strict sense of that word, and in oppofition to those Epifcopal Men, who did not approve of that word taken in fo ftrict a fenfe) and that by Divine Appointment. The Latter is the fentence, as it is expreffed by the Church it felf; and the defign of it is plainly no more, but to fignify, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, have been in the Church, from the very beginning, distinguished from one another by their peculiar offices. But if you take a pleasure in reprefenting, and understanding every thing in the way which to you carries moft difficulty along with it, we cannot help it. Thus, another difficulty made, that thefe Orders are spoken of as feveral offices; tho', how Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, if they be spoken of, either as three Orders, or as three Degrees in the fame Order; how, I fay, they can poffibly be spoken of any otherwise than as feveral offices, I shall never apprehend. But I have two things to answer to this objection.

1. Neither Affent and Confent, nor Subfcription, oblige you to agree to every individual fentence in the Prefaces, and Rubrics, belonging to the offices of the Church. I have before fufficiently fhewn, and I

here

here fay it again, that Affent and Confent refer to nothing but the use of these Forms in publick ministrations: and that fubfcription cannot reasonably be extended to this Book of Common Prayer, &c. in any other sense, than as it is a Book directing him who officiates, as to his behaviour, and the Prayers he is to ufe; and doth not appear to have been intended for any thing farther. Befides, if it were defign'd to extend to every particular sentence of no relation to ufe, it affects not the matter now before us; for the effect of it is this, that this Book containeth nothing contrary to the word of God. Now I hardly think that any thing can be produced out of the word of God, to which this fentence is contrary. For there is no Text of Scripture which fays this is not evident, &c. nor is there any thing in Scripture from whence it may be plainly proved, that this is a falfe propofition, Bishops, Priefts and Deacons have been in the Church from the Apoftles days. There is no paffage in the New Teftament that either forbids that there fhould be fuch Orders, or fays that there were not. But,

2. Suppofing this Affent, Confent, and Subfcription, did extend to every fuch fen

tence

tence as this; yet I fee nothing in your objections against this, but what feems very hard and unreasonable. When it is faid, This is evident to all diligent readers, can any one imagin that the intent of this is, that it is impoffible any fuch should ever doubt of it? or that any thing more was defigned, than to fignifie, that it was a plain truth? Should we deal thus with all fuch expreffions, what could we hear that would please us? Suppose it should be faid, It is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture, that our Saviour exifted before he was born of the Virgin Mary; would you fcruple to fubfcribe to this, because the Socinians, who have diligently read Holy Scripture, fay they cannot find it there? I believe the objection would never have enter'd into your heads. Nothing is more ufual than fuch forms of fpeech; and nothing more unreasonable, than to pass by the principal thing intended by them, and to argue against the manner of expreffing them taken in a literal Senfe, when it is always figurative. We must be fenfible, there are many caufes why very confiderable men fometimes miss of a very plain truth; and if we be afraid of faying, this is a plain truth,

because

because Calvin, or Beza, or Blondell, or Salmafius, or Cartwright, or Selden, or any others did not think it plain; and argue from hence against agreeing to it, we fhew more regard to great names than is allowable. Was this fentence defigned to caft a reflexion upon any learned or judicious men? You cannot think it was. Do you make any fcruple of differing often from them? You know you do not; I'm fure you ought not. Do not you run them down as Novices, and call them Fools as much, and as effectually this way, as you can do by fubfcribing this? Yet you do not think that a good argument against judging as you think fit. Is not the principal design of a sentence to be regarded, and the manner of expression to be interpreted according to use, and not according to the letter? yet here you take the manner of expression, of expreffion, quite contrary to what you do in common ufe; and draw objections from this manner of expreffion fo mistaken.

As to the thing intended in this sentence, it is plainly this, that Bishops, Priefts, and Deacons, have been in the Church from the Apostle's days. Now this Truth hath been very much cleared

fince the reformation; and the unhappy neceffity fome Learned Men imagined themselves under, to contradict and obfcure it; and the defire they had that it should not appear of great confequence, hath helped mightily to the clearing it. Arch-bishop Uber may very well appear in the head of those who have added great evidence to this propofition. If he differed from other Epifcopal men, the difference may well be thought verbal and not real; if we confider the fervice he hath done to Epifcopacy, in oppofition to the Presbyterians. Bishop Pearfon and others followed. Dr. Hammond's Differtations against Blondell (faith Mr. Chillingworth who uses not to speak unreasonably) never were answered, and never will. Mr. Chillingworth himself thinks the proof of this truth amounts to fuch a demonftration, as can never be evaded. He produces feveral Presbyterians allowing, that from the Apostle's days there was in every City one Perfon, who had priority of Order, and Superiority of Power and Authority over other Presbyters. Mr. Baxter himself thinks it evident that in the Primitive Church there was a Superiority over Paftours maintain'd not only by the Apoftles and Evange

Abridgment

p. 114.