Vindication of the Appendix to The Sober Remarks, Text

Vindication of the Appendix to The Sober Remarks · Text

A Vindication OF THE Appendix to the Sober Remarks.

A VINDICATION OF THE Appendix to the Sober Remarks. Being a Reply to ſome ANIMADVERSIONS upon it, in the Appendix to the Defence of the Modest Proof. Wherein The Ruling and Ordaining Power of Congregational Biſhops, or Presbyters, is further Defended.

In a Second Letter to a Friend.

Prov. 15.1.

A ſoft Anſwer turneth away Wrath.

BOSTON in N.E. Printed for S. GERRISH, and Sold at his Shop. MDCCXXV.

p. 1A VINDICATION OF THE Appendix to the Sober Remarks.

SIR,

YOU cannot eaſily imagine what a grateful Entertainment I always have, when any Lines come to me from your obliging Hand. I am particularly bound to thank you for your laſt very acceptable Letter; which was the more welcome, for the kind Preſents that accompany'd it. The Defence of the Modeſt Proof, which you ſent me, appears in my Eyes, as you ſay it does in yours, A Peece of ſo ſingular a Complexion and Make (ſurely perfect in its kind) that I know not how to model my Countenance when I read it, whether for Laughter, for Indignation, or Compaſſion. An extraordinary BOOK it is, as well for the Stile and Method, as for the peculiar Vein of Argument running through the Body of the Work; and muſt needs therefore make a very admirable Appearance on the Stage of Literature. Undoubtedly the Author is ſome mighty Chief; ſome great Maſter at the Art of Wrangling, and us'd to throw the Ball of Contention; a Man fit to be the Champion of ſo diſtinguiſh'd a Party, and doubtleſs the moſt accompliſh'd Hand they could pick out to undertake p. 2the Reſcue of their baffl'd Cauſe. Pity indeed but that ſuch rare Talents ſhould be diſplay'd, and not lie ruſting in a Corner. Tho' equally a Pity 'tis, they had not been employ'd on a more worthy and defenſible Subject. For I doubt he will ſhrink in his Figure, and come off with Shame: Since we often ſee the greateſt Wits miſcarry in a bold Diſpute for want of a good Cauſe, as well as others of leſs Skill, for want of a good Conduct. However it ſeems He was reſolv'd for once to venture, and comes into the Field with an unequal'd Zeal and Courage; perhaps truſting in his Armour more than in his Cauſe. He bravely enters the Lifts with ſeveral Adverſaries together: And upon a view of them, taking 'em to be little impotent Animals, capable only to biſs and ſpit their Venom, he deſpiſes and derides them, as Goliah (the famous Philiſtine of Gath, that proud Giant, who deſy'd the Armies of Iſrael) diſdain'd his Antagoniſt, David, as a puny STRIPLING; by no meant an equal Match for ſuch a valiant, experienc'd Warrior as He. This Hero finds a ſtrong Reluctance in encountring them; and ſcorns to be in Earneſt, to put out his Strength, or ſhew his Skill: but only makes a few inſignificant Flouriſhes, and harmleſs undeſigning Paſſes. He appears continually, like a Man in Jeſt, only to ſport and play with them as Children: thinking perhaps, that it would be too a great an Honour put upon Them, and too much an Abuſe of his own Intellectual Powers and Learning, to go to reaſon and debate with Them in Earneſt.— Or elſe He ſuspected, that a Rational Defenſe of the Mod. Proof and the Diſcourſe might poſſibly prove a laborious Taſk, that wou'd coſt him a great Deal of Time, and be too long a Diverſion from his better Employments. Therefore he generally contents himſelf with peremptory Aſſertions, warm Harangues, and witty Deſcants: ſumming up all (O the happineſs he muſt needs feel▪) in glorious and triumphant Concluſions; tho' (alas) ſupported by little other Evidence, than the Aſſurance wherewith he lays them down.

INDEED, in that part of his Performance, which concerns me more particularly, and which the following p. 3Sheets are pointed againſt, (I mean the ſix laſt pages of his Appendix) He here varies his Mine and Shape very wonderfully; puts on ſome Features both of the Gentleman & the Scholar; and not only regales me with unuſual Airs of Civility, but alſo makes ſome Efforts to ſtate & argue matters like a Diſputant. For when a Man's Paſſion, or his Humour of Jeſting, has talkt it ſelf out of breath, many times his Reaſon recovers, and takes its turn to ſpeak.— Now therefore, to retaliate his Kindneſs, I ſhall ſtudy, thro' the whole of my Reply to him, to preſerve a due Temper; and ſhall do him the Juſtice to repreſent his Arguments fairly, allow 'em their utmoſt Force, and give 'em a ſober Conſideration, a diſtinct Examination, and more large and particular than is really needful: becauſe I'm willing to ſpare no pains in ſearching out the Truth in this diſputed Subject; and that (if poſſible) I may help caſt ſuch a Light on the Controverſy, as to ſatisfy impartial Inquirers. Therefore I ſhall make uſe of the Hints in my Antagoniſt, as occaſions to ſpeak largely to things. Indeed, were the Diſpute between us already drawn out to any conſiderable Length, I ſhou'd paſs over his brief Animadverſions with general & ſhort Glances. For I ſuppoſe all that is neceſſary in a way of Reply to Them, might be compris'd in a very few Pages; as few, I preſume, as thoſe he has beſtow'd on me. 'Tis but a ſmall part of the Appendix, that's affected by what he has advanc'd againſt it; and what he has offer'd, ſeems to have ſo little Strength in it, that ſome have thought a labour'd Anſwer would be too great a Complement to him. However, for the Reaſons hinted, I ſhall take occaſion from his Animadverſions, to handle the Points, that may fall in my way, ſomewhat largely. This muſt be remembred, or elſe I fear you'l cenſure me in many places, as laboriouſly & vainly ſkirmiſhing with a Shadow. Which being premis'd, let me now without any further Ceremony or Apology come to the Remarks I have to offer.

I can eaſily forgive him the Blunder he begins with, in ſaying, The Author often varies Shapes & Characters, p. 4for now he perſonates an Independent, and anon a Ruling Elder: — as if there were no Ruling Elders among the Independents.

I will alſo paſs over his next Reflection, which carries in it a Random-Shot at the Sectaries, who (he ſays) do all militate under the ſame common Standard of Schiſm and Rebellion: — for I am no more concern'd in this Obſervation than himſelf. Diſmiſſing it then as wholly foreign; I come to his three Preliminaries, which are deſign'd to give a juſt Turn of Thought to thoſe that have been under an unhappy Biaſs in the Controverſy.

1. AND here I concur with him, in the Subſtance of his first Preliminary, touching the Nature of the Apoſtolical Commiſſion, where he obſerves, That it is on all hands agreed to be the Grand Charter for the Evangelical Miniſtry; That it contains more in its Nature than is expreſſed; and that the Intent and Purport of it must be gathered from the Practice of the Apoſtles, as they underſtood and explained it in their acting by and upon it. Here, I confeſs, is a juſt Turn of Thought, but ſuch a one as gives an unhappy Blow to his own Cauſe.

OBSERVE, He allows the Apoſtolical Commiſſion to be the grand Charter for the Evangelical Miniſtry. By which, if I underſtand him right, he means, That this is the Diploma Regium, the Royal Warrant, Licenſe, or Patent, by which every true Goſpel-Miniſter claims, or is authoriz'd and impower'd. I ſuppoſe He will conſent to the Words of his Friend (and perhaps Countryman) Barclay, who thus expreſſeth his Senſe of the Matter, (in his Perſuaſive, pag. 91.) It is by virtue of the Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles by our Saviour, that any Man is an authorized Miniſter: And if it is not by virtue of this Commiſſion, that ALL Goſpel-Miniſters are authoriz'd, I deſire any one to ſhew what Authority they have and where it is founded. — Here is a good Comment on that Conceſſion of my Animadverter. But perhaps it may be better to compare it with another Paſſage of his own elſewhere, which ſufficiently explains his Senſe. p. 5It is in his ††N.B. I call it His, (and ſhall go upon this Preſumption in ſome further Obſervations afterwards) becauſe of the near Affinity betwixt the ſtrain of Reaſoning in the Def. and in the Animadv, and becauſe there are ſome very peculiar Turns of Language common to them both, &c. which ſpeaks them to be hammer'd on the ſame Anvil.Defence of Mod. Proof, (pag. 61.) where ſpeaking of the Apoſtolical Commiſſion, he affirms, That there are ſeveral Things contained in it, and ſeveral Offices warranted by it, as the Powers of Preaching, administring the Sacraments, Ordination, and Government by proper Officers, and that ALL that diſcharge ANY of thoſe Functions, act by virtue of THIS Commiſſion. — Now I do aſſert, He has by theſe Conceſſions given a fatal wound to the Cauſe of Prelacy; and muſt think ſo, till he ſhall refute my Remarks on the like Expreſſions of Mr. Barclay's, (See the Appendix, pag. 31,— 38.) where I have ſhewn, That hereby he hath diſarm'd himſelf of his Herculean Argument, from the Seventy, and has put it intirely out of his power, by any other Medium whatſoever, to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy. I deſire my Animadverter wou'd conſult the Pages cited, and let us have his Animadverſions upon them, as he wou'd do Juſtice to his Cauſe.

I agree with him, in the Remainder of his firſt Preliminary, viz. That the Apoſtles Commiſſion contains more in its nature than is expreſſed, and that the Purport of it muſt be gather'd from their Practice upon it —. But then we muſt carefully obſerve the allow'd Diſtinction between their ordinary and their extraordinary Powers and actions. It is acreed on all ſides, That the Apoſtles had ſome peculiar Powers, that were extraordinary, and temporary, and expir'd with their Perſons: by virtue whereof they did this & t'other extraordinary Action, that can't be drawn into a Preſident for After-Ages, which afford only ſuch Officers, as ſucceed them in their ordinary Powers.— Under this head, the Author of Mod. Proof (pag, 33.) enumerates their Jurisdiction over all Churches and Paſtors, their backing their Cenſures with p. 6Corporal Puniſhments, and perhaps their inſtituting new Goſpel Officer, &c. Theſe Things we find in Fact they did: but that they did them by virtue of their Commiſſion (in Mat. 28) as acting immediately by and upon it, I ſcarce believe my Animadverter will aſſert; becauſe it is plain they were extraordinary Actions, and cou'd be done only by virtue of their extraordinary Powers. Whereas that Commiſſion contains nothing beyond the ordinary Duties and Powers, not peculiar to the Apoſtles, but common to all their Brethren and Succeſſors in the Miniſtry. Agreeably Biſhop Hall, ſpeaking of the Promiſe annexed, obſerves, Chriſt was with them, not in the Infallibleneſs of their Judgment, nor in the Univerſality of their Charge; but in the effectual Execution of thoſe Offices, which ſhould be perpetuated to His Church for the Salvation of Mankind. Such were the Preaching of the Goſpel, and the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, the Ordaining Church-Officers, the ordering of Church affairs, the Infliction of Cenſures and the Power of the K…y….— As to any Inſpection and I…fluence over the Presbyters and conſtituted Churches, that the Apoſtles might have, and if they be ſuppoſed to exerciſe a Jurisdiction over them, this muſt be founded in the extraordinary Powers, which were peculiar to themſelves, and temporary; as I have argu'd elſewhere (Append. to Sob. Rem. p. 26, 27.) unto which I can't find the Animadverter has ſaid any thing, to take off the force of my Reaſoning there: I ſhall think it ſtands good then, till I hear further from him; and upon a review, perhaps it may appear to him not unworthy of ſome ſerious Reflections.

AND now I ſhall hint three or four things to ſet the Nature of this Commiſſion in a true Light, from the Practice of the Apoſtles by and upon it; which I doubt not will make the Presbyterian Hypotheſis as clear as plain Fact can make a thing.

IN the firſt place, we may obſerve, While the Apoſtles remain'd at Jeruſalem, after Chriſt's Aſcenſion, (which Euſebius reports, was for ſeveral Years) they acted in a complete Parity: and even Peter and John (who ſeemed to be Pillars, as much as James, pretended to be p. 7Biſhop of Jeruſalem) were ſent out by their Brethren, upon a particular …rrand to Samaria. (Act. 8 14) And afterwards we find this Equality continu'd among the Biſhops and Paſtors in the Church at Jeruſalem; Hence it is ſaid, Act. 11.22. THEY ſent forth Barnabas. The Act paſſeth not in the name of a Prelate, nor of the Apoſtles. So in Act. 15. we read of a matter of Controverſy refer'd to the Deciſion o… the Apoſtles & Elders at Jeruſalem; and it is ſaid. The Apoſtles and Elders came together to conſider of this matter: and there was much Diſputing: and when they were come to a Determination, the Reſult paſſed in the Names of them all without Diſtinction. [The Decrees are ſaid to be ordained of the Apoſtles & Elders.] Then they all agreed to ſend choſen Men or their own Company, with Paul and Barnabas, to carry their Letters to Anticch. So that in all the managements in the Church at Jeruſalem hitherto, there appears not the leaſt ſign or ſhadow of a Prelacy. And doubtleſs all other Churches were form'd after the ſame Model with that.

MOREOVER, obſerve, when the Apoſtles planted a Church in any Place, they ſettled a Plurality of Presbyters in it. Thus we read, Act. 14.23. Paul & Barnabas ordained them Elders in every Church. A number of Elders; and no mention of a Biſhop ſet over them.

