The Ruling and Ordaining Power of Congregational Bishops, Text

The Ruling and Ordaining Power of Congregational Bishops · Text

THE Ruling & Ordaining POWER OF Congregational BISHOPS, OR PRESBYTERS, Defended. Being Remarks on ſome Part of Mr. P. Barclay's PERSUASIVE, lately diſtributed in New-England.

By an Impartial Hand. In a Letter to a Friend.

BOSTON: Printed for Samuel Gerriſh and Sold at his Shop near the Brick Meeting-Houſe in Cornhill, 1724.

The Ruling and Ordaining POWER OF PRESBYTERS, DEFENDED In a LETTER, &c.

SIR,

I Now return the Book you were pleas'd, the laſt Week, to leave with me; and together with Thanks, I ſend you my Remarks, upon ſome Part of it, in compliance to your Deſires. Upon peruſal of the Book, I find the main Body of it is in defence of Forms of Prayer, & the Engliſh Liturgy; which being Things that have not ſo immediate Reference to the Controverſy now o'foot among us, I think it beſt at preſent to paſs them over, and to confine my ſelf intirely within thoſe Pages that relate to EPISCOPACY. I remember your Propoſal was, that this Reply to Mr. Barclay ſhou'd be manag'd ſo as to ſerve for an Appendix p. 2to the late Letter of Sober Remarks on the Modest Proof; which put the Diſpute wholly on a Scripture-Fost. For this Reaſon, although what my Author has offer'd from the Fathers, would admit of an eaſy Anſwer, yet I will take little or no notice of his Teſtimonies from Them; but ſhall limit my ſelf to the Arguments he pretends to draw out of the BIBLE; which a famous Epiſcopalian ††Chillingw.well calls the Religion of Protestants. And here I don't intend to make Obſervations upon every little thing liable to Exception in my Author: and as to Things Mateterial, which I find have receiv'd a juſt Anſwer in the Letter of Sober Remarks, I deſign but briefly to touch upon 'em: unleſs perhaps ſome new Thoughts may occur to me, proper to be added; which the Writer of that Letter did not ſee fit to take any Notice of.

Mr. Barclay's Diſcourſe, which is now to come under Examination, begins at the 78th Page of his Book. Where, in the firſt place, he lays down this, Propoſition, viz.

"THAT the Government of CHRIST's Church was left by himſelf, and manag'd for the firſt Three Centuries by ſome Goſpel Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, exerciſing Authority and Juriſdiction over others, who were Likewiſe Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments".

HERE not to take notice of any Soleciſms in Grammar, or any thing elſe lyable to Exception, in the Propoſition it ſelf, I will come immediately to conſider the Arguments he brings to ſupport this Aſſertion.

p. 3IN the firſt place, I find him harping on the old thread-bare Argument from the 12 and the 70. Though here he ſeems to yield to Presbyterians the Diſpute about the Superiority of the 12 to the 70, during our Savior's Life-time. At leaſt, (he ſays to us, to take you in your own way; a Phraſe I ſhall have frequent occaſion to borrow from him) he will for once ſuppoſe that they were equal. But then he adds, pag. 79. If we can find a Second Superior Ordination given by our Savior to the Eleven, which the Seventy did not receive. I hope it will appear that the Eleven were of a higher Order, and had a greater Degree of Power in the Church than They. Now to evidence this, he turns us to Job. 20.21. As my Father hath ſent me, ſo ſend I you, &c: which (he judges) doth imply a new Commiſſion, veſting the Eleven Apoſtles with the Power of Ordination, or of ſending others; for (he argues) unleſs CHRIST gave 'em that Power, he did not ſend them as his Father ſent him. Here I might obſerve, There are other and better Interpretations of this Text; but being willing to take the Gentleman in his own way, I will for once ſuppoſe his Conſtruction to be the beſt and trueſt: yet of what Service it will be to him, in the preſent Argument, I cannot imagin. Surely 'tis a wild Concluſion he draws, viz. Then it is evident, that our Savior left his Church with a Set of Goſpel-Miniſters veſted with different degrees of Power and Authority. For this Inference is grounded on a falſe Hypotheſis, viz. That CHRIST at his Aſcenſion left other Miniſters in Commiſſion beſides the Eleven; which is a point he has not ſaid one word to prove: p. 4Certainly this Gentleman muſt have a fine Talent in Controverſy; ſince he has taken ſo much pains to prove what no body denies, viz. That the Eleven were veſted with a power of Ordination; and then has taken for granted one of the main Things in Queſtion, viz. The Continuance of the Seventy in Office in the Church. All Anti-Prelatiſts agree with him in aſſerting the former, but not the latter. We unanimouſly affirm the Temporeity of the Seventy. If then the Gentleman wou'd have (as he promis'd to do) taken us in our own way, He ſhou'd have ſuppos'd this; and this notwithſtanding, prov'd an Imparity of order among Goſpel-Miniſters. Now that He might well ſuppoſe (with us) the 70 to be temporary, every one I believe will readily grant, who reads impartially what is ſaid on this Subject in the Sober Remarks (Edit. 2. Pag. 29. &c.) So that I need ſay nothing on it here. But he ſilently ſlides over this, as if it were a point not diſputed, or were foreign to the Argument; when he knows it is a matter of Debate, and that not a little depends upon it. For, if the Commiſſion of the Seventy was but temporary, and not renew'd after CHRIST's Reſurrection, then He left only one Order of Goſpel-Miniſters, viz. the Eleven; and thoſe veſted with equal Power of Ordination and Juriſdiction, by the new Commiſſion they receiv'd at His Aſcending.

WE may ſafely therefore grant our Author, That the Eleven Apostles receiv'd a Power by this laſt Commiſſion, which they had not before, and which none of the Seventy did then receive: and yet it will not follow from hence, That our Savior left his Church with a Set of p. 5Goſpel-Miniſters veſted with different degrees of Power and Authority.

HOWEVER, to take this Gentleman in his own way, I will for once ſuppoſe the Commiſſion of the Seventy (recorded Luk. 10.) was not temporary, but ſtanding and perpetual: yet this will not certainly infer the Divine Appointment of two different Orders of Goſpel-Miniſters, in the Gentile Churches, with whom it is we are concerned. For (as it is argu'd in the Sober Remarks, pag. 31, 32.) the Commiſſion of the Seventy was confined to the Circumciſion; and we never read of its being extended by CHRIST, to the Uncircumciſion. It is of no Obligation then upon the Gentiles. Suppoſing it did continue, & was obligatory to the Jewiſh Chriſtians; yet the Gentile Churches are not at all concerned with it. Whether therefore that Commiſſion was temporary, or whether it was ſtanding, it is alike incapable of ſerving this Gentleman's Purpoſe.

BUT now leaving the Commiſſions, He comes to argue from FACT, Pag. 80. Where He tells us, The Apoſtles did (de facto) exerciſe Juriſdiction over all other Goſpel-Miniſters in their Time.— This I will for once ſuppoſe to be true; for I'm willing ſtill to take the Gentleman in his own way: but yet I believe, It will not afford any Argument for Dioceſan Biſhops, if we conſider things impartially.

HE tells us, The Apoſtles exerciſed Authority over the Reſt of the Goſpel-Miniſters, In making Laws. What then? Do's this argue, that there muſt be a ſtanding Order in the Church to make Laws, and preſcribe Rules to Miniſters? No, by no means. The Church was in its Infant-State then, and the Canon of Scripture not perfected; p. 6the Apoſtles were therefore extraordinarily inſpir'd, to reveal the Mind and Will of CHRIST, unto his People and Miniſters ‖‖See the Sober Remarks, pag. 33. &c. Edit. 2.. But, as there is no need of any ſuch infallible Guides now, ſince the Canon of the New Teſtament is completed; So, that the Apoſtles, who were divinely inſpir'd, and under an infallible Conduct, did preſcribe Rules and Laws to Churches and Paſtors, This certainly is no Warrant, to Men not ſo qualify'd, to preſume to do the ſame thing, 'Tis not a Legiſlative, but an Executive Power, that belongs to the ordinary Governors of the Church. They have Authority only to execute the Laws of CHRIST, contained in the Holy Scriptures. And I know of no Laws or Orders there, but what ordinary Paſtors have the Execution of, committed to them.

Again, HE tells us, The Apoſtles Authority over other Miniſters appears from their Ordaining to Miniſterial Offices: which work (he ſays) was always perform'd by Them.

TO prove this, He obſerves to us, in the firſt place, That the Apoſtles ordain'd the Deacons, Act. 6.

I anſwer; Good Reaſon there was, that they ſhould do it. The Apoſtles were the only proper Perſons to perform that firſt Ordination; for it was an appointing a New Office in the Church, which none elſe had Power to do, and unto which (no doubt) they were directed by the Holy Ghoſt. If any then will infer from this Inſtance, that Biſhops only have Power to ordain Deacons; they may as colourably argue from it, That Biſhops have Power to inſtitute new Officers & Miniſtries in the Church.

p. 7AGAIN, The Gentleman obſerves to us; That St. Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every City, (Church, it ſhould be.) Act. 14.23. To which I'll reply, in the Words of Another "Good Reaſon why; Becauſe They were new Churches that had no Miniſters in them till conſtituted by the Apoſtles. Presbyters cou'd not ordain before they had a Being. Beſides by the way, it may be obſerv'd: "They ordain'd Presbyters; not Dioceſan Biſhops. 'Tis evident from this Inſtance, that the Apoſtles left the Churches under the Government of Presbyters, without Superior Biſhops. How came the Apoſtles not to ordain ſuch Biſhops in every Church! If they had been neceſſary, doubtleſs they wou'd have done it".

