in some part or other of^the world, a church maintain- 
 ing that faith which Peter here professed, and where- 
 on Christ promised to build his church ; but it is not 
 at all implied that the number of believers should al- 
 ways be great, and its condition prosperous. The 
 other texts adduced by our adversaries to prove the 
 continual amplitude, &c. of the church, relate not to 
 the church of all ages, but either to the calling of the 
 Jews, or to the bringing in the fulness of the Gentiles, 
 or to perfect rest from persecution, or to the splen- 
 did state of it, when " kings shall he its nursing fa- 
 thers,'^' &c. some of which have not yet taken place. 
 But, on the other hand, does not our Lord call it " « 
 little Jlock,'' (Luke xii. 32.) and has not Paul predict- 
 ed " a falling axvayy' or great defection from the 
 truth, (2 Thess. ii. 3.) 
 
249 
 
 And it is an undoubted fact, that the Church of 
 God has been occasionally only, and not always, in a 
 flourishing condition, since the first foundation of it. 
 Thus, under the Old Testament, Elijah complains, 
 (Kings xix. 20.) ** They have broken thy covenants and 
 destroyed thy altars and prophets, and I only am left 
 alive, and they seek my life alsoJ^ But amidst this al- 
 most universal defection, God declares that he had a 
 small flock not infected with idolatry, <« / have yet 
 seven thousaiid knees that have not botved to Baal."—^ 
 In like manner the christian Catholic Church was al- 
 most extinguished by the Arian heresy in the fourth 
 century. " The poison of the Arians, (says Vincen- 
 tius,) had contaminated not a small portion, but al- 
 most the whole world, sed pene orbem totum." — 
 " The whole world groaned (says Jerom,) and won- 
 dered that it was become Arian." To the same pur- 
 pose Gregory Naz. tells us, that "this heresy seized 
 on the greatest part of the church ;" and again 
 " Where (says he,) are those who define the church 
 by multitude, and despise the little flock (/. e. the Ca- 
 tholics.) They have the people, but we have the faith." 
 This heresy (as John Abbas calculates, Chron, ad. An, 
 8.) lasted ^^Q years. The sect of the Donatists was 
 also very powerful towards the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury, being governed at one time by no less than 400 
 Bishops. " They continued a long time in Africa 
 (says Dupin,) and were powerful enough in the time 
 of S. Gregory to disquiet the Catholics." And the 
 Pelagian heresy (if we may believe Bradwardine,) had 
 " infected almost the whole world," Pref*, 
 
 * The term Catholic includes a\\ Jaithful christians from the 
 beginning of Christianity to the present day. The church miHtant 
 
550 
 
 From this it is apparent that the Catholic Church 
 is not to be distinguished from other professors of 
 Christianity by the largeness of its extent, or the mul- 
 titude of its members, but only by those marks which 
 are essential to it, Viz, the trueFaith, Worship, and Go- 
 vernment. I proceed now to shew that in the dark- 
 est ages of Popery, there existed a visible church, 
 which preserved itself from the errors and corruptions 
 of the Church of Rome, and consequently was the 
 true catholic communion to which Christ's promise 
 strictly applied. — Amongst all the corruptions of the 
 Romish Church, there was scarcely one but was op- 
 posed at its first appearance. There have been many 
 
 on earth, lias never been at any period, universally spread over the 
 earth, for it is in this sense the Papists apply it to themselves, al- 
 though they are obliged to confess, that " Christendom was never the 
 third part of the world ; and that the Catholic (that is the Popish,) 
 religion was never more than apart of Christendom ;" and that " it 
 is not requisite that it should be the half of Christendom." Ha- 
 yoardens Charity and Truth, 1809, p. 142. True Church, P. I. c. 6. 
 This is an universal particular indeed ! It is- even very doubtful, 
 whether " it has (as they affirm, ) been always more numerous than 
 any particidar sect of Christendom." lb. For some have considered 
 the Greeks superior in number to the Papists. See Preserv. Tit. III. 
 p. 95. " The doctrine of the Greek Church prevails at this day over 
 a greater extent of country, than any other church in the christian 
 world." Kings Account of the Greek Church in Russia, Lond. 1772, 
 p. 2, — However, it is most certain that the universal body of Pro- 
 testants throughout the world (including the Greeks, who are un- 
 doubtedly Protcsta?its, ) is vastly more numerous than the Papists. 
 See the Unity of the Catholic Church, as maintained in the Church of 
 England, hy Dr Cave, Lond. 1684. The Papists (says Archbishop 
 Usher,) who talk so much of the Catholic Church, but indeed stand 
 for their own particular, must of force sink as low in uncharitable- 
 ness, as they have thrust themselves deep in schism. Sermon before 
 James I. 1624. p. 11. 
 
^51 
 
 in that communion itself, who have openly complain- 
 ed of the degenerate state of their church, and peti- 
 tioned for a reformation ; but the ancient churches 
 of Piedmont, of the Albigenses, and of the Bohemian 
 brethren, will ever be remembered as so many hosts 
 of confessors and martyrs for the truth, as well as in- 
 stances of Papal cruelty. The history, sufferings and 
 persecutions of these true Catholic Churches, have 
 been described by many Reformed writers, but by 
 none with more clearness and impartiality than by 
 Peter Allix, a Presbyter of the Church of England, 
 in his Remarks on the Ecclesiastical History of the 
 ancient Churches of Piedmont, Lond. 1690, and of the 
 ancient Churches of the Albigenses^ Lond. 1692, in an- 
 swer to the sixteenth chapter of Bossuet's Variations^ 
 &c. In these excellent books, the principles and cha- 
 racters of these holy martyrs are fully and clearly 
 vindicated against the vile aspersions of the Popish 
 writers. " There is nothing more common (as Mr 
 AUix most truly observes,) with the Romish party, 
 than to make use of the most horrid calumnies to 
 blacken and expose those who have renounced her 
 communion ; and that nothing but a spirit animat- 
 ed with such a rage and fury as produced those cru- 
 sades against these churches, can obstinately main- 
 tain such horrid calumnies against them, after all that 
 we have here alleged for their justification." I shall 
 merely give a short abstract of Mr AlHx's History*. 
 
 * Dr Bray observes, <' that it is from the inadvertency of divers Pro- 
 testant writers, as well as from the malice of the Roman party, that 
 the Waldenses, &:c. are derived from Peter Waldo, as if it were he 
 that founded them; but the contrary has of late been most clearly 
 demonstrated by the learned Dr Allix, p. 175." Brays Edit, of Per- 
 
252 
 
 First, with respect to the AValdenses, this learned 
 author has clearly proved that the churches of the 
 diocese of Italy (comprehending the provinces of Li- 
 guria, ^mylia, Flaminia, Venetia, the Alpes, and 
 Rhoetia,) maintained and enjoyed during the first 
 eleven centuries, '* a light of doctrine of competent 
 purity ; as likewise that the purity of divine worship 
 ever continued among them, notwithstanding that 
 they had a sprinkling of that ignorance and supersti- 
 tion which had overflowed the Romish Church, and 
 the greatest part of the Western churches ;" that (al- 
 though other and m.ore distant churches had been 
 brought under the yoke,) yet they had always main- 
 tained themselves independent of the See of Rome till 
 the midst of the eleventh century, when the first at- 
 tempt to enslave them was made by Nicholas II. who 
 for this purpose sent two legates, P. Damian, and An- 
 selm Bishop of Lucca. We are informed by Damian 
 himself, that ** on his arrival at Milan, the clergy stir- 
 red up the people to express their discontent against 
 the design of this legation ; they asserted, in the 
 strongest terms, that the Ambrosian Church ought 
 not to be subject to the laws of Rome, and that the 
 Pontiff of Rome had no right at all to judge or dis- 
 pose of any thing in that See ; that it would be a 
 great indignity if their church, which had always 
 been free under their forefathers, should now, to their 
 extreme reproach, become subject (which God. for- 
 bid,) to another church." However the Romish party 
 finally prevailed, and established their bondage and 
 corruptions ; in consequence of which " a party, as 
 
 rins History of the Waldenses and Albigenses, in Papal Usurpations^ 
 S:c, Lond. 1712. folio. 
 
23S 
 
 well of the superior as the inferior clergy, and the 
 sounder part of the people, formed a distinct body, 
 to secure themselves from these corruptions, and this 
 body has continued ever since till the grand Reforma- 
 tion, under the name of Patarines, and afterwards 
 of Waldenses." 
 
 Farther, Mr AUix has clearly proved that these 
 churches maintained a succession of Bishops and 
 clergy, professing the essentials of faith and worship, 
 from the time of their first secession from the Romish 
 Church. That the. order of Bishops existed among 
 them in a flourishing condition, I shall briefly shew% 
 since this important fact has not been sufficiently ta- 
 ken notice of by our divines. Rayner, their violent 
 enemy, who lived A. D. 1250, acknowledges that they 
 had Bishops in Lombardy, '^Lomhardiam intrantes^ vi- 
 sitant Episcopos siios," (Bib, Pat, p. 752.) M. Paris 
 {ad An, 1243,) speaks of "a Bishop of the Paterines in 
 Cremona, who was deposed by them" for certain 
 crimes. If we cast our eyes on the colonies they sent 
 to different places, we shall find the same discipline in 
 use amongst them. Thus, in the kingdom of Naples 
 they had a Superior, who conferred orders in the city 
 of Aquila,and the same in Bohemia; and in an ancient 
 abridgment of their opinions, recorded by Wolfius 
 {Lect, Mem, ad. An, Il60,) they declare that " they 
 absolutely deny the opinion of the Pope's primacy 
 over all churches, and more especially his power over 
 all policies, that is, his power of both swords ; neither 
 do they hold that any other orders ought to be retain- 
 ed in the church but those of Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons." 
 
 The Churches in ^he provinces of Narbonne and 
 Aquitain (commonly called Albigenses,) preserved 
 
254 
 
 themselves pure and independent till the twelfth cen- 
 tury, about which time they seceded from the cor- 
 rupt churches in communion with Rome. They like- 
 wise maintained a succession of Bishops professing the 
 essentials of the pure worship, and ^'' the faith once deli- 
 vered to the saints.'' The certain badge and mark of 
 those (pretended) heretics, says Mr AUix, was the hav- 
 ing the scriptures in their mother tongue, and Ray- 
 mond Earl of Toulouse never stirred any where, with- 
 out taking that holy book with him. Spondanus, a 
 Romish writer, observes that they were once so power- 
 ful in France, as to think of setting up one of their 
 Bishops as a general Primate of their order against 
 the Pope ; and Dr Cracanthorp remarks out of Bzovi- 
 us's Annals, that there were no less than 140,990 of 
 them miserably slaughtered by the Papists, within 
 the space of 60 years. Rayner confesses that " the 
 Waldenses were more ancient than any other sect, 
 for some said that they had continued from the time 
 of Silvester, and others from the apostles ; and there 
 is no country almost where they had not some foot- 
 ing (there is univei^saUty both oi'time smd place;) they 
 have a great shew of piety, living uprightly before 
 men, and believing all things aright of God, and all 
 the articles of the creed. Their fault is, that they 
 blaspheme the Church of Rome," (See many testimo- 
 nies to the same purpose, in Perrin's History y c. 5.) 
 The Waldenses, as has been observed, were not con- 
 fined only to the country of Piedmont ; for we are 
 informed by Rayner, that in his time, A. D. 1250, 
 there were churches of them in Constantinople, Sla- 
 vonia, Bulgaria, and Dragonicia : and Vignier takes 
 notice that " after the persecution in Picardy, they 
 dispersed themselves into Livonia and Sarmatia." — 
 
255 
 
 Matthew Pans tells us, that << they spread themselves 
 as far as Croatia and Dalmatia ; and had taken such 
 footing there, as to have converted several (Popish) 
 Bishops, that they all paid obedience to one Barthole- 
 mew,who came from Carcassone, and created churches 
 and ordained Bishops for them. And moreover, that 
 in the time of Gregory IX. there were great numbers 
 of them in Spain, insomuch that Alexander IV. com- 
 plains, in one of his bulls, of their being allowed to in- 
 crease and multiply as they had done. For, in the time 
 of Gregory IX. they had advanced so much in num- 
 ber and credit, as to have ordained Bishops over their 
 flocks, which, coming to the knowledge of the (Popish) 
 Bishops, they were most cruelly persecuted *." 
 
 The pure Catholic Church was likewise preserved 
 among the Bohemians, who had seceded from the 
 Popish Church about the beginning of the fifteenth 
 century. The very interesting History of the Perse- 
 cutions of the Bohemian Church was written in Latin 
 by Comenius, the only surviving Bishop that escaped 
 from the last Popish persecution. It was translated 
 into English, Lond. 1650 ; and the learned Mr Bing- 
 ham does not scruple to pronounce it a golden booh, 
 C Works II. p. 472.^ From it we learn, that the Bo- 
 hemians, being in great distress for want of Bishops, 
 '* sent three of their ministers to the Waldenses of 
 Austria and Moravia, to have them ordained Bishops, 
 which was accordingly performed by Stephen and 
 another Bishop, assisted by some Presbyters. From 
 these three, came the succession of Catholic Bishops in 
 Bohemia, which continued till their extirpation in the 
 
 * Rayner. fol. 10. Vignier. Bibl. Historial, p. 130. Mat, Paris, 
 Reign of HenrylW. Gregory IX. in his BulL beginning /r^ Cimctis, 
 See Perrins History , Part II. c. 17. 
 
256 
 
 last age by the ill success of the Bohemian war, and 
 the prevalence of the Popish faction." ** And in order 
 to prove to the Bohemians the care with which they 
 had preserved the succession, the Waldenses previous 
 to their consecration, declared their origin from Con- 
 stantine's time, and likewise explained the articles of 
 their faith, and what dreadful persecutions they had 
 hitherto suffered through Italy and France." " Some 
 of them were ordained by the Armenian Bishops al- 
 so, in 1499, it being found after the strictest exami- 
 nation, that they agreed with them in the essential 
 articles of faith." And it is recorded, that several 
 Popish Bishops came over to them even from Italy, 
 *^Jbr love of the pure religion,^' — And for a farther 
 confirmation of this, within these twenty years (says 
 Mr Thomas,) Bishop Hartman, and another Bishop 
 of the Bohemian brethren, came into England, and 
 were acknowledged by the Bishops of the Church 
 of England, to be as lawful Bishops as themselves ; 
 though they had no ordination than what they had 
 derived from the Waldenses. Answer to J, Oxve^fs 
 Plea, &c. 1711. p. 10. 
 
 Thus even in Europe, we have found the Catholic 
 Church subsisting in opposition to the corruptions of 
 of the Popish party, and maintaining the very same 
 Faith and Worship, in essentials, as our Reformed 
 Church maintains at this day. And thus has God 
 fulfilled his promise to the Western Church at least, 
 and has preserved it against the power of the gates 
 of hell. All sorts of people (says Seisselius their ad- 
 versary) have several times endeavoured to root them 
 out ; and yet, contrary to the opinion of all men, they 
 have still continued conquerors, or at least wholhj hu 
 vincible. 
 
257 
 
 Besides these churches in Europe, there were in- 
 numerable churches in Asia and Abyssinia, who never 
 submitted to the Roman yoke, but always continued 
 free and independent from the apostles* time to the 
 present *, and nothing can be more rooted and in- 
 vincible, (Mosheim, Ecc. Hist.Y,9.4<5,) than the aver- 
 sion which they in general discover to the Romish 
 Church, and which has continued inflexible amidst 
 the most zealous efforts of the Roman Pontiffs to gain 
 them over to their communion. It is not to be de- 
 nied, that they hold many superstitious customs ; yet, 
 not being fundamental, they are not of such conse- 
 quence as to throw them out of catholic communion, 
 since they maintain the essentials of faith and w^orship, 
 and have an undoubted succession of Bishops from 
 the apostles t. 
 
 A sound and orthodox portion of the Catholic 
 Church has been lately discovered in Malabar and 
 Travancore, by Dr Buchanan. It retains an unin- 
 terrupted succession of Bishops professing the apos- 
 
 * See Nectaril Patriarchce Hierosolymitani Cotifutatio Imperii Pa- 
 pcB in Ecclesiam; translated into Latin from the original Greek 
 (printed at Jassy in Moldavia,) by the Rev. Peter Allix. Lond. 
 1702. Nectarius died tou^ards the latter end of the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 t See Brc^mhalVs Works, p. 160. 248. 418. Stilling fleet's Works 
 IV. 6. 4.33. V. 65, 
 
 The passage in the homilies respecting the defection of Christen- 
 dom to idolatry for SCO years (and which is a standing objection in 
 every book or pamphlet published against us,) can be easily recon- 
 ciled with the foregoing ; for it is merely an hyperbolical expression, 
 and relates to the prevalency of the Popish religion. Jerom declares 
 that the whole world groaned under Arianism, yet no one will believe 
 in earnest that the rvhole world was guilty of that damnable heresy- 
 All that he could mean therefore was, that the greater part of Chris- 
 
258 
 
 tolic faith and worship, and agreeable to the doctrine 
 of the Reformed Church in this country. Their 
 Bishop, Mar Dionysius, after conferring with his 
 clergy, delivered the following opinion : " That an 
 union with the English Church, or at least, such a 
 connexion as should appear to both churches practi- 
 cable and expedient, would be a happy event, and 
 favourable to the advancement of religion/' 
 
 I have vindicated the right of the Reformed Epis- 
 copal Church, which I have undertaken to defend, 
 to the title of Apostolic and Catholic, — and shall now 
 prove that it maintains all necessary Catholic Unity. 
 This unity is of two kinds : the one of subordination, 
 the other of co-ordination. The unity of subordina- 
 tion, u e. the unity of members to their Bishop in the 
 same particular church is essential to catholic unity; 
 and this we do maintain, and have always maintained 
 even under the severest persecution. Blessed be God 
 (says Dr Hammond, speaking of the persecution of 
 the church by the Presbyterians during the civil w^ars, 
 in the reign of Charles I.) the Church is not invisible. 
 It is still preserved in Bishops and pastors rightly or- 
 dained, and multitudes rightly baptised, none of which 
 have fallen ofFfrom their profession. — Of Schism^ c. 11. 
 
 tendom was of that communion ; and thus must we argue with re- 
 spect to the homily under consideration, (See John. xii. 19.) But 
 if we examine the homily attentively, we shall find that it speaks 
 only of those christians, who had embraced the second Council of 
 Nice. And thus ^says Bishop King,) the Armenian, Nestorian, and 
 Indian churches in the East, who never embraced that council, come 
 not under this condemnation ; nor the German, French, or English , 
 Churches, &c. who for many ages after rejected that council, and 
 the worship of images authorized by it, and never received them 
 before the Reformation by any authentic act. KingsTMrd Ans.ts 
 Manby, Dub. 1688. 
 
Q59 
 
 The unity of co-ordination consists, not in union or 
 subordination to one visible head, but in the friendly 
 intercourse of the Episcopal churches with one ano- 
 ther, under the " one shepherd, " Christ Jesus. You 
 are wont to object (says a learned lady speaking of 
 the Church of England, in reply to a Popish Priest,) 
 that she is in communion with no other church, 
 which I know at first sight shocks weak people, 
 and makes them suspect, when you flourish upon 
 this topic, that she is a church by herself, — and like 
 an island, is divided from the whole continent of 
 the universal church. But the Church of England, 
 though a single national church, yet is a collection of 
 many churches in communion with one another, viz. 
 of two famous provincial, and twenty-six large dioce- 
 san churches. This great collective Church of Eng- 
 land, or rather Church in England, is in communion 
 with several other national churches, as that of Scot- 
 land, Ireland, Man, &c. and in heart, will, and desire, 
 she is in communion with all truly Catholic Churches, 
 wheresoever dispersed over the earth *." 
 
 Moreover, we maintain all necessary unity with^- 
 reign Reformed Episcopal Churches ; for (as I have 
 laid down, c. 1.) where there is no breach of com- 
 munion, — no declared disowning of each other, — no 
 express denial of any act of communion between dis- 
 tant churches, they may be justly said to be in 
 communion with each other. We maintain, however, 
 a more perfect unity than this, with the Bishops and 
 churches in Canada, Nova Scotia, the United States 
 
 * Mrs Hopton s Letter to a Romish Priest (F.Turberville,) on her 
 Return from the Church of Rome ^ in Hickess Controversial Letters^ 
 Vol. II. p. 147. Lond. 1710, 
 
?6(> 
 
 of America, Sweden, India*, &c. And what is of 
 more importance, all these flourishing churches are 
 in the unity of the apostolic and primitive communion, 
 and would have been acknowledged by the apostles, 
 had they existed in their days. The whole church 
 (says Augustine,) which is dispersed everywhere, is 
 Christ's body, whereof he is the head. **And not the 
 faithful who are now, but also they who have been he- 
 Joj^e us, and which shall be after us to the end of the 
 world, all belong to his body," (In Psalm, xlii.) And 
 the Papists (observes Mr Kettlewell,) are lamentably 
 out, and take their aim too narrow, who look only at 
 keeping external union with the assemblies and reli- 
 gious societies of their own place and time, though 
 that be in breaking off from the way and communion 
 of ail the faithful christians of other places at that 
 time, and of all that are gone before them ; and will 
 make them appear separately from the general assem- 
 bly of the saints at the last day. 
 
 But even although churches may entirely suspend 
 all intercourse with each other ; yet if they retain 
 the true faith and worship, by which they are united 
 to Christ the head, they may still continue parts of the 
 Catholic Church. The external peace of the church 
 is indeed broken, and will fall heavy upon the authors 
 of such divisions; but the faithful members cannot be 
 
 * These churches, we acknowledge, do not all perform divine ser- 
 vice by the same liturgy ; this is not essential to catholic commu- 
 nion. The Popish pretence of unity of liturgy is very ridiculous, 
 and is quite of modern date. To the time of the Reformation, the 
 different churches throughout the world had their own forms ; even 
 in England, though the Secundum Usiwi Sarum was the most ge- 
 neral, yet many others were in use. It were much to be desired, 
 that a still closer connexion subsisted amongst the Reformed Epis- 
 copal Churches. See Goiilati's note, in page 210, 
 
261 
 
 disunited from Christ, as long as they profess the es- 
 sentials of Christianity. Thus, the division and sepa- 
 ration of the apostles Paul and Barnabas did not cut 
 off either of them, or those who adhered to them 
 from the church, or destroy its essential unity. — 
 Neither can we suppose that the violent divisions in 
 the communion of the church, between the churches 
 of Asia and Rome in the second age, and between 
 those of Africa, Asia, and Italy in the third age, shut 
 out all those holy Bishops and martyrs from the pos- 
 sibihty of salvation. If not, then there may be dif- 
 ferent communions among orthodox christians, which 
 may still continue parts of the Catholic Church, and 
 in the unity of Christ's one fold. Indeed, as I have 
 already observed, although in the primitive ages the 
 external communion of a large portion of the Catho- 
 lic Church was, in general, pretty well preserved, — 
 yet this was merely an accidental circumstance, and 
 took place only among the Bishops of the Roman 
 empire, who might, with the emperor's permission, 
 hold correspondence, or meet in any part of the 
 empire ; for there were many great and numerous 
 churches in India, and afterwards in the vast empire 
 of Abyssinia, v,4io neither did, nor could conveniently 
 maintain intercourse with the rest, maich less attend 
 the oecumenical synods, which began to be formed in 
 the fourth century. 
 
 Thuslhav^, I hope, sufficiently vindicated the au- 
 thority of the Reformed Episcopal Church in casting 
 off the usurpation of a foreign Bishop, — -justified 
 her against the serious charge of being in a state of 
 separation from catholic communion, and retorted it 
 against our adversaries themselves. The corruptions 
 in faith and worship, with which the church in com- 
 
S62 
 
 munion with the Bishop of Rome is infected, and 
 wliich alone were sufficient to justify our secession 
 from it, even although the supremacy of the Roman 
 Bishop had never been imposed as necessary to sal- 
 vation, come next to be briefly considered. 
 
 I. With respect to Faith, the Reformed Church 
 maintains, that "the holy scriptures contain all things 
 necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read 
 therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re- 
 quired of any man, that it should be believed as an 
 article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary 
 to salvation." The Romanists, on the contrary, "re- 
 ceive unwritten traditions with an equal veneration, 
 as the holy scriptures," Co, Trid, Sess. 4. 
 
 With respect to the Canon of Scripture, the Ro- 
 manists, not content with the inspired books, receive 
 also as inspired by God, the books commonly called 
 the Apocrypha, which w^ere never received either by 
 the Jews, "^o whom the oracles of God were committed^'* 
 (Rom. iii. 2.) or by the christian church in all ages. 
 
 With respect to the Summary of Faith, the Reform- 
 ed Church professes the apostles' creed, exjplained by 
 the Nicene or Athanasian creed ; the Romanists, on 
 the contrary, have added twelve new articles (all of 
 them containing most notorious falsehoods,) to the 
 apostles' creed, and require all their members and 
 converts to swear that they are in " the true catholic 
 faith, without which no man can be saved, and which 
 they will hold inviolable to their last breath." (Pope 
 Pius's Creed,) In this they differ entirely from the 
 Fathers of the primitive church, who expressly de- 
 clared, that " it should not be lawful to utter, write, 
 or compose any other faith than that which had 
 been defined by the Nicene Fathers ; and that if any 
 
S63 
 
 dared to offer any other creed, he should be anathe- 
 matized," (Council ofEphesus.J Either then, it is 
 true, that this our creed contains a summary of the 
 points of belief, or it is not. If it be true, we are 
 safe enough, and can with no colour of reason be said 
 to err in faith. If it be not true, then were all those 
 primitive Fathers as much heretics as we ourselves 
 are. 
 
 The'^new articles added by the Papists to the ancient 
 creed which we profess, relate to their traditions, seven 
 sacraments, transubstantiation, sacrifice of the mass, 
 purgatory, invocation of saints, worship of images, in- 
 dulgences. Bishop of Rome's supremacy, &c. and other 
 erroneous and dangerous principles. *' This new pro- 
 fession of faith (says Bishop Patrick,) which was first 
 published to the world in the sixteenth century, is most 
 impudently pretended to be the true catholic faith, 
 being in no sense catholic, either as to time or place. 
 For it was no where used till they made it, nor is now 
 everywhere believed, — and was not at all believed in 
 any church for above 1500 years, nor is now used ixx 
 that church itself, when they admit members into it 
 by baptism ; but they are put into a state of salvation 
 by believing the old Nicene creed alone, which is a 
 direct contradiction to their new creed, which they 
 make necessary to salvation. 
 
