The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 2 · Chapter 3

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 2 · Chapter 3

p. 85CHAP. III. Wherein the Dr's Absurd Description of the Apostolick Function, in Opposition to Protestant Divines, is exposed; Together with his Assertion about the Succession of Hierarchical Bishops to Apostles, in a proper Formal Sense: His Opinion loaded with Gross and Palpable Absurdities.

IN this Chapter, the Dr. having told us, That he has Examined our most plausible Pretences for Parity (And what Scripture Arguments, he has Examined, let any judge) gives us Encouragement, by undertaking Truly to State the Controversie, (I am sorry, he has not done it sooner) No doubt, all will acknowledge this to be, what he stands obliged to. But to Trace his Steps, and Examine him clossly. 1. I am agreed with him in this, That the Government of the Christian Church, has been established and fixed by Christ and his Apostles, to continue to the end, and who oppose this Institution p. 86are Schismaticks. 2. For what he adds, (P. 95.) That it is agreed there was an Hierarchy under the Old Testament, the High Priests having a Superiority and Iurisdiction over inferior Priests. I must tell him, that we do hold, with all our Divines, that this Superiority was such a fixed Presidency, as had adjoyned thereunto some special Ministrations peculiar to it: And moreover, we hold, that both the one and the other was Typical, and also such, as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, or invade their Decisive Suffrage; as Iunius particularly observes. Our Dr's Inference, That Subordination of one Priest to another, is not simplely unlawful; if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general, is admitted; If, of one Pastor to another, in Point of Official Authority, it is a bad Inference, and a Begging of the Question, which is not about, what may be simplely lawful or unlawful in this Case, but upon the Hypothesis of Gods Institution, in the New Testament OEconomy and Government. The Dr's Distinction (ibid.) of the Apostles Ordinary, Permanent, Essential Power, and their Extrinsick Extraordinary Priviledges — suteable to the first Plantation of Churches, is in general accorded: But his Application and Explication subjoyned, viz. That by the first, they were distinguished from all subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers, in the Christian Church; is that which I deny: And that upon this ground: That Power, which was Ordinary, Permanent and Essential, behoved to be so eminenter, in the Apostles, as it was to be transmitted to standing Officers, who were to be Invested with the same Ordinary, Essential, Permanent Power, else the Dr's assertion cannot subsist, that this Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature, or a Power necessary for the Churches Preservation, when the Apostles, at first Cloathed with it, were gone off: And therefore, to be Transmitted to successive Officers, consequently, these ordinary succeeding Officers were, in this equal to them, when cloathed with this Power, and invested therein; And by further necessary Consequence, the Apostles were not by this essential necessary Power, distinguished from all Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers, it being such, as the Churches subsistence required the same in all times: And besides, these succeeding Officers, when invested with this ordinary Power, were still subordinat to them, as Apostles, and cloathed with that formal Office and Authority. I know, that in this Phrase of Subordinat Ecclesiastick Officers, the Dr. excluds the Bishops, in the Series of his Reasoning, that he may take them within the compass of a supposed Apostolical ordinary Power over Pastors: But how absurdly and inconsequentially, as well as cross to the Sense of sound Divines, in this Point, is already evident, and shall yet further appear.

To proceed, the Dr. tells us, That by the second (i. e. their extrinsick, extraordinary priviledges, suted to the First Plantation of Churches) they were in capacity to exercise their Authority with greater Success, in the Conversion of Infidels, p. 87in the Government of Churches. Wherein I differ from him in t…is, that he makes their Extraordinary Apostolical priviledges, necessary only for the bene esse, which were necessary Simpliciter, for the Planting and Government of the Churches, in that infant State thereof: The very exercise of their Apostolical Authority, as such, did consist in exerting these extraordinary priviledges: For, thus, their Mission, their Gifts, their extensive Power, essential to the Apostolick Office, taken in a formal sense, Respected the founding and watering of the Churches, in that Infant-state of Christianity, the Establishing the Gospel Ordinances therein, and all its ordinary standing Officers. I must then mind the Dr. that when he speaks of the Apostles ordinary, permanent, essential Power, by Essential, he must not, nay, cannnot understand that Power, which is Essential to them, as Apostles strictly, or under that reduplication, qua Apostles; For, then, their Office were not extraordinary, but a standing Office to be succeeded to, in its intire Nature formally, as they were invested with it, and did exercise it, which is cross to that Sense of the Apostolick Office, exhibit by Protestant Divines, as I shall further make appear. The Dr. will needs distinguish, their Essential Apostolick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives, their transient temporary Priviledges, who were the first Apostles, and were Limited in the exigences of the First Christian Mission. Wherein he speaks confusedly: For, 1. These Prerogatives suted to the Churches First exigence, were in such manner suted, as was the very Office it self, and consequently were Essential ingredients thereof, for this end. Hence. 2. The Essential Office of the Apostolat, as such, or taken in a proper formal Sense, could admit of no such spliting and distinction, unless the Dr. will split and distinguish the Essence, which he should know consists in indivisibili. The Essential Apostolick Office, the Dr. tells us (P. 96.) is necessary peramanent, perpetual, citing Matth. 28. [Lo, I am with you, alway even unto the end of the World] Hence, in his Sense, the Command and Promise in that place, imports the standing Essential Office of Apostolat to the end▪ — What Harmony this keeps with the Sense of Protestant Interpreters, let all judg. Pool tells us, The Promise imports his presence to the end, with his Ministers, Preaching, Baptizing, Teaching to observe what he has Commanded. That it relates to Gospel Ministers, in their Ministrations, as the Apostles successors; thus the English Notes, and Belgick Divines. But that it imports a standing Apostolick Office to the end, no sound Protestant ever dreamed.

To proceed, to make this appear the more, saith the Dr. (ibid.) The Apostles as such, were formally and essentially distinguished from all other Ecclesiastick subordinat Officers. This indeed makes it appear more, if one contradictory Proposition will prove another: For, if the Apostles were Formally p. 88and Essentially, i. e. in respect of their essential formal Office, distinguished from all inferior Officers, all Officers, who were not in a proper formal Sense Apostles, How could any succeed them in this proper formal Office? And consequently, How could that Office be permanent? It being certain, that such Functions, wherein they were to be succeeded, could not be their Characteristick as Apostles, and their mark of distinction from succeeding Officers. For instance, the Function of Preaching and Baptizing, with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Government, was a Work and Office, wherein they were to be succeeded. The Apostles were at first enjoyned [go Teach, Baptize, and Disciple the Nations] Paul enjoyned to the Elders of Ephesus, to Feed and Rule by the Word and Discipline, within their Percinct; Hence these Duties simplely considered, could not be that wherein they were distinguished from inferior Officers. For 1. In respect of this Pastoral Work, both the Apostle Peter and Iohn owned themselves, as Co-presbyters, which could have no good Sense, if in this they were distinguished from all others. 2. Hence this distinguishing Criterion had then evanished, when inferior Officers had it; So, that the Dr. in his Series of Reasoning, is driven upon this Scylla or Charybdis, either to say, that their Essential Office perished with themselves, and consequently, was not permanent, in opposition to what he asserts (P. 95.) or else, in respect thereof, they were not formally and essentially distinguished from inferior Officers, in contradiction to what he asserts (P. 96.) I know the Dr's tacite Evasion is, that he supposes the Bishops, not to be Subordinat Officers, which, how cross it is to the Series and Contexture of his Reasoning, as well as the Sense of sound Divines, we shall further m…ke appear. The difference of their Office, from that which is properly and formally Apostolick, being so palpable, that himself is forced to place a Distinction betwixt the Function of the one and the other, yea, and calls them a sort of secondary Apostles; Thus distinguishing them from those he would have to be Primary.

But the Dr. will now enquire (ibid.) What distinguished the Apostles from the Seventy two, from Presbyters in the Modern Notion (as he speaks) (I could wish he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion) from Deacons and other Offieers of the New Testament. He undertakes, 1. To exhibite the Presbyterian's Account of the Apostolick Office, and tells us, That the Presbyteriand and Socinians, contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity, affirm, that the Apostolick Office is ceased as extraordinary, that the Apostles were distinguished from Subordinat Ecclesiasticks, by infallibility in Preaching, their power of Miracles, their being immediatly called by our Saviour to the Apostolat, by their unlimited and unconfined Commission, to propagat the Gospel among all Nations. This is such Stuff, as I dare challenge and appeal all Protestant Churches and p. 89Divines, to give Judgment and Character upon the person who presents it, which I am sure, will be such, as will fasten upon him an infamous Stigma: Nor shall I here much medle with, or stand upon the shameless Man his comparing us to, and ranking us with the blasphemous Socinians, in this point, citing their Racovian Catechism, Sect. 9. Chap. 2. But to convince all, that are but acquaint in the least, with the Protestant Doctrine in this point, I shall exhibit in some few Instances, their Sense of the Apostolick and Pastoral Office: And of a vast Number, shall instance but a few.

