REMARKS on the Second HEAD.

HIS next Business, he tells up P. 13. is, to make it appear how these Offices were distinguished, and to demon­strate an Imparity among them. This he essays, by such a tedious and impertinent Harrangue; that di [...]s [Page 14] estinvenire, quam vincere. It's much more dif­ficult to know what he would be at, than to answer his Arguments, if there be any thing under this Head, which deserves that Name.

BUT that I may make way for a distinct Consi­deration of what he ought to have prov'd under this Head, I'll state the Case particularly.

THE Office of Apostles, was either Extraordinary and Temporary, or Ordinary and Perpetual. 'Twas by vertue of their extraordinary Office, that they were denominated APOSTLES. Which appears from this, that this Title was given them, on Account of their being sent abroad, of their unfixed Charge, and iti­nerary Circumstances; and therefore, none but these thus extraordinarily sent forth, are any where in Scrip­ture, distinguish'd by that Appellation. But even they themselves, as ordinary Officers in the Church, are stiled Presbyters. 1 Pet. V. 1. and 2 Feb. V. 1. and 3 Job.V. 1.

THAT the Apostles were extraordinary Officers, he himself grants; and tells us, p. 33. (as such) what their Powers and Gifts were, which take in his own Words. ‘'Tis acknowledged, that some Things peculiar to the first Apostles, were Extraordinary and Temporary, and expired with their Persons: such as, their hav­ing been Eye and Ear Witnesses of Christ's Life, Doctrine [...] Miracles, Suffering, Resurrection, and Ascentio [...]; their having received their Commission immediately from Christ, their being infallible Guides, in delivering the Doctrines of the Gospel, their unlimitted commission to all the World, and Jurisdiction over all churches, their Power [...] con­fer miraculous Gifts on others, to discern, Spi [...]its, and to back their Censures with corporal Puni [...] ­ments, as on Annanias and Sapp [...]ira, and Elimas.’ Thus for their extraordinary Power. But besides this, [Page 14] they had ordinary Functions, common to other Mini­sters of the Gospel; Such as Preaching, dispensing the Sacraments, ordaining others to the Work of the Ministry; and governing the Church. These things premised, I come now to consider the Question, which should have been,

WHETHER the Apostles in the exercise of their ordinary Function were Bishops, superior to presbyters. This he ought to have demonstrated, if he would have done any thing to the Purpose: But what his Performance is, we shall see by the Se [...]uel.

THE first Method he proposes for clearing the Cause, is indeed the only right one, and if duly pro­secuted, will infallibly answer. It is to consider their Commissions. Let us then consider them.

As for the first Commission he speaks of, I've alrea­dy shewn, all Discourse upon that subject to be meer tri [...]ing. But true it is, that when Christ was to leave the Earth, having finished the Work of our Redemp­tion, be gave the Apostles their Commission, and p [...]t 'em into the actual Exercise of their Apostolick Power and office. Mat. XXVIII. 18, 19, 20. and Joh. XX. 21. Upon this he makes a long common-place, in which he dex­trously acquits himself. But it's to be observ'd, that he all along considers the Apostles, as acting by ver­tue of this Commission, in the exercise of their extraor­dinary and temporary Power; and therefore, (as we heard before) spends his Breath to no Purpose Where­fore, since I have no Controversy with him, about their extraordinary Power, I shall not waste Time, in animadverting on the Imperfections of his Discourse, on that Subject: But immediately consider, whether he finds any distinct Commission for Presby [...]ers, where­by their Authority appears subordinate to that of the Apostles [...] in their ordinary Function. He promises P. 18. ‘To consider the Commission, given to the other [Page 16] Order of Church-Officers instituted by Christ, the Seventy Disciples, in whom the Order of Presbyters, and ordinary Pastors and Teachers, is suppos'd to be founded.’ And why does he not produce it? If there were any such Commission, it is easy to tell us where we may find it. But the plain Truth is, had he search'd till Dooms-day for a Commission for Presbyters distinct from what was given to the Apostles, he must have return'd with a Non [...] inventus. And where it is not to be [...]ad, the King must lose [...] Right.