 There are several pretences made use of to justify 
 these additions : — 1. "That they are contained im- 
 plicitly in the old creed." Now there are several 
 things contained in the old creed, which may be de- 
 ceded from it by evident consequence, as the Deity 
 of Christ, his two natures, &c. The addition of these 
 by the Nicene Fathers was properly no addition, but 
 an explication. But (says Bishop Bramhall,) it is as 
 
264 
 
 possible to draw water out of a pumice^ as extract 
 from the old creeds the worship of images, transub- 
 stantiation, purgatory, &c. for these are real additions, 
 and not explications of the old creed. — 2. " That the 
 old creeds make no mention of the bible, the sacra- 
 ments,'' kc. True, because they are merely agenda, 
 matters of practice, which in a large sense are to be 
 believed, because they are revealed. But what we 
 call the crcdcnda, or articles of faith, are revealed, be- 
 cause they are to be believed. These are of a spe- 
 cidative nature, and of them the creeds are a sufficient 
 summary. — 3. It is pretended that " our thirty-nine 
 articles are a new creed." Now we must distinguish 
 here between necessary articles of faiths and the con- 
 ditions of church communion. Of the former, our 
 church holds the creeds to be a sufficient summary. 
 But as for the latter, v/e assert that any church may 
 declare its sense of disputed articles of religion, and 
 require of its clergy a subscription to them, not to the 
 end that they should be believed as articles oi faith, 
 but to prevent diversities of opinion. But the Ro- 
 manists not only require the belief of their errors, but 
 make the belief of them necessary to salvation. Our 
 church in her canons, excommunicates those only who 
 affirm her articles are erroneous. And what a wide 
 difference is there between not saying they are erro- 
 neous, and saying they are necessary to salvation! — 
 10,000 articles may be true, which are not oiecessary 
 points oifhith. 
 
 The Ilomish creed, therefore, is that in which we 
 differ ; for as to the christian creed there is no dispute 
 between us, only that we account it sufficient, and 
 v/ill profess none other. We stand for that faith which 
 is confessed on all sides to be truly catholic and apos- 
 
265 
 
 tolic, and disown and abhor that which they have in- 
 vented only 25Q years ago, and which they would 
 impose on us as necessary to salvation. This, then 
 (says Bishop Patrick,) is the difference between us : 
 We are catholics, they are Romans ; — we believe the 
 catholic faith of all christians, they (as distinguish- 
 ed irom us,) believe the Roman faith, v/hich none 
 believe but themselves ; — we believe that which has 
 been ever believed, they believe that which was never 
 believed till yesterday, in comparison v/ith the ancient 
 faith ; — ours is the belief of the whole body of chris- 
 tians, theirs the belief of a sect. 
 
 The errors and heresies of the Romish Church, 
 with respect to Doctrines, come next to be consider- 
 ed. The principal of those are * : 
 
 Their doctrine of Merits.— They maintain. That 
 " the good works of justified persons are truly and 
 ipYo^erly meritorious, and deserve not only the increase 
 of grace, but eternal life, yea an increase of glory,'* 
 (Council of Trent, Sess. 6. Can. 32.) Whereas the 
 scriptures tell us, that ** the gift of God is eternal lifcy 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord,'' (Rom. vi. 23.) — 
 ■*' When *we have done all things which are commanded 
 lis, we are still unprofitable servants,** (Luke xvii. 10.) 
 " By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of 
 yourselves, it is the gift of God,'* Both faith and sal- 
 vation itself, which is the end of faith, is all of grace 
 
 * See the Preservative against Popery, in three vols, folio. 
 This excellent collection (which, says" Mr Le Mesurier, ought to be 
 in every Protestant clergyman's library,) includes the best Trea- 
 tises on every possible point of controversy with the Papists ; ori- 
 ginally composed by the most celebrated Divines in the ever memo- 
 rable contest with the Papists in the reign of James II. and collect- 
 ed into three vols, by the Right Beverend Bishop Gibson, in 1738. 
 
266 
 
 and gift, " not of works, lest any man should hoast^" 
 (Eph. ii. 8.) Good works, we hold, " are the fruits 
 of faith, and follow after justification, but cannot put 
 away our sins or endure the severity, of God's judg- 
 ment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God,'^ 
 (Art. 12.) Yet we deny, that any works of ours are 
 truly meritorious; for we cannot perform good works 
 unless by a power received from God, and how can 
 we merit from God by that which he himself has given 
 us, Phil. ii. 13*. 
 
 As for Repentance, they maintain that " it consists 
 of contrition, confession to a Priest, and satisfaction, 
 that is", performing the penance he enjoins ; by which 
 when crowned with absolution, it is held that all sins 
 since baptism are forgiven." But this is entirely con- 
 trary to the doctrine of the gospel concerning repen- 
 tance, in which we are taught that it consists of sorrow 
 and change of heart, and amendment of life, by Christ's 
 assistance, (Isaiah i. 16. I7. 18, — Acts iii. 19.) Con- 
 fession to a Priest, though it may be useful for the 
 ease of the penitent (and in which sense our Reform- 
 ed Church recommends it,) is no where in scripture 
 made necessary for the forgiveness of sin, and is there- 
 fore an intolerable imposition upon men's consciences^ 
 and changes the terms of salvation from what God 
 himself has appointed. 
 
 They maintain, that " men are obliged, partly to 
 
 * The following blasphemous prayer is contained in the Roman 
 Ritual, [RomcBy 1750, p. 75.) and is thus translated by P. Gan- 
 dolphy in his (Popish) Liturgy, 1812, p. 234. " May the passion 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary^ 
 and of all the saints ; may whatsoever good thou shalt do, or evil 
 thou shalt sufFer, be to thee unto the remission of thy sins, the in- 
 crease of grace, and recompense (jprcemium) of life everlasting. 
 
267 
 
 satisfy the justice of God for their sins themselves, 
 (viz. by alms, fasting, &c.) Christ not having by his 
 Atonement fully answered for all," {Council of Trent, 
 Sess. 14. Can. 12.) On the contrary, the word of 
 God declares, ^^For if, when "we were enemies, we were 
 reconciled to God hy the death of his Son, much more 
 being reconciled xve shall be saved by his life,'' (Rom. 
 V. 10. — Isaiah, liii. 4. 5. — John i. 7.) And therefore 
 no satisfaction to the justice of God is now required 
 from us, for the expiation of any remainder of guilt. 
 But we do not, by this, take away the duties of morti- 
 fication, prayer, fasting, and alms, &c. for there is a 
 difference to be made between the acts of christian 
 duties, and satisfaction to divine justice for the guilt of 
 sin, either in whole or in part. And to think of join- 
 ing any satisfaction of ours together with Christ, is 
 like joining our hand with God's in creating or go- 
 verning the world. 
 
 They pretend " that some persons may satisfy over 
 and above for what is necessary for their own sins ; 
 so that their Satisfactions may serve for others that 
 want them, or have not enough of their own," {Ca- 
 tech, Rom, p. 2. c. 5.) " And that these are put in- 
 to the treasury of the church, to be dispensed by in- 
 dulgences," {Decret, de Indulg,) Contrary to the 
 word of God, '^ I said, I will confess my transgressions 
 unto the Lord, and thou for gave st the iniquity of my 
 sin,'' (Psalms xxxii. 5. cxliii. 2.) Now, if God en- 
 tirely forgives the guilt of sin, there remains no obli- 
 gation to punishment, for where that is, the guilt re- 
 mains. It is true God may not sometimes fuUy par- 
 don, but may reserve some temporal punishment here 
 for his own honour, or thechastisement of a penitent 
 sinner. But then, why do any men pretend that they 
 
268 
 
 can take off what God thinks fit to lay on ? Can any 
 indulgences prevent pain or sickness, or sudden 
 death ?— But if indulgences be understood only with 
 respect to canonical penances, then they are a most 
 notorious and inexcusable corruption of the discip- 
 line of the ancient church. 
 
 They say that " there is a Purgatory, or place of 
 torment after this life, for the expiation of the sins 
 of good men, that are not sufficiently purged here ; 
 and that the souls there, are helped by the masses, 
 prayers, alms, and other good works of the living," 
 (Sess. 6. Can. 30<) The scriptures, on the contrary, 
 expressly affirm, *' Whom he justified, them he also 
 glorified," (Rom. viii. 30.) But whom God justifies, 
 they have the remisssion of their sins as to eternal 
 punishment. And if those who are justified must be 
 glorified, what place is there for purgatory? For there 
 is not the least intimation of any other state of pu- 
 nishment, that any who are justified must pass through 
 before they are admitted to glory. We grant they 
 may, notwithstanding, pass through many interme- 
 diate trials in this world, but we say where there is 
 justification, there is no condemnation; for when any 
 part of guilt remains unremitted,- therie is a condem- 
 nation remaining, so far as the punishment extends. 
 This distinction then,asto eternal and temporal pains, 
 as it is made th^ foundation of purgatoty, is wholly 
 groundless, and therefore the doctrine built upon it 
 can have no foundation in scripture or reason. 
 
 The Church of Rome has Hot only erred in Doctrines 
 of faith, but has also grossly swerved from that rule 
 of Worship instituted by Christ, and practised by the 
 primitive church; and set up a worship of their own in- 
 vention, in direct opposition to it, as in having their 
 
public worship in an Unknown Tongue, which is 
 expressly condemned by our Reformed Church, as 
 " a practice plainly repugnant to the word of God, 
 and to the custom of the primitive church," (Art, 
 24.) And we are ready to stand to the challenge of 
 Bishop Stratford, that we will yield the cause, if they 
 can instance in any church in the world, that, for 
 above 500 years after Christ, worshipped God in a 
 language that they did not understand. And may it 
 not justly be matter of amazement, that for the serv- 
 ing of some poor worldly ends, the Church of Rome 
 should introduce a practice that renders the worship 
 of God useless and insigniiicant, to the ignorant at 
 least ? That destroys not only the end of prayer, but 
 is inconsistent with the nature of it, and so absurd 
 and unreasonable, that St Paul thought they deserved 
 to be reckoned madmen, who attempted such a prac- 
 tice. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. 
 
 Their solemn Prayers to Saints departed, and that 
 not only to intercede for them, but to bestow upon 
 them those temporal and spiritual blessings they stand 
 in need of. 
 
 Now, for this species of worship 'there is not only 
 nothing in scripture, but a great deal against it, for 
 there we are frequently taught to offer up our prayers 
 to God alone, through that ''one mediator betxvee?i God 
 andman, Chiistjesiis," (1 Tim.ii.5.) ''No man can come 
 unto the Fatliei^ hut by me,'' (John xiv. 6. 13.) " We 
 have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- 
 eouSy" (1 John ii. 1 .) For "Christ is entered ii^to heaven 
 itself, now to appear in the presence of God for uSy^ 
 (Heb. ix. 4.) and therefore we dare not make other 
 intercessors in heaven besides him. The distance be- 
 tween heaven and us breaks off all communication be- 
 
^70 
 
 tween the saints there, and us upon earth ; so that 
 all addresses to them now for their prayers, are very 
 different from desiring others on earth to pray for 
 us ; and if such addresses are made in the solemn of- 
 fices of divine worship, they join the creatures with 
 the Creator, in the acts and signs of worship which 
 are due to God alone. And therefore, as Bishop Strat- 
 ford remarks, our church had great reason to charge 
 them with idolatry who put up their prayers to saints, 
 because, in so doing, they give that worship to the crea- 
 ture which is due to God alone. Homily ag. Idolatry, 
 
 With respect to the Virgin Mary in particular, the 
 same reasons make it unlawful and idolatrous to pray 
 to her, as to pray to the other saints. " Call upon me 
 (says God,) in the day of trouble, I will deliver thee^ 
 and thou shall glorify me,'' (Psalm 1. 15.) When we 
 pray to our Father in heaven, as our Saviour com- 
 manded us, we do only what natural religion and 
 Christianity require us to do ; but when men pray to 
 the Blessed Virgin for " help and protection now, 
 and at the hour of death," they attribute that to her, 
 which belongs only to God, who is our helper and de- 
 fender; and although Christ knewf/i^ dignity of his mo- 
 ther above all others, he never gives the least en- 
 couragement to make such addresses to her (Mat.xii. 
 47.48.) and to suppose her now to have a share in the 
 kingdom of Christ in heaven, as a copartner with him, 
 is to advance a creature to divine honour, and to over- 
 throw the true ground of Christ's exaltation to his 
 kingdom of heaven, which was his suffering on the 
 cross for us. 
 
 In their worship of God by Images*, which our 
 
 * Liccre in Ecclesia imagines habere, et illis honorem et cultum 
 adhibere. Catech. Trid, Trecis, 1646. p. 443. 
 
271 
 
 church has condemned as idolatrous, and proved it 
 to be such, by the authority of God's word, and by 
 the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, (^Homily ag. 
 Idolatry,) But here the pretence is, that the adora- 
 tion is not paid to the image, but to the being whom 
 it represents. Now, what excuse is this but such as 
 the heathens made ? When pressed with the absur- 
 dity of worshipping stocks and stones, they answered 
 that their worship was paid in effect to God, after 
 whose hkeness the image was made, or whom it re- 
 presented. But this was never allowed by Origen, by 
 Arnobius, or any other of the ancient Fathers, to be a 
 sufficient or available plea. But what need we any 
 distinctions or sophisms about the sort of worship 
 which is paid to images, when the cpmmandment ex- 
 pressly enjoins us ^' not to make to ourselves any gra- 
 ven image, nor the likeness of any thing which is in hea- 
 ven above, or in the earth heneath,^^ kc. " not to bow 
 DOWN to them, nor worship them." And in the very 
 delivery of the law to the Jewish nation, when the 
 most express caution was given, a comment, almost 
 impossible to be mistaken, was added, ^'Take ye good 
 heed to yourselves (said Moses,)^r ye saw no manner 
 of similitude, on the day when the Lord spake to you in 
 Horeb,*' They were not to worship even the true 
 God under sensible representations. 
 
 In believing that '' in the Eucharist, there is truly, 
 really, and substantially the body and blood, together 
 with the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ ; and that 
 there is made a conversion of the whole substance of 
 the bread into the body, and of the whole substance 
 of the wine into the blood, — which conversion they 
 call Transubstantiation,** (Pius's Creed.) — ^^The bread 
 which we break, is it not the communion of the body qf 
 
272 
 
 Christ,'' (1 Cor. x. 16.) This is spoken of the bread, 
 after consecration, and yet the apostle supposes it to 
 be bread still ; and the communion of his body is inter- 
 preted by the next words, " For xve being many, are 
 one bread and one body, for we *a7^e all partahers of 
 that one bread,'' (ver. I7.) which is very different 
 from the bread being changed into the very body of 
 Christ, — an opinion that has no foundation in the 
 scriptures, and is repugnant to the common prin- 
 ciples of reason, which God hath given us. Com- 
 pare John XV. 1. X. 9. — Exod. xii. 11. — Gen. xli. 26. 
 —1 Cor. X. 4. 
 
 In giving divine Worship to the consecrated Bread 
 in the eucharist. — This our church has declared to 
 be " idolatry to be abhorred of all christians,' 'f^wZ^nc 
 cfter communion;) and the scriptures tell us, that ^^the 
 heavens must receive Christ, until the times of the resti- 
 tution of all things," (Acts iii. 21.) And therefore in 
 the eucharist we adore him, as " sitting on the right 
 hand of God," but dare not direct our adoration to 
 the consecrated host, which we believe to be the sub- 
 stance of bread and w^ine (though consecrated to a 
 divine mystery,) and therefore not a fit object of our 
 adoration *. 
 
 That '' in the mass (or eucharist) there is offered 
 to God, a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for 
 
 * Is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dangerous 
 error, than to set up a Wafer for their God, and pay divine wor- 
 ship to a morsel of bread ? Shall their good intentions secure them ? 
 Had not the Israelites a good intention to " hold a feast unto the 
 Lord" when they worshipped the molten calf? Were they there- 
 fore not Idolaters for it? (Exod. xxxii. 5.) See also Lev. x. — John 
 xvi. 2. See Archhishop Walces Expos, of Bod, of Church of England, 
 Art. %1, 
 
273 
 
 the living and the dead *. In opposition to this, our 
 church declares, that *' the offering of Christ once 
 made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and sa- 
 tisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both ori- 
 ginal and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction 
 for sin but that alone," (See Heb. x. 10. v. 27. 28. ix. 22. 
 1 Johnii.2.— Heb.v.l2.ix.26.x.26.— 1 Pet.iii.18.)— 
 We admit that the eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and 
 thanksgiving ; but it is a commemorative, and not a 
 propitiatory sacrifice, and we have most justly stigma- 
 tized the sacrifices of masses (in which the offering 
 of the elements in the eucharist by priests, is pretend- 
 ed to be effectual to the salvation of others ; or that 
 God wall remit pain or guilt to persons whether living 
 or dead, and in particular that he will release the souls 
 of the dead out of purgatory, on account of masses of- 
 fered in their name by priests,) as blasphemous fables 
 and dangerous deceits, — Art. 31. 
 
 In sacrilegiously forbidding the Cup to the laity, 
 contrary to the institution of Christ, and tlie express 
 w^ords of the apostle, who, speaking to all communi- 
 cants, plainly shews, that the institution of Christ 
 was. That all should partake of both kindSj and so 
 continue to do, as long as this sacrament was to sliew 
 forth the death of Christ, viz. till his second coming : 
 " For as long as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, 
 ye do shexv forth the Lord* s death till he come,'' 1 Cor. 
 XV. 26. 
 
 The corruptions of the Romish Church with re- 
 spect to Government, in requiring all persons to ac- 
 knowledge "the holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman 
 
 * This is another consequence of the corporeal presence of 
 Christ in the eucharist, and, according to Archbishop Wake, " 01. c 
 of the most dangerous errors that offends us," 
 
.^ 274 
 
 Church for the Mother and Mistress of all churches^ 
 and to promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, 
 Successor of St Peter, Prince of the apostles, and Vicar 
 of Jesus Christ" (Trent Creed,) has been already ex- 
 amined and refuted at large. 
 
 In all these instances, and in many more that might 
 be given, the Faith, Worship, and Government of the 
 Romanists bear a manifest repugnance to the gospel ; 
 and consequently, so far from being a Catholic Church, 
 they are one of the most heretical and schismatical 
 churches in the world, — and this has been the opi- 
 nion of all Protestant divines since the Reformation. 
 It was not we who left your church (as the learned 
 Stillingfleet observes,) but your church that left her 
 primitive faith and purity in so high a manner, as to 
 declare all excommunicate who will not approve of 
 and join in her greatest corruptions ; though it be 
 sufficiently manifest, that they are great recessions 
 from the faith, piety, and purity of that Roman Church 
 which was planted by the apostles, and had so large 
 a commendation from the apostolic men of those first 
 ages. Since then, such errors and corruptions are 
 enforced upon us as conditions of communion with 
 you, by the same reason that the orthodox did very 
 well in departing from the Arians, because the Arians 
 had already departed from the church by their false 
 doctrines ; will our separation from you be justified, 
 who first departed from the faith and purity of the 
 primitive church, — and, not only so, but thrust out of 
 your communion, such as would not depart from it 
 as far as you. Works, IV. S9>5. 
 ^ Great pains have been taken of late by Popish 
 divines, to endeavour to shew that we not only ac- 
 knowledge a possibility, but even a certaintii^ of sal- 
 
275 
 
 vatlon in the Romish Church. But this is notoriously 
 false. We hope (to use the words of Archbishop 
 Wake,) honest men may be saved in your communion; 
 but we are sure they shall be in ours. Whether God 
 will condemn you for professing errors that you do 
 not know to be such, we cannot tell, we believe he 
 will not ; sure we are he would damn us, should we, 
 who are convinced of your corruptions, be seduced 
 by any base motives to go over to you. And this 
 is enough for us to know, — the other is your concern, 
 and do you look to it, (Second Defence of Ea:positio?i 
 of the Doctrine of the Church of England, P. II. p. 26.) 
 He who forsakes the Church of England for fear of 
 schism, to join in a stricter communion with the Ro- 
 mish Church, plungeth himself in greater and more 
 real dangers, both of schism, and idolatry, and heresy, 
 (Archbishop Bramhall's Works, p. 152.) All those 
 who are in the Church of Rome, do run so great a 
 hazard of their salvation, that none who have a care 
 of their souls, ought to embrace it or continue in it. 
 Bishop Stillingfleet, V.l. Bingham's Works,ll. 804. 
 Barrow's Works, I. 783. 
 
 To conclude with a learned divine of the Chcirc!i 
 in England. As for the Papists amongst us, tlieir 
 mistakes in faith and worship are so gross and foul, 
 that if they would give themselves a little time to 
 consider what has, and what may farther be said to 
 convince them, I do not doubt but all of them that 
 are endued with a competent understanding and an 
 honest sense of things, would soon feel those palpable 
 errors, into the belief and practice of which they have 
 been hitherto deluded by an unreasonable deference 
 to the authority of the Church of Rome, and no long- 
 er stand off from the reformed communion. The 
 
276 
 
 bigger any fault is, one would think it should be more 
 easily espied. Now these men separate from us, 
 merely because we have abandoned those wicked 
 doctrines and practices, which are of themselves a 
 most necessary cause of separation from any church 
 in the world, that should impose them ; and there- 
 fore, they are of all men the most notorious schisma- 
 tics that can be imagined. And I beseech God to 
 open their eyes to see it, and to recover into the xvai/ 
 of truth, all such as have erred and are deceived, that 
 those, who have hitherto been obstinate, may prove 
 all things, and that those who can be persuaded to 
 consider these things, may holdfast that "which is good, 
 Dr Clagett's Difference of the Case, &c. p. 70*. 
 
 * In the foregoing defence of our Reformed Church, we must 
 recollect that its Reformation is defended, only as far as relates to 
 the resumption of its primitive rights as a free Episcopal Church ; 
 as for the Manner of Proceeding in our Reformation, this has been 
 ably vindicated, amongst others, by Bishops Burnet and Smallridge* 
 and Drs Sayw ell and Clagett, in amswer to Saunders, Varillas, Wal- 
 ker, &c. But it is proper to state, that it is not material what were 
 the true motives of Henry VIII. or any others, who were engaged 
 in a struggle with the Popish usurpations ; for Jehu did a good work 
 when he destroyed the idolatry of Baal, though neither his motives 
 nor his manner of proceeding in it were justifiable. Our religion 
 has no dependance on the historical relations of any mens' actions » 
 God's Truth and Revelation is the ground we depend upon. 
 
277 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF AN UNION BETWEEN THE 
 REFORMED EPISCOPAL AND PRESENT ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 Popery, as Archbishop Wake long since observed, 
 in its proper colours is so unlike catholic Christianity, 
 that it is in vain ever to hope to promote it, if it ap- 
 pears in its own shape. It is necessary, therefore, 
 that the religion, like the prophet, should come in 
 sJieep's clothing, 3Lnd the heresy be made to look as or- 
 thodox as possible. Some things are denied, others 
 mollified, all disguised, and a double benefit thereby 
 obtained. Popery is to be received as a very inno- 
 cent harmless thing, and the Protestants, especially 
 the ministers and first reformers, represented to the 
 world as a sort of people that have supported them- 
 selves by calumny and lies, and made a noise about 
 errors and corruptions, which are no where to be 
 found but in their own brains or books, and which the 
 Church of Rome detests as well as we. 
 
 None pursued this method of disguisingihe'Komhh 
 doctrines and practices, with such dexterity and art, 
 as Bossuet in his Ea:position of the Catholic Faith, But 
 the perfidious sophistry of this author was satisfac- 
 torily unmasked by Archbishop (then Mr) Wake, in 
 his Composition of the Doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and his two Defences of that Exposition, I687. 
 It was attempted also by the author of the Papist 
 Misrepresented and Represented, and in a book en- 
 titled an Agreement between the Church of England and 
 Rome, The former of these was answered bv Drs 
 
278 
 
 Stillingfleet and Clagett, in I687 ; and the latter by 
 Dr Sherlock and Mr Williams, in 1688. Methinks, 
 says Dr Sherlock, it argues some distrust of their 
 cause, that they dare not downright defend it, but 
 are forced either to represent it away almost into 
 Protestant heresy, or to shelter themselves in their 
 agreement with a Protestant Church ; but the best 
 way is, to turn Protestants themselves, and then we 
 will own our agreement with them. 
 
 Being overturned in their attempts to recommend 
 .their doctrines by means of books written professedly 
 by Romanists, they endeavoured next to promote them 
 under the disguise of ministers of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and accordingly they published, in 1703, An 
 Essay for Catholic Communion, hy a Minister of the 
 Church of England, This attempt to disguise Popery 
 under a Protestant name and dress (says the Rev. 
 Nath. Spinckes, the learned confuter of it,) is such 
 an instance of treachery and insincerity, as would put 
 any impartial observer out of hope, that any good 
 can come from so unfair an adversary. Had he pull- 
 ed off his mask, every body must have owned him as 
 a generous adversary. But this would not answer his 
 design, which was under the notion of a friend to get 
 into our bosoms, and to find an opportunity of instill- 
 ing his poison, before he was suspected. Besides 
 this answer of Mr Spinckes, there w as another by the 
 ReV. Samuel Grascome, entitled Concordia Discors, 
 Mr Spinckes's answer is well worthy of being re- 
 printed *. 
 
 * Since the first edition of this Treatise was published, a new 
 edition of the Essay has been sent into the world, most impudent- 
 ly dedicated "to the Parliament and Subjects of the United King- 
 dom," and styled in the disgusting cant of the times, " a Liberal 
 
279 
 
 . The very same paltry arts of misrepresentation and 
 fraud, the emissaries of Rome are pursuing at this day. 
 Bossuet's Expositmi, and the Papist Misrepresented^ 
 have been lately reprinted in England, and in this 
 country we have been favoured with a Protestant 
 
 Essay V* Lond. 1812. There has also been lately published, by a 
 Mr Nightingale (a Dissenter, formerly a Methodist preacher,) what 
 he calls A Portraiture of, the Roman Catholic Religion, Lond. 1812. 
 He must surely possess a very slight degree of acquaintance with 
 the nature of that religion, when he takes up its tenets, not from its 
 authorised creeds, catechisms, and public offices, but from the 
 Papist Misrepresented, the work of an obscure author, and which, 
 as has been plainly proved, contradicts the standard doctrine of that 
 church. " Though that religion, as varnished by the French ex- 
 positor (Bossuet,) and English representer (Gother,) observes one 
 who had formerly been a professor in the Romish Church, appear 
 not so deformed ; yet if we barely considered it as delivered in Pope 
 Pius's Creed, we shall find it black enough. If we gather it from 
 their public offices, authorised devotions, and general practice, we 
 shall find it of a deeper dye. The old spirit still remains ; — the king- 
 killing doctrine as much countenanced at Rome as ever : — we still 
 find people obliged to obey without reason, to believe against sense, 
 and to pray without understanding," (Aylmers Recantation Ser- 
 mon, preached at St Martins, Oxford, Sept. 30. 1713, p 7.) He 
 must be equally unacquainted with the arts of that church, when 
 he speaks of the Essay for Catholic Communion, as written by a 
 ** pious and learned minister of the Church of England," and pro- 
 nounces it a " most excellently well-meant essay," and a *< valu- 
 able work," and at the same time adopts the sentiments contained 
 in it, as the real and genuine doctrine of the Romish Church. — 
 Since he has made use of a quotation from Baxter as a motto, I 
 beg leave to recommend to him another, from the same author : 
 "We fear the masked Papists and infidels more than the barefaced, 
 or than any enemy." Key for Catholics in Ep. Ded. See also The 
 Missionary s Arts Discovered, or An Account of their Ways ofln- 
 sintiation, their Artifices, and Methods of which they serve themselves 
 in making Converts, Lond. 1688; a very curious and amusing pam- 
 phlet, but extremely scarce. 
 
