I HAVE read the Sober Remarks on the Modest Proof, &c. whereon you ask my Opinion: And since all your Desires have with me the force of Commands, I now transmit to you my Thoughts and Observations on that Performance.

IF that Author took the Title for his Text, I find him following a Method too common, in leaving it as soon as mentioned, and all along keeping at a Distance from it far and wide; and that therefore the Adjective is by no means applicable to the Animadversions.

HE was doubtless in this misled by a vulgar Error, which often runs through the Conduct of Humane Life, the not observing the Distin­ction founded in Religion, [2 Cor. 7.1.] be­tween Sins of the Flesh, and Sins of the Spirit; in such as do not consider, that Envy and Ma­lice, [Page 4] Heretical Opinions and Inclinations, for Schism and Sedition, are as heinous Provocations in the sight of Heaven, as the fruition of the forbidden Pleasures of the Animal Life. Hence some with a seeming Solemnity worship God at Meeting, but Mammon in the Heart and Closet; abhor Idols, yet love Sacrilege; forbear Swear­ing, but strongly incline to Lie and Over-reach; and observe the Saturday Evening with a Jewish nicety, and on the succeeding, fall into all the Works of the Gentiles, that can be contained within the Veil of Hypocrisy.

THIS Observation might be run through eve­ry Precept of the Second Table, tho' I shall for my Purpose only instance in that which relates to Riot and Excess; where we may take No­tice, that besides drinking to a Debauch, there is another kind of Intemperance flowing from the bilious Ferment of the Passions, and the Fumes of Enthusiasm and a heared Fancy.

HAD the Author of the Remarks duly ob­served this, he could never have prefixed so im­proper an Epithet as that of Sober unto them. I don't indeed know that he is a [...] in the grosser Meaning of the Word, yet I think there is no Proposition in Euclid more demonstrable, than that the Guilt of Intemperance taken in the last Sense is chargeable upon him. And to show you that all the Symptoms and Disorders of that Vice are applicable to him, and that by Consequence his Remarks could not be Sober ones, I shall represent him unto you, as appear­ing really to be under all the Signatures of the Crime of Intemperance.

[Page 5]WE may discern a Person to be under this Disorder by these Marks and Signs.

First, THAT his Head is full of delirious Vi­sions and Delusions imagining chimerical Existences.

Secondly, THAT he is so tenacious of his Opi­nions, that he is full Proof against Conviction by the clearest Evidence, but thinks himself privi­ledged to affirm or deny at his pleasure, without any other Satisfaction than his Word.

Thirdly, THAT he is very inconsistent in his Talk, and apt to contradict himself, as well as others.

Fourthly, THAT he is soon angry, and often very quarrelsome, even without Provocation.

And,

NOW it these Spots are remarkably discern­able, in the Remarker's Countenance, I hope is will be granted, that these Remarks will not be allowed the Performance of a Person under a sober Character: And that they evidently appear in him, will be clear and manifest by observing.

First, THAT his Head seems giddilly to swim (as if there was a Vortex in his Brain) with deli­rious Visions and delusive Phantoms, his Fancy representing to him Images that are meer Chi­meras, which never had nor ever could have any real Existence; thus by a sudden Whirl, Saints and Sinners instantly change Places in his vertiginous Imagination, and by the nimble Powers of Transformation, [...], by his own Confession a worthy good [...], is changed into an Heretick, and [...] the Heretick in the Opinion of the Ancients, becomes an Orthodox Divine.

[Page 6]THUS the Visionary paints on his Fancy, Cardinal Wolsey, Arch-Bishop Cranmer, and Su­perintendant Spotswood, in a Geneva Dress, hold­ing forth to Independant Congregations: For this is the certain Consequence of his affirming, that both Papists and Protestants were against E­piscopacy at the Reformation; whereas it is un­disputable Fact, that this was the Government of the Church in England, since the planting of Chri­stianity in it to this very Day, excepting the Anarchy from 1641, to 1660. and that the Church was reformed by Bishops, who afterwards became Martyrs under their Episcopal Characters; who must in the Remarker's Judgment been Fools, or Knaves, or both, to have practised even un­to Death, so contrary to the Principles he dreams they had.

AND as for Scotland, there is nothing clearer in History, than that the Church at and after the Reformation there, was governed by Superintend­ants, whose Office was so far from being an Anti-prelatical Creation, as the Remarker fondly ima­gines, that it differed in nothing from Episcopacy but the Name; and it is not to be disputed, but that the Reformation not only in Britain, but in all Monarchical Governments, was carried on by Praelates; as in Denmark and Sweden, and in­deed every where, save in a few Republican States, such as Holland and Geneva, where their Church-Government was framed to their Ple­bean Schemes. No Man whose Head was not strangely turned, would imagine the Fathers on the Remarker's Side, who all with one Breath [Page 7] condemn his Opinions. Tho' with equal Man­ners and Assurance that he provokes unto their Judgment, he dispises it, and contemns the Au­thority of Antiquity, for this very good Reason, because it testifies against him. In fine, who but a silly Dreamer could have feigned himself an Apostle, or rather some body of a superiour Character, in giving and taking away Com­missions at his pleasure, and which have no Foundation but in Fancy, to be sure not in the sacred Pages. It is with difficulty that he will allow Stephen to be a Preacher, tho' I think we have a good long Sermon of his Acts 7. But as to Philip, the Instance is so flagrant of his preach­ing and baptizing, that there was no other way to condemn the Episcopal Deacon following that Practice, than by framing a new Commission for Philip: For he would not allow the Powers for his Practice were contained in his Diaconate; however we call upon him and his Brethren for a sight of an authentick Copy of that Commissi­on upon Divine Record, which because we are sure they can't produce, we can't but firmly adhere to our Opinion, that the second Com­mission is an imaginary Fiction. And since so good Men would not be found in these Ministe­rial Functions without a Mission, we must con­clude that they discharged them in the virtue of that which they received, at the imposition of the Apostles Hands, Acts 6.6. But this will be anon more fully considered; this Instance with the foregoing being only here adduced, to dis­cover the Disorders the Remarker was under, [Page 8] having his Head full of delireous Visions and De­lusions, imagining chimerical Existences, and there­fore could not with any Truth or Honesty prefix the Epithet of Sober to his Remarks. Nor could he, if we consider

Secondly, THAT he is so tenacious of his Opinions, that he is full Proof against Convicti­on by the clearest Evidence, but thinks himself privileged to affirm or deny at his pleasure, without any other Satisfaction than his Word.

TO prove this Charge upon him, I shall make it appear, that he has without any Ground de­nied the Distinction of the three Orders of New Testament Ministers, with their proper Functions and Administrations, as retained in the Church of England; and without any Proof introduced Officers and Offices into the Gospel Ministry, not founded in Scripture, and Strangers to the Church of Christ, in its best and purest Times. Now for the evincing of this Charge, wherein lies the Merits of the Cause, and whereon the Hinge of the whole Controversy turns, I shall proceed gradually, and make it good in every one of those Orders.

FIRST then, to begin with the lowest, that of Deacons, we must consider that Office in the Reason of its Institution, and the Exercise of it; it's plain they were appointed to take some Charge and Care from off the Apostle in the [...] Offices of the Ministry, as their Name im­ports, part whereof was to distribute the Ele­ments at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, as well as to supervise the Churches Treasury, and [Page 9] supply the Poor; but these Services do not seem to include all that was implied in their designation to this Office, and that for these two Reasons: First. For these only there seems no necessity for so great a Solemnity as an Or­dination by the Apostolick Hands. And secondly, Because we find some of them actually employ­ed in more sacred Functions, for which they doubtless then received their Power and Orders. For we don't find they received any for those sacred Ministrations at any other Time: Now since they could not preach without being sent, and that it don't appear they were sent at any Time but this we are upon, it must be granted, that either they now received their Powers for the ministerial Functions of Preaching and Bap­tizing, or that they acted without any, and were intruders on the sacred Function. But this is impious and absurd, therefore they were now ordained to those Parts of the Ministry, they afterwards discharged with so much Diligence and Success. And now let us view what those Parts were, in the exercise whereof we find any of them; for from their Practice, we may well conclude that of all the rest. There are but two of those Deacons, whose Acts are more par­ticularly taken notice of by the sacred Historian, One of then, as has been already hinted, we find has left us an excellent Sermon Acts 7. and the other we know preached so successfully, as to gain many Converts, whom he also baptized, Acts 8. And besides these, we don't find any o­ther Act. of their Ministration in holy Things: [Page 10] For tho' they assisted indeed at the Lord's Ta­ble, yet we don't find that ever they consecrated the Elements, or ever were vested with the Powers of Absolution or Censures, but rather the contrary is implied Acts 8.14, 18. For that af­ter the Samaritans were baptized by Philip the Deacon, the Apostles Peter and John went from Jerusalem to Samaria to confirm the new Con­verts.