First, The Professors of Leyden, Synops. Pur. Theol. Disput. 42. Thes. 17. They reckon among extraordinary Officers, that of the Apostolat, adding Prophets and Evangelists [quorum vocatio, say they, fuit temporaria — sub novo faedere ad Ecclesiae Dilatandae propagationem ordinata] whose Vocation was temporary or transient, as being ordained and appointed for the Propagation of the Church of the New Testament. Thes. 18. They shew the ordinary Vocation to be that, whereby Officers with ordinary Gifts performs the ordinary and Common Service of the Church—such as that of Pastors and Doctors — who promot the Edification of the Church, through all Nations, according to Christs Promise — [a temporibus Apostolorum per totum terrarum orbem dispersi, edificationem quibus libet in locis promovendam usque ad finem mundi locum habebit juxta Christi promissionem, Matth. 28.20. Ite & Docete, &c.] As being sent from the times of the Apostles, for the Edification of the Church, in every place, to the end of the World, according to Christs Promise, Go teach all Nations. Where it's evident, that the Apostolick Office, as such, in universum, is by them held to be Extraordinary, and that the Pastors and Doctors are their Successors, as ordinary Ministers appointed for propagating the Church, and promotting its Edification to the end of the World, and that upon the Ground of, and according to that same very Promise, which this Pamphleter pleads, to prove the standing Office of Apostolat to the End. Thereafter, having noticed (Thes. 19.) That the Apostle having Eph. 4.11, 12. placed the three Extraordinary Officers in the first Rank, they add (Thes. 20.) [hos duos tantum extraordinariorum ac perpetuorum verbi Divini administratorum ordines ibidem conjunctim subjicit, cum addit eundem Christum alios praeterea dedisse Pastores & Doctores] That the Apostle doth thereafter subjoyn; in a Conjunction, the Pastors and Doctors, as the only perpetual Ministers, given for the Edification of the Church. Thes. 21. They thus describ the Apostolick Office (Apostoli erant praecones Evangelii universales ad Ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum, quod est Christus, ubique terrarum ponendum, ab ipso Christ… immediate atque extra ordinem missii, dono absque errore— alios docendi, Doctrineque suae veritatem miraculis confirmandi a Deo instructi) Citing Matth. 28.20. 1 Cor. 3.10.11. Matth. 10.1. Ioh. 16.13. Act. 2.2. &c. That the p. 90Apostles were universal Preachers of the Gospel, s…nt by Christ for laying every where the Foundation of the Gospel Church, instructed and furnished with the Gift of Teaching infallibly, and confirming their Doctrine by Miracles, having also an immediat and extraordinary Mission from him. Which Sense is confirmed by the Passages above cited. And here I appeal to all Men, whether the learned Professors, offer not the same Description and Characteristicks of the Apostolick Office, which this Man makes the Opinion of the Scots Presbyterians, and Socinians. Further, after the Description of the Extraordinary Office of Evangelists (Thes. 23.) The ordinary Pastoral Office, is thus described (Thes. 25.) (Pastores erant verbi divini dispensatores, certis Ecclesiis docendis ac regendis ab Apostolis & Evangelistis praefecti) That the Pastors were Dispensers of the Word, appointed for Governing and Teaching particular Churches by the Apostles and Evangelists. Adding that their Office is described Act. 20. Viz: to feed and Rule, as Bishops set up by the Holy Ghost; as also 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. where their Office is clearly Identified with that of the Bishop; Likewise, 1 Pet. 5. where the same is evident. The parts of the Pastoral Office, common with the extraordinary Officers, they hold to be. 1. (Populum Dei ex verbo Dei docere) To Teach Gods People from his Word. 2. (eidem juxta Christi institutionem Sacramenta administrare) To Administer Sacraments▪ to them, according to Christs Institution. 3. (pro eodem preces ad Deum fundere.) To Pour out Prayers for the People. 4. ( …um fraeno disciplinae Ecclesiasticae intra limites obedientiae Deo secundum verbum ipsius debitae contineri) To keep them within the limits of Gospel obedience, by the restraints of Ecclesiastick Discipline, Citing Matth. 28. anent the grand Commission of Teaching and making Disciples, &c. and Mat. 18.17. where our Lord enjoins the ultimat appeal to be to the Collegiat Body of Church Officers; So Act. 20.28. anent the Teaching and Governing Power, entrusted to Pastors and Elders of Ephesus, &c. Now, whether our Sense of the Apostolick Office, of its extraordinary Nature, and proper marks and essentials; As also, our Sense of the Pastoral Office be not the same, with that of the Leyden Professors, let any Judge: And whether these Professors ▪ or we, do in this strike hands with the Blasphemous Socinians, as this Man has the Fore-head to affirm, the Appeal is also made to all Men to judge; Nay, if he has not in this point blotted himself with the Stain of an infamous Calumniator, especially, it being evident, that the Socinians, in the place▪ Cited by him, do absolutly deny a Ministerial Mission and Authority, whom the Learned Professors, in that same Passage, Cite for this, together with some other places of Socinus, and refute the same (Thes. 6.7, 8, 9, 10, &c.)

Let us hear next the Professors of Saum…r, whom we will find Fully to accord with us in this Point, in contradiction to our Calumnious Dr. (de p. 91divers. Minist. grad. Thes. 7.) (extraordinariorum Ministrorum tres fuerunt gradus seu ordines— Apostoli, Prophetae, & Evangelistae— De Apostolis planum, eos supremum inter Evangelii Ministros constituere gradum quorum hae supra reliquos preregativae, &c.) That the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists were the three degrees of extraordinary Ministers, of whom the Apostles had the first place; Having these Prerogatives beyond others, which they thus recite. 1. (Quod a Domino nostro Iesu Christo immediate vocati, &c.) That they were called immediatly by Jesus Christ, to the Office of Preaching the Gospel to all Nations, citing Matth. 28.18.19, 2. (Quod ita a Spiritu sancto instructi, &c.) That they were so furnished by the Spirit of GOD, and lead into all Truth, that they were infallible in Teaching, since otherwayes▪ their Function and Mission had been in vain, had it been Lawful to disbelieve them in their Teaching. 3. (Quod nulli loco vel Ecclesiae singulari addicti.) That they were fixt to no place, or particular Church, but were to preach the Gospel, and govern the Churches, through all places of the World, according to the Spirits Conduct. 4. (Quod pluribus & majoribus, &c.) That they were beyond all other Ministers, endued with more excellent and various Gifts of the Spirit, according to 1 Cor. 14.18. where Paul magnifies his gift of Tongues above all others: And mentioning the conferring the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, by the laying on of their Hands, they add (quae omnia fuerant, &c.) All which were necessary in the Apostolick Office, for laying the first Foundation of the Christian Church, through the World. Here again, the Apostles Extraordinary Office, is asserted by the Saumer University, and that with the same Ingredients, & upon the like grounds, as we do hold. So, here are more of the Socinian Principles, if we may believe this Dr. and this University, as well as that of Leyden, found ignorant of, and going cross to all Antiquity, in this Matter. The ordinary succeeding Officers, and of the highest Function in that capacity, they hold to be the Pastors and Doctors, whom they assert to derive down what was ordinary in the Apostolick Office, to whom the Authority Consequently, and Power of Teaching and Governing the Church is committed, citing Act. 13. where mention is made of this Authority, in the Pastors and Teachers of Antioch, and their joint collegiat Power in Imposition of Hands; also 1 Cor. 14.29, 30, 31, 32. where the Prophets Authoritative judging of every Member of the Colledge and Society, and the due Subjection of every Prophet to their decision, is asserted▪ joining therewith Chap. 12.29. (Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? &c.)

Well, shall we offer to the Dr, yet more Scots Presbyterian Novelists, and of the Socinian Stamp, in this Matter? Piscat. de Minist. Eccles. Aphorism. 9▪ [Apostoli immediate a Christo vocati fuerunt, &c.] The Apostles were immediatly called by Christ, and sent through the whole World, to es…ablish p. 92every where, the Kingdom of God, by the Preaching of the Gospel. In his Explication he shews, that in this Aphorism, the Ministry of the Apostles is explained in four Heads, 1. [Ex causa sine qua non, &c.] From the Cause and Ground, without which they could not discharge their Apostolical Office, and this was their immediat Vocation and Calling. 2. [e subjectis Locis, &c.] From the Places, where they Exercised their Apostolick Function, viz. the various Kingdoms of the World. 3. [Ex Fine ad quem, &c.] From the Scope and End, to which they were to Direct their Ministry and Labours, viz. the Planting and Founding Churches, &c. 4. [Ex Causa Instrumentali, &c.] From the Instrumental Cause they were to make use of, viz. their Unfixt Preaching of the Gospel. Here, I Appeal to all Men of Judgment, whether this Account of the Apostolick Office, is not the same, with that which this Man rejects as Socinian. Aphorism. 12. [Sequuntur Pastores, &c.] He proceeds to Describe Pastors and Doctors, whom the Church can never want; in the Explication, he tells us, that [a praecedentibus differunt Duratione] They differ from Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, in Continuance, as being of constant Necessity to the Church. Thus, Denying in Contradiction to our Dr, the Permanency of the Apostolick Office. Afterwards he adds, [Officia Pastorum indicantur, &c.] That there are four Branches of the Pastors, work and Office; The Interpretation of Scripture, the Ordering of Government and Discipline, the Administration of the Sacraments, together with Authoritative Admonitions and Exhortations: Shewing thereafter, that the Pastors do Succeed to what is Ordinary in the Apostolick and Evangelistick Office: And their Episcopal Pastoral Authority, he proves from these notable known Passages, improven by the Presbyterians, Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1. 2. Tit. 1.5, 7. Now, I dare refer it to all Men of Sense, whether this Man, is not in this Point of the New Opinion of Scots Presbyterians, and stands Antipode to our Dr's Uniform Testimony of all Antiquity.

Shall we Consult yet another? Turret. (Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 17. Thes. 3.) Reasoning against Bellarmin, in Point of Peters pretended Primacy, he draws his Argument, [a Natura Apostolici Muneris] and tells the Iesuited Cardinal, and our Dr. with him, that the Apostles had an immediat Power and Jurisdiction, which they received from Christ immediatly. And (Thes. 4.) in Answer to Bellarmin, holding, (much to our Reverend Dr's Sense and Pleading) that Peter had the Pontificat, as an ordinary Pastor, to be therein succeeded. He Answers, that [gratis supponitur, &c.] it is without Ground presumed, that Peter was an ordinary Pastor, to whom any could succeed; Adding in the end, (denique cum Apostolatus, &c.) since the Apostolat as such, was an Extraordinary, Temporal, p. 93Transient Function, which was to expire and cease in the Church, it could have no Successors: Herein flatly giving the Lie to our Dr's Grand Topick and Principle, anent the permanent Function of Apostolat, as necessary in the Church till the End of Time. As for his Judgment of the Pastoral Office, as the Highest Ordinary Function of the Church, and the same with that of the Scripture Bishop and Presbyter, and by Consequence, the Succession thereof to what was Ordinary in the Apostolick Office, we have already made it appear.

Musculus (if I may Name him again, without Angring our Dr.) is full and clear to this Purpose, (de Offic. Minist. P. 358, 359.) (Apostolus est, qui, &c.) That the Apostles were not set over any one particular Church, but the Lords Command to them, was, that they should Preach the Gospel through the World, and the Command (Go, Teach all Nations) was peculiar to them. And (P. 360.) he shews, that Pastors were the same with Bishops, and were in this distinguished from Apostles, that they were sent to Teach and Feed particular Churches, and fixed to them.