280 
 
 Apology for (what is called) the Catholic Chuixli, Dub. 
 1809, in which, Popery is pretended to be proved from 
 the testimonies of Protestants *, But this is an old 
 trick, attempted above 200 years ago by one Brerely, 
 whose book, likewise entitled a Protestant Apology^ 
 was completely exposed and confuted by Bishop Mor- 
 ton, in his Catholic Appeal^ 1610, in which he produces, 
 on our behalf, as many confessions of Papists, as Bre- 
 rely produced o^ pretended ones of Protestants, on 
 behalf of the Romish Church. 
 
 To this author's testimonies, produced from the 
 writings of foreign Protestants, I briefly reply with 
 Bishop Bramhall, — that whatever were the opinions 
 or private errors of Calvin, Luther, or the Magdebur- 
 genses, or other joreigners (whom he quotes in abun- 
 
 * It Is most surprising that any men of sense should attempt to 
 convince us of the truth of Popery, by the garbled testimonies of a 
 few Protestants ? Ought they not to have known, that our rule of 
 faith, is not the fallible testimony of any modern doctor whatsoever, 
 but the inspired gospel of Christ? " We have often told you (says 
 Archbishop Wake,) that our faith depends not on any himian autho- 
 rity. Such concessions may shew the tveakness or error of him that 
 made them, but they are nothing available to prescribe against the 
 truth of the gospel" f Second Defence of Exposition, Part II. p. 9.^ 
 It were anxiously to be wished, In order to the bringing of contro- 
 versies to a speedy decision, that all parties should lay aside such 
 inconclusive methods of attack and defence, and appeal only to those 
 testimonies, v/hlch are acknowledged to be valid and conclusive in 
 the opinion of the respective disputants, such as the holy scriptures, 
 and, in subordination to them, the creeds, confessions of faith, &c. 
 This principle I have adopted in this edition, and have, in conse- 
 quence, omitted a great number of their mere confessions of adversa- 
 ries which were retained in the former (except those relating to 
 modern matter of fact.) My reasons for making use of the quota- 
 tions from our own divines in expressing my thoughts, have been 
 already sufficiently accounted for in the Preface to the first edition. 
 
281 
 
 dance,) he ought not to have charged them on our 
 Reformed Church ; for they were mere strangers to 
 our affairs, and many of them died before controver- 
 sies were rightly stated, or truly understood, and for 
 none of whom our church is obliged to be responsible. 
 As for his quotations from our English writers, I 
 answer, that in general, he mangles and misapplies 
 them contrary to the true sense of the author, as I 
 have proved in several instances, and quotes them in 
 such a manner, that, upon enquiry, they appear to be 
 directly and positively against him, as has been clearly 
 she^vn by Mr Spinckes in his Answer to the Essay for 
 Catholic Communion, and by Bishop Morton. But I 
 cannot see, why the authority of some very fewper sons 
 should bear sway against the constant opinion of our 
 church ever since the Reformation. Thus, as for our 
 charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome, if 
 Mr Thorndike held something singular on this sub- 
 ject (but which he changed before his death,) is his 
 opinion to be esteemed the judgment of the church, 
 contrary to the constant opinion of all our most learn- 
 ed bishops and divines (even Montague, HeyHn, and 
 Laud,) ever since the Reformation ? • 
 
 To this pretended ^j^o/o^T/ there is prefixed an Intro- 
 ductio7i, in which the author, finding it impracticable 
 to vindicate the Roman doctrines and practices upon 
 true catholic principles, palliates every thing that ap- 
 pears shocking, denies others, plead for others that 
 they are not obligatory, and represents all in gene- 
 ral as nearly approaching to the principles of our 
 church. 
 
 But we must observe that this author's exposition 
 of the doctrines of the Romish Church, is very dif- 
 ferent from what they are represented in their coun- 
 
£82 
 
 cils, creed, and in the generality of their learned wri- 
 ters, and from what their church does really profess 
 and their people continually practise, especially in 
 Italy or any other Popish countries. But Protestants 
 are not to be told all at once ; there are several mys- 
 terious and important things, which are not fit to be 
 communicated to those whom they are endeavouring 
 to bring over to the Romish Church. These things 
 must be reserved till their proselytes are got into safe 
 custody, and afterwards, when they have given away 
 all liberty of judging for themselves, and *' must re- 
 ceive the interpretation of scripture, in the sense in 
 which holy mother church hath held and still holds 
 it," (Pius's Creed, Art. 14.) then they may be entrust- 
 ed with the discovery of even the greatest absurdities, 
 for they have gone too far to recede ; and if they dis- 
 cover any hesitation, or give suspicion of their being 
 shocked at such discoveries, their sincerity is imme- 
 diately questioned, and where their church has power 
 in her hands, they must expect some motherly cor- 
 rection for their pains ; and it is well if they escape 
 being burnt for heretics. 
 
 It might have been justly expected that this writer 
 (treating professedly of a reconciliation between the 
 churches of England and Rome,) should have pre- 
 sented us w^ith clear and evident proofs from scrip- 
 ture and antiquity, of the lawfulness and necessity of 
 half communion, purgatory. Bishop of Rome's su- 
 premacy, transubstantiation, prayers in an unknown 
 tongue, sacrifice of the mass, &c. and whether the 
 apostles would have rejected our communion for those 
 reasons, for which the Church of Rome now rejects it. 
 
 But instead of entering into particular points of 
 controversy, and proving their faith, worship, and go^ 
 
S83 
 
 vernnient to be agreeable to scripture and antiquity, 
 our adversaries (and this one amongst the rest,) 
 ehoose rather to dispute and wrangle about general 
 and intricate matters, and wave those which are ca- 
 pable of being made plain and evident to the meanest 
 capacities. So that, though in particular controver- 
 sies it often appears as clear as light, on which side 
 the truth is (as whether prayers ought to be in a 
 known tongue, whether the communion ought to be 
 given in both kinds, whether the scriptures are to be 
 read by the people, whether confession to a priest is 
 necessary to the forgiveness of sins, &c.) yet in order 
 to avoid these, they run into the general controversies 
 of infallibility, church authority^ confession of adversa- 
 ries, resolution of faith, &c. where there is more room 
 for cavil and sophistry, and by which means they can 
 lead men, if not into scepticism, yet into a maze and la- 
 hyrinth, from whence they shall not easily extricate 
 themselves *. Their usual method, is to wave all par- 
 
 * Mr Paynes Exam, of Bellarmin^ Sixth Note. Preserv, Tit. 3. 
 p. 105. Wliich xjoay of theirs seems to me (says Mr P.) just as if 
 a person, in a plain controversy about weight or measure, should, 
 to avoid that, think fit to run into the perplexed dispute, what is 
 the true standard of weight and measures, or whether matter con- 
 sists of divisible or indivisible parts ; and at the same time would 
 not be brought to yield, that a pound was heavier than an ounce, 
 or an ell longer than an inch. — Another art of theirs is, to deny 
 that errors have come into a church, merely because the punctual 
 time of their coming cannot be assigned. But will any one ques- 
 tion the birth of ^n infant, because he cannot know the time of its 
 conception ? Will any one deny there are tares in the field, because 
 he did not see them sown ? and our Saviour has told us, that the 
 *' time ofsomng tares hy the enemy, tvas ivhen the men ivere asteepJ' 
 So we say, that the errors of your church camie in, in a time of great 
 ignorance, and when little notice was taken of them, (See Tillotsons 
 Rule of Faith, Part III. sect. 7. and Preserv. Tit. I. p. 10. 30. 
 
284 
 
 ticular disputes, and to attempt to prove that some 
 church must be infallible, and that the Church of 
 Rome is that church. This they pretend to be the 
 shortest way to end controversies. 
 
 32.) — We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errors in a 
 church, though we cannot fix on the time when they came in, viz. 
 by comparing them with that rule of faith which is dehvered down 
 by an uninterupted tradition to us, and with the practice of the first 
 ages of the christian church. What is apparently contrary to either 
 of these, we have reason to reject, though we cannot exactly 
 determine when it came in. — We have never declined this chal- 
 lenge, as our learned writers have proved to the world. See Stil- 
 ling fteefs Defence of Archbishop Laud^ p. 316. 
 
 At another time, they endeavour to shift off the true state of the 
 question, by attacking the '^scandalous characters" of Luther and 
 other Reformers of the sixteenth century. But, even granting that 
 these were such vile characters, it amounts to nothing against our 
 cause, for we never made them the pillars and grounds of the gos- 
 pel, or the rule of our faith. But if this argument be valid, what 
 shall we think of the Roman Church, which has had for its heads 
 some of the greatest monsters in nature : " Fifty Popes (says Cardinal 
 Baronius, ad An. 897.) rather apostatical than apostoHcal, homines 
 monstruosiy vita turpissimi, moribus perditissimif lisquequaque fcedis- 
 simir But, says Mr Manning, the Protestant rule of faith, is scrip- 
 ture interpreted by a man of sound judgment. Now, if Protestants 
 stand to this principle, they are all equally accountable for every 
 thing taught by their reformers, even when they contradict one ano- 
 ther, {Shortest Way^ p. 175.) This objection (as Bishop Grove re- 
 marks, ) is the complete epitome of the well-known Popish book, 
 entitled Pax Vobis. But let us see, how Mr M. will defend his 
 church against the force of his own consequence. The Popish 
 rule of faith, he tells us, is scripture, as interpreted by the Pope 
 and Council; therefore by this way of inference, whatever Thomas, 
 or Suarez, or Bellarmin, or any other of sound judgment, that 
 owns this rule, have taught or may teach, must be the doctrine of 
 the Church of Rome. If he thinks to excuse his church, by say- 
 ing, that their authors may mistake the sense of Pope and Council 
 he cannot be so ignorant, as not to know that we believe that ours 
 too may sometimes mistake the sense of scripture. So that hither- 
 
J385 
 
 Now, not to shew at present how vainly the Church 
 of Rome challenges to herself the title, privileges, &c. 
 of the Catholic Church ; nor to examine the texts, 
 on which this pretence of infallibiHty is founded*. 
 I only say, that when such errors and corruptions are 
 notoriously evident, though but in any one instance, 
 to argue that the church has not erred, because 
 she cannot err, is to dispute against matter of fact, 
 like the philosopher disputing against the possibili- 
 ty of motion ; and no argument whatever, is good 
 against matter of fact. True, it will be replied, if it 
 were notoriously evident that the church has erred, 
 there was an end of her infallibility ; but this is mat- 
 ter of dispute, whether she has erred or not, and then 
 if you can prove that she cannot err, you eifectually 
 prove that she has not erred.— By no means ; for if 
 she is charged with errop, and plain evidence brought 
 that she has actually erred, unless you can as plainly 
 take off this evidence, it weakens and overthrows all 
 the proofs for infallibility. And therefore, when they 
 begin v;iih. the proof of infallibility, they begin at the 
 wrong end; for when the church is charged with er- 
 ror, if they would not lose their labour they must 
 prove that she has not erred, before they prove her to 
 be infallible, for otherwise, after all the pains they 
 have taken to prove her infallibility, if they cannot 
 deliver her from the charge of having erred, their la- 
 bour is lost ; and therefore it is best to try that first. 
 Accordingly, to the objection " that our Saviour 
 
 to we stand, at least, upon equal terms; nay, I am sure, any mis- 
 application of the rule, is much more pardonable in a church that 
 never thought herself infallible, than it can be in that one that pre- 
 tends to be so. Bishop Groves Ansvier to P. V. Pres. V. 60. 
 * Appendix No. V. 
 
S86 
 
 would not permit the Church of Rome to give the 
 laity the communion in one kind, if it were unlawful 
 to do so." Bishop StiUingfleet justly answers, that the 
 argument is stronger the other way ; the Church of 
 Rome forbids the doing of that w^hich Christ enjoin- 
 ed ; therefore it cannot be infallible, since the com- 
 mand of Christ is so much plainer than the promise 
 of infallib ility to the Church of Rome. Whatever 
 Christ promises he will certainly perform ; and if the 
 Church of Rome has erred, he never promised she 
 should be infallible. And therefore, if it appear that 
 the Church of Rome has erred, our interpretation of 
 those texts, which are alleged to prove infallibility, are 
 to be preferred before the Popish interpretation, espe- 
 cially when the evidence we have that she has erred, 
 is much more plain and notorious, than that Christ has 
 promised that she shall not err. 
 
 And thus their short *v:ay to end disputes and con- 
 fute heretics, is mere sophistry and imposture ; and 
 if men would be sincere and honest, they must not 
 flatter themselves with an opinion of the church's 
 infallibility, but must examine the 'particular disputes 
 between us, and be thoroughly satisfied that the 
 Church of Rome has not erred, before they continue 
 in her communion ; for, even according to Mr Man- 
 ning {Short JVa7/,Vref.) *' it is a vai7i attempt to prove 
 the Church of Rome infallible, as long as this popu- 
 lar prejudice (i. e, the charge of many gross errors,) 
 subsists against her.*' So that, according to Mr Man- 
 ning and Bellarmin's Sixth Note, if the Romanists 
 are desirous of a reco?2ciliatlon between the churches 
 of England and Rome, they must lay aside their noisy 
 pretensions to infallibility, and prove their doctrines 
 ^nd practices to be agreeable to scripture and antiquity. 
 
^87 
 
 I must again call upon you, says the learned Doctor 
 Hickes, to tell me where the Roman Church, i, e, the 
 religion of the present Roman Church, was for 500 
 after the first preaching of Christ ? Show me anti* 
 quitj/, universality y and succession through those cen- 
 turies for your Trent doctrines? If you do not answer 
 this challenge, you must give us leave to think that 
 your silence proceeds from the sense you have, that 
 those ages afford no evidence for the Popish part of 
 your religion, but only for that ancient and sound 
 part which we have retained. Your interest like^wise 
 obliges you to do it, because, if you can, you will put 
 an end for ever to the controversy, and not only con- 
 vert us, but the whole Protestant world. 
 
 Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her 
 innovations by reason or antiquity, she had never 
 thought of infallibility ; for the origin and progress 
 of her innovations have been so often and so clearly 
 made out, and their church's errors so irrefragably 
 exposed, amongst others by Bishop Stillingfleet, as to 
 these six points : The authority oftradition^ the canon 
 of scripture, the merit of good works, the number of sa- 
 craments, the use of scripture in the vulgar tongue, and 
 auricular confessioji ; as to saints' worship and extreme 
 unction, against Condom, by Dr Clagett ; as to the celi- 
 bacy of the clergy, against Walker, by MrTuUy and Mr 
 Wharton ; as to the Latin service, image worship, half 
 communion, SLXid traditions, against Mumford's Question 
 of Questions, by Dr Whitby, as to images, by Mr Pel- 
 ling, against Nubes Testiu7n; as to transubstantiation 
 2ind purgatory, by Drs Clagett and Wake, to name no 
 more at present, that they have no way of vindicat- 
 ing themselves, but by pretending to contemn their 
 opposers, whom tjiey see they cannot answer. And 
 
288 
 
 indeed i£ true antiquity had been on their side, what 
 need had they of spurious and counterfeit authors, to 
 make some appearance of antiquity with ? And this 
 is reason enough to suspect their pretences 4o anti- 
 quity, for no man takes sanctuary in falsehood who 
 has truth on his side. 
 
 I grant indeed, that they profess the greatest re- 
 gard for scripture and antiquity, and swear not to in- 
 terpret scripture otherwise than according to the una- 
 nimous consent of the Fathers ; and this (as Bishop 
 StilHngfleet observes) is one of their grand artifices, 
 to make a great noise of scriptures, fathers, and coun- 
 cils, amongst those who understand them least, while, 
 at the same time, they rely implicitly on the authority 
 and infallibility of the present church, and regard its 
 decrees more than all antiquity, or the sense of the 
 apostolic church*. 
 
 They pretend indeed, not to determine any thing 
 
 * What little respect the Romanists bear to the ancient Fathers 
 is evident from the Index ExpurgatoriuSy which corrects them, and 
 orders the leaving out of such passages as oppose their errors. " So 
 long as they think they can make them serve their turns, then xx)ho 
 but the Fathers ? If they appear refractory, and will not serve as 
 hetvers of wood and dratuers qftvater, thenu'^o are the Fathers f (It 
 is the church's judgment they rely on, and not the Fathers.'' Stilling~ 
 Jleefs Works, IV. 143. Preserv. Tit. 3. p. 3. Comber s Roman For- 
 geries in the Councils, 1673. James's Corruption of the Fathers, Com- 
 ber's Advice to the Roman Catholics, sect. 3. Sir H. Lynde's By-way, 
 Lond. 1632. p. 257.) Boxhornius, Professor atLouvain, gives the 
 following memorable account of himself: That having been em- 
 ployed by the Inquisitors to strike out, at least, 600 places of the 
 ancients, which seem to make against the Romish doctrines, he was 
 So troubled in mind about it, that it was an occasion of his turning 
 Protestant, and made him resolve to quit that religion which could 
 not defend itself without such manifest impostures. F>e Euch. 
 Lib. III. 
 
289 
 
 contrary to scripture, or to the primitive church, but 
 they make themselves the only judges of both. " I 
 admit the holy scripture according to that sense which 
 our holy inother the church has held, and does hold, 
 to which it belongs, to judge of the true sense and inter- 
 pretation of the scriptures," {TrentCreed.) They tell 
 us they make no 7iew doctrines, but they reserve to 
 themselves the power of declaring what doctrines are 
 new and what are not ; and then I can see little dif- 
 ference between their making and their declaring new 
 articles of faith, since it is their declaring that makes 
 them to be believed and received as such, w4ien they 
 were not to be so before. In short, every thing is 
 to be brought to the standard, not of scripture and 
 antiquity, but of the present Romish Church * ; and 
 this, every one must perceive, is absolutely destructive 
 oi permanency of doctrine, and settlement of religious 
 opinions. 
 
 * Or, as Dr Milner expresses it, that " speaking living tribunal 
 for deciding all controversies, which Christ has established in her. 
 This tribunal is the clear audible voice of her supreme head, and 
 her other chief pastors." He says it is a sectarian method to ask 
 a Bishop for his reason, " and to call upon him to argue the points 
 at issue with them ; whereas the whole question is, what does the 
 living Catholic Church believe and teach ?" Even the decrees of 
 the last Pope are already become " a dead letter, as much as the 
 epistles of St Peter are. They both equally require the living voice 
 and authority of the chief pastor, to pronounce upon their meaning 
 with respect io all controversies that grow out of them," i. e. they 
 must be understood only as the living Pope, who has succeeded 
 him, thinks proper. Now, since Popes have contradicted each other, 
 as it is notorious they have done, and we are not allowed to go to 
 the " dead letter," how shall a man know what he is to believe. 
 Milner s Suppl. to Past, Letter, p. 7. 8. Le Mesuricrs Address t§ 
 Rom, Cath.^. 115. 
 
£90 
 
 On the contrary, our Reformed Churches make 
 scripture and, in subordination to it, antiquity, the 
 standard of their doctrines, and direct that none of 
 their preachers shall teach the people an}» thing to 
 be held and believed, but what is consentaneous 
 to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and 
 what the catholic fathers and ancient Bishops have 
 gathered out of that very doctrine." Our arms are 
 stretched out (to use the words of Bishop Sage,) to 
 embrace as our christian brethren, and we are ready 
 to communicate with all those, who are willing to pro- 
 fess the Faith, and join in the Worship, and submit 
 to the GovERN3iENT, wliicli obtained in the Catholic 
 Church during the Jirst four centuries; with all such 
 we are forward to unite, we are earnest to give them 
 the right hand of fellowship, and hold communion 
 with them. It is neither number, nor outward splen- 
 dour, nor prevalency, nor worldly prosperity ; — it is 
 nothing but conformity to Christ's institutions, and 
 catholic principles founded thereon, that can consti- 
 tute a lawful communion. And what is yet our 
 greater comfort, our communion is such, as, we have 
 no manner of reason to doubt, would have been rea-"^ 
 dily owned for a true, lawful, orthodox, christian com- 
 munion by the Catholic Church, in the days of the 
 first Council of Nice and upwards, to the days of the 
 apostles. Letters, p. 131. 
 
 Such (I may venture to affirm,) are the terms on 
 which our Reformed Churches are willing to come to 
 an accommodation with the Church of Rome. But, 
 until the pretence of infallibility be relinquished on 
 tkeir side (says Bishop Stillingfleet,) to talk of accom- 
 modation is folly, and to design it madness. If the 
 
S91 
 
 Church of Rome will allow of nothing to be amiss, 
 how can she reform any thing ? And how can they 
 allow any thing to be amiss, who believe they can 
 never be deceived ? So that while this arrogant pre- 
 tence of infallibility in the Roman Church continues, 
 it is impossible there should be any reconciliation*. 
 
 * Since the publication of the first edition of this book, another 
 reconciler has made his appearance. The Popish worship has been 
 reduced into the form of our common prayer, by the Rev. P. Gan- 
 dolphy, who, as he asserts, has thus " exhibited religion to his Pro- 
 testant countrymen, as professed in the Catholic Church !" Even 
 from this production (published without any authority from his su- 
 periors, ) it is easy to perceive, that no other terms will answer 
 them on our side, but blind submission to their authority. It ap- 
 pears to me (says the author,) that the only means of attaining this 
 desirable object of Catholic Union, are humility of heart and an 
 obedient faith : that is, the will of the community ir>ast absorb that 
 of the individual, and private judgment must yield to the sacred 
 authority of Christ's Church," &c. (mark here, how fallaciously these 
 two are confounded as if they were all one, viz. an obedient faith, 
 and yielding to the authority of the Romish Church.). 
 
 Our author deeply laments the divisions of Christendom, and anxi- 
 ously wishes his readers to believe, that there can be no other reme- 
 dy for them, but by yielding up our sacred right of private judg- 
 ment to the guidance of Popish Bishops and Priests. But (as the 
 great Chillingworth observes,) " we must not do evil, to avoid evil," 
 neither are all courses presently lawful, by which inconveniences 
 may be avoided. If all men would submit themselves to the chief 
 mufti of the Turks, it is apparent there would be no divisions; yet 
 unity is not be purchased at so dear a rate. It were much to be 
 desired that there were no divisions ; yet differences of opinions in 
 controverted points, is rather to be chosen than unanimous concord 
 in damned errors., Amica Pax, magis amica Veritas. It is not by 
 sacrificing the truth, that any real union can be established. See 
 some excellent remarks on the restoration of Catholic Union, in the 
 Bishop of Durham Visitation Charge, 1810. and British Critic , Feb. 
 1811. p. 152. 
 
S92 
 
 (PFor/csY,69*) Moreover, they must not only lay 
 aside these absurd pretensions, but treat with us as 
 possessing a full equality of right and power with 
 themselves. When a reconciliation was attempted to 
 be effected between the churches of England and 
 France in the year 1719, several letters passed be- 
 tween the Doctors of the Sarbonne, and Dr Wake, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr Wake thus expresses 
 himself in a letter to Mr Beauvoir, " If Dr Dupin 
 thinks we are to take their direction what to retain, 
 and what to give up, he is utterly mistaken. I am a 
 friend to peace, but more to truth. And they may 
 depend upon it, I shall always account our church 
 to stand upon an equal foot with theirs ; and that 
 we are no more to receive laws from them, than we 
 desire to impose any upon them. In short, the 
 Church of England is free and orthodox j she has a 
 plenary authority within herself, and has no need to 
 recur to any other church to direct her what to 
 retain, or what to do. Nor will we otherwise than 
 in a brotherly way, and in 2ifull equality of right and 
 powery EVER consent to have any treaty with France. 
 And therefore if they mean to deal with us, they 
 must lay down this for the foundation, that we are 
 to deal w^ith one another upon equal terms.'' Dr 
 Dupin consented to this scheme so far as to ac- 
 knowledge, that " an union between tlie French and 
 English Bishops may be completed, or at least ad- 
 vanced, without consulting the Roman Pontiff, and 
 that without his consent the union would be va- 
 lid." This noble opportunity of shaking off the papal 
 yoke, and reforming the GaUican Church, was un- 
 happily lost, on account of its not being supported 
 
293 
 
 by the civil power. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical His- 
 ton/, Vol. VI. 
 
 The first step towards restoring the Romish com- 
 munion to the primitive faith and worship, must un- 
 doubtedly consist in the renunciation of the usurped 
 supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. 'Unless the Bishops 
 in that communion step forward, and boldly assert 
 their ancient rights, and renounce that oath (unheard 
 of in the primitive ages,) by which they are bound by 
 the strongest ties to the Romish Bishop, a reformation 
 will never be effected. The reformation of that church 
 at the Council of Trent, was principally prevented by 
 the arts of that usurper. Could it be supposed, says 
 Bishop Stratford, that his holiness would consent to 
 be so degarded that he would pull down with his own 
 hands that pompous fabrick, which for 1000 yeare he 
 had been raising ? When Satan casts out Satan, we 
 may then expect that the Pope will in good earnest 
 endeavour a reformation. Besides the Bishops, and 
 the rest of the governing part of the churchmen, were 
 several ways engaged to submit themselves to, and fol- 
 low the Pope's conduct : so that supposing they had 
 any good wishes for a reformation themselves, yet 
 both their tongues and their hands were so tied up, 
 that they might neither speak or act, for the promot- 
 ing of it, without leave from his holiness. Farther, 
 they were in a particular manner enslaved to his plea- 
 sure, 1st, by an oath; 2d, by interest. 
 
 1. Every Popish Bishop at his consecration had 
 taken an oath, " from that time forward to be faith- 
 ful to St Peter, and to the holy Roman Church, 
 and his lord the Pope, and his successors ; to help 
 them, to defend and keep the papacy, and the rules 
 
S94 
 
 t?f the fathers," &c. And though one would think 
 this oath were enough ; yet, as if it had left them too 
 much at liberty, several additions have been since 
 made to it, by which he has bound them more closely 
 to their good behaviour (and therefore renders refor- 
 mation more desperate.) *' The rules of the holy Fa- 
 thers," are changed into " the royalties of St Peter." 
 They swear to be " obedient," as well as ** faithful," 
 not only to endeavour to *' preserve and defend the 
 rights, honours, privileges, and authorities of the 
 Pope," but " to increase and defend them," yea, 
 *'to the utmost of their power to cause the Pope's 
 commands to be observed by others, as well as to 
 observe them themselves ;" together with many 
 other things not contained in the oath of Gregory 
 VII. 
 