NOW let us see how the Church of England Deacon comes up to the Institution and the Ex­ercise of the Office; after he is recommended, tried, approved and found meet for it, he is so­lemnly ordained by laying on of Hands, invested with Power to serve Tables, provide for the Poor, to preach and to baptize, but not to ad­minister the Lord's Supper; as that implies the Act of Consecration, nor remit or retain Sins, in our Saviour's Sence of those Words, but as for the dissinting Deacon, if ever, he is very rarely ordained, and to be sure never to the Offices of preaching and baptizing; and pray now who comes nearest to the primitive Institution, and the manifest Acts of that Office? the Church of England, which desires to obey Divine Com­mands, and be guided in her Conduct by Divine Examples, and in this Instance comes as near the Pattern as is possible for Imitation, or those who sacrilegiously mutilate this Office, and de­prive it of the best and most useful Parts there­of: And therefore who that was sober and in his Senses, could have expressed his Virulence a­gainst the preaching Deacon, as the Remarker has [Page 11] done, to say no worse in Language like his Cause, and therefore evident it is upon the whole and must be owned, that those Remarks on this the lowest Office in the Evangelical Ministry, betray a Mind full of Confusion and Disorder, and therefore that they could never be the neat Produce of a sober Man, nor they ever justly claim an Epithet they have no Title to. From hence let us proceed,

Secondly, TO the next Order, that of Pres­byters, and see if there be any more Marks of Sobriety on the Remarks on their Order than on the former; and here I think it will be obvious to every Eye, that the further he goes, the fur­ther he staggers from the Truth, until he falls into gross Absurdities, from whence he cannot recover himself, from these Reflections.

THE Author of the Modest Proof had alledged with a great deal of Reason, that Presbyters were Successors to the Seventy Disciples, who by many Marks of Imparity by him there adduced, and not yet disproved, were in an Office inferiour in Dignity and Power unto the Apostolate. Now he seems extreamly concerned to expunge this Notion, and blots several Pages, to blot [...] the Seventy's Commission; and so fiercely contends against the Perpetuity of it, that upon the Sup­position of its continuing, he would grant Pres­byters to be their proper Successors. Now upon this Concession we will join Issue with him and give up the Cause, if we don't make appear, that the Seventy's Commission continued after the Time he affirms it determined; and that the [Page 12] Grounds he goes upon are absurd, suppositious and contrary to Fact and the Reason of Things, he affirms but without Proof, that their Com­mission is not now in being, inasmuch as it ex­pired with themselves, or rather at their Return unto our Lord, and that it was limited only to Judea. Now if these Premisses be not true, the Conclusion that he would draw from them must needs be false; and that there is no Truth in either of those Pretences, will be clear as Light, from the following Considerations on each of them.

First, THAT that Commission having never been formally revoked, and the Reasons where­on it was granted continuing, it must also con­tinue as long as they do.

Secondly, SO far it is from being true, that it was revoked at their Return, that they were then furnished with new Powers for the Exer­cise of those Functions it authorised them unto.

First, I say the Seventy's Commission having never been formally revoked, and the Reasons whereon it was granted continuing, it must also continue as long as they do. There is a pro­found Silence in the Gospel about the Revoca­tion of that Commission, not the least Inuendo that glances that way, no Account of the Time, Place, and Person, when, where, or by whom it was taken from them, and they discharged from that Service; and therefore he must have a hardy Front, that would affirm this Commissi­on to have been formally revoked. And that it was not virtually so, is still, if possible, more [Page 13] evident, for the Reasons of its first Institution continuing, it must be of the same Duration with them; Now these Reasons we have Luke 10.2. The greatness of the Harvest, and the fewness of the Labourers, and since the Harvest will continue until the last Conflagration, so must the Labourers, and by Consequence their Commission for it. The Remarker therefore must be guilty of this absurd Supposition, That the Harvest is over, since the Labourers Commission to work therein, is according to him, annulled; unless he will still more absurdly suppose, that there is a Harvest and no Labourers in it. But since both these Suppositions are false in Fact, and blasphemous Imputations on the Wisdom of its Master; and that therefore the Harvest will continue to the last period of Time, so must the Labourers Work, and their Commission for it, run in a Line parallel to that Duration. Add to this,

Secondly, THAT it is so far from being true that the Seventy's Commission was revoked at their return to our Lord; that they were then by him furnished with new Powers for the ex­ercise of tho' Functions it authorised them un­to. Of this we have an incontestible Proof Luke 1 [...].18, 19. where we are told, that even after their return from their first Progress, that our Lord said unto them, I [...] Satan as Lightning fall from Heaven, behold I give unto you Power to [...] on Serpents and Scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy, and [...] shall by any means hurt you. I demand therefore to what purpose were [Page 14] these extraordinary Powers conferred, if not to assist them in the Work of their Ministry? for as private Christians they were useless to them, having no direct tendency to promote Faith and Repentance in themselves: The Remarker must therefore either go upon this blasphemous Sup­position, that our Lord did in vain bestow upon them these Powers, and for no wise End or Use, or confess to the Truth that they were endowed with them, for the better enabling of them, successfully to discharge the Functions contained in the Commission they had received from him; the Conversion of the World to the Faith and Acknowledgements of their Master, by their Doctrines, attested with Miracles. Nor will it follow here, that because Miracles are ceased, therefore their Commission has likewise: For they are two different Things, Commission or Authority whereby to act, and Extraordina­ry Gifts whereby to make their acts Successful, and perswade the World that their Commission was Divine; and therefore it must be granted, that the Reason of the one ceasing, and the o­ther continuing, tho' the one has ceased, the other must continue.

