The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 1 · Chapter 2

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 1 · Chapter 2

p. 11CHAP. II. The Drs: Second Argument, taken from the Practice of the Holy Apostles, Examined.

THE Second Argument, whereby the Dr. undertaks to prove the the Divine Right and Institution of Episcopacy, is from the Practice of the Holy Apostles: And this he prosecutes at large, from p. 393. to p. 404. His Proofs, may be thus generally summed up, and run to this issue, viz. That the Apostles, did not only exercise that Superiority in their own Persons, which their Office gave them over the inferiour Clergy; but also derived it down, with their Office, to their Successors: And that therefore, they look not upon the Institution of their superior Office of Apostolate, as a temporary Expedient only, but as a standing Form of Ecclesiastick Government, to be handed down to all succeeding Generations.

In Answer to which, I do observe, that the Dr. holds the Apostolick Office, in a Formal Sense, and in its proper Nature, with all its Ingredients, viz. immediat Mission, universal, unconfined Inspection, infallible directive Power, their Apostolick Power of Coertion by Judgments, their Gifts of Tongues and Miracles, &c. (all which were included in the Apostolick Office) to be an ordinary standing Function in the Church, and succeeded unto, in this its whole Nature and Extent, and as he expresses it, Handed down to all succeeding Generations. Wherein, as the Dr. palpably contradicts, not only, clear Experience of all Generations, the body of all Protestant Divines, yea all Men of Sense, that have ever bestowed their Thoughts upon this Subject;Differ: of the time pag. 14. but also his very Fellow-Pleaders in this Cause: One of their late Writers of no small Repute, in answer to this Objection, viz. That the Apostles Superiority over the Seventy, was Extraordinary and Temporary, grants, That in some Things their Priviledges were Extraordinary, and to Cease with themselves, instancing their immediat Calling, their sending to all Nations, their Infallibility, their Gifts of Tongues, or whatever was necessary for the first Founding of the Christian Church. Clearly contradicting the Drs. absurd Assertion of a Succession to the Apostolick Office, without all Limitation. But its no strang thing, that Midianites deal Stroaks among themselves, when encamped against Israel.

By that Superiority, which their Office gave them, over the inferior Clergy, he must needs understand an Official Superiority, proper the Apostles p. 12as such, and without any Restriction, as is said; since he makes the Apostolick Office, to be institut by our Lord, as Ordinary and Perpetual, and the Practice of the Apostles, in this pretended Derivation of their Office …o Successors, to be pursuant to the Institution of our Saviour. He holds, there was nothing of the Office of Apostolate, of a Temporary Nature, or as suted to the Exigence of that Time, that it was the very same Office, without any Restriction or Limitation, which they did transmit unto Successors. Thus he expresly p. 394. Now to raze this Foundation of the Drs Proof, let these Things be considered.

First, That our Divines, do Harmoniously assert the extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick Office as such, and that they could not be Succeeded to, in idem officium & eundem gradum: Particularly the Learned Polanus, in his Syntag. lib. 7. Cap. 11. P. (mihi.) 537.338.539. reckons up these their Prerogatives, beyond ordinary Church Officers (1) Their immediat Institution by Christ; therefore Paul was called from Heaven to be an Apostle. (2) Their immediat Mission to Teach. (3.) Their Universal Legation to Plant and Found Churches: through the World, 2 Cor. 11. (4.) Its visible Badg, Viz: conferring the Spirit by Laying on of Hands. (5.) Immunity from Error in Teaching. (6.) Their singular Right of Spiritual Coercing the Rebellious, and extraordinary Authority hereanent, and extraordinary Spiritual assistance. 2 Cor. 10. (7.) The Gift of Fore-telling Things to come, Rom. 11.25, 26. 2. Thess. 2.3. (8.) Their extraordinary Authority beyond any Successors, as being over the whole Church, &c. It would consume much Time and Paper to set down the vast number of Testimonies correspondent to this, and the thing were Superfluous: All who are acquaint with our Writers, being convinced hereof. From hence, we may thus Argue; They whose Call, whose special Work and Duties, whose Qualifications for their Work, are ceased, their Office is ceased, and they are not Succeeded therein: But the Apostolick Call, special Work, and their proper Qualifications, are ceased: Ergo, &c. The Major is evident, it consisting of a sufficient enumeration of ingredients to make up an Office, and further undenyably Confirmed by this▪ That our Divines take in these very things, mentioned in the Definition of an extraordinary Office, and as the evidences of it. The Assumption is as evident; the Appostles Call was immediat; who will deny that this is ceased? Their special Work and Duty as Apostles, was to Plant Churches, and the Gospel Ordinances and Government among them, throughout the World, and that by a special Commission intrusted to them; of all which Churches they were in an immediat Sense, and in actu exercito Officers, And what Church Officer, dare now arrogat that to himself? Their Gifts & Qualifications were extraordinary, p. 13such as the working of Miracles, Gifts of Tongues, infallibility in Doctrin: And can any deny that these are ceased?

Secondly, Hence, as whatever he would draw the Episcopal Preheminence from, will necessarly fall within the compass of these expired Prerogatives; so, several of the Prelats pretended Prerogatives, are contrary and repugnant thereunto; such as their exercising an ordinary Power in fixed Diocesses; the Appostolick Inspection was Unfixed and extraordinary, and they were Officers, in actu exercito, of the whole Church. Next, the Bishops account themselves sole Pastors of the Diocess, tho Pastors are therein Ordained and Fixed; For they are the Fountains, from whom the Power of Order and Jurisdiction in the Diocess is dierived, and the Exercise of both depends upon their Lordly Disposal: And this Preheminency, no Apostle ever claimed, their Office being only a Declarative, Executive Ministry, not a Lordly Dominion. Besides, the Prelats negative Voice and sole Decisive Power in Judicatories, is point Blank contrair to the Apostles Carriage in that Synod, Act 15. In which the Question was stated and debated, in the ordinary way of Disputation, and the Ordinary Officers did concurr and joyn with the Apostles, in Authorizing and enjoyning the Decrees. And further, the Bishops, th… ordinary Officers, yet deny a Subjection to the Prophets, in greater or lesser Assemblies of the Church, whereof they are professed Officers, and yet we find Paul asserting Universally and indefinitly, That the Spirits of the Prophets are Subject to the Prophets. 1. Cor. 14.32. Nay we find himself receiving Imposition of Hands, and sent out by a Presbytrie, upon a special Gospel legation, which did consist not of Fellow-Apostles, but of Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13.1, 2.3. But to what Assembly of Prophets, are Prelats Subject, either as to their Life or Doctrin?

Thirdly; As to the perpetual ordinary Power given to the Apostles, and transmitted by them to the Church, They did neither claim, nor exercise Superiority over other Ministers, but we find them, accounting them Brethren, Partners, Fellow-Labourers, and themselves Fellow-Elders with them, and as to the Pastoral Charge, their Equals; For, that ordinary Power, the Apostolick Office contained Eminenter, which they transmitted to others. But it is evident, that as they planted Elders, with equal Power in the Churches, so in their last Farewels, they committed (as is above cleared) the Government unto them, without any hint of Imparity in its exercise. Act. 20.28. Tit. 1.5. 1 Cor. 5.1. Pet. 5.

To which, we may add in the Fourth place, that the Apostles Discharging Lordly, Dominion and Preheminency amongst Ministers over the Lord's Flocks, or among themselves; And the Apostle Iohn condemning▪ expresly this in Diotrophes, will infallibly prove, that they neither allowed in p. 14others, nor exercised themselves, any such power, else their Doctrin would contradict their Practice.