THIS Consideration, of the Unity of the Commis­sion, furnishes me with an Argument, unto which I challenge the whole Tribe of the Prelatists, to give a Rational Answer. It is this.

THEY that are authorized by the same Commission, have the same Office and Authority.

BUT all the Ministers of the Gospel, (the Apostles themselves, in their ordinary Capacity not excepted) are authorized by the same Commission.

THEREFORE, it necessarily follows, that they have [...] the same Office and Authority.

THE Major of this Argument is self evident; and the Minor must stand good, until our Adversaries can produce two Commissions, by which Gospel Ministers are authorized to the discharge of their Trust.

ENOUGH has been said already, about the Suc­cession of ordinary Pastors and Teachers to the Seventy; that there needs no more Words about it.

BUT he has one old thread-bare Argument, to prove the Imparity he pleads for, which has been so often exploded by those of his own Party, and so of­ten resuted by the Presbyterians; that the mention­ing it at this time of Day, is perfectly ridiculous. However, let's hear what he has to say. ‘From the Account we have (says he, P. 19, 20.) of them, and their Ministry, in the Sacred History; we can't [Page 17] frame a more just and true Notion of this second Order of Church Officers, than that they were in­stituted to be Assistants and Helpers to the Apostles in the Work of the Gospel. And I know nothing which will give us a better Reason for this Notion, than this Consideration; that as it is the same Lord and Lawgiver, the same Master-builder, who had framed the Civil and Ecclesiastical Policy among the Jews, under the Legal Dispensation, who does erect this new Fabrick of the Gospel Church; so it's reasonable to expect as great Symmetry and proportion between the one and the other, as the Difference of the two Dispensations will allow, &c.’ Unto which he adds Instances of Aaron and his Sons, install'd in the Priests Office, and the Levites subor­dinate unto them; and Moses in the State, and the Seventy Elders subordinate unto him.

THIS Argument, (as indeed most others, adduced by the Party) was consecrated in the [...] School ^*. And the Romanists have more Reason to be fond of it, than our Episcopalians; unless they also, are for an Universal Papacy. For as the High Priest in the Jewish Church, and Moses in the State, were but one; with the other Orders under them, so should there be (by this Argument) but one Bishop (the Pope) in the Chri­stian Church; to whom all others should be sub­jected.

BUT let the Cause be duly weighed, and I think neither of these can get much by it.

1. THEN, has not our Lord dissolv'd the Jewi [...]h Polity, chang'd their Priesthood, and erected another Constitution? Hear the Apostle on this Head, Heb. VII. 12. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity, a change also of the Law.

[Page 18]2. THE Jewish High Priest was appointed for a particular Function, which no Officer in the Gospel Church, has any Concern with. He was daily (saith the Apostle) to offer up Sacrifices, first for his own Sins, and then for the People. Heb. VII. 27. and to enter into the T [...]berna [...]e alone, once every [...]ear, not without Blood; which be offer'd for himself, and the Errors of the People. Heb. IX. 7. Whence it necessarily follows, that the Occasion of the Office ceasing, the Order must be abolished.

3. THE whole A [...]nick Priestbood was Typical, and had its full Accomplishment in Christ the Anti­type; it cannot therefore, have any Continuance under the Gospel. The Apostle call's this Legal Priest­hood, with all its Appendages, a Shadow of Good things to come. Heb. X. 1. And when the Substance is come, the Shadows are done away. But after all,

4. I'm willing to grant, that the same Lord and Law­giver, (to use this Authors Words) and the Same Master Builder, who appointed his Worship and publick A­doration in the Jewish Synagogue, has translated the same into the Christian Church; and thereby has maintain'd a great Symmetry and Proportion, between the one and the other. But this is so far from being any Service to the impleaded Hierarchy, that it utterly destroys it. Let us hear what two of the most learn­ed and judicious Divines the Church of England could ever boast of, say on this Subject.