 S. For those whose consciences are so debauched, 
 as to dispise an oath, he has secured them by worldly 
 interest. For what will not such men do for riches 
 and honours ? And from whom can they hope for 
 these, so soon as from his holiness ? The cardinals are 
 all creatures purely of his own making, and no man 
 can be a Bishop or Abbot, without at least being al- 
 lowed and confirmed by him. This is the only argu- 
 ment that prevails with many to be fast friends to the 
 Papacy. Richer justly observes, with respect to Cu- 
 sanus's revolt from the Council of Basil to the Pope's 
 side, **by this we know that many who defended the 
 truth, while they were poor, desert the same in hope 
 of dignities, and a richer fortune, and especially mov- 
 ed with ambition of the Cardinal purple." (Lib. 3. 
 p. 479.) And Oneas Sylvius gave the true reason, 
 why it was the more common opinion, that the Pope 
 
295 
 
 as above a council, viz. because Popes gave Bishoprics, 
 but councils give none *. 
 
 Indeed, so rooted is the aversion of the Popes to 
 the least degree of reformation, that many learned 
 men in that communion have exposed themselves to 
 the most severe danger by only hinting at it. To 
 mention only F. Paul, Richer, De Marcat, Launoi, 
 the author of Moyens sures et honestes pour la Coji- 
 version des tons les Heretiques, Cologn, 1681, Natalis 
 Alexander, Dupint, Courayer, J. FebroniusJ, Scipio 
 Ricci, &c. 
 
 The bad success of conferences between theologians 
 of both parties, which has been often recommended 
 as a proper means of closing ourtlifFerences, has been 
 clearly shewn by a Roman Bishop || : '* Of all confe- 
 
 * Bishop Stratford^ Reformation Vindicated, Pre erv. Tit. I. p. 37. 
 
 f De Marca, although a strong assertor of the Bishop of Rome's 
 supremacy, was kept out of his bishopric for many years by the 
 Pope, merely for hinting at the GaUican liberties in his title. Of- 
 fendit tamen (quis crederet,) hie liber Romana ingenia, nullam 
 aliam ob causam, quam quod in fronte operis admoneret huic agi 
 de libertatibus Ecclesiae Gallicanae. Boluzii, de Vita P. De Marca, 
 1663, p. 26. 
 
 J The works of this author, including his Ecclesiastical History, 
 were prohibited, and ordered to be burned by Innocent XI. in 1684-. 
 
 § Febronius, or Jo. Nicholas ab Hontheim, Bishop of Myriofito, 
 1763. See Dr Hales' s Survey of the Modern State of the Church 
 ofRome^ p. 15^. 
 
 This author freely gives up the Council of Trent, and declares 
 that, unless God doth inspire some great prince to do it, a reforma- 
 tion will come as soon by the devil as by the Pope. De Statu Ec- 
 clesicBy Pref. Bull(Miii, 1^63. 
 
 ]| See also Archbishop Bramhall's remarks on the inutility of 
 conferences. Works, p. 41. Pidlers Moderation of the Church of 
 England, p. 404. Bennet on Schism, p. 2. 
 
296 
 
 rences (says Febroniiis,Z)e/S'^a^.^cc/.Pref.) the event 
 Avas the same ; peace was not in the least promoted 
 by such means. Therefore this method, which so many 
 experiments have "^voYedi fruitless, has not been at- 
 tempted in our age. The only path which appears to 
 me left for our attaining this desired end is, that all 
 discipline should be restored to that state in which it 
 was before our adversaries, not without foundation, 
 comiplained of the unjust yoke and excess of power. 
 By the removal of these scandals, our religion will 
 appear holy and lovely to all the believers of the gos- 
 pel.'* We should think the time for healing of schism 
 and uniti^ of the church approaching (says Mr Leslie 
 in answer to the Bishop of Meaux,) if the Bishops in 
 the Roman communion would think themselves at li- 
 berty, — would be persuaded it was their duty, as an- 
 swerable to God, to exert the full of their apostolic au- 
 thority, each in his own diocese; where, as St Cyprian 
 says, {Ep. 59.) judex vice Christi cogitatur, he is to 
 be esteemed as judge in the place of Christ. And 
 (Ep, 68.^ speaks of the Bishops in general, as guber- 
 nand^ eccles^ librani tenentes, holding the balance 
 of church government. 
 
 I am inclined to believe, that if your Lordship in 
 particular, and other Bishops in the Galilean Church, 
 were at liberty, each in his own district, to regulate 
 such matters as you might do w ith a good conscience, 
 things might be brought to bear so, from such a be- 
 ginning of reformation, as that though men might 
 differ in some particular opinions, as they always will, 
 yet that terms of communion might be adjusted be- 
 tween us upon catholic principles, to the honour of 
 God and peace of his church. And if such a commu- 
 
297 
 
 nion were begun, though with but a few Bishops, who 
 would exert their just power, it might in time bring 
 the church to that state, in which all good men would 
 wish to see her. And if a catholic communion were 
 restored, we should see again the primitive face of 
 the church. 
 
 But no step can be made towards this, while the 
 Bishop of Rome's supremacy ties up the power of 
 all other Bishops in their own respective churches. 
 And we hardly expect, that he will give way to any 
 thing that may in the least infringe the plenitude of 
 his supremacy. You have made an experiment of it 
 in your General Assembly of 1682. And if he will 
 not suffer his supremacy to be limited and reduced 
 to the standard of the ancient canons, we can see no 
 remedy but that it must be taken away. Why should 
 we have any hesitation to take that out of the way, 
 which is tJie visible rewora to the uniting of all christian 
 churches, and the restoring of catholic communion all 
 the world over? To take that out of the way, which 
 your Bishops of France, as well as those of the Greek 
 Church, and ours in England, &c. are fully convinced 
 is an usurpation ; against which you have so often 
 struggled, and still do complain. But we have thrown 
 it off, seeing no other way possible to get from under 
 its usurpation. My Lord, I am satisfied that your 
 church and ours are nearer to one another, as to thil 
 point of their supremacy, than you are with the 
 church, at least the court, of Rome. 
 
 We see the peace of the world better consulted by 
 the divine providence in m^iny independent kings, than 
 in one universal monarch ; whose deputies, in far dis- 
 tant regions, could never be kept from revolts, as we 
 
S98 
 
 have seen in great monarchies, though none was ever 
 yet universal. And, betwixt a king and his rebels, 
 there is no interposing by his subjects ; it would justly 
 render such suspected, who would argue on the rebels' 
 side. Therefore, the end must be the extermination 
 of the one or the other ; whereas, in disputes between 
 kings, other kings may interpose their mediation, and 
 become guarantees of peace. And yet the whole 
 world is one kingdom to God; as it is written (Psalm 
 xvii. 28.) *' The kingdom is the Lord's, and he is 
 the governor among the nations, '' How vain, then, 
 would the dispute be between any of those nations, 
 suppose France, Spain, or England, which of them 
 were this one kingdom, when each of them, though 
 greater than any other kingdom of the earth, would 
 still be but a part of this one kingdom ? Such we 
 esteem the dispute to be between particular churches : 
 Which of them is the Catholic Church ? We must 
 say, none of them ; though one be much greater and 
 more potent Jhan another, yet it is still but a part of 
 the whole. 
 
 And as God has appointed no universal monarch, 
 neither has he an universal Bishop. And all the argu- 
 ments, which an universal Bishop could use for unity 
 and peace, and to end controversies, might be used 
 by an universal monarch, and both prove equally fal- 
 Idcious to the greater disturbance rather than settle- 
 ment of that peace. But as our faith is dearer to us 
 than our lives, so the mischief would be greater, if 
 the whole church should be made to depend upon 
 one ; for then universaecclesia corruit, si unus uni- 
 versus cadit. And if the church fails, the faith which 
 is built upon it, must fall with it. This obliged the 
 
S99 
 
 Bishops of Rome, when they set up for universali- 
 ty, to assert irifaUibilitij to themselves likewise ; be- 
 cause, indeed,'less than that could not support so 
 vast a charge, as that of the whole Catholic Church. 
 But since their infallibility is fallen at least in France, 
 we think it strange that their universality should sur- 
 vive it. An universality which never was yet in fact, 
 never owned by the Catholic Church, or any churches 
 out of the bounds of the Western empire ; nor intend- 
 ed, when first used in the western councils, to extend 
 any farther. 
 
 How much safer has Christ consulted for his church 
 than to put it all into the hands of one fallible man ? 
 Idcirco copiosum fecit corpus sacerdotum, ut si unus 
 lacerare et vastare tentaverit, caeteri subveniat, (Cy- 
 prian, Ep, 67.) as in the case of Paulo Samosatenus. 
 Thus the peace of the world is preserved, and thus 
 the peace of the church. And thus it is that God 
 has disposed of both, whose foolishness is wiser than 
 men. 
 
 It is not, to use the words of Mr Spinkes, the su- 
 premacy of your Bishop, nor the extent of his domi- 
 nion, nor your arrogating to yourselves the name of 
 the only catholics, nor any such outward mark or 
 note, whereby your title to this claim can be made 
 good. The only proper and sure way to judge of 
 you aright, is that our Saviour prescribes for the d^- 
 covery of false prophets, "^j/ their fruits ye shall know 
 them,''* Whilst your corruptions both in Faith, Wor- 
 ship, and Government are so many and so foul, it is 
 to no purpose to flatter yourselves with the name of 
 Catholics. You may assume to yourselves as glorious 
 titles as you please, but it is only by your faithful ad- 
 
soo 
 
 herence to the directions of the gospel, as understood 
 in the primitive times, and all the best and purest ages 
 of our religion, that you can ever truly entitle your- 
 selves to them. — May God of his mercy to the chris- 
 tian world, send a double, a decuple portion of Mar- 
 cellus the Second's reforming spirit upon his succes- 
 sors, and fill the conclave, as he did the house where 
 the apostles met on the day of Pentecost, with his 
 holy spirit, that Rome may again become a holy, ca- 
 tholic, and apostolic church indeed, and that all the 
 churches of her communion be at last delivered from 
 the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty 
 of the children of God. Hickes's i^/fe?'5. Vol. 1. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I* 
 
 By the Right which (as I assert) belongs to the Governors of the 
 Church in making Canons, or laws for the behaviour of its mem- 
 bers in spiritual affairs, and particularly in prescribing the particular 
 circumstances of religious worship, I do not mean authority to change 
 any of the divine laws ; when any attempt of this kind is made, our 
 rule is plain and express : " We must obey God rather than men,'' (Acts 
 V. 29.)» Neither is it pretended, that they have power to impose any 
 article of faith or rule of moral duty; or prescribe any condition of 
 salvation, which is neither expressly contained in the scriptures, nor 
 can be certainly concluded from them. For it is God's prerogative 
 to declare in what manner he will be worshipped and obeyed, and up- 
 on what terms he will make us happy ; and therefore the Papists, who 
 are the only persons that claim this power, pretend at the same time 
 to be infallibly guided by the Spirit of God. So that all that remains 
 to be prescribed by the church relates only to external peace and or- 
 der. And if it appear, that things of this nature are left undetermined in 
 the scriptures, and also that it is necessary they should be determined, 
 then we cannot doubt but that Christ has intrusted the church with 
 
 * See Dr SherlocPs excellent Vindication of the Rights of Ecclesiastical Au- 
 thority, Lond. 1683. Clagett^s Reply to Alsop on the Misch. of Impositions, 1681. 
 Answer to Delaune's Plea, hy Mr Robertson, late a Dissenting Teacher, rvith a 
 Letter to Dan. Foe, 1710 ; and Hart's Ans. to Delaune, 1717. Mr Law's Se- 
 tund and Third Letter to the Bishop of Bangor, 
 I 
 
304 
 
 authority to determine them, otherwise its constitution would be de- 
 fective, and such as could not answer the ends for which it was founded. 
 
 Now, that things of this nature are not particularly determined in 
 scripture, is most evident; for the rules of scripture are all general; 
 we are commanded to "assemble together" to worship God, but the 
 times and places wherein we must assemble are not expressed. We 
 are commanded to "follow suck things as make for peace and edifi" 
 cation" and to " do all things decently and in order" (Cor. xiv. 40.) 
 "for God is not the author of confusion^ but of peace, as in all the 
 churches of the saints;" but the particular methods, whereby order 
 must be maintained, and edification promoted, are no where set down. 
 Timothy and all other Bishops with him, are commanded to " lay 
 hands suddenly on no man ;" but the previous trials of candidates for 
 holy orders, and the time and method of inspection into their abiHties 
 and behaviour, are left undetermined. Neither is it possible, in things 
 of this nature, to give particular rules which shall never require to be 
 varied. For the same methods which at one time promote peace and 
 edification, may, when the scene is changed, happen to obstruct these 
 ends; and what in one age or country is decent, in another may be 
 highly indecent. And therefore it is not diminishing the perfection 
 of scripture to affirm, that they do not particularly determine things of 
 this kind, which, being variable in their own nature, are not capable 
 of any fixed determination. 
 
 Neither is it less certain, that it is necessary for things of this kind 
 to be determined, than that the scripture has left them undetermined. 
 For instance, the times and places where christians assemble together 
 to worship God must be fixed, otherwise they cannot assemble at all. 
 When they are assembled, it must be determined in what order the se- 
 veral offices of religion shall be performed, whether praying, or preach* 
 ing, or singing of psalms, or administring the sacraments, shall be first ; 
 otherwise one will be for praying, whilst another is for preaching, and 
 a third for some other office, and nothing but disorder and confusion 
 will be seen in the church. On the same account, the division of 
 christians into districts and parishes, for their more convenient as* 
 sembling together, and preservation of order and discipline, is a thing 
 which must be varied, and a more strict or gentle discipline of offend- 
 ers must be proportioned to what the times will bear, and to what 
 men will be brought to submit to (as God himself has set us an ex- 
 ample in conniving at many things in the Jews, for the hardness of 
 their hearts, as our blessed Saviour affirms.) These, I say are things 
 
305 
 
 which must of necessity be varied, as times and circumstances change, 
 and yet the variation of them may safely be left to the discretion of 
 particular men. And the same will hold in other particular circum- 
 stances of public duties, which the scriptures have left undetermined. 
 Either, then, every particular man is entirel}'' left to his own liberty y 
 as to all the circumstances of every part of God's worship, which must 
 unavoidably produce disorder and confusion, and therefore "^decency 
 and order" cannot be maintained; or else there must be somewhere 
 a power in the church to settle these circumstances, as shall be found 
 necessary for the preservation of decency and regularity. 
 
 And if we inquire into the practice of the apostles, and other pri- 
 mitive governors of the church, we shall find that, besides the stand- 
 ing rules of the gospel, they prescribed various directions as the se- 
 veral occasions of the churches required, (1 Cor. xi. l6. — Ep. to Tim. 
 and Titus.) And this authority has been transmitted through the seve- 
 ral ages of the church to their successors, who are thereby authorized 
 to make all such rules as should be requisite for the decent and or- 
 derly performance of divine worship. And, as the governors of the 
 church ought not to impose any thing that is burthensome upon the 
 people, however otherwise it may perhaps be lawful, so when they 
 have made any rules concerning these matters, it is certainly the du- 
 ty of the people, rather " to obey" and conform unto them, (Heb. xiii. 
 1 7.) than hazard the breach of the church's peace for things as are 
 in their own nature indifferent, and consequently alterable whenever 
 there appears just reason for it. We must consider (says Dr Sher- 
 lock, speaking of the power of the christian church in establishing the 
 circumstances of worship,) the difference between the law and the 
 gospel. Under the law, (Gal. iv. 1. 2.) the church was in an infant 
 state, like an heir under age, which is under tutors and governors ; 
 and therefore every part of that temple worship was exactly framed 
 according to the pattern in the mount. But the christian church is 
 arrived to a full age, and set at liberty by Christ from the yoke of 
 bondage, (Gal. vi. i.) and therefore is not under servile restraints, as 
 the Jewish Church was, but has the government of its own actions, 
 according to the general rules of the gospel. 
 
 In matters of this nature, all churches are at liberty to prescribe 
 
 rites and ceremonies to its own members, provided they be consistent 
 
 •with the ^bove-mentioned general precepts, laid down in scripture. — 
 
 And this has been expressly declared by our Reformed Church. " It 
 
 is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places like; 
 
30(5 
 
 or at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed accord- 
 ing to the diversities of countries, pmes, and manners," (Art. 34.) — 
 " In these our doings, we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe 
 any thing but to our own people only ;" and thus Cyprian and the 
 African Church acted, " Judging none, nor removing any from the 
 right of communion, if they differ from us in some things." In those 
 days, almost every church had different rites and ceremonies, and 
 even liturgies j yet cathohc communion was strictly preserved. " When 
 I come to Rome (says Ambrose,) I fast on Saturday, when 1 am at 
 Milan I do not fast ; and so when thou goest to any church, observe 
 its customs, if thou wou]dst neither give just cause of offence, nor take 
 offence without cause." And Austin lays down this general rule, " As 
 to things in which the scripture defines nothing certain one way or the 
 other, the custom of the church and the decrees of superiors are to be 
 held for laws." 
 
 It is objected that, " for the same reason the church may impose 
 some ceremonies, she may impose more ; and who knows where the 
 impositions may end. And that hence sprung that enormous mass of 
 profane and foolish rites, which now grievously oppress both the Greek 
 and the Romish churches." I answer, it is no argument against com- 
 pliance in any particular case, that we cannot fix the bounds of it, any 
 more than it is against the practice of any other christian virtue j for 
 instance, it is hard to determine exactly what proportion of my estate 
 I am obliged to bestow in alms, therefore I am not obliged to bestow 
 any part of it j and, on this principle, subjects and servants may refuse 
 obedience to the most harmless commands of their masters and princes. 
 In truth, this is the dangerous fallac}'^ of arguing against lawful power, 
 from the abuse of it in those who are in possession of it ; if those in 
 whom power is vested will abuse it with insolent impositions (as the 
 Papists do,) they must be answerable for it to their superiors on earth; 
 or, if they be supreme, to the Great God in heaven. But our church 
 has professed most solemnly against the multiplication of ceremonies, 
 in the preface of the common prayer ; and it is observable, that even 
 at the restoration (l660,) when it was much more in the will and power 
 of churchmen than ever it is likely to be again, there was not one single 
 ceremony added to the church worship ; which observation is sufficient 
 to silence this mighty fear about ceremonies. But the true way of 
 arguing against compliance is, to prove that the particular instances . 
 in which we are called to comply are such as it is e^w/at^/z// for a chris- 
 tian to comply with, eitlier for their number or quality; and nothing 
 
307 ^ 
 
 but this can take off our obligation to the great duty of compliance; 
 and therefore the objection I am considering is of no force for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 It is objected again, that to require compliance to our peculiar forms 
 of divine worship, is makmg new terms of communion which Christ 
 never commanded, and therefore an encroachment on his authority. 
 If this rule be pursued, and if we are not to comply with the innocent 
 rites of particular churches, then we must refuse communion with all 
 churches on earth. For, can a man be admitted to the communion 
 even of Dissenters without submitting to their discipline and church 
 administrations ? Their communion is liable to the most terrible of 
 those objections which have been urged with the greatest zeal against 
 the church. For let us suppose that the major part of a congregation 
 agree upon the use of a liturgy, organ, prayer before sermon, &c. is 
 not this as plainly an encroachment on, and confinement of what Christ 
 has made common to all, and does not this as effectually exclude the 
 scrupulous from communicating in that congregation, in which thej^have 
 as great a right as their neighbours, as what is complained of in the 
 church ? To say that the scrupulous may go to another congregation 
 more to their mind, does not remove the present difficulty; for, accord- 
 ing to these principles, they have a right to be admitted into this very 
 congregation upon the naked terms of Christ himself. And why should 
 they either put themselves to great inconveniences by hunting after 
 other congregations more agreeable to them; or, by giving up their own 
 right, encourage an imposing spirit, and ecclesiastical tyranny in those 
 who have no authority for what they do ? But, should their scruples 
 be removed with respect to the lawfulness of the liturgy agreed upon, 
 they are still obliged, by these principles, not to comply so far as 
 to use constantly the form agreed on by others. For how do they 
 know how many other impositions may be brought in at this rate? 
 How can they answer the giving countenance to the least additions 
 to Christ's institutions? Their compliance would be an acknow- 
 ledgment of authority in the major part of the congregation to 
 make such an agreement; and how could they acknowledge this with- 
 out giving up all right in themselves to be admitted upon other terms ? 
 Shall they give up this right for the sake of peace ? — No. Such com- 
 phance tends to slavery, and the encouragement of tyranny ; and peace 
 is not to be procured at so dear a price. 
 
 Thus might this cause be argued upon these principles, and the same 
 objections brought against compliance mtk this scheme as has been 
 
308 
 
 brought against compliance with the church ; and so a perpetual foun- 
 dation laid of quarrels and animosities amongst neighbours. We must 
 conclude then, that there cannot be any particular scheme invented, 
 which will be wholly free from what are called unscriptural additions ; 
 or that, until such a scheme be found, we may very well adhere to the 
 church. But perhaps it may be rephed, " since human institutions 
 must be used in divine worship, they ought to be left to our liberty, 
 to use them or not." But would not this introduce the utmost cpn-, 
 fusion into church assemblies, where some would be for using, and some 
 for omitting, such rites and customs as others would think necessary ? 
 And in what a ridiculous manner must the public service of God be 
 everywhere performed, if every ignorant or conceited person were at 
 liberty to break in upon the stated rules of divine worship, so contrary 
 to the apostolic injunctions. For this reason, all churches in the world 
 (and even the assemblies of those who use these objections,) have al- 
 ways taken upon them to determine their own rules of order and de- 
 cency, and have exacted conformity to them of all the members of 
 their own communion. 
 
309 
 
 No. II* 
 
 It has already been proved, that there were certain powers, exercised 
 by Bishops in the primitive church, which were of divine institution, 
 and never subject to any change or alteration. The principal of these 
 powers (besides those which they had in common with Presbyters, as 
 preaching and administring the sacraments^ were Ordination, Govern- 
 ment (in which I include the inflicting oi ecclesiastical censures,) and 
 Co?ifirmation. Besides these parts of their office which they exercised 
 by divine appointment, there were others derived from the customs or 
 constitutions oi i\\Q church within herself, of which the principal were: 
 — 1. That they frequently met in Synods to consult conceraing the 
 common faith, and to agree upon measures for the preservation of 
 peace and unity in their respective churches. — 2. That every Bishop 
 had the management of the public revenue, to distribute from thence 
 the weekly and monthly portions to the clergy, and to relieve the poor 
 and indigent part o£"ihe household of faith;" and, — 3. That they «p- 
 pointed to churches their particular Bishops and Pastors. Such was, 
 as to its principal parts, the nature of the Episcopal and ministerial 
 offices, as long as they continued without any support or countenance 
 from the civil power: But afterwards (about the year A. D. 325.) 
 when the Roman Emperors became christians, there was formed 
 throughout the Empire a coalition or unio?i between the spiritual and 
 temporal states ; and this union seems plainly to have been formed on 
 these foundations: — 1. That bW powers exercised by Bishops and other 
 officers of the church, by virtue of divine institution, were in their full 
 
 * See Dr BreWs Independency of the Church on the State, Lond. 1717. Tlie 
 Independency of the Church not Romish, but Primitive, ^c. 1716. Leslie's Case 
 of the Regale and Pontificate; an excellent treatise on this subject, and which 
 inay be read as an antidote against certain strange tenets advanced in Dr 
 Wake''s Book on the Regal Supremacy, Bishop Warburttm's Alliance, ^c. The late 
 Mr Jones with great reason expressed his surprise at " the sublime praises be- 
 stowed by Bishop Hurd on the Alliance, and other works of that fanciful but 
 very ingenious projector of unfmtnded theories," and was persuaded that "neither 
 religion or learning will ever derive much benefit, nor the christian world any 
 considerable edification from the works of that writer." Life of Bishop Home 
 1799. p. 44'. Gray's Bampton Lectures, 1796. p. 100. 
 
310 
 
 extent to be continued to' them. — 2. That all other matters, which were 
 not fixed by a divine law, but were necessary for the maintenance of 
 good order and government, were to be settled by the direction and 
 approbation of the civil power. That the interference of the civil power 
 in church affairs is not unlawful, we have authority from the holy 
 scriptures. In the Old Testament, the kings of Israel and Judah exer- 
 cised, in things circumsta?itial, an orderly controul over the Priesthood 
 for the good of the church. And of the christian church it was pro- 
 phecied, (Isai. Ixix. 23.) that "kings shoidd he its nursing fathers and 
 queens its nursing mothers ;" and that they " should how down to it 
 with their face towards the earth" i. e. that kings and queens should 
 protect and defend the church from all outward injury and violence; 
 and should bow down before the guides and governors of it, to receive 
 the word and sacraments at their hands. Moreover, that "the king- 
 doms of this world should become the kingdom of our Lord and qf his 
 Christ : and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. xi. 1 5.) and that 
 " the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls ; and their kings shall 
 minister unto thee." (Isai. Ixix. 10, l6. II. 12.) 
 
 In this manner, a friendly union was formed between the spiritual 
 and temporal powers in most christian states, and was tolerably well 
 preserved till the time of the papal usurpation. However (says Dr 
 Brett,) the Pope, the grand corrupter of Christianity, taking upon him, 
 under pretence of maintaining the independence of the church, to 
 exempt some causes and persons from all civil jurisdiction to the' 
 princes, gave the princes a just occasion to reject this usurped power. 
 And at the Reformation divers princes and states, and ours among 
 the rest, not able to bear these usurpations and encroachments, found 
 it necessary to shake off the papal yoke; and because the Pope had 
 strained the matter too high on the church's side, this made our princes 
 judge it necessary, to secure themselves from those invasions, and might 
 have carried them (in establishing our Reformed Church,) a little too 
 far into the opposite extreme, of raising the civil power too' high. 
 
 For at the beginning of the Reformation in Great Britain, a new and 
 before unheard-of title was invented for the civil magistrate,.-that of 
 Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, which Henry VIII. 
 forced all persons by his acts of Parliament, under the severest penalties 
 to acknowledge was due to him. But indeed, if the king had a just 
 right to this title, it might imply that the church cannot be in any re- 
 spect independent of him. For if he be the only Supreme Head in 
 earth of the Church of England, as the statute (but God be praised 
 
311 
 
 it is a statute long since repealed,) declares him to be, then all spiri-' 
 (ual as well as temporal power must be derived from him, and he may- 
 commit it to whom, and in what manner he pleases; and in this sense 
 so plainly contrary to the holy scriptures. Archbishop Cranmer about 
 that time understood it. 
 
 Having assumed this strange title, Henrj' thought proper to exercise 
 it in its fullest extent; and accordingly he made the Bishops (Cranmer, 
 Bonner, &c.) take out "a j^r«w^e commission (as Bishop Burnett him- 
 self styles it,) which might give just occasion to call them the King's 
 Bishops." By this commission it appears, that the king looked upon 
 himself to have full authority, by virtue of his Supreme Headship^ to 
 ordain Bishops, Priests, or Deacons; nay, that even the Lord Crom- 
 well, his vicegerent, might have done it. But after all, it appears from 
 this very commission, that Henry himself was not satisfied that he 
 really possessed all that power which here he pretends to; for he found 
 it necessary to throw the following reserve into the commission (as, 
 Mr Collier observes,) " over and above those things which are known 
 from the hoi 3^ scriptures to have been committed to you (the Bishop,) 
 by God;" which words effectually overthrow that boundless supremacy 
 pretended to in other parts of the commission. And moreover, it 
 farther appears that even this supreme head of the church, never at- 
 tempted to make Bishops, or think himself capable of making them 
 without their assistance, notwithstanding Cranmer's opinion, that the 
 ceremon}'- of imposition of Episcopal hands was unnecessary*. 
 