Hence, its infallibly clear, that to make good the Drs. Proof of a Succession to the Apostles, by Instances, which he here undertaks, there are two Points, he must clearly prove and make good, as the Affirmer. 1. That these pretended Successors, did de facto exercise and hold the Apostolick Office, in its whole Nature and Extent, as above delineat. 2. That de jure, the Apostles, by their Doctrin and Practice, did devolve such an Authority upon them, to be perpetually transmitted to the Church, by Succession. And therefore, if in either, or both these, he fall short in his Instances of a pretended Succession, he but beats the Air, and loses his Design of proving, That the Apostles communicated the same Office to Successors, which our Saviour had communicated to them; which in terminis he asserts p. 394.

This being premised, let us see how the Dr. proves by Instances, the Succession of Apostles to Apostles, as an Office still to be continued in the Church. His first Instance of Succession, is that of St. Iames in Ierusalem, whose Succession, in an Apostolick, or Episcopal Preheminence there, he labours much in the Proof of, pag. 394, 395, 396, 397. But. first, tho this Matter of Fact were granted, that Iames the Apostle or Evangelist (not to stand here to discuss which) did exercise his Ministry or Apostolate there, how will it prove a Succession to the Apostolick Charge and Office in the Drs. Sense, as above delineat? And where is his Proof of any of the Apostles devolving this Charge upon him? To prove either, or both these, (as the Dr. here doth) from any Scripture, or History, which suppose Iames to be in Ierusalem, in the exercise of his Ministry, requires to make the Reasoning valid, such rules of Logick, as hitherto, has not been heard of. What a strang Phantastick Proof is this? Scripture affirms Iames to exercise his Ministry at Ierusalem: Ergo, he had devolved upon him, by the other Apostles, the Apostolick Office, in the same Nature and Extent, as exercised by them, and committed to them, by our Saviour, and this as a perpetual Function in the Church. This is such Arguing and Rope of Sand-connection, as any may laugh at; and it is evident to common Sense, that tho the exercise of Iames's Ministry in Ierusalem be granted, yet the Instance is as far short of being a demonstrative Proof of what the Dr. asserts and aims at, and reaching his Conclusion, as the Pigmey's Arm, is to fetch down Ulysses Helmet.

See p. 394.The Dr. in handling this instance, endeavours to prove that the Iames spoken of Gal. 1.19. and called the Lords Brother, was none of the Twelve: Wherein he contradicts good Interpreters, as might be cleard by a multiplicity of Instances, if need were. The Belgick Divines, upon the Place, take him to be the same mentioned Mark. 10. And p. 15upon Act. 12.2. They shew, that after Iames was killed, this Iames spoken of here, is he, who left behind him the Epistle of Iames, and is called the Lords Brother: And upon v. 17. They affirm, that this was Iames the less. The Authors of part 2. Pool. Annot. upon Gal. 1.19. Do assert, That he was one of the Twelve Apostles, paralelling this passage touching Iames, with Mark. 6. The Drs. Proof, that he was not an Apostle, because Paul reckons him a part from the Twelve. 1 Cor. 15.5.6.7. is utterly insufficient. The Authors of Part 2. Pool. Annot. draw no such Conclusion upon that verse, but insinuat rather the contrar: And the Dutch Divines are peremptor, that the Iames mentioned in that Text, was the Apostle Iames, and one of the Two, in the Catalogue of Apostles. The Drs. Proof, from his being mentioned a part from the Twelve, is a pitiful lax Conceit: For, if the Apostle saying v. 7. That our Lord was seen of Iames, then of all the Apostles, will prove that Iames was not of the number; his saying v. 5. That our Lord was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve, will by the same Reason prove, that Peter was none of the number. The Doctor would needs have him the Thirteenth Apostle, and the first that was made an Apostle, after the Twelve. I had thought, that Matthias was the first Person made an Apostle, after our Lords Ascension, to make up the number of Twelve and supply the room of Iudas, and that Paul was next added by our Lords special Call from Heaven; but when, or where, or by whom, another Iames, than either of the two mentioned by the Evangelist, was Constitut a Thirteenth Apostle, is a Point, I am sure, far surcharging the Drs Ability to prove, and his proofs here adduced are such, as the simplest may Laugh at:pag. 394.395. Whereof this is one. That the Scripture makes it evident, that this Iames had the great Preheminence in the Church of Ierusalem: And next, That in the Council Act. 15. he gave the Decisive Sentence, calling it his Sentence. v. 19. and determined the Controversie, after that Peter, Paul and Barnabas had declared their Judgment: Which Argues, saith the Dr. that he had great Authority and Preheminence in that place. An odd proof, I must confess. Behold the Visag of this Argument! The Apostle Iames spoke last in the Council of Ierusalem, he called the Judgment he delivered upon the Question, his Sentence, after others had spoken, the Controversie came then to an Issue: Ergo, he was of Special and Eminent Authority in Ierusalem, beyond any of the Apostles; And this, as a supernumerary Thirteenth Apostle Constitut by the rest to succeed in that Office, and derive the Office of Apostolat to after Generations. It is indeed a Question to me, whether this Assertion and Conclusion it self, or the Dr's Method of deducing it, be more absurd; But sure I am, both are, and p. 16that in an eminent degree. The Dr. has so wonderful a value for Prelacy, that he will needs have this new supposed Bishop of Ierusalem, preferred upon that account, by all the Apostles, to themselves, and set up in the Chair to presid in the Council, as the Worthiest, yea, and that his very Judgement, upon the account of his high Prelatick Office, outweighed all the Apostles Sentiments, and ended the Controversie, as he expresses it. Such a conceit this is, and Phantastick account of that Scripture, as I dare challenge the Dr. to show if it ever came in the mind of any Protestant Writers. It would have suted the Drs. serious Thoughts to ponder, whether that which was delivered by others, in this meeting, and in special by the Apostle Peter, was not their Sentence, as well as that delivered by James, and whether both these Sentences of Peter and James, were not the same, and delivered upon the same Scripture Grounds; and whether the delivering of a Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory, which the Meeting finds equitable, and do accord to, upon Grounds offered by him, and some others, speaking before him, can conclud an Episcopal Authority over the Meeting.