THESE Elders were themſelves Biſhops, and Church-Rulers. My Animadverter himſelf ſhall be my Voucher for this; who tells us, that the Presbyters, which the Apoſtles ſettled in the Churches, and particularly thoſe at Corinth, had the Powers both of Sacraments & Cenſures: and for proof he alledges 1 Cor. 5.5, 7, 12, 13. and 2 Cor. 2 6. If we conſult theſe places, we ſhall find the Apoſtle ſpeaks to the Corinthian Elders as Church-Rulers, veſted with the Power of the Keys. We ſhall find they paſſed the higheſt Church-Cenſure on the Inceſtuous Perſon; and then abſolv'd him again upon his Repentance. So that they exercis'd the power of the Keys both in Binding and in Lo…ſing. My Animadverter therefore well aſcribes unto them the Powers both of Sacraments & Cenſures.

p. 8AND indeed this is but agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, as it may be gather'd out of the Public Offices; where we find Presbyters receiving a pretty advanc'd Character, as Rulers and Paſtors. Thus, They ſeem to have Authority over the Deacons, as appears by the Deacons Ordination-Vow, wherein They promiſe Reverently to obey Their Ordinary [the Biſhop's Suffragan, who is at beſt but a Presbyter] and other chief Miniſters of the Church [Presbyters ſtill] AND Them to whom the Charge & Government over them is committed: By whom, I ſuppoſe, was originally intended the Paſtors of the reſpective Congregations, to which thoſe Deacons were imploy'd to miniſter. As ſeems very probable, if we compare the Promiſe here, with that of the Prieſts; which runs in a different ſtrain: The Prieſt promiſing to obey his Ordinary, and other chief Miniſters, unto whom is committed &c. Where the Form of Expreſſion is alter'd. Here it is—Chief Miniſters, unto whom—. Whereas in the former Office, it is—Chief Ministers, AND Them to whom—. Which material Variation of the Form ſeems plainly to ſpeak the Presbyters, who are a ſuperior order unto Deacons, to have committed to them a Government over Thoſe of this inferior Office, who miniſter in their Congregations.—But however it be in that Caſe, be ſure the Presbyters have (according to the Engliſh Model) a governing Power over the Flock. If we look into the Form of ordering Prieſts, we ſhall find a great deal to countenance this Aſſertion. Thus in the Charge that is given them the Figures of Shepherds, Watchmen, Meſſengers, and Stewards of the Lord, are purſued, and the Places of Scripture, relating to Theſe are applied to them. And then in the Ordination-Vow, the Biſhop takes a Promiſe of them, That they will give their faithful Diligence ſo to miniſter the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Diſcipline of Chriſt, as the Lord hath commanded,—unto the People committed to their Cure and Charge: — and that they will be ready with all faithful Diligence to Baniſh and DRIVE away all erroneous and ſtrange Doctrines, &c. And then, it is remarkable, at the Impoſition of Hands, the Biſhop ſays to p. 9the Priest ordained, — Whoſe Sins Thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whoſe Sins thou doſt retain, they are retained. Which are the expreſs Words of the Apoſtolical Commiſſion, John 20 — And tho' theſe words are order'd to be read for the Goſpel, at the Conſecration of a Biſhop, yet they are not repeated in the Form of Ordination, or at the Impoſition of Hands: for which I cannot think of a more natural Reaſon than this, viz. Becauſe the Office of Presbyter ſtill ſubſiſts in the Biſhop, unto which all the Power imply'd in thoſe Words do properly belong; and the Presbyter receives no new or ſuperadded Power, as of Divine Right, at his Conſecration to the Epiſcopate, but only is advanced to a Degree of Dignity and Authority, that has ariſen out of ſome prudential Constitutions Eccleſiaſtical and Civil: and therefore the Repetition or Delivery of the Apoſtolical Commiſſion to him, upon this Preferment, is tho't unneceſſary. So that (as I hinted in the Appendix, pag. 24.) it ſhould ſeem that 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 Human Conſtitutions. And indeed this Diſtinction is hinted to us, when the Biſhop, at his Conſecration, promiſes — to correct and puniſh the Criminous within his Dioceſs, according to ſuch Authority as be hath by God's Word, & as to him ſhall be committed by the ordinance of this Realm. — Upon the whole it appears that my Animadverter has ſpoken the original Senſe of his own Church, as well as confeſſed to a Scripture-Doctrine, in aſſerting the Presbyters having the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures. — But if I miſtake not, this Conceſſion, which the force of Teach (more perhaps than the want of Thought) has extorted from him, will prove the utter Subverſion of his Cauſe, For it is one of the firſt Principles in his Scheme, That the Powers of Government and Ordination are annexed, alia…, connected. This is a Maxim the Gentleman oft inculcates, and is what Epiſcopalians generally maintain. Now they that have the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures, muſt be own'd to have the governing Power in p. 10their Hands. He that denies this, muſt certainly have a very odd Turn of Thought; and my Animadverter muſt needs be under an unhappy Biaſs (indeed) in the Controverſy, if he denies Presbyters the power of Ordination, after he has thus aſſerted their governing Power, and proclaim'd them Parochial Biſhops.

BUT perhaps he may object: This Arguing is vain; for there muſt this neceſſary Diſtinction be obſerv'd, That the Government, with which Ordination is connected, is not that of meer Presbyters over their ſingle Flocks, but that of Dioceſan Biſhops over a Plurality of Churches and their Paſtors. The Government of Prelates, and that of Presbyters, are two different ſorts of Government; and the Government which the Power of Ordination was annexed to, is that of Prelates taken in its proper preſent Eccleſiaſtical Senſe, and not that that meer Presbyters have over their ſingle Congregations. So he diſtinguiſhes in his Def. of Mod. Proof, p. 21.

TO which I anſwer, That this Diſtinction appears to be without any juſt Foundation. For there are not two ſuch different Species of Church-Governours, as he ſpeaks of. Either Presbyters have the complete Power of Eccleſiaſtical Rule, or they have none at all. The latter is contrary to the declared Senſe of my Animadverter: He expreſly allows them a Government over their Flocks, even the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures; which implies, I think, no ſmall Degree of Authority veſted in them: But how fatal to his Argument, is this Acknowlegement! He here laſhes his own Error; and turns Traitor to his own Cauſe.— For I ask the Gentleman, how he ſuppoſes the Presbyters came by ſo much ruling Power? What Commiſſion is it founded in? For, if it doth not reſult from ſome Divine Commiſſion, that they are inveſted with, it is a very criminal Preſumption and an unſufferable Inſolence in Them to lay claim to it: a daring Offence it muſt needs be, equal at leaſt to what They are guilty of, who approach before God's Altar without the appointed Rites of Conſecration. I ask then, What Commiſſion it is founded in? Is it the p. 11Commiſſion of the Seventy? No ſurely; for that doth not contain the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures. Where then ſhall we look to find the original of this their governing Power? Shall we repair to Matth. 28. and refer it to the Apoſtolical Commiſſion? Yes; for if it be not imply'd there, it is no where in the Bible. And beſides the Gentleman himſelf, (in his Def. of Mod. Proof, p. 61.) vouches this for their Warrant, and expreſly affirms, That it is by vertue of this Commiſſion, that Presbyters diſcharge the Function of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments, and exerciſe the Powers of Abſolution and Cenſures. Well but if that Commiſſion belongs to them, which is the higheſt in the Church, how can there be any ſuppos'd of a ſuperior Order to Them? And how come the Presbyters to have any Title or Relation at all to that Commiſſion; which was given immediately to the twelve Apostles, and not to the Seventy Diſciples? Why truly here is the Difficulty, and the Self-repugnance, in our Animadverter's Scheme. For it is a Paradox to me, That Presbyters ſhould have a governing Power in the Church, by vertue of the Commiſſion given to the Apoſtles; and yet really be no more than Succeſſors to the Seventy Diſciples, whoſe Commiſſion contain'd nothing of ſuch an Eccleſiaſtical Authority. I wonder by what new Logick the Gentleman will be able to accommodate theſe two jarring Principles of his. He has caſt his Cauſe upon a palpable Contradiction; and while he eſſays to gore us with both Horns at once, we may hope to eſcape without Harm from either.

FURTHERMORE, As to theſe governing Presbyters it may be obſerved, we find none of them claiming a Superiority over their Brethren; nay, the very Apostles themſelves made no pretenſions to any Supremacy, or Prelatical Power over them, as Officers of another and higher Order. We do not find that the Apoſtles claim'd a Negative upon the ordinary Paſtors, and the Churches, in matters of Government, nor ſo much as a Right of Precedency, as ſuperior Officers. They own'd Presbyters (as in the forementioned caſe of the Corinthian Elders) p. 12to have the Power of the Keys, and ſeem to know nothing of their being limited to exerciſe them by Apoſtolical Direction and Conſent. — And in the caſe of Miſſions, the Apoſtles uſed no coercive Power over the Presbyters, but took their free Conſent; without which they went not. Thus the Apoſtle Paul told the Corinthians (1 Epiſ. 16.12) As touching our Brother Apollos, I greatly deſired him to come unto you with the Brethren, but his Will was not at all to come at this Time; but he will come, when he ſhall have convenient Time. Now, according to the Author of Mod. Proof, (pag. 30.) Apollos was but a Presbyter; and yet you ſee he acted his own Inclinations, in oppoſition to Apoſtolical Intreaties: which betokens but little Senſe of any Subjection to the Apoſtle, as his Superior and Ruler.

BUT, in a word; whatſoever clear Indication may be pretended of a Diſtinction & Subordination between the Presbyters and the Apoſtles, the ſame is equally clear with reſpect to ſome others that are ſuppoſed to be Prelates; who appear to be as much in Subjection to the Apoſtles, as the Presbyters. For Inſtance, Timothy is ſaid to minister unto Paul, to be ſent by him hither and thither, to receive Commandment from him &c: Which carries as plain Signatures of Paul's Juriſdiction over this ſuppoſed Prelate, as are any where to be ſeen of his Juriſdiction over Presbyters. Now, (ſuppoſing that to be in fact a proper Exerciſe of Authority) I put it to my Animadverter, — Whether he looks on the Apoſtle as therein acting by an ordinary Power, or by an extraordinary? Or, in other words, Whether or no He looks on this Apoſtolic Practice as giving us any Explanation of the Commiſſion? And take it which way he will, I ask how he can reconcile it with his Scheme of Things. For, if he ſuppoſes the Apoſtle to act herein by and upon his Apoſtolical Commiſſion, and ſo explaining it, and leaving a Precedent; then it ſeems (according to the Animadverter's way of arguing) we muſt not only have Prelates in the Church, but alſo another order ſuperior to Them: and thus there will be more than three orders; which is contrary to his own Scheme. — But if he determines p. 13the Apoſtle's Practice, in regard of his Juriſdiction over Timothy, not to be an Explanation of the Apoſtolic Commiſſion, then ſay I, no more is the Juriſdiction, that the Apoſtles are ſuppoſed to have exerciſed over Preſbyters. For (to borrow here a ſhort Parentheſis from the Remarker ††Sob. Rem. p. 38. Edit. 2.) No man is able to give me any tolerable reaſon, why their Government over Biſhops ſhou'd be grounded on an extraordinary Power, and yet their Government over Paſtors be by virtue of their ordinary Power. Whatever Authority over them the Apoſtles may be ſuppos'd to have had, it did not reſult from their ordinary Commiſſion: and ſo affords no Pattern to ſucceeding Ages, nor gives the leaſt Countenance to Prelatical Uſurpations.

SO then, upon the Whole, I may very juſtly draw up this Concluſion (the Reverſe of my Animadverter's) That if following the Explanations given of this Commiſſion by Apoſtolick Practice be warrantable, the Aſsertors of Preſbyterian Parity are undoubtedly in the Right.—

BEFORE I paſs to his next general head, I might take Notice of what he inſinuates here (1) concerning the Deacons, That we find in Fact, that the Apoſtles ordained them; beſides ſome lower Offices, to preach and baptiſe. — By this he muſt mean, Either that we find they in fact ordain'd the Deacons to the works of Preaching and Baptiſing; which is directly contrary to the Account we have of their Inſtitution, Act. 6. begin. — Or elſe that we find in Fact the Deacons did preach and baptiſe, & from thence muſt infer they were ordain'd to theſe Offices. Now if this be his Meaning, let him conſult the Appendix (pag. 38, &c.) and he will find I have ſufficiently expos'd the Vanity of ſuch Pretences, in a way of Arguing too ſomewhat different from the Remarker; ſo that the Anſwer to him will not ſuffice for a Reply to Me: and yet the Animadverter ſilently paſſes over my Obſervations on this Head, as he has done in many other Inſtances — And now, as to what he affirms in the next Place, concerning Presbyters, That thoſe which the Apostles ſettled in p. 14the Churches (as at Corinth) had the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures; — I ſhall add nothing to the Remarks made upon it …: ſave, that Here is an implicit Condemnation of His own Church; which (whatever are it's Principles & Doctrine, before hinted; yet) does i… fact and practice not only ſtrip the Presbyters of thoſe P…ſt…ral Powers, but reduces them to a degree of Subjection and Servility, ſcarce fit to be mention'd. For, as to Eccleſiaſtical Cenſures, theſe (it is ſaid) are intirely manag'd in the Biſhops Court, without the Concurrence, or ſo much as Knowlege many times, of the Presbyters, …ver thoſe more immediately concern'd in the Caſe. The Biſhop do's not ordinarily ſo much as conſult with them about the matter. Nay, he turns it over to a Lay Chancellor, and other Officials of that Court, who have not any inherent and proper Eccleſiaſtical Authority, but are deputed by the Biſhop; and whoſe Acts, tho' they always run in the Biſhop's Name, yet are not always paſſ…d with the Biſhop's Conſent: but however muſt be ſubmitted to, and comply'd with by the Clergy, who are in a manner only the Biſhop's Curates, and diveſted of all their ſhare in the Government.— And then as to the Sacraments, the Power of theſe is not ſo lodg'd with the Presbyters, as that they may adminiſter them to thoſe Subjects, and in that Manner, which their own Judgment directs 'em to; but if they go to purſue this, they expoſe themſelves many times to great Inconveniencies, as the Hiſtory of SIXTY-TWO very loudly teſtifies.— Hence, when my Animadverter affirms, Presbyters had originally the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures, He aſſerts a Truth, that caſts no little Reproach on the Practice of his own Church, as well as gives an oblique Stroke, fatal to his Cauſe.— And now as to what he obſerves, in the laſt place. That Dioceſan Biſhops, in whom the Powers of Ordination & Juriſdiction over a Plurality of Presbyters & Churches were annexed, were ſettled by the Apoſtles, in their reſpective Sees; for Evidence of which he alleges the Inſtances of Timothy, and Titus, and the Apocalyptical Angels, and refers us to his Defence of the Modeſt Proof: I ſhall make no Obſervations upon it, but leave the Remarker to ſay how fully he has made this to appear.

p. 15II. HAVING thus adjuſted the firſt Preliminary, I paſs now to the Second, which concerns the Nature of the Gift conferred in Ordination; where he affirms that thereby is unquestionably meant the Office & the Power whereby to diſcharge it, and not the Holy Ghost. Upon which I ſhall not enter into any Controverſy with Him, but taking him in his own way, will paſs it over, with only two or three Reflections.

IN the firſt place, I think, the Gentleman delivers his Opinion with too great an Air of Aſſurance, as if it were unquestionable; when he does or may know, that ſome of the greateſt Doctors of his own Church are againſt Him. Thus Dr. Hammond paraphraſes on 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee &c. i. e. Make uſe of thoſe Gifts, which in order to thy Function were given thee at thy Ordination —. And Dr. Whitby calls the Chariſma here mentioned, a Spiritual Gift, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, an extraordinary Gift, conferred only in thoſe Times, by the Hands of an Apoſtle, and now wholly ceaſed. [See his Notes on 1 Tim. 4.14. & 2. Tim 1.6] Notwithſtanding (as he obſerves, on Act. 8.15.) This may well be deem'd a fit Pattern for Biſhops to follow in the Apoſtolical Rite of Confirmation & Ordination by laying on of Hands; by which THEY, as Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, CONFER the ordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, as the Apoſtles did the extraordinary Gifts of the ſame Spirit. Thus you ſee both theſe learned Expoſitors thwart my Animadverter; and yet he lays down his Opinion as unquestionably certain.

