You are pleas'd to mention St, Chrifoftom, but in fuch a contradictory and abfurd a manner, that I am very forry that Primitive Confeffor's Sacred Memory fhou'd be fo tarnish'd; you feem not to like the Parallel, and you ftill beg the Queftion, in fuppofing that if St. Chrifoftom had been defervedly ba nifhed, his See must have been vacant. But however you tell us, 'tis nothing to the purpose, unless St. Chrifoftom had been a profefs'd Enemy to the State. But you add one Circumftance which would indeed have made his See vacant; if he had denyed Communion to all who would not joyn with him against the Emperor.

But however from St. Chrifoftom's Cafe we gather particulars not over favourable to your Scheme; the Banishment was not look'd upon as including deprivation, his Flock adherd to him to his Death, and would not own his pretended Succeffour, which I think is fufficient to my purpofe to overthrow your Hypothefes.

Youdifcover more Heat than Candour in your 53d Page. You fay fome men claim more Power under this umbrage of the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivations than Chrift ever claimed; I profefs I cannot find that any earthly Power could depofe him from his everlasting Priesthood, altho' they cou'd put him to Death. But this is, you fay, an enormous Claim, and full of Blafphemies, but Blafphemy against whom is ftill a Secret, I heartily with fome fucceeding Paragraphs give not more occafion to complain of Blafphemy than the Notion of the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivations; Blafphemy I do affure you, Sir, is a very hard Charge, and ought to have fome better Foundation than a meer affertion.

You plead admirably well in Defence of Pagan Supremacy, in your 53 and 54 Pages,and you adhere very ftrictly to your notion of Deprivation, being included in putting to Death; but, I beg the favour to

ask

ask whether the Majestrate has a Right barely to deprive a Bishop of his Office, without banishing or putting him to Death; if not, the Deprivation by puting him to Death is accidental, and not the effect of any Right, or you begin at the tail of the Queftion. But let the worst come to the worst, I have extracted one Conclufion from this Paragraph, of no Trivial Confequence.

A Pagan Prince without the Imputation of Being an Ideot or a Lunatick, might be a Governour over a Christian People; but a Papist cannot be a Governour over a Proteftant one, from whence I'conclude, The Devil is more in Popery than in Paganifm, for a Pagan Prince is fo far from being incapacitated tò govern Chriftians, that he can warrantably deprive a Bishop who should infift upon fuch an Incapacity. I have one Quere to ask, Whether the Grand Seigniour is a Lunatick or no?

I hope, Sir, you will not be Affronted at this Important Quere. 1st. The Grand Seigniour has often extended his Conquefts over the Proteftant Churches in Tranfilvania and Hungary; I wou'd willingly know whether he was Capacitated to be their Governour

or no.

By this time, after having admirably well prov'd, that all Princes, but Popish ones, have a Right to Preferve themfelves by what Means they think fit. The Caufe of Jefus Chrift is next to be Defended after a manner peculiar to your self.

It begins p. 72. At the very Root of all Spiritual Authority we are told, that the Benefit of God's Appointments does not depend upon a regular, uninterrupted, Succeffion of Rightful Bishops, which was never yet kept up in Fact. By the Divine Appointments, you must mean the Sacraments, and all thofe Minifterial Functions that refpect the Laity, from whence I obferv'd, that as Succeffion is

1

only a regular Derivation of Power, the performance of all the Ministerial Functions might be affum'd by any Perfon, Epifcopal Succeffion is no more than transfering thofe Powers which Bishops. enjoy'd themselves to others. But if those who are not Bishops can transfer fuch Powers, they are common, and may be affum'd at pleafure, therefore, any Layman may preach the Gospel, adminifter the Sacraments, offer Prayers in a publick Congregation; for if the Benefit of thofe Appointments do not depend upon Epifcopal Ordination; they are. Valid if perform'd by one who has not that Ordination; therefore all Diffenters in England regularly and duly Administer the Sacraments, their not being in Communion with Right Bishops, by your own Confeffion does not deftroy the Title to God's Favour.

A Bishop at his Confecration receives no more Power than he had before, thus we may easily come at the Lay Deprivation, for if a Prince takes away the Temporalities from a Bishop, he takes away all.

