AND now, having faid thus much as to the Succeffion fom the Apoftles, hewing that it is only deriv'd in the Bishops, and having put the Presbyterians to prove their Succeffion in the Form of Presbytery, which they can never do, becaufe, as I have faid before, the Chronology of the Church do's not compute from the Succeffion of the Presbyters, but only of the Bishops, as being the chief Governors of the Church. And therefore, tho' in many Bifhopricks, the Roll of their Bishops is preferv'd from the Apoftles to this Day; yet there is not one bare Presbyter, that is, the Minifter of a Parish, and no more, no, not in all the World, who can give a Roll of his Predeceffors, in that Parish, half way to the Apostles, or near it: For, from the firft Plantation of Chriftianity, the Church was divided into Bishopricks; this was neceffary for the Government of the Church: But it was not fo early fubdivided into Parishes. The Presbyters at firft attending upon the Bishop, were fent out by him, to fuch Pla ces, and for fuch Time as he thought fit; and returning, gave Account of their Stewardships, or were vifited, and changed by him, as he faw Caufe: And therefore tho' one might come after another, in the Place where He had miniftred before; yet they cou'd not properly be faid to fucceed one another, if they cou'd, pray give us an uninterrupted Succeffion of any one Presbyter in the whole World, from the Apoftles to this Day.

I have been thus long upon the Presbyterians, becaufe they only of all our Diffenters, have any pretence to Succeffion. And what I have faid as to them, muft operate more ftrongly againft our later Independent, Baptifls, &c. who have not the Face to pretend to Succefion, but fet up meerly upon their own pretended Gifs.

BUT, left the Independent or Baptift, fhou'd pretend in Defence of themfelves, to a Succeflion from the Apostles, (it being demonftrated in the short Me

thod,

thod, that it is neceffary that the Succeffion fhou'd be prefery'd uninterrupted,or elfe Chriftianity will be render'd precarious;) and left further, they fhould pretend that their Ordinations are regular, and that they are fent by God; (it being neceffary for them to affirm this, because the learned Mr. Pemberton has made it fo plain, that no one muft minifter in holy Things, but those whom God has appointed, and that Appointment is by Impofition of Hands, and no one can ordain or impofe Hands, but thofe, and only those whom Chrift has authoriz'd fo to do.) I fay, left they fhou'd pretend to both of thefe, that is, Succeffion from the Apoftles and lawful Ordination, I will here fhew (to undeceive the poor deluded. People in this Country, and in New England, &c.) I fay, I will now fhew where fome of them are abfolutely cut off from both: For, if we fhou'd trace either the Independent, or Baptift, up to thofe who firft fent them, before we could arrive to one hundred Years from this Date backwards, we fhou'd find fome of them ordain'd by Lay Brethren, and fome without any Ordination at all. Therefore it is impoffible that these Men can be in the Succeffion, or that they can be fent (in the ordinary Way I mean) by God, becaufe the Scripture fays exprefly, how fhall they preach without they are fent: And in another Place, no Man taketh this Honour to himfelf, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. And how that was, fhall be fhewn in the Sequel of this Difcourfe.

AND to fhew you, that I don't fpeak without Book as to their being ordain'd by Lay-Men, (tho' I have particular Inftances of the Matter of Fact). I will fhew what the Ecclefiaftical Laws of the Congregations in New England, fay concerning it.

IN their Platform of Church-Difcipline, pag. 23 and 24. they allow Lay-men to ordain. Pag. 23. §. 3. In fuch Churches where there are Elders, (that is, Gofpel Minifters) Impofition of Hands,

D 4

• in Ordination, is to be perform'd by thofe Elders. Pag. 24. §. 4. For fuch Churches where there are no Elders, (that is, Presbyters or Gofpel Minifters) Im. "pofition of Hands may be performed by fome of the Brethren orderly chofen by the Church thereunto.

As for the Reafon which the Platform offers for the Brethren to impofe Hands, it is founded upon a very grofs Miftake, viz. That the People have an inherent Right to conftitute Gofpel Minifters; which they have not; for none but Jefus Chrift can conftitute Gospel Minifters, they are his Embajadors, and no one can appoint Embassadors, but HE whofe Embaladors they are, as I fhall fhew more fully before I have done. As for that Expreffion in the Platform, viz. In fuch Churches where there are no Elders, it is fo far from being a Numb. viii, juft Parallel to the Cafe it quotes, that it is no Parallel at all; for at that very time there were in the Jewish Church both Mofes and Aaron. And further (by the by) E fhall make this Remark upon a Church without Elders, that it is a flat Contradiction in Terms; for a Church is a Society, and as fuch must have Goverment, but it cannot have Government without Elders or Governours, which is the fame Thing, and fo meant in that very Place.