BUT in the ſecond place, I would obſerve, As he is too ſanguine and dogmatical in his Aſſertions, ſo he is too looſe and careleſs in his Language upon this Point. What crude and uncouth (not to ſay, criminal and profane) Expreſſions are thoſe; when, ſpeaking of the HOLY GHOST (a Divin… Perſon) he ſays, Its Influences are conveyed by its glorious AUTHOR, — and — Its ſelf muſt flow from the Fountain of it! — Theſe, I ſuppoſe, are Errata, that can't be charg'd to the Account p. 16of the Printer: or, I admire they ſhould eſcape the critical Corrector's Eye.

IN the laſt place, we may obſerve the Impertinence of the Reaſon He here aſſi…ns for his Opinio…, That by the Gift mentioned is not meant the Holy Ghoſt; viz. Becauſe This never was, nor is it poſſible to be, in the Power of Man to beſtow. For He had no manner of Occaſion, from my Diſcourſe on this Head, to make any ſuch Remark, ſince I never aſſerted ſuch a Power (in his Senſe) to be in the Apoſtles, or any others: neither do I believe it ever was, or is poſſible to be, in the Heart of any Man, to imagine ſuch a Thing; unleſs Simon Magu… may go for an Inſtance of ſuch Whimſy and Diſtraction.— And then, It is a Reaſon that may be eaſily turn'd upon Himſelf, and will be as valid an Objection againſt his Interpretation of the Gift mentioned, i. e. The Office & the Power whereby to diſcharge it. So that here in effect he do's but c…ff his own Ears.— To ſet this in its juſt Light, let us for once admit the Hypotheſis of the Divine Right of Prelacy; and apply what the Gentleman ſays, to the Office of Biſhops, (which I the rather chuſe to do, becauſe Timothy the Perſon receiving the Gift mentioned, is voted a Prelate) and by his own way of arguing, it will appear, that every authorized Biſhop derives his Office and Power from our bleſſed Lord Himſelf, and not from his Ordainers. For tho' indeed in the Conveying of it, Means & Inſtruments are made uſe of, and He is ſolemnly conſecrated to it by Faſting & Prayer, with Impoſition of Hands; yet no Creature, in a proper ſenſe, can be ſaid to confer it. And therefore when any ſpeak of the Biſhops conferring Orders, or of their conſecrating any to the Epiſcopate, it muſt not be underſtood as if they did actually bestow it: their Action indeed is the Conduit of its Conveyance, but its ſelf muſt flow from the Fountain of it.— I cannot but think our Animadverter is of opinion, That Biſhops are commiſſionated immediately by their great Lord and Master; or, that it is He who gives the Power by His Commiſſion (the ſame that was given to the Apoſtles, the firſt Biſhops) and that no Creature on p. 17Earth is nor can be a Principal Cauſe, or authoritative Donor, and Efficient in that Caſe: but that the Electors only determin the Perſon or Recipient, and the Ordainers only inveſt him, and ſolem…ize his Entrance into his Office. The Apoſtolical Commiſſion is what this Gentleman himſelf calls the Original Charter, and ſo allows to be the Fundamentum Juris, the Scource and Meaſure of the Biſhop's Right & Power: who claims by this, and acts upon it. And hence they that conſecrate Him, are but Ministerial Deliverers of Poſſeſſion; are but the Channels of Conveyance, and not the immediate Fountains of the Power veſted in Him. He derives this from a higher Original, from the Magna Charta, the grand Charter of CHRIST; as the Mayor of a Town-Corporate derives all his Authority from the King's Charter, which upon his Election authoriſes and obliges him to the Execution of his Office, inſtituted and deſcrib'd in the Charter; Tho' this directs alſo to a public and ſolemn Inſtalment of Him; before which he is not to exerciſe Authority, nor claim Obedience: and yet the Mayor's Power originates wholly from the Royal Charter. Even ſo the Biſhop's Power muſt draw it's Origin wholly from Chriſt's Charter: and if they that conſecrate him to his Office, do pretend to confer it upon Him, it is as if the Recorder, who inſtalls my Lord Mayor, ſhou'd feign himſelf the Fountain or Donor of the Majoral Power; which wou'd be unpardonable Arrogance in him, equal to the intolerable Ignorance, which any one wou'd betray, that ſhould credit him.— Theſe Thoughts, I'm perſuaded, cannot but be very agreeable to one of my Animadverter's Genius; ſo warm an Aſſertor of Epiſcopal Dignity! For, as our Lord ſaid to the Phariſees, Ye Fools and Blind! Whether is greater, the Gift, or the Altar that ſanctifieth the Gift? So ſay I, Whether is greater, Human Ordination, or Chriſt's Commiſſion, that alone enforces it? And, which reflects moſt Luſtre on our Biſhops, to ſay, Their Authority is of Men, or that it is of God; from their Impoſition of Hands, or from the Charter of CHRIST; Judge ye.— However, if any one will inſiſt upon an external viſible Commiſſion given by the Ordainers, is the p. 18immediate Principle & Support of Prelatical Power, He ſhall not have me at preſent for his Adverſary. For, as the Apoſtle ſaid to the Corinthians, Theſe Things, Brethren, I have in a figure transferred to my Self & Apollo; Even ſo I have uſed ſuch a Scheme o… Speech, in arguing with my Animadverter, to gild over the Pill, that it might go down with more eaſe, and work with efficacy. And I hope I have ſaid enough to make him ſenſible, that he has built his Opinion (about the Gift mention'd) on a weak and ſandy Foundation.— Tho' as to the Opinion it ſelf, I ſuſpend; and it ſhall be no matter of Conteſt between us at preſent. But I'll now diſmiſs the Second Preliminary, and come to the Third and Laſt.

III. AND here I fully agree with him, That the Apoſtles were not meer Presbyters [in the modern Senſe] but were veſted with proper Epiſcopal Powers, even the Power of Ordination and Juriſdiction. And I further grant, that they had ſome ſort of Influence and Inſpection over the Presbyters and the Churches too; yea, and over his ſuppoſed Prelates likewiſe.

BUT then …o adjuſt this Preliminary, I muſt add an Obſervation or two. As,

(1.) THAT the Epiſcopal Powers mentioned, were not peculiar to the Apoſtles, but common to all Paſtors or Presbyters: As plainly appears from what I have ſaid above, & have further to offer. And then it muſt be obſerv'd, —

(2.) AS to the Superiority over Presbyters, aſcribed to the Apoſtles, it is granted by me only in a reſtrain'd and qualify'd Senſe. Here,

Firſt. I wou'd not be underſtood to aſſert a Superiority of proper imperative Prelatical Power, founded in any peculiar Office or Commiſſion held by Them; but a directive or declarative Power; Whereby they had a Right to inſtruct Presbyters in the reveal'd Truths and Laws of the Goſpel, and inculcate their Duty upon them, to rebuke the Scandalous and Heretical, to pronounce 'em (if impenitent) unworthy of their Office, and warn the People to avoid them &c. But as to any proper Imperial, Judicial, and Coercive Power over Them, I cannot p. 19find any Footſteps of it, either in the Acts or Letters of the Apoſtles; nor any Foundation for it, either in their Commiſſion, or in any Rules of Reaſon. So that I cannot at preſent but conceive of the Apostles as being in relation to the Chriſtian Church, and the Paſtors of it, very much what the inſpired Prophets in former times were to the Jewiſh Church and its ordinary Teachers. But however,—

Secondly. I wou'd have it obſerv'd, that whatever governing Power the Apoſtles might have over Presbyters or ordinary Paſtors and the Churches. (Yea admit, if you will, it amounted even to a proper Legiſlative and Compulſive Power) yet I do not ſuppoſe it to be Succeſſive, or deriv'd to Thoſe who ſucceed the Apoſtles; and that for this Reaſon,— Becauſe Such a Power muſt be founded in their extraordinary Miſſion & Inſpiration, and cou'd not be any part of their ordinary and ſtanding Character, or belong to them in that Capacity, wherein only they are allow'd to have Succeſſors.— I have had occaſion to ſay ſomething before, that might ſuffice for the Proof of This. But I will add, for the further Clearing of it, this Obſervation, That the Apoſtles ordinary Capacity was SINGLE, and but one; or ſuch as wherein they cou'd repreſent but one Kind of Church-Ruler, and that is a Pariſh Rector or Paſtor of a particular Congregation, and not the Dioceſan Biſhop. Which I ſhall eſſay to prove, in ſuch a Gradation of Thought, as will make it Mathematically evident: and for the better Diſtinction, I will make uſe of Ordinal Numbers, in laying down my Propoſitions, which are theſe.

1. THE Apoſtolical Commiſſion is the grand Charter for the Evangelical Miniſtry. This we have heard our Animadverter already confeſſing. Therefore,

2. THE whole Complex of Apoſtolical Power, in the ordinary and permanent Branches of it, was included in that one Commiſſion. And,

3. THE Miniſterial Powers, contained in that Commiſſion, were by the Apoſtles preſerv'd undivided, and deliver'd p. 20without any Limitations, to all the Recipients of it. **As I've prov'd in Appendix to Sob. Rem. (Vid. p 32—36.) which my Reſpondent having not taken notice of, nor brought any thing to invalidate the Arguments there offer'd, this Concluſion appears to me ſtill very well grafted on ſolid Reaſons.Hence,

4. THEY to whom this Commiſſion truly belongs, are actually inveſted with all the Powers given in it. Now,

5. THOSE who are inveſted with one Commiſſion, in all the Powers of it, muſt be of one and the ſame Order or Kind. Therefore,

6 AS the Apoſtles Commiſſion was but one, ſo their ordinary Capacity was but one, and ſuch as in which they cou'd repreſent but one kind of Church-Ruler. Q. E. D.

And now—

7. THIS Church-Ruler is not the Dioceſan Biſhop, but the Congregational Biſhop, or Presbyter: As will appear, if we duly weigh things. For conſider, in the next place,

8. THE Government of Prelates and that of Presbyters are two Sorts of Government. This the Defender of the Mod. Proof takes notice of, pag. 21. Hence, in the

9th place, THE Prelatical Biſhop, and the Parochial, are two diſtinct Species of Officers. And conſequently, in the

10th place, THEY cannot both ſubſiſt on one and the ſame Commiſſion, nor cou'd the Apoſtles repreſent them both in their ordinary Capacity: but one or t'other muſt neceſſarily be excluded. But now, in the

11th place, WE are agreed on all ſides, that Congregational Biſhops, or Presbyters, do act in the diſcharge of their Office, by virtue of the Apostolical Commiſſion, and by it are veſted with the Powers of Preaching, and of Sacraments and Cenſures. To this we have a repeated full Confeſſion from the Animadverter. And hence, in the

12th place, PRESBYTERS have a juſt Claim to all the Powers contain'd in that Commiſſion, (according to p. 21Prop. 3 & 4) and muſt be voted Succeſſors to the Apoſtles in the whole of their ordinary Capacity. Which, by an unavoidable Conſequence, infers, (agreeable to Prop. 8.9. & 10th.) in the—

LAST place, That Praelatical Powers were not comprehended in the Apostles ordinary Capacity, nor the Epiſcopal Throne erected upon the Apoſtolic Commiſſion: and ſo the Dioceſan Claim muſt fall to the ground. For tho' Praelates are not excluded by Name (to allude to an Obſervation of our Anſwerer's — Def. pag. 65) Yet they are, by the Nature of Commiſſions; all Commiſſions being excluſive of all but thoſe to whom They are granted.

Thus I have impartially weigh'd the Gentleman's three Preliminaries, adjuſted 'em, and corrected the undue Turn of Tho't, which his Diſcourſe upon them might tend to give ſuch as are looking into this Controverſy: and hope I have left him no Room to raiſe any more Duſt, on theſe Topicks, to cloud and darken them.

¶ I proceed now to conſider what he has advanc'd on two or three Texts, which he wou'd have the World believe I have miſtaken & miſapplied: and by ſetting of which in their true Light, he ſays, all that I have offered, will be fully reply'd to. He reſolves now to take bold on the Impartial Hand, if it is not too nimble or ill-natured to be taken in its own way. Well, let him take what Hold he pleaſes, (where & how he will) I hope the Impartial Hand will be nimble enough to manage him; and that without being ſo ill-natur'd as to offer any foul Play. Let unprejudic'd Standers-by judge between us. To begin then,

§ 1. THE firſt Text he mentions, is 2 Tim. 1 6. (which ſpeaks of the putting on of Paul's Hands) But is the wrong Text: it ſhould have been 1 Tim. 4.14. which ſpeaks of the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery.

AND here the Gentleman, in an Exceſs of good Nature, (ſhall I ſay? or through the force of Conviction) p. 22is willing to take me in my own way, by condemning Calvin's Inſtitutes [tho' in ſo doing, as it unhappily falls out, he condemns his own Defenſe of Mod. Proof, (pag. 28.) which interprets the word Presbytery, of the Office transferred on Timothy, at his Ordination by St. Paul's own Hands,] and admitting my Comment on the Text, viz. That Timothy was ordain'd by a College of Presbyters. But then, he tells me I must grant alſo, that thoſe Presbyters were either Apoſtles, or meer ſingle Presbyters, and Paul preſiding among them in either caſe.

IF the Firſt, then he concludes, his Point is gained; for (ſays he) the Apostles were not only Presbyters, but Biſhops alſo in the full and ſtricteſt Senſe of the word, by the third Preliminary; and this will ſave the Credit and the Evidence of the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy for Epiſcopacy, and be exactly agreeable to the practice of the Church of England.

To which I anſwer,

1. THAT, by Presbytery here, to underſtand a number of Apostles, joyning with Paul, in the Ordination of Timothy, is very irrational. 'Tis an Expoſition intirely Conjectural, and carries not the leaſt ſhadow of Probability with it.

FOR (beſides other Reaſons) it is extreme unlikely that Paul ſhould beſtow on a College of Apoſtles no higher Denomination than this of a Presbytery: and then (agreeably to what I obſerv'd in Append. to Sob. Rem. pag. 18. — tho' my Animadverter has made no Return to me upon it) 'tis equally improbable, that Paul (ſo humble an Apoſtle) ſhould have the Vanity to diſtinguiſh himſelf from his Brethren, and exalt himſelf above them, in the manner our Opponents make him to do, by the Senſe they put upon 2 Tim. 1.6. where they ſuppoſe him to affirm, That Timothy was ordained by the Laying on of His Hands; as if it were his Sole Act, and the whole Virtue and Efficacy flow'd from his Hand. Which if it be true, I cannot imagine Them to be Apoſtles, that are meant by the Presbytery: For the Apoſtles were all equally veſted with ordaining Power: p. 23And it would not be conſiſtent with the uſual Modeſty and Humility of this Apoſtle's Language, in all other Caſes, when ſpeaking of Himſelf, for him to uſe ſuch a Speech in this Caſe, as excludes the Reſt of his Brethren from any ſhare in the Ordination of Timothy; which muſt be judg'd very vain, as well as falſe.