BUT further, The Gentleman obſerves, There is one Inſtance, from which this Apoſtolical Superiority appears plainly; for when Philip baptis'd the Converts in Samaria Act. 8.12. Yet they could receive no Impoſition of Hands from him: but the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem ſent St. Peter, and St. John to lay hands on them; that is, for Confirmation and Ordination. To which I anſwer; His Argument is loſt, if he has miſtaken the Deſign of that Impoſition of Hands. And it ſeems he has done ſo. For it is highly probable, 'Twas only for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost; which was a Power and Honour peculiar to the Apoſtles. (See Act. 8.15, 18.) That this was the Primary End, at leaſt, we have the general Concurrence of the beſt Expoſitors. And if this was the End, it is what was not only out of Philip's power, but out of Biſhop Timothy's too; and had He been at Samaria then, there would have been the ſame Occaſion p. 8to ſend down the Apoſtles thither.—However, to take the Gentleman in his own way, I will for once ſuppoſe, that this Impoſition of Hands immediately and only refer'd to Confirmation and Ordination: yet I do not ſee how Philip's not being capable of performing theſe works, can afford any Argument to his purpoſe: for, according to him, Philip at that time was but a Deacon; and a Deacon's being incapable, is no Argument that a Presbyter (an higher Officer) muſt be ſo too. To make his Reaſoning here any thing tolerable. He muſt allow Philip was a Presbyter: but then the miſchief is, This will be to contradict himſelf; ſince he expreſly calls him a Deacon, (pag. 93.) and it will unhappily overthrow his great Plea there, [from the Inſtance of Philip] for Preaching & Baptiſing Deacons.

IN the next place, The Gentleman obſerves. It is Objected, That mere Presbyters ordain'd St. Timothy▪ from 1 Tim. 4.14. The laying on of the … the Presbytery. But (ſays he) this Text does not at all prove that Presbyters (in our … of the Word) ordain'd Timothy. I reply, We don't pretend it do's. For we know of no Miniſters in Scripture, that were Presbyters, in the modern (Church of England) ſenſe of the Word. We deny any ſuch Officer in the Church, us a mere Presbyter, that is, a Miniſter of the Word, deſtitute of Epiſcopal Power over the Flock. The Elders, or Presbyters, we read of, 1 Pet. 5.1. were Biſhops. Such Biſhops we are For, and ſuch Elders; but we know of no Inſtitution for Elders that do not rule over the Flock, or for Biſhops that rule over Elders. We are for Congregational Biſhops; and ſuch we conclude, p. 9were the Presbyters that ordain'd Timothy.—But the Gentleman adds, If mere Presbyters did lay hands on him, it was only in Conjunction with St. Paul: for he ſays expreſly, (2 Tim. 1.6.) that Timothy was ordain'd by the laying on of His Hands.

NOW to this I reply.

1. THE Impoſition of Paul's Hands might be at a different Time, and upon ſome other Occaſion.

IT is moſt probable, Paul's laying on of Hands was not for the ordination of Timothy to any Office, but only for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt upon him. This might be the whole Deſign, for ought that appears to the Contrary; and ſo Paul might have no hand at all in Timothy's Ordination. But that might be done by ordinary Presbyters at ſome other Time; as Paul himſelf, who receiv'd his ſight by the laying on of the Hands of Ananias, & was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, yet afterwards was ſeparated to his Miniſtry among the Gentiles, by the laying on of the Hands of certain Prophets and Teachers, or Presbyters, at Antioch. (Act. 13.1, 2, 3.)

BUT I would again take the Gentleman in his own way, and therefore will for once ſuppoſe, That Paul's laying on of Hands was for Timothy's Ordination; yet it is poſſible it might not be in Conjunction with the Presbytery, but at a diſtinct Time, if what our Opponents plead for, was then practis'd, viz. Reordination. How knows this Gentleman but that Timothy might be ordain'd firſt a Presbyter by the Presbytery alone, and afterwards a Biſhop by Paul only. Some of his Brethren I know ſeem to be of this Mind. Well p. 10for once ſuppoſe this was the Caſe; ſo much then at leaſt follows, that Presbyters have power to ordain Presbyters: and this is all we at preſent demand. As for Dioceſan Biſhops, & their Conſecration, we will contentedly leave our Opponents to enjoy their Opinion about 'em; if we may but enjoy ours without Diſturbance.

BUT now to come cloſer to our Author,—

2. I will for once ſuppoſe, that Paul's laying on of hands, and the Presbytery's, were both at the ſame Time, and in Conjunction; yet I can't ſee how this Conceſſion will give him any Advantage. The Gentleman obſerves, If Presbyters did lay on hands in Timothy's Ordination, it was only in Conjunction with St. Paul, [yes verily, and if St. Paul lay'd on hands, it was only in Conjunction with the Presbytery] And ſo is agreable to our Practice at this day, as may be ſeen in the Rubrick of the Office for ordaining Prieſts.—But here I inquire; How is it agreable? Do Presbyters of the Church of England joyn in laying on of Hands in the Conſecrating of a Biſhop, ſuch as Timothy is ſuppos'd by Epiſcopalians to be? No, I trow not. 'Tis only the Arch-Biſhop, and Biſhops preſent, that joyn in this Act; as may be ſeen in the Rubrick of the Office for the Conſecration of Biſhops. Either then it muſt be confeſſed, Timothy was not a Biſhop; and ſo one of the great Arguments for Prelacy will be drop't. Or at leaſt it muſt be ſuppos'd Timothy was not ordain'd Biſhop at that time, when Paul & the Presbytery joyn'd together in impoſing hands on him: however he might be afterwards, by Paul alone; which I think will ſuperſede the common Pretences for Timothy's Epiſcopacy, from the first Epiſtle to Him. Or elſe the Church of England p. 11muſt confeſs, She Deviates from the primitive Pattern, in excluding Presbyters from joyning in the Ordination of her Biſhops: and ſo far She muſt appear not Primitive and Apoſtolical; and her Prelates muſt be own'd not regularly conſecrated; becauſe their Ordinations are without the Concurrence of the Presbytery. — One of theſe three, I think, muſt neceſſarily be granted: and let the Gentleman chuſe which he likes beſt.

BUT now, ſuppoſing there were no ſuch Difficulties ariſing on the Head of Timothy's Character, and allowing that Paul's aſſociating with him the Presbytery in Timothy's Ordination, was but like the Biſhop's taking the Hands of ſome Presbyters with his, (as is the practice of the Church of England) in the ordination of a Presbyter; what Advantage will our Opponents be able to make of ſuch a Conceſſion? I think, none at all. For it ſeems to me, nothing more can be hence collected, but that as the Apostles did not appropriate to themſelves the Power of Ordination, ſo neither doth the Church of England allow her Biſhops to arrogate to themſelves the ſole Power in this matter. The Practice of the Church of England, as well as of the Apoſtles, ſeems to argue for an inherent Power of ordination in Presbyters; which is all we at preſent plead for. Impoſition of Hands is what our Opponents account a very eſſential Rite in Ordination. That they judge is put for the whole Miniſterial Work of Ordination, in 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay Hands ſuddenly on no man: and hence they urge this place, in favour of Timothy's ordaining Power. Now if Impoſition of Hands, when perform'd by Timothy, was an ordaining Act, and imported an ordaining Power inherent in him; why might it not have the p. 12ſame Signification, when perform'd by the Presbytery? And if Ordination was the End and Import of Paul's laying on of Hands; why not alſo of the laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters, that joyn'd with him? To ſay, That the Presbyters laid on hands only as Witneſſes, and to expreſs their Conſent, & Approbation of the Apoſtle's Act, (as ſome pretend) is but a filly Evaſion. When was the Ceremony ever uſed for ſuch an End? And might not the Presbyters as well have expreſs'd their Concurrence, by ſaying AMEN to the Apoſtle's Prayer over Timothy, or in ſome other way; without joyning with the Apoſtle in Impoſition of Hands, which wou'd ſeem to beſpeak an ordaining Power in them, as well as in him, and ſo be likely to prove an Occaſion of Error … Sin in future Times, by leading Presbyters to claim to themſelves the power of Ordination; their right whereunto they might with good Colour argue from this primitive Example! It can't be reaſonably ſuppos'd, that the Apoſtle (who was ſuch a wiſe Master-Builder, and was ſo ſollicitous that Miniſters might know how to behave themſelves in the Houſe of God) ſhou'd be ſo overſeen in the management of Timothy's Ordination, as to lay a foundation for Miſtakes in a matter of ſuch Importance, as this of Ordination. We may well think the Apoſtle wou'd not have admitted the Presbytery to lay on hands with him, if they had not been veſted with a Right to ordain, ſeeing it was like to prove ſuch a Snare to After-ages; as it manifeſtly has been, if Presbyterians are in the Wrong.

