I HAVE receiv'd and read the Book you lately sent me, entituled, A Modest Proof, in which the Au­thor's profess'd Design is, to represent to the World what was the Primitive Model or Form of Church-Government; what was settled by our Saviour and his Apostles, in this point, and that from what is re­corded of the Matter in the Books of the New-Testament. Pag. 1.

I observe the Book is said to be Re printed at Boston, &c. I don't remember, that I ever saw any former Edition, nor had I opportunity to peruse this, till you were pleased to put your Book into my hands, desiring my Thoughts upon it. And in return to you, I must say, after an impartial unprejudic'd Perusal, I am far from thinking, that the Gentleman hath made a just Representation of the Form of Church-Government settled by our Saviour and his Apostles; or, that he hath been able in any measure to prove his own Model [Page 2] from what is recorded in the Books of the New Testament. I can by no means joyn with the Publisher, who in his Preface is pleas'd to call the Author's Arguments convincing; and yet I am sensible the Book is, for the most part, plausibly written, and seems likely enough to draw unwary Persons into the same unhappy Mistakes, that the Author himself labours of. I should therefore have thought it a piece of good Service, if upon the Book's first coming forth, any Body had presently follow'd it with a suitable Answer. And I suppose, an Answer would have been given to it, with convenient speed, if it had not happen'd in this, as it often does in other cases of the like nature, that even those who wish the Work done, are loath to be themselves the doers of it, and wait and hope that some other Person of better Capacity, or more Leisure, will undertake it.—But now since the Book hath been suf­fered (whether for this or for any other Reasons) to pass for several Months without any Answer, perhaps some may be dispos'd to question whether it be expedient to take no­tice of it, at this distance of Time, and at such a Juncture.

However, Since (I observe) the Book is recommended as proper to be put into the hands of the Laity; since (you tell me) Numbers of Copies have been industriously dispers'd through the Town and Country; and this Author (I hear) is glory'd in as unanswerable; and some unwary Readers (as I said) it's probable enough, may be captivated with the specious shew of Scripture-Argument he brings: Upon these Conside­rations, I cannot but incline to agree with you in thinking it convenient, and not yet out of season, to defend our selves, and put into the hands of the Laity some just and proper Re­marks on the Treatise lately recommended to them. For, it's better to run the hazard of a few severe Censures, than by a criminal silence to betray so important an Interest as we are engag'd in, and tamely suffer any of our too un­thinking Children or Neighbours to be seduced from what we look upon to be the Order of the Gospel. Therefore, altho' I might very well excuse my self from the Task you urge me to, by pleading the better ability of others to undertake it, and the pressure of my own Affairs, which require my utmost Diligence and Application; yet being sensible that others will be ready to make the same Excuses, I am not willing that the consideration of any private Inconveniencies shou'd discourage me from attempting to do a publick Service.

[Page 3]In compliance then with your repeated Desires, I shall endeavour now (in the fear of GOD and by His Help) to point out, and confute the most considerable Errors in the Book you sent me: I say the most considerable, because I don't intend to wast my own Time, or exercise your Patience with Remarks upon every thing of smaller Consquence, that is liable to exception in our Author; but shall only take notice of such Passages as seem most likely to lead his Rea­ders into wrong Notions, in matters of importance: of which sort I shall mention four or five, before I come to that, which is the great Design of the Book.

THE First is in Page 2d. Where he says, That the Church, however otherwise disquieted, — yet heard little or no noise made for above 1400 Years about this point of Church-Government, save that one AERIUS started a Debate, but had so few to second him, that it died with himself and left his Name on Record among HERETICKS.— Here it's worth while to enquire, WHO it was that rank'd him among Hereticks for his o­pinion about Church Government? Why truly Epiphanius was the first; who is generally observ'd to have been too warm in his Temper, and rash in his Censures, tho' otherwise a worthy good Man.— And then was it only for this opinion, that he condemn'd Aerius? No indeed; but he charg'd him with Heresy in another Point (which may well render that Father's Judgment suspected.) It was his asserting the Unlawfulness of praying for the Dead. Aerius appear'd against this Superstition; and Epiphanius (a Defender of it) therefore call'd him a Heretick.— The Truth is (as one ^* observes) these two Heresies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Bishops and Pressbyters, and the Unlawfulness of praying for the Dead, are much of the same Nature; and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both, equally Learned and Satisfactory: for it is obser­vable, that in the same place where he condemns that mon­strous Heresy of the Identity of Order, He fairly confesses, ‘That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed’— What need then of the Prelate, so fiercely contended for? To this I shall only add the Words of Learned Bishop Stilling fleet, who says, If Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order, it is strange that Epiphanius should be the first Man that should charge [Page 4] him with it; and that neither Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, nor Evagrius, before whose time he liv'd, should censure him for it And why shou'd not Jerom have been equally animad­verted upon, who is as express in this, as any Man in the World? — "As to the matter it self (says the Bishop) I believe upon the strictest Inquiry, Medina's Judg­ment will prove true, that Jerom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's Judgment, as to the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church ^† — To these, it is certain, the Bishop might truly have prefixed the Names of Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, two of the most ancient and venerable among the Fathers. But at this rate so many of the Fathers (and those too of the highest esteem and note) will be branded with Heresy, that we shall never know hereafter, when we may lay any Stress upon the Judg­ment and Authority of Fathers. It was therefore honestly & wisely done by our Author, not to meddle with them in the present Controversy, but to found his supposed Proof wholly upon the Scriptures, of whose Authority there can be no suspi­cion. Scripture Evidence besure is sufficient; and will be con­vincing to us for ever. And if our Author's ill Success in this Attempt, don't prove too great a Discouragement, I hope that others of his own Church will (for the time to come) imitate the good Example he hath set them, in keeping close to the Scriptures; and not make the Fathers their Refuge on all occasions and place their confidence in them; who can by no means be allowed to be a certain foundation to build upon, Since (as Dr. Sherlock, ^* justly observes) they many times contradict themselves and one another; So that (he tells us) it has often made him smile, with a mixture of Pity and In­dignation, to see what a great noise Roman Disputants make among Women and Children and the meanest sort of People, with Quotations out of Fathers & Councils; whom they pre­tend to be all on their side".— But were the Authority of Fathers of ten times greater weight than it is, yet but very few, even among the Learned, (especially in this remote part of the Earth) ever had any opportunity fully to inform themselves, what their Judgment was. And I can never think it wise or safe to put a Controversy of any importance, on such a Foot, as that a few Learned Men may contradict [Page 5] one another at pleasure, and all the World beside want either Learning, Books or Leisure, to examine thereby who speaks the Truth, and who denies it

I shall only add, with respect to the foregoing Passage, that as all the Fathers abovementioned were plainly of opi­nion, that Bishops & Presbyters were not two distinct Orders, nor invested with any different Powers, by Divine Institution; and as many other Fathers might have the same Senti­ments, who have not lest their Opinions upon Record about it; and as scarce any Body of great Antiquity (except such whose Writings are known to have been shamefully cor­rupted) so much as seems to be otherwise minded; so it is very certain, that almost the whole Christian Church, both Pro­testant & Popish, were of the same opinion, about the time of the Reformation.

WHAT the Mind of the Romanists then was, may be learn'd from Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation, which tells us ^*, That it was the common Style of the Age, to reckon Priests and Bishops as the same Office: —and from Dr. Willet's Synopsis Papismi ^†, where he proves from the Papal Decrees, that the Romanists held all Ministers indifferently to be the Apostles Successors.

Again, THAT the Protestants, whether of the Church of England, or of Foreign Churches, were all agreed in the same Opinion, is no less certain, whatsoever our Author may sug­gest to the contrary.

AS for the Church of England, the Generality of it's Bishops and Divines, from the beginning of the Reformation, for a long while ('tis well known) expresly disclaimed the Necessity and Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy; and own'd the Foreign Churches, who were without it, to be true Churches of CHRIST.

IN the Days of King Henry the 8th, when Things were tending to a Reformation, The Book entituled, The Institution of the Christian Man (which was compiled by the Body of the Clergy, approved by both Houses of Parliament, and Pub­lish'd by the King's Command) expresly says, In Novo Testa­mento nulla mentio facta est aliorum Graduum aut Distinctimum in Ordinibus, sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum, et Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum: That is, ‘In the New-Testament, theres no mention of any other Degrees or Distinctions in Orders, [Page 6] but of Deacons or Ministers, and Presbyters or Bishops.’— In the Reign of King Edward the 6th, Arch-Bishop Cranmer, in his Answer to the King's Questions (approved by the other Bishops) hath these Words, The Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were not two Things, but both one Office, in the be­ginning of Christ's Religion ^†. — Upon the Revival of the Re­formation, at Queen Elizabeth's coming to the Crown, the learned Bishop Jewel ^* delivers the like Acknowledgement; not as his own private opinion, but as the Sense of the Church of England. In St. Jerom's time (saith he) there were Metropolitans, Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, and others: but Christ appointed not these Distinctions of Orders from the Beginning. These Names are not found in all the Scriptures. This is the Thing we defend. St. Jerom saith Sciant Episcopi, &c. Let Bishops understand, that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custom, than BY ORDER OF GOD'S TRUTH: and that they ought to govern the Church in common. Again, Jerom saith, Idem est, &c. A Priest is the same with a Bishop; they are both one thing; and the Churches were at first govern'd by the common Advice of the Priests.— The Bishop cites Erasmus, saying, Id Temporis idem erat Episcopus, Sacerdos, & Presbyter: These three Names (Bishop, Priest & Presbyter) were at that time (Jerom's) all one.—He also alledges that of Austin, Secundum honorum vocabula, quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est. ‘The Office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest (not by Authority of Scriptures, but) after the Names of Honour, which the Custom of the Church hath now ob­tained’—Thus Bp. Jewel.

YEA Archbishop Whitgift himself, speaking of the Go­vernment of the Church of England, by Bishops in his Time, says ^‖, ‘It is well known, that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time, and expressed in the Scripture, is not now observed; but hath — been altered: — neither do I know (saith he) any learned Man of a contrary Judgment.’

AND indeed at the Reformation, Prelacy was establish'd in the Church of England, on a very different Foot from that of Scripture Institution. For not only in King Henry the VIII's Reign, but likewise in King Edward the VI's, the Bishops took out Commissions from the Crown, by which they [Page 7] were to hold their Bishopricks only during the King's pleasure, and were impowered in the King's name, as his Delegates, to perform all the parts of the Episcopal Function: and Arch-Bishop Cranmer, (that excellent and pious Martyr) set an Example to the Rest in taking out one of them ^*. So that in those Days, they made them no other than the King's Ministers, as Dr. Heylen himself confesseth ^†.

I think these Things are sufficient to satisfy any Man, that the Church of England never pretended Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution, before the Reign of King James the First. And even in that Reign, matters were not car­ried so high, as to deny the Validity of Ordination by Pres­byters. ‘For when some that had been ordain'd by mere Presbyters, offer'd themselves (in King James's time) to be consecrated Bishops in the Church of Scotland, Dr. Andrews (Bishop of Ely) moved this Question, Whether they should not first be Episcopally Ordain'd Presbyters, that they might be capable of being admitted into the Order of Bishops? But Archbishop Bancroft (a most rigid Assertor of Episcopacy) answered, There was no need of it, since Ordination by Presbyters was Valid. The Bishop of Ely yielded; and immediately without repeating their Ordination as Presbyters, they were consecrated Bishops ^‖.’ — Thus we have seen what was the Judgment of the Church of England, from the very beginning of the Reformation, down to the Reign of King James the First, and during that Reign also. — The Claim of Apostolical Institution, or of Divine Right, was what King James himself (whether out of Policy, which he call'd his King Craft, or out of his insight into the Scripture) wou'd not suffer them to pretend in his time; as our famous Mr. Davenport observes ^{{inverted †}}.

I shall only add here; I cannot learn whether there has been even in England, to this very Day, properly any publick and express Assertion of the Divine Right of Prelacy, either by Parliament or Convocation. I think no such thing can be found either in the Thirty nine Articles, or in the Homilies, or in the Form of Ordination, or in the Common Prayer Book, &c.— And 'tis memorable, that the lower House of Convocation took occasion ( Decemb. 11. 1702) to send to [Page 8] the upper House a Declaration for the Divine Right: but it gave Offence. They were accus'd of ascribing too much to Episcopacy: and many of their own Body Dissented, upon this ground, that, however true the Doctrine might be, yet they questioned the LEGALITY of asserting it, being apprehensive of the danger of making any Declaration of that Nature, in Convocation, without a Royal Licence.— Upon this the Asser­tors beg'd the Bishops to take the Doctrine into their mature Consideration, and to support it, and discourage the contrary. But such was their Lordship; wise Caution, that they wou'd not comply with their Desire, and even refus'd to satisfy them, that they did not dissent from them in this point.—And I know not whether since that time there has been any publick and legal Establishment of the foresaid Doctrine.

AND now, as to the Judgment of the Protestants of Foreign Churches, Dr. John Reynolds (the Oracle of the University in his Day) shall be my Voucher, who tells us in his Answer to Sir Francis Knowles, ‘That they who for this Five Hundred Years have been industrious in Reforming the Church, have tho't that all Pastors (whether call'd Bishops or Presbyters) have, according to the Word of GOD, like Power and Authority. Besides Bishops, and Professors, and other learned Refor­mers and Martyrs of our own Nation; he instances in the Waldenses, Marsilius, Patavinus, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Brentius. Bullinger, Musculus, &c. And afterwards he avers it to the common opinion of the Reformed Churches in Switzerland, Savoy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland. This of Dr. Reynolds's is a very comprehensive Testimony ^*.’ And yet our Author is pleased to say (Page 3d) That at the Reformation the greatest and most considerable part of the Re­formed Church, retained the ancient Order & Government: which indeed is very true, it rightly understood; but if he means (as, if he intends any thing to his purpose by it, he must mean) to perswade his Readers, that the greatest part of the Reformed Churches retained Bishops, as an Order of Men by Divine Institution distinct from and superior to Presbyters. This I think is a great Mistake, as hath been already (I suppose) sufficiently proved.— However it is a Mistake which I have observed (with some surprize) several of the Episcopal Wri­ters boldly running into; the reason of which, I presume is. [Page 9] That in some of the Foreign Protestant Churches Titular Bi­shops were, and still are retained. I hope therefore, if not to hinder this Misrepresentation from being obtruded on the World any more, yet to prevent its being a Snare to some, by proving from their own Authentick Writings, that those Fo­reign Churches (tho' they keep up the Name; yet) look upon a Bishop as nothing more than Primus inter Pares, a sort of standing Moderator among his Brethren; and that they allow no Power to a Bishop (as of Divine Institution) which they deny to Presbyters.

THE Truth of this will be as clear as the Sun to any Body, that will be at the pains to consult the Harmony of their Confessions. It would be tedious to cite Passages from them all. I shall therefore only mention the Words of the Confessi­on ^† set foremost, (with which all that retained a nominal Episcopacy do agree) which are full to my purpose, and run thus; — Data est omnibus in Ecclesia Ministris una & aequalis Potestas sive Functio. Cerre ab Initio Episcopi & Presbyteri Eccle­siam communi opera gubernarunt: nullus alteri se prae [...]ulit, &c. ‘The Power or Office given to the Ministers of the Church, is the same and equal in all. Certainly in the beginning the Bishops and Presbyters did with a common Consent and Labour govern the Church. One did not lift up himself a­bove another, nor usurp a greater Power or Authority:— Notwithstanding for Order's sake, some one of the Mi­nisters called the Assembly together, propounded the matters to be consulted upon in the Meeting, also ga­thered the Sentences (or Judgments) of the Rest: and final­ly took Care, as much as in him lay, that there might a­rise no Disorder’— So that it appears very plainly, that those Churches abroad, which retained the Name of Bishops after their Reformation, yet acknowledged no Superiority, or Distinction of Powers and Orders, among the Ministers of CHRIST.

I shall only subjoyn here a Testimony or two. Dr. Stil­lingfleet in his Iremcum (Pag. 411.) having enumerated many Protestant Cities and Places, whose Church Government is in the hands of Superintendents, adds upon it, — ‘All these acknowlege no such thing as a Divine Right of Episco­pacy but stifly maintain Jerom's opinion of the primitive Equality of Gospel-Ministers.’— And in the Account of [Page 10] Denmark for the Year 1692 (said to be written by the Lord Molesworth) I find these Passages; There are (says he) Six ‘Superintendents in Denmark, who take it very kindly to be call'd Bishops and my Lord.— There are (he adds) also Four in Norway. These (he observes) have no Tempo­ralities; keep no Ecclesiastical Courts; have no Cathedrals, with Prebends, Canons, Deans, Subdeans, &c. But are only Primi inter Pares; having the Rank above the inferior Clergy, and the Inspection into their Doctrine & Manners.’ And the Bishops in Sweden are in the like Condition. Writers speak very diminutively of their Power. The Author of the Present State of Europe for the Year 1705. observes, They retain little more than the Name, and a bare primary sort of Superiority over the other Superintendents; the Establish­ing of the Lutheran Religion having deprived them of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, which they exercised before the Reformation ^*.

IN fine, Let me add a Hint relating to the Church of Scot­land, which is too excellent a Branch of the Reformation to be omitted. Great Pains have been taken by some to make the first Reformation there look as if it had been Episcopal; be­cause for a while there were Bishops; and because there were Superintendents appointed for the Direction of the Church-Affairs. But if we look into the History of those Times, we shall find that the Bishops were obtruded upon the Church, by the Court; and the Superintendents were only a temporary Expedient, for the necessity of the Day, appointed by such too as were most Anti-Episcopal in their Judgment. And (what is worth ob­serving) the Superintendants and Bishops were both in sub­jection to the Assembly of Ministers. — So that notwith­standing them, it appears that at the Reformation the Church of Scotland was Anti-Prelatical. They that would see this matter argu'd, may consult the Learned Mr. Jameson's Nazi­anzeni Querela ^‖; with a late Book entituled Memoirs of the Church of Scotland ^†, where it is particularly debated, and set in the clearest Light.

I have now said enough (I suppose) to refute our Author's Mistake, when he insinuates. That the greatest Part of the Reformed Church retained Prelacy.

[Page 11]THE next Passage I shall take notice of, is in the 5th Page, where our Author says, Perhaps at the bottom 'tis none of the least Prejudices against Episcopacy, that they of that Perswa­sion have generally asserted the JUST RIGHTS and PRERO­GATIVES of PRINCES.— and accordingly have maintained the Doctrines of NON-RESISTANCE and PASSIVE OBEDI­ENCE &c.—Now, This is a Conjecture, I believe, the Gen­tleman had much better have let sleep in his own Bosom; for, as he had no occasion to expose it, so I think it will be far from doing him or his Cause any Service. In short, I know of no judicious Dissenters, that plead for the Doctrine of Resistence, any further than it must be asserted by all, who can heartily thank God for our glorious Deliverance from Popery, and arbitrary Power by the late King WILLIAM of blessed Memory; as well as for the present happy Settlement of the British Crown in the illustrious House of HANOVER: and thus far I am sure the Church of England hath, and still does generally concur with us in asserting it; unless OCCASIONAL PERJURY, is much more practised by some sort of Persons, than ever Occasional Conformity was by others. If therefore our Author strains his beloved Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience, so far as to strike at the Revolution and present Settlement, I suppose the Church of England will boast little of such a Defender, and her Rival-Government (as He is pleas'd to call it) will less envy her such a Champion. But if the Gentleman holds these Doctrines in such a limited Sense, as is consistent with his being a Loyal Subject to his present Majesty, King GEORGE; then the Dissenters and He are much better agreed in the Point of Civil Government, than He seems willing to have the World imagin; and there appears no just Foundation for the above-mention'd Censure. Tho' I must confess, I cannot but close with another Remark, that follows it, viz. It's certain, there is too much of a CARNAL and WORLDLY Spirit, that keeps this Debate (about Church-Government) so long alive: and there is little hope it will die, till Christians be more animated with the true Spirit and Temper of the Gospel.— But on which Side the Fault lies chiefly, GOD knows. I would humbly say, in this Case, as David to his Father Saul, Let the LORD be Judge; and judge between Me and Thee!

