The Ruling and Ordaining Power of Congregational Bishops

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

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

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

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

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

IN the first place, I find him harping on the old thread-bare Argument from the 12 and the 70. Though here he seems to yield to Presbyterians the Dispute about the Superiority of the 12 to the 70, during our Savior's Life-time. At least, (he says to us, to take you in your own way; a Phrase I shall have frequent occasion to borrow from him) he will for once suppose that they were equal. But then he adds, pag. 79.

Now to evidence this, he turns us to Job. 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you, &c: which (he judges) Here I might observe, There are other and better Interpretations of this Text; but being willing to take the Gentleman in his own way, I will for once suppose his Construction to be the best and truest: yet of what Service it will be to him, in the present Argument, I cannot imagine. Surely 'tis a wild Conclusion he draws, viz. For this Inference is grounded on a false Hypothesis, viz. That CHRIST at his Ascension left other Ministers in Commission besides the Eleven; which is a point he has not said one word to prove: Certainly this Gentleman must have a fine Talent in Controversy; since he has taken so much pains to prove what nobody denies, viz. That the Eleven were vested with a power of Ordination; and then has taken for granted one of the main Things in Question, viz. The Continuance of the Seventy in Office in the Church. All Anti-Prelatists agree with him in asserting the former, but not the latter. We unanimously affirm the Temporeity of the Seventy. If then the Gentleman would have (as he promised to do) taken us in our own way, He should have supposed this; and this notwithstanding, proved an Imparity of order among Gospel-Ministers. Now that He might well suppose (with us) the 70 to be temporary, everyone I believe will readily grant, who reads impartially what is said on this Subject in the Sober Remarks (Edit. 2. Pag. 29. &c.) So that I need say nothing on it here. But he silently slides over this, as if it were a point not disputed, or were foreign to the Argument; when he knows it is a matter of Debate, and that not a little depends upon it. For, if the Commission of the Seventy was but temporary, and not renewed after CHRIST's Resurrection, then He left only one Order of Gospel-Ministers, viz. the Eleven; and those vested with equal Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, by the new Commission they received at His Ascending.

WE may safely therefore grant our Author,

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

BUT now leaving the Commissions, He comes to argue from FACT, Pag. 80. Where He tells us,

— This I will for once suppose to be true; for I am willing still to take the Gentleman in his own way: but yet I believe, It will not afford any Argument for Diocesan Bishops, if we consider things impartially.

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

Again, HE tells us,

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

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

AGAIN, The Gentleman observes to us;

To which I will reply, in the Words of Another "Good Reason why; Because They were new Churches that had no Ministers in them till constituted by the Apostles. Presbyters could not ordain before they had a Being. Besides by the way, it may be observed: "They ordained Presbyters; not Diocesan Bishops. 'It is evident from this Instance, that the Apostles left the Churches under the Government of Presbyters, without Superior Bishops. How came the Apostles not to ordain such Bishops in every Church! If they had been necessary, doubtless they would have done it".

BUT further, The Gentleman observes,

To which I answer; His Argument is lost, if he has mistaken the Design of that Imposition of Hands. And it seems he has done so. For it is highly probable, 'Twas only for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost; which was a Power and Honor peculiar to the Apostles. (See Act. 8.15, 18.) That this was the Primary End, at least, we have the general Concurrence of the best Expositors. And if this was the End, it is what was not only out of Philip 's power, but out of Bishop Timothy 's too; and had He been at Samaria then, there would have been the same Occasion to send down the Apostles thither.—However, to take the Gentleman in his own way, I will for once suppose, that this Imposition of Hands immediately and only referred to Confirmation and Ordination: yet I do not see how Philip 's not being capable of performing these works, can afford any Argument to his purpose: for, according to him, Philip at that time was but a Deacon; and a Deacon's being incapable, is no Argument that a Presbyter (an higher Officer) must be so too. To make his Reasoning here anything tolerable. He must allow Philip was a Presbyter: but then the mischief is, This will be to contradict himself; since he expressly calls him a Deacon, ( pag. 93.) and it will unhappily overthrow his great Plea there, [from the Instance of Philip ] for Preaching & Baptising Deacons.

