Vindication of the Appendix to The Sober Remarks

A Vindication OF THE Appendix to the Sober Remarks.

A VINDICATION OF THE Appendix to the Sober Remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

OBSERVE, He allows the Apostolical Commission to be the grand Charter for the Evangelical Ministry. By which, if I understand him right, he means, That this is the Diploma Regium, the Royal Warrant, License, or Patent, by which every true Gospel-Minister claims, or is authorized and impower'd. I suppose He will consent to the Words of his Friend (and perhaps Countryman) Barclay, who thus expresseth his Sense of the Matter, (in his Persuasive, pag. 91.) It is by virtue of the Commission given to the Apostles by our Savior, that any Man is an authorized Minister: And if it is not by virtue of this Commission, that ALL Gospel-Ministers are authorized, I desire any one to show what Authority they have and where it is founded. — Here is a good Comment on that Concession of my Animadverter. But perhaps it may be better to compare it with another Passage of his own elsewhere, which sufficiently explains his Sense. It is in his Defense of Mod. Proof, (pag. 61.) where speaking of the Apostolical Commission, he affirms, That there are several Things contained in it, and several Offices warranted by it, as the Powers of Preaching, administering the Sacraments, Ordination, and Government by proper Officers, and that ALL that discharge ANY of those Functions, act by virtue of THIS Commission. — Now I do assert, He has by these Concessions given a fatal wound to the Cause of Prelacy; and must think so, till he shall refute my Remarks on the like Expressions of Mr. Barclay 's, (See the Appendix, pag. 31,— 38.) where I have shewn, That hereby he hath disarmed himself of his Herculean Argument, from the Seventy, and has put it entirely out of his power, by any other Medium whatsoever, to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy. I desire my Animadverter would consult the Pages cited, and let us have his Animadversions upon them, as he would do Justice to his Cause.

I agree with him, in the Remainder of his first Preliminary, viz. That the Apostles Commission contains more in its nature than is expressed, and that the Purport of it must be gathered from their Practice upon it —. But then we must carefully observe the allowed Distinction between their ordinary and their extraordinary Powers and actions. It is acreed on all sides, That the Apostles had some peculiar Powers, that were extraordinary, and temporary, and expired with their Persons: by virtue whereof they did this & toother extraordinary Action, that cannot be drawn into a President for After-Ages, which afford only such Officers, as succeed them in their ordinary Powers. — Under this head, the Author of Mod. Proof (pag, 33.) enumerates their Jurisdiction over all Churches and Pastors, their backing their Censures with Corporal Punishments, and perhaps their instituting new Gospel Officer, &c. These Things we find in Fact they did: but that they did them by virtue of their Commission (in Mat. 28) as acting immediately by and upon it, I scarce believe my Animadverter will assert; because it is plain they were extraordinary Actions, and could be done only by virtue of their extraordinary Powers. Whereas that Commission contains nothing beyond the ordinary Duties and Powers, not peculiar to the Apostles, but common to all their Brethren and Successors in the Ministry. Agreeably Bishop Hall, speaking of the Promise annexed, observes,

— As to any Inspection and I • fluence over the Presbyters and constituted Churches, that the Apostles might have, and if they be supposed to exercise a Jurisdiction over them, this must be founded in the extraordinary Powers, which were peculiar to themselves, and temporary; as I have argu'd elsewhere ( Append. to Sob. Rem. p. 26, 27.) unto which I cannot find the Animadverter has said anything, to take off the force of my Reasoning there: I shall think it stands good then, till I hear further from him; and upon a review, perhaps it may appear to him not unworthy of some serious Reflections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT, in a word; whatsoever clear Indication may be pretended of a Distinction & Subordination between the Presbyters and the Apostles, the same is equally clear with respect to some others that are supposed to be Prelates; who appear to be as much in Subjection to the Apostles, as the Presbyters. For Instance, Timothy is said to minister unto Paul, to be sent by him hither and thither, to receive Commandment from him &c: Which carries as plain Signatures of Paul 's Jurisdiction over this supposed Prelate, as are anywhere to be seen of his Jurisdiction over Presbyters. Now, (supposing that to be in fact a proper Exercise of Authority ) I put it to my Animadverter, — Whether he looks on the Apostle as therein acting by an ordinary Power, or by an extraordinary? Or, in other words, Whether or no He looks on this Apostolic Practice as giving us any Explanation of the Commission? And take it which way he will, I ask how he can reconcile it with his Scheme of Things. For, if he supposes the Apostle to act herein by and upon his Apostolical Commission, and so explaining it, and leaving a Precedent; then it seems (according to the Animadverter's way of arguing) we must not only have Prelates in the Church, but also another order superior to Them: and thus there will be more than three orders; which is contrary to his own Scheme. — But if he determines the Apostle's Practice, in regard of his Jurisdiction over Timothy, not to be an Explanation of the Apostolic Commission, then say I, no more is the Jurisdiction, that the Apostles are supposed to have exercised over Presbyters. For (to borrow here a short Parenthesis from the Remarker )

Whatever Authority over them the Apostles may be supposed to have had, it did not result from their ordinary Commission: and so affords no Pattern to succeeding Ages, nor gives the least Countenance to Prelatical Usurpations.