I shall take Notice of one thing more (tho' it comes in here a little out of Place) before I proceed to that which is the great Point in Controversy; because I would not be in­terrupted [Page 12] in the consideration of that, by turning aside to examin any incidental Passages foreign to it. The Thing I refer to is what our Author tells us, Page 12. " That the DEA­CONS, whose Ordination we have an Account of in the 6th Chapter of the Acts, were invested with some share of the Apostolic Office▪ particularly of Preaching & Baptising, as well as managing the Publick Stock of the Church. Now I might here observe the Limitation of this Episcopal Deacon to Preaching & Baptizing; and might ask the Reason, Why he mayn't likewise be allow'd to administer the Lord's Supper? For it shou'd seem, They whose business it is to dispense one Seal of the Covenant, must certainly have Authority to dispense the other too. If not; where's the Rule or Reason, for the Division of them? — But not to insist on this.— One wou'd a little wonder how our Author shou'd fall into this unaccountable Notion, since he himself tells us (in the foregoing Page) " That the OC­CASION, DESIGN and MANNER of Instituting this New Order is FULLY set down in the same Chapter; and there is nothing there concerning either of these, that can give a Man the least Suspicion of such a Thing. What then he founds his opinion in this matter upon, seems to be what he mentions presently; That he soon after finds Philip preaching & bapti­sing at Samaria, and Stephen disputing and doing great Wonders and Miracles among the People. And because he finds one Deacon disputing, and another preaching & baptising, He thence unadvisedly concludes, it cannot be doubted, but that they and all the Rest, of whom we have nothing upon Record, were invested (by virtue of their Ordination to the Office of Dea­con) with Authority to preach & baptise; notwithstanding that, from the full Account we have of the occasion, design and manner of their Institution, nothing more evidently appears, than that the whole and only Business, they were ordained for, was to serve Tables — Now, if this Reasoning will serve the Turn, it would be the easiest thing in the World, by an Argu­ment exactly parallel to destroy the foundation of our Author's Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, and all he hath built upon it, together with it; and so dispatch all the Re­mainder of his Book in two or three Sentences

FOR if we may trust him, page 46, he finds James the Just, who (some suppose) might be one of the 70, advanced to the APOS­TOLIC Order. From whence (to imitate his way of arguing) it cannot be doubted but that this James, & all the Rest of the 70, were by virtue of their Commission (Luk. 10) invested with [Page 13] the Apostolic Power and Authority; notwithstanding that from that Chapter in which we have a full account of the oc­casion, design, and manner of sending forth the 70. nothing more appears, but that the whole Business they were commission'd to, was only to preach the Gospel, heal the Sick, and cast out Devils. And so, by our Author's own method of reasoning, the 70 will be of the same Office & Order with the Apostles; and the whole Design of his Treatise will be superseded. — But not to insist on the Destructiveness of this Argument of our Author's to his whole Book besides: the plain Truth of the Case is this; That, after the Ordination of Philip to the Office of a Deacon, it pleased GOD to advance him (and he might do so by others of his Brethren likewise, for ought we know) to an Office of greater Usefulness and Honour, and send him to preach the Word and Baptise; for which he had the Warrant of the Holy Spirit, which enabled him to cast out Devils and heal Diseases, in testimony of his Mission from GOD (Act. 8.6, 7.) But surely this is no Warrant to Deacons in our days, (who are not under the immediate direction of the same Spirit) to presume to do the same things.

THE Office, which Philip was promoted to, was that of an Evangelist We read (Act. 21.8.) of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven, that is, one of the seven that were appointed to serve Tables, Act. 6. Philip, who was originally a Deacon in process of time, and it's like pretty soon became an Evangelist. Having for some time used the Office of a Deacon well, He purchased to himself a good Degree, and merited a higher Station in the Church. Our Author owns the Deacons to be inferior to Presbyters; to the seventy and others of their Order (as he speaks) who he says go by the name of Prophets in a Gos­pel sense, Ministers of the Word: Pastors, & Teachers, and Evan­gelists — All these he makes to be but various Appellations of the same Order of Men, that is, Presbyters; as will appear to every one that reads his 13th and 14th Pages, however inconsistently he may afterwards express himself. He makes these Teachers & Evangelists to be a distinct Office and Order from the Apostles and from the Deacons: inferior to the Apostles, and superior to the Deacons, as in the Pages refer'd to. Now this Gentleman lays it down for an indisputable Maxim else­where (pag 13, & 56) That altho' all Apostles were Pres­byters and Deacons; the superior Office or Order including the inferior; yet not vice versa. Every Teacher (he tells us) [Page 14] was not an Apostle: We may add; Nor was every Deacon a Teacher, by the same Rule, the inferior Order or Office not including the superior. According to his own Principles then, at the time when Philip is styl'd an Evangelist, he must be a Presbyter (or of the Order of the seventy; and so superior to a Deacon. And it is more that probable, that Philip received his preferment before his going abroad, and dispensing the Word and Sacraments in Samaria. What tho' there's no mention made of any second Ordination he had for this End? Yet since he is expresly call'd an Evangelist, and did the Work of an Evangelist; our Author's own Principles will oblige him to suppose, that the Deacon did not of his own Head, take upon him to execute the higher Office of an Evangelist or Prophet; but was impower'd by some new Commission from the Apostles, (who had before ordain'd him a Deacon) or else that he had an extraordinary and im­mediate Call from GOD. And let him chuse which of these he will, it is equally destructive to the Pretences of his Epis­copal Deacon, who (by virtue of an Ordination to this inferior Office only) presumes to Baptise & Preach: Works, no ways belonging to his Office, and what truly a Presbyterian Deacon (However despis'd by the Adversary, and however they should scoff at him for any such Pretences) might perform as war­rantably as the Church of England Deacon. I have some where met with this Saying of a High-flying Worthy, That a preach­ing Bishop is a prating Coxcomb. Methinks this might with much more propriety be apply'd to the preaching Deacon; a thing which the Scriptures know nothing of. I am sure there's no Countenance for it from the Case of Philip. Much less from the Case of Stephen, the Proto-Martyr; for, suppose him to have done all that Philip did, we must conclude then he had the like Preferment, and did not act in the Capacity of a Deacon (or an Officer inferior to a Presbyter) but of a Minister of the Word, as well as Philip.— Yet since Stephen did nothing but what (considering the extraordinary Gifts and Graces which many other Believers besides Ministers, had in those Days; I say, since he did nothing but what) a common Christian, in the like case, might have done, the Ar­gument from him appears so much the weaker and more groundless.

I'm sure the History of the Primitive Institution of Deacons, in the 6th Chap. of Acts, makes very clearly against the preach­ing Deacon. The Evidence there against him shines so bright [Page 15] at the very first View, that it is a wonder how any who are not Slaves to an Hypothesis, can ever lisp a Word in his Favour. It is very obvious, The Apostles (who had hitherto sustained that Care chiefly) judged the serving of Tables an intolerable Burden to them, and what they cou'd not attend without neg­lecting too much their better and more proper Work, the Ministry of the Word. It is not Reason (say they) that we should leave the Word of GOD, and serve Tables. And therefore they instituted an inferior Order of Men, to attend THIS BUSINESS (of serving Tables) that so the Preachers of the Gospel (being discharged from this heavy incumbrance) might give themselves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word; which being essential parts of the Ministerial Of­fice, they durst not delegate these (however difficult) unto others to perform for them. From whence we may very reasonably conclude, when Philip was sent by the Spirit to preach & baptise, that he was unloaded of his former cares and labours as a Deacon, in order to his more closely attending to his new Work: and some other Person, doubtless was ordained (if there were occasion for it) to serve Tables in his stead.

AND yet further to confirm my point, we may observe, that the Apostolical Directions concerning Deacons, exactly Harmonize with the Tenour of the Institution. In 1 Epist. to Tim. 3 Chap. the Apostle gives some Rules about Deacons, and states their necessary Qualifications ( [...]ing with Acts 6.3.) none of which have any special or immediate Reference to the Work of Preaching: altho' in the same Chapter where the Apostle is describing the other Order of Men, the Bishops or Presbyters, he sets it down as one essential stroke in their Character, that they be apt to teach (able to teach others, and by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince the Gainsavers, as he elsewhere explains himself) which we may well assure our selves, wou'd have been prescribed as a necessary qualification of a Deacon likewise, if it had been the Will of GOD, that Deacons should ordinarily be Preachers of the Word. But in stead of that, He only requires that those of this Order should be Men of Piety, Prudence, Gravity, Temperance, Generosity and the like.— I hope therefore none of our Deacons, that are Ordained (as I wish they all were when they have first been proved) will be drawn to doubt, whether they be of A­postolical Institution, only because they are not called upon to Preach; since 'tis plain it never was the Will of GOD they [Page 16] should, but that they give themselves to the Ministry of Tables, the Lord's Table and the Poor's; as the Church of England in her Ordination, having reference to this special Office, explains it; declaring there, That it appertains to the Deacon's Office to assist the Presbyter in distribution of the Elements, gladly & willingly to search for the Poor the Sick & Impotent, that they may be relieved: Praying that they may be modest, humble, and constant in their Ministration ^‖.

But thus much for the Deacons.

I proceed now to consider with our Author, the Order and Government setled by CHRIST and his Apostles in the Church. In which the Gentleman's principal design is to prove, that there were two distinct Orders of Gospel-Ministers instituted by CHRIST himself; a Superior Order now commonly called Bishops, invested with Authority to govern the Church, and or­dain proper Officers in it, as well as to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments: and an inferior Order, commonly called Presbyters, who are instituted only to preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, and had no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction committed to them I say this is his principal design; for as to the Order of Deacons, which was instituted by the Apostles, he well observes, pag. 13 That there is no debate about them; save in the point that hath already been considered; viz. Whether the Deacons were by their Ordination invested with Authority to preach and baptise, which (I suppose) I have sufficiently proved they have not.

IN prosecution of what I have said to be our Author's great Design, he refers us to the Mission, first of the Twelve, Luke 9. and afterwards of the Seventy, Luke 10. Upon which he truly observes pag. 10. That they were both sent forth with the SAME Commission, and the SAME Power to preach the Gospel, to cast out Devils, to heal Diseases, and almost in all things with the same Instructions concerning their Conduct. And yet he tells us, pag. 11. That it is most certain they were two distinct Orders of Gospel Ministers.

BUT upon what, the pretended Difference of Order between them can be founded, I must confess it is not easy to me to con­ceive. Yet to confirm this Point by Testimony, he tells us, page 10. That Calvin scruples not to call the 70, in Dignity less than the Apostles, next in Office to them, &c. But it must be observed [Page 17] here that in this he imposes on his Readers; for Calvin is there describing Evangelists; of whom he affirms roundly that they were inferior to the Apostles; but he mentions the 70 only transiently and speaks doubtfully of then subordination to the Twelve. Per Evangelistas, eos intelligo, qui quum dig­nitate essent Apostolis minores, &c. Quales fuerunt Lucas, Timotheur, &c. ac FORTASSIS etiam septuaginta Discipuli, quos secundo ah Apostolis loco Christus designavit. He only says of the 70 Disciples, that they were appointed after the Apo­stles, (referring to the time of their Mission, not the degree of their Dignity; as seems evident from the scope of the place) and that perhaps they were inferiour to them.

AND whereas our Author mentions two Instances of a difference in the Mission of the 12 from that of the 70, viz. Their more solemn Inauguration to their Office, and their being particularly called Apostles, &c. I would observe, as to the first Article, that it does not appear to me, but that the Inauguration of both was equally solemn. What tho' we do not read of our Saviour's praying in so solemn a manner be­fore his sending out the 70, as before the Mission of the 12, yet that argues little; for there were many things that Jesus did (as the Evangelist John remarks) which are not written. And then having sent our the 70, as our Author owns, upon the same Errand, and with the like Powers, 'tis highly probable the manner of their Mission was equally solemn. But then sup­pose there was no such solemn Prayer before the Mission of the 70, as we read preceded the Mission of the 12, that makes no difference; since we cannot be sure that our Savi­our's Prayer on the night before did immediately and peculiarly refer to their Mission; because, I suppose we sometimes read of our Saviour's making like solemn Prayer, when no remarka­ble Events followed, nor any known extraordinary occasion was the Ground thereof.

AND now as to his other Instance, that the 12 were par­ticularly honored with the Title of APOSTLES, in Distinc­tion from the 70, this may possibly be a mistake; for when we are told, Luk. 10.1. After these things the Lord appointed OTHER 70 ALSO and sent them out, (with the same In­structions and Powers) it may be very well read, other 70 Apostles, altho' it is not so expressed. And indeed our Author is pleased (in pag. 19.) to say of the 70, that they were CHRIST's Messengers and Ambassadors, so far as their Commission [Page 18] extended. Now he over and over confesses their Commission was the same with that of the 12; and therefore (according to his own Rule) the honorary Title of Apostles belong'd equally to them. And here it's worth while to observe, That how­ever diminutive he may make the name of Disciples to be, 'tis no other than what the Eleven were distinguished by, when they received their Commission. Mat. 28.16. They are called, The Eleven Disciples.

HE offers two Arguments further to show that the 12 & the 70 were two distinct orders of Gospel-Ministers. First, That they are never numbered together, but in two distinct Classes—.How often (pray) are they numbered so? We don't find the 70, spoken of above twice, that is, at their Mission, and upon their Return: and this separately or by themselves; the 12 not being mentioned in the Story. We don't any where (that I remember) find the 12 and the 70. mentioned in the same-place, and numbered in two distinct Classes. And as for the Apostles being still called 12 and not 82; that is easily accounted for: inasmuch as the Mission of the 70 was a temporary and occasional thing; and we never read of any second Mission, or further imployment of them, as Apostles or Preachers, after their Return from the Mission we have an Account of. Whereas the other 12 were still employed on every occasion, and gene­rally were with their Master, as his special Attendants.

AND now for his second Argument, (which he boasts will put the matter out of all dispute) What a solemn Work (says he) was there, at the translation of one from the number of Disciples, that he might be reckoned with the Eleven, and succeed to Judas his Apostleship? And again, pa. 41. he bids us remember, that the WHOLE SEVENTY could not fill up the Chair of ONE APOSTLE, &c. But there is no weight in this, if we consider what were the necessary qualifications of an Apostle, viz. an Im­mediate Call, extraordinary Gifts, having been an Eye witness to the Life, Sufferings and Resurrection of CHRIST, &c. and that CHRIST at his Ascension left none other Ministers in Commission but the Eleven. For as to the 70, they were not in Being then, as Ministers of the Word; their Commission having expired long before, and not being renewed as was that of the Eleven. And then, I suppose, it is uncertain, whether Matthias was of that number, were they still in Commission. So that, putting these things together, it appears, that Matthias's succession to Judas in the Apostleship (however solemn Work [Page 19] there was about it) affords no manner of Argument for a Difference of Order between the 70 and the 12.

AND truely whatever Distinction between them may be pretended, sure I am, it could not be that which our Author would fain prove between Bishops and Presbyters. For neither the 70, nor yet the 12, had any power given them at their first Mission to ordain Officers, or to govern the Church; nor indeed could they: for at this time there was no Gospel Church to be governed, or to have Officers settled in it.

TO this purpose Mr. Sage (a considerable Writer, of the Church of England) saith, ‘It is most obviously observable, in the Evangelical Records, that the Christian Church was not (could not be) founded, till our Lord was risen, seeing it was to be founded upon his Resurrection. (He goes on) Our Martyr Cyprian (as appears from his Reasonings on diverse occasions) seems very well to have known, and very distinctly to have observed, that the Apostles themselves got not their Commission to be Governours of the Christian Church, till after the Resurrection. And no wonder, for this their Com­mission is most observably recorded.’ Joh. 20.21, &c. ^‖.

NOR doth it appear that the Commission of the 70 ( Luk. 10) was any thing more than temporary; for tho' our Author is pleased to speak of them once and again, in such a manner as seems to intimate, that they are often mentioned in the New Testament: yet I don't remember, nor can I find that we ever read any thing of them, after their Return from this Mission; as I hinted before.

AND indeed, I cannot tell whether the Twelve would, by virtue of their Commission at this time, have had any Autho­rity either to baptise or preach, after our Lord's Ascension, if their Commission for these things had not been renewed. For CHRIST himself thought it needful, to give them a new Charge to teach & baptise, at the same time that he committed to them the Powers of Government and Ordination, just before his Ascension. To this purpose Mr. Sage adds to what he says above, ‘No such thing is any where recorded of the Seventy (as the Renewal of their Commission;) nothing more certain than that their Commission which is recorded, Luk. 10. did constitute them only temporary Missionarys and that for an Errand which could not possibly be more [Page 20] than temporary. That Commission contains in its own bosom, clear evidences, that it did not install them in any standing Office in the Christian Church, which was not yet in being, when they got it. Could than Commission which is Luk. 10. any more constitute the 70 standing Officers of the Christian Church, than the like Commission recorded Math. 10. cou'd constitute the Twelve such standing Offi­cers? But it is manifest that this Commission did not constitute the Twelve Governours of the Christian, Church; otherwise what need of a new Commission to that purpose after the Resurrection? Presumable therefore it is that S. Cyprian did not at all believe that the 70 had any Successors, Office-bearers in the Christian Church, seeing it is so observable, that they themselves received no Com­mission to be such Office-bearers.’ Thus Mr. Sage.

AT least thus much is certain, that without further Powers given them after our Saviour's Resurrection, the Apostles themselves must never have gone to the Gentiles. For in our Lord's Commission to them Matth. 10, they are expresly charged not to go into the way of the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. From whence it will follow either that the 70 had a larger and more honorable Commission than the Apostles had at first and so were superior to them; or that the Commission of the 70 was but temporary; or if it were perpetual, yet that it never was extended by CHRIST beyond the Circumcision I think no fourth supposition can be made; so that one or other of those three must be allowed. And which ever our Author thinks fit to grant, it will be the confusion of his Scheme Besure he won't be willing to grant the first, that the seventy had a larger and more honorable Commission, and were superior to the Apostles. And I think no body ever yet supposed it. Nor will the second please him better; for if the Commission of the seventy was but temporary, and expired upon their return to their Master, then it will follow, that CHRIST left not two but only one Order of Officers in his Church, at his Ascension If therefore he should chose the third sup­posal (which at first view seems most favorable to his cause) that the Commission of the seventy did not expire, but that it was confined to the Circumcision, yet neither will this serve his Turn. For if the Commission of the 70 was not extended by CHRIST to the Gentiles, then we have no concern at all with it, nor did CHRIST leave any other Officers in Commission at his Ascension, that had any thing to do with the Gentiles, besides [Page 21] his Eleven Apostles; but to them he committed the whole Care of discipling all Nations, preaching the Word, administring the Sacraments, governing the Church, and ordaining others to assist and succeed them in this important Charge; and promised for their encouragement, to be with them, and their Successors in it always, even to the end of the World. Now if CHRIST, at his Ascension, left no other Officers in Commission besides his Eleven Apostles, or no others in Commission that extended unto the Gentiles, then all that our Author advances, under his first head, concerning the Commission of the seventy comes to nothing. For whether that Commission was temporary, on whether it was re­strained to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, we are alike uncon­cerned with it. And so likewise all the pains he takes under his second head, to show how the Office of the Apostles and the Office of the seventy, were distinguished from each other, will be found to be labour spent to no purpose. For since we never read that CHRIST extended the Commission of the seventy to the Gentiles, it will thence follow, either that he suffered their Commission to expire, or that he left it confined to the Jews: And take it which way you will, you can find still but one Order of Officers instituted by CHRIST himself, with whom the Gentile Churches have any thing to do.