Amand. Polan. (Syntag. Theol. Lib. 7. Cap. 11. de Minist. Ecclesiae) describes thus the Apostolick Office, (Apostoli Christi fuerunt Christi Discipuli immediate ab ipso edocti, &c.) That the Apostles were the Disciples of Christ, immediatly Instructed by him, sent to Preach the Exhibiting of the Messiah before his Ascension, and thereafter to Preach to the whole World, and thus to Found the Gospel Church, having this Testimony from God, that they could not err in Doctrine, &c. Afterward, he tells us, what were the Privilegia Apostolorum, and the Prerogative Praeordinari…s Novi-Testamenti Ministris, their Prerogatives above the ordinary Ministers of the New Testament; Instancing, 1. Their immediat Institution by Christ. 2. Their immediat Mission by him to Teach. 3. Their General Legation to the whole World, with Authority of Founding Churches every where, not in one place only, Citing 2 Cor. 11.28. where Paul shews, that the Care of all the Churches was upon him. 4. The Visible Symbol and Badge of this Legation, viz. the conferring of the Visible Gifts of the Spirit by Imposition of Hands. 5. Their Immunity from all Error, after their Receiving the Holy Spirit, in the Day of Pentecost. 6. Their Extraordinary Authority against the Rebellious, Citing 2 Cor. 10.6, 8. where Paul mentions his Readiness to Revenge all Disobedience, and the Authority hereanent, for the Edification of the Church, whereof he might Boast. 7. Their Prophetical Gift, in shewing things to come. The 8th. Prerogative, he represents thus [Authoritas qua nullus ex Discipulis ipsorum comparari cum ipsis unquam potuit aut potest, qua enim Apostoli Christi supra Ecclesiam reliquam extit…runt] Their singular Authority, which was of such a Nature, that none of their Disciples or Successors, in an ordinary Ministry, could be p. 94compared with them, nor can be; For as Apostles, they had a Supereminent Authority over the whole Church. (P. 538.) He describes the Pastors to be such, as are set over some particular Flock, Citing Act. 20.28. Here I need not tell the Dr, that this Man also, is of the Novel Scots Opinion, and if we may believe the Dr's Reverence, a Socinian, as to the Sense of the Extraordinary Apostolick Office, giving the same. Sense of its Ingredients as we do, and holding that the Apostles neither were, nor could be succeeded in their Office, and consequently, that their Formal Office, as such, ceased with themselves. He asserts, (ibid.) the Official Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter; And thereafter tells us, that (Episcopi omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt) All Pastors are the proper Successors of the Apostles in the Gift of Feeding & Teaching the Church, Citing Anaclet. Dist. 21. Cap. in Novo, & Hierom. ut citatur Dist. 35. Cap▪ Ecclesiae (si in Apostolorum Loco sumus, &c.) Asserting that Pastors are properly in the Place of Apostles, in the Exercise of an Ordinary Ministry: And▪ also▪ — Urbanus Secundus ex August. Dist. 68.

Another yet of the New Scots Opinion, in this point of the Apostles extraordinary expired Office, we may propose, yea oppose to the Dr. viz: the Famous and Learned Rivet. Cathol. Orthodox. Tract. 28. Quest. 23. Ballaeus the Iesuit, against whom he disputes, proposing the Question in his Catholick Catechism (Habent ne Episcopi in Sacerdotes reliquos que ordines praeeminentiam) Whether Bishops has a Pre-eminence above Priests, and all other Orders of the Ministry. I need not tell the Dr. the Answer of his Catholicus papista, the same it is with that of our Catholick Dr. and upon a pretence of (universalis▪ patrum consensus) universal consent of the Fathers. The great Answer is (Apostolis Episcopos successisse) That the Hierarchical Bishops have succeeded the Apostles, in their proper formal Office. And to shew the sweet Harmony betwixt these Dear Catholicks and Patrons of that Cause, our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his second Chapter, viz: Of the succession of Bishops to the Apostles. And remarkable it is, that the Catholick Iesuit and he, pleads upon the same very Grounds, viz: The Apostolat called Episcopacy Act. 1. — Then comes in Iames's Episcopacy at Ierusalem ▪ — Afterwards the warry Iesuit strikes Hands with our Dr. in obviating the Objection taken from the Nominal Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, shewing that this will not infer the Protestants dangerous heresie of the Identity of the Office— Then comes in the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus — yea, and our Dr's. Testimony of Tertullian is not forgot (lib. de Baptismo) (Episcopus Baptizandi autoritate pollet, &c.) That the Bishop has the power of Baptizing, then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority, that the Subordination of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy, may be kept intire. — Thereafter the Iesuit, as our Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers p. 95as pleading for a confused Parity Well, some will alledge, the Dr. in this point, is pretty near the Sacred Order. I cannot here transcribe all that this French, or Scots Novelist Presbyterian, Rivet, returns in Answer to this point, which I really judge, had our Dr. impartially read and perused, it would have saved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet. He is first severe to the Iesuit, and to our Dr. as to the Name Sacerdos, or Priest, whereby they represent Pastors (De Episcoporum in Sacerdotes praeeminentia, saith he, frustra disputatur, cum sacerdotum ordo nullus sit in Christianismo, ut antea docuimus, &c.) That there is no access for a Debate concerning the Pre-eminence of Bishops above Priests, since in the Christian Church there is no order of Priests as he hath before taught; (so upon the preceeding Question, Par. 4.) He tells his Adversary, the Protestant Churches acknowledges no Priests properly so called, for offering Sacrifice in the Christian Church, and that CHRIST the Eternal Priest, has no Successor: Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priests for Ministers, if you will accord with Rivet, but there is no access for this Admonition to a Dr. fixed in his Perswasion, again all Scots or Extraneous Novelists ▪ Thereafter, he is positive in asserting our Principle of Parity against his Dr. Iesuita, and our Dr. (Negamus, saith he, Episcopos supra Presbyteros jure Divino praeeminentiam hàbere.) He denys the Bishop's Preeminence by Divine Right above Pastors. Thereafter, reciting the Iesuits Medium and our Dr's (quod Episcopi Apostolis, Presbyteri Discipulis suec…sserant… ) That Bishops Succeeded the Apostles, and Pastors the Seventy Disciples: He answers thus [hoc falsum est, ac utrorumque Officio contrarium, quod extraordinarium fuit — nemoque ipsis in eodem ordine ac autoritate successit: Quamvis omnes vere Pastores Apostolor…m in Doctrinae publicatione, & Iurisdionis Ecclesiasticae exercitio, successores dici possunt] That this Asserton is false and contrary to the office of both Apostles and Evangelists, which was extraordinary, and none did succeed them in the same Order, Office and Authority, altho all true Pastors, in respect of the publication of the Doctrin, and the exercise of Ecclesiastick Disciplin, may be called Successors of the Apostles. Here, the Scots Presbyterian Opinion, pretty clear: Mr. Dr. it seems Rivet was in this Point a Socinian; and a gross ignoramus in all Antiquity. I cannot stand to transcribe his Answers, to our Dr's. and the Iesuits ▪ Arguments Subjoined. His Answer to that of confusion of Names, as not inferring the sameness of things, is thus (faetor vocum confusionem non semper verum identitatem innuere, sed cum res eadem iis attribuuntur quibus eadem nomina dantur, vera est synonomia, si quidem nomen cum definitione sit commune) That granting that confusion of Names does not alwise infer the identity of the things themselves, yet when the same things are attribute to those, to whom the same Names are given, there is a true Syn…nomie or sameness of both Name and thing, the Name being common with the definition. Here▪ p. 96in this one J…dicious Answer, he cuts the Sinews of all our Dr's Reasoning upon this head. Then for Confirmation of this Identity, he Cites 1 Tim 3.1, 2. Tit. 1.5.7. And from these known pregnant Passages pleads as we do, that the Name, Qualities, and Ordination of Bishop and Presbyter are the same. For Tertullians Testimony, which the Dr. Iesuita (and our Dr) cites, he tells him, That Tertullian speaks (de humano ordine su… tempore recepto) of the human Order or custom, received in his time, which was, that the (probatus quisque Senior) or every approven Presbyter (as he expresses it Apol. Cap. 39.) presided over the Collegiat Meeting of Pastors, and was called Bishop. The same, he tells the Iesuit, may be applyed to Ignatius's Epistles, and what is Cited from them to this Scope (si sicuti jam se habent fidem mererentur) upon condition, that they deserved to be credited, as, they are now presented: But then subjoins (sed omnibus notum est eas additionibus ac dimunitionibus fuisse corruptas) But it is known to all, that they have been corrupted with additions and Dimunitions: Referring upon the Margin to his Crit. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Cooks Censure, & Vedel. Not.

Wallaeus de past. P. (mihi) 473, ascribs also to Apostles the extraordinary call and Function, upon Grounds of their immediat vocation, citing Gal. 1▪ 1. Paul's calling himself an Apostle, not of Men, nor by Man; their infallibility in Doctrin, &c. The ordinary Officers and Successors of Apostles, he holds to be the Pastors, as being first planted by them in the Churches; for which he Cites and improves these places Act. 14.23. where we find the Apostles Ordaining Ministers or Elders, Church by Church, as their proper immediat Successors, in an ordinary Ministry: Tit. 1.5.7. where the Office of Bishop and Presbyter, is identified in Name and thing; 2 Tim. 2.2. where he is enjoyned to commit what he had heard of Paul to faithful Men, able to Teach others: So Act. 20.28. where the Episcopal Office is enjoined to Elders by Paul in his last farewell to the Church of Ephesus: So also Eph. 4.11. with Rev. 2.3. In which places, the Pastors power and Jurisdiction, is to this Scope asserted.

Iunius Cont. 5th Lib. 1. Chap. 14. Not. 15. hath these notable words (nunquam instituit Christus ut Apostolis. Secundum gradum succederetur quae res si fuisset▪ jam Apostolatus functio ordinaria dicenda esset, hoc autem veritati & rationi adversatur: omnes Dei servi in Doctrinam Apostolorum suecesserunt, in gradum eorum neminem adoptavit Deus. God never appointed or allowed any succession to the Office and degree of Apostolat, which had it been, the Office of the Apostles, might be called ordinary, but this is contrary to the Truth and sound Reason. All the servants of God, have succeeded into the Doctrin of the Apostles, but God hath adopted none of them into the Apostles degree and Office.

p. 97None succeeded to Apostles and Evangelists, as to the degree and Office (saith Baynes) since it was extraordinary and temporary. The Pastors and Presbyters, because ordinary Officers, succeed them from another Line, but not as one Brother succeeding to another, in the Right of inheritance— As the Laws of Moses, during that Oeconomy, were to be kept, tho Moses, who delivered them, had none Succeeding him, in his Office and degree; So, neither were the Rules in Government, presented in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus, delivered to any succeeding them in their Office.

Ecclesiastical Authority (saith Gerson de potest. Eccles. considerat. 6ta) may be considered either formally, absolutely, or respectively, as applyed to this or that person, and executively. Altho the Authority absolutely considered▪ continues the same, yet in the application, it is various; and that which was in Apostles and Evangelists, remained not alwise with such Apostles and Evangelists: As in Point of Right, none could succeed to the degree of Apostles and Evangelists, so in Matter of Fact, none did succeed.

