cils, which is fo requifite for a Divine, I wish he had been as well verfed in them, as in Ben. Maimon. and Abarbanel, and then indeed he might have been as great a Man as this Author for his own Purpofe describes him to have been, even a Star of the first Magnitude in the Firmament of the Church. But, Sir, we injure the Memories of fuch worthy Men, when we ftretch their Characters, and make them greater than they were; and therefore, as Writers hould take care not to leffen the just worth and greatnefs of Authors, when they give Testimony against them; fo ought they not to magnifie and aggrandize them above what is meet, when they are on their fide, especially when they reafon only from their Authority, as this Second to your late Writer doth in a point, wherein, against the Voice of Antiquity, it did not become him to be fo dogmatical, and affured.

But Grotius writes on this Subject with more Modefly than thefe Gentlemen; for he, when fpeaking of the Chriftian Priefthood, writes thus, f Truly it was a received Cuflom in the ancient Church to call the Preachers of the Gofpel Pricfts, but there was fome reason why Chrift and bis Apoftles abftain'd from that way of Speaking, which is fufficient to admonifh us, left we lightly and inconfiderately draw an Argument [about fome things mention'd there from the Levitical Priefts to the Minifters of the Gofpel, because there is a great Difference of one from the other, in the Function and ibe Succeffion of the Perfons to it. Before I proceed to obviat that Objection, I muft obferve that it makes no great Difference, as to my Undertaking in the firft Letter, Whether Bishops he, properly fpeaking, Priests or not? or whether or no they be fo much as Priests in an improper Senfe; that is, whether they are Priests at

De Imperio Sum. poteft. Cap. 11. 5.

all

all or no? For my chief Defign there is to fhew, that they are Chrift's Stewards in his Houfe; his Vicegerents upon Earth in the feveral Principalities or Dominions of his fpiritual Kingdom; and that all Chriftians as fuch, Kings and Senates, as well as their People, are Subjects to them as to his Vicegerents, or chief Minifters over the Catholick Church. To prove this is my chief Defign: in my Propofitions, and this is true, whether they be admitted to be Priests or no; or whether or no they reprefent Chrift the Archity pal Melchifedeck in his double Capacity, and are Servants and Minifters under him in the feveral Dominions of his Kingdom, both as High Prieft, and King. You know, Sir, the Presbyterians, who do not allow Bishops and Presbyters to be Priests, yet affert the Nature of Chrift's fpiritual Kingdom, and all the Rights of it to be Independent of the Kingdoms of the World; and carry the fpiritual Power and Authority of the Presbytery, as his Miniftry, to as great a height as I have done that of Bithops; whom agreeably to the confentient Teftimony of Ecclefiaftical Writers, and Councils, I affert to be Priefts, and their Authority to be a Sacerdotal Authority, and their College in every Chriftian Province, and in the whole World, to be a Sacerdotal College. And I am neither afraid nor afham'd' to fay, that I will adhere to this con, fentient Authority, and Tradition of the ancient Church, in the best and pureft Ages of it; tho' it were rejected, as that Writer falfely afferts, by the whole Proteftant Communion, or as he fhould have faid, by all the Proteftant Churches, for they are ma, ny and different ; and few of them, as the common Adverfary obferves, are in Communion one with another.

II. Having premised this,, I proceed, as you advised me, to obviate the Objection which thefe Men will be apt to make against the Second Reafon of my Fourth Propofition, Not believing Bishops and Presbyters

B 3

.

Presbyters to be Priests, or proper Priefts, because they are neither call'd Priests, nor is their Of fice or Miniftry call'd Priesthood in the Scriptures of the New Teftament, which hath been alfo obferved by many Learned Men, who yet never doubted but that they were Priests. Wherefore, to fet my Anfwer to this Objection in as clear a Light as I can, I will fhew Firft, That it is not a good Argument to prove that the Minifters of the Chriftian Church are not Priefts, or their Office not a Priesthood, because they are not fo called in the New Teftament. Secondly, I will fhew, that tho' the Names of Prieft and Priesthood, as apply'd to the Minifters and Miniftry of Chrift, are not found in the New Teftiment, yet the thing fignify'd by thofe Names, is there, and properly belongs to them. And Thirdly, I will give you the Reafons, for which learned Men conjecture, why they are not called by thofe Names in the Writings of the New Teftament.