IN the next place, The Gentleman observes.

I reply, We donit pretend it do's. For we know of no Ministers in Scripture, that were Presbyters, in the modern ( Church of England ) sense of the Word. We deny any such Officer in the Church, us a mere Presbyter, that is, a Minister of the Word, destitute of Episcopal Power over the Flock. The Elders, or Presbyters, we read of, 1 Pet. 5.1. were Bishops. Such Bishops we are For, and such Elders; but we know of no Institution for Elders that do not rule over the Flock, or for Bishops that rule over Elders. We are for Congregational Bishops; and such we conclude, were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy. —But the Gentleman adds,

NOW to this I reply.

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

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

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

BUT now to come closer to our Author,—

2. I will for once suppose, that Paul 's laying on of hands, and the Presbytery 's, were both at the same Time, and in Conjunction; yet I cannot see how this Concession will give him any Advantage. The Gentleman observes,

—But here I inquire; How is it agreeable? Do Presbyters of the Church of England join in laying on of Hands in the Consecrating of a Bishop, such as Timothy is supposed by Episcopalians to be? No, I trow not. 'It is only the Arch-Bishop, and Bishops present, that join in this Act; as may be seen in the Rubric of the Office for the Consecration of Bishops. Either then it must be confessed, Timothy was not a Bishop; and so one of the great Arguments for Prelacy will be dropped. Or at least it must be supposed Timothy was not ordained Bishop at that time, when Paul & the Presbytery join'd together in imposing hands on him: however he might be afterwards, by Paul alone; which I think will supersede the common Pretences for Timothy 's Episcopacy, from the first Epistle to Him. Or else the Church of England must confess, She Deviates from the primitive Pattern, in excluding Presbyters from joining in the Ordination of her Bishops: and so far She must appear not Primitive and Apostolical; and her Prelates must be owned not regularly consecrated; because their Ordinations are without the Concurrence of the Presbytery. — One of these three, I think, must necessarily be granted: and let the Gentleman choose which he likes best.

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

WELL but for once we will suppose, that the Presbytery did not lay on hands as Ordainers, but the whole Efficacy of the Ordination was from the Imposition of Paul s Hands; yet how will this tend to serve our Author's Cause? Will this infer, that Bishops may assume to themselves the whole Power, exclusively of the Presbyters joining with them? No, not at all. I will make it out thus. Paul laid on hands, either in his ordinary, or extraordinary Capacity. Now if the whole Efficacy of the Ordination was from HIS Imposing of Hands, It could not be in his ordinary Capacity, that he ordained; because an Apostle in his ordinary Character was but a Presbyter, (as I think is fully proved in the Sober Remarks, to which I must refer the Reader for satisfaction) and upon this view of them, there can be no solid Reasons assigned for so essential a Difference (in the Virtue and Meaning) between the Act of Paul, and the Act of the Presbytery, in Timothy 's Ordination. Hence therefore it must be in his extraordinary Capacity, that Paul ordained; and if so, then I ask, what Warrant Paul 's having the sole ordaining Power, exclusively of the Presbytery, will be to Bishops, for confining the Power of Ordination wholly to themselves? Are they Successors to the Apostles, in the extraordinary parts of their Character? Have our Bishops the Gift of Infallibility? Have they the Power of discerning Spirits? Or can they confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their Hands? Verily, show us Bishops so qualified, and we shall be tempted to leave the work of Ordination wholly to Them, wherever they come! But till we can see such Bishops (at least till then) we must be allowed to assert the Presbyters Claim to the Power of Ordination.

