uixlT 
 
 
 87 
 
 "Si 
 
-7/Uvrt** 
 
 ,V#wt-C* 
 
 ( 3}cn 
 
 
 ■ n 
 
 
 £>**** v-/7 
 
 
 
 o^V - ' e ^ 
 
 3(T 
 
 ^r 3 5* 
 
It« 
 
 m 
 
 
 C. 
 
CLAIM 
 
 T O 
 
 A Divine Right, 
 
 •'sTRIED AT 
 
 The SCRIPTURE-BAR. 
 
 OR, 
 ! A CONSIDER ATION of the Tkfdivgs Sot? RE LAC T, from 
 pretended Scriptural Arguments, Prefentcd and Offered By 
 
 |Dr. SCOTT, in his Book intituled, The 
 
 Chriftian Life, Part II. 
 A. Mi D. D. in his Enquiry into the New 
 
 Opinions, &:c. And by 
 The Author of -the Second Part of the 
 
 Survey of NaphtalL — 
 
 Exnofing their I?o!d Pervertings of the Scriptures pleaded bv them ; 
 atid Vindicating the Sound Senfe of the Scriptures brought in De- 
 I bate., from their Scope, and the Judgment of Protectant Writers. 
 
 The Whole iffuing ina clear Difcovery of the Solid Grounds of Presby- 
 terian Governme7it, in oppofition to Prelacy. 
 
 ! By THOMAS FORRESTER, Minifier of the Gofpcl, and 
 Principal of the New Cclkdge in St. Andrews. 
 
 ' I S A I. 9. 6. The Government frail be upon his Shoulder 
 
 II E B. 5. f. 6. Mofes — Faithful in all his Houfe as a Servant 
 
 But CHRIST as a Sen over His own Houfe. 
 
 EDINBURGH, 
 Printed by JamtsWatfonpn theN^rth-fideof theCrofs,M.DC.XCJX 
 
To the Right Honourable, 
 
 PATRIC 
 
 Earl of MARCHMOV NT, Vifcount 
 of BLJSO N<BERR % Lord <P L- 
 WAKTH of TOLWJRTH, RET>- 
 <BRJES, andGREENLJir, &c. 
 
 LORD HIGH CHANCELOR 
 
 Of the KINGDOM of 
 
 SCOTLAND 
 
 
 w /V 
 
 MY^NOBLE LORD, % 
 
 r* /%~*-+*<S 
 
 2H A T thefe Sheets do appear in publick, under th#Pa- 
 trociny of Your LorAfiips Honourable Name, Flows 
 from the fame Motives offered in the late Dedication 
 of this Nature : Net to infift upon the Proois of your 
 LorJjfops undeferved Refped to me, or my more im- 
 mediat and Perfonal Knowledge, than many others 
 of my Capacity, of your Lordfoips Chriftian Fortitude, and Unbyaffed. 
 Stayednefs in fach a Tryal of your Faith and Patience, and Juncture of 
 fearching Tryals, as may Juftly be called the Fcrfecutiovis turbo; The Af- 
 finity of the Subjeft, and Scope of this Work, doth Juftly Plead for the 
 fams Patrociny. As Paftors are fee for the Defence of the Gofpel, havea 
 
 fpeciaL- 
 
 f 
 
fpecial Concern in the Vindication of Oppofed Truth, fo the Magi/tram 
 according to his Capacity, being a Keeper of both Tables, hath by his 
 Office an unexceptionable mtereft in this Important and Honourable Em- 
 ployment.. It is aa additional Argument, in point of Equity and True 
 Honour, that the Writings Examined, do highly afperfe,. and caft a bafe 
 Imputation upon the- Nations Authority and Laws, as if Ere&ingand 
 Maintaining, yea, and engaging His Majcfy in the Maintenance cf a- 
 Government of the Church, crofs to Apoftolick Inftitution, and the 
 Churches Univerfal Pra&ice, fuch as is everfive of True Unity and Or- 
 der, a Nnrfery of Novel Bigotrie,. tending to Revive die late Bloody 
 Broils, infeftihg thefe Kingdoms. None^ wHl doubt, when the Honour 
 ofthe Nation is thus Wounded, Rulers Concern in a Juft Vindication ; 
 But the Grouncf appears yet of a Higher Import and Elevation, if it ber 
 fuppofed, that the Government Afperfed,,is that Divine Frame, appointed 
 by the Afcended Saviour of the World, Recorded in his pei fe& Tefta- 
 rnent, and Sealed with his Blood, and the Exercife of hisKingly Office 
 as Political Head of His Vifible Church. Who will deubrin/ this Cafe 
 that this King of Kings requires cf Rulers, a Procf of their Faithfulnefs to* 
 him, in a Suitable Vindication and Affertion of this His Intereft ? 
 
 The High and Honourable.Chara&er, where wirii your Lor Jjhtpls Digni 
 ffed, hath no doubt made upon your Heart, fuch an Impreffion of the 
 preventing Goodnefs of GOD, as w ill excite to a due.endeavour of the 
 beft improvement thereof; and- the Scriptures of GOD prefents many 
 ftrong Arguments to this Scope, in the Inftances of fuch, who have been 
 fitted for the moft Eminent pieces of Services to GOD's. Church in their 
 Generation, by preparatory Tryal s,inHis Furnace of Affli&ion,and fome_ 
 times unexpected promotions have bad fuch a Comfortable IiTue. We 
 trrow by whom Hamans Mifchievous Plot was defeated, and what Argu- 
 ment Moraecaimzde ufe of, to excite to A& for this great Ibterefr, when 
 Carnal WHcioarand Prudence offered a ftrongJDiffwafive^' that Glorion s 
 ©he; who ovrhsPfomotio-a to places. of Eminency as his Prerogative, who 
 
 change*- 
 
changes the limes ana seaions,removes and lets up according to his Plea_ 
 fure, hath told us., that he knows them by N^me, Surnanr.es them, hole!* 
 their hand, and hath a fpecial Eye upon them, whom he calls, fox his 
 Servant -Jacobs fake, to do him Service. It is Confiderable, that one of 
 the beft of Men, and beft cf Rulers, had this rn a fad!y wrong Step, Ob- 
 *e&ed as an Aggravation of Guilt, that GOD had Raifed him up when 
 he was little and low in his own Eyes. There is a time when GOD, not 
 only gathers the Outcafts, but confers Honour upon them, He hath his 
 Fire in Sion, and Furnace in Jerusalem; at that Furnace He fits as a Refin- 
 er intent upon this Work. To be brought forth out of this Furnace of 
 Affli&ion, as Gold, in proof of GOD's having Chofen a Man in the fame^ 
 is a great and pregnant Blefling, but to be brought forth as a policed 
 Inftrument of fignal andHonourable Services to him, and His Intereft, is 
 a double and Crowning Blefling, efpecially when Tentations upcn the 
 right and left Hand, are vigorous and ftrong. The Promoting of the Glo- 
 ry of this Great and Gracious GOD, in Maintaining and Contending far 
 His Truth and Intereft, the true Eftablifhed Dodrin, WoHhip, Difciplin^ 
 and Government of this Church, is that which in the firft place, is to be 
 intended, and all other Concerns in a due fubferviency thereunto. It is 
 worthy of Obfervation, which is Recorded of one of the Wifeft Men and 
 Rulers, that his Firft Care was, the Building the Houfe cf GOD, he fi- 
 niihed it in Seven Years, but was in Building his own Houfe, Thirteen 
 Years thereafter,- and when this work was wholly perfected, i King, o, 
 M\ 38. zChron. 8. 1. his preparing his Store Cities, his Fenced Cities, 
 and taking Care for his Tribute and Navy, was his Secondary and refcrve- 
 Work. The f/e ?;.'/;» Hiftorian^jfc/^/^ hath this Remark upon it, and 
 gives us this account, viz,: That this Firft work of Solomons was by GOD r s 
 < c fpecial Afliftance, perfected in fo lliorta time,but the Palace though its 
 ' < c Magnificence- was Inferior to the Temple, yet the Materials thci 
 iC not being fo long prepared, and the Houfe being, to be Built for the 
 u King, and noc for GOD, it was the moreflowly brought to Perfe&ion.. 
 
 Tbac 
 
( ) 
 
 That the whole of your Lordfitps Walk in this Eminent Station, may 
 Demonftrat, to the Refrejhful Obfervation of all the Lovers of our Sicn 
 that GOD>hathPreferved and Polilhed your Lord fop in all preceeding 
 Tryals, to be a Honourable Inftrument of Railing of this decayed and 
 defolate Church, a Succefsfiil Maintainer of Equity and Juflice and 
 that this your Faithful acquittance may yeild Solid Peace, Embalm and 
 make Savoury your Name in after-Generations, and be found a Succefs- 
 ful mean of entailing the Choifeft Family-Bleflings upon Your Lordjhips 
 Pofterity, is the Serious Prayer o£ 
 
 MY NOBLE LORD, 
 
 Tour Lordfhips Devoted and 
 
 mop Humble Servant, 
 
 T. R 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 WHAT the Ifrael cf GOD bad to Complain cf, many times frcm mV 
 Youth have they Affiided mtjhaih been the Let of the Gofpel Church 
 from its Infancy, and cfGOD's Church in this Nation in [fecial, fines the 
 Rifing Light of Reformation ( that day-fpring from on High J hath Shine'd 
 upon her; And as the Goffel Chffich, fo Ours in [fecial, hath been Entitled to that 
 Ancient Ground cf Boafling in GOD, That they have not prevailed againft 
 her, though the Gates of Hell, in order to this prevalency, hath taken Crafty Conn- 
 fel, and Satan hath Acted , both as the Old Serpent, and Roaring Lycn; Intermix- 
 ing y in his Agents and Infiruments, Vol icy and Barbarous Violence, Craft and Cru- 
 elty, to Compafs this Defign of her Ruine. Her true Gofpel-Government. as -well 
 as her Do&rin and Wor/hip, have been frequently affaulted : But the Firft, at' 
 the- Hedge of the other, hath been, in a peculiar way, the Eye j ore of the Ungodly 
 and Licentious,- and in various and [ubtile Methods oppofed, both in the Principles 
 and Pva&icQ thereof and notwith [landing that other, Reformed Churches have 
 (loared with her, in this piece of Trial {this Point cf Church Government having 
 for a Confiderable time exercifed the Pens of Contending Parties ) jet, as our Church 
 bath beyond feveral others, arrived at Gofpel Simplicity and Purity herein, and tap- 
 ed of the Sweet Fruits cf this Government, in preservation both ofXJnhy and 
 Purity, in Point of Do&rin and Worfhip; fo the Maintaining and Contending 
 for this Point of Truth, appears to have been the work and Tefiimcny, in His Infi- 
 nitly wife Providence, in a fingular way Affigned to her, by her Head and Lord, 
 that Faithful Witnefs and great T efrator: Which is a Tefiimcny fo much the mere 
 Honourable, becaufe of its jpecial affinity with his own, fingularly attefled in his 
 Death and Sufferings, whofe Confcfjion of his Kingly Office, and cenfequently his 
 being the Political Head and Governour of his Church vifible, was his (fecial 
 Martyr-Wicnefs, Sealed with his Blood, the ground of his A ccuf at ion andSentence, 
 whereof his Triumphing Crofs bore the Honourable Title and Superfcripticn. 
 
 And as all Truths have in all Ages, gained by Oppcfiticn, the apparent bruifing 
 of them by Debates caufmg the Savour, Wfiic that of Sweet Spices, to be the more 
 Fragrant, fo thetrue Frame of GOD c sTabtrnack, in Point o/Government, the 
 Principles and Rights of a True Gofpel Miniftry, have frun the Lively Or. 
 cfGOD c s Word Shine d mere Clearly in the fclid Defences l hereof, exhibit by many 
 Godly and Learned Divines, ftgainft eppofers on all hands, as is very wtl! known to 
 fuch as have fincercly inquired into this Controvei iv. 
 
 What Reproaches our Churches Government and Reformation I 
 cd with fince the late trull n o/Prelacy, and particularly, fince tl mr** 
 
 tives of our Nat ion, : 
 
md Affer ting, together with our National, this our Spiritual and Church Liber- 
 ty, is apparent to all Observers : So that the LORD*s Servants, in their Endea- 
 vours to Advance this Building and Reft oration of our Churches True Government, 
 have been called, as the Builders o/Jerufaloms Walls, to hold the Weap(n and the 
 Tool; yet {for which He that Inhabits \{xzz\%P?aifes, is to be {or ever Blejfed) the 
 Defence hath been attended with fuch Glorious Succefs, that, in the Judgment of 
 the truely knowing and impartial, the Adverfaries have found that they have been 
 in this cppofition y Kicking againfl the Pricks, and that theTru f h and Caufeof God, 
 which 7ve own, is fuch a Bur den f me Stone, as hath quite born down and 
 broken their Strength, I do vot mean it, as if every one of that Parties 
 /yitfgParnphlets hath had a partuular Return; this were an unfuitable and endlefs 
 V/ork, and but too much to Honour thefe empty Squibs andCrackets ( as a Learned 
 Man called fuch Writings ) but Jure I am, whatever in the Writings o/w/rAnta- 
 gonifts, and of our late Scots Epifcopalians in Special, hath any fiuw of Argu- 
 ment againfi our Caufe and Principles, either from Scripture, from Divine Rea- 
 fhn, or Hi/lory, hath had a fuE and Evident Confutation. 
 
 That I have thus appeared, while many of our Church are in this RefpeB filent , 
 cf whom, in Point of Ability, it may be truely f aid, that their Gleaning is beyond 
 my Vintage, hath proceeded from no fuch Difpofition and Inclination this way, as 
 influences (ome to fliew themfelves, but as from a fincere Love to Truth, and the 
 Caufe ofGOD; So by the influence of fuch a preventing Series of Providential Ex- 
 citments, as havefome way cleared my Call, and Ifiued in this Appearance. 
 
 Dr. Scots Writings upon this Head, which 1 under (land to be much Current and 
 Efleemed by difaffecJed Perjons, andthoje nf mofi con fider able note in this Corner of 
 the Nation, having been brought to my Hands; I was moved by the dejires offome, 
 to offer Animadverfions upon the fame, which I Judged might have their own ufe 
 and advantage with fuch Perfons; And while Writing them, I had put into my hand 
 two other later Pieces; the one bearing the Title of The Fundamental Charter 
 ofPresbytrie Examined and difproved : The other written by A. M. D. D. 
 and bearing the Tittle of An inquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propa- 
 ted by the Presbyterians in Scotland, The fir ft I found to be merely Hiftori- 
 cal, with a long and bitter Preface agajnft the Reverend Principal of the Col- 
 ledge 0/ Edinburgh,* the Authors Chomr, it Jeems, being awakened by the fmart 
 cf the many Baffles which that Party have had from his Pen. The other of a more 
 Arguing Strain, but .of fuch a virulent tincture and PopijhCompofure, that the Au- 
 thor might feem rather a P erf on in fo?ne cf the Popifi Orders, than any bearing the 
 Char abler of a Proteftant Mini fter, if the General Defgnation of A. M. D. D. 
 bad not led the common, and ( as far as I could Learn ) the right Conjecture, to 
 fix upon Dr. Monro, Sometime Principal of the Cclltdge of Edinburgh. This 
 Piece I found to be directed again ft the fame Reverend perfons Writings, but in fuch 
 a fuperfidal and trivial Method that there feemed little or nothing of weight init 9 
 bat that which ths h r 3fs Man tills mjs weighthr tbam&eSand ^ihs Foo's Anger, 
 
 Ihwcvtr 
 
few fpare times in examining bis Scripture Arguings inPoir.t of Epifcopacy , which 
 r after the Finifoing my AnimaAverfions upon Dr. Scott,I fit about; not knowing at 
 that time, of any other [o employ ea ( though I much de fired it ) but Jhortly after, 
 came out Air. Rules Judiciom and full Confutation ofthtsPiQCQ; as alfo a little 
 before, of the Preface of the other Pamphlet intituledThe Fundamental Charter 
 &c. And about the fame tirne^ Mr. Jamifon'/ Learned and elaborate Piece entitw- 
 WNazianzeni Querela, ejrc. containing a Review and Confutation of what ts 
 confiderable %n both Pamphlets; fo, that what I might further attempt upon any, of 
 thefe Pieces appeared Fruithfis, and but aclum agere; yit confidering, that accor- 
 ding to the Principal' sComptndicm way of Writing, he tottchedtbat Authors Scrip- 
 ture Arguments, in Point 0/' Epifcopacy, more briefly, I refolved the more to en~ 
 large ^Review of what he had thus prefented. After the feShcets had for feme time 
 lyen by me, and a motion was made to make them publick, having alfo feen the 
 Second part of the Survey ofNaphtali, I refolved, beau fe of the Connexion 
 of Purpofies .and that this Author appears to have more clofely argued thts-Point, than 
 feveral other Epifcopalians, to add to the other two,a Confederation of his at- 
 tempt upon PresbyterianGovernment, which thehafie of the Prefs, together with 
 other urgent duties, obliged me to perform more briefly, yet I hope, with fome S*~ 
 tisfatlion to the Intelligent. 
 
 That thefe Authors are prefented in fuch anOrder, viz. the Later before the more 
 Ancient, hath proceeded frGmtbe Connection of References from the one to the other,, 
 and the Method wherein Providence diretled the Writing ofthe(e fleplys,- For the 
 Point of Antiquity (critically Scanned on both fides in this Debate) Ifoun&r.o ne~ 
 eejfity here to dip in it; that being performed as to A. M. D. D. already; and for 
 the third Author, he doth not medle with it, and fo much the better, only I have- 
 touched it a little with Dr. Scott; there being no particular Reply, for what I 
 kvow y to his Writings on thisHe ad, though all that he hathOffered thts way, hath been 
 upon the Matter, fully Anfwered by Presbyterian Writers. The Truth ts, I have 
 always judged, that this Debate might arrive at a more fatisfying and Jpeedy lffue x 
 if upon clear fiating of the Queftions^w^ Points Controverted, tie Difpute were 
 managed by a clear formal Arguing upon Scripture Teflimonies allennarly. 
 
 One thingl muft not emit to advertife^ the Reader of. I found after this % 
 written, reports puffing of A. M. D. D. his "Death, which I under floodt obi after 
 wards called in Queftion; but fin ce it is n.w Confirmed, ^Reader will excuje ; 
 Paffages that do more direclly addrejs him as alive, as indeed he was, in the time 
 that thts was Written, and fome thought I had that thts might probably come to hh 
 band. 
 
 I (hall detain the Reader no longer frcm the perufal of thefe- Sheets A 
 vnly my fieri ow Prtyer, that the GOD of Truth may by his Holy Spirit, lead hi; 1 
 pie into all T? ;///;, advonce ,andm-ore and more reviveHis Work^ and by t . 
 his Ctdlo?;? Gofgel i//j>^AntichriUian darhrnf^ nfrtih ks- Juj: 
 
 4m*§ 
 
V J 
 
 abroad, now in the JFu 'nace, excite his People to a due Sympathy with Sufferers, and 
 quicken their Zealagainjl the great Whore, the Beaft, drunk "with the Blood of 
 Saints, imprint upon his Churches inthefe Jfands, adueSenfeoftheirSolemn Vows 
 and Engagements/or Reformation in Do&rin,Worfhip : Difdpline andGo- 
 vernment, ihat being aftawed for all our backfiidings and breaches, and looking to 
 ■J-lim ivhomive have peirced,with a Mourning Eye, we may fee his Pattern of the 
 Houfe, in all its Ordinances, and his Tabernacle being reared up among us accord- 
 ingly, the Lord may be one, and his Name one, he may own the Lands, anddwellin 
 them as Married Lands , his Sancl uary being in the midfi of us for ever more. 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 D r ^tott's Pleadings 
 
 For the 'Divine Right of 
 
 In his Book intituled, The Chriftian Life, 
 Tart II. Vol i. Chap. j. SeB. i o. from Tage 388. 
 
 C H A P. L 
 
 The Do&or's fating of the Queftion, Examined: 
 Together with his firfl Argument taken from the 
 Inltitution of our Saviour. 
 
 EING about to Examin the Pleadings of this Defter, 
 for the Divine Right of Efifcopacy ; it is neceffary, that 
 we firft view how he ftates tfc.e §*efticn. All do know- 
 that a right Underftanding of the State and Terms of 
 the gjteftion, is indiipcnfibly needful for the Deciliort 
 of any Controverfy. To give then., the Hate of the 
 Sptfihm in the Drs. terms,, which he reprefents in a di- 
 ftinct character fugt 3 8 8. lie thus exhibits the Claim 
 oFbcth Parties « having told us, that the Vreshyterhl and Ef$fcof*l s are the 
 two main rival Forms of Church Government^ pretending to Divine Inftitti- 
 rion : u The Presbyterian, faith be, is that which is featvd in an Equality 
 
 B or 
 
% T>r. Scott' sT leadings for JLipikoyacy Chap.L 
 
 * or Parity of Church Officers : The Epifcopal, is that which is placed in 
 fC a fuperior Order of Church Officers, called Bifiops, to whom the other 
 cc Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are fubjedt and iiibordinat. The Latter 
 <c of which, he undertaks to prove, to be the true form of Government 
 " iriftitut by our Saviour : And that i. from our Saviours Inftitutio'n. 
 cc 2. From the Practice of the Holy Apoftles. 3. From the pundualCon- 
 <c formity of the Primitive Church to both. 4. From our Saviours deck- 
 *' red Allowance and Approbation of the Primitive Pradice in this Matter. 
 Ffrfi, As to the State of the Quefthm : I find the Dr. doth pitifully preva- 
 ricat and miftake his Meafures. 1. In reprefenting Presbyterian G over n- 
 ment,as confiding in a parity of Church Officers,- whereas,it isevident,we 
 own 6c maintain a Beautiful Subordination, both of Officers and Courts in 
 Church Government,- that Parochial SeJJions are fubordinate to Presbytries ; 
 Tresby 'tries to Provincial Synods; Synods in a National Church, to National Af- 
 fewblies: Thus likewife, we hold the Pajlors Office, to be above that of the 
 Ruling Elder*, the Ruling Elders Office, above that of the Deacon: Tho 
 iipon moft folid Grounds, we maintain againft Prelatifts, an Equality in 
 the Paftoral Office: And that among the New Teftament Officers, both 
 Ordinary and. Extraordinary, there is a Parti ty, in their own kind, no 
 Apoftle above another, no Evangelift above another ( both which Offices 
 taken in a proper formal Senfe, we hold to be expired) Thus as to Ordi- 
 nary Officers, no Pallor above another, nor Elder, &c 2. He reprefents 
 lEpifcopal Government, as feated in a Superior Order of Church Officers,, 
 called Bijlwps, to whom the Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are fubjedt ; 
 feat doth not particularly condefcend upon the Nature of that Superiority, 
 "which in ftating the ^ueflion, Inould have been premifed, and whether he 
 nnderftands it of a Superiority Specifical or Gradual, and in Order or Ju- 
 sifdi&ion, or both : However, the Dr. in the ftrain of his Difpute, gives 
 lis to understand,, that he takes the Superiority of the Bificp, as importing 
 iuchanAbfolut and Effential Intereft in Government, as leaves the Paficr 
 nothing but the Do&rinal Key ; wherein he difowns Two Points of a 
 Oonceilion, owned by many, if not moft Epifcopa Hans: (and in fo fardif- 
 covers the Singularity and Unfoundnefs of his Pleading) Firft, That the 
 'Sijhopy is no Officer, properly or effentially diftind: from the Presbyter, but 
 only an Officer made dill indfc for order of Government : Thus K. Charles I. 
 m his Conference with Mr. Henderfon, who certainly had the Senfe and 
 Judgment of all the Englijh Epifiopal Do&ors., at that time: And the pre- 
 sent Bijhop of Salisbury , in his lait Dialogues, authorized by our Efijccpal 
 Chureh^and published in Defence thereof,in K.Charks II. Reign, 4th. Ccn- 
 ferenee, Pag. ;io 3 311. tells us, That he is not clear anent the Notion ( as 
 >^ calVit) of the cUfuflft Offices of Bijhop *m.d Presbyter, and acknowled- 
 
Chap. L Examined. 3 
 
 ges the Presbyter 3 to be of the bigheft Office in the Church, telling us, That 
 the Trelat is but a different Degree in the fame Office: And he gives this 
 Reafon of his Judgment, cc That fince the Sacramental Actions, are the 
 a higheft of Sacred Performances, he cannot but acknowledg, that fuch 
 (C as are impowercd for them, muft be of the highefl Office in the Church : 
 And thus exprefly difowns the Drs. Diftindion betwixt a BijJwp and a Trcfi 
 bjter, as a meer groundlefs Notion, and by confequence the whole Foun- 
 dation of his Pleading.Secondly,Our Scot s Episcopalians y-^vA many of theEw- 
 glifliy plead for fuch anEpifccpal Power, as is managed in conjun&ion with 
 Tresbyters y and profefs to own only fuch a fixed Presidency of the Bijhcps 
 over the Pafcrs, in Government, as allows them aShareandlntereft there- 
 in, and do confequently difown what the Dr. afferts, That the Biflwp is 
 the Sole Subject of Government. Let any perufe Bp. Honymany part z. Sur-* 
 iey of Naph. Bp. Burnet ubi fupra, Bp. Lightons Two Letters , in reference to 
 the Cafe of Accommodation ; yea Bp. Hall himfelf,in the Defence of his Remcn- 
 firancey prefented to the Parliament of Englandy againft SmtBymnm» y prin- 
 ted An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident, the Bijhop, in that 
 Defence y is fo angry at the Word Sole, in the Debate about the Bijlops 
 Power and Authority in Government, that he defires his Presbyterian An- 
 tagonifts, to keep their Scle y for the ufe of their Shoes. It is then clear, 
 that in the State of the S&eflion, or Ground of this Debate, the Dr. is not 
 onefwith his Fellows, which will be further difcovered by Examining the 
 Grounds he walks upon. 
 
 The Divine Right of Epifccpacyy he endeavours, Firft, to prove Seepage 
 by the Institution of cur Saviour". And his gi;eat Argument is, 388,589, 
 " ThatChriftinHis Lifetime, inftitut two Orders of Minifters,- 390,. 391. 
 " viz,. That of the Apoftles, and the Seventy Difci pies, whole 
 iC Office he proves to be fubordinat to that of the Apoftles, from this 
 cc Ground, That they are mentioned a part as Diftind, and the Apoftles 
 cc placed firft in the Catologue. Eph: 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12.28. That the 
 " Scripture mentions the Twelve, arid the other Difciples diftincllv, and 
 cc the Twelve as Chofen out from among the Difciples, and by this Call 
 " and Ordination of Chrift, feparateto diftind: Offices from the Difciples; 
 " that the Apoftles immediate Succcffors,were chofen out from the feventy 
 cc Difciples, for m oft pari: : Thus fayes he, Simecn the Son of Ckopbas fuc- 
 cc ceeded James at Jevufilcm; Philip Paul atC^area; Cltment Peter at Reme f 
 " by the Teftimony of Dorotheas, Enjcbius ; And that by the lame Tefti- 
 
 niOiiy oiEuftbiuSy together with Eptphanius and J&cirij Mattbuu was 
 
 oiio- 
 
^ *Dr. Scott' sT leadings for Epifcopacy Chap.L 
 
 cc another fucceeds, and that the perfon fucceeding, had not that Power 
 cc and Office before his Succeflion. That thefe Difciples were inftrufted 
 cc with Minifterial Authority, he proves from Luk 10. 16. compared with 
 cc v. i. where not only we find that our Lord fent them before His Face > 
 * c but fhews that fuch as heard them, did hear him, &c As alfofrom this, 
 €C That Ananias one of them, Baptized Paul. Alls 9. 18. Philip , another of 
 * them, the Eunuch Acts g. and alfo preached the Gofpel. 
 
 Anfwcr. This Difcours and Argument,with reference to the Drs. Scope, 
 with a very ordinary Attention, will appear, to be but a beating of the Air, 
 and toconfift of Magifterial Dilates, inftead of proof: For Firfi, it is evi- 
 dent, That the generality of all Pvotefiant Divines, and Churches, yea 
 many Epifiopalians themielves, do hold that the Office, of Apofiks and £- 
 wangelifis is expired^ and died with their Perfons, fo that neither the one 
 nor the other admitted of a SucceJJion : And indeed the thing it felf is evi- 
 dent,, and by our Divines proved from the Apoftles immediat MifIion,un- 
 confined Infpe&ion, extraordinary Gifts, &c And that the Evangeiifts 
 Office^ did fuppofe the exiftant Office of the Apoftolate, and did confift 
 In a planetary Motion, to Water where they Planted, and bring Reports 
 of the State of the Churches to the Apoftles, and Commiffions from the 
 Apoftles to the Churches,- as they make evident in the many Journies, up 
 and down, of Timothy and Titus, in order to this- end So that upon this 
 Suppofition, tho, a Subordination were granted,- yet if both Offices* are 
 expired, it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary 
 Officers, or effentially diftintt Orders, in the Pafioral Office, which is the 
 Point he has to prove. This will be convincingly clear, upon Two 
 Grounds. fiJThat the body of all Proteftant Divines, do hold, That nei- 
 ther Apoftle nor Evangeitft, had any fixed Pofts or Charges, andfo confe- 
 qu.ently,the one could not Succeed the other therein, nor could any or- 
 dinary Officer Succeed either of them, in this their Fun&ion. And (2.) 
 That the Office,as well of the one,as the other,was futed to that Infant State 
 and Exigence of the Church ,- the Apoftles Work being to found Churches 
 through the World, to plant the Gofpel Government and Officers therein ; 
 and the Evangeiifts Work to Water their Plantations, as is above expreft 
 And therefore,,, that State and Exigence of the Church, being gone olf, fo 
 are thefe Offices, futed thereunto. And among many other Proofs,I would 
 fain know, what he, or any of his Perfwaiion, will look upon astheiScope. 
 and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture, viz,. Their Gifts of 
 Tongues, Gifts of Healing, raifing the Dead, Unking with Death, and 
 extraordinary Judgments the Obftinat, as Peter, Ananias and Saphira; Paul, 
 Eiimw the Sorcerer, &c if not thus to Difcriminat their Office. Iffuta- 
 bk Gifts b> the. £adg of aa Offi^as^to be apt to Ze^is of ch§ PaftoraLOf- 
 
Chap. I. Examined. 
 
 fiee, (it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one 
 to another, and the Office has a relation to both) then certainly, Extraor- 
 dinary Gifts 8c Works, muft be the Badg of that Office, which is Extraordi- 
 nary:' So that the Drs. Proof of nxed,ftanding,diftinct Orders and Degrees 
 among Ordinary Church Officers, from this Inftance, is quite overturned^ 
 if the Office^ either of the Apoftles, or of the Seventy be found Extraor- 
 dinary. 
 
 Next, the weaknefs of the Drs. Proof, further appears, in that,inftead 
 of Proving,he takes for Granted without Proof. fvrfi y That the Apoftles had 
 a Superior diftinct. Million, from that of the Seventy,- for nothing of his 
 pretended Proofs, give the leaft jhadow of this. The Dr. acknowledges 
 they were fent to Preach, as the Apoftles themfelves were, and for what 
 appears from Scripture, with the fame Authoritative Million, fince the 
 Seventy were fent out after the Twelve, and fuperadded to them, Luk. 9. 
 1, 2. &c. and 10. 1, 2, 5. &c And for the Point of Succefficn ( of which 
 afterwards) the Dr. affords no jnadow of Proof, of either of thefe Two. 
 (1.) That there were Succeflbrs to the Apoftles, in their formal Office of 
 Apoftolate. (2.) That thefe his fuppofed Succeflbrs, were of the number 
 of the Seventy Difciples, for which he muft offer a Divine Scripture Proof^ 
 or he fays nothing. Again (in the 3d. place) Tho we fnould grant to the 
 Dr. that thefe Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apo- 
 ftles,- yet fo weak is his Caule and Pleading, that even upon this Suppo- 
 fition, it is utterly loft and ruined, unlefshe can make it appear, that thefe 
 Seventy had in their Commi-flion, the Doctrinal Key only, but no inte- 
 reft in the Government, which is his Suppofition all along, as to the Pa- 
 ftoral Office. Now, it is evident, beyond contradiction, that all which 
 the Dr. has offered in this Argument, amounts not to the leaft fhadow of 
 a Proof of this point, -W&. That the Twelve Apoftles were the only Sub- 
 jects of Church Government,had both the Keys committed unto them only., 
 and that therein the 70 Difciples had no intereft, having- the Doctrinal 
 Key only intrufted unto them : And therefore this is utterly remote from 
 his Conclulion, viz,. That our Lord eftablifhed fuch ordinary Officers, as 
 are called Biflwps, in a fuperior order to Vafiors, as fpeciiically diftinclfrom 
 them, intrufting the whole Power of Government to the Firft, as well as 
 the Power of Order, and nothing at all thereof to the Second, but the Do* 
 (itrinal Key only. 
 
 Before I proceed, let us hear what the Dr. anfwers to the Ob- See fag, 
 jection, taken from the Apoftles Extraordinary office: His An- 3^2. 
 lwer is, " That this is a begging of the qucft ion,iince we allow 
 tc chat Chrift inftitut the Office, but gave no i'gmlkation, that it was 
 " but for a Sculou, Jjut i/V/^How vomvs tfef Dr. thiti w beg th$ c^ucftioiv 
 
 un 
 
6 T)r. Scott s T leadings for Epifcopacy Chap. I. 
 
 in fuppofing, that we acknowledg our Lord gave no fuch Signification? 
 He iliould know that we own, and can make good the contrary: And the 
 Current of all Trotefiant Divines, owning the Apoftolick Office, to be ex- 
 traordinary and expired;, rauft and do by neceffary confequence hold, 
 That the Temporary Nature of the Office,, hath in the Scripture Accounts 
 thereof, our Lords implicit and confequential Intimation, that the Of- 
 fice was not to Continue, but to Expire with the Perfons who carried it. 
 The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quelibet, if allowed to draw a Con- 
 clufion from a Conceflion, which is not ours, but by him falfly imputed 
 to us. Next, the Office it felf, in its Nature, and End, being, asisfaid, 
 Temporary (and owned fo, by the Body of all our Divines) It neceffarly 
 Follows, that our Lords Inftituti on, terminat upon and relative to the Of- 
 fice, was likewife thus Temporary, and determined to a certain Seafon : 
 As under the Law, Gods Inltitution of Sacrifices and^ other Levitical Or- 
 dinances, being to reprefent Chrifts Death, the very Nature of the Infti- 
 tution, did determin the Continuance till Chrifts coming, and offering 
 Himfelf, and no longer : «As likewife the madowing Typical Priefthood 
 of Aaron being thus limited, did expire at his Death. Nay, our Lord in 
 commanding His Apoftles to Preach to all Nations, to i*very Creature, 
 and inftituting them univerfal Officers of the whole Cath click Church, in 
 fiBu exerchoyboth planted and to be planted,to which they had an immediat 
 Relation, and inftru&ing them, with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, of 
 Miracles, &c. did thus ex natura rei, and from the Nature of the Inftitu- 
 tion it felf, difcover His defign, as to the tranfient Office, thus inftitut, 
 and that being futed to that Exigence of the Church, it was to pafs off 
 with the fame. Sure, mould a Papift plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme 
 UnBion, becaufe of the Apoftles anointing with Oyl, or for the continu- 
 ance of fuch Gifts, as the Dr. will acknowledg expired, becaufe of our 
 Lords Inftitution, and giving the Gifts, and no where Intimating that they 
 nveretobe for aSeafon,and that thefe Gifts were joined to the Apoftolical 
 Office,-he would anfwer,That the temporary tranfient Nature of the Gift it 
 felf,no w comprobat by the Event, difco vers the temporary Defign thereof, 
 and that it was not to Continue,- and that therefore, there was no need, 
 that our Lord mould have given fuch an exprefs Declarator, in the Infti- 
 tution, or Collation of the Gift : Which Anfwer, he may bellow for us, 
 upon himfelf, as to the Point in hand. 
 
 Again, to difcover further the Inconfiftency and Self-contradi&ing 
 Method of his Reafoning upon this Head, let it be enquired what he means 
 by a Succeflbrto the Apoftles. If he mean aSucceffion to their Office, in 
 its Nature and Extent, as delineat in Scripture, then he runs himfelf into 
 grofs Abfurdicies; For^ i. He muft thus hold that our Lord Inftitut, and 
 
 that 
 
Chap: I. Examined. 
 
 that defaclo, there fucceeded Twelve "Patriarchs, with an univerfal, urxon- 
 fined InfpecHon over the whole Catholick Church, to be continued there- 
 in,with a Collateral and Equal Power. 2. If he fay this (as he needs 
 muft,if he fpeak to the Point, and confequentialy) he will contradict v- 
 he a Herts of their immediat Sueceffors, from among theT-oDifciples, trip* 
 " Simeon Son of Cleophas, his fucceeding St. James at Jerufahm; Philip, St. 
 u Paul at Cefarea; Clement St. Peter at Rome. For if thefe Perfons fucceed- 
 ed the Apoftles in their unconrined Infpection over the whole World, 
 where Churches were planted,, or to be planted ; how comes he to affign 
 them fixed Stations at Jcrufakm, Cefarea, and Rcme ? If their AHniftry was 
 confined to thefe Pofts, how could they fucceed the Apoftles in their uni- 
 verfal Infpection ? And confequently how could they fucceed them in 
 the Apoftolick Office ? To fay that a Perfon fixed at fuchand fuch Ports, 
 fucceeds the Apoftolick Office, which was of this universal Extent., makes 
 as good Senfe and Harmonv,is to fay, that the Perfon, who is inftalled 
 Dean of Caitterburry, fucceeds to the Arcbieftfeofal Chair thereof, and the 
 Metropolitick Office of that Prelat, and his Primacy over England. 5: I 
 would know, whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succeflion, doth e- 
 quiparate and make paralel his adduced illuftrating Inftances, vtk» the 
 •Succeflion of Matthias in the place at Judas, with thefe other Inflances 
 of Simeon, Philip and Clement, at Jerufalem, Cefarea, and Rcme ? If he do 
 not, then his para! el Argument, as to the Point of Succeflion, is by his 
 own Confeflion, like the Legs of the Lame, not equal,- it being palpably 
 abfurd to prove the Succeflion by Inftances, while the Perfons inftanccd, 
 as fucceeding, are not of the lame and equal Power and Authority : It* 
 he fay, That he undcrftands SuccefTors, in the (lime Apoftolick Power ; 
 then I would fain know, how he will para! el the Authority of Slmecn y 
 with a fixed Polt it Jcrufalem, Philip at Cefarea, QUrhtnt 'CXRcme, with the 
 Succeflion of Matthias, in the Apoitolick Office, by the Divine Appoint- 
 ment, without the lcaft hint of any fixed Station, but with an univcrfal 
 Infpeclion, as the other Apoftles had. 
 
 But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dihrnma: If he mean by Suc- 
 cefTors to the Apoftles, a Succeflion in a fuppofed Superiority over Presby- 
 ters, in a certain Precinct, not unto theif Office and Authority every way, 
 or with reference either to their Gifts,their immediat Million, their exten- 
 five Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches (as fome i 
 falians, who fpeak more cautioufiy than the Dr. d s and limit this 
 
 Succeflion) then it is cafy, to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of 
 the Aniwer, is as much in a Vr^.ranhe, and chat his Anfwer nia\ 
 broken with a Wedg of his own fining, and that hi 
 illy pull his Spear out of his 1 land and Kill himwich it; \ or.i JiisAnfwcr to 
 
8 T>r. Scott's T leadings for Epifcopacy Chap. L 
 
 thofe who alledg the Apoftolick Office and Power, to be Temporary 
 as futed to the Neceflity and Exigence of that Time, and Cafe of the 
 
 Church, without intention of deriving it into aSucceffion, is/Firft, 
 f. 392. "That this is [aid without [0 much as a plaufible colour of Reafon". And if 
 
 there be no plaufible colour of Reafon, in denying a Succeffion to 
 the Apoftolick Office, the Dr. in embracing this Anfwer, is without all 
 colour of Reafon, 2. He tells us, " That we acknowledg our Saviour 
 <c inftitut the Apoftolick Office, and that in His Inftitution He gave no 
 cc Intimation, that it was but for aSeafon, and that thus in calling the A- 
 cc poftolick Office fuch, we prefum to make Chrifts Inftitutions Tempo- 
 €c rary, without producing the Intimations of His Will, and that upon 
 , <c this Ground,we may repeal all Inftitutions of Chriftianity.d^.But I pray, 
 whether doth not the Dr. in this Anfwer, make our Lords Inftitution of 
 the Apoftolick Office Temporary, as in its Nature fuited to that Exigence 
 of the Time, and Infant State of the Church? And whether, he is notu- 
 pon his own Ground, obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords 
 Will hereanent? And if he cannot produce it, or rather doth hold it clear- 
 ly intimat in the Nature of the Office it felf, then the Dr. muft either con- 
 fefs our Exception and Anfwer to his premiled Argument, about a Suc- 
 ceffion to the Apoftles, to be valid and found, or this his Anfwer and E- 
 vafion to be nought, and that he is therein contradi&ory to himfelf, and 
 liable to that Abiurdity, wherewith he charges us, wsi, " Of making tem- 
 <c porary, and caffing all our Lords Inftitutions, and over-ruling the Will 
 <c of God by arrogant Prefumption : Which is the high-flown Imputation, 
 the Dr. puts upon our Anfwer. 
 
 But to bring this Matter to a fhort Iffiie, and to ftrick out the Bottom 
 of his great Notion andTopick. The Power of the Keys, or the Power 
 of Order and Jurifdid:ion, lying in authoritative Difpenfing of Gofpel Or- 
 dinances, 'viz. The Preaching of the Word and Adminiftration of the Sa- 
 craments,, together with the appendent Power of Difciplin and Govern- 
 ment, which was the fubftantial &main Piece of the Apoftolick Authority 
 andOffice,and to be derived in a Succeffion,as neceffary for the Churches 
 Prefervation,in all times ; we hold to be feated properly in the V aft oral Of- 
 fice., which fucceeds to that of the Apoftles, in the refpeft, and for the 
 end mentioned, and in point of this Authority and Power, we hold, 
 that any Paftor is equal to an Apoftle ,• which, befide many other Rea- 
 fons, that might be adduced, appears demonftratively, by this Scripture 
 Ground, y$z. That it is evident in Scripture, that the Apoftles in the firft 
 Conftitution of Churches, planted Vresbyters or Paftors therein, as the 
 higheft Ordinary Officers, to feed with the Word and Government, Ath\ 
 14. 23. Tiu 1. 5, with Act, zq. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4, 12, v, compared with 
 
 2 Ccr, 
 
Chap. 
 
 L Examined. ? 
 
 i Car. 2. 6. &c And not only fa, but left thefe Presbyters or Paftors, as 
 their immediat Succeflbrs, committing the whole Government to them, 
 in their laft Farewels to the Churches, without the leaft hint of a Super- 
 inftitution of any Officers of an higher Order, AH. 20. 17. 18. 28. 1 Pet. 
 5. 2, 2, 4. compared with 1 Theff. ^. 12, 1%. &c Hence it may be thus 
 Argued, Thefe, whom the Apoftles placed as Chief, in the firft Confti- 
 tution of the Churches^ and left as their immediat Succeflbrs, in their 
 laft Farewels, which they gave to the Churches, tnele have no ordinary 
 Officers, fuperior to them, in the Church, by Divine or Apoftolick War- 
 rant: But the Apoftles placed fiiftJPresbyters orPaftors, feeding immediat- 
 ly with the Word, Do<ftrin and Government, as their proper immediat 
 SucceJJors, and to thefe they committed the Churches, in their laft Fare- 
 wels: Therefore, the Pafior hath no ordinary fuperior Officer to him^ ia 
 Church Government, by Divine or Apoftolick Warrant. 
 
 Thus, we fee the utter Infufrlciency of the Drs. Proof, from this Argu- 
 ment, anent the Seventy Difciples, which may fave us the labour of pur- 
 fuing fuch Advantages, as the Exact and Critical Bifputant might have a- , 
 gainft him, in his way of handling this Argument. It is not clear from 
 his Difcourfe, whether he place thefe Seventy Difciples in the Office of 
 Evangelifts, or of ordinary Minifters : If he fuppofe and aflert the Firft, 
 the Strength of his Argument, is fufiiciently Refuted, by what is faid a- 
 bove : it being palpably abfurd, to infer different Degrees of the Paftoral 
 Office, from the Superiority of Apoftles to Evangelifts. If the Second, the 
 Confequence is as abfurd,- the many Prerogatives of Apoftles above ordi- 
 nary Paftors, making fuch an Inference, palpably ridiculous. His Proof 
 of the Succeflion of thefe Seventy to Apoftles, in their Office, upon which 
 he founds his Affertion of the Subordination of the one to the other, is 
 drawn from the Succeflion of Simeon to James at Jerufalem: Philip to Paul 
 at Cefarea ; Ck?nens to Peter at Rome : In which he palpably falls fhort, as to 
 two effential Points thereof. 1. He offers no Divine, but an Human Te- 
 ftimony, as to this Matter of Fad, viz* of Dorcthei/s, Eufeb'uts. 2. He of- 
 fers no Proof from Scripture, that the Perfons inftanced, were of thole 
 Seventy, mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord lent forth after the Tu\l s 
 Apoftles. That the Apoftles were chofen from among the Difciples, or 
 that they are rirft named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Epbefi 4. is 
 a pitiful hungry Proof: For the Dr. will not fay, that the Seventy wer* 
 not alfo taken from among the number of Difciples, or that all coming 
 under this general Denomination, were Church Officers. And as to the 
 other point of the Nomination of the Apoftles tirft in the Catalogue of 
 Church Officers, even fuppofing it will import fome (pedal Prerogatives 
 of thefe Twelve, k is utterly remote from pro\ing either, Firft, that thefe 
 
 C !>evai 
 
i o T)r. Scott'x Tleadings Chap. L 
 
 Seventy might not have been in the chara&er of Evangelifts, and confe- 
 ciuently had a correfpondent Authority, eo nomine: Or Secondly, That 
 fuppofing them by their Million, to have had the fame exteniive Autho- 
 rity with the Twelve Apoftles, that the forefaid Prerogatives of Apoftles 
 did enervat this their Authority and Commiffion, which was immediatly 
 from our Lord, as well as that of the Apoftles, and in its Nature and Ex- 
 tent, never retra&ed or limited, for any thing can be feen in Scripture. 
 For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apoftles-over the 
 ^Seventy, as being in Office,not in Power and Jurifdi<5Hon : To which 
 cc he anfwers, That the Office including the Power, muft import a Supe- 
 riority in Power. It is, i, here impertinent to the Purpofe" and Point, 
 lie has to prove :* For upon fuppofition, that both Offices were Extraordi- 
 nary andCeaft, even admitting a Superiority of Apoftles to the Difciples, 
 it will never prove effentially different Degrees in the Pa floral 'Office, as 
 is faid. And 2. Admitting fo me fpecial Prerogatives, in the Apoftolick 
 Office, above that of the Seventy, with a fpecial refped: to their Gifts, 
 fchejurifdi&ion and Power,of both the one and the other, with a general 
 Refpeft to Church Government, and the great and ftanding Ends thereof, 
 might notwithftanding be of the fame Nature and Extent. It is alfo here 
 very noticeable, how the Dr. prevaricats, p. 393. and falls off the Hinges 
 of the Point, when he makes it to ly in this, " That our Lord appointed 
 * a Superiority and Subordination between Ecclefiaftick Officers: Which 
 in general,he cannot but know, thazPrcsbytcrians do accord unto, fince we 
 hold the PaftcralOfiicQ, to be above that'of the Elder $ and that of the El- 
 4:rj above the Deacon : Whereas, the State of the Queftion, and the Drs. 
 Undertaking therein, is anent a fuperior Order of Officers called Bifiops, 
 to whom the Order otPaftors is fubjed: and fubordinat,- or effentially dif- 
 ferent Functions in the Paftoral Office, or Degrees thereof. Now to prove 
 this fpecial, fpecifical Subordination inftanced, from a Subordination of 
 Ecclefiaftick Officers in general, is to argue^ a genere ad fpeciem. affirmative. 
 Eft animal ;Ergo eft homo. By which Reafonmg, our pooreftTjrones. in the 
 Locrkks, would thus derid their Fellows (I mall not fay the Dr. for good 
 Manners fake) Ms animal; Ergo es brtttam. Andfo, I difmifs the Drs. firft 
 Argument. 
 
 QHAP- 
 
Chap- II. * FflrEpifcopacy, Examined. ii 
 
 CHAR II. 
 "The T)rs\ Second - Argument ^ taken from the Pra- 
 nce of the Holy Apoftles, Examined. 
 
 TH E Second Argument, whereby the Dr. undertaks to prove the 
 the Divine Right and Inftitution of Efifcopacy y is from thcPraclicc 
 of the Holy Ape files \ And this he profecutes at large, from jp. 595. 
 to p. 404. His Proofs,may be thus generally fummed up,andruu 
 to this iffue, viz. cc That the Apoftles,did not only exercife that 
 c; Superiority in their own Perfons, which their Office gave them over the 
 ,c inferiour Clergy; but alfo derived it down, with their Office, to their 
 cc Succefors: And that therefore, they look not upon the Inftitution of their 
 cc fuperior Office of Apoftolate, as a temporary Expedient only, but as a 
 cc ftanding Form of Ecdefiaftick Government, to be handed down to all 
 " fucceeding Generations. 
 
 InAnfwer to which, I do obferve, that the Dr. holds the Apoficlich Office y 
 in a Formal Senfe, and in its proper Nature, with all its Ingredients, viz. 
 immediat Midion, univerfal, unconfined Infpection, infallible dire&ive 
 Power, their Apoftolick Power of Coertion by Judgments, their Gifts of 
 Tongues and Miracles, " &c (all which were included in the Apoftolick 
 Office) to be an ordinary ftanding Function in the Church, and fucceed- 
 ed unto, in this its whole Nature and Extent, and as he expreffes xt^Han- 
 tied down to all fucceeding Generations. Wherein, as the Dr. palpably con- 
 tradicts, not only, clear Experience of all Generations, the body of all 
 Vrotefiant Divines,yea all Men of Senfe,that have ever bellowed 
 their Thoughts upon this Subject ,* but alfo his very Fellow- Differ, of 
 Pleaders in this Caufe : One of their late Writers of no fmall tke tbt:r. 
 Repute, in anfwer to this Objection, viz,. That the Apoftles pig. 14. 
 Superiority over the Seventy, was Extraordinary and Tempo- 
 rary, grants, fC That in fomc Things their Priviledges were E xtraordina - 
 tc ry, and to Ceafe with themfdves, inilancing their immediat Calling, 
 ct their lending to all Nations, their Infallibility, their Gifts ofToxiguef, 
 cc or whatever wasneccHary for the lirftEouiuling of theChriilian Church. 
 Clearly contradicting the Drs. abfurd Alferttonof a Sueccdi n to theApo- 
 iio iekOiiico, without all Limitation^ But its no fixang thingj that Mi- 
 dluiites deal Strpafcs among rhemfelves, when encamj ad. 
 
 Dy that Superiority, which their Office gavcthem^ ever the inferior Cler- 
 gyj he muft needs underiiand an Official Superiority, proper the Apo(Ues 
 
 C 1 as 
 
iz T>r. Scott'i T leadings Chap. IL 
 
 as fuch, and without any Reftri<5tiori, as is faid ; fince he makes the Apo- 
 iiolick Office, to be inftitut by our Lord, as Ordinary and Perpetual, and 
 the Pra&ice of the Apoftles, in this pretended Derivation of their Office 
 to SuccefTors, to be purfuant to the Inftitution of our Saviour. He holds, 
 there was nothing or the Office of Apoftolate,of a Temporary Nature, or 
 as fated to the Exigence of that Time, that it was the very fame Office, 
 without any ReftricHon or Limitation, which they did tranfmit unto Suc- 
 cefTors. Thus he exprefly />. 394. Now to raze this Foundation of the 
 Drs Proof* let thefe Things be confiderecl 
 
 Firft, That our Divines, do Harmonioufly aflert the extraordinary 
 Nature of the Apoftolick Office as fuch, and that they could not be Suc- 
 ceeded to,/*/ idem officlum & eundem gr actum : Particularly the Learned Pc- 
 fanusy in his Syntag. lib. 7. Cap. ir. P. ( mihi ) $37. 3; 8. 5*39. reck- 
 ons, up thefe their Prerogatives, beyond ordinary Church Officers 
 (1) Their immediat Inftitution byChrift,- therefore P^/ was called from 
 Heaven to be an Apoftle. ( 2 ) Their immediat Miffion to Teach. ( 3. ) 
 Their Univerfal Legation to Plant and Found Churches through the 
 World, 2 Cor. 1 1; ( 4. ) Its vifible Badg, Viz', conferring the Spirit by 
 Laying on of Hands. (5-) Immunity from Error in Teaching, (6.) 
 Their Angular Right of Spiritual Coercing the Rebellious, and extraordi- 
 nary Authority hereanent, and extraordinary Spiritual affiftance, 2 Cor. 
 10. (7.) The Gift of Fore-telling Things to come, Rom. 11. 25-, 26, 
 -2. Theff. 2. 3. (8.) Their extraordinary Authority beyond any Succef- 
 fors, as being over the whole Church, &c It would confume much 
 Time and Paper to fet down the vaft number of Teftimonies correfpon- 
 dent to this, and the thing were Superfluous. All who are acquaint with 
 e.ur Writers., being convinced hereof. From hence, we may thus Argue ^ 
 They whofeCall, whofe fpecial Work, and Duties, whofe Qualifications 
 for their Work, are ceafed, their Office is ceafed, and they are not Suc- 
 ceeded therein : But the Apoftolick Call, fpecialWork,and their proper 
 Qualifications, are ceafed: Ergo, &c The Major is evident, it confifting 
 of afufficient enumeration. o£ ingredients to make up an Office, and fur- 
 ther undenyably Confirmed by this, That our Divines take in thefe very 
 things., mentioned in the Definition of an extraordinary Office, and as 
 the evidences of it. The. Affumpion is as evident,- the Appoftles Call 
 was immediate who will deny that this is ceafed ? Their fpecial Work and 
 Duty us Apoftles, was to Plant Churches, and the. Golpel Ordinances 
 and Government among them, throughout the World,and that by a fpecial 
 Commi{£onintrufted to them, of all which Churches they were man im- 
 mediat Senfe, and in aBu exercito Officers, And what. Church Officer, 
 dare now arcogac chat to himfelf I Their Gifts & Qualifications were ex- 
 . ^ ...... tiaordi* 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. ji 
 
 traordinary, fuch as the working of Miracles, Gifts of Tongues^ infallibi- 
 lity in DoeFrin : Andean any deny that thefe are ceafed ? 
 
 Secondly y Hence, as whatever he would draw theEpi [copal Preheminence 
 from, will neceffarly fall within the compafs cf thefe expired Preroga- 
 tives,- fo, feveral of the Prelats pretended Prerogatives, are contrary and 
 repugnant thereunto.; fuchas their exercifing an ordinary Power in fixed 
 Dioceffes,- the Appoftolick Infpection was Unfixed and extraordinary, 
 and they were Officers,*?/ a&u exercito,o£ the whole Church. Next,the Bi- 
 JJjops account themfelves fole Paftors of the Diccefs, tho Pafiors are therein 
 Ordained and Fixed; For tliey are the Fountains, from whom the Power 
 of Order and Jurifdictlon in the Diocefs is dierived, and the Exercife oF 
 both depends upon their Lordly Difpofal : And this Preheminency, no 
 Apoftle ever claimed, their Office being only a Declarative, Executive 
 Mintftry, not a Lordly Dominion. Belidcs, the Prelats negative Voice 
 and fole Decifive Power in Judicatories, is point Blank contrair. to the 
 Apoftles Carriage in that Synod, AB if. In which the Queftion was itated 
 and debated, in the ordinary way of Dilputation, and the Ordinary Of- 
 ficers did concurr and joynwith the Apoftles, in. Authorizing andenjoyn- 
 i'ng the Decrees. And further, die Bifoops, tho ordinary Officers, yet 
 deny a Subjection to the Prophets, in greater or letter Affemblies of the 
 Church, whereof they are profeiTed Officers, and yet we find Paul affert- 
 ing Univerfally and indefinitly, That the Spirits of the Prophets are Subject to 
 the Prophets, i Cor. 14. 32. Nay we find himfelf receiving Tmpofition of" 
 Hands, and Cent out bv a Presbytrie, upon a fpecial Goipel legation, 
 which did conlift not ofFellow- Apoftles, but otPrcphets and Teachers, slcl. 
 13. 1, 2. ;. But to what Affembly o£Prophcts, m i\i:z Prelats Subject, either- 
 as to their Life or Doctrin? 
 
 Thirdly, As to the perpetual ordinary Power given to- the Apoftles, and 
 tranfmitted by them to the Church, They did neither claim, nor exer- 
 cife Superiority over other Minifters, but we find them, accounting them 
 Brethren, Partners, Fellow -Labourers, and themfelvCS Fc!L:r~Elders v. 
 them, and as to thcP aft oral Char go, their Equals^ For, that ordinary Power, 
 theApoftolick Office contained Eminentcr, which they tranfmitted to 
 others. But it is evident, that as they planted EUUrs, with equal Power in 
 the Churches, fo in their laft Farewels, they committed fas is above 
 cleared) the Government unto them, without any hint of Imparity ia. 
 its exercife, A t 20. 28. Tit. 1. 3. 1 Con. >. 1. Pet. p 
 
 To which, we may addin the Fourth place, that the Apoftles Difcharr- 
 ing- Lordly Dominion and Prehemiaency amongft Minifters over the 
 Lord c s Flocks, or among themfelves^ And the Apoftle John condemning 
 cxprefly this in Viotropbes i will infallibly ^rove/hat .they neither allowed in. 
 
I /}. T)r. Scott s T leadings Chap. XL 
 
 others, nor exercifed themfelves, any fuch power, aJfe their Do ctrin 
 v/ould contradict their Practice. a 
 
 Hence, its infallibly clear, that to make good the Drs. Proof of a Suc- 
 ceffion to the Apoftles, by Inftances, which he here undertaks, there are 
 two Points, he muft clearly prove and make good, as the Affirmer. r. 
 That thefe pretended Succefibrs,did defatlo exereife and hold the Apollo- 
 lick Office,initswho!eNatureandExtent,as above delineat. 2.That de jure, 
 the Apoftles, by their Doctrin and Practice, did devolve fuch an Autho- 
 rity upon them, to be perpetually tranfmitted to the Church.by Succeffion. 
 And therefore, if in either, or both thefe, he fall fliort in his Inftances of 
 a pretended Succeffion, he but beats the Air, and lofes his Deilgn of pro- 
 ving, That the Aft > files communicated the fame Office to Sufceffcrs, which our Sa- 
 viour had communicated to them; which in Urmtttis he afTerts p. 394. 
 
 This being premifed, let us fee how the Dr. proves by Inftances, the 
 Succeffion of Apoftles to Apoftles, as an Office itill to be continued in the 
 Church. Hisiirft Inftance of Succeffion, is that of St. Jatrits in Jtrufalem, 
 whofe Succeffion, in an Apoftolick, or Epifcopal Preheminence there, he 
 labours much 111 the Proof of,pag. 594, 595*, 396, 597. But. firft, tho this 
 Matter of Fact were granted, that James the Apoftle or Evangelift (not 
 to ftand here to difcufs- which) did exercile hisMiniftry orApoftolate there, 
 how will it prove a Succeffion to the Apoftolick Charge and Office in the 
 Drs. Senfe, as above delineat ? And where is his Proof of any of the 
 Apoftles devolving this Charge upon him ? To prove either,or both thefe, 
 ( as the Dr. here doth ) from any Scripture, or Hiftory, which fuppofe 
 James to be in Jcrufak?n, in the exercile of his Miniftry, requires to make 
 the Reasoning valid, fuch rules of Logic k y as hitherto, has not been heard 
 of. What a ftrang Phantaftick Proof is this ? Scripture affirms James to 
 exereife his Miniftry atjerufalem : Ergo, he had devolved upon hin^by the 
 other Apoftles, the Apoftolick Office, in the fame Nature and Extent, as 
 exercifed by them, and committed to them, by our Saviour, and this as 
 a perpetual Function in the Church. This is fuch Arguing and Rope of 
 Sand-connection, as any may laugh at ; and it is evident to common Senfe, 
 that tho the exereife of James's Miniftry in Jerufdem be granted, yet the 
 Inftance is as far fliort of being a demonftrative Proof of what the Dr. 
 afferts and aims at, and reaching his Concluflon, as the Pigmey's Arm, is to 
 
 fetch down Uljffeslrtdmzt. 
 'Seef. 394. The Dr. in handling this inftance, endeavours to prove that 
 the James fpoken of Gal. 1. 1?. and called tbe-Iftds Brother y 
 was none of the Twelve : Wherein he contradicts good Interpreters, as 
 might be cleard by a multiplicity of Inftances,if need werc.The Btlgich Di- 
 jrinesj upon the Plage, take him to bethe fame mentioned Murk. ic. And 
 
 • upon 
 
Chap: II. ForEpifcopacy,^rf»»W. 15 
 
 upon AB. 12. 2. They fhew, that afrer jrVwfj was killed, this J a wet 
 fpoken of here, is he, who left behind him.the Epiflje of Jfitnts y and is 
 called the Lords Brother: And upon v. n They affirm, that this yzas 
 James th? icis. The Authors o^ fart 2. Peel. Annct. up2nG.1I. 1. 19. Do 
 affert, That he was one of the Twelve Apoftles, parallelling this paffbgc 
 touching James, with Mark. 6. The Drs. Proof, that he was not an Apo- 
 ftle, bcCanfe Paul reckons him a part from the Twelve. 1 Ccr. 1 j. 5. 6. 7. 
 is utterly mfufrkient. The Authors of Part 2. Peel. Annct. draw no fuch 
 Conclusion upon that verfe, but infinuat rather the contrar : And the- 
 Dutch Divines are peremptory that the James mentioned in that Text, 
 was the Apoftle J awes, and one of the Two, in the Catalogue of Apo- 
 ftles. The !>/. Proof, from his being mentioned a part from the Twelve, 
 is a pitiful lax Conceit : Per, if the Apoftle laying v. 7. That our Lord 
 wasfeen of Janies,thefi of all the Ap:fties, will prove that James was not 
 ofthe number.; his faying *u t f. 1 hat our Lord was fcen of Cefhas, then 
 of the Twelve, will by the fame Reafon prove, that Pa a- was none of 
 the number. The potter would needs have him the Thirteenth A- 
 poftle, and the firft that was made an Apoftle, after the Twelve. 
 I had thought, that. Matthias was the firft Perfori made an Apcftle, 
 after cur Lords Afrenlbn, to make up the number of Twche and 
 fupply the room of/jfttfas, and that Paid was next added by our Lords 
 fpecial Call from Heaven,- but when, or where, or by whom, another 
 jUrnki} than either of the two mentioned by the LvangeUit, was Co- 
 in: a Thirteenth Apoftle, is a Point, I am fare, far iurchargingthe Drs A- 
 bility to prove, and his proofs here adduced are fuch, as die l:m- 
 pleft may Laugh at: Whereof this is one. ff That the Scripture fag. 394. 
 41 makes it evident, that this James had the great Prchemincncc j^j, 
 " in the Church of Jerufalem: And next,, That in the Council 
 Ci Acl. 15. he gave theDeciiive Sentence,caHing it his Sentences. 19. 
 " determined the Controverfie, after that Peter, Paul and BarnabashiA de - 
 * dared their Judgment : Which Argues, faith the Dr. that he had grc.it 
 cc Authority and Preheminence in that place. An odd proof,I muft con- 
 Jefi. Behold the Vifag of this Argument .' The Apoftle James {poke laft 
 In th£ Council of JerufaUm^ he called the Judgment he 'delivered upour 
 the Qucftion, his Sentence, after others bad fpoken, the Contru\ciiie 
 came then to an Iffue : Ergo, he was of Special and Eminent Authority in 
 Jcrtifakm, beyond any ofthe Apoftles^ And this, as a iupemumerai v 
 Thirteenth Apoftle Conftitut by the reft to fucceed in that Office, and de- 
 rive the Oftice of Apoftolat to after Generations. Icis indeed a(V.e- 
 ftionto me, whether this Aliertion and Conclufion it feif, or theD/s 
 Method of deducing it, be more abiurd 1 But lure I k .rm, loth arc 
 
 Fhacc 
 
j 6 T>r. Scott's Pleadings Chap. IL 
 
 that 4n an eminent degree. The Dr^has fo wonderful a value for Prelacy, 
 that he will needs have this new fuppofed Bijloop of Jerufalem, preferred 
 upon that account, by all the Apoftles, to themfelves, and fet up in the 
 Chair to prefid in the Council f,as theWorthieft,yea, and that his very Judge- 
 ment, upon the account of his high Prelatick Office, outweighed all the 
 Apoftles SQtitiments,and ended theControverfie^s heexpreffes it. Such a con- 
 ceit this is, and Phantaftick account of that Scripture, as I dare challenge 
 the Dr. to mo w if it ever came in the mind of any Protefiant Writers. It 
 would have futed the Dr^.feriousTho ugh ts to ponder, whether that which 
 was delivered by others,in this meeting, and in fpecial by the Apoftle Pem* 3 
 was not their Sentence, as well as that delivered by James, and whether 
 both thefe Sentences of Peter and James, were not the fame, and deliver- 
 ed upon the fame Scripture Grounds ; and whether the delivering of a 
 Sentence or Judgment in a Judicatory, which the Meeting finds equi- 
 table, and do accord to, upon Grounds offered by him, and fome others, 
 {peaking before him, can conclud an Epifcopal Authority over theMeeting. 
 But toproceed,the Dr. (ibid) Argues further, " from theApoftle Paul his 
 * c going in to James, mentioned Gal. 2. 9. Upon the account of his fup- 
 €C potedEpifcopacy a.tJerufakm,Htho none of the Twelve, & that he is upon 
 xc this account preferred to Peter &cJohn,§c had thePriorityofthem both, in 
 " theChurch oi Jerufalem. A conceit fufficiently refuted by a recitation. What.' 
 The ApoMz Paul, become fo high a Prelatifi, that a New Conftitut Bijhop 
 at Jerusalem, is by him preferred to Pillar- Apoftles, as having a Priority a- 
 bove them in that Church. I had thought that our BleffedLord, recom- 
 mended and Authorized hisApoftles,as the UniveralDodors of the whole 
 Church, before this time, as the Foundation and Pillars thereof} So they 
 are called by the Apoftle Paul, Epb. 2. 20. And that- the Lord, in Sealing 
 themfolemnly by the Spirit, the day of Pentecofi, at Jerufalem, from whence 
 the Law was to go forth, had recommended them as his higher! Doctors 
 and Apoftles, both to Jerusalem, and to all the Churches; and that Peter 
 SLnd John's Miniftry had theFirft and Eminent Seals there ,• yea and that the 
 Apoftlefhip of the Circumcifion, was efpecially committed to Peter, and 
 confequently his Apoftolical Authority at Jerusalem fingularly confpicuous, 
 weighty, and acknowledged, where his Miniftry was chiefly exercifed, 
 jandthis by the Apoftle Paul's own acknowledgment Gal. 2. 7. And that 
 be paid fo great deference to thisApoftle,that he went up to J eruf a lem, to 
 lee and vifit him, Gal. 1. 18. Befides that, the Dr. fuppofing this James 
 not to be one of the Twelve, is crofs to the current oiProtefiant Writers and 
 Commentators, as we have laid. As for Paul : % going into James, with the 
 Elders A8. 21. 18. Which the Dr. faith will prove, that James was of 
 greateft note and Figure in that Chutchj If the Dr. mean his exercifing his 
 
 Mini- 
 
Chap. II. For Jhpilcopacy, hxammed. 1 7 
 
 Miniftry there at that time, and that he was of eminent Note among the 
 Elders, or ordinary Minifters : As who can doubt of this inrefped: of his 
 Apoftolick Office? This is eafily accorded ; But the Drs. Inference from 
 this, that he was of greateft Note and Figure among the Apoftles yea 
 and, eo nomine, as Bificp of Jerufalem,2,n6. moreover, as in the Capacity of a 
 Supernumerary Apoftle and Eijlwp, added to the Twelve, he will as foori 
 fqueeze Water from a Flint, asdraw it from this Scripture. The Dr. tellsus 
 Cf P. 59 f. 596. cc That, as what he has faid, renders it highly probable, 
 fC that James was Apoftle at Jerufakm peculiarly, and had the Priority of 
 " Peter and John therein, fo the Teftimmcnyes of early Antiquity,advan- 
 " ces this probability to a Demonftration. Whereupon, he Cites Hegefip. 
 and Eufeb. Lib. 2. Cap. 22. Clement. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. -and fome others. That 
 James, whom the Dr. takes not to have been an Apoftle, till conftitut 
 Apoftle and Bijhop of Jerufakm, appears to the Dr. upon the pretended 
 premiied Scripture Grounds, upon'thisaccount,preferred to both Peter and 
 John, tho Pillars, hath fo expoied his Understanding of the Scriptures, as 
 doth much fave the Labour of an Adverfaries difcovering his Nakednefs 
 in this Point. Befides, it feems with the Dr. that Human Teftimonies 
 of Antiquity, and of Human Writers, puts the Cape-ftonc upon, and com- 
 pleats Scripture-proof,- So that, what was upon the Scripture proof, but ' 
 probable, upon the high acceflion of HumanTeftimonies, is with him ad- 
 vanced to a Demonftration: But the Dr muft be minded, that if his pre- 
 tended Divine Proof, which muft be both of thQFacJum and the Jus, as to 
 James c s Epifcopacy, obliges him to draw* his Demonftration of both from 
 Scripture, and if by his acknouledgment, all his Scripture I*roof, a- 
 mounts but to a probability, his pretended Demonftration, made up by 
 the patchment or Human Teftimony, added to the Divine, as giving the 
 Dcmonftrative evidence and Strength thereunto, is a Demonftration like 
 to the Feet of the Image of Clay and Iron, which could never make one 
 intire piece, and cleave together. 
 
 Next, For his Teftimonies, the Dr. cannot but know, that in the Judg- 
 ment of Famous Protectant Divines, this Proof, from the Teftimonies of 
 Fathers, and the Denomination of Bifljcps by them, put upon Eminent 
 Minifters, and even fome in the Apoftolick times, is a very flippery and 
 uncertain Proof. The learned St\illger will tell him ( Trclcgcw. inChrc. 
 u Eufeb. )' c fThat, ntervattum ;//;/./ ab ultimo capite JBcrwn, &c. '1 he Interval 
 u from the laft Chapter of the AHs of the Apoftles until the midft of the 
 " Reign of Trajan, in which Tra&j guadratw & Ignatius flouriJhcd ( lee 
 w the Dr. obferve this, as to Jgnatim here Cited by him ) may betruely 
 " called with Varro «/»,i» or obfeure, wherein nothing that is certain, 
 ^has come to our H.uuo, concerning the Affairs of du illians, except 
 
 D w fome 
 
1 8 T>r. Scott V T leading* Chap. II. 
 
 €c fome very few things, which the Enemies of GOD, has catchedup by 
 fC the way, fuch as Suet emus and Corn. Tacitus: Which gap, that Eujebius 
 might fill up, he drew fomethings without Difcretion,and choife out of 
 * c the Hypotypofis or Examples of, Ikno'w not whiitCleme-rft ( for he is not 
 €C that LezmQdClement that" wrote thzStrcmmata ) and out of theFive Books 
 of Hcgefippm, a Writer no better. Let the Dr. obferve this, as to 
 ' Hegejippus and Clement here Cited by him; Yea and Hegifipus him- 
 felf, as he {hews, lib. 3. Cap. 28. Holds that immediatly after the A- 
 poflolick Age was gone, tunc impli erroris confpiratio, per fedutlionem eorttm 
 qui alienatn DoBrinam tradSant, initium cxpit; Error began to Spring and ad- 
 vance. The Learned Junius, control. 3 lib. 10. Cap. 23. Not. 3. Menti- 
 ons and proves an equivocal acceptation of thoW or dBifiopjn the Writings 
 of the Ancients. The Learned Whittaker alfo will Inform theDr. ( De Font. 
 <c Queft. 2. Cap. if.) That, Patre s cum Jaccbum Epijcopum <vocant, &c. The 
 c<r Fathers, when they call James, Bijlwp, or Peter, take not the Name of 
 ' u Bijhop properly, but they call themBifoops of thofeChurches, wherein they 
 <c frayed for a time. He adds, That it is abfurd to fay, that the Apoftles 
 cc were Bifiops, fince he that is properly a Bijhop, cannot bean Apoftle, the 
 Cf Bijljop being fet over one Church, and the Apoftles., Founders and over- 
 cc feers of many Churches. Yea, he isfoBo!d,as to add further, ( with- 
 •* out craving Pardon of fuch as are of our Drs. Judgment ) That, non pro- 
 cc cul difiatab infania, &c. It diifers little from madnefs to fay, That Pe- 
 cc ter, or any other Apoftles wer£ Bifiops. And to this purpofe he fpeaks 
 at large, Cap. 3. Seel. 9. making good his Affertion from the unfixed ex- 
 traordinary Nature of their Office, who were to follow the Spirits con- 
 dud, towards all places, wherever they were called. The Dr. might 
 have, alfo learned from Fran . Junius ( Contr. 3. lib. 2. Cap. ^ ) the caufe 
 of the Error andmiftake of the Ancients, in terming the Apoftles or Evan- 
 * gelifts Bijlops, and drawing from them Suppofititious patent Catalogues of 
 Bij%ops, which are found contradictory to one another,ri^. "That fuch Mi- 
 * miters^ as- they found in the Church Records > more famous, fuch they 
 "' culi'd out,to make up their Catalogues, even tho they were contempo^ 
 u rary, and thofe they named Bijhops,in conformity to their own times; 
 c [ whereas, faith he,there were many Bijlwps orPresbyters at once appointed 
 ; c * by the Apoftles in the Churches. Hence has proceeded this Confufion 
 in the Catalogues; for inftance. they make Peter Bijhop of Rome, and hav- 
 ing a Seat there ( a Fable contradided by many of the Learned, and 
 proved by them, to be fuch ) but whether Clement was Eirit or Third, and 
 who, or in what Order, next after Succeeded them, whether Linus, or 
 Anacletf-iS is never yet cleared. Some make Titus BijJwp of Crete ?• (om&Arcb- 
 ffijhop; fome Bijhop of Dcdmatia.. Timothy and John, are made,by many Bi- 
 foog, in the fame. Poft^ at. the fame. time.. Some fay, Poly carpus was Firft 
 
Chap. IL For Epifcopacy, Examined. 1 9 
 
 Bifliop of Smyrna ; fome make him to Succeed one Bucolm$ fome rnake^- 
 ri/fovKfft- Some give Alexandria one Biflwp; fome Two at once. 
 See Append, ad jns Divinum Mini ft. Evang. Clearing this at large. The 
 Dr. alfo fhould have done well, to have confidered the important 
 difficulty offered by Jofefhus Sea tiger, about the Succeffion of the Bificps 
 of the Church of Jerusalem ( related by Didoctav. Cap. 4. P. 125.) where- 
 in he proves Eufebim Relation to be contrary to our Lords Prophefie anent 
 the Deftruetion oijerufatem, and to Jofephus's Hiftory. As likewife, what 
 this Learned Author, hath obferved and written, to invalidat the Credit 
 61 liufehius's Hiftory, and the difcovery he has made of his many grofs Er- 
 rors therein, as well as in other Points. So that our Dr. and his Fellow- 
 pleaders, might have obferved this their grandMagazin.to bebut a corrupt 
 Treafure, and Poifoned Fountain. How Fabulous is the Epiftle of Chrift 
 to AgbarusKing of Edefja, related by him? That which Philo the Jew 
 wrote of the EJfeans, a Seel: among the Jews, Eufebim affirms that he Wrote 
 it of Chriftian Monks, which Scatiger (in his Elencho tri H^re/Ji ) ,hath con- 
 vict of falfehood, out of Philo himfelf. He proves Peters Crucifixion at 
 Rome, by a Tomb-proof. In the Computation of Times, Sealiger, ob- 
 ferves his grofs Errors. Nay, which is more confiderable , he difcovers 
 grofs ignorance 6fScripture,in faying that thzCepbjs reprehended byV aul, 
 was not the ApoftlePj^r, but another of theNumber of theSeventyDifci- 
 pies. To which might be added, many things in his perfonal Carriag 
 and Qualities, which doth weaken the Credit of his Hiftory, ashispre- 
 fiding in the Council of Tyre, againft Ath wta 'fins, and ftandingupen the 
 Arrian fide. Sealiger in his The fa ttrus tern forum ( Animad. P. 268 ) Sets down 
 the Teilimonies of the Ancients, concerning his Errors,and Arrla\ 1$ >;;, 
 wherein fome affirm that he died. When he Wrote the Hiftory, lie was 
 in the Judgment cf fome an Arrian. And even admitting the unexcep- % 
 tionablenefs of his Hiftory, when rirft Written, yet that it hath been cor- 
 rupted by fome ignorant Importer, is by Didcclav. Cap. 4. P. in. Be- 
 monftrat from this, that he makes mention of Scz,cme?t, who was born an 
 Hundred Years afcer his time. Had the Dodor alfo Perufcd the Learn- 
 ed Reynolds, he might have found that in his Lpiftle to Sir Francis Knotty 
 he proves at large, from Chrjfoftom- Jerc?n, Ambrofe, AugafiiiK - 
 and many others, both Ancient and Modern Authors, that in Scripture 
 Presbyttr and Bijlwp are all one. The Epiftles of Clement, of the hrft Cen- 
 tury, are very pregnant againft the Di\ine Right of Frelacj; paiticularly 
 his Lpiftle to the Thilifpians, wherein lie makes but Two Orders of:., 
 ftry, Bifljops and Deacons, whic p to prppl 
 
 the Ordinances to Beiiet ers, J sujitOO prolix, in a Matter of it ielf, 
 
 clear and plain^andwhich,wemay probably have oCcafion again co touch: 
 
 D z c 
 
3 o 2)r. Scott*r Pleading? Chap. II. 
 