AS to the most of what the Gentleman says besides under his second general head, I have no controversy at all with him. For I readily, acknowledge what he asserts pa. 17, That the Commission given by our Saviour to the Apostles after his Resur­rection was unlimited and universal, not only in respect of power to discharge all acts of Religion, relating either to ministry or go­vernment; but also in respect of place, not being confined to any particular Province, but sent to the whole World.

AND (tho' some of the Instances he gives, won't bear scanning, yet) I firmly believe as he sayes, pa. 22, 23. That it appears the Apostles had (some sort of) Authority over other Pastors and Teachers in the Church, from several Instances of their exercising of it, in several respects and ways, recorded in the sacred History. And I will venture to say further, that during the Infant-State of the Christian Church, before the Canon of the New-Testament was compleated, (without which the uninspired man of GOD could not be thoroughly furnished unto every good work) it was absolutely necessary, that some kind of Jurisdiction, over the uninspired Pastors of the Churches, should be committed to such men as the Apostles, who being under the immediate Conduct of an infallible Spirit, might be able as often as occa­sion [Page 22] required, with all Authority to charge & direct the other Pastors how to behave themselves in the house of GOD. A notable Instance we have of this, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. where notwithstand­ing the singular advantages Timothy had had to inform himself about the Work of an Evangelist, by his intimate acquaintance with the Apostle Paul, and frequent attendance upon him; yet the Apostle is afraid, that if he should be hindered from coming to him as soon as he desired, Timothy might be at a loss how to discharge the Trust reposed in him; and therefore he writes unto him the solemn Charges, Exhortations and In­structions of that Epistle, that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the Church of the living GOD. And not satis­fyed with this, he followed it with a second Epistle on the same Design afterwards.

NOW, if it be evident that the Apostles had some sort of Jurisdiction over other Pastors; and if it be also evident that there was an absolute necessity, at that day, that some such men as they should have such Jurisdiction; it may very na­turally be inquired, Whether there is the same necessity since, that some of the Ministers of the Gospel should have a like Authority over others throughout all Ages? And, Whether the Scriptures teach us that this is the Will of GOD?

AS to the first of these Inquiries; it is very obvious on two Accounts, That the same Reason does not hold in the nature of the thing it self, for a superior power in some Ministers over others now. For first, there are no Officers in the Church in these later Ages, under the Conduct of an Infallible Spirit, to issue out di­rections and commands to others on emergent occasions. Nor indeed is there any body on this side Rome that pretends to it. Now it's thought by some of great name and judgment, That the higher Degree of Authority & Sway, which the Apostles had above others, was owing very much to their extraordi­nary Gifts of Infallibility, of discerning Spirits, and the like, which were peculiar to them. And indeed there's the greatest difficulty (as Mr. Baxter observes) to discern how much of their power over Presbyters or Bishops was merely from the Excellency of their Gifts and Privileges, and how much might be (if any was) from their Supremacy of Office and Imperial Authority. Nor, secondly, is there the same Need that there should be any such infallible Rulers in the Church now, that there was in the Apostles dayes; because the Canon of Scripture being now completed, every Minister of the Gospel hath [Page 23] an infallible and perfect Rule to direct him in his Administra­tions. To this purpose our Author (pag. 33, 34) acknowlegeth, as that the Gospel-Doctrine being once sufficiently attested & con­firmed by miraculous operations, there was no further need of continuing them; So, that some Things peculiar to the Apostles, such as, their being infallible Guides in delivering the Doctrine of the Gospel, their unlimited Commission, &c. had a particular Respect to the first planting of the Gospel, and the erecting and constituting of the Christian Church in the World: which when performed, these extraor­dinary Powers ceased.—Since therefore the same Reasons don't hold good now for a superiority of some Ministers over others, we have no ground to believe that such a superiority ought to continue still, unless the Scriptures teach us notwithstanding, that it is the Will of GOD that this superiority should be standing and perpetual in the Church. And this is what our Author en­deavours to prove under his third Head.

BUT before the Examination of his Argument here, I must premise, that he and I are agreed, that the Apostles were in­vested with some Powers that were extraordinary & temporary, and expired with their Persons; and that therefore in these they could have no Successors.

Again, WE are agreed, that the Apostles were invested with other powers that were ordinary & designed to be perpetual, in which they were to have Successors, who should possess them through­out all Ages. And with an eye to their Successors it was that their Lord promised to be with them always to the end of the World.

NOW since we are both agreed in these two things, (and have (I think) the concurrence of all the World both Con­formists & Non-conformists with us in them,) the only thing that remains to be disputed is, Whether that Jurisdiction which was exercised by the Apostles over other Pastors, was one of their ORDINARY POWERS, in which they were to have SUC­CESSORS? Or, Whether it was a power only EXTRORDI­NARY and TEMPORARY, in which they were to have no Successors, and to expire with their Persons?

NOW here the force of truth hath constrained our Author to make an acknowledgement, which is in effect at once to give up his whole cause. For he himself in his 33d page, reckons the Jurisdiction the Apostles had over all Churches (and by consequence over the Pastors of them also) among those Powers that were extraordinary & temporary, and expired with their Persons: By doing which, he hath (I say) in effect at once [Page 24] given up his whole cause; for hereby he hath cut himself off from all possibility of proving, by the Instances he gives, any ordinary power of Jurisdiction in the Apostles over other Pastors. For supposing he had given ten thousand Instances, in which the Apostles exercised an Authority over other Pastors▪ yet all these might be, for ought he or any man else can tell, not by virtue of any ordinary power, they were intrusted with, in which they were to have successors; but only by virtue of that extraordinary Power in which they were to have no Successors, by which he acknowleges it was, that they had a Jurisdiction over all other Churches. So that here I might very fairly with­draw my hand from the Table; for the Gentleman hath him­self put it out of his own power to prove any thing by the Argument he makes use of. And yet I suppose it was not want of thought but force of truth, and unavoidable necessity, that drew him into this Acknowlegement so fatal to his own Ar­gument. For any man that will be at the pains to examin the Instances he hath given of the Apostles Authority over other Pastors, and will then carefully look over the Epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, Timothy and Titus (to mention no more) will presently find many Instances just like the most of those given by our Author, (nay some of his may be taken into the number also) in which the Apostle Paul exercised an Authority over Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, and others, whom Episcopal Divines account Bishops. Now this observation being so very easy, forced our Author upon this unhappy Dilemma, either to affirm that the Apostle exercised an Authority over such as Episcopal Divines account Bishops, by virtue of his ordinary Power [for no man is able to give me any tolerable Reason, why his Government over Bishops should be grounded on an extraordinary Power, and yet his Government over Pastors be by virtue of his ordinary Power] that was to be perpetuated in the Church; which would be to set up an ordinary Officer in the Church by divine Institution superior to Bishops; a thing contrary to the declared sense of our Author and his Brethren: or else, to avoid the ill consequence of this, he must say, that this Au­thority of the Apostles over all Churches & Pastors was one of their Extraordinary Powers; which sort of powers he elsewhere ac­knowledges expired with their persons and that they had no succes­sors in them. And this latter inconvenience he hath thought fit to choose, though it be no less destructive to his own Ar­gument, than the former, as I have shown above.

[Page 25]I have now said enough (I suppose) to satisfy every in­telligent unprejudiced Person of the weakness and Inconsist­ency of our Author's Proofs of his own Scheme. However I am content to follow him still longer, with Remarks upon some further Passages, in which he more and more weakens and perplexes the Cause he pleads for.

Pag. 35. he says, That no part of the Apostolick Office is more necessary to be of perpetual duration in the Church, than their authoritative In­spection over the ordinary Pastors. That he hath as yet proved no necessity of this from the Scriptures, hath been I suppose con­vincingly shown. And that there is no necessity of it in the nature of the thing it self (to omit what hath been said already) any man may satisfy himself, if he will but impartially inquire, whether the Ends of Government are not as well answered, the Interests of Religion as effectually promoted, and the Church as well guarded against Errors, Schisms and Corruptions, in those Countries, which acknowlege no Superiority in Pastors one over another, as in those two Kingdoms, that are the only Protestant ones, in which such a Superiority is held to be of Divine Institution?

OUR Author now attempts to produce some further Proofs of his Scheme from the holy-Scriptures. Several Texts he brings to prove that the Apostolic Office (he must here especi­ally point at the power of universal Inspection over Churches and Pastors, or else he says nothing to the purpose) was not extraordinary and temporary, but design'd to be standing and perpetual.

IN the first Place, He draws an Argument from the Com­mission in Matth. 28.19, 20. Where CHRIST enjoyns the Apostles to teach all Nations, whom they should disciple, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them, and gives them a Promise to be with them to the end of the World. This he calls their full & last Commission: by this therefore they must stand or fall, and the Gentleman must despair of his Cause, if this will not sup­port it.

NOW there's nothing contained in this, but what is the work of ordinary Ministers or Pastors. Teaching and baptizing, which are the undoubted work of Presbyters, are here ex­presly mention'd: but indeed we must interpret this Text, in the utmost Latitude, so as to take in all ministerial Powers, of Ordination, Discipline, and Government, as being neces­sarily imply'd. Here's the grand Charter for our Office, and all the Power that any can justly claim, must be here included. [Page 26] And the whole of the Power here imply'd, belongs to all those, unto whom the Commission extends. Now it was given (our Author owns) not merely to the Apostles, but also to their Successors: and so the Promise annexed, is to their Office, not to their Persons only. And the Office they were authoriz'd to, by this Commission, was not to expire with them, but to continue unto the end of the world.

WE must note, The Apostles may be considered under a double notion, as having either ordinary or extraordinary Powers. This Commission was given them, in one or other, or both, of these Capacities. So far as it cou'd relate to them in their extraordinary Capacity, it must be only Personal, and a Patent for Life, expiring with themselves; or at most continuing only through the Age of Inspiration and Miracles. But so far as it related to them in their ordinary Character, it was design'd to be perpetual, and the Promise belongs to their Successors in common with them.—That it relates to them under the latter Consideration more especially, is evident from the Tenor of the Commission, which prescribes only Work that is ordinary; and from the Tenor of the Promise, which looks to all future Ages, and therefore supposes their perpetual Duration. But in these things the Author and I are agreed.

ALL the Dispute here is, Who are the true Successor, of the Apostles; and so, who may lay Claim to this Divine Com­mission and Promise? Now there are two things which may suffice to decide the Case: viz. The nature of the Work laid out in the Commission, and the Character of the Apostles in their ordinary Capacity. And by both of these Rules (I presume) it must be concluded that Presbyters or ordinary Pastors are the Apostles true Successors. For the Work here assign'd is what (as I before observ'd) properly belongs to Them; who have ever therefore repair'd to this Commission, to vindicate them­selves, in the ministerial Acts of preaching, baptising, &c.—And then if we consider the Apostles in their ordinary Capacity, it will appear they were most properly Presbyters, or Ministers of the Word, and could be Bishops only in the Presbyterian Sense Be sure they were not Bishops after the English Form, nor in­tended so to be: for according to this, our Lord must have assign'd to each of the Apostles his distinct Province, his parti­cular Post, or Charge, to act and rule in, with a mutual In­dependency; seeing they are the approved Principles of that Model, That all Bishops are equal, and have no Eminency of Power one above another: So likewise that every Church must have its [Page 27] particular Bishop, and that there can be in a Church but one Prelate at a time. Whereas if we reflect, we shall find, that a Plorality (even no less than 11 or 12) presided together over the Church in Jerusalem at the beginning; and that the Apostles tarry'd there a considerable Time, (as the sacred Story assures us, and if some ancient Church-Histories may be credited, it was no less than the space of several Years) taking Care of that Church (which called for peculiar Regards from them) in it's Infant State: at least it may be believed they ordinarily resided in and about Jerusalem for a while; perhaps only when there was uncommon occasion, issuing out upon particular Missions, and then returning to Jerusalem; as seems very probable from the Instance we have, Acts 8.14 — 25 And now in ma­naging the Affairs of that Church, the Apostles acted, either with an equal or an unequal Authority. And take it which way you please, they could not be Bishops after the Diocesan notion. For if they all acted with an equal Authority; then they could not be Bishops, for this very pertinent Reason, because there can be but one Bishop in a Church Neither again cou'd they be Bishops, suppose 'em to have an unequal Autho­rity, because all Bishops are equal, and none subordinate to others. Now they must be either Bishops or Presbyters. And since they were not the former, What must we conclude?

SO then it appears by the Character they must bear, while ru­ling in the Church at Jerusalem, that the Apostles were Presbyters, in their ordinary Capacity—In the Root & Principle, they were only Presbyters: the other parts of their Character were only additional, or occasional and circumstantial. Our Author himself makes no Exception here, save as to their power of Superintendency, which he makes to be one of the essential and perpetual or ordinary Powers of an Apostle: but since he hath not as yet been able to prove this, we may safely adhere to our Opinion, That the Apostles, consider'd in their ordinary Capacity, were but Presbyters: and so consequently all that truly sustain the Character of Presbyters or Gospel-Ministers, are the Apostles true Successors; and hence, by an easy Inference, appear entitul'd to the Commission and the Promise given of old to the Eleven Disciples, by our blessed Lord.

Briefly; WE may set the matter in this Light: Either this Commission does belong to Presbyters, or it does not.

[Page 28]IF you assume in the Negative, or say, it does not: then it can't easily be made out, that Presbyters have any Divine Mission at all, or any Warrant to minister in holy things. I have be­fore prov'd there is but one Commission for the sacred Minister, standing or in force; which is that same we are speaking of▪ and that CHRIST at his Ascension left no other Officers in power, but his Eleven Apostles. Hence then such as have no Interest in this Commission, can have no Claim to any part of the Office instituted therein, nor may pretend to Preach any more than to exercise the powers of Discipline and Orders.

BUT if you assume in the Affirmative, and say that Presby­ters are concern'd in this Commission; then I inquire, How far? Do's it belong to them in whole, or in part?

IF you say in the whole; then it follows there can be no ordinary ecclesiastical Officer superior to Presbyters: since they are invested with the highest Commission in the Church, and with the one only Commission for the Ministry. The preten­ded Prelates can act only by virtue of this Commission, and they that act by one and the same Commission, must certainly have equal and the same Powers Different Powers, or various Degrees of Power, must be founded in distinct Commissions.

IF any say, in part only; then I inquire in what parts and degrees, and who are sharers with them? Our Author resolves the Question, by giving Presbyters the power of Doc­trine, and putting into the hands of Bishops the powers of Or­dination & Jurisdiction. But then I demand a Rule for dividing what GOD has united, and distributing the several parts of this Office into different Hands. Why should not Presbyters (if they succeed to the Apostles, in any proper sense or degree) have one part of their ministerial Power as well as another? What is the Reason or Ground for any Discrimination in the matter? Nay, Is it not contrary to the very nature of a proper Succession, that two distinct Officers shou'd share the ministerial Powers of the Apostles between them, and that in unequal Degrees too? Division here makes an essential Alteration. Whatever Office is made up out of some other Office, and partakes only of a part of the essential Powers belonging to it, must needs be different from it, and must be call'd a new Office. And this is the very Case we have before us. The Presbyter (stript of any of the essential & ordinary Powers of the Aposto­lic Office) is a Creature of another Order, and quite a new Species; as much as the Deacon was tho' the Former has not (as [Page 29] the Latter hath) any Divine Institution to support and counte­nance him, and therefore is to be rejected as an Unscriptural Officer, having no proper Title to the Commission and Promise made to the Apostles; however he may pretend to be deriva­tive from them.

INDEED, Supposing our blessed Lord had instituted the several powers which the Apostles had, as 'twere by halves, (the power of Government separately, and the power of Doctrine by it self) in distinct Commissions, both whereof were to be standing; then we might perhaps have reasonably argu'd those Powers capable of existing separately in distinct Subjects: and at this Door, the mere preaching Presbyter might come in, and be look'd upon as a regular Officer; and not simply new, altho' he had differ'd from his Predecessors, the Apostles; looking at their Office in Complexo, & taking their Powers all together. Or again, Supposing the Apostles (in the name of their ascended Lord) had instituted this new Officer, the mere preaching Presbyter, (assigning him out of their Office, only the power of Doctrine; as they appointed a distinct Office of Deacons, devolving on them the Ministry of Tables only) there would (in this case too) have been sufficient Founda­tion for the simple Presbyter or Preacher, and we might have lookt upon his Credentials as very authentic.

BUT now I cannot learn that this mere preaching Presbyter has any manner of Warrant, upon either of these Hypotheses.

IN short then, If there be any such Officer of CHRIST, as a Presbyter, or Minister of the Word, he must stand upon that (single) Commission given the Apostles at the Ascension of CHRIST; and so by good Consequence must succeed them in all the ordinary and continuing parts of their Office. I ask then, By what Rule do any distinguish the Power of Doctrine and the Power of Government from one another, and deny the latter to the Order of Presbyters?—To bring this matter to a point, I wou'd argue thus. The power of Government be­long'd to the Apostles either in their ordinary or extraordinary Capacity. If only in their Extraordinary, then no Body a­mong their Successors has any just Pretences to it. If in their Ordinary, then they who succeed them in the power of Doctrine, are the Order, to whom alone that other Power also of Right belongs: since they who are in any degree properly Successors to the Apostles, must succeed them in the whole of their standing Character, as I have proved before. Moreover, I would add here, the Key of Discipline and Rule must needs [Page 30] belong to such as have the Key of Doctrine, for this very significant Reason, Because the Latter is the greater Honour, and more worthy Badge, of the Two; I don't say in mine and my Brethren's Opinion, but in the Judgment of no less a Person than the inspired Apostle, as you may see, 1 Tim. 5.17. Now why shou'd the less honorable Power be denied them? Here then I demand again, What Warrant (or Colour of Rea­son) have any to deny Presbyters the Power of Government? Where is the Scripture that runs a Line of Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters? Where shall we in all our Bible find the place, that assigns different Successors to the Apostles, and disperseth the ministerial Powers, united in them; committing to one this, and to another that, as distinct Officers in the Church?

BUT now before I pass to our Authors other Proofs, I think it proper here a little to anticipate him, and bestow a Reflection or two, upon one declamatory and very harsh Pas­sage of his, referring to this matter; which we have, in pag. 44. Either (quoth he) Bishops (Diocesan, that is) must be THE TRUE Successors of the Apostles, or else they have no Succes­sors AT ALL, and the Apostolic Order & Office is QUITE ex­tinct; and the Church is TOTALLY deprived of the prime and chiefest Office instituted by CHRIST for its Edification, good Or­der, and Government; and finally, There is now no such Order of Men extant in the World, to whom that LARGE and AMPLE Commission which CHRIST gave only to his APOSTLES, does belong: and with this, the Promise falls too.—Who now can for­bear admiring the Zeal of this Gentleman, and his wonderful Reasoning here! But suffer me to expostulate a little with him upon it.—What! Is there no possible way for the Apostolic Order to continue, but in the Persons of Diocesan Bishops! Must the Apostles be deny'd any Successors at all, if his idoliz'd Prelacy be deny'd! Has he not taught us to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary Powers in the Apostolate! And if presbyters do succeed to the Apostles in their ordinary ministerial Powers (as he hath not proved they do not) are these no Successors at all! While the Gospel is preached, and there are those in the world, whom himself ( pag. 19.) calls Christ's Ambassadors, can he say the Office is quite extinct! And how can he say, The Church is totally depriv'd of the chief Office instituted by CHRIST for its Edification, so long as we have the benefit of the Apostolic Writings, by which (being dead) they yet speak.