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

HE adds another Evasion. page 81. saying,

And because he supposes that would be of greatest weight with as, he produces the Testimony of Calvin, in favor of this Opinion.—Now I freely confess, I honor Calvin highly: His Testimony has no little weight with me: I think it is as good an Authority as any. But I never set up Calvin for an Oracle, nor counted him Infallible. That He was not so, appears, in that he saw fit afterwards to alter his Mind in the very Point we are upon. It is out of Calvin 's Institutions, (which He wrote when he was a young Man ) that our Author has taken his Testimony: but if he intended to deal ingenuously, he should have consulted Calvin's Commentaries on the first Epistle to Timothy (which He wrote twenty Years afterwards, when he was more capable of judging, and had considered the matter more maturely) and there He would have found this great Man expressing a different Apprehension, and giving it as his Judgment, And truly I wonder how Calvin, or any Body else could ever come into the other Construction; it seems so harsh, so forced, and scarce reconcilable with common sense. What, the laying on of the HANDS of the Office of Presbyters! Very uncouth and barbarous Language methinks! I always imagined that Hands were the Property of Persons; and laying on of Hands, an action not applicable to Offices.

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

THUS it appears, The Gentleman is under a great mistake, and triumphs too soon, when he draws up that boasting Conclusion;

I leave it to the Reader's Judgment.

AND now it were as easy to show the Vanity and Weakness of another Motion, which he hints at as

TO this I reply, first, They could not be a College of Apostles, that ordained Timothy; because (if I may bring an Argument ad 〈◊〉 ) Paul seems to speak of the Ordination of Timothy, as if the whole Virtue and Efficacy of it lay in the Imposition of his Hands. Our Author observed to us just now,

Now then either the Gentleman has put a wrong sense on this (last) Text, and so it can be of no force against the Presbyterians, 〈◊〉 he applied it before. Or else it must be of force against Dr. Hammond 's Notion, which be here mentions, That the Presbytery in the former Text meant a number of Apostles; for it do's not seem consistent with the Modesty and Humility of Paul, so to express himself as if He was the SOLE ordainer of Timothy, when the other Apostles joining with him, had equally the Power of ordination.

BUT now should we for once grant, that they were Apostles only, that laid on hands in Timothy 's ordination, I cannot see how our Author will be able to serve his Cause by it. For nothing can be more evident than that, whoever ordained Timothy, they did it as a Presbytery: They acted in the Quality of Presbyters. 〈◊〉 the Apostle's giving the ordainers a common 〈◊〉 only, it seems they acted only in their ordinary Capacity. And here the Dispute returns, whether or no Presbyters do succeed the Apostles in their 〈◊〉 ordinary Capacity. And I think this very Text we are upon, may serve to decide it in the Affirmative. For, 'tis granted by our Adversarys, That they are true & complete Successors of the Apostles, who succeed them in the Power of Ordination: and now that Presbyters do succeed them in this Power, seems a plain Consequence from the Apostles assuming no other than the Character of a Presbytery, in the ordaining of Timothy: [supposing the ordainers were Apostles.] At least there is so much Colour for this Conclusion, that if it had been said, By the laying on of the Hands of the Episcopacy, or Consistory of Bishops, I doubt not our Opponents would have presently boasted the Text was decisive, and have made very harsh Reflections upon us, if we had presumed to question it.—But I shall say no more here, seeing our Author seems not ford of Dr. Hammond 's Notion,

A very fine excuse truly, when he finds in the Dispute he is like to be pressed with insuperable Difficulties! And I should have charitably thought the Man had been sincere, if he had not filled his Pages with so many Cavils already.

WELL but however that Notion be, plain or not; one thing he thinks is very plain, viz.

HERE, in answer,

1. I deny this to be very plain and obvious: and rather think the contrary is so. To clear this we must note, that our Author confines the Power of Ordination to the Apostles only, and their Successors, which he supposes Diocesan Bishops to be. He told us, pag. 80,