III. First, then, I will fhew that it is no good Argument to prove the Bishops and Presbyters of the Chriftian Church not to be Priefts, or their refpective Offices a Priesthood, because thofe Names are not given them in the Scriptures of the New Teftament. For there are many things contain'd in the New Testament, which have been taught for Gofpel-Truths and Doctrines by the Church, tho' the Names or Terms by which they are exprefs'd and taught are not to be found there. The Word or Terms Original Sin or Birth Sin is not to be found in the Whole Bible, and yet because the thing fignified by it is there, very few Divines or other Chriftians doubt of the Doctrine fignify'd by it, as it was taught in the time of the Pelagian Controverfie, and is defined in the ninth Article of our

IX. Article of Religion. Miniflration of Publick Baptifm for Infants: Dearly beloved for as much as all Men are conceived and born in Sin

Church

Church. The divine Authority of the New Teftament, is and hath been a previous Article of Faith taught and believed in all Churches, and yet there is not one Book in it, which either faith of it felf, or of the whole Teftament, that it is of Divine Authority, or was written by Divine Inspiration. So the admitting Women as well as Men to the Holy Eucharift hath been the univerfal Cuftom and PraEtice of the Church; and yet no one Book of the New Teftament faith in exprefs Words that Women were admitted to the Holy Sacrament, indeed no more than that Infants were baptized. There are many more Doctrines and Practices which have been taught and profefs'd in all Churches and Ages,as "common Principles of Chriftianity; of which we have no express mention in the New Teftament, nor can find therein the Names or Terms in which they have been taught, and defined by the Catholick Church. The Words Perfon or Trinity, or Trinity in Unity are not there; quoso or confubftantial, as the Arians objected, are not there to be found; nor is veg

in all the Greek Teftament; or is it any where exprefly, or in Terms therein taught, that Jefus Chrift is very God and very Man in one and the fame Perfon. The like is to be faid of the Deity of the Holy Ghoft, who as the Unitarians object, is not once

1 See Dr. William Beveridge's Proemium before his Codex Canonum Eccles. Primitiva Vindicat,

i Wolzogenii Comment. in A&. Apoft. cap. v. 3, ut mentireris, in Spiritum Sanctum. Bene hoc loco Pifcator in Scholiis, Spiritum Sanctum, i. e. Nos Apoftolos, in quibus agit Spiritus San&us, & quibus revelat, qua opus eft ad edificationem Ecclefia. Metonymia adjuncti. Verf. 4. Non mentitus es hominibus, fed Deo- Simile huic di&um eft, Exod. xvi. Ubi poftquam Verfu 2. Scriptum eft Congregationem Ifraelitarum murmuraffe contra Mofem, & contra Aaronem; deinde verfu 8, dicitur: Non contra nos murmurationes veftra, fed contra DOMINUM. Et Num. xx. Poftquam di&um est Verfu 3. Jurgatum effe populum cum Mofe, poflea Verfu 13. Dicitur ibi tunc jurgatos effe filios Ifr. cum DOMINO, feu Jehovah. Vide et Matth. x, 40, xviii. 5. Marc. ix. 37. Luc, x. 16. 1 Cor. viii, 1

B 4

expre

exprefly called God in all the Scriptures of the New Teftament. The fame may be faid of the DoAtrine of Satisfaction, which is there, tho' not under that Name, and alfo of Infant Baptifm; the religious Obfervation of the firft Day of the Week, by Chriftians called the Lord's Day, and of the Polity or Government of the Church by Bishops fu perior to and diftinct from Presbyters, which yet was the Form of Government in all Churches, and Ages for almoft 1600 Years after the time of the Apoftles, tho' it is not in exprefs Words mentioned. or defcribed in the Holy Scriptures. So to give an Example of another kind, the Word Musalwyer which fignifies to teach religious Myfteries and Rights, Musalalla teaching religious Myfteries and Rights; Myfies, Hieromyftes, Mystagogus, Hieroteleftes, and1 Hierophantes, a Teacher of religious Myfteries and Rights, are not any of them once ufed in the New Teftament; and yet the things fignified by them are there, for which Reafon many Chriftian Writers thought it fit, and proper to tranflate the Ufe of them from Heathenifm to Chriftianity, and from the Priesthoods, and religious Rights and Myfteries of the Gentiles to the Chriftian Church. St. Ignatius in his Epittle to the Ephefians, tells them they were the Difciples of St. Pauli Παύλε συμμύσαι το ἡΓιαςμένο Tasive for; Musts, fignifics a Scholar as well as a Master, and a Learner as well as a Teacher of Holy Mysteries; and Tertullian in his "Apology,

* Ἱερομύτης, ἱερά μυςήρια εἰση ό μεν καὶ διδάσκων. Sui das, Phavorinus.

* ! Ιεροφάντης, μυσα[οζὸς ἱερεὺς ὀ τὰ μυςήρια δεικνύων. Hefychius, Suidas.

ןת

Μύσης, ὁ τὰ μυσήρια επιςάμενΘ ἢ διδάσκων. Suidas, Μύτης, τελέμεν@, σιωπηλὸς, τα μυςήριᾳ μαθών, μεμνημέ . Hefych.

At quin volentibus initiari moris eft, Opinor, priùs patrem illum Sacrorum adire, quae præparanda funt defcribere, tum ille Infans tibi Neceffarius, &c.

doth