A Bishop may have no more Souls in his Diocefs than a Presbyter has in his Parish, and it actually is fo with us: For I am perfwaded that the Ministers of St. Giles in the Fields, or St. Andrews Holborn, or St. Margarets Westmin fter, have either of them more Souls in one fingle Parish than the Bishop of the Isle of Man has in the feventeen Parishes of his Diocess. Yet this Proportion of the number of Souls does not degrade the Bishop to a Presbyter, nor raise the Presbyter to a Bishop. If our Adverfaries would fay any thing to the Purpose, they ought to prove not that fome fingle Congregations had Bishops; but that all who had fingle Congregations under 'em were Bishops, and that there was no Distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter; And now I hope I have faid enough to fatisfie that this cannot be done.

*

But Monfieur Le Clerk comes at laft with Biblothequ. an invinceable Argument, as he fuppofes, a- Tom. 9. p. 159. gainst the Neceflity of Epifcopal Government in the Church: and tells us, That all these 'kind of Proofs and Arguments fignifie nothing at all. That it is nothing to the pur'pose to fhew, that Chrift and his Apoftles in• ftituted this Form of Church Government,

and that the Church never had any other • kind of Government in it for above 1500 • Years from our Saviour's Days downwards, 'which, tho' it be fo clearly evidenced that the Truth of it cannot be denied; yet it is ' of no weight, nor deferves to be regarded. For those who would make the Hierarchy ne'ceffary to the Conftitution of the Christian 'Church, ought to prove, That God inftituted' Christianity for the fake of the Epifcopal Order, • and that the Epifcopal Order was not inftituted

• for

..

for the fake of Chriftianity. For if this Order was appointed for the fake of the Church, (which they cannot deny) they must also acknowledge, that if it be more Advantageous to the Church in fome Places to have this Order abolished, it is not amifs to lay it afide in fuch Places.

If this Gentleman had confidered the fatal Confequences of fuch an Argument as this, fure he could never have made ufe of it. Let us put it into a Syllogifm, and then I conceive thefe Confequences will be obvious to every

one.

Whatsoever has been inftituted or appointed for the fake of Christianity, and for whofe fake Christianity it felf was not inftituted, may be laid afide when it fhall be judged expedient for the Advantage of any particular Church.

The Epifcopal Order was inftituted for the fake of Chriftianity, and not Christianity for the fake of the Episcopal Order.

Therefore, when any particular Church judges it expedient to lay aside the Epifcopal Order for their own particular Advantage they may very lawfully do it.

Now if the first Propofition be not true, the Argument is of no force, and the conclufion cannot hold. And fhould it be admitted to be true, then can I fee nothing relating to Chriftianity but what may be laid afide, even the Word and Sacraments themselves. For was the Word of God contained in the Sacred Scriptures inftituted or written for the fake of Christianity, or Christianity for the fake of the Scriptures? Certainly we must say, that the Scriptures were written for the fake of Chriftianity, that the Church of God might have at

certain

certain Rule to walk by. If therefore his Proposition be true, when any Church, as the Church of Rome for Inftance, thinks fit to take away the use of the Scriptures, for the Benefit of Christianity as they pretend, they may lawfully do it: And confequently that Church. is by no means to blame, according to this Argument for debarring the common People from the use of the Holy Scriptures, for fuch Reafons as they are pleased to give for it. Preaching and inftructing the People was inftituted for the fake of Chriftianity, and not Christianity for the fake of Preaching, and therefore if his Argument be good, Preaching and inftructing the People may alfo be laid aside. The two Sacraments of Baptifm and the Lord's Supper were inftituted for the fake of Chriftianity, and not Christianity for the fake of the Sacraments: Therefore the Quakers, according to this Argument, have not done amifs in laying aside both the Sacraments, because they judge it Advantageous to their Church, which is fo Spiritualized as to stand in no need of thofe Beggerly Elements, as they think fit to call them. And the Church of Rome is not to be blamed for denying the Cup to the Laity, fince if they had pleafed, they might have denied them the whole Sacrament if Monfieur Le Clerk's Argument hath any weight in it. But we say that the Holy Scriptures, that the Preaching the Gofpel, and the Ministration of the Sacraments are Sacred Inftitutions appointed by Jefus Chrift himself to be continued in his Church 'till his coming in Glory, and therefore neither the Church of Rome, nor any other Church whatsoever can take away the publick ufe of the Scriptures or the private Reading of them,

I

A&s 4 12.

them, neither the Preaching of the Gospel, nor the Ministration of the Sacraments, whole and entire according as is ordained in the New Teftament. And the very fame may we fay of Epifcopacy, that it is an Inftitution of Jefus Christ our Supreme Law-giver, and therefore is not to be taken away by any Humane Authority, upon any Pretence whatsoever. So that notwithstanding what Monfieur Le Clerk fays, I must conclude that it is very much to the Purpose of proving the Neceffity of Epifcopal Government, to fhew that it was inftituted by Christ and his Apostles, and continued to be the only Form of Church Government for fifteen hundred Years and upwards.

But the great and most popular Argument against the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, is that by maintaining this Doctrine, we Un-church all the Reformed Churches abroad, as well as the Scotch Kyrk in the North parts of this Realm, and all our own Diffenters at home. And that this is one of the highest Degrees of Uncharitableness. But if this be a good Argument, then it is uncharitable to Preach the Gospel, and to teach as St. Peter did, That there is no Salvation in any other than in Jefus Chrift: For there is none other Name under Heaven given among Men, whereby we must be saved. This Doctrine, when the Apoftles Preached it, plainly denounced Damnation to all the World, both Jews and Gentiles, except fome few that were their own Followers. Yet I fuppofe it will not be faid that the Apostles wanted Charity or Love for all the World: But they thought it the highcft Argument of their Charity to disperse themselves thro' all the World, and to publish this Doctrine in all places that the World

might fee their Danger, and get out of it as foon as poffible. Would it be uncharitable for a Minifter of God's Word to Preach against Whoring, Drinking, Lying, Cheating and Defrauding, and to fay that thefe are damnable Sins, and thofe that are guilty of them muft inevitably Perish, unless they Repent? Would not he deserve to be laughed at, inftead of having a serious Anfwer given him, that fhould call this uncharitable Doctrine, that damned the greatest part of Mankind? For my part, I cannot but think it the Duty of every honest Clergy Man to Preach fuch Do&trines as we have received from Chrift and his Apostles, whomfoever the Confequences may reflect upon. I can never think it Charity to footh Men in their Mistakes, and give them Caufe to think I believe them in the Right when I know them to be in Error. I am willing to believe as well of the Proteftants abroad and our Diffenters at home as any Man; neither will I condemn them: They must stand or fall to him that is the Master of them and of us. But as I think them to be in a dangerous Error, I think it my Duty to let them know it: And I hope and pray that God will have Mercy on all of them who offend in this or any other Point thro' Ignorance, Prejudice, or an unhappy Education, and not of Malicious Wickednefs. But as the Reverend Preface to DiDr. Hickes fays very well, I conceive the nature vine Right of Epifcopacy, p.51. of Chriftian Charity obliges us upon Catholick Prin ciples, to write them up to our Church, and not as the manner of fome has been, to write our Church down to them. And I have Reafon to believe that if Epifcopacy had been fettled in other Reformed Churches as it is in ours, the Reformation

1 2