UPON the whole, now I appeal to the com­mon Sense of Mankind, if the Remarker can be said to be in his Senses, when he affirms, that the Seventy's Commission is expired, or that such a Remark can be called Sober, any more than the Second, That their Commission was limited to Judeae. It is owned, that in their first Missi­on, they were to go unto Places whither our [Page 15] Lord himself would come, Luke 10.1. But even then not exclusively of others; it is no where said to these Places only, or as it was once to the Apostles, That they should not turn into the way of the Gentiles, Matth. 10.5. Nothing of all this, much less is there any restraint laid on them after their return: For as their Work concern­ed Mankind in general, so must needs their Commission be of universal Extent; and not a Word to be found that confines them to any Place or Nation. But because the Remarker can find no such Limitation to the Circumcision in the Seventy's Commission, his Eyes reel back to the Apostles first Commission, Matth. 10.5. and would argue it from thence, but how unfairly. They were two distinct Commissions, and there­fore it is all precarious Reasoning from one to the other. Nor will it follow upon the Supposi­tion, that the Seventy were to go out unto the Gentiles, and that the Apostles before they went to them, were to make the first Offers of Sal­vation unto the Jews, that therefore the Seventy's Commission was more honourable than the A­postles, any more than that the Remarker, who, for ought I know, may be a Native of Britain, and now upon his pretended Ministry in a far distant Country, is more honourable, than that publick Scandal and avowed Enemy to Christi­anity, that denier and derider of the Divinity of the Son of God, his Brother Pierce, whose Books and Quotations he is so fond of. No, the Apostles had the greatest Honour in beginning their Mi­nistry amongst the once peculiar People of God, [Page 16] before they made any tender thereof to those who were Aliens from that Common-Wealth. But since he knows it is denied him, that the Seventy were superiour to the Apostles, either in Power or Character, he is resolved to bring them upon a level; and since he cannot find, he will make, 82 Apostles, by a new Creation of Seventy at a Time; and rather than fail in this attempt, impiously charge the Inspiration Luke 10.1. with an Omission, and the Trans­lators, for not enlisting a Word that was not in the Original, and in spite of both, add the Word Apostle, that it may run, as it does in his Head, and be read Seventy Apostles. But what would the Remarker get by it, if we should allow his fictitious Reading, and false Supposition to be a true one? nothing surely but the ruine of his Cause, by subverting that Foundation where­upon he designed to erect it, the expiration, of the Seventy's Commission. For now by his own Confession, and Pleading too, it must be perpe­tual: For he has freely and frequently allowed, that the Apostles Commission, with regard to their ordinary Ministrations in the Word and Sacraments, is perpetual, and to continue to the end of the World: Now if these Seventy be A­postles, as he would have us believe, their Com­mission according to him must continue to the end of the World, and then what has he been disputing about all this while, and contending that the Seventy's Commission is expired; and yet very consistently with himself, that it is not expired, but is to continue to the end of Time, [Page 17] because they were Apostles. Or we may observe him Reasoning after this ridiculous manner, as they were Seventy Disciples, their Commission is spent and ceased, but as they were Seventy Apo­stles, it will last as long as the World. There is no eviting such Consequences as there will na­turally flow from this new Hypothesis, which I will allow him the Honour to be the Author and Inventor of, and all his own; and as such I have only argued upon it, for I don't believe the Seventy to be a whit the more Apostles, for his dubbing them, nor that any of them ascend­ed to that superiour Order, but as they were ad­vanced by the immediate call of Heaven, or mediately by a Consecration to the Apostolate. Add, that it was the Opinion of the primitive Church, as it is of the best part of the present, that the Helpers and Fellow-Labourers of the Apostles, of whom we have frequent Mention in the Acts and Epistles, such as Joseph called Barsabas, Mark, Luke, Apollos, Rufus, Niger, and Matthias and Barnabas, before they were made Apostles, were of the Number of the Seventy. Who would know the Truth of this, may con­sult Euseb. Lib. 1. Cap. 12.

AND now to sum up the Evidence of this Charge against the Remarker upon this second Head, in his denying the continuance of the Se­venty's Commission, but to make amends in translating them to the Apostolate, and all upon his bare Word without any Proof.

IT has, been made appear, that the Seventy's Commission never was formally revoked; and [Page 18] that the Reasons whereon it was granted conti­nuing, it must also continue as long as they do, and that again it was so far from being true that it was revoked at their return, that they were furnished with new Powers for the exercise of those Functions it authorised them to; and that moreover it does not appear that their Com­mission was confined to Judea, especially after their first return, and their new Endowments, and that he is guilty of the greatest Profanity in his impious Attempts to add unto the Scripture, and create Apostles at his pleasure. It must be granted, that the Remarks are so far from being a sober Performance, that they are an undeniable Evidence of an intractable Person, incapable of Conviction, and resolved to maintain Paradoxes, I therefore appeal to the World that this is his Case, and in consequence thereof, that he ought to allow Presbyters to be Successors to the Seven­ty. since he seem'd to lay the Stress of the Dis­pute, upon the Point of their Commission being perpetual, and not limitted to the Circumcision.

BUT if he will further wrangle and say, that if we will not grant him that the Seventy's Com­mission did determine at their return to our Lord; yet we can't deny but that it expired with themselves, for since according to us, they were meer Presbyters, they could not ordain o­thers, and transmit their Succession; and their Master had left the World but no Power to per­petuate that Order. Yet however he may like it, we will deny him the Favour even of that Supposition, and affirm and prove it too, that the [Page 19] Succession to the Seventy was continued in the Presbyters, who were ordained to that Office by the Apostles, and the Bishops their Successors, and will be to the end of the World. For the Rea­son of their Commission continuing beyond their Lives, even to the end of the Harvest, their Commission must also be supposed to do the same, and must actually therefore have been continued, and contained, and confirmed, in the last Commission given to the Apostles, Matth. 28.19, 20. John 20.21, 22, 23. the higher Or­der and Power including the two lower Orders and their Powers. For the Remarker confesses this to be the Evangelical Charter for the Gos­pel Ministry. And by this also the Apostles first Commission was not only confirmed and conti­nued, but enlarged with regard to Place, and powers of Government and Ordination. For Mr. Remarker acknowledges that this last Com­mission must be thus interpreted, to include Go­vernment and Ordination, as well as the Mini­stry in the Word and Sacraments, Pages 19 and 25.

IF it be asked, What are the Offices of those Presbyters we here contend for? I answer, be­sides preaching and baptizing, the administring the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and absolv­ing Penitents.

IF it be further demanded, By what Divine Warrant they are vested with such Offices? I answer, That we are willing to have our Prac­tice regulated by the primitive Pattern, as we find it in the Scriptures. And

[Page 20]First, THERE we don't find that ever meet Deacons did consecrate the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or had the Powers of Absolu­tion. But,

Secondly, WE find that the Brethren that were settled Presbyters at Corinth, did administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11. (For, there was there in Fact, an Administration of that Sacrament, and by Consequence suffici­ent Powers for it; the Reprehensions there con­cerning only the irregular Approaches of the Communicants) and did absolve the incestuous Person upon his Repentance, 2 Cor. 2 7. For who could absolve, but those who had laid him under Censures by Excommunication? 1 Cor. 5.12. And therefore,

Thirdly, THAT it must be Presbyters who can affix both Seals of the Covenant to the Pardon, that can absolve Penitents, especially in Cases of Relapses after Baptism, & that can affix one of them; all which Powers are conferred upon and conveyed unto them by the imposition of Epis­copal Hands. This will be made evident upon my bringing home upon him the fore-mention­ed Charge, with respect

Thirdly, TO the highest and most venerable Order of Christs Church-Officers, the Apostolate, and to which must needs succeed the Episcopate, taken in its proper present Sense The Remarker has here indeed perplexed the Case, and endea­voured to darken Counsel by Words without Know­ledge, Job 38.2. But I shall trace his Windings, and fish him out. But to do him Justice, I must [Page 21] show wherein he yields, and my self, wherein against all Reason, he does not.

BE it known then that, by this own Concessi­ons, we are upon this Head agreed in these Ar­ticles.

First, WE agree, that the Apostles were ho­noured with extraordinary Powers and Privi­ledges, and amongst them, with an unlimitted Jurisdiction over all the Churches, which was to expire with themselves.

Secondly, WE are agreed, that the Apostles last Commission, Matth. 28.19 and 20. empow­ered them and their Successors, not only to the Ministrations of the Word and Sacraments, but to the Government of the Church, and to the Ordination of Ministers.

Thirdly, WE are further agreed, that the Powers of Government and Ordination are an­nexed.

Fourthly, HE will doubtless grant with me, That in Fact, whatever it may be as to Reason, the Government of Praelates and Presbyters are two different sorts of Government; that is, the Government of a Praelate over a Diocess, wherein are many Presbyters and Congregations, is not the same with that of a Presbyter over a single Flock. And I wish we were agreed as well about the

Fifth Point. THE Discussion whereof deter­mines the Controversy, whereby I affirm, what he denies, That the Power of Ordination was annexed to the Government of Praelates, taken in its proper present Ecclesiastical Sense, and not to that Government that meer Presbyters [Page 22] have over their single Congregations.

Now there is no other way to be determined in this Point, but by Facts and Precedents upon sacred Record, and the Reason of Things For to run out into wild Excursions, and imperti­nent: Quotations, (which make up the bulk of the Remarks, and whereof if strip'd, there would remain nothing of a real Argument,) is to fall from solid Reasoning, and run wide of the Que­stion. And I appeal to both these for the Proof of my Assertion, and venture the Cause upon the Arguments formed on them. The clearest and most unexceptionable Facts and Precedents of what kind of Government was annexed to the Power of Ordination, by and after the Apostles, upon the sacred Records, are contained in St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and Christs unto the Asian Angels, Rev. 1.20. and Chap 2.1. &c. I mention St. Paul's Epistles first, because first wrote. To proceed the more methodically, I shall

First consider the Nature of a Praelates Go­vernment as a Diocesan Bishop.