[Page 31]AND finally, Does he complain, That except Bishops be allow'd to succeed the Apostles, There is now no such Order of Men extant in the World, to whom that LARGE & AMPLE Commission, which CHRIST gave ONLY to his Apostles, does belong! What means the Gentleman by this?

IF he wou'd bear the world in hand, that the Commission, which the Apostles receiv'd, was given to them only, and in distinction from Presbyters; this is as gratis dictum; a Point that needs proof, after all that he hath said upon it.

AND if he wou'd insinuate here, that the Commission gi­ven the Apostles, doth in its large & ample Extent descend to their Successors; then surely he design'd only to amuse his Readers, and he contradicts himself t'boot, having forgotten what he had before conceded, (in pag. 33.) That the unlimit­ted Commission was a thing peculiar to the first Apostles, extraor­dinary & temporary: in saying which, He in effect confesses himself, that there is no Order of Men extant in the World, (and therefore not his Bishops) to whom that AMPLE & LARGE Commission doth belong: and since he contends, notwithstanding, that Bishops are true Successors of the Apostles, how evidently doth it appear, He allows there may be true Successors to the Apostles, (empower'd by the same Commission with them) who yet are not vested with the same Plenitude of Power that they exercised, or an Authority of the same am­ple Extent with theirs!—And now if the Power of Govern­ment granted in the Apostolical Commission, may come under any Limitations, or be confin'd to a particular Charge; since our Author presumes to shrink it up within the narrow Bounds of a Diocess, (He says not, whether great or small) I may as safely and warrantably contract it a little more & reduce it within the Compass of a single Church or Congregation. And in this, I have to bear me out, many Divines of Name in the Church of England it self, who maintain, that Extent of Power over several Churches, nay, and having Presbyters in subordi­nation too, are not (one nor other) of the Essence of Episcopacy. This was the opinion particularly of Dr. Maurice (a stre­nuous Defender of Prelacy) who upon this head observes to us, ‘That Milles the martyr was a Bishop, tho' he had not so much as one Christian in his Diocese: and he acknowleges, He never yet heard of any men, who made it essential to a Bishop, to have a plurality of Congregations under him ^‖.’ [Page 32] So Saravia (a prime Leader in the notion of the Divine Right of Prelacy) professeth, ‘We measure not a Bishoprick by the number of the Clergy, or by the amplitude of the Diocess; for the Bishoprick may be included in one small Parish alone ^*.’ And it's well known how Dr. Hammond, (a very learned prelatist) maintains, ‘That all the Presbyters we read of in the New Testament were Bishops, and that there was no inferiour Order of Ministers instituted by CHRIST or his Apostles; but that this was afterwards brought into the Church.’

HENCE then, according to these Principles, Episcopacy and Presbyterian Parity are very well reconcilable: for I know no difference between a Congregational Bishop, and an Inde­pendent Pastor; save that the latter may want the Episcopal Consecration, which they speak of, and make necessary to the Authority of the Episcopal Degree. But surely that can afford no plea for the Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters; because there's no solid proof of any Rule in the sacred Scrip­tures, for this Consecration of Bishops, as different from the Ordination of Presbyters. I will boldly affirm, They may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible, as long as they have Eyes to see, and not be able to produce a Scripture-Canon for any thing more than Ministerial Ordination. Nay in the, Very Directory for Ordination, ( Tit. 1.) the Apostle makes no Distinction in the least between Presbyters & Bishops, but rather makes them the very same, as I shall show by'n'by.— However we will not quarrel and part here: Nay, and more­over I will for once grant them, That Bishops are the true Suc­cessors of the Apostles; deriving from them the power of Ordination & Jurisdiction; this, I say I will grant them, if they will but hold to those two Principles, (which we find them sometimes allowing us,) viz. That every Congregation may have its own partieular Bishop; and then that all Bishops are upon the Level, having equal & independent Authority.

YEA, If they'll allow these two things, I will grant them further, That the Promise, annexed to the Apostles Com­mission, does belong to Bishops; and so the horrid consequences we may hope will be prevented, which our Author conceives would follow, if Bishops be not the true Successors of the Apostles.

[Page 33]THUS at last, I think, we are led into a way, to perpetuate the prime Office instituted by CHRIST for the Church Edification, good Order & Government, and to secure the great Promise made to the Apostolical Order, by a regular Succession of Bishops too: and yet consistent enough with the Presbyterial Model.

AND so it appears, the first Text, that our Author brings to support the prelatical scheme, proves of no subserviency at all to his purpose, but much the contrary.

I have been drawn to a greater length in the consideration of this Text, because I perceive the Gentleman lays pecu­liar Stress upon it; referring us frequently and with great assurance to the Commission there: and because I think as to this he is in the Right; for I believe, we have here (to use some of his words) the Hinge, on which the whole Contro­versy in this matter depends And verily, if Presbyters are absolutely shut out of this Commission, I shall despair of finding any other Establishment for them, in the whole Bible. Or if Bishops have by virtue of this Commission a Right of Juris­diction over Presbyters, or any Power but what Presbyters have as well as they a Title to, this wou'd decide the Case with me: and I shou'd think it almost needless to take the pains to examin any other Scripture-Proofs he has to bring. But being, after the most impartial search into the matter, strongly convinced of the contrary, I shall proceed to the other Texts he brings, and see whether they can afford any new Light to the Argument.

THO' I wou'd premise here one Thing, as a Principle, not to be disputed; viz. That this first Text, as containing the Gospel-Charter or Commission for the Ministry, must therefore be admitted the grand RULE to us in interpreting other Texts, relating to the Controversy. All must be reduced to this Standard; and no Construction of any Scripture be al­low'd, that makes it militate with this first and grand Text. We must note; All Corporations are to model their Go­vernment by their Charter, and by the Instructions of their original Founder: no Laws are to be enacted repugnant to these; and all Laws already made, are to be interpreted in a sense plainly consistent therewith—. As then we may justly reject any Decrees or Ordinances of Men, that pretend to alter, limit, or add to the standing Powers of the Divine Commission aforesaid: So we may reasonably suspect that Exposition of any [Page 34] Text, which makes it to interfere with this. And hence, tho' some particular Texts cou'd be produced, that might by a witty Turn be made to look favourably towards the Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters: yet if this Distinction cannot consist with the Royal CHARTER, or cannot be deduced from it by any rational Inferences, we must necessarily look out for some other sense of those Texts, and reject the for­mer Construction as certainly erroneous.

I shall only add here what one well observes; This being ‘a Question concerning a very great Power, extending to a great Number of Persons, and producing great Effects, a matter of great Distinction, and Dependencies, ought to have clear and positive Warrant from the Word of GOD, and be very plainly legible in the Commission there. Meer Names, Titles, Suppositions, and fine Probabilities, will not all make a Foundation strong enough, to bear the weight of a structure so high and towering, as our English Prelacy.’

WELL, we will now examin our Author's other Scripture-Proofs, and see what weight they will bear to have laid upon them.

HIS second Text is, 1 Cor. 12.28. Where the Apostle Paul tells us, GOD hath set some in the Church, first APOSTLES, secondly PROPHETS, thirdly TEACHERS.— Here, by the way he inserts in a Parenthesis this observation, That what follow, are not distinct Offices from these, but extraordinary Gifts conferred upon them. But I believe his Observation will not hold good, as to all the Articles in the following Enumera­tion; For what will he make of the Helps and Governments, mention'd there? Do not these mean distinct Officers? I am sure many learned Interpreters judge so: and among others, some of the Church of England. Particularly, Dr. Whitby (from Dr. Lightfoot) says on the place, That the Helps here were Deacons, or such Officers as took Care of the Poor: and by Governments, he tells us, are almost generally understood the Rulers of the churches planted by the Apostles.

HOWEVER, Supposing them to be (what he calls them, pag. 14.) only various Powers & Gifts, wherewith the Gospel-Officers were endu'd; how will this serve his Cause! Nay, it will very much hurt it. For, to whom shall we refer these Powers? Surely not the Apostles only, but as well to the Prophets and Teachers, joyned with them. Whence it will necessarily fol­low, That Teachers have the powers of Government belonging [Page 35] to them; and therefore the power of Ordination also, since these two are inseperably united, in the Episcopal Scheme. And accordingly Dr. Hammond on the place (agreeing with our Author in his Interpretation of Governments) do's expresly ascribe and appropriate these ruling Powers (as his Phrase is) to the Teachers spoken of, whom he makes to be the Pastors of particular Churches planted by the Apostles.— We will not dis­pute then with our Author, whether the Apostolic Degree be per­petual, or not; but let him enjoy his opinion about it, and make as much of it as he can: provided he will but concur with those his Brethren, (and let us quietly enjoy our opinion) That the Teachers or Pastors of particular Congregations have these ruling Powers belonging to them.

YET, it would make one smile to see how he lays stress upon the word SET, and to read his Descant on it; when if we consider the place this monosyllable bears in the Text, it must needs be of little weight in the present Argument, as referring indifferently to all that follows; and consequently taking in (not only the Apostles, &c. but likewise) the extraordinary Gifts & Powers there enumerated, as set in the Church, and so (according to him) immoveably fixed as the Ordinances of Heaven: which, how ridiculous wou'd it be to pretend! In short, This Gentleman must allow the power of working Mi­racles, the Gift of Interpreting, and the Diversities of Tongues, to be but temporary, even altho' they are said to be SET in the Church: and now the Apostolic power of universal Inspection might be but in the same sense set in the Church, and have a respect (like the rest of those extraordinary Powers) only to the first planting of the Gospel, as himself expresly owns, Pag. 33, 34.

SO that it is egregious Trifling to use this Scripture, as a proof of his Scheme: and his Distinction here between Offices and Gifts, is nothing to his purpose, tho' (as you've heard) it's much to mine. And as for his Admonition (under this head) to such as presume to mutilate & deform the mystical Body of CHRIST, by depriving the Church of any of the sacred Offices set in it by GOD; we humbly trust on our part no such Censure is due, however it was pointed at us; and therefore let the Bestower of it, and his Brethren, take it among them­selves, who presume to robb the Presbyters in the Church of a great part of their Ministerial Powers, & commit them to other Officers uninstituted by CHRIST, to the no small damage of his Church in its Beauty, Integrity and Purity.— But I [Page 36] forbear; as supposing Re-criminations however just, will do but little Service to my Cause.

TO go on with our Author: In the third place, He argues from the 4th Chap. to the Ephesians, where we are told, That our Lord gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors & Teachers, — for the edifying the Body of Christ; till we all come— unto a perfect Man,— That we henceforth be no more Children tossed to & fro, &c.— Now he boasts he has here an uncontestible Testimony, in favor of his Scheme, taken from the Ends for which these Offices were instituted; with an ex­press Declaration how long they were to continue, that is, to the End of the world.— But this is very easily answered. 'Tis granted, That the Apostles, and others must certainly accomplish the Ends they were given for, some way or other. And there are two ways, agreable to the twofold Capacity they sustain'd, Ordinary and Extraordinary.

IF you consider the Apostles here, in their Ordinary Capacity, the Case is very plain: their Order doth actually continue; and they do properly in their Successors, serve to the Edification, good Order & Government of the Church, and will do so to the End of Time. Which Successors are Gospel-Teachers or Elders. For since our Author has not yet been able to prove, That a Superiority over other Pastors was one of the ordinary and stand­ing Parts of the Apostolic Office, it thence follows, that Pres­byters may well enough be look'd upon, as Successors to the Apostles, and we have no Reason to think any superior Order to them was to continue in the Church. For, as he truly observes, pag. 42. The Question between us is only concerning the Or­dinary Powers of the Apostles, in which alone they cou'd have Successors. And he himself (as I took notice before) acknow­leges, That a Jurisdiction over all Churches & Pastors was one of those Extraordinary Powers, of which he says (as expresly as I can) at the foot of pag. 41. That they expired with themselves, and that they have no Successors in them.

IF then, on the other hand, you consider the Apostles in their Extraordinary Capacity, you have our Author's own Confession, that in this they had no Successors; nor were to have any: and so their Superintendent Power being extraordinary, was not to continue in after Ages, nor is it obligatory to us. For (he says, pag 32.) if the Institution of the Apostles was ex­traordinary & temporary in any part, it is so far as it was of this nature, no Rule or Standard now. Nevertheless (I would add) [Page 37] After a sort and in an improper sense, even the first Apostles may be said to continue, that is, In the blessed Effects of their Ministry; and to be still serving the Church of CHRIST, by the Apostolical Doctrine, and the standing Rule of Faith deli­ver'd to us in the New Testament; which, as Men infallibly inspired for that End, they wrote, and publish'd, to be han­ded down to Posterity, and spread through the world, for the common benefit of mankind. And these Apostolical Writings have been preserved to this day, and will (I trust) be to the world's End continu'd, the great Instrument of the Conversion and Edification of Souls, under the Conduct of the Spirit of GOD, and of his Ministers, as in subordination to him, Workers together with GOD, and building upon the Foundation, which those Master-builders have laid. So that, in this qualify'd sense, the Apostles may be said, even in their extraordinary Capacity, yea, and by their Superintendent Power too, in the lasting Effects and Influences of it, to continue, for the work of the Ministry, till we all come, &c.

BUT here I have two Remarks further to make; one on the Author's way of Reasoning upon this Text; and a second, Upon the Objection he raises, with his Answer to it.

HERE then I cannot but take notice, How remarkably this Gentleman, in his manner of arguing from this Place (for his pretended Bishop) agrees with the Popish Doctors; who from the very same Text (as Dr. Whitby observes) do argue for an infallible Guide thus;— CHRIST (say they) gave Apostles, Pastors, & Teachers, that Christians might not be tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine; which End cou'd not be compassed but by infallible Guides. Moreover, GOD gave such Pastors to serve to these Ends, till we all come to the unity of the Faith, which will not be till the last days of all. Where­fore, till the End of the World, the Church must be provided of them, and by them be secured from being Children tossed to and fro. Thus the Papists argue. And perhaps They have as much Truth on their side, as our Author. Besure their Argument seems to be as well founded and as plausible, for a perpetual Succession of infallible Guides in the Church▪ as his for a perpetual Suc­cession of Apostolical Superintendents. But since the INFAL­LIBLE CHAIR is expresly renounced by this Gentleman him­self, and that consistently with the Text we are upon; Me­thinks, it's pity he did not proceed (as he might have done, upon equally just Grounds) to reject the EPISCOPAL [Page 38] THRONE together with it. However, we will do it, tho' he hasn't; as firmly believing, that Infallibility & Superintendency were both alike peculiar to the first Apostles (to speak in his own Dialect) and being equally design'd only to serve the Infancy and first Constitution of the Church, they were not to continue.

THE other Thing I mention'd, may now be consider'd. He is aware, it might be objected to him, That in this Text (viz. Eph. 4.11.) more Officers are mention'd than he pleads for; and therefore, to keep clear of the opinion of many Dissenters, That the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists here spoken of, were extraordinary Officers, He is forced to say, That these different Designations do not import different Offices, but different Exercises of the same Office, (pag. 38.) — But here, how obvious and natural is the Reflection, That by this Principle there is but ONE SINGLE Order in the Gospel-Ministry; which is the Thing I am pleading for, and to allow which, is for him intirely to give up the Argument. If Apostles, Prophets, Evan­gelists, Pastors and Teachers, do all import only one and the same Officer, under various Denominations, as our Author seems positively to assert, then I say there's an End of the Contro­versy, and what need we stay any longer upon it!— How­ever, let us see how he illustrates the matter by an Example, saying, That an Apostle, Presbyter, or Deacon, might be a Prophet, Evangelist, Doctor or Teacher:— In which, I doubt he still more and more involves himself, and disparages his Cause.

For observe,

1. THERE's a Fallacy in this Instance, in that one thing which should be in the Predicate, He puts into the place of the Subject, namely, an Apostle. If he wou'd speak consistently with the Account he gives before, of these different Designations, and give a parallel Instance, It must run thus, A Presbyter or Deacon, (or a third Person, if he could find out such an one; let him say, a Bishop, if he will) might be an Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor or Teacher. For Apostle is one of those Desig­nations in the Text; all which just now he said, imported only different Exercises of the same Office.

BUT if any will attempt to excuse him from the Charge of a Fallacy, by saying, He meant to except the Apostles out of that Number, and spoke only of the other Designations that follow; tho' it happens not to be so cautiously worded: then let me argue upon the matter thus,— Either all the Designa­tions here do import distinct Offices, or they all of them do not.

[Page 39]IF all do imply distinct Offices; then these are all either ordinary or extraordinary, and take them in which sense he will, he must distort his own Scheme. Nay further, if any shou'd say for him, They are BOTH (some being Ordinary, and others Extraordinary) and to be taken in sensu diviso; I doubt this Distinction would not help him neither: for I be­lieve, by the same Rules that any of them can be prov'd Ex­traordinary, we must conclude the Apostles particularly to be so. And then what becomes of the Bishop, our Author's pre­tended Successor to the Apostles!

BUT, If all these Designations do not imply so many dif­ferent Offices, then I argue thus,— Either they are some of them proper Offices, and others only different Exercises; or else they are all but Exercises of one Office.

IF he chuse to say the Former; then I ask, How many, and which of them are Offices? He'll doubtless say particularly Apostles, and Prophets, which ( pag. 14.) he says, is the name that the order of the 70 go by. But then I demand, By what Laws of Interpretation, he can support this Construction? Where is there any Colour of Distinction in the Text, between These and the Rest that follow? Does not the Enumeration run thus, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers! So that there's no mark of Distinction between the two First, and the Rest: and more­over, by the same Rule, that the two First, viz. Apostles and Prophets, may be distinguish'd one from the other, may also the two next, Evangelists & Pastors, be distinguish'd, and call'd different Offices. Yea, and by parity of Reason, If he calls Evangelists & Pastors one and the same Officer, I may as well call Apostles and Pastors the same. According to him, a Pres­byter might be a Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor or Teacher: and I will add upon as good Grounds, That he might be an Apostle too, as far as the ordinary Power of an Apostle extended; which was only to govern the Church, ordain Officers, preach the Word, & administer the Sacraments: for (I say again) he hath not yet proved, That a Superiority over other Pastors was one of the ordinary powers of an Apostle.— And by the way, This would have served as well for an Answer to one of his former Texts, that is, 1 Cor. 12 28. For there is as much Rea­son to suppose the different Designations in that, as in this, to import only different Exercises of the same Office.— But thus much for the first Thing I observ'd in our Author's Instance.

[Page 40]2. OBSERVE a very palpable Self-Contradiction (if not also another Fallacy) in what he affirms here of the Deacon, viz. That He (as well as a Presbyter or an Apostle) might be a Prophet, Evangelist, Doctor, or Teacher.