But to proceed, the Dr. (ibid) Argues further, from the Apostle Paul his going in to James, mentioned Gal. 2.9. Upon the account of his supposed Episcopacy at Jerusalem, altho none of the Twelve, & that he is upon this account preferred to Peter & John, & had the Priority of them both, in the Church of Jerusalem. A conceit sufficiently refuted by a recitation. What! The Apostle Paul, become so high a Prelatist, that a New Constitut Bishop at Jerusalem, is by him preferred to Pillar-Apostles, as having a Priority above them in that Church. I had thought that our Blessed Lord, recommended and Authorized his Apostles, as the Universal Doctors of the whole Church, before this time, as the Foundation and Pillars thereof; So they are called by the Apostle Paul, Eph. 2.20. And that the Lord, in Sealing them solemnly by the Spirit, the day of Pentecost, at Jerusalem, from whence the Law was to go forth, had recommended them as his highest Doctors and Apostles, both to Jerusalem, and to all the Churches; and that Peter and John's Ministry had the First and Eminent Seals there; yea and that the Apostleship of the Circumcision, was especially committed to Peter, and consequently his Apostolical Authority at Jerusalem singularly conspicuous, weighty, and acknowledged, where his Ministry was chiefly exercised, and this by the Apostle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2.7. And that he paid so great deference to this Apostle, that he went up to Jerusalem, to see and visit him, Gal. 1.18. Besides that, the Dr. supposing this James not to be one of the Twelve, is cross to the current of Protestant Writers and Commentators, as we have said. As for Paul's going into James, with the Elders Act. 21.18. Which the Dr. saith will prove, that James was of greatest note and Figure in that Church; If the Dr. mean his exercising his p. 17Ministry there at that time, and that he was of eminent Note among the Elders, or ordinary Ministers: As who can doubt of this in respect of his Apostolick Office? This is easily accorded; But the Drs. Inference from this, that he was of greatest Note and Figure among the Apostles, yea and, eo nomine, as Bishop of Ierusalem, and moreover, as in the Capacity of a Supernumerary Apostle and Bishop, added to the Twelve, he will as soon squeeze Water from a Flint, as draw it from this Scripture. The Dr. tells us P. 395.396. That, as what he has said, renders it highly probable, that Iames was Apostle at Ierusalem peculiarly, and had the Priority of Peter and Iohn therein, so the Testimmonyes of early Antiquity, advances this probability to a Demonstration. Whereupon, he Cites Hegesip. and Euseb. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. Clement. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. and some others. That Iames, whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apostle, till constitut Apostle and Bishop of Ierusalem, appears to the Dr. upon the pretended premised Scripture Grounds, upon this account, preferred to both Peter and Iohn, tho Pillars, hath so exposed his Understanding of the Scriptures, as doth much save the Labour of an Adversaries discovering his Nakedness in this Point. Besides, it seems with the Dr. that Human Testimonies of Antiquity, and of Human Writers, puts the Cape-stone upon, and compleats Scripture-proof; So that, what was upon the Scripture proof, but probable, upon the high accession of Human Testimonies, is with him advanced to a Demonstration: But the Dr must be minded, that if his pretended Divine Proof, which must be both of the Factum and the Ius, as to Iames's Episcopacy, obliges him to draw his Demonstration of both from Scripture, and if by his acknouledgment, all his Scripture Proof, amounts but to a probability, his pretended Demonstration, made up by the patchment of Human Testimony, added to the Divine, as giving the Demonstrative evidence and Strength thereunto, is a Demonstration like to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron, which could never make one intire piece, and cleave together.

Next, For his Testimonies, the Dr. cannot but know, that in the Judgment of Famous Protestant Divines, this Proof, from the Testimonies of Fathers, and the Denomination of Bishops by them, put upon Eminent Ministers, and even some in the Apostolick times, is a very slippery and uncertain Proof. The learned Scaliger will tell him (Prolegom. in Chro. Euseb.) That, …tervallum illud ab ultimo capite Actorum, &c. The Interval from the last Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the Reign of Trajan, in which Tract, Quadratus & Ignatius flourished (let the Dr. observe this, as to Ignatius here Cited by him) may be truely called with Varro foreign or obscure, wherein nothing that is certain, has come to our Hands, concerning the Affairs of Christians, except p. 18some very few things, which the Enemies of GOD, has catched up by the way, such as Suetonius and Corn. Tacitus: Which gap, that Eusebius might fill up, he drew somethings without Discretion, and choise out of the Hypotyposis or Examples of, I know not what Clement (for he is not that Learned Clement that wrote the Strommata) and out of the Five Books of Hegesippus, a Writer no better. Let the Dr. observe this, as to Hegesippus and Clement here Cited by him; Yea and Hegisipus himself, as he shews, lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the Apostolick Age was gone, tunc impii erroris conspiratio, per seductionem eorum qui alienam Doctrinam tradebant, initium caepit; Error began to Spring and advance. The Learned Iunius, controv. 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Mentions and proves an equivocal acceptation of the Word Bishop, in the Writings of the Ancients. The Learned Whittaker also will Inform the Dr. (De Pont. Quest. 2. Cap. 15.) That, Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant, &c. The Fathers, when they call Iames, Bishop, or Peter, take not the Name of Bishop properly, but they call them Bishops of those Churches, wherein they stayed for a time. He adds, That it is absurd to say, that the Apostles were Bishops, since he that is properly a Bishop, cannot be an Apostle, the Bishop being set over one Church, and the Apostles, Founders and overseers of many Churches. Yea, he is so Bold, as to add further, (without craving Pardon of such as are of our Drs. Judgment) That, non procul▪ distat ab insania, &c. It differs little from madness to say, That Peter, or any other Apostles were Bishops. And to this purpose he speaks at large, Cap. 3. Sect. 9. making good his Assertion from the unfixed extraordinary Nature of their Office, who were to follow the Spirits conduct, towards all places, wherever they were called. The Dr. might have also learned from Fran. Iunius (Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. 5) the cause of the Error and mistake of the Ancients, in terming the Apostles or Evangelists Bishops, and drawing from them Supposititious patcht Catalogues of Bishops, which are found contradictory to one another, Viz. That such Ministers, as they found in the Church Records, more famous, such they cull'd out, to make up their Catalogues, even tho they were contemporary, and those they named Bishops, in conformity to their own times; whereas, saith he, there were many Bishops or Presbyters at once appointed by the Apostles in the Churches. Hence has proceeded this Confusion in the Catalogues; for instance. they make Peter Bishop of Rome, and having a Seat there (a Fable contradicted by many of the Learned. and proved by them, to be such) but whether Clement was First or Third, and who, or in what Order, next after Succeeded them, whether Linus, or Anacletus is never yet cleared. Some make Titus Bishop of Crete; some Arch-Bishop; some Bishop of Dalmatia. Timothy and Iohn, are made, by many Bishops, in the same Post, at the same time. Some say, Polycarpus was First p. 19Bishop of Smyrna; some make him to Succeed one Bucolus; some make Aristo ▪ First. Some give Alexandria one Bishop; some Two at once. See Append. ad jus Divinum Minist. Evang. Clearing this at large. The Dr. also should have done well, to have considered the important difficulty offered by Iosephus Scaliger, about the Succession of the Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem (related by Didoclav. Cap. 4. P. 123.) wherein he proves Eusebius Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophesie anent the Destruction of Ierusalem, and to Iosephus's History. As likewise, what this Learned Author, hath observed and written, to invalidat the Credit of Eusebius's History, and the discovery he has made of his many gross Errors therein, as well as in other Points. So that our Dr. and his Fellow-pleaders, might have observed this their grand Magazin, to be but a corrupt Treasure, and Poisoned Fountain. How Fabulous is the Epistle of Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa, related by him? That which Philo the Iew wrote of the Esseans, a Sect among the Iews, Eusebius affirms that he Wrote it of Christian Monks, which Scaliger (in his Elencho tri Haeresii) hath convict of falsehood, out of Philo himself. He proves Peters Crucifixion at Rome, by a Tomb-proof. In the Computation of Times, Scaliger, observes his gross Errors. Nay, which is more considerable, he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture, in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul, was not the Apostle Peter, but another of the Number of the Seventy Disciples. To which might be added, many things in his personal Carriag and Qualities, which doth weaken the Credit of his History, as his presiding in the Council of Tyre, against Athanasius, and standing upon the Arrian side. Scaliger in his Thesaurus temporum (Animad. P. 268) Sets down the Testimonies of the Ancients, concerning his Errors, and Arrianism, wherein some affirm that he died. When he Wrote the History, he was in the Judgment of some an Arrian. And even admitting the unexceptionableness of his History, when first Written, yet that it hath been corrupted by some ignorant Impostor, is by Didoclav. Cap. 4. P. 111. Demonstrat from this, that he makes mention of Sozomen, who was born an Hundred Years after his time. Had the Doctor also Perused the Learned Reynolds, he might have found that in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls, he proves at large, from Chrysostom, Ierom, Ambrose, Augustin, Theodoret, and many others, both Ancient and Modern Authors, that in Scripture Presbyter and Bishop are all one. The Epistles of Clement, of the first Century, are very pregnant against the Divine Right of Prelacy; particularly his Epistle to the Philippians, wherein he makes but Two Orders of Ministry, Bishops and Deacons, which he says, the Apostles set up to propogat the Ordinances to Believers. But I am too prolix, in a Matter of it self, clear and plain, and which, we may probably have occasion again to touch: p. 20Only before I part with the Drs. First Instance, I cannot but in this place observe, and again leave it to the Readers consideration, that the Dr. affirms this Apostleship, which Iames did derive from the Twelve, was only an Episcopal Inspection of the Church in Ierusalem: A strang Apostleship indeed! and so very far unlike and disproportioned to the Apostolick Office, that he might as well affirm, that any Curat of the Church of England, when set over a Flock or Cure, has an Episcopal Authority committed to him.

