The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 1 · Chapter 5

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 1 · Chapter 5

p. 85CHAP. V. The Dr's Scripture Proofs of a Four-fold Ministrie or Prerogative of a Bishop, as Superior to a Pastor, in Point of Government, considered.

THE First Prerogative of the Bishop, as contradistinct from a Presbyter, P. 433.is (with the Dr.) to make Laws and Canons, which is the Essence of Government, and supposes a Legislative Power, else, faith he, Christs Wisdom is impeached, if he left a Governed Society, without a Legislative Power.

I need not stand to tell the Dr, That by consent of Protestant Divines, the Churches Power, is not properly, Nomothetick, Architectonick, Legislative, but Ministerial, and declarative of Christs Institution, in reference to Ordinances, the Doctrin, Worship, Disciplin and Government of his House.

The Dr. proves this Authority (P. 433.434.) from the Apostles Power, Act. 15. Determining the Controversie anent Circumcision — And says, That in their Decree, they exercise a Legislative Power, laying upon the Churches, to abstain from what was not prohibited by any standing Law of p. 86Christianity: That, as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops, made Laws by common consent, for the good of the Church in general, so, by their own Authority, for particular Churches, to which they were more particularly related. Here is, I must say, odd and confused stuff. First, The Dr. supposes, that the Decree, Act. 15. had no previous Scripture Foundation, contrar to the express tenor and scope of the place, where it is evident 1. That in this Disquisition, there are Grounds of the Sentence laid down, yea and Scripture Grounds. 2ly. The Sentence runs in these terms, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost (viz. speaking in the Scripture) and to us. 3ly. Upon these previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union-and the esehewing the Offence of the weak Iews (apparent in the debate and disquisition) the things enjoined; are termed, necessary things, and thus supposed materially such, antecedaneously to the Decree. Hence 4ly. The Dr. in saying, That this Abstinence (he must understand it in the present Case and circumstances of time, place and persons) was never prohibited by any standing Law of Christianity;ibid. expugns from being Laws of Christianity, all our Lords Precepts, in point of Love and Unity, and the eschewing the Offence of the little Ones: For, these Rules did clearly found this Abstinence, and ground the necessity thereof, in the present Case and exigence.

Again, in the nexplace, The great point, the Dr. has to prove, is That this supposed Legislative power is the Bishops sole prerogative, secluding Pastors: This he proves by the Apostles, together with the Elders and Brethren, their comming together, and determining this matter. One would think, this makes fair to prove the contrary. The Apostles here, meeting with, and taking into the disquisition and Decree, and into every step of the procedure, the ordinary Ministers, and Elders, as persons interested and concerned, and who are found to concur with them in enacting and enjoining the thing Decreed, in order to the Churches Obedience. Ay, but the Dr. tells us,ibid. That by consent of all Antiquity, by these Elders, we are to understand the Bishops of Iudea; for which he Cites Dr Hammond on Act. 11. A Dr. no doubt, of a like soundness with himself. But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders, he must Esteem them Bishops, where ever mentioned, and deny the existence of any Pastors (the true Scripture Bishops) at this time; wherein our Dr. will, and must needs justle and deal stroaks with Dr. Hammond: For (to omit other instances) he holds the Elders present with Iames, when Paul went into him, to be Pastors, over which, Iames, as Bishop of Ierusalem, did preside. 2ly, None can imagin these Elders to be Bishops of Iudea, without the most ridiculous Forgery imaginable: For, in the context, it is evident, that at this time, the Apostles were but founding and gathering p. 87Churches in Iudea, settling Churches therein, and taking inspection of them, by their Apostolick Authority; And therefore, it is a strange phantastick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocess in Iudea, and of such a bulk and number, as to have Diocesan Bishops set over them, yea and Diocesan Bishops, of so considerable a Number, as the Elders may be rationally supposed to be at this time, and in this meeting; yea, and these, besides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pastors, which this Man will not deny, the Apostles, to have ordained, where Churches were planted. Again, why, I pray, the Bishops of Judea only gathered here, in order to this general Decree for all the Churches, and no Bishops of the Gentile Churches, which, he will say, were by this time set up? Besides, that looking to the occasion of this debate, anent the Circumcision, which had its rise from some of them that went from Judea, as from the Apostles, and thus troubled the Churches, the design of the Gentiles, appears evidently to be, to send Paul, to the Apostles and Elders, residing at Jerusalem, without the least hint, of any more enlarged Advertisement of others, than such, as were there, at that time. Again, the Dr. says, That Apostles and Primitive Bishops, made general Laws, for the whole Church, and Bishops, particular Laws, for their particular Churches:ibid. Thus (saith he) Paul gave Rules to the Corinthians, for more decent communication of the Lords Supper. Strong reasoning indeed, and hanging well together! First, he supposes the Apostles made by their Apostolical Authority, the general Rules for the whole Church, as proper to them, with concurrence of ordinary Bishops; the ordering of particular Churches, being peculiar to the ordinary or Primitive Bishops: And presently, to prove this, he puts the great Apostle of the Gentiles, into the class of Ordinary Bishops, in giving Rules to this Church of Corinth, and wisely supposes, that Pauls Apostolick Prescriptions about Right and decent Communicating, concerned only this Church of Corinth, and were Authorized and enacted by no Apostoick Authority, nor by the Apostle Paul, as in that capacity. To this scope, the Dr. with as much Sense and soundness, instances Paul's giving Laws and Canons, to the Churches of Galatia, contradicting therein, the Relation of these Canons, to particular Churches, since they did respect both the Churches of Corinth, and the Churches of Galatia. Of the same nature. is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5.7. Tit. 1.5.) touching the redressing disorders, and supplying defects in these Churches. For, besides, that Paul exerced an Apostolical Authority in these Directions to the Evangelists (extraordinary Officers, as Paul himself) which clearly excludes, Director, and Directed, from the compass of the Dr's Argument he will not deny, several of these p. 88directions, at least, to have been of universal concern and necessity, and in this respect also, as remote from his Design. The Dr. adds, That what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did, to be sure, they had Authority to do,P. 435. and whatsoever, Authority they had, they derived it down to their Successors. That Apostles and Evangelists, exercised a Lawful Authority, is indeed very sure, and no less sure, than the Dr's Argument here, is loose and unsure, from Apostolical directions to Evangelists, to conclud the Nature and Mould of the supposed Episcopal Authority of Prelats, in reference to making Laws (as is above evinced) since the Dr. cannot shape out, nor by any twist of reason and sound consequence, inferr his supposed Hierarchical Prelat, with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, from the Office of either Apostles or Evangelists.

The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bishop, to have been allowed suffrage, P. 435.436.in any of the First Four General Councils; yet immediatly after (some way retracting and correcting himself) he allows them a place in General Councils, but tell us, it was only for debate, and preparing the Matter of Laws; but the form of Laws, he says, proceeded from the Bishops suffrage. This is pretty. First, The Dr. will never prove, that in the First Councils, there were Prelats of his stamp and Mould. Next, its strange, that in Councils, Presbyters were sitting for Conference, and as no members. I would fain know, if the Dr. will say, that these Elders meeting with the Apostles, Act. 15. (which he will, no doubt, acknowledg, was one of the best Moulded Councils, yea, and a Standart for after-Councils) were no Members, but called and meeting for conference only, since in the Scripture account, and three fold Partition of those that mett, Viz: Apostles, Elders Brethren, there is an intire joint concurrence, with the whole procedure, viz: both in the Disquisition, the Sentence, the decretal Epistle and Appointment, in reference to the Churches obedience. It does also sute the Dr's consideration, to shew, how it can consist with reason, and the Nature of a Church Judicatory, that such persons, as are no Members, nor fit to be Members, are, in tuto, to prepare Matter for Laws, and take share in debates. But the Dr's Forgery here is evident. For 1. If Presbyters concurrence in Ordination, was Authoritative, not by consent only, and they imposed hands as proper Ordainers, even when Bishops had obtained Power in Judicatories, by confession of Episcopalians themselves (see Dr. Forbes Iraen. lib. 2. Cap. 11.) I would fain know, why such Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers, as had Authority, to Ordain, which is one of the greatest Acts of Ministerial Authority, had no Authority in enacting Laws in Councils, but sat as Cyphers. 2ly. The Dr. will find Antiquity p. 89against this deputed kind of conferring or consulting Power, which he allows to Presbyters in Councils, without Authority, in enacting Laws. Chrysostom (hom. 17. on Matth.) calls Presbyters expresly [Christi vicarios] Christs Vicars or Deputes: And its strange, that such to whom Christ entrusted this Vicarious Power, had no interest and Authority in enacting Laws in his Church, and in the Government thereof. Cyprian (lib. 4. Ep. 8.) shews, that [Dominus Sacerdotes in Ecclesia, &c,] the Lord condescended to elect to himself, Priests or Ministers in the Church (the Dr. will not say, that he put this designation only upon Prelats.) And did he elect and constitute them for no interest in the Government thereof? Nay, on the contrary, the Judgment of the Ancients, is clear in this, that the Power of external Jurisdiction, and consequently, the Authority of enacting Laws or Canons, was common to Bishops and Presbyters. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians, called the Presbytrie [Senatum Dei] Gods Court or Senat [& non consiliarios solum] (as our Dr. makes them) [sed & assessores Episcopi] not his Advisers only, but his Authoritative fellow-Counsellors; And I hope, such (he will grant) as are in this Character, have interest, not only, in preparing matter for Laws, but an essential Official Right, in the Authoritative enacting of them. Irenaeus (lib. 4. Cap. 44.) calls them [Principes] Princes or Chief: And if such, in his Judgment, the forementioned Authority is clearly by him, attributed to them. Augustin (Serm. 6.) calls the Brethren in Eremo [Patronos, Rectores Terrae] And what pitiful Patrons or Rectors are they, who have no Authority in enacting Laws? Chrysostom asserts expresly (on 1 Tim. 1. hom. 11) That they presided over the Churches, as Bishops, and received together with them, the Office of Teaching and Governing the Church. And if this, with the preceeding Testimonies, give not the Lie to the Dr's forementioned distinction, anent Presbyters sole consulting interest in Councils, and upon the Bishops Call allennarly, without any Authority in enacting Laws, let any Judg. Chrysostom, moreover, in the beginning of that Homily, stating the Question, wherefore the Apostle, after he had spoken to the Office and Duty of Bishops, passes over to Deacons, omitting the order of Presbyters, returns this Answer and Reason, Because, betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter, there is almost no difference, and because, that unto Presbyters also, the care of the Church is committed. And what he said concerning Bishops, the same things also do agree to Presbyters. And if, with the Dr's good leave, I might draw an inference from Chrysostom's assertion, I would thus subsume; But so it is, that the Authority of Government, and the enacting of Laws in Church Judicatories, is by the Apostle ascribed to the Scripture-Bishop, whom he mentions: Ergo, the same Authority and Power is by the Apostle, ascibed to p. 90Presbyters, in Chrysostom's Sense. Gratian (in Decret. Caus. 16. Quest. 1. Cap.) shews, that [Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum] A Senat of Presbyters, without whose Counsel, the Bishop can do nothing. They were not then called at the Bishops pleasure for debate only, and preparing matters (as the Dr. pretends) but were the [sine quibus non] in the enacting of the Laws themselves. The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decisive suffrage, in Judicatories, yet Cyprian (Ep. 6. and 28.) professes, He neither could nor would do any thing without the Clergy. And the Fourth Council of Carthage, condemns the Bishop's Decision, unless Fortified by their Sentence. So far was it, that the Bishop's sole Suffrage, gave the Strength and Formality to Laws, that they were null, without Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence. This is clear, by so full a consent of Antiquity, that we will find; That neither in Censuring of Presbyters: Nor 2ly, In Judging the conversation, or Crimes of Church Members: Nor 3ly, In Excommunicating or Receiving of Penitents, Bishops could do any thing without Presbyters. Tertulian (Apolog. Advers. Gentes) shews vsus, That the Churches Exhortations, Castigations, and Divine Censures, were put forth by the [Probati quique Seniores] who did preside; the accused Person being brought into the Congregation. And this Authoritative Sentence of Presbyters, was more approved, than when passed by one Man: As when Syagrius and Ambrose, passed Sentence in the same Case; The Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius, because he passed it [sine alicujus Fratris Consilio] without the consent of any of his Brethren: But were pacified with the Sentence of Ambrose, because saith he [hoc judicium nostrum cum Fratribus & consacerdotibus participatum processerat] This his Sentence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow-Presbyters or Ministers. Yea, the very Admonition of Offenders, were not given by the Bishops alone, but by the Elders (August. De verb. Apost. Serm. 19.) Thus also, Origen contra Celsum lib. 3. Excommunication it self, Tertullian tells us, was vibrated by those that laboured in the Word and Doctrin; and the Presbytrie, that delivered unto Satan, as Jerom shews, (Epist. ad Heliod.) So (Epist. ad Demet.) they also Received and Absolved the Penitents. Cyprian (Epist. 12) shews that this was the custom [nec ad communicationem venire quis possit, nisi prius ab Episcopo & clero manus illi fuerit imposita] such as were Excommunicat, returned, not to Church Fellowship, before hands were laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy. And writing to his Charge, anent lapsed Christians, he tells them [exomologesi facta, & manu iis a vobis in poenitentiam imposita] After Confession, and laying on of the Presbyters hands, they might be commended to God. And such as returned from Heresie, and were to be Received in the Church at Rome, in the time of Cornelius, Cyprian tells us (Epist. 6. compared with 46.) they came before p. 91the Presbytrie, and Confessing their Sins, were Received. Now, if Presbyters had such Authority, and the Episcopal Power was of this Nature, and thus Limited, let any Judg, how the Dr's Assertion can subsist, viz: "That in Judicatories, Pastors had no decisive suffrage.

