"Chrift's Name, and by his Commission and Au"thority? Is he not fo exactly confiftent to all this, that he will not admit any of these Foreign Teachers into the Number of her Prielts, no nor of her Deacons neither, without Epifcopal Ordination? Is not all this fo true, that none can deny it? And does the not thereby, as much as may be, prevent all fuch Conceffions, and reprove those who make them, contrary to her Doctrine and Practice? I think fhe does; and confequently, that her Articles, relating to this matter, are not of fo loofe and variable a Contexture as fome (who ought to know better) have reprefented them to be, (like a Nofe of Wax) that may be wrefted to ferve any Turn, and defend almost all Contradictious Doctrines and Pra&tices whatsoever; without confidering that her Articles, Rubricks and Canons, &c. Concerning the Divine Right of Epifcopal Ordi nation, when duly compar'd with one another, do make the moft perfect Harmony and Agreement; and have nothing in them, that is either contradictory or inconfiftent to themfelves, or difagreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and Practice of the Primitive Church.

IF in the Days of Jeroboam, the Son of Nebat, who made Ifrael to fin, a Prieft of the Tribe of Aaron fhould have undertaken to defend the Validity of the Priesthood which Jeroboam had fet up, would he not have been justly cenfurable? Would he not have acted

contrary

.

contrary to the Principles of the True Church of the Jews at Jerufalem? Certainly he would; notwithstanding the vaftly Superior Numbers in the Ten Tribes who forfook the True Priefts, and the Smallness of the Numbers in the Two other Tribes, who would not follow that Multitude to do this Evil. And the Reason why he would have been justly blameable, is evident; Because Jeroboam made Priests of the Loweft of the People, which were not of the Sons of Levi, 1 Kings 12. 31. For that this (as well as their Idolatry) was his and the Ten Tribes Sin, is evident by Abijah's Speech to them, (2 Chron. 13. 9, 10.) Have ye not caft out the Priests of the Lord, the Sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you Priefts after the manner of the Nations of other Lands? &c. But as for us, (i. e. the Members of the True Church of God, the other Two Tribes of I rael) the Lord is our God, &c. And the Prief's which minifter unto the Lord, are the Sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their Business, Here you fee that Abijah triumphs and glories in the True Priesthood with them, because 'twas that which God himfelf appointed; and he upbraids the Ten Tribes, for their haying fet up other Priefts, without any Regard to the Divine Institution of the Priefthood. Their mighty Numbers, and the feeming Neceffity of their being forc'd thereto by the Secular Power, was no Argument for him to allow of their Priesthood. How much lefs ought thofe

thofe Writers, among us to have studied so induftriously, as fome of them have done, to prove the Validity of their Miniftry, who are, not One Tenth of the Prefent Univerfal Church, and who differ from them and the whole Church throughout all Ages, in not Re quiring their Minifters to be Vefted with the Divine Authority by Epifcopal Ordination.

མ་

་ ་་

I AM well aware of what is pleaded by thofe Epifcopal Divines; viz. That thofe Foreign Reform'd were under a Cafe of Necef fity, and fome of them fay, they are fo ftill But I am not yet fatisfied what they mean by this Cafe of Neceffity: The Church of Enland, whereof thofe Epifcopal Divines are Members, has not declar'd it: The Scripture is wholly filent about it, and (on the contrary) has recorded the Dreadful Punishments inflicted upon fome, who (to all Appearance) had, a great deal of Reafon to plead, that they were under great Circumftances of Neceffity, to affume to themfelves thofe Offices, wherein they miniftred contrary to the Divine Inftitutions: As in the Cafes of Saul, 1 Sam. 13. from Ver. 8. to Ver. 14, and Uzzah, 2 Sam. 6. 6, 7. So that I am utterly at a Lofs to know, how those Writers could difcover any Cafe of Neceffity, that of it felf was fufficient to authorize Men to take upon them the Great Of fice of Mediating between God and Man. There is not one Inftance (that I know of) in all the Sacred Oracles, of any one's being in

I

ftated

Aated into fuch an Office, even in the greateft Cafes of Neceffity, without an explicit Revelation of God's Will, that the Man fhould act therein, when the ordinary appointed Means of giving him his Commiffion was wanting And if the Excufers of thofe Foreign Ordinations can fhew me fuch an. Inftance, I fhall be very much oblig'd to them if they will be pleas'd to do it.

NAY further; Suppofing that 'twere poffible to determine a Cafe of Neceffity, that might be fufficient to empower Men to adminifter Valid Sacraments, without Receiving a Commiffion for fo doing, by God's appointed Means of Epifcopal Ordination; yet I don't find, that any of the abovefaid Writers have prov'd by good Arguments, that the faid Fo-, reigners were ever under fuch a Cafe of Ne ceffity, much less that they are fo now: And till this is prov'd, I fee no Reafon fee no Reafon to be at all con cluded by the Writings of even the beft of Men, when they make fuch Provifo's as God. has not made, and who can give us no Proof by the of their being guided in their Dictates by infallible Spirit of Truth, as the Bleffed Apofiles and Prophets were.

I KNOW that fome do beg the Questi on, by fuppofing, “What if the Epifcopal "Order were utterly Extinct, and no Bishops "could be found to confer Holy Orders "muft there be no Minifters therefore in the "Chriftian Church? And must the Vilible "Church

"Church of Chrift ceafe to have a Being as fuch in the World? This, at firft Propofing, looks to be a very weighty Question; but when we juftly reflect on the Divine Veracity, which has infallibly affur'd us, That Chrift will be with his Apostles, (i. e. them and their Succes fors, the Bishops) alway even unto THE END OF THE WORLD; and that the Gates of Hades fhall never prevail against the Church; then the Impertinence and Folly of this [What if] does immediately discover it felf: Because it fuppofes what in Fact never was, nor ever will be; and therefore needs no Anfwering because not to be granted. But alas! Suppo fing that it were (as it is not) poffible, for the Church to beluniverfally depriv'd of her Valid Spiritual Fathers, the Bifhopstis our Duty, as well as Safety, rather to wait and hope for fome New Revelation of his Will, for another Inftitution of Men to fuccedd in the Chriftian Brielthood, than to take it upon our selves by fuch Ways and Means as he has not hitherto appointed, and which will thenefone prove ineffectual for the fupernatural Purpofes of hist Own Divine Inftitution; (becaufe MAN by his own: Authority only,can never make a Humani equal to a Divine Institution; but this Cafes has never happen'd yet; and therefore, no So-b ciety of Men, either past or prefent, can belate albexcus'd upon this fuppos'd Foundation.BA CANID now to conclude all that I have to fay to this Objection no Doctrine whatsoever