Hence by the Superior, which our Author here talks of, as presiding in all the ordinations mentioned in Scripture, must be understood an Apostle, or a Diocesan Bishop. Now then if there can be found an Instance of Presbyters ordaining, without the Presidency, either of an Apostle, or such a Bishop, I hope the Gentleman will see his mistake. And for such an one, I refer him to Acts 13.— where he will find Paul and Barnabas separated to their special Ministry among the Gentiles, by the Hand of certain Prophets and Teachers at Antioch, who were neither Apostles nor Diocesans.—Upon which one thus argues; — But it may be, our Author will demand a Precept as well as Example, for Presbyterian ordination. Now for this let him consult the same Place, and he will find, That the HOLY GHOST said unto those Presbyters, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. Here is an express Commission to those Presbyters to ordain, and this is Warrant enough for others to do it. Here is an Example of Presbyters ordaining, by the Authority of the Holy Ghost: and such an Example must have the Force of a Precept. If any now object, That that Commission to the Presbyters, was a special and extraordinary one, (being received by immediate Inspiration) and therefore not to be argu'd from: I answer, By the same Rule, we may say that (Bishop) Timothy 's ordaining Power was extraordinary. For as this Gift was given him by Prophesy, at his ordination; So it was by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that Paul gave him that Direction, 1 Tim. 5.22. by which our Author says, He impowered Him to ordain others. ( Pag. 83.) Either then our Opponents must give up their Argument for Episcopal Ordination, from the inspired Instructions given to (Bishop) Timothy about the Exercise of his ordaining Power. Or else they must allow our Plea for Presbyterian ordination, from the inspired Commission, or rather Direction, given to the Presbyters at Antioch.

I HAVE not so much as mentioned the Instances of Timothy and Titus, who I think were neither Apostles, nor Diocesan Bishops; and yet ordained Presbyters without a Superior: because their Character is controverted, and

BUT now, —

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

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

I shall but touch upon the Hint be gives next, viz.

—In answer to this, it may be observed, That as to the Power of censuring Offenders exercised by Presbyters too, it is equally plain from 1 Cor. 5. 5, 7, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 2.6. 1 Thes. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Heb. 13.17.— And it is but a just Consequence from their having the Power of Absolution. For the Power of Binding, and the Power of Loosing, are connected, and given in the same Commission, Joh. 20.23. So that they who are vested with one of those Powers, have an equal Claim to the other. Now our Author himself (in his 93d page) expressly ascribes to Presbyters — And I find in the Church of England Form of ordaining Priests, the Bishop first takes a Promise of the Presbyter, to be ordained, And afterward at the Imposition of Hands, the Bishop says to him, Which are the very words of the Apostolical Commission, Joh. 20.— And the same is repeated at the Consecration of Bishops. So that it should seem, the Church of England supposes her Bishops and Presbyters to be equally vested with the Power of Discipline, according to the Word of GOD; and what difference there is in the Exercise of it, must be grounded on Civil Constitutions: as indeed seems to be hinted to us when the Bishop at his Consecration, promises,

BUT to proceed with our Author; — He concludes his first Head, with replying to an Objection.

THIS he is pleased to call a begging of the Question: and demands of us,

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

IT is then a very bold & ignorant Consequence, which our Author draws from his preceding Discourse, viz.

I shall make no particular Remarks on this wild Passage; because I believe the Folly of it will be manifest to all Men, that impartially weigh the Reasons that have been given to support the Presbyterian Assertion. But if any desire a more direct Reply, they may find one in the Sober Remarks, toward the End.

OUR Author comes now to his second Argument for Prelacy,

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

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

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

BUT I will now proceed to the Author's last general Head, Pag. 90. Where he proposes to consider

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

OUR Author says nothing here to support the Episcopal Claim, save what may be contained in that odd and surprising Passage, Pag. 91

— As to the Truth of this wonderful Passage, I shall not at present make any Inquiries, because it chiefly relates to matters of Fact, not in Scripture-History: and as to the Grammar and Sense, I leave those to clear it up, that have a better Knack at criticising, and solving Paradoxes, than I can pretend to.

BUT there is one thing I'd take notice of, that the Gentleman says, which will very much hurt and perplex his Cause; viz.