WELL but for once we will ſuppoſe, that the Presbytery did not lay on hands as Ordainers, but the whole Efficacy of the Ordination was from p. 13the Impoſition of Pauls Hands; yet how will this tend to ſerve our Author's Cauſe? Will this infer, that Biſhops may aſſume to themſelves the whole Power, excluſively of the Presbyters joyning with them? No, not at all. I will make it out thus. Paul laid on hands, either in his ordinary, or extraordinary Capacity. Now if the whole Efficacy of the Ordination was from HIS Impoſing of Hands, It cou'd not be in his ordinary Capacity, that he ordain'd; becauſe an Apoſtle in his ordinary Character was but a Presbyter, (as I think is fully prov'd in the Sober Remarks, to which I muſt refer the Reader for ſatisfaction) and upon this view of them, there can be no ſolid Reaſons aſſign'd for ſo eſſential a Difference (in the Virtue and Meaning) between the Act of Paul, and the Act of the Presbytery, in Timothy's Ordination. Hence therefore it muſt be in his extraordinary Capacity, that Paul ordain'd; and if ſo, then I ask, what Warrant Paul's having the ſole ordaining Power, excluſively of the Presbytery, will be to Biſhops, for confining the Power of Ordination wholly to themſelves? Are they Succeſſors to the Apoſtles, in the extraordinary parts of their Character? Have our Biſhops the Gift of Infallibility? Have they the Power of diſcerning Spirits? Or can they confer the Holy Ghoſt by the laying on of their Hands? Verily, ſhow us Biſhops ſo qualify'd, and we ſhall be tempted to leave the work of Ordination wholly to Them, wherever they come! But till we can ſee ſuch Biſhops (at leaſt till then) we muſt be allow'd to aſſert the Presbyters Claim to the Power of Ordination. And indeed the moderate Aſſertors of Epiſcopacy (as one obſerves) do acknowlege that the Presbyters lay on hands p. 14with the Biſhop) as Ordainers. So Dr. F…lk, Dr. Forbes, the Arch-biſhop of Spalato, and others. Even Dr. Cave (whoſe Authority, with the true Sons of the Church, is become almoſt indiſputable) ſays, That Impoſition of Hands was conſtantly us'd as the Rite of conferring Ordination upon the Miniſters of CHRIST.

NOW therefore, if Presbyters lay on hands with the Biſhop, as Ordainers, either They have an equal Power, or not. If they have an equal Power, then in the Ordination of a Miniſter, there is as much to be attributed to the Presbyters laying on of Hands, as to the Biſhops: and hence it will follow, that Ordinations perform'd by Presbyters, without a Dioceſan Biſhop, are no more null and void, than ordinations perform'd by ſuch a Biſhop, without the concurrence of the Presbytery.— But if any ſhall ſay, Presbyters have not an equal ordaining Power, with the Biſhop; I then ask, How this appears? If their Power be unequal, it muſt ariſe, either from unequal Commiſſions, or from unequal Qualifications. It cannot be owing to any difference of intrinſick Qualifications and Gifts. For if we conſider the Nature of Ordination, we ſhall find that the ordinary Gifts of Presbyters are proportionable to all the outward Acts of it. What is Ordination, but a ſolemn Dedication or Separation of a ſutable Perſon to God for the Miniſtry, by Faſting & Prayer, with laying on of Hands? Now what is there in all this, above the Capacity of a mere Presbyter? What does the Biſhop do more in his conferring the Miniſtry? Is it in any Moral Act, or in the Phyſical Contact only, that the Biſhop exerts more of an ordaining Power! Is there any ſecret Virtue p. 15in the Touch of a Prelate's Hand! If ſo, from whence ſhou'd it ſpring? From his Superior Gifts, or from his exce…ing Sanctity? Which of 'em, I pray!—But I believe our Opponents will not ſo much ground the Diſtinction here. If then there be an Inequality of ordaining Power, in Biſhops and in Presbyters, it muſt ariſe from the Difference of their Commiſſions. But this cannot be; becauſe the Commiſſion for ordination is one, and no more. An ordaining Power is included in the Apoſtles Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. Go teach all Nations, baptiſing them, &c. Or, (if it will pleaſe our Author better in his own Text) Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath ſent me, even ſo ſend I you. And they that pretend to the power of ordination, muſt claim it by this Commiſſion, as Succeſſors to the Apoſtles in the ſtanding parts of the Goſpel-Miniſtry. Hence then, if Presbyters have any degree of ordaining Power, it is equal & the ſame with the Biſhops, without any the leaſt Diſparity or Diſtinction. I think there cannot be a clearer Conſequence. If therefore my Lords the Biſhops will claim a ſuperior Power to Preſbyters; They muſt either produce ſome new Commiſſion for it: or prove that Presbyters do not derive what ordaining Power they have, from the Commiſſion above-mentioned: or elſe that the miniſterial Powers given the Apoſtles in this Commiſſion, might be tranſmitted to their Succeſſors in unequal Degrees. One of theſe things they muſt do before we can become their Profelytes, and let them undertake which they pleaſe, I'm afraid they'll fail in the Attempt and Confuſion will cover 'em,— Thus I have fully conſider'd the Gentleman's firſt Anſwer to p. 16our Plea for Ordination by Presbyters, from 1 Tim 4.14.

HE adds another Evaſion. page 81. ſaying, But indeed many eminent Divines are of opinion, that the word foreign, which is render'd Presbytery, ſignifies the Office, to which Timothy was ordain'd; not the Perſons who laid hands on him. And becauſe he ſuppoſes that would be of greateſt weight with as, he produces the Teſtimony of Calvin, in favour of this Opinion.—Now I freely confeſs, I honour Calvin highly: His Teſtimony has no little weight with me: I think it is as good an Authority as any. But I never ſet up Calvin for an Oracle, nor counted him Infallible. That He was not ſo, appears, in that he ſaw fit afterwards to alter his Mind in the very Point we are upon. It is out of Calvin's Institutions, (which He wrote when he was a young Man) that our Author has taken his Teſtimony: but if he intended to deal ingenuouſly, he ſhou'd have conſulted Calvin's Commentaries on the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy (which He wrote twenty Years afterwards, when he was more capable of judging, and had conſider'd the matter more maturely) and there He wou'd have found this great Man expreſſing a different Apprehenſion, and giving it as his Judgment, That they who underſtand the word Presbytery in a collective ſenſe, as meaning the College of Presbyters, are in the Right ††Presbyterium: Qui hic collectivum nomen eſſe putant, pro collegio Presbyterorum poſitum, RECTE. SEN. TIUNT MEO JUDICIO.. And truly I wonder how Calvin, or any Body elſe cou'd ever come into the other Conſtruction; it ſeems ſo harſh, p. 17ſo forced, and ſcarce reconcilable with common ſenſe. What, the laying on of the HANDS of the Office of Presbyters! Very uncouth and barbarous Language methinks! I always imagin'd that Hands were the Property of Perſons; and laying on of Hands, an action not applicable to Offices.

HOWEVER, becauſe I'm willing as much as poſſible to take our Author in his own way, (a way the leaſt liable to Cavils) I will for once ſuppoſe, it is only the Office of Presbyterate, that's here ſpoken of: Yet I doubt not, this Senſe will make the Text as little improvable to his purpoſe, & as much ſerviceable to the Presbyterian Cauſe, as the other, altho' he cou'd not, or wou'd not ſee it. For from hence it will follow, that Biſhops and Presbyters are the ſame, and not two Orders. Here conſider, It wou'd be abſurd to ſuppoſe, when the Apoſtle was exhorting Timothy to a faithful and diligent Diſcharge of his Office and Work at Epheſus, that He ſhou'd put him in mind only of his Ordination to the Office of a Presbyters; if he had been by any ſecond and ſuperior ordination advanced to the Office of a Dioceſan Biſhop. Hence then we muſt in Reaſon conclude, that at the writing of this first Epiſtle, Timothy was not a Dioceſan, but a Presbyter. And yet in this very Epiſtle (as our Author obſerves to us, pag. 83.) St. Paul tells Timothy, That his deſign in leaving him at Epheſus was, That he might charge ſome that they preach no other Doctrine. And he gives Directions for his exerciſing ſpiritual Cenſures, and managing the buſineſs of Ordination. Now if Timothy, while yet a Presbyter, was impower'd to do theſe things, the Conſequence is unavoidable, That the powers of Government and Ordination p. 18do belong to Presbyters: and ſo Biſhops and Presbyters muſt neceſſary be of the ſame Order.

THUS it appears, The Gentleman is under a great miſtake, and triumphs too ſoon, when he draws up that boaſting Concluſion; So that the word foreign, in what ſenſe you will, will be of no ſervice to the Presbyterian Cauſe. I leave it to the Reader's Judgment.

AND now it were as eaſy to ſhow the Vanity and Weakneſs of another Motion, which he hints at as the Opinion of Dr. Hammond, and other great Divines, viz. That bay the Presbytery here is underſtood the Apoſtles: for both St. Peter & St. John call themſelves Presbyters.