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

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

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

IN the first place, I think, the Gentleman delivers his Opinion with too great an Air of Assurance, as if it were unquestionable; when he does or may know, that some of the greatest Doctors of his own Church are against Him. Thus Dr. Hammond paraphrases on 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee &c. i. e. Make use of those Gifts, which in order to thy Function were given thee at thy Ordination —. And Dr. Whitby calls the Charisma here mentioned, a Spiritual Gift, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, an extraordinary Gift, conferred only in those Times, by the Hands of an Apostle, and now wholly ceased. [ See his Notes on 1 Tim. 4.14. & 2. Tim 1.6]

. Thus you see both these learned Expositors thwart my Animadverter; and yet he lays down his Opinion as unquestionably certain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. THE Ministerial Powers, contained in that Commission, were by the Apostles preserved undivided, and delivered without any Limitations, to all the Recipients of it. Hence,

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

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

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

And now—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus I have impartially weighed the Gentleman's three Preliminaries, adjusted 'em, and corrected the undue Turn of Thoit, which his Discourse upon them might tend to give such as are looking into this Controversy: and hope I have left him no Room to raise anymore Dust, on these Topics, to cloud and darken them.

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

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

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

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

To which I answer,

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

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

However,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO that Paul 's Presidency in Timothy 's Ordination, can afford our Opponents nothing of an Argument to plead against Presbyterian Ordinations. And truly (to borrow a Hint from the Remarker )

At least it can be no more an objection against Ordination by Presbyters alone (without Bishops) than by Bishops alone, without Presbyters. And yet how constantly is this practiced in the Church of England, in all Consecrations to the Episcopate! Here only the Arch-Bishop, and Bishops present, are concerned▪ no mere Presbyters are admitted to join. But how disagr • eable this, to Scripture Example, in the Consecration of Timothy, the supposed Bishop of Ephesus? Indeed my Animadverter observes, if they were Apostles, who laid their hands with Paul 's on Timothy, this will be exactly agreeable to the Church of England.— But then, he has been so uncautious, as nor to offer one single word in proof, that they were Apostles; nor indeed has he so much as asserted it: but seems willing to allow, they were only Presbyters; as I had argu'd, and I think, proved. Hence he has left the way open for one or other of those Consequences to take place, that I have pursued his Friend with (in my Appendix, p. 10, 11) either of which, I think, grate hard enough on him. Tho' I imagine he judges the last to be the most harmless, viz. That the Church of England has departed from Scripture-Pattern, in excluding Presbyters from laying on hands in the Ordination of Bishops; whence her Prelates must be owned not Regularly consecrated; and so far at least She must look uncanonical & unprimitive, notwithstanding her boasted Apostolic Constitution.

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

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

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

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

BUT that there is no Force at all in his Reasoning here, affix what Sense you please to the controverted Word, (take it either for Apostles, or for ordinary Presbyters ) will very plainly appear, i • we consider the Nature of the Action. Now if my Animadverter will take the Opinion of the Author of the M • d. Proof (which, methinks, ought to carry some Authority with him, since he has undertaken to be his Defender) be may find that modest Gentleman expressing his Sense of the Matter, in terms very agreeable, in the 12th page o • his Book; where he observes that this Ceremony of Prayer and Imposition of Hands was usual in designing and appointing Persons to any sacred Office, in separating, in setting apart, and investing them —; all which Phrases he makes use of. Whereas there's nothing here about conferring the Office and the Powers for its Execution (according to the Animadverter's Notion) but only the Designation and Investiture of the Person; which gives us the true Nature of the Action. For that Power, which the Ordained receive, is not the Gift of their Ordainers, but derives wholly from the Institution and Commission of CHRIST. Even the Apostles themselves went no higher than a Ministerial Investiture or Separation. As Doctor Willet (a learned Church of England Man) observes ,

And for Proof, he alleges 1 Tim. 4.14. & Acts 13.2.— And concurrent with this, is the Doctrine of a late Judicious Writer of the Establish'd Church of England, I mean Mr. Ollyffe, who thus gives the World his Thoughts on the Case. — Thus that learned Divine.