However,

2. ADMIT that by the Presbytery is meant a College of Apoſtles, yet my Animadverter is very ſhort in his Reaſoning, and labours of a grand Miſtake, when he concludes his Point to be gain'd thereby: nor will that Conceſſion at all hurt the Presbyterian Claim and Argument from the Text under Conſideration.

FOR thus I argue upon the preſent Hypotheſis: Theſe Apoſtles acted in Timothy's Ordination, either in their ordinary or extraordinary Capacity. Not in their extra-ordinary; for then it affords no Example or Argument for Ordination by ordinary Officers. Whereas, on all ſides it is allow'd and pleaded as a ſufficient Warrant for Ordination by ordinary Officers: — therefore it was their ordinary Capacity in which they ordained. And hence they who ſucceed the Apoſtles in their whole ordinary Capacity, muſt be entituled to the Power of Ordination.

NOW here lies the Difficulty, to know who are their proper Succeſſors: which can be determin'd only by inquiring what the Apostles in their ordinary Capacity were; what Powers they had, and what Acts they did. And for our Information here we muſt look into their Commiſſion, and into their Hiſtory: both whereof have been already conſulted; and it appears from them, That the Apoſtles, conſidered in their ordinary Capacity, were only Presbyters. This has been made evident from the Accounts of Fact and the Practice of the Apoſtles: And it is a moſt genuine Deduction from the original Charter, given them by our Lord, that deſcribes their Work, in the ſuperior and main permanent branches of it, and preſcribes nothing expreſly but what is the allow'd & undoubted Duty of ordinary Miniſters or Paſtors: which affords p. 24a ſtrong preſumptive Argument, that the Apoſtles, in their ordinary and abiding Character, were really but Presbyters. Therefore all thoſe who are truly ordain'd to the Office of Presbyters, do ſucceed to the Apostles in the full Extent of their ordinary Capacity, and are to be look'd upon as inveſted with the Plenitude of their miniſterial and continuing Powers: One of which being Ordination, this neceſſary Inference plainly ariſes, and forceably urges our Aſſent, That Presbyters have the Ordaining Power committed to them, and lodg'd in their Hands, as their Peculiar, excluſively (in common Caſes at leaſt) of all others not rightly ordain'd to the Office of Presbyters, and ſo not truly ſuſtaining the ordinary Character of the Apoſtles.— Upon the whole then it appears, We offer no Injury at all to the Plea for Presbyterian Ordination, taken from the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, although we allow this to refer to a Company of Apostles: Becauſe it muſt be granted, if they were Apoſtles, They ordain'd by virtue of their ordinary Power, which I've prov'd amounted to no more than that of Presbyters.

INDEED my Animadverter tells us, The Apostles were not only Presbyters, but Biſhops alſo in the full & ſtricteſt Senſe of the Word. To which I reply; If he intends here the ſound Senſe of the Word, as us'd in Scripture, I have nothing to object. But, I think, invincible Objections lie in the way, if he intends the modern Eccleſiastical Senſe of the Word. For, thus taken, it is applicable to none but Dioceſan Prelates; whom the Animadverter deſcribes (pag. 10.) as thoſe that have in them the Power of Ordination, and Juriſdiction over a Plurality of Presbyters, and Churches, annexed, and are ſettled in their reſpective SEES. Now I deſire to know whether He will apply this Definition to the Apoſtles, and ſo make them Biſhops in the full and stricteſt Senſe of the Word, as us'd by the Moderns. And after he has reſolv'd us on this head, I muſt give him the further Trouble of producing ſome good Evidence, that the modern Eccleſiaſtical Uſe of the Word is agreeable to the Scripture-Senſe of it: Becauſe for my own part, after my beſt Inquiries p. 25I cannot light of any one place in all the New Teſtament, where the word is us'd in the modern Prelatical Senſe, to mean a Church-Officer veſted with Juriſdiction over a Plurality of Churches and their Paſtors: but find it every where neceſſarily to be underſtood in the Presbyterian Senſe, as convertible with the word Pastor, Teacher, Elder &c. Yea, the Names of Biſhop and Presbyter are promiſcuouſly apply'd to the ſame Perſons, in ſeveral places: which Perſons do, by the Deſcription of their Eſſential Qualifications, and by the Works and Offices aſſign'd 'em, in thoſe places, evidently appear to be the Paſtors and Overſeers of particular Congregations: As the Remarker has excellently argu'd; whoſe Reaſonings on theſe Heads are (I think) the moſt clear and ſtrong that I ever met with, and do make the Inference from a Community of Names (in this caſe) to an Identity of Office, and from the undistinguiſh'd Applications of the ſame Character and indifferent Injunctions of the ſame Work, unto the Sameneſs of Order, appear very good and genuine. And I preſume, neither the Light of his Arguings is obſcur'd, nor the Force of his Conſequences at all enervated, by any thing the Defender of the Mod. Proof has been able to offer.

WE may then allow the Apoſtles to be Biſhops, in the full and stricteſt Senſe of the Word, as us'd in Scripture, and yet our Animadverter gain no Advantage by it; becauſe that is but to allow 'em to be Presbyters: ſeeing Biſhop and Presbyter are in Scripture-Uſe Synonimous.

YEA, we may call 'em Biſhops in the modern Eccleſiaſtical Senſe, as having Juriſdiction over Presbyters and Churches; and yet the Gentleman will gain nothing by it, to ſerve the Cauſe of Prelacy: becauſe ſuch a ſuperintending Power cou'd not belong to Them, in their ordinary Capacity, merely as ſtated Commiſſion-Officers; but muſt be exerciſed by them in their extraordinary Capacity, as Divinely inſpir'd Miniſters, under an infallible Conduct of the Holy Ghoſt, and endow'd with Supernatural Powers. [Which I have ſaid enough to prove, both in the Appendix, and in this Vindication.] Therefore altho' p. 26we ſhou…d grant T…y were Apoſtles, and ſuch only, that ordained Timothy; yet no Concluſion can be drawn from this, in favour of Prelatical Ordinations, excluſively of Presbyterial. For the Apoſtles (ſuppoſed) Power of Juriſdiction over Presbyters, and their offered Power of Ordination, did not belong to Them under the ſame Nation, but were exerciſed by them in two different Capacities; the former, in their Extraordinary Capacity, and ſo muſt be voted a temporary and diſtinct…ve part of Their Character: but the Latter, in their Ordinary Capacity, according to which They were Biſhops, in no other than a Presbyterian Senſe; and ſo the Power of Ordination, which was one of the common and permanent Parts of their Character, muſt be adjudg'd to Presbyters, who ſucceed them in the whole of their ordinary Capacity. And indeed the Ordaining Power of Presbyters receives a great deal of Countenance from the Style of our Text, where this ſuppoſed College of Apoſtles are denominated a Presbytery, which plainly hints their acting (in Timothy's Ordination) under the Character and Quality of Presbyters. And however light any may make of an Inference, from the Uſe of that Phraſe, in favour of Ordination by Presbyters; yet (as I obſerv'd in the Appendix, pag. 19.) at leaſt there is ſo good Colour for ſuch an Inference, that if it had been ſaid, By the Laying on of the Hands of the Aſſembly of Biſhops, I doubt not, our Opponents would have made great Improvement of it, would have deem'd the Text Concluſive, and a full Confutation of the Presbyterian Hypotheſis. — But however that be, it is clear from the Premiſes, that our Animadverter muſt loſe his Point, even tho' we take him in his own way, by admitting his Comment on the Text, That Timothy was ordain'd by a College of Apoſtles: And if the Credit and the Evidence of the first Epiſtle to Tim. for Epiſcopacy, depends on this Text, that is loſt too.

IN ſhort, let him conſider the Text in what Light he pleaſes; whether as referring to Apoſtles, or to ordinary Miniſters, he will never be able, by the moſt finiſh'd Artifice in Logick he is Maſter of, to wreſt it to his purpoſe; but either way it will be the Confuſion of his Cauſe. p. 27Let him torture the Text ever ſo much, I am perſuaded, …e'll never make it confeſs to his Notions. As for the Firſt Senſe, enough has been ſaid.

LET us now hear what he offers, with reſpect to the other Conſtruction.

IF the Second, ſays he, (that is, if the word Presbytery be taken for a number of Pastors or Pariſh-Presbyters, then It is plain, that Paul alone conferred the Gift, that is, the Office and the Power of executing it, —and that the Presbyters only gave their Aſſent, it being impoſſible in the nature of the thing, that the Presbyters could have any other Influence on the Act.

BUT let it be obſerv'd here: The Gentleman has forgot (what I intimated in the Appendix, and what many learned Men do agree to, viz.) That it's probable, Paul's putting on of his Hands was not in Conjunction with the Presbytery, but at a diſtinct Time, and upon a different Deſign; his Impoſition of Hands being in order to the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, and theirs for Ordination, and ſo might be at ſeveral Times. Or, as I hinted in the Appendix (p. 9.) They might both reſpect Ordination, and yet not be at the ſame Time; if our Opponents be in the Right on't about Re-ordination. For ſo, Timothy might be ordained firſt a Presbyter by the Presbytery alone, and afterwards a Biſhop by Paul. And if my Animadverter had given us his Thoughts on this, He would have much oblig'd us.

HOWEVER, I will take the Gentleman in his own way, and will ſuppoſe them to be at the ſame Juncture, and upon the ſame Occaſion. Yet, I truſt, this will not any whit d…ſſerve my Cauſe.

AS to Paul's preſiding in Timothy's Ordination, if this muſt be affirmed in either Caſe, as the Animadverter obſerves; I wou'd obſerve further, It muſt be own'd o… equal weight in both Caſes, and ſo may as well be made uſe of in Objection to Ordination by Biſhops (the Apostles pretended Succeſſors) without a Superior, as againſt Ordination, by Presbyters, without a Superior. — p. 28But, I think, Paul's Preſidency in either Caſe, imported no more than the Power and Province of a Moderator, appointed for Order's ſake. In the firſt Caſe, or upon Suppoſition They were Apoſtles, who joyned in Laying on of Hands, I am prone to believe my Animadverter will aſcribe nothing more to Him, ſeeing They all had an inherent Power of ordaining as well as he. And why any more ſhould be aſcribed to him in the other Caſe, or ſuppoſing them to be Presbyters, I cannot divine. For, that Paul lay'd on Hands (under his common Notion) as a Presbyter, and not under any diſtinctive Character, as a ſuperior Officer, or Head, is a Conſequence very fairly deducible from the choſen Style of the Text; where he ſpeaks of the whole Conſiſtory of Ordainers, as a Presbytery, taking in Himſelf among the Reſt, without any mark of Diſtinction: which, as it carries with it an Intimation, that all the Members of the Body had a proper Agency in the Ordination; So it naturally leads us to infer, That Paul exerted no more ordaining Power than any common Member, and had not the Influence of a ſupreme Head, as ſome vainly dream. And indeed, if I miſtake not, the fix'd notion of a Preſident (the Name, my Animadverter applies to the Apoſtle in this Caſe) can carry his Power to no higher a pitch than that of a Moderator, who (as I hinted before) is conſtituted only for order's ſake, and has no more intrinſick Power than any others belonging to the Society.

I might illuſtrate this to our Animadverter, by the Conſecration of a Biſhop in his own Church: in which the Arch-Biſhop preſides, but yet is only the Mouth of the Aſſembly, and has no more authoritative Influence into the Ordination (by any ſuperior Degree of ordaining Power inherent in him) than the Reſt of his Fellow-Biſhops, that joyn with him in the Action; as appears by the Form of Conſecration of Biſhops, and in that the Arch-Biſhop claims no Superiority of order to other Prelates, nor indeed any ſuperior Degree of Power, as of Divine Right, but as ariſing only out of Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Laws and Cuſtoms. And hence, in that Caſe, the Practice of the Church of England is exactly agreeable to the Practice of the Churches of New England, in the ordination p. 29of a Miniſter; in which we have a Moderator to preſide, who is of the ſame Claſs with the other Paſtors.

SO that Paul's Preſidency in Timothy's Ordination, can afford our Opponents nothing of an Argument to plead againſt Presbyterian Ordinations. And truly (to borrow a Hint from the Remarker) That gives us no more grounds to ſuſpect that the Presbyters had not full power and authority to ordain by themſelves, than it does to ſuſpect whether the Apoſtle had power to ordain by himſelf. At leaſt it can be no more an objection againſt Ordination by Presbyters alone (without Biſhops) than by Biſhops alone, without Presbyters. And yet how conſtantly is this practiced in the Church of England, in all Conſecrations to the Epiſcopate! Here only the Arch-Biſhop, and Biſhops preſent, are concern'd▪ no meer Presbyters are admitted to joyn. But how diſagr…eable this, to Scripture Example, in the Conſecration of Timothy, the ſuppoſed Biſhop of Epheſus? Indeed my Animadverter obſerves, if they were Apoſtles, who laid their hands with Paul's on Timothy, this will be exactly agreeable to the Church of England.— But then, he has been ſo uncautious, as nor to offer one ſingle word in proof, that they were Apoſtles; nor indeed has he ſo much as aſſerted it: but ſeems willing to allow, they were only Presbyters; as I had argu'd, and I think, prov'd. Hence he has left the way open for one or other of thoſe Conſequences to take place, that I have purſu'd his Friend with (in my Appendix, p. 10, 11) either of which, I think, grate hard enough on him. Tho' I imagin he judges the laſt to be the moſt harmleſs, viz. That the Church of England has departed from Scripture-Pattern, in excluding Presbyters from laying on hands in the Ordination of Biſhops; whence her Prelates muſt be own'd not Regularly conſecrated; and ſo far at leaſt She muſt look uncanonical & unprimitive, notwithſtanding her boaſted Apoſtolic Conſtitution.

