ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 85
blames, and not Protestancy? men's miscarriages, and not their ride's imperfection? If it be so, I crave his pardon for having troubled him thus far. To defend Protestants for not answering the principles of their profession is a task too hard for me to undertake, nor do I at all like the business; let him lay on blame still, until I say, Hold. It may be we shall grow wiser by his reviling, as Monica was cured of her intemperance by the reproach of a servant. But I would fain prevail with these gentlemen, for their own sakes, not to cast that blame which is due to us uj^on the holy and perfect word of God. We do not say, nor ever did;, that whoever acknowledgeth the Scrip- ture to be a perfect rule must upon necessity understand perfectly all that is contained in it; that he is presently freed from all dark- ness, prejudices, corrupt affections, and enabled to judge perfectly and infallibly of every truth contained in it, or deduced from it. These causes of our diiferences belong to individual persons, not to our common rule ; and if, because no men are absolutely perfect, and some are very perverse and froward, we should throw away our rule, the blessed word of God, and run to the pope for rule and guidance, it is all one as if at noonday, because some are blind and miss their way, and some are drunk and stagger out of it, and others are variously enticed to leave it, we should all conspire to wish the sun out of the firmament, that we might follow a Will-with-a-wisp.
I know not what in general needs to be added farther to this sec- tion ; the mistake of it is palpable. Some particular passages may bo remarked in it before we proceed : Page 1 73, he pronounceth a heavy doom on the prelate Protestants, making them prevaricators, im- postors, reprobates ; — a hard sentence, but that it Ls hoped it will prove like the flying bird, and curse causeless! But what is the matter? " Why, in dealing with the Presbyterians, they are forced to make use of those popish principles which themselves at first rejected, and so, building them up again, by the apostle's rule deserve no better terms." But what, I pray, are they? "Why, the difference betwixt clergy and laity, the efficacy of episcopal ordination, and the autho- rity of a visil)le church, which all men are to obey." But there are two things our author needs to prove to make good his charge, — first. That these are popish principles; secondly. That as such they were at any time cast down and destroyed by prelate Protestants. I fear his mind was gone a little astray, or that he had been lately among the Quakers, when he hammered this charge against prelate Protestants ; for as these have been their constant principles ever since the beginning of the Reformation, so they have as constantly maintained that, in their true and proper sense, they are not popish. Nor is the difference about these things, between any Protestants whatever, any more than verbal. For those terms of clergy and laiti/,
86 ANOLiDVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
because they had been abused in the Papacy, though anciently used, some have objected against them; but for the things signified by
them, namely, that in the church there are some teachers, some to
be taught, bishops and flocks, pastors and people,— no Protestant ever questioned. Our author, then, doth but cut out Avork for himself, without order from any Protestant, when he sets up an excuse for this change in them by a relinquishment of their first principles, and re-assumino- popish ones for their defence against the Presbyterians. He^that set him a-work may pay him his wages. Protestants only tell him that what was never done needs never be excused.
Nor will they give him any more thanks for the plea he interposes in the behalf of ej^iscopacy against Presbyterians and Independents, being interwoven with a plea for the Papacy, and managed by such arguments as end in the exaltation of the Roman see; and that partly because they know that their adversaries will be easily able to disprove the feigned monarchical government of the church imder one pope, and to prove that that fancy really everts the true and only monarchical state of the church in reference to Christ, knowing that monarchy doth not signify two heads, but one; and partly because they have better arguments of their own to plead for episcopacy than those that he suggests here unto them, or than any man in the world can supply them with, who thinks there is no communication of au- thority from Christ to any on the earth but by the hands of the pope. So that upon the whole matter they desire him that he would attend his o\vn business, and not immix their cause in the least with his, which tends so much to their weakening and disadvantage. If this may be granted, which is but reasonable, they will not much be troubled about his commendation of the pope, p. 178, as the substi- tute of Christ, our only visible pastor, the chief bishop of the Catholic church, presiding, ruling, and directing in the place of Christ, and the like eulogiums; being resolved, when he goes about to prove any thing tliat he says, that they will consider of it. But he must be better known to them than he is, before they wiU believe him on his bare word in things of such importance; and some suppose that the more he is known, the less he will be believed. But that he may not for the present think himself neglected, we will run over the heads of his plea, pretended for episcopacy, really to assert the papal sove- reignty. First, he pleads, " That the Christian church was first monarcliical, under one sovereign bishop, when Christ, who founded it, was upon the earth." True ; and so it is still. There is one sheep- fold, one shepherd and bishop of our souls; he that was then bodily present having promised that presence of himself with his church to the end of the world, wherein he continues its one sovereign bishop. And although the apostles after him had an equality of power in the