Causabon (exercit. 14. P. 314.) makes this the quarta Nota of the Apostolat, Potestas longe major & Augustior quam ulli unquam alii functioni Spirituali fuerit attributa. The fourth discriminating mark of an Apostle, is with Causabon, their greater and more Venerable Authority and Power, than was competent or allowed to any other Spiritual Function or Office. Which he illustrats from Chrysostom, 1 Cor. 12.29. asserting the Apostles to be above all other Spiritual Functions.

Quis nescit (saith August. lib. 2 de Baptismo cap. 1.) illum Apostolatus Episcpatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum. Who knows not that the Episcopacy of Apostles, is set above all other Episcopacy whatsomever?

Now, I supose from what is said, it is evident, that this Man, in stead of exposing the Presbyterians, in this account of their Judgement, anent the Apostolick Office, hath opposed himself to Protestant Divines, and hath blotted himself, as a Calumniator of the true Protestant Doctrine in this point, espousing therein the Popish Cause and Interest.

But let us hear what is our Dr's. Account of the Apostolick Office: It is thus: In opposition to which, saith the Dr. P. 96. (i. e. the premised Presbyterian, or rather Protestant Account of the Apostolick Office) We affirm (had he added, we Catholicks and Iesuits, some would alledge the Epithet had been suteable to his Doctrine) Well, What affirms he? That the true Characteristick, formal, and distinguishing Mark of an Apostle, was his Constant, Supreme, Spiritual, Perpetual Power, Authority; and Iurisdiction, over all subordinat Officers, and all others believing in Christ, and his Power to transmit this Authority to his Successors, according to the Command of our Saviour. Here, p. 98we have it in his own Words: Upon which, 1. Let it be considered, that he presents this Description and Account of the Apostolick Office, in opposition to that which he premiseth as ours. We hold, as well as he, that the Apostles had a Supreme (though collateral and equal) and Spiritual Power and Authority over Officers and Members of the Church: Only we add these further Characteristicks of their Office, viz: Their extraordinary Gifts, their immediat Call, including and having connected therewith, an unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations, as himself words our Tenet, and which is also proved from that Passage he cites, Matth. 28. Now, since in opposition to our Description, he holds, that his, not ours, are the proper discriminating Marks, whereby Apostles were distinguished from other Officers, he must of necessity, hold that these Characters are proper to other Officers, as well as them, For, there is no Mids: Either these Prerogatives were peculiar to Apostles, or proper to others also, and thus common to both, and it being so, not to mention other properties, since their unconfined Commission to Preach to all Nations; And he cannot but acknowledge as immediat Officers of all the Churches, in actu exerciso, and in order to the founding them, and planting Gospel Ordinances, and Officers therein, according to our Saviours Commission, Matth. 28. is our great Mark and Characteristick of an Apostle, I challenge him to shew me, what succeeding ordinary Officer, had this applicable to him, whether of his supposed Epis…opal Mould or any other. The D… will not deny, that upon this Ground, the Churches are said to be built upon the Apostles Foundation, and this in an exclusive Sense, not the Foundation of any succeeding Officers, whether the Dr. call them Subordinat or otherwise; And he knows the Churches Foundation is not to be twice laid; So, that he is obliged either to produce succeeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power, or acknowledge this his Description naught, which he so vainly offers, in opposition to the Account of this Office, offered by Protestant Divines. 2. He sayes, That this power was constant, perpetual, and to be transmitted to Successors. Here, I ask him, whether the Apostles were to transmit their Power to one Successor and Supreme President, or to devolve their Collateral, Universal Power over all Believers, and all subordinat Officers, to respective Successors, coming after every one of them? If the Dr. adhere to the first, he clearly homologats the Papal Pleadings for a Primacy over the Church Universal: And indeed, his owning as a Patern to the New Testament Church, the Continuance of the Iewish Oeconomy, does much oblige him thereunto. If he assert, that every one of the Apostles had a respective Successor, then his Descrip…on obliges him to mantain that every such Successor, has transmited unto him, A Perpetual, Spiritual, Constant, p. 99Universal Inspection over all Churches, both Ministers and Believers: For, this essential Authority of Apostles, he affirms, they were to transmitt to Successors, and that according to the Command of our Saviour.

But to proceed; Let us Listen to our Dr's Explication, (P. 97.) The Apostles Permanent Successive Power, was to Preach the Gospel, Govern the Churches they Planted, give Rules and Directions to Successors in the same Office, and all Subordinat Ecclesiasticks, Inflict Censures, Communicat this Authority to others, Hear Complaints, Decide Controversies, Settle Church Discipline, Conferr the Holy Ghost, as the Necessity of the Faithful requires — (He tells us, He understands the Gifts, that must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy Things) This being Essentially the Apostolick Office, it remains for ever in the Church, the ordinary Necessities thereof, requiring it should continue till Christs coming. Here, First, I would enquire again, since the Power thus described, is in the Dr's Sense, Permanent and Successive, and necessary to the Church, whether is it so, as devolved upon every Person Succeeding, and in the same Extent, and for the same E…ds, as the Apostles Exercised it? If it be not, then every Body of Common Sense, knows, that this Apostolick Power and Office, cannot be called Permanent and Successive, and of a continued standing Necessity in the Church, no more than a Pastors ordinary Power to Preach and Baptize, will prove this, and that they hold this entire Apostolick Office, which he describes. If this Apostolick Power and Office, be devolved in its entire extent, and to every Person Succeeding, then every Person thus Succeeding, has an Entire, Unconfined, Universal Authority and Inspection over all the Churches, all Ecclesiasticks and Believers, to use his own Terms, and are obliged by their Office, to Preach unto, and Govern them all, as the Apostles did, to give Rules, Inflict Censures upon all Subordinat Officers. If he say, that every Apostle did not so Extensively Preach and Govern: I Answer, even admitting some Gradual Difference in the Extent of the Actual Exercise, yet this did no whit Lessen their Universal Commission, exprest Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Proportioned Endeavour, could not Impeach their standing Authority over all the Churches, and their Relation, in Actu Exercito, as immediat Catholick Officers thereof: And the Dr, in saying, That this Authority and Iurisdiction reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers; without Exception, (which very Power, he affirms, they were to Transmit to Successors) confirms what I said, and cuts him off from this Evasion. To clear this further, in the second place, it may be asked, whether these supposed Successors, are Authorized to Plant Churches, give Rules to them, Decide Controversies, Conferr the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles did, with Respect to the End, Manner, and Extent foresaid? If not, then sure this Power is Transient, not Permanent and Successive, as the Dr. calls it. If they have this Power of p. 98duplicate page p. 99duplicate page p. 100Apostles, as above exprest; Then first, there lyes upon every such Successor, an Obligation to Plant Churches, where they were not; For, he will not deny that the Apostles were to Plant & to Govern the Churches Planted, and to give Rules and Directions thereanent. The Absurdity of which Assertion, is sufficiently apparent, and its necessary Dependence upon what he asserts, no less evident. But while we speak of Successors giving Rules, the Dr. would do well to inform us, what Rules he means, whether the Apostles Rules, or others? If the same, then they could not Succeed the Apostles in Authoritative, Infallible Delivery of the first Gospel Rules, this Work being already done: If others; then the Dr. will ascribe to them such a Nomothetick Authority as to Rules, as no Church can now acclaim, in the Sense of all Protestant Divines. If he say, he means an Application or Declarator of Apostolick Rules, in particular Cases: Then I Answer, This is not the Apostolical Delivery of Rules, as all Men know, but is toto coelo different from it, both in its Nature and Extent; So, that this Shift will not help the Dr. out of the Briars. But in the next place, the Dr. has told us, of an Apostolical derived Power in Deciding Controversies, which he appropriats to the Bishops their Successors, and in the Sequel of his Reasoning, must atribute it to every one of them. And here, I would enquire of him, how did the Apostles Decide Controversies? The Dr. will not deny, that any one of the Apostles, by virtue of their Authority and Infallibility, could decide Controversies infallibly, as being our Saviours Living Oracles and having the Mind of Christ: And what Bishop, or Succeeding Church Officer, I pray, has this Power and Authority? We know, General Councils have erred in their Decisions: But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bishop, by this his New Notion. Or, if the Dr allay and lessen this Decision, either as to Extent or Authority, then he is still in the Briars, and baffles his own definition and explication. Further, the Dr. has told us, the Bishops succeeds the Apostles in giving the Holy Ghost. The Scriptures tells us the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost, and even Miraculous visible Gifts thereof, by imposition of Hands; and we have heard, that Protestant Divines ascribe this to them, as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives: The Dr. will needs have them succeeded in this. But being someway sensible of the absurdity of this lax Assertion, he restricts it to such Gifts, as must needs attend the Authoritative Ministry of Holy things. Be it so; but will he say, that the Apostles did no otherways give the Holy Ghost? This he cannot assert. Then I say. 1. He must acknowledge, that here is a defective, maimed, not an intire Succession in this work and part of their Office. 2. The Dr would be puzzled to shew a Reason, why he restricts and limits this Point of the Succession, rather than the rest. Finally, the Dr. calls this Power of the Apostles, Supreme, and no doubt, p. 101since it is with him, one Criterion of the Apostolick Office, and competent to all their Successors the Bishops, in this Apostolick extent; For, he affirms, that this Power of the Apostles, is perpetual and necessary in the Church, and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein: And here, the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould, in Point of Power, these Bishops are, whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office: For, that de facto, there is a great variety in the extent of their Power, he will not deny. Whether doth he hold, that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor? or the Arch Bishop? or only Primats? If every Bishop does thus succeed (which the Series of his Arguing seems to import) then I would know, how a Bishop with a derived, subaltern, subordinat Power, limit to a certain, and may be, not a very great Precinct or district, can be said to succeed the Apostles, in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks? Let him make Sense of this, if he can: If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district: Then, 1. They no more succeed the Apostles, in the Power by him described, than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom, can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne. 2. If he once break square thus, and infringe his own Rule, his measures and description, he must consequently acknowledge, that a Government in the smallest precinct, yea, even of a Pastor over his Flock, is eaten us, a Succesion to the Apostles. If he say, the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks, and consequently, no Apostolick Succession, in his Sense: I Answer, neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks, which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession. If he own, that only Arch Bishops ▪ are such Successors; Then, 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops, in universum, as succeeding the Apostles, in a Rectoral Power. 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks, Preach if their Lordships please, give Rules of Disciplin, hear complaints, decide Controversies, &c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist, how can he deny, even to Diocesan Bishops, this Succession? 3. Suppose, but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered, the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government, there, according to his Pattern and Principles.