BUT now to proceed; the great Objection, bro't by my Animadverter (and pompouſly ſet forth, as what he lays peculiar Streſs upon) is taken from its being impoſſible in the Nature of the thing, that Presbyters p. 30ſhou'd have any other Influence on the Act, than only to give their Aſſent.— This, I muſt confeſs, has two Circumſtances to recommend it, — Novelty and Singularity. 'Tis of a very freſh Date, a perfectly new Thought, a Proprium (too) of our Animadverter's; and he ſhall be allow'd the … Ho…cu… o… it. But then it's only a S…, which can never ſa…e up his Hypotheſis: a mere Metaphyſical Cobweb, which the …ulleſt Eye may eaſily ſee thro'; an airy Bu…ble, and the ſlighteſt Touch will daſh it to nothing. I …eel but repeat his own Words, mutato nomine, c…anging Presbyters into Apoſtles or Biſhops; and he muſt be an Ign…ramus indeed, who does not ſee, or intolerably wilful who won't own, that the Objection carries as much Force in the one Caſe, as in the other; tho' indeed in both Caſes, it is manifeſtly big with Abſurdity, and muſt needs ſink and periſh under its heavy Burden — Well, with that Alteration, the Argument runs thus:

IF the Gift conferred was the Holy Ghoſt, (which by the way I do not grant, ſays my Animadverter; and which by the way, ſay I, was never aſſerted by me, concerning the Gift ſpoken of in 1 Tim 4.14. as conferred with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery: So that the Gentleman is very much out for once, when he pretends …ere to take me in my own way.) and if Paul alone did not confer it, then every ſingle Apoſtle or biſhop did that as well He: and hence it will follow, that the more ordaining Apoſtles or Biſhops there were, the more of the Holy Ghost did the ordained receive. And in that Caſe, who would not have coveted to be ordain'd by an oecumenical Council of them, and with ſuch vaſt Collations of it ſuch a Perſon might be fitted alſo to be Paſtor of the oecumenical Church; and in proportion, thoſe who had fewer Ordainers, had fewer ſhares in this Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, and proportionably would be of leſs uſe to the Church.

OR, if by Gift be underſtood the Office and the Powers for its Execution, as ſeems most evident, then if Paul did not alone conſ… it, it will follow that each ordaining p. 31Apoſtle or Biſhop conferred a Part, or the Whole of this Gift. If a Part, it would gratify the Publick to condeſcend upon (alias, inſtance in) what Part, or (ſay) how many there must be to make up the Whole. If each Ordaine… conferred the whole Gift, then in proportion to their Number, muſt the Offices be multiply'd; and then inſtead of one, there might be a Dozen or more Offices conferred, according to the member of Ordainers.

THUS you ſee the Animadverter's Argument moſt unluckily recoils in his Face, and turns its Sting into his own Boſom For nothing can be more evident than, if any Abſurdities flow f…m my Conſtruction of the Word Presbytery, that the very ſome abſurd Conſequences muſt inevitably be charg'd on his too. And how extremely ſilly (it I may retort his own decent Language) muſt He be, who makes uſe of ſuch a Way of Arguing to put by another's Comment on a Text, (as if there he any force at all in it) may with equal force be made uſe of in oppoſition to his own.

BUT that there is no Force at all in his Reaſoning here, affix what Senſe you pleaſe to the controverted Word, (take it either for Apoſtles, or for ordinary Presbyters) will very plainly appear, i… we conſider the Nature of the Action. Now if my Animadverter will take the Opinion of the Author of the M…d. Proof (which, methinks, ought to carry ſome Authority with him, ſince he has undertaken to be his Defender) be may find that modeſt Gentleman expreſſing his Senſe of the Matter, in terms very agreeable, in the 12th page o… his Book; where he obſerves that this Ceremony of Prayer and Impoſition of Hands was uſual in deſigning and appointing Perſons to any ſacred Office, in ſeparating, in ſetting apart, and inveſting them—; all which Phraſes he makes uſe of. Whereas there's nothing here about conferring the Office and the Powers for its Execution (according to the Animadverter's Notion) but only the Deſignation and Investiture of the Perſon; which gives us the true Nature of the Action. For that Power, which the Ordained receive, is not the Gift of their Ordainers, but derives p. 32wholly from the Institution and Commiſſion of CHRIST. Even the Apoſtles themſelves went no higher than a Miniſterial Inveſtiture or Separation. As Doctor Willet (a learned Church of England Man) obſerves ††Synop. Papiſm. p. 199., The Apoſtles laid on their Hands in the ordaining of Biſhops or Paſtors, but their Office they received of God: That external Rite was only an outward Teſtimony of the Church, That ſuch Men were marked and ſealed of God, for that Office. — This was the outward Sign that God's Spirit had ſet ſuch Men apart. — This is the outward Approbation and Conſent of the Church, which giveth them not their Office, but only corfirmeth it outwardly unto Them. The Apoſtles gave no Power or Juriſdiction to Paſtors or Elders, but it was the Ordinance of God —. And for Proof, he alleges 1 Tim. 4.14. & Acts 13.2.— And concurrent with this, is the Doctrine of a late Judicious Writer of the Eſtabliſh'd Church of England, I mean Mr. Ollyffe, who thus gives the World his Thoughts on the Caſe. — The Call (ſays he) to the Miniſtry is from Chriſt, which he gives by conferring an Ability for it, and Inclination to it. Ordination is the Inveſtiture into this Office before Men, by a Declaration or publick approving a Man to be a Miniſter; or is a ſolemn Allowance of his preceeding Call and is a Rite to give a Man the current Repute and Valuation of a Miniſter coram Hominibus. —His Call from Chriſt is his Commiſſion coram Deo. Ordinatio (ſaith Ameſius) nihil aliud est quam ſolennis Declaratio, ut Coronatio Regis et Inauguratio Magiſtratus. — Eſt ſolennis quaedam Introductio Miniſtri in ipſius Functionis liberam Functionem. An Adjunct, conſequent to his Call from Chriſt, to make it current among Men. Thus that learned Divine.**Vid. Def. Min. Conform. Postſcript. Pag. 128, 129.

AND conformable to the Opinion of theſe Epiſcopal Writers, is the Senſe of the Church of England itſelf in p. 33this Matter, as we have it declared in the Bock of Ordination. The whole Tenor of the Preface ſpeaks it very plainly: which makes uſe of Conſecration, and Ordination, as convertible and univocal Terms; and deſcribes an authoriz'd Miniſter, to be ſuch an one as has been first Called, Tried, Examined, and Known to have ſuch Qualities as are requiſite; and alſo BY publick Prayer, w… Imp…ſition of Hands, approved and admitted to his Office by ſome lawful Authority. And if we look into the Forms themſelves, we ſhall find them all ſpeaking the ſame Language. Thus particularly in the ordering of Prieſts, the Biſhop over and over recognizes the Perſon's Divine Call to the Miniſtry, before he impoſes Hands on him: And Ordination is there continually ſpoken of in ſuch Terms as only imply an Allowance of his preceeding Call, and ſolemn Admiſſion of him to the public Exerciſe of the Office, which he has already a Right unto, by his Divine Call. Indeed, at the Impoſition of Hands, our Saviour's Words are repeated, Receive the Holy Ghost &c. But (if Biſhop Burnet's Account of the Matter may be accepted ††Vid. Paſtor. Care. p. 95. Edit. 4.) The Church, by making our Saviour's Words the Form of Ordination, muſt be conſtrued to intend, that it is Chriſt only that ſends, and that the Biſhops are only his Miniſters to pronounce his Miſſion; otherwiſe it is not eaſy to juſtify the uſe of this Form, Receive the Holy Ghoſt: which as it was not uſed in the Primitive Church, nor by the Roman, till within theſe 500 Years, ſo in that Church it is not the Form of Ordination, but a Benediction given by the Biſhop ſingly, after the Orders are given by the Biſhop and the other Priests joyning with him: For this is done by him alone, as the final Conſummation of the Action. But our uſing this as the Form of Ordination, ſhews that we conſider ourſelves only as the Instruments that ſpeak in Chriſt's Name and Words; in ſi…uating that He only ordains. Purſuant to this, in the ordaining of Prieſts, the Queſtions are put in the Name of God and of his Church, which makes the Anſwers to them to be of the Nature of Vows and Oaths.— p. 34Orders are of the Nature of a Covenant between Chriſt and the Clerks; in which ſo many Privileges and Powers are granted on the one part, and ſo many Duties and Offices are promiſed on the other‖‖Pag. 103.. Ordination is the Conſummation of this Compact **Pag. 106.. — And from the ſame learned Hand, we have it; That the Forms of Ordination in the Greek Church, which we have Reaſon to believe are leſs changed, and more conform to the Primitive Patterns, than thoſe uſed by the Latins, do plainly import, that the Church only declared the Divine Vocation: — The Grace of God that perfects the Feeble, and heals the Weak, promoteth this Man to be a Deacon, a Priest, or a Biſhop. Where nothing is expreſs'd as conferred, but only as declared ††Pag. 95.. So our Church (ſaith the Biſhop) by making our Saviour's Words the Form of Ordination, muſt be conſtrued to intend —. Now as He obſerves {inverted †}{inverted †}Pag. 91., The trueſt Indication of the Senſe of a Church, is to be taken from her Language in her publick Offices. And therefore I have made uſe of this way of Reaſoning, on this Occaſion, and I hope it will appear with great Advantage, and miniſter Conviction.

IT is plain, the Ordainers do not confer the Power, but only confirm, approve, inveſt, and the like. They are at moſt but Inſtruments of Conveyance, or rather of Confirmation and publick Inſtallment. As in Civil Caſes, when the Arch-Biſhop performs the Ceremony of Coronation▪ the King does not derive the Regal Authority from Him in the leaſt. So when my Lord Chancellor ſeals a Patent, he gives no Power at all. So the Mayor of a City derives all his Power from the Prince's Charter, and not at all from the Recorder or Steward, who performs the Ceremony of Inauguration. Which Things may very, much help to adjuſt and ſettle our Notions of Eccleſiaſtical Ordination: And we may call it a public Recognition, and Atteſtation, or ſolemn Inauguration and Inveſtiture.

p. 35THUS I have given you a rational Account of the Nature of Ordination, from ſome of the Writers, and Publick Formula's of the Church of England, and illuſtrated the Matter by various Similitudes. I've inſiſted on this Point the longer, becauſe my Animadverter's miſtake about the Nature of the Action [as if it were the Conferring an Office, and Giving the Powers for its Execution] is what I apprehend to be the foreign, the grand Fallacy in his Scheme. Do but rectify this, and matters will come to Rights. Let him get this Notion once out of his Head, and entertain thoſe just Idea's that his own Church and his Brethren have formed for him; and it muſt needs go a great way towards convincing him, that Presbyters are capable and very proper Perſons to perform the buſineſs of Ordination: at leaſt I'm perſuaded, He'll never more imagine it impoſſible for a Plurality to ordain together, nor ever again attempt to demonſtrate it to be ſo from the Nature of the Thing. For, what is there in the Nature of the Action, as it has now been deſcrib'd, that ſhould ſpeak it impoſſible to be perform'd by a Number of Perſons in Conjunction? Where is the Difficulty? Whence the Abſurdity? Is it impoſſible for a Society to make one Prayer, and one Declaration, and the like, together? I pray, why may not a Community of Paſtors ſeparate and ordain a Miniſter, as well as a College of Phyſicians approbate and licence one of their Profeſſion, as the known Cuſtom is!

BUT now for once I am willing to drop the Notion I have bee… contending for, and allow that the Ordainers do not merely recognize the Authority given by Chriſt's Charter, but really confer the Office and the Powers for its Execution, (as my Animadverter words himſelf) yet I can't ſee but that This is very reconcilable with a Plurality of Ordainers, It's obſervable, When the Deacons Office was inſtituted, and a Number of Perſons appointed over this Buſineſs, (as we read Act. 6.) all the Twelve Apoſtles concurred in it. And among all the Ordinations we have an Account of, in the Acts of the Apostles, I don't remember any Inſtance of Ordination but by a Plurality of Hands: which is pretty wonderful, if it be ſo impoſſible for more than one particular H…nd to convey p. 36the Power. — But what a So oeciſm is this! How ridiculous the Notion, if we apply it to other Ca…es! I fancy, the Roman Senate could grant a ſingle Commiſſion as well as the Roman Emperor. And I pray, Could …ot King William and Queen Mary (or immortal Memo…y) give one Royal Charter in Conjunction…l Or, our National Laws, are they not the Reſult of a numerous and mix'd Legiſlature, King, Lords, and Commons, being joyntly the Enacting Power of the Nation! This is the Engliſh Conſtitution: And is there any Abſurdity in it! Is it impoſſible in the Nature of the Thing, that ſuch a Conſtitution ſhould be acted upon! Or will Mr. Animadverter ſay, the Supreme Power muſt neceſſarily be veſted in the ſole Perſon of the Prince, and that there can be no proper Government but an abſolute Monarchy! I hope no Engliſhman among us, and at this time o' day eſpecially, will advance a Principle, which if carry'd into it's juſt Conſequences, will appear ſo ſwell'd with Reproach to the happy Revolution, as well as a glaring Affront to the Wiſdom of our Nation, and to the common Reaſon of Mankind. — Indeed I ſhould not be much ſurpris'd, if my Animadverter ſhou'd eſpouſe that Highflown Notion; ſince on the head of Eccleſiaſtical Ordination. He is ſo very Chimerical in his Talk: pretending as not were demonstrable even from the Nature of the Action, that if they were Presbyters, who laid their Hands with Paul's on Timothy they could not do it as Ordainers, but it could be only to expreſs their Conſent to the Action. Truly it's all over a Viſionary Flight, mere Amuſement! You have ſeen, that there's nothing at all in the Nature of the Action (take it in what View you will) to render it impoſſible for a Plurality to ordain together: And conſequently nothing to exclude the Presbytery from having a Hand in Timothy's Ordination, as well as Paul.

BUT ſince the Gentleman is for an Argument from the Nature of the Action, I muſt obſerve to him, that Impoſition of Hands has always been look'd upon as an ordaining Act, and importing an ordaining Power, in the Perſon performing it. Inſomuch that it is commonly thought the Apoſtle expreſſes the whole Buſineſs o… Ordination by this ſacred Rite, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay Hands ſuddenly p. 37on no Men. And hence our Opponents urge this Text, in favour of Timothy's Epiſcopacy. Which they would not do, if the Laying on of Hands were not judg'd an invariable Rite of Conſecration. And has not Dr. Cave (a learned Antiquary, whoſe Authority with the true Sons of the Church, is become almoſt indiſputable) told us, That Impoſition of Hands has been conſtantly us'd as the Rite of conferring Ordination upon the Miniſters of Chriſt! — When, I pray, was this Ceremony ever us'd only to expreſs Aſſent to an Ordination? And would our Animadverter allow mere Laymen to uſe this Ceremony, for that end! Which perhaps they might innocently enough do, it it may be uſed at all for that end. Methinks, had the Presbyters been mere Conſenters, an audible Amen at the cloſe of the Apostle's Prayer, or giving the Right Hand to Timothy, after his Ordination, would have ſufficiently anſwer'd the End, without their Laying on Hands with Paul, which (beſides the needleſs Trouble to them) would be likely to prove a Snare in future times, by leading Presbyters into bold Pretences under Colour of a primitive Example. Hence we may well think the Apoſtle (that wiſe Maſter-Builder) would not have allow'd the Presbyters to join with him in Impoſition of Hands, unleſs they had been really veſted with the Power of Ordination, as well as he:—Agreeable to what I ſuggeſted in the Appendix, (pag. 11, 12.) tho' my Reſpondent has not thought it worth his Notice. Neither has he made any Remarks on my 13th page, where I have argued upon his own Hypotheſis of Paul's being the ſole Ordainer (in Excluſion of the Presbytery) That nevertheleſs this Text will not ſerve the Cauſe of Prelacy: Becauſe that from an Apoſtle's, to a Biſhop's, aſſuming the whole Power in Ordination (excluſive of the Presbyters impoſing Hands with him) there is no rational Inference, not ſo much as the face of one; Since Biſhops pretend not to ſucceed the Apoſtles in any other than their ordinary Capacity (in which alſo Presbyters do equally ſucceed them) and Paul cannot reaſonably be ſuppoſed to have ordain'd in that Capacity, if the whole Virtue of the Act lay in the Touch of his Hand.—I muſt not enlarge p. 38here. Pleaſe to turn to the Appendix ††Pag. 13, 22, 23, 25, 29 &c., and I doubt not you may gather up very convincing Proofs, to ſupport this Argument.