 Only before I part with the Drs. Firft Inftance, I cannot but in this place 
 obferve, and again leave it to the Readers confideration, that the Dr. af- 
 firms this Apoftkjlrip, which James did derive from the Twelve^ was cnly 
 an Epifcopal Infpe&ionof theChurch injerufalem: A ftrang Apoftlejhif indeed! 
 and 10 very far unlike and difproportioned to the Apoitolick Office, that 
 he might as well affirm, that any Curat of the Church of England, when 
 Jet over a Flock or Cure, has an Epifcopal Authority committed to him. 
 The Drs. Second Inftance, to prove the Apoftles committing their A- 
 
 w poftolick Authority to Succeffbrs, is taken from Epaphrodittis 
 jP. ;§7 " Fhilip. 2. 25. Who is Styled the Apoftle of the Fhilippians, Cit- 
 
 cc ing Jerom on Gal. 1. 19. Whofhews, that others were Ordain- 
 cf ed Apoftles, as Epaphroditus; And Theodcret, holding that he was Conftitut 
 4C their Bijhop. Ianfwer 1. Thohis Epifcopal Authority over this Church of Fhl- 
 Jippi were granted to the Dr. it will never come up to prove his Point and 
 Anertion of devolving the Apoftolick Office upon him, but rather proves, 
 the contrary,*, it being evident, both from the Nature of the Thing it fel£ 
 and in the Judgment of Judicious Divines,, that thefe Two Offices are. 
 incompatible and inconfiftent, and it is a greater degrading of the Office of 
 Apoftolat, as it ftands delineat 81 Scripture, to reftrift it to any Par- 
 ticular Church, than to make the Frmat of England, Curat of any Pa- 
 rifli. 2. The Dr. doth grofly miftake this Denomination of Epaphroditus, 
 while making it Import his being their Bijhop j as is obvious to any that 
 Reads the Text, and will view|Commentators upon the place, as might be 
 eafily and at large, made appear, if our intended brevity did permit. The 
 C€ Bclgick Divines upon the Paflage, tells us, " That the Word Apcftle 
 cc fignifies one, who was Called and lent forth by Chrift himfelf, to Preach 
 ft the Gofpel through the whole World ( meaning in its Strid and Pre- 
 Cf per acceptation ) for clearing which they Cite Gat 1. 1. Eph. 4. 11. 
 And here the Dr. may obferve, how they take the Nature and Extent of 
 the Apoftolick Office. Then they add. " But here it is taken more 
 ** largely, in General, for one, who is lent forth by any one to ad any 
 u Thing in his Name, or for him : He was by the Fhilippians fent unto 
 *■ Rome toFaul, to carry him that which they had Contribut for his Main- 
 C( finance, Citing Chap. 4. 18. Where the Apoftle fliews that he had Re- 
 rt ceived what was fent by Ep-aphroditus : Which difcovers the Folly of 
 " the Drs. giofs. They add,- k<r That if it be rendered, their Teacher, the 
 u - Word is Fometimes taken fo, in a General Senfe, for any kind of Teach- 
 c *er. Rom. 16. 7. Where the Phrafe of Note among the Apoftles, doth im- 
 ^port, among them, wha Preached- the Gofpel here andthere, paralelling i 
 v this with that of 2 Cor. 8. 2^. Where the Phrafe of Mejfengers or Apo- 
 ^ iiles m the Churches, 15 afaibed to other Brethren, together with Titus % 
 
 and 
 
Chap- II. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examined. 21 
 
 Cf and imports only Meffengers and Teachers. So, That altho the 
 Phrafe of ycur Mejfenger or Apoftle, were in this place admitted to import a 
 Paftoral Relation toPhilippL/it is as far from coming up to a Proof of the 
 Drs. Glofs, as Eaft from Weft. Grotius upon the place mews, that Grace 
 loqu'ntes kwwus vocabant qui jacras pecunias colligcbant at que portabant, utDixi~ 
 wus ad Math, 10. 2. tuJf^s, Dixit Jgnatixs : That the Word Apofile, is 
 here taken late or largly, and for Honours caufe, put upon thisPerfon,as a 
 Minifter only, isAffertedby£r^/w. Simplicius, Vcrfiius: That he is thus cal- 
 led, quia miffusfuit cum Eleemofyna; and that this- is Confirmed by the enfu- 
 ing Claufe of Miniftring to the Apoffles wants, has a large Harmony of 
 great Judgments,- Thus Zanch. Simp. Efiius, Beza, Collating this with 2 Cor. 
 8. 23. For what the Dr. adds (ubijupra.) oijercm zndTheodoret; It is cafily 
 anfwered, that the Word Apcfile ot Bijlwp.is by them ufedin aGeneral Ac- 
 ceptation^ might be cleared from many Paffages of the Fathers, efpecially 
 Jerom, holding that through the Apoftolick times, communi. Ccncilio Presby- 
 terorum Ecclefia gubernabantur ; Thus in his Comment, upon Titus, where he 
 proves this from Phil. 1. Act. 20. Hek 13. 17. 1 Pet. j. Andifthe Word 
 Apoftk in Scripture, have this General Acceptation,, as we have heard, why 
 not alfo in the Writings of the Fathers? 
 
 ThePr/Third Inftance,(P.;98) is of 7///^,andfome others,whom the A- 
 poftle zCcr. 8. 23. Calls MeJJengers, or in the Greek,Apofths of the Churches, 
 which the Dr. takes- to hold out their Apoftolick Authority over the fame, 
 and will not have the Phrafe to Import their Relation to thefe Churches, 
 whofe liberality they carried. Thereafter, he Infifts upon the Inftanceof 
 Titus, whofe Epifcopal Authority over Crete, he endeavours to prove from 
 theEpiftle written to him. Tothelnftance, Firft in the General, I An- 
 fiver, that the Drs. Senfe of the Paffage Cited, is but his own Imagination, 
 without the leaftShaddow of Ground in the Words or Context, efpecially 
 taking it to Import an Apoftolick Authority, in his Senfe, as might be clear- 
 ed by multiply ed inftances, if needful. We heard that the llelghi Divines 
 take the Phrafe to Import teachers in a General Senfe. The Authors of 
 " part.^2. Pocl.Annot. Thus Senfe the Paffage, Viz,, That the Appftle calls 
 " Titushis Feiiovv-hclper in the Bufinefs of the Gofpel,- for the others, he 
 u tells them, they were fuch, as the Churches thought- fit to make their 
 Ck Melfengers, and had the Credit of the Churches, whofe Me ffengers they 
 c ' were, iince the Churches would not have Inftruclcd them, if they had 
 * not Judged them Faithful. Hoth which Senfes (lands clearly crofs to that 
 which the Dr. Grounds upon. And to difcover further, the wcaknefs of his 
 Heafoning, even granting that this Text would Import a Fixed Epr/cvp.r- 
 cy of Titus a id thefe other Meffengers, over fome Churches, howdcth it 
 pro ve the Apoitlc* devolving upon them, the. entire Apoicoligk Qflfce^n 
 
Vz Dr. Scott' sT leadings Chap. It 
 
 the fame Nature and Extent, as it was committed to the Twelve^ by cur 
 Saviour ? The Dr. will never be able to knit this Antecedent and Confe- 
 quent, by Scripture or Divine Reafon : And this being the Point, he is 
 all along undertaking to prove,any may fee how palpably he miftakes and 
 miffes his Mark, in thefe Inftances. 
 
 But now to exarnin the Drs. proof of Tttm's Epifcopacy,- thefe Things I 
 do in general premife, which do cut the Sinews or his, or any others Ar- 
 guings for the pretended Epifcopacy of Timothy or Titus, over thefe Churches. 
 i. In Churches already conftitut, this Authority, was not folely featedin 
 them,, they were only to go before the Churches, in wholefome Coun- 
 sels, in relation to the planting of Minifters,- not to do as they pleafed, 
 excluding others, as judicious Calvin expreffes it, Infiit: lib. 4. cap. 3. fince 
 .P*w*/ himlelf, neither impofed Hands, nor Excommimicat alone in Chur- 
 ches conftitut: And a whole Colledge of Apoftles, had the ordinary El- 
 ders going along with them, in a Synodal Procedure, Acl. 15. far lefs,could 
 Timothy or Titus, afiiim this Evifcopal Preheminence, who were inferior to 
 Apoftles. 2. After the Church of Ephefus wasExedifiedand Compleated_, 
 in its Organick fieeihg, and after Timothy had gotten his Charge, as to 
 Ordination and Juriidiction in Ephefus, in the firli Epiftle directed to hint 
 (wherein the Dr. and his Fellows,hold him to be inftrudted with Epifccpal 
 Authority) Paul committed the whole Epifccpal Power and Charge to the 
 Elders, before Timothy's Face, in his laft Farewel to that Church, calling 
 thefe Elders, the Bijhops,and enjoy ning them the Exercife of their Autho- 
 rity, as appointed by the Holy Ghoft, and this without the leaft Hint of 
 any InfpecHon or Authority,that Timothy had over them hereanent, or of 
 any relation they had to him in this Matter,- thus Aft. 20. And the fame 
 Judgment by neceffary confequen.ee, we muftmakeof Titus, fmce the Dr. 
 and his Fellows draw their proofs equally as to both, from thefe Epiftles. 
 3. In thefe Epiftles themfelves, their Power ftands fo defcribed and cir- 
 cumftantiat as to Ordination and Jurifdiclion, over thefe Churches, as it 
 clearly excluds an Epifcopal Preheminence and Authority : For, Firft, As 
 Diocefan Bijhops, they ought to have been defignedly fet and fixed as 
 Officers in. thefe Churches ,• but the contrary appears in the Text [ I be- 
 fought thee to abide fill at Ephefus] faith Paul to Timothy. And again toTitus, 
 [I left. thee at Crete — and to fet in order things that are wanting] Which words 
 • point at an occaiional, traniientlm ploy men t there, not a.rixedlnftalment. 
 Secondly, In thefe Epiftles, they are both called back, without the leaft in- 
 timation of their returning,77^>v///,If their Power *vy as Epif®pal and Ordi- 
 nary, then in the Apoftles Prefcriptions and Rules, anent their Succeffors,, 
 the Power and Authority of thefe Succeftors, ought to have'.been.defcri- 
 fced^ a^d Rules given^ touching the Gifts, Call^ Ordination^ &c. of the 
 
 Dio- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. % % 
 
 Diocefan Bifiop, efpecially, fince theDr. holds, that theDefcription of 3 
 and Authorizing fucb a Bifoop, is the great fcope^f both thefe Epiftles, 
 and he will not fay, that this Office was to die with Timothy and Titus: But 
 fo it is, that the Apoftle prefcribs no Rules for any Church Officer, higher 
 than a V after, and fuppoies ft i 11 that he is i : Ordinary Church 
 
 Officer, in all his Rules and Prefcriptions, in point of Church Govern- 
 ment, delivered either in thefe-Epiitles, or-anv where elfc in Scripture. 
 Fourthly, As Timothy is exprefiv called anE&atigeUft i Tim. 4. ). andconfe- 
 quently Titus is fappofed to hold the fame Office • \o this Office in the Judg- 
 ment of Prctcftant Divines, is acknowledged and held to be Extraordinary 
 and Expired, as that of the Apoftle-: The 'Work and Exercife thereof, 
 confifting in a planetary Motion, to Watery where the Apoftles Planted, 
 to bring Inftructions from the Apoftles to the Churches, touching the Du- 
 ties cf both Paftors and People, and Reports of the Churches State,- to the 
 Apoftles. So their Office, fiippoiing the Churches jn furi, as to their Or- 
 ganick Beeing, in a great meafure at leaft, and alio the Exigence and 
 Exercife of the Apoftolick Office, they mult needs be, as the Apoftles 
 themfelves, Extraordinary Officers. And infpecial, Timothy and Titus, ac- 
 companying Paul in his Travels, and continual planetary Motion, being. 
 fo clearly held out in Scripture, conchies the Iinpoffibiiity of their being 
 fixed to any Station, and proves that Character p,iven-to them by Ami 
 as Evangelifts, viz,. That they did Evangelfaarc hie Cathedra. Their ebi 
 nual planetary Morion, is by fome largfy defcribed from the Apofto 
 Epiftles, and the ABs or the Apoftles : Thus, hrttTimotty h found at B 
 with PauI,AB. 17. 14. then at -Athens v. 1 5. thence Paul fends him to 1 
 falonica 1 Theft'. i } . 1, 2. Then having been a: with Paul,he 6 
 
 to him to Ccrtnth Act. 18. \. Then he is with him at Efbefiis y and thence 
 fent to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. whether Paul • ; him, and wai 
 
 him accompanied into Afia Act. 20. He is with him at Troas %r. c. a:: 
 Miletus <v. 17. where Paul gave the Elders of EfBeftts, their laft Charge 
 the TSifhops of that Chi rch : And after this, he is found cither in Jour- 
 neys, orabfcntfrdraFjA-Ti^ For, after he is found aPrifoner with . 
 at Rome, being mentioned as his Companion in thefe Epiftles, written 
 while Paul was there ,• as the Epiftle to the 1 Philip. 1. i. P 
 
 vi 1. Ccl. 1. 1. And he is never found again at 1 "; ,:•. us ; But :<>v. 
 end of the Apoftles Pilgrimage^ is fent for to Rome, So.Titus i 3 foui 
 . Aum, before he came to ( 1. r. thence is fent for to Nid 
 
 'fit. 5. 12. then W Corinth: Th< ;.d at Tcrs, 2 Cor. 2. 12, 
 
 and meets with Paul at M 1 Cor: 7. 6. whence he is again fort to 
 
 Cori>.th, 2 ( r.8 p 6. And'. after l Dc tthj rs I 
 
 at Rime, from whence, I or to Vain . 
 
 U 
 
l^ *Dr. Scott 3 sT leadings Chap. IL 
 
 10. And after this, is not heard of in Scripture. So that, whether wc 
 confider, i. The various Journies. 2. The order of them. 3. The time 
 fpent in them. 4. The nature of their Irnployment, which was, as the 
 Apoftles Co-adjutors, to negotiat the Affairs of the Churches, where 
 they travelled, and especially the Scripture-filence of their being Bifhcps 
 of any one Church,* their fuppofed Epifcopal Authority in thefe Churches 
 ofEphefus and Crete,doth palpably appear to be an Anti-fcriptural ground - 
 lefsFi&ion. This Conclufion upon the premifed accurat Search and 
 Scripture account of Timothy and Titus, is thus inferred by the reverend 
 and learned Divines, in their Conference at the Ifle otlffght; The Authors 
 of Jus divlnum minifi. Evangel, In whofe Words, I have reprefented this 
 Account, both becaufe of the judicious Concifnefs thereof, andalfo be- 
 caufe thefe Peices, are but in few Hands, 
 
 Thefe things thus premifed, its eafie to difcover the Abfurdity of the 
 Drs reafoning from his Third Inftance, to prove an Apoftolical Autho- 
 rity Devolved upon Titus. His Proof is from Chap. 1. 5-. For this Caafe 
 left I thee in Crete, that thou jhouldefi fet in order the things that are 
 * • 39° -wanting, and Ordain Elders in every City , ail had appointed thee.^ From 
 <c whence the Dr. Firft Argues " That Paul gave him the Supream Judg- 
 Cf ment in things that were wanting,with an abfolut Power to Reform and 
 * c Correcl them. It is Anfwered. 1 mo. Tho an Epifcopal in&e&ion over this 
 Church were granted, theDr.is infinitly behind in his Proof of Paul's devol- 
 ving upon Titus, an Apoftolical Authority, in the Scripture Senfe and Ex- 
 tent, as we have often told him. ido. Upon fuppofition of that, which 
 we have before made good, Viz?. That both Paul as an Apoftle, and Titus 
 as an Evangelist, had extraordinary Offices, and futed to fuch a Cafe and 
 exigence ot the Chriftian Church, as is now gone off, this dire&ion and 
 Command, proper and peculiar to the one and the other, as Apoftle and 
 Evangelifi, and fuppofing this Exigence of the Church, can lay no Foun- 
 dation of the Duty of Ordinary Officers. rtio. By what confequence can 
 the Dr. infer an Epifcopal Authority and Inlpe&ion, from thefe prefcripti- 
 ons to Titus, unlefs he can prove the abfolut feciufion of Minifters from 
 the Work herexnjoyned, or any intereft therein, in Churches Conftitut ? 
 For, as for what they did in the Conftitution of Churches, in fieri, is not 
 to the purpofe ( I mean in refped: of the Organick being) efpecially, 
 iince we find that the laying on of Hands in Ordination, and the Authori- 
 ty thereof, is in Scripture held out, to be competent to a Vresbytrie,vA-\id\ 
 they exercifed upon Timothy himfelf, one of our Drs fuppofed Apoftles or 
 £i[bops, and that tho Paul was prefent 1 Tit. 4. 14, xTim. i.*6. So 
 that it is evident,, that neither Timothy nor Titus, were inftru&ed with any 
 jfingular Epifccpal Authority in this Matter, among Churches Conftitut in 
 
 their 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examinee!. 1 5 
 
 their Organick Beeing. In the 4th place, the Drs abfurd Aflertion of a 
 Supreme and Abfolut Power, to Reform and Correct drawn from this Paf- 
 f age, doth obvioufly appear to the meaneft Refle&ion: For, 1. The A- 
 poftles themfelves, arrogat fto abfolut or fupreme Power ; Paul difowns 
 a Dominion, and aflerts a Minifterial Authority only competent unto 
 him, 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 24. I had alwife thought, that in the Judgment 
 of all Proteftants, yea of all Men of Senfe, who ever read the Scripture?, 
 there is none hath a fupreme Judgment, or abfolut Power over the Church of 
 God, but He who is the Churches Head and Husband, there being but 
 one Lord, and all Minifters being Brethren, one Mafter of the Houfe of 
 God, who hath Dominion over the Ordinances, under whom, even 
 Apoftles, are but Stewards and Servants, which I fuppofe, none^ if not this 
 Dr. will deny. 2. Its ftrang, that in reading this Paflage, the Drs. Eyes 
 and Thoughts, could not fix upon and ponder the important laft Ciaufe 
 of the Words, viz,, [As I had appointed thee'] which doth very clearly fup- 
 pofe and import, both the Apoftles fuperior Authority to Titus, and his 
 reftriiting him to his Rules, and authorizing Information in this Matter: 
 And how thefe can confift with 7?Av/s fupreme Judgment haein, and ahfcluC 
 Power, will fute the Drs. greateft Skill to prove and demonftrat. In a 
 word, this odd Inference of fuch a fuppofed Power in Tit us, is difowned 
 by all found Interpreters, as might be eafily made appear : And in fpe- 
 cial, the Belgick Divines, tells us, upon thisPaffage, u That Titus was not 
 cc to perform this by his own Authority, and good Pleafure only, (as the 
 cc Dr. holdsj but according to the Order, which the Apoftle prefcribed, 
 <c and did obferve himfelf} paralelling this with 1 Tim. 4. 14. where it ap- 
 " pears, that the Efdtrs concurred with Paul, in Timothy's Ordination : 
 And this laft Ciaufe of the Vtrfe, they render [As 1 commanded :hee~\ 
 
 The Drs. SeeondProof of 7?r;/j c s Apoftolick Authority, is, (P. 599) "Tha the 
 cc is authorized to ordain Elders in ever) City: And there being Presbyters and 
 cf Elders in Crete, left by the Apoftle, before Titus was left there, who yet 
 cc had no power to Ordain, elfeT/ta/s power of Ordination had been in 
 cc vain, and an invafion of their power as a fresfytry : Therefore, this po- 
 c * wer of Ordination, was competent ioTttmon\y s not toPresljttrs; eire- 
 Ci dally, fince it is extended, not only to Ordination of Elders, but alio 
 fc to Rebuking with Authority to the Correction of Offenders, with the 
 cc Rod of Excommunication, chap. 2. ij. ToAdmoniih Hereticks, and to 
 cc Re je:t them from Coin munion of the Church, ifobftinat, chap. 3. 10. 
 " From all which, the D:. concluds Ins Apoftolajt in the Church of 
 Cf Crete, to be the lame th.it the fir ft Apoftles themfeiyes had, in thcflveral 
 t€ Churches planted by therh, I .'-...•, 1. The )Dr, doth nothing but 
 here again b^g the Qijc! \, and this one 
 
 £ point 
 
2 6. T>r.$cott's Pleadings Chap. IL 
 
 point being but fuppofed, That the Office of Apoftles and Evangelifts was 
 Extraordinary ^(and we may juftly fuppofe it, having above made it good) 
 this Arguing appears mere puerile Sophiftry. But 2. To come more clofly 
 to the Drs. Arguing: As for the laying on of Hands in Ordination, we have 
 told him, That it is a Presbyterian A&,competent to mere Presbyter s\ And there- 
 fore,neither Timothy nor Titus, could have a Sole or Epfccpal Authority there- 
 in,unlefs the Dr. will make the Scripture inconfiftent with it felf. Next as 
 for his Authority in his Rebuking and Cenfures, fuppofed in thefe Dire- 
 ctions. I anfwer, That neither can this be Titus's fole Prerogative : For, 
 either it is meant of a private Rebuke, and this every Chriftian hath Au- 
 thority in, [ — thoujhalt in any wife. Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not fujfer Sin 
 upon him. Lev it. 19. 17. ] or of a Minifterial Rebuke, and this is compe- 
 tent to every Minifter of the Word;, If a. 5-8. 1. 2Tk 4* 1,2. Tit. 1. 13. 
 1 Sam. 12. 7. And befides, Inftitutions and Reproofs of Church Officers, 
 will not prove a fixed Epifcopal Power. Prophets Rebuked,, but had no 
 Jurifdi&ion over Priefts ,• nor Paul over Peter, tho he reproved him. More- 
 over, we find the Authority, to receive Accufations-, and to Corred De- 
 linquents by Reproofs and Cenfures, competent to the juridical Courts 
 and Church., Mat. 18. 16, 17. 1 Cor. |j. 4,5". Gal. 6. i 3 2. iTheJf. 5-. 12. In 
 which places, a judicial Rebuke and* Admonition, is attributed to the Ju- 
 ridical Court of Paftors, not to one Prelat, not, uni, but unitati. 3. As for 
 
 the Drs. Notion, of a fuppofed exigence of Elders in that Church, 
 Ibid. €f who had no power of Ordination, elfe this Prefcription, which 
 
 cc the Apoftle gives Titus to Ordain, had.; been fruitlefs, and an 
 e Invafion of their Power, in the Drs. Judgment. I deny his Confequence 
 ss having no twift of a Connection: For (1.) Upon fuppofiti on of Apoftles 
 or Evangelifts extraordinary Offices, Pauls inftru&ing Titus, and his Au- 
 thority in Ordination thereupon, was a power and Authority, Cumulative 
 fcnto, but not Privative of the Ordinary Officers and Elders their ftanding, 
 and ordinary Authority herein : It being certain, that this Authority of 
 Apoftles and Evangelifts, as is above defcribed, could not bevoided, what- 
 ever advance of Gofpel Ordinances there was in Churches, thefe extraor- 
 dinary Officers, had ftill their Authority and Infpedion vigent. I fuppofe 
 the Apoftle Paul had in theprefence of Titus (the Bijhop of Crete in theDrs. 
 fcnfe,) ordained Minifters or Elders in this Church, will he own the con- 
 fequence, that this did nullify Titus c s Authority herein,as Bijhcp ? Surely not: 
 And thus he muft acknowiedg our Plea to be clear, as to the referved Au- 
 thority of Paftors orElderlhips,notwithftanding of theApoftolicalPrefcrip- 
 •feians inftaneed. (2.) 'Elders once ordained.its true, have power to ordain El- 
 ders ,• yet the bene ejfe, did call for the Infpe&ion and Direction of fuch 
 Wghly gifted arid extraordinary Officers as Evangelifts ^ and their interpo- 
 
 fed 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Exdmined. i y 
 
 fed Authority in that infant-ftate of the Churchy wherein Apoftolick Pre- 
 cepts and Rules, in reference to Government, were to be delivered to the 
 Churches, and practifed accordingly. And in a word, the Dr. neither 
 hath,nor can prove, that Titus did ordain here alone, or folely perform any 
 other authoritative Ad, where Elders wereprefent, and theChurches redu- 
 ced to anOrganick\iouldandFcrm,*which is the confentient Judgment of 
 found Vr defiant Divines. Judicious Calvin upon the place, will tell him,, 
 ThatT/taf here acted only as a Prefident or Moderator, which is clearly 
 evinced from the Authority and Power of Elderfliips aiTerted in Scripture. 
 And we may retort upon die Dr. thus,* If neither Apoftles nor Evangelifis 
 (extraordinary and highly gifted Officers) did exercife their Power to the 
 prejudice of fending Elderfnips, or juridical Courts of Parlors, much lefs 
 ought any ordinary Church Officer, arrogat fuch a Dominion and Autho- 
 rity over the Courts of Chrift, and Judicatories of His Cfiurch, when the 
 Office of Apoftles and Evangelifts is ceafed. I need not here (land fur- 
 ther to tell the Dr. That the power of Excommunication, is by the Apo- 
 ftlePW i Cor. f. fuppofed to be competent to zVresbytry. And therefore, 
 Titus could have no Sole and Ordinary Authority herein. For 
 what the Dr. adds of the Tefiimonies of the Ancients, touching P. 400 . 
 Titus's Epifcopacy at Crete, fuch as Eufeb. lib. 5. cap. 4. &CC. it is fur- 
 riciently Anlwered already, and we need not repeat. 
 
 The Drs. Fourth and laft inftance, to prove the Divine Right of 
 cc Epijcpacy, from the Apofiles practice is of the fuppofed Epijcopal ibiJ. 
 " Authority of Timothy over Ephejus, and that not only over the Laity to 
 " Command and Teach. \Tim. 4. n. to receive or reject Widdows. t 
 u Tim. f . 9. &c. But alfo over the Clergy, to take care for their Provifion 
 Ct 1 Tim. 5*. 17. Not to admit Deacons, but upon tryal, nor Ordain the 
 cc Elder, till a good acquittance in the Deaconihip. 1 Tim. 3. ic 13. to 
 (c receive accufations, put the Guilty to fiaame, 1 Tim. $-. 19. 20. And 
 cc to exercife this Juriidiction, without Preferring one before another, 
 u v. 21. which could not be without a Jurifdi&ion over them. He has 
 fc alfo afcribed unto him, an Ordaining Power, as to the laying on of 
 " Hands. 1 Tim. 5% 22. All which Authority, that it was given him by 
 "Paul, for a ftanding Form of Government, the Dr. proves from this 
 Ci Ground, becaufeitwas after the? res by trie was formed and fettled there, 
 Ck and after Pauls great Labours in that large Church for Three Years; 
 " And therefore, he may be fuppofed, not only to have Planted a Pn 
 Ci trie there, as in other Churches. Afts 14. 23. but alfo to have reduced 
 * L it to much greater perfect.k;n, than any other; And by confequence 
 " Eftablifhing this Authority in a (ingle Perfon,is fuch a Toim of Govern- 
 <( ment, as die Apoftle mull needs have underllood and intended tobe of 
 " of that Nature, as was to continue as a Pattern to other Chuivhes. 
 
 Iv 2 1c 
 
%% Vr.bcottsT leadings Chap. II. 
 
 It is AnfoereJ. i. There is nothing here of a New Argument,, but a 
 Repitition of the former, and a New Begging of the Queftion, Viz,. The 
 ft anding ordinary Office of Apofiles and Evangelifts* which we have above 
 convict ofFalfehood. But 2. f To come a little clofer to the I>j. New 
 Inftance ) fince he prefents here fome Actings of the Power of Order, 
 which he acknowledges, tho performed by Timothy., and enjoy ned to nim- 
 by Paul in that Church, yet are likewife Competent to Presbyters or Tafiors, 
 VizA Teaching, &c which together with other Actings of the Power of 
 Order, he makes common to Paftors, and at large difcourfes this. P. 427 
 428. 429. &c. I would fain know how the Dr. will diverfifie thefein this 
 Inftance, and /hew, that the enjoyning to Timothy in this place, fuch an 
 exercife of the Power of Order, as is above expreit, will give him nope- 
 culiarlntereft therein,but joyntly with the Presbyter Sy^nd yet that the Com- 
 mands in point of Jurifdiction, are delivered to him peculiarly, and not to. 
 them. Where Will the Dr. /hew this diftinction and difference in the A- 
 poftolick Precepts to Timothy} It /hould feem the ordinary Rule will take 
 place here, non-eft difiingttendum, ubi Lex non diftirguit; fince the Precepts are. 
 egually delivered, and without theleaft Intimation of fuch a difference or 
 diftinction: The perfon who makes the diftinction, feems 
 Chargable with arrogant Anti-fcriptural Boldnefs.. 
 F. 40 1. « TheDr.pleads.that the Apoftolick Precept. 2 Tim. 5. 22. \Lay 
 €C Hands fuddenly on no man~\ prefcribes a. (landing Rule in Point of Jurifdi- 
 cc ction. Viz/, that the Prelat has a fole intereit therein, fecluding Presby- 
 €f ters wholly from any Authority in this Matter : For this he makes the- 
 cc Bijhop peculiar prerogatiue. P. 4; 6. 457. &c. And he draws his great 
 cc Proof in this place, from the Apofiles addreffing this Precept to limo- 
 € ' thy y not to Paftors or Presbyters. Now, what if any fhall lafii the Dr. 
 with his own Argument, and v Plead from the Apoftles Solemn Charge to- 
 Timothy y 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. [Pr 'each the Wordy beinftar.t in SeafoVy cutofSeaJon] 
 and feveral fuch Precepts, relative to General Minifterial Duties, or Act- 
 ings of the Power of Order, fuch as a Right behaving in the Houfe of 
 GOD,. 1 Tun. 3* if. To be a growing Minifter in the. Words cf Faith- 
 3 Tim. 4. 6. To exercife himlelfto Godlinefs. i\ 7. To be examplarj 
 to Believers in word and Converfation, &c. V. 12. To give attendance- 
 to Readings Exliortation and Doctrin,- not to neglect, but to ftir up his 
 Gift,- to Meditat upon the things of God, and give himfelf wholly 
 thereunto,' to take heed unto himfelf, and to the Doctrin, and continue- 
 in them, v. 13. 14. 1 y. 16. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. That fuch Actings of the- 
 jjower of Order, are proper only to the Bifiopy and fuch Mini frerial Du- 
 ties peculiar to him.; So that Vreshyters or Vaftors, have no Interefi or con- 
 esjca therein, becaufe tiiefe Precepts are pecu iarly addreffed to Timothy y _ 
 
 U9t 
 
Chap. II. tor hpiicopacy, Examined. 29 
 
 not to them: What Arifwer and evafion can he have to fave him., frcm a 
 Contradiction and inccnfiftency with himfelf ? If his own Argument be 
 good againft us, upon the forementioned Ground, why not the very 
 lame Argument in this Cafe againft himfelf ? The Drs. only Anfwer and 
 evafion, which he can have, is, That thefe Commands, as to the Exercife 
 of the Power of Order, or refpeding Paftoral Duties in general, tho pe- 
 culiarly addrefled to "timothy, yet could give him no peculiar or fole In- 
 tereft therein, becaufc Presbyters are elfcwhere in Scripture Inftruded with 
 the fame Power. But i. In this Anfwer, he breaks his Argument all in 
 pieces, the Strength whereof is drawn from the peculiar addrejjivg 
 thefe Precepts to Timothy; But here he acknowledges that the peculiar A ri- 
 dels will bear no fuch conclufion of Timothy's iole Intereft in the Duty 
 enjoyned. And 2. If he fay, that the PijJwps peculiar Intereft andjurifdi- 
 dion, is el few here evident in Scripture, who fees not, that he but pity- 
 fully beggs the Queftion, and baftis his own General Argument: And fur- 
 ther he ihould know, that the TfresByttrians (land upon an advarrtagfous 
 Ground with him in this Point,* For we hold, and can prove that the Pow- 
 er of J urifdiction is prefcribed and competent to Tresbyters, lince theScrip- 
 ture jhews-the Power of Ordination, to befeated in a Presbytrie,i Tim. 4. 14. 
 with Ad: 22. .c. Lttk. 22. 66. M-.itth. 18. 17. Confequently,correfpondent Ad- 
 ingsof a Jurifdidional Power. All that watch for the Peoples Souls, are in 
 Scripture, held out to have a joint Rule over them, Heb. 13. 17. In the 
 Church of Tbefjalonica, the Labourers in the Word and Dodrin, jointly 
 fed and laboured, jointly cenfured, and as the r^ir«npu Rulers, were to 
 be fubmittted to and obeyed. 1 The]]. 5. 12. So it was in the fame Chinch 
 of Ephefm, jitl. 20. So with thefe Elders or Bijhopy. 1 Pet. 5-. And I would 
 fain know, why the Drs. Notion and Aigument, from the peculiar addref- 
 fing of Precepts, will not hold good in our Cafe againft him, upon the 
 ground of thefe and fuch like Scriptures, where the Power of Order and 
 j urifdiction, is jointly afcribed to Presbyters, without the leaft hint of a 
 Superior Authority herein,or their Precarious dependence upon any Offi- 
 cer, of an higher order ? Moreover, will the Dr. be bold to affirm 
 that what was prefcribed to Timothy, in Point of Order and Jurifdr- 
 dion, was confined within the Church of Ephefm, and not rather to be 
 exercifed through all other Churches, as the Apoftle enjoined him ? And 
 if thislaft muft needsbe allerted,upon the Ground of his EvavgiliJricktrATi- 
 iient imployment through the Churches, as is above, from Scrp- 
 ture evinced and delineat, it follows by inevitable confequence, that th* 
 Addrelling of thefe Prefcripticns to him, while at Ephefm, can inferno pe- 
 culiar Relation he had to that Church, but refpeded thebxeicile of hfc 
 Evangeliftick Otiice in other Churches^ as well as therej cfpecialiy line* 
 
3 o *Dr. Scott'x T leadings Chap. II. 
 
 the Apoftle here enjoins him, to do the Work of an Evangdift. i. e. of 
 fuch an unfixed traniient Minifter, as is above defcribed, not the work of 
 &?re!at , 'over this Church,- If the Dr. deny this, he will advance 
 him to a Metropolitan over feveral other Churches.; or elfe muft quite 
 his plea. But finally, toRaze the Foundation of the D™. Notion and Ar- 
 gument, which he draws from VauV s Conftituting a Presbytrie at Ephefrts, 
 
 and reducing it to a greater perfection than in other Churches,be- 
 P. 401. fore Timothy had thefe Prefcriptions, in point of Government, 
 fubfmm AdddreiTed unto him therein; cf From whence the Dr. concludes* 
 
 " that the Apoftle eftablifhed the Government to continue by a 
 <c fingle perfon, prefiding over Clergy and Laity. Befides the exceptions 
 above touched, to which this is Ivable, I would, Firft know of him, whe- 
 ther this Vtesbytrie or Presby tries, fo perfe&ly Conftitut in his Judgment, 
 had not an effential and inherent intereft and Authority in fuch Act- 
 ings of the Power of Order, as himfelf acknowledges competent to them, 
 fuch as Teaching and the like? And if fo, as himfelf doth hold and fup- 
 pofe, notwithstanding of the Addreffing of Precepts toTimothy hereanent, 
 why were fuch Precepts addreffed to Timothy ? Why was not this left to 
 the perfectly Conftitut Vresbytrie, and Precepts only in Point of Govern- 
 ment addreffed to him? ( Efpecially fmce its known, the Bijhops do not 
 much concern themfelves in Teaching and thefe other Mini fterial Duties, 
 expreft in the Precepts abovementioned ) And if the Prior Authority of a 
 Conftitut Vresbytrie hereanent, was no Juft Ground to flop the Apoftles Pre- 
 cepts to Timothy, in the Power of Order, and fuch Minifterial Duties, as 
 are contained in the forementioned Precepts., nor can infer Timothy c s fole 
 Intereft therein, why I pray, fliall this Reafon be valid in point of Jurif- 
 di&ion? What will the Dr. Anfwer, ifonefhould improve his own Ar- 
 gument thus? Notwithstanding of Pauls great pains in Preaching and Con- 
 ftituting a perfect Vresbytrie ( to ufe his own term ) and that there were 
 many Paftors, gifted to Preach and admonifh, yet the Apoftle afterward 
 in his Epiftle to Timothy, gave this Commandment to him, not to them: 
 Therefore this is proper and peculiar/to the Bijhop only. And fure I am, 
 whatever Anfwer he can give to this, which has any Senfe or Confonan- 
 cy to Scripture, will loofe and Anfwer his own Argument againftus. In a 
 word, its eafie to retort this Argument from a Priority of time, and fhew 
 that when pertinently improven, it ftands upon our iide againit the Dr. 
 and his Fellows. Which retortion, I thus offer,- After Timothy had receiv- 
 ed thefe Inftru&ions in the Church of Ephefm, with reference to the Cler- 
 gy and Laity, ( as hefpeaks ) the Apoftle Committed the whole Eptfcbpai 
 Charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephefo, as to both Order and Jurifdi- 
 gftorij without the leafthint of any Intereft, that Timothy had in or over 
 
 them 
 
Chap. II. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examined. 51 
 
 them herein, or of any precarious dependence cfthcfe Elders and Minifters y 
 upon him, in the exerciie of this their Power, notwithftandifig that Timo- 
 thy was prefent with them, when the Apoftle gave this Charge, and that 
 it washislaft farewell-Charge, when never to lee their Faces more. Now, 
 if the Apoftle had given Timothy aftanding Episcopal Authority before, and 
 Conftitut him their Bifiop, what a pityful inconiiftency, retraction and 
 contradiction wasit to his former Dodrin and practice, in the Inftalment 
 of Timothy, to devolve his whole Authority upon thefe Elders, Command- 
 ing them as the tncx^H or Bijhops * Uf i*inw to Yccd and Rule} Surely if 
 the Argument from Priority of time, be valid, it mud be ilgnally fo in this 
 Cafe, wherein it is ftrengthened by fo many Corroborating Circumftances 
 of the Sacred Text, and ( to ufe the Drs. expreflion, and Addrefs him in 
 his own words ) ibid.\_ this Conftitut ion was to be a Pattern to all Churches, and tr> 
 be fure, the Government, now at la ft Eftrddiftjed, at Ephefus was fitch as the A- 
 poftle intended jlmdd continue. ] 
 
 cc The Dr. will needs have this Practice of the Apoftle Paul to 
 CQ proceed upon the exprefs Inftitution of our Saviour, confe- P. 405J 
 cc quently to found a Divine Right of a Subordination of Eccle- 
 cc liaftick Officers, fince the Apoftles ordained other Apoftles, and Biftwps 
 cc to prefid over the Churches. But fure, looking to his Scope and Plea- 
 ding, nothing could be faid in a more inconhftent Mould: For, he cannot 
 but acknowledg, That the Inftitution of our Saviour did relate to the A- 
 poftolick Office, in its whole Nature and Extent, as above delineat, *«&• 
 To found and plant Churches through the World, toeftablifli the Gofpel 
 Government and Ordinances in them, and this with extraordinary Gifts, 
 and infallible directive Authority, as Chrifts, immediatly fent andhrft Am- 
 bafladors: Yet the Apoftles fuppofed profecution of this Inftitution, he 
 maks to coniift only in fetting iome certain Bifbops over particular-Church* 
 es, with an ordinary and limited Power ( for I hope, he will not maka 
 them 1 all univerfal Patriarchs) Now, how exactly thefe BijJjops are ihapen 
 to the Pattern of Chrifts inftitut Apoftles, any may judg,- yet he will 
 have them, not only Bificps, but Apoftles, properly fo called, fuch as 
 were the firft Apo/lL>s, and as fucceeding them, in their formal Office : 
 Befides, in fpeaking of this Divine Right, he tells us, a His Arguments 
 " p'eads for a Superiority and Subordination of Eccleliaftick Officers : 
 Which is a General, ealilv accorded by us, as is faid, and no way will 
 come home, to prove his fuppofed diftind: Offices in the Paftoral Charge. 
 The Dr. tells us, {ib:d/ % That if the ordaining o(Vresb)ters, be an Argument 
 cr of the perpetuit) of the Officers we hold, why not the Apoftles ordain- 
 u ing Bijlwps, as good an Argument, for the perpetuity of that Oftice i I 
 tnfwer, when the Dr. ilnill make it good, that the Apoftles ordained Bi- 
 
%z T>>: Scott' sT leadings Chap. II. 
 
 flops of his Mould K#r'<xx;\;.M*r or Church by Church, as we can prove,and it 
 is evident they did ordain Minifters or Elders; or make it appear, that 
 the Apoftle gave to Timothy or Titus, any Rules, for the Ordination of his 
 fuppofed Bifhop, or for his Qualifications, as in that Capacity, as it is evi- 
 dent he prefcribs Rules anent the Ordination and Qualification of the Pa- 
 fior, in both thefe Epiftles,* then, and not till then, the Drs. paralel Argu- 
 ment fliall be admitted : But til! then, we muft fend it back to the Dr. 
 with a Cenfureof Impertinency, till it be returned with aTeftimonial of 
 a better proof, than of his bare AiTertion, and ipfe dixit. 
 
 cc The Dr. enquires, how we can argue a perpetual power of 
 P. 404. <c Ordination in the Church, from the Ordination of Timothy and 
 cc Titus, (citing Jus divinum Minifi. Evang.p. 15-9. 167 J if theOf- 
 €c flee they were ordained to, were not perpetual ? And if perpetual, then 
 €e fo is Epifcopacy nothing different therefrom. Anfw. We hold the Ordi- 
 nation inftanced, to examplifie a Presbyterian Ordination, as well as in 
 General a Power of Ordination in the Church : Timothy's Ordination, 
 having this Scripture account, that it was by Laying on of the Hands oftheVres- 
 hytrie; which Power and Authority of a Presbytrie, the Apoftle PWs pre- 
 sence, and his Impofition of Hands, tho fuppofed, doth rather Strength- 
 en than invalidat, iince neither the Eminent Gifts of Timothy, nor his de- 
 fignment forfuch an Eminent Office, nor Paul s Impofition of Hands, the 
 Great Apoftle of the Gentiles, did Swallow up, or exclud the Presby tries 
 Ordinary Power and Authority, but Timothy muft pafs through this Door 
 of a Vresby tries Authoritative Ordination and Impofition of Hands, in or- 
 der to the Exercife of his Office.; therefore, much more doth this Autho- 
 rity belong to the Presbytrie now, when the Office of Apofiles and Evange- 
 lifis is ceaied. And for Titm c $ Ordination in an a&ive Senfe, or his Or- 
 dination of .Elders, the Apoftle tells him exprefly, Chap. 1. 5-. (the Paf- 
 fage wherein the Dr. places his Chief Strength ) that it was to be per- 
 formed [ according to the Apofiles appointment J which appointment in the 
 Senfe of our Divines, is none other elfe, than that which himfelfexam- 
 plified, and is Intimat. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. i. e. with Authorita- 
 tive ccncurrence of the Vresbytrie or Elderjhip; So that Titus had no Epifco- 
 fal Authority therein, notwithstanding of his Evangeliftick extraordinary 
 Office,* And this is invincibly made good in oppofit/on to the Drs Defign, 
 and pleading, in that the Apoftle, in the fame very Text, wherein he en- 
 joins Titus to ordain Elders, doth identify and make one and the fame_, 
 the Office of the Bijhop and Elder, which were a mere implkantia in termi- 
 nis, if the Apoftle in this Precept did Authorize or enjoy a the Drs. fup- 
 pofed Vrelatical Power in Ordination, as Competent to an higher Order 
 ®£BiJhop$ 9 Superior loVnrbpers. tor the Drs. ailemng the Office otEftf- 
 
Chap. 11. /^rlipilcopacy, examined. 33 
 
 copacy, and that of Timothy, to be one and the fame,- he therein beggs th« 
 Queftion, and fuppofcs what he has to prove: The Office of the Vrdat and 
 Evangclifi, being fo vaftly different, as we have already made appearj 
 Ancf therefore, his Reafon and Argument is pitifully abfurd from our af- 
 fertting the Powerof odination, as inherent to the Church, upon the 
 Ground of the Apoftles Ordaining Presbyters and Evangelifts, to conclud 
 the (landing Office of Trelatkal infpection or Ordination. 
 
 The Dr. ihould alfo know, that the afferting that a Church Officer, 1 
 fuch as an Apofile, hath an extraordinary Authority converfant about Or- 
 dination, can neither infer, that the Power of Ordination, it felf,is extra- 
 ordinary and expired, nor that every Perfon Ordained, hath an ordinary 
 ftanding Function,- Which, the Apoftles extraordinary Authority in the 
 firft Planting of Presbyters, while the Churches were in fieri, as to their 
 Organick Being, their Ordaining Evangelifls extraordinary Officers, to- 
 gether with their exercing extraordinary Gifts and Authority, as well in 
 their Actings of the Power of Order, and Preaching with Miraculous 
 Gifts of Tongues, and Confirming their Do&rins with Miracles, as in 
 Point of Jurifdiction, their Extraordinary Cenfures above expreft, doth 
 evince and make evident. The extraordinary Aiiffion of the Twelve Apo- 
 ftles, hath derived from it a Miniftry and Ecclefiaftick Authority diffufed 
 and fpread among all the 'Church Officers in the World, none of which 
 doth Succeed them,intothe fame formal Office,-So Timothy's Evangeliftick^ 
 extraordinary Authority, is derived, handed down into, and feated in a 
 Tresbytrie, tho the Evangel iftick Office is extraordinary, and as fuch, not 
 Succeeded unto. The Service and Work of Teaching and Governing, 
 to continue in all Ages, and in all times, doth not render the Jfofidifk 
 Miffionor Commiffion ordinary, nor infer their being Succeeded in idem 
 Ojficittm & eundem Minifterii gradum, the ordinary Power being Inflitut 
 and fettled in the Hands of ordinary Officers, by a New warrand . and 
 Commiffion, according to the Scripture Rules of Ordination. The Office 
 o£ Mofes, was not rendered ordinary, becaufe many Works of Govern- 
 ment exercifed by him, were recommitted to the Elders oiljr^el; and fo 
 the Cafe is here. The Evangel ifts extraordinary Office and Commiffiori 
 ( neceffary, as that of the Apo(tlcs,for the Firft founding of the Churches, 
 for Watering the Apoftles Plantation, Building up the Churches, in their 
 Organick being, and fettling all the ordinary Officers thereof) is chang- 
 ed into the Presbytries ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination and Jurif- 
 diction, which we rind was in the Apoftolick Church exercifed, and c- 
 ven in this 01 Efbtfm. 
 
 For the Drs Proofs from Antiquity, upon this head, and touch- P. 404 
 \ngT$motbics JLpfcofacj over Eihefm, they are fufficiently obyiat 4:3. 
 
jj^ T>r. Scott 9 sT leadings Chap. IL 
 
 by what is fau. above, and in fpecial, by what we have offered and 
 evinced anent the Fathers various acceptation of theNames ofBifhcp andA- 
 joftl • lb * Dr. brings an Anonymous Author, to prove that Timothy was 
 Enta; > ; .orfooth) Bijhop of the Metropolis of Ephefus by Paul: A pityfal 
 Proof indeed, and fit only for a namelefs Author / It being evident by 
 the beft fearchers of Antiquity, that the Office of Metropolitan*, had not a 
 Being till feveral Ages after Timothy. " For Chryfoftom his afferting 
 €C that 7hrotb*was intrufted with a Church or whole Nation : If we /hall 
 stffert that this is applicable toj his tranfient or temporary Evangeliftick 
 Truft, in correfpondence to the extenfive Office of Apoftlelhip, it fays 
 nothing to ourpurpofe. And the Dr. fhould know that Chryfoftom upon 
 Tit. i. $-. makes the Office of Bffiop and Presbyter one and the fame 
 and therein cuts the Sinews of the Drs. defign and arguing! 
 For other Authors, who do call Timothy, together with other Bifhops, then in 
 being, Apoftles, which the Dr. further Pleads, it doth fufficiently evince, 
 what is (aid above, of their improper, equivocal acceptation of the Term* 
 fince no perfon of Senfe, who ever Read the New Teftament, can take 
 the Office of Apoftle, as delineat hi Scripture, to be applicable to Timo^ 
 thy, far lefs to ordinary Bifliops, fixed in certain Pofts, Nay, the Dr. him- 
 felf, and in contradi&ion to himfelf, doth unawares bewray this in his 
 Greek Citation of TbeodoreP, who afferts that the Twelve Apoftles, were 
 more ftri&ly called fo, or rather, according to theTruth of the Greek *• /«•» *« 
 «.T«ox«ir '•»/«« rus «xi>*»c «r« T «t»tt K«riXnrtr. Apoftles according to Truth, or in 'very 
 deed; Clearly importing, that the Name appro^riat to other Officers, was 
 but ufed *A*wtt*.*t or improperly, as any MimfterorMeffengerof Chrift 
 may be thus called; And if this be Tbeadorets general Rule, as the Dr calls 
 it, that the Twelve Apoftles were only fuch, according to Truth, he 
 doth confequently aflert the Drs pleading for the Bifliops, as fucceeda- 
 nous Apoftles, and as holding and having derived unto them their entire 
 Office, to be not according to Truth ,• So that he did not well to raife 
 " this Ghoft. "As for the Storie or Fable of the Prince of Edefja, 
 €< which the Dr. next prelents out of Eufcbtus, to whom (he tells us, that) 
 ^ Thaddeus was fent by St. Thomas, and ^called an Apoftle by Eufebws : His 
 Denomination, as it is of it. felf, of no weight, to prove the Drs aflertion, 
 (as is clear, in the- like inftances)So, this is fo generally acknowledged to 
 fee a Fable, and Eufebiiss thereupon fo Cenfured by Judicious Divines., 
 that the Do&or hath bQQn far to feek for his proofs, when catching up fo 
 gitvfd fluff as this. $#d thus we-progeed to the Drs next Proofs. 
 
 CHAfc 
 
\Jhap. ill. tor npiicopacy, examined. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 *Tbe Dr^i* Third Argument conjidered, taken from an 
 Pledged punctual conformity of the Primi- 
 tive Church, to Chrifts Inftitution, and the 
 Apoftolick Pra&ice, in Point of Epifc opacy. 
 
 THE Dr c s.Third great Proof, for the Divine Right of Epifco- P. 404.' 
 fc pacy, is J drawnfrom the punctual and univerfal Ccnfcrmi- 
 cc ty(ashe calls \t) of thzTrimitive Church, to this (iippofed JB^B- 
 cc tution of our Saviour, and the VraBice of the Holy Apoftles, in 
 c * thisMatterBut,if thelVs Proof ofaC0«/<?rw^,benobetter,than 
 his Proof, of this fuppofed Institution, and Fratlice of our Saviour,and his Apo- 
 ftles, and amount to no more, than what he has made appear upon thefc 
 Points, we need not fear his Proof : However, before 1 engage the Dr. 
 upon this head, and examin his Proofs, there are two things, I would pre- 
 mife, as that which the Dr. is obliged to prove. ( 1.) That the Office of 
 Apofrolat, in its entire Nature, as Inftitut by our Saviour, and for its 
 proper ends expreft in Scripture, was tranfinitted, by the Apoftles unto 
 the Church, as a Handing Office to continue, till the end of Time, And 
 (2) That the Trimitive Church, and in an Univerfal confent and Vracli(e y 
 did homologat this Inftitution, and Embrace the fame. And when the 
 Dr. hath proved both thefe, 'erh rnibi msgnus Apollo; and will far outftrip 
 his Fellows, whoever have pleaded in thisCauie. And if he fall fhort of 
 his proof, of either, or both, heloffes his labour. 
 
 Before the Dr. come dire&ly to his Pre of, he moves an Obje- 
 cc ction, That our Saviour did Inftitut the Superior Order of IhlL 
 cc Twelve Apoftles, to prefide over the reft of the Church Officers, 
 €t yet with an extraordinary Commiffion, which he did not intend they 
 " mould derive down to the Churchy as a Perpetual Model of Govern- 
 cc ment, but was limited to the perfons of the Apoftles, and to expire 
 * with them. That the formal Office of Apoftolat,in its Nature and ends, 
 as delineat in Scripture, did expire with the Apoftles themielves, is the 
 conientient judgment of Vrcteftant Divines, The Dr. fays, this is mi Obje- 
 ction of AdvLrfaries, and indeed, if he account fuch h's Advcilarics, as 
 aifcrt this j he has entered the Lifts, with altrorg party^who probably will 
 
 1 2. prove 
 
^6 Dr. Scott 3 'sheadings Chap. III. 
 
 prove too hard for him. Well; What is his Anfwer to this Obje&ion? 
 * f He Tells us ; That this Office was not Limited to the Perfons of A- 
 f * pfthsy fince he has proved; that they derived^ it to others., which had 
 xc it been appropriat to their Perfons, they could not have done, without 
 xc violating their Truft, and exceeding the bounds of their Gommiffion. 
 How the Dr. hath proved the derivation of the Apoftolat, by the Perfons of 
 the Apoftles to other Succeeding Apoftles, we have feen above, and do 
 refer the Reader to the premifed difcoveries of the utter infufficiency of 
 liis Proof, this way : And indeed, the derivation of the Apoftolat toSuc- 
 ceffors, could not have been done without violating their Truft, and 
 exceeding the limits of their Commiffion; Their Commiffion being to 
 Difciple and Teach all Nations, to found the Gofpel Church, and Plant 
 the Gofpel Ordinances therein, and that with an infallible dire&ive Pow- 
 er, as living Oracles, and immediat Ambaffadors of the King of Saints; 
 So, that the attempting to Subftitut Succeffors, in this work and Office, 
 had been both an unfaithful over-ftretch of their Commiffion, as contrar 
 to its Nature and end, and an endeavouring of that which was impoffible, 
 unlefs he will fay, that the Work of laying the Churches Foundation, 
 and delivering our Lords mind, as to the Do&rin, Worfhip, Difciplin 
 and Government thereof, is a work, that could be twice done ; Which, 
 as it repugns to the common fenfe of all men, fo to the many Precepts-de- 
 livered to the Churches, anent holding faft the received Ordinances, 
 and contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and building 
 upon that Holy Faith and Foundation laid by the Apoftles. Nay further, 
 it doth evidently appear, that the Apoftles exercifing themfelves, and de- 
 riving to others fuch an Epifcopal Primacy, as the Dr pleads for, had been 
 a grols impeachment of their Faithfulnefs, in the Execution of their 
 Truft.(iJ In their exercifing and tranfmitting a Power,inits very Nature, 
 diftin&, from what our Lord allowed and enjoyned them, Viz,. A Lord- 
 ly Dominion, not a Minifterial Service and Stewardfhip only, which, as 
 we^have heard, the Apoftle Paul difown the one, and aifertthe other; fo 
 we find the exprefs and perfonal Prefcription of our Blefied Lord, in 
 point of this Nature of their Power. The Dr. will not difown that thePre- 
 lats he pleads for, and, as he pretends, exemplified in the Apoftolick Of- 
 fice, have both the Name and thing of a Lordly Dominion , yea, and that 
 not in Spirituals only, in which reipedl, they own the Defignation and 
 Charader of Spiritual Lords, but likewife, a Lordfiip and Peerage in 
 Civil Government, and fuch a Dominion, as Princes cf the Gentiles exer- 
 eife; And that our Bleffed Lord did expredy Difcharg this to his Apo- 
 ftles; As alfo, that the Apoftle Veter in his Matters Name, difcharges a 
 Lording oyer Gods Heritage, or Church, or the Chrgey, as the Greek 
 
 word 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 37 
 
 word, with fome will found, I fuppofethe Dr. will not deny, or if he do, 
 the Proof is very eafie and evident. (2 J Had the Apoftles exercifed. or de- 
 rived to Succeffors, fuch an Epifcopacy, as the Dr. pleads for, they fhoulc! 
 have unfaithfully in their own perfons,*ftraitned the Apoftolick inipecStion, 
 and carryedan Office incompatible with it,- unlefs the Dr. will undertake 
 to reconcile contradictions, he cannot deny this: For, as Apoftles. their Mi 
 niftry was of an unfixed, indeflnit, Univerfal Nature,- As Prelats they behoved 
 to be fixed to TucrLandfuch Pofts,fo that thus they mould have unfaith- 
 fully torn out a parTof their Commiffion, in excrcifing an ordinary Mi- 
 niftry, in particular DioceJJes, whereas, their Commiffion was to exercife* 
 an extraordinary unfixed Miniftry towards all the Churches, planted and 
 to be planted. Again, in tranfmitting fuch a Prelacy to others, their pra- 
 ctice Jhouldhave contradicted their Prefcriptions, in Point of Church Go- 
 vernment, and the Offices and Officers thereof, wherein there is not the 
 leaft Intimation of fuch an Officer, nor any Rules given, for either the 
 Qualifications or Ordination, of any higher Officer, than a mere Paftor or 1 
 Prerbyter. Khali only add, (5/7.) That it is evident in the Apoftles Dodrin 
 and Pradice, that they own the Minifters of the Word, as to the perpe- 
 tual V aft oral Charge, and in the ordinary Power of Government, their c- 
 quals , as their practice in Ordination and Jurifdi&ion among Churches 
 Conftitut, which is above difcribed, doth make evident. And it were 
 itrange, that Evangelifts mould be'inftru&ed with EpifcopalVreh eminence in 
 fuch Churches, who were inferior to Apoftles; That Timothy who was or- 
 dained by a Vresbytrie, concurring Authoritatively, tho Paul was prefent, 
 ihould ufurp Preheminence over a Presbytrie, tho inferior toanApoftle, 
 and that whereus Presbyters did concurr, pari pajfu, with a whole Vresbytric 
 of Apoftles, in every piece of a Judicial Act and Decree, wherein was 
 put forth, both the Diatatlick, Critick, and DogmatickPowzv, and Autho- 
 rity in Church Government, yet an Evangel ift" inferior to any of the A- 
 poftles, fliould take Epifcopal Preheminence over a Vresbytrie in this Matter. 
 For the Drs. proofs from Antiquity upon this Head, that we may under- 
 ftand, how well he has laid his Meafures^for reaching his Scope and End, let 
 it be remembered what it is, he undertaks to prove, viz. f< The Churches 
 u univerfal Reception of the Office of Apoftolat In its entire Nature, as 
 cc a Handing neceifary Function in the Church, to be tranfmitted to after 
 "Ages, with the fame Authority and Commiilicn, as delivered at firft to 
 cc the Twelve: For,this is that which theDr.dircctly and defigncdly pleads 
 cc for, from that paffage of Scripture, where Our Lord laid to his Apoftles, 
 Ci As my Father hath Jen: Me, Jo Jcvd I yen. And according to this Rule, let u* 
 K examin Ins Initanccs. i i is tirir proof ( P. /p)6 ) is from St. Clement 
 [" who bicntions, in his Epiltle to the Corinthians, thiee Orders of Ecdi- 
 
 tiaftick 
 
3 %^_ W- Scott's "Pleadings Chap. Ill 
 
 €c fiaftical Officers, whom he calls the High Prleft, the Pr lefts, and the 
 * c Levits; which Words faith the Dr. can be no otherwife underftood, thaa 
 f c of the Bljlwp, Presbyter, arid Deacons. A ftrange ^proof, and an odd Expli- 
 cation indeed/ How doth the Dodor prove,, that Clement, did any other e- 
 wife exprefs himfelf,than with this Allufion to the OldTeftament Church 
 Officers, (ignifying that there are diverfe Officers, in the New Teftament 
 Miniftry,as in the Old? Again,Ho w comes the Dr. to explain him, ofBlfiop 5c 
 "Presbyter, m theSingular,andD^c0*« in thePlural?And*howdoes this corre- 
 Ipond to Clements exprefion ofHighPrieft,m the fingular,andPne/?j in the plu- 
 ral? Will theDr. owne xhtPrimacy of anHighPrieft^over theChriftianCatho- 
 lick Church, as of the Church of the Jewes ? Or be bold to Averr that Cle- 
 ment AiTerted this ? Moreover, the Drs. Explication of Clement, <viz» 
 That he means by the High Prleft, the Blflwp, by the Prlefts,thePresbyter, &c. 
 Baffles his Defign, and cuts the Throat of his Caufe and pleading: For if 
 Clement lookt upon the "Presbyters, or Paftors, as holding an Office and 
 Authority, correfponding to that of the Prleft s, under the Old Teftament, 
 then certainly, he did hold them to have a neceffary Eflential Intereft in 
 Government, fuch as the Priefts had : For the Dr. will not be bold to 
 fay, that the Sanehedrin, made up of Priefts, had not a governing Power, 
 or that it was Monopolized in the perfonofthe High Prieft, as he affirms, 
 It is in the perfon of rhe Bijhop, fecluding the Presbyters. And further, to 
 difcover,how theDr.has abufed hisReader,and forefeited hisCredit in this 
 Citation, let us take Notice, that Clement, to remove the Sedition, raifed 
 by the Corinthians againft their Presbyters p. $y. $-8. tells them, how God 
 hathalwife appointed feveral Orders in his Church, which muft not be 
 confounded. In the Jewijh Church, he appointed an High Prieft, Priefts 
 and Levits- and then tells them a that for the times of the Gofpel, Jefus 
 Chrift,fent his Apoftles through Countrey sand Cities ( K*r«x«*p-« «» *«• *»xtu ) 
 in which he Preacht and conftitut the firft Fruits ( approving them by 
 the Spirit ) for Bijhops and Deacons, to thofe who fhould afterward believe. 
 From which Words,the learned Authors of the Append. Minift. Evang. 
 Have long fince concluded, againft the Dr. and his Fellows. 1. That in 
 the firft and pureft times, the cuftom was to chufe Bijhops in Villages x«r«- 
 *•**< And how fmall little Apoftles thefe were, I need not tell the Dr. 
 and fuch for Authority and extent of Power, as are many Paftors now 
 in Scotland. 2. That Bijhops and Deacons, are the only Orders of Mini- 
 ftry, owned by Clement, as planted by the Apoftles, the firft Primitive 
 Church ( iKixifx.*«c K«i//«x«"«< ) Which Hiews the Drs. palpable Forgery, 
 in making Clement to aflert three Or dcrs, of BijJwps, Presbyters, and Deacons. 
 Qfmcnt adds *. $7, That the Apoftles, by Jefus Chrift, knowing that 
 
 conten- 
 
Chap. 111. ror hpiicopacy, Examined. 39 
 
 contentions would arife about the Name of Bijlwp, and being endu f d with 
 perfect knowledge they appointed the forefaid Orders, Viz: Bificps and 
 Deaeons. Upon which; the Learned Authors of the Apen&ix, do further 
 note. (1.) That by Name, we are not to underftand the bare Name, 
 but the Honour and Dignity, as the word is taken, Philip. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 
 2i. The Controverfie among the Corinthians being about the Dignity of 
 Epifcopacy, and the Depofition of their Godly Presbyters, p. 57. ^ 8. f 2.) That 
 the only remedy appinted by the Apoftles, for the Cure of all Contenti- 
 ons arifing about Epifcopacy y is, by Committing the Care of the Church to 
 Bifrops and Deacons, in Clements Judgement: What ever Remedy of Senium, 
 the Church afterward apply ed, in letting up one Biflwp over another, Ce- 
 ment tells us, that the Apoftles, endued with perfect, knowledg of things, 
 Ordained only Biflwps and Deacons. Whofoever mail Perufe h\mp. 57. 62. 
 69. 72. will find, he clearly afferts the firft andpureft Primitive Church, 
 to be Governed by "Presbyters, without Bijlwps. Belides, that he ufesthe 
 Names of Bifliop and Presbyter promifcuoufiy, and fuppofes them to be one: 
 and the fame, throughout the whole Epiftle. 
 
 The Dr. brings next Ignatius upon the Field, cc Whofe Six E- P. 406. 
 tc fifties, written on the way to his Martyrdom, he tells us, are 407.408. 
 €C exprefs for the derivation of this Superior Order from the 
 * Apoftles,- So that we have no other evaiion, but to alledg, they ar& 
 *• Counterfeit, from which imputation, they have been Triumphantly var-» 
 cc dicat ( fb heexpreflesit ) by a Learned Pen; And that therefore, no 
 " Man of Learning, without expofing his Reputation, can call them in 
 Cf Queftion. Who this learned Pen is, who thus vindicats them, the Dr. 
 hath not thought fit to let us know, and if he mean Dr. Year fen, a* 
 probably he doth, he mould know that his pretended Vindication, was con- 
 futed by a learned French Divine, Dally, and his Proofs convi&ed of 
 Forgery ,• So that the Dr. expofes his Underftanding and Modefty in this 
 Aftertion, That the Vindication is Triumphant : And as for the Drs. Re-vindi- 
 cation, this Author mould know the learned L'Roctjue, a Famous Paftor 
 of the French* Church, reply ed to Dr. Petrjon and Dr. Beveredgc, in defence 
 of Dally, upon the Point of Ignatius 1 s Epiftles, and being again oppofed 
 by Dr. Pear [on and Dr. Beveridge, prepared and had almoft hniihed his 
 Second Defence; which, by the importunity of the Favourers cf Prelacy,, 
 was concealed. Of which, fee the Learned Mr. Jamifon, in his Piece, 
 called Nazianzeni querela, &c. Part 2d. Pag. 112: So, that the Dr. hath 
 noreafon to fpeak lo bigg, and call this vindication Triumphant. None can 
 deny, fevcral, of thefe Epiftles fathered upon him, to be^puiious, ashis £— 
 fiftle to the Bleffed Virgin, and his two, to the Apoitle Joint- ( not to- 
 mention that of the Virgin May to him > and tor {lie. Six mcjuioaed by 
 
 ftht 
 
q.o ur* acott s r leadings LJnap. ill. 
 
 the Dr. he fliould know, that as Learned Pens as he can mention, 
 have made appear, that they are depraved and Corrupted, if the Dr. 
 will allow Ujher, Arch Bijlwp of Armagh, and the Learned Rivet," Fide- 
 lias and Cook, in his Cenfura patrum, to be reckoned among that Number. 
 Yea, Baronhts himfelf, the great Vopijh Hiftorian, who ( as Caufabon holds ) 
 prefents from thefc Epifiks, the Papifis refuges, for feveral of their Errours 
 yet acknowledges that fomethings therein are defe&ive,*/* curia librariorumi 
 The Man was not fo happy, as to light upon the more polit Coppies, 
 ifound out by our Dr. and his Fellows. In the forementioned Appendix, 
 •the Dr. might have feen feveral Reafons, adduced, to prove thefe Epifiks 
 ■not to be genuine: Such as (i J That diverfe things quoted out of thefe 
 Epiflles by Athanafins, Gelafim and Theodoret, are either not found in them 
 -at ail, or found altered and Changed, (ily.) That they Charge the Htoly 
 ** Martyr, with fupercilious Pride, in extolling his own knowledg ( £- 
 %t piftle to the Trallians ) as reaching the Orders of Angels, Arch-Angels, 
 * € differences of Powers and Dominations,Thrones and Powers, Cherubims 
 t( and Seraphims, &c Which none will believe, to have fallen from the 
 Pen of fo Humble a Martyr; nor canany but acknowledg, that it is as far 
 from the Simplicity of his times, in an arrogant felf-boafting, as Eaftfrom 
 Weft. And (%ly,) His ftrange and anxious defence of the Epifiopal Hierar- 
 chy, wherein he ( thefe forged Epiftles rather) goes beyond all bounds 
 of Truth and Modefty. The Learned Authors of the forefaid Appendix, 
 have given feveral inftances hereof, which do palpably evidence, fuch 
 an Anti-fcriptural Fopijh Strain, as no Man of Senle, can impute to this 
 holy and early Martyr : Nay, none, who owns the Scriptures of Truth, 
 but muft needs accufe of Error. For inftance (among many others) in 
 the Epiftle to the Trallians, he affirms, fC The Bijhop to be poffeft of ail 
 f* Principality and Authority, beyond all, &c. And how will the Dt. 
 make this accord with that of the Apoftle ? i Cor. 5. 5-. Who then is 
 Paul ? and who is Apollo**? but Mimfiers, by whom ye believed. In the fame 
 Bfifile, he enjoins " a jleverence to the Bijlwp, as to Chrift, as the Holy 
 * Apoftles has commanded : But where is this commauded ? In the Epiftk 
 to the Magnefians, he enjoy ns, ff that nothing feems Right, that feems not 
 a fo to the Bijhop, For what is contrary to his Judgement, is enmity to 
 t ? God. The Apoftle Paul, fpoke with more caution and Modefty, when 
 he enjoy ned thus, Be ye followers of me, as I am of Chrift. In the Epiftle to 
 u the Philadelphians, he enjoyns the Princes, the Emperour, &c and all 
 tf the Clergy, to obey the Bijhop; and this at fuch a time, when there was 
 no Chriftian Emperour or Prince, nor many Years thereafter. In the E- 
 s: piftle to the Smyrneans, he faith, " The Scripture faith, Honour God and 
 £ :b$ King, bu; I lay Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things, 
 
 " and 
 
Chap.m. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examined. \i 
 
 <c and the BiJhop,as the Prince of Priefts, &c. He affirms, they are guilty of 
 u greater punimment, that do any thing againft the Bijlwp, than they 
 cc that rife up againft the King. Thus preferring them above Kings. 
 Yea, he faith, <c That fuch as do any thing, without confulting with 
 €C the Bifljop,is a Worfhipper of the Devil. And what Cenfure thele fay- 
 ings put upon the Reformed Churches, Govern c d without Frelats; yea 
 What repugnancy is therein,to the Holy Scriptures, I think may be obvi- 
 ous to the Dr f s meaneft reflection,- So, that he might hare been afham'd 
 to bring for his proof, fuch fpurious Epiftles t Yet he is bold to cite feme 
 of thefe Paffages, particularly in his Epifile to the Traliians and Magnefians, 
 altho he is forc c t ( I fuppofe for very ihame ) to fmooth the expreflions, 
 and curtail them: For inftance, in ftead of that ExprefUon in the Epifile 
 €t to the Traliians , wherein he aflerts the Bijlwp to be Pofleft of all Princi- 
 Cf palitieand Authority beyond all, as much, as it is poffible for Men to 
 * c be Pofleft of ("as it is truely tranflated out of the Gm£)The Dr. 
 Reprefents only this. f c what is the Biflnp, but he who hath all P. 407, 
 • c Authority and Power ? Which,altho it be much the fame, with 
 what is above rehearfed, yetisfar fhort in extent and Expreffion.But if the 
 Dr.hath fo high a veneration for thefe fpurious Epifiles,! would fain know, 
 how he will reconcile this and fuch like Expreflions,with that one Scrip- 
 ture,Rcw.i 5.1. 'Let every Scul be fubjeel unto the higherYowers, 6cc? Unlefs the 
 Dr. will deny the Bijhcp to have a Soul, he cannot exeem him from the 
 obligation of this Command. And if he be thus fubjeel:, how is be Vof- 
 feft of all Principality and Authority 3 bey end all y as much , as is pojjible for Men to be 
 Vojfiftof? Or how will the Dr. make this accord, with that Intereft and 
 Authority of the Civil Magiftrat, not only in Civils, over all his Subjects, 
 but alfo in the Church and Kingdom of Chrift, which the Dr. in the fame 
 J5ook, owns and aflerts? He alio Cites the Epifile to the Magnefians y 
 wherein, t€ Obedience to the Bijlwp is enjoyned,and contradicting ibiJ- 
 cc him in any thing difcharged : which the Dr. will not deny to 
 be crofs to that limited Obedience, which the Scripture enjoins to be given, 
 even to Parents by Children,- Who are Commanded to Obey diem in the 
 Lord only. Morecver,he Cites the Epifile to the ¥biladrfpbuins 3 \v\\iTz\n> it 
 is affirmed, u that fuch as belong to Chrift,are united to the Bifiop, fuch as 
 w are not,are curfed: And what cenfure this puts upon the Reformed Church 
 cs, and how it Anathematizes, them, as not United to the Bificp, lnecd 
 not tell the Dr. nor what a black fketd, he marks himfelf with, in the 
 Judgment of the Reformed Churches, ifowning fuch an abfurd aifertion. 
 I cannot Hand upon many things, that might be further noticed, to «- 
 vince the impertincnev and Fooleries of theft Citations: Only, it is very 
 worthy of our obfervatign, that the Dr. in his Citation of his Epifile to 
 
 G die 
 
4.2 fir. Scott'x Tleadingi Chap. Ilk 
 
 the Magneftans, obliges us, in a piece of Ingenuity, in expreffing Ignatius c s 
 commending [ Obedience to the Bijhop andthe Vresbytrie, Sec, ] which teems to 
 allow thtVresbytrie, a Commanding Authority, together with the Bificp, 
 (as feveral of his Fellow-Pleaders in this Caule,fmooth the Epifcopa I Pow- 
 er ) but this I am fure, is crofs to the Drs. Scope and pleading, who en- 
 hances all the Power of Government, in the perfon of the Bijhop, exclud- 
 ing wholly, all Fresbyters, from any Intereft therein. So, that the Dr. in 
 this unwary Citation, contradicts Ignatius and himfelf, and makes Ignatius 
 inconfifient with himfelf. In his next Citation of his Epiftle to the Epbe- 
 fians, wherein, {C Reverence is enjoined to the Biftcp, as the Per- 
 2\ 408. fC fon appointed by the Lord and Mafterof the Family, to be his 
 cc Steward : He hath again Wounded himfelf}For to be a Steward 
 (having a fubaltern Service and Miniftry, under the Authority of the Ma- 
 tter, andtyedup to his Orders, is point blanck, contrare unto, and toto cxh 
 di ffer en t,from that Principality of the highefi Degree ,before afcribed to the Bi- 
 flop, and owned by the Dr. as his, andlgnatius's Senfe of thz Epifcopal Office- 
 Sure, to be a Prince,anda Steward in Government, are diftind things, and 
 entirely and wholly oppofit, if we will take the Apoftle Pauls word for 
 it, who difowns a Dominion, and in ftead thereof, and in oppofition 
 thereunto, owns a Stewardjhip in God f s Family, and humble Sevice or Mi- 
 niftry. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 1. XJlt. 
 
 But now, the Dr. plyes us with Inferences fromthefe Citations,- 
 P. -4:08. Whereof the firft is, " That thefe Epifila were Written, not a- 
 409. 410. cc bove Eight or Nine years, after the Deceafe of St. John, and 
 411* fc yet Bijljops are fuppofed to be in all Churches, appointed by 
 
 ec Chrift and his Apoftles, and they were lookt upon as no 
 c: Members of the Church, who were not Subject to them,- That they" 
 cc were neceffary in the very Conftitution of Churches, fothat they were 
 cc not within the Altar, but without it, who were not fubjed to them 1 
 €C And therefore, it may be concluded, there were no Churches without 
 * therrh. I Anfwer, that Ignatius wrot his Epiftles early, no body will doubt, 
 but that fuch traihie ftuffand anti-fcriptural Fooleries,as]are above rehearf- 
 cd, was written by Ignatius, and was his Senfe of Church Government, no 
 Man of Senfe, or who hath any Refpecl: to the Memory of that Martyr, 
 yvl\\ believe: And we find the contrair is afferted,and made good by feve- 
 ral of the Godly Learned. Not to ftand upon a more critical Aiifwer, 
 •and to challenge the Dr. to prove the Univerfal Senfe and Practice of the. 
 Primitive Church at that time, from the Senfe and Sentiments cf this Au- 
 thor, tho admitted, unlefs he could prove by fome Authentick Ads, die 
 Judgment of the whole Church, to be correfpondent thereunto, and that - 
 .acme., who either wrot not, or whofe Writings may be loft, wergofcon- 
 
Chap. IIL For Epifcopacy, Examined. ^3 
 
 trary Judgment, which he neither attempts to prove, nor will ever be 
 able. 
 
