toward brethren, is not my business to inquire. One may allow the divine or apostolick right of episcopacy, and its great superiority over presbyters; and yet dispute the methods of exercising the latter, which, being of human institution, are subject to encroachments and usurpations. I know, every clergyman in a diocese has a great deal of dependence upon his bishop, and owes him canonical obedience: but I was apt to think, that when the whole representative of the clergy met in a synod, they were considered in another light; at least since they are allowed to have a negative. If I am mistaken, I desire to be excused, as talking out of my trade; only there is one thing, wherein I entirely differ from this author: since, in the disputes about privileges, one side must recede; where so very few privileges remain, it is a hundred to one odds, that the encroachments are not on the inferiour clergy's side; and no man can blame them for insisting on the small number that is left. There is one fact, wherein I must take occasion to set this author right: that the person[1], who first moved the queen to remit the first-fruits and tenths to the clergy, was an eminent instrument in the late turn of affairs; and, I am told, has lately prevailed to have the same favour granted for the clergy of Ireland[2].
But I must beg leave to inform this author, that my paper is not intended for the management of controversy; which would be of very little import to most readers, and only mispend time, that I would
- ↑ Earl of Oxford, lord treasurer.
- ↑ This was done by the authors solicitation. See his letters to archbishop King.