 This title was repealed by Queen Mar}'-, and never since revived. 
 For Queen Elizabeth contented herself with the title of "supreme go- 
 vernor of this realm, &c. as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things 
 as temporal:" and allowed that it should be declared in the articles (Art. 
 37.) published by her authority, that we give not to our princes the 
 ministring either of God's word or of the sacraments; but that only 
 prerogative, which we find to have been given always to all godly 
 princes in holy scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should 
 rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether 
 they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the 
 stubborn and evil doers." 
 
 Since then (says Dr Brett,) that title of supreme head of the church 
 was repealed by act of Parhment, and never since restored or made 
 
 • See Dr Gray\s Bampt. Lect. Serm .p. 70 — Cranmer, it must be observed, 
 soon after relinqvashed these Erastian sentiments. 
 
312 
 
 part of the regal title; that it is also a title never known or heard of 
 till that age, and liable to very strange constructions. I have often 
 wondered, how so many learned men have to this day continued to 
 give this title to our princes; and I am persuaded, that nothing has 
 more contributed to the spreading of Erastianism, than this unwary 
 custom of styling our king supreme head of the church, which I am 
 assured has no law or canon now in force to oblige us ; and I am well 
 satisfied has neither reason, religion, nor gospel to induce us to use it*. 
 
 This, (says Bishop Burnet, speaking of the 37th article) is all that 
 supremacy we are bound in conscience to own; and if the letter of the 
 law, or the stretches of that in the administration of it, have carried 
 this further, we are not at all concerned in it: but in case any such 
 thing were made out, it could amount to no more than this, that the 
 civil power had made some encroachments on ecclesiastical authority. 
 But the submitting to an oppression, and the bearing it till some better 
 tiines may deliver us from it, is no argument against our church; on 
 the contrary, it is a proof of our temper and patience, and of that re- 
 spect we pay to that civil authority God hath set over us, even whea 
 we think it passeth its hotmds. 
 
 In consequence of the alliance of the church with the civil power, 
 which has taken place with respect to the Reformed Episcopal Church 
 in England and Ireland (for the Episcopal church in Scotland is per- 
 fectly free and independent in spiritual affairs, as the primitive churches 
 were,) the state has adopted them as a part of the constituiion, has 
 engaged to support and defend them from all external injury and vio- 
 lence, has made a provision for their Bishops and clergy, and has 
 assisted their spiritual administrations with secular effects and censures. 
 In return for these privileges, the church has conceded to the state 
 some of its privileges which are not purely spiritual, as the nomina- 
 tion of Bishops; that S3^nods shall not be called, nor their rules consi- 
 dered as binding until approved by the king; that there shall be no 
 
 * " A title fii'st introduced by Papists, and laid aside by Protestants, be- 
 cause it seemed to intrench too much upon the just right of our Saviour, and, 
 being subject to be misunderstood, gave offence to many well affected chris- 
 tians." BramhaWs Works, p. 63. — Where (says Bishop Jewel,) is the Queen 
 (Eliz.) ever called the Supreme Head ? No, no, brethren, she refuseth it, she 
 would not have it, nor be so called." View of a Seditious Bull, Works, p. Ik 
 »' King Charles I. (says Bishop Bramhall,) did never style himself Head of the 
 Church, nor could with patience endure to hear that title." H'^orks, p. 26.27. 
 nhJwp Burntt'n Hist, of Ref. HI, Records, No. 48. Leslie's Works, I. p. 62*. 
 
S13 
 
 admission or refusal of clerks to parishes, or exercise of discipline, 
 but in consistence with, and under the regulations of the laws of the 
 land, and the like*. 
 
 But it must be carefully recollected, that the church, in being sup- 
 ported by the state, does not lose its inherent spiritual nature and 
 
 • The nature of my subject requires me to make a few remarks on the 
 Maintenance of the Clergy. — It is admitted on all hands, that they Avho de- 
 vote their time, should receive a maintenance from those whom they instruct, 
 (1 Cor. ix. 14 — Gal. vi. 6.) These contributions were at first raised by volun- 
 tary subscription from their own people ; consequently, they were in a great 
 measure proportioned to that degree of zeal and attention, which the clergy 
 exerted towards them. Thus was the great body of the clergy maintained for 
 above 300 years, and so comfortably, that St Austin and StChrysostom assert, 
 that they were never better provided for, than when their maintenance was 
 raised chiefly from the people. Bingham'' s Antiq. Book V. c. iv. sect. 15. 
 
 The clergy in England and Ireland are maintained by the legislature, so 
 are also the Presbyterian preachers in Ireland; and, in some respects, they 
 have the advantage over the clergy. *« Their support is given unclngged by any 
 conditions, which can in the least degree abridge them in the exercise of their 
 ecclesiastical power ; and Government does not, in the smallest degree, either 
 directly or indirectly interfere with, or restrain them in the exercise of their dis- 
 cipline. And moreover, all their ecclesiastical ministrations and judicial de- 
 cisions are as fully legalized, as if they were a part of the ecclesiastical establish- 
 ment of the country. M^Dowefs Presh. Gov. 1808. pref. — The maintenance 
 of the clergy consists of tythes, which are raised not only from their own people, 
 but also from Dissenters of all descriptions. This method of providing for the 
 clergy may have its advantages, but I am firmly persuaded, that no circum- 
 stance has contributed more to retard the conversion of Dissenters, and the 
 progress of reformed religion. 
 
 The Regiiim Donum of the Dissenting teachers is, I acknowledge, equally 
 raised from the property of all sects and classes of the community; but we 
 hear no complaints against them, because they are not themselves obliged to 
 collect it, but are cheerfully paid from the treasury of the nation. But, for 
 what reason the clergy (who have conceded so many of their valuable privileges 
 to the state,) should be placed under the disagreeable necessity of collecting 
 their maintenance in such an extremely offensive manner, I have not yet been 
 able to discover. It has been said, indeed, that •' if the clergy depended on 
 the treasury for support, they might be deprived of it altogether, if ever the 
 legislature became averse to them and their principles." But may not the le- 
 gislatuie vote alienation of, and deprive them of the tythes also ? Are not 
 tythes the gift of the state, and what the state has given, surely it may take 
 away. In the mean time, it remains (says Mr Gisborne,) the duty of every 
 clergyman to endeavour to obviate the evils attending that which now subsists, 
 until some more eligible method of supporting the clergy is devised and adopted 
 by the legislature. Enquiry into the Duties of Men ^ II. p. 67. 1800. And if the 
 
314 
 
 authority. It continues the same church still. It subsisted upon its 
 own bottom, upon the law of its own discipline, antecedently to tlie 
 civil laws, and stands upon its own intrinsic power and authority^ 
 whether in or without the state. Its Bishops do not cease to be 
 Bishops, nor its sacraments to be sacraments because the state ad- 
 mits of them, and establishes them. Suppose the state were to de- 
 clare against all these things, as the Heathens and Jews did in the 
 first ages of the Gospel, their declaration would signify nothing ; be- 
 cause the church in its priesthood and sacraments derives its au- 
 thority only from Jesus Christ, which the persecution of the civil- 
 powers cannot reach, much less can their allowance turn it into an 
 human authority, and render it of none effect. 
 
 It is a very false suggestion, that in consequence of this alliance 
 the state can alter the church at its pleasure. The legislature, I ac- 
 knowledge, is competent to withdraw from that portion of the church 
 of Christ which is at present established in England and Ireland, 
 the legal privileges which she derives from the state, and might adopt 
 the principles of the French Convention, and abolish the establish- 
 ment of Christianity under every form ; but no legislature has a righlf 
 and no christian legislature will j)rete?id to a right to change that con- 
 stitution, whatever it be, which the church received from her divine 
 founder. 
 
 But let us suppose that the legislature should attempt to introduce 
 essential innovations into the religion of the church, it may be enquir- 
 ed what is to be done in such a case ? The clergy and people, who 
 refuse to comply with such alterations, must then throw up those re- 
 venues and privileges which they have so long enjoyed, and suffer 
 
 clergy think it of consequence not to lose the favour of the legislature, the 
 following advice of the great Archbishop Seeker ought to be strictly attended 
 to : "• Temporal things are not to be neglected, — and, least of all, those which 
 are set apart for things eternal. But then we must be watchful over them, 
 in order to employ them as they were meant to be employed ; and if we pre- 
 serve and transmit them ever so faithfully, but use them unfaithfully, studying 
 only or chiefly to enrich or advance ourselves, or gratify our sensual appetites, 
 or love of diversions, or of elegant appearance, by means of those revenues, which 
 weie given us for ends widelj/ different (partly to make a comfortable and mo- 
 derate, not a superfluous and invidious provision for ourselves and ours, and 
 partly to serve the purposes of religion and charity,) we offend God, sin against 
 our brethren, and provoke men to take from us, what they are too ready to say 
 we do no good with ; as indeed little would be done were such a conduct gene- 
 ral."— CAarge^f, p. 159. 1771. 
 
315 
 
 martyrdom, rather than submit to depart a tittle from " the faith 
 once deliver£d to the saints." We ought to be thankful (says the apos- 
 tohc Bishop Wilson,) for the favours we have received from rehgious 
 princes ; but if our benefactors require of us what is inconsistent with 
 our trust, rve know whom we are to obey. Should we ever be so un- 
 happy (says Archbishop Wake,) as to be denied all liberty of convo- 
 cations, though the governors and fathers of the church should with 
 all their care and interest endeavour to obtain it; should the prince 
 so far abuse his prerogative, as to turn it not only to the detriment, 
 but to the ruin of all true religion among us, and thereby make it ab- 
 solutely necessai-y for something extraordinary to be done to preserve 
 both : In such a case of extremity (I have before said, and still adhere 
 ta it,) the Bishops and Pastors of the church, must resolve to hazard 
 all in the discharge of their duty, they must meet, consult, and re- 
 solve on such measures, as, by God's assistance, they shall think their 
 unhappy circumstances to require, and be content to suffer any loss, 
 or run into any danger for so doing. 
 
 It is not my intention at present, to discuss the advantages or dis- 
 advantages attendant on the establishment of religion by the state. 
 However I beg leave to desire the reader carefully to recollect that a 
 poHtical establishment is by no means essential to the preservation of 
 a church *. Whether (as Archdeacon Daubeny observes,) the poUti- 
 
 • This I do the more willingly at present, in order to quiet the unreasonable 
 fears of those who imagine, that the extirpation of the church and religion must 
 necessarily attend the overthrow of the establishment, which some of our most 
 zealous writers have declared to be in some danger. The effect to be expected 
 from the alarming separation from our church (says Archdeacon Daubeny,) 
 should it be carried to that extent which present appearances almost justify us 
 in apprehending must be the ultimate destruction of the Establishment. For 
 should the time ever arrive, which God forbid, when the number of christians 
 without the walls of the church should exceed, in any degree, that of those 
 assembled within them (the ground of public opinion on which every establish- 
 ment as suck stands, being withdrawn,) I see nothing that can prevent its 
 falling to the ground. The present subject has been introduced, not with a 
 view to alarm, so much as to forewarn. Charge, p. 14. 1805. And (to make 
 use of another remark of the same writer,) if, in consequence of the unsettled 
 notions, which now prevail upon religions subjects, christians are continually 
 dropping from the Church, let it be for any cause rather than on account of 
 the irregularity, incapacity or Kant of zeal in its ministers. Guide to the Church f 
 p. 445. • 
 
 The single end we ought to propose by church establishment (says Dr Paley,) 
 is the preservation and communication of religious knowledge. Every other 
 
316 
 
 cal establishment of the church stand 6r fall, the church itself, so lon<T 
 as God shall think fit to preserve it in any country, will remain as to its 
 constitution, what it originally was, Jirm on its own divine foundation. 
 
 After such strong assertions of this excellent writer in defence of 
 the i?idependent power of the church, is it not very surprizing that he 
 should contradict himself within the compass of the same volume, in 
 asserting, that "the preservation of the establishment is essential to 
 the continuance of the church in this country; it being the best secu- 
 rity against that babel of religious confusion and infidehty, which 
 would be the ultimate effect of its destruction," (Guide, p, 537.J In 
 my opinion there could not be a stronger satire on our religion and the 
 clergy, than to say that they essentially require the aid of the civil 
 power. May not the Dissenters, on hearing such assertions, exclaim 
 with the greatest justice, "The Church of Christ is built upon a rock, 
 and we are assured that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
 Had your church been built upon this rock of truth, it would have 
 had nothing to fear. Its own evidence and excellence would have 
 supported h," Priestly' s Letter to Burke, p. 98. It is equally absurd to 
 imagine that establishments are the best security against confusion and 
 infidelity. For did establishments ever prevent schisms, and infi- 
 delity ? — No. Look at the condition of our own country even at pre- 
 sent, and we shall soon perceive that this notion is contrary to plain 
 matter of fact ; and / must agree with a late clergyman in the truth 
 of the following remarks: — The Dissenters have been frowned on 
 from the Restoration to the present time, and yet they and the Me- 
 thodists, who are in the same predicament, arc ?nuch more on the in- 
 crease than we of the Esiablishment, who are fostered by the govern- 
 ment, attended by the nobles and gentry of the land, and supported by 
 the state, at the expence of near two millions a year. Simpsons Plea, 
 
 Similar to this assertion of Mr Daubeny is that of Mr Milner, author 
 of an Eccl. Hist, in 5 vols. 1803, who supposes that "without a state 
 establishment there would be no religion among us." But did not the 
 Church of Christ from the beginning subsist without it.? Does not 
 the Reformed Church in America and Scotland subsist without it, or 
 
 idea, and every other end that has been mixed with this, as the making the 
 Church an engine or even an ally to the state, — converting it into the means 
 of strengthening or of diffusing influence, — or of regarding it as a support of 
 regal, in opposition to popular forms of government, have served only to debase 
 the institution, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.— 
 Moral and Political Philosophy, Vol. II. p. 305. \ 
 
317 
 
 is there less religion with them, than among us?-^No, on the contrary, 
 one of the most spiritual Bishops England ever had to boast oi', de- 
 clared that from the present circumstances of the primitive orthodoxy, 
 piety, poverty, and depressed state of the Episcopal (Mnestahlished) 
 Church in Scotland, he was of opinion that, If St Paul were upon earth, 
 and it were put to his choice with what denomination of christians 
 he would communicate, the preference would probably be given to the 
 Episcopalians in Scotland, as most like to the people he had been used 
 to. Jones's Life of Bishop Home, p. 1 53. 
 
 Should it happen, that Episcopacy in England and Ireland were de- 
 prived of all that support, which it now enjoys from the temporal power; 
 were its ministers even spoiled of their proper revenues ; were they eject- 
 ed from national councils, and rendered in their external condition 
 contemptible and destitute ; its claims to authority in the Church of 
 Christ would nevertheless continue exactly the same, as they are at 
 present. Should that time ever arrive, then the piety, the zeal, the 
 constancy, with which the Episcopal clergy would adhere to the afflict- 
 ed church would prove, that their attachment to it in the hour of 
 prosperity proceeded solely from the conviction, that this form of mi- 
 nistry, whether persecuted, or whether exalted, is truly ihat which 
 was appointed by their blessed Lord*. 
 
 • Not^s Bampton Lectures^ 1802, p. 107. — It has been asserted, that ** in 
 such extremity, no person will be a candidate for the ministry, but those who 
 have not been liberally educated, or those in the lower classes of life." But 
 this goes on the idea, that no one will officiate in a christian church, but for 
 the sake of temporal emolument which he receives from it, which is a most un- 
 just and ill-founded reflection on Christianity and the ministers of it. It is an 
 equally injurious reflection to say, that " wealth and temporal honours are neces« 
 sary to render the clergy respectable." Some indeed (says Dr South,) may 
 please and promise themselves high matters from full revenues, stately palaces, 
 court interests, and great dependencies ; but that which makes the clergy aio- 
 rious, is to be knowing in their profession, unspotted in their lives, active and la- 
 borious in their charges, bold and resolute in opposing seducers, and daring to look 
 vice in the face, though never so potent and illustrious, and lastly, to be gentle^ 
 courteous, and compassionate to all. These are our robes and our maces, our 
 escutcheons and highest titles of honour ; for by these things God is honoured, 
 who has declared this to be the external rule and standard of all honour deriv- 
 able upon men, •' that those who honour him shall be honoured by him." 
 Sermon on the Duties of the Episcopal Function. There is a remarkable /at f in 
 confirmation of this in KettlewclVs Works, Vol. I. p. 61. pref. O^Conor^s Colum- 
 banus. Third Letter, p. 37. See also an Account of the Church Establishment 
 in Sweden, in Leslie's Works, I. p. 612. 
 
318 
 
 To conclude with the late pious Mr Jones : " To any particular 
 or national church, all temporal alliances are but momentary consider- 
 ations, which pass away with the fashion of the world; and the church 
 may be either with them, or without them, as it was in the first ages ; 
 for the church itself, under the relation it bears to Jesus Christ, abid- 
 eth fo/eyer. Essay on the Church, Pref. 
 
519 
 
 No. III. 
 
 ** Si quis nullam in Ecdesia disciplinam conservet^ et ominihus tantum inservit de 
 Episcopatus vigore actum e«f." — Goulartii Notae in Cyprian. Epist. 55. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that in the primitive church those who were con- 
 victed of notorious crimes were excommunicated, and expelled from 
 the communion of the faithful, and not restored until they had exhi- 
 bited the clearest proofs of repentance. This power of excluding of- 
 fenders from communion, was committed by our Lord to his apostles 
 and their successors on\y, (See Matt. xvl. 19- xviii. 15. to 20. — John 
 XX. 21. 22.— 1 Cor. v.— 2 Thess. iii. 6. 14.— 2 John x. 11.— 1 Tim. 
 V. 19. — Tit. iii. 10.) And in the age succeeding the apostles, there 
 are many convincing proofs that the same method of excluding offend- 
 ers was constantly kept up as a thing of divine institution. See 
 Bishop Potter, on Chirch Government, p. S67. 
 
 Expulsion from church communion did not consist merely in ex- 
 clusion from the eucharist, but also from the public prayers of the 
 church j for those who are unfit to receive the former, are also unfit 
 to partake in the latter, (Prov.xv. 8. — Psalm Ixvi. 18.) See Kettlewell's 
 Works, I. p. 371. Sherlock on Relig. Assemblies, last chap. It is well 
 known, as Bishop Andrews remarks, that all the time of the Primitive 
 church, the sennon was ever done before the service began. To the 
 sermon, heathens, infidels, Jews, heretics, schismatics, in shoi t, all sorts 
 of people were admitted ; but when the liturgy began all these were 
 excluded, not one of them suffered to stay. See Daubeny's Guide, 
 p. 203. 
 
 The ends for which this discipline was instituted, were, according 
 to Bishop Potter, — 1. For the honour of God and his church. (1 Pet. 
 II. 9. Eph. V. 25, 27. Rom. ii. 24-.— 2 Sam. xii. 14.) It is manifest, 
 says he, that the church's reputation was never so great in the world, 
 as in the primitive ages, when discipline was exercised with severity 
 and rigour. Then her professed enemies admired her, gi eat number 
 of proselytes daily flocked into her, and could not be restrained by the 
 utmost torments, which human or devilish malice could inflict : Where- 
 as since the primitive discipline has been laid aside, and christians 
 have lived like the rest of the world, though the church has been pro- 
 
320 
 i 
 
 tected by the civil power, and flourished with far more outward splen- 
 dour than before;, fewer converts have been brought over to her, and 
 too many of her own sons and members have lost their^r*^ zeal and 
 love for her. — 2. Another end of this discipline, was to reform offend- 
 ers, (2 Cor. X. 8. xiii. 1 0. — 1 Cor. v. 8. — Act. v. 1 1 . — 2 Thess. iii. 1 4.. 1 5.) 
 And it is a great charityj (continues the Bishop) to deprive them of 
 the sacraments, because they are not qualified to receive them. For 
 though it be a very great sin to neglect them, yet it is a much higher 
 affront to God to receive them with an unbelieving heart, than not to 
 receive them at all. — 3. It is a means to preserve the rest of the 
 church from being corrupted. 1 Cor. v. 6. 7. — 2 Tim ii. 1 6. 17- 18. 
 
 Such were the benefits arising from the exercise of this holy dis- 
 cipline in the primitive church. With us both are equally neglected 
 and unknown. Once a year (see the office of Commination,) says Dr 
 Marshall, we solemnly profess our wishes to have it restored, but if 
 something farther be not contributed to its restoration, than our annual 
 wishes, it will lie where it does, disregarded by all, and utterly un- 
 known to the thoughtless many, (Penit. Disciplme of the Primitive 
 Church, Lond. 1714.) There is one thing (says Bishop Burnet,) yet 
 wanting, to complete the reformation of the church, which is to restore 
 primitive discipline against scandalous persons, the establishing the 
 government of the church in ecclesiastical hands, and taking it out of 
 lay hands who have so long profaned it, and have exposed the autho- 
 rity of the church, and the censures of it, chiefly excommunicatiorr, 
 to the contempt of the nation j so that the dreadfullest of all censures 
 is now become the most scorned and despised, (Hist. Reformatio?!, 
 abridged, p. 367, and Pastoral Care, passim.) Disciplinam Eccle- 
 siae, superiore seculo, collapsam, nostro pene obrutam lugemus omnes, 
 (Episc. Gibson, Concio ad Synod, 1714. Leslie's Works, I. p. 594. 
 Bingham's Antiq. Book XV. c. 9. sect. 8. Reynold's on the Gover7i' 
 ment of the Church of England, Lond. 1743, p. 149. Hickes's Two 
 Treatises, Pref. 82. Bishop Latimer's Sermons * 
 
 • The venerable Bishop Wilson Avas one of the most strenuous assertors of 
 discipline in modern times. See his Works in two vols. 4to. with his Life pie- 
 fixed. See also some extraordinary observations on this head in William Whis- 
 torCs Address to the Princes, ^c. of Europe, for the Toleration of the Christian Re- 
 ligion Lond. 1716. Hammond, Of the Power of the Keys. Sir George Wheler's 
 Account of the Churches of the Primitive Christians, Lond. 1689, where he shews 
 "with what ease this order might be accommodated to our church," p. 109 — 
 Although discipline is of the greatest importance to the edification of the church. 
 
321 
 
 There are several prevailing objections against the restoration of it, 
 which I shall here take notice of. 
 
 1. It is represented to be, in the present age, impracticable. — To 
 answer in the words of the late apostolic Bishop Wilson : This cannot 
 ^e, when it was practised for so naany years in the primitive church. 
 And what if it be one of those things which Christ has commanded 
 his followers to observe so strictly, (Matt, xxviii. I9. 20.) The com- 
 mands of Christ cannot be impracticable, that would be to tax him 
 with ignorance or weakness. When he promised to be with his 
 church to the end of the world, he engaged to give such graces as were 
 necessary to raise us above our natural weaknesses. — Sacra Frivata. 
 
 2. The unfavourableness of the times has also been urged. This 
 has been the common objection ever since the Reformation. I agree 
 with you (says Mr W^hite to his adversary,) that the discipline of the 
 church is of great moment towards the edification of its members ; 
 and that the fault is unpardonable, when church governors let it fall 
 through a supine carelessness and neglect. And I may presume to say 
 that they will be obliged to lay hold of every favourable juncture, and 
 
 yet it cannot be said to be essential to its existence: and it is very unlavsful 
 and schisniatical to separate on account of the neglect of it. The clergy in 
 the church at Corinth were very remiss in the exercise of it, yet the apostle 
 gives not the least countenance to the laity to withdraw from communion, on 
 that account, but, on the contrary, exhorts them to unity in the most forcible 
 manner, (1 Cor. v. 2. iii. 3. xii. 20. 25 — Rev. ii. 15. 20.) In such cases, the 
 governors of the church must answer to God for the neglect of their authority, 
 (Rev. ii. 14. 15. 16. 20.) and sinners for the scandals they commit; buj, the 
 consciences of the faithful cannot be defiled, as long as they do not encourage 
 nor imitate them. (Gal. vi. 4. 5.) KettleiceWs Works, I. 458. 
 
 It would be folly in the extreme, to think of restoring discipline as long as 
 the opinion prevails among any of the members of the chm'ch, that salvation 
 may be had in any communion. So Mr M'Dowel; It is not to be expected 
 that discipline can be retrieved, till these opinions be retrieved, and as univer- 
 sally be received by every individual member of our church, as they were in 
 the primitive ages : viz. that the orthodox communion al&ne was that v/hich 
 was entitled to have its church-acts ratified in heaven, and that all other com- 
 munions divided from her were for that presumed to be divided from the hea- 
 venly communion, and therefore from God. On Occasional Communion, Lond. 
 1705. p. 8. 10. See his Address to the Bishops, p. 206. 
 
 1 hope (says Dr Trapp,) we may have leave to wish that the foreign Pres- 
 byterians were Episcopal ; that they were in this respect *' altogether such as 
 tse are;'' I might add, with too much reason, " except tliese bonds i^* I mean 
 the restraints by which our discipline is shackled and fettered, and hindered 
 from exerting itself to the salvation of souls. DiscourscsyVol. 2. p. 115. 17^2. 
 
 X 
 
322 
 
 watch all opportunities to do their duty^ and not to make the badness 
 of tlie times a prelvrice for their neglect, when perhaps indolence^ jm- 
 siUanimitv, or worldly idisdom, are at the bottom of it. Third Lelicr, 
 Lend. 1745. 
 
 3. But the grand objection against the exercise of disciphne (and 
 which \vi]I be urged as long as the present establishment subsists,) is 
 the pretended danger of arming the Bishops with any power. A won- 
 derful dread respecting this danger, was lately affected in the debates 
 on the Residence Bill. " Rut who, in the name of common sense 
 (exclaims a zealous Presbyter of the Church of England,) ought to 
 have power over the officers of any institution, but they who are thought 
 fit to preside, and to whom alone Christ has bestowed it. At present 
 the power of the Bishops is so very limited, " that a profligate Priest 
 may still hid defiance to the remonstrances and menaces of his dioce- 
 san," (Thomas's Slrichires on the Eslahlished licligion, and Clergy^ 
 I8O9. p. 113.) And (as the late Mr Skelton some time since remark- 
 ed,) so very low hath the opinion of a Bisliop's authority been brought, 
 that, in our times, the late Bishop of Sodor and Man (Dr Wilson,) 
 was thrown into a dungeon, where he was very nigh perishing, for 
 refusing the saci-ament to the strumpet of a sorry deputy, (Sermons, 
 p. 314.) Taking these remarks into consideration, it ought not to 
 appear surprising that a bill has been lately projected to extinguish the 
 little authority still in the possession of our church governors. It is 
 intended to "preclude ecclesiastics horn presiding in consistorial courts, 
 and to prohibit the usual sentence of excommunication," The list of 
 privations (say the editors of the British Critic in their review of Ob-' 
 servations on the above bill, April 1813. p. 413,) to which the clergy 
 h3iVQ graduallyheen rendered subject, without anyy«2f /if alleged against 
 them, is really formidable ; and they are stated, as the author says, 
 *' not with the sanguine hope that any of them will be redressed, but 
 with a design to show that the clergy are alreadj^ depressed low enough, 
 and to give a caution against sinking them lower." 
 