For the Dr's after-discourse, (P. 436.) anent the Civil Soveraigns Decrees, in case of a supposed interfeiring with the Churches Legislative Power (as he calls it) I shall not (it being some what out of our way) much digress in examining the same, tho I judg it very lax and liable to considerable exceptions, yea, and hardly reconcilable with it self, or sound sense and Divinity. The Dr. holds, That the Churches Legislative Power, cannot reach to controll the Civil Decrees. And yet holds, That these Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws. Now, the Dr. will not say, that the Churches Legislative Power, is not founded upon, and Authorised by Gods Laws; nay, he positively asserts, that it is. He adds, "That next to the Laws of God, the Soveraigns Laws; are to be obeyed. And thus makes the Law of God, the overruling Law, the Regula Regulans, and paramount to those of the Soveraign: And therefore, by good consequence, from this Assertion, the Churches Legislative Power, in exhibiting and declaring Gods Laws, must likewise be thus Paramount thereunto, and first obeyed; Especially, if he stand to that instance of his, Act. 15. as exhibiting the Plat-form and Standart of Church Laws, wherein, the enacted Canon and Decree, is said to be, the mind of the Holy Ghost, and thus a Divine Law, the Authority of God, being thereto interponed. Yet, in the very next Words, he lays down this Assertion, That next to the Laws of the Soveraign, the Laws of the Church, are to be obeyed: And so here, these Civil Laws, are set in an higher Sphere, and made Paramount to all Church Laws, and this without any exception or Limitation, whether they be consonant to the Divine Law or not, or any Limitation of Consonancy to the Divine Law, in the Laws of the Church. The person, who will reconcile and soudder these, must in my apprehension, be better skill'd, than all Vulcan's Gimmerers, and no doubt, better seen in logical Rules and subtilties, than I. So much for the Dr's. First Prerogative of a Bishop, as distinct from a Presbyter, in the Power Legislative, and of making Canons.

The Second Peculiar Ministry and Prerogative of the Bishop above Presbyters, P. 436.437.438.the Dr. tells us, is, To Consecrat and Ordain to Ecclesiastick Offices. Thereafter, the Dr. spends much discourse upon Christs Mission of the Twelve Apostles, as the Father sent him, including a Power of Ordination of others, which he p. 92Confirms by Luk. 24.33.36. Mark. 16.14. Matth. 28.16. Which Commission, he tells us, was transferred Originally upon the Apostolick Order; So, that Ecclesiastick Commissions, were either given by the hands of these First Apostles, or by such Secondary Apostles, as were by them admitted into Apostolick Orders, and these Secondary Apostles, were the same with Bishops. Ans. We need not spend time in resuming what is said already, in Answer to this. There's no doubt, but our Lord gave a Power of Mission, and of Ordaining Ministers, to His Twelve Apostles ▪ A Power to Plant Churches, through the World, and a Gospel Ministry, and Ordinances in them: But, that by vertue of this their Mission, they were to transferr their Apostolick Office and Authority, to ordinary Succeeding Officers, is the foreign, the Quaesitum, or Question, which the Dr. still beggs and supposes, but will never be able to prove, from either the Nature and intendment of their Mission, or the Power and Authority of Succeeding Officers, whom they Ordained, as we have above evinced. The Dr's Proofs are pitifully claudicant; he tells us, That tho the whole Disciples were present, the Apostles only Imposed hands upon the Seven Deacons, Act. 6. And why not? The Authoritative Imposition of Hands in Ordination, is no doubt proper to Ecclesiastick Officers; not to the People; but where were the Succedaneous Bishops here, who had solely this Power, tho Ministers were present? The Dr. has let us see no shaddow of this, from the Text. He next tells us of Paul and Barnabas Ordaining Elders in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra. A mighty proof! The Apostles in planting Churches, ordained Ministers in them: Ergo Suceedaneous Bishops, have an Apostolick Authority of Ordaining, derived to them solely, as their peculiar Prerogative above Pastors: This Consequence is denyed. If the Dr. own these Elders for Pastors, it should seem, they had an Ordaining Power, else the Apostles settled these Churches in a very mank frame, and lame posture, and wanting the Essentials of an Organick Church. If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power, he crosses the Scope of a proof of Succeedaneous Bishops, with Power of Ordination, set up by the Apostles, since thus he ascribes it unto Pastors: And if he deny it, he is liable also to the same absurdity, and that mentioned above, and will cross his Notion of the Bishops Office ascribed to the Elders of Ierusalem, who mett with the Apostles in that Council Act. 15. Besides, if the Dr. put an Episcopal Mitre, upon these Pastors or Elders, and make them Bishops in his Sense, it is very odd, that among these little new gathered Churches, such highly Authorized Diocesan Prelats were set up, before any Pastors, for Feeding with the Word and Doctrin. For discovering the folly of which Gloss and Assertion, I dare appeal to the Current of Interpreters. Or, if the Dr. imagin the strength of his Proof, to ly in this, that p. 93these Officers were Ordained by Apostles, solely, he should know, that as we all allow an extraordinary Power in Apostles, in Churches, not yet Constitut, not competent to Ordinary Officers, so, his Assertion is anent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apostles (as he calls them) as sole and singular in Ordination.

But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way, viz. That Paul and Barnabas were ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in Antioch, P. 438.Act. 13.1, 2. To which he makes this Return, That these Prophets and Teachers had, no doubt, received the Apostolick Character, being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of Syria: For otherwise, saith he, how could they have derived it? And this Notion, the Dr. reposes such Confidence in, that he tells us, There is no doubt, but they had this Character. But truly, whether the Insipid Folly of the Objection, or of the Return here made unto it, be greater, is a Question to me. First, That Paul and Barnabas, were at this time, and in this Action, ordained Apostles of the Gentiles, I believe few (if ever any) except the Dr, did imagin. I had always thought, that it is evident to any, who reads the Account and Story of Pauls Conversion, and Call to the Apostleship, by the Lord from Heaven, that when thus called, he was called, in a special manner, to the Apostleship of the Gentiles — I have appeared unto thee, saith our Lord — to make thee a Minister, and a Witness — delivering thee from the People, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their Eyes, &c. Upon which, the Apostle immediatly set upon this Work of Preaching to them, Act. 26.17, 18, 19. The Apostle also tells us, (Gal. 1.15, 16, 17.) that when it pleased God, who separated me from my Mothers Womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach among the Heathen, or Gentiles; immediatly I conferred not with Flesh and Blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them, which were Apostles before me. Compare this with Ephes. 3.8. Hence, its odd to suppose, that either he or Barnabas, were at this time ordained Apostles. For, Barnabas, that he was an Apostle, looking strictly to the Description of Apostles, some may doubt; but supposing him such (he being joyned with Paul, under that Character, Act. 14.14.) we read of his Officiating, and for what can be understood from Scripture, in the same manner, and by virtue of the same Office, as the Apostle Paul, to the Gentiles, before this time: For (Act. 11.22.) he is sent to Antioch, by the Church at Ierusalem, for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there; And v. 25, 26. he goes to Tarsus, to seek Paul, and brings him to Antioch, and Taught there a year with Paul, where the Christian Name first took place. Next, the Dr. finding himself puzzled, with his Notion of a supposed Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, to their Apostolick Office, by mere Prophets p. 94and Teachers, has no Shift, but to alledge, they were by the Apostles ordained Bishops of the Churches of Syria, since they could not else, have derived the Office of Apostolat. A pretty Evasion indeed, from a Phantastick Objection! First, these Prophets and Teachers, are taken to be such Ministers and Teachers, who had also the Gift of Prophecy, Vigent at that time. So, Pool. 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat. upon the place, says, they were such, as had the Gift of Expounding publickly the Resolutions of the Christian Faith, by infallible Conduct and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; paralelling them with the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. who, the Dr. will not doubt, are enjoyned Subjection to the Prophets there established: And with these, spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11. He adds, that it was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclesiastick Office, and singular for these times, yet inferior to that of Apostles, and in many, accompanied with Divine Predictions. The Belgick Divines upon the place, do shew, That some, take the two Words, Prophets and Teachers, for one and the same thing: Others, distinguish them thus, that Prophets were those, who by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, had extraordinary Gifts, to foretell things to come, and to expound the Holy Scriptures: But Teachers, were such, who had an ordinary Calling and Gifts, to Instruct and Govern the Church, in the Worship of God. And this place also they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and Eph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghost, mentioned Act. 13.2. viz. [Separat me Barnabas and Saul] they Paraphrase thus, That they were separat from the Service of this Church, where there were other Teachers enough, to send them to the Gentiles, whereunto the Holy Ghost ordained them from the beginning, citing Act. 26.16. And v. 3. which mentions the Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them, they Paraphrase thus, Not thereby, to chuse them to be Apostles, whereunto they were before chosen, v. 1. and Act. 9.15. but to strengthen them in this sending to the Gentiles, by Prayer and Imposition of Hands. Grotius takes them to be such Prophets as Agabus. So Cornel. a Lapide, to be such as had the Gift of Prophecy; paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were such, as by the Influence of the Spirit, foretold things to come: So Menochius, That they were Expounders of the Scripture, by the Spirits Revelation: So Lorinus, A Lapide, Piscator: The last of whom, takes them to be the same with Teachers. All which, how Cross they are to the Dr's Character of these Imposers, and the Persons, upon whom Hands were Imposed, together with the end of this Action, is obvious to the meanest Reflection. In Correspondence to the foresaid Account of Diodat. and the Belgick Divines, we may further notice this particular Account of Pool. Annot. That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apostles already, the Laying on of Hands did signify, 1. Their being set apart to this particular p. 95Imploymentt, hey were now sent about. 2ly, The Approbation of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had. 3ly, Their Praying for Gods Blessing upon them, and Success upon the Work they went for. But these Prophets ordaining them to be Apostles, and that, as in the Capacity of Bishops of the Churches of Syria, is a Dream, much, if not, only beholden to the Dr. himself. Again, the Dr. doth no way eschew his supposed Inconvenience by this Answer; For, if these his supposed Bishops of Syria, were only of the ordinary Succedaneous lesser Size, how could they derive an Apostolat, of the Primary and first Order, as he calls it? unless the Dr. make them intirely one, which he sometimes (tho in this, inconsistent with himself) disownes, as we heard above, when he ascribes to the Apostles a Power, to make general Canons to the whole Church, to the Bishops, only to their particular Diocesses.