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

For,

1. HE here relinquishes the Argument from the Seventy, and so runs counter to the Beginning of his Discourse. There he sat up the 70 as Officers in the Gospel-Church, and supposed them to subsist upon a distinct Commission from that of the Eleven Apostles. But now in the End of his Discourse, he gives up his Plea from the Seventy, & owns but one Commission, viz. That given to the Eleven, by virtue of which any man is an authorized Minister: — Unless perhaps he meant that none could be invested in the Commission of the Seventy, but by Apostles & Bishops; and so all would be ordained [in a sense] by virtue of the Commission given to the Eleven. But that could not be his meaning, because he is here speaking of the Apostles delegating their Commission, & gives it as his Opinion, "That it was "delegated to some superior to others; that is, (as we must explain him from what he says, pag. 93.) it was derived to their Successors in unequal Degrees; to some, viz. Presbyters, in Part; to others, viz. Bishops, in Whole. And (says he, in the last mentioned page)

Moreover,

2. BY the forementioned Assertion, our Author has defeated all his Arguments besides, & in effect given up his whole Crase. For, if what he affirms be true, viz.

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

AND now, if it be thus, it must need follow, that Presbyters & Bishops are of one & the same Order and Degree; inasmuch as their Claim to the Powers contained in that Commission, is equal & the same. So much Truth is there, in that Observation of our Author's, [ pag. 91.]

Hence then, seeing All Gospel-Ministers or Teachers ] are authorized immediately by that Commission, They must be vested with the whole ordinary Power therein contained: and Bishops can pretend to no more. Therefore Bishops & Presbyters are the same.

I can see no Foundation in the world, for that Distinction our Author makes, in his 93d page, viz.

He makes this Distinction, in Reply to an Objection. — This is his Answer: but I think it will no way solve the Difficulty, nor serve his cause.

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

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

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

2. CONSIDER, Government imply's nothing in its Nature, that should be a Ground of Superiority in the Rulers of the Flock, over those (supposed) mere Teachers. The Key of Church-Discipline & Government is represented, by some Judicious Divines, as inferior in its Nature to the Key of Doctrine. Bishop Burnet thus expresses himself;

—That preaching & administering Sacraments, are the principal Parts of the Ministerial Office, seems to be intimated, in that these only are recited in the Commission given the Apostles, Mat. 28. — And the inspired Doctor of the Gentiles seems, in several places, to intimate the same to us. How highly do's he magnify his Office, as a Preacher of the Gospel, a Steward of the Mysteries of Religion, an Embassador of Christ, and a Worker together with GOD! And what superior Respects doth he require to be paid to Gospel-Preachers, as such! 1 Thes. 5.13. Esteem them very highly [the same word is rendered Eph. 3.20. Exceeding abundantly] in Love for their Work's sake. Yea and he makes that Distinction, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well, he counted worthy of double Honor; especially they 〈◊〉 labor in the Word & Doctrine. Upon which Text, it may be remark'd—.

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

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

I might now make some Observations upon what he says under the head of DEACONS. But this Part of the Controversy between us, is so fully considered, and to so good purpose, in the Sober Remarks, that I shall not trouble you with any long Talk upon it. Whether it is plain

