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 innocent, 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 f 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. xiii. p. 48), I do justly blame as a mere fancy; not herein contradicting anything but their light imagination.

In the contradiction pretended to be concerning the extent of episcopacy, sure they cannot but check themselves. In my monstrance' and 'Defence' they report me to say somewhere (but where no man can tell), that "bishops had been everywhere," and that "all churches through the whole Christian world have uniformly and constantly maintained episcopacy:" elsewhere, that I say they were not everywhere," and that "there are less noble churches that do not confer to episcopal government." Words are more easily accorded than acknowledged. There are

66

f [Page 341 of this vol.]

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 contradiction?

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 contradistinctive 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 groundwork of an 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 advantages 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 an hundred ventilations, transeat. I have resolved to bestow my time better than in drawing the 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 precious hours.

A SHORT ANSWER

TO THE

TEDIOUS VINDICATION OF SMECTYMNUUS.

SECT. I.

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; enow 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.

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, I must tell you that you make this an heinous trifle. To

a [This word, it is hardly necessary initial letters of the names of the five to mention, is framed out of the two undermentioned nonconformists: viz.

T. Y. Thomas Young, D.D. Master of Jesus College, Cambridge.

M. N. Matthew Newcomen, M.A.

W. S. William Spurstow, D.D. Master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge.]

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 enow 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 falschood 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. Show 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.

Ir 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;

Doth he say, those judges were called Areopagi?