TO this I reply, firſt, They could not be a College of Apoſtles, that ordain'd Timothy; becauſe (if I may bring an Argument ad …) Paul ſeems to ſpeak of the Ordination of Timothy, as if the whole Virtue and Efficacy of it lay in the Impoſition of his Hands. Our Author obſerved to us juſt now, That St. Paul ſays expreſly, 2 Tim. 1.6. that Timothy was ordain'd by the laying on of HIS Hands. Now then either the Gentleman has put a wrong ſenſe on this (laſt) Text, and ſo it can be of no force againſt the Presbyterians, … he apply'd it before. Or elſe it muſt be of force againſt Dr. Hammond's Notion, which be here mentions, That the Presbytery in the former Text meant a number of Apoſtles; for it do's not ſeem conſiſtent with the Modeſty and Humility of Paul, ſo to expreſs himſelf as if He was the SOLE ordainer of Timothy, when the other Apoſtles joyning with him, had equally the Power of ordination.

p. 19BUT now ſhou'd we for once grant, that they were Apoſtles only, that laid on hands in Timothy's ordination, I cannot ſee how our Author will be able to ſerve his Cauſe by it. For nothing can be more evident than that, whoever ordain'd Timothy, they did it as a Presbytery: They acted in the Quality of Presbyters. … the Apoſtle's giving the ordainers a common … only, it ſeems they acted only in their ordinary Capacity. And here the Diſpute returns, whether or no Presbyters do ſucceed the Apoſtles in their … ordinary Capacity. And I think this very Text we are upon, may ſerve to decide it in the Affirmative. For, 'tis granted by our Adverſarys, That they are true & complete Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, who ſucceed them in the Power of Ordination: and now that Presbyters do ſucceed them in this Power, ſeems a plain Conſequence from the Apoſtles aſſuming no other than the Character of a Presbytery, in the ordaining of Timothy: [ſuppoſing the ordainers were Apoſtles.] At leaſt there is ſo much Colour for this Concluſion, that if it had been ſaid, By the laying on of the Hands of the Epiſcopacy, or Conſistory of Biſhops, I doubt not our Opponents wou'd have preſently boaſted the Text was deciſive, and have made very harſh Reflections upon us, if we had preſum'd to queſtion it.—But I ſhall ſay no more here, ſeeing our Author ſeems not ford of Dr. Hammond's Notion, becauſe he do's not take it to be very plain and obvious: and he do'sn't inſiſt upon it (he ſays) becauſe he has neither Leiſure nor Inclination for Diſpute. A very fine excuſe truly, when he finds in the Diſpute he is like to be preſs'd with inſuperable Difficulties! And I ſhou'd have charitably thought p. 20the Man had been ſincere, if he had not fill'd his Pages with ſo many Cavils already.

WELL but however that Notion be, plain or not; one thing he thinks is very plain, viz. That there is neither Precept nor Example in holy Scripture for Presbyters, without a Superior, to ordain a Presbyter. Pag. 82.

HERE, in anſwer,

1. I deny this to be very plain and obvious: and rather think the contrary is ſo. To clear this we muſt note, that our Author confines the Power of Ordination to the Apoſtles only, and their Succeſſors, which he ſuppoſes Dioceſan Biſhops to be. He told us, pag. 80, We find it always perform'd by the Apoſtles: And then, pag. 90. He tells us, the Power which our Biſhops of Right exerciſe, is the ſame with which our Bleſſed Saviour veſted the Eleven Apoſtles. Hence by the Superior, which our Author here talks of, as preſiding in all the ordinations mention'd in Scripture, muſt be underſtood an Apoſtle, or a Dioceſan Biſhop. Now then if there can be found an Inſtance of Presbyters ordaining, without the Preſidency, either of an Apoſtle, or ſuch a Biſhop, I hope the Gentleman will ſee his miſtake. And for ſuch an one, I refer him to Acts 13.— where he will find Paul and Barnabas ſeparated to their ſpecial Miniſtry among the Gentiles, by the Hand of certain Prophets and Teachers at Antioch, who were neither Apoſtles nor Dioceſans.—Upon which one thus argues; Either this Ordination is a Precedent to us, or not. If not, how can we be ſure that thoſe of Timothy and Titus, or any other be ſo? If it be a Precedent, then p. 21Presbyters have power to ordain; and that without Superior Biſhops, or Apoſtles, to preſide.— But it may be, our Author will demand a Precept as well as Example, for Presbyterian ordination. Now for this let him conſult the ſame Place, and he will find, That the HOLY GHOST ſaid unto thoſe Presbyters, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. Here is an expreſs Commiſſion to thoſe Presbyters to ordain, and this is Warrant enough for others to do it. Here is an Example of Presbyters ordaining, by the Authority of the Holy Ghoſt: and ſuch an Example muſt have the Force of a Precept. If any now object, That that Commiſſion to the Presbyters, was a ſpecial and extraordinary one, (being receiv'd by immediate Inſpiration) and therefore not to be argu'd from: I anſwer, By the ſame Rule, we may ſay that (Biſhop) Timothy's ordaining Power was extraordinary. For as this Gift was given him by Propheſie, at his ordination; So it was by the Inſpiration of the Holy Ghost, that Paul gave him that Direction, 1 Tim. 5.22. by which our Author ſays, He impowered Him to ordain others. (Pag. 83.) Either then our Opponents muſt give up their Argument for Epiſcopal Ordination, from the inſpired Inſtructions given to (Biſhop) Timothy about the Exerciſe of his ordaining Power. Or elſe they muſt allow our Plea for Presbyterian ordination, from the inſpired Commiſſion, or rather Direction, given to the Presbyters at Antioch.

I HAVE not ſo much as mention'd the Inſtances of Timothy and Titus, who I think were neither Apoſtles, nor Dioceſan Biſhops; and yet ordained Presbyters without a Superiour: becauſe their p. 22Character is controverted, and I wou'd urge nothing but what I take to be very plain and obvious.

BUT now, —

2. SUPPOSING this Anſwer were not abſolutely concluſive, and granting for once, That there is no Example, in Scripture times, of the ordination of a Presbyter, by Presbyters, without a Superior: yet this will be no valid Objection againſt the practice of Presbyterian ordination now. We will for once ſuppoſe, That Presbyters in the Apoſtles time, never ordain'd but under the Preſidency of ſome Apoſtle: yet this will not infer any neceſſity of a Superior Officer to preſide in future ordinations. 'Twas but ſitting that the Apoſtles ſhou'd have the Direction of ſuch Affairs, wherever they came; and that ordinary Miniſters ſhou'd pay a mighty Deference to ſuch extraordinary Men as they. The ordinary Preſbyters did in a manner continually need the Conduct of ſome ſuch inſpired Men, till the Canon of the New Teſtament was completed; which being done, the uſe of thoſe extraordinary Directors was ſuperſeded, by the ſtanding Guide or Rule; a Rule given by Inſpiration of God, and profitable for Doctrine, &c. that the Man of God may be perfect, thorou…ly farniſhed were all good works, (2 Tim. 3.16, 17.) The Reaſon of Things is altered, There are now no ſuch inſpired Men is the Apoſtles; not is there any ſuch need of them now, as there was at firſt.

IN fine, The ſuppoſed Preſidency of the Apoſtles in the Ordinations in their time, can be no more an Objection againſt Ordination by Presbyters alone, than by Biſhops alone. For either there were no ſuch Men as Dioceſan Biſhops then; p. 23or admitting there were, the Apoſtles had a Superiority over them, and Biſhops cou'd no more ordain without an Apoſtle, than Presbyters cou'd. Let our Adverſaries produce either Scripture Precept, or Scripture Precedent, for Dioceſan Biſhops ordaining without a Superior: or tell us how the Preſidency of the Apoſtles can make for the Preſidency of Biſhops, in the ordinations of Miniſters: or ſhow us any Divine Prohibition of Presbyters ordaining without a Superior. Let 'em do any one of theſe three things, and we ſhall take it very kindly at their hands. But till then, they muſt allow us to inſiſt upon it, That ordination by Presbyters, without a Biſhop, is valid and regular. — And thus I have done with our Author's ſecond Inſtance of the Apoſtles Power over the Reſt of the Miniſters in their Time.

I ſhall but touch upon the Hint be gives next, viz. As to the Power of cenſuring Offenders exerciſed by the Apoſtles, it is plain from 1 Cor. 4.21. 1 Cor. 5.3. 1 Tim 1.20.—In anſwer to this, it may be obſerved, That as to the Power of cenſuring Offenders exerciſed by Presbyters too, it is equally plain from 1 Cor. 5. 5, 7, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 2.6. 1 Theſ. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Heb. 13.17.— And it is but a juſt Conſequence from their having the Power of Abſolution. For the Power of Binding, and the Power of Looſing, are connected, and given in the ſame Commiſſion, Joh. 20.23. So that they who are veſted with one of thoſe Powers, have an equal Claim to the other. Now our Author himſelf (in his 93d page) expreſly aſcribes to Presbyters the Power of abſolving Offenders upon their Repentance; which Power (he tells us) is no p. 24other than what they have exerciſed for theſe 1700 years.— And I find in the Church of England Form of ordaining Prieſts, the Biſhop firſt takes a Promiſe of the Presbyter, to be ordain'd, That He will give his faithful Diligence always ſo to miniſter the DISCIPLINE of CHRIST, as the Lord hath commanded: And afterward at the Impoſition of Hands, the Biſhop ſays to him, Whoſe Sins Thou doſt forgive, they are forgiven; and whoſe Sins Thou doſt retain, they are retained. Which are the very words of the Apostolical Commiſſion, Joh. 20.— And the ſame is repeated at the Conſecration of Biſhops. So that it ſhou'd ſeem, the Church of England ſuppoſes her Biſhops and Presbyters to be equally veſted with the Power of Diſcipline, according to the Word of GOD; and what difference there is in the Exerciſe of it, muſt be grounded on Civil Conſtitutions: as indeed ſeems to be hinted to us when the Biſhop at his Conſecration, promiſes, to correct and puniſh the Criminous within his Dioceſs, according to ſuch Authority as he hath by GOD's Word, and as to him ſhall be committed by the ordinance of this Realm.