I heartily Congratulate your Care and Industry, to remove one Difficulty, in order to bring us more nearly to the profpect of Oliver's Days. You have taken away the Intolerable Load of Prelacy, this is the first Blow you strike for the Vitals of Religion, and the Caufe of Jefus Chrift.

But however you was not of this Opinion in your Defence of Epifcopal Ordination, c. 1. §. 1. (b),

I wish

(b) Firft, Bishops have a long and immemorial Poffeffion of the Power of Ordination to plead for themfelves, and with this the Confeffion of the greatest Patrons of the Presbyterian Caufe, that fuch a Confinement of this Power to them is in it felf Lawful; the moft Learned of them have never been able to produce any pofitive Proof of any time in the Chriftian Church fince the Apostles Days, when it was cfteem'd the Office of every Minifter of the Gofpel to Ordain others to the Miniftry, or when this Office was not acknowleg'd by all who fpeak any thing of it to belong to fingle Perfons, Superior to the ordinary Presbyter. Def. of Epifcopal Ordinat. c. 1. §. 2.

I wish you wou'd give us fome grounds to believe that an uninterrupted Succeffion of Bishops has not been kept up with us from the Apoftles Days, I know of no Sham Confecrations, except the Waldenfes and Bohemians, who, I believe, never found much Credit.

Whatever therefore you urge against an uninterrupted Succeffion, p. 78. is of no Force, for Lay Baptifins, and Forg'd Pretences to Ordination cou'd not effect the Bishops, their Confecrations were always Publick, and guarded with fo much Care, that I'defie you to prove even the poffibility of fuch a Cheat.

Well, but you tell us, p. 8o. That fuch Principles will not bring the Reformation off clear, which fhews how little you understand 'em : You might be fenfible their conftant and avow'd Principles were, that if a Chriftian Bishop, or the Majority of the Epifcopal College, fhou'd impofe unlawful Terms of Communion, they cou'd be no longer Bishops of the Catholick Church, because they were Members of a Communion inconfiftent with that Church, and it becomes from that time the Duty of every particular to feperate from 'em Upon this Foundation the Reformation in England is, and ever will be Juftifiable.

But however the Majority of the Epifcopal College in Edward the 6th's Reign was by far on our fide, the few who stood out were depriv'd of their Temporalities by a Commiffion, but of True Spiritualities they cou'd not be depriv'd, because the Spiritual Relation between them and their Flock was Cancell'd by their being Papifts; as for Queen Elizabeth, fhe only Reftor'd the remainder of the Epifcopal College, depriv'd by Queen Mary, upon whom the Lay deprivation ought to be more tru ly fix'd.

You

You never heard that the Popish Church in England or Ireland was Condemn'd by the Nonjurors, as no Church, but you might, that thofe Churches were ever Condemn'd as Schifmatical, because they were the cause of breach of Communion, the Nonjurors therefore, if I be not mif-inform'd, put them upon the fame foot with the reft.

I wonder therefore, that a Perfon of your Sagacity fhou'd infift upon fuch Quibbles, Turnings, and Windings, from the true State of the Question; you urge against us the the Popish Anti-Bishops whom we are fo far from Defending, that we Reject 'em as Schifmaticks, by Rejecting their Communion, because the Catholick Church can confift but of one Communion, and if one Party is in the true Catholick Communion, the other cannot be in the fame; neither do we derive the Validity of our Ordinances from the Papists as fuch, but from their having a Commiffion from Chrift, how much foever it has been abus'd, and drawn in, to favour Spiritual Rebellion; therefore I will be bold to fay, in the behalf of the Nonjurors (tho' I do not design to Interest my self in their Difputes at this time.) If the Schifm fhou'd ever be heal'd by the Condefcention of the Bishops in Poffeffion, they wou'd be receiv'd by thofe Nonjurors, with open Arms, as Bishops, and be Confirm'd as fuch in their Refpective Dioceffes, with out any New Confecration; but if a Conge de Lirè fhou'd be Directed to a Dean and Chapter to Choose a Lay Perfon, and Inveft him with pretended Epifcopal Powers; fuch a Perfon, if the Schifm was heal'd, wou'd be never Acknowleg'd by them as a Bishop, or Confirm'd as fuch; I use this as an Argument to you, to prove you have not done that Party Justice in Reprefenting them more bountiful in their Conceffions to Papifts than to Protestants,

for