But to proceed, if the Dr. hold, that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans, have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession; I would know upon what ground, he can defend this in his Principles? I know none, except that of the extent of their Power, be alledged. But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself: For the Apostolick Power, which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent, extended to all Churches, to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers. And besides, suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled, the Dr. will not assert, that he has an Authority paramount to it, by his Office, and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he, existent, whose Power may be paramount to his, in p. 102the Council, or otherwise. Thus, we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat, and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto, has involved himself, and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone, which still returns upon him, and renews his Labour.

But in the next place, the Dr. (P. 97.98.) tells us, That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, Power of Miracles, Languages, other Spiritual Furniture, were temporary, extrinsick advantages, necessary for first forming the Christian Church, and when this Fabrick is erected, Scaffoldings are removed. But I should think, if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts, as necessary advantages and furniture for the same, then they were intrinsick, not extrinsick to the Office it self; Which I will prove to the Dr, by a paralel Argument, the Topick whereof, he must needs owne: To be apt to Teach, to have Spiritual knowledge, and the Gift of utterance, in a competent Measure, prudence, a competent knowledge of the Scriptures, and Languages thereof, he will acknowledg, are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin: Therefore, say I, they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office; For, 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts, in order to admission to that Office. And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office, with the Gifts for it, and the one in an ordinary way, must be made Appear by the other: I hope, the Dr▪ and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning. Now, let me subsum upon this Conclusion; In like manner, the Apostolick Office required these works or duties, whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame. 1. They were to teach all Nations; this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues, wherefore on the day of Penticost, they were thus sealled; Yea were, Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal. 2. Another piece of their work, was, to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles, then new and unknown, thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world, as also, to the Iews, as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel, before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand: This Work required the Gift of Miracles. 3. They were to form the Christian Church, and lay the ground plott of its Government, and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship; This required an infallible directive Power and Authority, in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof. 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation, in actu secundo, to all Churches, so that they were, while alive, solely such Officers thereof: Hence, their very Office being of this Nature, and supposing the Christian Church a forming & erecting, it is certain, that taken in a proper formal Sense, with these its Ingredients, i… is the Scaffolding which is removed▪ when this Fabrick is erected, since, p. 103now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission, Commission, and Authority. Further, The Command, [Go teach all Nations] he must hold still vigent, as essentially included in the Apostolick Office, for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power, from their extraordinary expired Priviledges (P. 96.) so that he must needs acknowledge, that this requiring the Gift of Tongues, it was essential thereunto. Again, he holds, there is a Supreme Power of Government, constant and transmitted to the Church: And this Supreme Power necessarly requires, (1.) Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government; For, that upon the ground of such a Supremacy, the Apostles had an Infallibility, in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government, delivered to the Churches, the Dr. will not deny. (2.) He cannot deny this necessary Consequence, That therefore, they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power; And this in his Principles, he must needs hold to be transmitted: For, if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two, surely nothing will. And the Dr. will not say, that Supremacy over all Church Officers and Members, are temporary expired Priviledges; For this he clearly distinguishes from them: And it being thus; the Question still recurrs to what Bishops he ascribs this? Whether to some of them who are of Special Character, or to all? If to all, then none of them are subordinat and accountable to another, as being all Infallible and Supreme, in the Exercise of their Government. If to some only, under what Character are they? Primats, Arch-bishops, or Patriarchs? And whether are they subject to one Head? If to one Head, then they loss the Priviledge of Supremacy, wherein the Dr. makes an Apostolick Succession to consist: Yet it will be hard to say, that they were not subject to a General Council, as to their Doctrine and Administration: And sure I am, the Dr. will assert, that the Apostles had such a Supreme Power, as put them beyond the reach of Subjection to any Church Judicatory, and this their Supreme Authority, he asserts to be Constant and Permanent, still necessary for the Church, and died not with their Persons: So, that here is another confused Maze and Farrago of Inconsistencies.

But further, to shew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him, two things are again considerable: First, He holds the Iewish OEconomy never to have been abrogat, but to be still vigent, as it exemplifies a Pattern to the New Testament Church; This he acknowledges had a Supreme High Priest, who was an OEcumenick President over that Church, over all inferior Priests▪ and all their Courts: For, he wil be far from admitting any inferior Priests to share in this Priviledge. Hence, i… inevitably follows, that this Supremacy is in his Sense, applicable only to the Supreme OEcumenick President, that the Christian Church may come up p. 104to its Pattern. And it being thus, let us in the next place see, how he notwithdanding crosses this in two Points; 1. In making this Constant, Supreme, Spiritual Power, over all Members and Officers in the Christian Church, to have been first exercised by every one of the Twelve Apostles, and by them derived to their respective Successors. 2. In holding in discriminatim, and without any note of distinction of one from another, that the Bishops (yea, all Bishops) are Successors of the Apostles; he means in a proper formal Sense: For, this is the very Title of this goodly Chapter, of the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, as is said. Further, I would gladly know, whether our Dr. ownes any Church-Power to have been transmitted to Presbyters or Pastors, and to be asserted, Act. 20 28. 1 Pet, 5.2. Heb. 13.7.17. and many such places, pleaded by the Presbyterians: It is probable, he will acknowledge this, so that it be within their Precincts, & insubordination to the Bishops. Now, I pray, why will he deny them the Priviledge of Succession to Apostles, in point of Church Power? He hath no Shadow of Ground, unless upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bishop; So, that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power, as he defines that of the Bishops, as succeeding Apostles therein. And I beseech him, why are not the Bishops, upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior Bishops, equally cut off from this Priviledge? If he say, the Bishops Power reaches to Church Officers under them, not that of Presbyters; I have already told him, what an Insignificant Evasion this is, and that he cuts himself off from this Answer, in that he makes this Apostolick Power, which is Transmitted to Successors, to be a Jurisdiction and Authority over all Subordinat Officers, all Ecclesiasticks, and all others Believing in Christ. And he tells us, That the Apostles were to give Directions to their Suceessors in the same Office. So, that if it be not thus understood, who can reconcile his Words to Sense? For, he distinguishes the Successors to their Office, from such as he calls Subordinat Ecclesiasticks, who have no such Authority. And to say the Office is perpetual and permanent, that the Office imports Essentially a Supreme Power over all Church Officers and Members, and is thus distinguished from all Inferior Offices, that this very Office is derived to Successors, as being Essential and necessary to the Church Government in all Ages, and yet that these Successors, one or more, have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of Ground or District, is such a palpable Contradiction and Non-Sense, as none can be more evident.