BUT to bring the Diſpute to an Iſſue; if we ſhould let all the foregoing Arguments paſs for nothing, yet one thing I have to add, that muſt needs ſilence my Animidverter: I mean the declared Senſe of his own Church, which we ſhall find to be full againſt Him, if we conſult the Form of Ordination of Prieſts. For thus run the Words at the laying on of the Hands of the Biſhop, and the Priests preſent — Receive the Holy Ghoſt for the Office and Work of a Prieſt in the Church of God, new committed unto Thee by the Impoſition of OUR Hands. — You ſee there is a Plurality of Ordainers, and the Presbyters are aſſociated with the Biſhop in the Action, as laying on their Hands for the ſame End, without any Diſtinction. So that the Church of England her ſelf looks on the Presbyters, joyning with the Biſhop in laying on of Hands, as being active or influential in the ſacred Inveſtiture; owns their ordaining Power, and doth not make their Concurrence with the Biſhop ſuch an inſignificant Cypher, ſuch an impertinent Ceremony, as our Animadverter's Principles infer it to be. I cannot then but look upon this Gentleman as flying in the face of his Mother the Church of England, when he denys the ordaining Power of Presbyters; and as loading his Fathers, the Biſhops, with the Imputation of a grand Abſurdity, in their ſaying to the Prieſt ordained, —Receive the Holy Ghoſt for the Work now committed to Thee by the Impoſition of OUR Hands; — when he aſſerts it to be impoſſible, in the Nature of the Thing, for a Plurality to have a joynt Intereſt or Inſtrumentality in the miniſterial Conveyance of the Prieſts Office. And how his Epiſcopal Brethren will reliſh it, I do not know: but this I know, That they have just Grounds to reſent it, as a very groſs affront offer'd 'em by him, in thus putting ſuch a contemptuous Interpretation upon their Concurrence with the Biſhop, as if it were a needleſs and p. 39empty Formality, and of no real Significancy, as to the matter of Ordination, any more than if a number of Deacons joyn'd, or than it ſo many mere Laymen put on their unhallow'd Hands. — And now I leave him to the Correction of his Brethren; who, if they ſhould take him to Task, would perhaps uſe him with greater Soverity than I care at preſent to do. — But here let my Defenſe of the firſt Text conclude: which, tho' it may have been longer than was neceſſary; yet, I hope, not longer than will be profitable. What remains, ſhall be ſtudiouſly drawn into a narrower Compaſs.

§ 2. I proceed now to the Vindication of the ſecond Text, viz. Acts 13. begin. Where we find Paul and Barnabas ſeparated to their Miniſtry among the Gentiles, by the Hands of certain Prophets and Teachers at Antioch.

NOW I took theſe Men to be Presbyters; and laid it down, That we have h…re an Inſtance of Ordination by ſuch as were neither Apoſtles nor Dioceſans. But I did not ſtand to prove their Character, becauſe I thought there was enough obſerv'd in the Sob. Remarks (pag. 116. Edit. 2.) to which my Performance was deſign'd as an Appendix; Enough, I ſay, to prevent all Cavils upon that head, from any one that ſhould undertake a proper Defenſe of the Mod. Proof.

BUT the Animadverter blows upon my Notion, and won't allow me the Suppoſition. He tells us, The Aſſertion appears plainly falſe: While yet he has been able to bring no better Evidence, than a bare Conjecture [purely his own too] which at beſt can only conclude it poſſible to be ſo. And he ſays he cannot believe us, when the Aſſertion appears plainly falſe. Truly he muſt be one of a very odd Make, if he cou'd: very few in the World have attained to believe what appears to 'em plainly falſe. All that we deſire, is, that he would believe us, when the Aſſertion appears plainly true: As I hope it will in the preſent Caſe, after I have conſider'd the Proof he p. 40brings to make it appear falſe. Which we have in theſe Words▪ — For in that Text we find Perſons there of a ſuperiour Character to meer Presbyters, and yet only there ſaid to be Prophets and Teachers; for it's certain Paul and Barnabas were Apoſtles, and as ſuch of a ſuperiour Character to meer Presbyters, and no Reaſon can be given to question it in the others, for Biſhops not being always mention'd under the Title of their higheſt Office and Order, it will not follow, that tho' ſometimes named under the Character of their lowest Order, that they have no higher; and therefore it will follow, that if Paul and Barnabas were (notwithſtanding their being called there Prophets and Teachers) really Apoſtles or Biſhops, that the others were alſo really ſuch, tho' with them alſo mentioned under inferiour Characters.

I have ſet down his Argument here at length, that you may ſee the whole Force it carrys in Bar to my Character of thoſe Ordainers: And I muſt confeſs, if he had not put his Concluſion in ſuch strong Terms (but inſtead of really were, had ſaid, might be) it would have been the moſt handſom Evaſion that I ever met with on this head. But that it is only an Evaſion, a thin Sophiſm, and contains nothing of ſolid Reaſon, I hope will (upon a cool debate of the Matter) appear, even to his own impartial Reflections. Here then to put it in it's genuine Light,

1. LET us try how this way of Reaſoning will hold in other Caſes of the like Nature.

FOR Inſtance; Suppoſe the Government of the Colony of Rhode-Iſland (which I particularly mention, for a good Reaſon) were ſpoken of, and their Names ſet down in ſome public Records; — but all under the common Style of Magistrates and Rulers: Would our Animadverter now, becauſe he finds a Governour and Deputy-Governour among Them, hence conclude them all to be of ſuch ſuperior Characters? How abſurd! How ridiculous!

BUT a Scripture-Inſtance may perhaps be more agreeable. We have one in 1 Cor. 3.5. Where we find Paul p. 41and Apollos ſpoken of together under the general Name of Miniſters. Now it is certain, Paul was an Apoſtle, and as ſuch of a ſuperior Character to a meer Presbyter; and yet is only ſaid there to be a Miniſter. But will my Animadverter add in this Caſe. — and no Reaſon can be given to queſtion it in the other Perſon, though with him alſo mentioned under an inferior Character! I hope he won't. For ſo he'll daſh againſt the Modeſt Proof, which calls Apollo but a Pastor, and ranks him among thoſe of the inferior Order (Pag. 29, 30.) Unleſs then he will contend here with that Modest Gentleman (as he calls him) he muſt own I've brought a parallel Caſe, in which his way of arguing is very lame and inconſequential. — But I may mention another Inſtance we have in Acts 15, which is ſtill more clear & parallel, if it be poſſible. We there read, that Paul, and Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas were at Antioch together; and they are all called Prophets. Compare ver. 30. & 32. —This new comes up full to our Text. But will the Animadverter's way of Reaſoning bea… in this Caſe? No verily… For altho' Paul and Barnabas were Apoſtles; yet the other two were not ſo. For, in the firſt place, obſerve the Character they have ver. 22. Then pleaſed it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to ſend choſen Men of their own Company, — Judas and Silas, chief Men among the Brethren. They belong'd to the Elderſhip at Jeruſalem, and were only Presbyters, tho' of chief Note there. But if this doth not ſatisfy, I hope the Opinion of the Author of Modest Proof will: Where we find Judas and Silas, by Name, ſpoken of as Two Presbyters, and called merely Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, and rank'd in the Order of the Seventy; ſaid to be of a diſtinct Office and Order, and inferior to that of the Apoſtles. (Page 14. & 38.)

THESE Inſtances may ſuffice to ſhew how precarious, how ambiguous, and illogical, the Animadverter's way of arguing is; ſince it will by no means hold, when apply'd to other Caſes of the like Nature. But we muſt excuſe him; for he has uſed the beſt Shift he cou'd fine p. 42out: and oblig'd he was to invent ſome very cunning and plauſible Eluſion, or elſe to give up his Cauſe!

AND now I might very fai…ly withdraw my Hand, and give over the Conſideration of this Text. For, the Buſineſs of Proof here is incumbent on my Animadverter, he being upon the Affirmative Side, And ſince he has not been able to prove his Aſſertion, my Negative ſtands good, and he can't reaſonably expect I ſhould labor in the Proof of it. However left my Silence here ſhould be miſinterpreted, I will not decline the Task: for I don't deſpair of Succeſs.

2. THEN, let us ſee if we can't make it out, by ſome clear and pregnant Proofs, that the Prophets and Teachers, who ſeparated Paul and Barnabas, were not Apoſtles nor Dioceſans. This, I think, will appear very plain, and we ſhall find enough to convince every impartial Inquirer, if we conſider the Style of the Text, or if we look into the Context.

(1.) LET us conſider the Language of the Text, which runs thus,—Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain Prophets & Teachers. In the Original it is— foreign: —which is capable of various Tranſlations, & all accommodable to my purpoſe. I ſhall not trouble you with all the different Readings, but will ſingle out two eminent Expoſitors among the Animadverter's own Brethren, to give us the Critical Lection, I mean, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Whitby.

Dr. H. ſo renders it,— Now there were Some in Antioch. BELONGING to the Church that then was, Prophets and Doctors. — That is, that then was at Antioch, as I think the Rules of Conſtruction do oblige us to explain it: altho' the Doctor in his Paraphraſe ſtretches the Senſe, and takes in the Churches of Syria of that Age, of which he ſuppoſes thoſe Prophets and Teachers to be Biſhops. Which is a Conſtruction I can't deviſe what ſhou'd lead him into, but an odd Notion he was ſo fond of, as if Every City had a Biſhop, and cou'd have no p. 43more than one. But I think, His critical Note, as I have explain'd it, is preferrable to his Paraphraſe, and carries abundantly more rational Probability with it. For obſerve, among thoſe Prophets and Teachers we find Paul & Barnabas, who cannot with any colour of Reaſon be called Biſhops of Syria. And then the phraſe of the Text is ſuch as ſpeaks it to be a particular Church, that thoſe Perſons are ſaid to belong unto. For it is, the Church, in the ſingular number; a particular Church; and muſt (by the moſt eaſy & natural Interpretation) mean the Church at Antioch, which is mentioned immediately before. Whereas, when Provinces and Countries are referr'd to, the Plural Number is us'd. So we read of the Churches of Judea, the Churches of Aſia, the Churches of Galatia &c. And therefore it is very unlikely that the Apoſtle ſhould refer to the Churches of Syria, in our Text. But by comparing this with other places of the like Importance, the Caſe will appear plainer. Thus, 1 Cor. 1.2. foreign—. So in 2 Cor. 1.1 we have the ſame Words repeated. Which are by the Doctor without any difficulty tranſlated. To the Church which is at Corinth. And why by the Church in our Text we ſhould not underſtand, The Church which is at Antioch, (notwithſtanding a little Tranſpoſition of the words in our Text) I know of no ſignificant Reaſon. For ought I can ſee, the Text may very well be read thus.— Now there were certain Prophets and Teachers belonging to the Church, that was in Antioch; or, There were Teachers in Antioch, belonging to the Church then being, in that City. I may here allude to ſome of my Animadverter's Expreſſions (in another place ††Def. p. 35.) and ſay;—The Senſe will not ſuffer at all by this Tranſlation; There is nothing in the Original that hinders its being exactly ſo rendered; unleſs it be the Cauſe of Epiſcopacy.

AND correſpondent to my Reading is that of Dr. Whitby, who ſo tranſlates it,—There were ſome Prophets and Teachers in Antioch belonging to that Church. And he vouch… the learned Grotius for it.

p. 44IT appears then, in the Judgment of theſe great Men, that the Church ſpoken of was that at Antioch; and it is agreed to by Dr. Hammond, that (whatever the Church was) Theſe Prophets & Teachers did BELONG unto it.

NOW it is a fix'd and invariable Maxim, in our Opponents Scheme,— But one Biſhop in a Church.—Whereas, here is a Number of Teachers, belonging to one and the ſame Church. Therefore they could not be Dioceſan Biſhops. And that they were not in the ſtrict Senſe Apoſtles, or of equal Figure with Paul, the inſpired Doctor of the Gentiles, I believe my Animadverter himſelf (upon his recollected Thoughts) will readily allow me. Surely he can have no Temptation to ſuppoſe them Apoſtles or Prelates, ſave that he finds them laying on of Hands: but this carries no Print at all of either Character; becauſe it is an Action we find performed by Presbyters (as I have ſhewn before) in the Ordination of Timothy, & in the Ordinations of his own Church.

BUT here enters in upon me an Objection, that ſeems to lie againſt the Conſtruction of our Text, given above, making thoſe Prophets and Teachers to belong unto the Church at Antioch: And we may imagin our Animadverter to be laying it down thus,—

Obj. WELL but Paul and Barnabas were among thoſe Prophets and Teachers. And they cannot be ſaid to belong to that Church, becauſe Apoſtles: And therefore it will follow that no more did the others.