HERE's a plain Contradiction to what he says elsewhere. For, those several Designations, he expresly tells us ( pag. 14. and again, pa. 21.) belong to the second Order of Ministers, viz. Presbyters. And then, in pag. 58. he says, The Apostles instituted a 3d Order, of Deacons, who 'tis certain was inferior to Presbyters, as these were to the Apostles.— Yet here, pag. 38. He affirms, That a Deacon might be a Prophet, Evangelist, Doctor, or Teacher.—Now let any one reconcile these Things, that can. If Deacons may wear all the distinguishing Titles, and do all the peculiar Works of Presbyters, I cannot imagine how any Distinction of Order can be supposed between them. At least, if so, it can't be apprehended that Deacons are the Inferior Or­der of the two. For, tho' some particular Names & Works may be common (as our Author observes, pag. 55.) where Offices are acknowleged to be distinct: Yet it is ever the Superior Office includes the inferior, (as, all Apostles were Presbyters and Dea­cons,) but not vice versa; to use his own words in pag. 56. According to which Principle of our Author's, a Deacon can't be inferior to a Presbyter, if he may be a Prophet, Evangelist, &c. for what more can we suppose a Presbyter to be? What de­stinctive Character doth a Presbyter sustain? What Superior to these? Unless he will grant that a Presbyter might be an Apostle.

IN Fine, There appears to be another Fallacy, in our Author's varying from the Enumeration in the Text, by saying DOCTOR or Teacher, instead of PASTOR or Teacher. It seems plainly to be a design'd Alteration. For, first, He knew well enough, that Doctor here was a superfluous word, since it is synonimous with Teacher: However, because of the Gingle of the word, he suppos'd the changing of Pastor for Doctor, wou'd not be readily minded. And then, He knew, if he had asserted, A Deacon, or an Apostle, (both which he was speaking of) might be a Pastor; [that is, A Minister of the Word & Sacra­ments, setled in a particular Church, or Place that had receiv'd the Gospel; for so he defines a Pastor; pag. 14. & 25. compar'd] all the World would have derided the Absurdity, and every one seen the notorious Opposition, that this wou'd have carry'd in it, to his own Scheme: according to which, as the Apostles had an unlimited Commission, and a Jurisdiction over [Page 41] Pastors; So the Deacon is confin'd to Preaching & Baptising, not being authorized to administer the Lord's Supper; which every Pastor has certainly power to do: and hence neither an Apostle nor Deacon cou'd be a Pastor. It was then wittily done of him to change the Phrase of his Text, and put Doctor in­stead of Pastor. However, The Wit (I believe) will hardly atone for the Fallacy.

THUS I have fully and impartially consider'd the Three great Scripture-Arguments he brings.

AND now upon the whole, Who can forbear pitying his Cause as desperate, that needs the help of such little Tricks and Windings and Double-Dealings to maintain it; and the Man, as very forgetful at least, and not a Master of his own Scheme, that commits such egregious Blunders & Self Contradictions!

WELL; Our Author having (as he thinks) establish't his Point, viz That Authoritative Inspection over Churches & Pastors, was one of the ordinary & continuing parts of the Apostolick Office, in which they were to have Successors; He comes now in the 4th & last place, to shew, that BISHOPS are the true Successors of the Apostles, and that in Them is the Apostolical Government over Pastors & Teachers continu'd in the Church. Now to illustrate and confirm this, he observes to us, Pag. 43. That the Apostle­ship is (in Acts 1.20.) expresly call'd an Episcopacy; and hence the Apostles were properly and actually Bishops.— Says he so? Why then, at the same Rate of arguing, We may infer that Presbyters are Bishops too; because in another Chapter of the same Book, (viz. Act. 20.) The Elders of Ephesus are expresly call'd Overseers or Bishops. Yea, by the same Rule, we may argue that the Apostles themselves were properly and actually Presbyters; inasmuch as two of them, Peter & John, expresly call themselves so. The Apostle John in two of his Epistles, salutes his Friends, under no other Name, than that chosen one, The Elder —. Possibly he was the oldest Apostle now living, or the only one surviving, of that extraordinary Cha­racter: and this aged Servant of the Lord, willing to counte­nance the continu'd & standing Ministry, assumed only the more ordinary and common Title of Elder: though, being now the first and most eminent Minister in the Church, he styles himself emphatically, THE Elder. — And then the Apostle Peter, exhorting the Presbyters (1 Epist 5 1.) styles himself [...], Consenior, or FELLOW Presbyter; as if he claimed no Superiority over them and stood upon a Level with them.— But where now do we find these or any other [Page 42] Apostles calling themselves Bishops? Doubtless we shou'd have been told of it, if they had done so. Besure if the Apostle Paul had call'd himself a Fellow-Bishop, in writing to Timothy or Titus, there had been Noise & Rattle enough about it.— But what does the Gentleman intend, when he affirms, That the Apostles were actually and properly Bishops? If he means, that they were actually Diocesan Bishops, and had particular Charges or Provinces to rule in; this will contradict what he says elsewhere, when he assigns them an unlimited Commission. Or if he means that the Jurisdiction they (every one in com­mon) exercised over all Churches & Pastors, was a proper Episcopacy, as his Phrase is; then I inquire, whether his limited Prelate be not improperly styled a Bishop; and how he can be call'd a true Successor of the Apostles!— But it may be he only meant in general, That they were Bishops, as being a superior Order to Presbyters and exerting Authority over them. If so; then he trifles strangely, and abuses his Reader with the Ambiguity of a word, which He puts one Construction up­on, and the Presbyterians another. He uses the word. Bishop, in the modern Ecclesiastical Sense, as importing an Officer superior to a Presbyter: but We affirm, this is not the ancient scriptural Sense. Let them, who say it is, produce any place in the Bible, where the word is so used, if they can. It is to be found 6 or 7 times in the New Testament: but it every where makes so evidently against the Prelatical Sense, that the wiser & more sober Prelatists generally shun all Places where the Word is used, as being nothing to their purpose, but rather tending to the Confusion of their Cause. And when they come to answer our Arguments from such Places, they will not fix on any positive Sense contrary to our's, but only study Evasions; and act like cowardly Soldiers flying from a powerful Enemy, who trust to their Heels, not to their Weapons: or if any have more Courage, and resolve at all Ad­ventures to stand it out, how often do they charge upon one another, and fly in each other's Face!— To Instance in one Text, Phil. 1.1. Where Paul salutes the Saints at Philippi, with the Bishops & Deacons. One Party of them says, Those were Diocesan Bishops; and here they take quite different paths: One says, They were the Bishops of the neighboring Citys, met for some Consultation at Philippi: Another says, No; They were not at Philippi, but with Paul. Again, One says, These Bishops were Pastors and Rulers of Churches, and had no Presbyters under them; no such inferior Order being instituted [Page 43] by the Apostles: but then another says, There was such an Inferior Order, and would have it denoted here by the Deacons. Yet further, There's another Party, who say, These Bishops were nothing but Presbyters; simple Presbyters, not having power of Jurisdiction; which the Apostles in their times reserved to Themselves; and so there was no such Officer as a Prelate between the Apostles, and the Presbyters, Finally, There are some of them, who hold, That by Bishops here are to be understood both the Bishop and his Presbyters; for that the Name was then common to both Orders, and the higher Rank includes the lower.— What Contention and Confusion is here among the learned Advocates for Prelacy! You see this one Text has so gravel'd 'em, that they know not which way to turn themselves, nor how to come off: they can't agree among themselves upon any tolerable Evasion, and they seem asham'd of one another's sophistical Attempts.

BUT I now return to our Author; who to confirm the Point he is upon, viz. That Bishops are Successors to the Apostles in their power & Authority over Pastors, proceeds ( pag. 45.) to offer another Argument, taken from the Apostles conferring upon others the Apostolick Power, in their own Time, which (says he) they would never have done, if they had not concluded it was to be transmitted from them to others in a continual Succession, to the End of the World. I might make several Remarks on this Pas­sage; but I shall confine my self to the main Thing, that is, to inquire into the Truth of his Hypothesis, That Apostles did actually confer Apostolic Power on others. — It is not enough to say there were other Apostles, besides those Eleven, which CHRIST left in Office at his Ascension. For our Lord might afterwards raise up as many as he pleased: but if their Call was immediate, their Mission from CHRIST alone, without the Intervention of Men, or their Qualifications extraordinary And peculiar, it affords no Argument at all of his designing a perpetual Succession of an Order of Gospel-Ministers, superior to ordinary Teachers. Hence then our Author must instance in such as receiv'd the Apostolate in an ordinary manner, by a human Call and Ordination: or else his instances are foreign to the purpose, and prove nothing.

NOW in Pag. 45 & 46. He offers several Instances; but such as will hardly bear an Examination He first instances in Matthias: But will he say this Apostle was called in an ordinary manner? Nay, Does he not own himself, It was by the [Page 44] DIRECTION of GOD, that Matthias was received into the Num­ber of the Apostles? And were not the Circumstances and the Requisites, that are mention'd ( Act. 1.21, 22.) as necessary to qualify him to be joyned with the Eleven Apostles; I say, were not these things extraordinary? It would then astonish one to think, any Man in his Wits shou'd offer such an In­stance as this in Plea for Bishops being the true Successors of the Apostles!— The Instance of James, is exceeding imperti­nent; since it appears very plainly the Author himself believ'd him to be one of the Twelve; and therefore to have his Call immediately from CHRIST. And as for what he insinuates about this Apostle's being Bishop of Jerusalem, nothing that he refers us to for proof, will bear him out in this fond Conceit. The next Instance he brings is Paul; but with what propriety I can't imagin; especially since he himself confesses, that he was immediately called by CHRIST.— His last Instance is Barnabas, who (he tells us) was called in the ORDINARY manner; that is, He had not an immediate Divine Call, but the Apostles conferred his Apostolical Power upon him. But how does that appear? Sure I am, we read of no such Thing in the place he refers us to, Act. 4.36. Nay, we have very sufficient Grounds to conclude, that Barnabas, when he received this new Name from the Apostles, was no more than a Teacher or Evangelist. We don't hear of his doing any thing more than preaching the Word, for a considerable Time after this. Nay, not till after (what we read of, Acts 13.) his Seperation (together with Paul) to a special Ministry, by the hands of certain Teachers, at the Direction of the Holy Ghost: After which indeed we find him call'd an Apostle, ordaining Elders, &c. Here then, There are two Things our Author must grant. 1. If Barnabas was an Apostle really, and seperated to his Apostleship in an ordinary manner, it must be at this Time: whence it will follow (contrary to his darling Principle) That the Power of Ordination is not the peculiar Privilege of an Officer superior to Presbyters or ordinary Teachers; but that Teachers may ordain Teachers, yea Bishops and Apostles too. Or else 2. He must own Barnabas's Call to be immediate & not in the ordinary manner: so consequently the Instance not at all to his purpose. — The matter of Fact, which our Author brought these Instances to prove, was, That the APOSTLES themselves conferred Apostolical Power on others. But I be­lieve every unbyass'd Reader will be of opinion, that all his Instances are impertinent, and will vote the Gentleman wholly [Page 45] beside his Cushion.—And now having thus sap't the Foun­dation, hence the Argument he builds upon it in favor of his beloved Prelacy, by natural Consequence falls to the Ground, and turns to nothing.

BUT moreover, to enforce what he had said relating to these Apostles, our Author proceeds to instance in some others, who were raised from among the ordinary Pastors, to the Apostolical or Episcopal Order; and endu'd with Authority over Churches and their Pastors.

Pag. 47. HE instances in Timothy, and endeavours to prove, That He was Bishop of the Church of Ephesus.— But how does he prove it? Why, because he had committed to him the se­veral Powers of Ordination & Jurisdiction. But this is of little weight; unless he can further prove, that Timothy had a PAR­TICULAR and fixed RELATION to that Church; at least that he had the SOLE Power in himself; that he was com­mission'd to ordain & govern ALONE, and the Presbyters there absolutely excluded: Since otherwise, by the same Rule, and way of Reasoning, we may as well conclude that Timothy was to be sole TEACHER at Ephesus, and none to preach but he; because he is exhorted to give himself to Reading, to Exhortation & Doctrine; to preach the Word, to he instant in season, out of season. 'Tis not enough to say, Timothy had these & those Powers, and was to do this and t'other Thing: but it must be prov'd that the Elders of Ephesus had not the same Powers, and cou'd not do the same Things, (even tho' they had the same Qua­lifications) that they might not lay on Hands, might not reprove one another, as there was occasion, and the like. And then, It must be proved that Timothy had those Powers, and exercised them, in the Capacity of a Bishop; not as one having extraordi­nary Authority, and by virtue of extraordinary Gifts; much less as being an Elder: and that he had not the Assistence of the other Elders.— Particularly it must be proved, That he had the sole Power of Ordination, and acted singly herein, if ever the Prelatists wou'd gain their point. But now how improbable is this? Seeing all the Ordinations we read of were performed by a Plurality of Ordainers: and especially seeing, if Paul was concern'd in the Ordination of Timothy, he took the hands of the Presbytery with his own: for we cannot suppose but that Timothy wou'd follow the Pattern of his own Ordination, and not assume more Power than the A­postle himself claimed.

[Page 46]MOREOVER, It is observable, by the same way of Reason­ing that our Author makes use of here, to prove Timothy's Episcopacy, the Papists do infer Peter's Supremacy from other places of Scripture (as Mat. 16.19 Joh. 21.15.) Where CHRIST gave Instructions, Charges and Powers to the A­postles; using the singular number, and directing his Speech to Peter in particular, even when the other Apostles were by. And indeed, I think, if the mere Form of Expression is any thing to be built upon, the Papists may as well pretend, that what CHRIST here said to Peter, was personal and peculiar to him, as the Prelatists appropriate to Timothy what Paul says in his Epistles to him about Government & Ordination. For perhaps Timothy might differ little more (if any thing) from the Rest of the Presbyters, than Peter did from the Rest of the Apostles. Now the Apostles acted among themselves in a con­stant Parity; notwithstanding the seeming peculiar Powers given to Peter. And the Case at Ephesus might be the very same.

FURTHERMORE, I wou'd observe; If what our Author affirms be true, that Timothy had a Power over the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, it is a Truth, that will rather hurt than help his Cause. For it is a plain Case, that the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus were of the Episcopal Order. These are they to whom the Apostle said, Act 20.28. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, or, (as in our Translation) Overseers. And in the 1st Epist. to Timothy, 3d Chap. Paul very evidently ascribes to these Elders the power of Government. They were to be such as ruled well their own Houses, having their Children in subjection with all Gravity,— for this remarkable Reason, because if a Man know not bow to rule his own House, how shall he take Care of the Church of GOD? Which passage, the learned Dr. Hammond (whose Authority perhaps may go as far with some, as our Author supposes Mr. Calvin's will with others) para­phrases thus; ‘For sure he that cannot rule so much a less Province, will be unfit to be made a Governour of the Church of GOD.’ Now the Episcoparians agree with the Presbyte­rians, that the Powers of Government & Ordination go together. Since therefore these Presbyters had the Former, they must of necessity have had the Latter also. Hence if Timothy had a Power over these Presbyters, as our Author affirms, he must be forced to grant one of these three Things, (neither of which will please him nor serve his Cause) Viz. Either,

[Page 47](1.) THAT that Power in Timothy was only temporary & extraordinary; and he (so far) an extraordinary Officer, as the Presbyterians generally say he was.— Or,

(2.) THAT there is an ordinary Officer in the Church Juperior to Bishops; since the Episcoparians reckon all that have the powers of Government and Ordination to be Bishops. For which Reason, Dr. Hammond puts that Construction upon 2 Tim. 2.2. Appoint them as Bishops in the several Churches UNDER THEE.— Or else,

(3.) HE must allow such Officers, as he thinks inferior to Bishops, to have the Powers of Government & Ordination; which is one of the main Things Presbyterians contend for.

BUT now in the last place, I wou'd observe; Our Author makes some Acknowlegements elsewhere that evidently subvert the Doctrine of Timothy's Episcopacy. Pag. 25. He confesses Paul's Jurisdiction over Timothy, when he mentions what Paul said of him, That He served with him, as a Son with his Father, in the work of the Gospel; being obsequious to Apostolical Orders; going whither he was sent, and coming when called, &c. And else­where our Author observes, That the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Churches; whence it follows that Timothy an Officer in the Church of Ephesus, must be in some Subjection to Paul. And if he was subject or subordinate to another, then certainly he cou'd not be a Diocesan Bishop; since such a Bishop must have a Fulness of Power in his particular Province, and be exempt from the Jurisdiction of any Ecclesiastical Superiors: Much less cou'd he have Apostolic Power, as our Author pretends; because (as he justly observes, pag. 17) All Apostles by their Commission had equal Power, and there was no Superiority of one Apostle to another.

IN a word, If (after all) this Gentleman will maintain that Timothy had and exercised Episcopal Power over the Pres­byters of Ephesus, (tho' he dare not venture to say, under what Designation, as his Phrase is) then he must necessarily grant one of these Things — Either,

(1.) THAT Timothy had an absolute independent Power, and was not under the Apostles Jurisdiction.— Or,

(2.) THAT the Power, which the Apostle exercised over him, was extraordinary; and so the Apostles only temporary Officers.— Or,

(3.) THAT the Apostolical Power was not properly and simply Episcopal, but of a different Kind: and so the Apostles an Order distinct from Bishops.— Or else,

[Page 48](4.) THAT all Bishops have not by Divine Right an Equality of Power, but may be in Subordination to one ano­ther.

LET him chuse which he will of these Postulata, he must needs commit violence upon one part or other of his Scheme; and what he has built up with one hand, pull down with his other.

I know not of any way now left our Author to take in de­fense of his Doctrine, but to say, That Timothy was the Apostle's Substitute, or Delegate; not acting properly in his own, but in Paul's Name, governed by Apostolical Instructions and executing Apostolical Orders.— And indeed, if we compare what our Author says of Timothy in his 25th pag. with what he says in his 49th pag. he will appear to be of this Opinion.—But neither will this help his Argument at all. No Plea can be gather'd from it, for Bishops being Successors of the Apostles, though we suppose the Delegation to Timothy to be matter of Fact: because it can't be prov'd, but that Timothy was an itinerant Missionary, having no particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus: because it can't be proved, but that the supposed Trust committed to him was a temporary and transient Assigna­tion; one of those extraordinary Expedients, which the peculiar Occasions & Necessities of that Day called for; having a particular Respect to the first planting of the Gospel, and the erecting and setling the Christian Church in the world: the Powers relating to which our Author himself, ( pag. 33.) owns were temporary and extraordinary.— Furthermore, As I have had occasion once and again to observe, He confesses that the Apostles Jurisdiction over all Churches was but temporary, and needful only for the primitive Times; and if so, I can't see how a limitted Jurisdiction of that nature should be necessary in after-times. If Paul's Jurisdiction over all Churches was extraordi­nary, then it seems to me that the Jurisdiction he is said to exercise over the Church & Pastors of Ephesus, in particular, by the mediation of Timothy (which was specifically the same with that) must be likewise extraordinary Timothy's pretended E­piscopacy cou'd be no other than the Exercise of Apostolical universal Jurisdiction, under a particular Application: and this particular Trust must cease together with the extraordi­nary Power that was the Foundation & Source of it.— Moreover, It is not unworthy of Consideration, That in the exercise of this supposed Episcopal Government, Timothy had an inspired Apostle to direct him: And now will any imagin [Page 49] that the Bishops, Timothy's pretended Successors, do not want some Higher Authority to supervise them, as well? Or are Presbyters the only Persons that need to be under the Conduct and Regulation of Superiors! Methinks, our Timothies as much need a Paul to inspect them, as the Presbyters want a Timothy to govern them. And since there's no more any Paul with his extraordinary Powers, we may safely conclude that Timothy his supposed Delegate, has long ago taken his final Leave of the World.

BUT now to proceed with our Author.