The Drs. Second Instance, to prove the Apostles committing their Apostolick Authority to Successors, is taken from Epaphroditus Philip. P. 3972.25. Who is Styled the Apostle of the Philippians, Citing Ierom on Gal. 1.19. Who shews, that others were Ordained Apostles, as Epaphroditus; And Theodtret, holding that he was Constitut their Bishop. I answer 1. Tho his Episcopal Authority over this Church of Philippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and Assertion of devolving the Apostolick Office upon him, but rather proves the contrary; it being evident, both from the Nature of the Thing it self, and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines, that these Two Offices are incompatible and inconsistent, and it is a greater degrading of the Office of Apostolat, as it stands delineat in Scripture, to restrict it to any Particular Church, than to make the Primat of England, Curat of any Parish. 2. The Dr. doth grosly mistake this Denomination of Epaphroditus, while making it Import his being their Bishop, as is obvious to any that Reads the Text, and will view Commentators upon the place, as might be easily and at large, made appear, if our intended brevity did permit. The Belgick Divines upon the Passage, tells us, That the Word Apostle signifies one, who was Called and sent forth by Christ himself, to Preach the Gospel through the whole World (meaning in its Strict and Proper acceptation) for clearing which they Cite Gal. 1.1. Eph. 4.11. And here the Dr. may observe, how they take the Nature and Extent of the Apostolick Office. Then they add. But here it is taken more largely, in General, for one, who is sent forth by any one to act any Thing in his Name, or for him: He was by the Philippians sent unto Rome to Paul, to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Maintinance, Citing Chap. 4.18. Where the Apostle shews that he had Received what was sent by Epaphroditus: Which discovers the Folly of the Drs. gloss. They add; That if it be rendered, their Teacher, the Word is sometimes taken so, in a General Sense, for any kind of Teacher. Rom. 16.7. Where the Phrase of Note among the Apostles, doth import, among them, who Preached the Gospel here and there, paralelling this with that of 2 Cor. 8.23. Where the Phrase of Messengers or Apostles in the Churches, is ascribed to other Brethren, together with Titus, p. 21and imports only Messengers and Teachers. So, That altho the Phrase of your Messenger or Apostle, were in this place admitted to import a Pastoral Relation to Philippi, it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the Drs. Gloss, as East from West. Grotius upon the place shews, that Graece loquentes foreign vocabant qui sacras pecunias colligebant atque portabant, at Diximus ad Math. 10.2. foreign Dixit Ignatius: That the Word Apostle, is here taken late or largly, and for Honours cause, put upon this Person, as a Minister only, is Asserted by Erasm. Simplicius, Vorstius: That he is thus called, quia missus fuit cum Eleemosyna; and that this is Confirmed by the ensuing Clause of Ministring to the Apostles wants, has a large Harmony of great Judgments; Thus Zanch. Simp. Estius, Beza, Collating this with 2 Cor. 8.23. For what the Dr. adds (ubi supra.) of Ierem and Theodoret; It is easily answered, that the Word Apostle ot Bishop, is by them used in a General Acceptation, as might be cleared from many Passages of the Fathers, especially Ierom, holding that through the Apostolick times, communi Concilio Presbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur; Thus in his Comment. upon Titus, where he proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5. And if the Word Apostle in Scripture, have this General Acceptation, as we have heard, why not also in the Writings of the Fathers?

The Drs Third Instance, (P. 398) is of Titus, and some others, whom the Apostle 2 Cor. 8.23. Calls Messengers, or in the Greek, Apostles of the Churches, which the Dr. takes to hold out their Apostolick Authority over the same, and will not have the Phrase to Import their Relation to these Churches, whose liberality they carried. Thereafter, he Insists upon the Instance of Titus, whose Episcopal Authority over Crete, he endeavours to prove from the Epistle written to him. To the Instance, First in the General, I Answer, that the Drs. Sense of the Passage Cited, is but his own Imagination, without the least Shaddow of Ground in the Words or Context, especially taking it to Import an Apostolick Authority, in his Sense, as might be cleared by multiplyed instances, if needful. We heard that the P…lgick Divines take the Phrase to Import Teachers in a General Sense. The Authors of part. 2. Pool Annot. Thus Sense the Passage, Viz, That the Apostle calls Titus his Fellow-helper in the Business of the Gospel; for the others, he tells them, they were such, as the Churches thought fit to make their Messengers, and had the Credit of the Churches, whose Messengers they were, since the Churches would not have Instructed them, if they had not Judged them Faithful. Both which Senses stands clearly cross to that which the Dr. Grounds upon. And to discover further, the weakness of his Reasoning, even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Episcopacy of Titus and these other Messengers, over some Churches, how doth it prove the Apostles devolving upon them, the entire Apostolick Office, in p. 22the same Nature and Extent, as it was committed to the Twelve, by our Saviour? The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Consequent, by Scripture or Divine Reason: And this being the Point, he is all along undertaking to prove, any may see how palpably he mistakes and misses his Mark, in these Instances.