AND conformable to the Opinion of these Episcopal Writers, is the Sense of the Church of England itself in this Matter, as we have it declared in the Bock of Ordination. The whole Tenor of the Preface speaks it very plainly: which makes use of Consecration, and Ordination, as convertible and univocal Terms; and describes an authorized Minister, to be such an one as has been first Called, Tried, Examined, and Known to have such Qualities as are requisite; and also BY public Prayer, w •• Imp • sition of Hands, approved and admitted to his Office by some lawful Authority. And if we look into the Forms themselves, we shall find them all speaking the same Language. Thus particularly in the ordering of Priests, the Bishop over and over recognizes the Person's Divine Call to the Ministry, before he imposes Hands on him: And Ordination is there continually spoken of in such Terms as only imply an Allowance of his preceeding Call, and solemn Admission of him to the public Exercise of the Office, which he has already a Right unto, by his Divine Call. Indeed, at the Imposition of Hands, our Savior's Words are repeated, Receive the Holy Ghost &c. But (if Bishop Burnet 's Account of the Matter may be accepted ) The Church, by making our Savior's

— And from the same learned Hand, we have it; That the Now as He observes , And therefore I have made use of this way of Reasoning, on this Occasion, and I hope it will appear with great Advantage, and minister Conviction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I answer,

THAT, since the greater Part belonged to that Church, it makes no such Alteration, as to hurt my Argument, altho' we should allow an Exception of one or two out of the Number. Paul was an Apostle, and was so at that time, I confess. But that Barnabas was an Apostle before his going with Paul to the Gentiles, upon the Mission our Text relates to, I never yet could see any sufficient Evidence. My Animadverter's Party indeed affirm it: but has he, or they, proved it? No, (if I may borrow some of his own pretty Turns here) That is an unusual method with the Writers on that Side; however, we cannot believe them, when the Assertion appears plainly false as it does in this Case. For before that Mission, we donit hear of Barnabas 's doing anything more than the common Work of a Preacher. In the last Account we have of him, before that in our Text, we find the CHURCH at Jerusalem SENDING him forth, that he should go as fat as Antioch: who when he came there, exported them all; — for he was a good Man &c. Then, after he had preached to them awhile with good Success, he departed to Tarsus for to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. ( Acts 11.22 &c. ) Now for the Reason and End of this, I will refer my Animadverter to one of his own Brethren (Dr. Whitby ) whose Paraphrase on the place runs thus, —

— Here we have this learned Prelatist hinting his Opinion, that Barnabas at that time was not an Apostle. And if so, then only Saul is left, appearing to be of that Character: and he is mentioned last. Barnabas begins the Catalogue: and Saul finishes it, who might be placed after all, because ( He being an Apostle, and They only Prophets and Teachers ) they did more strictly and properly belong to the Church at Antioch, than He. However, I am willing for the present to humor the matter, & take my Antagonist in his own way, by admitting Barnabas to be an Apostle, before the Mission our Text relates to: which will make two of the Prophets and Teachers spoken of, Apostles. Nevertheless the greater Number still remains, who in a strict Sense belonged to that Church, as the ordinary Teachers of it. And on that Account, Barnabas and Saul might be mentioned under the Character they sustained in common with Them: according to the known and allowed Practice of Men, in the like Cases, who use to denominate the whole, from the Majority.

AND then, if we reflect a little, we shall find occasion to think it no such Absurdity, though' we reckon Barnabas and Saul among the Prophets and Teachers, AS belonging then to the Church of Antioch. Let us hear Dr. Whitby 's Thoughts upon the Propriety of it, who thus vindicates his Reading of the Place, (which, as I told you before, is) — There were some Prophets and Teachers in Antioch, belonging to that Church. He notes, —

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

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

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

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

BUT perhaps he may start an Objection here & say,

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

TO which I reply; —

THAT they could not all be Diocesan Bishops, I have proved before, when I observe •• , that They all belonged to the Church of Antioch, and that our Opponents Scheme allows of but one Bishop in a Church at the same time, And now,—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thus much for the first Thing.

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

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

And accordingly, — Either,

1. WE may understand by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . or Elders that rule, Fixed Pastors, or Prefects of Churches already constituted, (such as we suppose the Elders of Ephesus to be) having the oversight of the Flock: and by Elders that labor in Word and Doctrine, Itinerant Preachers, or Evang • lists, (which according to the Author of Mod. Proof are at the most but Presbyters ) such as Apollos, Judas, Silas, Mark and others; and thus some learned Men (Dr. Hammond , Bp. Bilson, &c.) do interpret the Phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — i. e. Travelling in preaching the Gospel to such a • ha • not heard it before. _____ Or,

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

AND take the Text in either Sense, I cannot see how it 〈◊〉 ••• ally be applied to serve the Cause of Prelacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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