But the Dr. finds another Objection, viz. That those Officers, who Imposed Hands on Paul and Barnabas, are called Prophets, not Apostles or Bishops. ibid.He Answers, That so was Iudas and Silas, Act. 15.32. and yet v. 22. they are said to be Rulers among the Brethren, as he Translates foreign i. e. saith the Dr. Bishops of Iudea. I commend the Dr's Invention and Sagacious Scent: Wherever a Word savouring of Rule is found, appropriat to any Church Officer, straight he claps an Episcopal Mitre upon his Head. But this Term being appropriat to such Persons, and in such Circumstances, as will not admit this Office and Character, but are supposed mere Pastors or Presbyters, the Dr's Consecrating Skill fails him. His Friends, the Episcopal Translators of our English Bible, smell'd out no Prelacy, nor Ruling in this Term, but Translat the Word, Chief Men, Primarios, Praecipuos, Estimatos, & Honoratos; thus Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, Piscator, Camerarius, Drusius. Or Ecclesiastico munere fungentes; so Beza. Chief Men, then, may be understood thus, that they were persons, as, in Ecclesiastick Offices, so, of Moral Eminency for Parts and Piety; which the Dr. will not deny to be applicable to Men of the same Office, and that such discriminating terms of one from another, will infer no distinction therein. Besides, some might alledg, that if he will allow Members of the Church visible, the Scripture epithet of Brethren, and of the Brotherhood, which Denomination, we find applyed unto them, 1 Pet. 2.17. That upon this ground, Pastors or Presbyters, who have a Rule appropriat unto them, and are termed as in that capacity foreign both the one and the other, may very well come under the Character of Rulers and Brethren, and by consequence, that the Relation of the one to the other, may well come under this complex▪ Phrase of Rulers among the Brethren, especially, since in the Council, Act 15. the Elders and Brethren are distinguished, as Church Officers from privat Church p. 96Officers from privat Church Members. Again, the foreign, and even among Brethren, doth evidently and frequently in Scripture, reject the Dr's Mitr'd Notion: Particularly Heb. 13.7. where they are spoken of, in the Plural, as over that Church, both in Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin: And v. 17. they are in a Plurality, supposed both to Rule and watch for Souls; And v. 24, they are distinguished from the Saints, under this Denomination: And consequently, in all the Three Passages, put under the Character of, Rulers among the Brethren, but as having all a Relation to this Church, and actually and jointly Ruling and Feeding by Doctrin: Consequently, they are such Rulers among the Brethren, as are all Faithful Pastors; And therefore, of a quite distinct Character, from his supposed Ruling Prelats.

The Dr. affirms, That Ordination was confined to such as were admitted to the Apostolat;ibid. as the laying on of Hands in Ephesus, was by Paul committed to Timothy, upon whom, he himself imposed Hands; And unto Titus at Crete, whom he left to Ordain Elders 2 Tim. 1.6. Tit. 1.5. To this we have spoken at large, and need not here stand upon a prolix resuming of what hath been offered in Answer thereunto. Only in a word, we may see, that the Dr. Shoots short of his proofs, which is obviously evident to any that considers, that he neither proves, nor can prove, these his groundless Postulata and suppositions (without which he misses his mark, and his Argument has no imaginable Foundation) such as 1. That, the Offices of Timothy and Titus, were ordinary, and the same with his described Hierarchical Prelat. This, we have already disproved, and by clear Scripture evidence, made the contrary appear. 2ly. That the Apostles Precepts, in point of Ordination, to Timothy and Titus, did import their sole Authority therein, in Churches constitut, so, as to seclud all Authority of Pastors or Presbyters in the same, even where they were settled, and could concurr. The contrary whereof, we have also made evident. Again, whereas the Dr. thinks to strengthen his Plea, in telling us, That the Apostle by Imposing Hands on Timothy, Ordained him, an Apostle or Bishop of that Church. We have evinced the folly of this alledgeance, and that the Apostles imposing Hands upon Timothy, rather strengthens, than impugns the Presbyterian Cause. Since, 1. It is evident, that the Presbytrie, (and consequently, Ordinary Pastors, whom the Dr. wholly excluds from Ordination) laid Hands upon Timothy. 1 Tim. 4.14. and had an Authoritative interest therein. And 2ly. That the Text mentions Paul's Laying on of Hands, in order to Gifts; but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie, in another Mould and Phrase. Hence, its easie, to cut the Sinews of the Dr's Arguing with a Notion of hii own, set down, but a few Lines above. He enquires, how could the p. 97Prophets at Antioch, derive an Apostolat to Paul and Barnabas, if they had not been of that Character? Now, I would ply the Dr. with this Counter-query, how could Imposition of Hands, and Authoritative Imposition, be performed by Pastors, and Ministerial or Evangelistick Authority, be derived by them, together with Paul, to Timothy, if Pastors were not of such a Character, as had an Ordaining Power? Here is a Query, founded upon the Dr's own medium, and his Answering satisfyingly the second, will clear him in Answering the First. Hence, what he adds, (P. 438, 439.) viz. That through the whole Scripture History, Ordination is performed by those of the Apostolick Order, or by secondary Apostles, as he calls them… doth in this appear groundless: For, here we find the Power of Ordination, seated in, and exercised by a Presbytrie. And we have told him and above evinced, that tho we suppose Paul present, and imposing Hands with them, it rather confirms, than invalidats our Argument from this place, for Pastors and Presbyters Power in Ordination. Not to insist upon the Dr's recent instance of Prophets and Teachers Authoritatively Imposing Hands upon Paul and Barnabas; which (tho not importing a formal Ordination) yet, considering the circumstances and context, viz. The Persons Imposing hands, scil. Pastors and Teachers, the Persons upon whom they imposed Hands, scil. Apostles, together with the end and design, i. e. their being solemnly set a part and Blest, and thus sent out upon a special Legation, its an Instance strongly pleading (and as we use to say a majori ad minus) for a Power of Ordination in Pastors, in relation to Ordinary Church Officers. And whatever may be said of instances, as to Ordinary Pastors, in these Infant-times of the Church, rare, when extraordinary Officers, such as Apostles and Evangelists, were existent, and their Offices vigent, the Episcopal Authority, so clearly and frequently, (as we have proved) ascribed and apropriat to Pastors, doth certainly includ this Authority of Ordination, as essential thereunto.

The Dr. adds, That if we Consult Primitive Antiquity, the best Interpreters of Scripture,ibid. in Matters of Fact at least, we will alwise find, the Power of giving Orders, confined & Limited to Bishops. I need not much digress to tell him, that the after-practice of Churches, is acknowledged in matters of Fact (and even by Eusebius himself) in a great measure dark and uncertain, and is also acknowledged, and found much opposit to Scripture: And therefore, a slippery and unsound ground and Comment, as to Scripture Matter of Fact, and in order to such a conclusion. I might add, that if the Dr's Reasoning hold good, it is in point of Right, as well as in matter of Fact, the sure and sole Comment upon Scripture. But for this bold and Universal assertion of the Dr's, it is easily convict of falsehood, by what is above offered. The p. 984th. Council of Carth. Canon 22. Decrees, That the Bishops Ordain not without the Clergy. And if we suppose this Canon obeyed, there wanted not abundance of conformable instances. In Cyprians time. the Pastors had the Power [manum imponendi] of Ordaining, Ep. 78. And in Aegypt, in absence of the Bishop, Ordained alone, as Ambrose on Eph. 4. asserts. Besides, what is at large made out to this scope, by our Writers, in reference to the Chorepiscopi, and this for a very considerable extent, both of time and place. Cyprian Ep. 33. Writing to his Charge, certifies them, That Aurelius was Ordained by him and his Collegues, who were present with him. And least the Dr. start at a supposition, that Cyprian, called Presbyters his Collegues, let any peruse Ep. 33. and this will convincingly appear. We have told him before, that Firmilianus saith of them, that Rule in the Church [quod Baptisandi, manum imponendi & Ordinandi possident potestatem] and who these are, he shews a little before, viz. [Seniores & praepositi,] We have also told him, that Chrysostom himself, was found accused (in Synod ad Quaercum Ann. 403.) that he had made Ordinations, with the Sentence and company of the Clergy. And in the forecited Council of Carthage (Canon 21.) it is enacted, "That the Bishop Ordain not without the Clergy. And Canon. 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impose hands with the Bishop. The Authors of Ius Divinum Minist. Evan. in the Appendix, together with Smectymnus, and several other Presbyterian Writers, have exhibit so many clear instances of this, that we need only refer the Reader to their Learned Labours, for the discovery of the Drs. folly, in this Assertion. In the close of his discourse, upon this point, he tells us, That this is so undenyable, that tho Ierom equalize Presbyters with Bishops, yet he is forc't to do it with an [excepta Ordinatione] Ans. If we should suppose Ierom to speak of the general custom of that time and place, and neither absolutely nor Universally, as to the practice or Matter of Fact, far less of of a Divine Right, the Dr's. undenyable proof is soon overturned; but especially its Razed, when we tell him, that Ierom's [excepta Ordinatione] is well enough understood of the Bishops ordinarly assumed Chief interest, in the rituals of Ordination, tho Presbyters (as is above cleared) did intrust this to him, as having a joint and essential interest in the thing it self.

The next peculiar Ministry of the Bishop, which the Dr. assigns, is,P. 439.440.441. The execution of Spiritual Iurisdiction, viz. to Cite, examin Offences before their Tribunals, to admonish the Offender, exclud from Church Communion, or receive upon Repentance. The Dr. discourses at large, in proof of a Spiritual jurisdiction Established in the Church, and proves it soundly from Matth. 18.16.17.18. Expounding that Clause, tell it unto the Church, of a Delation, in Order to an Authoritative admonition, and from those Passages in the context, If he neglect p. 99to hear the Church, let him be as a heathen, &c. and that other, whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, &c. Concluds well a Power in the Church of excluding from, and admission into Fellowship; Citing that Paralell, Math. 16.19. I will give unto thee, the Keyes, &c. which he also well explains by what is said. Isai. 22.21, 22. anent the Key of the H…use of David i. e. the Government of his Church, committed to our Lord, in the Type of Eliakim's substituting to Shebna, who was over the Household. He expounds well, the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the Government of the Church, and the Power of Binding and loosing, of admission to, or exclusion from Church Fellowship. All this is easily accorded.

But now comes the main Point,P. 442 and the Cardo questionis, This Power, saith the Dr, is wholly deposited, in the Episcopal Order. This is soon said, but to prove it, hoc opus, hic labor est. It were superfluous, here, to remind the Reader, how the Dr. understands the Episcopal Order, or how far, in a sound Scripture Sense, of the Episcopal order, this assertion might be admitted. But to the Point, the Dr. proves his Assertion, from this ground, that in all the forecited places, it was only to Apostles, that our Lord derived this Iurisdiction, they alone being the Stewards, to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Family, to whom, alone he promised Twelve Thrones, to Rule and Govern his Spiritual Israel, as the Chief of the Trib…s Governed the Natural Israel, Math. 19.28. Upon which ground he tells us, that the Heavenly Jerusalem, has the Names of the Twelve Apostles upon its Gates, Rev. 21.14. &c. And the Twelve pretious Stones, v. 19.20. Do in his Sense, denote the Power and dignity of the Church. As also, the 144 Cubits of the Walls Measure, amounting to Twelve times twelve, he takes to denote the Apostles equal Government of the Church. From all which, the Dr. thrusts out, as his project of the whole, his former Notion and Topick of [our Lords lodging this Jurisdiction, in those of the Apostoliek Order, derived, from the Apostles] which, saith he, was administrat accordingly, either by the Apostles immediatly, or by the Bishops of the several Churches, to whom they communicat their Order. Ans. All this (in so far, as relates to the Dr's scope) is nothing but a repetition of what is already Answered. I shall easily accord with him in this, that, as our Lord placed and left in his Church, a Spiritual Jurisdiction, so, his Apostles, were the First and immediat Recipients of this, from himself. I do likewise consent to the Dr. in this, that this Spiritual Authority, was to be continued in the Church, and Transmitted to fit Administrators, and was not to die with the Apostles. As also, there is no doubt, that they were to deliver our Lords mind, and the Standart, and continuing measures and Rules of all the Ordinances of the House of God, the p. 100Doctrin, Worship, Disciplin and Government thereof, in which Respect, they are called the Churches Foundation.

But in all this, the Dr. has not laid one Ground-Stone of his proof, which (as we have often told him) lyes Chiefly in these two Points. 1. That the Office of Apostolat, in its entire nature and extent, and as exercised by the Twelve, was by our Lord, intended for an ordinary Function and Office, to be thus continued in, and transmitted to the Church, and devolved on Successors, who were accordingly to exercise the same Office and Power. 2ly. That these Successors were so invested with this Apostolick Power and Office, as they had the whole Government, the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, monopolized in them, in so far as the Pastors and Presbyters, appointed and set up by Apostles, in the Churches, had only the Doctrinal Key, entrusted to them, but not that of Government; whereas, both the one and the other, were committed to these supposed succedaneous Apostles. Now, its evident, that if the Dr. prove not these, he says nothing; And that both these, are unsound and Antiscriptural Suppositions, we have already made appear. (1.) From the many evidences, and clear Scripture discoveries, of the extraordinarie expired nature of the Apostolick, and Evangelistick Office. And (2.) From the Apostles intrusting and transmitting to Pastors or Presbyters, and devolving upon them, both the Keyes of Doctrin and Government, as their proper and imediat Successors; as also from clear Scripture Grounds and instances, which do evince their actual exercise of the same.