We are told, (P. 98.) That the Essence of the Apostolick Office, consisted not in the forementioned extraordinary Priviledges— but in the Rectoral Power, Transmitted to their Successors in all Ages. I have told him, and made it appear, that their Rectoral-Power, necessarly included these Priviledges, and since he acknowledges, that the Essence of their Office consisted in their Rectoral p. 105Power, it does necessarly follow, that these being of the Essence of that Power, they were Essential to the Office. We acknowledge with him, that they were by their Office distinguished from Subordinat Officers; The Dr. infers, That therefore, this Distinction must consist in something so peculiar to them, as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this Character. Before I come to a direct Answer, I will here cleave all his Reasoning asunder, with a Wedge of his own Setting. The Apostles Universal, Unconfined Inspection over all Churches, Planted and to be Planted, and as Catholick Universal Ministers thereof, in Actu Exercito, is that whereby they are distinguished from other Officers, who are not of that Character: And being thus distinguished, this must of necessity be the Essence of their Office; for it is the Essence, from which Essential Distinctions flows: Yet, we will find the Dr. Disowning and Denying this (P. 96.) Next, from hence, its easie to infer, that to give Successors the true Apostolick Character and Power, it must be of this Nature and Extent, else its Hetrogeneous unto, and comes short of its Pattern▪ Will any Rational Man deny, that the Rectoral Power derived to Apostles by our Saviour, wherein he says, the Essence of their Office did consist, was of this Nature and Extent? Now, let him produce, if he can, any one Officer or Successor, with this Character. Again, that whereby they were distinguished, or what was peculiar to them, may be understood two ways, 1. Materially, or Simplely. 2. Formally, or as making up their Complex Office, with its other Ingredients, and as properly subservient to the proper, formal, immediat Ends thereof. In the first Sense, there were several things, whereby they were not properly distinguished from other Officers at that time, considering them materially and remotely; such as Gifts of Tongues, Miracles, &c. which others had in their own Sphere and Degree: But formally, they were proper to Apostles, considering their Degree, Circumstances, and proper immediat End. Others had Gifts of Tongues, and of Miracles, but these Gifts were distinguished from those of Apostles, upon the Ground above exprest. I would make it evident by a Scripture Instance: Our Saviour shews what Miraculous Signs shall follow them that believe; And in these first times, gives Instance, viz. their Casting out Devils, Speaking with Tongues, Taking up Serpents without Hurt, (this we read of Paul, Act. 28.) their Drinking Deadly Things without Prejudice; yet Paul says, speaking of these extraordinary Gifts, [truely the Signs, Wonders and Mighty Deeds of an Apostle are wrought among you] But notwithstanding this, we know that Stephen, tho no Apostle, did Wonders among the People. But who knows not, that in the Apostles, these Actings of the Divine Power, were of another Nature, and for another immediat End, viz. To Confirm and Ratifie an Apostolick p. 106Authority, as the Churches Infallible, Universal, First Messengers, upon whose Doctrine, the Foundation of the Church was to be laid? Thus, according to the Sense of the Judicious and Learned Professors of Leyden, their Office consisted in this, That they were Christs Universal Ambassadours to lay every where the Foundation of the Gospel Church, and were sent immediatly▪ and extraordinarly by him, instructed with Infallibility in Doctrine, and Power to Confirm it with Miracles. So, that in their Sense, and in the Sense of Sound Divines, already exhibit, when we speak of the Apostolick Office, somethings were more remotely, and less principally, Ingredients therein; somethings, more immediatly and properly, to which the other was subservient. Their Office lay in that Universal Legation mentioned, and as Levelled at that great End of Founding the Gospel Church, which necessarly included their immediat Mission, as is said; other things, as Correspondent to this End, were Ingredients in their Office, in the remote Sense above cleared, such as the Gifts of Tongues, Miracles, &c. This serves to Unravel our Dr's Foolish Notion, which he has (P. 98, 99.) to disprove our Sense of the Apostolick Office: Such as, First, That the Laity, many of them, had Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost. I Answer, (not to stand upon his Expression, the Laity, or upon an Enquiry, who of them, had these Extraordinary, Ministerial Gifts) by denying they were either of that Nature, Measure, or for such an immediat End, as those of the Apostles. None certainly, had such a clear comprehensive, immediat, infallible Light in Divine things as they; And many things may convince the Dr. of this his Error: For, First, What meant else their Solemn Extraordinary Seal of the Spirit, Act. 2. striking the World with such Admiration? What need the Promise of the Spirit, to lead them unto all Truth, and endue them with Power from on High? Again, the Dr. will acknowledge, that the Apostolick Office was to Plant the Christian Church, and Gospel Ordinances through the World; And therefore, he must, by necessary Consequence, acknowledge, that their Gifts behoved to be, of such a Nature and Measure, as were suted to this End, and in special to the immediat infallible Government of the Churches, and the Direction of both Members and Officers thereof, in their respective Duties: Hence, our Lord spent fourty Days, after his Resurrection, in instructing them in the things, pertaining to his Kingdom, that they might be thus immediatly fitted for this Work. The Dr. will not deny, that the Pastoral Gifts before Instanced, of Scriptural Knowledge, Skill in the Languages, Prudence, &c. are proper Ingredients in that Office, and Characteristicks thereof, as suted to the Ends of the same, and the Evidences of the Divine Call, all other things concurring, notwithstanding that some of the Laity may have these Gifts. Next, for their Infallibility, the Dr. tells us, That the Evangelists and Seventy p. 107Disciples were such. I Answer, supposing the Seventy to be Evangelists, I deny this Infallibility competent to them, understanding it of such a Nature and Extent as competent unto Apostles, and an Ingredient of their Office, else I beseech him, why was Timothy, after his Inauguration instructed by the Apostle, in reference to so many Points of his Office and Duty, and so many things pointed out to him to beware of? As for Lukes Writing from the Testimony of Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word; Any with half an Eye, may see, that this falls utterly short of proving an Apostolick Infallibility, in its Nature and Extent, and with respect to its Ends; Altho the Spirit of GODs infallible Guidance in what he wrote, is necessarly supposed. What he means by Under-Ministers, I understand not: If the Spirit of GOD, made use of his Information by Apostles or others, in order to His End of this infallible Writing, can any imagine that this will prove an Apostolick Infalibility, properly and formally such? As for Stephens doing Miracles, and being endued with such Wisdom, as Adversaries could not resist him: I deny the Consequence, that therefore he had Infallibility, or Gifts of Miracles of that Nature and Extent, or to such a proper immediat End, as was competent to the Apostles, upon the Ground already exhibite. Next, He tells us, That Matthias was not immediatly called, but by the Apostles, yet had power to continue that Succession to the End. I deny his Assertion, which is among the rest of his gratis dicta: It is evident to any, that but reads the History, that Matthias was by GODs immediat choice and Declaration by a Lot (the Disposal whereof, is of the LORD) set a part for his Work and Office, and GOD was sought unto by Prayer to shew His Mind, as touching this Choice: Which therefore, was immediatly his own. It is true, the Apostles, who had the Mind of CHRIST, did with the consent of the Church, present the two to the LORD, but the Choice and Call was GODs. And the presenting of these Eminent Persons to GOD by the Church, will no more prove that Matthias was called and authorized by them, than the Peoples presenting the seven Deacons to the Apostles, to be ordained, will prove that they, not the Apostles, ordained them. The Dr. tells us, That the first Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection — yet this did not make them Apostles. What does he drive at? None sayes, that merely to witness this, made any of them Apostles, or that to be an immediat Witness of it, was indispensably needful in order to the Apostolick Office: For, so was not the Apostle Paul: Altho there is no doubt but that the Testimony of CHRISTs Resurrection, was a great Point of the Apostolick Doctrine and Testimony. But the Dr. will needs add his Proof, Or else, saith he, Matthias had been an Apostle before he was Invested. Who would not pitty such impertinent triff…gs? I know none who asserts, that to be a Witness of CHRISTs p. 108Resurrection made an Apostle; Who knows not that several Women (incapable of a Ministry) were among the early and first Witnesses of our LORDs Resurrection: Besides, that the Dr. has not proved that Matthia… was such an immediat Witness. The Dr's. Conclusion (ibid.) is That the Essence of the Apostolick Office, consisted not in extraordinary Priviledges, so plentifully poured out on the first Ministers and Converts. We have told him, in what Sense, the Apostolick Office included these Ingredients thereof: And even granting that some of these extraordinary Priviledges or Gifts, might have been in some Sense communicated to other Officers; The Dr. is never a white nearer his Conclusion, since the Apostles proper Work and Function consisted in this, to lay the Foundation of the Gospel Church, to plant and water it, and as being infallibly inspired, to order the Ordinances and Officers thereof, as being Immediat and Catholick Officers of the same: Herein, we have often told him, lay their Office, as to its main Essentials, and unto this their other Prerogatives, were Subservient. Now, in all his Instances, he has exhibite none, who ever did or could share with them in this Priviledge. 2. He alledges (P. 96.) That we include among the Essentials of their Office, their unconfined Commission to propagat the Gospel among all Nations — which necessarly includes an Immediat Relation, in actu secundo, to the whole Church, and inferrs their Duty to be of the Nature and Extent, as above exprest — Yet he neither can, nor offers to give the least shadow of any such Officer, that did or could share with the Apostles, or come up to them in this Prerogative. The Dr. Concludes, That the Nature and Essence of the Apostolick Office is perpetual. His Conclusion is like some Mushroms, that Naturalists speaks of as a Miracle of Nature, because they grow without a Root: His Reason [that our Saviour promised to be with them to the end] is as far remote from the Conclusion, as East is from West, taking the essence of the Office, in a proper formal Sense, as Apostolick. For, himself will not say, that this promise will includ the continuance of all the Apostolick Priviledges or Gifts, several of which, he holds to be expired. And therefore, it must still come under trial, wherein their Office was succeeded, even when this is admitted. How he has proven this, to be the Nature and Essence of their Office, we have seen above. Paraeus, with the current of Protestant Divines, takes the place he cites, to import a general promise to the whole Church, in specal the Faithful Ministers, the Apostles true Succcessors; thus he Paraphrases it [Nec paucis tantum diebus, sed omnibus vobiscum ero, nec vobiscum tantum, sed & vobis mortuis & cum vestris successoribus Fidelibus Evangelii Doctoribus Ecclesiarum Pastoribus usque ad consummationem saeculi] That the Lord promised to be with his Apostles, and when they were gone, with all their true Successors, the faithful Pastors and Doctors of the Church till the end of the World.

p. 109This derived Power, saith the Dr. (P. 100) is strictly Jure Divino: No doubt, that Power which the Apostles derived, is such▪ He adds, that nothing can more formally distinguish an Apostle from all other Ministers of the Gospel Oeconomy, than a supreme Spiritual Power to Govern Ecclesiastick affairs by their Authority, of which they are to give account to our Saviour. But we have often told him, that this Supreme Power, most formally includes an immediat Relation unto, and Universal inspection over the whole Church, and the nature of the Work, and consequently the Office, as is above exprest. And the Dr. when put to let us see the persons, who are the Subjects of this conveyed Power, what ordinary Church Officers, are the proper Recipients thereof, must go to Utopia to seek them; and in his arguing traverses in an inextricable Labyrinth; which, besides what is said, h…s in this late Passage, a new proof: For, he says, that the Apostles were to give an account to our Saviour of this Power, described by him. He will not say, they were to give this account merely, as all Ministers are, in a mediat Sense; For thus, he would contradict his Scope, of delineating their Supreme Power; so, that his meaning must be, that they were to give an account only to our Saviour, and were accountable or Subject to no Church Judicatory upon Earth, for their Administration. Now, Mr. Dr. except the Pope of Rome, your dear Patron, I know no Church Officer, whose head this infallible Mitre will sute; unless these Supreme Infallibles be multiplied, according to the Number of Bishops or Arch-Bishops, it must necessarly resolve thus in the Supreme incontrolable Patriarch: And what absurdity there is either in the one, or the other, I need not shew. We are told next, that the Name, with the Office, was derived to others, besides the Twelve— and Epaphroditus must needs be the Philippians Apostle and Bishop, because called their Apostle, Philip. 2.25. How impertinent this inference is, we have heard above. The Dr. alledges, the word signifies always a Messenger from God to Men. But Mr. Dr. your always, is here notably baffled, since, he is expresly called [their M…ssenger, sent to Paul, to Minister to his wants] This looks like a Messenger from Men to Men, unless the Dr. will deifie the Philippians, and deny them to be Men.

(P. 101.) Our English Translators miss their Mark, not only here, but in 2 Cor. 8.23. in Translating it thus [the Messengers of the Churches, and the Glory of Christ.] What Glory of Christ was it, saith he, that these Apostles were imployed from one Church to another —? but their Authoritative Delegation was his Glory. Therefore, the Dr. will have them understood to be their Apostles or Bishops. I Answer, the Translators could not but know, that the Sense and context necessarly led them to this Interpretation; the Apostle, being to commend unto this Church, while in treating of this Point of the Col…ection, p. 110the integrity of Titus, and the other Brethren, who, upon his exhortation, were come unto them, for this end, it follows necessarly, that their Mission and Message here intimated by this epithet, must be the same with that of Titus; So, that both appear to be sent in the same manner, and to the same scope. As for the Dr's Reason, its palpably naught; the Apostles scope is, to stir up this Church to their Duty of Charity, by these high Elogies put upon the Messenger sent to them, beginning with Titus, whom he calls his Partner and Fellow-Labourer; and the Argument is strong, and lyes Level to the Apostles Scope and Conclusion, v. 24. [therefore, shew ye to them, and before the Churches, the proof your Love] why to them? The Reason is, I have imployed in this Message to you, such eminent and Faithful Ministers, who are, as in that capacity, the Glory of Christ. I must tell him further, that as CHRIST Gloried to do the meanest Service to his Saints, and Humbled himself to Death for them, so such Ministers are likest their Master, who esteem the meanest Service to his Elect, their Glory, and above all worldly Dignity. Angels are Ministring Spirits to Gods Elect▪ David esteemed it more Honourable to be a Door-keeper in his House than all worldly Glory. His sense of Rom▪ 16.7. Will not help him, against the current of the Context and Interpreters. The Belgick Divines Translate it [Renouned among Apostles] i. e. say they them that Preach the Gospel here and there— or well known with the Apostles. Diodat, and the English Annot. take it to import [Excellent Evangelists or Preachers] or [such as were well known to the Apostles]