 To what length the legislature will proceed in its invasions on the 
 rights of the church, it is impossible to foresee; however it is obvious, 
 that our Bishops and clergy cannot acquiesce in them much farther, 
 without becoming betrayers of their sacred commission which they are 
 bound by the law of God, to maintain even to death. An united 
 resolution among the superior clergy, or the greatest part of them 
 (says that zealous divine, Dr Hickes,) impartially to execute the dis- 
 cipline of the church, would, w ith a little patience and perseverance^ 
 
3^3 
 
 recover the just exercise of it; and discipline being as necessary for 
 the church as any other society, 1 think it not only their duty to suf- 
 fer persecution in the attempt, but that it would be no less than 
 martyrdom to suffer in it to blood. A church without discipline, or 
 ill-exercised discipline, little better than none, cannot please God. — 
 Three Treatises, Pref. Lond. I709. 
 
 However, it is to be hoped that it will never again be necessary to 
 recur to the expedient, of an open opposition to the decisions of the 
 legislature. It is to be hoped^that the legislature will not refuse its 
 consent to a meeting of tlie convocation, should our Bishops be pleased 
 humbly to make this request. It was the opinion of the learned Arch- 
 deacon Reynolds, that *' a seasonable execution of synodical power 
 must be the only way to raise the reputation, and prevent the total 
 extinction of ecclesiastical authority." (Reynoldsj ut supra, p. ^SQ.) 
 See also the anxious wish of the late Dr Pearson Vice Chancellor of 
 Cambridge, relative to the sitting of convocation, in his jRe772«r^-*07i ^/ze 
 dangers which threaten the Established Religioii, 1808. p. 53. I thmk 
 it scarcely possible, says he, that in the present state of things, the 
 sitting of convocation could be productive of any harm ; and it is 
 reasonable to suppose that it would be productive of much good *. — 
 
 » Many useful hints may be found in this pamphlet relative to the improv- 
 ing of our discipline and forms of worship. I pray the adversaries of refonn 
 to consider, (says Dr Hickes, that as the churchy doth not think herself infal- 
 lible ; so neither doth she think herself or her reformation, perfect ; Account of 
 Dr Grabey Lond. 1712. p. 26. Dean Prideaux's Life, Lond. 1748. p. 59. A 
 moderate review of the liturgy, the authorising a brief service for week days, 
 and the instruction of candidates in reading and delivery are recommended by 
 Dr Pearson. Would it not be expedient to contract the length of the Sunday 
 service, especially by omitting so frequent a repetition of the Lord's prayer and 
 the prayers for king and royal family ? I have never seen a sufficient answer to 
 this objection. 1 must agree with Mr Simeonof King's College Cam.bridge, that 
 it is still matter of regret that any laboured explanation of certain objections 
 (as tbe Athanasian Creed, the Absolution in Visitation of Sick, and the prayers 
 in Burial of Dead) should be necessary. Excel, of Liturgrj, Camb. 1812. p. 77. 
 It is evident, says Bishop Gibson, that we must not hope to see either the dis- 
 cipline or the government of our church in a complete state, as long as the se- 
 veral districts to be visited, remain in many instances so unreasonably large- 
 Of Visitations, Lond. 1717. Dr Hickes also recommends an increase of Bishops 
 without Baronies. See the Preface to the Common Prayer used in the American 
 Reformed Episcopal Church since the Revolution. It is not only the doctrine 
 of the Church of England, and other Protestant Churches (say the writers of 
 the Preface,) that improvements may be made in these respects, but likewise 
 
The absoViite necessity of it is strongly enforced by Mr Thomas in the 
 Second Preface to the 2d edit, of his Strictures, Lond. I8O9. This 
 however, says he, may be said without much piesumption, unless the 
 powers with which the church as a body corporate is endowed, shall 
 not only be allowed to exist, but to act ; and if some definitive line be 
 r.ot drawn, which shall discriminate between t7?c?zf7'«wce and encoiirage- 
 mcnt, — though the parliament should debate on twenty more bills 
 about non-residence and stipendiary'- curates, — -though every mcum. bent 
 should be compelled to reside, — and though the salary of every curate 
 should exceed the revenue of three-fourths of the benefices in the king- 
 dom, the current of mischief and confusion will go on. Its termina- 
 tion requires no prophec3^ 
 
 Having now, I hope, clearly shewn the necessity of restoring the 
 primitive disciplir.e of the church, and the synodical rights of the clergy, 
 I shall dedicate a few pages to the consideration of the fittest and most 
 judicious means to be employed in improving the condition of the 
 church, preserving the respect due to the clergy and preventing here- 
 sies and schisms. The follow^ing extract from the celebrated Dr Ham- 
 mond appears fully deserving of our attention : " That the restoring 
 Episcopacy to its due burthen, as well as reputation, were a care worthy 
 of Reformers ; and it is so far from my desire that any such care should 
 be spared, that it is now my public solemn petition both to God and 
 man, that the power of the keys, and tlie exercise of that power, the 
 due use of confirmation, and (previous to that) examination and trial 
 of youth, a strict search into the manners, and tempers, and sufficien- 
 cies of those who are to be admitted into holy orders, the visitation of 
 each parish in each diocese, and the exercise of church discipline upon 
 all offenders, together Avith painful, mature, and sober preaching and 
 catechising, studies of all kinds, and parts of theological learning, lan- 
 guages, controversies, writings of the schools and casuists, &c. be so 
 far taken into consideration by our law makers, and so far considered 
 in the collating of church preferments, so much of duty required of 
 eveiy clergyman, and so little left arbitrary or at large, that every 
 church preferment in the kingdom may have such a due burthen an- 
 nexed to it, that no ignorant person should be able, no lazy or luxu^ 
 
 of toe Church of Rome, which hath declared it by the Council of Trent (Sess. 
 XXI. c. 2.) And agreeably to this, their Breviary and Missal have been fre- 
 quently reviewed, the Breviary heretofore three times in the space of sixteen 
 years only. 
 
325 
 
 rious person willing or forward to undergo it." — Considerations, &c. 
 Works Y (A. 1. 
 
 The following accorcling to the same learned divine, (who was an 
 attentive observer of those times,) were the principal causes which con- 
 tributed to the contempt of the Episcopal clergy, and the downfal of 
 their establishment in the reign of Charles I. The admission of some 
 men to the ministry, who were not didy qualijied for it ; the negligent 
 and unworthy peiformance of the offices of so sacred a function, and 
 the many profane mixtures, the seeking our own wealth, and ease, and 
 praise, &c. qualified us for i\\Q.t contempt and ruin, which are now fal- 
 len upon us. (JParcBnesis. Works, Vol. I.) Nothing contributed more 
 to the introduction of the corruptions, &c. of Popery in the middle ages 
 than the ignorant and U7iqualijled Bishops who were appointed solely 
 to serve the base designs of the court. If any clergyman (says an ex- 
 cellent writer) had any dependance on the prince, or some great minis- 
 ter of state, so that he could do them service in their political schemes 
 and temporal affairs, this certainly advanced him to a good bishopric, 
 without considering whether he was in any degree qualified for so sa- 
 cred and important an office. So that learning, piety, virtue, and dili- 
 gence in performing the duties of their holy function, seldom recom- 
 mended any one to preferment. From whence sprung in a great mea- 
 sure, that ignorance, barbarism, and other strange corruptions under 
 which the church so long groaned before the Reformation. — The Con- 
 iernpt of the Clergy CoJisidered. Dub. 1739. 
 
 Among all the ways o( promoting the credit and interest of the church 
 (says Bishop Stillingfleet,) one of the most successful will be the dili- 
 gent labours, and the exemplary lives of the clergy. We may complain 
 as long as we please of the unreasonableness of the ^ntempt of the 
 clergy in our days, but the most effectual means to prevent or remove 
 it, is for the clergy, to appl}'- themselves seriously and conscientiously 
 in their duties. For if others find that we are in earnest, and make 
 it our great business to do all the good, we can, both in the pulpit and 
 out of it, if we behave ourselves with gravity, sobriety, meekness, and 
 charity which becomes so holy a profession, we shall raise ourselves 
 above the common reproaches of a spiteful world, and do what lies in 
 us to stop the mouths at least, if not to gain the hearts of our enemies, 
 (Bishop Stillingfleet's Ecclesiastical Cases.) I heartily wish the clergy 
 would be more careful in giving Testimonials, by looking on it as a mat- 
 ter oiconscie7ice, and not merely of civility ; for otherwise it will be im- 
 possible to avoid pestering the church, with scandalous and ignorant 
 
S26 
 
 wretches, ('The same.) It is certain that Bishops must answer at the 
 day of judgment, for the neglect they shall be guilty of in admitting 
 persons not duly qualified for the sacred function ; which made St 
 Chrysostom think that, of all men. Bishops would have the greatest ac- 
 count to give at the dreadful tribunal, and would have the greatest dif- 
 ficulty in working out their salvation. But it is not less certain that the 
 church, the body of Christ, receiveth the most mortal wounds from her 
 own sons, and that she hath suffered more from the ambition and pride, 
 the luxury and coAetousness, and temporising of bad Priests, than even 
 from the persecution of tyrants themselves. Life of Bishop Bull, hj 
 Robert Nelson, Esq. 1713. p. 423. 
 
 Let every Bishop retire within his own diocese, and dwell among 
 his clergy, as a father in his family. Let every clergyman reside upon 
 his living, superintending his people as a shepherd his flock. And let 
 no man be promoted to the first living in the kingdom merely because 
 he is related to or connected with some great personage ; but let the 
 most active and laborious ministers, especially when the infirmities of 
 age come on, be accounted "worthy of double honour" by being re- 
 warded for their extraordinary services with the best living the country 
 affords. The Dissenters and Methodists are moving heaven and earth 
 to promote the cause of religion in their respective ways. If the 
 18,000 clergymen in the establishment would exert themselves for 
 the good of souls with equal zeal and fervour, the Established Church 
 would riot only be safer as an establishment, but the divine protection 
 would be more effectually engaged on our behalf Righteous nations 
 seldom fall. — Flea for Religion. 
 
 Ecclesiastical authority (says Archbishop Seeker,) is not only too 
 much limited, but too much despised, as matters now stand among 
 us, to do almost any thing to check wickedness profaneness, &c. in the 
 smallest degree. But the main support of piety and morals consists 
 in the parochial labours of the clergy. If our country is to be pre- 
 served from utter profligacy and ruin, it must be by our means; and, 
 take notice, we cannot lose our influence but, in a great measure, by 
 our own fault. If we look on what we are apt to call our livings only 
 as our livelihoods, and think of little more than living on the income 
 of them, according to our own inclinations, if for want of "a good con^ 
 science or faith unfeigned" (1 Tim. i. 5.) we forfeit the protection of 
 God ; and by worldliness, or indolence, or levity in behaviour, talk or 
 appearance (for gross vices I put out of the question,) lose, as we as- 
 suredly shajl, the reverence of mankind, there will be no foundation 
 
327 
 
 Jeft for us to stand upon. Our legal establishment will shake and smk 
 under us, if once it can be said we do the public little service ; and 
 much sooner if we are suspected of disquieting it. Wicked people 
 will attack us without reserve ; the good will be forced to condemn 
 and give us up ; and well would it be for us if that were the worst.— 
 Charges, Lond. 1771. p. 240. 
 
 Our preaching will be of no avail, unless it be supported by our 
 discipline. Surrounded as we are, by enemies, — trained to the art of 
 war from their youth, — marshalled under their subalterns and chiefs 
 in command, — marched in regular succession from one district of the 
 countiy to the other, — and animated by one kindred spirit of hostility 
 to our church, are we not every daj^ reminded that the strictest dis- 
 cipline is necessary on our part ? — That each of us must regard him- 
 self, not as an unconnected individual, to whom the care of this or 
 that parish is intrusted, but as soldiers of the common cause, by whose 
 supiness or misconduct the strength and reptitation of the v,'hole must 
 suffer. We have our laws of service, which we must obey, — our ar- 
 ticles of war, by which we must be governed. If we desert, or slum- 
 ber on our post, — if we hold improper correspondence with the ene- 
 my, — if we disregard the authority of our superiors, or disobey their 
 lawful commands, our defeat is certain. Outram's Sermons and Ex- 
 tracts, 1809. 
 
 The following passage from Dr Thomas 'QvQii's Discourse on Church 
 Government will serve not only as an apology for this Appendix in 
 particular, but also as an appropriate conclusion to the entire Treatise : 
 I do again declare and solemnly protest, that I have not written any 
 thing out of affection to a party, or any particular interest whatsoever, 
 but out of a true and sincere love to the cause of the church and of 
 the truth ; and if I am mistaken in my notions, shall readily thank 
 any one that shall rightly inforjn and convict me of my errors. I 
 should have been heartily glad if I could as well have vindicated the 
 practices of the church, as I trust I have done its constitution ; and 
 perhaps I may be censured by some as speaking truth unseasonabl}^ 
 But, for my own part, 1 am inclined to think that there are some 
 truths which are always seasonable. I mean such truths as are al- 
 ways of consequence to preserve the honour and welfare of the Church 
 of Christ. Of which nature I conceive are the following, viz. That 
 Episcopacy is o^ divine right, — that the College of Presbyters are the 
 Bishops' Council, — that to separate from the orthodox Bishops is 
 schis??iatical—-iheit schism is a damnable sin^— that if occasional con- 
 
S;28 
 
 formity be lawful, constant communion is a duty, — that the church 
 has a right to its synods or councils, — that laymen ought to have no 
 right in mere .ypzW/wa/ judicature, or to exercise ecclesiastical censures, 
 and the like. And though such things may not be agreeable to the 
 humour of the present age, yet we are not obliged to say nothing of 
 them, but should rather take the more pains to vindicate them, espe- 
 cially since so many books have been lately published against them. 
 I have done my part towards vindicating some of them, how well I 
 have performed it must be left to the judgment of others. What 
 success it may please God to give to my weak endeavours, he only 
 knows ; and he who knows the sincerity of my heart, will, I trust, 
 pardon the defects in my performance, for the sake of his Son our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father, be all honour and 
 glory, now and for ever. Amen. 
 
829 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 The Rule of Faith, of the Reformed Episcopal Church, is the 
 written word of God, the holy scriptures, — that of the Romanists is, 
 to use their own words, " scripture and apostolic tradition." 
 
 We confess indeed, that the unwritten word was the^rst rule of 
 christians; but the apostles, conscious how easily a thing is forgotten 
 wJiich is not reduced to writing, — how soon what depends upoa me- 
 mory only becomes uncertain, and is variously represented according 
 to the passions, or prejudices, or interests of the reporters, thought 
 fit, under the immediate inspiration of God's spirit, to consign to writ- 
 ing, that word which was first spoken by mouth. Thus St John ex- 
 pressly says, that his gospel was ''writien" that we "may believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ the So?i of God, and that believing, we might have 
 life through his name" (John xx. 31.) that is, in order to make us 
 christians. But even granting that the apostles did deliver some 
 things by word of mouth (as our adversaries attempt to prove by 
 certain texts of scripture, as 2 Thess. ii. 1 5.) jet it never can be proved 
 •what those things are, and that they are necessary to salvation, and 
 have descended to them without the written word. We will readily re- 
 ceive, with the greatest veneration, whatsoever comes from the apostles 
 by tradition, provided we can be assured that it comes from them. 
 
 The scriptures contain all the necessary articles of christian faith. 
 »— This is true, if the scriptures themselves be so; for to this truth 
 they themselves bear witness, (John xx. 31. — Luke i. 4. — 2 Tim. iii. 
 15. 1 6. 17.) St Paul exhorts all christians to " contend earnestly for 
 the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints," (Jude 3.) " There- 
 fore (says Bishop Stillingfleet,) all necessary doctrines of faith were 
 at first dehvered ; and whatever articles cannot be proved to be deli- 
 vered by the apostles, can never be made necessary to salvation,'' 
 {Answer to Gother, Works IV. p. 592.) And (as the Right Reverend 
 Bisfcop Morton observes,) this one particle {once) must necessarily 
 condemn all future additions to the faith for ever. *^ The apostles 
 (says Irenaeus) preached the necessary articles of salvation, and what 
 they had preached they wrote down," (Lib. III. c. 1.) Nay, the Ro- 
 manists themselves attempt to prove their pecuhar doctrines from 
 
330 
 
 scripture; and even maintain, that whatsoever is contrary to it ought 
 not to be received for divine truth. Do they not acknowledge by this, 
 that all necessary articles are contained in them ? Now, if they say 
 that all their doctrines can be proved by plain scripture evidence, 
 then they must reject the necessity of unwritten traditions (contrary 
 to the Council of Trent, which gives as venerable authorit^^ to tradi- 
 tion as to scripture itself,) and acknowledge the scriptures to be a com- 
 plete and perfect rule of fliith. If they say they cannot, is it not great 
 presumption to pretend to prove that from scripture, which they con- 
 fess is not contained in it*? . 
 
 Since, then, the holy scriptures contain all things necessary to sal- 
 vation, it is next to be considered in what manner we are to arrive 
 at a knowledge of its contents. — Now, there are two ways recom- 
 mended for coming to the knowledge of Christ's religion. We are all 
 af^reed that every man is bound to make an enquiry into religion. But 
 then here we differ : The Romanists say, that we are to examine till 
 we have found out an infallible guide +, and, after having discovered it, 
 we are then to submit, without farther examination, to all its interpre- 
 tations of scripture. The Reformed, on the contrary, maintain, that as 
 we cannot know the true churcli but by examining its doctrines, whe- 
 
 * *' It is very littfe to the purpose to say that it is only an argumentum ad hom 
 minem to prove their doctrines ; for I would fain know on what grounds they 
 build their own belief of them, but on the promises of God in the scriptures.—. 
 These are miserable evasions." 
 
 -|- For this pvu-pose, they do not refer us to the scriptures, but present us with 
 certain marks which they think are peculiar to themselves, and which they call 
 Motives of Credibility : as the Unity ^ Universality, Splendour, Miracles, &c. of 
 the church. The use of these notes, to is find out the church before, and with- 
 out the scriptures ; for if they admit of a scripture proof, they must allow that 
 we can know and understand the scriptures without the authority or inter- 
 pretation of the church, which undermines the very foundation of Popery. — 
 Now I desire to know how they will prove that there is a church without the 
 scriptures ? That you will say is visible itself, for we see a christian church 
 in the world. But what is it I see ? I see a company of men who call them- 
 selves a church, and is this seeing a church ? A church must have a divme ori- 
 gin and institution ; and therefore there is no seeing a church, without seeing 
 its charter ; for there can be no note or mark of the being of a church, but the 
 institution. The church, I grant, was before the scriptui-es, because ther^ was 
 no, necessity for that book, till a church was formed, nor even then neither, 
 but when the inspired apostles were not present. Whilst they were alive and 
 could be applied to, and their instructions were fresh on jjeoples' minds, the 
 scriptures could not be much wanted. 
 
331 
 
 ther they be Christ's or not ; and since there is no way of knowint^ 
 that, but by examining whether they agree with those doctrines taught 
 in the scripture, therefore there is a necessity of allowing every per- 
 son to try his faith by the holy scriptures (making use of the best 
 means he can for the right understanding of them,) and afterwards to 
 submit himself to the guides of the church, reserving however to him- 
 self a liberty of rejecting their decrees, if they contradict the holy scrip- 
 tures. Or, in other words, ifa reformed christian be required to give 
 a reason of the hope that is in him, it will be necessary for him to give 
 a rational account of the articles of his. faith. But if a Romanist be 
 required to do this it is sufficient for him to say, that he rests satisfied 
 in the judgment of his superiors : or, to use the words of the Rheims 
 Testament, " The man saith enough, and defends himself sufficiently 
 that answers he is a Catholic, and that he will live and die in that 
 faith, and that his church can give a reason of all things which are 
 demanded of him," 
 
 In confutation of this dangerous delusion of the Romanists, and in 
 confirmation of the grand principle of the Reformation, I shall 
 prove, 1st, that a living infaUible guide was not promised by Christ, 
 nor did it exist in the primitive church; and, 2d, that supposing such 
 a guide was promised by Christ, the Bishops of the Romish Church 
 can have no better title to such a privilege than any other Bishops. 
 
 I. A living infallible guide was not promised by Christ, nor did it 
 exist in the primitive cliurch. On the contrary, the christian people 
 were allowed a judgment of discretion in examining the grounds of 
 their religion, and not to take them upon trust. Thus Christ himself^ 
 the author of our faith, though infallible, yet did not make his own in- 
 fallibility the only reason of mens' faith, but referred them " to the 
 law and the prophets" which he expounded to the conviction of all 
 honest and teachable minds ; and if they refused to believe on these 
 
 Miracles are no marks of the true church, for they have been wrought by 
 impostors, and it has been prophecied that there shall arise ** false in-ophets vcho 
 shall perform lying wonders,^'' and that ** Satan himself shall be transformed into 
 an angel of light." It is always observed, says Bishop Stillingfleet, that your 
 miracles are most talked on, where people are most ignorant, and therefore most 
 apt tb be deceived. Your Priests, like the devils in the primitive times, can 
 do no feats when their opposers are by. Their juggling and impostures have 
 been so notorious in this kind, that their pretences to miracles, have made 
 more infidels than catholics, by making men more apt to question, whether 
 there were ever any rcahniracles done, than believe the truth of yours. 
 
332 
 
 terms they must have continued infidels. The method our Siiviour 
 adopted was to convince by proper and conclusive arguments ; on 
 beino- questioned, he appealed to the prophets, " Search the scriptures, 
 for- they testify of me. If I hear witness of myself my witness is not 
 true." And therefore produces the testimony of John the Baptist, 
 of his Father at his baptism, and of the miracles that he wrought. 
 « The same worbi which I do, they bear witness of me that the Father 
 hath sent me. If ye do not believe me, believe the ivorksJ' But above 
 all, he alleges the scripture in vindication of his person and his doc- 
 trine, and recommends to all meii the use of their private judgment, 
 " Why of yourselves judge ye not whd is right ? " And least any 
 should think that this noble faculty was bestowed on them for v/orld- 
 ly occasions only, he reproaches the Jews for not making use of it in 
 enquiries into religion, " Ye can discern the face of the heaven, but 
 how is it that ye cannot discern this time," which the scriptures plain- 
 ly pointed out to those that would use their judgment to discern. 
 
 The practice of the apostles was conformable to that of our Sa- 
 our. For although, from their infallible inspiration, they could and 
 did claim to themselves a power of absolutely deciding what the 
 christian faith was, yet so far from requiring their -converts to believe 
 merely on therr authority, they uniformly argued the case with them, 
 and endeavoured to convince their understandings, and not only per- 
 mitted, but applauded the diligence of those who would not receive 
 the gospel upon their bare affirmation, but " searched the scriptures 
 to see whether those things were so." We have many of their epistles, 
 all of which are directed to the churches in general, to the laity as 
 well as the clergy, and which were to be examined equally by them 
 both. Thus, " I speak unto wise men, judge what I say," (1 Cor. x. 
 15.) " Judge in yourselves is it comely," (xi. 13.) "Prove all things, 
 holdfast that which is good," (1 Thess. v. 21.) " Beloved," saith 
 John, " believe not every spirit, bnt try the spirits whether they are of 
 God : because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 
 John iv. 1.) " Be ready to give an answer to every one that asheth a 
 reason of the hope that is in you •" and it was St Paul's advice to the 
 Corinthians, that they should ^' examine themselves whether they were 
 in the faith," and he renounces all dominion over their faith. 
 
 This faculty of examining into religion was not intended bj' the 
 apostles to cease as soon as men had embraced the christian doctrine. 
 For the precepts given by the apostles belong to those who are already 
 christians, and that concerning the matters proposed by thei/ guides ; 
 
333 
 
 nay, they are expressly commanded to try and examine all pretence^ 
 to infallibility and revelation upon tliis great reason^ because there 
 should be many false pretenders to them. " Beloved, believe not every 
 spirit; but try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false pro^ 
 phets are gone into the world" They are commanded " not to believe 
 any other gospel, though apostles, or an angel from heaven should 
 preach it" and how should they know whether it were another, or 
 the same, if they were not to examine and compare them ? They 
 are enjoined to "Judge for themselves what is right," and '' contend 
 earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints;" it might be a new 
 faith for any thing they could know, if they were not competent 
 judges of what was ** once delivered." They are frequently charged 
 to " beware of seducers and false guides, that should come in the name 
 of Christ and his apostles;" they are told that '^ there should be a 
 fcdling away and departing from the faith;" and that ^' the time will 
 come when men will not endure sound doctrine, and shall turn away 
 their ears from the truth and believe fables ; that false apostles shall 
 come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, with powers, and siiinSy 
 and lying wonders." To what end or purpose are all these things 
 said, if men, being once christians, are no longer to exercise their own 
 judgment, but dehver it up into the hands of their guides ? What is 
 this but to put them under a necessity of being deluded when their 
 guides please ? And, as our Saviour says, "when the blind lead the 
 blind, they shall both fall into the ditch *." 
 
 Moreover, although the Romanists are so extremely averse to allow, 
 that the church is to be found out by comparing its doctrines with the 
 
 scriptures, yet they are at length obliged to submit to this method. 
 
 One mark of the true church, according to all Romish divines, is apos- 
 tolicity ; and, as Dr De la Hogue laj^s down, this " consists not only 
 in a continued succession of pastors, but also in the holding that doc- 
 trine which the apostles preached, as delivered to them by Christ," 
 (De Ecclesia, p. 69. J According to this mark, then, we cannot 
 know the true church, till we have compared its doctrines with those 
 taught by the apostles in their writings, and therefore we must use 
 our judgment, and may understand the scripture without an infallible 
 interpreter, and consequently must do all that for the preventing of 
 which an infaUible guide is said to be necessary. So that after all, 
 
 • 1 John iv. 1. Gal. i. 8. Jude, 4. Matt. xxiv. 4. v. 23. 24. Acts xx. 29. 30. 
 1 Tim. iv. 1. 2 Thess. ii.3. 2 Tim. iv. 3. 4. 2 Thess. ii. 9. 10. IMatt. xv. 14. 
 