But next, to examin a little more closely, the Dr's Proofs, I would gladly know of him, or any of his Perswasion, whether they do not look upon, and understand that Text, Math. 18. as containing a constant Fundamental Law and Rule, given to the Christian Church, to prescrib the Method of removing Scandals, as also, the proper Subject of the Keyes, and Iurisdictional Power, and of that Power in special, which is called Critick? The Dr. holds, That Christ here, established a Iurisdiction in the Church; he also acknowledges, That the Church here meant, hath Power of Authoritative Admonition, and the Binding and Loosing Power, since he holds it to be the same with that Binding and Loosing Authority, which our Lord promises to Ratifie in Heaven, Iohn 20.23. Matth. 16.19. He understands by this Jurisdiction, this Authority and Exercise of the Keyes, pointed at, in these Paralells: Nay, he acknowledges, P. 443. That in the Forecited Passage, Matth. 18. our Lord institut the Power of Censuring: And I need not tell him, that Words of Institution, of any Ordinance, are the proper Standart and Measure thereof, and the Pattern shewed upon the Mount. Now, what is meant by the Church, the proper Subject of the Keyes, in the Dr's Sense and Pleading, is the Question. The Dr. will not say, it is the Political p. 101Magistrat, as some have alledged; for he holds, That our Lord spoke this to his Church, as a distinct Society, and having distinct Officers, from the Kingdoms of the World. And whereas, some have alledged, that we are to understand this Church, of a Iewish Sanehedrin, the Dr, in the whole Strain and Scope of his Discourse, disownes this, for he asserts, That in this Text, our Lord is speaking to the Christian Church, and establishing a Spiritual Jurisdiction therein. Neither, can he understand, by the Church, the whole Collective Body, according to the general Notion of the Word; for, the Dr, in the Strain of his Discourse, makes this Power and Authority, peculiar and proper to Church Officers, as is evident in his Paralells above-rehearsed, and the Church Representative, to be the proper Subject of that Jurisdictional Power, here enjoyned.

Now, all this being evident in his own Pleading; since the proper Subject of this Power, is, by our Lord exprest (who knew best how to express it) by the Word foreign or Church, I would fain know, by what Warrand, the Dr. can can make this Term, peculiar to one single Person, viz. a Bishop, so, as it must be holden to express his sole Prerogative? Or, where will he shew, or make it appear, that, in any Greek Author, Sacred or Prophane, the Word foreign denotes one single Person? If he say, that by the Church, the Community of Church Rulers or Bishops, is to be understood, viz. that all Bishops in common, and every Bishop apart, hath this Power and Authority. I Answer, this, understood of Scripture Bishops, or Church Officers in general, and of such Church Officers of particular Collegiat Churches, is easily accorded; But, if he mean of his Hierarchical Bishops in Bulk, and of every one of such a part, he both Beggs the Question, and Crosses the Scope of the Place. For, 1. Howsoever we take the Term foreign or Church, whether for the Church Universal, to whom Officers, and a Government, is given immediatly, or for particular Churches, to whom, in a mediat Sense, the same Government and Charge is given, we must, of necessity, understand it to be given to such parts of this whole, as do come under the Denomination, and partake of the Nature of a Church, and according to the Dr's Sense above-evinced, an Imbodied Society, or Juridical Court, must, in that Statute, be understood, which can never be applicable to a single Person. And besides, this would invert our Lords Method of Procedure, and the Gradation here held out and enjoyned, which is (as the Dr. himself acknowledges) from one to two, or more, and the last Result, and ultimat Appeal, is to the Church, or the Imbodied Court of Officers, with whom the Jurisdictional and Critical Power is lodged. 2ly. Granting that this Jurisdictional Power, in Order to the first Planting of Churches, was, for this end, at first lodged with the Apostles, yet the fore-mentioned great Rule and Fundamental Law (as p. 102above Sensed, and in a great Measure, by the Dr. himself) will still evince, that the Apostles were not to Exercise it, to the prejudice of the Authority given thereby to the standing Officers, and ordinary Authorized Courts of the Christian Church, unless they can be supposed to have had a Power Paramount thereunto: For, wherever a Christian Organick Chuch was gathered, by vertue of this Precept, tell the Church, the Scandals were to be delated to the Officers thereof, who consequently, according to the Nature and Tenor of the foresaid Law, are supposed to have the Binding and Loosing Power, whatever Apostolical Authority might reach in Churches not Constitut, or in way of Apostolical Direction to Churches Constitut, as in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian, yet this was not Privative of, but Cumulative to, the ordinary Power of Collegiat Organick Churches, as is often told him.

I might further urge the Dr. with this, that that Passage, Iohn 20.23 cannot but be extended to a Doctrinal, as well as Iurisdictional Remitting or Retaining, Binding or Loosing, the Doctrinal Key, as well as Jurisdictional, being Primarly given to Apostles, to be by them, derived to Successors. Our Lord, in his Gift to Apostles, divided them not; And therefore, neither were the Apostles to divide them, in Devolving this Power upon, and Committing this Authority to Successors: And since the Dr. acknowledges, that the Apostles, by virtue of our Lords Commission, Devolved upon Pastors the Doctrinal Authority, and Committed to them that Key, (thus P. 427, 428.) why not, I pray, the Jurisdictional also, both being inseparably tyed together? Nay, the Dr. himself, upon the Matter yields this, for he tells us, (ubi supra) That the Command, Go Teach all Nations, Math. 28.19. did reach Pastors, as the Apostles Successors in this Ministerial Duty, and that Preaching, was one of the principal Imployments, belonging to the Apostolical Office. And if the Apostles were to commit to Pastors, one principal part of their Office, why not also the less principal? Besides, that the Command [Go Teach, or Disciple all Nations] will clearly includ the Jurisdictional, as well as Doctrinal Key.P. 428. The Dr. adds, (ibid.) That yet this Command of Preaching, was not restrained to their Office, since inferior Officers Preacht, as the seventy: Yet he adds, That none Preacht, but either by immediat Commission from Christ, or Apostolical Ordination. But, I pray, were any in his Sense, otherwise allowed to exercise Disciplin, but in this method? Why will not the Dr. allow the exercise of Disciplin to the Seventy, and such a Mission of Rulers, consequently? For Timothy (whom, together with the Seventy, he probably Judges, to have held, an Evangelistick Office) he pleads, had Authority, both to Teach and Rule: And the Teachers, Act. 13. he p. 103holds to be Bishops; So, that in his Sense, Government being annexed in these instances thereunto, the Lord did extraordinarly call, in these times of the Church, some persons, who were not Apostles. Therefore, his Reason is insufficient to prove, that the Power of Government and Preaching, being Eminenter, contained in the Apostolick Office, they did not commit the Ruling Authority to such, to whom the Preaching work was intrusted. Once more to reflect upon the Passage, tell the Church, we will find our Sense and Pleading, correspondent to judicious Interpreters Dic Ecclesiae, is, coram multis, inquit liber Musar. foreign Iustinus. And that the person may have a punishment inflicted of many, 2 Cor. 2.6. and the rebuke may be before all, 1 Tim. 5.20. And that the person Offending may be moved by the consent and multiplicity of those rebuking him: So Grotius, who shews us, that it was the practice among the Jews, after the more privat admonition, to bring the Matter to the Multitude foreign to the Court of Judges, who have the Power of binding and loosing, as distinct from the multitude: Thus Camero, Simmachus, Beza. To the Presbytrie, representing the Church, whereof mention is made. 1 Tim. 4. 14 Piscator, Beza, Camero: And these whom Paul cal's foreign 2 Cor. 2.6.

But to proceed with the Dr, he tells us next,P. 442.443, That none, but such as are of the Aopostolick Order, can pretend to the Jurisdictional Power, since it was First lodged in the Apostles, and by them immediatly exercised, or by the Bishops of the several Churches, to whom they communicat their Authority and Order. But one should think, that such to whom they committed the Chief and principal part of their Office, as they did to Pastors, by the Dr's Confession, to such they did commit their Order, in so far, as unto ordinary succeeding Officers, and that together with this, the other subservient part of Ruling, was also committed; both Keyes, being in their Nature, as above hinted, so inseparably connected: And he cannot give one instance of the Apostles giving the First to Successors, without the Second: Nay, the instances are clear of their committing both to Pastors. The Elders or Ministers of Ephesus, are entrusted by the Apostle Paul foreign ▪ & foreign both to Feed and Rule, as Bishops Authorized by the Holy Ghost, over that Church, which command, is by the Apostle laid upon them, when taking his last farewell of the same, and not a word is dropt by the Apostle, of either the one or the other to Timothy, their alledged Bishop. The Apostle Peter enjoins the Elders, as their Fellow-Elder, to Feed and Rule, and exercise Episcopal Authority over the Flocks: A clear Demonstration, compared with the preceeding Instances, that these Elders and Ministers, were the Apostles proper and immediat Successors, in both Offices of p. 104Teaching and Ruling. So, that the Dr. may here see, in this Scripture-Glass, the Portraiture, the clear Image of the Scripture-Bishop, and the Authentick and Original Character of the Office of these Pastors and Bishops of the Churches, to whom the Apostles committed the Preaching and Ruling Work, viz. the Preaching Pastors or Presbyters. Shall I add a Caution, and acknowledg to the Dr, they were not the Bishops of his supposed Order, since the Apostle discharged them to be Lords; because, in these simple times of Christianity, the Apostles themselves, were rude, and not yet acquaint with the Grandure of Spiritual Lords and Lordships, in the House of God. But least the Dr, do think this odd, that I do hold the Work of Preaching, and Administration of the Sacraments, an higher Point of Episcopal Authority, than Ruling, at least, if I may add, only Ruling, which he knows, the Bishops arrogat to themselves solely, not medling much with the first, and that I hold the Governing Power, to be appendant upon, and consequent unto the Power of Order, in Preaching and Administrating the Seals of the Covenant; I must tell him, that if this be an Errour, A great one has led me into it, and one of the Dr's most eminent Primary Bishops, who, I am sure, had a Divine Authority for his Office, and an Infallibility in Teaching besides; It is even the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who gives to Timothy this Precept, [The Elders that Rule well, count them worthy of double Honour, especially they that Labour in the Word and Doctrin] wherein, it is evident, the Apostle allows the Labouring in the Word and Doctrin, the higher Honour, above Ruling, yea and Ruling well.