Pag. 48. HE instanceth in Titus, and says, That the like Power & Authority (with that of Timothy) was conferred on him, over the Churches in Crete. But here the like Difficulties arise too: and if the Case of Both was the same, the same Answer may serve for both.— I shall only observe, that the Elders to be ordained by Titus in every City, were to be blameless as the Stewards of God, that is (saith Dr. Hammond) as those that had the Government of GOD's Family intrusted to them. Now since the Elders or Presbyters, were to have the power of Govern­ment, they were to have that of Ordination likewise; and so were to be Bishops, according to the opinion of the Episcopa­rians. Hence if our Author assert Titus's Episcopal Power over them, He will entangle himself in all the inextricable Diffi­culties, which I have cast in his way, under the former head.

THUS you see the two Instances of Timothy & Titus, which our Author thought wou'd afford convincing Arguments for a settled Prelacy in the Church, do conclude nothing at all in favour of it. It was therefore ingenuously done of Dr. Whitby, to desert his Brethren, by making those Concessions, which we find in the Preface to his Commentary upon Titus. "As to the great Controversy (saith he) whether Timothy & Titus were indeed made Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete; I confess I can find nothing of this matter in any Writer of the first three Centuries, nor any Intimation that they bore that Name —. (He adds afterwards) I confess, that these two Instances, absolutely taken, afford us no con­vincing Arguments for a settled Diocesan Episcopacy."

I come now to our Author's last Instance, viz. The Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, which (he tells us) were Persons of the Apostolical & Episcopal Order. But his Argument here, [Page 50] is as weak and unconcluding as any of the Former. For there is no Evidence at all, nor any Shadow of Reason to sup­pose, that those Angels were Diocesan Bishops, or such as had Authority over Presbyters. There is nothing in the Word Angel, that will yield any Demonstration of it. Whether you consider the Etymology of the Name, or the Style of the Apoca­lypse, there's nothing to forbid our taking it in a Collective Sense, for the Body of the Clergy or Presbyters. And if we look into the Epistles to those Churches, we shall find many Expressions that favour this Construction: but not a word (that I can see) countenancing the Episcopal Opinion. Nay, if we shou'd allow every Angel to be a single Person; the ut­most you can suppose him to be, is a Senior Pastor in a Church; or the Moderator of a Presbytery, approved by some who are in their Judgment & Practice very Anti-prelatical. There is not the least Hint given, as if these Angels had Jurisdiction over any inferior Ministers; much less the sole power of Govern­ment, and a Negative upon Pastors and Churches: without which Things, there can be no rational Inference (from those Angels) in favour of Diocesan Bishops. 'Tis indeed one of the most noisy & blustering Arguments made use of on the Episcopal side, but perhaps equally shallow, and senseless.

THUS I have faithfully examin'd all the Instances, our Au­thor has thought fit to mention, for the proof of his Point, That the Apostolic Power over Pastors is continu'd in the Church, in the hands of Bishops. And I am apt to flatter my self, that I have disarm'd him of all his supposed Precedents, have beaten him off from his strong Holds, and turn'd most of his own Weapons upon himself.

NOW it remains to consider the Replies he has made to the Scripture-Proofs, which Presbyterians bring: but before I pass to that, let me look back a little, and consider an incidental Passage or two of our Author's, under the former head.

AT the bottom of pag. 48. (speaking of Timothy & Titus) he says, I will not contend but that in the EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, they might have taken the Advice & CONCUR­RENCE of the faithful Pastors in these Churches, & concerted Af­fairs with them: and not done things in an arbitrary & despotic manner. To this I cannot answer better than in the words of Mr. Pierce ^‖. ‘As to our part, we do not condemn all manner [Page 51] of precedence or pre-eminence. If the Episcoparians had only asserted it to be both lawful & useful, that among Presbyters who are, by the first Institution, all equal, there should be one for Order's sake, placed above the rest, and called the Bishop; we should not upon that account have contended with them, or separated from them. Who knows not that the foreign Churches, that are under Presbyterian Government, have, in their Synods & Classes, Moderators, Prolocutors, &c which are by Experience found necessary? And if men had been entrusted with those Offices in our Churches, not barely upon occasion, but for life, or as long as they behav'd themselves well in them, I hardly think any Quarrel would have risen upon this head. Nay, so earnestly did our Ministers desire Peace, that if our Bishops had been obliged to govern their Churches, with the Consent and Assistance of their Presbyters, they would have born with it, rather than have been deprived of the Publick ex­ercise of their Ministry. For they thus considered with them­selves; that it was enough for them, if they preserved entire the power they received from GOD, and left the Consecration whereby the Presbyters are made Bishops, as a useless thing, to those who were satisfied with the Law­fulness & Expediency of it. This then is our Judgment, that the distinction our Adversaries make between Presbyter and Bishop is groundless, being no where made in the Scripture; and that CHRIST is alone a Monarch in His Church; and that He hath never appointed a Monarchical Form of Government to be practised in it;’ since we no where find any such thing taught, either by CHRIST himself, or by his holy Apostles, to whom he gave special Commission and Power to plant, and settle, and govern his Church, in his name. Con­cerning whom therefore, (to borrow our Author's words, pag. 50, 51.) we cannot entertain the least doubt in our minds but that they would be most faithful & exact, in settling that Order, and Instituting those Officers in all fully constituted Churches, which their Lord had appointed; and would be careful to leave the Church, at their Death under the same Order & Government, furnished with the same Offi­ces & Ministers, which CHRIST himself her Lord, had instituted & appointed for her Edification.

AND now, since our Author is fully persuaded as well as I, that the Apostles were faithful, exact, and careful in model­ling the Church according to Christ's own appointment; I can't see, that it would have been any great Confirmation of [Page 52] his Cause, if he had brought forth the Records of the Ancient Church, and Catalogues of its Bishops, which he speaks of, pa. 51. [Nay, altho' the Bishops may be there ( as pa. 43. he tells us they are) frequently called Apostles; and again, the Apostles stiled Bishops; nay, further, altho' he cou'd make it appear, as evident, as himself supposes it is, that many of the Ancients were of opinion, That in the Apostles was instituted the Episcopal Office, and that in the Bishops the Apostolic Office was continu'd; This (neither) cou'd not serve him much.] For if they speak not according to the Institution of Christ, and his Apostles, we may safely venture to say, That so far as they are inconsistent with it, there is no light in them. Whereas, on the other hand, if we find them conformable to it, however they may deserve Com­mendation, yet they will add no weight or force at all to our Saviour's or his Apostles Institution.—Much might be said to this matter, but since our Author only gives a transient Hint upon it, and seems presently to retract it, by ingenuously confes­sing he has taken a step out of the Line he had set himself, I shall add nothing further in Reply to it, but the following Passages from a Learned Dissenter. "We deny not (saith he) that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops & Presbyters: but this doth not overthrow out Hypothesis. For if they are the same in Scripture, the sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise: and yet (he adds) few or none of the Ancients say they are distinct Orders; much less that they are so by. Divine Right: but some of them acknowlege the contrary It is not therefore their using the name of Bishop in a sense distinct from that of Presbyter, no, nor requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop, that will prove a Superiority of Order Jure Divino; for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the gravest & wisest of the Presbyters, and constitute him a sort of President over the Rest; and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church, commonly the Eldest or Worthiest was as Pastor, and the other his Assistants: but still we know, thas the Parson of a Parish and the Curates are of the same Order; and every Bishop in England is equal in Order to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, altho' they take an oath of Canonical Obedience to him. The same we say of the Distinction betwixt Bishop & Presbyter in primitive Times. This is a sufficient Reply to all the Antiquities, this Gentleman cou'd have alledg'd.

[Page 53]IN the next place our Author, pa. 52, produces the Testi­mony of Calvin, concerning the form of the ancient Church; but to what purpose I cannot well imagine: for I think it will be far from doing him any service. The form of Go­vernment which Calvin speaks of in that Chapter, (which is in the 4th and not in the 1st Book of his Institutions, as the Reader may be in danger of misapprehending, from our Au­thor's way of citing him) is not, as he expresly tells us, the Order delivered in the pure word of GOD; of which he had created in the foregoing Chapter; but only a sort of Image of it exhibited in the form of the ancient Church. In which, not­withstanding Calvin's charitable Opinion, that the ancient Bi­shops with a sincere study endeavoured to preserve GOD's Institution and had no mind to frame any other form of Church-Government than what was prescribed by GOD in his Word; yet it is plain from the very Words recited from him by our Author, that he thinks they had something at least, in this matter disagreeable to the Word of GOD, something wanting in their Order, and some­thing in which they erred. And as for the three Orders, he he brings in Calvin speaking of, they are not as he represents them, Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons; but teaching & ruling Elders. His own words you may see in the Margin ^*. Indeed in the next Section he acknowledges, ‘That in every City the Elders or Presbyters chose one of their own number, to whom especially they gave the title of Bishop; but then he says, that he had no Dominion over his Col­legues, but only (as the Consul did in the Senate) acted the part of a Moderator among them; and executed what was decreed by common consent, and was himself subject to the Assembly of his Brethren. Sic alios dignitate antecedebat, ut fratrum caetui subjiceretur. Moreover he adds, that this was brought in by human Consent, according to the Confession of the Antients themselves, and brings Jerom for his Voucher.’

OUR Author now proceeds pag 54. to consider some passages of Scripture, that are commonly objected against what he hath advanced. [Page 54] And, First, Those Passages from which 'tis alleged, that the Names of Bishop & Presbyter are promiscuously used in the Scripture, and there­fore signify but one and the same Office. To this he says, it is an­swered by SOME (for he seems not very forward to espouse the Answer himself) that whenever Bishops are named, we are to understand Bishops properly so called, and not Presbyters, which they make appear from the Texts brought in favour of a Com­munity of Names. How well, we shall see presently!

THE first text mentioned is in Act. 20. where the Apostle Paul having sent from Miletus to Ephesus, ver. 17. and called the Elders of the Church, so charges them, ver. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and unto all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS (or, Bishops, as the same word is else­where translated) to feed the Church of God, &c.—Here it is as plain as any thing can be, that the same persons who are cal­led Elders or Presbyters ver. 17. are called also Bishops ver. 28 and were such Officers as there were more than one of in a Church; and therefore could not be Bishops properly so called in our Au­thor's sense. To this our Author answers that They say (it must be only by guess; for there is no foundation for it in the Text) that the Apostle called both Bishops & Presbyters unto him. and that the Clergy of all the Cities thereabout were there; so that what he says, ver. 28. was principally directed to the Bishops, and by way of reflection to the Presbyters. If we should grant this were true, yet still their Names are used promiscuously. But it is so far from being true, that it is directly contrary both to the letter of the text and the circumstances of the Apostle.

For,

1. IF the Clergy of all the neighbouring Cities had been there, the Apostle (we may conclude) would have said Flocks and Churches, and not Flock and Church. And

2. THE Apostle was now hastening, if possible, to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, ver. 16. and therefore would not call at Ephesus himself, lest he should be detained too long; but sent for the Elders of the Church to come to him at Miletus: which makes it the most unlikely thing in the world, that he would tarry there till the Clergy of all the Cities about Ephesus could be called together. So that it ap­pears plainly both from the manner of the Apostle's Expres­sion, and from the great haste he was then in, that none but the Elders of the Church of Ephesus were there present; whom the Apostle calls Bishops of the Holy Ghost's making. To all this our Author hath nothing to oppose, but a mere Guess, which [Page 55] he seems not willing to take the Credit of to himself; and which if allowed, won't serve the turn he uses it for. Before I dismiss this Text, I would observe further, that the Apostle charges these Elders to feed the Church. &c. Now feeding being a metaphor taken from the business of a Shepherd, implies go­vernment as well as instruction. So that from this Text it appears,

1. THAT the same Persons were called ELDERS & BISHOPS.

And

2. THAT in one Church there were several ELDERS all ALIKE concerned in the Government of it; And therefore ac­cording to the Episcoparian Scheme, invested with the power of Ordination also, & all other Powers that belong to the highest Office in the Church. So that this Text proves an Identity of Office as well as name: To which I will add,

3. THAT in all probability this charge was given to those Elders, in the presence of Timothy, who appears from ver. 4. to have been one of the Apostle's attendants in this Voyage. And if so, had the Apostle been of our Author's opinion, that he was the Bishop of that Church, it is very strange he should take no notice at all of him, as concerned with it; nor give any charge to the Presbyters to pay due respect unto their Bishop (whose Youth might tempt them to despise him) as well as to take heed to all the Flock.

THE next Passage mentioned is that in Titus, Chap 1. where after the Apostle hath laid down some of the qualifi­cations of the Elders whom he left Titus to ordain in every City, he gives this reason ver. 7. for insisting on those qualifications: For a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God, &c. which wou'd be no reason at all, unless the Apostle intended the same Officer by the Bishop in the 7th ver. which he did by the Elders before. To this, I can't find that our Author says any thing, which hath so much as the least tendency to take off the force of it. But he says one thing to perplex himself and his Cause, viz. That there were Presbyters before at Crete, and Ti­tus was to ordain some of them Bishops; whereas he had said before pa 48. That an Episcopal Power & Authority was con­ferred on Titus over the Churches in Crete. From which two passages laid together one would think, that Titus was to ordain Bishops, in some of the Cities in Crete, inferiour to him­self; whereas the Scheme of our Author and his Brethren is, That there is no superiority or power of one Bishop over another. [Page 56] Besides, as Critics observe, the original word here rendred to ordain, will not bear such a sense: it signifies plainly to con­stitute & appoint. And so here it must needs mean the Ordi­nation of persons to the office of Presbyters; and not the advance­ment of Presbyters to be Bishops. Presbyter or Elder here is the Capacity, to which persons were to be ordained; and not from which they were to be promoted.

IN the next place he tells us that 1 Tim. 3.2,—7. is to be understood of Bishops properly so called, that were to be ordained to preside over other Cities, as Timothy did over Ephesus. But this won't serve his turn; for Timothy was to abide at Ephesus, ch 1. ver. 3. and not to travel from City to City to ordain Bishops. Besides, if the Apostle had known any middle sort of Officer, called a Presbyter, between the Bishop here mentioned, and the Deacon described afterwards, in the same Chapter, it is very strange he should give no character of him, when he is so carefully instructing Timothy, how to behave himself in the House of God, that he might know what manner of person to put into this Office also, if there should be occasion for it. And therefore we cannot but conclude, that a Bishop and a Presbyter were the same thing in the Apostle's account, and that he knew no other ordinary Officers in the Church, but Bishops or Pres­byters and Deacons.

THE last Text he mentions is Phil. 1.1. Paul & Timothy the Servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops & Deacons. From this text we gather that the Government of the Church at Philippi was not lodged in the hands of a single Person, or a Bishop, properly so called, in our Author's sense; but in the hands of a plurality or Presbytery; and that there was no middle Order in the Church of Philippi, between the Bishops and Deacons here mentioned.

TO this our Author answers, first. That these words may be understood of the Bishops of Philippi, and other neighbouring Cities, who were wont to convene and meet together.

MY reply is, 1. That this Epistle is written to a Church; that therefore when it says to the saints which are at Philippi, it is to be understood of the Saints that dwelt there and con­stituted that Church. And in like manner ought the Bishops and Deacons to be understood of those that did belong to that Church; unless there were some apparent reason to the contrary.

[Page 57]2. THAT there is no Intimation in this Epistle, that it was to be delivered to an Assembly of Bishops convened at Phi­lippi; that therefore there is no Ground for such a Supposi­tion, but it is a mere Guess to serve a Cause that needs such Helps.

3. THAT it is a Guess not only without Foundation, but against the express words of the Epistle it self. For the A­postle calls those whom he wrote it to, Philippians. Chap. 4.15. Ye Philippians know also, &c. Now it would be very absurd to call an Assembly of Bishops, met together from the neighbouring Cities, Philippians, only because they happened to hold a meeting at Philippi.

4 OUR Author's Guess cannot be right, nor yet the Hypo­thesis which it is designed to serve, because the Apostle takes no notice of any middle Order in his Salutations. For had there at that day been three Orders of Officers in the Church, and had there been such a convention of Bishops of the neighbouring Cities at Philippi, it can't be supposed, that the Deacons who are the lowest Order would have been present, and the Presbyters who are superior to them, not so. And if the Presbyters had been present, certainly the Apostle would not have saluted their Inferiors, without taking any notice at all of them.

WELL, If a bad Guess won't destroy the Argument foun­ded on this Text, perhaps a forced Construction may do the business better; for our Author says, secondly, That this Text may mean that Paul, and the Bishops & Deacons that were with him, salute the saints that are at Philippi. As if it had run thus. Paul & Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ, with the Bishops and Deacons, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi.

I readily agree with our Author, that this Answer is not obvious to every one. For it is a wonder to me, that any man, that hath re'd the two Epistles of the same Apostle to the Corin­thians, should ever make it. In both those Epistles, the form of Expression used in the Salutation, is exactly Parallel both in the Original, and in our Translation, to the form of Expression used here. And yet I believe the greatest Zealot for our Author's cause (when he is not out of temper) will hardly be able to perswade himself, that the Salutation, in the first of those E­pistles, ought to run thus; Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ, thro' the will of God, and Sosthenes our Brother, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, &c. Or that the true Construction of the Salutation in the [...]d Epistle is, Paul [Page 58] an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our bro­ther, with all the saints that are in all A [...]haia; unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, &c. I think, I need not mention the reasons why I suppose no Body will be ambitious of the Credit of finding out such a new way of reading the two last mentioned Salutations. And why the order of the Salu­tation in the Epistle to the Philippians should be so inverted, as it is manifest, the same form of Expression ought not to be, in any other place, where it is used by the same Apostle I believe no reason can be given, but such an one, as it will be tho't prudence not to expose.

OUR Author hath now done with the Texts of Scripture, from which, he says, we allege that the Names of Bishop & Pres­byter are used promiscuously. And upon the whole concludes, that if he should grant an Identity of names, yet it will not follow, that there was an Identity of Offices; because names are common in Scripture, where Offices are acknowleged to be distinct. But he should have remembred, that something more than a bare Iden­tity of Names is argued from diverse of these Texts. And since he hath been no better able to prove, that in all these places we are to understand Bishops properly so called, and not Presbyters; he might have tho't it worth his while, to have endeavoured an answer to what we argue from the Texts, besides a promiscu­ous use of Names. For from Acts 20 27, 28. we not only prove, that the names of Bishop & Presbyter are used promiscuously; but also that the Government of the Church at Ephesus was committed to a Plurality, and not to a single Person; and that therefore all these Presbyters had a power of Ordination also; (since the Powers of Government and Ordination go together, our Adversaries themselves being Judges) from whence it follows that Presbyters properly so called have a Right by Scripture to all those Powers, which Bishops now claim as pecu­liar to themselves.

AGAIN; From 1 Tim. 3. [...], 3.4. &c. We argue that the Apostle knew of but two Orders of Officers in the Church. For it would be very strange, when he is so sollicitous, that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself in the House of God; that yet he should not give him any account of the Qualifica­tions necessary for one Order of Officers that belonged to it. And it would be much stranger still, that he should be so very particular, in setting down the Qualifications of one sit for the Office of a Deacon, which is on all hands, allowed to be the lowest Order and yet omit all mention of an Officer of higher Degree and more importance.

[Page 59]SO again, (to mention no more,) we say, it appears from Phil. 1.1. that there were but but two orders of Officers in that Church. For it would be no way consistent with the De­cency observed on all occasions by the Apostle, to have saluted the Deacons by name, and to have taken no notice at all of one of the Orders superior to them, if there had been more than one that were so. And we say moreover, that it farther appears from this Text, that the highest Order here mentioned was such as there might be more than one of, at the same time, in the same Church; and that therefore they could not be Bishops, in the sense of our Adversaries; for of them there can be but one in a Church at once.