 The Drs. next Inference is, "That fince, there were Bijhops fo P. 4-9. 
 c<: early in this Age, prefiding over the Churches, they behoved 
 c: to receive (feveral of them,at leaft) their Epjfcppal Orders from the Apo* 
 ec files, fince Ignatius, at the writing of thefe Epifiles, had been Forty 
 cc Years Bijlwp of Antioch, an eminent Church, planted immediatly by St. 
 ** Peter; It being the conftant practice of the Apoftles, to ordain Elders in 
 u all the Churches they planted, &c Anf. The Dr. hath not made 
 good from thefe TefHmonies, that there were, defatfo, and de jure, fuch Pre-* 
 Lus, as he pleads for: Nor can he, from this Ground, perfwad any ra- 
 tional Man of this, unlefs he could evince two Things, which he Will do 
 ad Calendas Gracas. 1. Not only, that what is afferted in the Paflages a- 
 bove rehearfed, was the genuine Senfe and writing of Ignatius, but like- 
 wife the Senfe andjudgment, as well as the practice of the whole Church 
 at that time. 2. That this fuppofed Judgment and Practice anent fuch 
 an Officer, as the BijJwp, is correipondent to the Scripture Account, and 
 Senfe of the Church Officers, mentioned in the Kew Tefiament, and the A^ 
 poftles Doftrin and Practice in point of Church Government, and the 
 Inftitution of the Officers thereof, which he will alfo find another infu- 
 perable Difficulty. Again, his Reafon here, is very odd, whereby he for- 
 tifies this Inference, viz* u That the Apoftles ordained Elders in all the 
 ff Churches they planted : For, if the Dr. hold thefe Elders to be Bificps, 
 (as he needs niuft, if he fpeak confequentiallyj I would fain know, Firfi, 
 What ftiadow of Proof, he can give for this, and how he can fuppofe that 
 all the Scripture Elders were fuch? For, if this be afferted, then it follows, 
 that Bifiofs were fet up, when there were no Elders to prefid over, con- 
 trary to the Senfe and Pleading of his Fellows, except Dr. Hammond. And 
 next, I would know, how the Dr. upon this Suppofition, will keep 
 off the Rock of a Contradiction, and that both to himfelf, and Igr.a- 
 this ? Since he makes Ignatius to diftinguim the Biihops and the Elders, 
 and himfelf holds, that the Elders with St. James at Jcrufalem, when the 
 Apoflle Paul, went in to them, were mere Presbyters or Pajhrs. Again, if 
 the Dr. argue from their ordaining Elders, to their ordaining Ignatius a hi- 
 (Lip, as he thus difownsDr. Hammonds Arguments and Notion (who takes 
 ftill t\\o Elders for Prelats) fo,he is obliged to prove the fupcr-inftitution of 
 Bijhops over thefe Elders in every Church, not to fuppofe it only, elie 'in 
 his principles, thefe Churches, where,mere ETJers^wcte placed,were man - 
 dm\ wanted the power of jurisdiction. And iince, he Iras produced no- 
 . thing from Scripture, th it proves fuch an inltitution of Bijhcps, or fuch or- 
 dinal)' Cheers fixed to certain Dkcejjes, his Dream of Tfftatm, is us ealiU 
 
 G 1 re- 
 
J44 Ttr.ScotfyT leadings Chap. 111. 
 
 reje&ed by us,, as affirmed by him. We read of a Church of Antioch plan- 
 ted by Paul, and of an ElJerJhip and Company of Teaching Prophets there, 
 who impofed Hands upon Paul and Barnabas ^when fent out among the 
 Gentiles, and arc confequently fuppofed to be the fubjed of a Jurifdi&io- 
 nal Power and Government : But of the Apoftle Peter his planting an Hie- 
 rarchical Prelat, of the Drs. MouH, in either of the Antiochs, the Scrip- 
 ture is utterly filent : And a Suppofition neceflarly enfuing hereupon,^/*,. 
 That the Apoftles planted Churches with different Moulds of Government, 
 diffidently difcovers the Abfurdity of fuch an Opinion. As for Cbryfo- 
 " fiom (Torn, c. edit.Savil. p. 99. ) his admiring of Ignatius Dig- 
 P. 409. cc nit/y, obtained by the Hands of Apoftles., laid upon him. It 
 is a very blunt and headlefs Proof of that Epi/copal Dignity, 
 which the Dr. alledges : For, doth not the Dr. think, that the Office of 
 the Scripture Bifiop, is a great Dignity ? And he fhould prove,, not fup- 
 pofe only^that Ignatius was by the Apoftles inftalled a Bijkop of his Mould, 
 or that Chryfoftom underftood this Dignity in his Senfe, which., as he offers 
 not to do ; fo, if attempting it, he could not chufe, but fotChryfofiomby 
 the Ears with himfelf^ who ( as is above cleared ) afferts the Identity of 
 the Office of Btfhop andPresbyter. Thefame'Irepone,to whattheDr.alledgeth 
 (P.4iojof Pofycarp,his fuppofed Epifcopacy in Smyrna; as alfo^ what is made 
 good by many Pntfe/?^ Divines, w«. That the Fathers and Ancients, ufed 
 the Name of Bifiops, in a general Senfe, that the ftrft rfMsw*, or Modera- 
 tors, had no Authority, over the Presbytrie, tho ordinarly thus termed. 
 And which clears this to Convi&ion, Poly carp, himfelf, in his Epiftle to 
 the Vhilippians, makes but two Orders of Miniftry, viz. Elders an&Deaccns, 
 as the Apoftle Vaul doth, in his Epiftle to the fame Church, and exhorts 
 them to be fubjed to the Vresbyter, as unto God and unto Chrift. And 
 fure the Dr. will not make him crofs this in his practice : fo that he falls 
 utterly fhort of proving an Epifcopacy of his. Mould^much more a derived 
 Apoftcdat, from thefe blind Ttftimomes. 
 
 The Dr. adds, Ci That it cannot be imagined, that all Churches 
 ibid. €C would have univerfally admitted BijJwps in Ignatius c s time, the A- 
 cx poftles being alive, had not fome of them derived their Authori- 
 c: ty from the Apoftles immediatly. But, 1. The Dr. hath given no flia- 
 dow of proof,for this univerfal Reception : For I pray , what proof is this? 
 Such and fuchAuthors fay^there were Biflwps in fuch and fuch Pofts^or rather 
 put this general name upon fuch Perfons- Therefore, the Chriftian Church 
 xeceived the Hierarchical Vrelat univerfally, or the Vrelat with fole power 
 ctf Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, as an Officer of Divine Inftitution. For 
 beiides, that the Dr. will never prove, from the bare Aflertion anent Bi- 
 Ikops^that they were of fc^Cutt a^d^uld (the ^atrary being apparent* 
 
 eipe- 
 
Chap, III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 4.5 
 
 efpecially in thefe early Times) And many Fathers aflerting the Identity, 
 of the Ofhce of Biftop and Presbyter, he muft prove and inftrucl; the uni- 
 verfal Judgment and Practice of ail the Churches, as to the Reception of 
 the Hierarchical Bifiop, of his Mould, before this Affertion can be made 
 good. 2. The Dr. cannot deny Scripture Inftances, of the very early- 
 Reception of Corruptions in the Church, both under the Law, and Go- 
 fpel. As, in the times of the OldTeftawent, he knows the early Reception 
 of the Idolatry of the Golden Calf, by the Church of lfiael y together with 
 Aaron himfelf, but Forty Days after the delivery of the Law from Mount 
 Sinai: And befides, many fuch Inftances in the Old Teftament, we have 
 Scripture Inftances of the Devils fowing his Tares, early in the Church of 
 the New Teftament, fuch as the Error about the Refurreclion, the wor- 
 shipping of Angels, Justification by the works of the Law,the necefsityof Cir- 
 cumciiion,and other Ceremonies,the Error of the Nicclastansjkc And look 
 a little forward, in the early times of the Church,we will find Errors & Tra- 
 ditions pretended to be received from the Apoftles,and owned by fome of 
 the Fathers thenvfeives, which notwithftanding, the Dr,cannot but acknow- 
 ledge be £rrors,-Such astheM/7/f»^Error,the Error of Children's receiv- 
 ing theLords Supper, eK. whereof afterward. "TheDr.thinks itinconfiftent 
 u with the Churches veneration to the Apoftle John, that they fhould re- 
 <c ceive a new Order of Men, without his Authority. But thisL T ni verfal reccp 
 tionoffuchanOrder,as the Dr. fuppofes, is not yet proved : Befides, thac 
 the Dr c s. fuppofition of this impoilibility of fuch a corruption,early creep- 
 ing in, becaufe of fome Apoft!es( or even ofjcbn) yet alive, he will find 
 not to be foiid, when he ponders duely, the working of the Myftrie of 
 iniquity, and the^Seeds of a Papacy, even in Pauls time, and a Dictrophes 
 feeking Preheminence, even in jobn's time, yea, and directly contradi- 
 cting and cppoling the Holy Apoftle. The Dr. inould know, that it is 
 not the flippery Principle of afuppofed impoffibility of this Nature, while 
 the Apoftles were alive,that we muft found our Perfwaficn upon, but the 
 lively Oracles, and living Doctrin of the Apoftles, is our Rule,- and what- 
 ever Doctrin or practice is crofs thereunto, tho all the Church fhould re- 
 ceive it, yea tho an Angel from Heaven Preach it, we ought to reject ir, 
 and might call'thar Angel accurfed. 
 
 Lor what the Dr. adds out of Ttijhcf Tr.yhr, of Fpifcopccy, Seel. 18. That 
 defacloj theApoftlcs with their own Hands, Ordained lcveral HijJicps over 
 Churches, Fiz,: Dion. Arrop. frsbop of % Athens , Casus, of Tbeflatonica. Archip- 
 pits of Coloffy Qnefimtts of Ephejus, Epaphroditas of Vhittippi, Titus of Corinth, 
 &c. I Ani wer, the Dr. docs well to' add the Caution [if Credit wight fo 
 given to Ecdefiajtick Hijhry] And tn:ely thislJiuory,muftbe of mighty forC<L 
 that mull be believed againft clear Scripture^ and the Credit and belief 
 
 fewid 
 
4<5 %>r. Scott* s "Pleadings Chap. III. 
 
 founded thereupon, muft needs be diftin£ from that Faith which God 
 allows^ Nay 3 the Drs. Credit of fuch Hiftory, muft needs fet him at odds 
 with himfelf: For as to the Firft, we find the Apoftle PW enjoy ning the 
 Church o? Thejfalonica, Obedience to their V afters jointly, as their Spiritu- 
 al Rulers and Governours, without the leaft hint of any Super-eminent 
 Vrelat, and enjoining to thefe Rulers Authoritative admonition of the Flock. 
 iTbeffl 5. 12. 14. And will thisBishop and our Dr. Charge fuch a Contra- 
 di&ion, upon the Apoftle Vatd, as to fettle as?resbjtrie of Vapor's in that 
 Church, with Authority to Rule and Govern, while this Authority 
 and Power is entrufted unto or\S Bishop, or to take it afterward 
 from them, and put it [ in the Bishops Hands? How, I pray, Jhall 
 Ave believe fuch Hiftory, againft fuch plain Scripture? And whe- 
 ther 1 pray, defervesmoft our Credit, the Apoftles Divinly infpired Epiftle, 
 en joyning Obedience to the V afters of that Church of Theffalomca, jointly, 
 as their Spiritual Rulers and Guids, or an ?£tzr- Apocryphal Hiftory, declar- 
 ing that this Authority was by the Apoftles appointment, monopolized 
 in one Bishop, either at that time, or thereafter, fet up, and Ordained by 
 Vaul ? Whether, are we to believe the Scripture account of the State and 
 Government of the Church of Epheftts, as entrufted by Vaul, in his laft 
 farewel, to the infpe&ion and Government of the Elders jointly, as the 
 Bifliops thereof, Authorized by the Holy Ghoft, or an Hiftorical account 
 of Onefimus, as their fole Biftwp, who had this Power Monopolized in him, 
 in Contradi&ion to the Apoftles laft prefcriptions unto that Church, ei- 
 ther atthat time or thereafter: Ijdare pofe this Dr.or any "man of Senfe and 
 Candor upon it,- And whether upon fuch ground as this, we might not 
 caft off all Divine Inftitutions, and receive all fopperies and Super ititi on s, 
 which Mans wicked Heart by Satans influence might fuggeft ? The like 
 might be faidofP£/%>i, the Apoftle in the Preface of his. Epiftle to that 
 Church, faluting the Bifiops, as their Taftors in common, calling all the 
 Minifters, Bijhops, and thus applying to them that Name and Office, which 
 the Dr. and his Fellows, will needs appropriat to a Vrelat: And fure,P^/, 
 writing by inftind of the un-erring Spirit of God, gave not empty com- 
 plemental Titles to thefe ¥ afters or Bishops, but fuppofes them to have a 
 landing joint Authority over that Church, as the Spiritual Guids and 
 j&i Rulers thereof. And it is a fearful and Grofs imputation upon the Wif- 
 
 h J dom of God, to fuppofe that either now, or afterwards, fuch a prerend- 
 
 % cd Vrelat, as the Dr. maintains, either had, or was to have by Divine ap- 
 
 : pointment, all this Authority of the Vaftovs, enhanfed and monopolized 
 
 in him: And if we will admit of after iiip.fed Decrees and Fables of this 
 Nature, oppofit to Scripture, we may make them, ( as fome Vapifts blaf- 
 pheme shem) a.Nofe of Wax. Again, If the Dr. adhere to th's 
 
 phan 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. ^j 
 
 taftick Apocryphal Hiftorv, he croffes his own Pleading from Scripture, 
 and wounds his Caufe to Death with his own hands,- For, we have heard 
 the great ftrength of his Scripture Argument, as touching the Apoftles fet- 
 ting up fucceedanous Apoftles and Bifhops, in correfpondence to Ghrifts 
 Inftitution, lyes in the fuppofed inftalment of Timothy, Bijliop of Ephefw^ 
 and TiivsyBifop o? Crete, and that the inftruclions addreft to them, 
 in Point of Government, in thefe Epi/?/?.r, are a clear indication P. 398V 
 yea,andDemonftration,( in theDrs Senfe and Pleading ) of this 299. 40a 
 fuppofed inftalment of the one andtne other,by the Apoftles,in &c. 
 thefe their pretend zdDioceJfis of £p£ejWand Crete ,an<i we kno w,how much the 
 Dr.labours to prove the confentient Judgment of the iv??£enhereanent.Now, 
 if the Dr. will hold with Bifiop Taylor, that the Apoftles with their owrr 
 hands, inftalled, not TimCthy, but Onepmus, Bijloop of Ephefus, and Titus, not 
 Bijhopot Crete, but of Corinth, what is become of all his pleadings from 
 Scripture, for their inftallment elfewhere? The Dr. fays, 
 a The fuppofed Inftalment of Titus and Onefmus, at Ephe- p. 410. 
 cc fus and Corinth, and that by the Apoftles own Hands, is 
 cc moft certain, if we believe Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. And if moft certain 
 upon this Ground, then moft certain it is. 1. That the Drs. Pleadings for 
 Timothy's and Titus's Inftalment at Ephefus and Crete, is moft falfe, and all 
 his pretended Scripture Proofs, by his own Confefficn mere wind and 
 lies. And ily. That all the Dr c s. Teftimonies of Fathers, and pretended 
 Hiftorical accounts- hercanent, are Fabulous Dreams. I knew no imagi- 
 nable evafion the Dr. hath, but to alledge their after-inftalment in thefe 
 places, by the Apoftles: But the Dr. muft give a Scripture-account, as well 
 as Hiftorical, of this matter, ere a door can be opened to him for this Re- 
 fuge. But to proceed. 
 
 u The Dr c s Third Inference is, that the BiJJjops of this Age were P. 41 cv 
 Cc lookt on, as a Superior Order to Presbyters, Ignatius command- 411. 
 cc .ing Presbyters to obey them, according to Ghrifts Inftitution. 
 Anf. we have heard what Judgment we are to make of thefe Epifiks, 
 and confequently what a fandy Foundation, the Dr. builds this inference, 
 upon. Again, if the Dr. will make Ignatius confident with himfelf, he 
 muft needs difovvn this Inference and Opinion cf him ,• For, in his Epi~ 
 file to the Tralliar.s, he enjoynsthem to be Subject to the Presbytrie, as the 
 Apoftles ofChrift, and calls the Presbytrit 6v?«Jpoi fli» x,«i <rbr/t6 J u«* AT9^ix.»x p;r i* 
 A Court and Conjunction of Apoftles of Chrift; And in the fame Epiftle, 
 he call the Colledge of Presbyters 6us-«ma u/»i 6 vl *u\u *+t> mi^cvt*! ^trux*?* mak- 
 ingthe Bijhp, thus their i : dows in tU Government, and nothing clfi* 
 
48 t>r. Scott'* T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 And how far this is from the Dr c s. fuppofition of Ignatius Judgment, about 
 the Hierarchy and the Practice of the Church, in this Pointy let any Judg. 
 The Dr. proceeds to his Proofs, from the next Age, further, 
 *P. 411 ec as he tells us,from the Scripture Antiquity: And nodoubt the 
 more Dark in this Point. cc He tells us of Jufiin Martyr, in his A- 
 tc pology to the Emperour Antoniw, who fpeaks of a *, i«r»c* or Prefident . in 
 u the Church, who Confecrat the Bread and Wine, gave to the Deacons to 
 <( diftribut to the prefent, and to be carryed to the abfent : And that 
 cc this •?•««•*? was B'iflwp, he tells us, appears by Dionyfim Bifljcp of Corinth, 
 <c his Contemporary, who ufed the Names of r^ir.c and Biflwp promifcu- 
 * € oufly. A forry Proof, no doubt / The Churches had a Prefident, or thefe 
 called by Jufiin fo; Therefore, Bifhops with fole Power of Ordination 
 andjurifdi&ion, and holding the entire Apoftolick Office: Again, thefe 
 Trefidents, are called fometimes Bifiops, and gets that general Name.; There- 
 fore, they were fuch Bifiops, and of fuch a Mould, as the Dr. pleads for. 
 What Arguing can be moreinfipid and Vain? But if die Dr. put a due 
 Value upon the Argument drawn from Epithets, as Pointing at the Office 
 and Authority of the Perfons thereby defigned, what thinks he ofthe Spi- 
 rit of GOD in Scripture, his Denominating Pafiers nturittt •*•*<«•»»« *>«/«*«;, 
 ar/Mapinc , &c as we have above cleared. One would think this as ftrong 
 a Proof of their Epifcopal Authority, as this of the fuppofed Bijhops, 
 drawn from this Epithet of Jufiin and Qionifms. I might further Argue, 
 and prefs the Dr. thus; If thefe Scripture Denominations do prove and 
 argue, an Effential Intereft and Authority in Church Government, com- 
 petent to Pafiors, they do by neceflary confequence, overturn the Pecu- 
 liarity of a »7oir«>- or Prefidency afcribed to the Bifiiop, as fetover Pafiors, and 
 enhancing all this Authority, and do by further confequence inferr, ei- 
 ther that Fathers contradi&ed the Scripture, if attributing this Trofiacie 
 to the Bijhops, in the Dr c s. Senfe; or, that, if they fpeak according to the 
 Scripture Senfe and acceptation of the Word,they muft needs mean theP*- 
 ftor only, and not his imaginary Prelat : And fo, whatever Senfe, the Dr. 
 imbraces of Jufiin and Dionifius, his Caufe and Pleading here is loft, and 
 falls to the Ground. Moreover, if the Dr. ftand to this fuppofed account 
 ofthe Biftops Office, offered by Jufiin, he will make the Adminiftration of 
 the Lords Supper, peculiar to him, againft theDr c s. own Senfe and Plead- 
 ing, who acknowledges that Preaching of the Word, and Adminiftratiou 
 ofthe Sacraments, are the proper Duties ofthe Vafioral Function, where- 
 as, here,it is made peculiar to xhsBishop, to Confecrat theBread and Wine. 
 Befides, that the Dr. here apparently approves the carrying ofthe Sacra- 
 ment to the abfent; a teedorgrofs Voptek Superititions. But I am weary of 
 tfus pityful trafh. 
 
 « As 
 
V^nap. ill. ror npncopacy, jzxaminea. 4.9 
 
 cc As for the Dr's Citation of Eufeb. lib, ^.Cap, i^rfAid the Five 
 cc Books of Hegtfippm (the Fragments whereof, he fays/ are in P. 412 
 Cf Eufebim c s Hiitory) anent the Succeflion ofBificps of Rome; Ani- 
 cc cetus, Soter, Eleutherius, fucceeding Suceffively,- and of James V-fiep of 
 cc Jerusalem, fucceeded by Simon JCkcpha, Eufeb. lib. 4. Cap. 22. And 
 <c thereafter, that Dicni fms BifiopotCcrintb, in his Epiftles, mentions Vubli- 
 cc us and Quadratus, Succeflive, Bificts of Athens, ard feveral other Bijloops, 
 xc in their Refpective Sees. It is Anywered, this is abundantly obviat and 
 removed,by what is premifed. Firfi, Anent the fufpecied Credit and Faith 
 of his vouchers, whom ( as we have heard J the learned does Cenfure 
 and difown,- which has no fmall confirmation from this, that Enjtbixs 
 himfelf, in the Proam of his Hiftory, Profeifes, that he is entred into a 
 dark Defert, having no footfteps of Hiftorians,going before him, but only 
 fome petty Narrations, which certain perfons, in certain times and places 3 
 have left. And for Hcgefippus ( whole Fragments the Dr. ConfeiTes, is all 
 .EufebsWs Foundation in this Point ) he is by molt Famous Protefiant Writ- 
 ers acknowledged fabulous, and unworthy of Credit; beildes^that, no parts 
 of him are now Extent. As for the Catalogues ofSucccffion, which 
 the Dr. mentions, we have heard how Shattered they are, and in- Ibid. 
 confident with themfelves, and Ceniured confequcntly by the 
 Learned, as deferving no Credit. Next, as we have heard out of Junius, 
 the Ground of this fancied Succeflion, Viz,'. That the moft Eminent Mini- 
 fters, for Moral Refpeds, found in Church Records, were infert to fill up 
 thefe fpurious Catalogues, and termed Bificpsjn conformity to the times, 
 wherein this diftinguilhing Name and Office obtained, tho they were mere 
 Presbyters, and for moft part contemporary, one with another,- So, wc 
 have from the idmc Junius, made appear, what the defign was of thefe Ca- 
 talogue-drawers, Viz,. To prove againft Hereticks, that the Chiiftian 
 Church had retained the Seed of the true Doclrin, and the traduces Apoflo- 
 lici SemintSy as it was called,but not to point out or afiert,a Succeflion of 
 our Dr c s fuppofed Hierarchical Prelats. And therefore, in the Third place 3 
 the Dr. fays nothing to the purpoie, unlefs he can prove that by BiJJwps, 
 they meant the Vrelats of his cut and- Mould, with iuch an abfolute Apo- 
 frolick Authority, as he fuggefts, which, untill he make good, he does 
 but beat the Air, and begg the Queftion: For, fince the Fathers are found 
 to ufe the Names of Bifiop andPm/^f^indirTerentiy (as the Vnlatifts them- 
 felves acknowledg ) it is palpably ablurd and Sophiftical Reafoning, to 
 c~nclud from the bare Name and Title of Bijhop, which the Fathers make 
 ufe of, their affertion of the Vnhticcl Office, which the Dr. pretends. 
 The Folly of his reafoning then appears by this irrefragable Reafon_, 
 that wc find the Fathers calling iuch perfons Presbyters, whom he imagins 
 
 II Bijhops 
 
50 *Dr. Scott' sT leadings Chap* 177. 
 
 Bificps in his Seiife. Jrenam in his Epiftle to Victor (Cited by Eufeb. lib. j. 
 Cap. 23.) calls Anicetm, Tim, Higinus, Telefphorus, Xiftus, Presbyters of the 
 Church of Rome, Presbyteri illi qui te pracejjerttnt, the Vresbyters that went 
 before thee. Thus alio he expreffes bimfelf, Nee Volycarpus Anketo juafit, 
 tttfervaret qui fibi Presbyterorum qmba* fucceffcrat ^conjuetudinem fer/v'andum ejje di- 
 cebat: Tertutlian alfo, Apol. Cap. 39. calls the Vrefidents of the Churches 
 Senior es, or Vresbyters , when he faith^ Vrafident probaii quique Senior es. 
 
 For what the Dr. adds of Irenaus, his feeing Volycarp, and 
 P. 412. hearing him difcourfe of John the Apoftle^ who affirms. he could 
 413. cc reckon up the Bijlieps Ordained by the Apoftles to his own 
 
 cc timesj reckoning Eleven from Linus, to whom^ he fays Peter 
 *1and Paul, delivered the Evifcopal Power of Governing the Church. It 
 is Anfwered, That this is abundantly obviat, by what is now faid of 
 the promifcuous ufe of the Names of BiJIwp and Presbyter, and the intend- 
 ment of the Fathers > in fuch recitations. Yea^ and from '' Jre«#»r himfelf 
 convid: of Folly., in that he afcribes the fame Authority to Vresbyters, lib: 
 iC 4 Cap. 45 qua propter its, qui in Ecclefia funt , Vresbyteris obedire opportet, his 
 iC qui [ueceffionem habent ab Apoffiolis, ficut oftendimus, qui cum Epfcopatus fuccef- 
 (l fione cbarifma veritatis certum, fecundum flacitumpatris acceperunt. Reliquos 
 fC verOj qui abfiftunt a principal i fuccejjione, & quocunque loco colliguntur, fufpe3cs 
 cc habere, <uel quafi hareticos & mala [ententia, *vel quafi fcindentes & elatos, & 
 tc fibi placentes, &c. Thus alfo lib. 4. Cap: 44. he exprefTeth himfeif, ab 
 . * c omnibus talibus abfifiere opportet, adharere 'vero his qui & Apoftolorum, ficut 
 diximus Doclri^am cuftodiunt, & cum Vresbyterii or dine fermonem fanum, & con- 
 <c -verfationem fine offenfa pr aft ant, ad Inform ationem & ccrreBionem aliovum. 
 From whichPaffages of Irenaus, the Authors o£ d\Q Appendix before mention- 
 ed,, do infer. 1. That Presbyters were called and owned by him as SucceJJcrs 
 of the Apoftles:* And I may add,that if called fo by the Fathers., the terming 
 efP^/^Succeffors of theApoltles^is of no weight to prove theDr c s defign. 
 zdiy. That they are alfo called Bijhops. %dly. That theApcftclickDc&rin is 
 Derived from the Apoftles by their Succeffion. 4/y.That there is nothing faid 
 of Biflwps in the former place of lrenaus, which is not faid of Presbyters-, and 
 therefore^fuch places cannot prove^that theApoftlesConftitut intheChurch 
 C3 3 Bi(licps,dii\inci fxomPresbyters. The Dr c s two Countreymen^Dr. Reynolds 
 againft Hart Chap. 2. and Dr. Whittaktr dePontificatu qua ft. 2. Cap. iy. 
 have long fince informed him., of the Fathers improper ufe of the word 
 ~BiJJwp, when applyed to Apoftles,, and the unfuitable abiurd appropriat- 
 ing iuch an Office unto them. In a word, in the forementi- 
 I>rop. 7. oned Appendix, the pretended Succeffion of Bifiops from the A- 
 \Pag. 123. poftles., is fully baffled., from feveral Grounds. 1. The Homo- 
 fi% 125. nymk of the Word £i/J^thefe of the fxrft and later times, be- 
 ing 
 
Chap. IIL For Epifcopacy, Examined. f i 
 
 i n gof a differentMould, as to their Office and Power,-thc later being Dio* 
 cefian, the firft not fo, fmce the Church was firft governed by the com- 
 mon Council of Presbyters, and the Succeffion being drawn from the 
 rtrttttttffaot**, or the Firft Ordained Minifies as among the Athenians, 
 there were nine Archontes or Chief Rulers, equal in Power and Authority, 
 yet the Succeffion of Governours there,was derived from one who was ths 
 Chief kpx* 1 , not to diminifh the Authority of the reft Jed ut minus impe- 
 dita ejjet temporum enumeratio (zsjunim expreffes it) and for the fame end was 
 the Succeffion in thefe Catalogues drawn from the firft Ordained Minifter, 
 or the prefent Moderator and Present, ily. That the Cataiogues,the nearer 
 they ccme to the Apoftles times,runs in the greater confufion and uncer- 
 taintv,and contradicts one ancther,-fome calling Clement the firft Bijhop after 
 Peter, fome the third,and the intricacies about the Order of Succeffion in Zi- 
 nus,Anacletus, Clemens, and another called Cktus,irz inextricable. Some fas 
 we have above made appear ) calling Titus Bijlwp, f-me Archbijjwp cf Crete, 
 fome Bijhop cf Dalmatia; Timothy and the Apoftle John, are by fome faid to 
 be Bijlwps ofEphefus, at the fame time. Thus alio Poly carp, is faid by fome, 
 to be the Firft Bijlwp of Smyrna, by others to Succeed one Bucolus, and a- 
 nether affirms that Arifto was Prior to both. Some fay, that Alexandria 
 had but one Bijlwp, and other Cities Two; others, that there was but one 
 Bijlwp of one City at the fame time. What uncertainty and contradicti- 
 on is here? Junius refolve; the doubt, Ccntrcv. lib. 2 Cap. 5-, Not. 15-. viz. 
 " That thefe, or fome of thefe, were Presbyters, Ruling the Church in 
 €C common,- but the following Ages, fancying to themielves, fuch Bijlwps 
 cc as had then obtained in the Church,fell into the Snares of Tradition, — • 
 cc fuppofing, according to the cuftome of their own times, that there 
 cc could be but one Bijhop in one Church at once, which, faith he, is quite 
 "crofs to the Apoftolical times. 5/7. Upon the former grounds, and in 
 correfpondence, to this account of Junius, they do inferr, " That thefe 
 " Authors make the Catalogues fpeak, according to the language of their 
 "own times, in which, there was a diftin&ion betwixt Bijlwp and Presby- 
 cc tcrs : And therefore, do call fuch as were before them, Bijlwps, where- 
 
 (c as they were not fo properly And the after-B/(;^ fucceeded thefe 
 
 " fuppofed Firft, no other ways than Cefar did the Roman Confuls. s\ly, 
 cc The Catalogues refolving in Apojlles or EvangeliJJs, do appear abfurd, 
 cc viz,: That of Rome, into Peter, ttiatof 'Alexandria, into Mark, that of i ; > 
 " pbej us, into Timothy, that of Crete, Into Ti.us, fince. neither Apojlles nor 
 cc Evangel 1 (Is, were Bijlwps in a formal Senfc, and having an i 
 cc Commiilicn, and extraoiV :c, coutd be Succeeded i 
 
 " the one, 1 or the other, tiio in fome part of their work the) might, by 
 " ordinary Outers, as by Wen of Another Order, but not as one brother 
 
 ii i "Suc# 
 
5i Dr. Scott' sheadings Chap. III. 
 
 a Succeeds another in the Inheritance. And this doth fully re- 
 P. 413. move what theDr alledgesout of Clem. Alexand. Strom. 6. And 
 
 the Paffage Cited by Eufebius out of him., and from his Book 
 *t$ i titinh&wi^f touching a diftindion of Bijhops andPresbyters, and anent 
 " Presbyters not h a ving the Firft Seat or Clafs in Ecclefiaftick orders, and 
 Cc that the Apoftle John returning from Patmos to Ef he fits, Vifited the Pro- 
 ff vince, partly to Ordain Bijhops y and partly to fet a part fuch fortheClergy, 
 *' as were pointed out by the Spirit. For, granting fome diftindi en to 
 to have crept in while thefe things were Written,and fas Auguftin expref- 
 fes it ) fecundum honor um vocabula qua Ecclejjtc ufits obtinuit^. the Bifhop was 
 greater than the Vresbyter y Epifcopus Presbyters Major , yet this, will never 
 prove either. 1. That this diftin&ion was from the beginning,which we find 
 Auguftin in this way ofexpreffing himfeltjcontradids. Or, ily, That there 
 were Bijhops of the Drs. Mould, in a continued Line from the beginning; 
 and farlels, that the Apoftle John fet ur> fuch Prelats, fince the Ancient* 
 ( as we have heard the Learned Junius obferve ) fpoke of the Apoftolick 
 times, in the Mould, and after the manner of their own. And furely, if we 
 acknowledg the late diftin&ion of Clergy and Laity ( as we needs muft ). 
 to be far remote from John's time, we muft conlequently acknowledg 
 that this Author fpoke his own Senfe, and the Language of his time, ra- 
 ther than the Senfe or practice of the Apoftle John. 
 
 TheDr. next Generally Cites Tertullian, Origen y Cyprian, for 
 I?v 414. * c this continuance ( as he calls it J of Apoftolick Superiority 
 
 " from the Apoftles themfelves, whofe words, he tells us, hfc 
 ** needs not Recit, fince Presbyterians acknowledg Epifcopacy received about 
 ec the year 140. Anf. As for the continuance and derivation of the Apo- 
 ftolick Office, in a Succedaneous, Epifcopacy, which the Dr. has been fenc- 
 ing for, we deny it, and have found his proofs utterly inefficient, and 
 that nothing he has adduced from the Fathers or Scripture, can give the- 
 leaft fliaddow of a found Proof of this Point. As for cur acknowledg- 
 ment of the Epifcopacy introduced, about the middle of the Second Century, 
 the Dr.iliouidknow that we acknowledg. that Beta's Epifcopus humamps, or 
 Hpifcopus prices, was about this time fet up, and obtained in the Churches^ 
 end that ( as we have heard) the Firft ordained A/inifter, in a fcrt of Pro- 
 fofis.or fixed Moderator/hip had fbme deference eo nomine, and the next in 
 ardef) was let up to. moderat in the Meetings, when he was removed by 
 Death, or otherwife, and had the Tittle of Bifhop given to him,- and this 
 was ( as Ambrofe Phrafes it ) multorum Sacerdotumjudicio conftitutum, or by 
 the Judgment and appointment of xho^resbytrie; Vresbytri faith hz,unum ex fi 
 deUum in excelfiore gradu coUocatum Efifcopum nominabant. So, that in Am* 
 
 fc$ c s Svufcj&s&ajt ch^ft^dPr^/^a QX gew Najpe, as, jhgjf Jtfouthand 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 53 
 
 Moderator for Orders fake, and this by the free choice of the VresbytrieS 
 which /hews the folly of the Dr c s. inference of a fuppofed exiftent Hier- 
 archy, of his mould, from the nominal diflincHon of Bjjlicp and Presby- 
 ter, in the PaiTages of Clemens and Euftbius, and others generally mention- 
 ed, or from thefe *?s«r.fic 5 Lieing fet in a higher Seat than Presbyters For* 
 upon the Conftitution above rehearfed, and confirmed by Amhroft y both 
 thefe might be,- Yet without any Impeachment ofPaJlors or Presbyters, de- 
 cifive Authority in Judicatories, unlefs the Dr. will fay, that becaufethe 
 Moderator of an Affembly, hath a peculiar Name and feat, and a deference 
 upon that Account, He has therefore an Office and Authority paramount 
 to that of the Affembly, and luch as inhances their decifive fuffrage. Be- 
 fides, the E>r. odly inferrs from our acknowledgment of this firit human 
 Vrcfiafie, our granting a derivation, or continuance, or even introduct- 
 ion at that time, of his pretended Office of Apoftolat, as he calls it, and 
 in the Nature and extent he pleads foi\; who ices not, that thefe are tote 
 Coelo different? Tho in the next Paffage, theDr.feems to retraft 
 this, telling his Reader, cc That tho we acknowledg an Apofto- ibicL 
 * lick Superiority ,yet we deny that they left any to Succeed them in that 
 €C Power. But,fmce he gives this our acknowledgment of the InftEpifca*- 
 p^asthereafo^why he needs not Cite his Authors ParticularIy,to prove 
 the derivation and continuance of Apoftolrck Superiority at that time, he 
 clearly fuppofes this,- and therefore, fpeaks confufedly and ineoniiftently, 
 in the premifed account of our Judgment and conccflion. 
 
 Well,what further aocount gives the Dr. of Presbyterians Judg- P. 414^ 
 ment in thisMatter? He adds, u We hold that the Church was 415-, 
 i( every where governed bv the commonCouncil of Presbyters ^but this form 
 " of Government, being found inconvenient, as giving tcomuch occafon 
 rc for Schifms, and divilions, it was at laft Universally agreed upon, that 
 " oncPresbyter fliould be chofen out, to prefid over all the red: and that 
 Cf this was the beginning of Epifcopacy, for which, he lavs, we Cite the fa- 
 t( mous Teftimony ofjerom, ante^nam Diahcli inftinclu, isic. Where I find 
 the Dr. either- willfully, or ignorantly mifrepreienting our Caufe and 
 Principles.. 
 
 Firft, inailedging, that we hold, that this Form of Government, by 
 commonCouncil of Pajhrs or Presbyters, was found inconvenient, or not 
 fuitedto die ends of Government, becaufeit gave occaiion forSchifmsand 
 Divifions. Agrofs and lying imputation: For, all do know, that we hold 
 this Form ofGovernment to be of Divine appointment, and the Govern- 
 ment eftabliihed by the Apofiles : Andit were a (Irange inconiiftency and 
 contradiction to the Scriptures of Truth, to hold, that this Divine Go- 
 Yernmenvippoiiugdby God., iuftie bcrirjturgs of die New Tcftum^nr, 
 
fjjj T>r. Scott's ^Pleadings Chap. III. 
 
 &nd enjoined unto the Gofpel Church, was not fuited to all the times 
 t hereof, and to the great ends of Government, and could of it 
 *e!f, give a rife to Schifms and divifions: What a grofs imputation were 
 this> upon the Divine Infututions, and opening a Door, to lay them all 
 afide, upon pretence of eventual inconveniencies ? I dare challeng 
 this Dr. or any of his mind., to inftance any Vresbyterian Writer, who e- 
 ver afferted this. For, if he fay, we homologat Jerom, and approve his 
 Teftimony, who affirms., that upon occafon of Divifions, the/Go- 
 vernment was altered, and Immutata ratio, as he fpeaks, it is a pityful 
 and palpably abfurd inference, to argue upon this, that either Jerom, 
 or we, do impute this providential iflue, and Mans finful abufe and mif- 
 carriage, to the Divine Inftitution it felf} And if the Dr. owniiich a con* 
 fequence, he will juftify all fuch abufes, and Jeroboams Plea, for fetting 
 up hisCalves at Dan and BetbelJoQcaufc he judged it could not confift with 
 the fafety of the Kingdom, which God had given him over Ifrael, that 
 the Ten Tribes, fhould go up to Jerufalem to worihip, after the King- 
 doms were divided. 
 
 Secondly, Vis fays, " We hold that upen this occafion, it was uni- 
 Jbid. cc veiiauy agreed upon, that one Presbyter fhould pre fide over all the 
 cc reft, which was the beginning of Epfcopacy. And this appears as 
 dark and confufed an Account as the former: For, i. As to the Office of a 
 Vreftdent or Moderator, whofe Work is to be the Mouth of the Meeting, to 
 gather the Votes, and moderat the Procedures, we hold, that the very na- 
 ture ofallGovetnment.eiientially requires this,andconfequentlyChurchGo- 
 Vernment,and that this was alwife and neceffarly pra&ifed,as in all Church 
 Government,fo,fince the beginning, and is examplified in that firft Chrifti- 
 an Council All. 15-. wherein we judg it probable, that the Perfon pre f ding, 
 was the Apoftle James : And therefore, its grofs Non-fenfe to lay, we 
 hold this Vreftdency, to have been firft Introduced upon occafion of Schifm. 
 But next, it the Dr. by [by a Yrefident ever the rejf\ mean fuch a »r^tr«f as 
 is either advitam , or who has fuch a Yrefidency as encroaches upon, or in- 
 hances the Dccifive Votes of Yafiors, this indeed we acknowledg with Je- 
 rom, came in Vaulatim, and by peice-meal, tho at firft, he was but a mere 
 Vrefident,advitam, and had fome Honour and deference upon this account. 
 And this, we hold was the rife of that Trelacie, which in Procefs of time 
 fwallowed upaU the deciiive Power ofPaftors, and their exercife of Go- 
 vernment. But the Dr. badly reprefents the Matter, (P. 415-. ) when 
 he caiis this [ a Qhufing of one to pefide ever the rejf\ which is applicable to 
 any President of a j udicatory, or mouth of a meeting, or unto a fpeaker 
 
 in Parliament. 
 ibid. 1 Thirdly 3 The Dr. fays we hold* [ that this remedy was Univerfally 
 
Chap. HI. For Epifcopacy, Examined. j'j 
 
 agreed upon') If hs means, that ' upon pccafien of Schifms, \vc bod 
 that this cufromof the fixed VreJuUnt, with Authority and deference, as a 
 bove expreft, came in by degrees, and became Ur!iverfaL> in Procefs of 
 time, ( as additional corruptions ordinarly do ) this is eaiily accoided. 
 But if he mean^that we hold, there was a Formal General Council decree-* 
 ing this ( as the Dr. with hisFellow-PIeaders, faffed this glofs upon that 
 Paffage of J er cm [ profpickntc c^c'Iii—c^-ttto ofbe Jecretum) he fhouldknow, 
 • that we difown fuch an Opinion, and have fufficiently made it appear, 
 that Jercm intended no fuch thing,fince in collating his two Teftimonies, 
 r ulx,\ his Ccmmznt upon the EttftU to Tit lit, and his Epifile to Evagrim, the 
 contrary is evident,- For, Jercm makes this a CdnfuetuJo, or Cuftcm, and 
 fi'vs it came inpaulatim, or by Degrees. And no man of Senfe, can but 
 difljnguHn betwixt a gradual reception of any Practice fpreading it felf, 
 and growing up to a cu!lom,and % a practice taking its rife andOriginal from 
 a formal joint Decree of a General Council. 
 
 The Dl\ having fetdownfome part of one of thefe Teftimonies ibid. 
 o?Jcrom y alledges, that we hold or guefs ( as he exprefles it,) that 
 this Univerfal Decree, was about die Year 14c We hold indeed with 
 Blondel, that about this time, the foremen-tioned «•;•<»->* took place,butthat 
 we hold or guefsAt was by an Univerfal Decree.is the Drs. groundless im- 
 putation, which he can Juftiiy from none of our Writers. Let anyPer- 
 ufe the Learned Junius his account and explication of this Teftimony ds 
 Cleric?* Cap. ij. Not. 16. ) together with the Authors of the Ju s D'rulrium 
 Minifi. Evang. ( "Part. id. P. 56. $j. ) and the appendix thereto ( P. 102, 
 rojvJ and this will be conyincingfy apparent. 
 
 Well, what fays the Dr. to this Teftimony? Having given cut P. 41 f. 
 our Senfe of Jerorns words ( wherein he contradicts his former 416. 
 Glofs ) his Firft exception is, cc That Jtrom being .Born but about the 
 cc Year 230, isa Witnefs far fhort in Antiquity to thefe early Witnejffes 
 cc which he has adduced : That he is a Hundred Years after Origcm, three 
 Cf Hundred after Clement, and one . muft not Hand agatnft foma- 
 
 cc ny early Harmonious Witncftes. We have made it appear^ that none 
 of the Drs.early Witneffes, give a Relevant 7c(iimcnv to the Point, and 
 Theft, he undertakes to prove, viz,, the derivation of the JipofdUk Office, 
 in its proper formal Senfe, to an Order of Ordinary Officers Superior to 
 Pafiors, and inhancing their whole Authority in Government : We I 
 made appear, that aU that his Teftimonies amounts to pr^ve, is only a 
 General defignation otJUfhops, made ufeof by the Anc I at moil ;i 
 
 fuppofal of forae deference, and fixed 1 which they had injudi- 
 
 catories:And who fees not, that this is utterly Jkort of proving vvhat he in- 
 tends ? So, that his Witnefles are mute In our Cauie ; andlpeaks a. C to the 
 Qucilion and Interrogator. The 
 
56 Vr.bcotVsTleadtngs Chap. III. 
 
 The Dr. from P. 433. to P. 447. afferts, and endeavours to prove 
 cc that the Bijlwp, hath for his peculiar prerogative, annexed to 
 cc his perfon and Office as BijJwp. 1. The Legijlative Power, which 
 cc he calls the Eflence of Government, in the very fame manner, as he 
 <c fuppofes, the Apo files pofieft and exercifed it. idly. ThefoleAuthority to 
 cc Confecrat and Ordain. %ly. The whole Authority of Spirituall Jurijdi- 
 cc Bion y toCite,ExaminJudg 3 Cenfure, andabfolveDelinquents^fy.To Con 
 "firm the Baptized. From all which, heyas intirly excluds all Vaftors in 
 Meetings, never fo frequent and formal, and allows them no more Intereft 
 in any ofthefe, than if they were no Church Officers at all, So, that their 
 medling in the leaft, with thefe his fuppofed fole prerogatives of the B*- 
 jlwp y is in his Judgment as grofs Antifcriptural encroachment, and ftepping 
 beyond the Duties and limits of their Fundion and Office, as if they ihould 
 invade the Kings Authority and prerogative. Now, the Office of theBi- 
 Jhop being of this Nature and extent, in the Dr c s Judgment, let any Per- 
 fon of Candor or Confcience, givefentence upon it, what the Witnefles 
 before adduced by him, do fay to prove this, and what ftrength there is in 
 their Teftimoneis^ to reach this conclufion. Again, 2//. As the Drs. pre- 
 tended early Witnefles, are but general and ambiguous in their 
 Teitimonies , and confequently can make no Faith in this Matter, fo, 
 they are fo far from being unanimous, as he calls them, that upon the 
 contrary ,feveral of them(as is above cleared J do giveWitnefs aguinft him : 
 Particularly, Clemens and Ignatius, two of his molt Ancient Witnefles,- 
 Augufin and Ambrofe imputing alfo ( with Jerom ) the Epifcopal Vrefidency y 
 which obtained in their time, to the Churches Cufiom, not to Divine 
 Appointment, do thus caft a contradicting blot upon his fuppofed Tefti- 
 monies: Ambrofe acknouledging in fpecial, that non per omnia con<venhmt 
 Apofiolorum fcripta ordinationifiux nunc eft in Eeclefia Comment, in Cap. 4. ad Ephef. 
 And tho it be controverted, whether this was the true Ambrofe, yet we 
 mu ft tell him, with the learned Profeffbrs of Saumur ( De Epifcop. &Vresb. 
 Difcrim.P.(mihi) 300. Tbef. 19.) that he was Coetaneous with, or rather 
 more Ancient than Ambrofe , being Cited by Auguft in y \vho was Ambrofe Dif- 
 ciple, as an Holy Man ( lib. 2. ad Bonif. Cap. 4. ) which Epithet, he 
 would not have put upon a perfon of fmall account, or one hetrodox. 
 3/7. The Dr. knows that Jerom holds not the parity ofBifiops and Presbyters y as 
 his pri vat Judgment only, but leaft he, or any elfefuppofe this, he proves it 
 by Divine Teitimonies of the Apoftles Writings, yea and gives the fame 
 Senfe of them, which Vresbyterian Writers do : And therefore, the Dr. 
 muft acknowledg him in fo far, acting a Divine Witnefs, not giving a 
 human Teftimony onlv, and that he more than outweighs his 
 Huma^Teftiftionies, e lfe he is obliged to examin his Proofs and Anfwer 
 •" • them 
 
<Jhap. 111. tor npilcopacy, txamined. 57 
 
 them, and ftiowif he can, Jerom's Senfe of thefe Scriptures to be difown- 
 ed by any of his Authors, which he doth not fo much as attempt. All 
 who have feen Jerom c s Teftimony, do know, that he Reafons this Point 
 of the Identity of the Office of Bif/fcop and Presbyter from Scripture, leaft a- 
 ny mould take this to be his private Opinion \j?utat aliyuis, faith he, non 
 Scripturarum, fed noftram ejje fententiam, Epifcopum & Tresbyterutn mum '(fie 1 
 the one Name importing the Age, the other the Office of the Baft or. Then 
 he goes through thefe Scriptures, Philip. i. # i. A&. 2c. 28. Htb. 12. 17. 
 1. Vet. $-. 2. 3. Drawing out upon the whole this Conclufion,' that (he 
 Eifiops Authority and Superiority to Presbyters, was rather by Cuftom 
 than any true difpenfation from the Lord. But of this again. 
 
 The Drs. Second Exception is , " That Jerow being a P? esbyter him- ibid. 
 cc feJf, fpeaks in his own Caufe, and in a warmth of Paffion, to curb 
 cc the infolency of fome pragmatick Deacons. Anf. Jtrom reafoning- 
 both in this place Cited, and the Epiftk to Evagrius, this Point from 
 Scripture, and exhibiting the Divine Oracles, the Apoftlcs Doclrin and 
 practice, for what he holds, fpeaks the mind of God, and no Paffion 
 and untill the Dr. Anfwer his Scripture-reafonings in the Forecited Tefti* 
 monies,he is lyableto theCharge of imputing to the Scripture andfco the A- 
 poftles, Paffion and Partiality. As for his being a Pr •esbyter himfelf} what 
 then? can noPresbyter fpeak truely and impartially upon this head? j?efides ' 
 he knows that feveral of his Witneiles for Epifcopacy, and whom he molt 
 Efteems, are by him fuppofed Biflwps of his high Hierarchical Mould, and 
 how mall we receive their Teftimony in their ownCaufe? And why may 
 not we impute to them partiality and Paffion, and rejecl: their Tefti- 
 mony, unlefs their Epifcopal Chair hath, as that of the Pope, a fuppofed 
 infallibility annexed to it? So, that the Dr. is put to this Delemma, either to 
 quite his great EpifcopaJ Teftimonies,asinfufficient upon his own Ground 
 or admit this of ]erom. It is the fame way from Athens toThebes, and frcni 
 Thebes to Athens. 
 
 The Dr f s Third Exception is, " Thar Jerom elfewhere cwns the!?/- ibid. 
 cc flwp's Superiority, whereof he exhibits, Firft this Proof, that in his 
 ec Dialogue Adv-erf. Luciferians, he gives this Reafon, why one not Baptized 
 sc by the Bijbop, received not the Holy Ghoft, becaufe the Holy Ghoft 
 cc defccnded on the Apoftles : Which, the Dr. fays, makes it plain, that 
 "he placed the BiJJjops in the fame rank,with the Apoftles. Aftiange Proof 
 indeed/ Firft, we heard, that J crom Reafons the Point from Scripture, 
 that the Dijbop and Presbyter are all one^ and therefore, it is odd front 
 ]erotn c s Naming a Bishop, to underftand him of hi^Hicrarchical Bifiop. A- 
 gain, Jerom fay$ [quidfacit except a Ord'matiove Epijcopus, &c. ] what dorli 
 
 the Bijlwo, except Ordination, which the Prestytcr doth not ? ( A Claufe 
 
 I and 
 
58 T>r. Scott's "Pleadings Chap. Ill 
 
 and Paffage, we find the Dr. much harping upon ) butfin his glofs 
 upon this Teftimony, he doth in contradiction to himfelf, and Jerom alfo, 
 appropriat to the Bifliop, the Adminiftration of the Sacrament of Baptifm. 
 What if one Reafon thus, againft the difpifers of this Ordinance ? Such a 
 Perfon is not Sealed by the Spirit, becaufe not Baptized by a Paftor; for 
 the Holy Ghoft Defcended on the Apoftles. Will the Dr. difown this 
 Reafoning ? Or, will he ovgn the Inference, that therefore, Paftors, are 
 equal to Apoftles ? Or, fay it were fuch a Reafoning ,• fuch a Perfon, or 
 Perfons 3 cannot be Converted or Sealed by the Spirit, not having heard 
 the Converting Word Preached by a Paftor 3 fince the Apoftles thus Con- 
 verted, and Miniftredthe Holy Ghoft.; Will any ( but fuch as draw Rea- 
 fons and Illuftrations beyond the Moon, as this Dr) inferr that the V after 
 is thus equal unto Apoftles ? Will the Dr. in good earneft affirm, that 
 the Perfon who performs fuch Ac5fcs of the Power of Order, as the A- 
 poftles did perform, and with the faving Bleffing of the Spirit, is upon 
 this Ground equalled in Office to the Apoftles} If fo,he muft make allFaithful 
 Vapors thus equal, and overturn all his Reafoning from a fuppofed Succef- 
 fion ofBifljcps to the Apoftolat. 
 
 cc The Dr c s next Proof is drawn from Epift. i. ad Heliod. where 
 ibid, he fays, cc the Bifhops are in place of St. Vaul and Veter. And fo, fay 
 
 we, are all Faithful Paftor s ( whom Jerom makes one with ~Bi(l)ops y . 
 according to the Scripture acceptation,and at large makes it good) in the 
 place of Apoftles g& to the exercifeofan ordinary Miniftrie,and thePowerof 
 Order andjurifdi6tion,Efrential and neceifar to the Church, elfe,our Lord 
 had not promifed His prefence with His Apoftles to the end of the World, 
 when He fent them out, and Sealed their Patent to Preach the Gofpel, 
 
 and Difciple all Nations to Him. Of the fame Stamp, is that which 
 ihld. cc he Cits of Jerom on Pfal. 45. 16. That in Head of the Apoftles 
 
 cc ( gone from the World ) we have their Sons, the Bifiops, the Fa- 
 " thers, by whom they are Governed. For, I pray, will this Dr. either 
 affert 1. That Jerom held, that the Power of Government and Authority 
 Ecclefiaftick, died with the Apoftles, that the Power of Order and JuriC- 
 didion, was not to be preferved, continued in the Church, and Ex- 
 ercifed by ordinary Church Officers, and in,' this refped enjoined in the 
 Fifth Com nand, which Commands Obedience to all Lawful Governours 
 ( andfo are Minifters called in Scripture ) under the Charader and De- 
 nomination of Fathers. Or zly. Can he deny that Jerom holds, that ex- 
 cept Ordination, ( or rather the Rituals of it ) at that time appropriat to 
 the Bijbop, the Vaftors and Vresbyters performed all Acts of the Power of 
 Order and JurifduUoii ? And that therefore, in Jerom c s Senfe, Paftor s y 
 areiucliScwx aad S^cceifors of Apoftles, and have both Name and thing. 
 
 of 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. ^9 
 
 of the Scripture Bijhop. As for his Epifrle ad Nepot. afTerting that what 
 Aaron and his Sons were,, that are the Bijhops and Presbters. Jercm in thil 
 allufion, in point of Government, aflerts only, that God has under the 
 New Teftament, as under the Old, fixed a Church Gc vernment 
 and Church Officers : And giving the Dr. the advantage of this Senfe, 
 that Jerom, including the degenerat Cuftom of his time, infinuats the pre- 
 mifed difference betwixt the then Bijhcps and Presbyters; I pray, what fays 
 this to the Dr c s. fcope ? vizA To prove from Jercm c s allufive Phrafe, and 
 expreffing himfelf thus,The many Effential difrerences,which he places*be- 
 twixtBiflwp andPresbyter: No man of Senfe can draw fuch an inference^For 
 1. Jerom's Judgment, founded upon fo many clear Scripture Grounds, as 
 to the identity ofBifiop and Presbyter, when afferting and Difputing this 
 Point, ex profejjb, ought in allReafon to preponderat any fuch General al- 
 lufive Expreffions, and as a Comment, Expound the fame, in a Senfe mod 
 confentient to his Judgment, if we will but allow him the Common privi- 
 ledg of all Men, to be the beft Interpreter of his own Senfe. ily. The Dr. 
 himfelf muft acknowledg this, elfehe will make Jtrcm plead for a Gof- 
 pel- Aaron, or Univerfal Patriarch, if the Words were taken in a flrict Li- 
 teral Senfe, as tending every way to equiparat the Government of the 
 Church under the Old and New Teftament. 
 
 The Dr. inferrs from this PaiTage, " Therefore,as Aaron by Di- P. 417.' 
 cc -vine Right, was Superior to his Sons, fo is the Bijhop, in Je- 
 cc rom c s Senfe to his Presbyters. But he might as well infer,- Therefore, as 
 there was one Aaron, fetover his Sons, and all the Priefrs and Levits of the 
 Church of Jfracl, fo, ought there to be, in Jerem's Senfe, one Supreme 
 Prejtdent over al the Cliriftian Church. Beiides, ily. The Dr. dare not 
 fay 3 that Aaro?j c s Sons and the Priefts had no Effential intereft in Govern- 
 ment, and that it was inhanced and Monopolized in the perfon of Aaron, 
 as he holds (and infinuats, that Jerom alfo holds) that it is [thus Mo- 
 nopolized in the Perfon of the Bijhop. Jerom aflerts, that Presbyters and Bi- 
 fiops are all one, Jure Divino, confequently, that they have the f:.me Ef- 
 fential intereft in Government. So, that whatever Prefulent he may fup- 
 pofe fetover them by their Choice, yet it neither doth, nor can enhance, 
 nor feclude this their Power. Thus we fee, that the Dr's alledged Con- 
 tradiction in thefe Palfages, to his premifed Teftimony, anent the identi- 
 ty of Bijhop and Presbyter, is but his own imagnation : Lelides, that one of 
 his Degree fhould know, that no fimile, is to be drained beyond the Scope 
 of the Author making ufe of it, elfe it were not afrmle. The Dr. 
 " asks, whether 'ferom, is more to be Credited, when i peaking 
 " without a Byafs, or when Ipe^king partially s and in his own 
 "Gaufer lArifwtr by a Counter-query 3 whether Jen w's full and tef| 
 
 1 2 
 
So T>r. Scott's Pleadings Chap. IIL 
 
 count of his Judgment, when Difputing a Point, ex profe(fo,znd from Scrip" 
 ture, is more to be believed, and laid hold upon, as expreffing his Senfe* 
 than a general dark allufive expreiIion,when under no fuch Gircumftances* 
 and profecuting no fuch fcope and defign, and which of the two ought. 
 to preponderat ? And fo I difmifs the Dr f s Third Anfwer. 
 
 His Fourth exception to the premifed Teftimonie is, " That the 
 ibid. cc tranflation of the Government from the common Counfel of Pres- 
 cc byters, to one JSiffltop, muft be in Jercmh Senfe, Jpofiolick, fince it 
 cc was made, when it was fold, 1 am- of Paul, and I of Apollo f s; And there- 
 w;f 'fore, this Decree., muft needs have been made in Pauls time. Anf. The 
 Dn might have feen this Phantaftick exception long fince removed : Firfi, 
 By Junius , in the paifage, forecked. ( }cik de. Cler. Cap, 15-. Not-. 16.) 
 where, heat large expones this Teftimony, and removes this glofs [ tria 
 diflinguit tempora, Hieronymus, faith he, &c. J Jerom diftinguifheth Three 
 Periods of time,- one, wherein the Church was Governed by common 
 Counfelof Presbyters:. The fecond,, wherein there were divifions in Reli- 
 gion, and it was faid among the People, not at Corinth only, I am of "Paul, 
 &c For when thefe things were faid at Corinth, the Church was Govern- 
 ed by the common Counlel of Presbyters; as appears 1 Cor. 5-. 2 Cor. 1. 
 The Third and laft, wherein one chofen out from among the Presbyters, 
 was fet over the, reft. And every one of thefe times, faith he ( that I may 
 fpeak with the Vulgar ) had their own latitude. Junius here, informs 
 the Dr. that this was not faid at Corinth only,, but among the People 
 
 £ malum non Corinthi folum ] It was. faith he, a publick evil. He adds 
 
 u : that Paul himfelf prefcribed no fuch remedy to the Corinthians: And 
 " and afterward (Not. 17.) he tells us, that Jerom faith, That after it 
 "was faid among the People, this Change was made, but not, that this 
 "human Proftafie began at that time, viz: of the Schifm, but after that 
 " time.To this Judicious account of thelearned Junius, I fhalladd another 
 of the famous Whittaker ( De Eccl. quefi. 1. Cap. 3. Seel. 29.) where he 
 thus obviats and removes the Drs, Quible upon Jerom c s forementioned Te- 
 ftimony, cc he faith not, it was Decreed by the Apoftles, that one Pres r 
 ■ c bjter jhould be fet over the reft.;. This he fays was by the Churches cu- 
 iQ ftom, not the ApoftlesDecree — Then Jerom adds, "let the Bijhcps know, 
 * c that it is rather by cuftom, than Divine appointment, that they are 
 * c fet over Presbyters. Had the Apoftles, faith Whittaker, changed the Firft 
 fC Order, and let Bijlops over Presbyters, and forbidden the Churches to 
 -'be Governed by their common Counfel, truely, this had been the 
 ; * Lords appointment, becaufe proceeding from the Apoftles of Chrift, 
 c ; unlefs we will afcribe to Cuitom, not to Divine appointment, what 
 ;' they decreed; But the Apoftles being alive a there, was nothing changed 
 
Chap. III. tor Jhpiicopacy, Examined. 6 X 
 
 cc in that Order; For the Evifile was written when Paul, was in Macedonia, 
 fC &c. The Dr. may in theie accounts, fee his Error. Jercm, in the foremen- 
 tioned Teftimonies, proving a Scripture parity of Bijhcp and Presbyter, 
 through all the Apoftles times and writings, and even to Jchns time, the 
 furviver of them all, could not be fo bruitiihly inconfequent, as to make 
 thQ Schifm at Corinth, the occafion of the Change of Government,-, fo long 
 before his Teftimony from )ohn, yea before Paul's farewc! Sermon ro the 
 Elders ofEpbefas, from which, he draws another of his Proofs, bur he 
 fpeaks ofan human Cuftom coming In Vaulatim pnftea, piece and piece, 
 and by degrees, long after thefe times, and but alluds unto that divifion. 
 i Cor. i ( where again the Dr. may fee the Error of taking ftrictly his al- 
 luding Phrafes) expreffing it,in theApoftles words,notcf their times -,Y or, ?s 
 we heard Whittaker obferve, the Apoitles never npp:inted fuch accrellent 
 Power oiPrelats over Presbyters, as a Remedy of Schifm, among all their 
 Prefcriptions cf the Remedies of this evil, Rom. 16. i Cor. 3. Wbit- 
 
 taker alio, will tell the Dr. that this was a Remedy worfe than the difeafe. 
 The Dr. adds, to confirm his Senfe of Jerom's Wcrds, that Jerom ( in 
 cc his Book De Ecclef. Script. ) mews, that after the Lord's Aicenfion, James 
 cc was Ordained by the Apoftles, Biflwp of J entfakm , Timothy by Paul, Bifocp 
 cc ofEphefus, Titus of Crete, Pclycarp of Smyrna, So, that he mult either mean 
 tc an Apofiolick Decree, or elle, he muft contradict himfelf. Jnf> Not to 
 detain the Dr. to prove this Book to be Jercm c $, which fome hold to be 
 fpurious, this is eafily removed by what we have above offered, and even 
 from Whittaker, of the Fathers general, improper, ambiguous Speech of 
 Bijljops, and their various ufe of this epithet, terming fuch Perfons, who 
 did for fome time Officiat in a place, whether extraordinary Officers or 
 ordinary, the Bijhops thereof, after the Denomination and cuflom, which 
 had then obtained, whereof inftances have been above exhibited. Jtrom 
 fpezkingof the Alexandrian Succeflion, fays, the Presbjftrs chuled out dhe 
 to prefide [ a Ma rco Evange Ttfia ] and terming Mark thus (not meeriV, 
 upon the account of his being a Writer of the Gofpel, which is theftricV 
 eil acceptation, but in the Judgment of thofe ; beft acquaint withhisWrit- 
 ings, an Evangelift, as a tranlient, unfixed Preacher of the Gofpel ) 
 he muft needs account Timothy and Titm of the fame Office; And therefore, 
 not Bijljops in a formal Senfe, norfet up in fuch a manner, and for fuch an 
 end, which were Crofs to their Office, as I have above made good. Be- 
 iides, thatitfeems odd and inconljitent with common Senlc, that im- 
 mediatly after the Lords Afcenlion,fuch Perfons were fet up. in the Oflice 
 and Character fpecined, and crofs to this whole Teftimony of Jercm; For 
 thus, there could be no time for Treslyttrs governing by common counfel, 
 aox die Schifm to grow up thereupon, both which, Jtrcrrfo Tcltimonks 
 
'6z T>r. Scott's T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 docs fuppofe, indiftinct Periods of time, as we heard Junius obferve,- So, 
 that the Dr. fpeaks very bluntly and inconfideratly, when he tells 
 ibid, us, fC That either Jerom muft mean a Decree Apoftolick, immedi- 
 " atly after our Lord c s Afceniion, or elfe exprefly contradict him- 
 Ci felf. This Alternative of the Dr c s. I fay, is pityfiil inadvertency; For, 
 mould Jerom fpeak of fuch an Apoftolick Decree, as he imputes to him, 
 he muft needs direclly contradict himfelf, in Affertingthe Churches Go- 
 vernment, to have been for a time [ communi confilio Presbyterorum ] And a 
 Schifm growing thereupon : For, in the Dr c s Senfe, there was never fuch 
 a Government, or an occafion of Schifm exiftent. Befides, That this 
 Crlofs of the Dr c s. makes Jercm fay, that the Apoftles changed the Divine 
 appointment, to make way for an human form,- For, Jerom holds the Go- 
 vernment, by common Council of Presbyters, to be founded upon Di- 
 vine Inftitution, and that which Succeeded, upon human Cuftom only. 
 The Dr. therefore, and all elfe, who would accord Jerom's Teftimony, 
 with what he here Cites, muft underftand his words in the fenfe, I have of- 
 fered, which, as is faid, is the Senfe and Judgment of famous Trotefiant 
 Divines. 
 
 The Dr c s Fifth except len is, " That had this change of the Go- 
 P. 417. ec v^rnment from Presbyterian to Epifecpa I, been in very deed,- it 
 418. " muft either have been made by the Apoftles, or thereafter: If 
 
 " we fay, by the Apoftles, its ftrange, there is no mention of it 
 cc in Scripture. But to this, the An fiver is eafie and ready, that we own 
 no fuch Senfe of Jerom c s words, nor can they admit the fame, as I have al- 
 ready made good. Well, but the Dr. pufhes us with the other 
 ibid, horn of his Dilemma, viz,. "That if we fay, it was made after the 
 "Apoftles, or about the year 140, how comes it, that fuch a De- 
 €t cree. relative to an Univerfal Change of the Government from one kind 
 * c to another, is not mentioned in Ecclefiaftick Antiquity ? There being 
 * c no fuch Decree heard of, and Clemens, Ignatius, Hegefippus, Irenaus, Dio- 
 * c nyfius oiCorintb, who lived in that Period, are fo far from taking notice 
 * or this, that they maintain the uninterrupted Succeffion of Bijhops, from 
 €c the Apoftles. I an/wer, this other pufh and Horn of the Dr c s Dilemma, 
 is as far from harming us, as the other; For it is grounded upon theDr's 
 owngroundlefsfancie, and diftorted Senfe cf Jerom's words, as if by [ tcto 
 irbe decretum~\ he had meant a formal general Decree of a Council : Which 
 phantaftick conceit, feveral Learned Divines have refuted, from the 
 Tenor and Scope of Jeromes words. Jerom fays [projpicicnte Ccncilio — & to- 
 toorbe decretum~\ not in any formed Council, either in the Apoftles time, or 
 afterward, but he means, when through the World, it was faid among tl'e 
 People^ I am ef Paul,dv.[ fofi^uam alii Corinthiorum more Dcntentati in par- 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6^ 
 
 Us difcerpta ftmt~\ ( as Rlondel expreiTes and expounds it) it was Decreed a- 
 mong the People., or in and among particular Churches through the 
 whole World. Decreed through the whole JVorld, is all one with by the whole 
 World, which is diftributively to be taken. Jerom c s words evince this; For, 
 the Council's Decree reprefenting the whole World, would have been all 
 at once, but ]erom fays, this change came notmftmul & fern el , but paula- 
 tim, by degrees, and that the after Vroftafie came in Ccnftuetudine, or by 
 cuftoni, which points at a gradual comming in. Thus, we have feenthe 
 Dr c s fancied abfurdity evaniih. I might add, that the Churches fpeedy 
 defection from the Apoftolick Purity and Inditutions in point of Govern- 
 ment, will not appear ftrange to any, who confiders Scripture Inftances, 
 of as great and^ more fpeedy Defections : Witnefs,that of Ifracl's wcrfliip- 
 ing the Golden Calf, lb fhortly after the Promulgation of the Law ; 
 And the early workings of the My fieri e of iniquity ,in the New Teftamenc 
 Church, and affectation o? Epifcopa I Primacy, m the Apofdejo/jw c s time, &c. 
 Of which alreadv. For what he adds oftheTeftimonies of Authors, as to 
 the Succe (lion of Bijhopj, from Apofrles, at Rome, Jerufalcm, &c. w r e have 
 already difcovered fully, what a mean and chattejed proof this is, and 
 that the pretended Succeffion is lvable to unanswerable exceptions, and 
 terminating in Apo files or Evangelifts, whofe Office is extraordinary, and 
 expired; the fabulous vanity thereof, is in this convincingly apparent. 
 
 The Dr. tells us, cc That Irenaus, while at Rome, might as well 
 <c know Peters SuccefTors there, as we may know, who fucceed- P. 41 8, 
 cc ed Bijhop lilitgift, in the Chair of Canterbury he being no fur- 419. 
 ff ther diftant from the one, than we from the other. But tru- 
 ly, were there no greater Certainty of the one, than of the ether, IfhouM 
 confidently Challenge that Matter of Fad as FahuWis: And had that 
 Chair, had no other SuccefTors of Whit gift, than the firit P afters or Jhjlwps 
 cfKome, it had been an empty Chair. And were there as great Uncer- 
 tainty of an Arch-Bifrcp Whitgift at Canterbury, and as many famous Con- 
 tradictors of this Matter of Fad, and of his SuccefTors, as in this cafe of 
 Rome, the Succeffton would merit no Mans Belief. For the Dr c s. Affcr- 
 tion of the Clearnefs oijerufatem and Wcmes Succeilions [which he lays is 
 as clear, as any thing inEcclefiaftickFlifrory] he therein croffes thejudg- 
 nient of Learned Prot eft ants, who have made the contrary appear, as is a- 
 bove evinced. The Accounts of this fuppoied Succeilion, being Contra- 
 dictory one to another, and TometimesPei Tons Contemporary, madeSuc- 
 cedaneous therein, yea, and the very Name and Orhcc of Perfons defign- 
 ed, being of a various and different Nature and Signification, fome oF 
 thefe pretended fucceeding Bifiops, being mere Presbyters. " But 
 " fays die Doctor, who. will queltion au ancient Monarchy, be- jto£ 
 
6^ T>r. Scott' sT leadings Chap. Ill, 
 
 c: caufeof fome Defect of the Hiftorical Accounts of its Succeffion. I 
 etnfwer, The Original of the Monarchy, being clear in Hiftory, and al~ 
 fo the Succeffors of the firft, in Point of an Hiftorical Faith, this will 
 not be queftioned: And when the Dr. mal let us fee the Bifltopj of his 
 Mould, fet up by the Apofiles, and prefent to us the Scripture Efcutchions 
 of their Power, together with clear Hiftorical Accounts of their firft Suc- 
 ceffors accordingly, we mal admit his paralelk Argument, elfe it is a mere 
 non fequitur. 
 
 The Dr. in the next place, tells us, cc That the Story of J<r- 
 
 ibid. " rom c s Univerfal Decree, being Unattefted, and Contradictory 
 c< \to all Antiquity, it niuft needs be looktupon, as a mere Figment 
 "of his Fancy. But from what is faid, its evident, that the Dr. in- 
 ftead of Impugning the Decree, which Jerows Teftimony fpeaks of, has 
 been, in all that is premifed, but Fighting with his own Shadow, and a 
 Figment of his o vn Fancy, and has never touched his Meaning and Scope, 
 nor has mown any, much lefs all Antiquity, againft what Jerom al- 
 ferts. 
 
 ibid. "The Dr. demands an Inftance of any Church of another 
 
 "Form of Government, than Epifiopacy, Which Demand he might 
 have found fufficiently anfwered by Presbyterian Writers, who have made ap- 
 pear, that the firft Apoftolick Churches were Governed Presbyterially, The Au- 
 thors of the J us Divinum Kegim. Ecclef. have long fince exhibit clear Scrip- 
 ture Proofs of this,which theDr.fhould have Anfwered.before he had made 
 fuch a Challenge. Befides, the Multitud of Fathers, who maintain the 
 Identity of Bifljops and Presbyters, will go far in this Proof, \And if Blon- 
 de! s Demonftration from Antiquity, ( Apcl. Sett. 3. P. 308. &c. ) that 
 Bijhops came not in till the year 140. hold good, furely all the exiftent 
 Churches in that Period of Time, are fomany Inftances of fucli a Govern- 
 ment. Andrfor this Church of Scotland, we have its firft Presbyterian Go- 
 vernment, attefted by J oh an. Major, de gefi. Scot. Lib: 2: Ferdons Scotochron: 
 Lib: 3: cap. 8: Blond. Seff 3. That from the year 79. till 430. it was Go- 
 verned by Presbyters without Btfiops, and that in that year, the Hifiop of 
 Rome fent Palladius, as our firft Bifijop; So, that we had our Union to 
 the See of Rome, together with Prelacy. 
 
 We come now, to the Dr's laft Exception to this Teftimony 
 ibid, of Jerom, wherein he repofes great Confidence, Uihering it in 
 with an especially Confidering : Wel),what is that under his Confidera- 
 tion, the^Dr.-'will Amufe us with, and Arreft our Thoughts upon? 
 " This Conceit, faith he, reflects odioufly upon the Wifdom of ourSavi- 
 cc our, and his Apofties, in Devolving the Government upon Presbyters 
 * [common Cotmfel, which was the Occalion of fundry Schifms and Divifi- 
 
 " ons, 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6j 
 
 cc ons, for Removal of which, the Church found it needful to diflclvc 
 fC thole Presbytries, and introduce Epifcopacy in their Room. But the Do- 
 dor might have found this his Conceit and Notion long fince removed, 
 and that his fuppofed Reflection, depends not upon any Words oi Jerom. 
 Jerom fays, f c That [ Diaboli Infiinclu ] by the Devils Inftintf:, there fell 
 u Divifions and Factions, one faying, I am a/Paul, and another, I am of 
 u Apollo, and that thereupon, this Remedy of fetting up fixed Prefide-,tts 3 
 <c was fallen upon. Which the Learned Whlttaker has told the Dr, was a 
 Remedy worfe than the Difeafe : And Jerom himfelf, diftinguilhes this 
 Humane Cttfiom, from the Divine Injlitution. Now, where is the Dr c s Con- 
 fequence? Becaufe Jerom fays, that for preventing Schifms at that time, 
 the Government was changed, doth he therefore charge this, upon the 
 Apoftlcs Government, or Chrifts Inftitution ? He may as well iay, that 
 a Mans afTerting Corruptions to be in the Church, will inferr his imput- 
 ing them to the Ordinances. Was there notDifcord among theApcftles, 
 under Chrifts own immediat Government ? But did this Difcord, or the 
 Record thereof in Scripture, reflect on His Holy Government ? Paul and 
 Barnabas divided and parted afunder, but doth Luke, in Recording this, 
 charge it upon the Apoftolick Government ? 
 
 To make the Folly of the Dr's Inference, yet further to appear, let thsfe 
 three things be confidered. 1. cc He confeffes that Jerom afferts, that the 
 fC Apoftolick Government of Presbyterian Parity, was the Occaficn only of 
 CQ thefe Schifms. Therefore, fay I, he makes it not the Caufe: If the Dr. 
 affert this, he will pitifully expofe his Learning, in not diftinguifhing 
 thefe things, which are fo obvioufly diftinguilhable, and reflect upon our 
 Saviour, in faying, he came not to fend Peace, but a Sword andDiviilon, 
 to kindle Fire upon the Earth, to fbt aMan at Variance againft his Father, 
 and to make thofe of a Mans own Houfe, his Enemies ; as if His Holy 
 DocYrin, were the Caufe of thefe Evils. Paul tells us, that his Corruption 
 and Sin, took Occafim from the Commandment , and was irritat by the Law; 
 but prevents lb grofs a Miftake, as to fuppole any Imputation upon the 
 Holy Law thereby. Is the Law fin? faith he, God forbid. He abhorrs the 
 Confequence as abfurd and blafphemous. 2. The Dr. holds, that Jerom 
 aflerts, c " The>Church founcl it neceifary upon this Occaiion, 
 ff to change the firft Government, by the Common Ccunfel of P.4i9,42o,' 
 cc Prcsb)ters } and ( as he expreiles it ) to Dipohe Presbytries, and 
 " Introduce Epifcopacy. Wherein he abufes Jerom, and pitifully Wire-draw « 
 his Words, ottering a mere Diftortion of them : For, [ 1.] Jcrcm fpeaks 
 only, as is above cleared, of an Innovating Cuitom, growing up by De- 
 grees, no: of a Government introduced by the whole Church, upon 
 Ground of Neccffity. [2.] He makes Jaom affert, that upon fhq firfi 
 
 K Intro- 
 
66 T*r. Scott' sT leadings Chap. III. 
 
 Introdudion of this Cuftom, Presbytries were wholly diffolved, which is 
 moft crofs to Jeroms Meaning ; For, even in his own time, long after the 
 firft Origine of this Cuftom, he fays [ quidfacit, &c } what doth the/?*- 
 fiiop, except Ordination, which the Presbytrie doth not ? So, that in the 
 firft Introduction of this EpifiopusPrafes, Jerom could far lefs fuppofe a Dif- 
 {olutiondf Presbytries, or total Abolilhing of their Authority, as the Dr. 
 fboliflily fuggefts, but only fuch affixed Prefident or «?•«£«, who, as in that 
 Capacity, had a Deference, and the Care committed to him, but not fo, 
 as wholly to exclud Pra^m Decifive Suffrage. Again, in die 3^. place,, 
 what ever may be (aid of this after-Pradice and Frame of Government, 
 Jerom exprefly denies a Divine Right, or Jrn to it, and diftinguiflies it, 
 from the Truth of the Divine Appointment, which firff took place:. So, that^ 
 tho we fhould grant to the Dr, that in Jerom c s Senfe, the whole Church, 
 by joynt Determination, had fimul & femel made this Alteration, it is e- 
 vident, that he charges the Error upon the Church, as aRecefs from the 
 Divine Path, but not at all upon the Divine Appointment it felf, which 
 he diligently diftinguifhes from, and fets in Oppofition to this Cuftom 
 and Pradice of the Church. So, that the. abftird Reflection upon the A- 
 poftles Government, and the Wifdom of our Saviour* the Dr. may fee to 
 be lodged nearer home, viz. not only upon thefe, who firft brought in 
 thisHuman Proftafa, (efpecially fuch,as Scrued it up t<a ^Hierarchical Pri- 
 macy, which is fo crofs to the Apoftolick Parity ) but alfb, and in a An- 
 gular manner, to be chargeable upon thefe, who uphold it, after its many 
 Evils are difcovered. Jerom. afferts only the Matter of Fad, viz,. That 
 this Imparity, was brought in for Remedy ofSchifm, but leaves the charge 
 of Refiedting upon the Apoftolick Government, upon the Authors cf this 
 
 Innovation- And upon the Promotters thereof, it rauft ftill ly. 
 ibid. The Dr. alledges, , That Jorom approves of this, as a Wife a .d 
 
 ff Prudent Adion. An odd Approbation indeed/ To aprrov; a 
 Cuftom or Adion, as Wife and Prudent, which he holds to be oppofit to 
 the Divine Appointment. For his proof, \ viz: <c : That Jerom afferts the 
 ci Safety of the Church to depend up.n the Authority ofthe High Prieft 
 C£ or Bifiop, to whom, if Supreme Authority be not given, there would 
 u be as many Schifms as Priefts. As the Dr. has pointed, us to none of Je- 
 roms Writings for Proof of this, fo fas we have cleared above) Jerom and 
 the Anciems, in fuch Allufive Expreflions, intend nothing elfe, but a Di- 
 ftindjon of Offices in the Gofpel Miniftry, and to affert the Authority 
 thereof. Blond: Seel, ;. P. 13J. fhews out of diverfe Councils, their exprei- 
 jfing the Gofpei Miniftry, under the Charader ofPriefis andLevites. And 
 I dare referr it to this Dr, or any Man of Senfe, if a groffer Contradidi- 
 on. oj : Nourieaie, could ever fail into any Mans Thought, thaw to hold 
 ' ~ " the 
 
Chap. IIL For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6j 
 
 theNeceflity of an Hierarchical Bijhop, with Supreme Authority, and yet 
 the Neceffity of a Divine appointment to the contrary. That which the 
 Dr. calls cc the Unavoidable Conference of Jerom's Hypothefis, viz. 
 " That the Church had gone to Ruine, if a Wifer Form of Go- iUL 
 <c vernment, than that of Apoftles, had not been taken up, to 
 " fupply its Defeft. We have made appear, to be a very eafily avoided 
 Confequence, and by no Twift of Realon, to be deducible from Jercm c $ 
 Hypothefis, and that the Dr, in drawing fuch a Confequence, has, in (lead 
 otjerom, involved himfelf, in abfurd Dedu&ions. He calls this 
 Teftimony ofjenm, u the only confiderable Objection, againft ibid. 
 cc the Univerfal Conformity of the Primitive Church to Epifccpal 
 " Government ,♦ And therein difcovers his fmall and (lender Reading in 
 this Controverfie, fince he might have feen in B lev del, S aim a fas y and ma- 
 ny others, many more confiderable Objections ,• And this one, we have 
 found fo very confiderable, that it hath quit baffled, and born down the 
 Dr c s mean and inconfiderable Anfwers. But to proeeed. 
 