But to prove, that the Apostles committed this Iurisdictional Power only to the Bishops of their Order, the Dr. brings the Instance of Pauls pronuncing the Sentence of Excommunication against the Incestuous Person,P. 443. 1 Cor. 5. shewing that he, as present in Spirit, had Judged, i. e. saith the Dr, pronunced Sentence, concerning him who had done that Deed: And v. 4, 5. he orders them, to declare and and execute his Sentence. But, that the Current of the Context runs Cross to the Dr's Pleading, is several ways evident. For, 1. The Apostle blames this Church, that this Sentence was not passed before, and that they saved him not the Labour of this Prescription or Appointment, in performing their Duty, Antecedaneously thereunto. It is evident, he checks them, that this Person, was not by an Ecclesiastick Censure, of such a Nature, as is here intimat, put away, and taken from among them, v. 2. 2ly, He writes to them to do it, and this, as an Act of their ordinary Authority, proper to them, as Church Officers, viz. Authoritatively to deliver to Satan, and that, when by the Authority of our Lord, they were mett together; the Body of Professo…s, being also concerned in a Consent to this Ejection. And therefore, they were not to meet merely p. 105to Declare or Witness, what the Apostle had done before. 3ly, He thus expostulats, v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them that are within? A convincing Proof, that they had Power to Censure all, that were within that Church, by an Intrinsick Authority, proper to them, as Officers thereof. 4ly. He calls this Act or Sentence, 2 Cor. 2.6. A Censure or Punishment, inflicted of many, viz. the Church Officers, not a Declaration of his previously passed Sentence. I hope the Dr. will not fall into such a blunt Conceit, as to make one and the same, the Declaration of a Sentence, passed by another, and the formal Passing of a Sentence, or Inflicting of a Censure or Punishment, which if done warrantably, as is here supposed, doth necessarly import Authority in the Persons Acting. Inflicted of many, says the Apostle, i. e. Not by all the Multitude, as Independents Judge, nor by one Person or Bishop, as the Dr. Dreams. As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Person Censureable, to be his Pronuncing Sentence, it is a very gross Distortion; For, Paul, as an Apostle, infallibly Inspired by virtue of his Apostolical Directive Authority, and in special, as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon him, 2 Cor. 11.28. had Power to Direct and Prescribe Duty to either Members or Officers of any Churches. And therefore, if the Dr. will draw this Act to Exemplifie Episcopal Authority, he draws upon himself two gross Absurdities, 1. That Paul had, and Exemplified a standing lawful Episcopal Authority, wherever such Prescriptions were exercised, and to whomsoever they could reach; And this Reaching over all Churches, his Care being thus extended (as is above cleared) the Dr. makes him a standing Primat, and Patriarch over them, Exemplifying a sort of Patriarchal Primacy, to be Transmitted in the Church. 2ly, That his Apostolick Prescription, of the Duties of Church Officers, was not Cumulative unto, but Privative of whatever Authority and Interest in Government, they might acclaim, or in the Exercise of the Power of Order. And thus, suppose the Bishop of the Dr's Mould, set over the Church of Corinth, had neglected his Duty (as these Officers, are here found faulty in this point) Pauls Apostolick Direction, in the Dr's Sense and Pleading, nullifies his Power, and proves he had none: Or, supposing an Archippus, or negligent Minister, had needed his Apostolical Direction, to perform such Acts of the Power of Order; as were proper to his Function, Pauls Prescription of Duty, by the same Reason, swallows it up, and makes it null. Certain it is, that neither could the Apostles divest themselves of this directing Power, of Judging upon neglect of Duty, which had been a divesting themselves of their Office, nor can they be supposed, without the grossest Consequences, striking at the Root of all Church Authority, to have, by their directing or judging Power, exauctorat such, to whom the Direction was given, of their Power and Interest, in their respective p. 106Duties, whether as Members or Officers of the Churches. Pool. Anot Vol. 2. Expound this 4th v. of the Power and Authority of Christ, concurring with them, while gathered together. And upon v. 5. Expounding the delivering to Satan, of Excommunication and casting out of the Church; They give this Reason, [because the Apostle speaks of an Action, which might be, and ought to have been done, by the Church of Corinth, when they mett together, and for not doing of which, the Apostle blames them] Thus clearly Asserting the Intrinsick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth herein, and upon the same Grounds, which we have Asigned. To the same Scope, do the Belgick Divines, Expound this whole Passage, paralelling it with the great Precept, Matth. 18.15. Both upon v. 4, & 5. and upon 2 Cor. 2.6. touching the Subject of this Jurisdictional Act, viz. That it was Inflicted of many, they Expound of Church Governours or Officers. Diodat. upon Chap. 5. v. 4. thus Senses the Words, That they were to perform this, as the Lords Ministers, by Authority received from Christ, and that the Command is directed to the Pastors and Conductors of the Church, being gathered together in Ecclesiastical Judgment, having the Apostles Declaration, instead of his Voice and Vote. And to obviat such a Notion and Fancy, as that of our Dr. upon this, he adds, That this was, without doing any prejudice, to the ordinary Ministry of the Church of Corinth: And that Paul uses his Apostolical Power Modestly, only to excite the other, (viz. the ordinary Power of Pastors) and to strengthen it. And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this Incestuous Man, but all such Scandalous Kind of People, who by their Infection, might plunge again into the Ancient Corruption, &c. And upon. v. 12. Do not ye Iudg them, that are within? He says, That it is certain, that a Judge cannot exercise his Jurisdiction, but only over those, that are within his Precinct, and subject to his Tribunal — Clearly Asserting a Spiritual Tribunal, in this Representative Church. To the same Scope, he Expounds the last verse. The English Annot. upon v. 2. of this Chap. in Correspondence to the Exposition and Answer premised, and in Opposition to the Dr's Reasoning, do shew, That the Apostle finds fault with the Corinthians, for that they had not Excommunicat this Incestuous Person, before he had Wrote unto them, and Charged them so to do, because the Fact was Notorious, and the Church Scandalized. And upon v. 4. (which mentions the Power of Christ) they shew, That the Power of Excommunication and Absolving is Christs, and the Ministry thereof only Committed to the Governours of the Church. And the delivering to Satan, mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel, Matth. 18.17. We need not spend time, in multiplying Instances of Sound Expositors, in opposition to the Dr's Sense of this place. That there is here, an Allusion p. 107to the Iewish Synagogue, is the Consentient Judgment of the learned, viz. in their Way of Excluding and casting out the Scandalous: Thus Grotius, Estius, Hammond, Simplicius, Piscotor, Beza, &c. Pareus, Paralelling, v. 5. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. shews, that the same Persons, are Authorized to Comfort and forgive him, who inflicted the Censure, viz. the Church Officers. What we have said, might be further improven, from the end of the Action, which was the purging out the Old Leaven, and taking the Scandalous Person from among them, and the Character of the Censure it self, called a Punishment inflicted of Many, in Opposition to the Dr's Design and Argument. But the thing it self is obvious; And therefore we proceed.

The Dr. Adduces next, Paul's Threatning not to spare. 2. Cor. 13.P. 443. But to proceed with Ecclesiastick Censures; And his mentioning Two or Three Witnesses, to establish every word, according to the Words of our Lord, when he Institute this Power of Censuring Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity, according to the Power given him, to Edification; And to come with a Rod: He must needs, saith the Dr, mean Apostolical Censures and Excommunication, to be Execute, and Performed in his own Person; in which Respect, he delivered Hereticks of the Church of Ephesus to Satan, 1 Tim. 1.20. It is Answered, First, all this is easily removed, by the often Adduced Distinction, of the Apostles ordinary and extraordinary Authority, and of a Cumulative and Privative Exercise thereof. Altho the extraordinary Power, upon fit Emergents, such as, either the supine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers, or the more endangering spread of Offences, or obstinacy of Offenders, or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers, in whom this Power was Lodged and Seated, was alwise in readiness, and to be Exercised for the Churches good and Edification; yet nevertheless, this Exercise (as we have often told him) was never exclusive of, nor derogatory unto the Churches ordinary Intrinsick Authority, nor, (except in Cases mentioned) or Extraordinary Emergents, without the actual Concurrence of the ordinary Church Officers. And if, as the Dr. says, the Apostle here insinuats a method of procedure, suitable to our Lords Institution. Matth. 18. It could not be otherwise. Besides, he Threatens this severity, as a proof of his Apostolick Power, 2 Cor. 13.3. which some understand of his Miraculous Power, to inflict Bodily Afflictions: Others, of his Power to cut off, from the Communion of the Gospel Churches; thus Pool. Annot. And if the Dr. will allow, that by mentioning Two or Three Witnesses, he ties himself to the Method of procedure, which our Lord Institute, Matth. 18. he must by Parity of Reason, allow the other part of the Institution, touching the Juridical or Censuring Church, to have its own place therein: And that Consequently, the Apostle was to take along the Authoritative p. 108concurrence of the Church Officers of Corinth, in this procedure. But the truth is, he quite mistakes the Passage; For, in that Clause of Two or Three Witnesses, the Apostle Intimats only, the certainty of his coming the Third time: He had taken up thoughts of, and was preparing for his Journey, and giving them previous warning of his coming, he alludes to that of Deut. 19.15. to ascertain them thereof accordingly; Thus Pool Annot. and Interpreters generally: He had been at Corinth once Act. 18. Afterward, he had twice purposed and promised to come; once, in the 1 Ep. Chap. 16.5. And now again here; And then he adds, in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses, &c. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat. thus senses this Clause, in the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses, &c. The meaning is, saith he, these Three warnings of my coming shal be, as so many Witnesses, by which (if ye do not amend,) you shall be sufficiently convinced of incorrigible Rebellion, to proceed to a sentence, already penned 2 Cor. 10.6. [cum jam bis terve id dixerim, tandem ratum erit] thus Grotius. As for the Apostles threatning sharpness of Censure, v. 10. And his Apostolical Rod 1 Cor. 4.21. It receives the same Answer, by the forementioned distinction of the Apostles ordinary and Extraordinary Power, and the cumulative and privative exercise thereof. And if the Dr. will not take this from me, may I hope, he will from a far greater: The Learned Iunius, in Answer to Bellarmin, pleading much to the Dr's Scope and Sense, from this Passage of the Apostle — Shall I come unto you with a Rod? offers the same distinction (De Concil. lib. 2. Cap. 16.) of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rod [secundum illam, &c.] According to the common ordinary Rod, saith he, Peter was a fellow Presbyter, 1 Pet. 5. but according to the singular and extraordinary, he stroke dead Ananias and Sapphira. He adds, in respect of this common Rod, Paul saith, 1 Cor. 5. You being gathered together, and my Spirit, in the Name of the Lord Iesus; But, as to this singular one, he saith, Shall I come unto you with a Rod? 1 Cor. 4.21. This common Rod, he denyes, to have been, in the Hand of any one Man, whether Apostle or other, or that they had any sole or singular Prerogative, in Churches constitute. Grotius and others, do here take in the same, which Iunius mentions of the extraordinary stroke, either the inflicting of Death, as upon Ananias and Sapphira, or Blindness, as upon Elymas; or Diseases. The Belgick Divines, joyn together, the Exercise of punishment and Discipline, in this Clause. While I have been mentioning Iunius, I must upon this occasion, shew, that in opposition to the Dr's. Pleading, in Relation to Successor-Bishops to Apostles, by Testimony of the Fathers, Iunius will tell him (De Clericis Cap. 14. Not. 15.) that this is not to be understood of a Succession from Christs Institution [quia nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis secundum gradum in Ecclesia Succederetur] p. 109Christ never appointed Successors to the Apostles, according to Degree: And that the Fathers understood it of a Succession [ex simili, non ex pari] of similitud, not Parity; And a similitud Secundum quid, or imaginary, according as Bishops, were then Moulded. The same Answer and distinction above Rehearsed,ibid. serves for what he Adduces of Pauls delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan. 1 Tim. 1.20. And that this is the Sense of Sound Divines, appears, in that this is made Paralel with 1 Cor. 5. wherein the Apostles Extraordinary Authority, is by them distinguished from the Churches Ordinary Power.

As for his further Proof, from the Apostles deriving this Spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus, P. 444.the pretended Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and their supposed singular Authority and Censures, and Judicially Cognoscing upon Ecclesiastical Causes, which he draws from these Passages. 1 Tim. 5.19, 20. Tit. 3.10. We have above spoken to it at length, and provenfully, that the Evangelistick Function of them both, who were fixed to no particular Posts, together with the clearly supposed Power of Church Judicatories, when Established (as is evident in several Paralells) and of the supposed Concurrence, consequently of ordinary Officers with them, in the Nature and Scope of these very Instructions themselves, doth clearly eve…t his Pleading. For what he adds of the Censuring Power of the Angels of Ephesus and Thyatira, Rev. 2. What we have made already good of the Collective Sense of the word Angel, and the Insufficiency of admitting him, to be a single person or President, to bear the weight of his Conclusion, discovers the Vanity of this his Repeated Notion, in this place.

The Dr. adds,P. 444, 445. that the Bishops of the Primitive Ages, were the sole Administrators of Spiritual Iurisdiction. This we have above, convict of untruth. And whereas he tells us further, that they ordinarly admitted their Presbyters Concurrence for Advice; we have made appear, that their Concurrence, after Bishops were set up, yea, and by Confession of Bishops themselves, was Authoritative, not for Advice only.P. 445. The Dr. will needs have Cyprian to challenge a singular Authority of Excommunication (Ep. 38, 39.) But, if he will not set him by the Ears with himself (Ep. 6, 18, 28.) where he professes, he neither could, nor would do any thing, without the Clergy, and (Ep. 78.) where he shews, that Presbyters, had the Power of Imposing Hands, and of Ordaining; and unless also, he can disprove what is made good anent their Ordaining alone, especially in Aegypt, in absence of the Bishop, what we have touched anent the Chorepiscopi, their Authority and Power herein, which is at large made good by our Writers, the Dr. must acknowledg, that he misses his Mark, in this Citation. Cyprian also p. 110is so far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of sole Censuring (as the Dr. wou…d make him) that (Epist. 33.) he ownes the Presbyters, as his Collegues, even in the Point of Ordination, and disownes any such usurped Authority. In the Ordination of the Confessor Aurelius, he thus expresses himself [hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi, a m… & a Collegis qui presentes aderant ordinatum sci… tis] Thus also (Ep. 58. speaking of the Pastors) he expresses himself [Ego & Collegae & Fraternitas omnis] And (Ep. 6.) shewing his earnest desire to meet with the Pastors, while absent from them, he gives this Reason [ut ea quae circa Ecclesiae gubernacula utilitas communis exposcit, tractare simul & plurimorum examinata limare possemus] And speaking there, of the turbulency of some persons, he says, they were such, as [nec a Diaconis nec a Presbyteris regi posse, &c.] Upon which, Pamelius has this Note [hinc non obscure colligitur ad huc Carthagini — prerogativam illam Presbyterorum & Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae, qua communi totius Presbyterii. i. e. Presbyterorum & Diaconorum collegii, consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis] Citing thereafter, Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians, wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pastors or Presbyters, as to the Apostle of Christ. And least the Dr. alledge, this imports no more than a Consultive Power, Cyprian (Ep. 18.) having mentioned what was written by Lucian, in name of the Confessors, which they desired to be communicat to the Presbyters; and (as he expresses it) [per me collegis omnibus innotescere] to be by him made known to his Collegue-Presbyters, he adds [quae res, cum omnium nostrum concilium & Sententiam spectat, praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo] Thereafter, he shews that having sent Letters of Copies to many Collegues, he had an acquiescing Answer in this his purpose. To which we may add, what is above touched of Cyprians Judgment in receiving the Lapsed (Ep. 12.) and several other places) that the Pastors or Presbyters had a necessary interest therein, doth by necessary consequence, inferr, that they had the same interest in the Sentence, as in the Absolution. As for the 38 Epistle, which the Dr. Cites, I find nothing in it, that will conclud what he asserts, having perused that Epistle: That which he seems to take hold of, is, that expression of Cyprian [accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit, ut abstentum se a nobis sciat] upon which Passage, the Annotator upon Cyprian, doubts whether he means Excommunication properly and strictly so called, or not; or rather, that which we term the Lesser, of a Suspension from Ordinances for some little time [quo elapso, saith he, Presbyterium de Contumacia vel Paenitentia eorundum judicabat, &c.] Moreover, speaking of Felicissimus, he says to the Presbyters [cum post haec omnia — nec vestra autoritate & presentia fractus, &c.] clearly pointing at the Authoritative Interposing of the Pastors, in this Matter. And that he does not mean the stricter Excommunication, seems by this probable, that speaking of several Delations of his Crimes, which the Delators p. 111had offered to prove, he adds [quae omnia tunc cognoscemus, quando in un…m cum Collegis pluribus permittente Deo, convenerimus] which speaks his reserving a further Censure, to a more full Enquiry into the Cause; yea, and this Enquiry, he will not undertake, but with the Authoritative Concurrence of Presbyters, called by him his Collegues. And in the Matter of Augendus, his Corresponding Guilt with this Felicissimus, he says [sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum, non esse Communicaturum] — and [Sententiam ferat si ultra cum co perseveraverit] i. e. upon Supposition of his continued Contumacy: Wherein, it is evident, that no Sentence is passed upon this Person, as the Dr. alledges; and that in the Censuring of both, Cyprian supposes a necessary Interest of the Pastors or Presbyters. And the ensuing Epistle, pointing out the actual Censuring of these two, with several others, not mentioned in the preceeding Epistle, confirms what we have said.