10.

AND now, as I faid before, having spoken thus much concerning Succeffion, I muft be obliged to account for an Objection, which with fome feems a mighty one, even enough to overthrow all that I have faid concerning the Succeffion of our Bishops: And that is, the great Deluge and long Mid-night of Popery, which has, in old Time, darken'd this Nation.

WELL, The Succeffion, of which I have been treating, was no Part of that Darkness; and we have, by God's Bleffing, recover'd our felves, from that Darkness. But that Darkness was fuch, as, with fome, to deftroy the Epifcopal Succeffion, because, as they fay, fuch great Errors, efpeci

efpecially that of Idolatry, does quite un Church a People, and confequently muft break their Succeffion.

THIS, by the way, is a Popish Argument, tho' they that now make it, are not aware of it. For the Church of Rome argues thus, that Idolatry do's unChurch; and therefore, if fhe was Idolatrous for fo long a time, as we charge upon Her, it will follow, that for fo many Ages, there was no vifible Church, at least in these western Parts of the World. And Arianifm, (which is Idolatry) having broke in fo many times upon the Church; if Idolatry did quite un-Church, and break theSucceffion, there wou'd hardly be a Chriftian Church left in the World. The Confequence of which wou'd be as fatal to the Romans, and to the Diffenters as to us: Therefore, let them look to that Pofition, which they have advanc'd against us, that Idolatry does un-Church.

BUT, that it does not un Church, I have this to offer against thofe Papifts and Diffenters of all Sorts and Denominations, who make the Objection.

ift. If it does quite un-church, then cou'd no Chriftian be an Idolater; because, by that, he wou'd ipfo facto, ceafe to be a Member of the Chriftian Church. But the Scripture does fuppofe that a Chriftian may be an Idolater: Therefore Idolatry do's not un-Church: The Minor is prov'd, 1 Cor. v. 2. If any Man that is called a Brother (that is, a Christian) be a Fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater

Nay, Eph. v. 5. a covetous Man is called an Idolater: And Col. iii. v. Covetoufnefs is Idolatry. So that, by this Argument, Covetousness do's un-Church. If it be faid, that Covetousness is call'd Idolatry only by Allufion, but that it is not formal Idolatry: I know no Ground for that Diftinction. The Scripture calls. it Idolatry, and makes no Diftinction,

BUT 2dly. In the firft Text quoted, 1 Cor. v. 11. both Covetousness and Idolatry are nam'd, fo that, you have both material and formal, or what other fort of Idolatry you pleafe to fancy.

I.

I grant, that, in one Senfe, Idolatry does unChurch; that is, while we continue in it, it renders us obnoxious to the Wrath of God, and forfeits our Title to the Promifes which are made to the Church in the Gofpel: But fo does Fornication, Covetou nefs, and every other Sin, till we repent and return from it. But none of thefe Sins do fo un-church us, as to exclude our returning to the Fold, by fincere Repentance; or to need a fecond Baptifm, or Admiffion into the Church: Neither do's Idolatry. Do I then put Idolatry upon the Level with other common Sins? No, God forbid, far from it: Every Scab is not a Leprofy; yet a Leper is a Man, and may recover his Health. Idolatry is a fearful Leprofy; but it does not therefore quite un Church, nor throw us out of the Covenant: For, if it did, then wou'd not Repentance heal it; becaufe Repentance is a great Part of the Covenant. And therefore, fince none deny Repentance to an Idolater,it follows that he is not yet quite out of the Covenant. Some of the Ancients have deny'd Repentance to Apoftacy, yet granted it to Idolatry, which fhews, that they did not look upon Idolatry as an abfolute Apoftacy; for every Sin is an Apoftacy in a limited Senfe.

2dly. LFT us, in this Difquifition, follow the Examples before mention'd, of the Apostles and moft Primitive Fathers, to meafure the Chriftian Church with its exact Type, the Church under the Law; which are not two Churches, but two States of the fame Church; for it is the fame Chriftian Church from the firft Promife of Chrift, Gen. iii. 15. to the End of the World. And therefore it is faid, Heb. iv. 2. That the Gofpel was preached unto them as well as unto us. And these two States of the Church, before and after Chrift, do answer like a pair of Indentures to one another, the one being to an Lota, fulfilled in the other, Matt. v. 18. Now we find frequent Lapfes to Idolatry in the Church of the Jews; yet did not this un-church them; no, nor deprive them of a competent Meafure of God's Holy