BUT to proceed with our Author; — He concludes his firſt Head, with replying to an Objection. The only Anſwer (ſays he) that I know to this Argument, taken from the Apoſtles uſing theſe Powers of Ordination & Juriſdiction, is▪ — That the Apoſtles were extraordinary …; and therefore tho' they exercis'd thoſe Superior Powers, it is no Argument for the continuance of them in ſome above others.

p. 25THIS he is pleas'd to call a begging of the Queſtion: and demands of us, Wherein the extraordinarineſs of the Apoſtolick Office did conſiſt! Among other Particulars mention'd by him, he queries whether it conſiſted in their being ſent by CHRIST: and ſays upon it, So were the Seventy. — Grant it: but then their Miſſion was but occaſional & temporary, as I think is fully prov'd in the Sober Remarks. So that for him to argue from the Seventy here, I'm ſure is ſo far a begging of the Queſtion. However, it is not their immediate Miſſion alone, nor yet their itinerant State, & Power of working Miracles only (which is all our Author mention's) wherein we place the extraordinarineſs of the Apoſtles: but in the power of diſcerning Spirits, the power of conferring the Holy Gho…, the Gift of Infallibility, and the peculiar Conduct of the Divine Spirit they were under, &c. Things which our Author very prudently omits; for he muſt needs know that theſe were the more eminent Signs of an Apoſtle; Things by which the Apoſtles were eſpecially diſtinguiſh'd, & on the account whereof they were extraordinary Men, not only with reſpect to us, but alſo with reſpect to the others who liv'd in their own Time. (Which I hope will ſatisfy our Author.) —So that if the Extraordinarineſs of the Apoſtles (ſuppoſe it real) cou'd be any valid Objection againſt the Continuance of Apoſtolical Superiority in ſome over others, the Presbyterians muſt needs gain their Point, ſince it appears ſo plainly that the Apoſtles were indeed extraordinary Men. And now, that it wou'd be a valid Objection, is evident, in that the Apoſtles Superiority took its Riſe from thoſe Things, for which they were extraordinary. Thus in revealing p. 26the Will of GOD in certain Laws & Canons, to bind the Church, and in determining matters of Faith, and the like, They did not act in the Quality of Church-Governors, ſo much as of Men extraordinarily illuminated, and inſpir'd, infallibly to deliver the whole Counſel of GOD to the World. As to any Supremacy of Office, this muſt be derived from ſome Commiſſion: which Commiſſion muſt be either ordinary or extraordinary, If it was extraordinary, then it is ceaſed; and ſo there can be no Argument form'd for Prelacy, from the Apoſtolical Superiority. And extraordinary it muſt be, if the Apoſtolical Superiority was properly ex officio, ſtrictly Authoritative. For I know of no ordinary Commiſſion they receiv'd, which contain'd any thing more than the ordinary Miniſterial Powers, common to others with them. And I know of nothing the Apoſtles did or acted, but what Presbyters might do as well as they; ſuppoſe 'em in the ſame extraordinary Circumſtances, indu'd with the ſame extraordinary Qualifications, and under the ſame extraordinary Conduct of GOD's Spirit. And indeed, I know of no Authority Paul exerciſed over Preſbyters, more than what he exerciſed over Timothy, the ſuppoſed Biſhop of Epheſus! Nay, perhaps no more than what He exerciſed towards Peter, (tho' an Apoſtle, equal to himſelf,) when he withſtood him to the face, becauſe he was to be blamed ††Gal. 2.11.Gal 2:11; or than what other Apoſtles at Jeruſalem exerciſed, when they ſent Peter & John (two of their own number) down to Samaria, upon news of the Goſpel's being receiv'd there ††Act. 8.14.Acts 8:14. In a word, whatever Superiority the Apoſtles had over Presbyters, p. 27I cannot at preſent but be of Opinion, that it was a Superiority of Dignity, in reſpect of peculiar Abilities & Privileges, (which gave them a peculiar Influence, & a kind of Authority over Men's Conſciences,) rather than a Superiority of ruling Power, in reſpect of any peculiar Office they ſuſtain'd. And of this Opinion I muſt remain, until our Opponents can prove that the Apoſtles receiv'd ſome other Commiſſion from their riſen Lord, beſides that in Mat. 28. & Joh. 20.—or prove that the Commiſſion for the Goſpel-Miniſtry is more than one; either by demonſtrating that the Commiſſion of the Seventy is of force ſtill, and that with reſpect to the Gentiles; or by producing ſome new Commiſſion for Presbyters (ſubject-Presbyters.) given by CHRIST, or his Apoſtles. All which I deſpair of their being ever able to do.

IT is then a very bold & ignorant Conſequence, which our Author draws from his preceding Diſcourſe, viz. That whoſoever aſſerts the Apoſtolical Superiority was only temporary, may as well ſay, that the Sacraments were confin'd to the Times of the Apoſtles: and indeed the Quakers (who ſay ſo) have as concluding Reaſons for their Aſſertion, as the Presbyterians have for the other. I ſhall make no particular Remarks on this wild Paſſage; becauſe I believe the Folly of it will be manifest to all Men, that impartially weigh the Reaſons that have been given to ſupport the Presbyterian Aſſertion. But if any deſire a more direct Reply, they may find one in the Sober Remarks, toward the End.

p. 28OUR Author comes now to his ſecond Argument for Prelacy, from the Apoſtles deriving the Apoſtolical Power over Clergy and Laiety, to … in the ſeveral Churches which they planted. — That the Apoſtles did de facts delegate their Power to others, is want be affirms. And of this, ſays he, I ſhall name only two Inſtances, Timothy and Titus, who were ordain'd or conſecrated Biſhops of Epheſus & Crete by St. Paul. (Pag. 83.)

TO this, much might be ſaid in Reply, but I ſhall wave it all, & refer you to the Sober Remarks; where, that the Apoſtles did not deſire the Apoſtolical Power and Superiority unto others, & that Timothy and Titus were not Dioceſan Biſhops, are both made evident, I wou'd ſay, beyond contradiction (to borrow ſome of our Author's Phraſes) but that Demonstration may be oppos'd when People … mind to wrangle. Enough & enough I think, is there ſaid to convince any … but him that is reſolv'd not to be convinc'd, that the Biſhops do take were Power to themſelves, under … of a Succeſſion from the Apoſtles, than St. Paul gave to Timothy and Titus: So that if they are try'd by St. Paul's Epiſtles, I'm very well ſatisfy'd They muſt be condemn'd and as to what Power they take to themſelves, not under ſuch a Colour, but as the King's Miniſters, I muſt leave them to … Author's Vindication.

I might ſay ſomething here upon the Argument from the Angels of the ſeven Churches, mention'd in the next place; but that I am in ſome meaſure prevented by the Sober Remarks, and am willing (with our Author) to avoid as much as poſſible being ….

p. 29I might alſo here conſider our Author's Quotations from the Fathers, which follow next: and I think it might eaſily be made appear, that none of them do eſtabliſh the Dioceſan Biſhop; but on the contrary, ſome of them do very plainly make againſt Him. However, it being my Deſign (for Reaſons already mention'd) to confine my ſelf at preſent to Scripture-Evidence, I ſhall not enter into that Argument.

BUT I will now proceed to the Author's laſt general Head, Pag. 90. Where he propoſes to conſider the Names given to the ſeveral Goſpel-Miniſters, by the Church of England in her Litany, viz. biſhops, Priests, & Deacons.

UNDER this Head He firſt ſpeaks of the promiſcuous uſe of the Names, Biſhop & Presbyter, in the holy Scriptures, and ſays he thinks that will be no Argument for the Identity of the Office.—To which I ſhall ſay nothing, ſince this Argument is ſo copiouſly vindicated in the Sober Remarks. Only one word, as to our Author's Exception againſt it, from the Apoſtles Superiority to the reſt of the Clergy. In which I think there's nothing of weight. For, do's not this Gentleman pretend there were Dioceſan Biſhops in the Apoſtles time? And will he not own his ſuppoſed Biſhops were ſubject to the Apoſtles as well as the Preſbyters? Do's not the ſtyle of Paul's Epiſtles to Timothy & Titus, carry in it an Air of Authority, as much as his Charges to the Elders of Epheſus, or any other? And now if the Biſhops were ſubordinate as well as the Presbyters, will not this make all Reaſoning from the Superiority of the Apoſtles, of no force? What Argument can be drawn from hence, till it be prov'd that Biſhops p. 30do ſucceed the Apoſtles in this Superiority? And how can it be pretended, that they do ſucceed the Apoſtles in this Superiority, till it be made appear, either that Biſhops were originally an Order of Men diſtinct from, and above Presbyters: or that they are indu'd with Apoſtolical Abilities? Let our Adverſaries prove one or t'other of theſe Things: or elſe we cannot believe that Biſhops have any rightful Claim to Apoſtolical Superiority over Presbyters.