Secondly, That with such a Government Ti­mothy and Titus were vested.

Thirdly, That to them vested with such a Government, was committed the Power of Or­dination.

Fourthly, That the Asian Angels were vested with the like Government, and in just Conse­quence had the Power of Ordination.

Fifthly, That to them vested with such a Go­vernment, was committed the sole Power of [Page 23] Ordination, exclusive of meer Presbyters.

Lastly, That the Reason of the Institution of the Episcopal Order continuing, it must also be of the same Continuance.

THE clearing these Points, must needs de­termine the Controversy.

First, LET us consider the Nature of a Prae­lates Government, as he is a Diocesan Bishop; and upon enquiry we shall find, that it implied at its first Institution, as it does now, the giving Instructions to those Presbyters and Deacons that are within the Verge of his Inspection, con­cerning their Behaviour, and the exercise of their Offices, the prescribing Rules for a decent and regular Performance of publick Worship, taking care that their Doctrines be Sound and Orthodox, encouraging and promoting those that are faithful and diligent, as on the contra­ry punishing with Censures or Suspension, the contumacious and disobedient; inspecting also into the Conversations of the People within their Jurisdiction, that they be as becometh their Profession, and if not, being liable to his Judg­ment and Correction. These are some Instan­ces of the Praelatical Government of a Diocesan Bishop. Now let us see,

Secondly, Whether Timothy and Titus were intrusted with such Powers and Authority, and if their Government be found Praelatical in these Instances, I hope it will not be denied, that they were in the present proper Sense of the Words, Diocesan Bishops. Now that in Fact they were vested with such a Government, will be clear by [Page 24] having recourse to the Epistles to them, where Records thereof are preserved. For there we shall find them endowed with these Powers and Charges, to inspect into the Presbyters Conduct, and if it be not becoming the Gospel and their Character, they were to censure and suspend [...], 1 Tim. 19 and 20. Tit. 3.10. To direct the Method for Divine Worship, 1 Tim. 2.1—9. To take care that the Presbyters preached sound Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.3. and rebuke them sharply, and even stop their Mouths if they did not. 1 Tim. 4.6, 7, and 11. Tit. 3.9, 10, and 11. And to prefer the deserving, 1 Tim. 3.13. and Chap. 5.17. And many Rules are given not on­ly for the Government of their Ministers, but of their Congregations also, 1 Tim. 5.2—17. Ch. 6.17, 18, and 19. Now these were all proper Acts of a Praelatical Government, over several Pres­byters and Congregations, and not over a single Fleck, as is here evident from the several Instan­ces of Timothy's Rule over Presbyters, and is un­deniable from Crete's being a place where were many Cities, in every one of which Presbyters were to be settled; it will therefore follow, they were Diocesan Bishops, in the strict proper present Sense of the Words.

Thirdly, WE are to observe, that to those very Persons thus vested and intrusted with the praelatical Powers and Government of Diocesan Bishops, was committed the Power of Ordination. It was no other than Timothy adorned with all those Signatures of Rule over the Presbyters of Ephesus, that was to lay on Hands with Caution, [Page 25] and as he found the Candidates qualified for sa­cred Services, 1 Tim. 5.21, 22. It was no other, than this very Titus, in whom we have found such legible Characters of a Diocesan Bishop, that for this very end was left in Crete, to ordain El­ders in every City, Tit. 1.5. And it is to no purpose for the Remarker to alledge, that they had those Powers of Government and Ordina­tion as endowed with extraordinary Powers or Gifts. This is petitio Principii, or in his own de­cent Expression, a mean begging of the Ques­tion; for as we know, he will hardly believe us, even although we prove, so he may be assured that his perhaps and may be's are of no weight with us; for we will never take his Word for any thing he don't make appear. And it is ri­diculous for him and his Party, who are so Cla­morous for Scripture Proofs and Examples, for every thing that is to be done about sacred Things or Persons, to go upon bare Suppositi­ons in Things of the highest Moment. For no­thing extraordinary either of Powers or Gifts, appears in the whole Case; nothing but what Diocesan Bishops with their ordinary Powers may and do ordinarily perform. And it is most un­just, and against all the Laws of Reasoning, to put us upon the proof of these Negatives, That they had no Assistance, that they did not all this as Presbyters, &c. We deny all these groundless Surmises, and therefore the Proof belongs to him the positive Affirmer, which because there is no Ground to go upon, we are assured it can never be done. We are now further for the Confimation of our Point,

[Page 26]Fourthly, TO evince, that the Asian Angels were vested with a like Government, and in just Consequence had the Power of Ordination. That they were vested with a praelatical Govern­ment appears from hence, that several of them were threatned and condemned by our Lord, for suffering or not restraining the Doctrines of Balaam, the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, Rev. 2.14, 15. and 20. which plainly implied, that they were vested with a coercive ruling Power over these Churches: For if they were only senior Pastors or Moderators, as the Remarker dotes, how could they be culpable and made criminal for not doing, what was not in their Power to do? For as such they could only give their own pri­vate Judgement and Vote, but not restrain the Actions, with the Toleration whereof they are charged. So that the Remarker must either blas­phemously feign our Lord to bring an unjust Charge against those Angels, accusing them of what they were not guilty, and punishing them for what they could not help, or confess the Truth, that their Accusation and threatned Pu­nishment was just, because they had not exerted their praelatical Powers in censuring and restrain­ing licentious Doctrines of seducing Teachers, within their several Jurisdictions; and that tho' they were constituted Guardians of the Purity of the Christian Faith, they had been remiss in their Charge, and permitted the Corruption of it, to the Dishonour of its Author, and the Scan­dal of their own Characters. This is the only good and true Account that can be given of [Page 27] that Matter; as for the Remarker's Dream, that every Angel was a Company of Presbyters, it is hardly worth while to awake him out of it, by any serious Observation on so remarkable a Fa­ble. He may with much more Reason allow all the Presbytery that ordained Timothy to be in St. Paul, than all the Presbyters that were in the lesser Asia to be in seven Bishops. But I shall not follow him in his Wild-Goose Chase, but pro­ceed to observe, That since those Angels had committed to them the praelatical Power of Go­vernment, they must also have been vested with the Power of Ordination; for we find these Pow­ers annexed, as in the foregoing Instances of Timothy and Titus, and since it plainly appears they were vested with the Powers of the one, there is no reason to deny them the Power of the other. And by just Consequence in both they were Diocesan Bishops. Having then found so many Prelates in their Diocesses, let us now see whether there were any Coadjutors appointed to assist them in their Ordinations, or to the making them the more valid: And upon a due enquiry we shall find,

Fifthly, THAT to them vested with such Powers of Government, was committed the sole power of Ordination, exclusive of meer Presby­ters. For in Points of so great Consequence, we must go upon certain Facts and Precedents, and not upon meer Conjecture, supported by no Reason; and when nothing of this Nature ap­pears or is affirmed, it is intolerable Boldneness to conclude it confidently. When St. Paul says, [Page 28] I charge Thee to lay Hands, I left Thee to ordain, without the least mentioning of Presbyters to as­sist, it must necessarily follow, that the sole pow­er of Ordination was committed to them only, since we have no Warrant or Precedent for the necessity of Presbyters Concurrence, unless it be in that often mis-interpreted Text, The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, whereby is meant even in the Judgment of those who were not in every thing the greatest Friends to the Episcopal Order, the Office which was transferred on Ti­mothy, at his Ordination by St. Paul's own Hands. And therefore what Assurance must it be in meer Presbyters, to assume to themselves the greatest Power in the Church, that of Ordina­tion, and pretending to perform that Action not only without a Bishop, but in opposition to him. For neither of which Practices is there any Foundation in the Word of God, or any Exam­ples of such a Practice there. And now to sum up the Evidence,

IF from Facts and Precedents upon the Di­vine Records, if it appears that a Praelatical Go­vernment of Diocesan Bishops consists in their Ad­vancement above, and Rule over Presbyters and their Churches, that Timothy and Titus were vested with that Government, that the sole pow­er of Ordination was committed to them vested with those Powers of Government, that the Asian Angels were vested with such a praelatical Govern­ment; and that therefore to them also the sole Power of Ordination was committed exclusive of others the Proposition must be granted, name­ly, [Page 29] That the Powers of Ordination was annexed to the Government of Praelates, taken in its pre­sent Ecclesiastical Sense, exclusive of meer Pres­byters.