The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the first Council of Nice, P. 445.to suppose a Power of Excommunication, to be solely in the Person of the Bishop. But, besides, that the Words he cites, are remote from proving it, the Presence of Presbyters, being therein presupposed, it is evident, by several Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, as well as by that Act of the fourth Council of Carthage mentioned, that Presbyters did Authoritatively concur, in Ordination and Censures (for which, see Smectym. Sect. 8. and Ruffin. Hist. Lib. 10.) See Council Antioch, Canon 10. Council Ancyr. Canon 13. And determined against this sole Usurped Authority of the Bishop, either in Censuring Presbyters, or in Judging the Conversation and Crimes of Church Members, or in Excommunication or Receiving Penitents. We have also heard, that the fourth Council of Carthage, Canon 23. condemns the Bishops Decision, unless fortified by the Sentence of the Clergy. This is so evident, that the Dr. is forc'd to clap his Wings closer, and Correct himself, adding, That afterward, to prevent Abuses, in the fourth Council of Carthage, it was Decreed, that the Bishop, should hear no Mans Cause, but in Presence of the Clergy, and that his Sentence should be void, unless Confirmed by their Presence. Well then, to Correct Abuses, issuing from his supposed Canon of Nice, here is, by his own Confession, a Counter-canon, Decreeing the contrary: And where is now his bold Assertion, of the Universal Practice of the Church, founded upon a Divine Institution, which Patronizes this supposed Power, of the Hierarchical Bishop? And if we may ply the Dr, with his own Weapon and Argument, and present to him, a Dish of his own Preparing, how doth he here make a Divine Institution Comprobat by the Churches Universal Practice, a Seminary of such Abuses, as this Council found necessary to remove? Likewise, how doth this Council, by its Censure, Lash the supposed Practice of Cyprian, and puts among the fore-mentioned Abuses, to be necessarly p. 112removed? Ay, but says the Dr, The Sentence in this Case, was the Bishops, not the Clergies. I Answer, if they were sine quibus non, in the Sentence, by what Shadow of Ground, can he assert, that it was solely the Bishops? And we heard above, Cyprian in Express Contradiction to the Dr, Assert, that not the Concurrence only, but the Sentence, is properly the Clergies, as well as his. Moreover, if a Paralel Argument, in Point of Ordination, which the Dr. also doth appropriat to the Bishop, may be Judged valid in this Case, as no doubt it is, we have made appear from Canon 2. of the Fourth Council of Carthage, that they Decree in this Case, that (omnes Presbyteri presentes manus suas Iuxta manus Episcopi super caput teneant cum Presbyter ordinatur) And the Dr. cannot deny, that ex natura rei, and in the Scripture Sense, Imposition of Hands, in this Action of Ordination, is Authoritative, not Consentient only, and supposes the Actors to have this Badge of the Ordaining Power, I mean it, in a Ministerial Sense, as it is competent to all Church Officers. We have also told him, that Dr. Forbes, as Learned an Episcopalian, as our Dr. in his Iraen. lib. 2. Cap. 11. holds, that (Non tantum duntaxat ut consentientes (ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia, & plebs etiam consentit nec tamen est ejus manum imponere) sed tanquam ordinantes, seu ordinem conferentes, & ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes) That not only as Consenting, which is proper to the Vulgar, who cannot Impose Hands, but as Ordaining or Conferring Orders, and by a Divine Authority, they do in this Action or Rite, pray for Grace to the Ordained. Which contrary Testimony of our Scottish Episcopalian, not only, in Point of Fact, contradicts the Dr, but from this Rite of Imposing of Hands, concludes upon solid Grounds, Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination. So that, comparing our Dr's Concession, with Dr. Forbes his Sense, in Point of Ordination, and with what we have evinced of Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Government, in the Sense of the Primitive Church, the Dr's Pleadings for the Prelates sole Interest therein, is sufficiently overturned, yea, and the Inconsistency thereof, with it self, discovered. For what he adds of Cyprian his Asserting, that a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church, might (pro Episcopatus vigore & Cathedrae autoritate) have Chastised a Deacon, without Appealing to the Synod: The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of Cyprian, where this is found: And upon Supposition of what is clearly supposible in Cyprians time, anent the Presbytrie their Deference, and Entrusting the Execution of some Censures, to the President-Bishop, who had then obtained, such a Minut-Matter, as the Chastising of a Deacon, might well fall within the Compass of the then Bishops Deputed Authority, which will abundantly Salve this Expression, from Wounding Pastors or Presbyters Essential Interest, in Censures and Government. Besides, that Cyprian owning so clearly, p. 113Presbyters Essential Interest. both in Ordination and Censures, in the above-mentioned Epistles, viz. 33.58.75. compared with 12. and 46. doth clearly evince, he owned no such sole Authority of the Prelat, as the Dr. alledges; Which is correspondent to the Testimony cited of Tert. Apol. advers. Gentes, cap. 39. Ambrose Epistola ad Siagrium. Considering further, the Smallness of the Charge of Prelats, in the first Rise of the Episcopus Praeses, who had their Charge, confined oft to little Dorps or Villages, and that the Pronunciation, or Execution of Censures or Sentences, was, in a Deference to the then Bishops, appropriat unto them, by the Presbytrie, who still retained an Essential Interest in Cognoscing upon the Cause. The forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice, which mentions the Separation from Communion by Bishops of the Province, and by the Bishop from the Congregation, and the Convention of Bishops of the Province, for Cognoscing upon the Cause, if Dubious, doth no Whit favour the Dr's Conclusion, of a Spiritual Iurisdiction, wholly Seated in the Bishops, the Radical Authority, being still, in the Presbyters, or Consistorial Meetings of Pastors.

The fourth Peculiar of the Bishop, as distinct from a Presbyter, the Dr. tells us, is; To Confirm the Baptized, which, after their Instruction in Christian Faith, was always performed by Prayer, and Laying on of Hands,P. 446. upon which, the Party Confirmed, received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Tho, upon the first Institution of this Imposition, extraordinary Gifts followed, as of Tongues, &c. Yet, saith he, it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Ministry, to cease with those extraordinary Gifts, no more than Preaching, attended with those extraordinary Miraculous Operations. The Function it self, cannot cease, no more than that of Preaching; Because the extraordinary Gifts and Effects are gone, and Christ promising a continual Communication of the Spirit to his Church, he must be supposed to continue it, by this Ministry of Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, and the ordinary Operations, the same way, that extraordinary were. Hence the Apostle puts the Laying on of Hands, in the same Class, with Baptism, Heb. 6.1, 2. and makes it one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ: Therefore, it must be intended for a standing Ministry in the Church. Ans. I shall easily grant to the Dr, that in the beginning of the Gospel, and in the first Apostolical Times of the Christian Church, there were sometimes extraordinary Effects, and Efficacy of Gifts, attending the standing Offices and Functions, which are to be continued in the Church, and the Duties of Prayer and Preaching: As also, that we have in Scripture, Exemplified the Gifts of the Spirit, attending the Imposition of Hands; As likewise, that there is an ordinary Communication of the Spirits Gifts p. 114and Graces, in and by Christs Instituted Ordinances. But all this is far remote from the Point in Question, and reaching the Dr's Assertion and Conclusion, viz. That Christ hath Institute Confirmation of the Baptized, after Instruction, by Imposition of the Hands of a Bishop, as his sole Prerogative, and in the Capacity of an Officer, superior to a Pastor, in Order to the Persons further Confirmation in the Faith. Any, with half an Eye, may discover, that this has no imaginable Connection, with what the Dr. here offers.

As for that Text, Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Proof of what he brings it for. Its true, there has been several Comments given of that Clause of [Imposition of Hands] but none of them, favours the Dr's Fancy and imagined Sense. Some have taken it, to be meant of a Ceremony adjoyned to Baptism it self, for a Sign of Blessing and Consecration to God. Some have taken it, saith Diodat, for Laying Hands on such Catechumeni as had been Baptized, for Confirmation of their Faith, or as a Badge of Renewing their Covenant, in Order to Partaking of the Lords Supper: See Pool. 2. Vol. on the place. Certain it is, the Laying on of Hands, was either for Healing Diseases, Mark 6.5. Luke 4.4. Act. 28.8. Or Communication of Blessings, Matth. 19.13, 15. Or Communication of the Gifts of the Spirit, to such, as were separat to Gods Service, in the Church, Act. 6.6. and 17.6. and 13.3. So 19.5, 6. Hence, some under this Expression, take in all the Spirits Gifts, whereby we are Renewed, Increased, Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal. See Pool. Annot. The Belgick Divines, understand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the Primitive Church, imparted to Believers in general, Act. 8.16, 17. And especially, in the Institution of Ministers, in the Church, 1 Tim. 4.14. Where this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Presbytrie. Dr. Owen, takes this Clause of Imposing Hands, to import a Description of Persons, to be instructed, in the other Fundamental Principles, but to be no Principle it self. He also holds, that in those days, it did commonly accompany, or immediatly follow Baptism, Act. 8.14, 15, 16. and 19.6. Withal, he shews, that when Baptized Children, gave an Account of their Faith and Repentance, which others had done before they were Baptized, they were admitted to the Communion of the Church, the Elders thereof, Laying their Hands on them, in Token of their Acceptation, and Praying for their Confirmation in the Faith. (An Account of this Matter, given also, by many of the Learned) He distinguishes a fourfold Imposition of Hands. The 1. Peculiar to our Lord, in Way of Authoritative Benediction, as when he owned little Children, to belong to his Covenant, he laid his Hands on them. Mark 10.16. The 2d. In Healing of Diseases Miraculously, Luke ▪ 4.4. Mark 16.18. The 3d. In Setting apart, to p. 115the Work and Office of the Ministry, 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. The 4th, In Collation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost, Act. 8.17. and 19.6. Now, that none of all these, comes home to the Dr's Strained Exposition of such a Ceremony or Ordinance, peculiar to a Bishop, in the Sense he has offered, is evident beyond all contradiction: For, taking it to import the Spirits Work, in a Figurative Allusion to this Imposition, or for Ministerial Imposition, I mean in the Ordination of Pastors; In both Senses, it quite rejects the Dr's Gloss; And even taking it in the most favourable Sense to his Scope, viz. To import an Imposing Hands upon, and Praying for the Baptized, either at Baptism it self generally, or upon the Adult, who were Baptized, it is beyond all contradiction, that in this case, it was joyned with that Sacrament, and consequently performed by the Admistrator of that Ordinance: Or admit, that it was an Imposing of Hands upon Baptized Children, sometime after their Baptism, when grown up, to give an Account of their Faith, before their Admission to the Lords Supper, the very Nature of the Action it self, doth evince, that in its purer and Primitive Practice, and before Clogged with Additional Corruptions, the thing was performed, by the Elders and Ministers of the Church: And the Dr. cannot shew, either from Scripture, or pure Antiquity, that this was peculiar to a Bishop of his Cut and Mould. Again, it is a strange and most unaccountable Notion, to assert, that such as have Authority to Preach the Word, and Administrat the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant, and in special Baptism, whereby Persons are to be Discipled and brought to Christ, (which was the great Commission of the Apostles themselves) should notwithstanding have no Authority to Administrat such an Appendix of Baptism, and Confirming Rite, as this is supposed to be▪ That such, as have Authority to lay the Foundation, can put no Hand to such a supposed Superstructure: Nay, that such as have Authority to dispense the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that great Sealing, Faith-Confirming Ordinance, have no Interest in the Administration of such a Confirming Ritual, as this is.