But now to examin the Drs. proof of Titus's Episcopacy, these Things I do in general premise, which do cut the Sinews of his, or any others Arguings for the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy or Titus, over these Churches. 1. In Churches already constitut, this Authority, was not solely seated in them, they were only to go before the Churches, in wholesome Counsels, in relation to the planting of Ministers; not to do as they pleased, excluding others, as judicious Calvin expresses it, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. since Paul himself, neither imposed Hands, nor Excommunicat alone in Churches constitut: And a whole Colledge of Apostles, had the ordinary Elders going along with them, in a Synodal Procedure, Act. 15. far less, could Timothy or Titus, assum this Episcopal Preheminence, who were inferior to Apostles. 2. After the Church of Ephesus was Exedified and Compleated, in its Organick Beeing, and after Timothy had gotten his Charge, as to Ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus, in the first Epistle directed to him (wherein the Dr. and his Fellows, hold him to be instructed with Episcopal Authority) Paul committed the whole Episcopal Power and Charge to the Elders, before Timothy's Face, in his last Farewel to that Church, calling these Elders, the Bishops, and enjoyning them the Exercise of their Authority, as appointed by the Holy Ghost, and this without the least Hint of any Inspection or Authority, that Timothy had over them hereanent, or of any relation they had to him in this Matter; thus Act. 20. And the same Judgment by necessary consequence, we must make of Titus, since the Dr. and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both, from these Epistles. 3. In these Epistles themselves, their Power stands so described and circumstantiat as to Ordination and Jurisdiction, over these Churches, as it clearly excluds an Episcopal Preheminence and Authority: For, First, As Diocesan Bishops, they ought to have been designedly set and fixed as Officers in these Churches; but the contrary appears in the Text [I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus] saith Paul to Timothy. And again to Titus, [I left thee at Crete— and to set in order things that are wanting] Which words point at an occasional, transient Imployment there, not a fixed Instalment. Secondly, In these Epistles, they are both called back, without the least intimation of their returning. Thirdly, If their Power was Episcopal and Ordinary, then in the Apostles Prescriptions and Rules, anent their Successors, the Power and Authority of these Successors, ought to have been described, and Rules given, touching the Gifts, Call, Ordination, &c. of the p. 23Diocesan Bishop, especially, since the Dr. holds, that the Description of, and Authorizing such a Bishop, is the great scope of both these Epistles, and he will not say, that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus: But so it is, that the Apostle prescribs no Rules for any Church Officer, higher than a Pastor, and supposes still that he is the highest Ordinary Church Officer, in all his Rules and Prescriptions, in point of Church Government, delivered either in these Epistles, or any where else in Scripture. Fourthly, As Timothy is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5. and consequently Titus is supposed to hold the same Office; so this Office in the Judgment of Protestant Divines, is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary and Expired, as that of the Apostles: The Work and Exercise thereof, consisting in a planetary Motion, to Water, where the Apostles Planted, to bring Instructions from the Apostles to the Churches, touching the Duties of both Pastors and People, and Reports of the Churches State, to the Apostles. So their Office, supposing the Churches, in fieri, as to their Organick Beeing, in a great measure at least, and also the Existence and Exercise of the Apostolick Office, they must needs be, as the Apostles themselves, Extraordinary Officers. And in special, Timothy and Titus, accompanying Paul in his Travels, and continual planetary Motion, being so clearly held out in Scripture, concluds the Impossibility of their being fixed to any Station, and proves that Character given to them by Ambrose, as Evangelists, viz: That they did Evangelizare sine Cathedra. Their continual planetary Motion, is by some largly described from the Apostolick Epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles: Thus, first Timothy is found at Berea with Paul, Act. 17.14. then at Athens v. 15. thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1 Thess. 3.1, 2. Then having been at Macedonia with Paul, he came to him to Corinth Act. 18.5. Then he is with him at Ephesus, and thence sent to Macedonia Act. 19.22. whether Paul went after him, and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas v. 5. and at Miletus v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of Ephesus, their last Charge, as the Bishops of that Church: And after this, he is found either in Journeys, or absent from Ephesus; For, after he is found a Prisoner with Paul at Rome, being mentioned as his Companion in these Epistles, written while Paul was there; as the Epistle to the Philippians Philip. 1.1. Philem. v. 1. Col. 1.1. And he is never found again at Ephesus; But towards the end of the Apostles Pilgrimage, is sent for to Rome. So, Titus is found at Ierusalem, before he came to Crete, Gal. 2.1. thence is sent for to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12. then to Corinth: Then he is expected at Troas, 2 Cor. 2.12, 13. and meets with Paul at Macedonia, 2 Cor. 7.6. whence he is again sent to Corinth, 2 Cor. 8.6. And after this, near the time of Paul's Death, is found at Rome, from whence he went, not to Crete, but to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4. p. 2410. And after this, is not heard of in Scripture. So that, whether we consider, 1. The various Journies. 2. The order of them. 3. The time spent in them. 4. The nature of their Imployment, which was, as the Apostles Co-adjutors, to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches, where they travelled, and especially the Scripture-silence of their being Bishops of any one Church; their supposed Episcopal Authority in these Churches of Ephesus and Crete, doth palpably appear to be an Anti-scriptural groundless Fiction. This Conclusion upon the premised accurat Search and Scripture account of Timothy and Titus, is thus inferred by the reverend and learned Divines, in their Conference at the Isle of Wight; The Authors of Ius divinum minist. Evangel. In whose Words, I have represented this Account, both because of the judicious Concisness thereof, and also because these Peices, are but in few Hands.

These things thus premised, its easie to discover the Absurdity of the Drs reasoning from his Third Instance, to prove an Apostolical Authority Devolved upon Titus. His Proof is from Chap. 1.5. For this Cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, P. 398and Ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee.] From whence the Dr. First Argues▪ That Paul gave him the Supream Judgment in things that were wanting, with an absolut Power to Reform and Correct them. It is Answered. 1mo. Tho an Episcopal inspection over this Church were granted, the Dr. is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devolving upon Titus, an Apostolical Authority, in the Scripture Sense and Extent, as we have often told him. 2do. Upon supposition of that, which we have before made good, Viz: That both Paul as an Apostle, and Titus as an Evangelist, had extraordinary Offices, and suted to such a Case and exigence of the Christian Church, as is now gone off, this direction and Command, proper and peculiar to the one and the other, as Apostle and Evangelist, and supposing this Exigence of the Church, can lay no Foundation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers. 3ti…. By what consequence can the Dr. infer an Episcopal Authority and Inspection, from these prescriptions to Titus, unless he can prove the absolut seclusion of Ministers from the Work here enjoyned, or any interest therein, in Churches Constitut? For, as for what they did in the Constitution of Churches, in fieri, is not to the purpose (I mean in respect of the Organick being) especially, since we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination, and the Authority thereof, is in Scripture held out, to be competent to a Presbytrie, which they exercised upon Timothy himself, one of our Drs supposed Apostles or Bishops, and that tho Paul was present 1 Tim: 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. So that it is evident, that neither Timothy nor Titus, were instructed with any singular Episcopal Authority in this Matter, among Churches Constitut in p. 25their Organick Beeing. In the 4th place, the Drs absurd Assertion of a Supreme and Absolut Power, to Reform and Correct, drawn from this Passage, doth obviously appear to the meanest Reflection: For, 1. The Apostles themselves, arrogat no absolut or supreme Power; Paul disowns a Dominion, and asserts a Ministerial Authority only competent unto him, 1 Cor. 4.1. 2 Cor. 1.24. I had alwise thought, that in the Judgment of all Protestants, yea of all Men of Sense, who ever read the Scriptures, there is none hath a supreme Iudgment, or absolut Power over the Church of God, but He who is the Churches Head and Husband, there being but one Lord, and all Ministers being Brethren, one Master of the House of God, who hath Dominion over the Ordinances, under whom, even Apostles, are but Stewards and Servants, which I suppose, none, if not this Dr. will deny. 2. Its strang, that in reading this Passage, the Drs. Eyes and Thoughts, could not fix upon and ponder the important last Clause of the Words, viz, [As I had appointed thee] which doth very clearly suppose and import, both the Apostles superior Authority to Titus, and his restricting him to his Rules, and authorizing Information in this Matter: And how these can consist with Titus's supreme Iudgment herein, and absolut Power, will sute the Drs. greatest Skill to prove and demonstrat. In a word, this odd Inference of such a supposed Power in Titus, is disowned by all sound Interpreters, as might be easily made appear: And in special, the Belgick Divines, tells us, upon this Passage, That Titus. was not to perform this by his own Authority, and good Pleasure only, (as the Dr. holds,) but according to the Order, which the Apostle prescribed, and did observe himself; paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4.14. where it appears, that the Elders concurred with Paul, in Timothy's Ordination: And this last Clause of the Verse, they render [As I commanded thee]