OUR Author ſays nothing here to ſupport the Epiſcopal Claim, ſave what may be contain'd in that odd and ſurpriſing Paſſage, Pag. 91 Since they who in the times of the Apoſtles were call'd by the Name of Apoſtles, and immediately after their Death diſtinguiſh'd by the Title of Biſhops; ſince they, I ſay, were the Perſons to whom the Apoſtles dying or departing, deriv'd their Commiſſion; then it neceſſarily follows that they (who in the Apoſtolic Age were call'd Apoſtles & ſoon after Biſhops) had by virtue of that Commiſſion the full Plenitude of the Apoſtolic Power derived to them from CHRIST: and by the ſame Authority they to whom they delegated their Commiſſion, received the ſame Power, and ſo down through all the ſucceeding Ages of the Chriſtian Church to this day. — As to the Truth of this wonderful Paſſage, I ſhall not at preſent make any Inquiries, becauſe it chiefly relates to matters of Fact, not in Scripture-Hiſtory: and as to the Grammar and Senſe, I leave thoſe to clear it up, that have a better Knack at criticiſing, and ſolving Paradoxes, than I can pretend to.

BUT there is one thing I'd take notice of, that the Gentleman ſays, which will very much hurt p. 31and perplex his Cauſe; viz. If it is not by vertue of this Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles by our Saviour, that ALL Goſpel Miniſters are authorized & ordain'd, I deſire any one to ſhew what Authority they have, & where it is given. If it is by vertue of this Commiſſion that any Man is an authoriz'd Miniſter, then it can come by no Hands but the Apoſtles, and them to whom the Apoſtles gave it.

THESE are notable Lines indeed; but I doubt our Author has very much wounded his own Cauſe by them, and contradicted himſelf.

For,

1. HE here relinquiſhes the Argument from the Seventy, and ſo runs counter to the Beginning of his Diſcourſe. There he ſat up the 70 as Officers in the Goſpel-Church, and ſuppos'd them to ſubſiſt upon a diſtinct Commiſſion from that of the Eleven Apostles. But now in the End of his Diſcourſe, he gives up his Plea from the Seventy, & owns but one Commiſſion, viz. That given to the Eleven, by virtue of which any man is an authoriz'd Miniſter: — Unleſs perhaps he meant that none cou'd be inveſted in the Commiſſion of the Seventy, but by Apoſtles & Biſhops; and ſo all wou'd be ordain'd [in a ſenſe] by virtue of the Commiſſion given to the Eleven. But that cou'd not be his meaning, becauſe he is here ſpeaking of the Apoſtles delegating their Commiſſion, & gives it as his Opinion, "That it was "delegated to ſome ſuperior to others; that is, (as we muſt explain him from what he ſays, pag. 93.) it was derived to their Succeſſors in unequal Degrees; to ſome, viz. Presbyters, in Part; to others, viz. Biſhops, in Whole. And (ſays he, in the laſt mention'd page) whatever p. 32part of the Apoſtolical Authority any Miniſter of the Chriſtian Church duly or validly exerciſes, it is by virtue of a regular Delegation from the firſt Apoſtles or their Succeſſors.

Moreover,

2. BY the foremention'd Aſſertion, our Author has defeated all his Arguments beſides, & in effect given up his whole Craſe. For, if what he affirms be true, viz. That by virtue of this Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles, ALL Goſpel-Miniſters are authoris'd; then he has put it out of his own Power, to prove that there is any ſuch Order of Men as Biſhops, diſtinct from & ſuperior to Paſtors or Teachers. To ſet this in a clear Light, I argue thus. Whoſoever is authoriz'd by virtue of that Commiſſion, muſt derive his Authority from it, either mediately & by ſome diſtant Conſequence, or immediately and by a direct Inveſtiture. Now, if ordinary Paſtors & Presbyters are authoriz'd at all by virtue of that Commiſſion, it muſt be by immediate Inveſtiture. The Deacons indeed have a more remove and mediate or conſequential Reference to that Commiſſion: becauſe either their Office was originally imply'd in it, but the Apoſtles (by the … of the Holy Ghoſt) inſtituted a new & … Order of Men to ſuſtain that … of the Commiſſion; or elſe a new Office, diſtinct from that of the … was inſtituted, by virtue of that Commiſſion.—But now as to the Presbyters, their Caſe is vaſtly different. For the Presbyters Authority is more immediately founded in that Commiſſion, & is not a ſecondary Thing. The Miniſterial Commiſſion is but one. I know of no Commiſſion to preach the Word, and adminiſter Goſpel-Sacraments, but p. 33that which was given to the Apoſtles, in Mat. 28. And no man may pretend to do thoſe Things, but by virtue of that Commiſſion, devolv'd upon him. To allude to ſome of our Author's own Words before quoted; If it is not by virtue of [a direct & proper Inveſtiture in] this Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles by our Saviour, that ALL Goſpel-Miniſters are authoriz'd, I deſire any one to ſhew me what Authority they have, and where it is given. In ſhort, let our Opponents produce any Commiſſion that the Apostles have given, by virtue of that Commiſſion granted to them, inſtituting an Order of Goſpel-Miniſters or Presbyters, not having Epiſcopal Powers; and we will yield the Cauſe. Or let 'em prove that the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles had Authority to conſtitute a new order of mere Presbyters or Subject Paſtors; and it will do as well. But till they can perform one or other of theſe Things, they muſt indulge our Weakneſs, if we ſtill adhere to the Opinion, That all Goſpel-Miniſters are in a direct and immediate Way authoriz'd by the Apoſtles Commiſſion, or (in other words) actually inveſted with it.

AND now, if it be thus, it muſt need follow, that Presbyters & Biſhops are of one & the ſame Order and Degree; inaſmuch as their Claim to the Powers contain'd in that Commiſſion, is equal & the ſame. So much Truth is there, in that Obſervation of our Author's, [pag. 91.] That whatever Power the Apostles had by virtue of that Commiſſion, Thoſe to whom they deriv'd that Commiſſion, muſt neceſſarily be veſted with the ſame;— and had by virtue of that Commiſſion the full Plenitude of the Apoſtolic Power, derived to 'em from CHRIST. Hence then, p. 34ſeeing All Goſpel-Miniſters or Teachers] are authoriz'd immediately by that Commiſſion, They muſt be veſted with the whole ordinary Power therein contain'd: and Biſhops can pretend to no more. Therefore Biſhops & Presbyters are the ſame.

I can ſee no Foundation in the world, for that Distinction our Author makes, in his 93d page, viz. That the Apoſtles gave to ſome All their Power; but to others they only gave Part of their Power. He makes this Diſtinction, in Reply to an Objection. If any (ſays he) ask how Presbyters can exerciſe thoſe Powers [namely, of preaching, and adminiſtring Goſpel-Sacraments, & of abſolving Offenders upon their Repentance] without being Apoſtles or Biſhops, ſince our Savior gave that Commiſſion only to the Apoſtles as ſuch: I anſwer, It is true our Savior gave thoſe Powers only to the Apoſtles; but he gave them Authority to delegate that Power to whom they thought fit and worthy; and they gave to ſome all their Power (& ſo they were as much Apoſtles as the firſt Eleven were) but to others they only gave Part of their Power; viz. To preach, and adminiſter the Sacraments.— This is his Anſwer: but I think it will no way ſolve the Difficulty, nor ſerve his cauſe.

IN the firſt place, I deny his Distinction here, to have any Foundation in the Word of God. For the Miniſterial Commiſſion is but one; and they that are ordain'd to the Office of the Goſpel-Miniſtry inſtituted in that Commiſſion, are inveſted with all the Powers that belong to that Office by Divine Inſtitution —. Obſerve, our Author himſelf confeſſes, that theſe Powers were at frſt p. 35given only to the Eleven Apoſtles: and to them, they were given Equally. Hence then, ſuch as ſucceed Them, muſt be likewiſe Equal Sharers in all thoſe Powers, and the Miniſterial Commiſſion muſt belong to them alike, in its full Extent ‖‖See the Sober Remarks, (upon Matth. 28.19, 20.) where this Point is more largely debated.Matt 28:19Matt 28:20▪ unleſs the Apoſtles in CHRIST's name have made ſome Limitations. And the Proof of this is what we demand. This Gentleman peremptorily aſſerts, that the Apoſtles gave their Power to ſome only in Part, and with Reſtrictions. But this is ſooner affirm'd than prov'd. I ſhall only ſay here; Had the Apoſtles convey'd their Miniſterial Powers unto others, in various Degrees, (to ſome All, to others only a Part) they wou'd neceſſarily have ſet up a new & diſtinct Officer in Him that had only a Part: and if there had been a diſtinct Officer ſet up by them, they wou'd doubtleſs have given him ſome diſtinguiſhing Name to be known by, and have ſtated his peculiar Qualifications to regulate the Choice of him, and have introduc'd him into his Work by a diſtinct Ordination or Conſecration &c. But we find no Footſteps of theſe Things in the ſacred Records. The Names of thoſe that the Apoſtles ordain'd to the Goſpel-Miniſtry in every Church, [ſuch as Biſhops, Presbyters, Paſtors, Teachers, &c.] are promiſcuouſly apply'd: and the ſame Qualifications are indifferently requir'd of them all. And their Ordination is univerſally the ſame: and their Work the ſame. Where then is there any Scripture Ground for our Author's Diſtinction? Surely it can be nothing but a mere Fiction, to help a lame Cauſe, that needs ſuch Aſſiſtences! p. 36And whatever pretended Sanction it may receive from human Authority & Cuſtom, this will never warrant ſuch a Diſtribution and Separation of the Powers and Parts of a Divine Commiſſion. We may properly enough apply here that ſaying of our Saviour, What therefore God hath joyned together, let not Man put aſunder.