THE first is Dr. Bur [...]et ^*. ‘Among the Jews, (saith he) he who was the chief of the Synagogue, was called CHAZAN HAKENESETH, The Bishop of the Congregation, and SHELIACH TSIBBOR, The Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being model'd, as near the Form of the Synagogue, [Page 19] as they could be; as they retain'd many of the Rites, so the Form of the Government was conti­nued, and the Names remain'd the same.’ And a­gain ^†,‘In the Synagogues, there was first one, who was called the Bishop of the Congregation; next the three Orderers and Judges of every thing about the Synagogue; who were called TSEKENIM, and by the Greeks Presbuter [...]i, or Gerontes, that is Elders; These order'd and determin'd every thing that con­cerned the Synagogue, or the Persons in it. Next them, were the three PARNASSIN, or Deacons, whose Charge was to gather the Collections of the Rich, and [...]tribute them to the Poor.’ Thus he, than which, nothing can be a more exact Description of the Pres [...]yterian Form of Government.

THE second is Dr. Stillingsleet ^*, ‘What shew of Reason (says he) can be given, why the Apostles should slight the Constitution of the Jewish Syna­gogue, which had no dependance on the Jewish Hierarchy, and subsisted not by any Command of the Ceremonial Law? The Work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priests as such, but as Persons qualified for instructing others. And again, ^† We are to take Notice, that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel, do not properly succeed to the Priests and Levites under the Law; whose Office was Ceremonial, and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination, unto their Function.’ Thus he, with much more to the same Purpose. By which we see, that if our Author Knows nothing that will give us a better Reason of his Notion, of the Imparity of Gospel Ministers [...] than the different Orders in the Jewish Priest­ [...]ood, (as he tells us P. 19. he does not) we are not like to be much distress'd with his Arguments.

[Page 20]THUS having done with the Consideration of the Commissions given to the Apostles, and those of a dis­tinct Office and Order, he promises P. 23. ‘To shew next, the Apostles Authority over other [...]astors and Teachers in the Church, from Several Instances of their exercising it, in several Respects and Ways, as is recorded in the sacred History.’ And he grave­ly undertakes for eight Pages together, to exemplify this. But what need of this Pains? Since it's what was never yet called in Question; nor ever like to be, unless his weak trifling Reasons on the Subject, give occasion for it. But has he brought one single Instance to prove, that the Apostles as Bishops, in the Exercise of their ordinary Office, were superior to other pastors and Teachers? Not one Syllable to this Purpose! But on the contrary, we find him P. 25. mentioning Timothy, (a Bishop, as he afterwards tells us) as an Instance to prove, that those inferior Pastors serv'd with the Apostles in the Work of the Gospel, as Sons with their Fathers. And also bringing in the Ru­lers of the Church among these inferior Orders, P. 29. And what then becomes of the Succession in the A­post [...]ate, if his Bishop Timotby was inferior to the Apos­tles? Or what becomes of his Diocesan Episcopacy, if Presbyters were Rulers in the Church?

THERE's no need I should longer attend upon his impertinent Discourse on this Subject; I will therefore hasten to some

REMARKS on his Fourth HEAD.

Which is to shew, who succeed in these Offices, and rightly execute them to this Day.

HE teils us p. 41. That be need but do it, of the suc­cessers to the Apostles; for when that is done, the other come in of course. But I enquire, how do they come in? Do they come in at the Door, or climb over the F [...]ld? I'm [...]ure, except they are Successors to the Apostles, in their ordinary Office, he can find no Commission in the Bible, to bring them in. However, let us follow him in his own Path.

AFTER a triumphant Narrative of the Feats he has perform'd, under the former Heads; (which I think I have sufficiently animadve [...]ed upon already) he proceeds to this Argument:

‘EITHER Bishops must be the true Successors to the Apostles, or else they have no successors at all; and the Apostolick Order and Office is quite extinct; and the Church is totally depriv'd of the prime and chiefest Office, instituted by Christ, for its Edi [...]ica­tion, good Order, and Government.’

THIS Argument I acknowledge, is invincible; and therefore, I must yield the Cause, that Bishops are the Apostles true Successors; and that none but they have any Powers from the Commission, or any Claim to the [Page 28] Promise given to the Apostles. But then, the Ques­tion is, who these Bishops are, whether the Arch-Bi­sh [...]p of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, who su­perintend many hundred Congregations; and none but such: Or whether it be the Pastor of each par­ticular Congregation. If the latter be granted, we have no Quarrel with him on this Subject. If the former be supposed, he would have done well to have offered some Proof upon that Head. For though the Presbyterians do allow the Succession of Bishops, to the Apostles; they are not so good humour'd as to grant, what he in [...]inuates P. 44. Without the least shadow of Proof; that these Bishops are superior to ordinary Pastors and Teachers; or that they pro­perly succeed to the Apostolick Office. But whether we'll allow it or not, he is resolved to stand by the Cause, and defend it i [...] possible. And could he justi­fy what he further offers, as an Argument for his Episcopal Succession, he would I confess, bid very fair for it.

‘IT's evident(says he) also from Scripture, that the Apostles in their own Time, did con [...]er on others the Apostolick Power and Authority.’ But how is this evident? He makes it evident to any Man that is resolved to believe it, from the Election of Matthi­ [...]s to the Apost [...]late. ‘Their (the Apostles) first work (says he P. 45.) was to ch [...]se one to succeed Judas; and by the direction of God, Matt [...]s is receiv'd into the Number of the Apostles.’ Did the Apostles con [...]er on Matth [...]s, the postolick Power? No! It plainly appears that they neither did, nor could do it; in that they so solemnly refer the C [...]se to God, by a Lot, and depend upon his immediate Direction. If they could (as [...] in [...]inuates) have committed the Aposto [...]ck Office, into the Hands of other faithful Per­sons, why did they lot ordain Matthias to the Charge, [Page 29] without referring the Election to God's immediate Decision? or why did they number him among the eleven Apostles, without Ordination? The Reason of this plainly is, because this Office was Extraordinary, and the Call to it must therefore be so too.

BUT he has more Evidence to produce, well wor­thy of our most serious Attention! It is this. ‘So when James the Brother of John, is killed by H [...]rod, another of that Name, was Bishop of Jerusalem.’ And is not this an invincible Argument, to prove, that the Apostles (who according to him were all of 'em Bishops) did confer upon others, the Apostolick Power and Authority, because James, who was one of the Apostles, was Bishop of Jerusalem? But he tells us. That this James, some will have to be another, than James commonly called the les [...], one of the first Twelve Apostles. But who are these some? and why will they have it so? I'm sure no Man living can give a good Reason, why this James he speaks of, was not the Son of Al­pheus, numbred with the Twelve. Mat. X. 3. And I'm as sure, that there is not one Word in the Bible to support this chimerical Notion, of his Episcopacy. And this, I think every body will be convinced of, when they see what is offer'd for the Proof of it. I will therefore give the Reader the Entertainment, of every Word this Author offers, to confirm this Point. And

FIRST he tells us 'Twas be, to whom St. Peter (as Bishop of Jerusalem) notifies, his miraculous Deliverance. Acts XII. 17. A most convincing Argument! For we know, Peter could not notify his Deliverance, to any but Bishops.

HE subjoins, 'Twas he, who presided in the Council of Jerusalem. Acts XV. But how does that appear? I'm certain, there is not the least li [...]p of that kind, in the place refer'd to, unless his declaring his Sentence, or Opinion, of the Affair debated, be supposed an Evi­dence [Page 30] of it; and if so, Peter must also be President of that Synod; for he, as well as James, declares his O­pinion of the Case before them. But were it granted, that James presided in the Synod at Jerusalem, what will he get by it? Is every Moderator of a Synod a Bishop, in the Sense he pleads for? If so, there are many more Bishops, than he is willing to allow.

THUS we are come to the last Proof, of James's Episcopacy, and that is, It was He to whom St. Paul made his Address, when he came thither; and [...]e of whom he speaks, in the 19 Verse of the first Chap. of the Epistle to the Galations, whom he calls an Apostle, and the Lord's Brother. The Argument stands thus, Paul went in unto James; therefore James was a Bishop Paul calls him an Apostle, and the Lord's Brother; therefore he was Bishop of Jerusalem. Risum ten [...]s amici. Can Men pretend to found their Faith upon such ridiculous Whimsies, the very mention whereof, is enough to excite Mirth, in the most fl [...]gmatick Complexion.

AND now let us see, what more he can offer to make it evident, that the Apostles did in their own time, con [...]er the Apostolick Power on others. ‘Certain it is, (saith he) that Paul and Barnabas, were received in­to the Apostolick Office; Paul immediately called there­unto by Christ, at his Conversion; but Barnabas in the ordinary manner, when he received that new Name from the Apostles, which signifies Son of Con­solation.’ I hope he won't pretend, that the Apostles con [...]er'd the Apostolick Power on Paul, since he ac­knowledges his immediate Call: And the Apostle him­self informs us, 1 Cor. XV. 8. That Christ was seen of him, as of one born out of due time. By which it appears, he had that necessary Qualification for the Apostolick Office, a Sight of Christ. Though his Vision of Christ, and Commission of his [...], were late, and mira­culous, on which account h [...] stiles himself an Abor­tive. [Page 31] And as to Barnabas, does he bring the least hint from Scripture, to prove his mediate Separation to the Apostolate, though he so confidently asserts it? Did he think, that his bare Word would be taken in this Case, without the least pretence of Proof? Or that it was a sufficient Argument, to prove his mediate Call, that he receiv'd a new Name from the Apostles, which signifies Son of Consolation? By a like Argument, this Author may expect to be an Apostle himself? he ha­ving so famously merited the Name of Boanerges, by his Thunder against the Schismaticks. But I'm weary of such trifling, and will therefore see, if he can find any thing more to the purpose; when he comes to give Instances of some raised from among the ordinary Pas­tors, to the Apostolical, or Episcopal Order.

HIS first Instance is, The most Reverend Father in—, his Grace, Timothy, Lord Arch-Bishop of Ephe­sus. Of whom he tells us, p. 47. That Paul actually gave him an Episcopal power, over the Church of Epi [...]sus, and the Presbyters and Pastors thereof. To which I An­swer:

1. THE Scriptures no where give so much as the Title of Bishops, to Timothy and Titus; and how then came they by that Character? The Postscripts do in­deed call 'em Bishops; but every one conversant in Books, knows, that they are no part of the Canon of Scripture, nor to be found in any ancient Copy of the New Testament.

2. Timotby was so far from being Bishop of Epbe [...], that it's abundantly evident from Scripture, he never was fixed there at all. Particularly, it's unaccountable if Timothy was there, that Paul should make no men­tion of him, in his Epistle to the Ephesians; as he does in all his other Epistles to the Churches, that to the Galati [...]ns only excepted . It's a sure Evidence, that he was neither Bishop there, nor resident there. But let us [Page 32] take a particular View of his Peregrinations, as we find them recorded in the Scriptures; and it will thence plainly appear, that if he was a fixed Bishop at any place, he was a pattern of Nonresidency. We find him at Corinth, when Paul wrote from thence, his Epistle to the Romans. Rom. XVI. 21. He was with Paul at Phillippi, when he wrote his first Epistle to the Corin­thians. 2. Cor. I. 1. He was with Paul at Rome, when he wrote his Epistle to the Phillippians from thence. Phil. II. 19. And also when he wrote his Epistle to the Collossians. Col. I. 1. He was also his Companion when he wrote both his Epistles to the Thessalonians; as appears from the first Verse of each Epistle. We find him likewi [...]e invited by the Apostle to Rome, to be helpful to him in the Ministry. 2 Tim. IV. 9, 10, 11. From whence, he intened to take him along with him, to visit the Churches of Judea. Heb. XIII. 23. To all which I may add, he was a preacher for some con­siderable time, to the Corinthians. 2 Cor. I. 19. And now, would it not make a Man smile, were he never so serious; to hear of a Bishop of Ephesus, who has the whole World for his Diocess; especially, when there is not the lea [...]t Word in the Scripture, to coun­tenance his having any fixt Charge there. Ou [...] Ad­versaries do indeed urge to that purpose, 1 Tim. I. 3. As I besought thee to abide still in Ephesus, that thou might­est charge some, that they preach no other Doctrine. But the Argument is the quite contrary way. For to what end should the Apostle entreat a Bishop, to tarry in his own Diocess, when he could do no other, without of­fending God, and neglecting his Duty?

3. IT's certain, he was no Bishop of Ephesus, when the Apostle Paul took his last leave of that Church. For then he commits to the Presbyters the oversight thereof, and gives 'em a most solemn Charge of the Church, as the proper Bishop of it. Acts XX. 17. 28. [Page 33] And yet this is the last time they ever saw the Apos­tle's Face, as is evident from Verse 25. But it's time I consider, what our Author adduces, to prove this Episcopacy of Timothy.

‘HE is instructed (says he) in all the Exercises of the Episcopal Power, particularly to command and charge them, (the Pastors) that they Preach sound Doc­trine.’ And han't every Minister Authority, as Christ's Ambassador, to charge his Brethren as well as others, to be faithful?

‘HE was also (says he) to prescribe Rules for pub­lick Worship; particularly that Prayers be offered up for all in Authority.’ That is, he was exhorted, 1 Tim. II. 1, 2, To Supplications, Prayers, and giving of Thanks, for all Men; for Kings, and for all that are in Au­thority. Therefore was to prescribe Rules for publick Worship. The meaning no doubt is, that he was by his Episcopal Authority, to put out a New Common Prayer Book; since there is no praying for kings, and all in Authority without.

ANOTHER Instance of his Episcopal Power, as­sign'd by this Author, is, That he was ‘to examine and judge, Persons duly qualified for the Sacred Of­fices of the Go [...]pel; and give imposition of Hands to, or to ordain none, but such as are found duty qualified&c.’ And what Inferrence would he make from hence? But that Timothy had the Power of Or­dination, which he would have had, were he but a common Presbyter. If he would infinuate, that be­cause Timothy was admonished, to lay Hands suddenly on no Man; he had the sole Power of Ordination; it's just as much to the purpose, as if he should argue, that he had the sole Power of exhorting and teaching, because the Apostle charges him, to be instant, in sea­son, and out of season, in preaching the Word.

[Page 34]A further Argument of this [...] Authority, [...]e thus proposes. ‘He was to guard di [...]gently against false Doctrines, and [...]educing Spirits, and to put the Brethren in mind, and command them, that they give not heed to such Doctrines and Seducers.’ And is not this the Duty of every Go [...]pel Minister, without this superior [...] Authority?

HE was also (saith this [...]) ‘To judge, cor­rect, and confute [...], eve [...] [...] after due Examination, and [...].’ But is [...]here a Word of [...]ering Pres [...]ters, in the Text [...] to? He is indeed there [...], no to receive [...] [...] But were i [...] granted, that he had this Authority, and what further is plea [...]ed for, of [...] Deac [...]ns to a [...]; This will nothing distinguish him from other [...] who in [...] with others of their Order, might exercise all these Powers. After all, if we low, (what I'm sure can never be prov'd) that he had a Power over other [...] [...] vested [...] his own Person, he was an [...]2 Tim. IV. [...]. and as such, was desir'd to carry a while at [...] to regulate Affairs in that instant Church, and give a check to those Wolves, which the [...] foresaw Acts XX. 29. would enter [...] as well as to direct and [...] who wanted the influ­ence of such an extraordinary Person. How vain therefore, is all Argument from such an extraordinary,to an [...] Church Officer?