To which I anſwer,

THAT, ſince the greater Part belong'd to that Church, it makes no ſuch Alteration, as to hurt my Argument, altho' we ſhould allow an Exception of one or two out of the Number. Paul was an Apoſtle, and was ſo at that time, I confeſs. But that Barnabas was an Apoſtle before his going with Paul to the Gentiles, upon the Miſſion our Text relates to, I never yet could ſee any ſufficient Evidence. My Animadverter's Party indeed affirm it: but has he, or they, prov'd it? No, (if I may borrow ſome of his own pretty Turns here) That is an p. 45unuſual method with the Writers on that Side; however, we cannot believe them, when the Aſſertion appears plainly falſe as it does in this Caſe. For before that Miſſion, we don't hear of Barnabas's doing any thing more than the common Work of a Preacher. In the laſt Account we have of him, before that in our Text, we find the CHURCH at Jeruſalem SENDING him forth, that he ſhould go as fat as Antioch: who when he came there, exported them all; — for he was a good Man &c. Then, after he had preached to them awhile with good Succeſs, he departed to Tarſus for to ſeek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. (Acts 11.22 &c.) Now for the Reaſon and End of this, I will refer my Animadverter to one of his own Brethren (Dr. Whitby) whoſe Paraphraſe on the place runs thus, — Then departed Barnabas (from Antioch) to Tarſus, to ſeek Saul, (perhaps that he being an Apoſtle might lay his Hands on ſome of them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, Acts 8.17.) And when he had found him &c. — Here we have this learned Prelatiſt hinting his Opinion, that Barnabas at that time was not an Apoſtle. And if ſo, then only Saul is left, appearing to be of that Character: and he is mention'd laſt. Barnabas begins the Catalogue: and Saul finiſhes it, who might be placed after all, becauſe (He being an Apostle, and They only Prophets and Teachers) they did more ſtrictly and properly belong to the Church at Antioch, than He. However, I am willing for the preſent to humour the matter, & take my Antagoniſt in his own way, by admitting Barnabas to be an Apostle, before the Miſſion our Text relates to: which will make two of the Prophets and Teachers ſpoken of, Apoſtles. Nevertheleſs the greater Number ſtill remains, who in a ſtrict Senſe belong'd to that Church, as the ordinary Teachers of it. And on that Account, Barnabas and Saul might be mention'd under the Character they ſuſtain'd in common with Them: according to the known and allow'd Practice of Men, in the like Caſes, who uſe to denominate the whole, from the Majority.

AND then, if we reflect a little, we ſhall find occaſion to think it no ſuch Abſurdity, tho' we reckon p. 46Barnabas and Saul among the Prophets and Teachers, AS belonging then to the Church of Antioch. Let us hear Dr. Whitby's Thoughts upon the Propriety of it, who thus vindicates his Reading of the Place, (which, as I told you before, is) —There were ſome Prophets and Teachers in Antioch, belonging to that Church. He notes, — And indeed Barnabas & Paul might well be reckon'd ſuch; Barnabas being ſent thither by the Church of Jeruſalem, (Chap. 11.22.) and He and Paul preaching there a whole Year (ver. 26▪) and being ſent by that Church to Jeruſalem, with their Alms. (ver. 30.) — And it is to be obſerved, when they had compleated their temporary Miſſion to preach to the Gentiles, (that being the Work to which they were called, ver. 2.) they then return'd to Antioch, and gave an Account of it to the Church there, declaring what they had done in Proſecution of it, Chap. 14.26, 27.

THESE Conſiderations, the learned Doctor judg'd to be a full Vindication of his Reading; and do ſufficiently ſhow us, that it carries in it no ſuch Impropriety of Speech (as at firſt view one might be apt to imagine) altho' according to it, Paul and Barnabas be reckon'd among the Prophets and Teachers, ſaid to belong to the Church of Antioch.

NOW to ſum up the Evidence: ſince the Whole might be denominated from the Major Part, and eſpecially ſince Barnabas and Paul might well enough be ſaid (in a manner) to belong to the Church of Antioch at that time; it follows that their being Apoſtles can be no forceable Plea in Bar to the Doctor's Reading, nor to my Argument grounded upon it. And thus we ſee, by a little Attention to the Words of the Text, that thoſe who ſeparated Paul and Barnabas, were neither Di…ceſans nor Apoſtles. But further to ſtrengthen the Argument,

(2.) LET us take a View of the Context; and ſee if we can't trace their Original, and fix their Character, by comparing Things a little.

p. 47IF we look back to Act. 8.1. we ſhall read of a great Perſecution of the Church at Jeruſalem, by which They were all ſcattered abroad, except the Apoſtles. And then in Chap. 11.19. we have this account, That they which were ſcattered abroad, travelled as far as — Ant…och, preaching the Word—. Now, if we throw together a few Circumſtances, it will appear highly probable, that the Miniſters, who ſeparated Paul & Barnabas, were ſome of theſe diſperſed Diſciples. For we find, by Act. 11.20. That Some of them which came down to Antioch, were Men originally of Cyrene. And in our Text, Lucius (one of the Ordainers) is expreſly ſaid to be a Cyrenean. Dr. Whitby therefore, by a very juſt & eaſy Conſequence, poſitively concludes him to be one of thoſe that then came down to Antioch. And as to Niger, he vouches Epiphanius for his being one of the Seventy; and ſo probably one of the Diſperſed from Jeruſalem, who are ſaid to travel as far as Antioch, preaching the Word; ſome of whom were Men of Cyprus: and accordingly Dr. Lightfoot conceives this Niger to be a Cypriot. Finally, as to Manaen, our Text tells us, he was brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, bred at Court: but turning Chriſtian, he was perſecuted with the Reſt; and it's likely was one of thoſe that were ſcatter'd abroad by the Perſecution.— Thus I have reduced it to a moral Certainty, or rational Probability, that the three Ordainers were ſome of the Diſperſion: and I think it needs no further Scrutiny, to diſcover, that they were neither Prelates nor Apostles, but Paſtors & Miniſters of the Word. — This may ſuffice for the Confirmation of my Point: and let not my Animadverter complain again, for want of Proof on our ſide; until he is able to produce as probable Evidence in favour of his own Aſſertion.

BUT perhaps he may ſtart an Objection here & ſay,

WHAT tho' it be granted they were of thoſe that were diſperſed, and at that time were but Presbyters! Yet this argues nothing; becauſe they might afterwards be advanced to the Epiſcopate.

p. 48TO which I reply; —

THAT they could not all be Dioceſan Biſhops, I have prov'd before, when I obſerv…, that They all belong'd to the Church of Antioch, and that our Opponents Scheme allows of but one Biſhop in a Church at the ſame time, And now,—

THAT not ſo much as one of them was a Biſhop (of ſuch a Stamp) I hope will appear to every one's Satisfaction, upon a conſiderate View of two things. Let us,

Firſt, Reflect on the forecited Story ††Acts 11.22 &c.Acts 11:22of Barnabas. We are told, the Church which was in Jeruſalem ſent forth Barnabas, that he ſhould go as far as Antioch: who when he came,— exhorted them all &c. Then departed Barnabas to Tarſus for to ſeek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.—But now what Need of this, if there were already at Antioch, either Apoſtles, or a Prelate? Obſerve it, I have before produced ſuch Conſiderations, as carry in them a good force of Argument, that They who ſeparated Paul and Barnabas, were of the Number of thoſe who were ſcattered abroad by the Perſection at Jeruſalem, and who then went down to Antioch; preaching the Word there: and that therefore at that time they were but Presbyters. And now that they were not any of them advanced to the Apostolate or the Epiſcopate, when Barnabas and Paul went to Antioch, ſeems a rational Concluſion; for that otherwiſe Barnabas and Paul's going thither muſt have been needleſs, as to any thing that peculiarly concern'd the Work of an Apoſtle, or the Office of a Biſhop. But whatever may be the Strength of this Plea, in Objection to my Animadverter's precarious Hypotheſis: let me add,

Secondly, I am ſure, In the whole Affair of Barnabas and Saul's Miſſion, there is not the leaſt Intimation of any thing that carrys even the Shadow of Prelacy; no Hint of any one that had the Supremacy over the Reſt. The Direction runs in the Plural Number: p. 49The Holy Ghost ſaid, Separate YE [foreign] The Addreſs is to a collective Body of Presbyters, and not to a ſingle Prelate, — And the Tranſaction was manag'd by a Plurality, a Triumvirate. THEY faſted and prayed and laid on Hands: And THEY ſent them away. And it is obſervable, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch (from whence they had been recommended to the Grace of God, for the Work which they had fulfilled; as we have the Report, Acts. 14.26, 27.) They gathered the Church together, and rehearſed all that God had done with them — They gave this Account, not to the Biſhop, (as it might have been expected, had there been one there) nor to the Apostles, (as Barnabas had done at Jeruſalem, in another Caſe before. Acts 9.27.) but to the Church, comprehending both Officers, and Members. — So that there is not the leaſt Inkling of a Prelatical or Apostolical Character upon any of thoſe that ſeparated Paul and Barnabas.

UPON the whole then it may very rationally be infer'd, We have here an Inſtance of Presbyters ordaining; and that without the Preſidency of any Superiour, whether Apoſtle, or Dioceſan Biſhop: which was the Propoſition my Animadverter charg'd with want of Proof. But I believe he'l find no Grounds to complain again on this head. For I ſuppoſe my point now pretty well prov'd. And if ſo, then of Conſequence, that great Queſtion is decided, in favour of my Cauſe, viz. Whether the Power of Ordination was originally annexed to the Government of Prelates, in oppoſition to that of Presbyters? The Diſcuſſion whereof (our Anſwerer obſerves ††Def. 21—.) determines the Controverſy. I can't ſee then but that the Controverſy muſt now be finally ſhut up. For I dare appeal to any one, who is not bias'd by a deſign to ſerve an Hypotheſis, whether I have not ſufficiently prov'd my Point, and ſet it in a very unexceptionable Light. My Antagoniſt himſelf, I think, muſt needs own he was under a miſtake, at leaſt, in ſaying, That if Paul and Barnabas were (notwithſtanding their being called p. 50there Prophets and Teachers) really Apoſtles or Biſhops, NO Reaſon can be given to queſtion it, that the others were alſo really ſuch. — You ſee I've brought to view ſome very ſtrong Reaſons for Suſpicion (at leaſt) that they were neither Apoſtles nor Dioceſans. — But now if he ſhall turn me off (as in another Caſe, he has done the Remarker) with bluntly ſaying, We deny all theſe groundleſs Surmiſes; I may then preſume to tell him (in his own Words ††Def. of Mod. Pr. pag. 25, 27.which perhaps will found as well in my Mouth as his) That it was moſt unjuſt & againſt all the Laws of Reaſoning, to put me upon the proof of a Negative; The (bringing of) Proof belongs to himſelf, the poſitive Affirmer; which, becauſe there is no ground to go upon, we are aſſured can never be done. In Points of ſo great Conſequence, we muſt go upon certain Facts, and not upon mere Conjecture, ſupported by no Reaſon or Evidence. And when nothing of this Nature appears, it is intolerable Boldneſs to conclude confidently. — Very juſt Obſervations! Wou'd he had acted always upon his own Rules! But happy and rare is the Man that condemneth not himſelf, one way or other, in that thing which he alloweth. I hope he will take Care, the next time he writes, to bring ſome poſitive Proofs of his Aſſertion; or elſe my negative Arguments (at leaſt without a ſolid Refutation) muſt needs, in the Judgment of the impartial World, remain of Force againſt him: and ſo he will lie open to a too juſt Imputation of what he calls the Remarker's Iniquity, Adding to the Scripture, and creating Apoſtles at his pleaſure. I ſhall ſecurely wait his Anſwer: and haſten now in the laſt place to conſider —

§. 3. THE other Text he has attempted to ſet in a true Light, viz. 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double Honour; Eſpecially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine.

A large Stride, you may obſerve it is, my Animadverter here takes; there being above a dozen pages, between the other Text and this, which have entirely eſcap'd his p. 51Remarks: altho' ſome things are there ſaid, which bear pretty hard upon the Author, and the Cauſe, he has undertaken to defend, and nothing he has offer'd any where (either in his Defence, or in his Animadverſions) that I can diſcern, will poſſibly ſerve for a Reply. However the Gentleman skips over all (for what Reaſon, I can't tell; unleſs it were, becauſe he ſaw ſuch Difficulties thrown in his way, as he deſpair'd of ever being able to grapple with) and by one great and ſudden Leap, comes to a Text, which, though I laid ſome Streſs upon it, yet belong'd not to the main Argument, but was brought in only occaſionally, in arguing upon an Hypotheſis, that I did not actually grant my Author, though I was willing for once to take him in his own way.

THE Deſign, upon which I uſed this Text, was to prove, that Teaching is a more honorable Office than Ruling: and that therefore, admitting Biſhops and Presbyters to be two diſtinct Orders, yet Biſhops are not Superior to them. And here after ſeveral Hints premiſed, I came to argue from the Diſtinction which the Apoſtle (in 1 Tim. 5.17.) puts upon the Elders that labour in the Word; requiring peculiar Honours to be paid Them, above the Elders that labour in Rule: which I preſum'd, He would not have done, if the Elders that rule (yea and rule well) had been more honourable than their Brethren.— Now the Animadverter ſingles out this Text, and makes his Exceptions againſt my Remarks upon it. I had obſerv'd, Either there muſt be but one Sort of Elder here ſpoken of; or there are two Kinds intended, one ruling, and the other teaching: (Which is but agreeable to Biſhop Burnet's ‖‖Pastoral Care. Pag. 6.Remark on the Place, who ſeems to ſpeak with the like Uncertainty as I did, ſaying, St. Paul divides this Title of Elder, either into two different Performances of the Duties of the ſame Rank, or into two different Ranks; thoſe that rule well, and thoſe that labour in word:) and taken either way, it makes againſt the pretended Superiority of Biſhops unto Presbyters. — Now the Animadverter tells us, He is ready to think I am ſo p. 52far in the Right as to be for the former Expoſition, & that I allow, 1 Theſ. 5.12. to be a good Comment on that Text. Indeed I did not declare poſitively which of the Expoſitions I was for; and on that Account he is pleas'd to tax me with acting the diſingenuous Part here. (By the way, ſuppoſe I have; yet it's no worſe than he himſelf has done (upon Act. 13.1.) in not ſaying poſitively whether he took the Antiochian Teachers for Apoſtles, or for Biſhops.) But I can't ſee the Juſtice of this Accuſation; for it was ſufficient to my purpoſe, if the Text cou'd neither way be reconciled to the Prelatical Scheme, particularly as exhibited in the Modeſt Proof, & M… Barclay's Short Proof. However, ſince he has ſuppos… me to be for the former Conſtruction, and to be ſo far in the Right, I am willing to take him in his own way (without diſputing whether that be right, or wrong) and hope to make good my Argument from it againſt Prelacy: which runs after this manner,—If theſe Elders are one and the ſame, then here's a Compariſon between the ſeveral Parts of their Office, Ruling and Teaching; and the Preference is given to the Latter: or to allude to my Animadverter's Conſtruction of this Paſſage, That Part of their Office which is Doctrinal, is more honourable than that which is Ruling; & tho' as Rulers, They are to be accounted worthy of double Honour, ††It is an egregious Blunder in my Antagoniſt, to make the Senſe of the Text according to me, to be, That You are [He meant, He is, i. e. an Elder is) to be honoured as a Ruler, but with half the Honour of a Teacher.yet more eſpecially as Teachers. Now this Expoſition (however ſilly my Animadverter may imagine it) is capable of one very good Conſequence at leaſt, viz. That they who are veſted with the Powers of Preaching, [ſuppoſing there to be a diſtinct Order of mere preaching Presbyters] are inſtated in that Office which is of the greateſt Dignity, and hence by good Rights ought to go ſhares with others of the Clergy (veſted with the Powers of Ruling too) in the higheſt Honours due unto them. So that, altho' I ſhou'd not be able to prove our Biſhops to have renounced the Powers of Preaching, when They were p. 53veſted with the Powers of Ruling, (but ſhould allow it to be falſe in Fact) Yet, ſince They are CHIEFLY to be honor'd for that Office, which they ſuſtain in common with other Clergymen, it will follow that they are to be honor'd with no greater Honors than what are due to mere Presbyters, veſted only with that ſingle Office. For the additional Powers of Ruling cauſe no new Acceſſion of Dignity to the Biſhop; and ſo can challenge no higher meaſures of Reſpect to him, than are owing to his Fellow-Presbyters. The Complication of the Offices (whatever my Animadverter may pretend) can have no Conſequence, to his Purpoſe, unleſs he can prove our Biſhops to have receiv'd ſome ſuperior Office (when they were veſted with the Powers of Ruling) to which are annexed Honours ſuperior to Thoſe, decreed by the Apoſtle, unto the Office of Labouring in the Word. And here I may illuſtrate this by a familiar Compariſon: We'l ſuppoſe (what is known Fact among us) that there are two Gentlemen of the Civil Order; agreeing in this, that both of them belong to his Majeſty's Council, but differing in another Circumſtance, viz. That one of them is alſo in the Commiſſion of the Peace, and the other not. Now, I pray, Is this Complication of Offices in the Juſtice cumulative to his Dignity? Does it intitule him to greater Honors than are due to his Brother-Counſillour? I trow not. But why not? The Reaſon is obvious,— Becauſe the ſuper added Office, which he holds, is inferior to that which is common to them both. Now, if it beſpeaks no Accretion of Dignity, how can it give him a juſt Pretence to any ſuperior Reſpects! — 'Tis eaſy to apply this to the Caſe in Hand.