But now our Dr. (P. 101.102.) … obviat one main Objection taken from the narrow Limits of the secondarie Apostles, as he calls them; This, saith he, alters not the Nature of their Apostolical Power, within their Bounds, no more than Kings of Judah, can be denyed the Honour of sitting upon the Throne of David, in full Power and Royality, after the Apostacy— they were as tru…ly Kings▪ as any of their Predicessors, as Solomon, tho the number of Subjects was not equal. Ans. I pray, was not in his Sense, the Rectoral Spiritual Power, which our LORD conferred upon his Disciples and Apostles, of the Nature and Extent above exprest, and such, as he calls Suprem… over all Church Officers, and all other Believers—? And sayes he not expresly, that this very Power, thus described by him, is Essential to the Apostolick Office, and Permanent, and that the Apostolick Office being no other than this, remains for ever in the Church? How then is it possible, that such Officers, as derive down this extensive Apostolick Power, should crumble into a petty Diocess? How are such petty confined Successors, Supreme, and over all Church Officers? 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Reason, cutts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument. It is true, Kings … Iudah sat upon Davids ▪ Throne, in full Power over Iudah; But I pray, p. 111did they succeed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity, as they left it? I trow not. Now, he has told us, that the Bishops succeed the Apostles, in that same Supreme Authority over Church Officers, and all Believers, which Christ committed unto them. Should England be divided into two Kingdoms, or into an Heptarchy, will any say, that the Man who succeeds to one of these petty Dominions, succeeds to the Crown of England, or unto the Kings thereof, because they possess a part of his Throne and Dominion? Surely not: And so the Case is here. In a word, since in the Dr's. Sense, the narrowing the Limits of the Authority, impeaches not the Episcopal Power, and since, he will, no doubt, owne the Maxime, Maj…s & minus non variant speciem, Nazianzen, and such Bishops, as a…e said to have had but little Dorps for their Diocesses, had this Apostolick Power. What consequence this will bear, in reference to Pastors, some whereof, have a larger District, I have already told him.

P. 102. The Apostles Bounds and Provinces of their Inspection— was not as equal as their Power it self, wherewith they were vested— Who doubts of this? Whatever was their Condescension this way, and adjusted Measures of Travels, for the more commodious spreading of the Gospel, yet by vertue of their Commission, their Authority reached the whole World, and all Churches planted and to be planted, and this conjunctly and severally. As when the twelve Spies were sent to Canaan, whatever wayes they might have separatly gone, in a voluntary Condescension, yet their Authority and Commission, joyntly and a part, immediatly and formally, reached to a search of the whole Land. But I need not labour in proving this; For the Dr. is …o ingenuous, as to confess it, telling us, That the different extent of places, to which they went, did not alter or change that Rectoral Power and Iurisdiction wherewith they were endued: But thus he inferrs (ibid.) no more did the Apostolick Authority transmitted to Successors, differ from that which was lodged in the first Apostles, tho confined in its exercise to narrower Limits. But, good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pittyfully Lame, the Original Authority lodged in the Apostles, by our LORDs Commission, is, by your Confession and Description, immediatly relative to all Churches, and all Believers in them; So, that this immediat Relation, and a Right to Officiat upon Occasion accordingly, was still Vigent and Existent, with any one of the Apostles, tho ordinarly exercising their Ministry in never so narrow a Circle, every one of them, being Universal Doctors, Bishops, and Inspectors of the whole Catholick Church, planted and to be planted, and that ex natura officii, as Apostles: But I hope, ye will not say this of the Bishop, he being properly and immediatly related only to his Diocess. It had been a gross absurdity to say, Paul, or Iames, are only Apostles of such or such a Province, and have a Relation Apostolical to no other Church, as it is proper to say p. 112this Man as Bishop of such a Diocess, has an immediat Relation to it, and to no Diocess else. How often shall we tell the Dr. (whose nauseous Repetitions forces us to repeat) that the Apostles were capable of no particular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocess, being as Apostles, vi & natura officii, Catholick Doctors of the Church Catholick, and constant infallible Inspectors and Directors of its Government, and all the Ordinances and Officers thereof; And consequently, that this their proper formal Office of Apostolat, went off, and expired with that infant State and Exigence of the Church, and could never be succeeded unto by any Church Officer?

P. 103. We are told, That the Apostles by lot divided the places of their Travels — and went about what fell to their share. None doubts of this in general, tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots, and who were to go to Asia, who to Scythia, &c. is a piece of Discovery on the back of the Bible, which we let pass among the rest of the Dr's profound Notions. He adds, Its plain, that when Matthias was chosen, it was to take the lot of his Ministry and Apostleship. Who doubts of this either? And that every Apostle had a share of this Ministry of Apostolat, because all of the same Office. But this will noways infer (except by the Dr's Logick, which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet) that they were capable of a fixt Relation to any one Post, or Watch Tower of the Church. That they Governed the Churches where they resided, (as the Dr. next tells us) we doubt not. Tho I add, if the Churches were constitute in their Organick Beeing, according to Gospel Rules, their Apostolick Inspection was Cumulative unto, not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers Constitute therein. He adds, (ibid.) They committed their Apostolical Episcopal Inspection to particular Persons, who succeeded them, even in their Apostolick Authority. This is the foreign the Question, which the Dr. still Cants over without Proof. We have often told him, that their Apostolick Rectoral Power (as he calls it) related immediatly to the Catholick Church: And to say, that this they committed to particular Persons, related to one fixed Post, and by Consequence solely Pastors or Bishops thereof, in an immediat proper Sense, and subject to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judicatories, (which he must needs hold, unless he embrace the Independent Principles, and he cannot deny, that de Facto, the Bishops he pleads for, were and are thus subject) is as great Non-Sense, as to say, a Man succeeding to a Privat Cure, succeeds a Metropolitans Place, or that the Person who succeeds to an Episcopal Chair, doth succeed to the Papacy, in its supposed Rectoral Power. The Dr. doth here again Cant over, That their Rectoral P…wer distinguisht them from all Subordinat Officers. And from hence we rationally inferr, that all Ordinary Officers, being Inferior and Subordinat to p. 113them, this Rectoral Power reacht all Officers and Believers, as to the Ius it self, and consequently the Exercise upon Occasion: And that therefore, the Dr. absurdly calls this their Power Permanent, and as absurdly holds, that Officers related to particular Posts, did therein succeed them.

P. 103, 104. The Dr. thus proceeds, When the Evangelical Priesthood (still Priesthood) got its Qualified Officers, Bishops and Priests were not to encroach upon one another, but every one was to Feed the Flock within the Limits alloted to him. Now, here is a Confession, which contradicts and baffles all his Pleadings; For, even these pretended succeeding Bishops and Apostles, in his Sense, could not, without Impeaching Christs Order, and Encroaching on their Fellows, go beyond their Limits, in the Exercise of their Ministry: And he will not deny, that this Limited Ministry flowed from the very Nature of their Fixt and Limited Office: But will he dare to say, that any one of the Apostles, were thus Limited, or had an Office of this Nature, or that they would have Encroached upon the Authority of any of these his supposed fixed Bishops, if Officiating within their Bounds, and Exercising their Apostolick, Rectoral Power, in an immediat manner, without their previous Consent, as one Bishop or Pastor cannot, yea may not, upon this Ground, thus Officia…. But, saith the Dr, (ibid.) They were not so Confined to their Sees, but that their Episcopal Care reacht the whole Church, as far as was possible, and Christian Charity did require. I Answer, 1. So is no Pastor fixt to his Post, but as a Watchman upon Ierusalems Walls, and thus having an immediat Relation to the Catholick Church, his Pastoral Care, in its Exercise, in an Orderly Way, is capable of a further Extension. The Church of God is a City, that has Watchmen set upon her Walls, and in their several Posts, whose Care must, in a mediat Sense, reach the whole City, but cannot in its Exercise be extended, but according to the Garrison-Laws and Discipline; So, that thus, the Dr. will make any Pastor succeed the Apostles: For, he will not deny, that the Pastoral Care is of this Nature; Nor can he assign any Reason why, since the Bishop is tyed to his Limits, as well as the Pastor, the Pastoral Care is not capable of such an Extension of its Exercise, as is suteable to the Churches Edification. But, 2. The Dr. speaks improperly and confusedly, when he assigns no other Rules and Measures of this extended Care, but Christian Charity, and a Possibility thereof merely: For, unless he turn Independent, and deny all Subordination of Church Officers and Courts, he must needs acknowledge, that this Extension of Exercise, must come under the Regulation, and Authorit…tive Inspection of Superior Judicatories; the Spirits of the Prophets being subject to the Prophets: And the Church Representative must be still supposed the proper Ministerial Judges of her greater Good and Edification, which is the great Ground of this Extension. So, that its pitifully p. 114impertinent to say, that its only Christian Charity, and the simple Possibility of the Thing in it self considered, whereof the Person himself is supposed Judge, that regulats this Matter of so high Importance. Who will say, that a Sentinel's Exercise of Military Inspection, can be extended beyond his Post and Station assigned him, by the Governour and Officers of the Garrison, upon mere Charity, and a Possibility of this further Extension, without Respect to what the Military Discipline, and the Authority of the Governour and Officers, will allow? Now, to subsume, I beseech this Dr. to tell me plainly, and speak it out, were the Apostles, by vertue of their Office, to extend their Apostolick Inspection from one Church or Countrey to another, only after this Manner, and by such Rules and Measures? And dare he deny, that they were to follow the Spirits Conduct every where, and by vertue of their Office, had an immediat Access to Exercise their Authority over all Churches, wherever they came, and were subject to no Churches Inspection, or Direction in this Matter? Can he not here see a palpable Distinction of the Office of Apostolat, from all ordinary Officers, as that of the Commanders of a Garrison, who are called to go the Round over all the Posts and Sentinels, to take Inspection over, and Direct them, differs necessarly and essentially from the Office and Charge of those, who are in these fixed Posts, whether their Inspection be of a Larger or Lesser Extension? And hence it appears, that unless the Dr. can let us see such Officers in Scripture, whose proper Work was of this Nature, succeeding the Apostles in the Inspection mentioned, and having such a Power devolved upon them, he will never prove it from the Occasional Transient Officiating of Fixed Officers, beyond their Limits, Directed and Authorized therein, by, and under the Inspection of Superior Church Officers and Iudicatories. As for his Citation of Causabon, Exercit. 14. ad Annal. Baron. N. 4. touching the Bishops peculiar Care of their own Flock, yet so, as suo quodam modo, they Cared for the whole Church: I nothing doubt, but that it may have a Safe and Sound Sense, when applyed to every Pastor, whose mediat Care, actu primo, suo modo, reaches the whole Church. And the Citation quite baffles the Dr. For, if their care reached to a peculiar Charge committed to them in solidum, it was toto coelo different from the Apostolick care and Charge, as is above made good. And the Dr. in saying, that this exactly resembled the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office, shews himself to be as bad & unskilful in the Art of Limning, as unsincere and unskilful in Disput. For, such a Confined, Limited Ministry, under such Regulations, as is above expressed, can no more Represent the Features and Lineaments of the Apostolick Office, in a proper formal Sense, and in its intire Nature, as delineat in Scripture, than a hand or Foot can Represent the Lineaments of an intire Body. For what he adds, p. 115ibid. That Confinment to a particular See, proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood, but Rules of Prudence and Ecclesiastical OEconomy and Canonical Constitutions. He speaks confusedly, and without Sense. For, this being the Nature of the Priest-hood or Ministry, viz: That it is Gods Ordinance, designed for Edification, it must be consequently Adapted and measured to this end: And therefore, whatever Person, hath an ordinary Ministry committed to him, must have it in such a proportion, as his Case and personal ability can reach▪ God committing to no Man, an immediat inspection of the Catholick Church, as his peculiar Charge: So, that whatever be the particular individual Limits of the Charge, which is left to the Churches Prudence to assign, yet the persons having such a Limited Charge, as is above discribed, flows from the Nature of the ordinary Ministry, and the State and Case of the Church, when the extraordinary Office of Apostolat is expired. And to Convince the Dr. of this, and of the Folly of this Lax Assertion, that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood, I would put to him this Querie: Whether the Assigning unto one Bishop an U…niversal Inspection and Primacy over the Catholick Church, would be any impeachment of the Nature of his Priest-hood or Ministry Assigned to him by G…d, yea or not? If not; then who sees not that he owns the Lawfulness and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy, especialy, if the Church should Corroborat this by an Universal Constitution? If he say, that this extension were contrary to the Nature of the Priest-hood; Then he Contradicts himself, in Asserting, that the Priest-hood of its own Nature, requires no Confinment, as he calls it; and in Calling it so, he Insinuats some sort of Violence offered to the Nature of this Ministry. Besides, these Constitutions he mentions, Confining Bishops to a certain Charge, are either cross or Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel-Ministry, expressed in Scripture: If cross thereunto; then sure they are not Lawful, unless he will say, God gives the Church Authority to enact Constitutions cross to his Revealed Will, and consequently paramount to his own Rules and Authority: Which, whether it be greater nonsense or Blasphemy, is hard to determin. If they be Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel Ministry, how can he deny, that such a Confinment or Constitutions proceed from the Nature thereof? His Reason added, viz. That the Apostles ordained Bishops for the Spiritual Service of such as should believe, is as void of Sense or connection, as any can be: For, so are all Pastors (the true Scripture Bishops) ordained by Apostles. But will he be bold to say, or if he say, will not all Men of Sense hiss him, That the Apostles ordained all and every Bishop or Minister, for the actual immediat Service of all Believers of the Catholick Church, as their proper peculiar Work and Charge? This he must either say, or his Reason is nought. Nay, will he not thus contradict himself, in affirming p. 116his Secondary Apostles, (as he calls them) to differ in Extension of Power from the first Apostles?