 In the clofe of this Section. (P. 421.) the Dr. flies high in thefe his fup- 
 pofed victorious Anfwers to J erom c s Teftimony, telling us, tc that the Apo- 
 " ftolick Superiority of BiJJiops, being handed down by Teftimonies, from 
 " Age to Age, its af unreafonable to rejed the fame, as the Canon of the 
 cc Scriptures, thence derived. The Dr. here difcovers, what Spirit he is of. 
 I had alwife thought, that the Divine Impreffion cf the Scripture Canon, 
 the intrinfick infallible evidences of a Divine infpiration, had been the 
 great ground of the Churches reception, not its being handed down to us, 
 from former generations, or the Firft receivers; Axid that our Divines, 
 had alwife diftinguilhed, the Church and former Generations Teftimony 
 and recommendation, from the innate, Eilential evidences of its Divine 
 Authority, as to the Ground otour Faith andreception. Buthowever, I 
 (hall tell him, that he (hould have exhibited^, as full and Divine proofand 
 unanimous recommendation of all the Churches,for his hierarchical Prela- 
 cy, as there is for the Scripture Cancn,before he had offered fuch an high 
 flown notion. 
 
 Before I part with the Dr. upon this head, Imuft needs (tho I have a 
 little before, touched it ) take notice oftwo pieces of fignal unfoundnnefs 
 and unfairdcalinginthis Matter oljercm's Teftimony. Firft, That in all his 
 Animadveriions, andmufter of Efificpsl ftrengthaguinftit, he doth not in 
 the leaft, take notice of Jeroms Scripture proofs, of the parity of Eifljop and 
 Presbyter: in correipondence to our Senfc and Pleading. Upon Philip 1. 1. 
 He argues, " That mhixy-Bifliofs are, faluted by Paul in that Church, ard 
 " that it could nor have many of the Diocefwih\mp;Thdt therefore ,the Apo- 
 4W itle fpeaks indifferently of Bijbop and Presbyters, as one and the Eime. 
 
 K 2 *t! 
 
<$S T>r. Scott c x "Pleadings Chap. 727. 
 
 €C That Aft. 20. Paul called the Elders of Ephefa, Bijhops, fet up by the 
 " Holy Ghoft; and that therefore he owned the Elders of that one City, 
 ** as Bijhops. That in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the care of the Churches 
 * c is divided among many — obey them that have the Rule over you, for they 
 €C watch for your Souls. That Peter, called fo from the firmnefs of his Faith, 
 u exhorts thus the Elders — the Elders v^hich are among you, I exhort, who 
 <e am alfo an Elder, and Witnefs , of the fufferivgs of Chrifi, Feed ['the Flock of 
 u God, which is among you, not by conflraint, but willingly, &C. Thefe things 
 tfc Iwrite, faith Jerom, to fhew, that among the Ancients, Bifliops and 
 u Presbyters, were one and the fame, and that by little and little, the care 
 ic was devolved upon one. Now, what fays the Dr. to thefe his Argu- 
 ings upon the Apoftles Do&rin ? If they are not found, why doth he not 
 difcover his miftake ? If they hold good, the Dr c s exceptions evanilh unto 
 Wind. As forinftance, " That Jerom. is too late a Witnefs ; that he is a 
 " Witnefs in his own Caufe^ that he talks otherwife, when not byafled 
 * with partiality, &c. For, if thefe Reafonings be found, his Witnefs, is 
 both amoft early and Divine Witnefs, and in the caufe of God and Truth,- 
 And whatever other Teftimony he may be fuppofed to give, this Divine 
 Teftimony ought to be preferred, wherein there can be no partiality, 
 unlefs the Dr. will impute partiality to the Divine Oracles, and the De- 
 cifion of the Holy GOD of Truth,in this Point. This alfo, anfwers the 
 Drs quible, about a Decree Apoftolick, as the Ground of the Change of 
 Government, and that Jerom could mean no fuch thing, fince none can 
 be fo brutiln, as to impute to the Apoftles, a contradidory Decree 
 to their own Do&rin. As alfo, that, other exception of his, evanifhes, 
 upon this Ground,Fi&. "That no fuch Decree of the Church was Record- 
 ed,- And that therefore,there was none fuch: For, fay ,it was either a De- 
 cree, or gradual Cuftom, if crofs to the Apoftolick Dodxin, it ought to be 
 rejected. Thus, alfo appears the Folly of bis laft exception, " That he 
 4T imputes to the Apoftolick Government, that it occafioned Schifms. 
 For, upon fuppofal or the foundnefs of Jerom c s Scripture proofs, the pari- 
 ty of BiJIwp and Presbyter, being the mind of Chrift and his Apoftles, 
 this Government could never give ground to Schifms, nor could the 
 Church warrantably alter it, upon any fuch pretence.; So that, whenfoe- 
 ver, and by whomsoever the change was made, it was made contrary to 
 the revealed will of the great Law-giver. 
 
 The Second Point of unfoundnefs, the Dr. is Chargable with, is, that 
 in the beginning of his difcourfe upon Jerom c s Teftimony, he profefles, 
 that he will 'not difput with us, the Senje ofthisPaffage, but allow it to bear our 
 Settfe; Yet in feveral of his Anfwers, he impugns our Senfe : Efpecially 
 his 4. 5. & 6. and not only our Senfe, but the Senfe of found Vrotefiant Di- 
 vines. 
 
Chap. IV. tor Epifcopacy, Examined. 69 
 
 vines,as is above evident. cc His Conceit about Jerom's making the Decree 
 ct or Cuflom, hefpeaks of, to be the Schifm at Corinth ( which is his Fourth 
 " exception) and his Suppofition, That Jcrcm by [ toto orht Jecretum'] un- 
 "derftands a formal joint Decree of the whole Churchy not a gradual Cuftom, 
 "and that ]ercm makes the Church to redrefs upon neceftary grounds, the 
 "Government appointed by Chrift and his Apoftles, and thus to impeach 
 "his Divine Wifdom ( which are his other exceptions ) All thefe, I fay, 
 as they are Diftortions of Jtrom's fenfe, fo diredtiy oppofit to the Senfe 
 given by us, and by all found Divines; yea, and fuch, as have been long 
 iince refuted by Vroteflant Writers, in Anfwer to PopijJj gloffes and excep- 
 tions, .with whom our Dr. and his Fellows does here join IfTue : So that, 
 we may judg of the affinity of both their Caufes, by the near cognation of 
 their Pleadings. 
 
 CHAR IV. 
 
 The T>r c s Fourth Argument, Examined \ ta^en 
 from our Saviour's alledged allowance and 
 Approbation of Epifcopal Government, in 
 his Epijiles to the Seven Afian Churches. 
 
 WE do now proceed to the Dr c s laft Argument, to 
 cc prove, That the rightful Government of the P. 42 1.' 
 " Church is Epifcopal, taken, from cur Saviours 
 cc Allowance and Approbation thereof, in his Seven Epiftles to 
 "the Seven Churches of Alva, directed to the Seven Angt Is, 
 tc called Seven Stars in His Right Hand, or the Seven Lights of the Seven 
 " Churches, Rev. 1. 20. and 2. 1. And in every Epiftle, owned as his 
 c: Angels and MefTengers. The Dr. tells us,that if he can prove them to be 
 cc Seven Bifrops, prefiding over Clergy and Laity of thefe Churches at that 
 c * tune, they are unanfwerablc inftances of Chrifts Allowance and Appro- 
 c bation of the Epifcopal Order. This trite and often Baffled Argument, 
 t iken from the fuppoled Epifcopal Power of the Seven Afian Angels, has 
 been fo frequently fcanned and tofled by Writers, on this Controvcrlie, 
 that die Dr. fincehe makes here fuch a Parade, fhould either have brought, 
 fome new Strength upon the Field, or offered an Anfwer, co the many 
 clear returns, given to this Argument. 
 
 I low 
 
fo %>r. Scott* s*P leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 However, to clear our way, in examining what the Dr. fays upon this 
 head ( which is nothing elfe, but fome Old Mufty fluff repeated ) I pre- 
 mife two things, i. That the Collective Senfecf the term, Angel, is m oft 
 fuitable to Scripture, and the Scope of thefe Epiftks. 2. That allowing 
 the Angels to be Jingle Perfons, will nothing help the Drs. defign and plead- 
 ing. 
 
 For the Firfi, that the collective Senfe of the term Angel, 12 moft fuitable 
 to Scripture, and the Scope of thefe Epiftles, appears thus. 1. Thisfuifs 
 beft the Stile of this Book, which is by myftick vilional Reprefentations,, 
 to includ many individuals : As one fingular, fo all the individuals of the 
 Church, both Members and Officers, are reprefented by One Candlefikk; 
 And why not alio, all the Minifiers, by one Argttt A term which of it felf, 
 and in this place imports no Jurifdi&ion properly, but is immediatly re- 
 ferred to die x\ngelical frame and qualities of Minifters. 2. This is alio 
 fuitable to the ftyle of this Book, as it is Epificlare; the Addrefs, may be 
 to one, but it will gh r e no Authority to that one over thereft^ As an- Ad- 
 drefs from the King to a Speaker in Parliament, will give the Speaker no 
 Jurifdi&ion and Authority over his Fellow-Members. When our Lord 
 faid unto Peter only exprelly, not to the reft of his fellow-Difciples, I 
 will give unto thee the Ktye±> &c. who but brutirti and partially affe&ed 
 Fapifis, will conclud, that he was Prince or Primate over the Apoftles ? 
 And that they had not, and even by this promife, an equal Authority 
 with him, in the ufe of the Keys ? This the Dr. rauft acknowledg, unlets 
 he will juftify the Popes Pleading from this- Text. 3. This is fuitable to 
 Scripture Prophetick Writings, and to this Book, as fuch, to reprefent 
 many Individuals, by onzjingular. The Four heafls, the Twenty Four Elders, 
 <lo not fignify fo many individual perfons : The fingular Names of Woman, 
 Beafi, Whore, Dragon, fignify a collection of many individuals. So the one, 
 Spirit of God, is called the Seven Spirits, with reference to his manifold 
 operations. Dan. 8. 20. One Ram, fignifies many Kings of the Medes and 
 Terfians. He that will not hearken to the Priefi, Deut. 17. 12. i.e. The 
 Triefis in the plural. So, the Vriefis Lips ihould keep knowledg, and the 
 law fought at his Mouth Mai. 2. 7. Here alfo, the Priefi for Priefis, in 
 the Plural. Bleft is that Servant , whom the Lord, &c. i. e. Thofie Ser- 
 vants. Particularly, as to the term' Angel; It is faid, Pfal. 54. that the 
 Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly, i. e. many Angels, mice they 
 are all Miniftring Spirits to them. .4. It is fuitable to Scripture, and this 
 Book, to reprefent an indefinit number by a definit: Thus all Judahs Adver- 
 faries, are reprefented by the Four Horns Zech. 1. 18. Ail the Godly and the 
 Ungodly, are reprefented by the Five Wife, and by the Five Fooliih Virgins. 
 The Seven Angels ftandi n^ before God, Reprefents *// the Angels. Ch. b\ of 
 
 this 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 7 1 
 
 this Book,-for in Ch. 7.mention'is made of all the Angels,whodothus ftand- 
 And with the fame indefinitnefs,we are to underftand the Septenarie num - 
 ber, frequently elfewhere,- as the Seven Pillars which Wifdom Hews out 
 Vrov. 9. The Seven Pafiors or Shepherds, Micab. y. The Seven Eyes 
 Zech. ;. And in this very Book, Ch. 4. 5:. 15". The Seven Candlefiicks> 
 Lamps, Viols. ?. As we find the Scripture, and this fame Apoftle, Firft, 
 Naming a Multitude, and then contracting it into a Singular , as 2. 
 /fob. j. v. --\lany deceivers are entred into the Wcrld — Then — This is aDeceiver, 
 and an Antichrift. And fometimes,the Individual in one Sentence, turned into 
 a Multitude's 1 Tim. 2. 1 j. She fall be favedi. e. the Woman bearing Children, 
 if they continue in Faith and Charity, i. e. fuch Women, in general. So, 
 this fingle Angel, is turned into many, and fpoken to, in thcV lural, in cne 
 and the fame Epiftle. Thusifri/. 2. 24. — Unto you, I fay and unto the reft in 
 Thyatira. Rev. 2. io.We find J ohn changing the fingular Angel into a Multi- 
 tude, Fear none of the fe things, which thou fait fnffer. Behold the Devil fallcafc 
 feme of you into Vrifon, that ye may be tryed. In a word, what ever Cha- 
 ra&eriftick of this Angel, the Dr. fhall produce, we can make it appear, 
 to be applicable to Presbyters orVaJhrs. Firft, Is it a Commilfion to Preach 
 and Baptize ? This, he will grant, belongs to all Paftors. Is it the Power 
 of Ordination? The Scripture (hews us, that this is Seated in a Vresby- 
 trie, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Matth. 18. 17. Is it die Ruling Governing Power? Ail 
 Minifters are fuch Angels -, All that Watch for Souls, do Rule over themy 
 and all Labourers in the Word and Do&rin, have an equal joynt Interest 
 in Feeding, Cenfuring and Ruling in the Churches, over which they are 
 fet, Heb. 13. 17. 1 ThejT. f. 12. And People are accordingly to fubmit. 
 themfelves to them. Therefore, this Frofafe and Ruling Power, is no 
 fole Prerogative of a Jingle. Angel, or fuppofed Bifaf. Thus, it was with 
 the Church of Ephefcs, Aft* 20. And k is much more fiiteable to under- 
 ftand the Angel otEfbefus, of d! Plurality o( Minifters, to whom, in a plain 
 Scripture, the whole Government is found intruded, rather than to Ex- 
 plain that plain Text by a Metaphor, and contrary thereunto, to fet up- 
 me Angel, or Diccefan Bijhcp over that Church, with fole Power of Or- 
 dination and Jurilciidion. The Dr. will find this- our Senfe of the Ange! % 
 to be no new Opinion, when he confiders that- Auguftin. HomiL 21. uporr 
 this Book, thus takes it, Expounding the Angtlo^Thjatiri, zhzPrapcfitLEc- 
 cle/urum, or Govern urs of the Churches, bo Antas, Lib. i.Cap. 1.2.9.10^ 
 Prima f. in Apoc. Cap. 2. Amhrof. Arnbert. Anflm. Pereriw, Vidcrin. fir in % 
 TLiym. Bid. Perkins. Fox m his Meditations en the RevelatUn, fa*. 7, 8~ 
 Pilkintoun Bifhcp of D.irhair?, in his Expoftivn of H<g. Ch. 1. v. 11. 
 
 The fecond thing, I pre?.<?ife is, that the Dr. hath no advantage, tho it be 
 yielded, that the A*gel, is a figle Tetfoni For^ 1. He may be the A^gi!** 
 
yi T>r. Scott's T leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 Trafes, or the Moderator Angel, net the Angehs Princeps, cr the Lord Angel 
 yea, and the Prajes or Moderator for the time, as a Speaker in Parliament. 
 Efbejm had many Angels (Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5-. 17.) of equal Authority,' 
 who were made Bijlwps by the Holy Ghoft, and fet over that Church ac- 
 cordingly, and they are fpoken to, in the Plural, though the Angel is na- 
 med in the Singular Number. 2. This Angel, is faid to have no JurifdicK- 
 on or Superiority over the reft of the Miniiters, nor can the Dr. fnew, 
 where this Angel is fpoken to, with reference to Minifters as fubjed to 
 iilm,' which notwithstanding, is his begged Suppofition, and Petit io Prind- 
 fii, all along in this Argument. 3. The Parochial and Diacefan Divifion of 
 theChurches^ were long afterthis, and not until the26oyear after Chrift, 
 in the Judgment of beft Antiquaries. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel, 
 but that which is the common Duty of all Vafiors. Finally, fuppofe it 
 were granted to him, that a Superiority were imported in Naming this An- 
 gel, it may be a Superiority of Order, Dig?iity, or Gifts, and in fuch Moral 
 Jiefpe&s, not of Power and JuriftlicKon. 
 
 The Dr, in Order to this his Scope, propofes generally the Method of 
 
 his Proof, mewing, - c That he will prove that they were fingU 
 ibid.& cc Perfons. zly, That they were Perfons of great Authority in thefe 
 P. 422. "Churches. 3/p, That they were the Bifhops or Vrefidents of thefe 
 
 "Churches. Before I examin his Proofs, it is pleafant to confi- 
 *ler, how well this Undertaking of the Dr. aniwers his Scope, which 
 all along in this Difpute, is, to prove a Succeffion of ordinary Officers, 
 in the Office of Apofiolat, as he calls it, and in their whole Power of Or- 
 dination and JurildicHon, excluding Vafiors, from the leaft Intereft there- 
 in. cc By his Principles, thefe fuppofed Succeeding Vrelats, are the fole 
 c f Governours cf Churche^ have the fole Legiflative Power (wherein he 
 €C fays, the Eflence of Government confifts ) the Power of Confecration 
 tc and Ordination to Ecclefiaftick Offices, and that of the fame Nature and 
 <c Extent, as he fuppofes the Apoftles had it, by vertue of their Apoftoli- 
 * c calMiffion. The Bijhops alfo, have, by his Principles, the fole Executive 
 €C Spiritual Jurifdidion,Monopolized in them,as their peculiar Prerogative, 
 €C viz. ( as the Dr. explains it ) to Cite, Examin, Admoni/h Offenders, 
 tc Exclud from, or Admit to Church Communion, Cenfure or Abfolve, 
 €C Bind or Loofe. The twelve Thrones tojudg Ifraels Tribes, promifed to 
 Apoftles, he underftands of the Authority of Judging, and of all Spiritual 
 Jurifdi&ion in the Church Vifible, committed to them, and by them to 
 the Bi(hops, as their "only SuccefTors, in this Authority. To which, we 
 tf may add, the Confirming of the Baptized, by Impofition of Hands, 
 " which he alfo afcribes to them, as their fole Prerogative. This the Dr. 
 at large iafifts upon ; from P. 433. to, P. 438. 
 
 Now 
 
Chap. IV. F^Epifcopacy, Examined. 73 
 
 Now, to prove all thefe Prerogatives of the Bijhops and this Extenfive 
 Power, fo paramount to all Authority, or Intereft of papers in Govern- 
 ment, as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure, from the feven 
 kfian Angels; Becaufe they were Jingle Perfcns, or of great Authority in the 
 Churches, or Prefident - Bijhops m thefe Churches, is fuch a^Proof, as the 
 Simpleft may Laugh at. For i. Will any Man think, that their being Sa- 
 luted as Jingle Perjons, will prove this Extenfive Authority ? Why may not 
 a Senate be Saluted in the CGnfuls, a Parliament Addrefted in the Chancellor, 
 or the Ho ufe" of 'Commons, in an Epiftle to the Speaker ? ily, Say, that they 
 were Prefidents, and admit, that they had Deference and Authority as fuch, 
 as the Conful in the Senate, will this fuppofe, or by any Shadow of Confe- 
 quence or Connection, inferr, that they had fuch a Power, as is here de- 
 fcribed, and fuch as fwallows up wholly and abfolutly, all Authority of 
 the Members of Church Judicatories ? Nay, the Dr. will as foon joyn the 
 Voles together, as unite this Antecedent and Confequent. Befides, in cal- 
 ling them Prefidents, he difcovers this, and confutes himfelf, fince the 
 Terme, both Name and Thing, in all Languages, and in the Senfe of all 
 Men, is appropriat to fuch, as are fet over Juridical Courts, Civil or Ec- 
 clefiaftick, the Members whereof, are ftill fuppofed to have a Decifive Suf- 
 frage, and Intereft in the Government. Again, 3//, The Dr. fays fC he 
 ff will prove, that they were Perfons of great Authority in thefe Churches* 
 But, if he fp^ak to the Point, and profecut his Scope, he muft call it 
 Abfolute and Sole Authority-, intirely exclufive of all Intereft, which Paftors y 
 or any other Church Officers, may claim therein. 
 
 Come we to the Dr c s Grand Proofs, Firft, That they wzvtfingh Per- 
 fons, he proves from this, u That they are mentioned as fiichi — the Angd 
 " of Epbejm, the Angel of Smyrna ; And thus all along Addreft in the Sin- 
 gular Number — 1 know thy Works— I have a few things again ft thee. AnJ\ 
 This Argument is abundantly removed, by what is premijed, anent 
 the Collective Senfe of the Word Angel, which our Lords Addrefling the*- 
 the Epiftle to one Angel, doth no whit Impugn, in the fenfe of found Pre- 
 teftant Divines. For further clearing this, let us hear the Belgick Divines, 
 upon the Text, " To the Angel, i. e. to the Oveifeer, Infpector, ovTaJhr 
 " of the Church — This is let down here in the Singular Number, either, 
 "in regard. jof their who 1 c Colledg, as Mai. 2. 7. Under the Name of 
 Angelin thzjSjnpular, the whole Colledg of Priefls, was to be underlie 
 or becauie that ionic one,, had the Vrcfdency among them, in Order, by 
 whom it was to be commtmicat to the reft, as appears by AH: 20. 17, ib. 
 That there were more Elders ovOverJetrs, in z\ns CAnw ch of Ep I; ej/rs, whom 
 P<w*/charges in his laft Farewel," to take heed to themfel vcs,and c . the ^h 
 "flock.over which the Holy Ghoft had nude them w***"A£,QvtTjarsforia. 
 
74- 2V. Scott's ^leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 <: Feed the Flock. So, that it is groundlefs, from hence toinferr, znEpifcopal 
 fC Authority of one perfon above the reft: for, the verry matter it felt, writ- 
 fc ten here to the Angel of the Churches Written for a warning to the whole 
 ^Church, as appears by to 7. here,and above Chaf. 1. 11. The EnglzfliDi- 
 * c vines, the Authors of Vart Second, Annot. going under the Name of P^/, 
 <: thus fenfe that Paffage, Rev. 2. 1. To the Angel, it appears from Acl. 
 tff 2o. 17. That there were more Minifters there than one, but they were 
 €C all Angels, and from the onenefs of their bufinefs, they are called one 
 'Angel. And upon Chap. 1. 20. they tell us, "That certain it is A r ,txo C 
 fC fignifies no more, than is commmon to all Minifters, viz. to be Gods 
 ic A4e£engers, and move upon his errands. That we are to underftand here, 
 the Doclors, Vaftors and Minifters cf theChurch,is the fenfe aud Jadgment of 
 Cluverm, Dr. Lightfoot. Cluverm takes notice, that the Change of the 
 Number, v. 10. 19. Argues, that the Epiftle is not directed to one Ver- 
 fon. And Dr. Lightfoot mews, that this. Tittle, is with allufion, to that of 
 the Minifter of the Synagogue, whofe Office was publickly to read and 
 expound the Prophets, unto the People, as thefe Minifters- were to Read 
 thefe Epiftles, in the publick Congregation. Thus alfo Vifcator, under- 
 ftands the whole Paftcrs of the Church. From whence, and from many o- 
 thers, which might be added, it is evident. 1. That the colle&ive Senfe 
 of the word Angel, is Judged by them confenant to Scripture, and to the 
 Scope of the Epiftles. ily, That even fuppofing fome fpeciality, in the 
 Addrefsto cwepr/ow, this doth import a fimple Vrefidency only ( efpecially 
 in the fenfe of the Belgick Divines ) and that they do intirely join with us, 
 in the Grounds, we have offered, againft the Dr c s fuppofition of an Hie- 
 rarchical BijJjop; and particularly from this, that the Angel, is fometimes 
 addrefled in the Vhra\. That Ground which the Belgick Divines, and o- 
 thers infift upon, taken from the Matter of the Epiftles, is important; and 
 that our Lord ad'dreffes to all the Angels of the Church, as concerning 
 them, Rev. 1. 11. Write, faith he, to the Churches of Ephefas, Smyrna, 
 &c. And at the clofe of every Epiftle -~ Hear what the Spirit faith to the 
 Churches : And therefore, when it is laid, I know thy Works, &c — this 
 thou haft, &c. We muft underftand the whole Company of Minifters, 
 and the whole Churchy becauie the punifhment or reward, is propofed 
 to the whole : And the Dr. will not fay, that for the fin of owe Bifljop^ the 
 Gofpel is to be removed, when other Minifters, and the Church it felf 
 is free from his evils. 
 
 The Dr. alledges, That the Angel is alwife addreft in the /*?£«- 
 Bid. cc l.ir number. And to that which is,adduced to prove his being ad- 
 dreft in the Plural; he Anfwers, u That in thefe PafTages,he. writes, 
 tc not onlv to the Jtijljopt perfonal!v ; but to the People, under thek 
 
 11 G°l? m ' 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 7 5 
 
 iC Government and infpection; fo he underftands that otChap. 2. 10. — 
 " Tfje Devil frail caft fome of you into Trifon, paralelling it,' with ^.13. An- 
 cc tipas flain among vou, and 1/. 23.— And all the Churches fall know, &c. 
 But, firft, (not to'ftand upon the Drs. begging the Queftion, inafup- 
 pofition crofs to his fccps ) the paralells, are not every way alike. When 
 the Lord fays — all the Churches — and fain among you, &c. the Scope and 
 Mould of thefe ex pre (lions, makes it evident, that both Minifters and 
 People, are fpoken of: But when immediatly after, addreffing the Angel \ 
 in the Singular, he adds — the Devil frail cap fome of you, into Trifon, chang- 
 ing the Singular Angel into a Tlural, it appears, that the Minifters are 
 more directly included, as the adduced paralel, 1 Tim. 2. 15. Difcovers. 
 But not to infiftupon this. 
 
 In the ne*t place, the folly and inconfiftency of his glofsand diicourfe, 
 in this Anfwer, is feveral ways apparent : For Fir ft, He will have thefe 
 Paifages — I know thy works — I have fome what again ft thee, &c. addreft 
 Singlely to the Angel; From the fingularity of which Adrefs, he colle&s, the 
 Bifrofs fingleandabfolute Authority over thefe Churches. But I pray, what 
 Senfe will the Dr. make of this ? Will he fay, our Lord knew the Works 
 only, ofwefingle Bifrop, of no Minifters elfe ? That one Bifrop Laboured at 
 Ephepts, none elfe? That one Bifrop ztEphefm, fell from his firft Love, no 
 Church Officers elfe ? ( A pityfulimputation,theDr. puts thus upon Timt- 
 thy, the fuppofed Bifrop of Ephefus, in ftaging him, as the only Apoftat of 
 the Church ) The fame may be applyed to his other Inftances. — I have 
 a few things againfi thee, Vi z,, one Bifrop, no Minifters elfe. —Remember, whence 
 thou art fallen, viz,. The Bijlwp fallen only, none elfe. — Repent and do thv 
 Firft Works; this only addreft to the Bifrop, none elfe concerned in this Du- 
 ty, but his Lordfrip. If he fay, that thefe things are fpoken to the Bifiop, 
 as chiefly concerned and interefted; Then, befides his begging the Que- 
 ftion, helofleshisPiea, and quite ruins all his Pleading from a fuppofed 
 fingularity of the Addre/s, to COnclud the fingularity of the per fen AddrtJJ'cd: 
 And thus including Minifters, as concerned and interefted in the pre- 
 scriptions, in point of Government, he cuts the Wind-Pipe of his grand 
 Topick and notion here. 
 
 But Secondly, we fee, when he is forc f t to acknowledg from the Tlural 
 
 befpoken, as well as the Vcoplt ? 'I he Dr. aliening, " That both c 
 " and Laity, are under rhe Hifhofs inipcclion. Al d it being fuj j >< . 
 that in theie Churches. rfpeciaHy at Efiefm^ there vm at mis tin 
 
 co; 
 
*f6 T>r. Scott's Pleadings Chap. IV. 
 
 Colledge of Pafiors. How come the Dr. when he fuppofes the AM-efi to 
 overftretch the perfon of the Bijhop, andtoinclud mere, to affert cc That 
 fC it reaches theP eopls only, and not t© thcPafiars alfo? This, I muit confefs, 
 is odd Senfe inDivinity; in thefe greatEvangelifikk Precepts and Reprenfi- 
 cns, the Lord Add reffes not folely the Bifoop, but the People under hi m, yet 
 **iot one \voTt\toPaflors. I had thought, that the Clergy and Laity being 
 diftinguifhed by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other, in his 
 Senfe, under the Bijliops Government and infpe&ion, when he makes the 
 Plural Addrefs,togo beyond the Bi(ljop,he, would have caft anEye,upon the 
 under -Clergy, or Miniftry, before the People, as concerned before them, 
 in thefe important duties,, or fuppofed Tranfgreflions. But, we may eafi] y 
 
 difcover the knack of the Dr c s policy in this; For Pleading in 
 P. 423. his Second Argument, " That an Authority, in reference to 
 
 u Church Government, is clearly imported, in feveral of thefe 
 cc directions or reprehenfions, particularly, thofe addreiTed, to the Angel 
 " o&P ergamm and Thyatira, in reference to juridical Try al, conviction and 
 £C Cenfures: He was afraid, leaftby this means, he mould have cpened a 
 door for Minifters claim, totheZJ//7j0/> f s incommunicable prerogatives, had 
 he extended the plural Addrcfsto them, as well as to the People. 
 
 Thirdly, The Dr. having told us, Cf That in hch plural Add ref- 
 P. 422. cc fes, the people under the Bishop's Government, are included, 
 
 cc givesfor inftance, that PafTage, Rev. 2. 10. The Devil Jha 11 cap 
 cc fome 9/*you intoprifon. I mould verrily think, he was here concerned to 
 fpecifie the Clergy and Laity, and include both: For, it fe ems in hisSenfe, all 
 the Pafiors were fafe, from the Thunder-clap of this warning ( I know 
 not by what mield, except that of the Drs. fancy ) and there were no 
 prifons there for Pafiors, this being only fpoke to the People. This'charge of 
 grofs folly, upon his Mould of Reafoning ( and it is grofs enough, at all 
 will ) is the more evident, in that Anfwer to the Objection, taken from 
 that phrafe, Chap. 2. 25. — unto you, and unto the reft in Thy atira ,• from 
 which paffage, we plead for a plural diverfifying Minifters and people, 
 under diftind Comma's. The Dr. will admit it by no means, to 
 Hid. to be meant of any, but the People, <c making the term, you and 
 " the refiin Thy atria, one and the fame, as diitinguilhing only the 
 cc found from the unfound part, in that Church. So, that it is evident, the 
 D r appropriate the Plural Phrafes to the People only, and confequently, is 
 expoiedto theforementioned abfurdities, in his way and method of plead- 
 ing. That, that PafTage Chap. 2. 10. doth reach the Pafiors, is upon fe- 
 veral important grounds, made good by Mr. Durham, upon the place, as 
 1. from the remarkable change of the fingular number, to the Plural, ily. 
 Tiiathis was a fearching tryal to the Church, whereof, it was her concern 
 
 to 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 77 
 
 to be warned. ;//. That the prefervation of Some,- was as fignal a con- 
 folation iu fuch a Tryal, as Ifai. 30. 20. 21. See others cited by Pool Cri- 
 tic, upon the place. 
 
 The Dr. enquires, cc It Angels had not been fingle Ptrfons, why are they 
 cc not mentioned Plurally, as well as the People ? This Qucrie, confirms 
 what is now imputed to him : That they are mentioned Plurally, we have 
 already made gcod, in the premiied Inftances. Yea the Dr. himfelf, an- 
 fwers himfelf, acknowledging cc that there is a Plurality, befpoken, in the 
 Cf Perfon of the Angels, fo,that he is not,only Perfonally Addreffed. But 
 the Dr c s ftrange Fetch, is, that he will allow a Plurality of the People, to 
 be Addreft and fpoken to, in one lingular Biflwp or Angel, but none of the 
 Papers at all : For which Notion ( I had almoft faid Non-fenfe ) no ima- 
 ginable ground can be given, but the Dr c s good Will to his Hierarchical 
 Bijhop, whom he would fain fhape out of this Scripture, which we fee, fo 
 reje&s and baffles his Endeavours, that inftead ot any evident ground of 
 Anfwer from the Text, he mull needs embrace an Airy Notion of his 
 own Brain. 
 
 Thus to that pregnant Paflage, Chap. 2. 24. which we adduce 
 to prove the Angel, to be Addreft Plurally, viz. To you, 1 fay, ibi£ 
 miuiiiQ thcreftinThyatiraz Where there is a clearDiftincYion made 
 betwixt the Plural you, v \z. the P aft or s, and the reft inThyatira, viz. the People. 
 The Dr. has no other Shift, but that pitifulone, tnz* " That the Anci- 
 " ent Greek Manuscripts, leave out the Conjunction x* ( , and Read it, To 
 "you the reft in Thyatira, diftinguifning the Seduced, from the not Sedu- 
 "ced,- And therefore, cannot be meant of the A*td> wno IS always Ad- 
 * dreft in the Singular Number. But, 1. This Shift baffles moft of all the 
 old Greek Copies,- the Reading he embraces, being fuppofed M&tjfttotaU 
 Manufcript, baffles all the Epifcopal Englifo Clergy, concerned in our iaii 
 Tranflation, who, notwithstanding all their Zeal for Epifcopacy, as appears 
 in their various and unfound Tranflaticn of the Term mwxim^ yet durft 
 »ot make this Adventure with the Dr, but with the Current of Ancient 
 Copies, Read the Text, with the Conjunction : Notwitrftanding, that 
 in their Preface to the Reader, they aflcrt their Diligence, in Searching 
 the Original Text. I need not ftand here to recount, the large Teftimo- 
 ny and Cloud ofWitnefles, the Body of Prcteftant Divines, Tranflators 
 and Interpreters, all concurring in this our Senfe and Reading, in Con- 
 tradiction to the Dr c s Conceit and Exception. Sec Varans, Artthtis, Ri- 
 if era, Dr. More, who exprefly taketh the you, to import the Papers ; Be~a, 
 &c. But, ily, This Conjecture and Anfwer, is clearly Crofs to the 
 Text: For, ( 1. ) The Adveriativc, but, in the beginning of *'.?.. '.clear- 
 ly limits the you here, and diitinguiJhcs it from the ;<?:/, meant of the P< 
 
7 3 Dr. §cot€ sT leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 fie, in the clofe of <v. 23. ( 2. ) The Concluficn of this verfe, clears thi s 
 to Conviction — I willful upon you, none other burden — hold faft — Prav, 
 by what Logick, will the Dr. exclud Miniflers, and includ the People on- 
 ly, in this Plural Phrafe ? Were no Minifters kept unpolluted ? Or, were 
 there fome other burdens, to be put upon them, than what they had alrea- 
 dy ? And are they excluded from holding f aft till Chrift come, what is re- 
 ceived from him, and only the People concerned herein, as contradiftincft 
 From the Bifiof} Sure I am, fuch abfurd Confequeuces, might cover with 
 Blufhes, the Afferters of this Opinion. I might add, that even granting 
 the Dr, the Advantage of this Glofs, and leaving out the Conjun&ion, 
 and admitting with Grotius, that thus the Sound are diftinguiflied from the 
 Unfound in this Church, the Dr. would be pitifully puzzled to prove, 
 that none of the Clergy, as he calls them, is in both thete Gaffes, and con- 
 fequently, that the Plural Phraie, doth not ftand for us, even in this Dif- 
 criminating Senfe : But this, we infift not upon. 
 
 To proceed to the Dr c s fecond Proof,(p.42 3.)of our Lords Allowance and 
 ^Approbation tffEpifcopal Government in thefe Epiftles, viz. cc That they were 
 w Perfons of great Authority: This he proves from the Title of Angel ftitwmg 
 <c them to be Perfons of Office and Eminency ,• Chrift alfo, Directing to 
 cc them the Epiftles, to be communicat to their Churches. To which, he 
 adds another Proof, taken from the Authority, which is fuppofed to be 
 exercifed by fome of thefe Angels, and competent to others ,• He gives In- 
 fiance, t€ of the Angel of Efhefus, trying the falfe Apoftles, which imports 
 <c a Juridical Tryal,- the Blame laid upon the Angel cf Pergamus, for ha- 
 Cf ving them that held the Do&rin of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans, 
 ec which (hews his Power to have caft him out ,• upon the Angel of Thya- 
 <c tira, for fuffering Jezabel to Teach, which jhews, that it was in his 
 u Power, and that he had Authority to ejeel: her and her Followers. 
 r Anf. The Dr c s Proofs of Authority in thefe Angels and Churches, in re- 
 ference to Government, are good and found, and accorded to by all Di- 
 vines. But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof, in reference 
 to his Scope, which are ( to ufe our Scottiflj Proverb ) the Tongue of the 
 Trump, and without which, all his Difcourfe, is but like Sand without 
 Lime. 1. He fays, "They were fingle Perfons of great Authority: But he 
 has not yet made good, that they were Jingle Per Jons, nor offered to An- 
 fwer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines, to prove the contra- 
 ry, and that the Colle&ive Senfe of the Term Angel 3 is moft futeable to 
 the Scripture, and the Tenor and Scope of thefe Epiftles. ily, Suppoling 
 them fingle Perfons, he has not proved, either from the Title of Angel, or 
 their Authority imported in thefe Epiftles, that it reached any further, 
 than that of Prefidents ; or that the Authority here Inftanced, was Mono- 
 polized 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 79 
 
 polized, and fo inhanced in them, as to exclud intirely, ail the Pafiors 
 therefrom. The contrary whereof ( beiides the Proofs we offered in the 
 beginning) we heard the Belgick Divines make out, and give Inftance, 
 particularly, with reference to Efbefus ■ to the Elders or Minifters of 
 which Church, Taul committed the whole Government, as the propper 
 Governours and Biflwps thereof, Acl.2c.2S. And therefore, even fuppo- 
 fing the Angel y * Jingle Per Jon, he cannot be fuppofed, in Contradiction to 
 that Scripture, to have had fuch Authority and Power, as did Inhance, 
 or Exclud that of the Pafiors and Bijlwps of Efhefm^ fo clearly therein af- 
 ferted and held out. The Dr. acknowledges, cc That what our Lord 
 " writes, is not to this Angel perfonally, but alfo to the People, P. 422. 
 But I pray, how will the Dr. let up his March-ftone, and fhew us the Li- vf 
 mitation of thefe Inftruclions, in Point of Government, diftinguifhing n 
 
 the Verjon of the Bijlrop from the Pafiors, fince, neither the Suppciition, f~i. J 
 that the Bijhop is a frngle Per [on, will prove this, ncr the Honourable Title / -j- 
 of Angel, ( as the Dr. calls it ) a Title futeable to all Pafiors, who are An- 'Z Si} 
 gels and Meffengers of the Lord of Hofts^ by their Office ; Nor, can the — 
 
 Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority fuppofed in thefe Preicriptions, 
 without a palpable begging of the Queftion. And as for the Communi- 
 cating of the Epiftles to the Churches, as Dire&ed to them,- This is fo 
 futeable to the Angelas Vrxfes, or to any prefident, or Mouth of a Meet- 
 ing, that it hath no imaginable Strength, to bear the Weight of the Dr c s *^> 
 Conclufion. * 
 
 - The Dr c s. Thirl and laft proof, of our LorJs approbation cf Epifccpal Go- 
 vernment in thefe Epifiles, and that the Angels, were Bijhops of thefe Church- Jb^~jv* 
 es, and Prefulents thereof, is drawn from the Teftimony ofmoft ^f^ 
 
 Primitive Antiquity (as he calls it) for which he Cites the anony- P. 424^ 
 M mous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned, Biblectheca pa- 
 " trum, N. 244. Shewing that John/Two or Three years after his return 
 " from Patmos, affifted with the feven Bijhops of that Province, he a (Turned 
 cc to himfelf; the Government of it^ which Seven, were the Angels here 
 "' hereAddreft; thefe Churches lying within the Ljdian or Proconfular 
 " Afia, of which Evhefus was Metropolis : And therefore, thefe Seven Bi- 
 iC flops, by whom he Governed the Province of Ephejus, are the Seven An- 
 " gels, all within that Province. He adds; That Aufiin call the Angels of 
 " Eplxfus, prxpojltos Ecdefuc, Effjt. 162. and fne Seven Angels, pftfjojiti Ec- 
 
 " clefiarum, Comment, in Rev. That Ambrofe in 2 Cor. 11. referring to 
 (C < thefe Angels, tells us, that hy Angels, are meant the Bijhops. Anj. 1. 
 Since the Dr. calls thefe Angels, Bffhcps and Prefuknts over thefe Churches, 
 in propounding this Proof, if he intend only PrefuUnts, he will fall Utterly 
 Ihon of hijrdeiigu andfeopeof evincing that' J 7 / 1 ', WpfffewCrj which he ,.(*- 
 
 faitef 
 
So T>r. Scott's T leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 cribs to them; zVrefident, and one 3 who has all Authority, Monopolized in 
 him being quite diftinct things: If he intend by Presents of the Church- 
 es 'fuch as arefet over it in a general Senfe,- Are not all Vaftors in Scrip- 
 ture called fuch, as are fet over God f s People, and have the Tittles of 
 vnsKtru »>«i«»Ti» T;.jr»T«c rrfoi'-rw' If the Dr. will have them fuch Vrefi- 
 tlents over the Churches, as had monopolifed and enhanced in their 
 perfons, all Authority of Government, -jl Prefident being of far larger ex- 
 tent, and furely with a relation to a Church, it is not all one, to fay., fuch 
 aperfbn-is Prefident of a Church, an&aSole Prefident : As it it is not all one 
 to fay, fuch a man, is Minifier of London, and the Sole Minifier. For, all Mini- 
 sters in the Scripture Senfe, are P refidents over the Churches. But 2/y.fince 
 the Dr. draws his fuppofed demonftrative evidence of the power and 
 Authority of thefe Seven Angels, addreft by our Lord, in thefe Epiftles, 
 and of the nature and extent of that Office, which is indigitat by the term 
 Angel, and confequently the meaning of the prefcriptions, given to them, 
 from Primitive. Antiquity ( as he calls it) I would know,- whether the Dr. 
 will own this Principle, that Antiquity, or even that which he calls Primi- 
 tive ( or the Firft human Teftimony, fecluding the Scriptures, or of the 
 Firft Ages, after the Canon of the Scriptures) is the infallible Rule and Commen- 
 tary, for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers, mentionedin Scrh~ 
 ture. If the Dr. will not ownthisPrincipie, his evidence by his own con- 
 feffion^ is no evidence^ For, an evidence, which willfail and not reach the 
 conclufion, is no evidence at all; and in thebeft conftru&ion, no proper e- 
 vidence withoutreftricfcion,s and limitations added. If the Dr. hold the Af- 
 firmative, then I would' urge him thus. 
 
 Firft , If Mens Teftimony, or the Churches Primitive practice, tho ne- 
 ver fo early, muft be the Key and Comment in this Cafe., of the Scripture 
 Senfe, of the Character and defcription of Church Officers, and able folely 
 to found, our Faith and perfuafion hereanent, why may not alfo, human 
 practice and profeffion of the Church, limply confidered, determin our 
 Faith and pre&ice, as to every Scripture Truth,and duty therein held out? 
 lor, the Dr. can affign no difference, nor upon admitting the antecedent, 
 jhew the leaft fhaddow of a ground, which will limit and enervat the 
 confequence. 
 
 Secondly, If this be admitted, I would know, whether he will not thus 
 1— up an higher tribunal, than the Scriptures, as to the ground and Rule 
 of our Faith and pra&ice,and in oppofition to the Apoltle Paul 1 Cor. 2, 4. 
 make our Faith ftand in mans Wifdom, not in the.Wifdom ofGodand his 
 ]?ower;. and in contradiction to the ApoftleP^r, 2 Vet 1. 20. 21. make 
 the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation's iftheProphefie had come by the 
 of :vl\n; JFor^ifliwft bslieyeao other wife, aasnt the Office of thefe 
 
Chap. IV. For Epilcopacy, Examined. 8 1 
 
 Angels, and the Scriptures pointing out the fame, than according to the 
 human Teftimony or after-Writers, or the Teftirnony and Pra&ice of flip- 
 pofcl Bifiops, their pretended Succeffors,- then the cuftom and practice of fal- 
 lible Men, becomes the '«»«-jj the ratio, and demonstration, a priori the great 
 and chief ground, why I believe Scriptures, to have fuch a Senfe, and no 
 other. And thus we will give Men, a Dominion ever our Faith, which re- 
 folves ukimatly into an human praclice and Teftimony of fallible Men: A 
 Principle, which no found Proteftant will own. Ecfides, that the proof of 
 the Afumption of the Argument, and to inftrucl: this Matter of Fad, and 
 that all Primitive Antiquity, ( as he calls it ) doth teflify for the Bifrop, 
 which he has fhapen out, would inextricably baffle hisindeavours, as is a- 
 bove cleared: It being evident, that as, the Writings of many of the Firft 
 Writers, are loft, and not a few corrupted,- So, many, Eminent for Piety 
 and Learning, have written nothing in the Firft Ages, which are therefore 
 generally acknowledged, to be very dark, in the Matter of Fad. The 
 Affirmative proof, lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear, that 
 neither the one, nor the other, has contradicied his fuppofed Teftimo- 
 nies, elfe he but beats the Air, and has faid nothing to the purpofe. 
 
 Thirdly, The Scripture ( as hath been proved) afcribing to Faftors, the 
 Power of Order and Jurifdicrion, and even to the V afters ov Presbyters cf 
 the Church of Ephefns, (the Angel whereof, is Firft jiere addreft, ) Acl. 
 20. 28. Compared with i Tim. 4. 14. 1. Vet. <$. 2. 3. 1 Ccr. 5-. 4. 5. 
 When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Paftcrs 
 ( which, furcly is Antiquity, prior to the Dr f s meft Primitive Antiquity y and 
 of far greater veneration ) ftands crofs to his pretended Primitive Tefti- 
 monies of the Bijljops Power, and both are laid in even Bailances together, 
 which of the two, will preponderat ? The Dr. for ihame, will not fay 
 the Second; Hence I inferr, that he muft either accord his Human Teili- 
 monies with Scripture, or quite this Plea. Andmext, he muft acknow- 
 ledge that he ftands obliged to Anfvver the premifed Scripture accoi 
 of the Paftcrs Office, and our Arguments drawn therefrom, before his 
 Human Teftimonies deferve the lcaft value or notice. 
 
 Again, Fourthly, Wc may here ply rhe Dr, with a Notion and Argu- 
 ment of his own Mould, " The Dr. thinks it ftrangc, how we can iup- 
 " pofe the Church, to have io fuddeHly altered the Government, 1 
 cc Preshytrie to Epifcopacy, if Preshytrie was her lirft Government. ! 
 would ask the Dr, fince its evident in Scripture, that Paftcrs and Presq 
 have both the'Najne 313d Thing of the Scripture B*P*f 3 and coi 
 
 ' uthoritj afcribe^i cc li'.cm, yea. and in the premifed S< 
 jfeveral fuch paralejls, k> - - fupp fed to be inherei t ii\ 
 
 competent to them : And in ipecial, iincj tiiC ElftejS and Pa, 
 
 M ( 
 
tz Ttr.ScotfsT leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 Church of Ephefus, are enjoy ned by Paul, in his laft Farewel, to exercife 
 Epifiopal Authority joy ntly over that Church, without the leaft Hint of 
 any Epifiopa I Prefident over them, and this after all his Prefcriptions to Timo- 
 thy, and the Exercife of his Evangeliftick Office there,- whence came all 
 this fudden Univerfal Change in Johns time, that all this Epifiopal Autho- 
 rity, competent before, toP afiors of Churches, and particularly of Ephefus, 
 is Monopolized in the Perfon of one Bijhop ? How came all the Churches 
 of Afia, to be fo fuddenly caft in this Mould ? And to prefs the Qiierie a 
 little further, if there was fuch an Univerfal Authority of Bijlwps m Johns 
 time, and thus acknowledged and attefted by all the Primitive Antiquity, 
 as the Dr. pretends, yea and acknowledged by Jerom himfelf, as well as 
 by Augufi'm and hmbrofi, how comes Jerom to fay, that even in his time, 
 the Elders were fubjeft to the Bijhop , by Cufiom, not Divine Dispensation 
 (Comment on Tit. ) and on Ifai. 3. that they had in his time [Catus 
 Vresbyterorum ) a Meeting or Court of Presbyters, which he calls an Apofiolick. 
 Senat ? How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra, 
 Canoa 18? How comes Ambroje ( or, a Father, Coetaneous to him) upon 
 Epb. 4. to affert, that after the Church was enlarged [captt alio modo gu- 
 bernari ] it began to be Governed after another manner, than at firfi^ and 
 «— that \_non per omnia conveniunt, &c.J the Government of the Church, in 
 his time, was not every way futeable and fquare, to the Apoftolick Ap- 
 pointment ? How comes kuguftin (Epifi. 10.) to affert with Jerom, that 
 by Cufiom of thQChmch,Epifeopattts was major Presbyter ioi How comesFirmili- 
 &nm (apud Cyprian. Epifi. 78.) to affert,that the P afiors or Presbyters [pojfidtnt 
 ordinandi potefiatem ) pejjejjes the Power of Ordination; And thefe Pres- 
 byters y he calls [Prxpofiti'] Prefidents or Rulers, ufing that very Term, 
 from which the Dr. draws the Epifiopal Authority- of thefe Angels} Yea Chry- 
 foficm on 1 Tim. afferts, that [ inter Presbyterum & Epifcopttm inter efi ferme 
 nihil] there is almoft no difference betwixt the Bifoop and Presbyter ; 
 and that which isfpokenby Paul to the one, agrees alfo to the other. Now, 
 if there be fuch Harmony in the Teftimony of the Ancients, in point of 
 the Bijhops Power, as the Dr. pretends, I would fain know, what means 
 this immufical Jarring, and palpable Contradi&ion to his Alter tion, and 
 ©ven by thefe very Fathers, whom he brings for his Vouchers ? 
 
 Hence, Fifthly, it appears that the Dr c s Proofs from thefe Teftimonies, 
 and his 'pretended Argument, from- all Primitive Antiquity, is pitifully Lame, 
 znd . ihort of hisDefign, upon two important Grounds. 1. That his Wit- 
 tieffes, are not Harmonious, feveraj of them, giving a palpably Crofs Te- 
 ftimony to him. 2. In that they do not affert that ible Authority of Bp- 
 fhtys, and that abfolutelnhanced Power, which he alledges : For, no Man 
 if Ssnfej can draw this Confe^usn^ from the general Name of Bijhops, 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. $j 
 
 ufed by him, or from a fimple calling of them Pref dents, will conclud . 
 them to be fuch, as he pretends, yea, and not fuch de Faclo, far lefs Jure 
 Divine, fince in other places, they are found clear and pofitive in a con- 
 trary AfTertion: And therefore, unlefs the Dr. will Stage thefe Fathers, 
 whom he mentions, as the moft Arrant, Self- contradicting, Non-fenfical 
 Fools, that ever Spoke or Wrcte, he muft needs acknowledg, with us 3 
 that they ufe the Term Bijhop, in a general Senfe, and as common both to 
 fuch ™irrric or Prefidents, as had then obtained, and to other Paficrs. So 
 that in fuch Characters, apprcpriat to fuch Perfons, they could neither 
 understand, an Epifcopal Prefidency, founded upon a Divine Right, and A- 
 poftclical Inftitution, as the Dr. pretends, nor fuch an abfolute Power, as 
 fwallows up and Inhances all Authority oi Paficrs in Government^ which 
 lie alfo alferts. 
 
 This confidered, with what is above offered,, doth fo fully cut off the 
 Dr c s third Argument, which he profecutes, P. 424, 425, &c. that no- 
 thing needs be further added, as there might be with Advantage, if a par- 
 ticular Examen, were made of his Citations. The Folly of his firft Head- 
 lefs Teftimony appears, in that it makes the ApoftlejW* to afTume a new 
 Archiepifcopal Chair, or Primacy over the Afian Churches ; The Sottifli- 
 nefs of which Conceit, and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Ac- 
 count of the Apofrolick Office, is evident to any of common Scnfe, fince 
 the Apoftles, by vertue of their Office, which extended to all Churches, 
 planted and to be planted, were Minifters thereof, in achi exercito, and yet 
 this Apoftle muft be affifted with feven BiJInps, forlooth, to fupport his new 
 Archiepifcopal Chair over that Province. The Citation fpeaks of a Pro- 
 vince in general,which the Dr. will needs have, to be that of Ephefus, and 
 the feven Angels, muft be thefe feven Bifiops, by whom he governed that 
 Province. Again, the Angel is called by Auguftin, the Prapcftns or Prefi- 
 dent • therefore, he was an Hierarchical Prefulent, as tre Dr. has ihapen 
 out : What Confequence is this ? As to what He adds out of Ignatius and 
 Irenaus, in reference to Poly carp's Epifccpacy over Smyrna , from Euftbiits 
 ( Lib. 4. Cap. i£. ) and Polycrates c s Epifcopacy over Ephejus (Lib. 5. Cap. 24.) 
 we have fpoken to it already, and to the Credit to be given to theie fup- 
 pofed Epiltles, as likeways to Eufibius's Hiftory. Befides, that in Eufbius. 
 (Lib. 5. Cap. 2*. ) Ircnaus calls Anycetus, Pius, Heg'nuts, Ttle(phcrus, Xifius, 
 Presbyters of the Church of Rome \_Presbyteri illi aui tt pracejjerun: ] We alfo, 
 did ihevv, that he thus expreftes himfelf further [AtePoiycarpuSj Anyce- 
 to ftafit, ut ft want qui (jhi Pre shy ten-rum quibusjuccejj'erat, cenjuetudinem ftrvan* 
 dam eJSe diccrei]Wc have alio already made appear, tharPt/>i\?r/> his fuppofed 
 Bifap, difownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr, iince, 
 Writing to the Philippics, "be ownes-only Jtijhaps-*LA Dtw?,s, as the 
 
g| 2V. Scott'x ^leadings Chap. IV- 
 
 *f two Orders of Miniftry, and perfwades the Philippians to be fubjeft to 
 <c their Presbyters and Deacons, as to God and Chrift. To which we may 
 add, that Bijhop Bilfon himfelf, acknowledges ( Perpet. Gov. P. 158, 159. ) 
 that Elders at firft did govern by common Counfel. For what he adds of £«- 
 fchius c s Teftimonies, anent the exiftent Bifiops in feveral of thefe Churches, 
 when jWw wrote to them,it is abundantly removed by what is faid above, 
 in reference to the Senfe and Acceptation of the Term Bijhop, by Ancient 
 Writers, as likewife by that which we have often obferved of Eufebius 
 himfelf. The Dr. adds a Paflage of Varaus, which we fhall take notice of, 
 % i he tells us, that Varans proves out of Aretas Cafarienfis, that Antipas the 
 
 " Faithful Martyr, mentioned Rev. 2. 13. was Bijhop of Vatmos, 
 P.426. cc immediatly before the Angel of that, Church, to whom John 
 
 Ci wrote, and that that Angel, was one Gains who (as he proves 
 u out of Clement) fucceeded to Ant if as in the Epifcopal Chair. Varaus, fays 
 indeed , that thefe of Vergamus, had cruelly flain AntipM, but adds 
 \_quis fuerat y ex Hijhria parum con fiat ] that there is no Light from Hiftory, 
 who he was. He adds [ Aretas Vaftorem ejus Ecclefia fuijje fenfit fub Domi- 
 tiano fortem fidci afertorem, &c. ] that Aretas thinks he was V aft or of that 
 Church, and under Domitian, a Strenuous Afferter of the Faith, and Burnt 
 in a Brazen Bull. He adds, "" that he to whom our Lord wrote, might 
 *{ be tempted to lay afide his Office, for fear of the like Puniihment, &c. 
 But what the Dr. adds of an Epifcopal Chair, and of his Name, Partem favs 
 nothing, neither doth he afcribe to Antipas any other 0$W,than that of Pa- 
 fior y feeming to take thefe Churches for Congregational. And if the Of- 
 fice, to which the Angel fucceeded, was that of a P after only, where is 
 our Dr c s Epifcopal Chair, which he here affigns him ? Befides, Parous af- 
 firms the Hiftory to give no certain found, touching the Office and Chara- 
 cter of Antipas : Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement. The Au- 
 thors of the fecond part of Annot. under the Name of pool, do affirm, 
 c \ That no Ecclefiaftick Hiftory, makes mention of Antipas, and that he 
 " ieems to have been aPerfon ofebfeure Notej And that no Hiftory giving 
 i: Account of him, has inclined fome to think this Epiftle, is whcllyJPro- 
 ^ phetical, and that. Antipas fignifies all fuch, as oppofe the Vope, as if it 
 *t were the fame with, Antipapa. 
 
 The Dr c s Conclufion upon the whole of this his difcourfe and 
 P. 426. Argument from the Seven Afian Angels, is, "That it being ap- 
 " parent, that there were Bijhops, prefiding in each of thefe 
 iC Churches, when John wrote, confequently they had the Government 
 i; " of thefe Churches committed to them, fince he Writes to them as Go- 
 cc vernours and Overfeers of thefe Refpe&ive Churches,- So, that they be- 
 " ing Bifaps, our Saviour^ in theft .Epithets, allows and approves of the 
 
Chap. V. tor Epilcopacy, Examined. %j 
 
 " Epifcopal Order. But, by whst is above reply ed, it is evident, that no* 
 thing which the Dr. has adduced, amounts to prove the exiftence of any 
 fuch Bifiops, as he has fliapenout, in one, or all cf thefe Churches ; And 
 therefore, our Lords writing to thefe Angels, gives not the leaft ihaddow 
 of allowance or approbation of that Epifcopal order, which he afferts. - 
 Andfo, to the L)r c s Summ oj all (as he exprefles it) -viz: "That P. 427 
 " the Epifcopal form, is of Divine Right; upon Ground of our Sa- 
 cc viours Inflitution, Seconded by the Tratlice of the Apoftles, and con~ 
 cc formity of the Primitive Churches,* and our Lords exprefs approbation 
 We may confidently repone, from what is above reply ed, that it is e- 
 vicfent, that the; high-flown Hierarchy, he pleads for, has no Foundation, 
 either in our Lords Inftiration, or the Practice of the Apoftles, is nowavs 
 Authorifed by the Conformity of the Primitive Church, or our Saviours Appro* 
 bation, in his Epiflles to the Afian Churches, but as oppofit to all thefe^ 
 is by the Churches of Chrift, to be rejected and difovvned. m 
 
 CHAR V. 
 The Dr's Scripture "Proofs of a Four-fold Mini- 
 ftrie or Prerogative of a "Bijhop, as Superior 
 to a Tajlor, in Point of Government, con- 
 
 Jtdercd. 
 
 THE Ftrft Prerogative of the Bijfop, ascontradiftinel: 
 from a Presbyter, is (with the Dr. ) " to make Laws P. 43^ 
 cc and Canons, which is the EfTence of Government, 
 " and fuppofesa Legiflative Power, elle, faith he, cc Chrifts 
 Wilciom is impeached,if he left: a Governed Society, withouc 
 " a Legiflative Power. 
 
 I need not ftand to tell the Dr, That by confent otPrctefiant Divines, 
 the Churches Power, is not properly, Nomothetick, Archittctonhk, Legifla- 
 tive, but Minifterial, and declarative of Chrifts hiftiiulion^ in reftrence to Ordi- 
 nances, the Dcctrin, WorQrip, Difciplin and (Jcvcrnmtnt of b:s H-ttfe. 
 
 TheDr. proves thisAuthority (P.4; ;. 434.) from theApoirles Power,Atf. 
 if. Determining the Controverfie anentCircumcilion — And lays, " That 
 cc in theirDecrce, they exercifeaLfgiy/jf/LTPowcr^aying upon the Church- 
 " esj to abftuin from what was not prohibited by any Handing Law of 
 
 " Chxi- 
 
%6 T>r. Scott'x T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 €C Chriftianity : That, as the Apoftles and Primitive 'Bijhops, made Laws 
 "by common confent, for the good of the Church in general, fo, by their 
 u own Authority, for particular Churches, to which they were more 
 *l particularly related. Here is, Imuft fay, odd and confufed fluff. Fir ft y 
 The Dr. fuppofes, that the Decree, Aft. ij. had no previous Scripture Foun- 
 dation, contrar to the exprefs tenor and fcope of the place, where it is e- 
 vident i. That in this Difquifition, there are Grounds of the Sentence laid 
 down, yea and Scripture Grounds. 2/7. The Sentence runs in thefe 
 terms, It feemed good to the Holy Ghofi (viz,, fpeaking in the Scripture ) and 
 to us. ity. Upon thefe previous Scripture Grounds of Charity and Union- 
 and the efehewing the Offence of the weak Jews ( apparent in the de- 
 bate and difquifition ) the things enjoined,- are termed, necejjary things, 
 and thus fuppofed materially fuch, antecedaneoufly to the Decree. Hence 
 4/y. The Dr. in faying, " That this Abftinence (he muftunderftand it in 
 • cc the prefent Cafe and circumitances of time, place and perfons) 
 {bid. was never prohibited by any (landing Law of Chriftianity,- ex- 
 
 pugns from being Laws of Chriftianity, all our Lords Precepts, 
 in point of Love and Unity, and the efehewing the Offence of the little 
 Ones: For, thefe Rules did clearly found this Abftinence, and ground the 
 neceffity thereof, in the prefent Cafe and exigence. 
 
 Again,in the nexplace, The great point, theDr. has to prove,is,"That this 
 " fuppofedLegiflative power is theBiJhops fole prerogative,fecluding ¥ after si 
 This he proves by the Apoftles,together with theElders andBrethren, their 
 comming together, and determining this matter. One would think, this 
 makes fair to prove the contrary. The Apoftles here, meeting with, and 
 taking into the difquifition and Decree, and into every ftep of the prace- 
 dure,the ordinary Minifters,andElders,as perfons interefted and concerned, 
 and who are found to concur with them in enading and enjoining the thing 
 
 Decreed, in order to the Churches Obedience. Ay, but the Dr. 
 ibid, tells us, cc That by confent of all Antiquity, by thefe Elders we are 
 
 fC tounderftand the Bifhops of J udea; for which he Cites Dr Ham- 
 <c mond on Aft. 11. A Dr. no doubt, of a like foundnefs with himfelf. 
 But 1. If the Dr. adhere to Dr. Hammonds notion of Elders, he muft fi- 
 fteen! them Bifjops, where ever mentioned, and deny the exiftence of any 
 Paftors ( the true Scripture Bijhops ) at this time,- wherein our Dr. will; 
 and muft needs juftle and deal ftroaks with Dr. Hammond : For ( to omit 
 other inftances ) he holds the Elders prefent with James, when Paul went 
 into him, to be Paftors, over which, James, as Bijhop of Jerufalem, did 
 prefide. ily, None canimagin the&'Elders to be Bijhops of Judea, with- 
 out the molt ridiculous Forgery imaginable : For, in the context, it is e- 
 Yldentj that at this time^ the Apoftles were but founding and gathering 
 
 Churc.i 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. %j 
 
 Churches in Judea, fettling Churches therein, and taking infpe&ion of 
 them, by their Apoftolick Authority; And therefore, it is a ftrange phan- 
 taftick conceit to imagine Churches by this time grown up to a Diocefs in 
 Judea, and of fucha bulk and number, as to have Diocefan Bifiops fetover 
 them, yea and Diocefan Bifiops, of fo considerable a Number, as the Elders 
 may be rationally fuppofed to be at this time, and in this meeting; yea^ 
 and thefe, befides the far greater Number of Ordinary Teachers and Pa* 
 ftors, which this Man will not deny, the Apoftles, to have ordained, 
 where Churches were planted. Again, why, I pray, the Bifiops of Judea 
 only gathered here, in order to this general Decree for all the Churches, 
 and no Bifiops of the Gentile Churches, which, he will fay, were by this 
 time fet up ? Befides, that looking to the occafion of this debate, anenr 
 theCircumcifion, which had its rife from fome of them that wentfrcrrr 
 Judea, as from the Apoftles, and thus troubled the Churches, the deiigr*. 
 of the Gentiles, appears evidently to be, to fend Paul, to the Apoftles and 
 Elders, reiiding at Jerufalem, without the leaft hint, of any more enlarged 
 Advertifement of others, than fuch, as were there, at that time. Again,, 
 the Dr. lays, " That Apoftles and Primitive Bifiops, made general- Laws, 
 " for the whole Church, and Bifiops, particular Laws, for their 
 " particular Churches : Thus ( faith he ) Paul gave Rules to the ibid. 
 " Corinthians for more decent communication of theLords Supper. 
 Strong reafoning indeed, and hanging well together .' Iirft, he fuppofes 
 the Apoftles made by their Apoftolical Authority, the general Rules for 
 the whole Church, as proper to them, with concurrence of ordinary Bi- 
 ftops; the ordering of particular Churches, being peculiar to the ordi- 
 nary or Primitive Bifiops : And prefently, to prove this, he puts the great 
 Apoftle of the Gentiles, into the clafs of Ordinary Bifiops, in giving Rules to 
 this Church of Corinth, and wifely fuppofes, that Pauls Apoftolick Pre- 
 scriptions about Right and decent Communicating, concerned only 
 this Church of Corinth, and were Authorized and enacted bv no Apcfto- 
 ick Authority, nor by the Apoftle Paul, as in that capacity. To this fcope, 
 the Dr. with as much Senfe and foundnefs, inftances Paul's giving Laws 
 and Canons, to the Churches ofQafatia, contradicting therein, the Re- 
 lation of thefe Canons, to particular Churches, ilnce they did refpect 
 both the Churches of Corinth; and the Churches of Galitia. ' Of die feme 
 nature, is that which he here mentions of Pauls Charge to Timothy and 75- 
 Uts (iTtm. <f. 7. lit. 1. 5-.) touching the redrefling disorders, and fup- 
 pl/ing defe&s in thefe Churches. Lor, (xfides, that Vnal exerced an A- 
 poftoiical Authority inthefc Directions to the Lvangelifts ( extraordinary 
 Officers, as Paul himfelfj which clearly excludes, Director, and Dirc<S 
 torn ihc compafi of the Dr's Argument he will i;oc dvnv, fcrfnd ofd 
 
88 T>r. Scott' sT leadings Chap. V. 
 
 dire&iotts^ at leaft, to have been of univerfal concern and neceffity, and 
 in this refpecl: alfo, as remote from his Defign. Tiie Dr. adds, cc " That 
 
 €C what the Apoftles and Primitive Bifrops did,, to be fur e, thev 
 P. 43 f. * f had Authority to do, and whatsoever, Authority they had, 
 
 cc they derived it down to their Succeflbrs. That Afofiles and E~ 
 'vangelifts, cxercifed a Lawful Authority, is indeed very fure, and no lefs 
 fure^ than the Dr f s Argument here, is loofe and unfure, from Apoftoli- 
 cal directions to Evangelifts, to conclud the Nature and Mould 
 of the fuppofed Epifcop al Authority of Prelats, in reference to making 
 Laws C as is above evinced ) fince tbe Dr. cannot mape out, nor by any 
 twift of reafon and found confequence, inferr his fuppofed Hierarchical 
 Trelat, with fole Power of Ordination and Jurifdiclion, from the ^Office 
 of either Apoftles or Evangelifts. v 
 
 The Dr will not have any Officer beneath a Bijljcp, to have 
 P. 43^. cc k een a ii owec j fuffrajre, in any of the Firft Four General Councils; 
 436. cc y 0t i mmec jiatly a J ter ( feme way retracting and corre cling 
 
 cc himfelf ) he allows them a place in General Councils , but tell us, it was 
 cc only for debate, and preparing the Matter of Laws; but the form of 
 cc Laws, he fays, proceeded from the Bifiops fuffrage. This is pretty. 
 Firft, The Dr. will never prove, that in the Firft Councils, there were 
 Trelats of his ftamp and Mould. Next, its ftrange, that in Councils, Pres- 
 byters were fitting for Conference, and as no members. I would fain 
 know, if the Dr. will fay, that thefe Elders meeting with the Apoftles, 
 Aft. if. ( which he will, no doubt, acknowledg, was one of the beft 
 Moulded Councils, yea, and a Standart for after-Councils ) were noMem- 
 bers,but called and meeting for conference only,fince in the Scripture ac- 
 count, and three fold Partition of thofe that mett, Viz: Apoftles, Elders 
 Brethren, there is an intire joint concurrence, with the whole pro- * 
 cedure, viz,: both in the Difquifition, the Sentence, the decretal Epiftle 
 and Appointment, in reference to the Churches obedience. It does alfo 
 fute the Dr f s confideration, to mew, how it can confift with reafon, and 
 the Nature of a Church Judicatory, thatfuch perfons, as are no Members, 
 3ior fit to be Members, are, in tuto, to prepare Matter for Laws, and take 
 fhare in debates. But the • Dr c s Forgery here is evident. For r. If Pres- 
 byters concurrence in Ordination, was Authoritative, not by confent only, 
 and they impofed hands as proper Ordainers, even when Bifiwps had ob- 
 tained Power in Judicatories, by confeffion of Epifcop alians themfclvcs 
 ( fee Dr. Forbes Iran, lib, 2. Cap. 11. ) I would fain know, why fuch Ec- 
 clefiafticks or Church Officers, as had Authority, to Ordain, which is one 
 of the greateft AcSts of Minifterial Authority, had no Authority in enabl- 
 ing Laws m Councils, but fat as Cyphers. 2/7. The Dr. will find Antiquity 
 
 againit 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 89 
 
 againftthis deputed kind of conferring or confulting Power, which he al- 
 lows to Vresbyters mCouncils, without Authority, in enading Laws. Cbry- 
 fofiom (horn. 17. on Matth. ) calls Vresbyters exprefly [Chrifti vicarios] 
 Chrifts Vicars or Deputes: And its ftrange, that fuchto whom Ghrift en- 
 trufted this Vicarious Power, had no intereft and Authority in enading 
 Laws in his Church, and in the Government thereof. Cyprian ( lib. 4. 
 Ep. 8. ) mews, that [_Dcminm Sacer dotes in Ecclefia, &c, ] the Lord con- 
 descended toeled tohimfelf, Prieftsor Minifters in the Church ( the Dr. 
 will not fay, that he put this defignation only upon Frelats. J And did 
 he eled and conftitute them for no intereft in the Government thereof? 
 Nay, on the contrary, the Judgment of the Ancients, is clear in this, that 
 the Power of external Jurifdidion,andconfequently, the Authority of en- 
 ading Laws or Canons, was common to Bijhcps and Vresbyters. Jgnatins 
 in hisEpiftle to the TraUians, called the Vresbytrie [Senatmn Dei'] Gods 
 Court or Senat [ & non eonftliarios folum ] ( as our Dr. makes them ) [ Jed 
 & djjklfires Epifcopi ] not his Advifers only, but his Authoritative fellow- 
 Cbuhfellors: And I hope, fuch ( he will grant ) as are in this Charader, 
 have intereft, not only, in preparing matter for Laws, but an eflential 
 Official Right, in the Authoritative enading of them. Irenaus {lib. 4. 
 Cap. 44. ) calls them \_Vrincipes~] Princes or Chief : And if fuch, in his 
 Judgment, the forementioned Authority is clearly by him, attributed to 
 them. Augnfiin ( Serm. 6. ) calls the Brethren in Eremo [ Vatrcnos, Resto- 
 res Terra ] And what pitiful Patrons or Redors are they, who have no 
 Authority in enading Laws? Chryfoficm ailerts exprefly ( on 1 Tim. 1. 
 twin, n) " That they prefided over the Churches, as Biftops, and re- 
 w ceived together with them, the Office of Teaching and Governing the 
 <c Church. And if this, with the preceedingTeftimonies, give not the Lie 
 to the Dr f s forementioned diftindicn, anent Vresbyters fo!e confulting in- 
 tereft in Councils, and upon the bishops Call allennarly, without any Au- 
 thority in enading Laws, let any Judg. Chryfoficm, moreover, in the 
 beginning of that Homily, ftating the Queftion, wherefore the Apoftle, af- 
 ter he had fpoken to the Office and Duty of Bificps, paffes over to Deaccns y 
 omitting the order of Vresbyters, returns this Aniwer and Reaibn, u Be- 
 <: caufe, betwixt the Biflwp and Vrtsbyter, there is almoft no difference, 
 cc andbecaufe, that unto Vresbyters alio, the care of the Church is commit- 
 " ted. And what he faid concerning Bijlwps, the fame things alfo do agree 
 " toVresbyters. And if, with the Dr's good leave, I might draw an in* 
 ferencefrom Chryfcftonts after t ion, I would thus fubfume,- initio it is, that 
 thcAuth rityof Government, and the enading ofLaws in Church Judica- 
 tories, is by the Apoftle afcribed to the Script 111 e-1? //fop, whom he menti- 
 ons: Ergo, the fame Authority and Power is bv the'Apoillc, afcibed to 
 
 N \rtf- 
 
po *Dr. Scott' sT leadings Chap. V. 
 
 Presbyters, in Chryfofiom's Senfe. Gratian ( in Decret. Catif. 16. Qtteft. i. Cap.) 
 /hews, that [ Ecclefia habet fenatum Presbyterorum ] A Senat or Presbyters 
 without whole Counfel, the Bifhop can do nothing. They were not then 
 called at the Bijhops pleafure for debate only, and preparing matters ( as 
 the Dr. pretends ) but were the [fine quibus non ] in the enading of the 
 Laws themfelves. The Dr. makes Prelats to enhance all decifive fuffrage, 
 in Judicatories, yet Cyprian (Ep. 6. and 28. ) profeffes, <c He neither could 
 €: nor would do any thing without the Clergy. And the Fourth Council of 
 Carthage, condemns the BiJhop c s Decifion, unlefs Fortified by their Sen- 
 tence.. So far was it, that the Bijhop c s fole Suffrage, gave Hie Strength 
 and Formality to- Laws, that they were null, without Presbyters Authori- 
 tative Concurrence. This is clear, by fo full a confent of ^Antiquity, that 
 we will find,- That neitherin Cenfuring oiPresbytersi Nor ily, In Judging 
 the converfation, or Crimes of Church Members : Nor *ly, In Excom- 
 municating or Receiving of Penitents, Bificps could do any thing without 
 Presbyters. Tertulian ( Apolog. Adverf. Gentes) '/hews vs, " That the Church- 
 cc eY Exhortations, Caftigations,and Divine Cenfures,we.re put forth by the 
 " [ Probati quique Seniores ~] who did prefide,'. the accufed Perfon being 
 cc brought into the Congregation. And this Authoritative Sentence of Prej? 
 hyters, w as more approved, than when paffed by one Man : As when Sya- 
 grius and Ambrcfe, paffed Sentence in the fame Cafe,- The Church was 
 unfatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius, becaufe he paffed it [fine alicujm 
 Fratris Confilh ] without the confent of any of his Brethren : But were 
 pacified with the Sentence of ' Ambrofe, becaufe faith he [ hoc judicium no- 
 ftrum cum Fratribus & confacerdotibus participatum procefierat ] This his Sen- 
 tence proceeded jointly from him and his Fellow -Presbyters or Minifters. 
 Yea, the very Admonition of Offenders, were not given by the Bijhops 
 alone, but by the Elders (Augufi. De verb. Apofi. Strra. 19.) Thus alfo, 
 Origen contra Celfum lib. 3. Excommunication it felf, Tertullian tells us, was 
 vibrated by thofe that laboured in the Word andDoilrin ,• and the Prefix 
 tytrie£\\-a.t delivered unto Satan, as.Jerom /hews, ( Epifi. ad Heliod.) So (E-- 
 pifi. ad Demet. ) they alfo Received and Abfolved the Penitents. Cyprian 
 ( Epifi. 12 ) /hews that this was the cuftom [ nee ad communicationem veni- 
 re quis pojjit, nifi prius ab Epifcopo & clero manus illifuerit impofita ] fuch as- 
 wereExcommunicat, returned, not to Church Fellow/hip, before hands 
 were laid upon him. by the Bifhop and Clergy. And writing to his Charge, 
 anent lapfed Chriftians, he tells them [exomologefi facla,& manu its a vobis in 
 pvenkentiam impofita ] After .Confeffion, and laying on of the Presbyters 
 hands, they might be commended to God. And fuch as returned from, 
 Herefie, and were to be Received in the Church at Rome, in the time of 
 ^melius, Cyprian teUs us ( Epifi, 6. compared with 46. ), they game be- 
 fore: 
 
Chap. V. For Epiicopacy, Examined. pi 
 
 fore the Presbytrie, and Confeffing their Sins, were Received. Now, i* 
 Presbyters hadfuch Authority, and the Epifiopal Power was of this Nature, 
 and thus Limited, let anyjudg, how the Dr c s Affertion can fubiift, vte 
 " That in Judicatories, Pafiors had no decifive fuffrage. 
 
 For the Dr f s after- difcourfe, ( P. 436. ) anent the Civil Soveraigns 
 Decrees, in cafe of a fuppofed interfeiring with the Churches Legifiative 
 Power ( as he calls it ) I mall not ( it being fome what out of our way ) 
 much digrefs in examining the fame, tho I judg it very lax and liable to 
 confiderable exceptions, yea,and hardly reconcilable with it felf, or found 
 fenfe and Divinity. The Dr. holds, "That the Churches Legislative Pow- 
 cc er, cannot reach to controllthe Civil Decrees. And yet holds, " That 
 <c thefe Decrees cannot countermand Gods Laws. Now, the Dr. will 
 not fay, that the Churches Legifiative Power, is not founded upon, and 
 Authorifed by Gods Laws,- nay, he pofitively aflerts, that it is. He adds, 
 fc That next to the Laws of God, the Soveraigns Laws, are to be obeyed. 
 And thus makes the Law of God, the overruling Law, the Reguh Regulans, 
 and paramount to thofe of the Soveraign : And therefore, by good confe- 
 quence, from this Aflertion, the Churches Legifiative Power, in exhibit- 
 ing and declaring Gods Laws, muft likewife be thus Paramount there- 
 unto, and firft obeyed; Especially, if he ftand to that inftance of his, ji&. 
 19. as exhibiting the Plat-lorm and Standart cf Church Laws, wherein* 
 the enacied Canon and Decree, is faid to be,the mindofthe HolyGhofl, and 
 thus a Divine Law, the Authority of God, being* thereto interponed. 
 Yet, in the very next Words, he lays down this Affertion, * That next 
 " to the Laws of the Soveraign, the Laws of the Church, are'to be obeved- 
 And fo here, thefe Civil "Laws, are fet in anhigher Sphere, and made Pa- 
 ramount to all Church Laws, and this without any exception or Limita- 
 tion, whether they be confonant to the Divine Law or not, or any Limi- 
 tation of Confonancy to the Divine Law, in the Laws of the Church" 
 The perfon, who will reconcile and foudder thefe, muft in my appre' 
 henfion,be better skiil c d,than all Vulcan's Gimmerers, and no doubt better 
 feen in logical Rules and fubtilties, than I. So much for the Dr's Firft 
 Prerogative of a Biflwp, as diflind from a Presbyter, in the Poorer Leriflatrvi 
 and of making Canons. SJ * 
 
 The Second Peculiar Miniftry and Prerogative of the Bijlov a- 
 bove Presbyters, theDr. tells us, is, F ToCcnfecrtt and Ordsin P a** 
 Ci to Ecchfiafiick Offices. Thereafter, the Dr. fpends much dii- a**\ »i 
 Ck courle upon Chnits Million of the Twelve Apofttes as the ,0 * 
 
 " Fatlwjait him, including a Power of Ordination of others which he 
 
 N z f a co^ 
 
yz T>r. Scott 1 'sT leadings Chap. V* 
 
 (C Confirms by Luk. 24. ;;. ;6. Mark. 16. 14. Matth. 28. 16. Which 
 <c Commiffion, he tells us,was transferred Originally upon the Apoftolick 
 cc Order; So,that Ecclefiaftick Commi{Itoris,were either given by the hands 
 cc of thefe Firft Apoftles, or by fuch Secondary Apoftles, as were by them 
 Ci admitted into Apoftolick Orders, and thefe Secondary Apoftles, were 
 cz the fame with Bijhops. Anf. We need not fpend time in refumingwhae 
 is faid already, in Anfwer to this. There c s no doubt, but our Lord gave 
 a Power of Miffion, and of Ordaining Minifters, to His Twelve Apofilesv 
 A Power to Plant Churches, through the World, and a Gofpel Miniftry, 
 and Ordinances in them: But, that by vertue of this their Miffion, they 
 were to transferr their Apoftolick Office and Authority, to ordinary Suc- 
 ceeding Officers, is the t%i*t*<vt>v y the Quafitum, or Queftion, which the Dr. 
 ftill beggs and fuppofes, but will never be able to prove, from either the 
 Nature and intendment of their Miffion, or the Power and Authority of 
 Succeeding Officers, whom they Ordained, as we have above evinced. 
 The Dr c s, Proofs are pitifully claudicant ,• he tells us, " That tho the 
 €f whole Difciples were prefent, the Apoftles only Impofed hands upon 
 " the Seven Deacons, Aft. 6. And why not ? The Authoritative Impofi- 
 tion of Hands in Ordination, is no doubt proper to Ecclefiaftick Officers, 
 not to the People; but where were the Succedaneous Bijhops here, who 
 had folely this Power, tho Minifters were prefent ? The Dr. has let us 
 * f fee no fliaddow of this, from theText. He next tells us of Vaul "and Bar* 
 * : nahas Ordaining Elder* in Antioch, Iconium and Lyfira. A mighty proof/ 
 The Apoftles in planting Churches, ordained Minifters in them ': Ergo 
 Suceedaijeous Bijhops, have an Apoftolick Authority of Or//*i»;>g,derived to 
 them folely, as their peculiar Prerogative above Vafiors : This Confequence 
 is denyed/ If the Dr. own thefe Elders for Vafiors, it fnould feem,they had 
 an Ordaining Power, elfe the Apoftles fetded thefe Churches in a very 
 rnank frame,and lame pofture, and wanting- the EfTentials-of anOrganick 
 Church. If the Dr. allow them an Ordaining Power, he crofles the Scope 
 of a proof of Succeedaneous Bijhops, with Power of Ordination, fet up by 
 die Apoftles, fince thus he afcribes it unto Vafiors: And if he deny it, he 
 Is liable alfo to the fame ahfurdity € and that mentioned above, and will 
 crofs. his Notion of the Bijhops Office afcribed to the Elders of Jerufalem 5 
 who mett with the Apoftles irt that Council Aft. 15-. Befides, it the Dr. 
 put an EpiJ copal Mitre, upon thefe. Vafiors or Elders , and make them .Bijhcps 
 in. his Senfe., it is very odd, that among thefe little new gathered Church- 
 es, fuch highly Authorized D'wcefan Vrehts were fet up, before any Pa- 
 (hrs, for Feeding with the Word and Do&rin. For diicovering the fol- 
 ly of which Glols and Affertion, I dare appeal to the Current orlnterpre- 
 ■tsr's. 0>, if the Dr, imagin the ftrength of his Proof, to ly in this., that 
 
 thefa 
 
Chap- V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 9 3 
 
 thefe Officers were Ordained by Apoftles,>/J/, he ffiould know, that as 
 we all allow an extraordinary Power in Ape files, in Churches, not yet 
 Conftitut, not competent to Ordinary Officers, fa, his Aflertion is a- 
 nent an ordinary Power of Succeedaneous or Secondary Apoftles ( as he calls 
 them ) as fole and lingular in Ordination. 
 
 But the Dr. finds a Difficulty in his Way, was cc That Paul and 
 <c Barnabas were ordained Apoftles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets P.458. 
 t€ and Teachers in Antloch, AB. 13. 1, 2. To which he makes this 
 Return, cc That thefe Prophets and Teachers had, no doubt, received 
 cc the Apoftolick Character, being ordained by the Apoftles Bijhops of Sy- 
 cc rla: For otherwife, faith he, how could they have derived it? And 
 this Notion, the Dr.repofes fuch Confidence in,that he tells us, "There is 
 iC no doubt, but they had this Character. But truly, whether thelnlipid 
 Folly of the Obje&ion, or of the Return here made unto it, be greater, 
 is aQueftion to me. Fir ft, ThztPaul and Barnabas, were at this time, and 
 in this Action, ordained Apoi\\e$o( the Gentiles, I believe few ( if ever, any) 
 except the Dr, did imagin. I had always thought, that it is evident to 
 any, who reads the Account and Story at Pauls Converfion, and Call to 
 the Apoflleihip, by the Lord from Heaven, diat when thus called, he 
 was called, in. a fpecial manner, to the Apoftle jlnp of the Gentiles 
 — I have appeared unto thee, faith our Lord -- to make th-ee a M wiper, and a 
 Witnefs — delivering thee frcm ihe People, and from theGer.tiles, unto whom I [end 
 thee, to open their Eyes, dec. Upon which, the Apoftle imrnediatly fet up- 
 on this Work of Preaching to them, AB. 26. i~, 18, 19. The Apoftle al- 
 fo tells US, (Gal. 1. 15-, 16, 17.) that when it pleafed Gcd, who feparatcd 
 me from my Mot hers Womb ,and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that 
 J might preach among the Heathen, or Gentiles ,- imrnediatly I conferred not with 
 Flcjh and Blood: Neither went I up to Jerufalem, to them, which were Apoftles 
 before me. Compare this with Ephef. 3. 8. Hence, its odd to fuppofe, 
 that either he or Barnabas, were at this time ordained Apoftles. For, Bar- 
 nabas, that he was an Apoftle, looking ftridly to the Delcri prion of Apo- 
 ftles, fome may doubt,- but fuppoiing him fuch (he being joyncd with 
 Paul, under that Character, Ad. 14. 14.) we read of his Officiating, and 
 for what can be undcrfkod from Scripture, in the fame manner, and by- 
 virtue of .the fame Office, as the Apoftle Paul, to the Gentiles, before 
 this time : For ( AB. 1 1. 22. ) he is lent to Ant loch, by the Church at Jc- 
 rujalem, for Confirming and Watering the Church gathered there,- And. 
 v. 25, 26. he goes to Tarfus, to feek Paul, and brings him to Anti-jch, and 
 Taught there a year with Paul, where the Chriftian Name firft took place. 
 Next, the Dr. finding himfelf puzzled, with his Notion of a fuppofcd 
 Jinatbn of Paul and Bamab.u, to their Apoftolick Office, by qaereJVi 
 
94- ©rc Scott" j T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 and Teachers, has no Shift, but to alledge, they were by the Apoftles or- 
 dained Bifiops of the Churches of Syria, fince they could not elfe, have de- 
 rived the Office of Apoftolat. A pretty Evafion indeed, from a Phanta- 
 ftick Objection .' Firft, thefe Prophets andTeachers, are taken to be fuch Mi- 
 miters and Teachers, who had alfo the Gift of Prophecy, Vigent at that 
 time. So, Pool. 2 Vol. Annot. Diodat. upon the place, fays, they were 
 fuch, as had the Gift of Expounding publickly theRefoluticns of theChri- 
 ftian Faith, by infallible Conduct andlnfpiraticn of the Holy Ghoft,- pa- 
 rcelling them with the Prophets fpoken of i Cor. 14; 29, 12. who,the Dr. 
 will not doubt, are enjoynedSubje&icn to the Prophets there eftabliihed : 
 And with thefe^ fpoken of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephef. 4. n. He adds, that it 
 was an extraordinary Degree of Ecclefiaftick Office, and fingular for thefe 
 times, yet inferior to that of Apoftles, and in many, accompanied with Di- 
 vine Predidions.TheSe/^/V^ Divines upon the place,do fliew, "Thatfome, 
 cc take the two Words,Prophe ts and Teachers, for one and the fame thing : O- 
 €i thers^iftingmfh them thus, thztVropbets were thofe, who by Infpiration 
 cr of the Holy Ghoft, had extraordinary Gifts, to foretell things to come, 
 (c and to expound the Holy Scriptures : But Teacbers,wQre fuch,who had an 
 <c ordinary Calling and Gifts, to Inftrucl: and Govern the Church, in the 
 cc Worfttip of God. And this place alfo they paralell with 1 Cor. 14. and 
 JEph. 4. And the Command of the Holy Ghoft, mentioned AcJ.iz^.viz,. 
 [Separat me Barnabas andSa\A~\ they Paraphrafe thus, cc That they were 
 <c feparat from the Service of this Church,where there were other Teachers 
 cc enough, to fend them to the Gentiles, whereunto the\Hcly Ghoft ordained 
 cc them from the beginning, citing Acl.26.16. And 1/.3. which mentions the 
 Laying of the Prophets Hands upon them, they Paraphrafe thus, cc Not 
 €C thereby, to chuie them to be Apoftles, whereunto they were before cho- 
 <c fen, *v. 1. and Aft. 9. 17. but to ftrengthen them in this fending to the 
 <c Gentiles, by Prayer'and Impofition of Hands. Grotim takes them to be 
 fuch Prophets as Agabns. So Cornel, a Lapide, to be fuch " as had the Gift 
 cc of Prophecy ,• paralelling this place with 1 Cor. 14. They were fuclr, 
 <c as by the Influence of the Spirit, foretold things to come : So Mmochi- 
 cc us, That they were Expounders of the Scripture, by the Spirits Reve- 
 cc lation : So Lorinus, A Lapide, Vifcator: The laft of whom, takes them to 
 cc be the fame with Teachers. All which, howCrofs they are to- the Dr f s 
 Chara&er of thefe Impofers, and the Perfons, upon whom Hands were 
 Impofed, together with the end of this A&ion, is obvious to the meaneft 
 Refle&ion. In Correfpondence to the forefaid Account of Diodat. and 
 the Belgick Divines, we may further notice this particular Acccunt of 
 Pool. AnnoL That Paul and Barnabas being called to be Apoftles already, 
 x-he Laying on ofHands did fignify, 1. Their being fet apart to this par- 
 ticular 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. p ^ 
 
 ticular Imploymentt,hev were now fent about, ily, The Approbation 
 of the Church to their Heavenly Call they had. 3//, Their Praying for 
 Gzds Blefling upon them, and Succefs upon the Work they went for. But 
 thefe Prophets ordaining them to be Apoftles, and that, as in the Capacity of 
 Bijhops of the Churches of Syria, is a Dream, much, if not, only beholden 
 to the Dr. himfelf. Again, the Dr. doth no way efchcw hisfuppofed In- 
 convenience by this Anfwer,- For, if thefe his fuppofed BijJwps of Syria, 
 were only of the ordinary Succedaneous leffer Size, how could they de- 
 rive an Apoftolat, of the Primary and firft Order, as he calls it ? unlefs 
 the Dr. make them intirely one, which he fometimes ( tho in this, incon- 
 fiftent with himfelf) difownes, as we heard above, when he afcribes to 
 the Apoftles a Power, to make general Canons to the whole Church, to 
 the BijJwps, only to their particular Diocejfes. 
 
 But the Dr. finds another Objection, afc, " That thofe Officers, who 
 cc Impofed Hands on Paul and Barnabas, are called Prophets, not 
 cc Apoftles or Bifiops. He Anfwers, That fo was Judas and Silas, ibid. 
 <c Aft. 15". 32. and yet 1/. 22. they are faid to be Rulers among the . 
 cc Brethren, as he Tranflates » "//»«< ;. e. faith the Dr. BiJIups of Jndea. I 
 commend the Dr f s Invention and Sagacious Scent: Wherever a Word fa- 
 vouring of Rule is found, appropriat to any Church Officer, ftraight he 
 claps an Epifcopal Mitre upon his Head. But this Term being appropri- 
 at to fuch Perfons, and in fuch Circumftances, as will not admit this Of- 
 fice and Character, but are fuppofed mere Paftors or Presbyters, the Dr f s 
 Confecrating Skill fails him. His Friends, the Epifcopal Tranflaccrs of 
 our EnglijJ) Bible, fmell c d out no Prelacy, nor Rul'mg in this Term, but 
 Tranilat the Word, Chief Men, Primarios^ Pracipuos, Eftimatos, & Honora- 
 tos ; thus Erajmus, Vat alius, Bez>a, Pifcator, Camerarius, Drufitts. Or Eccle- 
 fiaftico munere fungentes ,• fo Beza. Chief Men, then, may be underftood 
 thus, that they were perfons, as, in Ecclefiaftick Offices, fo, of Moral F- 
 minency for Parts and Piety • which the Dr. will not deny to be appli- 
 cable to Men of the fame Office, and that fuch difcriminating terms of 
 one from another, will infer no diflinction therein. Befides, fome might 
 alledg, that if he will allow Members of the Church vilible, the Scriptuio 
 epithet of Brethren, and of the Brotherhood, which Denomination, we rii;d 
 apply ed Unto them, 1 Pet. 2. i~. That upon this ground, P after s o\ : 
 tyters, who have a Rule appropriat unto them, and are teipied as in that 
 capacity *>i/*tiM both the one and the other, may very well ccme 1 
 the Character of Rulers and Brethren, and by contei]iience,that the Rel 
 of the one to the other, may well come under this complex 1 
 Rulers among the Brethren, efpecially , lince il) the Cut/uil, Ad ij. the I 
 andJSm/^;are diftinguiiheA, as Church Officers from privat Chnrdi 
 
96 T>r. Scott'j- T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 Officers From privat Church Members. Again, the »>ijufi*i, and even a- 
 fnong Brethren, doth evidently and frequently in Scripture, rejed the Dr f s 
 Mijtr c d Notion : Particularly Heb. 13. 7. where they are fpoken of, in the 
 "Plural y as over that Churchy both in Ruling and Feeding by Doftrin : 
 And -v. 17. they are in a Plurality y fuppofed both to Rule and watch for 
 Souls,* And *v. 24, they are diftinguimed from the Saints 3 under this De- 
 nomination : And confequently, in all the Three PafTages, put under the 
 Character of, Rulers among the Brethren , but as having all a Relation to this 
 Church,, and a&ually and jointly Ruling and Feeding by Do&rin : Con- 
 fequently,they are fuch Rulers among the Brethreny as are all Faithful Pafiors; 
 And therefore, of a quite diftind Chara&er, from his fuppofed Ruling 
 Trelats. 
 
 The Dr. affirms, cc That Ordination was confined to fuch as 
 ibid. cc were admitted to the Apoftolat; as the laying on of Hands in 
 cc EphefasyV/zs by Raul committed to Timothy yupon whom, he Hm- 
 cf felf impofed Hands,* And unto Titos at Cm<?,whomhe left to Ordain El- 
 ders 2. % Tim. 1. 6. Tit. 1. 5. To this we have fpoken at large, and need 
 not here Hand upon a prolix refuming of what hath been offered in Anf- 
 w& thereunto. Only in a word, we may fee, that the Dr. Shoots fhort 
 of his proofs, which is obvioufly evident to any that confiders, that he nei- 
 ther proves, nor can prove, thefe his groundiefs Voftulata and fuppofitions 
 C without which he mines his mark, and his Argument has no imaginable 
 Foundation ) fuch as. 1. u That, the Offices of Timothy -zvATitusy were 
 <c ordinary, and the fame with his defcribed Hierarchical Vrelat. This, 
 we have already difproved, and by clear Scripture evidence, made the 
 contrary appear, ily. " That the Apoftles Precepts, in point of Ordina- 
 €C tiony to Timothy and lttm y did import their^fole Authority therein, in 
 €C Churches conftitut, fo, as to feci ud all Authority of Vaflors cvVresby- 
 * € ters in the fame, even where they were fettled, and could concurr. The 
 contrary whereof, we have alfo made evident. Again, whereas the Dr. 
 thinks to ftrengthen his Plea, in telling us, * c That the Apoftle by Impo- 
 * c fing Hands on 7/wo?/^,Ordained him, an Apoftle or Bijlwp of that Church. 
 We have evinced the folly of this alledgeance, and that the Apoftles im- 
 pofingHands uponTimothyyYd.thcr ftrengthens,than impugns the Presbyterian 
 CaufeJSi'mcQy 1. It is evident, that the Presbytriey(and confequently, Ordinary 
 "PafiorsyWhom the Dr. wholly excluds from Ordination) laid Hands upon 7/~ 
 mothy. 1 Tim.^.\\. and had an Authoritative intereft therein.And 2/p.f hat 
 the Text mentions P*«/ s Laying on of Hands, in order to Gifts ; but 
 the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytriey in another Mould and Phrafe. 
 Hence, its eafie, to cut the Sinews of the Dr c s Arguing with a Notion of 
 irii own, fee down, but afew Lines above. He enquires, cf how could the 
 
 Prophets 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 97 
 
 cc Prophets at Anticch, derive an Apoftolat to Paul and Bariiahas> if they 
 cc had not been of that Character ? Now, I would ply the Dr. with this 
 Counter-query, how could Impofition of Bands, and Authoritative Im- 
 pofition,be performed by Paftors, and Minifterial or Evargeiiflick Autho- 
 rity, be derived by them, together with Vatd, to Timothy, ifVaftors were 
 not of fuch aChara&er,as had anOrdaimngPowei? Here is a Query ; found- 
 ed upon theDr c s own medium, and his Anfwering fatisfvingly the fecond, 
 will clear him in Anfwering the Firft. Hence, what he adds (P.4 38,459.) 
 "" i/is.That through the whole Scripture Hiftory,Or^/»rfm« is performed by 
 c: thofe of the Apoftolick Order, or by fecondary Apoftles, as he calU 
 tc them* doth in this appear groHndiefs: For, here we find the Power of 
 Ordination, fcated in, and exercifed by a Presbytrie. And we have told him 
 and above evinced, that tho we fuppofePW prefent, and impofing Hands 
 with them, it rather confirms, than invalidats our Argument from this 
 place, for P afters and Presbyters Power in Ordination. ]\ot to infift upon 
 die Dr c s recent inftance of Prophets and Teachers Authoritatively Impoiing 
 Hands upon Paul and Barnabas; which (tho not importing a formal Ordi- 
 nation ) yet, confidering the circumftances and context, 'viz. The Per- 
 fens Impofing hands, fiit. Papers and Teachers, the Perfons upon whom 
 they impofed Hands, fciU Apoftles, together t with the end and defign, 
 i. e. their being folemnly fet a part and JBleft, and thus fent out upon a 
 fpecial Legation, its an Inftance ftrcngly pleading ( and as we ufe to fay 
 a major: ad minus ) for a Power of Ordination in V afters, in relation to Or- 
 dinary Church Officers. And whatever may be laid of inftances, as to 
 Ordinary Vapors, inthefe Infant-times of the Church, rare, when extrao- 
 rdinary Officers, fuch as Apoftles and Evangelifts, w r ere exiftent, and 
 their Offices vigent, the Epificpal Authority, fo clearly and frequently, 
 ( as we have proved ) afcribed and apfopriat to Vapors, doth certaiuly 
 includ this Authority of Ordination, as eifential thereunto. 
 
 The Dr. adds, M That if we Confult Primitive Antiquity, the 
 c: beft Interpreters of Scripture, in Matters of Fad at lealt, we Hid. 
 c; will alwiic had, the Power of giving Orders, confined & Li-' 
 c: mitcd to Bijhops. I need not much digrefs to tell hiinj that the after-pra- 
 dice of Churches, is acknowledged in matters orTacr. ( and even by Et~ 
 ]':'.': ;s him'elf ) in a great meafare dark and uncertain, and is alio acknow- 
 ledged, and found much oppofit to Scripture : And therefore, a flippery 
 and unfound ground and Comment, as to Scripture Matter of Fadfc, and 
 in order to fuch a conclufion. I might add, that if the Dr ( s Reafoning 
 hold good, it is in point of Rightist well as in matter of K;tf, the fureand 
 iblc Comment upon Scripture. But for this bold and Univerfal allertion 
 of the Dr's, it is ealily convict of falfchood, bv what is above oilercd. The 
 
 O ' 4* 
 
pS T>r. Scott's Pleadings Chap. V. 
 
 4f&. Council ' oiCartb. Canon 22.Decrees, cc That the Btjhops Ordain not with- 
 <c out the C/ergr. And if we fuppofe this Canon obeyed, there wanted 
 not abundance of conformable inftances. In Cyprians time, the Vapors. 
 had the Power [ manum imponendi^ of Ordaining, Ep. 78. And in aALgypt, 
 in abfence of theBi/k>/>, Ordained alone, as Ambrofe on E/>£. 4. afferts. Be- 
 fides, what is at large made out to this fcope, by our Writers, in reference 
 to the Chorepifcopi, and this for a very confideraye extent, both of time 
 and place. Cyprian Ep. 22. Writing to his Charge, certifies them, u That 
 cc Anrdim was Ordained by him and his Collegues, who were prefent with 
 cc him. And leaft the Dr. ftart at a fuppofition, that Cyprian, called Presbyters 
 his Col/egues, let any perufe Ep. 23. and this will convincingly appear. We 
 have told him before, that Firmilianus faith of them, that Rule in the 
 Church [ quod Baptifandi, manum imponendi & Ordinandi pojfident potefiatem ] 
 and who thefe are, he fhews a little before, viz. ['Seniores & prapojiti, ] 
 We have alfo told him, that Chryfoficm himfelf, was found accufed ( m 
 Synod ad Quarcurn Ann. 403. ) that he had made Ordinations , with the Sen- 
 tence and company cf the Clergy. And in the forecited Council of Carth- 
 age (Canon n. ) it is ena&ed, cc That the Bijhop* t Ordain not without the 
 Clergy. And Canon. 2. Presbyters are enjoined to Impofe hands with the 
 Biffiop. The Authors of Jus Divinum Minift. Evan, in the Appendix, to- 
 gether with Smeclymnm, and feveral other Presbyterian Writers, have exhi- 
 bit fo many clear inftances of this, that we need only refer the Reader to 
 their Learned Labours,for the difcovery of the Drs. folly,in thisAffertion. 
 In theclofe of his difcourfe, upon this point, he tells us, "That this is 
 cc fo undenyable, that tho Jerom equalize Presbyters with Bijhops, yet he is 
 * c forc c t to do it with an [ excepta Ordinatione ] Anf. If we ftiould fuppofe 
 Jerom to fpeak of the general cuftom of that time and place, and neither 
 abfolutely nor Universally, as to the pra&ice or Matter of Fad:, far lefs of 
 of a Divine Right , the Dr c s. undenyable proof is foon overturned,- but e- 
 fpecially its Razed, when we tell him, that Jerom's [excepta Ordinatione~\ is 
 well enough under ftood of the Bifhops ordinarly affumed Chief intereft, in 
 the rituals of Ordination, tho Presbyters ( as is above cleared ) didintruft this 
 to hira, as having a joint and effential intereft in the thing it [elf. 
 
 The next peculiar Miniftry of the Bifiop, which the Dr. affigns, 
 P. 439. is, cc The execution of Spiritual Jurisdiction, viz,, to Cite, examin 
 440.441. "Offences before their Tribunals, to admoni/h the Offender, 
 cc exclud from Church Communion, or receive upon Repen- 
 cc tance. The Dr. difcourfes at large,in proof of a Spiritual jurifdiBion Efla- 
 blijhed in the Church, and proves it foundly from Matth. 18. 16. 17. 18. Ex- 
 pounding that Claufe, tell it unto the Church, of a Delation, in Order to an 
 Authoritative admonition, and from thofe Paffagcs in the context., Jfbene- 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. pp 
 
 gletlto hear the Church Jet him be as a heathen,&c. and that Otl.cr, what foever ye 
 (Ijall bind on Earthy fljall be bound in Heaven, &c. Concluds well a Power in 
 the Church of excluding from, and admiffion into Fellow/hip; Citing that 
 Paralell, Math. 16. 19. I will give unto thee, theKeyes &x. which he alfo well 
 explains by what is (aid. Ifai. 22. 21, 22. anent the Key of the Hcnfe of David 
 i. e. the Government of his Church, committed to our Lord, in the Type 
 of Eliakim's fubftituting to Shebna, who was over the Houfeh Ad. He ex- 
 pounds well, the Keyesofthe Kingdom of Heaven, of the Government of the 
 Church, and the Power of Binding andkofing, of admiftion to, or exclufi- 
 on from Church Fellowfliip. All this is eafily accorded. 
 
 But now comes the main Pointy and the Car do tpieftiovis, cc This P. 442 
 cc Power,faith the Dr, is wholly depofited,in the EpifcopalOrdtr. 
 This is foon faid, but to prove it, hoc opm, hie labor tfi. It were fu- 
 perfluous, here, to remind the Reader, how the Dr. underftandsr^ Epif- 
 copal Order, or how far, in a found Scripture Senfe, of the Epi/copal order, 
 this affertion might be admitted. But to the Point, the Dr. proves his 
 Aflertion, from this ground, that in all the forecited places, it was only 
 to Apoftles, that our Lord derived this Jurisdiction, they alone being the 
 Stewards, to whom he committed the Keyes and Government of his Fa- 
 mily, to whom, alone he promifed Twelve Thrones^ to Rule and Go- 
 vern his Spiritual Ifrael, as the Chief of the Tribes Governed the 
 Natural Ifrael, Math. 19. 28. Upon which ground he tells us, 
 cc that the Heavenly Jerufalem,has the Names of the Twelve Apoftles upon 
 iQ its Gates, Rev. 21. 14. &c And the Twelve pretious Stones, v. 19. 20. 
 cc Do in his Senfe, denote the Power and dignity of the Church. As alfo, 
 fc the 144 Cubits of theWalls Meafure,amounting toTvvelve times twelve, 
 cc he takes to denote the Apoftles equal Government of the Church. From 
 tc all which, the Dr. thrufts out, as his project of the whole,his former No- 
 cc tion and Topick of [ our Lords lodging this JuriJ did ion, in thoje of the Apo- 
 cc ftoliek Order, derived, from the Apoftks~\ which, faith he, was adminiftrat 
 ic accordingly, either by the Apoftles immediatly, or by the Bijlwps of 
 Cf the feveral Churches, to whom they comrnunicat their Order. Avf 
 All this ( in fo far, as relates to the Dr c s fcope ) is nothing but a repetiti- 
 on of what is already Anfwered. I (hall eafily accord with him in this, 
 that, as our Lord placed and left in his Church, a Spiritual J urifdidi- 
 on y fo, his Apoftles, were the Firft and immediat Recipients of this, fom 
 himfelf. I do likewifeconfent to the Dr. in this, that this Spiritual authori- 
 ty, was to be continued in the Church, and Tranfmitted fto fit Admini- 
 strators, and was not to die with the Apoftles. As alio, there isnodoubr^ 
 that they were to deliver our Lords mind, and thcStandart, and <:ominu- 
 ing meafurcs and Rules of all the Ordinances of the lioule of Cod, the 
 
 O 2 Dc&rifl 
 
i oo T)r. Scott^ T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 Doftrin, Worihip, Difciplin and Government thereof, in which Refpec^ 
 they are called the Churches Foundation. 
 
 But in all this, the Dr. has nor laid one Ground-Stone of 
 his proof, which ( as we have often told him ) lyes Chiefly in 
 thefe two Points, i. That the Office of Apoftolat, in its entire na- 
 ture and extent, and as exercifed by the Twelve, was by our Lord, 
 intended for an ordinary Function and Office, to be thus continued in, and 
 tranfmitted to the Church, and devolved on Succeflbrs, who were accor- 
 dingly to exercife the fame Office and Power, ily. That thefe Succeflbrs 
 were'fo invefted with this Apoftolick Power and Office, as they had the 
 whole Government, the Power of Order andjurifdiotion, monopolized in 
 them, in fo far as theP^r/and-Pm^v^appointedandfet up by Apoftles, 
 in the Churches, had only the Doctrinal Key, entrufted to them, but not that 
 *f Government; whereas, both the one and the other, were committed to 
 thefe fuppofed fuccedaneous Apoftles. Now, its evident, that if the Dr. 
 prove not thefe, he fays nothing,- And that both thefe, are unfound and 
 Antifcriptural Suppositions, we- -have alreadyrmade appear, (i.) From 
 the many evidences, and clear Scripture difcoveries, or the extraordina- 
 rie expired nature of the Apoftolick, and Evangeliftick Office. And (2.) 
 From the Apoftles intruding and tranfmitting to Vapors or Presbyters, and 
 devolving upon them, both the Keyes of Do&rin and Government, as their 
 proper and imediat Succeflbrs,- as alfo from clear Scripture Grounds and in- 
 stances, which do evince their actual exercife of the fame. 
 
 • But next, to examin a little more clofely, the Dr c s Proofs, I would 
 gladly know of him, or any of his Perfwafion, whether they do not look 
 upon,and underftand thatText,ik/«tf£.i8. as containing a confiant Fundamen- 
 tal Law and Rule, given to theChrifiian Church Jo prefcrib the Method of removing 
 S'candals, as aJfo, the proper Subject of the Keyes, andJurifdiclionalVower, and 
 of that Power in fpecial, which is called Critick? The Dr. holds, " That 
 4C Chrift here, eftablifhed ajurifditlion in the Church; he alfo acknowledges 
 
 * That theChurch here meant,hath Power of 'Authoritative Admonition, and 
 * x theBinding and LoofrngVower, fince he holds it to be the fame with thatBind- 
 mg and LoofingAuthority,wMch our Lord promifes to Ratifie in Heaven, 
 [John 20. 2;. Matth. 16. 19. He underftands by this Jurifdi&io-n, this Au- 
 thority and Exercife of the Keyes, pointed at, in thefe Paralells: Nay, 
 he acknowledges, P. 443. " That in die Forecited Paftage, Matth. 18. 
 ct our Lord thititm the Power of Cenfuring : And I need not tell him, 
 that Words of btfiitution, of any Ordinance, are the proper Standart and 
 Meafure thereof, and the Pattern (hewed upon the Mcunt. Now, what 
 h meant by the Church, the proper Subject of the Keyes, in the Dr's 
 Senfe and Pleading, is the Queltion. The Dr. will notfay, it is the Po- 
 litical. 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i o i 
 
 litical Magiftrat, as fome have all edged • for he holds, cf That our Lord 
 " fpoke this to his Church, as a diftincT: Society, and having diftinctOrft- 
 fC cers, from the Kingdoms of the World. And whereas, fome have al- 
 ledged, that we are to underftand this Church, of a Jewijh Stnehedrin, the 
 Dr, in the wholeStrain and Scope of his Difcourfe, difownes this, for he 
 after ts, u That in this Text, our Lord is fpeaking to the Chrifiian Church, 
 cc and eftablilhing a Spiritual J urifMclion therein. Neither, can he under- 
 ftand, by the Church, the whole Collective Body, according to the gene- 
 ral Notion of the Word,- for, the Dr, in the Strain of his Difcourfe,makes 
 this Power and Authority, peculiar and proper to Church Officers, as is 
 evident in his Paralells above-rehearfed, and the Church Representative, to 
 be the proper Subject of that Jurifdi&ional Power, here enjoyned. 
 
 Now, all this being evident in his own Pleading ; fince the proper Sub- 
 ject of this Power, is, by cur Lord expreft (who knew beft how to ex- 
 prefs it ) by the Word i*«x»*i« or Church-, I would fain know, by what 
 Warrand, the Dr. can can make this Term, peculiar to cneJfog&VerJbnfvta 
 a Bifljop, fo, as it mud be holden to exprefs his fole Prerogative ? Or, 
 where will he mew, or make it appear, that, in any Greek Author, Sa- 
 cred or Prophane, the Word «xx\i6i* denotes one fingle V erf en* If he fay, 
 that* by the Church, the Community of Church Rulers or BijJjops, is to be un- 
 derftood, viz,, that all Bijlwps in common, and every Biflicp apart, hath 
 this Power and Authority. \Anfver, this, underftood of Scripture Biflwps, 
 or Church Officers in general, and of fuch Church Officers of particular 
 Collegiat Churches, is eafily accorded,- But, if he mean of his Hierarchi- 
 Cd\Bijl)ops inBulk,and of every one offuchapart,he bothBeggstheQueftion, 
 and Croffes the Scope of the Place. For, i. Hovvibever we take the 
 Term «xxh<i* or Church, whether for theGhurchL T niverial, to whom Of- 
 ficers, and a Government, is given immediatly, or for particular Chur- 
 ches, to whom, in a mediat Senfe, the fame Government and Charge i^ 
 given, we muft, cf necellity, underftand it to be given to fuch parts of 
 this whole, as do come under the Denomination, and partake of the Na- 
 ture of a Church, and according to the Dr c s Senfe above-evinced, an Im- 
 bodied Society, or Juridical Court, muft, in that Statute, be underftood, 
 which can never be applicable to zfrngUTfretfin* And belHes, this would 
 invert our Lords Method of Procedure, and the Gradation- here held out 
 and enjoyncd, which is ( as the Dr. himfelf acknowledges ) from one to 
 two, or more, and the laft Refult, and ultima t Appeal, is to the Church 
 or the Imbodied Court tf Officer s.,with whom the Juriuliciionaland .Critical 
 Power is lodged, ily. Granting that this Jurifdicuonal Power, in Order 
 to the firft Planting of Churches, was, for this end, atfnft lodged with the 
 Apoftles, yet the torermentioncd great Rule andiEundamcntal i aw 
 
ioz T>r. Scott's T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 above Senfed, and in a great Meafure, by the Dr. himfelf) will ftill e" 
 vince, that the Apoftles were not to Exercife it, to the prejudice of £the 
 Authority given thereby to the ftanding Officers, and ordinary Authori- 
 zed Courts of the Chriftian Church, unlefs they can be fuppofed to have 
 liad a Power Paramount thereunto : For, wherever a Chriftian Organick 
 Chuch was gathered, by vertue of this Precept, tell the Church, the Scan- 
 dals were to be delated to the Officers thereof, who confequently, accor- 
 ding to the Nature and Tenor of the forefaid Law, are fuppofed to have 
 the Binding and Loofing Power, whatever Apoftolical Authority might 
 reach in Churches not Conftitut, or in way of Apoftolical Direction to 
 Churches Conftitut,as in the Cafe of the Inceftuous Corinthian, yet this was 
 not Privative. of, but Cumulative to b the ordinary Power of Collegiat Orga- 
 nick Churches, as is often told him. 
 
 I might further urge the Dr. with this, that that Paflage, John- 20. 23 
 cannot but be extended to a Doclrinal, as well as J ur if die! tonal Remitting 
 or Retaining, Binding or Loofing, the Do&rinal Key, as well as JurhV 
 di&ional, being Primarly given to Apoftles, to be by them, derived to 
 SucceiTors* Our Lord, in his Gift to Apoftles, divided them -not,- And 
 therefore, neither were the Apoftles to divide them, in Devolving this 
 Power upon, and Committing this Authority ta Succeffors : And fince 
 the Dr. acknowledges, that the Apoftles, by virtue of our Lords Com- 
 million, Devolved upon Paficrs the Do&rinal Authority, and Committed 
 to them that Key, (thus P. 427, 428.) why not, I pray, the JurifdicHo- 
 nal alfa, both being infepara&y tyed together ? Nay, the Dr. himfelf, 
 upon the. Matter yields this, for he tells us, (ubifupra) cc That the Com- 
 cc mand, Go Teach all Nations, Math. 28. 19. did reach Yaflors, as the A- 
 ** poftles Succeflbrs in this Minifterial Duty, and that Preaching, was one 
 cc oithe principal Imployments, belonging to the Apofiolical Office. And if the A- 
 poftles were to commit to Vafiors, one principal part of their Office, why 
 not alfo the lefs principal? Befides, that the Command [Go Teach, or 
 Difcipie all Nations ] will clearlv includ the JurifdiBional, as well 
 P.428. ziDotfrinalKey. The Dr. adds, ( ibid.') Cf That yet this Com- 
 " mand of Preaching, was not reftrained to their Office, fince 
 cff inferior Officers Preacht, as the feventy : Yet he adds, cf That none 
 * c Preacht, but either by immediat Commiflion from Chrift, ©r Apoftoli- 
 €C cal Ordination. But, I pray, were any in his Senfe, other wife allow- 
 ed to exsrcifeDifciplin, but in this method I Why will not the Dr. al- 
 low the exercife ofDifciplin to the Seventy, and fuch aMiflion of Rulers, 
 confequently ? For Timothy ( whom, together with the Seventy, he pro- 
 bably Judges, to have held, an Evangeliftick Office ) he pleads, had Au- 
 thority., both, to Te^ch and Rule : And the Teachers, M. 13. he 
 
 holds 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. ro^ 
 
 holds to be Bijhofs; So, that in his Senfe, Government being annexed 
 in thefe inftances thereunto, the Lord did extraordinary call, in thefe 
 times of the Church, fome perfons, who were not Apoftles. Therefore^ 
 his Reafon is infufficient to prove, that the Power of Government and 
 Preaching, being Eminenter, contained in the Apoftolick Office, they did 
 not commit the Ruling Authority tofuch, to whom the Preaching work was 
 intrufted. Once more to refied upon the Pallage, tell the Church, we 
 will find our Senfe and Pleading, correfpondent to judicious Interpreters 
 Die Ecclefa, is, coram mult is, inquit liber Mufar.**** wnjufiinus. And that 
 theperfonmay have a punifhment infli&ed of raany^ 2 Cor. 2. 6. and 
 the rebuke may be before all. 1 Tim. 5. 20. And that the perfon Offending 
 raa y be moved by the content and multiplicity of thofe rebuking him : 
 So Grotius, who mews us, that it was the practice among the Jews, after 
 the m ore privat admonition, to bring the Matter to the Multitude ti* 
 «««£«x*tf to the Court ofJudges,who have the Power of binding and loofing, 
 as diftind from the multitude ; Thus Camero y Simmachns, Beza. To the 
 Prabytrie, reprefenting the Church, whereof mention is made. 1 Tim. 4. 
 14 V if cat or, Beza, Camero : And thefe whom Paul cal's t*j irix\«f 2 Cor. 
 2. 6. 
 
 But to proceed with the Dr, he tells us next, u That none, P. 442.' 
 et but fuch as are of the Aopoftolick Order, can pretend 445, 
 cc to the J urijdiclional Power, fince it was Firft lodged in the A- 
 " poftles, and by them immediatly exercifed, or by the Bijhops of the (e- 
 " veral Churches, to whom they communicat their Authority and Order. 
 But one mould think, that fuch to wh:m they committed the Chief and 
 principal part of their Office, as they did to Pafiors, by the Dr f s Confeflion, 
 to fuch they did commit their Order, in fo far, as unto ordinary fucceed- 
 ing Officers, and that together with this, the other fubfervient part of 
 Ruling, was alfo committed; both Keyes, being in their Nature, as above 
 hinted j fo infeparably connected: And he cannot give one inftance of the 
 Apoftles giving the Firft to SucccefTors, without the Second : Nay, the 
 inftances are clear of their committing both to Pallors. The Elders or 
 Minifters of Epbefut, arc entrufted by theApoftlePW •ticx«tu».Sc »•«/*■••«'••» both 
 to Feed and Rule, as Biflwps Authorized by the Holy Ghaft, over that 
 Church, which command, is by the Apoftie laid upon them, when tak- 
 ing his laft farewell of the fame, and not a word is dropt by the Apoftie, 
 of either the one or the other to Timothy, their alledged Bijlwp. The A- 
 poftle Peter enjoins the Elders, as their Fellow-Elder, to Feed and Rule, 
 and exercife Epifcopal Authority over the Flocks: A clear Dcmonftration, 
 compared with the proceeding Inftances, that thefe Elders and Minifters 
 were the Apoftles proper and immediat Succcflbrs, in both Offices of 
 
 Tefiohing 
 
ro4 *Dr. Scott's T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 Teaching and Ruling. So, that the Dr. may here fee, in this Scripture" 
 Glafs, the Portraiture, the clear Image of the Scripture-£//fo?;>, and th^ 
 Authentick and OriginalChara&er of the Office of thefe Pafiors and Bifiwf 
 cf the Churches, to whom the Apoftles committed the Preaching and Ru- 
 ling Work, viz,, the Preaching Pafiors or Presbyters. Shall I add a Cauti- 
 on, and acknovvledg to the Dr, they were not the Bifhops of his fuppofed 
 •Order, fince the Apoftle difchargcd them to be Lords; becaufe, in thefe 
 iimple times of Chriftianity, the Apoftles themfelves, were rude, and not . 
 vet acquaint with theGrandure of Spiritual Lords andLordfinps, in theHoufe 
 of God. But leaft the Dr, do think this odd, that I do hold the Work of 
 Preaching, and Adminiftration of the Sacraments, an higher Point of Epif 
 copal Authority, than Ruling, at leaft, if I may add, only Ruling, which he 
 knows, the Bijhofs arrogat to themfelves folely, not medling much with 
 the nrfr, and that I hold the Governing Power, to be appendant upon, and 
 confequent unto the Power of Order , in Preaching and Adminiftrating the 
 Seals of the Covenant,- I muft tell him, that if this be an Errour, A great 
 one has led me into it, and one of the Dr c s moft eminent Primary Bijlwps, 
 who, I am fure, had a Divine Authority for his Office, and an Infallibi- 
 lity in Teaching befides,* It is even the great Apoftle of the Gentiles, who 
 .gives to Timothy this Precept, [ The Elders that Rule well, count them -worthy 
 of double Honour, especially they that Labour in the Word and Dcclrin ] wherein, 
 it is evident, the Apoftle allows the Labouring in the Word and Dodtrin, 
 zhc higher Honour, above Ruling, yea and Ruling well. 
 
 But to prove, that the Apoftles committed this Jurifdiclional Power on- 
 ly to the BijJwps of their Order, the Dr. brings fC thelnftance of Pauls pro- 
 
 cc nuncing the Sentence of Excommunication againft thelnceftu- 
 P.443. cc ous Perlbn, 1 Cor. ^. mewing that he, as prefent in Spirit, had 
 
 cc Judged, i. e. faith the Dr, pronunced Sentence, concerning him 
 Ck who had done that Deed: And v. 4, 5. he orders them, to declare and 
 c * and execute his Sentence. But, that the Current of the Context runs 
 Oofs to the Dr c s Pleading, is feveral ways evident. For, 1. The Apo- 
 ftle blames this Church, that this Sentence was not patted before, and that 
 .they faved him not the Labour of this Prefcription or Appointment, in 
 .performing their Duty, Antecedaneoufiy thereunto. It is evident, he 
 checks them, that this Perfon, was nor by an Ecclefiaftick Cenfure, of 
 fuch a Nature, as is here mtimat, put jiway, and taken from among them, v. 
 a. ily, He writes to them to do it, and this, as an A6t of their ordinary 
 Authority, proper to them, as Church Officers, viz,. Authoritatively 
 to deliver to Satan, and that, when by the Authority of our Lord, they 
 were mett together,- the Body of ProfeiTois, being alfo concerned in a 
 Confent to this Ejection. And therefore, they were not to meet merely 
 
 to 
 
Chap. V. F<?rEpifcopacy, Examined. 10? 
 
 to Declare or Witnefs, what the Apoftle had done before. j//, He thus 
 expoftulats, v.12,. Do not yejudg them that are vjithinl A convincing Proofi 
 that they had Power to Cenfure all, that were within that Church, by an 
 Intrinfick Authority, proper to them, as Officers thereof. 4/7, He calls 
 this Act or Sentence, 2 Cor. 2. 6. A Cenfure or Punifhrnent, inflicted of many, 
 viz,, the Church Officers, not a Declaration of his previoufly paffed Sen- 
 tence. I hope the Dr. will not fall into fuch a blunt Conceit, as to make 
 one and the fame//$e Declaration of a Sentence, pafied by another , and the for- 
 mal Faffing of a Sentence, or Inflicting of a Cenfure or Punifiiment, which if done 
 warrantabiy, as is here fuppofed, doth neceffarly import Authority in the 
 Perfons Acting. Inflicted of many, fays the Apoftle, /. e. Not by all the 
 Multitude, as Independents Judge, nor by one Perfon or Bi(Iiop y as the Dr. 
 Dreams. As for his Expounding Pauls Judging this Perfcn Cenfureable, 
 to be his Pronuncing Sentence, it is a very grofs Diftortion ; For, Paul, as 
 an Apoftle, infallibly Infpired by virtue of his Apoftolical Directive Au- 
 thority, and in fpecial, as having the Care of the Gentile Churches upon 
 him, 2 Cor. 11. 28. had Power to Direct and Prefcribe Duty to either 
 Members or Officers of any Churches. And therefore, if the Dr. will 
 draw this Act to Exempli fie Epifcopal Authority, he draws upon himfelf 
 two grofs Abfurdities, 1. That Paul had, and Exemplified a ftanding 
 lawful Epifcopal Authority, wherever fuch Prefcriptions were exercifed, 
 and to whomfoever they could reach ; And this Reaching over all Chur- 
 ches, his Care being thus extended ( as is above cleared J the Dr. makes 
 him a ftanding Primat, and Patriarch over them, Exemplifying a fort of 
 Patriarchal Primacy, to beTranfmitted in the Church, ily, That his A- 
 poftolick Prefcription, of the Duties of Church Officers, was not Cumu- 
 lative unto, bat Privative of whatever Authority andlntereft in Govern- 
 ment, they might acclaim, or in the Exercife of the Power of Orcer. 
 And thus, fuppofe the Bijliop of the Dr c s Mould, fet over the Church of 
 Corinth, had neglected his Duty (as thefe Officers, are here found faulty* 
 in this point ) Pauls Apoftolick Direction, in the Dr f s Senfe and Pleading, 
 nullifies his Power, and proves he had none: Or, fuppofing ^nArchivp:ts y 
 or negligent Minirter, had needed his Apoftolical Direction, to perform 
 fuch Acti of the Power of Order, as were proper to his Function, Pauls 
 Prefcription of Duty, by the fameReaf.n, fwallows it up, and makes it 
 null. Certain it is, that neither could the Apoftlcs divert themfelves of 
 this directing Power, of Judging upon neglect of Duty, which had been 
 a diverting themfelves of their Office, nor can they be fuppofed, without 
 the groiTeft Confequences, (hiking at the Root of all Church Authority, 
 to have, by their directing or judgingPower, cxauctorat fuch, to w hom 
 the Directk-n Wu$ given, of their Power and Intereft, in their refoefiivo 
 
 P Dudes, 
 
ioo Dr. bcottsr leadings Chap; V * 
 
 Duties, whether as Members or Officers of the Churches. Tool. Anot 
 Vol. 2. Expound this 4th. v. of the Power and Authority of Chrift, con- 
 curring with them, while gathered together. And upon v. j. Expound- 
 ing the delivering to Satan, of Excommunication and cafting out of the 
 Church; They give this Reafon, [ becaufe the Apcfile /peaks of an ABion, 
 ovhich might be, and ought to have been done, by the Church of Corinth, when 
 they mett together, and for not doing of which, the Apcfile blames them ] Thus 
 clearly Aiferting the Intrinfick Authority of the Church Officers of Corinth 
 herein, and upon the fame Grounds, which we have Aligned. To the 
 fame Scope, do the Belgick Divines, Expound this whole Paffage, paralel- 
 ling it with the great Precept, A&attL 18. 1^-. Both upon v. 4, L & 5. and. 
 upon 2 Cor. 2. 6. touching the Subject of this Jurifdidional Ad, viz* That 
 it was Inflicted of many, they Expound of Church Governours or Officers. 
 Diodat. upon Chap. ?. v. 4. thus Senfes the Words, cc That they were to 
 * c perform this,as theLords Minifters,by Authority received fromChrift,and 
 <x that theCommandisdireded to the Paficrs and Conductors of the Church, 
 cc being gathered together in Ecclefiaftical Judgment, having the Apofties 
 * f Declaration, inftead of his Voice and Voteo. And to obviat fuch a No- 
 tion and Fancy, as that of our Dr. upon this, he adds, " That this was,. 
 <c without doing any prejudice, to the ordinary Minifrry of the Church 
 cc of Corinth : And that Paul ufes his Apoftolical Power Modeftly, only to 
 * c excite the other, (viz. the ordinary Power ofPafiors) and to ftrengthen 
 €C it. And he Expounds v. 7. not only of Purging out this InceftuousMan, 
 cc but all fuch Scandalous Kind of People, who by their Infedion, might 
 €C plunge again into the Ancient Corruption, &c. And upon. v. 12. Do 
 mot ye Judg them, that are withinlHc fays, " That it is certain, that a Judge 
 cf cannot exercife his Jurifdidion, but only over thofe, that are within 
 €C his Precind, and fubjeB to his Tribunal — Clearly Averting a Spiritual 
 Tribunal, in this Reprefentative Church. To the fame Scope, he Ex- 
 rounds the 1 aft: verfe. The Englijh A.nnot. upon v. 2. of this Chap, in Cor- 
 refpondence to the Expofition and Anfwer premifed, and in Oppofition 
 to the Dr f s Reafoning, do Ihew, cc That the Apoftle finds fault with the 
 tf Corinthians, for that they had not Excommunicat this Inceftuous Perfon, 
 *f before he had Wrote unto them, and Charged them fo to do, becaufe 
 vc the Fad was Notorious, and the Church Scandalized. And upon v. 4. 
 ( which mentions the Power of Chrift,) they fliew, cc That the Power of 
 *' f Excommunication and Abfolving is Chrifts, and the Miniftry thereof 
 * c only Committed to the Governours of the Church. And the delivering 
 m Satan,mentioned v. 5. they Expound by that Paralel,Afc//i. 18. 17. We 
 need notfpend time, in multiplying Inftances of Sound Expofitors, in op- 
 joJitiojuo the £)r/s Sfflie of this phise.. That there is here, an AUufion 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 107 
 
 to the Jewifi Synagogue,is the Confentientjudgment of the learned, viz,, m 
 their Wav of Excluding and cafting out the Scandalous: This Grctir'^I- 
 Hammond, Simpticim, Vifcctor, Bez,a s &c. Pareus, Paralelling, v. c. with 
 2 Cor. 2. 6. fhews, that the fame Perfons, are Authorized to Comf:rt and 
 forgive him, who infiicled theCenfure, viz. the Church Officers. What 
 we have faid, might be further improven, from the end of the Adion, 
 which was the purging out the Old Leaven, and taking the Scandalous 
 Perfon from among them, and the Chara&er oftheCenfure it fe!f, cal- 
 led a Funijhment inflicted of Many, in Oppofition to the Dr f s Deiign and 
 Argument. But the thing it felfis obvious,- And therefore we proceed. 
 
 The Dr. Adduces next, PaaVs Threatningwof to [fare. 2 Ccr. 
 13. But to proceed with Ecclefiaftick Cenfures,- And his menti- P. 44;.' 
 oning Two or Three Witneffes, to eftabliih every word 5 accord- 
 ing to the Words of our Lord, when he Inftitute this Power of Cenfuring 
 Matth. 18. And v. 10. of 2 Cor. 13. Threatning Severity, according to 
 the Power given him, to Edification,- And to come -with a Red : He muft 
 needs,faith the Dr,mean Apoftolical Cenfures and Excommunication,to be 
 Execute, and Performed in his own Perfon,-in which Refpecfc.he delivered 
 Hereticks of the Church ofEpbefus to Satan, 1 Tim. 1. 2c It is Atifivered, 
 Firft, all this is eafily removed, by the often Adduced Diftinciion, ofthe 
 Apoitles ordinary and extraordinary Authority, and of a Cumulative and 
 "Privative Exercife thereof. Altho the extraordinary Pcwer,up.n fit Emer- 
 gents, fuch as, either the fupine Negligence of Ordinary Church Officers, 
 or the more endangering fpread of Offences, or obftinacy of Offenders, 
 or a defect of the ordinary Church Officers, in whom this Power was 
 Lodged and Seated, was alvvife in readinefs, and to be Exercifed for 
 the Churches good and Edification,- yet neverthelefs, this Exercife ( as 
 we have often told him ) was never exclufiveof, nor derogatory unto the 
 Churches ordinary JntrinfickAuthority. nor, (except in Cafes mentioned) 
 or Extraordinary Emergents, without the actual Concurrence of the ordi- 
 nary Churn Officers. And if, as the Dr. fay?, the Apoftle here infinu ;> 
 a method of procedure, fukable to our Lords i.nftitution. Matth. 18. It 
 could not be otherwife. Befides, he Threatens this feverity, as a proof of 
 his Apoltolick Power, 2 Cor. 13. 2. which feme undeiftar.d of his Miracu- 
 lous Power, to inflict Bodily Arrliclions : Others, of his Power to cut of£ 
 from the Communion of the Gofpcl Churches; thus V00L Annot. Andifthe 
 Dr. will allow, that by mentioningTwo or Three WitnefteSj he ties him- 
 felf to the Method of procedure, which our Lord Inftitute, Matth. 18. he 
 muft by Parity ofReafon, allow the other, part of the lnftitution, touch- 
 ing the Juridical or Cenfuring Church, to have its own place thciein : 
 And that Confequently, the Apoirle was to take/along the Authoritative 
 
 P 2 con- 
 
10S T>r. Scott'sTleadings ^Chap. V. 
 
 concurrence of the Church Officers oiCorivth, in this procedure. But the 
 truth is,he quite miftakes the PafTage,- For, in thatClaufe oiTivo or Three 
 WitneJJes, the Apoftle Intiniats only, the certainty of his coming the Third 
 time: He had taken up thoughts of, and was preparing for his Journey, 
 and giving them previous warning of his coming, he alludes to that of 
 Deut. 19. 15. to afcertain them thereof accordingly ,• Thus Pool Annot. and 
 Interpreters generally : He had been at Corinth once AB. 18. Afterward, 
 he had twice purpofed and promifed to come ,• once, in the 1 Ep. Chap, 
 16. y. And now again here ,• And then he adds., in the Mouth of two or three 
 Witnejfes, 8tc. Thus Belgick Annot. Diodat. thus fenfes this Claufe., in the Mouth 
 cfTwo or Three Witnejfes, &c. The meaning is, faith he, thele "Three 
 ctr warnings of my coming flial be, as fo many Witneffes, by which (if 
 cc ye do notamend, ) you mall be fufficiently convinced of incorrigible 
 f c Rebellion, to proceed to afentence, already penned 2 Cor. 10. 6. \_cum 
 jam his terve id dixerim, tandem ratum erit~\ thus Grotius. As for the Apo- 
 ftles threatning fharpnefs ofCenfure, v. 10. And his Apoftolical Rod 1 Con 
 4. 21. It receives die fame Anfwer, by the forementioned diftin&ion of 
 the Apoftles ordinary and Extraordinary Power, and the cumulative and 
 privative exercife thereof. And if the Dr. will not take this from me, 
 may I hope, he will from a far greater : The Learned Junius , in Anfwer 
 to Bellarmin, pleading much to the Dr c s Scope and Senfe, from this Paf- 
 fage of the Apoftle — Shall I come unto you with a Rod} offers the fame di- 
 cc ftin&ion ( De Concil. lib. 2. Cap. 16. ) of the Ordinary and Extraordina- 
 €: ryRod \_fecundum illam, &c.~] According to the common ordinary Rod, 
 < faith he, "Peter was a fellow Presbyter, 1 Pet. 5*. but according to the fin- 
 c gular and extraordinary, he ftroke dead Ananias and Sapphira. He adds, 
 t; in refped: of this common Rod, Paul faith, 1 Cor. y. Ton being gathered 
 ''together, a?id my. Spirit, in the Name of the Lord Jcfus ; But, as to this fin- 
 £ ' gular one, he faith, Shall I come unto you with a Rod} 1 Cor. 4. 21. This. 
 cf common Rod, he denyes, to have been, in the Hand of any one Man, 
 Cf whether Apoftle or other, or that they had any fole or lingular Prero- 
 cf gative, in Churches conftitute. Grotim and others, do here take in the 
 ** lame, which Junius mentions of the extraordinary ftroke, either the in^ 
 * c fiicling of Death, as upon Ananias and Sapphira, or Blindnefs, as upon 
 * f Elymas; orDifeafes. The Belgick Divines, joy n together, the Exercife 
 (K of puniihment and Difcipline, in this Claufe. While I have been men- 
 tioning Junius, Imuft upon this occafion, mew, that in oppofition to the 
 Dr c s. Pleading, in Relation to Succeifor- Bijhops to Apoftles, by Teftimo- 
 jra of the. Fathers, Junius will tell him (De Clerlcis Cap. 14. Not.. 15:.) that 
 this is not to be underftood of a Succeffion from Chrifts Inftitution [ ^»/> 
 wn%wm infiittuf Cbriflw Ht /4poftoI?s fecundum vgradum in Ecclefia Succederetur J 
 '"" Chrift 
 
Chap. V. tor Epifcopacy, Examined. i 09 
 
 Chrift never appointed Succeffors to the Apoftles, according to Degree • 
 And that the Fathers underftood it of a Succeflion [ cxfimili, non ex pari ] 
 of fimilitud, not Parity; And a fimilitud Secundum quid, or imaginary, ac- 
 cording as BiJJjops^wQrQ then Moulded. The fame Anfwer and di- 
 ftindion above Rehearfed,fervesfor what he Adduces of Pauls de- ibid. 
 livering Hymenals and Alexander to Satan, i Tim. r. 20, And 
 that this is the Senfe of Sound Divines, appears, in that this is made Pa- 
 ralel with 1 Cor. ^. wherein the Apoftles Extraordinary Authority, is by 
 them diftinguifhed from the Churches Ordinary Power. 
 
 As for his further Proof, from the Apoftles deriving this Spiri- 
 u tual Jurif diction to Timothy and Titus, the pretended Bifiops of P. 444." 
 cc Efbefus and Crete, and their fuppofed fingular Authority and 
 cc Cenfures, and Judicially Cognofcing upon Ecclefiaftical Caufes, which 
 rc he draws from thefe Paftages. 1 Tim. <r. 19,20. Tit. 3. 10. We have a- 
 bove fpoken to it at length, and provenfully, that the Evangelirrick Fun- 
 ction of them both, who were fixed to no particular Pods, together with 
 the clearly fuppofed Power of Church Judicatories, whenEftabliihed ( as 
 is evident in feveral Paralells ) and of the fuppofed Concurrence, confe- 
 quently of ordinary Officers with them, in the Nature and Scope ofthefe 
 very Inftru6lions themfelves, doth clearly eve this Pleading. For what 
 he adds of theCenfuring Power of the Angtlsoi Efbefm and Thyatira, Rev. 
 2. What we have made already good cf the Collective Senfe of the word 
 Angel, and the Infufficiency of admitting him,to be afingle perfonor Pre- 
 fident, to bear the weight of his Concluiion, difcovers the Vanity of this 
 his Repeated Notion, in this place. 
 
 The Dr. adds, that the Bijhops of the Primitive Ages, were P. 444, 
 the fole Administrators of Spiritual Jttrifdittion. This we have 44J. 
 above, convict of untruth. And whereas he tells us further, 
 that they ordinarly admitted their Vresbytcrs Concurrence for Advice; we 
 have made appear, that their Concurrence, after Bijlwps were fet up, yea, 
 and by Confeflicn of Bifiops themfelves, was Authoritative, not 
 for Advice only. The Dr. will needs hzvcCyfrian to challenge a P. 445-. 
 lingular Authority of Excommunication (Et>. 38, *y.) But,if he 
 will not fet him by the Ears with himfeli (Ef. 6 3 18, 28. ) where he 
 profeffes, he neither could, nor would do any thing, without the Clergj, 
 and ( Ep. 78. ) where he iliews, that Vresbyters, had the Power of Impo- 
 sing Hands, and of Ordaining; and unlcfs alfo, he can difprove what is 
 made good ancnt their Ordaining atone, especially in *y±gypt, in abfence of 
 the Bi[hop, what we have touched anent the Chorepifcopi, their Authority 
 and Power herein, which is at large made good by our Writers, the Dr. 
 muft acknowledge that he miflcs his Mark, in this Citation, Cyprian alio 
 
iio v T>r. Scott'x T leadings Chap. V. 
 
 is fo far from challenging a Cathedral Authority of file Cenfuring ( as the 
 Dr. wou'd make him) that (Epifi.7,7,.) heownes the Presbyters ^as his Colkgues, 
 even in the Point c& Ordination, and difownes any fuch ufurped Authority. 
 In the Ordination of the Confeffor Aur elirn, he thus expreffes himfelf \_hunc 
 igitur jratres dikclijjlmi, a me & a Colleges qui prefentes aderant ordinatum fcia- 
 tis ] Thus alfo ( Ep. 58. fpeaking of the Pafiors ) he expreffes himfelf [E- 
 go & College & Vr at emit as o?nnis'] And ( Ep. 6. ) /hewing his earned de- 
 fire to meet with th$Tapm> while abfent from them, he gives thisReafon 
 \_ ut ea qua circa Ecclefia gubernacula utilitas communis expo ft it, traBare fimul ejr 
 plurimorum examinata I'm are pcjjemm ] And fpeaking there, of the turbu- 
 lencv of fome perfons, he fays, they were fuch, as [nee a Diaconis nee a 
 Tresbyteris regi pope, &c.~\ Upon which, Pamelim has this Note [ hinc non 
 ebfeure cclligitur *</;&«£ Carthagini— prercgat'vvam illamPresbyterorum &DiacG- 
 norum primitive Ecclefia, qui communi totius Presbyterii. i. e. Presbyterorum & Di* 
 acomrum collcgii. ccr.fdio adminifirabantur omnia abEpifcofis~] Citing thereafter, 
 JgT^itf/sEpiiHe to the 7n?///^,wherein he enjoins Subjection to the Pafiors 
 or Presbyters, as to the Apoftle of Chrift. And leaft the Dr. alledge, this 
 imports no more than a CcnfultiveVowev, Cyprian (Ep.iS.) having men- 
 tioned what was written by Lucian, in name of the.Confeflbrs, which they 
 defired to be communicat to the Presbyter s y and (as he expreffes it) [per 
 me colUgis omnibus innotefcere'] to be by him made known to his CoUegue-Pres- 
 hyters,\iQ adds[qua res, cum omnium nofirum concilium & Sententiam fpetlat, pra- 
 judicare ego & fill mihi rem communem vindicare non ^«i^]Thereafter,he /hews 
 that having fen t Letters of Copies to many Collegues, he had an acquiefcing 
 Anfwer in this his purpofe. To which we may add,whatis above touched 
 o(Cypria?is Judgment in receiving the Lapfed ( Ep. 12. ) and feveral other 
 places ) that the Pafiors or Presbyters had a neceflary intereft therein, doth 
 by neceffary confequence, inferr, that they had the fame intereft in the 
 Sentence, as in the Abfolution. As for the g8 Epiftle, which the Dr. Cites, 
 I find nothing in it, that will conclud what he aiferts, having perufed 
 that Epiftle: That which he feems to take hold of, is, that expreflicn of 
 Cyprian [accipiat fententiam qua?n prior dixit, ut abfie?jtum fe a nobis Jciat~\ upon 
 which Pai'fage, the Annotator uponCyprian, doubts whether he meansEx- 
 communication properly and ftri&ly fo called,or not^or rather,that which 
 we term the Letter, of a Sufpenfion from Ordinances for fome little time 
 £ quo elapfo, faith he, Presbyterium de Contumacia uelPanitentia eorundum judi- 
 cabat, &c.~\ Moreover, fpeaking of Fdkiffimus, he fays to the Presbyters 
 [ cum pcfi hac omnia — nee veftra autoritate & prefentia fi-aclm, &c. J clearly 
 pointing at the Authoritative Interpofing cfthePafiors, in this Matter. And 
 that he does not mean the ftri&er Excommunication, feems by this pro- 
 bable, that fpeaking of feveral Delations of his Crimes, which the Delators 
 
 had 
 
Chap. V. tor fcpiicopacy, tx amine a. in 
 
 had offered to prove, he adds [ qua omnia tunc ccgncfcemns , euando in unum 
 tumCohgis pluribus per mitt ente Deo, convenerfrnus"] which fpeaks his referving 
 a further Cenfure, to a more full Enquiry into the Caufe; yea, and this 
 Enquiry, he will not undertake, but with the Authoritative Concurrence 
 of Presbyters, called by him his CoIIegues. And in the Matter of Augeniks x 
 his Correfponding Guilt with this Felicijfimus , he fays \_Jciat (e in Ecclcjla 
 mbifcum, non e fie Communicator urn ~\ — and \_Scnte?:tiam ferat fi ultra cum co- 
 per fever aver it'] i.e. uponSuppofition of his continued Contumacy: Where- 
 in, it is evident, that no Sentence is palled upon this Pcrfon, as the Dr. 
 alledges; and that in the Cenfuring of bcth, Cyprian fuppofes a neceffary 
 Intereft of the Vaftors ovVresbyters. And the enfuingEpiitle, pointing out 
 the actual Cenfuring of thefe two, with feveral others, not mentioned in 
 the preceeding Epiftle, confirms what we have fetd. 
 
 The Dr. will needs have the fifth Canon of the firft Council of P. 445-. 
 Nice, to fuppofe a Power of Excommunication, to be folely in 
 thePerfonof the Bijhop. But, befides, that the Words he cites, are re- 
 mote from pro ;ing it, the Prefence o£ Presbyters, being therein prefuppo- 
 fed, it is evident, by feveral Teftimonies of Ancient Fathers, as well as by 
 that Act of the fourth Council of 'Carthage mentioned, that Presbyters did Au- 
 thoritatively concur, in Ordination and Cenfures ( for which, fee Smeclym. 
 Seel. 8. and Ritffin. Hijl. Lib. 10. ) SeQCouncil Antioch, Canon ic. Council An- 
 cyr. Canon 13. And determined againft this fole Ufurped Authority of the 
 Bifiop, either in Cenfuring Presbyters, or in Judging the Converfation and 
 Crimes of Church Members, cr in Excommunication or Receiving Peni- 
 tents. We have alfo heard, that the fourth Council of Carth.ige, Canon 2%. 
 condemns the Bijliops Dccifion, unlefs fortified by the Sentence of the 
 Clergy. This is fo evident, that the Dr. is forc c d to clap his Wings clofer, 
 and Correct himfelf, adding, Th at afterward, to prevent Abu fes, in the fourth 
 Council of Carthage, it was Decreed, that the Bi/hop, (bouU bear no Mans 
 Caufe, but in Prefence of the Clergy , and that his Sentence (bculd be void, 
 ttnlefi Confirmed by their Prefence: Well then, to Correct Abufes, iiTuing 
 from his fuppofed Canon of Nice, here is, by his own Confeffion, aCeww- 
 ter-canon, Decreeing the contrary : And where is now his b:ld AlTerrion, 
 cf the Univerful Practice of the Church, founded upon a Divine Inftitu- 
 tion, which Patronizes this fuppofed Power, of the Hierarchical Bifiwp ? 
 And if we may ply the Dr, with his own Weapon and Argument, and 
 prefent to him, aDiih of his own Preparing, how doth he here make a 
 DivincInftitutionComprobat by the Churches Univeifal Practice, a Se- 
 minary of fuch Abufes, as thisComncil found neceffary to remove r Like- 
 wife, how doth this Council, by irs Ccnfure, Laih the fuppofed Pi: 
 $i Cyprian, arid puts among the forc-mentioiicd Abuks, to be necefi 
 
 j-wmoved ? 
 
"iiz T>r. Scott's *P leadings. Chap. V% 
 
 removed ? Ay, but fays the Dr, The Sentence in this Cafe, was the Biflicps, 
 not the Clergies. I Anf-wer, if they were fine qulbus non, in the Sentence, by 
 what Shadow of Ground, can he affert, that it wasfclely the Bijhops ? And 
 we heard above, Cyprian in Exprefs Contradiction to the Dr, Affert, 
 that not the Concurrence only, but the Sentence, is properly the Clergies, as 
 well as his. Moreover, if a Paralel Argument, in Point of Ordination, 
 which the Dr. alfo doth appropriat to the Bijhop, may be Judged valid in 
 this Cafe, as no doubt it is, we have made appear from Canon 2. of the 
 Fourth Council of Carthage, that they Decree in this Cafe, that ( omnes 
 Vresbyteri preftntes manus Juas Juxta mamts Epifcopi fuper caput teneant cum 
 Yresbyter ordinatur ) And the Dr. cannot deny, that ex natura rei, and 
 in the Scripture Senfe, Impofition of Hands, in this Action of Ordinati- 
 on, is Autbcritative, not Confentient only, and fuppofes the Aclors to have 
 this Badge ot the Ordain iag Power, Imean it, in a Minifterial Senfe, as it 
 is competent to all Church Officers. We have alfo told him, that Dr. 
 Forbes, as Learned an Epifccpalian, as our Dr. in his Iran. lib. 2. Cap. 11. 
 c: holds, that ( Nontantum duntaxat ut consentient es (adconfenfumenimfufficiunt 
 cc fuffragia,& plebsetiamconfentit nee tamen eft ejus manum imponere) fedtanyuam 
 <c ordinantes, feu ordinem confer entes,& ex pot eft ate ordinandi hivinitus accept a gr a- 
 <c tiam ordinato hoc adhibit ritu apprecantes ) That not only as Contenting, 
 f e which is proper to the Vulgar, who cannot Impofe Hands, butas Or- 
 * c daining or Conferring Orders, and by a Divine Authority, they do 
 cc in this A&ion or Rite, pray for Grace to the Ordained. Which con- 
 trary Teftimony of our Scottijl) Epifcopalian, not only, in Point of Fad, 
 contradicts the Dr, but from this Rite of Impofing of Hands, concludes u- 
 pon folid Grounds, Presbyters Authoritative Concurrence in Ordination. So 
 that,comparingour Dr c sConceffion,withDr.iw£c?j his Senfe,in Point of Or- 
 dinat ion, &nd with what we have evinced of Pra^mAuthoritativeConcur- 
 rence in Government, in the Senfe of ihcPrimitive Church,the Dr c s Pleadings 
 for the Prelates fole Intereft therein, is fufficiently overturned, yea, and 
 the Inconliftency thereof, with it (elf, difcovered. For what he adds of 
 Cyprian his Afferting, that a Bifljopof his Metropolitick Church, might (pro 
 Epifcopatus vigor e & Cathedra autoritate ) have Chaftifed a Deacon,without 
 Appealing to the Synod : The Dr. has pointed us to no particular place of 
 Cyprian, where this is found: And upon Suppofition of what is clearly fup- 
 poiiblein Cyprians time,anent the Presbytrie theirDeference,and Entrufting 
 the Execution of fomeCenfures,to the Prefident-Bifiop, who had then obtain- 
 ed,fuch a Minut-Matter,astheChaftifingof a Deacon,might\vell fall with- 
 in theCompafs of the thenB///^pjDeputed Authority, which will abundantly 
 Salve this Expreflion,from Wounding Vajlors or Presbyters Effentiallntereft, 
 in Cenfures. and GQVein.ueat, Befides, that Cyprian owning fo clearly, 
 
 ?ns^ 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 1 15 
 
 Presbyters Eflential Intereft. both in Ordination and Cenfures, in the above- 
 mentioned Epiftles, ■'viz,. %y $-8. 75, compared with 12. and 46. doth clear- 
 ly evince, he owned no Uichfole Authority of the Prelat, as the Dr. ailed- 
 ges -, Which is correfpondent to theTeftimony cited ofTcrt. Apol, adv,rf 
 Gentes, cap. ^.Ambrofe Evifiola ad Siagrium. Confidering further, the 
 Smallnefs of the Charge ot Prelats, in the firft Rife of the Epifcopus Prxfcs, 
 who had their Charge, confined oft to little Dorps or Villager, and that 
 the Pronunciation, or Execution of Cenfures or Sentences, was, in a De- 
 ference to the then Bijhops, appropriat unto them, by the Presbyfrie, who 
 ftill retained an Eflential Intereft in Cognofcing upon the Caufe. The 
 forementioned fifth Canon of the Council of Nice, which mentions the Se- 
 paration from Communion by Bijhops of the Province, and by the Bificp 
 from the Congregation, and the Convention of Bijhops of the Province, 
 for Cognofcing upon the Caufe, if Dubious, doth no Whit favour the 
 Dr c s Conclufion, of a Spiritual Jurifdiclion, wholly Seated in the Eiflwps, 
 the Radical Authority ,being ftill, in the Presbyters, or Confiftorial Meet- 
 ings of Paftors. 
 
 The fourth Peculiar of the Bijliop, as diftincl: from a Presbyter, the Dr. 
 
 tells us, is,- c( To Confirm the Baptized, which, after their InftrucVion in 
 
 cc Chriftian Faith, was always performed by Prayer, and Laying 
 
 cc on of Hands, upon which, the Party Confirmed, received the P. 446. 
 
 cf Gift of the Holy Ghoft. Tho, upon the firft Inftitution of this 
 
 cc Impcfitiomextraordinary Gifts followed, as of Tongues, &c. Yet, faith 
 
 f f he, it was not therefore intended as an extraordinary Miniftry, to ceafe 
 
 cc with thofe extraordinary Gifts, no more than Preaching, attended with 
 
 cc thofe extraordinary MiraculousOperations. The Function it felf, can- 
 
 cc not ceafe, no more than that of Preaching ; Becaufe the exttaordinary 
 
 cc Gifts and EffecVare gone, andChrift promifing a continual Communi- 
 
 cc cation of the Spirit to his Church, he muft be fuppofed to continue it, 
 
 <c by this Miniftry of Prayer, and Impofition of Hands, and the ordinary 
 
 cc Operations, the fame way, that extraordinarv were. Hence the Ap^ftle 
 
 cc puts the Laying on of Hands, in the fame Clafs,with Bapti'rx, Heb. 6, 1,2. 
 
 " and makes it one of the Principles of the Dodnne of Chrift : There- 
 
 cc fore, it muft be intended for a Handing Miniftry in the Church. Anf. I 
 
 fliall eafily grant to the Dr, that in the beginning cf the Gofpel, and in 
 
 the firft Apoftolical Times of the Chriftian Church, there were fometimes 
 
 extraordinary Effects, and Eiiicacy of Gifts, attending the ftardiiigOrh- 
 
 ces and Functions, which arc to be continued in the Church, aiid the 
 
 Duties of Prayer and Preaching: As alio, that we have in Scripture, i Xr 
 
 emplihed the Gifts of the Spirit, attending the Impofition fllaids,- As 
 
 likewiie, thap there is an ordinary GonimunjcatLu cf die Spirits Gifa 
 
 CL Mid 
 
V"i4* Dr. Scott's ^Pleadings Chap. V. 
 
 and Graces, In and by Chrifts Inftituted Ordinances. But all this is far 
 remote from the Point in Queftion, and reaching the Dr c s Affertion and 
 Conclufion, viz,. u That Chrift hath Inftitute Confirmation of the Baptized, 
 <c after Inftru&ion, by Imposition of the Hands of a Bijhop, as his fole Vre- 
 cc rogati^vt, and in the Capacity of an Officer, fuperior to a Paficr, in Or- 
 tc der to the Perfons further Confirmation in the Faith. Any, with half 
 an Eye, may difcover, that this has no imaginable Connection, with what 
 the Dr. here offers. 
 
 As for that Text, Heb. 6. it hath no Shadow of a Prcof of what he 
 brings it for. Its true, there has been feveral Comments given of that 
 Claufe of [ Impofition of Hands'] but none of them, favours the Dr c s Fancy 
 and imagined Senfe. Some have taken it, to be meant of a Ceremony ad- 
 joy ned to.Baptifm it felf, for a Sign of Bleffing and Confecration to God. 
 Some have; taken it, faith Diodat, for Laying Hands on fuch Catechumenh 
 as had besn Baptized, for Confirmation of their Faith, or as a Badge of 
 Renewing: their Covenant, in Order to Partaking of the Lords Sup- 
 per: See V00L2.V0I. on the place. Certain it is, the Laying on ©fHands, 
 was either for 'Healing Difeafes, Mark 6. 5-. Luke 4. 4. Aft. 28. 8. Or 
 Communication of Bleffings, Matth. 19. 13, if. Or Communication of 
 the Gifts of the Spirit, to iuch, as were feparat to Gods Service, in the 
 Church, Aft. 6. 6. and 17. 6. and 13. 3. So 19. y, 6. Hence, fome under 
 this Expreflion, take in all the Spirits Gifts, whereby we are Renewed, 
 Increafed, Strengthned and Built up to Life Eternal. See Tool Annot.. 
 The Belgick Divines, underftand it of the Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, in the 
 Primitive. Church, imparted to Believers in general, Aft. 8. 16,17. And 
 cfpecially, in the Inititution of Minifters, in the Church, 1 Tim. 4. 14. 
 Where, this Laying on of Hands is attribute to the Vresbytrie. Dr. Owen, takes 
 this Claufe of Impofing Hands, to import a Defcription of Perfons, to be 
 inftru&ed, in the other Fundamental Principles', but to be no Principle, 
 it felfT He alfo holds, that in thofe days, it did commonly accompany, 
 ©r immediatly follow Baptifm, Aft. 8. 14, 15-, 16. and 19. 6. Withal,. 
 he iliews, that when Baptized Children, gave an Account of their Faith 
 and Repentance, which others had done before they were Baptized, they 
 were admitted to the Communion of the Church, the Elders thereof Lay- 
 ing their Hands on them, in Token of'thtir Acceptation, andPraying for their Con- 
 firmation in the Faith. ( An Account of this Matter,, given alfo, by 
 many of the Learned ) He diftinguiflies a fourfold Impofiticn of Hands. 
 The ; 1. Peculiar to our Lord, in Way of Authoritative Benediction, as 
 when he owned little Children, to belong to his Covenant, he laid his 
 Hands on them. Mark 10. 16. The 2d. In Healing of Difeafes Mi- 
 raculpuffy, Luke 4. 4. Mark 16, 18. The }d t In Setting apart, to 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. Yi^ 
 
 the Work and Office of the Miniftry, i 7/;#. 4. 14. & 5-. 22. The 4,^, 
 InCollation of Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, Aft. 8. 17. and 19. 6. 
 Now, that none of all thefe, comes home to theDr f s Strained Expofitioa 
 of fuch a Ceremony or Ordinance, peculiar to a Bifhop, in theSenie he has 
 offered, is evident beyond all contradiction: For, taking it to import 
 the Spirits Work, in a Figurative Allufion to this lmpofit\on y or for Mini- 
 He rial Impofition, I mean in the Ordination of Paftors,- In both Senfes, 
 it quite rejects the Dr c s Glofs ,• And even taking it in the molt favourable 
 Senfe to his Scope, vis, To import an Impofing Hands upon, and Pray- 
 ing for the Baptized,either atBaptifm it felf generally,or upon the Adult, 
 who were Baptized,it is beyond all contradiction, that in this cafe, it was 
 joyned with that Sacrament, and confequently performed by the Admi- 
 ftrator of that Ordinance: Or admit, that it was an Impofing cf Hands upon 
 Baptized Children, fometime after their Baptifm, when grown up, to 
 give an Account of their Faith, before their Admiffion to the Lords Sup- 
 per, the very Nature of the A dion it felf, doth evince, that in its purer 
 and Primitive Practice, and before Clogged with Additional Corrupti- 
 ons, the thing was performed, by the Elders and Minifiers of the Church : 
 And the Dr. cannot jhew, either from Scripture, or pure Antiquity, that 
 this was peculiar to a Bijlwp of his Cut and Mould. Again, it is a flrange 
 and mod unaccountable Notion, to aftert, that fuch as have Authority to 
 Preach the Word, and Adminiftrat the Sacraments and Seals of the Cove- 
 nant, and in fpecial Baptifm, whereby Perfons are to be Difcipled and 
 brought to Chrift, ( which was the great Commiffion of the Apoftles them- 
 felves ) fliould notwitftanding have no Authority to Adminiftrat fuch an 
 Appendix of Baptifm, and Confirming Rite, as this is fuppofed to be : 
 That fuch, as have Authority to lay the Foundation, can put no Hand 
 to fuch a fuppofed Superftru&ure: Nay, that fuch as have Authority to 
 difpenfe the Sacrament of the Lords Supper,that great Sealing,Faith-Con- 
 firming Ordinance, have no Intereft in theAdminiftration ot fuch a Con- 
 firming Ritual, as this is. 
 
 Befides, in the %d. place, it is eafie to deftroy the Dr c s Argu- 
 ment, with his own Notion and Pleading: He pleads, "That ibid. 
 iC tho the extraordinary effe&sof GofpelAdminiftrations be ceaf- 
 cc ed, yet fuch Fun&ions and administrations continue, as are means of 
 cc the Spirits ordinary influences, Gifts, and Graces,* fince our Saviour 
 tc has promifed to the Church, a continual Communication of his Spirit. 
 Now, dare the Dr. deny a continual Communication of the Spirit, in and 
 by the Miniftry of the Word and Sacraments ? If thefe be to continue, 
 and for thegreat ends of Convcriion, Confirmation, andgrouth in Grace, 
 aad in the i lands of Vaflors, as the proper Authorized Difpenicrs ofthefc 
 
 a i Ordi- 
 
n6 2)r. Scott'j- ^P leadings Chap. V. 
 
 Ordinances, which are the Miniftration of the Spirit, by what Shadow 
 of Ground, car; the Dr. feclud them from any intereft in this his Miniftra- 
 tion of the Spirit ? He tells us, cc that Chrift now Communicats ordinary 
 <f Operations in the fame way, that he did the extraordinary : And he will 
 not deny, that he did Communicat the Extraordinary, by the Word and 
 Sacraments, concredited to all Minifters, I mean in the external Admini- 
 ftrati \n, and why not alfo the ordinary by the fame Perfons and Dif- 
 penfers? 
 
 Again 4/y. The Dr. adds this his fuppofed ftrong proof, and 
 P 447 corroborating Argument, fc efpecially ( faith he ) confidering, 
 f : that this laying on of Hands is placed by the Apoftle, in the 
 cc fame Ciafs with Baptifm. Hence I fubfume, if in the fame Oafs, it 
 muftbefo, as a Principle of the DotStrin of Chrift, as Baptifm is ( fo he 
 calls it ) and as having the fame Authority with Baptifm, as an Ordinance 
 of Chrift, and a mean of difpenfing the fame influence of the Spirit,- And 
 'if fo, how will the Dr. Aflign a Shadow of Diftin&ion, as to the Ad- 
 miniftratorsy and make it appear, that two Ordinances of fo near a Cog- 
 nation, and both Ads of the Power of Order, offuch an Affinity in their 
 nature and fcope,mouldfovaftly differ in tbelnflruments ofAdminifir at 'ion ,that 
 the one is peculiar to the Office of Apoftolat, and a Succeedaneous Vrelat, 
 Forfooth, the other not, but may be Adminiftat by a Vaftor. He tells us, 
 <c The Apoftle put both Ordinances in one Oafs; but the Dr. in this, 
 crolfes the Apoftle, and fetsup, in this refped, Confirmation in die higher 
 Clafs. 
 
 Here, I would offer to the Dr. or thole of his Perfwafion, Ame$m c $ 
 Anfwer to Bellarmins Argument, for this Right of Bifhops: One of his Ar- 
 guments, for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, and of Biflwps, above Vresby- 
 ters y is — [ Soli Epifcopt, ut Ordinarii Mimftri, &c. ] Bifoops only, as Ordi- 
 nary Minifters, can Confirm the Baptized, as alfo Confecrat Temples 
 and Altars, Citing, Aff. 8. Amefius returns him thus the Vrotefiant Anfwer 
 — [De Confecratione Templontm — nonlaboramus, &c] We value not the Con- 
 fecration of Temples and Altars, whited Walls, may<be the fole Confe- 
 eraters of Walls and ftones; but for Confirmation of the Baptized, in fo 
 fer as it feems to have anything of Divine Right in it, and is thus lookt 
 upon, it doth equally agree to Vresbytersand Bifiops : This faith he, may 
 be fufficiently proved from the Canon Law it feif ( Dip, 95;. ) and is e- 
 yinced by this Reafon ofjerom, what is greater than Chrift, or what may 
 be preferred to hisBody and Blood? He adds inAnfwer to that oiAtt. 8. that 
 she Apoftles were no Bijhops, nor fern unto an Ordinary Confirmation 
 (Bellarmin. enerv. To?n. 2. P. (mihi) no ) I need not inlarge upon any 
 deductions frog* this Paffage ; n,or irxlift in flawing the Dx. the Ccrcefpon- 
 
 deuce 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i if 
 
 dence of this Anfwer, with what is above offered. We may adduce ano- 
 ther Venerable Countryman of his, Cart-wright y Anfwering the Rhemijts, 
 Pleading for this Sacrament of Confirmation , from this Text^ tells the Jefu- 
 its, " That the Apoftle means no Sacrament, much lefs Confirmation 
 cc after Baptifm,but by a Trope or borrowed Speech fa Metonymia adjttnc?L\ 
 c< as he calls it ) the Miniftry of the Church, upon which, Hands were 
 <c laid,- which appears, faith he, in that, whofoever believes not, that 
 " there ought to be a Miniftry, by Order, , to Teach and Govern the 
 " Church, overthrows Chriftianity, whereas if Confirmation of Children, 
 cc were a Sacrament, as it is not,- yet a Man holding the reft, and deny, 
 "ing the ufe of it, might notwithstanding, be faved. Upon this Teftimo- 
 ny otCartwright, we may very probably Conceive, that the Senfe, he gives 
 of that PalTage, is the General Sentiment and Judgment of Protectant Di- 
 vines in his Day : And to this Scope, we find many of the later Prcte- 
 fiantDivines expound it, as might be eafily made appear. I need net add, 
 how obvious it is, that the Drs. Opinion and Glofs, hath no fmall in- 
 fluence upon the hardning thzPapifts, who make Confirmation a Sacrament. 
 See for Cart-wrights Senfe of this place, Gomar us, Simplicity fParew, Mr. Dick- 
 [on, Sec. Among whom, Gomarm mews, that the Impofing Hands upon 
 the Baptized, is a Pra&ice later than the Apoftles. But to proceed. 
 
 The Dr. in Confirmation of this his Glois and Conceit, addu- 
 ces the Inftances of fC the Holy Ghoft comming upon thefe of £- thiol 
 " phejus, Act. 19. $-. After Paul laid his Hands upon them: And 
 cc of the Samaritans, Aft. 8. who, altho Preacht unto, and Baptized by 
 cc Philip, and Converted by his Minifty, yet St. Peter, and St. John, were 
 cc fent to lay Hands on them, upon which they received the Holy Ghoft, 
 fc v. 17. From whence he inferrs, that therefore this Miniftry <of Confirma- 
 cc tion, appertained to Apoftles, fince Vhilip a Preacher, a worker of Mi- 
 cc racles, a prime Deacon, and if we may believe Cyprian, an Evangelift, 
 " and one of the Seventy Two, would net prefume to affume it, but left 
 " it to the Apoftles. I Anfwtr in general, thefe Texts are, by the cur- 
 rent of all Proteftant Divines and Interpreters, underftood of the Miracu- 
 lous Gifts of the Spirit, and the apparent extraordinary iigns thereof, at- 
 tending the impofing of the Apoftles Hands,whichin that time and Cafe of 
 the Church, was a proper Badge of the Apoftolick Office -, and therefore, 
 can have no force, to prove an ordinary (landing Ordinance, appropii- 
 at to ordinary Pafiors; Since in this Cafe, the proper fole end of this Acti- 
 on, was the forementioned fpecial effed, which is not now to be expect- 
 ed, and alio the perfons ading, did therein exercife an extraordinary fun- 
 ction and Authority, as Apoftles. Hence this fingular Gift, at this time ex- 
 ercifed, ganao morgue pleaded, as laying a ground tor the ftanding 
 
 duty 
 
u8 XV. Scott sTleadings Chap. V. 
 
 duty of ordinary Officers, than Anointing with Oil, by the Apoftles, 
 which had the Miraculous effed of healing, at that time. Upon the Firft 
 Text mentioned by him, the Belgick Divines do mew, cc that the com- 
 " ming of the Holy Ghoft, upon the laying on of Pauls hands, is to be un- 
 cc derftood of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft,prefently after ex- 
 <c preft. And their Prophecy ing,is by Diodat. exponed accordingly, of afu- 
 pernatural evident Divine infpiration. To the fame Scope, it isexponed, 
 by the English Annotators. And indeed, the Text it felf, makes it 
 fo evident, that none can call it into queftion, and confiderable it is, 
 that they all paralel this place with that Acl. 8. Grotius upon the place, 
 tells us, that [ Baptiz,ati erant ab alio Chrifiiano, Jed Deus ad commendanduvp 
 munus Apojlolicum, non ante iis Spiritm fui dona communicare voluit quam Apofio- 
 lica manus eos tetigijfet ] Thus alfo Simplicius, Camero, and Vifcator Epones 
 this effe&of the Impofing of the Apoftles Hands, withreference to the ex- 
 traordinary influences of the Spirit. Again, in the fourfold premifed Di- 
 vision of the laying on of 'Hands , mentioned in the New Teftiment,- we find 
 only, that the Impofition of Hands, in the Ordination of Vafiors, is that which 
 hath a clear (landing Warrandfand defign; the other three mentioned, 
 having an extraordinary end, not to be now expe&ed. 
 
 But further to urge this, the Dr. fays, " That tho the extra- 
 P. 446. " ordinary effects are ceafed, yet the ordinary infti tut means of 
 <c the Spirits influences remain. Now,, as to this Point of the A- 
 poftles impofing Hands upon the Samaritans ( the Paffage, which the Dr. 
 mainly iniifts upon, and improves ) I would fain know, if he will deny, 
 that thefe Samaritans, Baptized by Philip, upon their profefled Faith and 
 Converfion, which in many of them, no doubt, was real, had not receiv- 
 ed the Spirit, in his ordinary gracious influences ? If they had, then, the 
 the Apoftles Impofing Hands thereafter, he muft grant, was ekher, with 
 a fpecial refped to the forementioned Miraculous evidences of the Spirits 
 Seal, or it was ufelefs, and to no purpofe at all. The Belgick Divines, u- 
 pon ^. 14. of this Chap. Do mew, " That the Apoftles were fent to fettle 
 iC convenient Order in this Infant Church,and ftrengthen them,-And there- 
 fore not merely, for the end of Impofing Hands, as the Dr. alledges,- 
 and upon v. if. mentioning the Apoftles praying that they might receive 
 the Holy Ghoft,they do' thus Paraphrafeit,;wwe// in a vifible and Miraculous 
 manner, as often happened in this Church, Acl. 10. 45-. and 19. 6. 1 Cor. 14. 
 27. for otherwise they had already received the Holy Ghoft, feeing no man can be- 
 Jieve, without the Holy Ghofi, Rom. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 12. 3. Diodat. to the fame 
 Senfe, underftands the Holy Ghoft here, of the external and Miraculous evi- 
 dences of his Grace. Pool Annot. vol. 2. thus Paraphrafes v. 14. as pointing 
 $ut the Apoftles Confirming the Docftrin, and conftituting a Church, in 
 
 , Sfima« 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 1 1 p 
 
 Samaria, by Apoftolical Authority. And the Claufe of receiving the Holy 
 Ghoft. v. 15. they expound of thefe extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, Pro- 
 phecie, working of Miracles, as Chap. 10. 45-. And upon that Claufe, 
 v. 16. \_for as yet he was fallen upcn none of them'] cc They ftiew, that it is 
 " plain, the HoJy Ghoft, is net here meant, as the Author of faving Gra- 
 tc cqs; For fo, he was fallen upon all that did believe, Faith being the 
 cc Gift of God, but he was not yet beftowed, as the Author of thefe extra- 
 "ordinary Gifts 3 mentioned Chap. 2. 38. Tifcator upon this 15-. t\Shews, 
 €c That the Spirit given here, does not denote Sandification, orConfir- 
 cc mation in Grace, but the extraordinary Gifts of Tongues and Prophefie, 
 cc &c as appears from the ufe of this Phrafe, Act. 10. 4^. and 19. & As 
 fl alio from this, that thefe Gifts were confpicuous to Simcn. The Impo- 
 fing Hands, mentioned, v. 17. Dr. Lightfoot underftartds in the fame 
 Senfe [ non Denatat, faith he, dona interna Gratia Sanciificantis at que confir- 
 mantis y omnibus fits ccllata, fed dona extraordinari.i aliquibus duntaxat 
 exhibita ] And <u. 18. which mentions Simons feeing this con- 
 ferring the Holy Ghoft, is Interpreted of his feeing by this vifible fign of 
 the Gift of Tongues, pointing out the Spirits inward Operation. So Chry- 
 foftom, and out of him, Corn.aLapde. From ail which, it is evident, in op- 
 pofition to the Dr c s Pleading. 1. That this Impfition of Hands , was not the 
 fole end, for which the Apoftles werefent to Samar'ui. ilj. that there was 
 no need of it, in order to common Gifts of theSpirit, oran ordinary Con- 
 firmation in the Faith thereby. 3/7, That this Action of Impofing Hands, rn>^*>ry 
 wasafpecialBadg of the Apofiolick Office, and that therein was put forth, 
 an extraordinary Apoftolick OfficialPower, competent to no Ordinary Of- 
 ficer. 4//. That it was put forth, and exerced at this time, in order to 
 fuch a tranfient extraordinary effect, as is not now to be expected, fincc, 
 in that Infant ftate of the Church, it did refpect the Confirmation of the 
 Doctrinof the Gofpel, the Confirmation ofBelievers, and was to be a Di- 
 vine atteftationof the Apoftles Miffion and Authority, in this extraonff- 
 nary manner. All which,cuts off the Dr c s defign and Pleadings from this 
 Scripture. 
 
 And whereas he alledges, cc that an Extraordinary effect, at that time, 
 fC will not prove the Ordinance it felf, to beceafed, no more, than Preach- 
 cf ing, fometimes'attended with fuch effects. I An fiver ^ when the Ordi- 
 nance, or mean, is in Scripture held out. with refpect to ordinary Handing 
 Effects, as Preaching has for its great end, the Faith, Converlion and Edi- 
 fication of Hearers, till all the Elect are brought in, this is true; But when 
 the mean or Action, is in its Circumlrances, foundto be folely, with ic- 
 fpect to an extraordinary end, not to be now expected, and to be perform* 
 cd.by perfonsin an extraordinary OfficCj as a tym/m andBadg thereof, 
 
: ii& T>r. Scott's 'Pleadings Chap. V 
 
 this doth caft the fcales, and mews the Action, not to be irnitable, nor to 
 found, warrand, or exemplifie an ordinary ftanding Duty. 
 
 And whereas the Dr. adds, cc That tho Philip, was a Worker 
 r.447. " of Miracles; yet this A&ion of Impofing Hands upon thefe Be- 
 cc lievers,was not performed by him. It is Jnfwered,Suppok he did 
 Work Miracles, yet in this Cafe and Time, for the greater Honour of the 
 Apoftolick Office, and the Glorious Confirmation or the Gofpel Teftimo- 
 ny by them, who were Honoured to , be its firft Heraulds, and eminent- 
 ly Sealed with the Spirit, for this great End, God would, upon thefe 
 grounds, have this referved to them, who ( as we have heard above ) 
 were fent to fettle convenient Order in this Infant Church, further to 
 ftrengthen Believers, and to give this Church its fit Organick Frame, ac- 
 cording to the Gofpel Rules. 
 
 I mall not ftand to improve an Argument, fome would be apt to bring 
 againft the Dr c s Pleading, wh®. That this Ceremony, as defcribed by 
 liim, feems to encroach upon the Rights and Nature of the Holy Sacra- 
 ment of Baptifm:Only,it is worthy T>f our Obfervation, whichCartwright 
 brings againft the Rbemifis, upon AB. 8. 17. Pleading for the Sacrament 
 of Confirmation, he tells them, cc That they are juftly Charged with In- 
 * c croaching upon the Poffeffion of theHoly Sacrament of Baptifm, which 
 €C Sealing up unto us, not only the Forgivenefs of Sins, but alfo, both the 
 €C Burial and Mortification of the Old Man, and the Refurre&ion and 
 C€ Quickning again of the New Man,- And in a Word, the whole Putting 
 €C on of Chrift : It is manifeft, that this Sacrament of Confirmation, which 
 cc Vaunts it felf of Strength and Courage given thereby,to theVanquilhing 
 tc of the Devil, makes Forcible Entry upon the Due and Right of theHo- 
 €C \y Sacrament of Baptifm. He adds, u That our Lord, in his Care, to 
 * f bring the Gofpel Sacraments, to as fmall a number, as might be, muft 
 cc be fuppofed, rather to Seal many Promifes with one Seal, than one Pro- 
 CQ mife, with many Seals, or one and the fame Promife with two Seals. 
 How far this Pleading of Judicious Cartwright, ftrikes at the Sinews of the 
 X)r c s Argument, upon this Head,, is obvious enough. To this I mall add a 
 Teftimohy , or two.which fully confirms our Pleadings,inOppofition to the 
 Dr. on this Head: The one is,of the ProfefTors of Saumer ( De 5. Fa If. Diet. 
 Sacrat. Thef. 7. P. ( mihi ) 242. [ Si impofilio manuum in eum fimm inftituta 
 fiiit, ut Donor um miraculo forum collationem comitaretur, cejfantibtts illis Denis ceJJ'a 
 re ipfa debuit. Et ft foli Apoftoli ea 'virtute prtediti fuerunt, ut Spirit um ilium mi- 
 raculo forum Donorum autoremfidelibm communkarent^ debuit in eorum perfonis fub- 
 fifiere manuum imponendarum pot eft as ] Thus they 5 in Impugning the Sacra- 
 ment of Confirmation : Adding, " That \s tue Apoitles had no Command 
 " m this Point ( as is moft probable ) h> if they had, the Scripture 1% 
 
 pur- 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i % \ 
 
 " purpofely filent of it. For which they,give this Reafon [ ne ritum iftum 
 cum Sacrament is, quorum inftitutionem nobis difiertijfime tradidit, per per am confun- 
 deremus~]Tht next Teftimony, is ofTurretin, ( part 2. qua ft. jr. De y.falfi 
 Sacram. P. ( mihi ) 6iy. Par. s . 6. ) When he is offering Realbns againft 
 this Baftard Sacrament; his Firft, touches the Adion or Ceremony it felf, 
 thus [ primoy faith he, quia non habet inftitutionem Divinam, ne— quidem ut Jit 9 
 nedum ut Sacr amentum did poffit ] chat there is no Divine warrand for the 
 Acftion and Ceremony it felf, Viz,', of Jmpofing Hands, upon the Baptiz- 
 ed, by a Bifhop, as he has formerly difcribed it, far lefs, than it ought to 
 be'efteemed a Sacrament. His Fifth Reafon is thus. [ Dcrcgat Baptifmo : 
 quia juxta Doctrinam Fontificiorum, fequitur Baptifimum non eifcere nos plane Chri- 
 ftianos cum tamen jam ante Baptiz,ati in nomine Tatris, Filii, ey* Spiritus San£li 3 
 in commnnionem ejus admijft fimrts, & per Baptifimum Chrifto infer amur— fiequi- 
 tur in baptifmo non dart Spiritum Sanctum ad rcbur & augumentum gratis; quafi 
 baptifmo non obfignetur nobis gratia Spirit m Sar.cii corroborans, #que ac fanttifi- 
 cans\ Which is in Summ, that Juftifying, San&ifying, corroborating 
 Grace, being Sealed up in Baptifm, this Ceremony encroaches upon its 
 Nature, when obtruded as a Sacrament. And thereafter (Tar. 6.) Af- 
 ferring, 5 that the very Rite it felf, cannot be fttown from Scripture, he 
 thus Anfwersthe Objections taken from Atl. 8. iy. and *9- 6- which are 
 our Dr c s grand proofs [ Apoftoli quidem adhibuerunt x 1 ^**^** fit* manuumim- 
 pofitionem (Act. 8. if. & 19. 6.) Sedcum id faclum conftet invifibili difipen- 
 fatione Spi/itus Sancli pro Ecclefia nafcentis conditicne, & quidem ex promiffio Speci- 
 ali clarum eft ritum extraor dinar ium, ecque temper arium J 'olum fiuiffie , cujus ufus una) 
 cum aliis miracuUs dcfiit ] Adding upon the Text further, in Confirmation 
 of this. 1. cc That the Spirit, in this extraordinary manner, tothofeal- 
 cC ready Baptized, confequently fuch as were made partakers of his 
 "common operations, Act. 8. 16. ily. That the Spirit is faid mvivtuv 
 cc illabi & irr nere. v. 9. Which is proper to the Spirit of Prophelie, not of 
 cc Sanclificatim,- as alfo, Act. ic 44. 46. He is laid to fall upon them, 
 cc fo that they fpoke with Tongues : Adding, that ic is not unufual in 
 " Scripture to reprefent extraordinar and invifible Gifts, by the name of 
 c *the Spirit iimplely, as AH.K). doth prove againft Bellarmin. Spalatenfis ( de 
 Repub. Lib >. bap. ). Num. 10.) proves from a multiplicity of the Anci- 
 u ent Fathers, that for feveral Ages, the Ceremony of Confirming, was 
 iC a Ceremonial Rite of Baptifm it felfyiOtdiftinA from it. Remarkable is 
 that oijerom advtrfm Luciferiamtx, 4i That Cmfirmatim by the Hands of the 
 " Bishop, is a Ceremony belonging to Baptifm [Ita tamen s faith he, 1 
 que necefj r aria fit, ntque quicquara ilia Per fe jpirittialitcr tfiiciat, fid quod ei a qui- 
 bufdam tribui filet ut Att Spiritum Savctr.m, id tot urn ferfecJiJJime haberi in fvh 
 Baptifmo, Uge tamen Ecclefiaftica ea?/t adkibtre propter filum homrem quen.hm 
 
 R txttt- 
 
liz Dr. Scott c j T leadings Chap. V 
 
 externum Epifcopalis Dignitatis ] So, that in ftead of any Spiritual ufe, J e ~ 
 rom makes it an empty Badg of Epifcopal vanity. The Learned Bucer, i n 
 his Cenfure of the Book of the Englifij Liturgy, doth at Large jhew, the 
 unfuitablenefs of this Ceremony, to the ends for which it is pretended, 
 or the fuppofed Primitive Patterns. And we rind it largely paralelled, by 
 Didoclavitts, with the Popijh Confirmation, both inrefped of the fuppofed 
 Grace which it gives, the Sigmand the Words adhibit therein, the Admi- 
 niftrator thereof,^. (P. (mihi) 35-8. 35-9. 360. 361. &c. ) who alfo gives 
 proofs from Antiquity ,that this was not alwife referved to the BiJhop,even 
 when this Ceremony had obtained in the Church^ThusP.^g.C^mw Epifi. 
 ad Jnbajanum, afferts the Cuftom of offering fuch, as were Baptized, 
 to fuch, as he terms Prapofiti, in order to their Prayers, and laying on of 
 Hands with Prayer : That by Vrapofiti, he means in general, the Mini/lerr 
 of the Church, and not the Bijhop, is clear by many Paflages of Cyprian, 
 particularly Epifi. 3. Tar, 1. and Epifi. 69. Var. 4. where he calls the 
 Succeflbrs of the Seventy Difciples, Prapofitos, as well, as thefe of the 
 Apoftles : So, likewife Epifi. 62. Par. 1. and Epifi. 65. Par. 4. Thus alfo 
 Epifi. 21. Par. 3. The Confirmation he fpeaks of, in the Firft Paftage Cit- 
 ed, is that ufed in the Apoitoiick Church, for the giving of the Holy 
 Ghoft, for which, he Cites AS. 8. 14. This is further noticeable of Dr. 
 Lightfoot, viz,. That he mews, that Impofition of Hands, was not given, but 
 only tofuch,as were ad Minifierium Ordinandi, and was not given ad SanSi- 
 $cationem,fed ad Dona extraordinaria. See Anfwer to the Principles of the C7- 
 frianick Age, P. 5^. who alfo Cites Pijcator, Beza, Grotius, as thus Ex- 
 pounding the Panage Controverted. Fefius Hommius, Difput. Theolog. 46. 
 Thef. 1. Having mown, that the Apoftles ufed this Ceremony of Impofing 
 Hands, for Confirming their Do&rin, by vifible and Miraculous Gifts of 
 the Spirit, adds [ Hac Dona, quia adtempus tantum in Ecclefia viguerunt, hodi- 
 tqueut Ecclefia nonamplius hoc modo necej]aria,cejfarunt ,etiam ritus ille eum in Fi- 
 wm nee debet ferv art, nee potefi adhiberi ] And Thef. 2. fpeaking of the Com- 
 mendable cuftom of the Primitive Church, that the Catechumeni, when be- 
 come Youths, and ineunte adolefcentia, were prefentedtobeCew/rwei, it was 
 by Exhortation and Prayer,- and for this end, they were prefented, fays he, 
 Ecclefia: Paftoril>us,2Lnd difrmlTed with a Blefling. 
 
 The Dr. holds this Miniftry of Confirmation^. ^4.6.) to be performed by 
 J?ra} er,an d laying on of Hands,- The Party Confirmed, receiving the Gifts of the 
 Moly Ghoft. And what Gifts,! pray ,were they, which the Dr. After ts, were 
 alwife conferred by this Ceremony, and fas he expreffesit) received there- 
 by. ? Sure, not the ordinary Gifts: For, he will acknowledge thefe receiv- 
 €d,in the Sacrament of Baptifm ,- The Extraordinary, he Acknowledges are 
 teafed ; And if neither Ordinary, nor excraordinory Gifts, are thereby* 
 
 confer* 
 
Chap. V. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i % 5 
 
 conferred, I know not what the Dr. can make of it, unlefs he make it, a 
 fort of adjutory, further Confirming, Symbolical, ritual Acceffory to the 
 Sacrament of Baptifm, and a renewed Reprefentation and Seal of the fame 
 priviledges.asare Sealed thereby ; And then it -mould feem, it is brought 
 within theftroak and reach ofCartwrights Arguments and Reafons againft 
 the Rbemifts, above rehearfed; and that ic falls within thecompafs of fuch a 
 vain and ludicrous fign ofEfi/eofal vanity, as is above expreifed. Jercm, in 
 theforementioned Epiftle, adverfm Luciferianus , thus lames this fuppofed 
 prerogative of the Prelat, " That if not by a neceffity of Law, but for 
 tc the Honour of the Epifopal Office, the Spirit is given,their Cafe is to be 
 cc Lamented, who in little Villages, or remote places from the Diccefs, 
 cc have been Baptized by Pmfyto-.r, Arid prevented by Death, before the 
 cc Bifiops vifit. Beda, esprefly upon Pftil. 86. afcl ibs this to vanity. And Cal- 
 vin ( hftit. Lib. 4. Op. 19 ) thus laflies the Pafifis, that fo many of their 
 Flocks, being deprived of this fuppofed neceliary Confirmation [ fatiuntur 
 in fuo grege Semi-ChrifianoSy quorum imperfeclionem me deri facile er at j thev ad- 
 mit many of their people, to be but half Chriftians, whofe imperfection, 
 they mayeafily remedy. And how far this is applicable to the Dr c s Cafe, 
 I need not ftand to fubfum. 
 
 Its true, the Dr. doth not in exprefs terms,call it a Sacrament, yet feeing 
 P. 447. he holds it is by Divine warrandjlacedin the fame Clafs withBaftifm y 
 and made one of theVrinciples of the Dochin ofChrifl, and in his fenfe, ap- 
 pointed ftill to continue, as a ftanding Miniftry, for Communication of 
 the neceflarv influences of the Spirit; Its left to the judicious to confider, 
 whether it fall not clearly, within the compafs of Cartvmghts Reafons, 
 and of others above rehearfed, as inferring its unlawfulnefs, and in fpeci- 
 al, an appeal is made to the Judicious, to ponder, how the appropriating 
 of this Ceremony to a Bifiop, for the great ends mentioned, can come 
 within'the compafs of thefe Fundamental Principles of the Do fir in of Chrift, 
 whithout the Knowledge and Belief whereof, there can be no Salvation. 
 The Dr. I mud needs fay, advances not only Prelacy it felf, but this fup • 
 pofed priviledge of Vrelats, to an high pitch, in this Reafoning. 
 
 For what he adds of the Character and Quality of Philip, and ibid, 
 of Cyprians Opinion, of hisbcing one of the Seventy two Difciple s : 
 Whether he he was Deacon or Evangelift, it is all one in this Cafe, lines 
 the A6lion here performed bv the Apoitles, was proper to them, upon 
 the Grounds already Affigned,- and the account of their approach to Sama- 
 ria, after this begun Miniftry of Philip, is fo reprefented by Prctefiant Di- 
 vines, as wholly overthrows his pleading, and Razes k to the Foundation. 
 
 Ck For, What the Dr. alledges, anent the conftant Exercife of 
 e€ this fuppofed priviledge of Bijhops, in the Primitive Church. ;'.'. 
 
 R 2 A, 
 
iz4 T>r. Scott* sT leadings Chap. V. 
 
 As, he has produced no Teftimony of either Councils or Fathers, in proof of 
 this, but only wraps up the Matter in a Confident general; So, he is forc c t 
 immediatly in the next words, to make a fort of Retraction, telling us, 
 tc That in later Ages, there are Inftances produced, of Presbyters, that 
 cc Confirmed. But leaft he mould feem to fall foul upon his large Aflertion 
 immediatly premifed, he muft needs lenity this, and mix Water with 
 his Wine, adding, " That they Confirmed only in the Bijhop s abfence, and 
 <rc by his delegation,- and that it was in the later Ages. We fee thefe Cha- 
 ritable Lords, became atlaft, Liberal, in parting with fome Prerogatives, 
 admitting fuch as could only perform the mean Service of Baptizing, to the 
 High Epifcopal Dignity of Confirming. But the Account we have given of 
 this Matter, fufhciently difcovers his unfoundnefs, and prevarication in 
 this Point, and that as the Practice he pleads for, had never any warrand 
 from Scripture, or prime Antiquity, fo, what Impofithn of Hands might 
 have been pra&ifed in a fuppofed conformity to the Apoftles Pattern, 
 was performed by the Elders or Minifters of the Church. And therefore, in 
 oppofition to theDr c s -fair Conclufion (as he calls it P. 448 J "that this Confir- 
 €i mation, or Impofition of Hands, was Peculiar to the Apoftles in the Ori- 
 cc ginal, and their Succeflbrs, the Bifiops, in the continuation of it. We 
 xnay in the Confidence of Truth, oppofe this Antithefis, or Counter-Con- 
 clufion,- That the Apoftolick Confirmation, which he inftances, was fo pecu- 
 liar to the Apoftolick Office, and fo appropriat to extraordinary expired 
 effects, as therein the Apoftles could have no Succeflbrs : And that their 
 SuccerTcrs, in all the neceffary duties and Offices of a Gofpel Miniftry, 
 are the Faithful Tafiors, labouring in the Word and Do&rin, to whom, 
 as the Apoftles committed, what was in their Office, ordinary and ne- 
 ceffary to be continued in the Church, So, upon fuch Principles and. 
 grounds^, in fuch a manner, and for fuch an end, in their Dod:rin,deliver— 
 cd to the Churches, as. does quite overthrow, the Hierarchical Trelat h^ 
 Pleads for, as no Plant of the Lords Plantation. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A Full REVIEW and EXAMINATION 
 
 |3octoj° Monro's 
 Scripture-Pleadings, 
 
 Upon the Point of 
 
 In his late Book, intituled, 
 
 An Inquiry into the New Opinions, chiefly prorogated 
 by the Presbyterians g/ Scotland: 
 
 CHAP. L 
 
 The Df sfOnjound and ImpertinentRefte&ions upon 
 ourfirjl Reformers, as to their Judgment in point 
 (^Church-Government, Expofed :. together 
 with his Vnfound and Popifh Method in his An- 
 fiver to the Argument againji Epifcopacy, taken 
 fromlMit. zo. Z5. And with the paralell Texts. 
 
 • O Examin in the better Method', what this Dr. produ- 
 ced^ againit us,, it is fit, that we Firft view, what he 
 reprefeiits as our Aficrtion, and which he bo d'.v 
 Charges with Error and Novelty, and as one of tboje 
 Opinions never heard of ) for 1400 legrs after cur Saviours 
 In earn at Un : It is thus, That ire afjirm our Savicur hath 
 appointed hts Church, under the New I\f anient ( whether 
 Provincial, National, or Occumenick ) to be Governed by the fi v 
 ClalJesofVresbyters, atfing in a (er flct Parity , and owning ne $ ubi-rdin.it ion to 
 
% T>r. MonroV ^leadings Chap. I. 
 
 any higher Officer in the Ecclefiafiick Senate, above Presbyter, in the modern and 
 current Notion of the Word. 
 
 That which I mainly defiderat here, is. i. The term of [ fever al daffies'] 
 appears obfcare, not pointing at the Beautyful Order and Subordination 
 of judicatories, which we maintain according to the Nature of all Go- 
 vernment, confequently of Church Government. The Clajfes and excerp- 
 ted Claffies, is an invidious, independent term : We own the Congregational 
 Church reprefented by the Paftors one or more, with the Congregational 
 Elderptip: ThePra£/fne,a Judicatory Superior to this,made up of thel* aftors of 
 the Congregations , together with Ruling Elders: TheProvincial S^o^fuperior 
 thereunto, confiftingof thzMinifters of the SeveralPresbytries,whhRulingEl- 
 Jersfm the Precin&s of the Province, to which the proportioned number of 
 Tresbytries are fubordinat, and wherein they are reprefented: The National 
 Church ,made up of a convenient number of Minifttrs and Elders 'from every 
 Tresbytrie therein,to which thzProvincial Synods areiubordin&t.WhichModel of 
 Government , has been fo fully Cleared from Scripture, by many Learned 
 Pens, that he cannot ftand before the evidence of Divine Authority, and 
 Reafon, offered for the fame,- And which any, who have Read, may fee 
 the vanity of his empty Pamphlet. 2 When he tells us of Presbyters, Acting- 
 in a perfect parity , he infmuats, as if We held no other Presbyter than the 
 Vaftor, and that all who come under this general Name or Character 
 have by our Principles, the fame intereft in Church Government* which* 
 if he mean of Government in its whole Extent, viz,, that Power which is 
 called the Diataffick, Critick and Dogmatick, its a grofs Falfehood : For we 
 'diftinguifli an intereft in the laft, which is proper to Pa/lors, from that in- 
 tereft in the firft two, which we allow to Ruling Elders. 3. When he 
 tells us, We own no higher Officer, in the Ecclefiafiick Senate, above a Presbyter 
 in the modern Current Notion of the Word, he fpeaks in the Clouds, and confu- 
 fedly, not fpecifying, what is that Notion of the Word, which he calls Modern 
 and current, and which we own as of the Divine Appointment and Signa- 
 ture. We hold, that the Pafior, labouring in the Word and Doctrin, and 
 to whom is Committed the Doctrinal and Jurifdidional Key, is termed 
 alfo in Scripture, the Elder or Presbyter, and that he is the higheft ordina- 
 ry Church Officer of Divine Appointment ; and this with the Bcdv of 
 Proteftant Churches and Divines. We alfo hold, that the Scripture points 
 out an Elder or Presbyter, that Rules only, and is inferior to the Labourer in 
 the Word and DoBrin, as having no intereft therein,* and this Notion of the Word 
 we hold, and can make gcod to be the Scripture, as well as Modern Notice 
 If this Dr. in calling it the Current Notion of the Word, intend that which 
 is the general Senfe of Divines, he feems here to Charge them all with No- 
 velty md Singularity, iihee all, who hold this Notion of the Word, and 
 
 under- 
 
Chap. I. FflrEpifcopacy, Examined. 3 
 
 underftand the Presbyter, in the Senfe above expreft, muft needs own him 
 to have fuch intereft in Government, and the fame Authority, which 
 we Afiert : And therefore, Crofs to the Dr c s Notion, which he is not 
 pleafed directly to fpecifie. 
 
 The Dr. without diftincUon, or fetting up his difcriminating March- 
 ftones,as to the extenfion of time,calls the days, wherein this Notion of the 
 Presbper is become current, dayes of Separation and Singularity, differing inthis 
 from the Uniform Testimony of Antiquity ' And the Critick has here much to 
 fay, in proof of his Charging with Singularity and Separation, and a dange- 
 rous Separation from the Uniform Tefiimony of Antiquity, the whcle Body cf 
 Reformed Churches and Divines, fince in their Confeffions, and the Cur- 
 rent ufage of their Writers, they thus underftand and make ufe of the 
 term Presbyter. As alfo, that upon other grounds, he Charges them, with 
 Singularity and Separation, fince he calls thefe dayes fuch, abfolutely, ab- 
 ftra&ing from this particular Caufe : And what dangerous Ccnfcquence, 
 this Dc&rin is of, and how highly reflecting upon the Churches, will fute 
 his ferious, fecond, and more fedat Thoughts, when in a better frame 
 and humour. 
 
 The Dr. adds, That, in this we differ from the firfi Presbyterians among our 
 felves ,whoDeclare in their Confeffion of Faith, that all Church? olicy is Variable, 
 fo far were they from Averting an Indifpenfeble and Unalterable Right of Parity. 
 But,in this,he hasAbufed hisReader,and any that but reads that Ccnfeffion,. 
 may eafily difcover his Impudent Forgery and Impofings: For, Firfijn the 
 ninteenth Article of that Confeffion, Aligning the Notes c f the 1 rue Church, 
 they prefent thefe three, ( i. ) "The true Preaching of the Word of 
 cc God, as he has revealed himfelf, in the Writings of the Prophets and A- 
 cf ponies. ( 2. ) The right Adminiftration of the Sacraments, annexed 
 " to the Word and Promife,to confirm it to our Hearts. ( 3. ) Ecckfiafiical 
 cc Dijcipline, uprightly Minifired, as Gods Word prescribes, whereby Vice is re- 
 <c prefled and Vertue nourished. And giving Inftance of this in particular . 
 Gofpel Churches,they add, fc Such were in Corinthirs, Golu'i.i, Efkeft*, and 
 (c other places, wherein the Miniftry was planted by Paul, and were of 
 Cf himfelf named the Churches of Gcd, citing on the Margine, 1 Ccr, 1. 2. 
 €C iCor.i.j. Gal. 1.2. Ephef.1.1. where Paul ownes them, and names them 
 cf as Churches; and to prove they had a Miniftry and EccleCaftick Difci 
 tf pline planted therein, they further cite, AH. 16.9, 10. and 204173 
 H pointing us to Pauls laft and farewel Charge to the Elders or Pajhrs \ I 
 (C phejits, wherein he entrufted the Government thereof to them, as the 
 " only Bifiops thereof, fet up and Authorized by the 1 J oh dhoft: And I 
 [ c a Church, they profefs the Protcfant Church in this Realm to be, 
 
 Troui this Account of ih^QonfeJJjon^ it is evident, 1, That in thcS< 
 
 af 
 
^ T>r. Monro'x Tleadings Chap. L 
 
 of our firft Reformers, Church Govern mentand Difciplin, rightly Admi- 
 niflred, is an Effential Mark of the Church. 2. That it muft not be ac- 
 cording to Mens Invention, or Rules of Worldly Policy, but according 
 to the' Prefcription of the Word of God : Thus, clearly aiferting, that 
 the Word of God, prefcribes the Rules and Meafures of it, and conse- 
 quently determines, what Government and Difciplin it is, elfe there could 
 be no Appeal to that Rule. And look,^as, they make the Word of God, 
 the Standart and Rule of the true^Doc7rine 3 in the firft Note, fo, oiDifcL 
 fline and Government, in this third : Hence, as, none can, without extre- 
 nieft Impudence atfert, that the Word leaves us to Waver, and at an Uti-* 
 certainty, as to the true or falfe Doctrine, or that it is not perfectly con- 
 tained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apoftles,Appealed to, in that 
 rirft Note, fo, without the fame Impudence, neither can this be alledged 
 o( the Difcipline or Government ,-anent the RecHtude whereof, and its Divine 
 Meafures, the fame Appeal is made. 3, When exhibiting Scripture In- 
 ftances, they mention a Mlniftry eft abided by Paul in the Churches , and in 
 fpecial, fuch a Mini fry or Elderfhip, as had the Govervment eftablijhed and lod- 
 ged with them, in a Parity of Pafiors, as the Church of Ephefus, when Paul 
 gave them his laft Charge, to Feed and Govern joyntly, as the Bifhops fet 
 up by the Holy Ghoft, they clearly aifert the Divine Warrands of Presby- 
 terian Parity. 
 
 Next, for that PafFage, which the Dr. takes hold of, in Art, 21. ( which 
 he durft not point his Reader to, as knowing that the very Read- 
 ing, would difcover his Forgery ) that which they affirm, is thus expref- 
 {q± cc Not, that we think any policy or Order in Ceremonies, can be 
 cc appointed for all Ages, times and places, &c. Its evident, that it ut- 
 terly rejects his abfurd glofs, and impertinent groundlefs inference : For 
 1. They are not fpeaking of the Species and form of Government, but'of thefe 
 things, which Councils has a Power to determin in 3 yea, peremptory affirm 
 that they have no Power or Authority to make that to be Gods Word, or the true in- 
 terpretation thereof, which was not fo before , by his Holy TVtll, and by clear Con- 
 fequence, that no Councils can alter or change that Miniftry and Govern- 
 ment, which in Art. 19. They affirm the Apcftles eftablijhed. 2. Having menti- 
 oned . the Confutation of Herefies, and giving a publick Con- 
 feffion of Faith, according to the Word, as one great deiign 
 of General Conncils, they aiiign the Second, which is to Ccnfiitut good 
 Order and Policy, to beobferved in the Kirk, that all things be done decently, 
 and in Order, citing 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let aUthings be done decently and in order: 
 WhereinP^/ prefcribsthisgeneralRule to beapplyedto the particular cir- 
 eumfrances of that Church — Then they add, " Not' that we think any 
 ^Policy and order in Ceremonies, can be appointed for ail Ages, Times, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. L For Epifcopacy, Examined. 5 
 
 cc and places — Adding, cc That when Ceremonies fofterSuperftition,they 
 <: ought to be removed : Wherein, it is evident, as the Meridian Light, 
 that that Policy, which \ they hold alterable, is not the Government of the 
 Church, appointed by the Apoftles in the Word, or that Ecclefiaftick Difciplin, 
 therein prefcribed : For, this they make a Note of the true Church; and to call 
 this alterable ac err ding to the difference of Times and Places, were fo grofs a Con- 
 tradiction, as no Men of Senfe, could fall into, much lefs the Godly and 
 Learned Compilers of that Confcjjim. But, by this alterable Folicy, they 
 mean, fuch as Relates to the variable Circumftances of particular Church- 
 es, and fuch appointments thereanent, as God has left to the Regulation 
 of the Chriftian Prudence of Church Governours, according to the gene- 
 ral Rules of the Word,- of which RuleSj that inftance they exhibit, i Ccr. 
 14.. 40. hath the prime place. So, that the Dr c s Inference, that therefore, 
 the Authors of the Confeflion, held not an indifpenpble Divine Right of Parity of 
 Pajlors or Presbyters, has no dependence upon that Paffage, which he Cites, 
 nor has any Subfiftence, but in his own imagination. 
 
 The Dr. adds (P. i% ) That the Firfi Presbyterians pleaded only, tb at their 
 New Form, was not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Teftament Church, and, 
 Primitive Inftitution; that it came nearer to the Original Alodel of Churches : But 
 never affirmed, that the Chriftian Church, by the Original Authority of our Savi- 
 our, and his Apoftles, ought to be Governed by a Parity of Presbyters, and that no Of- 
 ficer in the Church, higher than a Pr ef by ter, could pretend, to any pare in Ecclefiaftick 
 Government. I Anfwer, the Dr. hath not exhibit to us, thefe Presbyterians, 
 whom he calls Firft, and who thus pleaded. We heard, that our very Firft 
 Reformers, Pleads f^r that Government, they were fettling, as a Divine 
 Miniftry and Government, according to the Word, and deriving its Ori- 
 ginal Pattern from the Apoftles Plantation of Churches, fuch as Ephefus 
 had, when Paul gave his laft directions to that Church. To which Ori- 
 ginal Pattern, they hold, that all Churches ought to be fquared and Sub- 
 ordinate And if we advance a ftep further, to our Books of Di[ciplin, we 
 will rind the Divine Right of our Government AiTerted, in mod Material 
 Points thereof. 
 
 The Peoples ifftEreft in the Election ofPaftors, in their Call, and in 
 their Admifibn, is AiTerted in the Hrft Book of Difciplin, Head 1. with 
 the Explication. 
 
 In the 7 Head of 'Ecclefiaftick Difciplin, the higheft Cenfure of f xcommu* 
 nication, is attributed to the Miniltry, as then Duty and Priviledge ( 1 c»t 
 to the Prelat ) and all Preachers, without execpti n, are declared Subject. 
 to Difciplin,- and the Subjection of all Preachers to the Prophets, in their 
 Doftrin, is Aflertedin the 9. Head of ChurchPollcy, upon that ipecial Point 
 of Propelying and interpreting the scriptures. Ail which j CUCtl theMn- 
 
 S news 
 
6 , x T>r. Monro's ^leadings Chap. I. 
 
 news of the Prelats Exercifing Power over Vapors, Eftablifhing their Ef- 
 fential Divine Right of Government. 
 
 In 2 Book of Dijcipl. Chap. i. The Divine Right of Church Govern- 
 ment and Policy, is Afferted, and its diftinclion from the Civil. The un- 
 lawfulnefs of Minifters, affuming Name or Thing of Lordjhip. Again, 
 The extraordinary expired Function of Apofiles, Prophets, and Evangelists, is 
 AffertediThe identity of t\\zP aftor and Bifljops Officers the higheft ordinary 
 Function, together with the Relation thereof to a paricular Flock, is Af- 
 ferted Chap. 2. 
 
 Moreover- Ch. 7. initio, the Ruling Elders Office, and Congregational 
 Elderfliip, are Afferted. 
 
 Ibid. Our Church Judicatories, Congregational, Provincial, and National, 
 are Afferted. 
 
 Chap. 11. The Unwarrantablenefs of the Office of Bijhops Affuming Au- 
 thority ovtr.Paftors, and aLordihip over them, and over Chrifts Inheritance, 
 is Afferted: And fuch Bijhops, as refufe Subje&ion to the Eftablifhed Dif- 
 ciplin andGovernmentof Paftors,zrQ appointed to be depofedfrom aUFunftion 
 in this Kirk. Liktw ik,Patronages, as eroding the Peoples Right, in Electi- 
 on ofPaftors, are condemned as a Corruption of Popery, Chap 12. 
 
 Now, the Divine Right of the Courts and Officers, we own, in oppdfition 
 to Prelacy, being thus Afferted in thefe Boohs of Policy, and in the Judg- 
 ment of the Compilers thereof, drawn forth from the Fountain of the Word; 
 the Model alfo, prefented and defcribed in thefe Books, amounting to a 
 fpeciflck form of Government, and everfive of Prelacy, the Compilers, al- 
 fo, as is faid, prefenting it as the Divine and Scripture Pattern,- they muft 
 needs hold it to be a ftanding Form, appointed by our Lord and his Apo- 
 fttes. Again, if the Dr. hold, that the New Teftament Oeconomy, con- 
 tains a fpeciflck (landing Form of Government, and aStandart for all Churches, 
 wrrile time"lafts,then fuch a Form, as with Refped to the main, is affert- 
 eid;tp beconfonant thereunto, is afferted info far, to be, not only allow-. 
 Me, but necejfary : And this, the Dr. muft needs admit, unlefs with Pa- 
 fifis, he will make Scriptures themfelves, a Nofeof Wax, and the NewTe- 
 fbments Prefcriptions, in Point of Government, and its Oeconomy, ver« 
 latile, and fo Lax and General, that it difcovers no Species of Govern- 
 ment. Befides,if thefe Reformers affirm,tbe P afior, to be the higheft Church 
 QfliCQr,Jure DivinoptiA that he is all one with the Preaching Presbyter, then 
 by neceffary Confequence, they muft needs hold, that by Original Autho- 
 rity of Chrift andhisApoftles, all Churches ought to be Governed, by a. 
 Parity of Presbyters orPafiors, and that no EccleiiaftickOfficer, above a Pres- 
 byter, can pretend, to aft>are in Ecclefiaftick Government. Thefe Afferti- 
 ons, areoffo clofe and clear a connection, that if the Dr f attempt to cut: 
 
 this 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy> Examined. y 
 
 this Gordian Knot, he will fall into fuch a fhameful Affertion, as to affirm, 
 that an Officer, not allowed by Chrift, but condemned by his ov/n Ori- 
 ginal Authority, and that of his Apoftles, has notwithstanding, a fharc 
 in Ecclefiaftick Government. Befides, the dull inadvertency of this Af- 
 fertion, appears in this, that he holds our Reformers did plead, that their 
 Form was allowable , and not repugnant to the New Teftament Oeconomy, and yet 
 not fuch, as was recommended by our Lords Original Authority to all Churches: 
 For, if he hold, that the New Teftament Oeconomy, is a clear fixed Stan- 
 dart and Model fjr all the Churches, then, whatever Frame of Govern- 
 ment is not DijJLnant or Repugnant, is conform and consonant thereunto, and 
 confequently, not only allowable, but necefjary. And if our Lords Original 
 Authority prefcribed this Oeconomy, as a Standart and Rule for Church 
 Government, in all Ages, that Model that comes up to this Firft Standart, 
 in fo far as it comes up to it, is that which the Church is to imitat in all 
 Ages, unlefs he will fay., that all Ages are not to imitat this Pattern, few ed 
 upon the Mount. And in fpecial, our Reformers hold, that our Saviour in 
 the Original Prefcription of this Pattern, prefents the Pafior or Preach- 
 ing Presbyter, as the highefi ordinary Church Officer. And therefore, it is no 
 rainnefs to affirm, that in all times of the Church, fuch an Officer as aPre- 
 lat, Superior toPaftcrs, is forbidden and Condemned. The Dr. fays. That; 
 tho our Reformers affirm, their Government was not repugnant to the New Ttjlament 
 Oeconomy, they were not fo rajli as to affirm the Church ought to be thus Governed in all 
 Ages. So, its with this Grave cautelous Dr, rafhnefs to affirm, that a 
 Government futed to the Divine Pattern, is for all Ages, confequently a 
 precipitant Affertion to affirm, that our Lords Pattern is the juft Stan- 
 dart for all Ages. The Dr. will be fatisfied, That we plead for our Judgment in 
 Government ( which he calls a New Notion) as probable, but cannot endure, that 
 we plead for an abjolut znfallibleRight, and require obedience to it, as due to infallible 
 Authority; This, he fays, isworfe, , than fpeculative Enthufui r m. lAnf- 
 wer, if we can produce no Scripture Warrand for that Government we 
 own, we mail be fatisried it come under the Character of a New Notion; 
 But,*if we can make it appear, to be the Government recommended 
 in the Scripture-Oeconomy and Pattern, then, as bwing founded upon In- 
 fallible Authority, v/ejufily charenge Obedience to it; and while this 
 Light is ihut out and reje&ed by the Dr. and his Fehovvs, they are juflly 
 Chargeable, in fo far, with Speculative, yea, and Practical •" Entbufiafm. 
 The Dr c s. pretended Rhetorical Fioiilh, whereby he would let o if this 
 Charge up~n Presbyterians, taken from the fimilitud andallufion to the p< 
 fon, who Ihould threaten to knock him on the Head,unlefs he wil affirm, 
 agairift hisReafonand Senies, that he lees fuch Armies in the Air, as 
 are pointed out to him ,• Is buta phantaftick Fla/h of his own Airy Ima- 
 
 S z ginatioit 
 
S T>r. Monro'x T leadings Chap. L 
 
 gination, for we impofe no thing Arbitrarly or Imperioufly upon his Ilea* 
 ion, or any of his way, but challenge the utmoft attention, andbeft Ex- 
 ercife of their Senfe andReafon, to that Scripture-Light and demonft ration 
 of our Government,which we offer from the Word,which,had heferioufly 
 fearched and pondered, with can Eye to God, the Father of Lights, he 
 had been otherwife, and better imployed, than in flinging out fuch Squibs 
 and Crackets into this Countrey, and in writing his folly and ignorance,, 
 in fuch an Airy Childifh Pamphlet as this is. He adds ( P. 14. ) " That it 
 'Wtre better to fall into High-way-Mens hands, than amongfi fuch Spiritual Robbers. 
 But he commits this Robbery upon himfelf, while Jhutting his Eyes againft 
 chat Scripture-Light, which has been offered upon this Point. And he 
 knows, by what numerous cruel Laws, and Barbarous execution thereof, in 
 the late Reigns, he and his Mafters, our ScotsPrelats, endeavoured to knock 
 downthe reafon and Confcience of many Thoufands of this Nation, both 
 Godly and knowing^in an Imperious obtrufion of their ungodly Hierarchy 
 upon them, and many wicked Vcws and Oaths'for upholding it. 
 
 The Dr. next alledges,* That we vainly boa/l of a Divine Infiituticn of out Go- 
 vernment, and ' unanfwered Writer •sin its defence, but when put to. produce Arguments 
 for it, we have have nothing but perplexed Probabilities, intricat confequences from 
 wrefted Scriptures, to offer , contrary to the Uniform fuffrage of 'the Ancients, &c. Anf, 
 what Divine Warrand we plead for the Divine Right of the Courts and 
 Officers we own, is (b well known to fuch as are acquaint with this Con- 
 troverfie, and how folid our Scripture-proofs are, and confonant to the-. 
 Senfe, both of Ancient and Modern Writers, that this Mans flanting boaft, 
 can make no other impreffion upon them, than of his procacious vanity. 
 Had'he intended as a Champion indeed forhisCaufe, toFight,nottobragg, 
 in this PamphletingBragadocio, which any may fee to be ad pompam, non 
 adpttgnam, he ihouid have fairly and formally encountred Jus Divin. Re<r, 
 Eccief. JrtsDivin. Minift. Evang. SmeBym. with its Vindication. Mr.Baynes 
 DlccefanTryaf m Answer to Doun ham. Didoclav. Caf. 4. And. the Scripture- 
 Pleadings of many Forreign Divines, againft the Hierarchy, and for the Pari- 
 ty ofPaftors; and then to have boafted (, having difcuffed their Arguments ) 
 at the putting off of his Armour. 
 
 But now, that we are come to the Point, the Dr. (P. re.) tells his. 
 Friend, That he can give but a jhort Hiftcry of our Arguments, for the Di- 
 vine Right of Parity : And good Reafon,- iince he is for little flight Skir- 
 mishes, not for the Shock of more clofe and dangerous Encounters. Our 
 Arguments, he reduces to three Heads. 1. The exprefs Command of our Sa- 
 viour. 2. Confequences from Texts of Scripture. 2. Tefiimonies of Ancient Wri- 
 Urr. I mail not infift in Criticizing upon theDr c s general Partitions: On- 
 fr, as for what lie QiFers arient. qhy Saviours exprefs Command and ' hjlitution of 
 
 Presbjv 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. p 
 
 Presbyterian Government and Parity o/Paftors, he Ihould have done wel!„ 
 to name the Authors;, who affert thiSj ere he had fo confidently afcribed 
 this Affertion to Presbyterians. No doubt, had he dealt fairly, in a parti- 
 cular Condefcendance upon our Arguments drawn from Scripture, for 
 "Parity of "Paftors, and offered clear Scripture Replies to them, Presbyterians 
 would have thanked him, for his Diligence, in endeavouring their further 
 Light and Conviction on this Head. Bat to prevent his Miftake, or any 
 elfe of his Perfwafion, I muft further add, that, as for the Argument from 
 Antiquity, however he and his Party do magnifie it, (ruffing their Books and 
 Pamphlets therewith, inftead of more folid Scripture Reafoning : And al- 
 tho, we are not afraid to try their Strength, in this Method of Arguing, 
 vet Antiquity, or the Teftimony of Humane Writers, is none of the Foundati- 
 ons, upon which we do build the Jus and Divine Right of the Government 
 we maintain, but the Lively Oracles, the Scriptures cf Truth allenarly : 
 And we look upn the Teftimony of Antiquity, or of Ancient Writers,, 
 as anAcceffory Humane Tllnftration, in fome Matters of Fad, but no pro- 
 per proof, or to be ranked in ecdem genere, with the firft, and as tending 
 to refute the Charge of Ncvellifm, wherewith the Dr. and his Fellows, are 
 bold to afperfe our Principles in this point. 
 
 The Dr. now falls upon the firft Head of Arguments, taken from a fup- 
 pofed exprefs Command of our Saviour, anent the Parity of Paftors, exclufive cf 
 the Jurifdiclion of a Biflicp ( I heartily wiln, he had here, fpecified and de- 
 fined this Jurifdi&kn ) He tells his Friend, ( p.16. ) We prove this from 
 Matth. 20. 25". which, he faves, we inftft upon, more than Foreign Presbyteri- 
 ans, and he profefes he will hfar cur Argument, from hence, cilmly and ddibtrat- 
 ly, jvith Reverence and Attention. He adds the paralells, Luk.11. iy Mark 
 10. 42, 43. Naming in the Marginc, the Reverend Mr. Dickon, and the 
 An fiver to the Iranictim by G. R. Our Argument from hence, the Dr. rc- 
 prefents thus, That the Officers of Chrifts H u;e, were by his lv n exprefs Com- 
 mand,eftab!ijhed in a per fell Equality, cvin in fitch a Verity, as excludes the Vovw 
 and Jurifdifiiov of any ^higher Order, than that cf a Presbyter, in the Mcdirn* 
 Notion. 
 
 Before I come to reprefent* the Dr f s Anfwer to- this Text, (premeni- 
 firing- again, what is before animadverted upon the Term of ixprefs Com- 
 mon}) I ihall, Firft, Shew what we p ] CM\ from ir. Stcwdly, That our 
 Pleading is-Confonant to the Senfe of Sound Divines. 
 
 For the firft, It is apparent in thepremifed paraleil Texts, that theTcn- 
 tation of Ambitious Emulation among the Difciples, had prompted them 
 to a Sinful Contcft about Trlmacj, or which of thun fh uld be greateft. 
 to present the Mifchievous Effects whereof, our Saviour Cautioned and 
 Rebuked them, Difchar£irg them exprcfly, the Lord Ij Crandure oQEartfr- 
 
io T>r. Monro' j T leadings Chap. L 
 
 lyRulers,to ExercifeLordlhip and Dominion one over anorher,in Oppofiti- 
 on thereunto,Commending Humble Minifterial Service,and Spiritual Dili- 
 gence in their Stewardfhip,-both which he enforces from his ownExempla- 
 fy Humility. Hence, we infer, i. That our Lord difcharged Superiority 
 and Inferiority among Officers of the fame kind/o,that.none are greater 
 than another in their Office, no Apoftle, no Evangelift above another; 
 that a^compleat Parity in their Official Power, is commanded: And 
 therefore, by clear Confequence, a compleat and entire Parity among Pa- 
 fior s $ And by further clear evidence, we argue, that fuperior and inferi- 
 or Degrees among them are difcharged. 2. That whatever Priority of Or- 
 der ,hz allowed amongOfficers of different kinds,we conclude^that our Savi- 
 our, in thefe places, difcharged Dominion and Principality, in any of them, 
 of whatever kind, all Mafierly Tower, fuch as Civil Governours Exercife • 
 There being one Mafter of his Family only, whereof all Minifters are Bre- 
 thren and Fellow-Servants : Becaufe, in Exemplifying what he difchar- 
 ges, our Saviour gives the Inftance, in fuch Rulers, as are called Benefa- 
 ctors, oi'Graciom Lords, and in Oppofition thereunto,Commands an Humble 
 Minifierial Service, not a fort or warrantable Dominion, as the paralell 
 1 Pet. y. makes it evident. So, that, he gives here, the Lord-Prelat, two 
 Deadly Wounds, ( 1 .) In that he makes himfelf an Officer of an higher 
 Order and Degree, than the Pafior, holding himfelf, to be a Pafior, fpeci- 
 fically diftincl: from the Preaching Presbyter: Thus Dividing and' Cutting 
 out the Paftoral Office, into Antifcriptural, Diftincl, Official Kinds, 
 whereas, our Saviour discharges this, among Officers of the fame kind. 
 (2.) In that he Lords over his Brethren and Fellow-Paftors, and that 
 both, in a pretended Spiritual Capacity, arrogating a fole Power in 
 Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, a Mafterly Power and Principality over 
 Church Judicatories, and like wife, in affuming the Earthly Lord/hip, 
 Place and Grandure,which is exprefly here difcharged. Now,if from what 
 is faid, it be evident, that fuch an Office and Officer is difcharged, the 
 Trelats Office is unlawful, and anOfficial Parity in xhzP aft oral Office, clear- 
 ly concluded. And that it may appear, that this is no Novel ordiftorted 
 Expofition, let us 
 
 In the fecond place, view what Patrons it hath. To begin with theBel- 
 gick Divines upon Matth. 20. 2 1. they fhew, that theOccaiion of theCon- 
 teft, was the Apofties Ignorance of the Condition of Chrifts Kingdom, to which 
 they were called, viz. Not to a Worldly Rule, but to Serve and Suffer. 
 And upon v. 26. they (hew, that all who are called to theMiniftry of the 
 Church, are difcharged a Worldly Rule. Upon Luke 22. 25. they afiert 
 a Lordlliip and Worldly Power to be forbiddden ,• paralelling this with 
 i Pet. j; which difcharges a Lord/hip over Gods Heritage. The Englifir 
 
 Annot. 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. r i 
 
 Annot. on the place of Matth. (hew, cc That the Lord, to appeafe their 
 " Contention, told them, they were not to expeft Worldly Greatnefs and 
 " Dominion in following him, and whoever ufurps this, affects that which 
 * c God has not given — that they were to look after a Life of Teaching 
 tc and Labouring, not Lording, citing i Pet. 5. 3. And though, in a gene- 
 ral Senfe, they affert, there are Orders among Minifters, generally con- 
 fidered, viz,. Apoftles above Evangelifls, Paftors above Elders, yet the 
 Prohibition of all Worldly Power^) Minifters, they do here affert, and 
 whatever Power is oppofit to a Lworicus Service and Minifiry. Dicdat. on 
 that paffage of Matth. mews, cc Thai: our Saviour befpeaks the Apoftles, as 
 iC Minifters, fliewing, that they ought to place their Dignity, not in 
 "Worldly Lordjlups, hut Humble Faithful Serving for the Salvation ofS~uls. 
 And that our Lord difcharges Worldly Greatnefs, as inconfiftent with his 
 Spiritual Kingdom, in that paflage of Matth. is afferted by the Authors of 
 Tool's Annot. fart. 2. who alfo, upon Luke 22. do affert, u That our Lord 
 cc difcharges Minifters to Exercife a Dominion or Lordihip,fuch as is for- 
 * c bidden 1 Vet. $*. 3. Not as being Lords over Gods Heritage, citing alfo 2 Cor. 
 <c 1. 24. where Paul difownes a Dominion. Parens upon that place o{Mat. 
 /hews, " That it is not a Civil only, but Ecclcfiafiick Dominion, which is 
 €C here forbidden, or a Lording over the Church, as Peter, faith he, com- 
 " mands the Presbyters, not to Lord over the Flocks committed to them : 
 <c Joyning as paralell to this 2 Cor. 1. 24. where Paul ufeth the innple Verb 
 <c wtvmvt, left we apprehend its only Tyranny, that is difcharged. lie 
 fliews, that our Lord Reafons from the Condition of the Apoftles, who 
 were n Q t to be Lords, but to Teach, to beSubject, to Serve the Church. 2. 
 From the Dignity of the Miniftry, which confifts in a Faithful Service. ;. 
 From his own Example who had Humbled himfelf, to Mi 
 fter to all, &c. Whittaker Anfwering Beliarmins Glodings upon l 
 Text, to fave the Popes Supremacy, tells him, "That comparing Mat- 
 " the-w and Luke together, and confidering that Luke ufes the Simple, not 
 " the Compound Word, inexprefling the Dominion, which is difchar- 
 ff ged, .would have hisDifciples underftand, that they have nothing to cN> 
 tc with Dominion: Thus he, de Pomificatu, qttefi. 1. Turret, fart. 3. f 
 16. thef 4. cites Luk. 22. with the paralell, 1 Pet. 5. "as enjoyninga 
 u niftry, and difcharging at! Dominion in the Church. Thef. j*. he ihews, " 
 tc was not the Ambitions Ajfl elation, but thePwff and Dominion it fe If, which 
 Ci the Lord difcharged, oppo'ing to ic, and commending in its plac 
 " Simfle Service and Miniftry. And Thef 0. He J ! cws, u That the QjUefl 
 "among thcDifcipies^was not about a v$ lent Domination ,or videni Ways of 
 " obtaining i t, buCclrcL or djhip and Domi/iion it felt', which he (impiety dill 
 
 " ged j pFQving it from Lukes ufingthe fimpje Vtrk And that p 
 
\% *Dr. Monro*! T leadings Chap. L 
 
 <( that will be great, he fhews, is to be underftood, not of a Real, but Ima- 
 <c ginary Affected Greatnefs. He alfo mews, that Chrifts Reafoning from his 
 own Example, Non argument at ur a pari, fed a majore ad minus, argues not 
 
 from afamenefs, but from the greater to the lefs If I jour Lord, do mi- 
 
 wifler and ferve, much more ought you, who are indeed Servants, who have no 
 Jurifdiclion over one another, to lay afide allThoughts of Domination, as when he 
 Jaid, if I your Lord, havewafoed your feet, you much more, Job. 13. 14. He 
 after, reafons this fame point, from thrifts difcharging them to ami me 
 Mafierly Imperious Titles, mewing thenar that there is but one Matter in the 
 Church, &c. Shall I add, what Junius has upon this Text againft Bellar- 
 mins Gloffes, de Pontifical Lib. 1. Our Lord laid of the thing it felf, they 
 Exercifed Dominion-— He fpoke not of the manner, after this or that man- 
 ner — bat not fo ye, faith he, its a fimple denyal of the thing propofed. 
 Bernar d Writing to Eugenius, expones this paffage, and of 1 Vet. y. as fink- 
 ing againft all Dominion, and enjoy ning a Minifierial Care in Oppofition 
 thereunto. And Whittaker on the paffage, tells Bellarmin, that its not Hu- 
 mility in Dominion, that is here enjoy ned, but Dominion it felf , is forbidden. 
 Let us add Cart-wright againft the Rhemifis, upon thefe paifages, who rea- 
 sons at large, that its not Ambition nor Tyranny, but the Dominion of 
 great Ones over their Vaffals and Inferiors, which is here forbidden/hew- 
 ing that in this, the EcclefiafiickOffice, differs from theC/W, that it admits 
 not of Dominion and Principality, as the Civil Government, nor the out- 
 ward Pomp and Superiority thereof. And the Argument from Chrifts 
 Example,he thus expones,in Oppofition to the Jefuits Gloflings and Scope, 
 It doth not follow, faith he, that becaufe Chrifi their Lord and Mafter, had Rule 
 over them, therefore, they being Fellow-Servants Jliould have Rule one over another, 
 but it follows rather, that for as much, as he their Lord and Mafter humbled him- 
 Jelfto the b*feft Service, therefore, they jlwald be afioamed to be Lords and Mafter s 
 over one another'. Thus, faith he. Cyprian alledged by Gratian ( Diftinft.io, 
 quoniam idvid.) expones this place, Not of Pride and Ambition — but of the 
 feveral ABs and difiinB Honours betwixt both the Powers. And upon the para- 
 Jell Luk. 22. 24. he afferts againft the Jefuits, that Majority and Superiority 
 among the Ape files was reproved fimplely , not a Tyrannous Affectation of Rule. We 
 might multiply Protefiant Writers to a Voluminous Bulk, upon this Head. 
 For Calvin and Bez,a c s Senfe upon the place, I need not mention them, 
 thefe are the Dr f s Adverfaries ,• Only I muft notice their Correspondence 
 with the Body of Protefiant Divines, in this Senfe and Account of the place 
 exhibit. Yet I muft add o:ie Novelifi more, Chamier de Oecum. Pont. lib. 
 10. cap, ;. who upon this paffage reprefents the P-pijIj Gloffes, anent our 
 Lords difcharging only the Manner of Afpiring to Kjreatnefs, not the Dominion 
 It felf, which he refutes in the fame manner, and from the fame grounds, 
 
 as 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. jj 
 
 as Junius and Whittaker. But now it is time, to return to the Dr. 
 From what is premifed, it is no hard Matter to difcover the Vanity of 
 his Evafions. Firfi, He tells us, p. 17. That our Lord fuppofes Degrees of Sub- 
 ordination among his own Difciples, as in other Societies ; And therefore, direfls 
 Ecclefialficks, who would climb to the highefi places of the Church, to take other 
 Methods than thefe ufed by the Grandees of the World; he that deferves Preferment 
 in the Church, is to be Servants of all,- So that this refers to the Method df Promotion 9 
 not to the Extirpation of theirjurifdifiion: They were not to afpire toDignity and Ho- 
 nour by Force and Violence, and the Arts fashionable in Secular Courts, but J?y 
 Acls of Mo defy r Humility and S elf -Deny al. Anf. 1. For what he fays^of 
 Chriits fuppoiing Degrees of Subordinatien; If he mean it in general, a- 
 mong Church Officers, its admitted ,• If among the Difciples, or thefe 
 here Addreft, in this Speech of our Saviour, he Beggs the Queftion, and 
 Contradids the Senfe and Pleading of Vroteftant Divines, upon this paf- 
 fage, who ( as we have heard ) do hold that Majority and Superiority 
 ampng them, was here difcharged, and a compleat Parity of Official Au- 
 thority enjoyned. The Claufe, Not fo among you, we heard that Turretin, 
 with others, do hold abfolutly to difcharge this fuppofed Inequality of 
 Power and Dominion, which he proves from the Nature of the Phrafe, 
 collated with Paralells : And we have alfo found, that Vareus ( as might 
 be cleared in others) do extend this, even to an Ecclefiaftick Superiority. 
 2. If theDr. draw this Supposition of degrees of Subordination, from that 
 Claufe, He that will be great and chiefs is evident he doth; Then I Charge 
 him Firft, With Croffingthe Senfe of Sound Divines, upon thatText,who 
 inPleading againfi: thzPapifts,te\\ them,that ourLord faidnot,He that by my 
 Allowance is great, but he that will be great. I confefs, fome do underftand 
 here a true Greatnefs, viz,, in Vertue and Reward, a true Miniirerial Great- 
 n^fs ,• And this Senfe alfo baffles the Dr f s Glofs of an External Greatnefs y 
 the Unfoundnefs whereof, further appears, when we ponder what our 
 Saviour enjoyned, inOppofition to the Worldly Grandure difcharged,'^. 
 to be their Servant, over whom this is afFecled, which is further evident in 
 the Alternative Branch of the Paralell, 1 Vet. ^. whereby Sound Divines 
 do clear and expone this Text: For, that which the Apoftle oppofes to, 
 being Lords ( the thing prohibited ) he expreifes by, being Examples to the 
 Flock, importing an Holy, Humble, Minifterial Service. Again, I do 
 Appeal to all Men of Senfe, who underftand this Controverly, whether 
 the Dr. doth not in this Anfwer, Hand upon the fame ground with Bellar- 
 min, ( de Pontif cap' 1. ) in Defence of the Papacy : His Anfwer is, that a 
 Primacy is not here difcharged, but rather fuppofed, (ince our Lord 1 
 he that will be chief, &c And that therefore, an Ambitious Luft cf Ovei 
 ruling, is here onlv prohibited, fuch as is among the Kings of (he GV 
 
 T 
 
14- w. Monro** T leadings Chap. I. 
 
 Whittaker Anfwering Bellarmin, quarrels him, as Abufing andWrefting th e 
 Text, fince, inftead of admitting Dominion it felf, to be difcharged (as h e 
 makes evident, and even out cf Bernard) the Jefuit holds, thatAmbitiou s 
 Affectation only is forbidden, the Modus Ret, net theObje&, the Manner 
 of Seeking, not the Thing it felf, and that he admits the prohibited Lord- 
 fhip, with the fuppofed or pretended Qualification of Modejly and Humi- 
 lity. And if the Dr. fayes not here the fame,let any Judge by his Words ,- 
 For, he tells us, that fuch as would climb up to the highefi places in the Churchy 
 ( and who knows, how high thefe highefi places mounts in the Dr c s Fancy ; 
 None will doubt, to a Metropolitan's Office at leaft, over a whole Nation: 
 For this he ownes ) muft not take Methods of Force and' Violence, as, ufuallj 
 Worldly Grandees , but advance by ABs of Modi fly , &c. So, that in the Dr's 
 Senfe, and Be!larmin c s, the Topes Mitre is never touched by this Text, it 
 being the Modus Rei, the Manner of Seeking and Affe&ing, not the Ob- 
 ject of highefi 'Thces and greateft Dignities, which our Saviour here dif- 
 charged. Nay, the Dr. in this Pleading, ftands fo Antipode to Troteflant 
 Arguments,that he fixes the Topes Mitre fafter,which I prove thus ,• If that 
 which the Conteft was about,and the defire of it was Lawful in the Object, 
 then a Trimacy was Lawful in the Object, and only the Method ofSeeking 
 Difcharged. The debate among the Difci pies, was, who mould be the 
 Chief, and have the higher} place in the Church under Chrift; And the 
 Dr. fays, This Climbing up to highefi places in. the Church, is in it felf a Lawful 
 fraclice, flowing from a Lawful defire and emulation, fo that a Man fet his. Steps 
 right, and climb regularly : And will any Papift deny this ? who knows not 
 that their Writers Condemn many Popes violent and bad Methods to get 
 into the Chair ? The Dr. tells us exprefly ( P. 17 ) that the Text refers 
 only to the Method of Promotion: And if fo,. then by infallible confequence 
 not to the Promotion it felf, tho even extended to a Natibnal,yea or Oecu- 
 nienick Primacy fas is faidj If any object,that the Dr. holds, that thisprer 
 ferment was to be in the Church, and that the perfon afpiring is enjoined 
 to be. Servant of all, fo, that it. is neither a Civil, nor Ambitious Grandure^. 
 which he allows: I Anfwer, Papifts will allow the Firft 3 and Popes pre- 
 tends the Second, even to be: Serv us fervor urn. Dei, while he Poffeffes his 
 Primacy •: And the Dr. holds, its fuch a Service of all, as can confift with the 
 Metropolitans Mitre,or a National Primacy over all,- And upon this fiippofition, 
 . I would.whifper the Dr. in theEar,what if in the difpofal of Supreme Pro^ 
 vidence,the. whole Chriftian Church fhould be confined to that Nation,or 
 the Nation extended: to the Limits, of the whole Chureh,what is then be- 
 come of poor fimple Protefiants Pleadings from this Text, againft an I7»/r 
 verfal. Patriarch, or Primacy over the Chriftian Church ? The Dr muftex- 
 nugne and difowa thefe,, as Novel Gloffes- and NewOpiaioas ©f Pr«^«r~ 
 
 riavSi 
 
Chap. I. /wEpifcopacy, Examined. 1 5 
 
 rians. One reflexion more, I add upon the Dr f s Anfwer, and do Charge 
 him with Sophiftical Shuffling and Confounding the Terms and State of 
 the Queftbn. When the Controverfie was Stated among the Apoftles, 
 which of thcni, fhould be Chief and greateft, and have a Frimacy over all the 
 reft, in Chrifts Church and Kingdom, and when our Saviour befpeke 
 them, in the terms above expreft,- the Queftion is, what that was. which 
 our Lord in this reprehenfion did Difcharge, and what in the poiitive In- 
 junction, he allowed ? In Anfwer to this,the Dr. holds,that that which the 
 Lord Difcharged and prohibit, referrs only to the Method and Manner cf 
 Seeking and affecting, not to the Object it (elf ': For, he tells us, The Text 
 rtferrs to the Method of Promt ti n, cv.n to the highefi places. Now, this 
 is exclufive, it referrs not then to the Object : And what was that Object, 
 I pray ? The Text fays, it was, who mould be Chief ': But when the 
 Dr. Reprefents, what this prohibition reaches not unto, and is allowed, 
 (for he holds, that our Lords wcrds, contain a negative Prohibition, and 
 pofitive Precept ) he thus Reprefents it; That cur Lords words, refers not to 
 the extirpation of their Jurif diction; which is as far a leap from the Point, as 
 any can be. Their Apoftolick Jurifdic5Hon was never the Queftion, but 
 an abfolute Primacy ; and none were ever fo brutifh, as to imagin, that 
 the Prohibition, did in the leaft reach,far lefs,tended to extirpat the fame. 
 But the Dr. behoved to hide the other Branch of the Queftion in the 
 Clouds, and was aihamed to fpeak it out, which yet the fequelofhis 
 reafoning doth, viz* that this Negative precept, reaches only to the man- 
 ner of Promotion to a Primacy or Supremacy over the Church, not to thePri- 
 tnacy or Supremacy it (elf. 
 
 The Dr c s next Answer (P. 18. ) refolves in a Queftion : If the Apoftles 
 under flood the Lords Precept in our fen fe, huw came they to exercifejurifdiclicn over 
 all fubordlnat Ecclefiaflicks, during their Life, in all the Churches , they planted ? 
 Did they crofi our L$rds Inftitution, who perfectly underfiood his meaning ? Anf. I 
 might here report his Queftion and Anfwer, in a Counter-query. If the 
 Apoftles undeiftood our Lords Precept, in his Senfe, as prohibiting only, 
 an. ambitious violent manner of ajpiring to Principality or Chief places in the 
 Church, but not the Thing it felf how came it, that none of them, in 
 fuch Modefi Method, as he prefcribs, fought that Greatnefi or Chief Pow- 
 er ? Were they Frighted from the Lawful ufe of their Jurifdiclion, which 
 the Lords prohibition touched not ? Were they fo Brutilh, as i ot to reach 
 his meaning ? yea, whence was it, that in their Doctrin and Practice 
 they difownall dominion, ami Prelatical Principality in the Church, and 
 all outward grandure and greatnefs, as inconliiient with their Oifice, and 
 the Office ot all Gofpel iMinifters ? But to the Topick and ground of the 
 Dr c s Argument, I Anfwer directly, that the Apoftles, a J they ufldcrftocA 
 
 t 2 m 
 
1 6 2>. Monro's Pleadings Chap. L 
 
 fo they pra&ifed our Lords Precept, in the fenfe we owne. i. In that they 
 pra&ifed a compleat equality of Official Power among themfelves. This I 
 hope, he will not deny, or if he do, its eafie to fet all Vroteftant Divines 
 in purfuitof him. 2 In that they never exercifed, nor attempted tofeek 
 any Civil Greatnefi or Dominion, fuch as the Vrelatshz pleads for, do own 
 as competent to their Office. They knew, that their Lord, when but de- 
 fired to give advice in a Civil Caufe, gave this return, who made me a Judgt 
 And declined the Imployment. And that therefore, neither they, nor a- 
 ny of their Succeffors, were to be Civil Counsellors, and Spiritual Peers, in 
 Parliaments and Princes Courts. 3. They difown all Dominion in one Pa- 
 ftor over another, and difcharged it earneftly : Thus the Apoftle Peter, to 
 be Lords over Gods Heritage, 1 Pet. y. Thus affo Diotrephes, affe&ing a Prehe- 
 minence, is rebuked by the Apoftle John : And Paul owns himfelf, and 
 other Apoftles, as Stewards only in the Houfe of God, and difowns a Dc- 
 minion, as we have heard. 
 
 Next, As for their Jurifdiclion over fubordinat Ecclefiaftich, which is the 
 Subflratum of the Dr c s great Anfwer and Queftion, I do deny;: Firfi, 
 that they exercifed any Epifcopal Jurifdi&ion, properly taken, over therrK 
 Secondly, fuch a Jurifdi&ion as didCrofs this Precept: The Proof of both 
 thefe, will fully difcoverthe vanity of the Dr c s Second Reply 
 
 And Fir/?,that the Apoftles exercifed no (uchEpifcopal Authority over Ec- 
 clefiafticks, or Churches planted, as the Dr. pleads for, is evident thus. 1. 
 Their Apoftolick Authority connected with their Infallibility in Teaching,, 
 reached to prefcrib Duty to the Members and Officers of Churches, con- 
 fequently was cumulative thereto, not frivative thereof, which appears in 
 their enjoyning the exercife of Spiritual JurifdiBion, as inherent in Church 
 Officers, as Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. And their owning a Spiritual Ju- 
 rifdi&ion and Authority in Vaftors, both in the defignations of Rulers, Go- 
 vtrnours, Qverfeers, Bijhops, attribut to them; As alfo, in their frequent en- 
 jovningtbe Peoples obedience andfubje&ionto them, as in that capacity 
 Bib. 13. 7. 17. 1 Pet. 5;. 2. 3. iJheJf. $v 12. 2. The Apoftles did not as 
 the ¥relats, invade the decifive Power of Paftors in Government, 
 bat took along their decifive Votes and concurrence, as we find in that 
 Council All. 1 5-. where its evident, that in every Point, the Elders or Mi- 
 ni iters, conccurred with the Apoftles, in the Difquifition, Sentence, and 
 decretal Letter. 3. As the Apoftles planted Churches with Paftors or Preach- 
 ing Presbyters, inftrucfting them with Authority to Feed and Rule, as Bi- 
 jhopi or Rulers, fet up by the Holy Ghoft, fo they committed the Govern- 
 ment of the Ghurches to them, in their laft farewells, without the leaft 
 hint of Super-inftitut Officers of an higher Order : So, that the Apoftles inftru- 
 dting ?a[tm with fuch Authority, commanding its exercife, enjoyning 
 ~ th« 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i y 
 
 the Churches obedience to them, exemplifying and Authorizing their in* 
 tereflin higheft Judicatories, yea, making even Evangelifts, as Timothy* 
 pafs through the Door of Presbyterial Ordination, in order to the exercife 
 of his Office; Not to infift upon, even Apoftles fubmiffion to the Autho- 
 ritative Impofition of the Hands of Prophets and Teachers,, when fentouc 
 upon a fpecial Gofpel Legation : To which we may add, the Apoftles 
 owning Fafiors, as Brethren, Fellow-helpers , Fellow- Labourers, Co -presbyters or 
 Elders. It follows inevitably, (i.) That as to the Perpetual Tafioral Charge, 
 the Authority of Preaching theGofpel,theAdminiftration oftheSacraments 
 and the appende nt Jurifdictional Power ( which by the Apoftles Do&rin, 
 is a Lower Step to this, and connected therewith,) they own the Fafiors or 
 Preaching Presbyters, their Equals, and their proper SucceJJors in this Minifte- 
 rialAuthority,conkquQnt\y the ordinary ChurchOfficers of the higheftOrder ,to 
 whom they committed the Keys of Dodtrin and Difciplin. (2.) That the 
 Exercife of their extraordinary Apoftolick directive Power and Authority, 
 which they could not diveft themfelves of, while alive, did no whit im- 
 peach the Handing Authority o(Paftors, nor did it includ any Jurifdicftion 
 properly over Churches, conftitut and Moulded in their Organick being. 
 By [ Jurifdiclion properly ] I mean fuch as is of a ftanding neceflity, in or- 
 der to the Churches Edification, in all times, or fuch a Jurifdiction over 
 Churches, as may be fuppofed paramount unto, or privative of the Juris- 
 dictional Authority of Paftors, and of Organick Churches. 
 
 Secondly, That theApoftles exercifed no fuchAuthoriry over theChurches, 
 as did crofs our Lords Precept and Prohibition, is evident, in that. 1* 
 Our Saviour difcharged Imparity among Church Officers of the fame kind, 
 and therefore, this could not impeach theApoftles Authority over ordina- 
 ry Officers. 2. Our Lords inftructing them with fuch a meafure of the 
 Spirit,as was futable tojthe Firftfounding of theChurches,and withAutho- 
 rity, as hisliving and infallibly infpired Oracles,to plant Churches,and the 
 GofpelOrdinances andGovernment therein:Unlefs theDr.will fay, that our 
 LordsPrecept did crofs and contradict his defign,hemuft needs ackdowledg, 
 that the Apoftles in exercifing this directive Power and extraordinary 
 Authority, over ordinary inferior Officers, could not crofs this his Pre- 
 cept and Prohibition, they being our Lords immediatly called, infallibly" 
 infpired, and extraordinarily Grfted Firft MelTengers, in order to this 
 end. Thus we have feen the vanity and infufficiency of the Dr c s Second 
 Anfwer. But there is no end of Vanities. 
 
 The Dr c s Third Anfwer, is Prefaced with a very big and high Flown 
 fwelling boaft. Tbat which, he fays, baffles andexpofes our Argument to all in- 
 tents and pur pofes, is, that our Lord did that him \fclf among them, which new bt 
 Commanded them to do one-4o another-, And the do'w% of this, one to another, in c- 
 
 dud*- 
 
1 8 'Dr.Momo'sTleadmgs Chap. I. 
 
 bedience to his Command 3 could net infer a Parity, unlefi we Blafphemoufly infer 
 that Chrifi and his Apofiles were equal : For, cur Lord recommends, what he en- 
 joins from his own conflant and vifible Vraclice among them, that he their Lord 
 and Mafter was their Servant : And therefore, it became the greatefi among them, 
 to be Modefl, calm and humble toward their Brethren, which would qualify them 
 for Eccle/Iafiick'Promoticns. This poor and mean Anfwer and Reafon of the 
 Dr c s, is a notion,for which he is beholden to his Popijh Mailers,* And being 
 here fubjoyned to fuch big words, brings to mind, fome Poetick Phrafes. 
 §uid tanto tulit hie prcmiffor hiatu — And 
 Projicis ampullas & fefquipedalia verba — And that of 
 Tartar iunt montes nafcetur ridkulus mus. 
 ■There*s no doubt, that the Dr. has as much expofed and baffled his own 
 judgment and Reputation, in this thrafonick weak Anfwer, as in any 
 thing elfe. But to the point, Firft I muft tell him, that if this Argument 
 rending to prove from this Text, our Saviours difcharging Lordly Dominion 
 in his Church,and inferred from his own exemplary Humility,be bad and 
 fallacious,it has long fince deceived the beft & ableft ofProtefiant Divines,in 
 Reafoning againft the Papifis and Papacy ? And if this his pretended Baffl- 
 ing Anfwer be fo Mighty and Invincible, as he pretends, Bellarmin and the 
 Vopijh Adverfaries, have long fince Baffled our Divines Arguments with it,- 
 For all know, it is the very fame with theirs ,• And I muft add, .that 
 it feems, the Dr. is fo highly in Love with thisPcpifi Notion and evafion, 
 that he has not concerned himfelf to notice what Baffling Replyes, Prote- 
 fiant Divines have returned to it, wherein they have difcovered, what an 
 infipid impertinent evafion it is, to fave thzVopes Mitre, from the ftroak of 
 this our Lords Prohibition and Precept,- and confequently that of Vrelats, 
 whereof we have already exhibit fome inftances. Ihavetold him, that 
 Turretin ( no doubt, one of our Dr c s new Minted Novelijls) makes it ap- 
 pear, that the Argument from our Lords Example, is an Argument, non 
 a pari, fed a majore ad minus. If I yourMafter, be as one that ferves,much 
 more you the Servants,ought to efhew all Lordly Dominion: As when he wait- 
 ed the Difci pies Feet, and thus recommended Love and Humility towards 
 one another, fince he their Lord and Mafter had done fo. I know not if 
 it be true, that this Man rode in the Popes Guards, but fure I am, he fen- 
 ces fiercely for his Mitre. He fays, our Saviour did that himfelf among 
 them, meaning his Exercifing a Principality and Supremacy over his Church: 
 For, in the Sentence, he puts the Words [i&] and \_Them\ in Empha- 
 tick diftincl: Characters, and confequently holds, that what our Lord thus 
 Exemplified^ is ftiil to be imitat in his Church. Thus, his Anfwer and 
 Reafoning, runs clearly to this Iffue ,- That which I command you, I have 
 J&U ; And therefore y that which I command you, is confiftent with a Supremacy 
 
 §ViT 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. rp 
 
 ever my Church, which I have Exercifed and Exemplified. And here the Pope* 
 Holinefs, has a fair Plea frcm the Venerable Dr. If Chrift did that him- 
 felf, which he enjoy ned hisDifciples here, then the doing of what he en- 
 joyned, was confident with a Supremacy: The Connection is clear; Chrift 
 as Supreme Head, and in that Capacity, Exercifed the fame Humility, 
 Self-Denyal,and Meeknefs,which he here enjoy ned. But for more direct 
 Answer, I do again tell him, that our Lords Scope, in propofing his own 
 Example, is to Antidote their inward Pride, the Root of this Defire of 
 Unlawful Dominion, and powerfully to recommend Humility and Self- 
 Denyal, as the mod excellent Remedies thereof. So, that his firfl Argu- 
 ment runs a fortiori, thus, If I your Lord andMafter be as one that ferves, 
 and am fuch a Pattern of Self-Deny aj and Humility among you, much 
 more ought you to Study Humility, and to Guard againft all Ufurped Do- 
 minion and Authority, one over another, who are Fellow Difciples and 
 Servants: Ashe Reafoned, Job-. 15. If I your Lord, have w allien your 
 Feet, much more ought ye to warn one anothers Feet. 
 
 Again-, in theDr c s Mould of Anfwer, I find two grofs Points of Inad- 
 vertency, which hardly any ordinary Capacity, could fall into, if we fup- 
 pofe thePerfon ferious, and attending to theMatterin hand, and very ill 
 befeeming one, who fets to his Name, a D. D. and Chartells this whole 
 Church. 1. In that he will needs have our Lords Precept and Prohibiti- 
 on, to be levelled againft an Ambitions Principle or Defign, but not at al] to 
 reach ( rather to allow ) that Effect and Exprejfion thereof, which our 
 blefTedLord, in down right Terms doth prohibit, viz. that Dominion men- 
 tioned in the Text,and which they were contending about: Thus fetting. 
 in Oppofition, things which are Subordinat, as if the Dr. had forget the 
 common M.3.xim,Subordinata nonPugnant ; And,asif a bad Principle 3 could fall 
 under a Prohibition,and not the bad Pr aftice,thc Iifue therecf.Whac aChil- 
 diih Conception and Weaknefs* is this? 2. He imagines, that ourLords Ar- 
 gument of Humility (while Prelling his Apoftles, to elhew Unlawful Do- 
 minion one over another ) drawn from his Practice, will infers his Argu- 
 ing a pari, and a Suppolition of his Equa ity with then?, if wc mall ex- 
 clude the Dr c s Hypothcfis of a Warrantable Supremacy and Di minion • An Ima- 
 gination than which, nothing can be more bottilh,- the Argument running 
 clearly a majore ad minus, from the greater to the lei's, and the very Balis 
 and Topick of it, fuppofing and inferring the quite contrary Conclufion 
 and Afl'ertion. So, that the Dr f s. Arguing that upon this Ground, as a- 
 bovc Senfed, wc would make Chrilt ai d his Apoftles equal, has jo 
 more Twirl of Reafon in it, than if one fhould infer, from our being de- 
 horted from Strife and Vain Glory, and enjoy ned Humility and Love, Lc- 
 caufe Chrift made hiuilclf of no R epilation, and humbled himielf to Death, 
 
 the 
 
2 o T>r. Monro V T leadings Chap. I # 
 
 the abfurd Conclufion of the Equality of hu Difciples and Members -with him- 
 [elf. The Dr. gives this Senfe of our Lords Words and Argument, in the 
 premifed Scriptures,- If I your Lord and Ma ft er was your Servant, it becomes the 
 great eft among you, to be Humble towards Subordinat Brethren, which will Qualify 
 you, for EcchfiaftickVromotion . This carries with itj fuch a clear Suppofiti- 
 on of the Warrantablenefs o£a Greateft orChief among /£<?w,asldare promife 
 him, the Topes Approbation of his Commentary, it being the very fame, 
 with that of his great Champion, Bellarmin, who tells our Divines, that a 
 Dominion and Supremacy, is here rather fuppcfed than forbidden, and only 
 Humility in it c s Exercife enjoyned. But theDr c s petty Novelifs, Proteftant 
 Divines., have told him, that if this Glofs were true, then our Lord ra- 
 ther Inflamed than Quenched their Ambitious Defire of Dominion and 
 Greatnefs, one over another, fince, Reprehending only the Unwarran- 
 table Method of Seeking, he thus Tacitly Recommended the Thing it 
 felf, as Lawful and Defireable. But once more, I would fain know of 
 this Dr, whether our Lord did not command an Equality or Official Same- 
 ?iefs of Authority Apoft elk al among the Apoftles ? Or, if he thinks indeed, that 
 one was allowed to be in this Refpecl,Prince and Supreme over the reft? If 
 he hold this laft, then I dare Appeal to all Troteftcnts, whether he has not 
 left our Camp, and is in the Tents of the Tapifts. If he owne, that our 
 Lord here enjoyned an Authoritative Official Equality of Tower, among the 
 Apoftles, then I would know, what his Senfe is, of our Lords Argument, 
 Prefling and Recommending this Equality, from his own Example,- And 
 whether his Affigning this Senfe, and giving this Account of our Lords 
 Reafoning, will Bla/phemoufty inferr, that Chrift and his Apoftles were equal. 
 So, that the Dr, muft either quite this Senfe of our Lords Words, and 
 confequently the Senfe exhibit by Troteftant Divines, or acknowledg 
 the Abfurdity and Futility of his own Argument and Anfwer, and that 
 he falls by the Rebound of his own Blow and Weapon. But I am tedious 
 in a Matter of it felf plain. 
 
 To .proceed therefore : The Dr. (P. 19. ) is fo taken with the Invin- 
 cible Strength of this his Anfwer, that he falls into a Compaffionat Re- 
 grate, for his Tresbyterian Brethren, telling his Reader, That its very fad, 
 that any Jhould be fo infatuated, with their new Schemes ofTarity, as to aUedge 
 fuch Texts, which if under food, in their Senfe, degrades our bhffed Saviour, to the 
 Deo-ree of one of his Difciples ; For, what he Commanded to the Apoftles, heTracli- 
 fed among them himfelf If I were to give Way to fuch a Retaliating Re- 
 grate, as this would tempt fome unto, I would Echo it back, in teeing 
 him, that its very fad, that a Man, who is bold to Chartell this whole 
 Church, and fets his Name with a D. D. to fuch a bold Tamphlet as this, 
 ihould ( in a pretended Pleading for Epifcopacy, and Anfwering a Tresbytt- 
 
Chap. I: For Epifcopacy, Examined 2 1 
 
 rian Argument againft it, in the premifed Scriptures,) fo betray his Caufe, 
 and Proclaim his Folly, as to Charge with infatuation the Body of Prote- 
 ftant Divines, in their Pleadings againft the Pope, and Support his Mitre, 
 in pretending to plead for Epfcopacy. As to our Lords practifing himfelf, 
 what was Commanded to them,- I have already demonftrat the futility of 
 this Notion, and what an zs£gyptian Reed it is,to fupport his Conclufion. 
 Our Saviour practifed Humility, and called the Apofrles to fuch an exer- 
 cife of it, as did fute that Humble Miniftry he enjoy ned them, and was 
 oppofit to that Proud Dominion and inequality they were affecting. And 
 this wife Critical Dr. with this his new Swcrd, will needs cut thz.Gordian 
 Knot of the Argument, here made ufe of by our Lord, when exciting to 
 Humility and Parity, fuch perfons, as are of unqueftionable equality, in 
 point of Official Power, denying the Strength or all fuch reafoning. He, 
 tells us, that what our Lord en -joy 'ned, was toto ccelo, different from Parity. And 
 thus, muft be antipode, and in the higheft Line of oppofition thereunto, 
 andconfequently a Primacy. And this Confirms that which before ICharged 
 upon him, anent his owning a Primacy among the Apoftles. He fays, 
 They were not to exercife their JurifdiBion, as Lords of the Gentiles, by a Spirit 
 of Pride and Domination, but in an ingaging behaviour of Charity and Humility. 
 Yet ftill the Dr. fuppofes, their Juriidiction included a S uprewacy and Chief- 
 nefiof Power, one over another; And fo here is^ood found Popifi Plead- 
 ing : Bgt Protefiant Divines have long fince Taught his Reverence, that all 
 Earthly Dominion it felf, and worldly Pomp is forbidden, all Greatnefs 
 and Grandure, whether Civil, or pretendedly Ecclefaftick, and this as op- 
 pofit to the Nature of their Power and vocation, which is a Spiritual La* 
 iorious Service and Miniftry, for the Salvation of Souls,- And thus ftands in 
 (contradiction to all fort of Domination and Lordihip. Moreover, he ap- 
 parently falls into a pityful inadvertancy, in identifying Civil Dominion^ 
 Rvith a Spirit of 'Pride .there being a Lawful Commanded Civil Dominion, 
 appointed of God: And if he Object, that the Princes of the Gen- 
 \tiles, whom our Lord inftanceth in, thus exercifed it : As the Mould of 
 his Phrafe, will not admit of that defence, fo, ourSavi uis inftancingfuch 
 Gentile Princes, as were called Benefaclors, or Gracious Lords, and in Luke, 
 (ufing the fimple, not the Compound verb, which points at a Civil Rule 
 and Dominion fimpldy confidered, intirely excludes this his fubterfuge, and 
 ifliuts up this poftern: }\'hittakcr hath long fince told him ( De pontif. aueft. 
 1. ) that the word, which L//£emakesufe of, is applyed to denote Lawful 
 Rule, and that all thePrinces of the Gentiles were not fuch, as did Tvrani- 
 iCallyOverrule,or Reign unjuftly,and tharthe Clemency and Juftice of ma- 
 ny of them, is Celebrat. And both he, and Junius ( ubi fup.) doe> 
 Ihew, that it is the Dominion or Lordjbip it fclf, not the unwarrant- 
 ed u 
 
T>r, Monro'i T leadings' Ckap. I 
 
 able Exercife, or manner of attaining, which our Lord here Condemns* 
 
 For that which the Dr. adds ( ibid. ) of Pauls answering his Epifcopal 
 Character, when the Care of all the Churches was upon him, in employing his 
 Epifcopal Power to Edification : I have already told him of what Nature 
 that Care was, and how it differed from the pretended Infpe&ion and 
 Dominion of Prelats. His care of the Churches, was an Apoftolick direr 
 <9:ive Infpe&ion, futed to his Extraordinary Office and Gifts, which no 
 ordinary Officer can pretend unto, and in its exercife, fo far from Exem- 
 plifying ;a Prelatical Domi nion, that both in Doclrin and Pra&ice, he baffles 
 it out of the World, in enjoyning the highett Acls ofJu r 
 rifdi&ion to Paftors or Presbyters; as thefe of Corinth a, en- 
 joyning the whole Epifcopal Authority to the Elders or Pa- 
 ftors ofEphefus, in his laft farewel to that Church b, afcrib 
 ingthe Power of Ordination to a Presbytrie, though him 
 fell was prefent in the A&ion c, Identifying in his Epiftles 
 to the Philippians, to Titus, the Name,Office and Qualificatir 
 ons of Bifljop and Presbyter d, difowning all Dominion in 
 the Houfe of God <?, Afcribing to himieif, a Miniftry and 
 Service only/, fo far was he from Arrogating to himfelf, 
 a Spiritual Lordfhip in God c s. Houfe, or a Civil Peerage in 
 the State, fuch as the Prelats, whom the Dr. Pleads for, da 
 ufurp. And, if in all thefe, he anfwered his Epifcopal Char abl- 
 er ( as who will doubt, but he did ) and obeyed this in- 
 junction of our Saviour, by confequence, he condemned the Prelatical Cha- 
 racier, fo many ways oppofit thereto. Befides, he pronounced a woe 
 upon himfelf, if he Preached, not the Gofpel, i Cor. 9. 16. and Preached 
 it in Seafon and, out of Seafon : Thus enjoyning Timothy, 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. 
 And therefore.pronounced a woe upon non-Preaching Prelats, who look- 
 'upon this as no part of their work. He preferred the. Labourer in 
 ■shs Word and Doclrin^ to the Perfon who-. Ruled only, .1 Tim. 1. 1-. 
 And thus Preaching Tafiors, to non-Preaching Prelats, who look 
 upon their pretended fpincual and Civil Rule, as the proper Charader- 
 iftick of their Office, and Preaching but a little piece of iupererogatory 
 Worjk, but no exercife of their Prelatick, Office and but obiter to the Act- 
 ings of their fuppofed Grandure. He enjoy ned Chrifts Minifter and Soul 
 dier,to beware of ingadging in Worldy affairs,if they would pieafe Chr : ~ 
 who. has Chofen them to be his Souldiers. 2 Tim. 2. 4. And thuscondem 
 ned Prelats holding Stat Offices., as pleafers of men, of Princes, of them 
 felves, and not of Chriit. 
 
 He tells us next (P. 20 ) That the Fathers of the Church advanced above theh 
 Brethren to Ecckjiaftick Power s had thts Notion of their dignity ^ that they wen 
 
 tJ 
 
 
 
 i. Cor. 
 
 S> 
 
 b 
 
 AB. 2C 
 
 . 
 
 6: 
 
 1 Tim. 
 
 4> 
 
 !*4 
 
 zTim. 
 
 1. 
 
 6. 
 
 
 
 d Philip. 
 
 r. 
 
 1. 
 
 Tit. 1. 
 
 6. 
 
 7- 
 
 
 
 € 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 1. 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 1, Cor. 
 
 4- 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
Chap. I. Fo> Epifcopacy, Examined. 25 
 
 the Servants of others. As for the advancement of Ancient Fathers , we fay* 
 that, as the equality of 'Vapors, is Chrifts Pattern upon the Mount, and that 
 (asjerom expreftes it ) the Apoftclick Churches, were Governed ccmmunl 
 Presbyterorum ccnflJio, fo the Firft Fathers cr Bifiops, were fixed Moderators cnl > r , 
 and had nojurifdiction above their Brethren,and even when thisUfurping 
 Jurifdidion above Paftors was Gradually Advancing. fome of the beft Bijhcps, 
 as Cyprian parti cularly,owned theVaftcrs as their Collcguesin Government, and 
 were far from the faftuous Pomp and abfolut Dominion of the Vrelats, whom 
 the Dr. pleads for. And if any of them held this Notion of their pretend- 
 ed Dignity, when their Power came to the length of incrbaching upon 
 that of P^™ in Government, they held but an empty Chimerical Notion, 
 Contradictory to-theirPr*#/V^ As theP^j Notion of his being Serum Ser- 
 vorum Dei. 
 
 The Dr. (ibid.) returns again to his Poft, telling us, That it appears, 
 from 'what he has [aid, we have no Shadow of Argument for our new Dcclrirre, 
 from the (Texts above inflamed. Thus the Proteftant Pleadings therefrom, a- 
 gainft the Papacy, has no Shadow cf Argument with him. But whether 
 our Arguments, or his Anfwers, be molt Substantial, is left to the Reader 
 to Judge, from what is faid. He tells us, That Walk Miffalinus, Glances 
 at this Text, but lays no great Strefs upon it. But the Dr. has not exhi- 
 bit either his Words or Argument,- as neither Bez,a c s Reflection upon the 
 Paffage, in his larger Notes: Tho he tells us, ( as fome great Difcivery 
 ferfooth) that Bez,a holds, That all kind ofjurifdiclion is not here forbidden y 
 but fuck as ts jcynedwith Imperious Bitternefs and Domination. And what he 
 would make cf this, I would fain know. Did ever any imagine^ that all 
 kind of Jurifdidion is here forbidden? Did our Lord difcharge all Go- 
 vernment in his Church, by this Precept and Prohibition? As for Beta's 
 exprefling thus, that which is forbidden, it is evident to any, who are ac- 
 quaint with his Writings, that he holds all pretended Spiritual Jurifdidi- 
 on, which is joyned with Domination, or Lordly Rule, of one Paftor over 
 another, to be a Sinful Abufe of Jurifdidion, and confequently to fall 
 within the Compafs of what is prohibited in thefe Texts. 
 
 I proceed to another Notion and Anfwer of the Di c s: We are told next, 
 (ibid.) That the Hierarchy and Subordination of Trie ft s, was eftablifrt by Divine Au- 
 thority in t/x }Qwti\iChurch: If our Saviour bad pulled down that Ancient Pclicy, and 
 commanded Equality among Presbyters of the New Teftament, be would not have 
 ftatcd the Oppofition betwixt h:s Dijciples and the Lords of the Gentiles, but between 
 the Mofaick Oeconcmy and the Dijciples of tbe New Teftament. Here the 
 Dr. obliges us, in affording frill more Light, in taking up his Judgment 
 and Principles in Point or. Church Government, viz. in his Senie, the 
 Jwljl) Policy, by our Lords Warrand, was at this time Handing, as the 
 
 U z ex- 
 
z$ T>r. Monro**- ^leadings Chap. L 
 
 exa& Standart and Plat-Form for the Gofpel Church Government,- And 
 therefore, we need not doubt what he means by Chief Places, and Dignities 
 and Honours in the Church, and that he holds, that our Saviour did not 
 forbid, but fuppofed the Lawf ulnefs of a Chief Rule and Principality, of one 
 Difciple over the reft in the Church. Nay, ( P. 27. ) he is clear and po- 
 sitive in this, That that Hierarchy, the **£'« whereof was divided in a Supreme 
 And Subordinat Priefts, was never abrogated ( confequently ftands imitable 
 and imitated ) in the NewJefiament. I think the Dr. will find the cleareft 
 Pattern at. Rome of this his Holy Standing Hierarchy. In Anfwer where* 
 unto, I need only fay, That the ft an ding Policy of the Jewi/h Church, ne- 
 ver abrogat, hut continuing as the Measure and Standart of the New Tefiament 
 Church Government, is fo notorioufly known, to be the great Pcpijh Argu- 
 ment for die Papal Hierarchy, pleaded by all the Antichriftian Rabble 
 and Locufts, who ftand up for this Monfter and Myftery of Iniquity, and 
 fo Univerfaily condemned by all Protefiant Churches and Divines, that 
 there needs no more to Stigmatize a Man, as of that Number, in their 
 Judgment, than fuch an Affertion. That all our Divines, do hold the A- 
 hrogation of the Jewijh Church Policy, is fo clear, that it would Load, 
 much Paper, but to Recite their Names. cc Rivet. CatL Orth. Tratt. 2. 
 * c £uefc 4. brings in his Jefuit, Ballam, with this Argument in his Mouth 
 €< — That becaufe one High Piieft under the Old Teftament, had rhe 
 ** Chief Government,- therefore, it ought to be fo in the New: And tells 
 * c him$ that there is Multiphx Abufm, or a manifold Abufe.and Corrupti- 
 on in this Pleading. He ihews him further, that every thing in that 
 * e Difpenfation, reaches not us ; that the High Prieft was. Tv pical of 
 Cf Chriiij as the Apoftle fhews, Htb. 7. That if a Parity of Government 
 <c were pleaded, there fhould be a Dedication of one Family for the Mi- 
 " niftry, as there was for Priefts and Levites, &c. Turret. Part. 3. Queft. 
 16. Thef. i?. 16. After he has fet d. wn the Judgment of the Ancients a- 
 gainft a Primacy in the Church, he brings in the Solution of the Popifl Ob- 
 jection and Argument, taken from the Government of the Church under 
 the Otd Teitament, which he Baffles from feveral Grounds ,• fuch as, 1. 
 The Extent of the Chriftian,beyond that of the Jewijh Church. 2. That 
 the High Prieft had no abfoiute Authority over that Church, being fub- 
 ject to thejurifdi&ion of the giQ&tSanhtdrin, Deut. 17. n. 2. That what 
 Authority he had, was Typical of Chrifts, the High Prieft of theNewTe- 
 iiament. Wallaus de Function. Ecckfiaft. P. ( mihi) 470. brings in this Ob- 
 jection againft Parity of Paftors, taken from the High Prieft under theOid 
 Teftame.nt, and the twenty four Orders ofPriefts, over whom there were 
 pendents : And thus Anfwers, " That thefe things were partly Typical^ 
 ".partly Political j that there was a Priority of Order here, notanjblfcn- 
 
 ji 4 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 25 
 
 " tial Difference of Power and Authority^ that they all Governed the 
 <c Church by Common Counfel. 
 
 But for the abrogation of this Mfaiflry, and that it was to be noStandart 
 for the Gofpel Churchy I will produce and offer again to the Dr f s Conii- 
 deration, that one Text, Heb. 7. 12. ~ The Priefthood being changed, there ts 
 made of Necejjity a Change of the Law, viz,. The Policy futed to the State of 
 that Church, muft bechanced alfo. The Text afferts, that the Priefthood, 
 or their particular Frame of Church Officers being changed, -r abrogat,there 
 is therefore^ Change or Abrogation of the Law, i.e.. the Legal Ordinances, 
 refpeding both their Worlhip and Government. Pcol. Part. 2. tells us, 
 t( That this Change refeirs to the Expiration of the Aarcnical Order, to 
 " which the Hebrews were not bound ; for that a better Priefthood and 
 €€ Law, were to fill up its Room — That the Mutation of the Priefthood, 
 " required a Change of the Law — That God determined that both Prieft- 
 a hood and Law mould expire togerher. Engliflj Annot. on v. n. affert 
 the Abrogation of the Legal Priefthood, together with the Covenant 
 ( viz.. the Legal ) and by clear Confequence that Policy. The Belgick 
 Divines upon the place, d^ mew, " That the Levitical Priefthood, was 
 cc many ways involved with the Legal Difpenfation of the Covenanted 
 fc therefore aboiiJhed with it. Diod.itt mews, " That the Priefthood, and 
 tc all the Ceremonial Wo; (hip of the Tribe of Levi, was to give place to 
 <c Chrifts, in whom was accomplished all the Reality ard l.uth, and he 
 cc is now both Prieft and Law-Giver. Biljcn ( an EngHJlj Fifhcp) ILews 
 the Reafon, why that Policy cannot ftand under the NewT^ftamentCPer- 
 pet. Gov. Chap. 2. ) viz,. " That the Tribe of Levi was not fubjed: to ano- 
 " ther, and had its fpecial Governours — That the Books t f Mojcs con- 
 staining their Mould of Civil Government, the Levites were on the 
 u Benches with the Judges — That the Offices of the Sanduary, and the 
 <c Rites and Ceremonies thereof, were various — That all, except theLt- 
 " vites, being reftrained therefrom, this required feveral Deg.ces ^f Ad- 
 " miniftrators, in this Diverlity of Offices and services — hut the Wod 
 " and Sacraments, Concrcdited to all Minifters, without Diiiinction, avq 
 "of ne. kind, and admitteth no Dilierence of Adminiftration: And 
 cf therefbre,no different Degrees of Minifters. Thus, we have icon, what 
 good Harmony, ourLr. keeps in this hisNotion of the Jewijh Po.icy, with 
 the Senfe and Judgment of Pr defiant Divines,- And how this Famous Eng- 
 lish Bijkp, has Chcckt him for the fame. 
 
 But now, to come more clofely to his Argument, If that Policy bad ban 
 fulled down, our Lord would, in Commending Parity to Presbyters, have ftdti 
 Oppofition betwixt the Jewiih Oeconorny , and that of the Ncw-TtjiaMoi: church, 
 pot . betwixt fm Dijcijks^and that of the Gciniic Privets, jivf 1. That thisOeco- 
 
v6 T>r. MonroV Tleadings Chap. L 
 
 nomy was to end asTypical,with other Typical Ordinances,is madegood; 
 And if the Dr. admits that it was to be removed in any Meafure, and as 
 Typical, he ftands in fo far, upon the fame Grounds with us, and is obli- 
 ged toAnfwer this Notion, or acknowledge it nought. 2. The Dr. him- 
 ielf, in his Way of Arguing, Anfwers himfelf,- He fays, That our Saviour 
 deponed to difchczrge and prohibit, a Violent Secular Way of Afpiring toGreat- 
 nefs, fuch as is Faflrionable in Secular Courts, and that the Difciples were prohi- 
 bited to Exercife their Power by a Spirit of Pride and Domination. And the Dr. 
 wil^not fay, that this was the Method of Attaining Offices in the Jewift 
 Policy, or their allowed Practice, God having fubjeded the fame to his 
 own Holy Rules and Meafures: And that confequently, what our Lord 
 prohibited, and even according to the Dr c s Senie and Expreflions, was 
 only and fitly reprefented by the Dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles, 
 which he holds to be of this Nature, and thus Exercifed, and who did 
 not underftand Gods Law or Meafures, either as to the Attaining or Exer- 
 cife of Government. But 3. I muft tellhim, that in Commanding Parity 
 among Minifters, (for otherwife, we owne an Imparity and Subordinati- 
 on, among Church Officers in general) our Lord could not ftate an Op- 
 pofition betwixt them, and thePriefts of thejfoW/kOeconomy, there be- 
 ing no fuch Dominion among them, as he here difchargedj As we heard 
 WaUaus affert ,• None of them had an Epifcopal Dominion, or a fole Deci- 
 five Suffrage in Ecclefiaftick Courts, or fuch a Negative Voice therein, as 
 tho, Gentile Princes Dominion did import, and Prelats affume and Exer- 
 cife. The Learned Junius ( deCler.Cap. 24. Nut. i%.) makes evident, and 
 will inform the Dr, That parConfortium fuit Honoris, &Poteftatis inter Sacer- 
 dotes, jtdOrdme impari, qua Familiar urn, qua Temporis fufpetlu, penes concefum 
 
 Sacerdotem, ex Lege fuit or dinar ia JurifdiBio Ecclefiaflica. That there 
 
 was a like Share of Honour and Power among Priefts, though in a diffe- 
 rent Order, partly, in refpect. of Families, partly, in refped: of Times: 
 The ordinary Ecclefiaftick Jurifdidion, belonged to the Afiembly of the 
 Priefts, according to the Law. Hence, we may, by clear Confequence^ 
 inferr 4 that it belonged not ( in the Senfe of Junius ) to the High Prieft, 
 nor to any of them folely. Now, where there was fuch a well ordered Pa- 
 rity ofPower and Government, among thefe feveral Orders of Divine Ap- 
 pointment, it was very unfuteable toExemplifie fuch an Arbitrary Domi- 
 nion thereby, as theDr.here fuppofeth, and fuch aCiviLGreatnefs and Su- 
 premacy, as the Apoftles affe&ed. Befides, the Dr. and we, doth both 
 hold, a Subordination of Courts and Officers, under the New Teftament, 
 wherein both Oeconomies were alike, and there being under the Old Te- 
 fiament Oeconomy, no fuch Head ihip and Soveraignity, as is faid, the 
 ftated Oppofition betwixt the two Governments, could not fo well cor- 
 jefpefcd to our Lords Scope in this Precept and Prohibition. But 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 27 
 
 But finally ,the Dr.cannot but acknowledge,that theDiftemper,theApcr 
 ftles now Laboured under, was their Fancv of a Temporal and Earthly 
 Kingdom of our Lord, admitting of Worldly Dignities, and Degrees of 
 State and Honour, as the Kingdoms of the World; which is the Notion, 
 that the Jews to this day, entertain of the Mcffias Kingdom, under/land- 
 ing in a Literal Senfe, the Magnificent difcriptions thereof, exhibit by the 
 Prophets. Hence, the People came to make our Saviour a King, and were 
 mainly Stumbled at his Humble and low Eftate, and ( which is to this 
 purpofe very confiderable ) we find the Difciplesthemfelves propofe that 
 Queftion to him, after his Refurredaon, wilt then at this time reficre again 
 the Kingdom to Ifrael ? So, that its clear, that the Ambitious affectation of 
 Earthly Grandure, Pomp, and the greatnefs of this Worlds Potentats, was 
 the diftempering Principle,leavening the two Brethren,and which promp- 
 ted them to propofe to our Saviour the Sure, which excited their Fellow- 
 Difciples emulation againft them, and gave occafion to the Precept un- 
 der debate. And hence, the oppofiticn was moil fitly ftated betwixt the 
 Honour and Offices of Chrifts Kingdom, and that of the Kingdoms of the 
 World, and Earthly Potentats, and it was needful, that our Saviour, 
 fhould thuslhew the Difciples, the Diftin&ion betwixt his Kingdom, and 
 the Kingdoms of this World, as himfelf averted to Filate, Jcb. 18. Be- 
 fides, the Pomp and Corruptions of the Kingdoms of the World, being 
 to continue in after-Generations, andconfequcntlv, the tentation thereof, 
 endangering the inflaming of this Ambition in Church Officer<:But not the 
 Jewifi Oeconomy, now to be abolished; theoppoiitbn, which our Lord; 
 if a ted, was molt tit, andfutable to his Scope. 
 
 Upon what is here offered, we. may fee theinconfequence and infuffi- 
 ciency of what theDr further adds., in Confirmation of this his Notion, 
 P. 21. viz£ That cur herd did fiatet.be cvvcjkicn betwixt the current IhShm 
 and his own, when he would direct, in better Morals; And therefore, if he bad j or- 
 hidden Subordination, and Degree; of Vriefis, and E/lablijhed Equality , he wmld 
 ha-ve Stated the oppc/itian, betwixt the Model of the Temple, and that of the C 
 (lian Church. This is no Realbn. For i. We deny that our Lord enjovn- 
 cd an abfolute Parity of Church officers, but among thofe only of the 
 fame kindj he did not forbid all Imparity and Jurifdidion among Church 
 Officers. 2 The oppoiition betwixt the Tmple-Model, and that of the: 
 NewTeftan:ent,could neither fo well lute the Apolues diikmperand tes- 
 tation, nor our Lords delign in this prohibition and Precept. There was 
 (1 ) A Subordination and jurifdiftion required therein, ib in the New* 
 Tcftament difpenfation. (z) Miniftcrs therein,were to attend their Charg- 
 es diligently, lo alio, in the I\. lentGhurch, (3) None of them 
 had an Imperious, ai binary or Ci^ii itulc over their fcllow-Prieftv 
 
 ancU 
 
1 2§ * T>r Monro's Tleadings Chap. I c 
 
 and thus it is with Minifters of the New Teftament Church. The Moral 
 Law being the conftantStandart of Truth and Duty in all Ages, our Savi- 
 our, who came to fulfill all Righteoufnefs,and eftabliih the Law, was there- 
 fore concerned to vindicat the fame from corrupt gloffes; but this bears no 
 proportion to his Scope in the Cafe of the Difciples, that old Miniftry 
 and Policy, being now ready to evanilh. 
 
 The Dr. proceeds to another Text, and tells his Reader, that we Cite 
 i Vet. 5-. 2. 3. to ferve the fame delign. We have made appear, that 
 our defign in pleading this and the preceeding Texts, is the fame with 
 that of Proteftant Divines, and that the defign, the Dr. ferves in hisGloifes 
 and Anfwers, is Popifh ( as to the intentio operis, at ieaft ) 2l xleflgn 
 to fupport the Popes Triple Crown, with Bellamin and his other pleaders 
 and Advocats. Our Argument fi cm this Text, againft the Prelatkal Hier- 
 archy, is this: Looking to the Apoftles fcope, he, firfL dehcrts Minifters 
 ( and none will doubt all ordinary Church Officers ) from the evils they 
 are conftantly tempted to, cm, Covetoufnefs, Lordfhip, ufurpation and 
 Dominion over Gods Heritage ( evils of a clofe connection and cognati- 
 on ) that they do not Ad the Diotrephes, feeking Preheminence over their 
 Brethren, or affed a Mafterly Dominion over the People; for that both 
 comes under the Denomination of Gods Heretage,none will doubt.He like 
 wife dehorts from Reludancy, at their Laborious imployment. Next, 
 there is a pofitive exhortation prefented to Minifters, viz, that they be 
 examples to the Flock, that is, that the Graces they Preach to others, /nine in 
 their Walk, and in fpecial that of Meeknefs and Humility, which moft 
 nearly Refembles their Glorious Mafter, the great Shepherd of the Sheep, 
 that this appear in their conduct and Government, as that of his, who 
 leadeth Gently, and would not have Minifters to Rule with Rigor, 
 as thofe Reprehended £3^.34.4. Hence from the Scope and contexture it 
 appears. i.That thePafior, Labouring in the Word and Dodrin, being here 
 addreffedas the Apoftles Co-presbyter and Fellow- elder, is owned by him as 
 the higheft ordinary Church Officer, and that this Apoftle now fhortly 
 to put off his Tabernacle, doth Aaron-tike, inveft him, in his Robe^or 
 higheft Sphere of an Ordinary Minifter. 2 He enjoyns them to exercife 
 Epifcopal Authority,- As alfo Paul did the Elders of Ephefus. Aft. 20. which 
 muft refped Ordination and Jurifdidion, in the full extent thereof, and 
 their equal intereft therein. 3. All of them are difcharged to Lord it, or ex- 
 ercife a Dominion over one another, or over the Flock, but to exercife a 
 humble exemplary Miniftry. Hence we further inferr againft the Hier- 
 archical Prelat. (1.) That the Apoftle afcribing this comprehenfive Au- 
 thority to Pafiors, which comprehends both the Dodrinal Key, and 
 that of Jurifdidion j For., I hope, our Epifcopal Brethren, will acknow- 
 ledge 
 
Chap. L. For Epifcopacy, Examined zp 
 
 ledg that the«7' 6 * 6T6Tr j 6 or Epifc opal Authority and infpe&ion, inckds bcth.he 
 cuts off the HJ erarcn ical Vrelats pretended fuper-Infpeclion, paramount 
 thereunto. He nce f 2 ^ The Paftor being found thusdifcribcd, and inftalkd 
 in this cornpre^ en fiveScripturalE/';/c^/7/Authority 5 the Hierarchical Vrtlats 
 Office, which fwallovvs up this Power and Authority of Vaficrs, and ar- 
 
 much more that of Vrelats over Vafiors themfelves. 
 
 Now, for the Judgment of Vroteflant Writers, in corefpondence to this 
 our Senfs, we might exhibit a great cloud of Witneffes, but of the whole, 
 we offer only thelefew inftances. The Belgick Divines make this, 2. v. 
 paralel with that which is enjoined^#.2o. 28. to theEIders of Ephefm&i to 
 the Authority and exercifeof a joynt E/>/j^/Winfpecuon,ccmpetent toP*- 
 fiors: And the 3. v. they Tranflate [not Exercifing Dominion'] the very fame 
 thing which our Lord prohibit to his Apofiles. Pcol. Annct. 2. Part, doth 
 alfo make the Command in this 2* 1/. praralel with Acl. 20. 28, and Job. 
 21. if. 16. and Paraphrafes the Command, as importing both to feed 
 and Rule, and enjoining the exercife of the Doctrinal and Jurifdiclional 
 Key jointly, yea and hold it to be of fuch a Nature, as to the main de- 
 figns of the Gofpel, as was enjoined to Peter himfelf, andhis Fellow- Apo- 
 files* The Claufe of [ taking the over fight ~] they expone thus, being Bi- 
 flwps, or a&ing as Bifliops over it,fuperintending, Infpecting and Watching 
 over it ( viz,, the Flock ) paralelling this with Acl. 2c. 28. 29. where fuch 
 Pafioral Epifcopal Feeding and Rule, is enjoy ned in Pauls farewell to the £/- 
 ders or Minifters of Ephefus. The prohibition or negative part of the 
 Precept, v. 5. [ not as being Lords ] they Expone of not exercifing fuch 
 Lordlhip and Dominion, as temporal Lords j paralelling this with Matth. 
 20. 2j, 26. Luk. 22. 2f. as alfo with 2 Cor. 1. 24. where Paul difowns 
 Dominion; and with 1 Cor. 3. 5'. Who then tsPaul? or who isAppIIo? But 
 Ministers'. Yea, even Grotius, Comtrarius, Menochius, expone the Command 
 of Feeding, v. 2. as importing Government cr Rule; paralelling this 
 with Job. 21. 15", 16, 17. Acl. io. 28. 29. The Claufe of [tak'mg.tbe over* 
 fight ] is generally understood of fuperintending and acting the Bijlwps, E- 
 pijeopum agentcs. Bez,*, Vifcat, Valla. Erafm. Gerard, (ays, its an allulion to 
 their Name, as if the Lord enjoined them to be Antwerable 1.0 it. Tl e 
 enfuing Verfe y is underirood of imperious Dominion over GOD's Church: 
 Thus Pifcat. Mtnocb. ixc. Turret. ( InftihB.Tb J... *. j. Ktu/K 16. Th 
 produces the fame Text, collated with 2 Car.i. 24. as proving, a prohil 
 en of all Lordly Power to Minifters, (hewing, thac this is the prerogative 
 of Chrift the Chief Sheepheid, and that in oppolitun to fuch Lordly 1\ 
 
 X 
 
30 T>r Monro's Tleadings Chap. L 
 
 er, Pafiors, are called Minifiers, Mefjengers, Servants, Stewards of the Myfieries 
 of God. Maccov. from this Paffage Collated with^#. 20. 28. concludes the 
 identity of the Epifcopal and Paftoral Office Loc.Commun. Cap.82. P.S^. The 
 Eng. Annot. upon the place, do mew, "That fach aMagifterial carriage is 
 forbidden, as is Taxed, ; Joh.v.y.m Diotrephes Love of Preheminence. 
 
 But now. What is the Dr c s. great Anfwerto this Text ? He fays. Its the 
 Apoftles Commentary upon our Saviours Words and Commandment. This is very 
 true : He next adds, That it forbids the Spirit of Pride andlnjolence, as a thing 
 'very unfutable to all Power and Authority in the Church. To which I Anfjver, 
 it is certain the Word x*r*xvj nw>vf€ 3 is Paralel with Matth. 20. Luk. 22. 
 where Peter learned the prohibition, and imports Dominion, but not Ty- 
 ranical Dominion properly; It being made ufe of by the LXX. to ex- 
 prefs Lawful Dominion. 2. We have told him, that the pofitive part of 
 the Precept, refuts his g 1 ofe? which the Apoftle doth net thus exprefs in 
 the Dr f s. Senfe [ not proudly or injolently Domineering ] but ufing Dominion mc- 
 deratly, as the Apoftle would have prefented the Precept,if a Lawful Lord- 
 fhip had been allowed, but he adds in the other Branch, in exprefling what 
 is enjoyned [ being examples to the Flock ] enjoining thus to Feed by Exam- 
 ple, and an Humble Miniftry,- And this iscppofit to all Dominion what- 
 foever, and doth not difcriminat one Dominion from another; as is al- 
 fo evident in the pofitive part of the Paralel Precepts abovementioned* 
 We have alfo told him, that the inftance and Illuftration, drawn from 
 fach Princes of the Gentiles, as were accounted Gracious Lords, and the 
 iimple word of Rule ufed by Luke, in the paralel, confutes this Glofs, and 
 doth demonftrat, that it is not proud infolent Dominion, or a Dominion fecun- 
 *d:im quid, and thus qualified, which is only here forbidden, but Lordjlnp 
 ^nd Dominion, fimplicitev, the defire whereof "did notwithstanding proceed 
 intheApoftles, from fome remainders of Pride, and in their Cafe, could 
 not be exercifed or afliimed without a faftuous infolency, it being Diame- 
 trically oppofit to the Nature of their Holy Officeand Fun&ion. So then, 
 I argue againft the Dr. from his own Principle and Glofs,- If Peter thus un- 
 derstood our Lords Precept, Matth. 20. and Luk. 22. in this Senfe, that 
 Pride was the Principle of their defire, and of that greatnefs they fought, 
 and that the exercile of this greatnefs was prohibit, as the very emanati- 
 on of infolentPride, and if with all, he coppied out this his Precept to Mi- 
 nifters, from that great Command of his Lord, and took his Meafure3 
 {herefrom, he could not but look upon Paftors Lording over the Flecks, as 
 proceeding from Priie,and the very practice and exercife of a Domineerhig 
 Tyranny ^yea,he ccu'd not but put under this Character, whatever exercile 
 of pretended Miniiteriai Autho itv. goes be\ ond theLimits of thathum- 
 ble exemplary Miniftry, that Miniiteriai diligence and fervice of theLords 
 
 Flocks^ 
 
Chap. IL For Epifcopacy, Examined. 31. 
 
 Flocks,, which is enjoyned in the pofitive part of his Matters Command, 
 exa&ly coppied out in this his Apoftolick Precept. I further remark, 
 that the Dr. holding out the Senfe of the Apoftle, as terminating only 
 in this General, difcharging Pride and Infolency in Government, with- 
 out condefcending upon the extent ofthcNegative and pofitive explicati- 
 on of the Precept, and the Nature of that Power, here fpecified andDif- 
 char£ed, as Flowing frcm this Pride and Infolent Difpofition, and but on- 
 ly fhewing, that it is a Pride unfutable to all Power and Authority in the Church, 
 leaves room for even a Monarchy and Patriarchat, and the fettii g up of 
 fuch a Dominion in the Church, as may be fuppofed in an abftraded Senfe, 
 and in its general Nature,Lawful,- and thus ftill faves the Popes Mitre, frcm 
 the Touch of this prohibition. The Dr. holds, That cur expcfition of thcfe 
 Texts, was never heard of, till thefe\latter days. Thus with him, thePapifts on- 
 ly have hit upon the true Ancient Expolition, and Proteftants have miffed 
 it. Amongftmany other confuting Inftances, he might have minded the 
 abovementioned Paffages of Bernard to Eugenius, lib. 2. Apoftolis inter -dicitur 
 Dominatus; Ergo tu tibi ufurpare aude ut Dominant Apoftolatum, aut Apoftoli- 
 ens Dominatum. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 ^Confutation of what the T>r. offers in Anfwer 
 to the Presbyterians Argument, for Parity of 
 Paftors, taken from the Official Identity 0/Bi- 
 fhop and Presby ter, in the Scripture Account of 
 the Tafloral Office. 
 
 TIIc Dr. by this time, has finiflit his firft eafie Task of Difcuffing 
 our Argument from Chrifis Inftitution. He will next fall upon 
 our Argument from Scripture Confequcnces. And, that his Work 
 here, may be as eafie as the firft, and leaft, he iliou'd break 
 his Word to his Friend, in giving him a large Hiftory oj our Ar- 
 guments, on this Head. Of them all, he is pleafed to Sirgle oi.t one, ta- 
 ken from the Identity of Bijhop and Vresbyttr -, which lie fays, fills all our 
 Books: Citing Smeclym. Jus Divin. Mini]}. Aug. Uribijhopping Tim. ( >ndTit. 
 Altare Damafc. Ditrb, Dijjert. But finely, any who have berioull) and Jm- 
 
 X 2 parti- 
 
%i :t Dr. Monrox T leadings Chap II. 
 
 partially perufed thefe Authors, and compares what they have written* 
 with that which this Man pretends to Anfwer, may Laugh at his Prodr 
 gious Folly, in Boafting or an Anfwer to Books, which he appears never 
 to have read or underftood . It were good for him, that the Authors, he 
 paints his Margine with, were out of the World,that the Ignorant, or fuch 
 as never fawithem, might believe,that this Perfonat Championed made a 
 mighty Baffling Affault upon them ,* But, all fuch as are acquaint with 
 their Writings, will eafily difcover, that he is here, A&ing a Pedantick 
 Nomenclator of thefe Authors, and no more. The Argument from the i- 
 ientity of BijJwp andPresbyter, (I mean an Official Identity) I acknowledge, is 
 improven by thefe Authors, and other Presbyterian Writers, and am con- 
 tent to try Iffue with him upon this Head^ but theDr, I find, is fo Lcofe 
 and Perverfe a Difputer, that he doth not fo much as offer to propofe 
 one of their Mediums and Arguments to the Scope. 
 
 He alledges. We Argue from fi>eHom nomy of Names of Bilhop andPres- 
 tyter, in the New Te (lament, to prove the Samenejs of the Office , and that the 
 Clergy of the Ntiv Tefiament, are Dichotomifed into Bifkops and Deacons 
 only, in fome Texts : And thus in Jome Ancient Writers. That we thus exclude 
 the Authority of a Bifhop above a Presbyter, tho the Offices themj elves be as 
 much diftinguijhed, in federal Texts of the Nw Tefiament, as is pcffible. He 
 holds, ( P. 22, 23. ) That we found the Sclidity of cur Demcnfi ration of tbe^I* 
 •dentity of Bifhop and Presbyter, .merely upon the ConfufioJsiominum, which 
 he reprejents in a.diftincl: Character, as our only Topick ; To which pur- 
 pofe, he tells us we cite ^#.20.17,28. Philip.i.u Tit.i.6,n. and feveral o- 
 ther places. There needs no more, than the Reciting of this, to difco- 
 ver this Mans Precarious Vanity, and Ignorance of this Con trover fie, 
 fmce, all that are acquaint with it do know, that it is not the Samenejs ef 
 Names fimpltly , and in its felf confidered, which the Presbyterians ground up- 
 on, tho this have its own Secondary Weight, but the Samenefs and Identity 
 of the Qualifications, Ordination, Work, Duties, and every other Ejfential of the 
 Office; Which is an Argument, with more Demonftrative Nerves, than 
 that of the Samenejs of Names. Presbyters, being in Scripture, called and 
 owned, as Rulers, Governors, Overfeers, Bifiops ; And both Ordination and 
 Jurifdikion appropriat to them, without the ieaft Hint of Imparity among 
 them, in the Exercife thereof, 7/Y.i.y. ^#.20.17,28. iPet. $.?.?. 1 Thefi. 
 5.12,14. Heb. 13. 7, 17. 1 Cor. 5-. 12. 1 Tim. ^ 14. Now, if It be thus, 
 lure the Concluiion of the Identity of the Office .clearly follows: Aua had this 
 Man perufed thefe Authors,he might have difcovered.that their Arguments 
 run to this IiTue, and are not merely Bottomed upon fo flight a Ground, 
 as he would make fuch believe, whofe Knowledge is of a like Size and 
 Meafure with his own: Yet, fo weak is hisjCauie, that his Anfwer can- 
 not 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. y> 
 
 not ftand before this very Arguments he propounds it,at leaft with a due 
 Refpecl to the Scope cf the Places Cited ; which will be evident to any, 
 who will compare their Writings, with bisReafoning in this Pamphlet. 
 
 To give a Summary and Brief Account of our Arguments,, from thefe 
 Scriptures, cited by him, and cenfequently of this Dr c s Phantaftick Vani- 
 tv and Trifflings in this Matter. From AB. 20. We thus Argue, Fhfi y 
 That theApoftles folemnly declares to the Elders or Pafiors of that Church 
 of Ephefrn, that the Hcly Gbofl had confiituted them Bifiwps over the Fleck* 
 Whence we colled, ( 1. ) That the Pallor is the true Scripture-£//kp. 
 (2.) That by hisOrrlce,ne Feeds andRules theFlock,and hath theDoctrinal 
 andJurifdictionalKey committed to him by theHolyGhoft.Nexc, it hence 
 follows, that whatever Authority, Power and Jurifdiction is imported, 
 in the Name, Bijhcp, falls within the Compafs of this Solemn Command, 
 given to thefe Elders or Pafiors, who are enjoyned m<*»«*i um toipcuiii 
 vn i'xx>»6,*t r« s»< So, that this being effentially and intirely included 
 in the Pa/loral Office, theDiocefan Bijhops it ****■■» and »",**»»«» cr pre- 
 tended Paramount InfpecVion over them, evanijheth as a mere Chimara, 
 efpecially, fince it excludes and inhaunces this Authority of Pafiors. ( ;J 
 It is evident that this Charge was given to the Elders before Timothy, now 
 prefent with Paul, and was pofterior to the firft Epiftle directed to him, 
 for at Writing thereof, the Apoftle was at Macedonia; And the Sacred Hi - 
 ftory informs us, that he came thereafter to Milttum with Timothy, and 
 gave the Elders this Charge. In a Word, this Charge and Ccmmand was 
 Pauls lafi Sckmn Charge, tor, after this, they were to {ee his Face no wore : 
 So, that thefe being the Apoftles laft Thoughts (to fpeak lb) andTefta- 
 mentary Inftru&ions, in Point of Church Government, we have here the 
 theSarriplare and Pattern, mewed by this great Apoftle, upon the Mount, 
 of this Divinely Infpired Model and Instructions. And iince, the Episco- 
 palians, will not call the Gofpel-Church, a Speckled Bird, and her Go- 
 vernment of diverfe Cuts, they muft acknowledge, that the reft of the A- 
 poftles gave the fame Directions,- As 1 Pet. 5. with 2 Pet. i. 14. doth 
 turner clear. 
 
 From hence, we further Argue, Firfi: Thefe Bijlwps who Feed and Rule the 
 Flock immediatly, are the Afoftolick Bijhcps, and thefe only : Ergo, the Hie- 
 rarchical Prelat, is no Apoftolick B;jlwp y 1. Becaufe his pretei.ded Epifco- 
 pacy is over the Pafiors, he is PafiurPajlorum. 2. He hath a Relation to no 
 Flock, as fuch. We Argue, Secondly, from the Text thus : Thefe Apo- 
 ftolick Biceps, have both the immediat and intire £f;/f0/>JInfpection and 
 Power over Chi ills Flocks committed to them, b\ God, both the Doctri- 
 nal and Jurifdictional Key : And therefore, the Hierarchical Fn 
 Condemned upon a double Ground, 1. As Snatching awav the laft from 
 
 ?4 
 
34- T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap. II. 
 
 'Payors, and Arrogating it folely to himfelf. 2. In Tearing and Breaking 
 afunder the B nd. wherewith Chrift hath Tyed thefe Keyes,- And this 
 in a double Refped, ( 1. ) In the Cafe of thzPaftcr, to whom he leaveth 
 only the Dodrinal Key. ( 2. ) With Refped to himfelf, who is obliged, 
 ex Natura & Ratione Officii, or from the Nature of his Office, to Preach 
 the Gofpel to no Flock, but to Govern only. Thirdly, All this Scriptural, 
 £p//ce/>rf/Jurifdi£ion, is by the Apoftle,afcribed to thefe Paftors or Bijhof sot 
 the Holy Ghoft, in Prefence of Timothy, while there is Ahum Silentium, 
 of any Intereft he had over them in this Matter,- Whence, it may be in- 
 ferred, 1. They are declared and fuppofed the Highefi Ordinary Officers of 
 that Church, having a Collegiat joynt Authority therein. And 2. By 
 clear Confequence, it follows, that nothing here enjoyned them, inferrs 
 or doth include a Precarious Dependence upon him, in thefe Duties, or 
 his Supereminent Infpedion over them. 3. By further neceffary Confe- 
 quence, this Authority being thus declared by the Apoftle, and recognof- 
 ced after all the Precepts delivered to Timothy, in the flrft Epiftle written 
 to him, it cannot be fuppofed to contain any Super-eminent Epifiopal 
 Charge over thefe Pa[lors, but a Tranfient Evangeliftick Infpedion only, 
 to pafs off, with that Exigent : It being infallibly clear, that there can 
 be no Inconfiftency or Contradiction, betwixt this laft Farewel Charge 
 to thePaftors of that Church, and his Directions to Timothy, while refiding 
 therein. Finally, It is hence infallibly concluded, 1. That the Apoftles 
 themfelves Exercifed no fuch Jurifdidion over Churches conftitute in their 
 Organick Beeing, as is properly and formally Epifiopal, or of the Hierar- 
 chical Mould: This Epifiopal Authority being committed to theColledge 
 of Elders, as their Effential Right and Priviledge. 2. That the Apoftles 
 did not Subftitute the Hierarchical Prelats, or DiocefanBiJhops, as their Suc- 
 cedaneous Subftitutes, upcn their withdrawing, unlefs we will make the 
 Apoftle Paul, to Model this Church, in a Mould Hetrogeneous to other 
 Churches. And in aWord, it hence follows, that whatever may be plea- 
 ded,as to Matter of Fad,neither this, nor any Church elfe, could ever af- 
 ter, Jure, diveft themfelves of this Authority, (I mean the Church Repre- 
 fentatives, or Officers thereof ) in fetting up fuch a Proeftos or Pre/^,whofe 
 Power did encroach upon this their Authority allowed them by God. 
 
 From Tit, 1. 5, 7. The Presbyteriavs Argue, not merely from the Pro- 
 mifcuous Ufe, or Identity of the Name Bijhop and Presbyter, but from the 
 Nature and Mould of the Apoftles Reafoning, and the Conneding Par- 
 ticle and Illative y * f , which points at the very Topick and Ground, up- 
 on which the Apoftle concludeth that which is his Scope,- which necef- 
 farly inferrs an Official Identity of Bi[hop and Presbyter, not a Nominal only : 
 For, thus his Argument lyes $ The Presbyter or Elder, muft be fo and fo 
 
 Qyali- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 35 
 
 Qualified, for fuch muft the Bijhop be : So,, that the Stating of an Official 
 Diftin&ion betwixt the two, as different Orders oTMinifters, breaks the 
 Force of the Apoftles Argument, there being no Soundnefs in fuch Rea- 
 foiling as this, Inferior Officers muft have fuch Qualifications, becaufe fuch are 
 f roper to the Superior Office. No doubt, the Holy Ghoit, who thus Reafons, 
 afcribes to them, not only the fame Name, ( and he knew beft, how to ex- 
 prefs the Nature of the Things by fit Words ) but like wife the fame Qua li- 
 fications, Work, and Office. Epifccpalians will not difowne it, that the &"- 
 flwp hath diftind Qualifications and Work, from that of the Presbyter or Pa- 
 fior; So that, they muft either acquiefce in this our Senfe of his Words, 
 while purpofely defcribing the Presbyter and Bijlwps Qualifications, Office, 
 and Duties,or Blafphemoully impute unto him Incongruity cf Speech,and 
 Unfoundnefs in Reafoning,- And therefore, the Office of the one 3 and 
 the other, is clearly fuppofed one and the fame. 
 
 From Philip, r. i. Where theApoftlefalutes a Plurality of Bijlwps of that 
 Church: We infer r, i. Their proper Epifcopal Relation thereunto. 2. 
 That they could not be Diocefans, ( 1. ) Becaufe the Deacons, the loweft 
 Officers, are immediatiy fubjoyned to them; And Prclatifts will not fay, 
 that there were no Paftors in that Church, but only Diocefans. (2.) It is 
 impoflible there could be a Plurality of Hierarchical Bifhops therein, and 
 by clear Confequence, the Paftors and Presbyters are fuppofed the Higheft 
 Ordinary Officers of that Church, Exerciiing a joynt Collegiat Power in the 
 Government thereof. 
 
 If I mould adduce the Judgment and Teftimonies ofProteftant Divines, 
 upon thefe Paflages, correfpondent to our Senfe and Pleading, it were <i 
 large Work. The Belgick Divines, upon Act. 2c. 28. from that Claufe 
 \jheHolyGhoft has made you Over feers^\ do plead as above,- For, having told 
 us, that in the Greek it is Bifoops, and that from this the Word Biflwp is de- 
 rived,- they add, " That thefe are v. 17. called Elders of the Church ; from 
 u whence it appears, that in the Holy ^criptuies, there is no Difference 
 c made betwixt Elders and Bijlwps, pointing to Philip. 1.1. upon which Paf- 
 '* fage, they mew, that this Term is common to aliGovernours and Ovcr- 
 c; feers in theChurch,*referring again to Atl.zo. 17,28. together with 1 Tim. 
 cc 1. 5. Where thev mew, cc That Timothy was appointed to continue at E- 
 " phefa, net as Bijhop, but iisEvangilift for a time, to Confirm the Church. 
 <c Upon Chap.*, v. 1. they mew, "That the Word Bi/Wls tobeunderflood 
 cc of a\[ Over feers and Ttasbersof the Church without Diifcrence, as appears 
 w in the following Dcicription, compared with c tlicr pluses, citing 
 "20.17,28. Vhtlip.i.i. 7/f.i.vr- Dindat. on Afr.20.17. ihews, " That 
 " by the Elders, we are to imderfhind the Paftors and ConduBors in v. 2S'. 
 " Upon which Per/*, he fcpws, " ih.it the Word (ignificsX)v< tUn % 
 
$& Dr. Monro'* 'Pleadings Chap. II. 
 
 cc &c. And reprefents the Duty of a true Pafiur of the Church,without any 
 cc abfoluteDominion,only for the Profit and Good of theFlock,P&7//\i.i.he 
 cc paralells with -^#,20:17,28. iTim.5.17. Underftanding therein theikf/W- 
 cc fters of the Sacred Governing Senate 1 Tim, 2. 1. he underftands of the 
 <c BiJJjop or Paftor, who has the Charge-of Teaching and Governing the 
 cr Church. On Tit. 1. f. the Elders, who are immediatly after called Bi- 
 cc jhops 3 he underftands of fuch V afters and Conductors, as were to be placed 
 €c in Churches, where was a Competent Number of Believers. Pools Annot. 
 c * Vol j 2. underftands, AtJ/ 20. 17. asfpeaking of fuch Elders, as are Go- 
 cc vernours and Pajlors of the Church: And Jhews, that the Term and Ti-. 
 cc tie, refpeds not their Age, but their place. And upon v. 28. they 
 cc /hew, . "That the Overfeers there mentioned, are the fame, who are called 
 €C Elders, v, 17. and were certainly fuch as had the Government and care of 
 €C theChurch committed to them. Upon Philip, r. 1. By Bifljops,they underftand 
 Cf Paftors and Teachers, afferting that the Name and Office of Bijhops and 
 €C Paftors was all one, in the Apoftles daysj and do Cite for Confirmation 
 cc Qithis-^#, 20. 17. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. iThef. y« 12. 13. i.Tim. 3. r. 
 Cf 1 Pet. 5". 1. 2. 33& 1. 5-. Heb. 13. 17. Jam*. 5-. 14, 3 j^. 9. The 
 * f very Paffages we make ufe of,fhewing that this is the Senfe, both of An- 
 €c cient and modern Interpreters. Thereafter, they confute at large Ham- 
 €c monds Notion of Presbyters, who takes them for Didcefan Bijhops. Upon 
 cc 1 Tim. 3. 1. They fliew, " That the Term, Biftop, is the proper Title 
 €c oiGofpel Minifiers, pointing at their HonourableWork and Imploymentj; 
 and Paralels this with the Title of Angel, mentioned Rev. 2. 1. Upon 
 the laft Claufe of iv 2. where the Bijlwp is injoyned to be apt to Teach, 
 they fliew, " That he muft be neither an Ignorant nor lazie Perfon. 
 Eng. Annot. upon AH. 20. underftand the Elders, v. 17. of the Gover- 
 nors and Paftors, paralelling it with thefe Elders of Jcrufalem, mentioned 
 Qhap, 11, 30. Upon iv 28. they fliew, cc That the term Epifcopmov Bifiop, 
 <c is hereto be underftcod of the Paftor of the. Church, and Minifterof 
 cc the Word, as elfewhere: Alfo upon Philip.- 1. 1. on that Claufe, [the 
 Mlfiops and Deacons'] they fnew, cc That the Synod of Nice, did forbid Two 
 ''or more Bifiops, to have their Seats in one City: And before that, Cor- 
 cc velim BiJJjop of Rome, upbraids No-vatm with Ignorance ( asEd/ek lib. 6. 
 **- Writes) that he knew not, there ought to be but one Bijbop in that 
 " Church, in which he could no be Ignorant, there were Forty Six Pres- 
 c<r byters.. And Qecumeniw and Chryfojlom affirm thisofFhilippfa In oneCi-' 
 ct ty it cannot be fuppofed ( fay they ) there were more Bijhops in that 
 e( reftraified Senfe, as the word was afterward taken. Here therefore, 
 <c by Epifccpi and Diaconi, we are to underftand. the whdi Miniftry at 
 BHlipfi* Coniifting of Presbyters^ f§ whom the Government eft hi Church was 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 37 
 
 c Committed: And Deacons, who not only had the Care of the Poor, but 
 c alfoAffiftedMinifters, in their Ecclefiaftical Function. Upon i Thn.^.i. 
 they ftiew, c That the Term Bifhop, doth properly relate to the Flock,- re- 
 Q ferring to Philip, i. i. And having mewed, that Antiquity did appro- 
 c priat this Term to Diocefan Prelats, and confequently, as it relates to Pa- 
 fiors ; But that they Dilbwne this, as not being the Scripture Acceptari- 
 f on, is evident, not only, from that Reference to Philip, i. i. but alfo, 
 c frcm this, that the Claufe of [ Defiring a good Work ] they paraleil with 
 f 1 Thef. y. 13. where, after the Apoftle has v. 12. enjoyned a due Defe- 
 rence and Subjection to fuch, as Laboured among them, ( viz,. In the 
 c Word and Doctrine ) he enjoyns to Efteem them Highly in Love for 
 c their Works fake, afTerting thus the Bifoops [good Work ] to be one and 
 c the fame with that of the Paper, and confequently the Office. By tha 
 c Elders, mentioned Tit. 1. 5-. to be Ordained in every Church, they un- 
 c derftand thcPaficrs to be Ordained, wheie there was a convenient Num- 
 ' ber of the Faithful : And the Apoftles Reafon v. 7. [ For a Bifiop mufi It 
 c Blamelefs, &x. ] they paraleil with Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. ^.1,2. Thus clear- 
 ly Correfponding our Senfe and Pleading for the Identity cf the Bifiops 
 and Pafiors Office, from thefe places. 
 