Besides, in the 3d. place, it is easie to destroy the Dr's Argument, with his own Notion and Pleading:ibid. He pleads, That tho the extraordinary effects of Gospel Administrations be ceased, yet such Functions and administrations continue, as are means of the Spirits ordinary influences, Gifts, and Graces; since our Saviour has promised to the Church, a continual Communication of his Spirit. Now, dare the Dr. deny a continual Communication of the Spirit, in and by the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments? If these be to continue, and for the great ends of Conversion, Confirmation, and grouth in Grace, and in the Hands of Pastors, as the proper Authorized Dispensers of these p. 116Ordinances, which are the Ministration of the Spirit, by what Shadow of Ground, can the Dr. seclud them from any interest in this his Ministration of the Spirit? He tells us, that Christ now Communicats ordinary Operations in the same way, that he did the extraordinary: And he will not deny, that he did Communicat the Extraordinary, by the Word and Sacraments, concredited to all Ministers, I mean in the external Administration, and why not also the ordinary by the same Persons and Dispensers?

Again 4ly. The Dr. adds this his supposed strong proof, and corroborating Argument,P 447 especially (saith he) considering, that this laying on of Hands is placed by the Apostle, in the same Class with Baptism. Hence I subsume, if in the same Class, it must be so, as a Principle of the Doctrin of Christ, as Baptism is (so he calls it) and as having the same Authority with Baptism, as an Ordinance of Christ, and a mean of dispensing the same influence of the Spirit; And if so, how will the Dr. Assign a Shadow of Distinction, as to the Administrators, and make it appear, that two Ordinances of so near a Cognation, and both Acts of the Power of Order, of such an Affinity in their nature and scope, should so vastly differ in the Instruments of Administration, that the one is peculiar to the Office of Apostolat, and a Succeedaneous Prelat, Forsooth, the other not, but may be Administat by a Pastor. He tells us, "The Apostle put both Ordinances in one Class; but the Dr. in this, crosses the Apostle, and sets up, in this respect, Confirmation in the higher Class.

Here, I would offer to the Dr. or those of his Perswasion, Amesius's Answer to Bellarmin's Argument, for this Right of Bishops: One of his Arguments, for the Divine Right of Episcopacy, and of Bishops, above Presbyters, is— [Soli Episcopi, ut Ordinarii Ministri, &c.] Bishops only, as Ordinary Ministers, can Confirm the Baptized, as also Consecrat Temples and Altars, Citing, Act. 8. Amesius returns him thus the Protestant Answer — [De Consecratione Templorum — non laboramus, &c] We value not the Consecration of Temples and Altars, whited Walls, may be the sole Consecraters of Walls and stones; but for Confirmation of the Baptized, in so far as it seems to have any thing of Divine Right in it, and is thus lookt upon, it doth equally agree to Presbyters and Bishops: This saith he, may be sufficiently proved from the Canon Law it self (Dist. 95.) and is evinced by this Reason of Ierom, what is greater than Christ, or what may be preferred to his Body and Blood? He adds in Answer to that of Act. 8. that …he Apostles were no Bishops, nor sent unto an Ordinary Confirmation (Bellarmin. enerv. Tom. 2. P. (mihi) 110) I need not inlarge upon any deductions from this Passage, nor insist in shewing the Dr. the Correspondence p. 117of this Answer, with what is above offered. We may adduce another Venerable Countryman of his, Cartwright, Answering the Rhemists, Pleading for this Sacrament of Confirmation, from this Text, tells the Iesuit…, That the Apostle means no Sacrament, much less Confirmation after Baptism, but by a Trope or borrowed Speech (a Metonymia adjunctis, as he calls it) the Ministry of the Church, upon which, Hands were laid; which appears, saith he, in that, whosoever believes not, that there ought to be a Ministry, by Order,, to Teach and Govern the Church, overthrows Christianity, whereas if Confirmation of Children, were a Sacrament, as it is not; yet a Man holding the rest, and denying the use of it, might notwithstanding, be saved. Upon this Testimony of Cartwright, we may very probably Conceive, that the Sense, he gives of that Passage, is the General Sentiment and Judgment of Protestant Divines in his Day: And to this Scope, we find many of the later Protestant Divines expound it, as might be easily made appear. I need not add, how obvious it is, that the Drs. Opinion and Gloss, hath no small influence upon the hardning the Papists, who make Confirmation a Sacrament. See for Cartwrights Sense of this place, Gomarus, Simplicius, Pareus, Mr. Dickson, &c. Among whom, Gomarus shews, that the Imposing Hands upon the Baptized, is a Practice later than the Apostles. But to proceed.

The Dr. in Confirmation of this his Gloss and Conceit, adduces the Instances of the Holy Ghost comming upon these of Ephesus, ibid.Act. 19.5. After Paul laid his Hands upon them: And of the Samaritans, Act. 8. who, altho Preacht unto, and Baptized by Philip, and Converted by his Ministry, yet St. Peter, and St. Iohn, were sent to lay Hands on them, upon which they received the Holy Ghost, v. 17. From whence he inferrs, that therefore this Ministry of Confirmation, appertained to Apostles, since Philip a Preacher, a worker of Miracles, a prime Deacon, and if we may believe Cyprian, an Evangelist, and one of the Seventy Two, would not presume to assume it, but left it to the Apostles. I Answer in general, these Texts are, by the current of all Protestant Divines and Interpreters, understood of the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, and the apparent extraordinary signs thereof, attending the imposing of the Apostles Hands, which in that time and Case of the Church, was a proper Badge of the Apostolick Office; and therefore, can have no force, to prove an ordinary standing Ordinance, appropriat to ordinary Pastors; Since in this Case, the proper sole end of this Action, was the forementioned special effect, which is not now to be expected, and also the persons acting, did therein exercise an extraordinary function and Authority, as Apostles. Hence this singular Gift, at this time exercised, can no more be pleaded, as laying a ground for the standing p. 118duty of ordinary Officers, than Anointing with Oil, by the Apostles, which had the Miraculous effect of healing, at that time. Upon the First Text mentioned by him, the Belgick Divines do shew, that the comming of the Holy Ghost, upon the laying on of Pauls hands, is to be understood of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, presently after exprest. And their Prophecying, is by Diodat. exponed accordingly, of a supernatural evident Divine inspiration. To the same Scope, it is exponed, by the English Annotators. And indeed, the Text it self, makes it so evident, that none can call it into question, and considerable it is, that they all paralel this place with that Act. 8. Grotius upon the place, tells us, that [Baptizati erant ab alio Christiano, sed Deus ad commendandum munus Apostolicum, non ante iis Spiritus sui dona communicare voluit quam Apostolica manus eos tetigisset] Thus also Simplicius, Camero, and Piscator Epones this effect of the Imposing of the Apostles Hands, with reference to the extraordinary influences of the Spirit. Again, in the fourfold premised Division of the laying on of Hands, mentioned in the New Testiment, we find only, that the Imposition of Hands, in the Ordination of Pastors, is that which hath a clear standing Warrand and design; the other three mentioned, having an extraordinary end, not to be now expected.

But further to urge this, the Dr. says, That tho the extraordinary effects are ceased,P. 446. yet the ordinary institut means of the Spirits influences remain. Now, as to this Point of the Apostles imposing Hands upon the Samaritans (the Passage, which the Dr. mainly insists upon, and improves) I would fain know, if he will deny, that these Samaritans, Baptized by Philip, upon their professed Faith and Conversion, which in many of them, no doubt, was real, had not received the Spirit, in his ordinary gracious influences? If they had, then, the the Apostles imposing Hands thereafter, he must grant, was either, with a special respect to the forementioned Miraculous evidences of the Spirits Seal, or it was useless, and to no purpose at all. The Belgick Divines, upon v. 14. of this Chap. Do shew, That the Apostles were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church, and strengthen them; And therefore not merely, for the end of Imposing Hands, as the Dr. alledges; and upon v. 15. mentioning the Apostles praying that they might receive the Holy Ghost, they do thus Paraphrase it, namely in a visible and Miraculous manner, as often happened in this Church, Act. 10.45. and 19.6. 1 Cor. 14.27. for otherwise they had already received the Holy Ghost, seeing no man can believe, without the Holy Ghost, Rom. 8.9. 1 Cor. 12.3. Diodat. to the same Sense, understands the Holy Ghost here, of the external and Miraculous evidences of his Grace. Pool Annot. vol. 2. thus Paraphrases v. 14. as pointing out the Apostles Confirming the Doctrin, and constituting a Church, in p. 119Samaria, by Apostolical Authority. And the Clause of receiving the Holy Ghost. v. 15. they expound of these extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, Prophecie, working of Miracles, as Chap. 10.45. And upon that Clause, v. 16. [for as yet he was fallen upon none of them] They shew, that it is plain, the Holy Ghost, is not here meant, as the Author of saving Graces; For so, he was fallen upon all that did believe, Faith being the Gift of God, but he was not yet bestowed, as the Author of these extraordinary Gifts, mentioned Chap. 2.38. Piscator upon this 15. v. Shews, That the Spirit given here, does not denote Sanctification, or Confirmation in Grace, but the extraordinary Gifts of Tongues and Prophesie, &c. as appears from the use of this Phrase, Act. 10.45. and 19.6. As also from this, that these Gifts were conspicuous to Simon. The Imposing Hands, mentioned, v. 17. Dr. Lightfoot understands in the same Sense [non Denatat, saith he, dona interna Gratiae Sanctificantis atque confirmantis, omnibus piis collata, sed dona extraordinaria aliquibus duntaxat exhibita] And v. 18. which mentions Simons seeing this conferring the Holy Ghost, is Interpreted of his seeing by this visible sign of the Gift of Tongues, pointing out the Spirits inward Operation. So Chrysostom, and out of him, Corn. a Lapide. From all which, it is evident, in opposition to the Dr's Pleading. 1. That this Imposition of Hands, was not the sole end, for which the Apostles were sent to Samaria. 2ly. that there was no need of it, in order to common Gifts of the Spirit, or an ordinary Confirmation in the Faith thereby. 3ly, That this Action of Imposing Hands, was a special Badg of the Apostolick Office, and that therein was put forth, an extraordinary Apostolick Official Power, competent to no Ordinary Officer. 4ly. That it was put forth, and exerced at this time, in order to such a transient extraordinary effect, as is not now to be expected, since, in that Infant state of the Church, it did respect the Confirmation of the Doctrin of the Gospel, the Confirmation of Believers, and was to be a Divine attestation of the Apostles Mission and Authority, in this extraordinary manner. All which, cuts off the Dr's design and Pleadings from this Scripture.

And whereas he alledges, that an Extraordinary effect, at that time, will not prove the Ordinance it self, to be ceased, no more, than Preaching, sometimes attended with such effects. I Answer, when the Ordinance, or mean, is in Scripture held out, with respect to ordinary standing Effects, as Preaching has for its great end, the Faith, Conversion and Edification of Hearers, till all the Elect are brought in, this is true; But when the mean or Action, is in its Circumstances, found to be solely, with respect to an extraordinary end, not to be now expected, and to be performed by persons in an extraordinary Office, as a foreign and Badg thereof, p. 120this doth cast the scales, and shews the Action, not to be imitable, nor to found, warrand, or exemplifie an ordinary standing Duty.

And whereas the Dr. adds, That tho Philip, was a Worker of Miracles,P. 447. yet this Action of Imposing Hands upon these Believers, was not performed by him. It is Answered, Suppose he did Work Miracles, yet in this Case and Time, for the greater Honour of the Apostolick Office, and the Glorious Confirmation of the Gospel Testimony by them, who were Honoured to be its first Heraulds, and eminently Sealed with the Spirit, for this great End, God would, upon these grounds, have this reserved to them, who (as we have heard above) were sent to settle convenient Order in this Infant Church, further to strengthen Believers, and to give this Church its fit Organick Frame, according to the Gospel Rules.