P. 105. We are told, That the Apostles committed their Rectoral Power over subordinat Ecclesiasticks to particular persons, succeeding in their Room, in particular Churches. Another piece of Repeated nonsense. The Apostles by their Office, had an Universal immediat Inspection over all Ecclesiasticks, or Church Officers of the Catholick Church, as himself describs their Office: Yet this their proper formal Office, thus described by him, he will needs have them to devolve upon particular persons, fixed to particular Churches; as good Sense as to say, the King Commits his Regal Primacy and Rectoral Power over his Kingdom, when dying, or leaving it, unto the Man, whom he hath enstalled in the Office of a Sheriff.

But the Dr. tells us, that he will now propose the true State of the Controversy. I am sorry a Doctor has disputed so long upon a Question, and has yet the State of the Controversy to propose. Common Ingenuity and Rules of Dispute, would have prompted him in the first place, to propose the true State of the Question, and explain the Terms thereof: But these Rules are too Pedantick for our Dr. who is more inclined to Pamphleting Harrangues, than Systematick Divinitie. Well, what State of the Question offers he? Thus it is, [Whether the Apostles committed their Apostolick Authority, they exercised in particular Churches, to such single persons, duelie and regularlie chosen; Or to a Colledge of Presbyters, acting in administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs in a perfect Paritie and Equalitie?] I shall be glad to admit this State of the Question, when one Exception is offered by way of Caution, Viz: That as we grant an Ordinary Authority, which the Apostles exercised in particular Churches, contained in their Office Eminenter, which they transmitted to Successors; So, we deny, that the Authority, which they transmitted to these ordinary succeeding Officers, was an Authority properly and formally Apostolical, or such, in a formal Sense, as themselves exercised. And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Sense and Judgement of sound Divines, who distinguish the expired Apostolick Office and Authority, from that ordinary Power and Authority, which they transmitted to Successors. What next? We are told, (ibid.) That the Scripture-confusion of Names (might I presume to prescribe a better▪ Term to such a Master of Language, as our Dr. I should rather, to evite an apparent Reflection on the Holy Ghosts Language, call it Community or Homonymie) will not prove Community of Offices, when persons are undenyablie distinguished, with regard to their Authoritie. If we forget this mighty Caution of our warry Dr. we must not blame him, if an unwearied Repetition will help us. The Dr. will have this fixed, that we fight not in the dark. The Presbyterians do hold this as fixed as he. What next?

p. 117P. 105.106. The LORD promised a perpetual Duration of the Apostolick Office, not in their personal but Spiritual Capacitie, he loving his Church as much after as before his withdrawing— If then they conveyed their Episcopal Power to single persons in all particular Churches, and not to a Colledge of Presbyters, acting in a Paritie and Equalitie, then the Divine Right of Episcopal Government is clearlie Estabilished. But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Petitio Principii, and take that for the Ground and Topick of his Argument, which is in the Question; Yea, and in the Question by his own Confession, viz: That the Apostolick Office is perpetual, permanent, and succeeded unto, in a proper formal Sense? What strange (may I call it Impertinency, or) Inadvertancy is this? Since himself asserts that we deny such a perpetual Office of Apostolat, and he opposes above, his definition anent their permanent, perpetual Office unto Presbyterians assertion of the contrary, and their Definition asserting the Apostles Transitorie Function. 2. His Proof from Christs promise and constant care of the Church, is, in the Sense of all Protestants, unsound and foolish, and he is therein inconsistent with himself: For, in their Sense (yea, and by his own Confession) there are many expired Prerogatives of Apostles, yea & Gifts of Officers in the first Apostolick Church, which notwithstanding impeaches not, either that promise of Christs constant Care of his Church, or his constant Love thereunto: And therefore, it reflects neither upon the one, nor the other, that this formal Office of Apostolat, consisting of such expired Prerogatives, is ceased. Nay, himself confesses, that without Impeachment of either of these, the Apostles Extensive, universal Power is changed unto a Limited and Confined Inspection of Bishops. Tho the Contexture of his Reasoning, renders him in this inconsistent with himself, Christs Care and Promise are abundantly verified in the Establishment of such a Government and Officers in His Church, as are suted to her Edification and Preservation in all times and places. I cannot but further remark the Dr's. changing the Term of [Apostolick Office] which he holds to be transmitted to Successors, into that of [Episcopal Power] as if these were all one. But this is such a confusion of Names and Things, as cannot be admitted. But proceed we.

The Question the Dr. will needs have to be a Matter of Fact, to be decided by Testimony. Whom the Apostles appointed Successors is [Matter of Fact] simplely considered; But this [Matter of Fact] must have a Divine Testimony to clear it, it being [a Divine Fact] (to call it so) of Christs Infallible, Divinely Inspired Apostles, in the management of the Trust committed to them, in founding and modelling the Gospel Churches. And consequently, in enquiring into this Point, we must take our Measures, both from their Doctrine and Practice, if we acknowledge the Apostles had no Soveraign, independent, but Subordinat, Subaltern Power, Authorized p. 118and prescribed by their great Master, whose Doctrine and Measures prescribed in his Holy Testament, we must therefore look unto. So that, when the Dr. asserts, There can be no decisive proof of this, but by Testimonie; He should have called it [Divine Testimonie] for an Human Testimony can here have no place▪ when the Question is anent the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, in point of Church Government: And therefore, what the Dr. adds, viz: That the Testimony alledged by him and the Episcopalians, is so much the stronger, upon the Ground of the Reception thereof, Discovers his bad Design of leaving out the Qualification of Divine, in the Testimony to which he appeals; And likewayes, his absurd alledging, that a Divine Testimony is strengthened by an Human, as influencing a stronger Pr…of in eodem genere Causae. That the Church knew no other Government than Prelacy, for fourteen hundred Years (as the Doctor is bold to assert) shall be admitted, when he shall exhibit the full Accounts and Records of these 1400 Years asserting so much. To proceed.

To prove that the Apostles Rectoral Power, was by them transmitted immediatly to single Successors, the Dr. tells us (ibid.) that he will first view the Holy Scriptures, then Ecclesiastical Records. First view, I say only and properly view, in order to this proof: For, 1. our Faith of this, is a Divine Faith, which therefore cannot be founded upon an human Testimony, else it were but an human Credulity. 2. Ecclesiastick Records cannot be an infallible Comment upon the Sense of these Scriptures, wherein this Testimony is contained: And this upon several weighty Grounds, which I have elsewhere exhibit; Since this were, (1.) To set up an higher Tribunal than the Scriptures. (2.) Ye exclud an examination of the Human Testimony by the Scriptures. (3.) To make the Churches practice the infallible Rule to direct our perswasion and practice, in reference to every Scripture Truth and Duty, therein held out. Besides, that neither this Dr, nor any for him, will ever exhibit Authentick Records of the Churches Universal Practice since the Apostles▪ many of the Ancients having written nothing at all, many of their Writings also being lost, many going under their Name, being Counterfeit and supposititious: And that none of these, did in this Matter contradict th… Writers, whom the Dr. alledges in this Point, but did accord in judgment and practice with what he supposes them to hold in Point of Episcopacy, is a proof which lyes upon the Doctor as the affirmer, before his Argument can be admitted as valid, and his Testimonies be supposed harmonious; and this he will, no doubt, perform ad calendas Graecas ▪ Who knows not that the prime Historian, Eusebius, with many others, do acknowledge, that the shattered and maimed Records of the First Ages after the Apostles (which are in this Point most considerable) are most uncertain and dark, as to Matter of Fact? And do therefore, exhibit but a p. 119Lame and imperfect Testimony in this Matter: My work and scope then, is to examin the Dr's Pleadings from a Divine Testimony; which I shall fully perform.