配置

ings of those, who were the next successors to the Apostles. What is here of either yieldance or contradiction?

And, if I have ingenuously granted, that the Primitive Bishops were elected by the Clergy, with the assent of the people; that Bishops neither do nor may challenge to themselves such a sole interest in Ordination or Jurisdiction, as utterly to exclude Presbyters from some participation in this charge and act; that they ought not to divest themselves of their jurisdictive power, by delegating it to others; that the ordinary managing of secular employments is improper for them; if, in all these, I have gratified them, why do they complain? and if I have disadvantaged my cause, why is it not urged to my conviction?

It is warily said of these men, that I "almost grant Lay-Elders in Antiquity." I do so almost grant them in my own sense, that I utterly deny them in theirs.

Why should I make any doubt to yield unto the justice of their complaints, in the Postscript, against the insolence and tyranny of Popish prelates? What lose we by this condescent? Or how can they plead they are not justly taxed, for diffusing other men's crimes to the innnocent; when their consciences cannot but fly in their faces, for this injustice?

Lastly, I am charged with shameful self-contradictions; which surely must needs argue great rashness, or much weakness of judgment.

See the instances.

In the same Epistle, I profess "not to tax their abilities," and yet call them "impotent assailants." And why not both of these? He, that taxeth not their abilities, doth not therefore presently approve them. They may, perhaps, not want good abilities in themselves; and yet be unable to prove their cause. They may be able men; and yet impotent matches.

The contradiction they would raise in the words concerning Evangelists, is merely cavillatory. May you be pleased to turn to the ninety-fourth page of my Defence,' you shall clearly acknowledge it. The word, in a common sense, signifies any Preacher of the Gospel; but, in the peculiar sense of the New Testament, it signifies some persons extraordinarily gifted and employed; not settled in any one place, but sent abroad by the Apostles on that blessed errand: now, to say that any of these latter were "such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts," (as they do, Sect. 13. p. 48.) I do justly blame as a mere fancy; not herein contradicting any thing, but their light imagination.

In the contradiction pretended to be, concerning the extent of Episcopacy, sure they cannot but check themselves. In my Remonstrance' and Defence,' they report me to say somewhere (but, where, no man can tell) that "Bishops had been every where ;" and, that "all Churches, through the whole Christian

* Page 677, of this vol. EDITOR.

World, have uniformly and constantly maintained Episcopacy:" elsewhere, that I say they "were not every where," and that "there are less noble Churches that do not confer to Episcopal Government." Words are more easily accorded, than acknow. ledged. There are not, there have not been every where settled Christian Churches. Wherever there have been settled Christian Churches, there have been Bishops. From the Apostles' times to this present age, there have been Bishops in all Christian Regions: now, some late Reformed Churches have been necessitated to forbear them. Where, I beseech you, lies the contradic

tion ?

I have often granted, that the name of Bishops and Presbyters was, at the first, promiscuously used; and yet, I do no less justly maintain, that, for this sixteen hundred years, the name of Bishops hath been ordinarily appropriated, in a contra-distinctive sense, to Church-Governors, in an apparent superiority. Distinguish times, and reconcile histories.

The two next exceptions, concerning "Diocesan Bishops," and "Civil Government," are fully cleared and convinced in the due places of this ensuing Answer.' I shall not blur paper, in an unseasonable anticipating my own discourse.

"Sole Ordination," and "Sole Jurisdiction," we so disclaim, as that we hold the power of both, primarily in the Bishop; the concurrent assistance, in the Presbyters. What opposition is there in an orderly subordination?

The last contradiction clearly reconciles itself. In stating the question concerning Episcopacy, I distinguish betwixt Divine and Apostolical authority:" professing, not to affirm that Bishops were immediately ordained by Christ;" and yet averring, that "Christ laid the grounds of this imparity in his first agents." What discordance is in these two? Is the ground-work of a house, the whole frame of it? Can they find the roof in the foundation? In the Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches, Christ, I truly say, acknowledges (at least intimates) the Hierarchy of those Seven Angels. Do I imply, that he did immediately ordain them?

Readers, ye have seen the poor stuff of these their selected exceptions. Believe it, such are all their contradictions to me, as these contradictions which they find in me, to myself, groundless and worthless: as I shall make good in this following discourse, concerning the ancient, holy, and beneficial use of set-Liturgies in the Church.

This subject, because, as it is untracked with any frequent pens of others, so it is that wherein my Adversaries seem most to pride themselves, (as supposing to have in it the most probable advan tages against me) I have somewhat largely handled, to your ample satisfaction.