THESE things lie plain & obvious to every Eye in these Texts, and are much more than a bare Identity of Names; which is also demonstrable from some of them, as hath been shewn above. And though our Author is pleased to make light of the Argument from the Identity of Names to Identity of Offices, and many of his brethren have treated it with a great deal of contempt and insult: yet, I suppose, if the matter be duely weighed, it will be sound much easier to laugh at it, than to answer it

INDEED it must be acknowledged, that all▪ the Names of the Offices of the Christian Church, admit of a twofold acceptation: being sometimes used in a common, and sometimes in an ap­propriate sense, by the sacred Writers. Thus for instance; Apostle sometimes signifies any Messenger, and sometimes it is more strictly taken for one of the Twelve, immediately sent forth by our Lord. So Bishop, in its common acceptation, signifies an Overseer, and Presbyter signifies an old man; but they are both of them often used in a more appropriate sense, to denote those Officers, to whom the Instruction & Government of the Churches were committed. So again, Deacon, in its common sense intends any servant or minister: but in its stricter use is appropriated to that Officer, whose business it was to serve Tables. And it is generally easy enough to discern from the sense, when these words are to be taken for the proper Names of the Offi­cers sometimes denoted by them; and when they are to be taken in the common sense, only to intend something that may be as well expressed by them, as by any other words of the like signification.

NOW this Observation easily accounts for the difficulty, objected by our Author, that the Apostle & Pastors are fre­quently called Deacons; Upon which he truly says, That it [Page 60] cannot thence be argued, that the Apostles & Presbyter's Office was one and the same with the Deacon's. The reason of which is, that the word Deacon in those Places is used in its common sense, according to the original signification of it, before it was appropriated, as a name of distinction, to any particular Order of Officers in the Church. And this our Translators were a­ware of; and accordingly, as the sense directed them, have very well rendred it Minister, in those places.

BUT notwithstanding this, it is certain (as hath already been observed) that this, and the other names of the Offices in the Christian Church, are often used in the New Testament, in a more strict & appropriate sense, to denote certain Offices, which by these names were distinguished from each other. For common sense will teach us that there must be (at least) as many distinguishing names, as there were distinct Offices in the Church; and that distinction of names must be as early as the dis­tinction of Offices: otherwise Christians must have been unable for some time, to express themselves in some Cases, either in Conversation, or in Writing, without an unintelligible Am­biguity. Unless therefore our Author can prove, that the Scripture Offices were not distinguished in the Apostles days, by the names given them in Scripture; but by some other names, best known to himself, and not to be met with there; he must allow us to conclude, that wherever we meet with these names, evidently used in a strict appropriate sense, there we are to understand certain Officers, distinguished by these names from Officers of any other Order, and that could not be distinguished from other Orders, either in speaking or writing, without these distinguishing names, which custom had appropriated to them.

AND still further, where we find two of these names (tho' evidently used in a strict sense, yet) indifferently applied to the same Office, and never find them applied to any other Office, or any other names applied to that Office in an appropriate sense; there we must be allowed to conclude, that both these were names, which custom had given to one and the same Office; and that it was well enough known at that time from all other Of­fices by either of these names.

NOW this is exactly the Case, with respect to the names, Presbyter & Bishop. For where they are used in the most strict appropriate sense that can be, we find them both applied indif­ferently to the Order of Officers, unto whom the Instruction & Go­vernment of the Church was committed. And we never find either of them applied, in a strict & proper sense, to any other [Page 61] Order. Nor do we find the name Deacon, ever applied to this Order, but where it is manifestly used in the common, and not in the appropriate sense of the word. And therefore we very justly conclude, that not two, but one and the same Office, is intended by both these names; and that this Office was suffi­ciently distinguished in the Apostles time, by either of them.

FOR it would be the most unreasonable thing in the world, to imagine, that there could be two distinct Offices, to which these names belonged, and yet the names be certainly used pro­miscuously; and never so used, as that any distinction of Offices can be collected from them; nor any other names given us by the sacred writers, to distinguish these Offices by▪ not the names of any other Office given in an appropriate sense, to the Office, to which these two names are, in such a sense promiscu­ously applyed; nor lastly, either of these names ever given, in an appropriate sense, to any other Office, but that of instructing & governing the Church.

BUT if we should let all this go for nothing, and take our Author's own Account of the matter, it will be found to make strongly for our Opinion. For after he hath told us, that the Apostles & Pastors are frequently called Deacons; and yet that it cannot thence be argued, that the Apostle's & Presbyter's Office was one & the same with the Deacon's: the reason he gives for it is, That the name of the Genus is usually given to the species; the superior Office including the inferior. All Apostles were Pres­byters & Deacons: tho' not vice versa; that is, tho' all Presbyters & Deacons were not Apostles. So that according to him a superior Office might be called by the name of an inferior: but an inferior Office might not be called by the name of a superior, If therefore we can find the same persons, that are called Presbyters (and that certainly were Presbyters in fact as well as name) immediately after called Bishops, it will fol­low, from our Author's own way of reasoning, that Bishops were not an order superior to Presbyters. Now for an Instance of this, I will only refer him to the above mentioned, Acts 20. where those that are called Elders or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, ver. 17. (and who were certainly Presbyters pro­perly so called, because there were more than one of them in the same Church) are called also Bishops, ver. 28. as hath been before observed.

[Page 62]NOW, In the next place our Author comes to answer the Ar­guments bro't by us for Presbyterian Parity, from several Texts; such as Matth. 20.25 The Lords of the Gentiles &c. and the parallel places. Tho' 'tis to be observed; he grossly mis­represents us, when he insinuates, that we plead this Text, or any of the others mention'd by him, as condemning all Imparity among Church. Officers, or a superiority of one Order above another or the like. For, we allow of the Distinction betwixt Offi­cers of an ordinary Character, and Others invested with ex­traordinary Powers: So likewise we distinguish between one ordinary Officer and another, and assert a difference of Order between Bishops & Deacons. But what we make use of this Text for, is to prove a Parity of the Apostles among themselves, and so of Presbyters or Bishops among them­selves.

I cannot give into his opinion, That this Text forbids only that Power & Jurisdiction, which is exercised with imperious Bit­terness & Domination: but must beg leave to think (till I can obtain better Light) that it condemns and inhibits all manner of Superiority & Dominion whatsoever, in the Case it relates to. And when our Author is pleas'd to say, It is not in­terpreted to any such purpose, by any judicious Person of either Per­swasion; he commits a grand Mistake, and betrays his want of Reading or Memory. For Some, I am sure, and I suppose Most, of the best Expositors, and other Writers, on the Anti-Episcopal Side, do maintain, That not only Tyranny, but Domi­nion it self is here spoken of and forbidden Nay and there are Divines of note in the Church of England too, that agree to this Exposition. Dr. Whitaker saith, It is not Humility in the Domination, that is required; but the very Domination it self is forbidden ^*. Dr Willet says, Our Saviour here forbiddeth, that there shou'd be any Prince-like & pompous Pre-eminence among Ecclesiastical Persons ^‖. So Dr. Whitby, in his Notes on the Place, expresseth himself thus; I do not think Christ only for­biddeth here such Dominion as is attended with Tyranny—: And he adds several weighty Reasons to enforce his Opinion; As (1.) Because St. Luke (in repeating this Passage) uses Words which will bear no such ill sense. (2.) Because Governors (whether among Jews or Gentiles) were not always guilty of this Male-Administration. And (3) Because Christ does not oppose to their Government, a just Dominion, but a Ministry only, &c.

[Page 63]UNTO these, may be added two Arguments further. As (1.) It is not likely that our blessed Lord (who always paid and taught such a Reverence to the Civil Magistrate, shou'd at once brand all the Kings & Governors in the Gentile World, as a Crew of Tyrants & Oppressors, without any Exception or Distinction. For (as one ^‖ observes) what cou'd have been the Effect of this, but to produce in his Followers an utter Aversion to Monarchy, and to turn 'em all into Republicans? I wonder then how our Author came to hit upon such an un­happy Construction of our Saviour's Words. Had he been of the Principles of Those, who (he says) are for curbing the power of Princes, it would not have been so great a Surprize, to see him stumble into such a Mistake in his Zeal & Precipitation: But for a Gentleman, who professes himself of the Persuasion of Those, that assert the just Rights & Prerogatives of Princes, as the surest Foundation of a Kingdom's Tranquility & Happiness; for him, to put such a sense upon our Savior's Words, as must have a tendency to inflame the minds of Christians with very strong Prejudices against the Government of Kings & Princes, seems to be a very unaccountable peece of Forgetfulness and Mistake.— But further, (2) I may argue from the occasion, upon which the Words were spoken by our Savior. 'Twas briefly this; The Mother of Zebedee's Children came with her Sons to our Lord, worshipping him, and desiring a certain Favour of him, viz. That her two Sons might sit, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left hand in his Kingdom Now We cannot reasonably suppose, This Woman had any thing in View but a just Dominion; not Tyranny & Oppression; but barely Power & Authority: which, no doubt, she hop'd her Sons wou'd manage worthily — However, our Lord sees fit to reject her Desire; and takes occasion not only to forbid his Apostles the tyrannical and corrupt exercise of Au­thority, but even all Principality & Dominion it self, among themselves. And as Junius ^* observes, Instead of the Dominion desired, he enjoyne them a humble Ministry & Service. And whereas it had been objected by Bellarmine, That Bishops are not here forbidden to exercise a Dominion like that of godly Kings, but only like that of tyrannical Kings, who know not GOD: Junius replies, We deny that there is any such Restriction, neither can it be proved.

[Page 64]THIS might suffice: but since our Author has taken a pretty deal of pains in making critical Remarks on the Text, to expound it out of our Service, if possible; I shall do him the Justice, particularly to examine all he has said.

1st then, HE observes, That it's only a Secular Dominion, that our Lord forbids, &c. Where, by the way, He seems to retract what he had said just before, when he deny'd any other Dominion to be condemned, but only that which is exercised with imperious Bitterness. He has done well to correct himself, as he seems to do, when he here interprets it of secular Domi­nion; which being mention'd without any Limitation or Qualification, we must suppose him to allow it forbidden to the Apostles intirely, whether exercised with Bitterness or not. Now this, methinks, is a good Advance towards the Condemna­tion of his own Bishops, who so much affect State. Dignities, and sometimes sustain Civil Offices; therein approving themselves true Successors of the Apostles, while dreaming of an Earthly King­dom. It was what so offended good old Latimer, that he is said in a Sermon to have advised King Edward VI. to unlord all the Lordly Bishops, and remove them from all their temporal Offices & Employments, that they might follow their spiritual Plough. Tail.— Wise & just Advice, it shou'd seem! For their frequenting the Court, attending the Council Table, sitting in Parliament, being sometimes Regents of the Kingdom, or Ambassadors abroad, and the like, must needs take them very much off from their more proper Work, as well as very little sute with their Ecclesiastical Character. Hence the Wisdom of a Church of England Parliament saw fit once to pass a Vote, That no Bishop should sit in Parliament, nor bear any sway in Temporal Affairs; and that no Clergyman shou'd be in the Com­mission for the Peace. The Apostle observes upon this head; No man that warreth, entangleth himself with the Affairs of this Life; requiring Timothy, as a good Soldier, and Bishop of the Church of CHRIST, not to engage himself in any secular Negotiations: So Dr. Whitby notes on the Place; and moreover observes to us, That the Apostolical Canons (so cal­led) declare, Those Bishops ought to be deposed, who immerse themselves in worldly Affairs. — But I seem to have forgot­ten, that our Author & I have no Dispute about these Things; since he fairly confesses, that our Savior forbids his Apostles and Ministers to exercise Secular Authority.

[Page 65]HOWEVER, I don't agree with him, that this was all. I presume this do'sn't reach the utmost meaning of our Saviour's. For, tho' he might have some View (as our Author observes) to the Jewish opinion of a Temporal Kingdom, and design partly to remove that Mistake; yet the Generality of the most ap­prov'd Interpreters that I have seen, do suppose our Savior's Words also to have a Reference to their Ecclesiastical Capacity, and to forbid their Affectation of Pre-eminence & Authority one over another in the Church.— And 'tis very observable that our Lord used often, in his Replies unto others, to have a meaning beyond the Drift of the Question put to him, and different from it.

2. OUR Author observes; That Dominion, which the Lord, of the Gentiles exercised, was over their Subjects; not one over another. But how weak an Insinuation is this! Who knows not, How the Kings of the Gentiles have exercised Lordship, not only over their Subjects, but ever & anon also over other Princes round about them! What mean Imperial Dignities, and petty Sovereignties!— I think our Text may be so turned, and perhaps not unfairly; The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, i. e. The People: and they that are Great, (such as Emperors) do exercise Authority upon them, that is, upon inferior Princes. But (says our Lord to his Apostles) it shall not be so among you. It is the Dominion of one Apostle over another, that is here forbidden: as seems evident from what is added, Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. And this is but agreeable to the Scope of the Woman's Request to our Lord, That her Sons (two of the A­postles) might have the two highest Posts in his Kingdom, and sit above the other Ten; who are therefore said to be moved with indignation against the two Brethren, when they heard it. More­over, it will be clearer still, if we consult the parallel Texts mention'd by our Author, (Luk. 9.47. & Chap. 22.24.) where we find the occasion of our Lord's giving these hum­bling Rules to his Apostles is said to be the Rising of a Strife & Reasoning among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.— Nothing then can be more evident, whatever the Superiority condemned here by our Lo [...] might be, than that it was such an one, as was to be exercised by the Apostles over others of their own Number, and hath no respect to a Superi­ority over any other Order: and therefore must necessarily be understood in a Presbyterian Sense; unless our Author will [Page 66] joyn the Papists, and maintain Peter's Supremacy: but then he will have the whole Protestant world against him, even his own Episcopal Brethren, who constantly make use of these very Texts in writing against the Bishop of Rome, who pretends to be St. Peter's Successor, and claims to be oecumenical Primate! Now if the Romish Primacy is unlawful by virtue of these Texts, I believe any man will be hard put to't to give me a tolerable Reason, why the English Prelacy shou'd not be as well accoun­ted unlawful too; for I think it has been sufficiently prov'd, that Presbyters, or Pastors, are the true Successors of the Apostles: and therefore, since there was a perfect Equality among the Apostles themselves, it follows there shou'd be the like among ordinary Ministers, who succeed them, and a Superiority of one Pastor over another must be esteem'd forbidden by our Savi­our in these Texts we are considering.

VERY groundless are the Consequences that our Author draws from the Presbyterian Interpretation of our Saviour's Words. This will not (as he insinuates) destroy the power of Ministers over their Flocks: for, it is only the Dominion of one Minister over another, that we suppose forbidden. Neither will it de­stroy the power of Synods & Councils, if they keep within their proper Limits, and assume not, what the inspired Apostle disclaim'd, A Dominion over the Faith of others.

3. HE observes, That Phrase in Luke, He that is greatest a­mong you, plainly implies a Superiority of Power:— But I pray, why not rather an Eminency of Gifts & Personal worth, as is attributed to those Apostles, of whom we read They seemed to be Pillars. And how will he reconcile such a Construction, with what he asserts elsewhere, viz. That all the Apostles were equal!

MOREOVER, He argues from the Example of CHRIST ministring to his Disciples, which he proposeth to their Imita­tion, That the Command of ministring takes not away the Superio­rity & Power, since none will doubt, that Christ was Lord & Supe­rior. But there's no weight in this, if we consider the nature of the Argument from CHRIST's Example; it being taken a Majori. When he urges his own Example, in taking upon him the form of a Servant, and humbling himself to the meanest Offices for his Disciples, in order to shame them out of their foolish Ambition to appear in the Form of Princes, and to Lord it over one another; I say, in thus urging his own Example. He only argues from the greater to the less: As if he had said, If I, who am your supreme Lord, have stoop'd to minister unto you, [Page 67] How much more shou'd you my Disciples, who are Fellow-Servants under one Master, submit your selves one to another, and be ashamed any of you to strive after Superiority & Pre-eminene over one another! — We may illustrate and confirm this Para­phrase, by our Savior's own words elsewhere, (Joh. 13.14, 16.) If I then your Lord & Master have washed your Feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet.—The servant is not greater than his Lord.—

BUT further,

4. HE argues from our Saviour's Instituting Ministers of different Offices & Degrees; first, Apostles, then the 70, &c. that it can't be tho't he condemn'd a Disparity among Gospel-Ministers.— To this I answer, That here's either a Fallacy, or a mean begging of the Question.

NO Body disputes an Imparity or Distinction of Order among Gospel- Officers; tho' we deny it among Officers of the same Kind, and particularly among Bishops, Pastors or Teachers.

HE argues from the 70, who have been long ago discharg'd; and Evidence brought, that CHRIST left them not in Com­mission at his Ascension: or however, that they were not a distinct Order from the Apostles.

BUT if none of the former Objections will bear, He has another in Store—

5. HE adds, If our Lord had design'd to forbid all Disparity among the Ministers of the Gospel; 'Tis like, he wou'd rather have stated the Opposition between Them, and the Ministers of Religion under the Mosaic Dispensation, and not the Lords of the Gentiles.

BUT to this the Answer is easy. Our Savior chose this Comparison to meet more fully with the carnal Notion, our Author just now mention'd, of an Earthly Kingdom & Civil Do­minion, which the Disciples (with the Jews) dreamt of; as well as at the same time to reprove their Ambition of Superi­ority to one another.

IT might be added, (as I find a Learned Man ^‖ observing) that our Lord did not state the opposition 'twixt Them, and the Jewish Priests, because the Disciples did not as yet think of any other Church-Government than what at present obtain­ed among the Jews, and CHRIST did not find them ripe for receiving any Intimation thereof; but tho't it enough to give [Page 68] them a general Rule to be observed by them afterwards, which (when it was to be put in practice) they wou'd easily con­ceive the meaning of, after their Understandings were opened, and all Things brought to their Remembrance by the Holy Ghost. This Thought is suggested to us by Mr. Dodwel (that celebrated Champion of the Church of England) The Apostles themselves (saith he) do not seem to have known any thing concerning the Government of the Church, till their Separation from the Synagogues: They were by Birth JEWS, and zealous of the Law & Customs of their Fathers, and if our Lord (before that) had ravealed any thing to them which looked that way, that is, a Change of Govern­ment, they had been in hazard of revolting from him, instead of obey­ing him. And therefore our Lord dealt cautiously with them, and wou'd not put new wine into old Bottles, nor while their Minds were yet alienated, bear in new Revelations upon them concerning Facts, from which They wou'd have had an Aversion.—

THUS I have (I hope) remov'd all that our Author has offer'd to invalidate our Objection against Prelacy from our Savior's Rule in Mat. 20.25, 26.— And have vindicated the Parallel Places therewith.

YET I wou'd take particular Notice of the last Text our Author mentions, that is, 1 Pet. 5.2, 3. Feed the Flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (or acting as Bishops over it,) not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy Lucre, but of a ready mind: neither as being Lords over God's Heritage, but being Ensamples to the Flock. He brings in this, as a parallel place, but I do not remember at present, that I have known it to be improv'd by any of our Persuation, to the same purpose with the other Texts: So that it seems not fair & ingenuous Dealing in him to mention it as so alledged. However since it falls in my way, I will observe upon it, with our Author, That Lording over GOD's Heritage is here expresly discharg'd or forbidden. From this Text it is plain that Gospel-Bishops are not to be Lording Bishops; are not to exercise Princelike or Masterly Dominion over their Flocks. CHRIST will have no such Government, either of Ministers over Ministers, or of Ministers over their Flocks: The A­postle disclaim'd it, 2 Cor. 1.24. Not for that we have Dominion over your Faith, but are Helpers of your Joy. So, 1 Cor. 3 5. Who is Paul? And Who is Apollos? But Ministers, by whom ye believed! 2 Cor. 4.5. We preach not our selves, but Christ Jesus the LORD, and our selves your SERVANTS for Jesus sake. [Page 69] ‘Hence (as Dr. Whitby observes ^*) are they so often stiled Ministers, and their Work a Ministry to the Saints: And therefore, saith he, All the Office any man can have in the Kingdom of CHRIST, can only be a larger Ministry to others. The Office of Ministers is to reveal the Will of CHRIST. He will allow them no such Power over others, as to rule them by their own Will,’ in an arbitrary way; to set up themselves for Lawgivers or Dictators, expecting that the People should entertain all their Doctrines with an implicit Faith, and yield a blind Obedience to all their Decrees & Canons.— This is indeed Lording over GOD's Heritage. And wou'd to GOD there had been less of this Domineering Spirit in the Christian World! I am sure there ought not to be (to use Dr. Whitby's ^‖ phrase) any such Magisterial Guides in the Church.