— I believe every one will doubt, who impartially weighs what is said on that Case in the Sober Remarks. Yea, our Author himself seems to grant that they were not such at their first setting up. For he says; [as for his Fling here in a Parenthesis if it was leveled at the Presbyterians, it's as senseless as 'tis ill-natured] —But how do's he prove they are Gospel-Ministers & vested with power to do these Things? Why; As to the Practice of the Church, how ancient soever, that can be of no Weight, if it be against a Divine Institution. And as for the Example of Scripture-Deacons, it is all but a Pretence. There is no such Example in Scripture. 'It is not to be found either in Philip, or Stephen. Stephen did no more than what any private Man might do, in the like Case, being filled with the Holy Ghost. As for Philip, though' he preached, he did not do it as a Deacon, but as an Evangelist (Act. 21.8.) [on Acts 8.5.] Apollos seems to be a plain Instance of this. Take it in Dr. Hammond's words, (on Act. 18.25.) We have other Instances in the 12 Ephesian Disciples, who had not received the Holy Ghost, nor gone any farther than John 's Baptism, at the time of Paul 's coming to them. ( Act. 19. begin. ) Dr. Hammond speaks of them as Christian Professors publishing the Gospel at Ephesus; and that without having given them (of the Holy Ghost) Authority or Gifts for the Work of the Ministry. And now if private Persons, without having received ordination to the Ministry, did thus preach the Gospel, in times of extraordinary necessity, why might not Philip, (when driven from Jerusalem, and so ceasing to perform his Deacon's Office there) preach the Gospel at Samaria, and yet not do it as a Deacon? Supposing Philip to be as yet no more than a Deacon, his preaching doth not anymore argue that Deacons may ordinarily be Preachers, than that private Persons may be so.—But perhaps some will object, That Philip baptis'd as well as preached. To which I answer; In such an extraordinary Case, He might baptize as lawfully as preach. And such an extraordinary Effusion of the Holy Ghost, and Power of working Miracles, as He had, would justify any Man's doing both, in such a Case. The words of the late excellent Bishop Burnet are remarkable; There is no force then in the pretended Example of Scripture-Deacons, to prove that Deacons as such, & in ordinary Cases may preach & baptize. But says our Author they are vested with Power to do this, by their Ordination. By which he must mean either the Apostolical Ordination, or the Church of England -Ordination. I think He could not mean the Former; because in the beginning of the same Paragraph, he owns that the first Institution of that order in the Church, was to take Care of the Poor: and indeed He must have been strangely blind or willful, if he had denied this. For nothing can be more evident from the Institution ( Act. 6.) than that Deacons originally were Overseers of the Poor, & ordained to serve Tables, which the Apostles would not leave the Word of God to do. Agreebly the Church of England allows her Deacons to be Preachers and Baptiser. And most probably it might be Her Ordination, which our Author referred to when he said that Deacons, are by their Ordination, vested with a power of preaching by the Bishops Licence. But then I ask, What Authority hath the Church to alter Divine Institutions? If the Institution (in Acts 6.) doth not give Deacons such a Power, I desire our Author to show me what Commission the Church of England hath to give it them: and if he cannot produce any Commission to warrant the Church's giving it them, than the Bishop's Licence is but Vanity & Presumption, & the Episcopal Deacons are condemned out of our Author's own mouth, in that passage, [ pag. 93.] —We may borrow a few more words from him (out of the next page) & say to Him & his Brethren, — I will add here, those words in the Modest Proof, (pag. 30 •• .) —How then are Prelatical Churches to be condemned, that so —in which the Deacons are made half Priests, & the Priests but half Ministers & mere Curates to the Bishops: while the Bishops have an over-grown Power; part whereof they commit to Lay-Officers, who take Care generally to employ it upon the Inferior Clergy & People with a wholesome Severity, so far as this will make for their own Interest.

I shall now dismiss my Author with a word or two, upon the Conclusion of his 〈◊〉 Proof, which is as full of Ill Nature, & foolish Bigotry, as his preceding Discourse is 〈◊〉 of Truth and Honesty.

Then follows this fatal Climax, — Is this the Result, this the End of our pretended Error? We thank the Gentleman then for the Charity of his Persuasive: but we thank God more, that we know it is 〈◊〉 a pretended Error, we are charged with, and only a supposed Danger, we are in. This we know and are sure of by the Scripture Evidence we bring for the Truth and Goodness of our Cause: and from the Success of the Ministry in our Churches; which has been such, for its Degree & its Constancy, as (to speak modestly) has hardly ever been paralleled in any Episcopal Church on the face of the Earth. This is a Consideration that will weigh much with serious thinking People and will weigh down a thousand Cavils against our Ministry and Churches.

BUT I will now finish with some remarkable Lines out of two or three famous Authors. End, Bishop 〈◊〉 in his Sermon before quoted [ pag. 22,] speaking of the Papists, observes; —

He adds;

(The Rest you had before.)

Thus the Bishop.

MY next Author is the Celebrated Monsieur Claude, who has such Words as these upon the matter.

IN fine, says an Author of our own .

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