The Drs. Second Proof of Titus's Apostolick Authority, is, (P. 399) That he is authorized to ordain Elders in every City: And there being Presbyters and Elders in Crete, left by the Apostle, before Titus was left there, who yet had no power to Ordain, else Titus's power of Ordination had been in vain, and an invasion of their power as a Preshytry: Therefore, this power of Ordination, was competent to Titus only, not to Presbyters; especially, since it is extended, not only to Ordination of Elders, but also to Rebuking with Authority, to the Correction of Offenders, with the Rod of Excommunication, chap. 2.15. To Admonish Hereticks, and to Reject them from Communion of the Church, if obstinat, chap. 3.10. From all which, the Dr. concluds his Apostolat in the Church of Crete, to be the same that the first Apostles themselves had, in the several Churches planted by them. I Answer, 1. The Dr. doth nothing but here again beg the Question, and argue ex ignoratione elenchi, and this one p. 26point being but supposed, That the Office of Apostles and Evangelists was Extraordinary, (and we may justly suppose it, having above made it good) this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophistry. But 2. To come more closly to the Drs. Arguing: As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination, we have told him, That it is a Presbyterian Act, competent to mere Presbyters: And therefore, neither Timothy nor Titus, could have a Sole or Episcopal Authority therein, unless the Dr. will make the Scripture inconsistent with it self. Next as for his Authority in his Rebuking and Censures, supposed in these Directions. I answer, That neither can this be Titus's sole Prerogative: For, either it is meant of a private Rebuke, and this every Christian hath Authority in, [— thou shalt in any wise, Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer Sin upon him. Levit. 19.17.] or of a Ministerial Rebuke, and this is competent to every Minister of the Word, Isa. 58.1. 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. Tit. 1.13. 2 Sam. 12.7. And besides, Institutions and Reproofs of Church Officers, will not prove a fixed Episcopal Power. Prophets Rebuked, but had no Jurisdiction over Priests; nor Paul over Peter, tho he reproved him. Moreover, we find the Authority, to receive Accusations, and to Correct Delinquents by Reproofs and Censures, competent to the Juridical Courts and Church, Mat. 18.16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. Gal. 6.1, 2. 1 Thess. 5.12. In which places, a judicial Rebuke and Admonition, is attributed to the Juridical Court of Pastors, not to one Prelat, not, uni, but unitati. 3. As for the Drs. Notion, of a supposed existence of Elders in that Church, who had no power of Ordination,ibid. else this Prescription, which the Apostle gives Titus to Ordain, had been fruitless, and an Invasion of their Power, in the Drs. Judgment. I deny his Consequence as having no twist of a Connection: For (1.) Upon supposition of Apostles or Evangelists extraordinary Offices, Pauls instructing Titus, and his Authority in Ordination thereupon, was a power and Authority, Cumulative unto, but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their standing, and ordinary Authority herein: It being certain, that this Authority of Apostles and Evangelists, as is above described, could not bevoided, whatever advance of Gospel Ordinances there was in Churches, these extraordinary Officers, had still their Authority and Inspection vigent. I suppose the Apostle Paul had in the presence of Titus (the Bishop of Crete in the Drs. sense) ordained Ministers or Elders in this Church, will he own the consequence, that this did nullify Titus's Authority herein, as Bishop? Surely not: And thus he must acknowledg our Plea to be clear, as to the reserved Authority of Pastors or Elderships, notwithstanding of the Apostolical Prescriptions instanced. (2.) Elders once ordained, its true, have power to ordain Elders; yet the bene esse, did call for the Inspection and Direction of such highly gifted and extraordinary Officers as Evangelists, and their interposed p. 27Authority in that infant-state of the Church, wherein Apostolick Precepts and Rules, in reference to Government, were to be delivered to the Churches, and practised accordingly. And in a word, the Dr. neither hath, nor can prove, that Titus did ordain here alone, or solely perform any other authoritative Act, where Elders were present, and the Churches reduced to an Organick Mould and Form; which is the consentient Judgment of sound Protestant Divines. Judicious Calvin upon the place, will tell him, That Titus here acted only as a President or Moderator, which is clearly evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderships asserted in Scripture. And we may retort upon the Dr. thus; If neither Apostles nor Evangelists (extraordinary and highly gifted Officers) did exercise their Power to the prejudice of standing Elderships, or juridical Courts of Pastors, much less ought any ordinary Church Officer, arrogat such a Dominion and Authority over the Courts of Christ, and Judicatories of His Church, when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased. I need not here stand further to tell the Dr. That the power of Excommunication, is by the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 5. supposed to be competent to a Presbytry. And therefore, Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein. For what the Dr. adds of the Testimonies of the Ancients, P. 400.touching Titus's Episcopacy at Crete, such as Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. &c. it is sufficiently Answered already, and we need not repeat.

The Drs. Fourth and last instance, to prove the Divine Right of Episcpacy, ibid.from the Apostles practice is of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Timothy over Ephesus, and that not only over the Laity to Command and Teach. 1 Tim. 4.11. to receive or reject Widdows. 1 Tim. 5.9. &c. But also over the Clergy, to take care for their Provision 1 Tim. 5.17. Not to admit Deacons, but upon tryal, nor Ordain the Elder, till a good acquittance in the Deaconship. 1 Tim. 3.10.13. to receive accusations, put the Guilty to shame, 1 Tim. 5.19.20. And to exercise this Jurisdiction, without Preferring one before another, v. 21. which could not be without a Jurisdiction over them. He has also ascribed unto him, an Ordaining Power, as to the laying on of Hands. 1 Tim. 5.22. All which Authority, that it was given him by Paul, for a standing Form of Government, the Dr. proves from this Ground, because it was after the Presbytrie was formed and settled there, and after Paul's great Labours in that large Church for Three Years; And therefore, he may be supposed, not only to have Planted a Presbytrie there, as in other Churches. Acts 14.23. but also to have reduced it to much g…eater perfection, than any other; And by consequence Establishing this Authority in a single Person, is such a Form of Government, as the Apostle must needs have understood and intended to be of of that Nature, as was to continue as a Pattern to other Churches.

p. 28It is Answered. 1. There is nothing here of a New Argument, but a Repitition of the former, and a New Begging of the Question, Viz. The …tanding ordinary Office of Apostles and Evangelists; which we have above convict of Falsehood. But 2. (To come a little closer to the Drs. New Instance) since he presents here some Actings of the Power of Order, which he acknowledges, tho performed by Timothy, and enjoyned to him by Paul in that Church, yet are likewise Competent to Presbyters or Pastors, Viz: Teaching, &c. which together with other Actings of the Power of Order, he makes common to Pastors, and at large discourses this. P. 427 428.429. &c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diversifie these in this Instance, and shew, that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place, such an exercise of the Power of Order, as is above exprest, will give him no peculiar Interest therein, but joyntly with the Presbyters; and yet that the Commands in point of Jurisdiction, are delivered to him peculiarly, and not to them. Where will the Dr. shew this distinction and difference in the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy? It should seem the ordinary Rule will take place here, non est distinguendum, ubi Lex non distinguit; since the Precepts are equally delivered, and without the least Intimation of such a difference or distinction: The person who makes the distinction, seems Chargable with arrogant Anti-scriptural Boldness.

