against the established Church of this country; since, whatever was your purpose in writing it, its effect, if it has any, must be to support the cause of separation from it. For when a person, who "avows his sincere attachment to the Church of England, in doctrine, in constitution, and in discipline," admits likewise, that "they have no bad ground to stand upon, who separate from it," the conclusion drawn by separatists will be, that more is meant than meets the ear; and it is hardly possible that improper use should not be made of it. This subject I have thought it necessary to enter into at large, because it constitutes a considerable part of the ground-work upon which your publication stands. Some few observations, however, have since occurred upon it, which seem to have no inconsiderable weight. One, which particularly recommends itself to the attention of a steady member of the Church of England, as you profess you are, is to be found in the preface to the Ordination Service, in which the Church of England asserts, that "it is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy scriptures and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons.”* To which may be added the judicious remark, on this subject, of that learned divine, Bishop Stillingfleet; together with the demonstration of that acute reasoner, Mr. Chillingworth. The universal consent of the Church being proved, there is as great reason to believe the Apostolical succession to be of Divine institution,

* Vide Ordination Preface.

as the canon of scripture, or the observation of the Lords'-day. We do not doubt but it is unlawful to add to, or to diminish from, the canon of scripture; and yet there is no plain text for it with respect to all the books contained in it; and some of the books were a long time disputed in some Churches: but the Churches coming at last to a full agreement in this matter, upon due search and inquiry, hath been thought sufficient to bind all after-ages to make no alterations in it. And as to the Divine institution of the Lord's-day, we do not go about to lessen it, but only to show, that some examples in scripture, being joined with the universal practice of the Church in its purest ages, hath been allowed to be sufficient ground not only for following ages to observe it, but to look on it as at least an Apostolical institution. Now it cannot but seem unequal, not to allow the same force where there is the same

evidence ; and therefore our Church hath wisely and truly determined, that since the Apostles' time there have been three orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons, and in a regular well-constituted Church are to continue to the world's end."*

"Episcopal government (says Mr. Chillingworth, at the end of his demonstration) is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church, presently after the times of the Apostles; between the Apostles and this presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration; and therefore there was no such alteration as was pretended." From whence it follows, "that episcopacy, being confessed to be so ancient and * Bishop Stillingfleet's Ordination Sermon preached in 1684-5.

catholic, must be also granted to be Apostolic." Q. E. D. "For so great a change as between presbyterian government and episcopal, could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time. Had episcopal government been an aberration from, or a corruption of, the government left in the Churches by the Apostles, it had been very strange that it should have been received in any one Church so suddenly, or that it should have prevailed in all for many ages after. • Variasse debuerat error ecclesiarum; quod autem apud omnes unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum? Had the Churches erred, they would have varied; what, therefore, is one and the same among all, came not sure by error but by tradition. Thus Tertullian argues, very probably, from the consent of the Churches of his time; and that, in matter of opinion, much more subject to unobserved alteration. But that in the frame and substance of the necessary government of the Church, a thing always in use and practice, there should be so sudden a change as presently after the Apostles' times, and so universally as received in all Churches; this is clearly impossible."*

The quotation which you have brought from Mr. Gisborne, in page 12, begs the question, but proves nothing; the conclusion drawn from it must, therefore, be weighed accordingly. But to the question subjoined to it, "where shall a pure Protestant Church be found, with bishops coming in succession from the Apostles to the present day?" it may be answered, that a pure Protestant Church, so far as

* Vide Chillingworth's Works, fol. p. 322.

the constitution of it is concerned, with bishops coming in succession from the time of the Apostles to the present day, is to be found in the Church of England, in the episcopal Church of Scotland, and in that of Ireland. In Stowe's Survey of London are to be found all the names of the bishops of London, from his time upwards, as far as our history reaches; and from Stowe's time, down to the present period, the episcopal succession is easy to be ascertained. The objections against episcopal succession, from the case of Archbishop Secker, and the non-jurors, do not establish the point for which they have been brought. Schismatical baptism, admitting the baptism of the Archbishop to have been of that kind, does not invalidate episcopal succession. Á bishop, duly consecrated, is a regular bishop; consequently, the sacraments administered by him, and by those commissioned by him, are valid sacraments. Rules are made for general cases; and whoever treats extreme cases as if they were ordinary, or from one exception attempts to set aside a general conclusion, will ever involve himself in difficulties. Contending, as I do, on ground that cannot be shaken, that if the baptism of the excellent archbishop was, as you suppose it to have been, it neither invalidated the episcopal character with which he was regularly invested, nor of course any of the consecrations derived through him; I cannot but conclude it to be sufficiently proved, that there is no flaw in the episcopal character of any of the respectable men now invested with it.

In answer to what you say, page 14, "that in

England, at this present hour, there are, or at least were within these few years, three classes of bishops, all claiming what each thinks the best right to the same bishopricks;" I have yet to add some brief remarks.

The non-jurors, it is to be observed, never did consecrate a bishop over any diocese. On the contrary, they purposely abstained from so doing, that no fresh difficulties might arise, to prevent the closing of what they considered to be a lamentable schism. In 1691 Archbishop Sancroft was deprived. On the 9th of February, 1691-2, he appointed Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, his substitute, to transact all business incumbent on him, and with full powers to consecrate other bishops. About a year after this event, the Archbishop recommended Dr. George Hickes, the deprived dean of Worcester, to be a bishop, with the suffragan title of Thetford; as Lloyd of Norwich did Mr. Thomas Wagstaffe, with the title of Ipswich. In subsequent consecrations, even suffragan titles were, I believe, among the nonjurors, laid aside. Among the Papists, I understand they are still retained. But how do these unessential circumstances, admitting them all in their utmost extent, affect the episcopal character of any or of all these several claimants; or in any degree invalidate the episcopal functions, which they respectively perform among those over whom they preside? Are you to be reminded, (for I cannot suppose it necessary to inform you) that what you call bishopricks, as now constituted and settled by the law of the land, relate chiefly, if not solely, to the temporal