334< 
 
 « 
 
 even every Romanist^ in order to be* satisfied that he professes the 
 ti^uth, is not blindly to take up his prihciples and practices from any 
 pretended infdlible guide; for, according to his own principles, he can- 
 not know that his guide is infallible, until he tries by this mark, but 
 must examine, by the word of God, what things he is to believe in 
 order to his salvation. 
 
 But let us see whether the controversies which arose in the apostles' 
 times, were decided by their authority, and which all were obliged to 
 submit to without any ft^rther enquiry. When the Corinthians doubt- 
 ed of the resurrection, St Paul did not think it sufficient to assert 
 that it was a defined and received article of the creed ; but proved its 
 truth by unanswerable arguments, and defended it against all the ob- 
 jections that had rendered it suspected. When the churches of Gala- 
 tia were divided upon the question, whether the Gentile Christians 
 were obliged to observe the law of Moses, and many made use of the 
 authority of Peter and James to the prejudice of christian liberty, St 
 Paul undertakes our defence, and throws off not only the authority 
 of men, though they were apostles, but of angels : " Though aji angel 
 from heaven should preach any other gospel, let him he accursed.'' 
 
 And further, that this method of resolving faith into the authority 
 of a visible judge, was unknown in the church even in the apostles' 
 days, is evident from those early heresies, which sprung up in the 
 church. For let any reasonable man tell me how it is possible there 
 ever should have been any heresy in the church, if all christians had 
 received the authority of an infallible judge, together with their Chris- 
 tianity. Men might have renounced Christianity and the visible judge 
 together; but had they then acknowledged a visible judge, it had been 
 a contradiction to pretend to the name of christians, and to oppose the 
 doctrine of the infallible chair. Had there been a visible judge in 
 those days known to all christians, it had been impossible there should 
 ever have been any heresies in the church, as those men must grant, 
 who think it necessary therefore there should be such a visible judge 
 to make all men hold the same opinion, and to prevent the rise and 
 growth of heresies; which must suppose that theauthority of a visible 
 would effect this, or else this argument cannot pi'ove the necessity of 
 a visible judge. If then the appointment of a visible judge would 
 certainly prevent all heresies, and yet from the beginning of Christi- 
 anity there have been heresies in the church, it is evi dent to a de- 
 monstration, that there was no visible judge in those days. 
 
 Now, if the apostles did not think fit to use this method of infal- 
 
335 
 
 libility, it seems rather incongruous, for the Bishops in succeeding 
 ages to pretend to it. For, as the gifts of the Spirit grew less, me- 
 thinks the way of teaching should rather be less than more magis- 
 terial; unless some new paraclete had thought fit to bestow on them 
 the gift of infallible decision. But the generation next to the apostles 
 knew nothing of this matter, but confess the state of the church, in 
 their times, to be inferior to that of the apostolic age, and that here- 
 tics then could not be so effectually suppressed, as they were by the 
 immediate disciples of our Saviour. 
 
 But it will be replied, " has not Christ promised to protect it 
 " against the gates of hell,'' and to be " with his apostles to the end 
 of the world" &c. And who can suspect that Christ should ever 
 abandon his church, and suffer her to become a prey to her enemies 
 after the sacred engagements of so many promises to the contrary ?" 
 Truly Christ has promised to preserve his church against the gates 
 of hell, i. e. from being totally destroyed ; and this certainly may be 
 •done without making all or any part of it infallible. That this 
 promise does not secure the church from a partial destruction or de- 
 fection, our adversaries must themselves confess; and that in no age 
 the pure church has been destroyed, I have already proved. — " But 
 he has promised to be with the apostles always for ever unto the end 
 of the world ; and therefore the Bishops, who are sucessors of the 
 apostles are infallible judges of controversies." Now "for ever" as 
 it relates to an infallible direction, must be appropriated to the apostles, 
 otherwise all their successors must be infallible judges, which will not 
 serve the designs of the Romish church. 
 
 II. And indeed, all the promises which are supposed to confer in- 
 fallibility, do not apply to one Bishop more than another, and conse- 
 quently all are infallible, or none at all ; unless our adversaries can 
 shew us any particular promise reserved for those Bishops subject to 
 the Bishop of Rome. But this is utterly impossible, for it is an un- 
 doubted fact that all Bishops and all churches were in all ages equally 
 liable to fall into error; and Christ's promise of general assistance to 
 "bcvcilh them always" was made to them, on express condition that 
 they were to " teach the people to observe those things only which 
 Christ had commanded them" Matt, xxviii. 20. 
 
 Do we find that any of the primitive Bishops or churches pretend- 
 ed to infallibility * } — No. In the controversies which arose about 
 
 * The Romanists themselves must acknowledge, not only that single Bishops, 
 hut even that particular councils arc liable to error, (Z)e/a Hogue p. 165.) and 
 
336 
 
 Tiiatters of faith, they never made use of this modern argument of 
 infallibility, but appealed to scripture, and the doctrine and practice 
 of the apostolic churches. Thus Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both 
 wrote against heresies, but there is not the least mention of such a 
 
 have oftentimes fallen into (what they themselves esteem,) damnable heresies. 
 Thus, did not multitudes of their own Bishops embrace the Protestant heresy, 
 as they term it ? And, if we may believe themselves, were not the Greek 
 Bishops formerly in their communion ? Did not the Council of Arminum, 
 wherein were assembled above 400 Bishops, err in maintaining the doctrine of 
 Arius in ancient times ? {Sosom. Lib. IV. c. 3.) What security, then, have the 
 members of the Roman communion, that their Bishops do not likewise err in 
 explaining the Council of Trent. Dr De la Hogue allows himself, that the mem- 
 bers of that church are not bound to give an irrevocable assent to the instruc- 
 tions of their Bishop, but merely revocable and conditional, (De Ecclesia, p. 110.) 
 consequently they must live in a continual doubt of the truth of the doctrines 
 proposed to their belief by their clergy. On the contrary, what great satisfaction 
 do not the members of our Reformed Church enjoy, who are all satisfied them- 
 selves, or at least at liberty to be satisfied, by the perusal of their bibles, of the 
 truth of their doctrines. 
 
 A few quotations from authentic records, composed before onr Reformation, 
 will soon convince us what active guardians of the purity of christian doc- 
 trine the Popish Bishops were at that time, and what an excellent opportu- 
 nity errors and corruptions had of coming in, even with the connivance of 
 these infallible guides. In the eighth age, Charlemagne makes this complaint 
 of the clei-gy, that " laying aside all sound and wholesome doctrine, and 
 little regarding that precept of the apostles, " {If an angel preach any other 
 doctrine let him be accursed,'''') they transgress the commandments of the Fa- 
 thers, and bring into the church such doctrines as were never known to Christ 
 and his apostles." {De Imaginib.' in Pref.) " What then was the appearance 
 of the Roman Church (says Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the tenth cen- 
 tury,) and how deformed ? When whores, no less powerful than sordid, 
 bore the sway at Rome, at whose pleasure Sees were changed, Bishops apr 
 pointed, and, what is horrible to be heard, their gallants were thrust into the 
 chair of Peter, false Popes, who would not have been mentioned but in order 
 to mark out the times in the catalogue of the Popes," {ad. An. 912.) And again, 
 " What kind of of Presbyters, Deacons, and Cardinals, must we suppose were 
 chosen by these monsters, since it is natural that every one should generate his 
 own likeness. Christ was then undoubtedly in- a deep sleep in his ship, and 
 what is worse, there were no disciples to awaken him, — they were even desirous 
 that the Lord would sleep for ever, and would never rise in judgment." The 
 state of the Roir,an Church, at the beginning of the Grand Reformation, 
 in the sixteenth century, is thus described in the directions given by Pope 
 Adrian VL to Cheregatus his nuncio at the convention of Norimber, in 1525. 
 He ordered him to confess candidly, that " to the faults of men, and chiefly of 
 the Priests and Bishops, these disturbances were owing : that even in the holy 
 
337 
 
 claim; on the contrary they appeal to the scriptures, which Irenaeus 
 calls "the immoveable rule of truth," "which was committed to writ- 
 ing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith," and that " they contain 
 the whole will of God." It is true he makes use of tradition, because 
 the heretics made this their pretence; but then it is used only as a 
 negaiivQ argufnent, to shew that the apostolic churches never taught 
 any such traditionary doctrines, — and this certainly was at that time. 
 a good argument ; but there would be no force in it now, on account 
 of the vast distance of time, and the alterations that have taken place 
 in those churches. In the same manner Tertullian ajjpeals to tradi- 
 tion, but his misfortune is not only to omit the infalhble judge, but 
 to preclude him in the very beginning of his book : " what then (says 
 he,) if a Bishop or a Deacon, &c. nay if a martyr or a doctor should 
 fall from the rule, must heresy therefore be truth? What! do we re- 
 ceive doctrines for the sake of the persons, or persons for the sake of 
 doctrines? But how shall we know truth from heresy, if we may 
 not depend on the person of the infallible judge ? And do not those 
 who resolve their doctrine into the definition of an infallible judge, 
 approve the doctrine for the person's sake ? 
 
 Concerning the means used in the primitive church for putting an 
 end to controversies, we have a remarkable instance in the dispute 
 about rebaptizing heretics. This was managed by Cyprian and other 
 Bishops of Asia and Africa dn the one hand, and the Bishop of 
 Rome on the other. He pleaded custom and tradition : C^'prian that 
 ** custom without truth was but ancient error, and that the question 
 ought to be examined by scripture ;" because Christ said in his gos- 
 pel, " lam truth ;" and the only way to prevent errors is to have re- 
 course to the head and fountain of divine tradition i. e. to the holy 
 scripture, which Cyprian calls " the evangelical and apostolical tra- 
 dition." This he also declares to be the test by which all later tra- 
 ditions are to be tried. "Whence have you that tradition ? Comes 
 it from the authority of the Lord, and of the gospel, or from the 
 epistles of the apostles ? For God testifies that we are to do those 
 things which are written, &c. If it be commanded, or contained in 
 
 See itself many abominable things had been perpetrated, — that there were 
 many abuses in spirituals, and finally, that all things were so changed for the 
 worse, that the corruption spreading from the head to the members, from the 
 Popes to the lowest Bishops, had diffused itself so widely, that scarcely one 
 was found acting right, and free from the. infection. See Hist. Counc. Tnd. 
 fi /». Sarpio, p. 20. 
 
 Y 
 
338 
 
 tlie epistles or acts of the apostles, then let us observe it as a divine 
 and holy tradition." Thus in the opinion of the African Bishops, con- 
 troversies were to be decided not by the decision of an infallible judge, 
 but by the holy scriptures ; of the sense of which each Bishop deter- 
 riiined for himself, according to the best of his judgment. But that 
 each of them was an infallible judge of controversies, is contrary to 
 the plainest fact, since many of them in those purest ages fell into the 
 grossest heresy; and even in this very controversy between the African 
 Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, if we compare their opinions concern- 
 ing the rebaptisation of heretics with what the Council of Nice deter- 
 mined on that question, we shall find that they were both in the wrong. 
 Some may perhaps be of opinion, that General Councils are the 
 only infallible interpreters of scripture ; and, Alphonsus a Castro im- 
 putes the number and extravagance of the heresies of those times to 
 the want of an infallible judge, which he takes to be a general council. 
 Let us suppose, then, that God did actually suffer his church (for the 
 first 300 years,) to be deprived of the only certain means of preserving 
 the purity of Christianity against heretics, surely when councils were 
 assembled, with the concurrence of Popes, all dispute and heresy must 
 be at an end ; for when the infallible judge has taken his place, all 
 knots in religion must be untied, and all doubts removed ; for who 
 is so ignorant or perverse as to dispute against his sentence, whom all 
 the christian world must know to be incapable of mistake ? Now the 
 misfortune is, that, after man}^ general councils received by the Bishop 
 of Rome and the greatest part of Christendom, we hear no tidings of 
 an infallible judge, nor of the Roman resolution of faith into the mere 
 authority of Papal Councils, without appeal to every man's reason ; 
 for whatever the Fathers of the council believed themselves, it is plain 
 fact that other men did not believe it. The heretics whom they con- 
 demned did not acquiesce in their authority, which they would cer- 
 tainly have done, had it been the general belief in that age, that the 
 decrees of such councils were final and conclusive, to be believed by all 
 men, and to be examined by none. Yet controversies were so far from 
 being ended by them, that they broke out still more violently after 
 them. After the Council of Nice, the Fathers appealed to men's pri- 
 vate reason, as is evident from the writings of Athanasius, Hilary'-, 
 &c. in defence of the doctrine of the trinity ; and Athanasius in all 
 his apologies forgot this great and unanswerable defence, that he fol- 
 lowed an infallible guide. He explains and confirms from scripture, 
 the notion of Consubstantial, but would not be so happy as to urge 
 
339 
 
 that it must be true, because the infallible judge had pronouncpd it. 
 He deservedly commends the Nicene Council, and the faith defined 
 there, but his reasons overturn the notion of infallibility : for he re- 
 ceived the determination of that great assembly, because, in his judg- 
 ment, he was convinced that it was true and consonant to scripture, 
 but did not therefore think it must be as true as gospel, because it 
 was the sentence of an infallible judge. At last, in the manner of 
 our Protestant resolution of faith, he declares, that in those contro- 
 versies that divided the church, " we ought to pray for the spirit of 
 discretion, that every one may know what to receive and what to re- 
 ject ; a faithful disciple of the gospel is able to distinguish between 
 truth and pretence, because he has the spirit of discerning, but the 
 simple is carried away with ever}' colour." , 
 
 The authority of a general council in those days was deservedly 
 sacred and venerable, not as an infallible judge, which it never pre- 
 tended to, — but as the^most certain means they could possibly have to 
 understand what was, and in all ages had been the received doctrine 
 of the church. They assembled, not to make new articles of faith, 
 which no council in the world ever had authority to do; but to declare 
 what was the truly ancient and apostolic faith, and to explain it so 
 as might express the true meaning, and meefc with the distempers of 
 the age. But it is replied, " The council anathematized all those who 
 did not receive their decrees ;" and does this prove that they denied 
 all christians a liberty of examining them ? Might they not declare 
 such doctrines to be damnable heresies, and reject such men from their 
 communion, without believing their decrees to be so infallible and sa- 
 cred, that no man must examine them ? Do not the Reformed 
 Churches do this, without pretending to such an absolute authority 
 over our faith ? And was not this practice used in ancient particular 
 councils which are confessed to be infallible, as well as in general ? 
 Do we not hear of the Pope's anathemas every day, yet his infalli- 
 bility is denied by many that are esteemed good Papists ? How then 
 are anathemas evidences of infallibility ? Councils (says Dr Field,) 
 denounce anathema, not because they think every one that disobeys 
 their decree to be accursed,, but because they are persuaded in parti- 
 cular that that is the eternal truth of God which they propose ; there- 
 fore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as St Paul willeth 
 every christian man to anathematize an angel from heaven, if he shall 
 teach him any other doctrine than he hath already learned : yet every 
 particular christian is not free from a possibility of erring. 
 
S40 
 
 If then the most general councils of the primitive church were not 
 Iield as infallible judges and interpreters of scripture, but were to be 
 examined and received only as far as they agreed with the holy scrip- 
 txires, with how much reason are we obliged to reject, as our rule of 
 faith, the impious decrees of that assembly of Romish Bishops which 
 met at Trent about 250 5''ears ago, and presumed to style itself the 
 General Council of Trent, to define what doctrines were to be receiv- 
 ed by all christians in the world, as the genuine faith of Christ. The 
 nullity and vanity of this assembly has been repeatedly proved, both 
 by Protestant and Romish writers. — See M. Du Ran chin's jRemew, 
 and Father Paul's Histort/ of it. Bishop Stratford's Discourse against 
 R. Holden, with a Defence of Father Paul against Henricus and Pal- 
 lavicini. Preserv. Tit. I. 
 
 Thus it appears that the primitive christians did not acknowledge 
 a supreme infallible guide, either in the persons of Bishops convened 
 in council, or considered singly as presiding over their flocks ; but 
 were obliged, by the law of God, to examine themselves the doctrines 
 of their teachers, and adhere to them no longer than whilst they 
 adhered to the holy scriptures. Let us now examine the extent of 
 the submission of private christians to their spiritual governors. 
 
 1. A private christian ma}^, without submission to an infallible 
 guide, be certainly directed to the holy scriptures as the iioord of God. 
 It is a common saying of Papists, that '' we have received the bible 
 from them, and why not receive the interpietation of it from them 
 also." But we never received the bible from the Roman Church, but 
 from the testimony of the universal church in all ages and places, and 
 this, too, not as the body of christians, but as rational, honest men ; 
 nay, even from the testimony of heretics and infidels. For such is 
 the uniform testimony borne to the authenticity of the sacred writ- 
 ings. The church, when she appears as a witness to facts, proving 
 that such and such points are revealed truths, must lay aside her 
 chaiacter of chvrch itself, because she receives it from those revealed 
 truths ; for whether there can be a church or not, we can only know 
 from the scriptures. Herein we must consider her as a witness, and 
 not as 2i judge. We receive the Old Testament from the Jews as a 
 witness, but by no means as a. Judge or interpreter of it, otherwise we 
 must reject the true Messiah ! 
 
 2. The extent of a reformed christian's submission to his spiritual 
 guides. — The Romanists, it is well known, are bound to an implicit 
 obedience to tlieir Priests and Bishops. '^The oxen did plow and labour. 
 
3U 
 
 (says Job, i. 14.) and the asses fid by them" "By the oxen (says Car- 
 dinal Bellarmin,) are meant the learned men ; by the asses the igno- 
 rant people, who, out of simple belief, rest satisfied in the judgment 
 of their superiors," (JDe Just. Lib. I. c. 7.) The Reformed, on. the 
 contrary, rest wholly on the scriptures, as the rule of their faith ; and 
 while they hold it their duty generally to submit themselves to the 
 church, yet they hold that she is not to be obeyed if she contradict 
 them ; and of course we must leave to every man to judge whether 
 she do or not. But we, at the same time, declare that he does it at 
 his peril; that in the use which he makes of his private judgrfient 
 he is deepl}^ responsible to God, and more particularly so, when he 
 does it in opposition to the church. In matters of dispute, the Priest's 
 lips are to preserve knowledge ; and here it becomes private men 
 to be modest, and to preserve a great respect for the sentiments of 
 their guides. But there is a great difference between asking the way 
 when we are at a stand, and putting out our eyes and leaving ourselves 
 entirely to be led by another. We may use our own eyes and our 
 guide's too. " The hearers (says Basil,) that are instructed in the 
 scriptures must examine the doctrine of their teachers ; they must 
 receive those thmgs which are agreeable to scripture, and reject what 
 are contrary to it." In Moralium Regula, 72 in^ initio. 
 
 3. The extent of the authority of the guides of the church. We 
 
 are far from denying all reasonable and just authority to the guides 
 of the church : nay, in matters of faith, their authority is so sacred 
 that all christians are bound in conscience quietly to submit to their 
 decrees, where there is not plain evidence against them : But we say 
 indeed that no man nor assembly of men, have such authority as to 
 oblige us to believe all their decrees without examination, much less 
 contrary to the judgment and practice of the first ages of the church, 
 and therefore we do not require that men should believe merely on 
 the authority of their teachers, without believing why they do so. — 
 In short, the use we make of our guides is this, to inform our judg- 
 ments that we may be able to understand for ourselves. Thus our 
 Saviour taught his disciples, " he opened their understandings, that they 
 might understand the scriptures" and thus the apostles and primitive 
 doctors taught the world, by expounding scripture to them, which 
 does not signify merely to tell them what the sense of scripture is, 
 and requiring them to believe it, — but shewing them out of the scrip- 
 ture that this is, and must be the true sense of it. 
 
 Objection. « Are not the Pastors more capable of teaching the 
 
54S 
 
 people, than the people are of teaching themselves ?" — An admirable 
 reason ! (sa^-s Bishop Stratford.) Let us see how it will hold in 
 other matters. Is not the tutor more capable of teaching the scholar, 
 than the scholar is of teaching himself? He therefore will have 
 more of the true sense of any book in logic, that never looks upon it 
 himself; but only hears a lecture once in a week or month from his 
 tutor upon some part, than he that makes the book his constant study. 
 
 Objection. " Does not the scripture expressly order us to obey our 
 pastors ? " — But does not the same scripture command '' children to 
 obei/ their parents, and servants their masters," (Eph. vi. 1. — Col. iii. 
 22.) And are we hence to conclude that this obedience is absolute, 
 "But the church can have no authority, unless men are bound to be- 
 heve, without examination, whatsoever she prescribes." — If so, then 
 she had no authority in our Saviour's and the apostles' days ; no, nor 
 for several ages after them. For if any had been owned in the fourth 
 century, how came it to pass that, after the Nicene Council, the Arian 
 heresy spread more than it had done before. The Popish parallel 
 between a spiritual guide and a civil judge is most unhappy ; because 
 we are obliged to abide by the sentence of our judges in civil matters, 
 even when ^^'e do not think it just: does it hence follow that we must 
 obey our spiritual guides vvithouf examining. The judge only de- 
 termines our external action, but cannot touch our consciences, as 
 our spiritual guides do in their commands. And although we do not 
 appeal from the judge, it cannot hence be inferred that we think him 
 infallible. 
 
 I shall now answer the objections which may be brought against 
 what I have said. — " Why (it is asked,) does the Reformed Church 
 peremptorily require conformity to her faith and worship, and yet 
 allow private christians to examine them by scripture, and reject them 
 if they should dislike them. — Can any thing be more unjust than to 
 excommunicate a person for rejecting, as erroneous, a doctrine which 
 he has a right to examine, and consequently to reject it if he thinks 
 it unorthodox. — And has not this principle a barefaced tendency to 
 the multiplying of schisms without end." 
 
 As for the first part of this objection, I answer, that in this we only 
 follow the example of the apostles and the primitive church. They, as 
 I have already proved, enjoined the people to '^ obey their governors^' 
 and to " hear the church," yet at the same time, to ''prove all things** 
 In like manner our church has fixed terms of communion truly catho- 
 lic, and not only allows, but affords to every one the liberty of using 
 
343 
 
 all the means they can (if they will not follow her blindfold J of form- 
 ing a right judgment concerning them, and therefore of using the scrip- 
 tures; which are not only the best in themselves, but also come with- 
 in the compass of the abilities and leisure of all, more or less. We 
 are to use the Hberty of judging for ourselves by these means; under 
 this consideration, that we are to be accountable for it at the day of 
 judgment. We think therefore, that reasonable men cannot lie under 
 a greater obligation, to take care that they proceed in their search after 
 truth with all care and sincerity. This is the provision that God hath 
 made for the maintaining truth and peace in his church ; that gover- 
 nors cannot abuse their authority in commanding, nor the people their 
 liberty of judging, whether the command can be obeyed with a good 
 conscience, but at the peril of their souls. For, if a private christian 
 reject the faith and the communion of the church, without a just and 
 necessary cause, he is a heretic and schismatic, liable to the censures 
 of the church in this world, and to the vengeance of God in the next] 
 If he reject an erroneous communion, he incurs the censures of the 
 church, and if he embrace it he is in danger of a future judgment. 
 '^ For if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch." — 
 These are the proper limits of all human authority both in church and 
 state ; below this there is no authority, and above it, it is not human 
 authority: for a blind obedience can be due to none but God, and he 
 himself seldom exacts it. 
 
 As for those that impute the disorders and schisms of the church 
 to the liberty of judging by the scriptures, which we permit, I would 
 be glad to know what means they are provided with to preserve unity. 
 They tell us often, and we are even nauseated with the repetition of 
 so frivolous a pretence, that God has left an infallible judge of con- 
 troversies amongst them, to whom we ought to submit. But not- 
 withstanding this pretended provision, is it not apparent that there 
 are violent controversies and endless dt>i?ions in the christian church ? 
 Do we see the effects of such a provision ; or rather is it not evident 
 that God hath not provided an infalhble means of ending controver- 
 sies, or rather of preventing them, because controversies are neither^ 
 prevented nor ended, but have existed since the first preaching of the 
 gospel ? " But would they not be ended, if all men would submit to 
 the infallible judge?" Which is as much as to saj/, that an infallible 
 judge is not an infalhble means of ending controversies, because men 
 may clwose whether they will submit to him or not. So that this 
 very pretence supposes that God has left not an absolute, but only a 
 
541 
 
 conditional provision against schisms, that is to say, if all men would 
 do their duty as they ought and might, which is the very case as I 
 mentioned before. And if we must not submit to such a pretended 
 judge, till we have reason to believe him to be what he pretends, then 
 no small controversy will arise, whether he be such a judge or not, 
 and in order to determine this, we must necessarily use our private 
 judgment in interpreting scripture. 
 
 It argues great want of ingenuit}'-, or great weakness of judgment 
 in men, to exclaim against the Reformed Episcopal Church, on ac- 
 count of divisions and separations from it. For the present separa- 
 tions are no greater argument against it, than the ancient separations 
 were against the primitive church*, or than the Protestant separations 
 against the Roman Church. For have not merely private persons, 
 whole provinces, nay whole nations separated from the Romish com- 
 munion ? And since there may be such multitudes of deserters where 
 infallibility is challenged, what greater security can be given against 
 them than the Reformed Church does ? — What advantage, then, has 
 the Church of Rome over any other profession of christians ? We 
 are certain that the mere authority of their church has been no more 
 effectual in preventing separations, than that of ours hath been ; but 
 their is another method adopted in several countries which is far more 
 effectual, viz. the Inquisition. This in truth is all the effectual means 
 they possess above us; but God keep us from such barbarous and dia- 
 bolical means of preventing separations. However, that gracious Pope* 
 Paul IV. attributed the settling of it in Spain to the inspiration of the 
 Holy Ghost ; not that Holy Ghost certainl}^, that came down from 
 heaven upon the apostles, but that which was conveyed in a portman- 
 teau from Rome to the Council of Trent. All other means are but pro- 
 bable^ — this is the most effectual; insomuch that the same Paul IV« 
 
 * When Celsus reproached the primitive christians with their divisions, and 
 multitude of their sects, Origen haii no better reply to make than *' That this 
 misfortune was not peculiar to them, for the same thing happened to physi- 
 cians and philosophers; j-et to wise men it was no prejudice against those pro- 
 fessions." He never once gives the least intimation of that never-failing remedy 
 against divisions, the infallible judge, {Contr, Cels. Lib. III.) " Our divisions 
 (says Clemens Alexander,) are the first things the Pagans produce against us ; 
 we ought not to believe, they say, because of the difference of sects amongst 
 you," {Strom. Lib. VIL) Th-e contentions of the primitive christians, upon 
 every occasion, were so very intemperate, that they were with scorn objected 
 
 by Pagans, and derided in their theatres. See Cels. ap. Orig Euseb^ ile Vita 
 
 Const. Lib. IL c. 60. 
 