Secondly, I argue the Truth of this Proposi­tion against the Remarker from the Reason of Things. He allows the Necessity and Being of Praelacy during the Times of Inspiration, before the Canon of the Scripture was finished, and during the Infancy of the Church, and all those Reasons now ceasing, he says, there is no fur­ther Occasion for it, and that the Church now wants no such Governours, inasmuch as the Af­fairs of Religion will be as well provided for without them; an Instance whereof is the state of Religion in this Country, as he says. Now if the reverse of all this be the Truth, as it is demonstrable, so then the Necessity of Praelacy still continues. And

First, IF there was a Necessity of Praelacy in the Times of Inspiration, it is much more Ne­cessary it should continue, that ceasing: For the infallible Conduct, of the Spirit, was sufficient to guide the Church in all its Duties and Or­dinances, whereas now there is a necessity for a settled Government and Laws. And it's more than probable, for that very Reason a Praelacy was instituted, to keep the World within the proper Bounds of their Duty, and direct their Practice, and their Conscience in more doubt­ful Cases.

Secondly, THERE is as much if not more Reason for Praelacy; to be sure, more clear In­stances [Page 30] of it after, than before the finishing of the Canon of the Scripture. However, the Gos­pels were writ before the clearest Marks we have of the establishing Praelacy, and there is nothing in the Epistles or Revelation that tends to sub­vert it, but much every way to confirm and establish it. And

Thirdly, AS to the Infancy of the Church, if that be a good Reason for it, it still holds, es­pecially in this Country, where the Church is in its infant State. But why should it be so ne­cessary for Infant, and so needless for Adult Christianity? When Persons grow up, they of­ten grow unruly, and very much want to be kept under Restraint and Government. And

Lastly, AS to Appeals to his own Country, and the state of Religion in it, what could have been brought as a more fragrant Evidence for the Necessity of another kind of Government than what is in it, than the Disorders and Dis­putes, the Contentions and Confusions that are among them, for want of one to whom the dor­nier Resort is to be made, and the Hydra of Heresies which ought to be beat down by the Crosier.

ADD therefore the Reason of the Things to the Facts and Precedents we have for Praelacy, and upon them both, I think I may venture to appeal to the common Sense of Mankind, for its agreeing to the Truth of the Proposition. I can't pass from this Head, without animadvert­ing on some Cavils, that the Remarker has at two Texts adduced by the Modest Proof, for the [Page 31] perpetuity of the Apostolate. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.17. He may set his Teeth and grin at the Word Set in one of those Texts, yet there is an observable Emphasis on it, as if it denoted the Stability of that Institution in the Divine Inten­tion. And as to his imperious Demand, By what Laws of Interpretation we construe what follows the three Words first named, (whereby we mean the three Orders we contend for) of Gifts, and the Exercises of them.

I answer, By the acknowledged Laws of in­terpreting Scripture by Scripture, for as to Pres­byters and Deacons, he himself acknowledges their Continuance, and that the Apostles shall conti­nue as long as the World. The Texts are ex­press and we have no Account of any other Office of a standing Nature: And therefore all those Designations that are delivered in abstract Words, must be applied to the three Orders which are expressed in concrete Terms.

LET us here again view his Vanity, and ob­serve him glorying in an imaginary Conquest over those Concessions in the Modest Proof, That tho' the Apostles were vested with an unlimitted Ju­risdiction, yet thy only transmitted a limitted one. But notwithstanding of this, they have true Succes­sors both in Government and Ordination. For these are Truths, and even reconcileable to our Apprehensions. Suppose a great Prince has se­veral Sons, and several Principalities, and to each Son he gives a Principality, and all the Power whereby he governed it, certainly each Son succeeds the Father in the whole Power [Page 32] over his respective Principality, tho' not in the whole of the Power the Father had over all the Principalities. This is the very Case; St. Paul, for Instance, and so by a Parity of Reason, the same is to be said of the rest of the Apostles, gave his Son Timothy, as he calls him, the Govern­ment of Ephesus, as he did Titus that of Crete, with full Power to govern those Places, as he would do was he present. And now who can deny but that Timothy succeeded Paul in the whole Power he had over Ephesus, tho' not in the whole of the Power he had over all other Churches; and the like of [...], and all others whom the Apostles constituted Bishops in their respective Diocesses. And has not Mr. Remarker acknow­ledged all this? Yea verily, all the Difference is, that he contends this limitted Jurisdiction should necessarily be contracted to a single Parish, whereas we deny that Necessity, and have prov­ed that it was not thus originally so bounded.

BUT tho' it's thus evident that the Govern­ment settled by Christ and his Apostles in the Church, was founded in an Imparity of Officers, or rather in a proper Diocesan Episcopacy; yet since often the Distance is wide between Possession and Right, I don't affirm there is such an inviolable and essential Connection be­tween the Powers of Ordination and Jurisdicti­on, that they must always be found in an actual Conjunction. For the Ordinations of a Bishop unjustly expelled his See, are good and valid, wherever he is, and to whose Character the Faithful will always every where pay their doe Regards.

[Page 33]NOR do I measure the Episcopal Power of Or­dination by the extent of Jurisdiction, for that Power varies not by Accidents or Circumstan­ces: And therefore let the Remarker make as little Logical a Diocess for a Bishop as he can, we cannot admit his independent Pastor to usurp it, or sustain so much as the very lowest Office in the Gospel Ministry; and that for the Rea­son we have been upon, becuuse he has not been ordained by a Successor to the Apostles, in whom always according to the original Institution, the powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction over a plurality of Presbyters and Churches either in Fact or Right, that is a capacity or plenitude of Pow­er for such a Government, are connected; the Fact he disowns, and the Right he disclaims, and therefore from neither can he make any just pretence to a valid Ordination.

I shall now under this second Head subjoin some Defences of the Answers, that were made to the Objections which the Remarker and his Party commonly urge against Episcopacy. First, as to that of Acts 20▪17, and 28. those were cer­tainly present at that Meeting at Miletus with St. Paul, among whom he had gone preaching for three Years in Asia, and these were undoubt­edly Bishops about, as well as the Elders of the City of Ephesus unless we will admit these three Absurdities, First, that St. Paul travelled three Years preaching only in Ephesus, which who can believe, who considers not only the Im­propriety of the Expression, but the greatness of his Work, and the extent of his Commission? [Page 34] Secondly, that the Country Bishops were so dif­ficult of access and stiff, that they could not so easily be convened as the Ephesian Elders; for the Remarker seems to hint such a thing, when he says, The Apostle was in hast, and could not wait for them; which who can believe of so good a Man? And Thirdly, That Timothy, whom we have proved by all the Marks of a praelatical Power to have been a Bishop, and whom the Re­marker says was present, was still an Elder and no more; and therefore unless we will grant these Absurdities, we must conclude, that there were Bishops present as well as Presbyters. Secondly, As to Ti [...]. 1.7. as it was necessary that Titus at his first Residence in the Island, should ordain Elders in every City, so as the number of Chri­stians and Congregations in each City increas­ed, it was necessary he should ordain Bishops to preside over the Presbyters and Churches that were in each City. For it is most probable that in the dawning of the Gospel, when there were so few of those Lights the Bishops, that one Bi­shop not only ordained Presbyters but Prelates too, tho' Antiquity tells us Timothy was a Metropolitan.

Thirdly, All this to be replied and applied unto 1 Tim. 3.2—7. And however strange the Remarker may think that St. Paul did not express himself in Language significant to his Apprehen­sions, it is much more strange that he should fault the Conduct of an inspired Apostle. How­ever for his Satisfaction in this Point, I remit him to St. Chrys. whom he will find giving a very good Reason, why there is little said to or of [Page 35] Presbyters, where Bishops were present, or men­tioned, in Hom. 11. on 1 Tim. 3. Edit. Savil. Tom. 4. P. 289. A peri Episcopoon eipe tauta kai tois Presbuterois armottei tee gar Cheirotonia monee Uper bebeekasi kai touto monon dioikousi pleonektein tous Presbuterous. Implying, That the same Rules giv­en to Bishops, may be applied to Presbyters, except­ing only the Case of Ordination, which was peculiar to Bishops.