I shall not stand to improve an Argument, some would be apt to bring against the Dr's Pleading, viz. That this Ceremony, as described by him, seems to encroach upon the Rights and Nature of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism: Only, it is worthy of our Observation, which Cartwright brings against the Rhemists, upon Act. 8.17. Pleading for the Sacrament of Confirmation, he tells them, That they are justly Charged with Incroaching upon the Possession of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, which Sealing up unto us, not only the Forgiveness of Sins, but also, both the Burial and Mortification of the Old Man, and the Resurrection and Quickning again of the New Man; And in a Word, the whole Putting on of Christ: It is manifest, that this Sacrament of Confirmation, which Vaunts it self of Strength and Courage given thereby, to the Vanquishing of the Devil, makes Forcible Entry upon the Due and Right of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. He adds, That our Lord, in his Care, to bring the Gospel Sacraments, to as small a number, as might be, must be supposed, rather to Seal many Promises with one Seal, than one Promise, with many Seals, or one and the same Promise with two Seals. How far this Pleading of Judicious Cartwright, strikes at the Sinews of the Dr's Argument, upon this Head, is obvious enough. To this I shall add a Testimony, or two, which fully confirms our Pleadings, in Opposition to the Dr. on this Head: The one is, of the Professors of Saumer (De 5. Fals. Dict. Sacrat. Thes. 7. P. (mihi) 242. [Si impositio manuum in eum finem instituta fuit, ut Donorum miraculosorum collationem comitaretur, cessantibus illis Donis cessa re ipsa debuit. Et si soli Apostoli ea virtute praediti fuerunt, ut Spiritum illum miraculosorum Donorum autorem fidelibus communicarent, debuit in eorum personis subsistere manuum imponendarum potestas] Thus they, in Impugning the Sacrament of Confirmation: Adding, That as the Apostles had no Command in this Point (as is most probable) so, if they had, the Scripture is p. 121purposely silent of it. For which they, give this Reason [ne ritum istum cum Sacramentis, quorum institutionem nobis disertissime tradidit, perperam confunderemus] The next Testimony, is of Turretin, (part 3. quaest. 31. De 5. fals. Sacram. P. (mihi) 615. Par. 5.6.) When he is offering Reasons against this Bastard Sacrament; his First, touches the Action or Ceremony it self, thus [primo, saith he, quia non habet institutionem Divinam, ne— quidem ut sit, nedum ut Sacramentum dici possit] that there is no Divine warrand for the Action and Ceremony it self, Viz: of Imposing Hands, upon the Baptized, by a Bishop, as he has formerly discribed it, far less, that it ought to be esteemed a Sacrament. His Fifth Reason is thus. [Derogat Baptismo: quia juxta Doctrinam Pontificiorum, sequitur Baptismum non efficere nos plane Christianos, cum tamen jam ante Baptizati in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, in communionem ejus admissi simus, & per Baptismum Christo inseramur— sequitur in baptismo non dari Spiritum Sanctum ad robur & augumentum gratiae; quasi baptismo non obsignetur nobis gratia Spiritus Sancti corroborans, aeque ac sanctificans] Which is in Summ, that Justifying, Sanctifying, corroborating Grace, being Sealed up in Baptism, this Ceremony encroaches upon its Nature, when obtruded as a Sacrament. And thereafter (Par. 6.) Asserting, that the very Rite it self, cannot be shown from Scripture, he thus Answers the Objections taken from Act. 8.15. and 19.6. which are our Dr's grand proofs [Apostoli quidem adhibuerunt foreign seu manuum impositionem (Act. 8.15. & 19.6.) Sed cum id factum constet invisibili dispensatione Spiritus Sancti pro Ecclesiae nascentis conditione, & quidem ex promisso Speciali, clarum est ritum extraordinarium, eoque temporarium solum fuisse, cujus usus una cum aliis miraculis desiit] Adding upon the Text further, in Confirmation of this. 1. That the Spirit, in this extraordinary manner, to those already Baptized, consequently such as were made partakers of his common operations, Act. 8.16. 2ly. That the Spirit is said foreign illabi & irruere. v. 9. Which is proper to the Spirit of Prophesie, not of Sanctification; as also, Act. 10.44.46. He is said to fall upon them, so that they spoke with Tongues: Adding, that it is not unusual in Scripture to represent extraordinar and invisible Gifts, by the name of the Spirit simplely, as Act. 19. doth prove against Bellarmin. Spalatensis (de Repub. Lib 5. bap. 5. Num. 10.) proves from a multiplicity of the Ancient Fathers, that for several Ages, the Ceremony of Confirming, was a Ceremonial Rite of Baptism it self, not distinct from it. Remarkable is that of Ierom adversus Luciferianus, That Confirmation by the Hands of the Bishop, is a Ceremony belonging to Baptism [Ita tamen, saith he, ut ne que necessaria sit, neque quicquam illa per se spiritualiter efficiat, sed quod ei a quibusdam tribui solet ut det Spiritum Sanctum, id totum perfectissime haberi in solo Baptismo, lege tamen Ecclesiastica eam adhibére propter solum honorem quendam p. 122externum Episcopalis Dignitatis] So, that in stead of any Spiritual use, Ierom makes it an empty Badg of Episcopal vanity. The Learned Bucer, in his Censure of the Book of the English Liturgy, doth at Large shew, the unsuitableness of this Ceremony, to the ends for which it is pretended, or the supposed Primitive Patterns. And we find it largely paralelled, by Didoclavius, with the Popish Confirmation, both in respect of the supposed Grace which it gives, the Sign, and the Words adhibit therein, the Administrator thereof, &c. (P. (mihi) 358.359.360.361. &c.) who also gives proofs from Antiquity, that this was not alwise reserved to the Bishop, even when this Ceremony had obtained in the Church; Thus P. 363. Cyprian Epist▪ ad Iubajanum, asserts the Custom of offering such, as were Baptized, to such, as he terms Praepositi, in order to their Prayers, and laying on of Hands with Prayer: That by Praepositi, he means in general, the Ministers of the Church, and not the Bishop, is clear by many Passages of Cyprian, particularly Epist. 3. Par. 1. and Epist. 69. Par. 4. where he calls the Successors of the Seventy Disciples, Praepositos, as well, as these of the Apostles: So, likewise Epist. 62. Par. 1. and Epist. 65. Par. 4. Thus also Epist. 21. Par. 3. The Confirmation he speaks of, in the First Passage Cited, is that used in the Apostolick Church, for the giving of the Holy Ghost, for which, he Cites Act. 8.14. This is further noticeable of Dr. Lightfoot, viz. That he shews, that Imposition of Hands, was not given, but only to such, as were ad Ministerium Ordinandi, and was not given ad Sanctificationem, sed ad Dona extraordinaria. See Answer to the Principles of the Cyprianick Age, P. 53. who also Cites Piscator, Beza, Grotius, as thus Expounding the Passage Controverted. Festus Hommius, Disput. Theolog. 46. Thes. 1. Having shown, that the Apostles used this Ceremony of Imposing Hands, for Confirming their Doctrin, by visible and Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, adds. [Haec Dona, quia ad tempus tantum in Ecclesia viguerunt, bodieque ut Ecclesiae non amplius hoc modo necessaria, cessarunt, etiam ritus ille eum in Finem ne…debet servari, nec potest adhiberi] And Thes. 2. speaking of the Commendable custom of the Primitive Church, that the Catechumeni, when become Youths, and ineunte adolescentia, were presented to be Confirmed, it was by Exhortation and Prayer; and for this end, they were presented, says he, Ecclesiae Pastoribus, and dismissed with a Blessing.

The Dr. holds this Ministry of Confirmation, (P. 446.) to be performed by Prayer, and laying on of Hands; The Party Confirmed, receiving the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. And what Gifts, I pray, were they, which the Dr. Asserts, were alwise conferred by this Ceremony, and (as he expresses it) received thereby? Sure, not the ordinary Gifts: For, he will acknowledge these received, in the Sacrament of Baptism; The Extraordinary, he Acknowledges are ceased: And if neither Ordinary, nor extraordinary Gifts, are thereby p. 123conferred, I know not what the Dr. can make of it, unless he make it, a sort of adjutory, further Confirming, Symbolical, ritual Accessory to the Sacrament of Baptism, and a renewed Representation and Seal of the same priviledges, as are Sealed thereby; And then it should seem, it is brought within the stroak and reach of Cartwrights Arguments and Reasons against the Rhemists, above rehearsed; and that it falls within the compass of such a vain and ludicrous sign of Episeopal vanity, as is above expressed. Ierom, in the forementioned Epistle, adversus Luciferianus, thus lashes this supposed prerogative of the Prelat, That if not by a necessity of Law, but for the Honour of the Episcopal Office, the Spirit is given, their Case is to be Lamented, who in little Villages, or remote places from the Diocess, have been Baptized by Presbyters, and prevented by Death, before the Bishops visit. Beda, expresly upon Psal. 86. ascribs this to vanity. And Calvin (Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 19.) thus lashes the Papists, that so many of their Flocks, being deprived of this supposed necessary Confirmation [patiuntur in suo grege Semi-Christianos, quorum imperfectionem mederi facile erat] they admit many of their people, to be but half Christians, whose imperfection, they may easily remedy. And how far this is applicable to the Dr's Case, I need not stand to subsum.

Its true, the Dr. doth not in express terms, call it a Sacrament, yet seeing P. 447. he holds it is by Divine warrand, placed in the same Class with Baptism, and made one of the Principles of the Doctrin of Christ, and in his sense, appointed still to continue, as a standing Ministry, for Communication of the necessary influences of the Spirit; Its left to the judicious to consider, whether it fall not clearly, within the compass of Cartwrights Reasons, and of others above rehearsed, as inferring its unlawfulness, and in special, an appeal is made to the Judicious, to ponder, how the appropriating of this Ceremony to a Bishop, for the great ends mentioned, can come within the compass of these Fundamental Principles of the Doctrin of Christ, without the Knowledge and Belief whereof, there can be no Salvation. The Dr. I must needs say, advances not only Prelacy it self, but this supposed priviledge of Prelats, to an high pitch, in this Reasoning.

For what he adds of the Character and Quality of Philip, ibid.and of Cyprians Opinion, of his being one of the Seventy two Disciples: Whether he he was Deacon or Evangelist, it is all one in this Case, since the Action here performed by the Apostles, was proper to them, upon the Grounds already Assigned; and the account of their approach to Samaria, after this begun Ministry of Philip, is so represented by Protestant Divines, as wholly overthrows his pleading, and Razes it to the Foundation.

For, What the Dr. alledges, anent the constant Exercise of this supposed priviledge of Bishops, ibid.in the Primitive Church. p. 124As he has produced no Testimony of either Councils or Fathers, in proof of this, but only wraps up the Matter in a Confident general; So, he is forc't immediatly in the next words, to make a sort of Retraction, telling us, That in later Ages, there are Instances produced, of Presbyters, that Confirmed. But least he should seem to fall foul upon his large Assertion immediatly premised, he must needs lenify this, and mix Water with his Wine, adding, That they Confirmed only in the Bishops absence, and by his delegation; and that it was in the later Ages. We see these Charitable Lords, became at last, Liberal, in parting with some Prerogatives, admitting such as could only perform the mean Service of Baptizing, to the High Episcopal Dignity of Confirming. But the Account we have given of this Matter, sufficiently discovers his unsoundness, and prevarication in this Point, and that as the Practice he pleads for, had never any warrand from Scripture, or prime Antiquity, so, what Imposition of Hands might have been practised in a supposed conformity to the Apostles Pattern, was performed by the Elders or Ministers of the Church. And therefore, in opposition to the Dr's fair Conclusion (as he calls it P. 448.) that this Confirmation, or Imposition of Hands, was Peculiar to the Apostles in the Original, and their Successors, the Bishops, in the continuation of it. We may in the Confidence of Truth, oppose this Antithesis, or Counter-Conclusion; That the Apostolick Confirmation, which he instances, was so peculiar to the Apostolick Office, and so appropriat to extraordinary expired effects, as therein the Apostles could have no Successors: And that their Successors, in all the necessary duties and Offices of a Gospel Ministry, are the Faithful Pastors, labouring in the Word and Doctrin, to whom, as the Apostles committed, what was in their Office, ordinary and necessary to be continued in the Church, So, upon such Principles and grounds, in such a manner, and for such an end, in their Doctrin, delivered to the Churches, as does quite overthrow, the Hierarchical Prelat he Pleads for, as no Plant of the Lords Plantation.

FINIS.

A Full REVIEW and EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR MONRO's Scripture-Pleadings, Upon the Point of EPISCOPACY, In his late Book, intituled, An Inquiry into the New Opinions, chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland: