The FIRST CONFERENCE.

ELeutherius was a Gentleman of a plen­tiful Substance, a liberal Education, and of a serious Disposition; early design'd for the Service of God, in the Gospel of his Son: and possess'd those ministerial Qualifications, as would have intitled him to some of the highest Preferments in the Episcopal Church, had he consulted his pro­motion in the choice of his Profession, and declared himself for the national Establishment. But upon a most serious and deliberate weighing the Cause, he [Page 2] found the Principles of the Presbyterians more agrea­ble to the Word of God, and to the Practice of the first and purest Ages of Christianity, than those of the E­piscopalians; and was therefore constrained to join himself to that despised Party. This being matter of great grief to some of his ambitious and aspiring Friends, whose Heads ran much upon his Promotion, occasion'd him a Visit from one of them, a Clergyman of the establish'd Church; a warm Advocate for Li­turgy and Prelacy, and a Man of Powers, as well as Zeal; who thinking himself capable of refuting the Presbyterian Opinions, and oblig'd in Charity to use some Pains for the recovery of his Friend, came to spend an Evening in an amicable Debate with him; which he introduced with the following Salutation.

Praelaticus. Sir, the near Relation between us, and our former freedom and intimacy, have embolden'd me to enter into your Retirement; and to deprive you for an Hour, of the sweet Satisfaction of conver­sing with the Dead, that I might in your Study have the advantage of a free Conference with you, with­out the interruption, or observation of others.

Eleutherius. I must confess, Sir, that I find very a­greable entertainment among my Books; but I have not undertaken the Hermit, nor immured my self in my Study as a Cell, where I shall be shut up from the Company of my Friends, and deprived of the satis­faction of such entertaining and delightful Conversa­tion, as your's has always been to me. I am therefore troubl'd at your Apology for that freedom, which you have a just claim to, and which I have greatest reason to delight in. And can't but hope that you will yet continue my Friend, and manifest your kindness, by your usual free and unreserv'd converse.

Prelat. I shall then follow your directions, and without ceremony or preamble, unbosom my grief to you, occasion'd by your herding your self with a schismatical and phanatical Party; and your pretend­ing to enter into Sacred Orders among those, that have [Page 3] no Power to give them, and to undertake the Work of the Ministry without regular Ordination. By this you cut your self off from those temporal Honours and Advantages, which you had reason to expect; as well as thrust your self into Christ's Vineyard with­out a Call, and climb into his Sheepfold another way than by the door.

Eleuth. I make no doubt but your hearty friend­ship to me, and your zeal for what you think the Cause of God, has thus transported you, beyond that can­dour and calmness of Spirit, for which you have been noted; and has occasion'd those hard Epithets, which you are pleased to apply to the Presbyterians. I will therefore if you please, in the most open and unre­served manner possible, offer you the Reasons that have determined my Choice, and then carefully attend to the Arguments, you'l offer against my Principles and Conduct.

Praelat. I'm well pleased with the Proposal, and am ready to hear your Reasons (such as you have) for forsaking the best constituted Church in the World, a Church in which you were baptized, unto which you owe your best Services; and in which you ought to have lived and died. I confess I cannot account for your Conduct.

Eleuth. I shall not dispute the propriety of those Panegyricks upon the Church of England, we so often hear from your party. Every one esteems his own profession best, and the Church to which he belongs the best constituted. It is now my business to give you my Reasons, why I differ from you in Opinion, with respect to the Church of England And it may be proper to inform you what gave the first turn to my Thoughts.

Having read the ecclesiastical Story of ourKingdom since the Reformation, I was surpriz'd to find such Clouds of Sufferers for Nonconformity to Prelacy and Ceremony. What a dark Scene opened, before the U­surpation, of Silencing, Imprisonments, Pillories and [Page 4] Death! How many Martyrs were there to this Cause! What multitudes of the best Men in the Nation, were driven from their pleasant Habitations, among the wild Pagans in an American Desert, chusing to for­sake their dear Country, and dearest Friends, to under­go the perils of the Sea, and the greater perils of bar­barous Salvages, in a bowling Wilderness, rather than wound their Consciences, by a compliance with what they thought sinful! How severe were the Persecu­tions after the Restoration, when above two thousand of the most learned and pious Ministers in England were silenced in one Day; and left without any vi­sible means of Subsistence for themselves and Fami­lies, for mere Nonconformity! How many of these afterward were stript of their Estates, languished and died in Prisons, for preaching the Gospel, which they da [...]'d not neglect to do! And if we look into Scot­land in the same Reign, we shall find all their Mini­stry turned out, some thousands suffering Martyrdom in the most cruel and inhuman manner, for their non­compliance with Prelacy. This now put me upon thinking, that these Sufferers must certainly have some convincing evidence for the goodness of their Cause, that could bear them up under all these terrors; and make them venture upon Death it self, in his most affrightning form; rather than comply with our Eng­lish Episcopacy, and [...]posed Ceremonies. And tho' I did not suppose, suffering in a Cause was a sure evi­dence of the goodness of it: yet I could not but think, that the Sufferings of so many excellently learn­ed and godly Men, called upon me to search into the merits of that Cause, for which they suffered.

Praelat. I am as far from justifying those severities as you are. But these were the fault of the particu­lar Persons then at the Helm; and not of the Con­stitution.

Eleuth. This will not appear so, upon a view of the History of those Times. But if it really were so; yet the Cause sealed with so much Blood, and I fear Blood [Page 5] that is yet crying under the Altar, is worth enquiring into. And that consideration put me accordingly up­on the enquiry into the merits of the Cause, until a rational Conviction has brought me into the Opinion you now oppose.

Praelat. I am waiting to hear the Reasons of that Conviction.

Eleuth. I have many Objections against your Cere­monies, and especially against Impositions, and making such terms of Communion, as Christ has never made. But I shall confine my self to the consideration of the Subject, you have led me into: and give you the Reasons why I chuse Ordination by a Presbytery, ra­ther than by a Diocesan Bishop; and why I esteem this more agreable to the Institution of the Lord Je­sus Christ.

Now one Reason of my Opinion is, because our Lord Jesus Christ has inhibited all Dominion and Supremacy among the Ministers of the Gospel over one another; and all Lordship exercised by any of them, over the Flock committed to their Care. Whence I cannot but esteem all the Pastors of the Church upon a le­vel in point of Authority; and all exercise of Domi­nion, over their Brethren, or over the Flock, by a Prelacy, to be a direct opposition to Christ's express Command. And therefore I conclude that a Prelate is at best but a human Creature, and not of Christ's appointing.

That our blessed Lord has prohibited all Dominion and Supremacy among the Ministers of the Gospel, is evident from Matth. xx. 25, 26. Ye know, that the prin­ces of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister. And to the same purpose, Luk. xxii. 24, 25, 26.

Praelat. It is secular Dominion and Dignity, that is here forbidden; and that nothing affects the pre­sent [Page 6] Argument. For it's only an ecclesiastical Supre­macy, that we contend for.

Eleuth. If it be as you say, I think it nevertheless affects the Argument, we are upon. For have our Bishops no secular Dominion, over their Brethren in the Ministry? Are they not spiritual Lords, members of the Legislature, and often at the Council-Table? Don't their secular Dominion very much render them uncapable to preach the Word instantly, in season and out of season, as exhorted 2 Tim. iii. 2? Is there no secular Dominion in the Bishops Courts? So that by your own interpretation of this Text, Episcopacy of the present Form seems repugnant to this Command of Christ, and therefore not very desirable, to be sure not necessary.

But it's certain from the forequoted Texts, that affectation of Pre-eminence is what our Lord con­demns. There was a Strife among the Disciples which should be accounted the greatest; upon which he takes occasion to let them know, that there must be no greatest or least among them: they must not (like the Kings of the Gentiles,) exercise Lordship or Authority over one another. But he that is greatest among you (says he) let him be as the younger; and [...]e that is chief, as he that doth serve. So that all Lordship, all Authority over one another, is expresly forbidden. And this affects Diocesan Episcopacy, just so much, as it is a Dominion over Presbyters.

And I might further observe to you, that all Mini­sters of the Gospel are forbidden to exercise a Lord­ship over God's Heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3. which also pre­judices me against our english Episcopacy, under which such a Lordship seems to be exercised. I can have no better opinion of imposing their Minister upon a Congregation, without the People's Consent, than taking from them even a natural Right of com­mitting their most important Affairs to one that they can approve; and thereby exercising an unwarrant­able Lordship over them. And I must tell you, 'tis [Page 7] a Lordship the Apostles themselves would not use, in supplying the vacancy made by the death of Judas, Acts i. 15, 22. And in the election of Deacons, Acts vi. 3, 5. In both which cases, the Suffrage of the Brethren was called for. And therefore I care not to be set over a People in your lordly manner. I cannot but in like manner complain of the Spiritual Courts, as they are called, for Lording it over God's Heritage: Where, instead of the Discipline instituted by Christ, the Church-offender is carried from Court to Court, at intolerable Charges, subjected to heavy Fines, exorbitant Fees, or Imprisonment, without any method taken to bring him to a sincere Repentance. Indeed, Sir, I cannot see through these Things, and therefore cannot be a Partaker in them.

Praelat. There is no Constitution perfect, and if you see some things in our Church, that you think want mending, yet you must own, our Ministry is such as Christ has appointed; and therefore you ought not to separate, for such small dissatisfactions.

Eleuth. Pardon me, Sir, if I don't see with your eyes. The Prelacy it self is what I cannot think of divine Appointment. I find nothing in Scripture, of the Superiority of one ordinary Minister of the Gospel over another; but have shewed you, that this Domi­nation is absolutely forbidden. Nor do I find any war­rant for the ecclesiastical Authority exercised over both Minister and People, in the Bishop's name. If there be any mention in the Bible, of Chancellors, Deans, Registers, Apparitors, Proctors, &c. be pleased to shew it me; if not, you'l allow me to refuse your Hierarchy, and join with a Ministry that is manifestly of Christ's Institution, and not of human Invention.

Praelat. Ordination by Bishops is certainly of divine Institution For Bishops are Presbyters, if they have no higher Character: and therefore upon your own Principles, have power of Ordination; whereas Or­dination by Presbyters, is at least questionable: and therefore ours must be allowed to be the safest side.

[Page 8] Eleuth. This is the constant clamour of your Par­ty: but you know who claim equal advantage to their Cause by this way of arguing. The Baptists plead, that we own their Baptism is valid, while they deny that the Sprinkling of an In [...]ant is any Baptism at all; and therefore they must be of the safer side. So the Papists argue after the same manner, that all own Salvation may be obtained by some in the Com­munion of the Church of Rome, but they deny the possibility of the Salvation of Protestants; and there­fore the Papists are of the safer side. This you know is the great popular Argument they assault us with. And I would refer you to your own Arch-bishop Til­lotson ^† for an Answer to it; and therein for an Ans­wer to your self. You will find that celebrated Au­thor detecting the gross Absurdities, which follow from this Argument; in particular. "That according to this Principle it is always safest to be on the un­charitable side; also giving some parallel Instances, by which it will be clearly seen that this Argument concludes false; and shewing by a variety of Consi­derations, that this is so far from being a good Argu­ment, that it is so intolerably weak and sophistical, that any considerate Man ought to be asham'd to be catcht by it". This might suffice for a Reply to you.

However I will not rest in these general Remarks, but shall particularly expostulate the matter with you. Is it the safest side to acknowledge and submit to a Hierarchy not warranted in the Book of God? Is it the safest side, for me to solemnly declare at my Or­dination, that I am moved by the HOLY GHOST, to take upon me the Office of a Deacon, when I have no purpose to serve Tables, for which Deacons were instituted; but to give my self continually, to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word? Is it the safest side, to take upon me the Order of Priesthood, an Order typical of our Lord Jesus Christ, fulfilled in him, [Page 9] and abrogated by him? Is it the safest side to take upon me the solemn Charge of the Ministry, and to come under awful Vows to fulfil it; and yet to de­pend upon the Bishops Licence to preach? For you know that Canon 49th inhibits any Person what­soever, that is not licensed, to take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere, any Scripture or Matter of Doctrine. Is it the safest side, to acknowledge our Bishops endued with the extraordinary Apostoli­cal power, of giving the Holy Ghost by the Impo­sition of Hands? It's certain they seem to assume that Power when they say, Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to thee, by the Imposition of our Hands. Is it the safest side, to solemnly promise at my Ordi­nation reverently to obey my Ordinary, that is, my Bi­shop &c. and to swear canonical Obedience to the Bishop, as you know has been commonly done? When I am taught to call no man Master, but Christ, Matth. xxiii. 8, 10. In a word, is it the safest side, to be ordain'd to but part of the Ministerial Work, and to be deprived of the Powers of Ordination and Juris­diction, which belong to a Gospel-Minister as such, and which he must account for in the Day of Christ?

I cannot but think it the safest side, to seek Or­dination according to Christ's own Institution, and according to the Scripture-Pattern, where all these Abuses may be regulated.

Praelat. I desire you would remember, that your present Business is to prove, that the Powers of Or­dination and Jurisdiction belong to Presbyters; and not to draw up a Remonstrance against our Church.

Eleuth. I have been assigning some of the Rea­sons, why I esteem Presbyterian Ordination every way preferable to Ordination by Bishops. And tho' I highly value the Church of England as a Protestant Church, and have a just Veneration for the Learning and Piety of some of your Bishops; yet you must allow me modestly to give my Reasons, why I can­not [Page 10] conform to the legal Establishment, how hard so [...]ver these Reasons bear upon your Constitution. And I am now ready to answer your Demand, and to demonstrate to you, that those Powers you deny to Presbyters, are inherent in them by divine Institution. Which I shall prove,

First, From the Identity of Bishops and Presby­ters,

I am sure you will own, that if Presbyters are Bishops, they have power to ordain others; and have a right to the Government of the Church. And I think there is nothing more plainly laid down in than that they are of the same Order and Office.

This appears from Phil. i. 1. Paul and Timotheus the Servants of Jesus Christ, to all the Saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS and Deacons. From which Text, one of these two things is absolutely necessary, and submitted to your choice; either that there was a plurality of Bishops in a par­ticular Church, by divine Appointment, as we see there was in the Church of Philippi, and then there will be no room for a Diocesan, nor for Presbyters subordinate to Bishops: Or else that Presbyters are properly Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters, which a­mounts to the same thing; and was the thing to be proved. I would intreat you to consider, what sort of Diocesan Bishops these were, where there was a plurality in one City and Congregation; and no Presbyters under them. Were these like our pre­sent Bishops, who have so many hundred Congregati­ons under their Charge?

The same thing is also manifest from 1 Tim. iii. Where the Apostle particularly describes the Duties, and necessary Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons, without so much as mentioning Presbyters; or giv­ing any direction for their Conduct. And what can you imagine to be the reason of this? Was it be­cause Presbyters were not worthy the Apostle's notice, and because there were no Duties belonging to them? [Page 11] Or was it because they were the same Persons with the Bishops? Certainly either there were no Pres­byters at that time; and if so, there was but one Order of ordinary Ministers in the Church, and enough of that Order to serve the exigency of the several Congre­gations; & they consequently not Diocesan but Congre­gational Bishops: or else Presbyters are the same with Bishops, & mention'd under that general name; which comes to the same thing.

Praelat. The bare Omission of Presbyters, in the two places by you cited, appears but a weak founda­tion to build your Hypothesis upon.

Eleuth. I have offer'd you my Arguments from the cited Scriptures, which you & all your Party are incapa­ble to give a rational Answer to. But this is not the only foundation we build upon; we have many o­ther texts of Scripture, which give equal light to the same Case: particularly,—

The Identity of Bishop & Presbyter does also appear in a meridian Light, from Tit.i. 5,6,7. For this cause left I thee at Crete, that thou should'st set in Order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders (Presbyters) in every City—if any be blameless;—For a Bishop must be blame­less, as the Steward of God. The Apostle is here direct­ing Titus, in the qualifications necessary to the Presbyters he ordains, & one of them is, that he be blameless. For which he gives this reason, a BISHOP must be blameless. Certainly then Bishops and Presbyters were in his Sense one and the same. He would otherwise have said, For a PRESBYTER must be blameless, because he was speaking of the Ordination of Presbyters. Bishop and Presbyter must therefore be the same Order; or else the Apostle argues impertinently, and his reason has no force in it. What force could there be in such reasoning, Let the Presbyters you ordain be blameless; For a Bishop must be blameless: if Bishops and Pres­byters were not the same? I think you dare not sup­pose the Apostle spake impertinently, and therefore must acknowledge what I plead for.

[Page 12]The same thing is likewise evident from Act. xx. 17,28. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, & called the Elders (Presbyters) of the Church, and said to them—Take heed therefore to your selves, and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost [...]ath made you Overseers; or as it is in the Original, Bishops. Nothing can be more certain than that the same Persons are called Elders in the 17th, and Bishops in the 28th verse. From whence it appears, that there were a number of Bi­shops in the Apostles times set over one Congregati­on; and that those Bishops were but mere Presbyters [...] So little knowledge had they of Diocesans in that Age of the Church. It seems the Church of England were anciently aware of the force of this Argument; why else did they endeavour to hide it from the com­mon People, by using the word Overseer, in their translation of this Text, instead of Bishop? It looks at best something suspicious.—

Praelat. It is allowed, that Presbyters are sometimes in the New Testament called Bishops: and there seems to be this reason for it, they have part of the Bishops Charge, and are so far Overseers or Bishops of their respective Cures; but we never find Bishops called Presbyters; and therefore you can't find so much as a community of Names, in Scripture.

Eleuth. Don't you acknowledge the Apostles to be Bishops?

Praelat. I hope to make it evident to you, that in their ordinary Character they were properly and formally Diocesan Bishops.

Eleuth. Have you forgot, that the Apostles call themselves Presbyters? Be pleased to read, 1 Pet.v. [...]. The Elders that are among you, I exhort, who am also an Elder (or Presbyter.) So ii. Joh. 1. and iii. Joh 1. Can any thing be plainer, than that according to your own Scheme, Bishops are in these Texts called Pres­byters? Indeed I am far from allowing your whim­sical Supposition, that the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops: but as I am sure that in their ordinary Capacity, [Page 13] they were the highest standing Officer in the Church, so that these Officers, consider'd in that capacity, were no more than Presbyters, if they themselves knew their own proper Denomination.

This brings into my mind another Question, to which I would also intreat your Answer: And that is, To whom does the Rule and Government of the Church belong?

Praelat. There is no occasion for that Question. You know my Sentiments, that I esteem you a Schis­matick for refusing subjection to the Bishops, in whom the whole power of Jurisdiction is lodged.

Eleuth. Sir, I did not ask the Question, because I was a Stranger to your Sentiments; but only to make way for the Conviction I propose to offer you, from 1 Tim. v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, be count­ed worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in Word and Doctrine. From whence it appears,

1. If Bishops are those that rule well, they are called Elders or Presbyters in Scripture, and what then be­comes of your Objection?

2. It also appears from this Text, that either Pres­byters are Bishops, in that both Ruling and Labouring in Word and Doctrine are committed to them; Or else that they are superior to Bishops, in that they are more especially worthy of double [...]onour, who labour in Word and Doctrine, which you allow to be the Presbyters Province. Chuse you which part of the Disjunction you please.

Thus you see from the Scripture account of the mat­ter, that not only Presbyters were Bishops, but Bishops also were Presbyters, and if that don't prove them to be the same Order, I despair of ever seeing any thing proved.

Praelat. If all you plead for be granted, that there was a community of Names between Bishop & Pres­byter, it do's not prove the Order the same. The Ge­neral of a Roman Army was formerly called Empe­ror: It won't therefore follow that he was the supreme [Page 14] Commander of the Roman Monarchy, because of the same denomination with him that was.

Eleuth. Can you imagine that the Apostles pur­posely led us into a mistake in this matter, by the promiscuous use of the Names? Can you suppose the Pen-men of the sacred Pages so confused in their account of things, that they knew not how to distin­guish one Order from another, when they knew that these had distinct Powers, and ought to be distinguish­ed by all succeeding Ages of the Church: And that even the Validity of sacred Ordinances, and the Salvation of Souls, depended upon that distinction? Were they chargeable with writing unintelligibly, and using Words without any distinct Ideas? No, Sir, the plain truth of the Case is this; they knew no difference between Bishop and Presbyter, they thought the Names equivalent, and used them accordingly.—And as to your Example of the word Emperor, it is nothing to the purpose. Though the word Empe­ror or Commander, was sometimes applied to a victo­rious General, and afterwards appropriated to the Mo­narch of the Roman Empire: yet after the Name was so appropriated, it was not used by any subordinate General. And there never was, nor could be, with­out the confusion of Language, a promiscuous use of Monarch and General, as we find there was of Bishop and Presbyter.—But that you may be fully convinc'd that there is nothing in this Criticism; I'll also prove to you, that the whole Work, as well as the Name of Bishop, was committed to Presbyters.

This appears with the most convincing Evidence, from 1 Pet. v. 2. where Presbyters are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which was among them, taking the oversight thereof ( [...]) acting the Bishop therein, as it is in the Original.—Now then it Pres­byters were to act the Bishop in the Flock, you must own they had the Bishops Office as well as Name, which was the thing to be proved.—And the same may also be proved from Acts xx. 28 [...] where Pres­byters [Page 15] are not only called Bishops, but have all the Bishops Charge committed to them.

And as the taking the Oversight of the Flock, or discharging the Bishop's Office in it, according to these Texts, gives to Presbyters the highest Jurisdiction in the Church: so is it likewise evident, that they were also vested with the power of Ordination, from 1 Tim. iv 14.—Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery.

Praelat. If the Presbytery did impose Hands upon Timothy, it was only in conjunction with St. Paul, who charges him to stir up the Gift of God that was in him by the putting on of his Hands, 2 Tim. i. 6.

Eleuth. It is very probable that the Gift which Timothy received, by the Imposition of Paul's Hands, was the extraordinary miraculous Powers of the Holy Ghost, thus conferred upon the generality of Belie­vers, in the Apostolick times, by the laying on of the Apostles Hands. But if your Supposition be granted, that this Imposition of Hands was for Ordination, it will follow,

1. That the Apostle acted as an ordinary Presbyter at that Ordination For Timothy was ordained by a Presbytery, and consequently the Ordainers must be Presbyters, and must act as such. If St. Paul was a Member of that Presbytery, it was a Presbytery not­withstanding, and they performed that Ordination in the quality of a Presbytery: Here is therefore a standing Warrant for all future Presbyteries, to write after that Copy. And this further confirms what I observed before; that the Apostles in their ordinary Character, were but Presbyters. And

2. It also follows, that Presbyters have the Power or Ordination. Or else what business had their Hands upon Timothy, in conferring an Order, that they had no Authority to communicate? But after all,

3 If it be supposed, that the Apostle was superiour to the other Presbyters in this Ordination, he must [Page 16] then act in his extraordinary Capacity. For in his or­dinary Capacity he was but a Presbyter, as we heard before. And what Argument can there be from the extraordinary Power of an Apostle, to an ordinary Bi­shop? So that turn which way you will, you can't weaken the Argument from this Text.

Praelat. Well, but you cannot find any Exam­ple in Scripture of Presbyters ordaining without a Superior.

Eleuth. Yes, we find Paul & Barnabas set apart to the exercise of their Ministry among the Gentiles, only by the Imposition of the Hands of a Presbytery, Act. xiii. 1, 2. Which is, I think, an unexceptionable evidence, that Presbyters may ordain without a Superior. Sure I am, here are the usual Acts and Rites of Ordination, Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, perform'd by Prophets and Teachers; who were not Apostles, nor Diocesan Bishops: Neither indeed are pretended to have been such, by any of your Party, that I remem­ber, but even you your selves grant they were Pres­byters. And now I call to mind an Argument I have some where met with upon the Case before us to this purpose. ‘Either this Ordination is a Precedent to us, or not. If not, how can we be sure that those of Timothy and Titus, or any other, be so? But if it be a Precedent, then Presbyters have Power to ordain;’ and that without the Presidency of any superior Officer. And hence Ordination by Presby­ters (without a Bishop, in your Sense) is valid and regular.

Praelat. I deny it was a Precedent: for these Tea­chers had a special and extraordinary Commission for this particular Ordination; The Holy Ghost saying to them, Separate unto me Barnabas & Saul, for the Work &c.

Eleuth. You know, there was something extraordi­nary almost ever attending the Administrations of those primitive Times; which nevertheless doth not hinder you from drawing many things then done into Example, and forming Arguments from them to justify your Princi­ples [Page 17] and Practices.—The Gist, Timothy receiv'd at his Ordination, was given him by Prophecy; and 'twas by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that Paulgave him that Charge, Lay Hands suddenly on no Man. So that Timothy's Commission seems extraordinary, as much as that given to the Presbyters at Antioch. And yet you scruple not to plead him as an Example of Prelacy, and argue for Episcopal Ordination from the Apostolick Instructions to him about the Exercise of his ordaining Power. Hence then, unless you will give up your Arguments for Prelatical Orders, taken from the Epistles to Timothy; you must not wonder, if we are not willing to give up our Argument for Presby­terian Ordination, from the Example of the Presby­ters at Antioch, upon the account of their having a special and extraordinary Commission for what they did. Thus much we seem agreed in, That here is an express Commission to those Presbyters to ordain: And as to the objection of it's being an extraordinary one, I think, I have made it appear, this do's not at all weaken our Plea from it in defence of Presbyte­rian Ordination.

Certainly the separation of Barnabas & Saul was as authentick, tho' done by Presbyters, & as exemplary, as any Ordination by Timothy or Titus, your pretended Bishops: and how then can you any longer deny the Power of Presbyters to ordain? I pray you to re­mark it, We have here an Instance of Presbyters ordaining by the Authority of the Holy Ghost: and an Example so circumstanc'd, I think, must have the vir­tue of a divine Precept. So that if Scripture-Pattern be a Consideration of any weight with you, you must acknowledge, we have here a just Warrant for Ordi­nation by Presbyters.

But now let us briefly review [...] what has been said upon this Head.

If there were a plurality of Bishops in one Congrega­tion, as appears from Phil. i. 1. If there were no or­dinary Officers in the Churches planted by the Apostles, [Page 18] but Bishops and Doacons; as appears from the same Text, as well as from 1 Tim iii. It necessarily fol­lows, that there were no Bishops but the Ministers of particular Congregations: Or, which is the same thing, the Apostolic Bishop was a Presbyter.

If Presbyters were constantly called Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters, the Apostles knew no distinction between them; for it's certain they made none. And you'l therefore do well to inform me, whence this distinction came.

If the whole Jurisdiction is committed to Presby­ters, and the Ruler is less honourable than the Prea­cher, in the Apostle's account: If Ordination, as well as Jurisdiction, was in Apostolic times, in the hands of the Presbytery, as I have fully proved they were, my Lord the Bishop must found his superior Authori­ty upon something else than Scripture-Institution. In a word, what one thing is more plain in the New­Testament, to an unprejudic'd Eye, than the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter?

If it were possible to add light to a Cause, that al­ready appears as the Sun at noon-day, I might observe to you, that the word Bishop is never used in Scripture but in direct opposition to Prelacy: And that the word Presbyter, when appropriated to a Gospel-Mini­ster, is always used for the highest ordinary Officer in the Christian Church. Which renders me utterly in­capable to imagine, upon what Scripture-Authority the Bishops superiority can be founded. And if I look into all the Authors, that have ever written upon the Controversy, on your side of the Question, I am no­thing assisted in that Inquiry. There is no Argument, upon which any one of them pretends to found your Episcopacy, but that some or other of the same Party have subverted the Foundation, and proved the In­sufficiency of the Argument.

There never was greater confusion in the building of Babel, than there has been in digging of new Foundations for Prelacy: which gives a shrewd Sus­picion, [Page 19] that it is not to be found in the Bible; other­wise there would be a better Agreement among the Patrons of that Cause, as to the true Scripture-Bottom, upon which it is to be erected.

Praelat. I hope yet to give you good Scripture­Evidence of the divine Right of Episcopacy. And you should hear what I have to say, before you are too peremptory in your Conclusions. But in the mean while, I am willing to hear your remaining Pleas and Reasons, which I intreat you to sum up as concisely as you can, since it grows late.

Eleuth. I hope when you come to offer your Scrip­ture-Evidence, you will endeavour to produce a Com­mission for Bishops, distinct from that to Presbyters; and to prove by some Precept or Example in Scrip­ture, that their Ordination is also distinct It concerns you also to shew where the sole Power of Ordination is appropriated to Bishops; where Presbyters are ex­cluded from it; and where the different Qualificati­ons of Bishops and Presbyters are to be found in the New Testament. All this must be clearly and evi­dently made out, in order to establish your Hypothesis. And yet I think there is nothing of all this to be found in the Bible. But it's fit you should be heard. I will therefore conclude what I have to say, by two or three Arguments more, briefly proposed.

2. Then, they that have the principal and chief parts of the sacred Ministry committed to them, have also a claim to the inferior and subordinate parts of that Office.

This is a way of Reasoning, that I think you must acknowledge the force of. It's not credible, that Presbyters should be trusted with the greater, more honourable and important Parts of the Ministry; and the lesser concerns of it be reserved for a superior Offi­cer. Now that Preaching and Baptizing (which you all allow to Presbyters) are the principal and chief Parts of the Ministry, appears from the Commission, Matth. Xxviii [...] 19. where these are the only Mini­sterial [Page 20] Duties expresly committed even to the Apostles themselves. Whence it's evident, that either these are the greater parts of the ministerial Work, under which Ordaining, Governing the Church &c. as less parts of a Minister's Work are included; or else these Duties of Preaching and Baptizing are the less parts of a Minister's Work, under which the greater are included in the Commission. But I'm sure it's a gross Absurdity, to suppose the greater included in the less [...] and therefore you must acknowledge, that the less is included in the greater: That is, that the Presbyters Offices of Preaching and Baptizing are the princi­pal and superiour parts of the Ministry. Whence the Consequence forces it self upon you, that as these have the greater, they have also the less: as they have the principal and chief, they have also the subordi­nate Work of a Gospel-Minister committed unto them.

The same thing receives clearest Evidence from the forecited 1 Tim. v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double Honour; especially they that labour in Word and Doctrine. If they that labour in Word and Doctrine are especially worthy of double Honour, more than they that rule well; then Labouring in Word and Doctrine is a Work superior to Ruling, and the principal part of the Ministry. Whence the same Consequence offers it self, that they that have the principal part of the Minister's Charge, ought also to have the subordinate and less principal parts of the Work; notwithstanding the claim of any superior Officer, or any pretence of a higher Order, to take it out of their Hands.

Praelat. I shall not spend the time, by particular Remarks upon this Argument. But shall wait with as much Patience as I can, to hear what you have yet to offer.

Eleuth. It's certainly the safest way not to touch that, which must necessarily burn your Fingers. Cer­tain it is, that there can be no just Solution given to [Page 21] this Argument: it does, and will stand in full force against you, notwithstanding any evasions that can be made. But I'll take notice of your Caution, and not impose too much upon your Patience; but proceed to offer another Argument.

3. I [...] a Successor to any Office have all the Powers that did belong to him, to whom he succeeds in his Office; Presbyters must necessarily have all the or­dinary Powers committed to the Apostles: and conse­quently cannot want Authority for Ordination & Ju­risdiction.

That Successors in an Office have a claim to all the parts of the Office, in which they succeed, can't be de­bated. None will question but King GEORGE the Second has all the Authority of his Father, by vertue of his Succession to him. And I constantly insist upon it, that either Presbyters are Successors in the Ministry committed to the Apostles, considered in their ordina­ry Capacity; or else they have no Scripture Door open, by which they can enter upon any Parts of the sacred Ministry. That the Apostles, as such, have no Successors, I readily grant; but as ordinary Ministers, they have a promise of Christ's Presence with them to the End of the World; which must ultimately be meant of their Successors. Now then I intreat you to tell me, how Presbyters come by their Authority, unless they are Successors to the ordinary Ministry of the Apostles. And be pleased also to tell me, if they are Successors to the Apostles in their ordinary Ministry, who [...] deprive them of any Part of their ordinary Charge.

Praelat. I shall have further Occasion to consider this Argument; and therefore I shall not take any present Notice of it.

Eleuth. I then go on to argue—

4. They that have the Keys of the Kingdom of Hea­ven committed to 'em, have the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction.

This Proposition is self-evident: For you all allow, that both Ordination and Jurisdiction are [Page 22] Exercises of the Power of the Keys: And that Presbyters have the Power of the Keys of the King­dom of Heaven committed to them, is what you your selves also do in effect allow. All grant them the Key of Doctrine: and who then can deny them the Key of Order and Jurisdiction? Since Christ gave all the Keys together, Matth. xvi. 19. and Joh xx. 23. He did not give one Key to one, and both to another. He gives no single Key to any Person, but Keys; and so whatever these Keys serve for. Now what Christ has joyned together, man may not put asunder. But I see you grow weary; I'll therefore hasten to a Con­clusion, and only add,—

5. They that are in Orders themselves, have accor­ding to the Apostolical Constitution, Authority to confer the same Orders upon others. And conse­quently Presbyters have Power to ordain others to the same Ministry, which they themselves have re­ceived.

This Argument is founded upon 2 Tim. ii. 2. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful Men, who shall be able to teach others also. If Timothy had Authority to commit the same Things, which he had received, to other faithful Men, why han't all others in the Ministry the same Authority? You remember that celebrated Maxim of Archbishop USHER'S, Ordinis est ordinare: He that is in Orders, has the Right and Power of giving Orders. And indeed it seems strange and inconsistent, in you, who allow even of Inferiors consecrating Superiors, to deny Presbyters a Right of ordaining their Equals! If Bishops among you can consecrate Archbishops, I pray, what shou'd forbid Presbyters ordaining Presbyters?

Thus I have given you some of the Reasons, why I think that the Ministry and Ordinances of the Gos­pel are not confined to England; and that there are no Scripture-Grounds for your unchurching all the Protestant World but your Selves, for want of Epis­copal [Page 23] Ordination. And now I'm ready to hear what you have to offer, in proof of your Hypothesis, if you can tarry any longer.

Praelat. Truly the Evening is so far spent, that there remains no Opportunity for me to reply to what you have offer'd, or to give you the Reasons of my diffe­rent Sentiments. I was desirous to know the utmost you had to say in Defence of your self: and expect you'l hear my Pleas and Arguments with as much Patience. I should gladly proceed now to lay them before you, but that it being late I'm oblig'd to re­turn home. And therefore if you please, I'll wait upon you here at your Study again to Morrow; when I cannot but hope to give you better Light in­to this Case, and to offer something that will give a new turn to your Thoughts.

Eleuth. I shall wait your Coming, and willingly hear the best Evidence that can be offered for your Cause; and shall gladly yield to the force of Truth, if it appears to be on your side of the Question.

Praelat. I will certainly come, if God permit: For I'm determin'd to talk this matter our with you.

Sir, I wish you good Night.

Eleuth. Your humble Servant, Sir.

The SECOND CONFERENCE

PRaelaticus makes a second Visit to Eleutherius, according to Appointment; and after a short Salute, renews the Conversation they had begun the Evening before.

Praelat. You see, Sir, I am come according to our Agreement; and my Business is now to offer you the Reasons, why I think the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction are not committed to the Presbytery; and why they are to be esteemed Intruders into the sacred Ministry, that enter upon it without Episcopal Ordi­nation.

Eleuth. Sir, I heartily desire to take the right Path; and if I am erroneous, I'm not willing to be tenaci­ous: but will endeavour to keep my Mind open to Conviction, if you have so good Evidence against me, as you seem to suppose.

Praelat. You and I are agreed, that it's necessary to the Character of a Gospel Minister, that he have not only internal Qualifications for that Office, but that he be also regularly separated to the Exercise of his sacred Function, by those that Christ has autho­rized thus to set Men apart to this Work: And I don't yet despair of convincing you, if you will divest your self of Prejudice, that notwithstanding all your Yesterday's Reasoning, the supreme Government of the Church under Christ, and the sole Authority of setting Men apart to the Exercise of the Gospel-Mi­nistry, is lodged with the Bishops of the Church; and is what mere Presbyters have no Claim to, nor can intrude into without a daring Usurpation.

[Page 25] Eleuth. I don't Know why you should suppose me prejudiced against Riches and Honour, or incurably prepossessed in favour of Poverty and Contempt. I have too sensible Impressions of Self-Love, to be willingly deaf to the calls of my Interest, and per­swasions of my Friends. Be pleased therefore to offer good Evidence of what you have proposed; and I shall become a ready Proselyte.

Praelat. It's abundantly evident, that the Commission, by which the Apostles were put upon the Exercise of their sacred Character, was limited to them and their Successors. And tho' it is confessed, that they had some extraordinary Gifts and Powers, and were ac­cordingly put upon various Services, that were extra­ordinary and temporary, which did expire with their Persons: Yet as the ordinary Authority and Power of the Aposiclic Office gave them a Superintendency over other Ministers of the Gospel, so their Successors in Office must of necessity be vested with the same su­perior Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction. So far are Presbyters from succeeding to the Apostles (as you yesterday insinuated) that they can have no Being at all, but what is derived from that Order, who succeed to the superiour Powers of the Apostles. The sum of the matter is, that the Apostles in their ordinary Ca­pacity were superior to Presbyters; and therefore their proper Successors must be so too.

Eleuth. What I found Occasion to say to this Point Yesterday, might (one would think) have saved you the trouble of this Argument; but since you see cause to insist upon it, you must have the Patience to hear two Objections against it, which render me incapable of Conviction by it. In the first Place. I must object against the Apostles having any Successors at all, in the Apostolic Office. And I hope to convince you before we have done, that the whole Office of an Apostle, was extraordinary and temporary. And then Secondly, I must observe to you, that tho' the same Persons were cloathed with the double Character of [Page 26] Apostles and of ordinary Ministers of the Gospel; I can't find that in their ordinary Capacity, they had any Su­perintendency over other Ministers of the Gospel.

To return to the first of these. I object against the Apostles having any Successors in the Apostolic Office; but insist upon it that the whole Office of an Apostle was extraordinary and temporary. This appears,

1 From their being appointed Witnesses of the Re­surrection of Christ.

It was necessary unto their successful dis­charge of their Mission among an infidel World, that they should be Eye Witnesses of that great Fact, upon which Christianity so much depended; that they should be able to assure those to whom they brought their new Doctrine, that Christ risen was what they had heard, what they had seen with their Eyes, what they had locked upon, and their Hands had handled, as 1 Joh. i. 1. Wherefore it was pro­posed as a necessary Qualification, when as Apostle was chosen in the place of Judas, that he shou'd be one that had companied with the eleven Apostles, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them; beginning from the Baptism of John, to the same day that he was taken up from them, in Order to his being a WITNESS with them of his Resurrection, Act. [...]. 21, 22. And tho' the Apostle Paul preached Christ to the dispersed Jews, immediately after his Conver­sion; yet he must be furnished for a WITNESS of Christ's Resurrection, by being caught up into the third Heavens, before he enters upon his Apostle­ship. This may be made evident by comparing 2 Cor. xii. 2. with Gal. i. 17, & onward, and Act. xxii. 17, 18. By which last mentioned Text it appears, that the Trance there mentioned, wherein he saw Christ, and received his Mission to the Apostolate, was the same Time when he was caught up to Para­dise, and heard unspeakable Words. This is confirm­ed by an exact Agreement of the Chronology. To this I may add, that the Apostles were all sent forth [Page 27] as WITNESSES unto Christ, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the [...] parts of the Earth, Act i. 8. And accordingly t [...]y ever insist upon this as a necessary part of their Character, Act. ii. 32. This Jesus hath God raised up [...] whereof we all are WITNESSES. See also Act. v. 32. Chap. x. 39, 40, 41. and Chap xiii [...] 31. and many other Places. Now then if you can. find any such Bishops, that have been Eye WITNESSES of Christ's Resurrection, or have at least been born out of due Time, as the A­postle Paul was, 1 [...] Cor. xv 8 [...] by having been caught up into Paradise, and seen Christ there; they would be so far proper Successors in the Apostolate: but this Qualification being wanting, they must want the very first essential Requisite to the Apostol [...] Office.

2. That the Apostles have no continued Successors in the Apostolic Office, appears also from this, that it was essential to their Apostl [...]ship, that they should be endued with supernatural and miraculous Gi [...]ts and Powers.

I have already considered the Apostles as WIT­NESSES of the Resurrection of Christ. But no Man is bound to receive Conviction from one single Witness. At the mouth of two Witnesses, or at the mouth of three Witnesses, shall the matter be established, Deut. xix. 15. They must therefore have the Wit­ness of the Holy Ghost in his miraculous Operations, to confirm their Testimony; and to convey irresistible Evidence into the Minds of the Jewish and Pagan World, who were too opposite to Christianity, to have believed the Facts or Doctrine preached by them, upon their bare word. Our blessed Lord therefore made that Promise to them; When the Com­forter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Fa­ther, he shall TESTIFY of me. And ye also shall hear WITNESS, because ye have been with me from the Be­ginning, Joh [...] xv 26, 27. And they were according­ly after Christ's Resurrection forbid to enter upon [Page 28] their Apostolic Work, until they had this Witness to accompany them in it. And behold (says Christ to them) I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with Power from on high, Luk. xxiv. 49. And to the same purpose, Act. i. 4, 8. And being assembled toge­ther, he commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father; which, faith be, ye have heard of me—But ye shall re­ceive Power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be WITNESSES [...]to me &c. This you see was an essential pre-requisite unto the Apostolic Work. And agreably, the Apostles with great Power (that is with miraculous Operations) gave WITNESS of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Act. i. 33. And thus they appealed to this indubitable Evidence, Act.v.32. And we are his WITNESSES of these Things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. And I must needs tell you, Sir, that it is but trifling to urge in this Case, that these mira­culous Qualifications belonged to the Apostles in their extraordinary Character. For I must again assert, that their whole Work, as Apostles, was extraordinary and temporary. For they were APOSTLES, or (accord­ing to the notation of the Word Apostle) they were SENT, among the Nations, on this very Account, That they might be WITNESSES of the Truth of Christianity, and of the Facts upon which it depend­ed. Whence it was necessary, that they should have these miraculous Gifts, to confirm their Testimony, and to make way for the reception of their Doctrine.

Now then, if you can shew me such Bishops, that have these miraculous Powers, that have the Gi [...]t of Languages, that can heal the Sick, raise the Dead, communicate the like extraordinary Powers to others, by laying on their Hands &c [...] I will grant that they are so far proper Successors to the Apostles. But they have otherwise no pretence of Claim to this Succession.— [Page 29] You'l be pleased to exercise your Patience a Minute longer, whilst I only add under this Head,

3. The universal and unlimited Commission of the Apostles makes it ridiculous to talk of their being succeeded in that Office, by Diocesan Bishops, or any other fix'd Pastors of the Church.

As they were Apostles, they were sent among all Nati­ons, and (as I just now observed) 'twas on account of their being thus SENT, that they are called APOSTLES. And accordingly we find that the Apostle Paul did per­sonally inspect a very large Diocess; when he assures us, that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, he had fully preached the Gospel of Christ, Rom, xv. 19. Wherefore it is but a reasonable demand, that you shew me Diocesan Bishops, not only furnished with Gifts suitable for this Oecumenical Charge, whereby they can converse familiarly with all Nations in their own Language, and confirm their Mission by undoubted Miracles; but at the same time have an universal Charge, and yet be fix'd Pastors of a parti­cular Diocess. But I see you grow uneasy, and there­fore shall add no more upon this Head, till I have heard your Reply.

Praelat. I have some reason to be uneasy with the tediousness and prolixity of your Discourse; but tho' I don't think it needful particularly to answer all you have offered; yet I'll just throw two places of Scrip­ture in your way, which I think will prove such a Stumbling Block, as all your plausible Reasonings can't remove: and notwithstanding all Arguments you can offer to the contrary, will make it fully ap­pear, that there actually is, and always will be, a Succession in the Apostolate: The first is, [...] Cor xii 28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, se­condarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Mira­cles, then Gifts of Healing, Helps, Governments, Diver­sities of Tongues. The second is Eph. iv. 11, 12, 13 [...] And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, & some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers [...] for the [Page 30] Perfecting of the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, for the Edifying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, and of the Knowledge of the Son of G [...]d By the first of these Texts it appears, that Apostles are SET in the Church; and conse­quently a continuing Order. By the second it ap­pears, that there shall be some Apostles, till the com­ing of Christ And since the first fourteen have not personally continued, a Succession in the Apost [...]late is necessary unto the Verification of these Texts.

Eleuth. I would gladly obtain your Sentiments, as to the meaning of these Scriptures, that I may be more capable to consider them. Do you imagine that Miracles, Gifts of Healing, and Diversity of Tongues, spoken of in the first cited Text, are necessa­rily so set in the Church, as to continue always, thro' the succeeding Ages of it?

Praelat. No, Sir, it's plain in Fact they are not, nor is there any Reason why they should These were Credentials necessary in the Infancy of Christianity, to convey full Evidence into the dark Minds of infidel Nations, who wanted these Testimonies from Heaven, to convince them of a strange and unknown Doctrine: But when the World became fully acquainted with the Doctrines of Christianity, and had sufficient Evi­dence of the Truth of it, these miraculous Gifts were not heedful, and therefore ceased.

Eleuth. Do you suppose that Prophets and Evan­ge [...]ists, enumerated in the second Text you quoted, are continuing Orders in the Church?

Praelat I dare not say they be. For we do not find any Ministers of Religion in the present Age, justly claiming a Prophetic Spirit. And as for Evangelists, they were a temporary Order of Men, adapted to the infant State of the Church, whose Business was to fol­low the Apostles, through the several Churches and Nations where they went, to build upon their Foun­dations [...] and to settle the Ministry and Gospel Ordi­nances, among the newly converted Christians.

[Page 31] Eleuth. I would then fain know of you, how it ap­pears from these Texts of Scripture, that Apostles are permanently SET in the Church, and to continue till Christ come, when Prophets and Evang [...]ists, Mira­cles, Gifts of Healing and Diversity of Tongues, are con­fessedly Temporary. Are not all the same things predicated of these in the quoted Texts, as of those?

Praelat. By your way of arguing, neither do these Texts evidence Pastors and Teachers to be a stand­ing Order. For I wou'd fain know of you, how it appears from these Scriptures, that Pastors and Tea­chers are permanently set in the Church and to con­tinue till Christ come [...] when you assert that Apostles, as well as Prophets, &c. were temporary. For is there any thing here predicated of them, more than of these? Help me to solve this Difficulty: and I doubt not you'l remove your own Objection.—Sir, I must tell you, your Business is nor to cut the Knot; but untie it. My Argument yet stands good against you.

Eleuth. I believe upon a Review you will find, that the Knot is already untied. If you'l only con­sider these various Offices, and various Gifts, as they were adapted to the several Ages and Circumstances of the Church, your Argument at once vanishes into nothing. God hath set in the Church, [...] first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, with their several miraculous Gifts; in the first State of the Church, when these Offices and Powers were wanting: and thirdly Tea­chers, Helps and Governments, for the Churches stand­ing Service. And Christ has given some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, while these extra­ordinary Officers were necessary; and some Pastors and Teachers, while these are necessary, i.e [...] to the End of Time. And thus by this Enumeration of Officers, are Saints perfected and the Body of Christ [...] from the first dawn of Christianity, till [...] come in the Unity of the Faith.—This is a [...] easy Construction of the Words [...] And that it is a necessary one, your former Concessions make evident.

[Page 32] Praelat. If all you have said be true, and it be granted that the Apostles, as such, have not properly any Successors, our Cause yet stands good. What we plead for is, that our Bishops are Successors to the Apostles, as they were ordinary Ministers of the Gos­pel; and so are vested with those superiour Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction, that were proper to the Apostles.

Eleuth. This brings me to the Second Thing I pro­posed, and that is to show, that the Apostles as Or­dinary Ministers of the Gospel, had no Superin­tendency over Presbyters. This appears very plain to me, from these Considerations.

1. I must again observe to you, what I put you in mind of Yesterday, that the Apostles, as ordinary Mini­sters of the Gospel, always style themselves Presby­ters, but never use any Superiour Denomination.

Thus in 1 Pet. v. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, or as it is in the Origi­nal, a fellow Presbyter. So 2.Joh.1. The Elder (or Presby­ter) unto the Elect Lady. And 3 Joh. 1. The Elder (or Presbyter) unto the well beloved Gaius. I believe your Party would not have wanted matter of Triumph, if they had found the Apostles intitling themselves Bishops or Superintendants.

Praelat. I observed to you before, that it is not just arguing [...] from a Community of Names, to an Identity of Offices: for at that Rate, you may prove the Apostles to be no more than Deacons; in that (as every Body, acquainted with the original Text, must acknow­ledge) they are frequently called Deacons in Scrip­ture.

Eleuth. I am sorry I am forced to consider the same Thing twice; but there is no answering your Argument without it. I have before taken Notice of this Objection, to which I shall only add, that all the Names given to the Officers in the Christian Church, may be consider'd either in a common, or an appropriate sense. Thus the Word Bishop signifies an Overseer, and is from its [Page 33] original Signification, as proper to a Steward of a great House, as to the Bishop of London. And thus Pres­byter signifies an old Man, and may with greatest Pro­priety be applied to any old Man Whatsoever. But both these Names are in the Gospel appropriated to a certain sort of Officer in the Christian Church; and when so appropriated, it is just arguing from the Name, to what is signified by that Name: otherwise we must suppose the Sacred Penmen to use words with­out any Signification; and such as could convey no certain Idea, to the mind of the Reader. To apply this to the present Case, The Apostles must in the Texts quoted by me, use the word Presbyter, either in the common, or appropriated sense of the Word. If the former, the first quoted Text runs thus, The Old Men which are among you, I exhort, who am a fellow old Man. Which sense of the Text I think you'l hardly plead for. And its certain from the following words, that it was not the Apostles meaning. He did not commit the Oversight of the Flock, to all the old Men among them. If the word was there used in the ap­propriated Sense, the Apostles certainly designed that the same Idea should be joined to the word Presby­ter, when applied to themselves, as did belong to that Word, when applied to other Officers of the Christian Church so denominated. That is, they designed to be accounted the same sort of Presbyters, as other ordinary Gospel-Ministers were. But then as to the Instance you give of the Apostles calling themselves Deacons, You your self must own, that they used the word Deacon in the common, unappropriated Sense of that word, to signify any sort of Servant whatso­ever; and intended no more by it, than that they were Servants of Christ, and of the Churches; and so your Objection is nothing to the purpose.

But you know that we don't only depend upon a Community of Names. I proved to you yesterday, that all the Powers of the Apostles in their ordinary Character, are found with common Presbyters. I gave [Page 34] you undoubted Evidence, that Presbyters have both the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction, which is all you plead for as belonging to the Apostles, and their imaginary Successors. And you should have first answered those Texts of Scripture, by me cited to that purpose; before you had advanced the Argu­ment I am considering.

Praelat. To save my self and you the time and trouble of a distinct Answer to this long Discourse, I'll take a short method to enervate your Argument; and to convince you not only of a mis-application of the Scriptures by you cited, but also of the confusion of your whole Scheme. In order to which, let us recur to the original Charter for the Gospel-Ministry, the Commission I mean, given by our blessed Lord to the Apostles, and to such as should succeed them in their ordinary Character. This Commission we find, Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth: go ye therefore and disciple all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the End of the World. And in Joh. xx. 21, 22. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you—Whose soever Sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever Sins ye re­tain, they are retained. By this Commission, not only the first, but the sole Power of Discipline is commit­ted to the Apostles. It is to them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given. They only have the Power of remitting, and retaining Sins, that is, of exercising Discipline in the Church. To them is made that encouraging and gracious Promise, Lo I am with you alway, even unto the End of the World. By which it is plainly evident, that even by this ori­ginal Commission, Christ committed to the Apostles, the chief Care and Government of his Church; that they were a superior Order of Gospel-Ministers to Presbyters, and ordinary Pastors and Teachers; [Page 35] that the Apostles in the Exercise of these Powers, are to be considered in their ordinary Capacity, in that these Powers are to continue in the Apostolic Suc­cession, to the End of the World: or else the Com­mission falls, and the Promise with it. I would en­treat you Sir, to think seriously of this matter, and not adventure to enter upon a sacred Character, not warranted by this Commission, nor received from the Apostles or their Successors, the superior Pastors of the Church.

Eleuth. I am willing, Sir, to give your Argument it's due weight; and would therefore willingly have you further explain the meaning of this Commission to me, by answering a few Questions.

And I would first enquire,

Whether there are any regular Ministers of the Gospel [...] but what are authorized by this Commission?

Praelat. None at all.

Eleuth. I would again enquire, whether all that are authorized by this Commission, have all the same Powers?

Praelat. All that are directly and immediately au­thorized by this Commission, undoubtedly have.

Eleuth. Allow me to enquire again, whether this Commission be divided, Part of it to the Apostles, and succeeding superiour Pastors, and Part of it to mere Presbyters?

Praelat. The very Supposal is ridiculous. But I don't understand the meaning of these Questions.

Eleuth. My meaning is to put you upon a Refuta­tion of your own Argument. And I must observe to you, that it's impossible for any Man to answer these Questions consistently, without the utter de­struction of your Argument from the Commission. For it falls nothing short of Demonstration, that ei­ther Christ has instituted no Presbyters at all in the Church; or else that they have all the Powers that this Commission gives: unless you can be so chimerical as to suppose, the Apostles and their imaginary Successors [Page 36] authorized by one Part of the Commission, and Pres­byters by the other. If Presbyters are not included in the Commission, whence have they their Existence? If they are included in this only Commission to the Ministry, whence are their Superiours? Since the Commission is but one, there can be but one Order by Vertue of that Commission. If Bishops are the Apostles Successors, and have in this Commission the promise of Christ's perpetual Presence, there are no Presbyters inferiour to them. If Presbyters are Sub­jects of this Promise, there are no Bishops superiour to them. If both are included, they are both the same Order, and have the same Authority. Take which part of the disjunction you will, we shall be no losers. Can you your self seriously think, that the same Commission from King George would constitute one Man the Governour of a Province, anot'er a Justice of the Peace one Man a Magistrate, another a petty Constable? If there were no other Scripture­Argument to confirm me in my Sentiments, the Unity of the Commission would convince me of the Iden­tity of Bishop and Presbyter.

Praelat. You triumph before the Victory. Pres­byters may indeed be said to be authorized by this Commission, inasmuch as the superiour Pastors have hereby Authority, to commit the Ministry to faithful Men, that they may teach others also: But they are not directly and immediately Authorized by it at all.

Eleuth. Have Presbyters no Commission at all to their Office, no Authority from Christ for their sacred Employment? Whence then is their Original? Do they depend upon Man for their Creation? Have they nothing but an human Institution? Be pleased, Sir, to tell me how this Order came into the Church.

Praelat. It is by another Commission that Presbyters are directly invested with the Ministerial Character: The Commission, I mean, given to the Seventy Disci­ples, Luk. x. And as these were not called A­POSTLES; but were every way inferior to them: so [Page 37] their Successors, the standing Presbyters, must always continue inferiour to those in the Apostolic Succession.

Eleuth. I might in answer to this justly put you upon shewing from the Commission to the Twelve and Seventy, in what respect the Seventy were infe­riour to the Twelve. For if they were not inferiour at all, if they had the same Commission, and were sent upon the same Errand with the Twelve, you know the Fate of your Argument. But to shew wherein this distinction and inferiority lay, is I know a task too hard for you. It's what neither you, nor any of your Party can ever be able to do. And yet there needs not a Word more to be said upon this Subject, till that Difference and Distinction of Order, is clearly evidenced. But that you mayn't think your self neglected, I'll propose some other Difficul­ties, that I want to see fairly removed. And—

1. If Presbyters are Successors to the Seventy, and authorized by the Commission given to them, they are prohibited receiving any Maintenance; but are to seek their daily Food at other Mens Tables, Luk. x. 4, 7. Consider then, if you are a Successor to the Seventy, whether you must not quit your rich Benefic [...].

2. That Presbyters have no Authority to Baptize or administer the Lord's-Supper. For there are no such Powers given them, by that supposed Com­mission.

3. That either the Seventy were superior to the Twelve, or had no Authority out of Judea. For the Twelve were expresly commanded, not to go into the Way of the Gentiles; nor enter into any City of the Samaritans, Mat. x. 5. [...] The consequence therefore forces it self upon you, that either Presbyters are su­periour to Bishops; or else that there are no Presby­ters at all in the Gentile Churches: chuse which pleases you best.

4. The worst of all is, that the Seventy were so far from being Presbyters in the Christian Church, that they were not so much as Members of it. For there [Page 38] was then no Christian Church existing. Our Saviour himself, and all his Disciples, were Members of the Jewish Church; and actually submitted to all the Ordinances of it. But the Christian Church being founded upon his Resurrection, there could be no Ministers nor indeed Members of this Church, before it had a Being. The Apostle assures us, that the New Testament (and certainly then the new Dispensation therein revealed) depended upon the Death of the Testator, Heb ix 16, 17. For where a Testament is, there must of Necessity be the Death of the Testator. For a Testament is of force after men are Dead: other­wise it is of no Strength at all, whilst the Testator liv [...]th. From all which it's plain to Demonstration, that the Seventy had a temporary Mission and Com­mission, and were plainly sent on the same Errand, and with the same Power, that the Twelve (in that their first Mission) were sent upon. There was then no Christian Church, they could not therefore be Officers in the Church, nor have any Successors.

Praelat. The time spends, and we have dwelt too long upon this Point already: I have other Argu­ments yet to offer, which you'l find harder Work to get over.

Eleuth If you please we will first consider where we are, and just take a brief summary View of what has occurred under this your first Argument; that we may find how the Case stands.

When you can find proper WITNESSES of Christ's Resurrection, to succeed the Apostles, such I mean as can attest that Fact, from their Personal Knowledge, either by conversing with our Lord Jesus Christ, after he rose from the Dead, or by being caught up i Paradise, that they might there see him: When you can find Successors to the Apostles endued with those miraculous Gifts, whereby the Holy Ghost be­comes a joint Witness with them, both of the Facts and Doctrines which they publish: When you can reconcile the small difficulty of Men's being itinerant [Page 39] Preachers thro' the whole World; and yet at the same time being settled and having their Charge li­mited to the Bounds of a particular Diocess; I will allow your Bishops to be the Apostles Successors.

When you can make it appear that 1 Cor. xii. 28. and Eph. iv. 11. by you quoted, do by the same Words, make Gifts and Offices both perpetual and temporary, to continue to the End of the World, and yet wholly cease with the first Ages of the Church; I will admit your Evidence for the perpetuity of the Apostolate.

When, notwithstanding the Apostles themselves tell us, that in their ordinary Capacity they were Presbyters, you can make it appear, they were of a­nothe [...] Order: When, notwithstanding the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction are found from Scrip­ture to be exercised by Presbyters, you can prove these to be the Bishops Prerogative, to belong to him exclusive of Presbyters; I will allow my Lord the Bishop his superiour Character.

When you can find, that the same Commission gives different Powers and Authorities: When you can find, that a temporary and occasional Mission of Men, that were not so much as Members, much less Mini­sters of the Christian Church, is the only Commission by which the ordinary Pastors of the Church exercise their Office; I'll allow, that these depend wholly upon the Breath of the Bishop, for their very Being.

I don't wonder to see you [...]o uneasy, at this Review of the Cause. For who can help but mourn at the Death of such a darling and favourite Argument, as this has always been to those of your Party? If you please, I'll now attend to what you would further offer.

Praelat. Nothing is more evident than that all the Ordinances of the Gospel were founded upon Jewish Rites and Institutions. These being originally of Divine Appointment, Christ was pleased to honour them, by giving them a new Sanction; and by bring­ing [Page 40] them into the Gospel Dispensation. Thus Bap­tism was taken from the Jewish Ablutions; and the Lord's Supper graffed upon the Passover Festival. And why the Gospel Ministry is not conformed to the Jewish Priesthood, no Reason can be given. Certain it is, that this being a divine Contrivance, must be the best Form for Governing the Church, that can be devised. And I need not tell you, that this was a proper Prelacy; the high Priest being superiour to to the Priests, and they to the Levites, exactly a­greable to the constant Order in the Christian Church, of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

Eleuth. This Argument, if it proves any thing, proves too much; and instead of Diocesan Episcopacy, sets up a Papacy. For as the high Priest in the Jew­ish Church was but one, so there should (according to this Plan) be but one Bishop, the Pope in the Christian Church. But waving that Consideration, I entreat you to hear me patiently, and I think I can give you full Demonstration, that the Jewish Priest­hood is not, cannot be, succeeded under the Gospel Dispensation.

1. The whole of this Order was Typical, and had a special Reference unto the great high Priest of our Profession.

This the Apostle largely illustrates in his E­pistle to the H [...]brews, and particularly in the ninth Chapter. And this is also abundantly evident, from all the Ordinances of that Dispensation. The Ta­bernacle it self being a Figure for the Time present, in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices, that could not make him that did the Service perfect, as per­taining to the Conscience, which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and carnal Ordinan­ces, imposed on them until [...] Time of Reformation, Heb. ix. 9, 10. From which Text it's plain, that the carnal Ordinances of this Dispensation were Figures of Christ, and were to subsist no longer than until his Resurrection, here called the Time of Reforma­tion. [Page 41] Upon which account, the Levitical Law is call­ed a Shadow of good Things to come, Heb. x. 1.—

2. This Priesthood was instituted with a sole Refe­rence to the Service of the Tabernacle and Temple.

In which respect our blessed Lord, the Antitype of this Priesthood, is called a Minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not Man, Heb. viii. 2. And if we take a full view of all the Charge and Trust committed to the Tribe of Levi, of all the Service, and all the Ad­ministrations, to which they were designed, we shall find nothing, but what referred to the Service of the Tabernacle, during the more unsettled State of the Jews, and of the Temple after that was erected. Such a Reference most certainly had all their Sacri­fices and Oblations of every Kind; and all their Meats, and Drinks, and divers Washings, in which their whole Ministry consisted. Accordingly we find the Tabernacle must be first reered, and then Aaron and his Sons be brought to the Door of the Taberna­cle, and Sanctified, that they might minister unto God in the Priests Office, Exod. xl. 2, 12, 13. In like man­ner the whole Tribe of Levi were given unto Aa­ron, that they might minister unto him, and might keep his Charge (i. e. do the Duties of the Priesthood as Servants to him) before the Tabernacle of the Congre­gation to do the Service of the Tabernacle, Numb. iii. 6, 7. and Chap. viii. 19.

3. This Priesthood was confirmed to a particular Family.

The high Priest was to descend lineally in all their successive Generations, from the eldest Son of Aaron, the whole Priesthood from Aaron's Family; and all that gave attendance at the Altar, from the House of Levi. This whole sacred Order was what no stranger might intermmedle with, nor come nigh to, upon pain of Death. Numb. iii. 10.

4. These Priests were not ordain'd to their Office.

[Page 42]They had indeed a typical and ceremonial Con­secration, with Unctions, Purifications and repeated Sacrifices, agreable to the Nature and Design of the Institution, Lev. viii But they not being (as Priests) publick and constant Preachers, they were not set apart to their Work by Imposition of Hands, as such Preachers were among the Jews. It is indeed pro­bable, that these were by Office obliged to explain the Ceremonial Law to the People, and to bring them into an Acquaintance with the purpose and tendency of their own Ministry and Ordinances, as seems to be intimated, Deut. xxxiii. 10. And Mal. ii. 7. But the Scripture no where represents them, as stated Prea­chers of the Doctrines and Duties of Religion, in any other respect. There is no Institution that makes this a part of their Character, as they were Priests.

All these Things being put together, [...]t is plain to De­monstration, that the Gospel-Ministry did not, could not succeed to the Aaronical Priesthood. For what Succession could there be to a typical Institution, after it's completion in the Antitype? What Succession could there possibly be in the Service of the Taber­nacle and Temple, when the Temple of Christ's Body (unto which the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple did wholly allude) had been destroy'd, and raised again in three Days? How can that Priesthood that was limited to a particular Tribe and Family, be conti­nued or succeeded in all Nations, and in those Persons to whom it was so severely interdicted, at the origi­nal Institution? Or how can that Ministry set apart by Ordination with Imposition of Hands, be said to succeed to that Priesthood, whose Consecration was wholly with ceremonical and typical Rites? So that we may as reasonably and scripturally deduce the Succession of the Gospel-Ministry from Julius Caesar, who was high Priest among the Romans, as from the Priesthood of Aaron.

Praelat. It is high Time for you to stop a little; and see the Consequence of all this fine Reasoning. [Page 43] You have by this arguing divested the Jews of all Moral Worship, left none to instruct them in the im­portant Articles of Faith and Manners, none to in­spect their religious Conduct, none to preach to 'em, none to rule them. And so have brought the (then) only Church of God in the World into a sort of Hea­thenism.

Eleuth. The Moral Worship among the Jews was not attended in the Temple, nor administred by the Priesthood; but they had every Sabbath-Day an holy Convocation or Assembly, in the respective Places where they dwelt, Lev. xxiii. 3. And had accordingly Places appointed for those Assemblies, called by David the Synagogues of God, Psal. lxxiv. 8. The Jews tell us, that there were Four Hundred and Eighty of these Synagogues in Jerusalem. ^* And it's certain they had Multitudes of them, not only in Judea, but thro' all the Jewish Dispersions, as at Antioch in Pisidia, Act. xiii. 14. at Iconium Act.xiv.1. at Berea, Act. xvii. 10. at Corinth, Act. xviii. 4. at Ephesus, Act. xix. 8 and elsewhere. And the Scrip­tures inform us of Officers set over these Congrega­tions, to preside in religious Worship, called Mini­sters, Luk [...] iv. 20. and Rulers of the Synagogue, Act. xiii. 15. and xviii. 17. To which the Jewish Doctors give their Suffrage, and particularly describe the se­veral Officers of the Synagogue, by the Names of Bishops of the Congregation, Ruling Elders and Dea­cons. ^† These, as Doctor Stilling fleet largely proves, were Ordained to their Office. ^‖ And why then under the Gospel Dispensation there should not be (as among the Presbyterians there are in fact) the same Officers in the Church, as there were in the Jewish Synagogues, it belongs to you to give a Reason. But [Page 44] until you do, I shall think there is a great deal of Justice in the Conclusion of that great Man just mentioned, ‘It is then a common mistake to think, that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of Correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law; which mistake hath been the Foundation and Original of many Errors’ ^* Thus, Sir, you see the Argument is retorted; and that it is you, and not we, that set up different Orders in the Church from the moral Ministry among the Jews, with whom there were not the least Footsteps of Diocesan Epis­copacy to be found.

Praelat. If after all I shall make it appear to you, that there were in fact, even in the Apostolick times, Bishops superior to Presbyters, constituted by the A­postles themselves; I hope you will at last yield to the Conviction. And this appears incontestible, in the case of Timothy and Titus, to whom the Apostle actually committed an Episcopal Power; the one be­ing constituted Bishop of Ephesus, and the other of Crete: And both v [...]ted with the Powers of Ordina­tion and Jurisdiction over Presbyters, as appears at large from the Epistles written unto them.

Eleuth. Were it supposed, that Timothy and Titus had the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction com­mitted unto them, how does that make them Supe­riour to Presbyters; unless you can prove that Presby­ters have no claim to those Powers? I must entreat you, Sir, to consider, that the Proof of this is your present Business; and that it is but a weak way of Arguing, to take for granted the point in debate, as all of you seem to do in the case before us.

Praelat. I never knew that any of your party pre­tended to have these Powers lodged in a single Pres­byter, that are here committed to Timothy and Titus. And inasmuch as each of them had singly and alone [Page 45] these Authorities committed to them, and were in their own Persons, exclusive of all others, impowred to inspect the Doctrine of other Ministers, 1 Tim. i. 3. to hear Accusations against, judge and censure offending Presbyters, 1 Tim. v. 19, 20. to ordain Elders in every City, Tit. i. 5. and the like; they certainly were of a superiour Order to Presbyters.

Eleuth. All that you can find in these Epistles is, that Timothy and Titus had directions for their Con­duct in the management of Ordination and Jurisdic­tion; which might with like Propriety be given to any Presbyter as to them. And your way of reason­ing will as justly conclude Timothy to have the sole power of Preaching, because he is exhorted to preach the Word, be instant in Season and out of Season. And I desire you to shew from these Epistles, how those other Powers are appropriated to Timothy and Titus, and this not. That these had the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction, is certain; but it's equally certain, that these Epistles do no more restrict those Powers to them, than the Authority of Preaching the Gospel. How are they then set over other Presbyters? But that this matter may be set in a true Light, I would intreat you to consider;

1. That the Apostle Paul, when taking his final farewel of the Ephesians, never to see their Faces any more, left them under the Government and Gui­dance of a Number of Presbyters, as their proper Bishops. Act. xx. 17, 28 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church, and said, Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. I took some notice of this Text yes­terday, to prove from it the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter. And I shall now further remark to you,

1. That the Church of Ephesus was at this time committed to the sole care of a Presbytery; their pre­tended [Page 46] Bishop Timothy being present, as appears from verse 4.

2. That the Apostle designed unto these Presbyters the future charge of this Flock, as appears from his Admonition to watch against the Wolves and Apostates, that should enter in among them after his Departure, in the 29, 30, and 31 verses.—And then,

3. That this Apostle never did constitute Timothy Bishop of the Ephesians after this time; for this was the last time they ever saw his Face, verse 25. In a word, Timothy must be constituted Bishop of Ephesus, either before, or [...] this Convention. Miletus, or not at all. If before, he was but a Presbyterian Bishop; for there was a number of other Bishops along with him, to guide and govern that Flock. If after, he came not in at the right Door; for the Apostle under infallible guidance and direction had left that Flock under another form of Government. The Consequence is therefore unavoidable, that he never was Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus at all.

I might add to this, that the first Epistle to Timothy, upon which you found his Episcopal Authority, was certainly writ before the Convention at Miletus: this is acknowledged by the most learned As­sertors of Episcopacy, as Dr. Hall, Dr. Hammond, Grotius, Lud. Capellus, Dr. Lighfoot &c. And this I will prove to you, when you'll be at Leasure to hear the Evidence. And therefore its self-evident, that his Episcopacy at Ephesus is but a mere chime­rical imagination, since the Charge of that City is left in the Hands of a Presbytery, after his pretended Investiture in that See. But suppose, if you please, that this Epistle was written after that Convention; This imaginary Episcopal Authority must be the Sub­version of a Government, which Infinite Wisdom, that foresees all Events, and cannot be mistaken, had set up in that Church. For it was the Holy Ghost that made the Presbyters Bishops of Ephesus. Timo­thy [Page 47] therefore could not be Bishop in that Church at all.

Praelat. Bishop Pearson has proved, that St. Paul actually was at Ephesus after his Congress at M [...]letus; and therefore afterward might find Reason to change the Government of that Church; and thus your Tro­phies are f [...]llen at once.

Eleuth. Were that [...]ue, could the Holy Ghost find reason to change? Did he alter his Mind, and invent a new and better form of Government, than he had before ordained? But I must inform you, that Mr. James Owen hath not only re [...]uted the Bishop, but brought the cause to Demonstration, that the Apostle spoke Truth, in saying, Now b [...]hold I know, that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. And if you won't believe the Apostle in this his strong and positive Assertion, read Mr Owen's Tutamen Evan­gelicum Chap. iv. and be convinced. But I would add some other Answers to your Argument.

2. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, 2 Tim. iv. 5. And therefore if all the Powers you pretend to, were lodged in their single Persons, there is no ar­guing from those extraordinary and temporary Offi­cers, to ordinary Bishops. As these were extraordi­nary Officers, they wanted extraordinary Powers, for the discharge of their Trust.

3. As these were Evangelists, they had all the Churches in their Care, and were to follow the Apostles up and down the World, to see to the set­tlement of the new Plantations. And that they were such Itinerants in fact, you'll be convinced by the following places of Scripture Rom. xvi. 21. 1 Cor. lv. 17. and Chap. xvi. 10. 2 Cor. 1. 19. Phil. ii. 19. C [...]l i. 1. 1 Thes i. 1. 2 Thes. i. 1. 2 Tim. iv. 9, 12. Heb. xiii. 23. 2 Cor ii. 13. Chap. vii. 6. 7. Chap. viii. 16, 23. Chap. xii. 18. Gal. ii. 1, 3. 2 Tim. iv. x. Tit. iii. 12. These Texts make it appear, that Timothy and Titus were as well Bishops of Rome, Corinth, Phi­lippi, [Page 48] Collosse, Judea, Nicopolis, Dalmatia, and many other Cities and Countries, as of Ephesus and Crete: and therefore all Argument for a Diocesan Episco­pacy from such an extended & universal Charge, must necessarily fall to the ground.

Thus then stands the evidence: Timothy and Titus had just the same Powers committed to them, which belong to other Presbyters; therefore they are Dio­cesan Bishops. The Holy Ghost had set other Bishops over the Church of Ephesus, & given them the whole charge of that Church; therefore Timothy was Bishop of the Ephesians. The Apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost, had left that Church under the Government of a Presbytery the last time the Apostle saw their Faces; that Timothy's Epis­copacy must be a direct subversion of a divine Insti­tution: And yet Timothy must be the Governour of that Flock. Timothy & Titus were Evangelists, and had the World for their Charge; and yet they were Bishops of a particular Diocess, and are succeeded by ordinary Diocesans. I presume you won't urge the Postscripts to these Epistles for proof of Timothy's E­piscopacy: for you know they are no part of the sa­cred Canon; they belong not to the Scriptures; but are confessedly spurious & of a late Date. And what Argument is there then remaining for your help in this Case?—Why (Sir) so uneasy? I hope you'll sacrifice any Opinions of your own, to plain manifest Truth.

Praelat. I have two Arguments more to offer, and if you can give a good Answer to them, I'll yield the Cause. The first Argument I take from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, who appear to be proper Bishops of those Churches; and were accord­ingly accountable for, and charged particularly with, any Disorder or Corruption tolerated in their respec­tive Churches; and commended for suppressing and correcting these Disorders, and purging their Churches of heretical Teachers.

[Page 49] Eleuth. Be pleased, Sir, to let me know, what Pow­ers are committed to these Angels, that don't belong even to a Presbyter of the Church of England, ac­cording to your own Constitution.

Praelat. This is a surprizing Question. Is not the Angel of the Church of Ephesus commended for trying false Apostles, Rev. ii. 2. ? Have Presbyters of our Church this Authority? Is not the Angel of the Church of [...] for having those that held the Doctrine of Balaam, and that held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, in the 14 and 15 verses of that Chapter; And the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, for suffering that cursed Woman Jezebel, verse 20—Have Presbyters of our Church Power of excommunicating false Teachers, and heretical Seducers?

Eleuth. As to your first Instance, not only Presby­ters, but even private Christians, have not only Au­thority, but are bound in Duty, not to believe every Spirit, but to try the Spirits whether they are of God, when false Prophets (or false Apostles) are gone out into the World. 1 Joh. iv. 1. So that there is no Epis­copal Power necessary, for the trial of false Apostles. And as to the other Instances, there's nothing like Excommunication mentioned in the quoted Texts. The Angels of those Churches are faulted for having and suffering those H [...]ticks, which necessarily im­plies no more, than that they entertained them, and did not bear due Testimony against them. And I hope they might do all this, without my Lord the Bishop.

Praelat. Are Presbyters of our Church accountable for the Faults and Disorders of their Churches?

Eleuth. Most certainly, when these Faults and Disorders creep into the Churches, thro' their Care­lessness and Negligence, as might be the Case before us.

Praelat. It is impossible that these Angels should be mere Presbyters, in that there were too many Con­gregations in each of these Churches, to be the Charge [Page 50] of such a Presbyter. This may be rationally conclud­ed by comparing the rest of those Churches, with that of Ephesus, where it seems absolutely necessary that there should be divers Congregations, under the Inspection of these Angels as their Presidents or Su­perintendents. For it was at least thirty Years before the writing these Epistles, that the Apostle Paul laboured three Years there, and we are assured from Acts xx. that there were then a number of Elders in that Church.

Eleuth. That there were a number of Elders in the Church of Ephesus, and that these were the proper Bishops of that Church, I have already argu'd, to the confusion of your Scheme. And that in the A­postolic Age there were a plurality of Elders or Pres­byters ordained in every Church, and in every Chris­tianized City, how small soever, is also certain from Acts xiv. 23. and Tit. i. [...], But that there were diverse Congregations in Ephesus, or any other of these Asi [...] Churches, when these Epistles were written, can ne­ver be made appear. So rooted and prevalent was Heathenism in that dawn of Christianity, that Con­verts were comparatively but very few. Constantine the Great, above two hundred Years after this, tho't two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his royal City of Constantinople. ^* An [...] if we give any heed to the Epistles of Ignatius, so often urged by the Episco­palians, it's certain there was but one Congregation in each Church. In the Epistle to the Church of Ephe­sus he exhorts, Give diligence therefore to assemble to­gether frequently, for the Eucharist of God, and for Praise; for when you often come into one Place, the powers of Satan are destroyed. In his Epistle to the Magnesians he exhorts, Let all of you come together, as into the Temple of God, as unto one Altar. In his Epistle to Smyrna he says, It is not lawful without the [Page 51] Bishop, either to baptize, or to make love feasts. And in his Epistle to Polycarp then Bishop of Smyrna, he makes it appear, that he was but a Congregational Bishop. His words are these, Keep frequent Congrega­tions, enquire after all by Name, despise not Men ser­vants and Maid-servants. Dr. Burnet ^† therefore justly observes from these Epistles, that there was but one Place, where there was but one Altar and Commu­nion in each of these Parishes. And to deal freely with you, I can't but wonder what your Patrons of Prelacy can mean, by arguing from these Asian An­gels, when they themselves must own, that all the Characters of these Angels belong to Presbyters, e­ven of the episcopal kind. I might therefore justly quit the Argument, what has been said being a suf­ficient Answer to it; but ex abundant [...] I'll briefly hint at some other Evidences of its Insufficiency.

1. Then, The whole of this Apocalyptical Vision was written in the style of the Jewish Church. Hence we so often hear of the twelve Tribes of Israel, of the Altar, Incense, Temple, Tabernacle, &c. Upon which it's a natural Conclusion, that if these Angels do sig­nify Officers in the Church, they must signify the same Officer as was so denominated in the Jewish Church: And that certainly was a Minister of a particular Congregation: The Minister of every Synagogue be­ing called by the Jews, Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the Church. ^*

2. These Epistles are written, not to the Angels only, but to the whole Churches; and therefore whatever Power or Authority is attributed to the An­gels, belonged to the whole Churches, and not to par­ticular Persons. Thus Rev. i. 4. John to the seven Churches that are in Asia. And thus in the Conclu­sion of every Epistle, He that hath an ear to hear, [Page 52] let him hear what the Spirit faith unto the Churches.

3. It's certain that the word Angel is often taken col­lectively for a Multitude: and so if it be here design­ed for the sacred Ministry in particular, it must imply the Presbytery, and not a single Bishop Thus, Psal. xxxiv. 7. The Angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him. And in this Book of the Reve­lation, it is used for a Number of Gospel-Ministers. Chap. xiv 6. And I saw another Angel fly in the midst of Heaven, having the eve lasting Gospel &c. That is (as Interpreters agree) he saw a Number of faithful Ministers, preaching the everlasting Gospel—And that the word Angel must be understood in these Epistles thus collectively, is undeniable from the fre­quent change of Number, in the Address to these An­gels, which can't be made sense of, if applied to a particular Person. Thus Chap. ii. 10 Fear none of these things which THOU shalt suffer, Behold the Devil shall cast some of YOU into Prison, that YE may be tried, and YE shall have Tribulation ten Days. So ver. 13. Antipas my faithful Martyr was stain AMONG YOU So like wise. ver. 24. Unto YOU I say, and to the rest in Thyatira. To which I may add, that it's hardly to be received, that the Bishops were charged with all those Sins, for which Christ threatens to remove their Candlesticks out of their Places: Or that God would punish a Church, by removing their Candle­stick for the Sin of a particular Person. In a word, the whole current style of these Epistles is incompatible to a single Person. And if you will have these An­gels single Persons, you must make it good sense, to call a Bishop a Church, to have a plurality of Persons in one Bishop, to have some of a Bishop cast into Prison, to have a Martyr slain among a Bishop &c. But I think you'll hardly attempt to reconcile these forms of speech to the rules of Grammar.

4 If after all I should allow these Angels to be single Persons [...] why might they not as well be Moderators of the Presbyteries, as Diocesan Bishops? [Page 53] It's certain that there was a Presbytery in one of these Churches, to whom the whole Charge of the Flock was committed, as we have already consider'd from Act. xx. And its a just supposal, that all these Churches were under the same form of Government. Why Ephesus should be Presbyterian, and the rest Episcopa­lian, you can give no Reason. Now then, if the word Angel here imply no more than the Moderator of a Presbytery, and by him the whole Presbytery, as has been the Opinion of very great Men, both Ancient and Modern, what becomes of your Argu­ment for Prelacy from these Angels?

Upon the whole then, if these Angels have no Powers applied to them, but what are applicable even to Presbyters of the Church of England, Pre­lacy cannot be deduced from them. If these Angels according to the received style among the Jews sig­nify no more than the Minister of a single Congre­gation, they leave the Diocesan Bishop to shift for him­self. Or if the word Angel be in these Epistles used collectively, for the whole Church ( or at least for the whole Presbytery ) as it's very certain it is; a Presbyterian or Congregationalist can much better establish his Opinion upon these Epistles, than you can do. So that turn which way you will, Angels will not be Guardians to your cause.

Praelat. But is it not a strong Presumption that you must be in a mistake, in your Interpreta­tion of these Scriptures in debate, that the an­cient Fathers of the Church who lived near the Apostles times, and were much more likely to un­derstand their meaning and to know what Govern­ment did in Fact subsist among them, do assure us, that Episcopacy was the established Order by divine Institution? And therefore inquire, I pray th [...]e, of the former Ages; and prepare thy self to the search of their Fathers; for we are but of Yesterday, and know nothing. Shall not they teach thee and tell thee, and utter words out of their Heart?

[Page 54] Eleuth. Thus you leave the only sure and safe Light, to follow an Ignis fatu [...]s, that will lead you, you know not whither. Has our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles directed us to found our Faith upon Men as liable to Error as our selves? Is an Affair of such Importance, upon which you suppose our eter­nal safety depends, left so dark and undetermin'd in the Scriptures, that we can't know the mind of Christ, but by reading numerous Volumes, that the most part of the Christian world never saw, and that scarce one in a thousand can read? Has our blessed Lord left the only Rule of Faith so obscure, that 'tis impossible to know his sacred meaning? To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because they have no Light in them. Isai. viii. 20. It is enough for us, that our Ministry is warranted by the word of God, and according to the Pattern in the New Testament, let the Ancients say what they will.

I don't speak this, because I think the ancient Fa­thers are on your side of the Question. I'm sure I have no Eyes, if the truly Primitive Fathers are not all with one Voice in the Presbyterian Scheme. And I desire any of your Party to bring so much as one of them, that declares Episcopacy to be of Divine Right an Order superiour to Presbytery; within the first three hundred Years after Christ. This Demand has been often repeated; but never answered. I might therefore con­clude this Discourse, in the words of your own Dr. Stillingfleet ^* ( One well acquainted with the An­cient Fathers ) who says, ‘Yea I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Anti­quity, which doth in plain Terms assert Episcopacy, as it was setled by the Practice of the primitive Church, in the Ages following the Apostles, to be of an unalterable Divine Right.’

[Page 55]Only for your further Satisfaction, suffer me to add the Words of another learned Man of your Church, I mean, Dr. John Edwards, who in a late Treatise ^† on this Argument has the following Passages.

Having consider'd the Testimonies of Ignatius, Cle­ment, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jer [...]m, & others, whom he had Occasion to mention, he concludes thus,—

‘From all these we may gather, that the Scripture­Bishop was the Chief of the Presbyters, but he was not of a distinct Order from them. And as for the Times after the Apostles, none of these Writers, nor any Ecclesiastical Historian tells us, that a Per­son of an Order superiour to Presbyters was set o­ver the Presbyters. 'Tis true, one single Person is recorded to have presided over the College of Presbyters, but this College had the same Power with that single Person, though not that particular Dignity of Presidentship. The short is, the Bishops in those Times were Presbyters, only he that pre­sided over the Body of Presbyters was called Bishop, whilst the Rest were generally known by the Title of Presbyters: And the Bishop was still but a Pres­byter as to Order and Function, though for Dist­inction sake he was known by the Name of Bishop. He was Superiour to the other Presbyters as long as he executed his Office, as a Chairman in a Committee is above the rest of the Justices whilst he holds that Place. It was generally the Antient­est Presbyter that was chosen to preside over the College of Presbyters, but he had no Superiority of Power; all the Priority or Primacy which he had, was that of Order. Here is the Antient Pat­tern: Why is it not followed?’

[Page 56] ‘To single Fathers, we may add Councils, who de­liver the same Sense. One at present shall serve for all, by Reason of its great Antiquity, and its undoubted Authority and Certainty. About the Year of our Lord 398, above two hundred Bishops met together at the Fourth Council of Carthage, and unanimously agreed on the following Canons; ^* A Bishop must not ordain Any without the Counsel of his Clergy. ^† He must hear no Man's Cause, unless his Clergy be present; otherwise the Bishop's Sentence shall be void. (Which we find also inserted into the Body of the ^‖ Canon Law). ^§ Whilst a Bishop s [...]s, he shall not suffer a Presbyter to stand. ^‡ He must know that he is but a Colleague of the Presbyters. So according to an other Antient Council, A Pres­byter ^†† was to partake of the Honour of the [...]hair. Without naming any other Antient Canons, it suf­ficiently appears from these already cited, what was the constant Practice of the Primitive Churches, namely, that there was not that Distance between Bishop and Presbyter as there is now, and that no­thing was done without the mutual Concurrence and Consent of the Presbyters and their President: They all acted in Conjunction and Concert. No­thing is more evident in the Antient Writings of the Church than that they joyntly ruled, and administred Ecclesiastical Affairs: But the Title of Bishop was appropriated to him that presided over the Presbytery.’

‘This then is the true Account of the Matter, Bishops were Elders or Presbyters, and therefore of the same Order, but the Bishops differed from the Presbyters in this only, that they were chosen [Page 57] by the Elders to preside over them at their Ec­clesiastical Meetings and Assemblies ^† The Bi­shop was the First in Number among the Presby­ters, but was not above them in Power and Juris­diction. The Presbyters were a co-ordinate Body with the Bishop, not subordinate to him. There was not any Power or Authority belonging to one exclusive of the rest. But in After Ages the Pres­byters of some Churches parted with their Liberty and Right, and agreed among themselves, that Ec­clesiastical Matters should be Managed by the Bi­shop wholly. I have proved that this is against the Suffrage of the Antient Fathers, both singly and in Council, which was the Thing I undertook.’

Thus, Sir, you see upon what an uncertain Foun­dation your Prelacy is built; and what Reason there is to treat the Presbyterians with more Civility, and Charity; or to convince them with better Argu­guments, than were ever yet brought by any of your Party.—And thus I hope I have given you full Satisfaction as to the Grounds of my Conduct in chusing the Communion of Protestant Dissenters, and preferring Presbyterian Ordination, before Episcopal Orders.

Praelat [...] Truly I acknowledge you've said abundant­ly more in Defence of your self, than I expected. And if I have learnt nothing else by the Conversation we've had together; yet this I have learnt, to have more Charity for those of your Way, than our Party are wont to express.

Eleuth. That's a good Hearing!—We are bid above all things to put on Charity, which is the Bond of Perfectness.

[Page 58] Praelat. And I pray almighty God to diffuse a spirit of Love among us all; that we may not judge one another any more, but however we differ in our Opinions a­bout Circumstantials in Religion, may still unite in our Affections, upon catholick Principles, as being of one Body and serving one common Lord. Sir, I sin­cerely embrace you now as a Brother in Christ: and hope you'll always oblige me with your friendly Correspondence.—I must take leave for the pre­sent.

Eleuth. Dear Sir, you shall find me a constant Friend and your christian Brother. I heartily bid you Farewel, and to your pious and charitable Wishes I subscribe a sincere Amen.