Fourthly, As to Phil. 1.1. it is certain that Philippi was a chief City of Macedonia, Acts 16.12. round which were doubtless a great many Churches and Bishops, who might be denomi­nated from the Metropolis; I say doubtless, be­cause it is past all doubt but that these People were mightily increased in Numbers, and ex­ceedingly commended for their Piety and Vir­tues by St. Paul in that Epistle, and as the Ex­igencies of the Churches required, the Gover­nours unquestionably often met to consult about the common Concerns of Christianity; for they were desired to strive together for the Faith of the Gospel, v. 27. And therefore it was no greater a Solocism in St. Paul, to write to the Bishops at Philippi, than it would be to write to the Bishops at London, in the sitting of the Convo­cation, tho' we know there is but one Bishop of London. And notwithstanding all he has said a­gainst the Translation offered in the Modest Proof, there is nothing in the Original that hin­ders it being exactly so rendered; unless it be the Cause of Episcopacy. The Case indeed may be otherwise where the Original will allow, but the Sense will not suffer the Translation, lest it should suffer.

[Page 36]Fifthly, As to what he trifles about the Iden­tity of Names, I observe first, That it is certain great Personages are sometimes stiled from the lowest Offices they sustain; and yet it must al­ways be allowed without any Diminution to their Characters, to which higher Appellations are likewise due. Secondly, That it is a very laudable Attempt in many great Divines (tho' faulted by our Remarker) to reconcile their pro­per Names to their Offices; tho' after different Methods, yet all concurring in the same general Design, of bringing the different Orders to their respective Appellations, according to the Dis­tinctions we find founded in their Nature Thirdly, That the Remarker is resolved to have two of these common and promiscuous Names, as he calls them, and appropriate them to one Office, and like an Ambidexter, with one or o­ther of them repel the Force of any Argument.

Fourthly, That when a Bishop is mentioned, is always understood one of the highest of the sa­cred Order, who is also a Presbyter and Deacon. When a Presbyter is mentioned, one that is also certainly a Deacon, and who may by some pecu­liar Circumstances appear to be also a Bishop. And when a Deacon is mentioned, the lowest Order of Church Officers, but by a narrow in­spection in [...] Times and Circumstances, and the Occasions of mentioning him under that Cha­racter, may be actually at the same time, not only a Presbyter, but a Bishop. And this for the Identity of Names. Sixthly, As to that of Matth. 20.25. it's certain our Saviour's Answer [Page 37] was pertinent to the Petition, and there is no­thing that appears in either, intended of Church Authority; for the two Apostles imagining that their Master was to be a Temporal Prince, were willing by their maternal Advice and Request, to bespeak Advancement in that Kingdom; and therefore not a Bishoprick, but some Principality or secular Dominion. The Argument therefore in this Instance, is wide of the Case and imper­tinent.

Seventhly, As to 1 Pet. 5.23. it's certain, that whatever Defects of Ingenuity or Know­ledge Mr. Remarker discovers, he is sure to make it up in Malice, here insinuating, that the English Bishops are consecrated Lords Bishops, as Successors in, or Partakers of that Temporal Kingdom the Brethren dreamt of; whereas the Title of Lords proceeds only from the Munificence of Princes, as the Rewards of the Bishop's Piety and Services, and for the greater Honour and Reverence to their Character; and the Temporalities are be­stowed for the support of their Dignity, and to enable them for Acts of Charity and Hospitali­ty; and therefore our English Bishops would be equally Christ's Bishops, if they were no Lords and had no Lands; tho' for the Reasons given, it is just and necessary they should be the one, and have the other, and be treated with Decen­cy and good Manners.

Lastly, As to 1 Tim. 4.14. I am willing to be determined by the Author he has appeal'd unto, whose Words on the Place I shall set down in his own Language, to avoid the In­sults [Page 38] that have been given on this Occasion, and also the Translation for the sake of those who understand not the Original.

O [...] peri Presbuterous p [...]esin [...] ta [...]ta alla peri Epis­copous [...] gar de Presbuteroi to [...] Episcopo [...] [...]eirote­nou [...] Chr. in Loc. He doth not speak here of Pres­byters, but of Bishops, for Presbyters did not ordain the Bishop. Or I refer him to his own abused Calvin, who understands it of the Office. I say his own abused Calvin, for that tho' in most things he is on his own side, yet because he had frankly confessed a known Truth, that Episcopacy was the primitive Church Government, he brings him in talking this Nonsense, p. 53. Out of the Order of Elders, they chose preaching and ruling Elders; whereas there is not a Word of those Elders in the Place he refers to, but the three Orders of Ministers which the ancient Church retained, according to the Scriptures. And p. 17. he translates Secundo loco, the Time of their Mission. I call upon him therefore to confess, that either he designed to abuse that Gen­tleman in the Translation, or that he did not un­derstand his Language, and so could not help it.

He had better let Dr. Scott been at rest, for he has raised a Ghost he can never conjure, nor all the Dissenters in the World ever answer the Doctor's Argument. For there being only a ceasing of the Apostles extraordinary Powers, but no Repeal of the Institution of the Apostolical Order; and the Reasons whereon it was found­ed manifestly continuing, it can never be allow­ed to be discontinued, which would also sup­pose [Page 39] a violation of the Divine Promise, that it should continue to the end of the World: And all Dr. Barrow's Specialties relate only to the Apostles peculiar and extraordinary Gifts and Priviledges; the not observing of which Distinc­tion, (only when it can serve a turn) is the Prot [...]n pseudos that runs thro' the Remarks.

And now I hope what has been said is suffi­cient to convict him of having this Symptom of Intemperance upon him, That he is tenacious of his Opinions, against the clearest Evidence, and that he affirms and denies any thing at his pleasure, and without any Proof but his bare Word. I proceed to the

Third Charge that he has upon him, that Sign of Intemperance, that he is full of Incon­sistencies, and not only contradicts others, but himself: And as to the former part, I think I have made it appear, that he has very incon­sistently with Truth or Manners, contradicted the best and wisest of Men, and that he contra­dicts himself, since perhaps he will not take my Word, I hope he will take his own, and believe his dear self, when he talks at random after this manner, p. 48. It can't be proved but that Timo­thy was an itinerant Missionary, having no particu­lar Relation to the Church of Ephesus; and then tacks about and denies it all, p. 56. and says, Timoth [...] was to abide at Ephesus, Ch 1.23. and not to travel from City to City. I leave him when he is sober, to reconcile himself with himself, and go to the

[Page 40]Last Sign I mentioned of his being inflamed with Intemperance, and that is his being soon angry, and very quarrelsome without Provoca­tion; else, why occasional Perjury? the modest Gentleman he was snarling at, had said nothing to raise his Choler, unless it was insinuating, that Monarchy and Praelacy mutually support each other, and that Schism and Sedition are near a-kin; and I verily believe this was the Case, and he was touched in the tender Part; for neither he nor any of his Party are willing to hear this sad Truth, That Presbytery was hardly any where ever established, but on the Ruins of Kings or Kingdoms. None but an angry Non-con C—b would have given the Name of prating Coxcomb to a Bishop or Deacon, and that meerly because he performs his Office according to the Powers of its Original Institution. And why so angry with My Lords the Bishops? Is the Plumb green because it is so high? Sure they ought to be treated with Deference and Distinction, on account of their Titles that are of Regal Creation. But I must quit his Company, lest I also should seem to grow angry at his intolerable Insolencies.

But here perhaps the Remarker may alledge, I have mistaken him, and that by Sobriety he meant Modesty and Integrity; I shall therefore re­present him to you in the Drese of those pre­tended Characters, that it may be known what right he has to wear them: And I have reserved this View of him to this Place, being unwilling to mingle with the Dispute, what did not ori­ginally concern it.

[Page 41]Now if to appeal to the venerable Order of Bishops (for so most of them were whom he cites to vouch for him) to condemn their own Pow­ers, and confess themselves bold Usurpers upon the Rights of Presbyters and People, as holding an unlawful Office, by as unwarrantable a Te­nure; or if to summon Persons of the most un­suspected Veracity, to affirm as Truth, what they knew to be false, and e contra; or if to put them to the Torture to speak against their Knowledge; or if lastly to pervert and wrest their Words to a Meaning, the direct contrary whereof they were designed to express, be mo­dest and sincere; then the Remarker is the Man he pretends to be; for this is his very Case, and has been his laboured Practice. That herein I do him Justice, I shall produce those Evidences he has had the Modesty to call upon as Witnes­ses to his Opinion.

First then, let us hear what was the Judg­ment of Clemens Bishop of Rome on the Case; he, to show that the Terms whereby the Offices of the Christian Ministry are expressed, had been used of old, cites Is. 60.17. in these Words, (but in a different Edition of the Septuagint from what is now in use) Katastesoo tous Episcopous autoon en dikaiosune Kai tous Diaconous autoon en Pistei. I will appoint them Bishops in Righteousness, and Deacons in Faith. And accordingly accomo­dating the Terms of the Jewish to the Christian Hierarchy, says, To gar Archierei idiai leitourgiai dedomenai eisi, kai tois iereusin idios o topos proste­taktai kai Lenitau idiai Diakoniai epikeinto. Ep. ad [Page 42] Cor. Cap 40. Oxon. 1677. The Chief Priests, says he, have assigned them their particular Functions, the Priests their proper Places, and the Deacons their peculiar Ministries.

The next is Policarp, whom Eusebius, Lib. 4. Cap. 14. out of Iren. Lib. 3. Cap. 3. tells us, was Upo Apostoloon en tee Ecclesia en Smurna O Episcopos katastatheis, Appointed Bishop in the Church of Smyrna by the Apostles; who in his Epistle to the Philippians, Sect. 13. Edit. Oxon. 1709. high­ly extols St. Ignatius's Epistles, which he sent to that People with his own, recommending them as exceeding Useful both for Faith and Practice. Now in these Epistles we find these Expressions, Too Episcopoo upotassesthe oos too kurioo. Be subject to the Bishop as unto the Lord. Aideisthe kai ton Epis­copon Umoon oos Christon. Reverence your Bishop as you would Christ. Epist. ad Trall. S. 2.3. Edit. Smith Oxon and Ep. ad Smyrn. Aneu tou Episcopou meeden prattein, Nothing to be done without the Bi­shop. A

Third is Jerom, who in Ep. ad Ev. says, Ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron & Filii ejus atquae Levitae fuerunt in Templo, hoc sibi et Episcopi et Presbyteri, et Diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia, That we may know the Apostolical Traditions concerning the Old Testa­ment, what Aaron and his Sons were in the Temple, the same were Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church. Which exactly accords with St. Clement above, as he does with him in his Comment on the fore-cited Text of Isaiah, and thence infers, Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit, the [Page 43] future Princes of the Church are there called Bi­shops. A

Fourth is St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, whose Complement to St. Jerom the Remarker perverts, mis-translates, and leaves out a part of the Sen­tence which would explain the whole. The Sen­tence is in Ep. ad Hieron. Quanquam secundum honorem vocabulorum quae jam usus obtinuit, Episcopa­tus Presbyterio major fit, multis tamen in rebus Au­gustino Hieronymus major est, Altho' Episcopacy be greater than Presbytery, according to the Honour of Words now in use, yet Jerom is greater than Augus­tine. Which is only designed as a Commendation of St. Jerom, but not a Disparagement to his own Order. But now let us hear himself upon the Point, in Ep. 42. ad Fratr. Madaur. Edit. Basil 1556. Christiana Societas per sedes Apostolorum, et successiones Episcoporum, certa per Orbem propagatione diffunditur. The Christian Church is spread over the World through the Apostolical Sees, and the succession of Bishops therein. And of what value this Succes­sion was with him, we may see Ep. 165. where he says, Si ordo Episcoporum sibi succedentium con­siderandus est, quanto certius et vero salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus. If the Order of Bishops succeeding one another be considerable, we take the surest and the safest Way, who reckon from St. Peter, and then gives a List of the Roman Bishops; so that he who was so hearty for a Succession of Bishops, was far from being a Witness that there were never any at all. A

Fifth is St. Ambrose Bishop of Millain, the Commentaries on the Epistles which go under [Page 44] his Name, say in Epist. ad Eph. Cap. 4. Timotheo um a se creatum Presbyterum Episcopum nominat. He calls Timothy a Bishop who had been a Presbyter. And in Ep. ad Tit. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, the Apostle consecrated Titus a Bishop. And nothing can be more express to the Purpose than what he says in Lib de Dignit. Sacerd. Cap 3. Aliud est enim quod ab Episcopo requirit Deus, et aliud quod a Presbytero, et aliud quod a Diacono. God requires one thing of Bishops, another of Presbyters, and another of Deacons. From whence it follows, that if they were three kinds of Church Officers in his Judgment accountable unto God, that he thought they discharged three distinct Offices.

Sedulius is of the same Opinion with Jerom, whom we have produced on the side of Episcopa­cy, and Primatius the same with St. Chrysostom, whose Judgment on the Case we have seen. And on 1 Tim. 3. he gives the same Reason as Chrysost. why Presbyters are not named. E [...] in Episcoporum ordine comprehendit quia secundus, That Order as next unto it, is comprehended in the Episcopate.

Theodoret on 1 Tim. is so plain for Bishops be­ing the Apostles Successors, that he says those who are now called Bishops, were at first called Apostles; and Theophilact in Arg. in Ep. ad Tit. Edit. Loud. 1636. O Titos con Episcopos tees K [...]ee­tees Magalees, That Titus was Bishop of the great Crete.

As for Epiphanius's Testimony concerning Aerius, rather than admit it, the Remarker will give him up to the Papists, tho' many learned [Page 45] Men have defended him from allowing any more than commemorative Prayers. But supposing him in an Error in one Point, will it follow, that all he says is false? if that be admitted as a Rule, the Remarker's Testimony must never be allowed in any Case; for I appeal to the World, that I have detected him guilty of a great many Errors. But besides this Testimony, we have St. Aug. condemning that Heretick, for this very Reason, Quod asseverat Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere distingui. Aug. Lib. de Heret. Because he acknowledged no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter.

And thus have we the Sense of those Fathers upon the Dispute, whom the Remarker has had the modesty to affirm to be on his side of it.

And by the way I would observe, that not­withstanding his learned Criticism upon the Word Presbuterion, that in the Language of the Greek Fathers Cheirotonia Presbuteriou stands for the Decree or Order of Presbyterat, as is plain Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 20. speaking there of Origen's being invited to dispute, tho' he had not as yet obtained the Decree of Presbyterat, expresly there called Cheirotonian Presbuterion.

But to make a just Improvement on the [...] ­marker's pretence to this Virtue, I would sub­sume, that it amounts to no less than a Demon­stration, that Episcopal Government is of a Divine Original, and that upon these Reasons:

First, That in Fact it being found in the pri­mitive Church, no Time can be assigned but the Apostolical when it begun.

[Page 46]Secondly, That it was so far from being set up by the secular Power, that it was the Go­vernment of the Church in the heat of the fiercest Persecutions, wherein the Bishops especi­ally, were in a manner sure of a Crown of Mar­tyrdom.

Thirdly, That if Episcopacy was not coeval with Christianity, it would be a Miracle that at one and the same Instant, the Government of the Church should become universally prelatical, for so we find it every where established where Christianity was planted. And

Fourthly, That it would be no less Wonder­ful, that there should be no Envy or Ambition among any of the Presbyters, as not to complain and remonstrate against the Praelates Encroach­ments on their Priviledges, before the Heretick Aerius, nor any of them have so much Goodness and Resolution, as not to assert their own Au­thority against those unreasonable Usurpations upon their Powers, had they esteemed them such.

And therefore upon the whole, it must be granted, that whether by Miracles, or (which is most evident) by Christ and his Apostles Episcopacy was established, it is every way of a Divine Ori­ginal.