HOWEVER, to take our Author once more in his own way, I will ſuppoſe, that the Apoſtles actually did derive their Power to others with a Difference, to ſome All, and to others only a Part. I will ſuppoſe there are Elders, who have no Power of Rule, but are emphatically Teachers, having only Power to preach, and adminiſter the Sacraments: Yet I cannot ſee at preſent how our Author can improve ſuch a Conceſſion to ſerve his Cauſe. For this will not neceſſarily infer a Subordination among the Miniſters of the Goſpel. I'll give two Reaſons why I think ſo.

1. THE Epiſcopacy that belongs to Eccleſiaſtical Rulers, is over the People, & not over the Teachers of the People. 'Tis call'd an Overſight of the FLOCK, Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2.—'Tis call'd A taking Care of the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3.5. And, what is more, Miniſters are expreſly forbidden to uſurp Authority over their Brethren in the Miniſtry, Mat. 20.25. &c. [See the Sober Remarks, on this Text, pag. 99. Edit. 2.]

2. CONSIDER, Government imply's nothing in its Nature, that ſhou'd be a Ground of Superiority in the Rulers of the Flock, over thoſe (ſuppoſed) mere Teachers. The Key of Church-Diſcipline & Government is repreſented, by ſome Judicious Divines, as inferior in its Nature to the Key of Doctrine. Biſhop Burnet thus expreſſes himſelf; Since I look upon the Sacramental Actions, as p. 37the Higheſt of ſacred Performances, I cannot but acknowlege thoſe who are empower'd for them, muſt be of the higheſt Office in the Church ††Confer. pag. 310..—That preaching & adminiſtring Sacraments, are the principal Parts of the Miniſterial Office, ſeems to be intimated, in that theſe only are recited in the Commiſſion given the Apoſtles, Mat. 28. — And the inſpired Doctor of the Gentiles ſeems, in ſeveral places, to intimate the ſame to us. How highly do's he magnify his Office, as a Preacher of the Goſpel, a Steward of the Myſteries of Religion, an Embaſſador of Chriſt, and a Worker together with GOD! And what ſuperior Reſpects doth he require to be paid to Goſpel-Preachers, as ſuch! 1 Theſ. 5.13. Esteem them very highly [the ſame word is render'd Eph. 3.20. Exceeding abundantly] in Love for their Work's ſake. Yea and he makes that Diſtinction, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well, he counted worthy of double Honour; eſpecially they … labour in the Word & Doctrine. Upon which Text, it may be remark'd—.

HERE are Elders that rule, & Elders that labour in the Word. If theſe Elders are the ſame & one, here's a Compariſon between the ſeveral Parts of their Office, Ruling & Teaching; and the Preference is given to the Latter.—Or, If here are two Kinds of Presbyters, one Ruling, & the other Teaching, the Precedence is given to the Teaching Presbyter.—So that, take it in which ſenſe you will, by the Apoſtle's Rule, the Key of Doctrine, and the Subjects of it, cannot be inferior to the Key of Order or Juriſdiction, & its Recipients. Suppoſe Presbyters, and Biſhops, to be different Orders, p. 38yet Biſhops are not a ſuperior Order. For, Government & Ordination are thoſe things, wherein Biſhops are ſuppos'd to differ from Presbyters: And theſe things cannot be any Grounds of Superiority; becauſe they are inferior [at leaſt not ſuperior] to thoſe Miniſterial Powers, which Presbyters themſelves are veſted with. If they be not ſuperior in Dignity, how can they be a juſt Foundation of Authority; of Authority in Biſhops, over Presbyters as ſuch?—Beſides, it muſt be remember'd, the Apoſtle requires that diſtinguiſhing … be paid to the Elders that labour in Doctrine, above the Elders that labour in Rule: which he wou'd not have done, if the Elders that rule (you, and rule well) had been more honourable than their Brethren.—In a word, I commend this Text to the ſober Conſideration of our Opponents, & deſire 'em to ſhew me how they can reconcile the Apoſtolical Canon here, with their Scheme of Things, particularly as laid down in the Modeſt Proof, and the Perſuaſive. If any Man will do this, & make ſenſe of the Text, [to borrow again ſome of our Author's words, pag. 90) He will have a better Knock at ſolving Paradoxes then I can pretend it.

AND here I finiſh my Remarks upon what our Author hath advanced in Proof of the Divine Right of Prelacy.

I might now make ſome Obſervations upon what he ſays under the head of DEACONS. But this Part of the Controverſy between us, is ſo fully conſider'd, and to ſo good purpoſe, in the Sober Remarks, that I ſhall not trouble you with any long Talk upon it. Whether it is plain from the Inſtance of Philip, that the Deacons were Preachers & Baptizers, — I believe every p. 39one will doubt, who impartially weighs what is ſaid on that Caſe in the Sober Remarks. Yea, our Author himſelf ſeems to grant that they were not ſuch at their firſt ſetting up. For he ſays; I don't deny but the first Inſtitution of that Order in the Church, was to take Care of the Poor and the … of the Church, [as for his Fling here in a Parentheſis ‖‖The Parentheſis is, (and perhaps that, viz. taking Care of the Poor, and the Alms of the Church, wou'd be a more conſiderable part of their Office at this day than it is made, if the unhappy Diviſions that are among us wou'd ſuffer the Diſcipline of the Church to take place.)if it was level'd at the Presbyterians, it's as ſenſeleſs as 'tis ill-natur'd] but (he adds however) at the ſame time they are Goſpel-Ministers, … with a Power of doing ſeveral purely miniſterial Acts; ſuch as preaching by the Biſhop's Licence, baptizing, and adminiſtring the Cup to the People in the Lord's Supper. —But how do's he prove they are Goſpel-Miniſters & veſted with power to do theſe Things? Why; By their Ordination, by the Example of Scripture-Deacons, & the long Practice of the Church. As to the Practice of the Church, how ancient ſoever, that can be of no Weight, if it be againſt a Divine Inſtitution. And as for the Example of Scripture-Deacons, it is all but a Pretence. There is no ſuch Example in Scripture. 'Tis not to be found either in Philip, or Stephen. Stephen did no more than what any private Man might do, in the like Caſe, being filled with the Holy Ghoſt. As for Philip, tho' he preach'd, he did not do it as a Deacon, but as an Evangeliſt (Act. 21.8.) And (as one obſerves) if he had done otherwiſe, it is but what was uſually done by gifted Men in thoſe extraordinary Times. Grotius quotes p. 40Act. 11.20. for private Perſons preaching in thoſe times of Perſecution. [on Acts 8.5.] Apollos ſeems to be a plain Inſtance of this. Take it in Dr. Hammond's words, (on Act. 18.25.) This Apollos had been inſtructed in the Goſpel, and though not ſo perfectly, yet being very zealous in the way wherein he was entred, he began [publickly] to Preach the Goſpel among them out of the Prophets, and this before he was baptized with the Chriſtian Baptiſm, being only received by John to the believing in him that was to come: and by conſequence, not then ordain'd by the Apoſtles. We have other Inſtances in the 12 Epheſian Diſciples, who had not receiv'd the Holy Ghoſt, nor gone any farther than John's Baptiſm, at the time of Paul's coming to them. (Act. 19. begin.) Dr. Hammond ſpeaks of them as Chriſtian Profeſſors publiſhing the Goſpel at Epheſus; and that without having given them (of the Holy Ghoſt) Authority or Gifts for the Work of the Miniſtery. And now if private Perſons, without having receiv'd ordination to the Miniſtry, did thus preach the Goſpel, in times of extraordinary neceſſity, why might not Philip, (when driven from Jeruſalem, and ſo ceaſing to perform his Deacon's Office there) preach the Goſpel at Samaria, and yet not do it as a Deacon? Suppoſing Philip to be as yet no more than a Deacon, his preaching doth not any more argue that Deacons may ordinarily be Preachers, than that private Perſons may be ſo.—But perhaps ſome will object, That Philip baptis'd as well as preach'd. To which I anſwer; In ſuch an extraordinary Caſe, He might baptiſe as lawfully as preach. And ſuch an extraordinary Effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, and Power of working Miracles, as He had, would juſtify any Man's p. 41doing both, in ſuch a Caſe. The words of the late excellent Biſhop Burnet ‖‖…. on Pſalm. 144 15 (pag. 23.) preach'd ….Ps 144:15are remarkable; Has not every Chriſtian, in caſes of neceſſity, a Right to teach another, & perſuade him to be a Chriſtian? And therefore, though it is a very juſt Part of the Order of the Church, that none but Perſons initiated into holy Functions ſhould baptize & preach, yet Neceſſity is above all Rules: In ſuch a Caſe they may baptize as well as preach. The Faith of the Trinity gives every Man a Right to baptize: and this has been the conſtant ſenſe of the Church for above fourteen hundred years, &c. There is no force then in the pretended Example of Scripture-Deacons, to prove that Deacons as ſuch, & in ordinary Caſes may preach & baptize. But ſays our Author they are veſted with Power to do this, by their Ordination. By which he muſt mean either the Apoſtolical Ordination, or the Church of England-Ordination. I think He could not mean the Former; becauſe in the beginning of the ſame Paragraph, he owns that the firſt Institution of that order in the Church, was to take Care of the Poor: and indeed He muſt have been ſtrangely blind or wilful, if he had deny'd this. For nothing can be more evident from the Inſtitution (Act. 6.) than that Deacons originally were Overſeers of the Poor, & ordain'd to ſerve Tables, which the Apoſtles wou'd not leave the Word of God to do. But in proceſs of Time, (ſays one) when the Revenues of the Church were enlarg'd, the Caſe was greatly alter'd: the Biſhops affected to be Guardians of the Poor, and to make the Deacons Amends admitted them to preach & baptize. The Biſhops omit Preaching, & become p. 42ſervants of Tables: and the Deacons from ſerving of Tables ſtep up into the Pulpit & become Preachers. Agreebly the Church of England allows her Deacons to be Preachers and Baptiſer. And moſt probably it might be Her Ordination, which our Author refer'd to when he ſaid that Deacons, are by their Ordination, veſted with a power of preaching by the Biſhops Licence. But then I ask, What Authority hath the Church to alter Divine Inſtitutions? If the Inſtitution (in Acts 6.) doth not give Deacons ſuch a Power, I deſire our Author to ſhew me what Commiſſion the Church of England hath to give it them: and if he cannot produce any Commiſſion to warrant the Church's giving it them, than the Biſhop's Licence is but Vanity & Preſumption, & the Epiſcopal Deacons are condemned out of our Author's own mouth, in that paſſage, [pag. 93.] Whoever pretends to exerciſe any part of the Miniſterial Office, without a regular Delegation or Miſſion, is an Intruder into the Prieſts Office, & every Act of his is Null & Void, & in the Scripture-ſtyle an abomination to the Lord. —We may borrow a few more words from him (out of the next page) & ſay to Him & his Brethren, Therefore I beſeech you to look to it; for though you may amuſe your ſelves, & the world, with a Legal Eſtabliſhment, I ſhall take the Liberty to ſay (with all due Regard & Submiſſion to the Civil Power) that what our Bleſſed Savior has commanded, [or inſtituted] No Power on Earth can make void: and what He or his Apoſtles have either by expreſs words, or neceſſary Conſequence forbidden, No Law of Man can make …. — I'll add here, thoſe words in the Modeſt Proof, (pag. 30 ….) p. 43You know what a dreadful Curſe is pronounced againſt them who either add to, or take away from, the Inſtitutions of Jeſus Chriſt, in Rev. …, 19.— This is to pretend to be wiſer … Chriſt.—How then are Prelatical Churches to be condemn'd, that ſo confound and jumble together the different Orders inſtituted by Chriſt, & ſet up a new Model different from what he eſtabliſhed:—in which the Deacons are made half Prieſts, & the Prieſts but half Miniſters & mere Curates to the Biſhops: while the Biſhops have an over-grown Power; part whereof they commit to Lay-Officers, who take Care generally to employ it upon the Inferior Clergy & People with a wholeſome Severity, ſo far as this will make for their own Intereſt.