The Dr. pleads,P. 401. that the Apostolick Precept. 1 Tim. 5.22. [Lay Hands suddenly on no man] prescribes a standing Rule in Point of Jurisdiction. Viz: that the Prelat has a sole interest therein, secluding Presbyters wholly from any Authority in this Matter: For this he makes the Bishops peculiar prerogatiue. P. 436.437. &c. And he draws his great Proof in this place, from the Apostles addressing this Precept to Timothy, not to Pastors or Presbyters. Now, what if any shall lash the Dr. with his own Argument, and Plead from the Apostles Solemn Charge to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.1.2. [Preach the Word, be instant in Season, cut of Season] and several such Precepts, relative to General Ministerial Duties, or Actings of the Power of Order, such as a Right behaving in the House of GOD, 1 Tim. 3.15. To be a growing Minister in the Words of Faith 1 Tim. 4.6. To exercise himself to Godliness. v. 7. To be examplary to Believers in word and Conversation, &c. V. 12. To give attendance to Reading, Exhortation and Doctrin; not to neglect, but to stir up his Gift; to Meditat upon the things of God, and give himself wholly thereunto; to take heed unto himself, and to the Doctrin, and continue in them, v. 13.14.15.16. with 2 Tim. 1.6. That such Actings of the Power of Order, are proper only to the Bishop, and such Ministerial Duties peculiar to him; So that Presbyters or Pastors have no Interest or concern therein, because these Precepts are pecu…iarly addressed to Timothy, p. 29not to them: What Answer and evasion can he have to save him, from a Contradiction and inconsistency with himself? If his own Argument be good against us, upon the forementioned Ground, why not the very same Argument in this Case against himself? The Drs. only Answer and evasion, which he can have, is, That these Commands, as to the Exercise of the Power of Order, or respecting Pastoral Duties in general, tho peculiarly addressed to Timothy, yet could give him no peculiar or sole Interest therein, because Presbyters are elsewhere in Scripture Instructed with the same Power. But 1. In this Answer, he breaks his Argument all in pieces, the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addressing these Precepts to Timothy; But here he acknowledges that the peculiar Address will bear no such conclusion of Timothy's sole Interest in the Duty enjoyned. And 2. If he say, that the Bishops peculiar Interest and Jurisdiction, is elsewhere evident in Scripture, who sees not, that he but pityfully beggs the Question, and baffls his own General Argument: And further he should know, that the Presbyterians stand upon an advantagious Ground with him in this Point; For we hold, and can prove that the Power of Jurisdiction is prescribed and competent to Presbyters, since the Scripture shews the Power of Ordination, to be seated in a Presbytrie, 1 Tim. 4.14. with Act▪ 22.5. Luk. 22.66. Matth. 18.17. Consequently, correspondent Actings of a Jurisdictional Power. All that watch for the Peoples Souls, are in Scripture, held out to have a joint Rule over them, Heb. 13.17. In the Church of Thessalonica, the Labourers in the Word and Doctrin, jointly fed and laboured, jointly censured, and as the foreign Rulers, were to be submittted to and obeyed. 1 Thess. 5.12. So it was in the same Church of Ephesus, Act. 20. So with these Elders or Bishops. 1 Pet▪ 5. And I would fain know, why the Drs. Notion and Argument, from the peculiar addressing of Precepts, will not hold good in our Case against him, upon the ground of these and such like Scriptures, where the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, is jointly ascribed to Presbyters, without the least hint of a Superior Authority herein, or their Precarious dependence upon any Officer, of an higher order? Moreover, will the Dr. be bold to affirm… that what was prescribed to Timothy, in Point of Order and Jurisdiction, was confined within the Church of Ephesus, and not rather to be exercised through all other Churches, as the Apostle enjoined him? And if this last must needs be asserted, upon the Ground of his Evangelistick transient imployment through the Churches, as is above, from Scrpture evinced and delineat, it follows by inevitable consequence, that the Addressing of these Prescriptions to him, while at Ephesus, can infer no peculiar Relation he had to that Church, but respected the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office in other Churches, as well as there; especially since p. 30the Apostle here enjoins him, to do the Work of an Evangelist. i. e. of such an unfixed transient Minister, as is above described, not the work of a Prelat, over this Church; If the Dr. deny this, he will advance him to a Metrapolitan over several other Churches; or else must quite his plea. But finally, to Raze the Foundation of the Drs. Notion and Argument, which he draws from Paul's Constituting a Presbytrie at Ephesus, and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches, before Timothy had these Prescriptions,P. 401. sub finem in point of Government, Adddressed unto him therein; From whence the Dr. concludes, that the Apostle established the Government to continue by a single person, presiding over Clergy and Laity. Besides the exceptions above touched, to which this is lvable, I would, First know of him, whether this P…esbytrie or Presbytries, so perfectly Constitut in his Judgment, had not an essential and inherent interest and Authority in such Actings of the Power of Order, as himself acknowledges competent to them, such as Teaching and the like? And if so, as himself doth hold and suppose, notwithstanding of the Addressing of Precepts to Timothy hereanent, why were such Precepts addressed to Timothy? Why was not this left to the perfectly Constitut Presbytrie, and Precepts only in Point of Government addressed to him? (Especially since its known, the Bishops do not much concern themselves in Teaching and these other Ministerial Duties, exprest in the Precepts abovementioned) And if the Prior Authority of a Constitut Presbytrie hereanent, was no Just Ground to stop the Apostles Precepts to Timothy, in the Power of Order, and such Ministerial Duties, as are contained in the forementioned Precepts, nor can infer Timothy's sole Interest therein, why I pray, shall this Reason be valid in point of Jurisdiction? What will the Dr. Answer, if one should improve his own Argument thus? Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Constituting a perfect Presbytrie (to use his own term) and that there were many Pastors, gifted to Preach and admonish, yet the Apostle afterward in his Epistle to Timothy, gave this Commandment to him, not to them: Therefore this is proper and peculiar to the Bishop only. And sure I am, whatever Answer he can give to this, which has any Sense or Consonancy to Scripture, will loose and Answer his own Argument against us. In a word, its easie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time, and shew that when pertinently improven, it stands upon our side against the Dr. and his Fellows. Which retortion, I thus offer; After Timothy had received these Instructions in the Church of Ephesus, with reference to the Clergy and Laity, (as he speaks) the Apostle Committed the whole Episcopal Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus, as to both Order and Jurisdiction, without the least hint of any Interest, that Timothy had in or over p. 31them herein, or of any precarious dependence of these Elders and Ministers, upon him, in the exercise of this their Power, notwithstanding that Timothy was present with them, when the Apostle gave this Charge, and that it was his last farewell-Charge, when never to see their Faces more. Now, if the Apostle had given Timothy a standing Episcopal Authority before, and Constitut him their Bishop, what a pityful inconsistency, retraction and contradiction was it to his former Doctrin and practice, in the Instalment of Timothy, to devolve his whole Authority upon these Elders, Commanding them as the foreign or Bishops foreign to Feed and Rule? Surely if the Argument from Priority of time, be valid, it must be signally so in this Case, wherein it is strengthened by so many Corroborating Circumstances of the Sacred Text, and (to use the Drs. expression, and Address him in his own words) ibid. [this Constitution was to be a Pattern to all Churches, and to be sure, the Government, now at last Established, at Ephesus was such as the Apostle intended should continue.]