I have now ſaid enough, I ſuppoſe, to ſatisfy every unbias'd Perſon of the Weakneſs of my Animadverter's Reaſonings upon 1 Tim. 5.17. and that he has by no means been able to reconcile the Apoſtolical Canon here, with the Prelatical Scheme of Things. So that I find as much ground ſtill to ſay it, as before. That if any Man will do this, and make Senſe of the Text, He muſt have a better Knack at ſolving Paradoxes than I can pretend to.

p. 54I fear I have by this time tired you, as well as myſelf. Nevertheleſs, I muſt beg your Patience, while I add a few auxiliary Hints upon the Argument: which will leave my Antagoniſt without any Reſerves of Object…on; and I think, effectually preclude all ways of Eſcape: and then I'll draw to a C…oſe.

IT may be obſerv'd that when the Elders ſpoken of in our Text are call'd the ſame, this admits of a double Meaning, and may be underſtood as referring either to the Species or to Individuals.

First IF it refers to Individuals or Singulars, and the Elders in both parts of the Text are underſtood to be numerically the ſame; Then we may ſuppoſe the Senſe to run thus (as I am ready to think my Animadverter wou'd have it carry'd) Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour; eſpecially They labouring in the Word and Doctrine. And ſo we may underſtand the Apoſtle here to ſtate the Dignity of the Clergy in this (as Bp Burnet obſerves ††Pastoral Care. Pag. 72.on another Text) That they ought to be accounted of as the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Myſteries of God: and he ſets down this part of their Character, as the more ſpecial Foundation of that Law, which provides for the Maintenance of the Clergy, That the Lord hath ordain'd that They which preach the Goſpel, ſhou'd live of the Goſpel. The two comprehenſive Branches of the Epiſcopal Function are Preaching and Governing: and as that excellent Prelate elſewhere **112.obſerves, The conſtant Senſe of all Churches, in all Ages, has been, that Preaching is the Biſhops GREAT Duty. This is truly the primary Buſineſs of their Calling, and the moſt ſhining part of their Character. They ſhou'd give themſelves continually to the Ministry of the Word and Prayer, as the more ſpecial Deſign of their Order. The Apoſtles thought this to be Their grand Duty, and made it their chief Employment. (Act. 6.4.) Government, and Diſcipline, and Ordination, are but ſubordinate and more occaſional or incidental Buſineſſes, and deſign'd to be ſubſervient to the great and more stated Work, the Miniſtration p. 55of the Word. Here therefore our Text places the Accent, and ſtates the Dignity of the Clergy in this; demanding a double Honour for them eſpecially as conſidered under the Not on of Teachers of the Word. Biſhop B… ſon [Perpet. Gov &c. p. 132.] tells us, This is the Inte…pretation, that Chryſoſtom … Greek Writers embr…ce. Now, if this be the Scope of the Apoſtle in the Words under Conſideration, it then very ſtrongly infers ſeveral important Conſequences; viz

1. THAT, by the Elders ſpoken of, we are not to underſtand any Office…s ſuperior to the (ſuppoſed mere) Teachers of the Word: becauſe this is the higheſt and most worthy Character, that any can ſuſtain. And then,

2. THAT there are no ſ…nd Grounds ſo the Hypotheſis (we are arguing upon) of stated mere teaching Presbyters, diſtinct from Biſhops voited with the Powers both of Preaching & Ruling. For, it the Office of Teaching be the principal and most noble Part of the Miniſtry, it affords us a ſtrong preſumptive Argument, That all who are inveſted with this, have alſo the Powers of Government and Ordination belonging to them; becauſe no ſubſtancial Reaſon can be aſſigned (in this Caſe) Why they who have the Greater, ſhould be deny'd the Leſſer.

But thus much for the firſt Thing.

Secondly, WHEN the Elders in our Text are ſaid to be the ſame, it may only mean They are ſpecifically the ſame, and belong to one and the ſame Order.

NOW theſe Elders, tho' in this general-View the ſame, yet may in regard of ſome particular Circumſtances differ.

And accordingly, — Either,

1. WE may underſtand by foreign. or Elders that rule, Fixed Paſtors, or Prefects of Churches already conſtituted, (ſuch as we ſuppoſe the Elders of Epheſus to be) having the overſight of the Flock: and by Elders that labour in Word and Doctrine, Itinerant Preachers, or Evang…liſts, (which according to the Author of Mod. Proof ††Pag. 14.are at the moſt but Presbyters) ſuch as Apollos, Judas, Silas, Mark and others; and thus ſome learned Men (Dr. Hammond {inverted †}{inverted †}Annot. on Act. 11. Lett. b.Acts 11, Bp. Bilſon, &c.) do interpret p. 56the Phraſe, foreign — i. e. Travelling in preaching the Goſpel to ſuch a… ha… not heard it before. … Or,

2. WE may underſtand by Elders, in both parts of the Text, the ſettled Paſtors of particular Churches; tho' ſpoken of as diſtinguiſhable from one another, and to be eſtimated, by their Gifts and Labours in Preaching. So Bp. Stillingfleet in his Ordination-Sermon, carries it.

AND take the Text in either Senſe, I can't ſee how it … …ally be apply'd to ſerve the Cauſe of Prelacy.

FOR, if the firſt Senſe be admitted, then it follows there have been Presbyters (not taking the Overſight of any particular Charges, but chiefly employed in preaching the Goſpel in one place and another, who yet were accounted by the Apoſtle) worthy of Honours ſuperior to thoſe due to the Biſhops of the Flock. From whence we may fairly argue that ſuch as are veſted with the Powers of Preaching, have a juſt Title to Honours, equal to what are owing to Biſhops, whoſe governing Powers can give them no Claim to any peculiar Reſpects.

OR, if the ſecond, then by the Apoſtle's Rule here, a ſpecial Regard is to be paid unto thoſe Paſtors, that excel in the beſt Gifts, and moſt uſeful Labours; which be determines to be thoſe of Preaching. Miniſters are to be honour'd for their Work ſake; which comprehends thoſe two great Lines of Duty, Governing and Preaching. But Preaching is the main and more eminent part of their Work. — Now ſome excel in one of thoſe, and others in t'other. And All are to be accounted worthy of double Honour; but eſpecially they who excel (as to Skill, Fidelity, and Application) in Preaching, which is the Work that carries in its Nature, the greateſt Dignity, and gives any the more exalted Character. And accordingly our Animadverter does elſewhere (Def. of Mod. Proof, p. 24.) interpret the Text, as a Rule not only to the People, for the Direction of their Conduct towards their Miniſters, but alſo as a Rule to Timothy, for the Direction of his Conduct towards Them, To prefer the deſeruing. And at the ſame time, it is obſervable, the Apostle declares thoſe to be the moſt deſerving, who approve themſelves the moſt skilful, faithful, and laborious p. 57Preachers. He ſingles out Theſe for the firſt Preferments, and recommends them to Timothy, to receive the ſpecial Marks of his Favour.

IT remains now only to ſhew (if the Elders ſpoken of, be of the ſame Order) that one or t'other of thoſe Senſes muſt be admitted; by proving that the Senſe my Animadverter is for, who (by a ſtrong Effort of Imagination) ſuppoſes them to be Dioceſan Biſhops, is intirely wrong, and muſt be rejected. And to prove they were not Dioceſan Biſhops, I will chuſe out three Arguments, which the Gentleman himſelf has furniſhed me withal; enough to plunge him into inextricable Labyrinths.

1. THIS Notion is ſuperſeded by his own Gloſs upon our Text, but now mention'd, making it a Rule to Biſhop Timothy, for his Direction in the Government of his Presbyters, To prefer the Deſeruing. — Which may at leaſt have the Force of an Argumentum ad Hominem.

2. THE Gentleman has effectually diſmounted that Hypotheſis, by a Conceſſion He hath made elſewhere ††Def. p. 21. Append. p. 10., viz. That Presbyters have a Government over their ſingle Congregations, and are veſted with the Powers both of Sacraments and Cenſures. By allowing of which, he has thrown a fatal Block in his own way, and put it out of his Power to prove, That by the Elders that rule well, are neceſſarily to be underſtood Dioceſan Biſhops, and not Congregational Paſtors.

3. IT muſt be concluſive in this Diſpute, to obſerve, He himſelf tells us here, That he thinks I am ſo far in the RIGHT, as to grant that the Elders in both parts of our Text, are the ſame, and that I allow 1 Theſ. 5.12. to be a good Comment on the Text. — For, if I am ſo far in the Right, then I'm ſure I ſhall be in the Right alſo, if I affirm the Elders in 1 Tim. 5. are of the ſ…me Species with thoſe i 4 1 Theſ. 5. — And I am equally ſure then they could not be Dioceſan Prelates: Becauſe the Theſſalonian Elders were but Pariſhional or Congregational Biſhops; as will plainly appear to every one, upon the ſedate Conſideration of a few Things. … As,

p. 58(1.) THERE was a Plurality of theſe Preſidents or Overſeers in that one Church. Therefore they could not be Dioceſan Biſhops.

(2.) THERE is no ſpecial Mark put upon any ſingle Perſon among them, as having a Prerogative above the Reſt: but they are all ſpoken of under one common Denomination of Preſidents. foreign It denotes Superintendency, or Epiſcopacy. Which being attributed to them all, without diſtinction, it argues they were a Company of Congregational Biſhops, acting in an Equality: no one Man being Head of the Presbytery; unleſs it were under the notion of a Moderator, for Order's ſake. … And then,

(3.) THEY are deſcribed, not only as being over the Flock, but as labouring AMONG them, and admoniſhing them: which imports a Perſonal Communica, and immediate Watch, in execution of the Paſtoral Charge.

(4) THE Church is requir'd to know Them, and to eſteem, and love Them, for their Work's ſake: which neceſſarily preſuppoſes their Reſidence in the City, and argues them to be Parochial Biſhops. … Add to this,

(5.) THE Church is requir'd to love them in the higheſt Degree, foreign. The Word carries an Emphaſis, that can't well be expreſs'd in Engliſh. The ſame Phraſe is us'd in Eph. 3.20. and tranſlated Exceeding abundantly. So then They are required to abound, yea to ſuperabound, in the Expreſſions of their Eſteem & Love to their Teachers; Which ſurely cannot imply any thing leſs than the Double Honour, demanded in our Text. As then it muſt needs reſult, that the Elders in both Texts are of the ſame Species, and mean Congregational Biſhops: So likewiſe the Conſequence is clear to a Demonſtration, that there are no other Biſhops of a ſuperior Rank; inaſmuch as the higheſt Honours and Reſpects of the Church are by an expreſs Apoſtolic Decree (and by my Animad…erter's own implicit Conceſſion) due unto that ſort of …ſhops.

THUS, I have reſcu'd my laſt Text out of our Opponent's hands; and made it appear, that by allowing 1 Theſ. 5.12. to be a good Comment upon it, he has puſh'd hard at his own Breaſt, and given himſelf a mortal Wound, p. 59while he thought of nothing but a fatal Thruſt at me. O amazing, dreadful Miſtake! While he dreamt of caſting up a mighty Trench for his Security, in the Defenſe of an expiring Cauſe, he was really digging a profound Grave, to bury it in. And now he will ſurely pardon me, if I have been, doing a faithful Part, to eaſe his Task, and facilitate the Funeral. — However, I know (my Friend) that you will put the kindeſt Meaning upon any good Offices I may have done to that End. … To conclude,

I think I have now diſſipated all the Exceptions, that our Anſwerer has brought againſt my Appendix; and fully vindicated as many of my Arguments, as he was pleas'd to attack. I'm ſenſible I have been too diffuſive on ſeveral heads, and in general transgreſs'd the Rules of Proportion; but hope I've every where kept within the Bounds of Truth & Soberneſs. I truſt I have not broken over the Laws of fair Diſputation, nor made a forfeiture of the Gentlemanly Treatment, with which my Animadverter has begun to diſtinguiſh me. I may juſtly therefore expect, if he ſees fit to reply, that he will return me the ſame Meaſure: And if he advances any thing new, I ſhall (if I have Opportunity) give him my Thoughts upon it. But if he only repeats the old Story, or falls from ſolid Reaſoning (to uſe an Expreſſion of his own) I ſhall ſuppoſe Enough is already ſaid on both ſides, and ſhall hardly think it worth while to write a third time. For I am not at all fond of giving the laſt Word.

PARDON me now (my Friend) this long Interruption, and let me once more feel the Influences of that Goodneſs and Candour, which endears you to all your Acquaintants, tho' to none more than

SIR, Your Brother And Servant. Sept. 22. 1724.

End of the text · Thomas Foxcroft, Vindication of the Appendix to The Sober Remarks (1725)