OUR Author foresaw this Objection, and attempts the removal of it, by telling us, P. 49 ‘Tis altoge­ther groundless; for we find no such Office of an [...] instituted, distinct from that of Apostle, [Page 35] Presbyte [...] or [...]; but that it was a common De­signation to all, who were the first Planters of the Gospel, among Jews or Heathens.’ What Doctrine is this? Does not the Apostle plainly tell us, Eph. IV. 11. That our ascended Lord gave to his Church, not only some Apostles, some Prophets, same Pasters and Teach­ers; but some Ev [...]ngelists also? And agreeably, the Ancients always esteem'd Ev [...]ngelists to be extraordin [...] Officers, distinct from other Past [...]rs. Hear what [...] says of them ^* ‘They obtaining (says he) the first Step of Apostolick Succession; and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal Men, builded the Churches every where, plan [...]ed by the Apostles.—Next taking their Journey, [...] the Work and Office of [...] that is, they preached Christ unto them, that had not yet heard of the Doctrine of Faith; and publish'd earnestly the Doctrine of the holy Gospel. These Men, ha­ving planted the Faith in sundry new and Strange Places, ordain'd there, other Pasters, committing un­to them the [...]illage of the new Ground, and the o­ver [...]ght of such as were lately converted unto the Faith; passing themselves, unto other People and Countries, &c.’

THUS I've gone through what he has to offer for the [...] of [...]. And now let us hear, how he proves [...] to be Bishop of [...]. ‘The like Pow­er and Authority (says he) is confer'd on [...]. O­ver the Churches of Crete, that he should set in order the things that are [...], and ordain Elders, or Pre [...] ­byters in every City; and that he should stop the Mouths of the [...], who taught things which they ought not; and that he should rebuke them sharply, that they may be [...] the [...].’ To which I an­swer, [Page 36] crete being at this time unsetled with Pastors, the very Errand he was left there upon, was to ordain Elders in every City; and these Elders so ordin'd, were all of 'em Bishops, Tit. I. 6, 7. And therefore, there was no need of his continuance with them, under the Character of a Bishop; nor did he tarry long with them, as Dr. w [...]by not only acknowledges, but proves from Scripture. ‘As for Titus, (Says he) he was only left a [...] Crete, to ordain Elders in every City, and to set in order the things that were wenting; and having done that Work, he had done all that was assign'd him in that Station; and therefore, St. Paul sends for him the very next Year, to Nicopolis, Tit. [...]ll. 12.’ Thus he, to which nothing need be added, since whatever occurs on this Head, has been parti­cularly answer'd already.

THUS having quit out Hands, of the Episcopacy of Timothy and [...], his Hierarchy has but one Refuge more to [...] to, and that is the Apocaliptick Angels, who I suspect will also fail him, and not prove his Guar­dians in this conflict.

‘What has been hitherto observ'd, makes it to me very evident, (says he) and I think, may make it to any other unprejudiced Person, at least highly pro­bable, that the Angels of the Seven Churches of the [...] were Persons of the Apostolical and [...] Order. For since there was such an Order of [...] and Bishops instituted by Christ in his Church—who else could these Angels be, but Officers of this higher Order?’ In answer to which, I'll endeavour to imitate his Brevity, and waving all other Arguments, to disprove this fond conceit; will only offer plain [...], that these Angels are (as the Word [...] frequently is) taken in a collective Sense, as including not only the Ministers of the [...]; but even the whole Churches themselves. Thus [Page 37] the Epistles are directed, unto the Seven CHURCHES in Asia, Rev. I. 4, 11. and always concluded with this Epiphonema, He that bath a [...] Ear to bear, let him bear, what the Spirit saith unto the CHURCHES. And thus in the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephe­sus, is there such a commendation for Labour and Pa­tience, such a Complaint of the lo [...] of their first Love, such an Exhortation to Repentance, and threatning to remove their Candlestick out of its place, as are altogether incompatible to a single Person. And what clears this Case, beyond all possibility of Reply, is the Plural Expressions, so frequently applied to these Angels. For Instance; When the Angel of the Church of s [...]rna, is exhorted to fear none of there things, &c. it is subjoined; The Devil shall cast some of YOU, into Pri­son, that YE may be tried, and YE Shall have Tribula­tion, &c. Chap. II. Verse 10. Was it some of the Bishop, that was to be cast into Prison, and a number of him, to be tried, and to have Tribulation? So like­wi [...]e verse 13. Antip [...] [...] faithful Martyr, was stain among YOU, where Satan [...]welleth. Was he slain among the Bishop, and had the Bishop only, such bad Quar­ters, where Satans seat was? And to the same purpose, Verse 24. But unto YOU I say, and to the rest in Thy­atira. With several other like Passages, which can by no means agree to a single Person. And how then did it become so very evident to this Author, that these Angels were of the Episcopal Order? I confess, I can't envy him the Satisfaction he obtains from such Evidence, but will leave him to the fruition of it, while I take a short View of the History, with which he concludes his Arguments, and see, whether he has been more happy in this, than in that, with which he began his Dissertation.