I ſhall now diſmiſs my Author with a word or two, upon the Concluſion of his … Proof, which is as full of Ill Nature, & fooliſh Bigotry, as his preceding Diſcourſe is … of Truth and Honeſty. I have (ſays he to us) inſiſted the longer upon theſe three Orders of Goſpel-Miniſters, to ſhew you (if poſſible) your Error, in ſetting up Miniſters to your … who have no Miſſion, — and of the Danger you are … for want of Goſpel Ordinances. Then follows this fatal Climax, If you have no Ordination, you can have no lawful Miniſters; if you want lawful Miniſters, you can have no Baptiſm; and without Baptiſm, you have no Title to the … of Grace, in God's ordinary way of dealing with us. — Is this the Reſult, this the End of our pretended Error? We thank the Gentleman then for the Charity of his Perſuaſive: but we thank God more, that we know it is … a pretended Error, we are charg'd with, and only a ſuppoſed Danger, we are in. This we know and are ſure of by the Scripture Evidence we bring for the Truth and Goodneſs of our Cauſe: and from the Succeſs of the Miniſtry in our Churches; which has been ſuch, for its Degree & its Conſtancy, as (to ſpeak modeſtly) has hardly ever been parallel'd in any Epiſcopal Church on the face of the Earth. This is a Conſideration that will weigh much with ſerious thinking People and will weigh down a thouſand Cavils againſt our Miniſtry and Churches.

BUT I'll now finiſh with ſome remarkable Lines out of two or three famous Authors. End, Biſhop … in his Sermon p. 44before quoted [pag. 22,] ſpeaking of the Papiſts, obſerves; — They condemn without Mercy all who differ from them: They damn them firſt, and then perſecute them without Bowels. They think their Communion is the one Church, out of which there is no Salvation. He adds; I wiſh none of their Leaven may be fermenting among VsUs: In this Laſt Particular, a Notion begins to be ſpread among us, that goes further even than their Uncharitableneſs. They only deny that thoſe who are not of their Body are Catholicks: but there is a Conceit lately got in among us, that denies all who are not baptized among Us [that is, in the Church of England] to be Chriſtians, ſhuts them out of CHRIST's Covenant, and thinks them no better than Heathens. A Notion that tho' it once got into ſome Churches, who thought that the Baptiſm of Hereticks was of no Value, and ought to be repeated upon their Coming into the Church, yet was ſolemnly condemned and rejected by all the Churches of God now for above Fourteen Hundred Years. In Popery the Midwives generally baptize: yet, though this is againſt an expreſs Rule of the Apoſtles, That a Woman ought not to ſpeak in the Church, none of the Reformed ever thought of rebaptizing the Perſons ſo baptized: Nor did our Church at the Reſtoration ever entertain the leaſt Motion of this ſort. But now this is receiv'd by many, among the other wild Conceits of the Corrupter of our Faith & Church, who broached this, with many other monſtrous Errors, which he has carried ſo near Atheiſm, as to deny the Immortality of the Soul, and to put the Immortalizing Virtue in a Baptiſm given by Perſons Epiſcopally ordained.

THE common Topick (adds the Biſhop) for ſupporting this wild unheard of Paradox, is, that the Commiſſion to preach and baptize was given to the Apoſtles, ſo that none but their Succeſſors can pretend to it. But has not every Chriſtian, in caſes of neceſſity, a Right &c.

(The Reſt you had before.)

THIS is not the only ſtep ſome are making towards Popery; but with ſo little Knowledge and Conſideration, that it is to be hoped they do it ignorantly▪ miſled by a great Name & a ſhew of Learning; which many ſeem more willing to admire in others, than diligent to arrive at it themſelves.

WHAT a Deluge of Infidelity has over-run the Land! And how great a Contempt of holy Things does appear every where bare faced, even among thoſe who as far as Heat and Fury go, ſhew a Zeal, I had almoſt call'd it a Rage, p. 45for our Church; tho' their Behaviour is a Diſgrace, and their Lives a Reproach to it!

Thus the Biſhop.

MY next Author is the Celebrated Monſieur Claude, who has ſuch Words as theſe upon the matter. To ſpeak my Thoughts freely; this Fierce Opinion (of the abſolute neceſſity of Epiſcopacy) which wou'd make all Religion depend on a Formality, of no other than human Inſtitution, cannot be look'd on otherwiſe than as the very worſt Character, and a Mark of the groſſeſt Hypocriſy; a piece of Phariſaiſm all over, that ſtraits at a …, when it ſwallows a Camel. And I cannot avoid having at leaſt a Contempt of thoſe kind of Thoughts, and a Compaſſion for thoſe that fill fill their heads with them.

IN fine, ſays an Author of our own ‖‖Seaſonable Inquiries &c. pag. 9, 11.. What are they doing [O vain Men, what are you doing?] who after the WORD of GOD in the ſacred Scriptures doth ſo plainly & loudly condemn the Uſurpation of a Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, will for the ſake thereof renounce the Miniſtry and Communion of all the Proteſtant Churches in the World, except a very little Party on two Iſlands, which have ſo little Diſtinction of pure and undefiled Religion to invite a ſerious Chriſtian over to it! And will unite with the Papiſts, our common Enemy [at ſuch a time as this!] in the moſt compendious and effectual way of deſtroying the Reformation, and ſet up a Captain, under whom a Return to Egypt may be ſoon accompliſhed!

THESE borrow'd Paſſages muſt conclude my Reply to Mr. Barclay, and this haſty Letter to my Friend. I beg your Candour, as to the many Imperfections you may ſee in it. And pardon me that I have detained you ſo long. Accept my hearty Salutes: and always think of …, as,

Dear SIR, Your Brother And Servant. April 3. 1724.

End of the text · Thomas Foxcroft, The Ruling and Ordaining Power of Congregational Bishops (1724)