OUR Author consents to the Discharging of this Domineering in Ministers over their Flocks; yet he well observes, The Pastor's Power & Authority over them, is expresly asserted (Heb. 13.7, 17.) where they are called Rulers, and the People comman­ded to obey them. Yea, He might have observed, That the same is asserted in our Text, 1 Pet. 5.2. where the Presbyters are exhorted to feed the Flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, &c. Here's a plain Text for the spiritual Jurisdiction and ruling Power of Presbyters. 'Tis couched in two Words. FEED the Flock; [...]; a word, ‘which (as one ^† observes) the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend, does not signify barely to Feed, but to provide Food as the Governor of a Fa­mily, and 'tis often used for Goverment, and sometimes for that of Princes: but however, it certainly signifies the Of­fice of a Pastor and is a good Argument that the Pastoral Power is vested in Presbyters. The other word is [...], Taking the Oversight, Performing the Episcopal Office, or doing the work of Bishops. So then Episcopal Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyters. If this Text does not prove it, I despair of of ever understanding the Meaning of Words. — The Power of Orders is with the like Clearness attributed to Presbyters in other places of Scripture; notwithstanding what our Author has said to the contrary.’

IN the 3d and last place, He comes to consider a Text brought for Presbyterian Ordination, viz. That of the Apostle, [Page 70] 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the Gift— which was given Thee — with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. We judge it evident from this Place, That Presbyters have a Right & Power to ordain Presbyters. And I think, nothing he has said do's at all disprove it. As for Jerom's acknowlegement, that Ordination belongs, if not solely, yet chiefly, to Bishops; this don't at all move me: because it is well known, that what­ever Jerom thought peculiar to Bishops, he thought to be so, rather by the Custom of the Church, than by Divine Appointment ^*. And what tho' Jerom, and several of the Latins, interpreted the Presbytery in our Text, to be the Office of Presbyters, as Calvin has done since; yet Chrysostom and other of the Greek Fathers (who must be supposed to understand their own Lan­guage at least as well) do interpret it of the Consistory; not of the Office of Presbyters. And so the word is always used elsewhere in the New Testament. Instances of which you may find, Luk. 22.66. Acts 22.5 &c. Where the word cannot be understood of Office, but must intend the Consistory or Commu­nity of Presbyters. And in the latter Text, it is render'd, The Estate of the Elders, Ordo Seniorum, The Council of Presbyters. And indeed Criticks tell us, that the Presbyterate or Office of Presbyter is [...], and not [...] the word used here, which they say always signifies the Consistory.

BUT our Author objects, that if we should grant that the Presbytery is to be understood here, of the Meeting of Presbyters, yet it will not prove, that they had full power & authority to ordain; for here (says he) at the most they did but concur & assist in the ordination of Timothy, as is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6. Where the Apostle calling on him to stir up that Gift, says of it, which is in Thee, by the Putting on of MY Hands.

TO which I answer; If we take this to refer to Timothy's Or­dination (which is questioned by many) altho' it appears from hence, that the Apostle laid on hands, as well as the Assembly or Council of Presbyters, in the Ordination of Timothy: yet that gives us no more grounds to suspect, That the Presbyters had not full power & authority to ordain by themselves, than it does to suspect whether the Apostle had power to ordain by himself. For the Apostle plainly attributes as much to the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, in the first Epistle, as he does to the putting on of his own hands, in the other; which it would [Page 71] be very unreasonable for him to do, if the Presbytery had not had the same power with himself in that Case. And if instead of the hands of the Presbytery, in the first Epistle, it had been said, that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the BISHOP, (notwithstanding the mention of the Apostle's hands also in the second Epistle,) I question not, but our Author wou'd have triumphed in it, and tho't the Text decisive. Whereas now he tells us, it is certain that Apostles did ordain without the Concurrence of Presbyters; but he reads not that ever Presbyters or­dained without an Apostle or Bishop: And without a warrant or precedent to be found for it in Scripture, he knows not how any can be fully persuaded in his own mind. I can't tell whether it will help our Author under his doubts, or perplex him still more, to mention what some have observed, that the Scriptures are wholly silent about ordination by a Bishop; that indeed they sometimes speak of ordination by the Apostles, and the Apostles sometimes call them­selves Elders or Presbyters; but they read not that the Apostles are ever called Bishops in the New Testament; or that the laying on of hands, either without an Apostle, or with one, is any where ascribed to any person that is called a Bishop in the word of GOD. This Observation may perhaps draw some weak persons into doubts about the validity of Episcopal Ordination.

BUT the truth of the Case is, (as hath been, I hope, abun­dantly proved, in the preceding pages) that Bishops & Presby­ters are one and the same Order by Divine Institution; and that they succeed the Apostles in all their ordinary Powers, of which that of Ordination is one; which is warrant enough for Ordination by Presbyters, and the very same warrant which those have for it, who are now, by Custom, and humane Consti­tutions, dignified and distinguished with the Title of Bishops. But if our Author must have a precedent as well as a warrant for Ordination by Presbyters, and such a Praecedent too as no Apostle was concerned in; I might with as good reason in­sist upon his giving an Instance of such an Ordination, by any person, or persons that are any where called Bishops. How­ever, if he will please to read Acts 13. begin▪ and then con­sider what he himself understands by Prophets & Teachers, (pag. 36, 38.) and what he takes to be the design of prayer & Imposition of hands (pa. 12.) I hope he will find a Praecedent to his heart's desire, in which no Apostle, (nor Diocesan Bishop) was otherwise than passively concerned.

[Page 72]I thought now to have drawn to a Close; but I must beg leave to take Notice here of a Passage or two in our Author's CONCLUSION; wherein he seems to intend something New of Argument.

Pag. 61. HE observes, We cannot find in all the New Testament the least Insinuation, that after a short Time the Apostolical Power over ordinary Pastors was to cease: which is the same Argument that Dr. Scot brings & builds much upon; who speaking of the Apostolick Office says, ‘Men must prove it's repealed by the same Authority that establisht it, before they presume to renounce it; for (says he) The Obliga­tion of Divine Commands is dissolvable only by Divine Countermands: so that tho' GOD had not declared he instituted it for Perpetuity; yet till he declare the contrary, the Institution must bind & prescribe to all Ages & Nations.’ But methinks, this admits of an easy Answer. For what need is there of an express Repeal or formal Inhibition, where the Reason of the Thing ceaseth, as is apparently the Case before us! I think it has been sufficiently prov'd, That the Aposto­lic Power spoken of, was founded in peculiar & extraordinary Ends and Designs, respecting the Infancy of the Gospel-Dispensation; That there's nothing in the Nature & Reason of things requiring the Continuance of it, nor the least Inti­mation given in Scripture, to move us to think it any other than Temporary. But after all I have said, I don't know whether our Author and his Brethren will be convinced. If not, I wish they would go to School to an eminent Divine of their own Church, and a great Ornament of it, tho' he was not in Communion with them in these Notions; I mean the Lear­ned Dr. Barrow, who freely declares his Judgment, ‘That the Apostleship, as such (strictly speaking) was personal and temporary, and in all respects extraordinary; conferred in a special manner, design'd for special purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful for the propagation of Christianity & founding of Churches: That the Apostles did not pretend to commu­nicate it: That they did indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each Church, but not constitute Apostles: and that (as saith Bellarmine) Bishops have no true Apostolical Authority: That this in its Nature & Design was not communicable to others, &c.’ Thus Dr. Barrow in his Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, pag. 73, &c. whose works are publish'd by Arch-Bishop Tillotson; and so perhaps we [Page 73] have the Sentiments of this eminent Doctor also here expressed.

Now further,

Pag. 62. OUR Author argues against the Presbyterian Principle, from its dangerous Consequence to Religion, as if it open'd a Gap to all Errors, and led to the Subversion of the whole Gospel-Ministry.— This, I suppose, he might think wou'd give us an alarm, and make us look to our selves, and beware how we attempt to shake Episcopacy, lest Presbytery shou'd unhappily fall with it. But I see no Cause for such a Fear. Besure I can see no ground to appre­hend any more danger in our affirming the Apostles Au­thority over Pastors to be wholly & absolutely extraordinary, than in our Author's affirming their unlimited Commission was so. Neither am I able to discern how it may any more, or on any better grounds, be improv'd against the Office of a Presbyter: Nor indeed how it can at all be so improv'd, with any shew of Reason. For the Necessity of a Gospel-Ministry may be evinced by many Arguments of a moral Nature: The Ends & Grounds of it being manifestly such as agree to all Ages of the Church to the End of the World. And then there is the clearest Scrip­ture-Proof imaginable that it was design'd to be perpetual. We have the same Evidence for the perpetual Duration of the Pastoral Office, as we have for its first Institution: whereas no solid Arguments have as yet been brought to support the Episcopal Claim, either from Reason or Scripture. So that the Presbyterians Renoun­cing of this, cannot in the least tend to serve the Design of those that are for intirely casting off a standing Ministry: and if such have nothing better to say in Defense of their Princi­ple, than what our Author hath suggested in their behalf, we see no occasion for much Fear from this Quarter.

AND now having finish'd what I design'd, that is, having shown the Weakness of our Author's supposed Demonstrations, and the Inconsistency of his Account with the Scripture-account of these matters; I shall only add, by way of Conclusion, some of his own Expostulations (with a little alteration, turned upon himself and those of his persuasion) in the Spirit of meekness & Love; and calmly inquire (with him) what is the ground of all that Noise & Clamour, Hatred & Prejudice, raised against them who are of the principles, as to the Point of Church-Government, which I have been defending?

'TIS evident we own CHRIST JESUS to be sole Lord & Law­giver to his Church; that he hath Power to establish Order & Govern­ment therein, and to institute what Offices he pleaseth in his spiritual [Page 74] Kingdom. These are the Things we earnestly contend for.

WE are fully persuaded, that He, who is of infinite Wisdom & Goodness, hath disposed all Affairs relating to the Government of his Church, in the most excellent Method, to promote the Edification & Salvation of his People. And therefore we cannot consent, that the Foolishness of Men should intermeddle and alter the Constitutions of Divine Wisdom.

WE plainly find but one Order of Officers, the Eleven Apostles, left in the Church by CHRIST himself at his Ascension into Heaven: and one Order more, the seven Deacons, instituted afterwards by the Apostles under the Conduct of the Spirit of GOD. These two Orders are unquestionably of Divine Institu­tion; but more we cannot find to be so. We desire to pre­serve to each of these, all the ordinary Powers they were en­trusted with by Divine Appointment; and not to thrust either of them into Employments, which the wisdom of GOD never allotted to them. We are far from saying that either of these Offices was temporary. We only affirm, that the for­mer of them had some Powers at the beginning, which were extraordinary & temporary, and expired with the Persons they were committed to: but that as to their ordinary Powers, they have been, and shall be succeeded, to the end of the World, by Presbyters or Bishops, whom we every where find in Scrip­ture to be one and the same Order.

AND now let any impartially judge, who do most truly assert Christ's Kingly Office, and the Prerogatives of his Crown: WE, who plead for his Institution, and closely adhere thereunto, and to the Offices which he hath appointed in his Church; without increa­sing their Number, or adding to, or taking any thing away from, the ordinary Powers, he committed to either of them. Or THEY, who make bold with his Institution, to alter it as they please: who have set up more Offices in the Church, than were appointed by CHRIST and his Apostles; who call upon those to preach & baptise, whose only Business, by Divine Appointment, is to serve Tables: and who have cashier'd ^† in a great measure CHRIST's prime Officers & Representatives, and the Churches principal Guides, and have depriv'd the Church very much of the Benefit of these Pledges of her Lord's Care and Kindness, the Pastors & Teachers, which he gave her, when he ascen­ded up to Heaven: who have intirely wrested the Power of Go­vernment, and wou'd take that of Ordination also, out of the [Page 75] Hands of perhaps Ninety nine in an Hundred of Those to whom CHRIST himself by his Commission gave them; and this only upon a false & groundless Supposition, that the Apostles Authority over Pastors was one of their ordinary Powers, and inherited by Bishops, as an Order of Men by Divine Right superior to Presbyters, and succeeding to the Apostles. The Falseness of which I have already shewed; and shall now represent briefly of what dangerous Consequence it is to Religion. — To deny Presbyters the power of Ordination, is in effect to deny the validity of all the Administrations of Those, who are not under the Episcopal Form of Government; or who, if under it now, yet derive the Succession of their Bishops from such as were ordain'd by Presbyters: which is to number far the biggest part of the Protestant Churches, and in all probabi­lity the Church of England it self, among Aliens from the Common-Wealth of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenants of Promise, who have no hope, & are without CHRIST, and without GOD in the World! — To alledge ^‖ that Bishops are the true Successors to the Apostles, or else they have no Successors at all; and that Presbyters succeed only to the Seventy, having no Claim to the Commission given to the Apostles at our Lord's Ascension, or to the Promise annexed; This surely is to make the Rule and Standard of our Religion uncertain & unfixed, and opens a Gap to all Errors and Confusions. To put Ecclesiastical Government into Lay-Hands, and To set up new Offices paramount to those that CHRIST has appointed, and to alter any of his holy Institutions, What intolerable Presumption is it?—At this Rate & upon the like Pretences, Papists set up several more Officers, particu­larly Cardinals, and paramount to all, the POPE, claiming Apostolical Power & Infallibility, pretending to be CHRIST's Vicar, the great Monarch & visible Head of the Church Ca­tholick; from whom all other Ecclesiastical Ministers de­rive their Authority; Necessary (say they) for the deciding of Controversies, for preserving the Unity of the Church, and rendering the New-Testament Church, conformable to the Church of the Old Testament, which had a High Priest above all.

NOW if any thus principled cou'd but gain such an Ascendent over the Populace, as to inspire them with this unhappy Notion, and thereby influence them as much in favour of the Romish Papacy, as they have been for the English Prelacy; what shou'd then become of Order in the Church? GOD [Page 76] forbid! That any such wild Caprice should ever sieze on a Protestant People! But I make the Supposition to represent thereby the dan­gerous Consequence of that Principle, That there are by Divine Appointment Bishops of a distinct & superior Order to Pastors and Teachers; always necessary for the Good of the Church, and without which the Apostles have no Successors at all, nor is any Church rightly constituted. For it may be improv'd very much in favour of Popery; and I think can be defended by no Arguments, but what unhappily make against the Pro­testant Reformation—. And there may come an unhappy Juncture when the Papacy may come to be thought as needful as Prelacy. For alas! If the Truth may be told, 'tis greatly to be fear'd, that the power of Pastors, and the strict Discipline commonly used in Presbyterial Churches, is become intolerable to too many carnal Libertines, whose Language is that, Come, let us break their Bonds asunder, and cast away their Cords from us: and that not a few, who with an uncharitable & bitter Zeal contend for the E­piscopal Pre eminence, have too much of the Roman Leaven in them; are too sincere Friends to the Papal Supremacy, and only want a favorable Opportunity to vent their Minds, and throw off the Mask: Or at least they may be suppos'd in no little danger of contracting a Reverence & Affection to it; since this furious Zeal for a difference of Order among Gospel- Ministers, seems to tend by a natural Efficacy to beget favora­ble Thoughts of a Distinction & Subordination among Bishops likewise, and to prepare the Mind to embrace the Notion of a supreme Bishop; and so to pave the way for their Return to a humble Submission to the Pontificate of Rome.

HOW will they be able to answer to GOD and their own Con­sciences for it? Who have combined together to propagate Doctrines so unscriptural in themselves; so uncharitable & unmerciful in their Consequences, and in their tendency, so fatal to that Order settled by CHRIST in his Church; and who have left no Stone unturned in their restless Endeavours, to bring the sacred Mi­nistry of Presbyterian Bishops & Pastors into perpetual Contempt, and have industriously set themselves to oppose & frustrate all their Gospel Administrations; and not only to alienate the minds of poor simple People from those their Rightful Governors and Pastors; but with Noise & Clamour, and bitter Invectives have too often endeavoured to inspire them with the highest Rage & Fury to com­mit the most horrid Outrages on their sacred Persons, as good Service [Page 77] done to GOD; and all upon no other account, but their firm adhe­rence unto the Institutions of JESUS CHRIST.

I will now only add my sincere wishes, in the very Terms of our Author's own concluding Collect:— Father, forgive them; they know not what they do: Lord, lay not this Sin to their Charge; But mercifully open their Eyes: that they may see the Evil of their Ways, and may be converted to the Way of Truth and Godliness, Peace & Charity, Unity & Order; and be eternally, saved, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

THUS, Sir, I have in some measure perform'd what I undertook at your Request; have made my Remarks upon the most material Passages in the Book you sent me; and I suppose nothing that might be likely to lead unwary Readers into any considerable Mistakes, hath escap'd a sufficient Notice. The Discourse hath swell'd a great deal beyond my Expectations: and yet I have wav'd much of what might have been said under several Heads: and have past over divers Things in our Author, not unexceptionable, as being of lesser Consequence. Tho' I must confess, I have been now and then almost insen­sibly drawn to debate some more minute Particulars, than I tho't at first to trouble you with any Reflections upon; and have set too great a Task to your Patience; but I trust your Candour will overlook & excuse this, and all other Imperfections of my Performance. I have almost wholly confin'd my self to the Defensive part, or at least not meddl'd with any thing (that I remember) but what our Author has unavoidably led me into; because I was not willing to give any unnecessary Pro­vocation. For which Reason also, I have hardly at all allow'd my self to address the Passions, or to write in the declamatory Strain at least not so much as some might perhaps reasonably have expected on this occasion; especially since our Author had set me an Example, by mixing so much of Harangue with his Arguings: for I am sensible it is no easy matter to write in this Method, without saying such Things as some wou'd think, however true & just, yet grievous to be born, and touching too near. I have study'd to preserve a due Moderation, and Temper; which the Laws of Civility & Christianity oblige to: and endeavored that nothing might fall from me, that could give offence to any, but such as will be offended at whatever thwarts their own Opinion; of which Sort of Persons there are [Page 78] (it may be) too many in all Parties. It had been easy to have been tart & severe in several places, where it may be there was sufficient provocation given: but I am none of those that love to be always dealing in Satyr. And if any Expressions have happen'd to slip from me, that may seem a little too warm or harsh, I shall be sorry for it.

WHAT Occasion there may be for making any thing of this Nature publick, you are in better Circumstances to judge than I. For, as I have written at your Desire; so my Reasons for it are owing very much to your Information. I therefore leave the Matter wholly to your Prudence: assuring you, that as I had rather my self suffer, than that the Truth shou'd for want of a sutable Defense: So on the other hand, I am unwilling to expose my self needlesly to the Ill-Will and Abuses, that may possibly arise, if you publish to the World these Papers, which come from,