‘ALL the Records (saith he) we have of the anci­ent and primitive Church, do harmoniously attest, [Page 38] that this Order, and these Offices instituted by Christ, were inviolably preserv'd for many Ages, and so po­sitive are they, as to that prime Office of Apostles and Bishops, that they give us particular Catalogues of the Bishops, who succeeded the Apostles, in go­verning the most famous and principal Churches in the World.’ It would have been a needles Toil, for this Author to have given his Reader any Docu­ments of this, or to have produc'd one of th [...]se an­cient Records, or so much as one of the Fathers of the Church, to prove this bold Assertion; for he knows that the Laity are easily put off with Confidence and Assurance. And it is also needless for [...], to heap up contrary Authorities, against bold and blind Affir­mation. I shall therefore only propose to his Con­sideration, the Answer of their own Dr. Stilling fleet ^*, to these frivolous Pretences. Who observing, that Eusebius makes it a most hard Matter to know, who succeeded the Apostles, in the Churches they plan­ted; adds, ‘Say you so, is it so hard a Matter to find out, who succeeded the Apostles, in the Churches planted by them, unless it be mentioned in the wri­tings of Paul, what becomes then, of our unquesti­onable Line of Succession, of the Bishops of several Churches, and the large Diagrams made of the Apos­tolick Churches, with every one's Name set down in his Order, as if the writer had been Cl [...]renceaul to the Apostles themselves? Is it come to this at last, that we have nothing certain, but what we have is Scripture? And must then the Tradition of the Church be our Rule, to interpret Scripture by? An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless, to bend the Rule to the crooked Stick.’ And the same Author justly observes^† ‘That from such Rea­sonings [Page 39] of the Fathers, and their mentioning of Successions of Bishops, it can never be prov'd, that Bishops were of a higher Order, or had any Power over Presbyters; nor that in all places, there was so much as any Difference at all between them; nor that they mean'd ought, save a succession of Doc­trine.’ Thus Dr. Stillingfleet, unto which nothing need be added.

I will therefore proceed to consider Calvin's Au­thority, whom he brings for his Voucher in this Case, and would no doubt by this, and several other Quotations from him, have his Lay Reader suppose he is wholly on his side. He indeed finds him ac­knowledging, that the Ancients had Bishops and Arch­Bishops; and he might have added, Lectors and Acolyths, for Calvin mentions these too among the rest, in the place refer'd to. But why did he not tell us, that ac­cording to Calvin, ‘The Bishop had no Dominion over his Colleagues, the Presbyters; but was among them as the Consul in the Senate, to propose Matters, to enquire the Votes, to preside in Counsels, Admo­nitions, and Exhortations; to direct the Affair by his Authority, and to put in Execution, what was decreed by common Council. And that even this is introduced by Humane Consent, is confessed by the An­cients themselves.’ I say, why did he not inform us of this also? The Reason is obvious, it would quite have spoiled his Argument, and who would be an Evidence against himself?

THUS, I've gone through all his Arguments, for the Proof of the Jus Divinum of Prelacy; and must submit it to the Readers Judgment, whether any of 'em remain unanswer'd.

HIS next Business is, to propose three Objections, against the Doctrine he propugns; and he discovers his Prudence and Caution, in proposing 'em as fa­vourably [Page 40] as possible to his own Cause, that he might find something to answer. But it would have been kindly done of him, to have allow'd the Presbyterians, to state their own Objections: And I dare say, if he had undertaken to have given any satisfying Answer to the Reasons brought by them, against his Doctrine; he would have found Work enough for his Life time. I'll take liberty to propose some few to them, which he may consider at his Leisure.