84:5 
 
 declared in a speech to his cardinals before his death, that " the autho- 
 rity of the Roman See depends only on the office of the Inquisition." 
 These have been the kind, the tender, the primitive, the christian 
 means of suppressing sects and heresies in the Romish Church. In 
 countries where the Inquisition is not established, the utmost endea- 
 vours are used to prevent both priests and laity from reading a fair 
 translation of the bible, or the controversial tracts of the Reformed 
 Church, but the obedience to their clergy as infallible guides in con-, 
 troversies is inculcated on all. Yet notwithstanding these precautions, 
 men will judge for t'lemselves, and their infallible guides have been 
 deserted both by Bishops and Priests, and innumerable multitudes of 
 the laity. 
 
 It is very well known that we do all in our power, both to prevent 
 and to reclaim separatists, but God never wrought miracles to curb 
 incorrigible persons, and would not have us to go out of the wav of 
 our duty to suppress sects and heresies. The greatest severities have 
 rot effected it, which made one of the inquisitors in Italy complain, 
 that after forty years experience, wherein they had destroyed ab( ve 
 100,000 persons for heresy (as they ca'l it,) it was so far from being 
 suppressed, that it was extremely strengthened and increased. What 
 wonder is it, then, that the Dissenters should continue among us, who 
 do not use such barbarous methods to reclaim them ; but wisely dis- 
 owning the pretence of infallibilit}'^, we make use of the best arguments 
 against them from a just authority, and the sinfulness and folly of 
 their refusing to submit to it. Thus were heretics and schismatics 
 suppressed in the primitive church. 
 
 <' Well, but if there be no infallible guide, how shall we arrive at 
 any certainty in our religion ? Is it not a conti-adiction to expeiience 
 to say, that the meaning of scripture is plain, when so few can agree 
 what it is ? Is it not inconsistent with the wisdom of God to leave 
 liis church without an unerring interpreter of scripture .?" — I answer: 
 1st, We are not fit judges of what God ought to do, but ought to be 
 thankful for what he has done. He suiely knows how to govern his 
 church without our direction ! — 2d, We can be very certain of the 
 necessary principles of religion, without the supposition of an infallible 
 guide. We do not deny, that there are places of great difficult}' 'n 
 the scriptures, but we assert, that, to an honest and attentive reader, 
 every thing that is necessary to be believed, is sufficiently plain and 
 clear. Surely Christ and his apostles preached intelligibly to their 
 hearers, who were in general people of the meanest cupacities. And 
 could they not write as intelligibly as they preached, especially since 
 
34G 
 
 they wrote the same things, and almost in the same form of words? 
 And are not the people (as 1 have already proved,) commanded to 
 search the scriptures and detect false prophets by them ? — 3d, If we 
 cannot understand the scriptures without an infallible guide, how shall 
 we ever know who this is, and how to find him. This information is 
 surely not to be derived from the guide in dispute, for that would be 
 arguing in a circle ; and "if I bear witness of myself, my witness is 
 not true," (John v. 31.) But if they direct us to scripture, then it is 
 evident that the scripture maybe understood without an infallible guide. 
 And if we may arrive at a certain sense of those texts concerning in- 
 fallibility without an infallible guide, then why may we not be as cer- 
 tain of the sense of other texts as plain as them, without such an in- 
 terpreter ? For there is no article of our creed so hard to be found 
 there, as the infallibility of the Roman Bishops. 
 
 But " do not all heretics appeal to scripture ?" — This argument 
 proves nothing, because it proves too much ; for it is equally an ar- 
 gument against all rules. Heretics have appealed to reaso7i, therefore 
 reason is no rule, — heretics have pleaded tradition, therefore tradition 
 is not to be pleaded. Heathens have appealed to universal consent, 
 ("All Asia and the world worshipeth Diana," Acts xix. 27.) therefore 
 it is not to be regarded. The later Arians pleaded the Cotmcils of 
 Sirmium and Rimini, therefore councils are not to be appealed to. 
 Miracles have been pretended to by impostors as signs of truth, there- 
 fore true miracles are no proof. — All this objection is a transferring 
 the fault from the men, and fixing it upon the faultless rule. " But 
 do not some who seem to follow the scripture, deny the divinity of 
 Christ ?" "What then ? This is not for want of evidence in scrip- 
 ture, but from making or devising ways to avoid this evidence. Will 
 any one dare to say, that there was no clear evidence from the word 
 of Christ and his miracles, that they were of God; because the Pha- 
 risees and other unbelieving Jews, who conversed with him, and saw 
 his miracles, and heard his word, did not acknowledge him as God. 
 In short, it does not follow that there is no truth in the world, because 
 there is much falsehood. Others may think themselves right as well 
 as we ; but the only way to talk to the purpose is to examine the 
 evidence in any controversy, — to consider not who says he is in the 
 right, but who proves it. 
 
 And yet this argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant 
 faith from the different opinions among Protestants (says Dr Sherlock,) 
 signifies nothing as to our disputes with the Church of Rome. For 
 
317 
 
 ask them what they would think of the Protestant faith, were all Pro- 
 testants of a mind ? Would their consent and agreement prove the 
 certainty of the Protestant faith ? Then the Protestant faith in op,)©- 
 sition to Popery is very certain: for they all agree in condemning the 
 errors of the Church of Rome; and thus, I think, they get nothing by 
 this argument : for if the dissensions of Protestants prove the uncer- 
 tainty of their faith, as to such matters wherein they differ, then by 
 the same rule their agreement in opposition to Popery, shews their 
 great certainly in such matters j and this, I suppose, is no great in- 
 ducement to a Protestant to turn Papist. 
 
 But even supposing the guides of the Roman Church to be infalli- 
 ble, what advantages has it over other churches which do not pretend 
 to infallibility ? Have they cleared the sense of any one doubtful text, 
 by virtue of infallibility, during all the time they have laid claim to it ? 
 No ; on the contrary, for the sense of any obscure passages in those 
 holy books we are indebted to the learning and industry of fallible com- 
 mentators. Why do they not (says Dr Trapp,) once for all publish 
 to the world an entire infallible comment on the bible, s-o as to prevent 
 all disputes for the future. But alas ! it has always been their way 
 not to explain what is obscure, but to obscure what is plain. This is 
 the true use they have made of their infallibility. 
 
 Again, what greater certainty do its members possess more than 
 Protestants. From what source do they derive their infaUible instruc- 
 tions ? From the decrees of the Trent Council ? But can they be cer- 
 tain of their meaning ? Those decrees are sometimes general and am- 
 higioiis, and there have been several expositions of them, as Sotos Bel- 
 larmin, Bossuet, &c.* which, in many points are directly opposite, yet 
 
 • The doubtfulness of their doctrines (says Bishop Patrick,) appears from 
 this, that there is not only variety y but contrariety of judgment about them 
 in their own church, which plainly argues great perplexity and uncertainty. 
 Of which there needs no other proof than the famous books of Bellarmin, -vho, 
 in the entrance on every question, gives an account of the contentions and con- 
 tradictions of those who have written upon it among themselves. At this dav, 
 they are not better agreed in the explication of several points in diiferenci be- 
 tween us, particularly about the worship given to images, and the invocation 
 of saints, which some of their greatest doctors mollify (as they do other points,) 
 into downright heresy, as such explications are accounted by others. {Preservi 
 IV. p. 96.) See this clearly exemplified in Dr Wake's First Defence of the 
 ExpoaitioTiy p. 90. Bishop Hall has collected 303 differences of opinion in the 
 Romish Church from Bellarmin, and above sixty different opinions in the 
 point of confession alone. 
 
348 
 
 approved by different Popes ! And how few are there, that have time 
 or learnino- to read the councils; but if this difficuhy be overcome, they 
 are forbidden under great curses to explain and comment on the de- 
 crees; for this office is reserved to the Pope himself, f Bulla PiilV. 
 super Confirm. Cone. Trid.J The resolution of the peoples faith, there- 
 fore, is into the honesty and skill of their fallible Bishops and Priests ; 
 and as the people are likewise fallible, they may misunderstand the in- 
 structions of their guides (fallible or infallible,) and thus farewell to ^l 
 possible means of arriving at certainty in religion, unless every body 
 be infallible first ! And has not a Protestant, who studies the infalli- 
 ble scripture, and uses the best reason and judgment he has to under- 
 stand it, assisted by his clergy, as much certainty and infallibility as 
 all this amounts to ? 
 
 In short, we Protestants do not require an infallible, but sitfficient 
 certainty for our faith, — not an impossibility of erring, but an assur- 
 ance that we do not err. Our Reformed Episcopal Church has offered 
 all reasonable satisfaction to mankind, that it follows the true sense 
 of scripture : 
 
 1: By publishing an excellent translation of the scriptures, and 
 not locking them up, but leaving it free and open for all persons 
 to iudcre concerning the doctrines it teaches. Which argues a great 
 
 The very Index Expurgatorius, which contains a list of those Romish au- 
 thors, whose works are prohibited from being read under pain of excommu- 
 nication, is a proof of the uncertainty of their doctrines. Nay,- how many 
 disputes are carrying on at the present day, between Doctors Milner, Dou- 
 glas, O'Conor, Messrs Plowden, Clinch, Butler, &c. on such important points 
 as the extent of their Pope's authority, whether Bishops dre exclusive judges 
 in matters of faith ? Whether the present Pope is a heretic or not? &c. And 
 between the two above-mentioned Doctors (who are Bishops,) and the French 
 clergy in England, who have declared to the world that " Pius VII. has in- 
 troduced schism aiwl heresy itself into the bosom of the church, and that 
 heresy has begun to gain a complete triumph in France, of which Pius is 
 the primary cause, and that on the ruins of the old church in France a new 
 one is established, different in majiy essential articles from the Church of 
 Christ," {Milner's Past. Letter, 1808. p. 7. 78.) These principles Dr Milner has 
 arraigned as " impious and schismatical," and, on the other hand, Dr O'Conor 
 declares Dr Milner's opinions on other points to be " heretical and Mahome- 
 tan." {Second Letter, p. 53. 66. 57.) Such are the fruits of their infallibility and 
 the supremacy of " the Vicar of Christ." See An Hist. Account of the Divi- 
 sions in the Roman Church to the end of the seventeenth century. Stillingfleet'' s 
 Works, IV. p. 133. Geddes's History of the Schisms that have been in the R»* 
 man See. Tracts, 
 
349 
 
 assurance that she is not afraid of any opposition to be found in the 
 word of God, in the articlqs of our rehgion. 
 
 2. By not pretending to dehverthe sense of scripture on her own 
 authorit}^ If she required her members to depend wholly on her in- 
 terpretation of it, without examining themselves ; that very thing 
 would render her authority suspicious with all inquisitive men, who 
 always mistrust where there is too much caution. 
 
 3. By her constantly appealing to the pn mi tive church, as the best 
 witness of her adhering to the true sense of scripture *. For she has 
 always contended, that the first and purest ages of the church certainly 
 best understood the sense of scripture : the Church of Rome, on the 
 contrary, pretending that the interpretation of it belongs to the pre- 
 sent Catholic Church, which it pretends to be, against the plainest 
 evidence of scripture. 
 
 If it be asked (says Dr Bennet,) whence controversies arise, or 
 whether they do not proceed from the scriptures, I answer, that the 
 wars and fightings in theology spring from the same source with the 
 wars in civil matters, (James iv. 1.) " They come hence even from 
 the lusts which war in our member sJ' The truth, at least all neces- 
 sary truth, is easily found, if men will carefully seek for it; but when 
 they are resolved to pass that for truth, which they wish to find true 
 or when they are prejudiced on the wrong side, and obstinately persist 
 in the maintenance of it, no wonder if they meet with opposition, and 
 cause disputes. The scriptures, if men would hearken to them, would 
 soon put an end to all our differences. Matters necessary to salva- 
 
 * The Popish Priests are constantly in the habit of inculcating on their 
 people that we totally reject any appeal to the Fathers (as they are called,) 
 of the primitive church. Thus, because Chillingworth has declared that the 
 bible alone contains the religion of Protestants, a Priest exclaims : *» Thus 
 does the Protestant abandon to us the authority of the Fathers, — the good 
 and wise of the best and wisest of ages honestly acknowledging that our {Ro- 
 mish,) belief and maxims are the same which they professed." LingarcPs Ser- 
 mons, p. 24. 1810. The respect we pay to the Fathers is thus clearly express- 
 ed by Dr Sherlock: We think it a great confirmation of our faith, that the 
 Fathers in the first and best ages, believed the same doctrines and expounded 
 the scriptures in great and important points much to the same sense as Ave 
 do ; and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them ; but yet we do not build 
 our faith on their authority ; we forsake them whenever they forsake the 
 scriptures, or put perverse senses on them ; and so does the Church of Rome 
 too, when they contradict the present Roman faith. See the books referred 
 to in page 188. 
 
350 
 
 tion are plainly delivered in them; and as for all other indifferent things 
 or intricate points, the authority of the church is sufficient to guide us 
 in them. If it be objected, that some persons are not convinced even 
 of those things which the generality of christians think necessarx' to 
 salvation, and therefore the scriptures must nieeds be obscure : I an- 
 swer, that if such persons have not sincerely endeavoured to know 
 the truth, the fault is their own ; but if they have sincerely endeavoured 
 to be rightly informed, then I presume, they may receive such infor- 
 mation, or else God will pity and pardon their ignorance. Prejudice 
 and something else, ma}' have darkened or blinded their minds: and 
 then we cannot justly say, that the scriptures are obscure, because 
 such persons do not understand them, any more than we can justly 
 say, that the sun is a dark body, because some persons have either a 
 blemish in their eyes, or utterly lost their sight. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Belfast, 
 Printed by George Berwick. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES IN IRELAND. 
 
 Rev. Anthony Adams, Dublin 
 Rev. George Armstrong, Cork 
 Rev. Martin Armstrong, ditto 
 John Anster, Esq. T. C. D. 
 William Allen, Esq. Cork 
 George Ash, Esq. Belfast 
 Mr William Alley, Limerick 
 Mr J. George Abbott, Cork 
 
 Right Reverend C. Butson, 
 
 Bishop of Clonfert 
 Rev. F. Bridge, Chapelizod 
 Rev. John Brinkley, D. D. 
 
 Archdeacon of Clogher 
 Rev. Theoph. Blakely, Dean 
 
 of Connor 
 Rev. Frederick Blood, Roxton 
 Rev. Wm. Boyd, Kircubbin 
 Rev. Wm. Bisset, Archdeacon 
 
 of Ross 
 Rev. William Ball, Armagh 
 Rev. E. Berwick, Leixlip 
 Rev. Robert Bell, Youghal 
 Rev. T. Burgh, Ardcanny, 
 
 Limerick 
 Wm. Bryan, Esq. T- C. D. 
 John BosweU, Esq. T. C. D. 
 Archer Bayly, Esq. Belfast 
 John Birch, M. D. Roscrea 
 William Birch, Esq. ditto 
 George Birch, Esq. 
 Vizer Bridge, Esq. Ashbury, 
 
 Roscrea 
 
 F. Biddulph, Esq. Limerick 
 J. Brownrigg, Esq. Edenderry 
 Geo. Birmingham, Esq. Sch. 
 
 T. C. D. 
 Mr William Brown, Derry 
 Mr Dawson Bell, Letterkennv 
 Chris. Browne, Esq. Milford 
 
 G. H. Browne, Esq. 2 copies 
 John E. Brown, Esq. 
 Wm. Webber Bagnell, Esq. 
 H. B. Brown, Esq. T. C. C. 
 Mr George Burchell, Cork 
 Mr E. Bernard, Limerick 
 Mr Joseph Bromwell, ditto 
 
 Rev. J. Campbell, Caledon 
 Rev. C. Coleman, Armagh 
 Rev. Charles Caulfield 
 Rev. E. Cupples, Lisburn 
 Rev. John Chester, Cork 
 Rev. L. Coddington, Timolin 
 Rev. Hill Coulson, Lisburn 
 
 Right Hon. Isaac Corry 
 J. Crossley, jun. Esq. Lisburn 
 J. Cooper, Serj. Antrim Mil. 
 T. Crawford, Esq. Lisburn 
 Lieut. J. F. Cartwright, Kil- 
 kenny Militia 
 S. Carrol, Esq. Limerick 
 E. J. Cordner, Esq. T. C, D. 
 T. Cupples, Esq. T. C. D. 
 W. Cupples, Esq. Dublin 
 James Coulson, Esq. Lisburn 
 James Clealand, Esq. Bangor 
 A. G. Carey, Esq. Derry 
 William Crispe, Esq. Cork 
 Mr Peter Comerford, ditto 
 
 Rev. R. Dobbs, Carrickfergus 
 Rev. Mr Draffen 
 Rev. N. Dunscombe, Cork 
 Rt.Hon. P.Duigenan,L.L.D. 
 George Donovan, Esq. A. B. 
 
 T. C. D. 
 R. Duncan, Esq. T. C. D. 
 G. Dovvnes, Esq. Sch.T. CD. 
 George Davies, Esq. Limerick 
 G. Dunscombe, Esq. Cork 
 Mr Charles Davies, ditto 
 Mr Thomas Dwyer, ditto 
 
 Rev. Thos. Elrington, D. D. 
 
 Provost of Trin. Coll. Dub. 
 
 3 copies 
 Rev. C. Elrington, F.T.C.D. 
 Rev. M. Egan, A.B. T.C. D. 
 J. Elliott, Esq. A.B. T. C. D. 
 G. Evans, Esq. Limerick 
 Thomas H. Ennis, Esq. Car- 
 
 rickmacross 
 Mr George English, Limerick 
 Mr William Evans, ditto 
 Mr Francis Evans, ditto 
 
 Rev. Mr Fetherston, Moss- 
 town 
 
 Rev. R. Ford, Crumh'n 
 
 Rev.A.Frankford, Waterford 
 
 Rev. G.L.Fleury, Archdeacon 
 of Waterford 
 
 W. N. Falkner, Esq. T.C.D. 
 
 T. Flin, Esq. Sch. T. C. D. 
 
 W. H. Ferrar, Esq. Belfast 
 
 James Fitzgerald, Esq. Six- 
 mile-bridge 
 
 Colonel Foot, Cork 
 
 L". Fitzgerald, Esq. Limerick 
 
 Rev. Richard Graves, D. D* 
 
 S.F.T.C.D. 
 Rev. R. Grier, IMiddleton 
 Rev. Hosea Guiness, Dublin 
 Rev. H. M. Graves, Temple- 
 more 
 Rev. R. Gabbet, A. B. Castle 
 
 Leake 
 Rev. Dean Graves, Cork 
 Rev. Dr Green 
 
 Mr William Glover, Limerick 
 Mr Stephen Gould, ditto 
 
 Rev. Dr Hingston, Cork 
 
 Rev. Dr Harris 
 
 Rev. Francis Hutcheson,D. D. 
 
 Donaghadee 
 Rev. Robert Hogg, Armagh 
 Rev. Thomas E. Higginson, 
 
 Lisburn 
 Rev. Alex. Hudson, A. B. 
 Rev. George Hart, Limerick 
 James Hannigan, Esq. A. B. 
 
 T.C.D. 
 R.Henry, Esq. A.B. T. C. D. 
 Wm. Hughes, Esq. A.B. Sch. 
 
 T.C.D. 
 Dr Harding, Cork 
 Lieutenant-Col. Hill, ditto 
 Vere Hunt, Esq. Cloraine 
 Mrs Ann Holland, Limerick 
 G. Hamilton, Esq. co. Derry 
 A. Hamilton, Esq. Dublin 
 Arundel Hill, Esq. Cork 
 William Hill, Esq. ditto 
 N. Hennessy, Esq. ditto 
 Mr Thomas Haines, ditto 
 
 Rev. G. H. M'D. Johnston 
 Rev. Samuel Jones, Kildimo 
 Rev. Robert Jessop, Limerick 
 Wm. Jones, Esq. A. B. T.C.D. 
 G Jones, Esq. Sch. T. C. D* 
 T. Johnston, Esq. T. C D. 
 Mr Joseph Jones, Limerick 
 
 Rev. S. Kyle, D.D.F. T.C.D. 
 Rev. T. Kingsbury, Dublin 
 Mr John Ker, Ballinahinch 
 
 Rev. H. Lefroy, Limerick 
 Right Rev. c'. D. Lindsay, 
 
 Bishop of Kildare 
 Rev. William Lee, Newport, 
 
 Tipperary 
 
subscribers' names in IRELAND. 
 
 Rev. William Lambert, A. B.iRobert Waddell Oswald, Esq. 
 Rev. Simon Little, Dromore 
 
 Rev. John Lord, Cork Dr O'Flaherty, Surgeon, 72d 
 
 Rev. W. Lewis, Donoghmore, Regiment 
 
 Limerick j 
 
 C. Lendrick, Esq. T. C. D. iRev. Grey Porter 
 Thomas Leslie, Esq. T.C. D.iRev. W. H. Pratt, Randals- 
 
 I town 
 Rev. William Magee, D. D. Rev. Thomas Prior, D. D 
 
 Dean 
 
 Dean of Cork, 2 copies 
 Rev. Daniel Moortey, D. D. 
 
 F. T. C. D. 
 Rev. D. M'Neille, 25 copies 
 Rev. J. Matthews 
 Rev. T. Morris, A. B. 
 Rev. B. W. Matthias, Dublin 
 Rev. James Morgan 
 Rev. T. O. Moore 
 Rev. S. L. Montgomery, Mo- 
 
 vill, County Derry 
 Rev. G. Marshall, Donagh, 
 
 ditto 
 Rev. Charles Molloy 
 Rev. A. MacCulIagh, Bruff 
 Mr John M'Manus, Dublin 
 William Shaw Mason, Esq. 
 
 First Fruits Office 
 H. B. Molesworth, Esq. 
 Lewis Morgan, Esq. SheriffT. Roe, Esq. M. D. Dabli 
 
 City Dublin 
 A. Morgan, Esq. Rev. F. Sadleir, J. F. T.C.D 
 
 W. T. Morgan, Esq.T. C. D.IRev. J. Singer, J. F. T. C. D 
 Andre A. Murray, Esq. A.B.JRev. J. G. F. Schultz, Dublin 
 
 S. F. T. C. D. 
 
 Rev. Arthur Preston 
 
 of Limerick , 
 Rev. J. Parker, Plover-hill, 
 
 Limerick 
 Eyre V/illiam Preston, Esq. 
 
 T. C. D. 
 M. Perrin, Esq. Sch. T. CD. 
 Benjamin Parvue, Esq. Cork 
 Mr Robert Peland 
 
 Rev. Arthur Rollest on. Kings- 
 court 
 George Ryall, Esq. T. C. D. 
 C, Rowan, Serj. Ant. Militia 
 Wm. Russel, Esq. Limerick 
 G. Wm. Russel, Esq. ditto 
 Hughes Russel, Esq. ditto 
 Thomas M. Rose, Esq. ditto 
 in 
 
 T.C. D. 
 
 T. MacDonncll, Esq. A. 
 Sch. T. C. D. 
 
 B. 
 
 Rev. W. Smith, Castle-Caul 
 
 field 
 Rev. P. Sandes, Celbridge 
 
 Wm. M'Clean, Esq. T. C. D.iRev. Mr Stewart, Buncrana 
 Christopher A. Marrell, Esq. llev. Dr Stewart, Cork 
 
 Belfield, Limerick jRev. John Swayne, ditto 
 
 Wm. Marrell, Ksq. LimerickJRev. William Sullivan, ditto 
 Richard Monsell, Esq. diUo Rev. Mr StanistVeet, ditto 
 
 Charles Moore, Esq. 
 
 Mr John M'Kee, Belfast 
 
 J. S. M«Culloch, Lieut. 32d 
 
 Regiment 
 Edv/ard Morgan, Esq. Cork 
 Mr John Mansergh, ditto 
 Mr Robei't Martin, ditto 
 Mr F. D. Murphy, ditto 
 Mr George M'Kern, Limericki T. C. D 
 
 JMrs St John, Dublin 
 Rev. RiQhai-d Herbert Nash.lWilJiam Sankey, jun. Esq 
 
 D. D. F. T. C. D. |C. M. Skinner, Esq. Belfast 
 
 Rev. A. Nicholson, Dunleer Mr Samuel Salmon, Dublin 
 
 Rev. George Studdart, Lime- 
 rick 
 
 Rev. John Seymour 
 
 William St John Smith, Esq. 
 Sch. T. C. D. 
 
 Richard Swindall, P2sq. A. B 
 T.C.D. 
 
 Rev. W. Tew, Monkstown 
 Rev. E . Thackeray, Dundalk 
 Rev. S. Thomson, Maragell 
 Rev. Wm. Thompson, Arch- 
 deacon of Cork 
 Rev.Dr Tuckey, Cork 
 Rev. John Townscnd, ditto 
 William Tomes, Esq. Sch. 
 
 T. C. D. 
 
 Wm. Turner, Escp. T. C. D. 
 
 J. J. Taylor, Esq. Sch. T. CD. 
 
 John Taylor, Esq. T. C D. 
 
 Francis Taggart, Esq. Belfast 
 
 Mr John Taylor, Dublin 
 
 Rev. Kemy Usher, D. D. 
 Rev. John Usher, D. D. 
 
 Rev. R. P. Vaughan, A. B. 
 
 Rev. James Wilson, D. D. 
 
 J. F. T. CD. 
 Rev. J. Wilson 
 Rev. J. Webb 
 Rev. Mr Wright, Killevara 
 Rev. T. G. Willis, Limerick 
 Rev. T. Walsh, Markethill 
 Rev. Thomas AValker, Cork 
 Rev. Edward Weeks, ditto 
 Rev. Joseph Wright, ditto 
 Rev. Thomas Westropp, Bal- 
 ly nolan. Limerick 
 Rev. John Westropp, A. B. 
 
 Fort Anne 
 Mr Richard Wright, Cork 
 Mr Richard Willii, ditto 
 T. Walsh, Esq. A. B. Sch. 
 
 T.C.D. 
 Wm. Wright, Esq. T. C D. 
 
 2 copies 
 James Wills, Esq. T. C D. 
 T. F. Walker, Esq. A. B. 
 
 T. C D. 
 R. Wcstenra, Esq. Dublin 
 Charles Williomier, L.L.D. 
 
 T. C D. 
 Jervis White, Esq. Dublin 
 jF. Weldon Walshe, Esq.Dub- 
 
 John B. Story, Esq. A. B.j lin 
 
 George Nason, Esq. Cork 
 
 Mr S. M. Simpson, Belfast 
 . Stritch, Esq. Dublin 
 
 A. Watson, Esq. Mayor of Li- 
 merick 
 Henry Watson, Esq. Limerick 
 Hugh Welsh, Esq. ditto 
 William Worral, Esq. ditto 
 Mr Stewart Woodehouse, 
 Emyvale 
 
 Rev. Bagill Orpen,Xork ;Philip Smyth, Esq. Limerick, Francis Wheeler, Esq. Li- 
 
 J- O. Dy wer, Esq. Sch. T. C D. jJames Stuart, Esq. Gracehill j merick 
 
 Mr George Osborne, Limerick lA. C Seymour, Esq. Dublin | 
 
 R. B. Osborne, Esq. T. C D. ,Mr T. Seymour, Limerick (R. Young, Esq. A. B. T.C.D.