The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apostle Paul to proceed upon the express Institution of our Saviour,P. 403. consequently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers, since the Apostles ordained other Apostles, and Bishops to presid over the Churches. But sure, looking to his Scope and Pleading, nothing could be said in a more inconsistent Mould: For, he cannot but acknowledg, That the Institution of our Saviour did relate to the Apostolick Office, in its whole Nature and Extent, as above delineat, viz. To found and plant Churches through the World, to establish the Gospel Government and Ordinances in them, and this with extraordinary Gifts, and infallible directive Authority, as Christs, immediatly sent and first Ambassadors: Yet the Apostles supposed prosecution of this Institution, he maks to consist only in setting some certain Bishops over particular Churches, with an ordinary and limited Power (for I hope, he will not make them all universal Patriarchs) Now, how exactly these Bishops are shapen to the Pattern of Christs institut Apostles, any may judg; yet he will have them, not only Bishops, but Apostles, properly so called, such as were the first Apostles, and as succeeding them, in their formal Office: Besides, in speaking of this Divine Right, he tells us, His Arguments pleads for a Superiority and Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers: Which is a General, easily accorded by us, as is said, and no way will come home, to prove his supposed distinct Offices in the Pastoral Charge. The Dr. tells us, (ibid) That if the ordaining of Presbyters, be an Argument of the perpetuity of the Office, as we hold, why not the Apostles ordaining Bishops, as good an Argument, for the perpetuity of that Office? I answer, when the Dr. shall make it good, that the Apostles ordained Bishops p. 32of his Mould foreign or Church by Church, as we can prove, and it is evident they did ordain Ministers or Elders; or make it appear, that the Apostle gave to Timothy or Titus, any Rules, for the Ordination of his supposed Bishop, or for his Qualifications, as in that Capacity, as it is evident he prescribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pastor, in both these Epistles; then, and not till then, the Drs. paralel Argument shall be admitted: But till then, we must send it back to the Dr. with a Censure of Impertinency, till it be returned with a Testimonial of a better proof, than of his bare Assertion, and ipse dixit.

The Dr. enquires, how we can argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church,P. 404. from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus, (citing Ius divinum Minist. Evang. p. 159.167.) if the Office they were ordained to, were not perpetual? And if perpetual, then so is Episcopacy nothing different therefrom. Answ. We hold the Ordination instanced, to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination, as well as in General a Power of Ordination in the Church: Timothy's Ordination, having this Scripture account, that it was by Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie; which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie, the Apostle Paul's presence, and his Imposition of Hands, tho supposed, doth rather Strengthen than invalidat, since neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy, nor his designment for such an Eminent Office, nor Paul's Imposition of Hands, the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, did Swallow up, or exclud the Presbytries Ordinary Power and Authority, but Timothy must pass through this Door of a Presbytries Authoritative Ordination and Imposition of Hands, in order to the Exercise of his Office; therefore, much more doth this Authority belong to the Presbytrie now, when the Office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased. And for Titus's Ordination in an active Sense, or his Ordination of Elders, the Apostle tells him expresly, Chap. 1.5. (the Passage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength) that it was to be performed [according to the Apostles appointment] which appointment in the Sense of our Divines, is none other else, than that which himself examplified, and is Intimat. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. i. e. with Authoritative concurrence of the Presbytrie or Eldership; So that Titus had no Episcopal Authority therein, notwithstanding of his Evangelistick extraordinary Office; And this is invincibly made good in opposition to the Drs Design, and pleading, in that the Apostle, in the same very Text, wherein he enjoins Titus to ordain Elders, doth identify and make one and the same, the Office of the Bishop and Elder, which were a mere implicantia in terminis, if the Apostle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoyn the Drs. supposed Prelatical Power in Ordination, as Competent to an higher Order of Bishops, Superior to Prerbyters. For the Drs. asserting the Office of Episcopacy, p. 33and that of Timothy, to be one and the same; he therein beggs th… Question, and supposes what he has to prove: The Office of the Prelat and Evangelist, being so vastly different, as we have already made appear; And therefore, his Reason and Argument is pitifully absurd from our assertting the Power of Ordination, as inherent to the Church, upon the Ground of the Apostles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelists, to conclud the standing Office of Prelatical inspection or Ordination.

The Dr. should also know, that the asserting that a Church Officer, such as an Apostle, hath an extraordinary Authority conversant about Ordination, can neither infer, that the Power of Ordination, it self, is extraordinary and expired, nor that every Person Ordained, hath an ordinary standing Function; Which, the …postles extraordinary Authority in the first Planting of Presbyters, while the Churches were in fieri, as to their Organick Being, their Ordaining Evangelists extraordinary Officers, together with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority, as well in their Actings of the Power of Order, and Preaching with Miraculous Gifts of Tongues, and Confirming their Doctrins with Miracles, as in Point of Jurisdiction, their Extraordinary Censures above exprest, doth evince and make evident. The extraordinary Mission of the Twelve Apostles, hath derived from it a Ministry and Ecclesiastick Authority diffused and spread among all the 'Church Officers in the World, none of which doth Succeed them, into the same formal Office; So Timothy's Evangelistick, extraordinary Authority, is derived, handed down into, and seated in a Presbytrie, tho the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary, and as such, not Succeeded unto. The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing, to continue in all Ages, and in all times, doth not render the Apostolick Mission or Commission ordinary, nor infer their being Succeeded in idem Officium & eundem Ministerii gradum, the ordinary Power being Institut and settled in the Hands of ordinary Officers, by a New warrand and Commission, according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination. The Office of Moses, was not rendered ordinary, because many Works of Government exercised by him, were recommitted to the Elders of Israel; and so the Case is here. The Evangelists extraordinary Office and Commission (necessary, as that of the Apostles, for the First founding of the Churches, for Watering the Apostles Plantation, Building up the Churches, in their Organick being, and settling all the ordinary Officers thereof) is changed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, which we find was in the Apostolick Church exercised, and even in this of Ephesus.

For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity,P. 402 403. upon this head, and touching Timothies Episcopacy over Ephesus, they are sufficiently obviat p. 34by what is said above, and in special, by what we have offered and evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of the Names of Bishop and Apostle. The Dr. brings an Anonymous Author, to prove that Timothy was Enthroned (forsooth) Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by Paul: A pityful Proof indeed, and fit only for a nameless Author! It being evident by the best searchers of Antiquity, that the Office of Metropolitans, had not a Being till several Ages after Timothy. For Chrysostom his asserting that Timothy was intrusted with a Church or whole Nation: If we shall assert that this is applicable to his transient or temporary Evangelistick Trust, in correspondence to the extensive Office of Apostleship, it says nothing to our purpose. And the Dr. should know that Chrysostom upon Tit. 1.5. makes the Office of Bishop and Presbyter one and the same, and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. design and arguing. For other Authors, who do call Timothy, together with other Bishops, then in being, Apostles, which the Dr. further Pleads, it doth sufficiently evince, what is said above, of their improper, equivocal acceptation of the Term, since no person of Sense, who ever Read the New Testament, can take the Office of Apostle, as delineat in Scripture, to be applicable to Timothy, far less to ordinary Bishops, fixed in certain Posts. Nay, the Dr. himself, and in contradiction to himself, doth unawares bewray this, in his Greek Citation of Theodoret, who asserts that the Twelve Apostles, were more strictly called so, or rather, according to the Truth of the Greek foreign. Apostles according to Truth, or in very deed; Clearly importing, that the Name appropriat to other Officers, was but used foreign or improperly, as any Minister or Messenger of Christ may be thus called; And if this be Theodorets general Rule, as the Dr calls it, that the Twelve Apostles were only such, according to Truth, he doth consequently assert the Drs pleading for the Bishops, as succeedanous Apostles, and as holding and having derived unto them their entire Office, to be not according to Truth; So that he did not well to raise this Ghost. As for the Storie or Fable of the Prince of Edessa, which the Dr. next presents out of Eusebius, to whom (he tells us, that) Thaddeus was sent by St. Thomas, and called an Apostle by Eusebius: His Denomination, as it is of it self, of no weight, to prove the Drs assertion, (as is clear, in the like instances) So, this is so generally acknowledged to be a Fable, and Eusebius thereupon so Censured by Judicious Divines, that the Doctor hath been far to seek for his proofs, when catching up so pityful stuff as this. And thus we proceed to the Drs next Proofs.