But, as for that other head of Episcopacy, which hath already filled so many reams of waste-paper, forasmuch as I see they offer nothing, but that, which hath passed a hundred ventilations, Transcat. I have resolved to bestow my time better, than in drawing this saw to and fro, to no purpose. Let them first give a full and punctual answer to that, which hath been already, in an entire body of a treatise, written concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy;' and then, let them expect, that I should trouble myself with sweeping away these loose scraps of their exceptions. Till then, let them, if they can, be silent: at least, I shall; as one, that know how to give a better account of the remainder of my pre

cious hours.

A SHORT

ANSWER

TO THE

TEDIOUS VINDICATION

OF

SMECTYMNUUS.

SECT. 1.

I AM sorry, Brethren, that your own importunity will needs make you guilty of your further shame. Had you sat down silent, in the conscience of a just reproof, your blame had been by this time dead and forgotten; but now, your impetuous Defence shall let the world see, you did in vain hope to face out an ill cause with a seeming boldness. I may not spend volumes upon you, but some lines I must enough to convince the reader of the justice of my charge, and the miserable insufficiency of your "Vindication."

It is not your stiff denial, that can make it other than God's' truth, which I maintain; or that can justify your errors. Let the cause speak for itself, and let that great Moderator of Heaven, to whom we both appeal, judge.

6

It was a light touch, that I gave to your grammatical slip of Areopagi: wherein it would not have hurt you, to have confessed your oversight. Had you yielded that you stumbled,' though withal you say, you stumbled like emperors, we could have passed it over with a smile: but, now that you will needs fall into a serious contestation, and spend almost a whole leaf in a faulty defence; must tell you, that you make this a heinous trifle. To face out wilfully the least error, is no less than a crime: and such is this of yours; as every true grammarian knows. I doubt not, but you had "heard of Dionysius Areopagita;" but, if you should have cited him under the name of Dionysius Areopagus, every scholar would have laughed you to scorn. Had you said, "The admired

sons of justice, the Areopagus," I grant it had been good; according to that, which you cite out of Sarisburiensis: but, to say, "The admired sons of justice, the Areopagi," no grammar, no authority can bear you out; and, however you face it, that you can bring "precedents enough out of approved authors," name but one, and take all. That of Sarisburiensis, which you allege, is altogether for me, against yourselves. He says, "That Senate of Athens was called Areopagus *:" so said my margin before but what is this, to your false Latin? Brethren, this matter of Latinity is" but a straw:" but, let me say, this willing defence of a plain falsehood is a block, which your very friends cannot but stumble at. And how can the reader choose but think, he, that will wilfully stand in the defence of a known falsehood in language, will not stick to defend a known error in his cause? Before, ye stumbled: now, ye fall rise up, for shame, in a just confession; and look better to your feet hereafter.

But, belike, you have not a better faculty in stumbling, than I in "leaping" and talk of huge great "blocks," that I have overskipped in this whole book. Where are they? which be they, Brethren? If such were, they are, I hope, still visible. Shew them me, I beseech you, that I may yet try my skill. You instance in "some words sounding to contempt:" I thought what these "blocks" would prove; mere matter of words, not less windy, than the froth of your next paragraph: wherein your gravity is set upon a merry pin; and, in a becoming jeer, tells us of the "gentleman student in philosophy," that desires to learn the rare secret of the sinking of froth; for which, I remit you and your deep student, to the next tapster.

It is not all your shuffling, that can shift the just charge of your gross uncharitableness. The Remonstrance, comparing, in a general notion, the forms of Civil Government and Ecclesiastical, expresses it in these terms: Since, if Antiquity may be the rule, the Civil Polity hath sometimes varied; the Sacred, never: and, if original authority may carry it, that came from arbitrary imposers, this from men inspired': than which, no word can be in a right sense more safe, or more innocent. Your good gloss appropriates t what, in thesi, was spoken of all forms of Civil Government, to our particular Monarchy; and tells your reader, that I deliver it as "arbitrary" and "alterable;" than which, there cannot, I suppose, be any slander more dangerous. And, to mend the matter, now in your "Vindication," you redouble your most injurious charge upon the Remonstrant; as if, upon this ground, it could follow, that, "to attempt the alteration of monarchical government, had been," in his opinion, "less culpable than to petition the alteration of Episco

* Doth he say, those Judges were called Areopagi?

† Answ. p. 4.