But as if it was not criminal enough to break open the Monuments of Antiquity and bring forth those Reverend Persons to disown their avowed Principles, & deny their kown Practice, he has the Sincerity to apply to others of a later Date, for the same purpose; and even [Page 47] where the Fallacies lie more liable to Discovery. Thus he fastens upon Bishop Jewel, to extort such Confessions from him as may speak his Sense: St. Augustine as quoted by him on this Head, has been already vindicated from his Calumny and Cavils; St. Jerom (unfairly cited by him) is brought in by the Bishop saying, Om­nes tamen Episcopi quicunque sunt, sunt Successores Apostolorum, Apol. p. 167. All Bishops whatever are the Apostles Successors. And giving his own Sense of the matter, and that of the Church he was defending, he says, Varios in Ecclesia esse Ordines Ministrorum, alios esse Diaconos, alios Presbyteros, a­lios Episcopos, quibus institutio populi, et Religionis cura et procuratio commissa est, Apol. p. 25. Edit. Lond. 1692. There are several Orders of Ministers in the Church, some Deacons, some Presbyters, some Bishops, to whom the cure Souls, and the care of Re­ligion is committed. Thus Bishop Jewel. With the same degrees of Integrity would he impose upon the World in the Instance of Arch-Bishop Whit­gift, who in the place he refers to, only denies the extraordinary Powers of the Apostles to be continued; but for what of their Power is con­tinuing, let us hear himself in his Dispute upon this very Point with Cartwright, where he tells him, Forasmuch as you greatly contemn Authority, and would have all things proved by Scripture, let me hear a Word of the same that doth but intimate these Offices to be temporal; the place it self seemeth to import a continuance of these Functions unto the coming of Christ, for he saith, Eph. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, &c. I am perswaded you cannot shew [Page 48] any like place which doth so plainly import the abro­gating of them, as this doth make for their continu­ance. A. B. Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, Tract 4. Pages 229, 230.

He mistakes the Principle Arch-Bishop. Ban­croft went upon, which was, that the Episcopate contained in it self the inferiour Orders, and therefore he looked on such as had only Presby­terian Ordination to be meer Lay men, and in this he had Precedents in the extraordinary Ca­ses of Ambrose made Bishop of Millain, at the Instance of the Emperor Valentinian, and Nectari­us of Constantinople, the like Instance of Theodo­sius, without going through the intermediate probational Stations.

Tho' Henry the Eighth as an arbitrary Prince obliged the Bishops to take out Royal Licenses for the exercise of their Spiritual Authority, yet surely they derived that from no King but Je­sus: And tho' Arch-Bishop Cranmer rather yield­ed too far to the Humour of that King, tho' for a good End, the better to promote the Refor­mation, yet Mr. Strype, in his Life tells us, that being askt if a Bishop can make a Priest, replied, We read not that any other not being a Bishop, hath since the beginning of Christ's Church ordained a Priest.

If a perverse Slander be a Sign of Integrity, the Remarker has it upon him, in affirming the Irenicum to have been wrote by any Bishop of Worcester, and as to what is or can be made of it, stands all for nothing, for the reason of this Promise, that when the Remarker shall act the ingenuous part of the Dean of St. Paul's, who by [Page 49] the Unreasonableness of Separation, consuted the Rector of Sutton's Irenicum, by expressing his Sor­row for wasting his Time in writing the Re­marks, in the penitential Signals of a publick Retraction, taking some Pains to refute his own Quibbles, and unravel the Sophisms which he studied for disguising the Truth, and deceiving the World, we will never after that charge up­on him the Disgrace of having been the Author of that scandalous Performance.

If the Remarker will read A. B. Spotswood's History of the Church of Scotland, from p. 153. to p. 160. and Petries on the same Subject, from p. 232. to p. 380. he will find, (contrary to the false Position he has laid down) that the Scotch Superintendants had power of Ordination, which they called Admission, of Visitation, Translati­on, Deposition, holding Diocesan Synods, re­ceiving Appeals, judging Divorces, injoining Pennance, and in a Word, doing every thing that is properly Episcopal.

And if he will read Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, from p. 573. to p. 687. he'l find, that the Pope's Legates there used all their Endeavours to overthrow Episcopacy; which wicked Design however the Gallican Bishops chiefly as strenuously opposed, and maintained Episcopacy to be Jure Divino; so that had the Pope then obtained his Ends, Presbyterian Govern­ment would have been set up in all the Popish Countries and the Pope been Moderator, and would still if he could, so that in him indeed Presbytery has a Patron and a Pillar, and the Re­marker [Page 50] a Friend to his Cause, tho' that is not the only Point wherein they meet.

But finding no Friends a home, the Remarker lays aside all his modest Pretences to their Suf­frages and with an Air of Assurance would look for some Countenance abroad, but for all his Confidence, he needs not be so sanguine to think that he is much in the Favour of any there; for I might produce the most considerable of the fo­reign Divines, pronouncing solemn Anathemas upon the rebellious Separatists from the English Episcopal Communion, and make it appear that they stand condemned Schismaticks by the Judg­ment of Calvin, Bezs, Amyrould▪ Claud, Le Blanc, &c. only in hopes of his becoming a Penitent, I would not increase his Sorrow, by saying now, what they have said upon this Subject.

But one remarkable Testimony is worth our Observation, and our Pains to bring it out to Light, because it has been industriously con­cealed, and now not very commonly known, and that is of Mr. David Blondel, the Coriphaeus of all the Parity Men, who having been em­ployed by the Westminster Assembly to write his Apologia pro Hieronymo, concludes it in Words to this purpose; By all that we have said to assert the Rights of the Presbytery, we do not intend to in­validate the ancient and Apostolick Constitution of Episcopal Preheminence, but we believe that whereso­ever it is established conformable to the ancient Canons, it must be carefully preserved, and wheresoever by some heat of Contention or otherwise it has been put down or violated, it ought to be reverently restored. [Page 51] Which Passage being destructive to his Employ­ers Design, upon their vehement and restless Im­portunity, he was prevailed upon to put it out. So prevailing oftentimes is Party Affection and Interest over Truth. Now that this is Fact, we have the Testimony of Dr. Peter Du Moulin in his Letter to Dr. Durell, to be seen in the last Page of the 4th Vol. of the Memoirs of Literature, writ­ten by Monsieur La Rocque, wherein Du Moulin says he had the certain Account of this Affair, not only from Primate Usher, but from Mr. Da­vid Blondel himself, in a Letter to his Brother.

And now upon the whole of the Remarkers pretences to those Characters of Modesty and Integrity, however some may call evil good, yet Vice and Vertue are of unalterable Natures, and it's in vain to vail one with the Appearance of the other; for upon drawing aside the Curtain, the unmasked Spectacle will be seen in its pro­per Habit. And therefore to finish this Head, it must be granted me, that if he is abandoned to such an insensible State, that he feels no Horror or Relenting at the Injuries and Indigni­ties he has offered to some of the greatest and best of Men, what all the World besides himself, and such whom Demonstration cannot convince, will allow me, that he has assumed Characters he has no Right in, or any just Claim unto.

I shall conclude, by an Answer to all his cornuted Dilemma's, with the Story of the Man who had the unhappy Dilemma put to him, to kill his Father, abuse his Mother, or be Drunk; whereupon he chose the last, because, as he [Page 52] thought, the least of the Evils: And when he was under that Disorder, became guilty of both the other Crimes. If the Story is a Fable, the Moral is plain; that a Person in the Remarker's Frame, would be guilty of the most unnatural Parricide, in destroying the Fathers the Bishops, and in spite of all the Ties of Gratitude and filial Reverence, prostitute the Honour of his Mother the Church of England to his vile Lusts and Pas­sions, and expose her to Contempt and Scorn. The Inference therefore is easy, that whoever would avoid being involved in the Guilt of [...] Effect, must keep at all possible distance from any Advances to the original Cause. For nothing is more certain, than that as soon as any one starts from the Center of Unity, he is liable to be carried round the Circle of Error, until he falls over the Precipice from whence there is no recovery, unless by wise Reflections, assisted by Divine Grace, he is brought to himself, and back again to his first Principles, from whence he unwarrantably receded.

Thus, Sir, have I endeavoured to answer if not your Expectation, yet your Desires, where­by I have the Satisfaction of approving my self