 The Profefcrs of Ley den, D if put. 42.at largeCorrefpond withourSenfe and 
 Pleading from thefe Paffages, cc They aflert the Extraordinary Expi- 
 c red Call and Office of Prophets, Apoftles, and Evangelifis, and that the?*- 
 c fiors, Dcrtlors, Elders, and Deacons, are the only {landing ordinary Church 
 c Officers,' Thus Thef. 17. 18, 19, 20. &c. Afcribing to Pafiors, the Au- 
 c thority ofG overnment, as the Higheft Ordinary Officers of theNewTefta- 
 c ment, Thef. 2$. 26. 'Thef. 29. From Att.20. 28. they jhew,that theApo- 
 c ftle calls the Pafiors of the Church oiEphefm, Bijhops, fet up by theHoly 
 f Ghoft, paralelling this with 1 Tim. 3. 2. where ( they tell us) the Bijhop 
 c is defcribed from fuch Qualities and Effects, as the Apoftle Peter enjoyns 
 * and afcribes to his Fellow Presbyters, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. Adding, that in theE- 
 c piftle to the Philippians, Chap. i.v. 1. under the Name of Bijhops, for 
 c whom the Apoftle prays for Grace, he underftands fuch [ qui Philippi 
 < Verbo & Gubemationi praerant ] who had Infpection of the Doctrine and 
 c Government, diftinguiihing them from the Deacons, who were let over 
 c the Churches Treafure. Adding, that Tit.i.$. fuch, whom the Apoftle 
 c JSiamcd Presbyters , v. y„ he calls Bijhops [non correlate adPresbyttros tanquam ad 
 c Stcundarios, (ibique SubordltiatosPrsjjules, fed ad Ecclefiam Vigilant i ipjerumCtt- 
 c r*c at que Infpetlioni Commifiam^ non enim alien jus i?i alios Aliniftros < 
 c aut alicuj/ts pne aliis Prerogative, fed J dins ifi'r/s Cmw ac Vigilantut Ri'fficlu, 
 Tfifcoporum Titulo in S*cru listens InfigniuntUrj That the Bijhops are ca led 
 c lueh, not with Relation to any fuppofed SubordihatiMfo/J or PnstyierS) 
 
 Y ' ba 
 
^ S • T>r. Monro'/ T leadings Chap. It 
 
 { but to the Church committed to their Vigilant Care,, in which Refpecl: 
 c alone, they have that Title in Scripture, but not upon the Account of 
 c any Prerogative or Authority, which one Minifter has over another. 
 Which, how clearly it afferts our Judgment, Principles and Pleading up- 
 on thefe Texts* in Oppofition to the Hierarchical Bijhop, and for the P^- 
 rity of Pafiors, is convincingly evident. But, let us hear their Inference, 
 
 * Thef. 30. which is thus [ Non ergo ex Divino, fed exrHumano Infiituto aliquis 
 c poft Apoftolorum tempora, aliis ex Or dine Vresbyterorum fuit Authoritate prapofi* 
 c tftSy atque Epifcopus diclus ex fingulari Vrerogativa, ficut poft Hieronimum y von- 
 Q "nuUi quoque Pontificii confitentur nominatim. Lombard, Lib. 4. DifiincJ. 24. Gra~ 
 c 'tian. Dijt. 93. c. Legimus ejr Difi. 2$. c. olim. Cufanus de Concordi Cathol. Lib. 
 
 * 2. Cap. 13. Citing firft Jerom on Tit. 1. & adEvag.~\ In fumm, that the 
 Setting of onePresbyter over another,ina fuppofed Supereminent Authority 
 and Peculiar Prerogative, under the Character and Delignation of a Bijhop, 
 is an Humane Invention ow/y,without any Divine Warrand,as not only Hierom, 
 but feveral Popijh. School Men, Jiave acknowledged. 
 
 The Profeifors of Saumur, fpeak alfo our Senfe here fully. c Syntag, 
 *Thef. Theolog. de Diver f. Mini/t. Evang. Grad. Thef. 7. They hold the Office 
 f of Apoftles, Prophets and Evangelifts to be Extraordinary and Expired, 
 
 * making peculiar to them, their immediat Call, Infallibility in Teaching, 
 
 * their Univerfal Legation to all Churches, their Extraordinary and Mi- 
 tf raculous Gifts, &c The Vapors and Doctors Office, they hold Ordinary, 
 
 * and affirm they are the fame with Presbyters planted in every Church. 
 
 * Thef. 1 6. 20. de Epifcop. & Presk Difcrimine. Thef. 7. 8.. they Jhe w, that 
 
 * die Apoftles placed Presbyters, Church by Church, for the Government 
 
 * thereof, citing Aft. 14. 23. and 20. 17, 28. where they Coiled:, that 
 
 * thefe Presbyters were Commanded r/^*x«»» to take heed to the Fleck, and 
 
 * are called unixcm from which they infer, that it belonged to them to 
 
 * Watch, over, Infpect, to fee unto, and take Care for fuch things, as ten- 
 
 * ded to the Confervaticn, Propagation, and Growth of the Church: Ad- 
 * 'ding [Quod fieri fine Regiminis Cur a & Pctefiate non poteft'] which Could 
 
 * not be performed, without the Care and Authority of Government. 
 
 * Thef. 9. They aiTert, that Pafiors being thus in the beginning Conftiture 
 s by the Apoftles, they did according to the Apoftles Command, and 
 ^from the Nature of the Office Intrufted to them \_ex Officio fib i ab Apofic- 
 
 * Ik: demandato] Govern the Church [ Communi Ccnfilio ] by Common Coun- 
 
 * fel ( according to Hierom's Phrafe^ ( Communibus Suffragiis, Ccmmuni So- 
 
 * Ikitudine & Cura ) by Common and Equal Suffrage and Care. Adding 
 
 * (Nullus turn eorum in reUquos Sym-Vr^sbyteros AutGritatem y ¥oteftattmJmpcrixw 
 
 * autjttri/diclionem habuit 3 fed par & equalisCura & Solicit ado omnibus ejrfingu-* 
 
 * %s.in totum Qregem competebat) that in thefe Firft times,n.QPrafyftr QiVaftor, 
 
 'had 
 
Chap. II. 1 For Epifcopacy, Examined. gj[ 
 
 c hadAuthority,Power,orJurifdicl:ion over his Fellow-Presbyters, hut the f am* 
 c and alike Care and folic It ude over the whole Flock,w as competent to every one. The f- 
 c 10. they mew,That tho there was one,who,as in every Colledge^or Jun- 
 ' dicalCourt,vvasPr/??;^ or Prefident,yet thztPrimatus was (Ordinis duntaxat 
 c non Authoritatis, Potefiatis, Dcminii, Imperii, Jurifdiclionis, fie enim non fuif- 
 ( fent Sym-Presbyteri,quomodo paffim vocantur in Patrum Serif tis ) of Order only 
 c not of Authority, and not importing a Jurifdiclional Power , and Dominion ; 
 c F or ,thus they had not been Ccllegues ,or Co-Presbyters ,as they were every ivhere cal- 
 1 led in the Writings of the Fathers. Thef. 14. they fhew, That things being 
 c thus Conftitute by the Apoftles, as every one of thefe Presbyters had not 
 c only the Authority and Power of Preaching the Word,, and Adminiftra- 
 c tion of the Sacraments ( Verum etiam pari Jure, pari Aut or it ate, ad Ecclefitt 
 c Clavum ejr Gubernacula fedebant, quam ut dixi, Communi Ccnfdio, Communibus 
 ' Suffrages regebant ) That with the fame Authority alfo., and Equal Jurii- 
 c di&ion, Minifters did fit at the Churches Helrn, and Governed her by 
 c Common Suffrages. Adding ( Quod hinc liquet , quod omnes communiter, & 
 c Presbyteri & Efifcofi, pariter in Scriptis Apofiolicis, adeoque Vetufiieribits Serif* 
 Q toribus, vocantur promifcue ) That Pafiors are 'called both Biftops and Pres- 
 c byters, promifcuoufly in the Apoftles Writings, makes the preceeding AC- 
 c fertion apparent. Then they add the Scripture Proofs thus ( Id quod fatis. 
 c manifefium ex loco, Ad. 20. 28. Ubi Ephefinae Ecclefia Presbyteri diemtur <* 
 c Spiritu Sanclo conjlituti Ecclefia illim i*i6>i«r*t, tarn ex Philip, r. 1. Ubi Apo- 
 c ftolus Epifiolam juam inferibit Ecclefia illius rntfxoruc k*i /<«x«»ix nulla fatfa 
 € Presbyterorum mentione, quos Epifcoporum nomine ifthic procul dubio \ n teUigit • 
 c Nunquam enim plures fuerunt in eadem Ecclefia Epifcopi, ex quo Epif co p ts fmgu- 
 € larem habuit ac prtecipuam fupraPresbyteros Autoritatem atquePoteftatem, ejujque 
 c Munus diftintlum fuit a Presbyteriali Munere atque Ordine ) That the Parity 
 € of Bifiop and Presbyter appears from AH. 20. 28. where the Presbyters of 
 c the Church of Ephefus, are faidto be Ccnftkute Bijlwps of the Church by 
 c the Holy Ghoft; As alfo from Philip. 1. 1. where the Apoftle inferibes 
 c hisEpiftlc to the Bijhops andDcacons of* thatChurch,making no mention of 
 € Presbyters, whom without doubt, he underftands by theName of Bijlwps: 
 c For^there were never morcBijliops in the fame Church, fince the time that 
 c the Bijlwp had aSingular Power andAuthority zbov cP re sLyters, and his Of- 
 c fice was diftinguimed from the Order and^ Office oiPaftors. Then they 
 c add Thef. i£. ( Id ipfum manifejtttm ex 1 Tim. 5. 2. Oppcrtet Epifcopum effe 
 c irreprchznfibilem^ &c. nulla mentione faBa Presbyteri: Nam Ji alius turn fuij- 
 ' fet Epifccpus alius Presbyter, Paulus if hie Presbyterum ncn omifjft, fed adje- 
 c cijfet cad em in Presbytero rcquiri, velfi alia aut pauciora in eo requ'rri vcluij/ir^ 
 c id procul dubio menuifld ,alicqui ca in parte Officio ] ho Defuijfet) That the (aflH 
 c jqapears from 1 Tim, 3. 2. A Bifioi mufi be 14,. _c. witij^nt men- 
 
 V 2 l\<Jl.\^£ 
 
4.0 Dr. Monro's ^leadings Chap. II. 
 
 4 tioning the Presbyter: For, if the Bijhop and Presbyter ,* had been then di- 
 
 * ftin#, P*#/, would not in this place, have omitted the Presbytery but 
 c would have added, that the fame things were required in him, or if he 
 c would have required either other or fewer things in him., he would, 
 € without doubt, have admonifhed hereof, otherwife, in fo far, he h a d 
 
 * been wanting in his Duty. They add ( I Jem liquet ex Tit. i. y 3 7. N am 
 e - ubl dixit Titum Je reliquiae in Creta, ut iftic conjiituent Presbyteros x«t« w > Uf 
 
 docet quales eflent iUiPresbyteri t^roi i 
 
 .. efient iUiPresbyteri J"ro» ivtiw intuit «»*' «Wx>it#») That the fame 
 
 * is apparent from Tit. i. 5-, 7. where, after the Apsftje had faid, that he 
 
 * had left Titm in Crete, to place Presbyters in every Qty, he fhews, how 
 
 * thefe Elders muft be Qualified ,• A Bijhop muft be blamelefi. Afferting, Tbefi 
 ' 17. that this may be demonftrated from the Monuments of the Ancient 
 
 * Church ; They cite the Commentary under Ambrofe Name on Epkef. Cap. 
 
 * 4. and that paffage ( Non per omnia convenient Apoftoli Scripta Ordinationi 
 c qu& nunc eft in Ecclepa ) That the Apoftles Writings did not every way a- 
 € gree with the Order then in the Church. Here is Novel Doctrine of 
 'Presbyterians, fo Clofe and Throng, as will probably put our Antique Dr. 
 to the outmoft Limits of his Patience. Presbyterian Scriptures, Presbyterian 
 Senfe, Presbyterian Arguments, Canted over by Dull Novelifts, one after 
 another, and which is yet more, by Novelifi Univerfities of the Scots Pres- 
 byterian Perfwafion. But this that follows, will poffibly pleafe worfe. 
 
 Maccovim Redivivm in his ftpmFnty&Gh Pontificorum, Socin. &c. Cap. 6. De 
 Cler. thus reprefents the Pontificii, or the Popijh Caufe and Dodxin, which 
 I fear will Embrace in its Bofom, the Dr c s. Reverence. It is even thus 
 
 * [ Epifcopi jure Divino juperiores funt verbi Minifiris, turn or dints potejtate turn. 
 c jurifditfione ] That the Bijhop by Divine Right, is Superior to the Minifies 
 K of the Word, both in the Power of Order and Jurifdi&ion. Maccovim 
 not having the Honour to know our Dr. prefents for his voucher Bel- 
 hnnlx, lib. 1. De Cler. Cap. 14. The n. 4. he thus reprefents [ cenfuetudo 
 Romj&ontm qua Difiinguit inter verfantem verbum Dei & Epijcopum j The Ro- 
 «?^*Guftom, which diftinguifhes betwixt the Preacher of the Word and 
 the Bifiwp $ As our RomiJhDr. doth : This is Rude, but how is this Refelled 
 by Maccovim* Why ? Its even thus [Refellitur; primo Philip, r. 1. Jjbi idem 
 
 * J? mbperi predicates & Epijcopi dlcuntur; Secundo. Tit. 1. ^. 1 Tim. 7. 1. 2. 
 x Ubl Idem docentur effe Presbyteri Pradicantcs & Epifcepi ] His two Proofs. 
 S»fc, that in thefe premifed Scriptures, the Preaching Presbyter, or Pafior, 
 'and the Bijhop, are held out as one and the fame. 
 
 • Another Novelifi, afferting this New Coyncd Dotfxin, and falling in- 
 ?p the fame error with thGScots Presbyter: an s, 'is Antcniits Walkm, defuncl. Ec- 
 *xbf. P. (mibi ) 470. having ftated the Queftion Viz,, utrum talis fit eminen- 
 '^wtftPajtms, #1 mm grain ah *m fit jnperior jure Divino x adeo ut miPo- 
 
 $eftm 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 41 
 
 c teftas in alterum concedatur, poteftas fcilicet mittendi aut depcnendi miniftros, fete . 
 c ft as excommunicandi, aut admittendijeges prafcribendi, regendi &LC. qua lew fib 
 ' hodierni Epifcopi afcribunt ] whether there be fuch an Eminency among P*- 
 c ftors, fo, as one is in Degree Superior to another by Divine Right, 
 c and has Authority ever another, the Authority of the Miffion or depo- 
 sition of Minifters,the Authority and Power of Excommunication, crre- 
 Maxation, of prefcribing Laws, and of Governing, &c. fuch as the pre- 
 c fent Bijhcps, arrogat and appropriat to themfelves. Then he fhews, 
 c that he fpeaks of Spiritual Authority : And thus Anfwers [hoc eft quod nc- 
 c (tri negant adverfns epifcopales ] This is that we deny againft the Epifcopali- 
 ' ans: Here is ahold Novelift. Heafterfhews that thebivines of thatChurch, 
 c were of his mind,- and thus exhibits a MufterRoll of New Coyned Ncve- 
 ' lifts. But he prefents his \_pracipua Argumenta'] Chief Arguments : What 
 c arethefe ? (1) [in totafcriptura ejufmodi eminenlix & p ot eft at ts nulla fit mtntro] 
 f That in all the Scripture, there is no mention of fuch Eminency and 
 < Power of a Bijhop zbovtV aftors. (2) |_ quia in Hits Leers ubi ex profejjb de mini- 
 
 * ftrorum novi Teftamenti gradibus fit mentio,unius gencrisVaftorumScriptura tantum 
 € meminit, ut 1 Cor. 12. 28. conftituit in Ecclefia primum Apcftolos, fecundo ft*- 
 f phetas, TertioDoclores. Et Epb. 4. n. ipje cledit alios quidem Afoftolos, alios 
 ' vcro Vaftores & Doclores, &C fie Rom. 12. 6. Acl. 20. 17. 28. 1 Pet. £• 
 K 1, 2. ] That in thofe places, where there is exprefs mention of purpofe 
 f made of the Degrees of Minifters of the New Teftament, the Scripture 
 « owns only one kind of Vaftcrs,as 1 Cor. 12. 28. He fet in the Church, firft 
 
 * Apoftles, fecondarlyVrophets, Thirdly Dctlors cr Teachers; and Eph. 4. 11. He 
 € gave fome Apoftles JfimeV a ftors and Teachers, §lc. Thus Rom. 12. 6. ABs, 2c ♦ 
 
 * 17. 28. 1 P^. 5- 1. 2. The ($d) Reafon or Argument is thus [ quia 
 c Sacra Script ur a docet exprefte Epifcopos &I*resbytcros fuifje plane eofdtm, it a Acl. 
 *20. 17. convocavif Presbyter os, &<u. 28. Dicit SpiritumSanclum eosconftituifje 
 c Epifcopos, It a Phil. r. 1. Paulus & Timotheus fervi Jefu Chrifti, omnibus 
 c Santtts qui funt Phillippicum Epifccpis & Diaconis : Et ad Titum 1. f. idto 
 c reliqui te in Creta, ut oppidatim conftituas Vresbyteros'.Et v. 7. of pert et cnimE- 
 c Eifcopum uniuseffe uxons virum, &c] That the facred Scriptures jhewsthe 
 c Biflwp and Vresbyter, to have been one and the fame,- Thus AH. 20. 7. 
 c theApoirlecalled together the Elders, and 1/. 28. he faith, that the Spirit 
 
 * of God had made them Bijfjops: Alfo Philip, i. 1. Paul and Timotheus, Ser 
 € vantsoffefits Cbrijt, taall the Saints which ere at Phili ppi,U';/ h\the Biihopsrf;;*/ 
 -* Deacons,- and Tit. 1. 5-. For this Cauje left I thee in Crete, that thou fkomJJft 
 
 * Ordain E\6CTS bt every City; and -v. 6. Fur a Bijlwpwujt be the Husband ofent 
 'Wife, &cc. He adds, that fcrcm ( Comment, in Tit. & Eph. a.! I. 'vfg.) doth 
 
 * fromthefe places coilc&^as aia old dotingNivdift tQQ Jth&t the JBtJfnf and 
 
4-x 2)r. Monro c x T leadings Chap. II; 
 
 c Vresbyter is all one, the one Name fignifying the Age, the other theOf- 
 c flee: he Cites zKo.Ambrofe ( in Eph. 4. ) as holding the fame. He adds 
 c ( (ic Auguftinus & plurimi alii in hanc fententiatn ) that Auguftin and many 
 f others/ were of thisJudgment,to whom he alio adds Bucer (de gub.V. 2^8. 
 C. deinceps ) Thus Walleus holds, that this forementioned Scots Vresbyterian 
 Senfe of the Scriptures premifed, has for a confiderable time been a working 
 Notion; for want, no doubt of our Dr c s clearer Inftrudions. But this bi- 
 got Novelift, goes on to add, c Deniq; ex nullo Scripture loco frohibetur uni Vref- 
 4 bytero ant Vaftori ordinario uliam dari pot eft at em, five in verblpredicatione, cm- 
 1 xes cnitn funt Doclores &V 'aft ores ; five in Sacrament or um Adminiftrationeut Mat. 
 c 28. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23. five in exercitioDifciplina. iCor. 5-. 4. &c. 2 Cor. 
 f 2. 7. five in Ecckfise reel Hone, Ad:. 20. 17. 1 Pet. f. 1. 2. Heb. 13..17. 0^- 
 
 * dite prapofitisveftris qui non datur alter i) That from no place of Scripture, it can be 
 
 * made good, that there is any Voiver given to an ordinary Vaftor, or fingttlar Vre- 
 ■ rogative above another, either in the Preaching the Word, for all are Vaftors and 
 'Teachers; or in the a dminiftration of the Sacraments, Matth. 28. 19. I. Cor. 
 c 11. 2;. or, in the exercife ofDifciplin. 1. Cor. j. 4, &c. 2 Cor. 2. 7. Or in the 
 c Governing the Church, Ad:. 20, 17. 1 Pet.j.i. 2. Heb. 13. 17. Obey thofe that are 
 
 * fet over you.He adds ,quare Apofioli in Epiftolarum fuarum inferiptionibus fcribunt 
 ' SanBis, item Miniflris y Nunquam foli alicui Epifcopo, & Regulas Pre fcribunt. 
 c 1. Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. y. 7. 1 Fet. 5. 2. Omnibus Paftoribus communes, nul- 
 f //z/ fingulares Epifcoporum ) That upon this Ground, the Apoftles in the 
 c Infcriptions of their Epiftles, do write unto the Saints, and alfo to Mi- 
 € nifters, but never to any one Bijhop ; 6c 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 6. 1 Pet. y. 
 < 2. Do prefcrbe fuch Rules as are common to all Pa/lors y but none that 
 
 ■ £ are peculiar to BiJhops.Here is a bold new Novelift, with a whole Congeries 
 of New Notions upon Texts pleaded by the Scots Presbyterians, futing, no 
 doubt, the Confideration of our Profound Antiquary. I am verily of Opi- 
 nion, that this grave Inquirer into the new dangerous Notions of the Scots 
 Presbyterians , fhould either have perufed the premifed grounds of their 
 New Opinion, or Written to his Friend at Edinburgh, to make inquiry in 
 his behalf, for fome more of thefe dangerous Books, that they might be 
 fent up to him, in order to his Doctorflrips perufal and confutation : For, 
 it feems, he has never feen them. I need not mention Chamier, and other 
 conceited Novelifls, who has fallen into the fame dottage ( De eecumenico 
 Pont. lib. 10. Cap. 3. ) 
 
 Arnoldus in his Lux in tenebris, on Acl. 20. 17. ( he called the Elders) pre- 
 fents the Orthodox opinion thus, " That Bifiops and Presbyters arc not 
 - Names of diverfe Gifts in the Church, but of one and the fame Office , be- 
 
 * caufe thofe who are called Presbyters v. 17. are called Bijhops. v. 28. 
 This Maa k feenis ; had got the new Notion in his Head too. He adds., The 
 
 Pa- ' 
 
Chap. IL For Epifcopacy, Examined. ^ 
 
 Papijh Objed ( had he enjoyed the time and opportunity of feeing ou r 
 Antique Drs Enquiry into the New dangerous Notions of Sects TresbyttrUnsy 
 he had not been fo ill manner c d, as to term the Reafons of cur Venerable 
 Dr. an Obje&ion ofPapifts) Well, what do they Object ? f That in thefe 
 times, the Names were Common, but yet the Offices of Bijlwps and Presbyter* 
 diverfe. Now, let us hear Arncldus anfwers to our profound Enquirers great 
 argument, wherewith he has filled up fo great a part of his Pamphlet, i. 
 c This is, faith he, to affirm, not to prove. 2. When Offices are diftincl, 
 c there alfo the Names are diverfe. 3. There was one Office,both of Bificps 
 c andPresbyters,viz,. theOffice of Teaching. 4.Saith he, upon thePapifts fup- 
 c pofition (beware of the VenerableDr. again,*what/ could thisBlindNovelift 
 c lee none who maintained this AncientDoftrin butP a p if t<?~) there can and 
 * ought to be only onzBijliop in one City,- but fo it is, that there were here 
 c many: Therefore Bijhops fignify Presbyters. 
 
 After the premifed account of thefe doting Presbyterians, who notwith- 
 standing are judged by many, to be men ot very Venerable Name, may I 
 prefume to trouble our profound enquiring Dr, in giving him a view of 
 lome bigot Confeffions of the Reformed Protectant Churches, who, its like, 
 have afferted t\\\%New Notion and Opinion of Scots Presbyterians. The Con- 
 fejjion of the French Church, upon this head, runs thus ( credimus veram Ec~ 
 clefiam, &c. ) c We believe, that the true Church ought to be Governed,. 
 Q by that Policy, which Chrift hath ordained. Mr. Dr. will no doubt ac- 
 knowledge this is found. Well, what next ? They add, u That there be 
 c Paftors, Presbyters, or Elders , and Deacons. This is fair. But is there no 
 diftinclion of Bifiops and Paftors in their Senfe ? The enquiring Dr. will 
 tell them, that the two Claries of Elders and Deacons, admits of a fubdivifi- 
 on. But die unmannerly froward Confeffion, is bold ro contradict his Reve- 
 rence, proceeding thus : c And again, we believe, that all true Pafiors, 
 c wherever they be, are indued with equal and the fame P 'cwtr , under one 
 c Head and Bifnop, Chrift Jefus. Here is the Sects Presbyterians New Noti- 
 m in grain. Shall we try the Dr c s. Patience with another fuch Inftance. 
 
 The Belgkk Confeffion, is no better natur f d to our Dr. but aieas bold to 
 contradict him in this, point, and it fcems do hold the fame N<:i- Scots Noti- 
 on: For, thus they after t, Art. jo. ' All ChrifTs Minifters of the Word ( f 
 c God, ha^e the fame and equal Pthittr and Authority, as being all Miniiterbcl 
 c that only Univerfal Head and Bijljop, Chrift. 
 
 In the Point of CW/W/c;;, which the Dr. appropriats rothe Bijhp, thefet- 
 ter Confeffion of Helvetia (Hkrm.ConfeJ.Cbaf.i i.P.222.) dp aflcrt, i Thi.t 
 Holy Function of the Ministry, is given by the laying en of the hands <. i 
 Presbyters. No word of Vrelats Hands. So (Cbaf ig. P. 2*6. ) they a J 
 to be Ordained by publick Pru cr and la) ing on of Hands: Which 1 i 
 
44 ^> Monro'x T leadings. Chap: II. 
 
 er, they fay, is the fame and alike in all: Citing that Paffage, Luke. 22. He 
 that 'will be great among you, let him be your Servant. Thus eroding the Dr f s 
 Senfe of this,and other paralel Paflages. They alfoCite Aft. if. And Je- 
 rom on Tit. i.Concluding thus, "Therefore, let no Manforbid,that we re- 
 c turn to the eld Appointment of God (fo they call the Presbyterian way of 
 * Ordination,)znd rather receive it,than the cuftom devifed by Menffo they 
 call the Epifcopal Method.) 
 
 Thus thzConfeJJion of Boheme, Cha. 9. (Harm. Confef. Seel. 11. P. 246. 247 J 
 after fetting down the qualifications of Minifters, as to Ordination, they 
 fay, c that after Prayer and Farting, they are to be Confirmed and ap- 
 c proved of the Elders, by the laying one of their Hands. So The Con- 
 fejjlon of Saxony, Chap. 12. (Harm. Confef. Part. 2 J affirms, f That it belongs 
 * to the Minifiers of the Word to Ordain Minifiers, Law fully Elected and Cal- 
 c led. Where, we have aflerted at once, both the Presbyters Power in Or di- 
 lation, and tiie Peoples Intereft, in the Call of Paflors, in oppofition to Pre- 
 lacy. But as to this Point of the Equality ofVaftors, and their joint Intereft 
 in Ordination, it is long fince Dr. Reynolds hath told the Dr. and his Fellows 
 that this is the Common Judgment of the Reformed Churches, Viz,. Hel 
 vetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germa?ty, Hungary, Volland, the Low Coun- 
 tries; Citing the Harmony cfConfejfwns. 
 
 Well, Whoever own thefe Opinions of thcParity of Paflors, and their joynt 
 Interejl in Government, The Dr. tells his Friend, he Charges them with Er- 
 ror and Novelty, tho a Current Opinion among his Country -Men,whom the 
 enquiring Dr. Labours to undeceive, and he affaires his Friend ( a fure 
 Dsmonftration no doubt, if it admit no other Meafures, but his Afferti- 
 on ) That they are altogether New, and were never propogat in any part of the 
 Chrifiian Church, till thefe lafi days of Separation and Singularity. I could wifh 5 
 he had Condefcended upon the meafures of thefe lafi day s, wherein this 
 Separation Reigns, as alfo, of thefe New Opinions. We knfew, the Scripture 
 calls the whole Gofpel times, lafi times and latter dayes; And fome will al- 
 ledge there has been Separation and Singularity, Old enough in years : But, 
 if we may draw Conjectures from the Drs. Principles anent an Oecumenick 
 New Tefiament High Priefi and Patriarch, and the ftanding of the Old Teftament 
 Oeconomy, as Exemplary jo the New, and who has for feveralAges, pretended 
 to follow this Copie, and who he is, who has been for fome Ages feparat 
 from, tho once Univerfally wondered after,and follovjcd,viz,.ThcGood Old 
 Gentleman vjith the Triple Crown; I think Protefia?Jt Schifmatich, as well as 
 thefe their forementioned Opinions, may be fuppofed to have been in this 
 Affertion, much in the Dr c s. View. But that I be not tedious, and may 
 haften to confider the Dr's grave Enquiry and Anfwer to the premifed 
 Scriptures; and the New Protefia?it Gloffes upon them, which moves his 
 
 Spleen 
 
Chap. IL For Epifcopacy, Examined 45 
 
 Spleen to fuch declamatory anger againft his Poor par-blind Countreymen; 
 one thing I would fuggeft to him ( if I may do it without putting him in- 
 to a Chaff) which is this.; c Tis known, thst there is a certain Englifb Dr. 
 of as great Figure and Reputation falmoft ) in England, as he is in Scotland, 
 and of a great Name to this day, who having got this 2v«j> Scots Notice of 
 the Parity ofBijhops and Presbyter's. into his unwarry head,was hold to exhibit 
 a great many Teftimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers, for this New Opinion; 
 his Name is Do&or Reynolds, in his Epiftle to Sir Francis Knells; the Dr. 
 would do well to enlarge his Enquiring Charity,, and undeceive his Coun- 
 triemen and ethers, in the Point of this dangerous Errcr, in examining his 
 Citations. Its long fince the Epiftle was Exhibit to publick view, and is 
 in many hands, and upon a little enquiry, the Dr. may eaf.ly have a view 
 cf this dangerous Piece. For, if thefe Citations hold, the Opinion is not fo 
 New and Singular, as the Dr. Suggefrs, but it feems is an Old notion revived 
 again: As the Dr. knows the Waldenfes revived Old Points befoie them, 
 and from them the Proteftant Schifmaticks, have taken up the fame,- and in 
 fpecial, fo Learned an Antiquary, as the Dr. cannot be ignorant,that this ve- 
 ry Scots Dangerous New Notion, againft which his Pamphlet is levelled, was 
 condemned by the Roman Church in Wickliff, and the Waldenfes, as teftifie* 
 Michael Medina, lib, i. Defacrorum hominum origine & eminent la, Cap $. 
 
 But now, that my hand is in,befdre I come to examintheDr c s. Anlwers 
 to the premifed Scriptures, I muft be bold to Exhibit to him fome more 
 of the Heretical aflertors of Presbyters Power and intereft in Government,in 
 correspondence to the New Scots Notion. 
 
 Feftas Hommius Difput. Theol Adverfus Pontificios Difput. 2$.De Minift. Ec- 
 ^ clef. Ordin. Thef i. He calls the Office of Apoftles and Evangelifts Ex- 
 ^ traordinary, and holds it to be expired: Thef 2. [primm itaque ordo Miniftrorum 
 . Ecclefiee Novi Tefiamenti or dinar ior urn cfi ordo Paftorum,qui etiam EpifcopifPres- 
 hteri,p r <efideslaborantes, Mini/lriPradicantes, fervi, difyenfatcres, pne fides & 
 c \m* S -*£ Sacra Scri ? tura appellant ur ] That the Firft order of the Ordinary 
 ^ Minifters of the New Teftament, is that of Pallors, who in Scripture are 
 ^ called Bijlwps, Presbyters, Labouring Prefidents, Difpcnfmg Servants., Leaders 
 ^Kulers, Sec. Thef. 5. \_inttrF.pi[copum&Paftcremjeu(presbyterum\in r verbola- 
 ^borantem, Rejfetlu Muneris feu minifltrii nullum in Jacra Scriptura, verurn & 
 ^ ejfentiale difcrimen reperitur; hac enim <vccibus hi fee Prcmifcue utiti.r, cum unum 
 < e ™ ili ; m V ie Miniftrorum Novi Tefiamenti crdinem dcpgnat'.Qii: in una Eccle/ia & 
 ^ Crvitate phres tempore Jpcflolcrum EfifcoPm fuijje dijcrtc Scriptura Sacra 
 c fefatur. That betwixt the Riff of and Va(tor or Presbyter labour- 
 t ing in the Word and Do&rin, there is no efjwthl or OffciJ dif- 
 ference found in Scripture, which ufes thefe words pnmiifcuouilv, point- 
 . ing out thereby the f?m Ordtr of the Ntw Teftament MinijUrs: Since it doth 
 clearly Teftify, that in the times of the Apoftles, there were manv Bi- 
 
 Z ' flops 
 
\6 T>r. Monro'* Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 (hops in one City. From whence he draws this Conclufion [ quare Epfico- 
 pi jure Divino Vaftoribusjteque gradu,neque dignitate^neque or dims poteftate, nequt 
 Jurifditlione majores funt ] That therefore Bijhops by Divine Right are nei- 
 
 * ther in Degree, Dignity, Power of Order nor Jurifdi&ion greater than- 
 
 * Paftors. Here is extenfive Scots Bigotry. 
 
 I cannot but alfo obferve, how Crabbed and unlucky expreflions he has 
 Thef. 2. As to the Drs. Denomination, of theGofpel Miniftry by the term 
 of Prieftbood, becaufe Chrifts Priefthood is Eternal, and admits of no Sue- 
 ceflbrs, he doth upon this ground Reafon thus [ quare Miniftri NoviTefta- 
 wenti nufquam infacra Scriptura Sacer dotes prcprie dicti appellantur ] That the 
 Minifters of the New Teftament, are no where in Scripture called Priefts. 
 Adding [ proinde pontificii P aft ores cum nomen & munus facer dotis fibi arrogant y 
 mon tantum palam judaiz,ant y fed etiam blafpheme & facrilege in Sanfiiffimum mu- 
 mm Domini— in volant ~] That therefore the Popifh Minifters, in arrogating 
 to themfelves, the Name and Office of Priefts, do not only palpably Judaize, 
 but alfo, make a Blafphemous, and facralegious Invafion upon the rooft 
 Holy Office of Chrift. 
 
 Mufculus ( loc. Commun. de Offic. Minift. ) is Scots "Presbyterian in grain, in 
 this Point (P.mibi. 360, 361, 362.) after he has afferted from Scripture 
 
 * Grounds the extraordinary Nature of the Apoftolick and Evangeliftick 
 
 * Office,and the identity of 'thzPaftoralandDocJoral office withjfcrow:Becaufe 
 m the Apoftle Epb. 4. fays not, that our Lord gave fome Paftors and fome 
 
 * Do&ors, but Conjunctly Paftors and Do&ors, he adds [ eofdem effe Pres- 
 
 * byteros & Pa/tores ex eo patet, quod 1 Pet. y. Legimus Senior es ab Apoftolts ad* 
 € moneriy ut gregem Dei pafcant ] That Elders and Minifters , are by the Apo- 
 
 * ftles admoniihed to feed the Lords Flock [ \tio. faith he, eofdem efje Pres- 
 € byteros quoque ejrEpifccpQs & P aft ores, ex eo patet, quod Adz. 20. Legimus adhunc 
 
 * mpdum. A M\leto\autem mijfus Ephefum nuntms accerfivit PresbyterosEcclefia, 
 
 * quicum*venij]ent, dixit its $ <vos fcitisaprimodie, &c. Et aliquant po ft. Aiten- 
 
 * dite igiturvcbi* & t <>to gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanclus pofuitEpifcoposad pafcen- 
 
 * dum (rMju«(vnv ) Ecclejiam Dei.gpos Lucas vocat Presbyter os Ecclejia Ephefina?, 
 
 * bos Paulus vocat Epifcopos, & dixit eos ad hoc effe a Spiritu Santfo pofitos, ut paf 
 
 * c/wtEccleJiamDeiJic palam vidimus eofdem effe Pres by teros, Epifcopos & Paftores ] 
 
 * He adds for his Third Reafon, that it appears from Acl. 20. that Presbyters , 
 c Bijhops and Paftors are the fame,- becaufe Paul fent from Miktum to Ephe- 
 *fus for the Elders of the Church, who being come to him, he enjoins them 
 f to take heed to themfelves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy 
 
 * Ghoft had made them Bifoops, to Feed ( i. e. to Rule and Govern, as the 
 ? Original Word imports ) the Church of God. Thofe whom Lu^calls the 
 *'Elders of the Church of Epbefus, thofe Paul calls the Bijlwps, for this end. 
 c f&afUtutby the Holy Ghoft,toFeed the Church of God^whence it evident- 
 ly 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 4.7 
 
 < ty appears,that Btfwps, Presbyters, and P 'after s^are the [awe. He adds \de in* 
 de in una & eadem ecclefia fimid & conjunftimplures fuiffe epifecpos, &c] That 
 
 € it appears, the Spirit of GOD, placed at once andjoyntly a Plurality of 
 c Bijhopsjn one and the fame Church. [§>uem admodam ex eo qucque videri eft, 
 € quod Phil: 1. 1. Legimus Paulus.tfc Timotheus fervi Jefu Chrifti, omnibus 
 € fanftis qui funt Philippic una cum Epifcopis ejr Diaccnis. Ecce & Philippis 
 c plures fimul erant Epifcopi, erant autem illi Senior es Ecclefia'] That in the 
 f Church of Vhilippi a Plurality of Biflwps are faluted by the Apoftle, who 
 1 are fuppofed to be the fame with Paftors. He thus proceeds [Et ubi in 
 ' Epiftula ad Titum Cap. I. Legimus, Huj us ret gratia reliqui te in Creta, ut 
 € qua defunt pergas corrigere, & conftituas oppidatim Presbyter os, ficut ego tibi or- 
 ' dinar am, ft quis eft incupatus, &C. Opportet enim epifecpum inculpatum efie, 
 c &C. An ncn hie quoque videmus eofdem efte Presbjterum & Epifcopum. Et i Pet; 
 c 5*. Loco fupra citato, tres ha voces »->«6CiT«f»c J «nfi«mTi, & is-<6xe,r»tTir Ad eofdem 
 ' ab Apoftclis Script a leguntur, nnde videas Apcftolcrum tempore in ecclefia Chri- 
 € fti eofdem fuifte Presbyteros, Paflores & Epi(copos~\ That the ApofHe in the E- 
 f piftle to Titus, Chap. i. mewing, that he left him to place Elders in Crete, 
 c who muft be Blamelefs, &c Becaufe a Bi(hop mult be fuch, dorii fhew, 
 c That the Bijhop and the Presbyter are one and the fame. And i Pet. 5-. the 
 c three Original Words, which tigmfiQPresbyters, Feeding, zndOverJeeing, or 
 € Afting the Biflwps^ are by the Apoftle, Written and Afcribed to the fame 
 c Perfons; Whence, it is evident, that in the Times of the Apoftles, Elders, 
 c Paftors, and Bijhops, -were one and the fame in Gods Church. He adds [£/? 
 
 * itaque prcrfm indubitatum ( Alas! this Poor Man wanted the Venerable Dr's 
 c Inftru&ions, to have Corrected this Bigotrie ) in prima & ApoftolicaEccle- 
 c fia fie fuiffe ab Apoftolis Dijfofitum, ut Senior es Ecclefia •T t 6xcr«.Tn /'. e. Gregx 
 ' Dominica Cur am gerentes, Communi Opera Minifleria Docendi ac R gendi cbiruit, 
 c eftentque, ut ita dicam, '«xi9.xoi *. e. Nulli Capiti ac Prafidi fubucti, quales hc- 
 c die quoque in nonnullts Ecclefiis Verbi Miniftri referiuntur, inter qucs nemo catcris 
 c efl fuptrior Officio & Poteflate, &c. ] That it is beyond all Debate, that the 
 c Firft and Apoftolick Church, was; by the Apoftles fo Conftitute, that the 
 
 < Elders of the Church, did Exercife a Common Epifcopal Care over the 
 f Lords Flock, and the Jam; Function of Teaching and Governing the fame, and 
 f were therein fubjeft to noHead orPrefident: Like unto whon^are flund 
 f feveralMinifters now in fomeChurches, who ownc noSuperior in either 
 c Office or Authority, &c Afterwards (peaking of the Exalting of a *>.«-./ 
 f with the peculiar Name of Bifkp, and of Jeroms Account of this Practice, 
 
 * viz,. forEviting ok'Schifm, which he calls Emphatically [ Tentatio Wa~] thac 
 1 Tentation. lie adds, l [ Profutrit nc Cowjilittm hoc Ecclefia Chrifti // 
 
 < eft poftericribus Jacults declaratum, quam cum hac Confuttudo primum intral-. 
 
 I fur, cut debmm omnem Mam Primipalium & Equejhium Epifcoporum InJcLn- 
 
 ring 
 1 
 
4.8 T>r. Monro'/ Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 c tiam 3 Opulentiam, & Tyrannidem, into omnium Ecclefiarum Chrifti Corruption 
 new, cjuam (i Hieronimus cerneret, dubio procul Confilium agnofcerei, ncn Spirt- 
 tiisSantii ad tollenda Schemata, ficut prattxebatur , fed ipfius Satanic adVaftanda 
 f ac Terdenda prijca Pafcendi Dominici Gregis Mini/leria, quo fieret, ut hqberet Ec- 
 e clefia, non veros Pa/tores, Doctor es, Presbyteros, & Epifcopos, fed fub Nominum* 
 c ifiorum Larvis Otiofcs Ventres, ac Magnificcs Princepes, qui non modo non pafcant 
 
 * ipfi Populum Domini Doclrina Sana ey* Apoftolica, fed & Improbiffvma Violentia 
 
 * vet ant, ne id per quenquam alium fiat. Hoc, Fciz. ConfilioSatana fatlum eft, 
 ut h abeam Ecclefia pro Epifcopis Pctentes Dominos ac Princepes magna ex parte, ex 
 
 . Ordine NobilUm ac Satrapum Saculi Delectos, &c. ] Whether this Counfel 
 c or Method of Eviting Schifm, was profitable for the Church of Chrift, 
 c was more apparent to the After-Ages, than when this Cuftom, was firft 
 'introduced. For, thereunto is owing all that Grand ure, Infolency and 
 c Tyrranny of thofe Knight-like and Princely Bijhops, yea, the Corruption 
 c of all the Churches of Chrift ,• which, \£Jerom had difcerned, he would, 
 c no dcuht, have acknowledged, that this was not the Counfel oftheHolyGhcfl, 
 
 * for the Removal ofSchifms, «as was pretended, but the very Project of the Devil \ 
 < to Waft and Deftrcy the Primitive Adiniftry, appointed for Feeding the Lords Flock, 
 c that thus the Church of God, might not have truePaftors, Dodors, Pres- 
 c byters and Biinops, but under the Difguife of fuch Names, Idle Bellies, 
 c and Magnificent Princes, who, not onJy, Feed not the People of God 
 c themfelves, with the Sound and Apoftolical Do&rine, but by mod Wicked 
 c Violence, hinders the fame to be performed by any other : And that by 
 c this Engyne of Satan, its come to pafs, that the Churches, inftead of 
 c true Bifoops, have Powerful Lords andPrinces chofen for the moft part, out 
 c of the Order of the Nobility and Grandees of this World. Thereafter, 
 c he Inveighs againft their Gorgeous Stoles, Girdles, &c which he fays, 
 ' is to them, inftead of the Spiritual Armour enjoy ned Eph. 6. calling them 
 f the 4^/owtfxoiroi or Counterfeit Bijhops, and the Paftors, the true ones. 
 c Thus he P. 362. 
 
 I muft here again prefent to our Dr, fome further Account of the Sen- 
 timents of the Learned Junius upon this Point, in his Animadverfions on Bel- 
 larmin ad Controver. 4. de Concil. in Cap. 15. Par. 9. Art. 7. c [Non funtPaftores 
 c Laid, nee Ecclefiaftici quhunque, fed foli Epifcopi'] That the Biflwps only are 
 € the Paftors, and no Inferior Officers. He thus Animadverts andAnfwers 
 
 * [ Diftinguenda Aftumptio ha?c, nam fi angufte Epif copes ex Pontificicrnm ufu in- 
 c telligasfalfa eft; fin autem latius Communiterque Presbyter os Operam dantes Admi- 
 c niftratione Verbi ex Dono ejr Vocatione Dei, vera eft Affitmptio : Recite enim Ma- 
 •. gifter Sententiarum, Lib. 4. Di/put. 24. Excellenter inquit, Canones duos tan- 
 c quam Sacros Ordine s appellari tenjent, Diaccnatus, fciz. Et Presbyteratus ; quia 
 f bosfolos Primitive Eulefia legit ur habuiffe, & de hk fclis Precept urn Ap°Jtoli ha- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Exnmhwd. 
 
 c bemus • enimverofi foli Epifcopi Pa/lores effent, prof eft o vcque Epifcopi faciunt of- 
 c ficium qui ncn pafcunt greg?m, &c.~\ That the premifcd Affertion, that the 
 ''Bifiops only are Payors, is rightly underftood, if applyecl to Presbyters, who 
 ( Labours in the Adminiftration of the Word, who are thereunto Called 
 c of God, and have Correfpondent Gifts. That the Matter of Sentence*, 
 c does rightly afTert,that the Canons do only cwne Two Orders as Sacred, 
 c Viz,. The Diaconate and Presbyterate: Becaufe we read, that the Piimitive 
 c Church had thefe only, and of thefe alone, we have the Command of 
 c the Apoftle. Moreover, if Bijhops only be Pufiors, thefe Biftcps do not 
 c their Duty, who Feed not the Fleck. He adds after, [ r.rm ilia Epifco- 
 f porum diftinBio a Pafioribus & Presbytercrum or dine, juris Divbri ncn eft, fed 
 
 Q hum an l in frit uti Nbs de Jure fclum eommuni Divincque agimus\ Presbyter^ 
 
 c ergo qui dabant cperam adminiflrationi verbijus commune fuit 3 ut CcnciViis inter ef- 
 c fent, &c. ] That the diftinetion of Bipwps from Pa/hrs, has no Divine 
 c Warand, but is of Human hfiitution only; That Presbyters who Labour in 
 c Difpenfing the Word, had an Intereft to Sit in Councils. Where its evi- 
 dent, that he calls the Dr f s Notion of the Bifiop,as its diftincl: from the Ta- 
 ftcr, and Superior to him, Popifli andan Human Invention, and Affertstbe J- 
 dentity of Vaflor and Bijlwp by Divine Right, they being Members of Coun- 
 cils : And that this was the Sentence of the prime Schoolmen, as Lcmbard^ 
 c 8cc. ( ic. ibid, ) [ Spirit m SanBus pofuit Epifcopos regere Ecchjiam Dei J 
 c That the Hoiy Ghoft fet up Bijhops to Rule the Church cf God. Thus 
 c Junius animadverts [ aquivoce: namEpifccpcs dicit Apcfiolus ccrr.rnuni fgnlfica* 
 € to, i. e. in fps Bores .& CuratoresEcckfia effe Presbyteros ii'lius. Agit auttm cum 
 c Presbyter is unius-Ecclefia, put a Ephefina, quos accerfi adfe cur aver at, quedfiu- 
 c nus t ant um effe debet (utvoluntP on tificii) in unaTLcclefiaEpifcopus ,& ejus eft fclius 
 € pafcere, cur Paulusp<r omnia plurali nwmeroufuseft in hoc fuo protreptico adPres- 
 Q byteros Ephefi ] Adding \_falfa ex aqu'wecatione fententia~\ that the premifed 
 c AiTertion, anent the Eftabliihing J3i(7;c/>nn theChurchby the Holy Ghoft, 
 ' when applyed to the Prelat Bifiop, is net found, lince the Apoftle, ac- 
 c cording to the common ufe of the Word, calls the Papers or Presbyters of 
 ' the Church,her Infpe&ors orB//7^j:Becaufe,in that place,^/*,. Aft. 2:. the 
 c Apoftles Speech is directed to that one Church cfEphefus, forwhofe Pj- 
 * ftors he had fent.; but if ( as the Papijls would have it ) there ought to 
 c be but one Bijlwp in one Church, and it is proper to him alone to Feed, 
 c how comes it, that Paul, all along, makes ufe of the Plural Niwher, in 
 c this hisExdortatory Specch,or Sermon to the Presbyters of Ephcjus} After, 
 in Art. 9. [ Paffim ajfetunt Concilia Epij'ccpcrum efte"] That Coumils were made 
 up of BijJjcps. Thus Junius animadverts in his Third Anfucr [ tfued Ep:(- 
 € copi plurimum adtjfent, ncn idco fr.'cium cftqucd Epijccpi ejfrht, Jld qucd eruditi- 
 ' one & Dochina prajtarent pUrumqut alii* deprtibyterio^ & qui prcfterca fujfra- 
 
 A a gi* 
 
50 T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap; IL 
 
 gits Presbyterii pr^efecli efjent toto Presbyterorum collegio in Ecdefia fiwguli: Nam 
 qui erant ejufmodi, eos ad Confilia generalia communibusRcclcfia fuffragiis miiti y 
 erat aquius, quam rudiores, &c. ] That the Bifrops were for moft pare 
 prefent at Councils; this was not upon the account of their being Bifoops 
 or as in that Character, but becaufe they for moft part, were beyond 
 others of the Presbytrie in Gifts and Learning, and that for this Reafon 
 every fuch Bijhop, was by thefuffrages of the Presbytrie, made Prefidtnt of 
 their Collegiat Meeting; for, fuch as were in this capacity, it was more 
 equitable they mould be fent to General Councils, by the Churches com- 
 mon fuffrages, than thofe, that were lefs learned, &c He adds [ tanquam 
 per f etui juris, fiatua Epifcoporum fontificiorum fibi Affumpferunt, Jicut & omnem 
 autoritatem Ecclefue & Presbyterii ] That the Popijlj Bifhops, as if founded u- 
 pon a (landing Right and Tittle,have Ufurpt and affum'd to tbemfelves, 
 the whole Authority of the Church, and the Presbytrie. In Art. ic he^ 
 Corrects Beliarmin's abfurd Glofs, as xiTbeodofius and Vakntinianus had 
 
 intended only the Bijhofs to be Received in the Council And 15. ibid. 
 
 he mews, that the Chorepifcofi & Presbyteri Subfcribed and Voted in the 
 Council of Nice : And in Art. 11. \_in<uenimtur Jolt- Efifccfi Subfcriffiffe ) 
 That Bijhofs only did Subfcribe : He Anfwers, that this is falfe ( De Ni- 
 ceno modoDiximus Not. 15-. Conftantinopolitano f rimo 'S ubfer if ferunt ali- 
 quot Presbyteri, Alpius Presb. pro Philomufo Alexandrino Cappadociar, 
 Paul us Vresb. Promontano Claudiopolitano Ifauria:, &c. ) That in the 
 Firft Council oiConftantinofle, Presbyters Subfcribed. Thereafter, he mews 3 
 why the Bijhofs were Chofento General Councils — ( in fingulis Presbyte- 
 riis cujufcunque Provincite, Communibus fuffragiis TLpifcofi eligerentur ii, qui 
 Pietate, Doclrina, Judicia — fraflare viderentur. Adfuerttnt autem & Presby- 
 teri juarum Ecclejiarum fnguli Communi Syvodorum farticularium calculo ad 
 atlionem illam defutati, turn ILccleJite fu<z, turn Prov incize totius nomine ) That 
 in every Presbytrie of the refpeclive Provinces, thefe Bifljcfs were Chofen 
 by common fuffrage,who were judged more Eminent inPiety and Learn- 
 ing, but Presbyters were alfo prefent, being defuted to that Work, both by the 
 Vote of their own Churches ,ana I the common fuffrage of 'f 'articularSyncds ,and thus^ 
 intheName,bQth of their ownChurch,and ct the wholeProvince.He had 
 faid before,thac of the wholeProvince few were laid afide from Councils. 
 Uponi^/V.Whereit is alledged,that thelntereft of any other than Bijhofs 
 inCouncils is{_contra morem omnis Antiquitatzs~]Again{\. theCuftom of all Anti- 
 quity: InOppofition to th\s,Junim produces thePattern otthatCcvncil.Aff. 
 i). where it is faid,Paul and thofe with him,were received by the Afoftlet 
 and Elders;, that the Apoflles and Elders met mCouncil ~ Citing v. 22. Ic 
 feemed good to the Apoflles and Elders, to fend Chofen Men — and ^.23. 
 ^ where, the d{ojllu aad &A r l wroce t0 ^ ie Churches. Adding {atque [it* 
 
 dhk 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 51 
 
 f diu in Ecclefia fuijje obfervatum, demonftrat Exemplum Romans Synods, qute 
 c contra Novatum/a/V habita a 60 Epifcopis, Presbyterifque & Diaconis pluribus, 
 c qui Sententiam definiverunt contra Novatum,, Apoftolici iUius Concilii Excmplo y 
 c utrefertEukzb. Hift. Ecclef.*Lib. 6. Cap.4*. Et Ruffin. Cap. 33. J^wAlexan- 
 c drinaeSynodi contra Arrium ^«^Gelaiium Cyzicenum] That it was thus of 
 c a long time obferved in the Church, is demonftrat by the example of the 
 c Roman Synod, which was held againft Novatus by 60 Bifiops, and many t 
 c Presbyters and Deacons, who gave Sentence againft Novatus, after the Example 
 c of that Apoftolical Synod, by theTeftimony of Eufebius and Ruffin us in their, 
 c Hiftories : As alfo, by the Example of the Synod of Alexandria 
 c again ft Arius, according to Gelafius, &c. By this time, its evident,what 
 the Judgment of this Great Divine was, as to the la-entity of BiJIwp and 
 Presbyter, both the Name and Office, and their Intereft and Authority in 
 Church Government, yea, and in Councils, both de Faclo and d« Jure. 
 
 Franc. Gomar us Explic. Epift. ad Gal. Cap. 2. P. ( mihl) 48-7. having af^ 
 ferted the extraordinary Ecclefiaftick Function of Timcthie and Titus, and 
 upon the common Ground of their various Travels with the Apoftle Paul % 
 proved, their Evangeliftick Office to be inconfiftent with the Function of 
 a Bi(hop, who is tyed to a certain Poll: He adds, cc deinde ilia Epifcopi fig- 
 c nificatio, qua poft Apofiolorum temp or a introducla, in Sacr/s Uteris cmnino infolens 
 c eft, in quibus idem <juod Presbyter um not at, ut Paulus Tit. I. 6. ojlendit I 
 € quosenim, v. ^.PresbyterosEalefia, eofdem y v. y.Epifccpos vccat, &C. That 
 c the fignification or defignation otBijlup, introduced after the Apoftles 
 c times, is unknown to the Scriptures, wherein^ it fignifies the fame thing 
 c with the Presbyter, and Paftor, as the Apoftle, Tit. 1. 6.fhews;for, whom A 
 f in the f, v. he Calls the Presbyters of the Church, the fame he calls the 
 c Bifiops in the 7.1/. as alfo thePm/7/wofthe Church ofEphefus, fo termed. 
 *byL//£*, AB. 20. 17. Paul calls, the Bipcfs. v. 28. and Philip. 1. 1, 
 f he writes to the Saints with the Bifiops and Deacons; Where, by Bificps, 
 c . he underftands the Presbyters, not the Prelatskt over Presbyters, otherwife, 
 c which were abfard, in one and the fame Church, of Ephefus, and P/j/7- 
 c ippi, there had been a plurality of fuch ordinary Bifocps, of which every" 
 c one^fcad been fee ever many Paflors. Finally, where Paul recites the 
 f feveral kinds oftheGofpel \linifters, he acknowledges no fuch Bi/Trr/'j, 
 c diftincl from Presbyter -s, and fttfiripr unto them, as Eph. 4. 1 r. To which pur- 
 f pofe Jennfs Judgment is memorable, which is extant, Comment. inEp. to 
 c Tit. 1. 1. where comparing the 5. and 7. f u. he infers, that thcBiftcp and 
 u ' Presbyter isone and the fame; which Point he doth likewife ( in the fame 
 c manner as we have done,} demonftrat from Philip 1. 1. and Ail. 2c 28. 
 c 29. and other Paffiges adjoined thereunto,- concluding all with this 
 J weighty affertion, that with the Ancients, the Bipfs and Presbyters were 
 
 mi*. 
 
5% T>r. Monroes Tleadings. Chap. IL 
 
 € one and the fame, untill by Degrees, the care and infpe&ion was put 
 
 * upon one and that the Bijlwps were fet over Presbyters, rather by Cu- 
 
 € (torn than by Truth of Divine appointment; which Cuftom ( faith the 
 
 * Author ] did at laft bring upon the Church, the mischievous dominion 
 c of Bifiops, contrary to the Apoftles Command, i "Pet. 5-. Thereafter he 
 € reafons the Ruling Elders Office from thefe Scriptures, 1 Or. 12. 28. 
 c 1 Tim. $-. 17. Rom, 12. 8. 1 Thef. f. 12. 
 
 P. $26. explic. Epifi. ad Philip. Cap. 1. ConfeB. 1. Cum Paulus, & hie, & 
 c alibi, ut Att.20. JJni Ecclefia pluresEpifcopostribuat;nec uRum inter Epifeopos or- 
 € dinarios, & Pa/lores, ftatuat difcrimen: fequitur, adverfm pontificmfEpifcopum 
 < non fgnifcart Paftorem & prafettum Paftorum, fed Ecclefia P aft or em, 
 € ut docet Hieron. in Ep. adEvag. & Comment, ad Tit urn probat. v. 1. Since' 
 € Paul both here,and elfewhere,as AB.20, afcribes unto one Church a Plu- 
 c rality of Bi//;^neither places any difference betwixt the ordinary Bijhops, 
 € and the Pafiors, it follows againft the Papifis ( and thus againft this Dr. 
 c mGomarus Senfe, ) that the Word Biflwp, doth not fignifie both the Pa- 
 c ftor and Prelatical Infpe6lor over Paftors,or a Pa/tor of Paftors, but a Paftor 
 ' of the Church, as Jerom learnedly proves inEpift ad Evag. 
 
 c P. 704. Explicit, in 1 Pet. f. ConfeB. 8. Quanaoquidem Presbyterorum offi~ 
 € ciu?h hie jtatuitur tTi6xorut y quemadmodum Paulus Presbyteros Ephefinos dittos, 
 c &£t. 20. 17. vocat deinde Epifeopos v. 28. e^ Philip. 1. 1. Ecclefia miu s 
 c Urbis Philippenfis, tribuit Paulus Epifeopos , & Diaconos: Neque ullibi inSa- 
 € cris Liter is Epifcopus Presbyter is prafertur : Inde fequitur, non ex Divina Inftittt- 
 
 * tione, fed HvmanaTraditione ; cui deinde aceeffit fuperbia, Epifeopos a Presbyter is 
 
 * frijfe diftinttos, iifque Potefiate & Author it ate pralatis. That is, fin ce the 
 ,j Office of Presbyters is here held out, to be an Epifcopal Infpe&ion, as 
 € Paul doth accordingly call thePaftors and Presbyters of Ephefus Bifhops, 
 
 * Att.20.2S. who are likewife termed Presbyters, 1M7. and P£/7//M.i.men- 
 
 * tions the Eijhops and Deacons of that one City Philippi, neither is there a 
 c Bilhop found fet over Presbyters in any place of Holy Writ: It hence 
 € follows, that the diftinguilhing of Bifhops from Presbyters, and fetting 
 c them over Presbyters, in a Poteftative and Authoritative Prelacy, had 
 
 * its Rife from no Divine Inftitution,but from Humane Tradition, which 
 
 * was the Foundation ot Pride. , 
 
 Well, fhall I weary our Profound Dr, with another of the fame Stamp 
 With the Scots Presbyterians ? Antonim Sadael Operum Theol. i Tom. r. De Le-> 
 € gitima Vocatione Paftorem Ecclefia. In the beginning of that Difpute, he 
 
 * proferTes to deal with fuch as profeft to owne the Reformed Do- 
 c d;rine,but ftudied to evert the chief part cfDifcipline—[rejcttis iis qulbm ex officio 
 c incumbit ipfiusDifciplina Adminiflratio~\ rejecting fuch, who by their Office, 
 
 * have the Adrninjftration of Government committed to them. P. (mihi) 
 
Chap. II. ror fcpiicopacy, hxannnecl. 5 3 
 
 \ 6$, 66, 67. He thus proceeds, having Anfwered an Argument of one 
 C of the Sorbon Doctors, he propofes his Second, which is this — [ cbjicii 
 * primes noftros Dofiores fuijfe quidem Presbyteros, fed non Epifccpos, itaque r.on 
 fotuiffe alios Ecclejia Dctlores conftituere, cum foil Epifcopi Jus Ordinandi babe* 
 4 ''ant] That our firft Doctors were Presbyters, ajid not Bifiops, and thus 
 c could not Ordain other Minifters of .the Church, fince only Bifoops have 
 ' a Right to Ordain. [ Sua Sententia, faith Sadael, quam falfa fit , jam vi~ 
 c dendum eft ] The Falmood of which Opinion, he undertakes to difco- 
 C ver : And thus he confutes it, [ Patet ex Verbo Dei Epifcopum & Vresbytc- 
 c rum(qui quidem Ecclejiam docent)reipfa atque munere eundem ejfe: Atque itavariis 
 c nominibus rem eandem fuijfe fignific at am; fie enim PauluStf^ Titum. Cap. I. 5. 
 c bujus rei caufa, inquit, reliqui te in Creta ut conftituas oppidatim Presbyteros, 
 
 c Jicut tibi manda-vi, Ji mis eft inculpatus epportet enim Epifcopum inculpatum 
 
 c cpe ] It is evident from the Word of God, that the Bifiop and Presbyter 
 c (fiich as Teach the Church of God ) are upon the Matter, and in Office 
 c one and t be fame; and that by thefe Names one^and the fame thing is figni- 
 c ned : For, thus the Apoftle to Titus Cap. 1. v. 5. For this caufe left It bee. 
 c in Crete, That thou jlwuldeft Ordain Elders in every City — JJ any be blame- 
 
 * lefs— For, a Btfliof muft be -blamelefs, &C. He adds [ idem Afoftclm ad Pres* 
 c byteros Ephefinos, Act. 20. attenditevos ipfos ejr totum gregem in quo Spirit v$ 
 f Sanffits con [tit tut Epifcofos ad pafcendam Ecclejiam Dei. Et in Epift. ad Philip. 
 c Cap. 1, v. 1. Salutat Sanclos qui erant Philippis una cum Epifcofis & Diaco- 
 c nis. Ex quibrts omnibus fat is fat ere arbitror, Paulum, eundem fuijfe Epifcopum- 
 
 * qui 'Presbyter ejfet ad docendam Ecclejiam injtitutns. Deinde cum Apoftolus agit 
 c de muneribm Ecclefiaflicis in Epijt. ad Eph. 1? after es quidem recenfet & Dcclcres y 
 < nullum autem fuperiorem gradum Epifcoporum Afjignat : Imo ne meminit quidem 
 x illins nomints, adeo ut vecejjejjit eos nomine Paftorum comprehendi : Quod quidem 
 c Presbyter is convenire patet ex Cap. 20. Adtorum & ex 1 Pet. j. Ne alii loci 
 f mihi commemorandi fint] That the fame Apoftle Paul, Acl:. 20. Thus En- 
 c joins the Presbyters cf Ephefus; Take heed to your felves, and to all the Flock, 
 c over which, the Holy Ghoji bath made ycu Bijliops, to Feed the Church of GOD. 
 
 * And Philip. 1. 1. he Salutes the Saints which were at Philippi, together 
 c with the Bijljops and Deacons. Frcm all which it is evident, that with the 
 c Apoftle Paul, the Bifoop ts the (ame -with the Presbyter, who is appointed to* 
 c Teach the Church. Moreover, when the Apoftle, is Treating of Ec- 
 c cleiiaftick Offices, in the Epift. to Eph. he reckons wpPaftors and Defers, 
 
 * but AfTignsno Superior Degree of Bijlcps; nay, he doth not fo much as 
 c mention fuch a Name; fo that of nccellity, he muft needs Comprehend 
 < them under the Name of Paftors : And that the Name and thing ts Ccwpe- 
 € tent to Presbyters, appears from Acl. 2c. and 1 Pet. 5-. that I need noc 
 K mention other places. 
 
 B b But 
 
54. £&• Monro s T leadings. Chap. IT. 
 
 But .now-let us hear what the Sorbon ( and our Reverend Dr. his Afib~ 
 ciat in the Caufe ) do Repdy to what is premifed. Thus our Author pro- 
 ceeds^ " [Rhonda Sorhonicus nominum quidem ejje, fed non munerum, ccnfu~ 
 c fonem. Verum cnimvero quart do Presbyterivocantur Epifcopi, ibi agitur non dim* 
 c minibus ac titttlis, Jedde ipfa muneris ftin&icne*, cum ewi^Paulus hortatur P?-es- 
 c by teres Ephefeos ad [nam munus legittlme obcundum,hanc addit rationem, quod 
 
 ' i'llos Spiritus Santlus confiituit Epljcopos : Non igitur ait eos vocari tantum, fed 
 c ejfe cwftitUQS Epifcopos ex quo efficitur tot revera tunc fuijje Epifcopos Ephefi quot 
 c erant presbytcri & PafioresEctlefa; adeo ut plane jaceat illarefponfio defola nomi- 
 c nam confufione ] i. e. The Sorbon doth Reply, that there is indeed in the 
 c " premifed places, a confufion of Names, but not of the thing it felf, or 
 " the Office. But when Presbyters are called Bijlwps, the Apoftle is in fuch 
 e places,, treating not of the Names or Titles only, but of the Office and 
 
 run&ionit felf. For, when the Apoftle exhorts the Vresbyters oiEphefus, 
 ' to the right Exercife of .their Office, he adds this Reafon,- that the Ho- 
 c ly Ghoft had confeitute them Bijhops, and therefore,he fays not, that they 
 
 * were only called fo, but that they were in very de&d Conftitut fuch B/- 
 'jhops, From whence it evidently follows,that there were then at Ephefus,as 
 
 * many Bi(ljops,as there wevcVresbyters zndP aftors ofthe Church; So, that this 
 c anfwer, touching the Confufion of Names only in the premifed places,is 
 
 * quite overthrown. Well, thus he thinks, he has hid all along, and a- 
 board the Topgallant of the Sorbon; and confequently our Dr c s great An- 
 
 * {wer. The Author proceeds to a New Objection [ fed objicit, quod ait- 
 c Paulus ad Timotheum. i Tim. 5. 22. Manus inqitit, necuicito imponi- 
 c to, additque.mandatum ilhtd Pauli ad Titum de confiituendis in Creta Presbyte- 
 c ris : Utrumque enimEpifcopumfuijfeatqueeorationejus ordinandi habuijfe conten- 
 c dit~] That Paul faith to Timothy, 1. Tim. 5". 22. Lay Hands fuddenly on no- 
 ' Man. And that he adds that Command of Paul to Titus, anentthe Or- 
 c darning Elder sin Crete, and thereupon contends, that both the one and 
 
 * the other were Bijlwps, and upon this account had the Right of Ordina- 
 tion. Here, no doubt, the Sorbcn prefented much ofthe Strength of our 
 Br c s Reafohing,' fo that we fee how much the Popijh Agents, are in Love 
 with our Prelantal Arguments, and that there is no new thing under the 
 Sun.-. But let us hear our Authors Anfwer, " [ refpondeo, nomine wUttn 
 *" & 'imp oft ion is • manuumtota fgnificatur eleffio ] That the whole Election of 
 c Paflors is fignified by this Phrafe ofthe Impofition of Hands., And af- 
 ter fome what, in Confirmation of this, he adds ( ekclknum-vero cur am 
 
 c tin'} .Timotheo, incubuijje ne ipfe Doctor Sorbonicus dixijfet, qui ex frequenti 
 v veteru-mLect'toneDedicerat olim antiftitesEcclefiaz non aliter fuijje elecfos quam judicio- 
 * ; tctiusCkri,.&Q.) That the Sorbon Dr. himfelf, will not be Bold to fay, 
 $ut the whole care of Elections, was incumbent upon, and Committed 
 
 19 
 
Chap. II. For Epilcopacy, Examined. 55 
 
 c to Timothy alone, who from the frequent reading of the Ancients, had 
 c Learned, that Church Rulers, were not of old chcfcn ctherwife than 
 f by the Judgment of the whole Clergy, &c He adds ( merit o dicere pcffu- 
 c mm in uni-t sT 'imothei : per fen a frd ft etc s cmtiesEccIeJiafticos effefui officii cemmone 
 c fact os ) Thar all Church Rulers, are in the perfon tXTimoiby admonim- 
 c ed of their duty. And hence, he further Argues, that this Reafoningand 
 c Conclufionof tlk&Sbrbonj is moft abfurd (Paulus Timotheo pracepit necU 
 c torn anus imfonat : Nemoigitur ^/vz/tfrTirnotheum UUchabnit jus crdinatienis ) 
 c Paul enjoins Timothy 3 not to lay on hands fuddehly ^therefore ncne but7if- 
 c mot by, had the Right of Ordination : Which he confutes from this (ja~ 
 f hetur Timotheus, fabulas rejscere 3 attendcre Lectlc?;l export atloniybootrmaj&'c* 
 ' Num igiiur ilia omnia fib i uni Timotheus zrendicr.z'}:—- nenne feriiheSsnt ad 
 * Presbyferos, quos Paulus ipfe tefcattir labor ajfe in Sermon* & Declrina~\ That 
 c Timothy is enjoyned to reject Fables, give Attendance to Reading, Ex- 
 c hortation and Doctrine, &c Did therefore Timothy arregat all thefe 
 c things to himfelf alone? Did they not belong to PresBjters, who by Tauls 
 c Teftimony Laboured in the Word and Doctrine ? lie adds,t\rat-Timotby c z 
 c Epifcopacy at Ef he fits [Nulh ScriptttraTeflimonio confirm art foteft] can be made 
 c good by no Teftimony of Scripture, \vhich he proves from thefe Words 
 C [Rogavite ut maneres Ephefi cumpref.fifeerem /;;Macedoniam, i Tim. 1.3. ] 
 c J be/ought thee to abide fill at Ephefas when 1 went into Macedonia, 1 Tim. 
 ■ 1. 3. Which mews, fays our Author, he was left there, for feme time, 
 f for this end — [ Quemadmodum ipf.i Hi fioria fries winch ] As the very 
 c Tract of the Hiftcry makes evident. And this he proves ficm Timothy s 
 c attending Faul, when to go toAfid} As aifo from this Ground, thatP^f 
 c was ordinarly attended by Timothy and Titus, in this Exercife oi his A- 
 i poftolick Function. Adding further, that if we Fiippofe him Eiftop of 
 c the Churches, to which he was lent, we will make 1 of theCV 
 
 c rinthians^hili^piansfThffaloma'ris^z. He after puts the Qucile to the J 
 f copalians : Who ( upon their Jiypo'tbefis ) Ordained at JSfh 1 Ti- 
 
 c mothy was gone thence ? And whether the x«'r»5»6<* [apud Epheiios inter 
 g mortua jacebat~\ the Ordaining Power azEphefts, lay dead i.i hisAbfence? 
 ' He mews, that his Trahfierit Uniixed Mmiirry, could not Conlift u \:\\ 
 c a Fixed Epifc.pal Station : And that this Ra/.eth [ C/m'menfum Mud deT\- 
 c mothei Efifcopatu'] that Fable concerning Timothy** Epifcpaiy. lie after, 
 c improves the Argument from moh to the El 
 
 c Church of EpLf:s y in Timothy s Prefencc, and Committing the Epif 
 c Charge over that Church to thcm,and rot to him, [ E (ptondt potim elnce- 
 € re debuit, faith he, Splendor Epijcvp.ir/ts Ep W Paulos tam fie do 
 
 € Ecclefi<e falute differ tb at y o~ tam ftncli 
 
 I itndum'Lupis viam, alio^um WismGn wwi*] When Was there a tv> 
 
 1 Stf 
 
56 Vr. JVlonro s K r leadings Cmp; IL 
 
 € ter Seafon,, for Illuftrating the Splendor and Authority of the Epifiopacy 
 
 * a Epbejm, than when Paul was i'o Pioufly Difcourfing of that Churches 
 4 Safety, and fo Holily Exhorting all the Governours thereof, to Stop the 
 
 * Way againft theWolves,who were otherwife ready to Scatter thatFlock. 
 
 * He adds [ tittle Difytitationi ( he means aneniTimotb/s Efifcopacy) Paulus 
 
 * ipfe modum imponit cum exfrejfis verbis Timotheum vocat Evangeliftam, 
 
 * 2 Tim.^.(qui gradus tantum ad aliquod tempus in Ecclefia locum babuit) alios au- 
 x tern fu]fie Evangeliftas ab ordinariisEcclefal 'aftoribtts aperte docct Ap.inEpift.ad 
 
 * Eph. Cap. 4.] That the ApoftleP*«/ himfelf, put an end to thisDifpute, 
 
 * in Calling Timothy, exprefly, an Eva?igelift (which Degree and Office, 
 € was to continue for a time only in the Church) The Apoftle alfo,/hew- 
 € ing evidently ( Eph. 4. ) that Evangelifts were diftind from the ordina- 
 c ry V after s of the Church. He adds thereafter, that the Sorbon Dr. com- 
 ' mits a Twofold Error, in Arguing from Timothy's Impofing Hands, to 
 c an Epifiopal Prerogative in thisMatter. Firft, In that this isSophiftical- 
 
 * ly made Exclufive of Presbyters Intereft — which can no more be faid, 
 € than this can be inferred from the Command of Exhorting, Reading, de- 
 
 < livered to him, which he Confirms by the Scripture Inftances of a Plu- 
 f rality of Church Officers Impofing Hands ; As upon the Deacons, by all 
 c the Apoftles,- upon Paul and Barnabas, by the Prophets and Teachers at 
 ' Antioch; upon Timothy by the Presbytrie. Secondly, In that, tho it were 
 € granted^ that he Impofed Hands folely, he did this, as an Evangelifts in 
 c Pauls Abfence, not as a BijJwp. But, faith he, ( Si abfque contentions ftu- 
 c diorem ipfam intueamur , facile videbimns in twins Timothei perfona omnes Eccle+ 
 c fix Prafeclos fui officii a dmoneri) That to fuch, as are not Contentious, 
 ' but confiders the thing it felf, all Church Rulers, in thePerfon oiTimo- 
 c thy, are Admonilhed of their Duty. He after Cites feveral of the And- 
 c ents, to Confirm this his Senfe and Expofition ,• fuch as Irenaus, Lib. 4. 
 c Cap. 45. where he meweth, that Presbyters have the (Succeftio Epifcopatus) 
 
 * Succeffion of Epifcopacy. So, ibid. Cap. 44. (Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ec- 
 4 clefia, de quibus & Prophet a ait, dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Epifcopos tuos in 
 
 * juftitia) That the Church has fuch Presbyters, of whom the Prophet faid, 
 « I will give you Rulers and Biihops in Peace and Righteoufnefs. ( Ecce 
 
 * ( faith our Author ) eofdem vocat Epifcopos, quos antea Presbyteros appellavit > 
 
 * & Presbyters tribuit Epifcopatum ) That he calls the fame Perfons Bijhops, 
 e whom before he Named Presbyters, and Afcribes to Presbyters znEpifcopa- 
 
 * cy. Afterwards, he Cites Ambrofe on Eph. 4. mewing, that the Ptesbyters 
 
 < were called Bijhops, and in Egypt Ordained, if the Bijhop were not pre- 
 tf fent. So, Jerom on 1 Tim. 5. mewing, that the fame Perfons were cal- 
 € led Bijhops and Presbyters, that the one, is the Name of Dignity, the o- 
 
 .' ther ef Age. And Efift. ad Oceamm-, where he afferts, that (Afoftolus 
 
 ( per- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 57 
 
 perjphue docet eofdem ejje Presbyteros quos Hpifcopcs ) So E/ ; //?. ad TLvagrium. 
 Likewife, his Famous Teftimony upon Tit. i. ( Presbyter idem efi quiEpif- 
 copus — & antequam Diaboli Infiinclu, &c) So alfo, Augufiin. Ep. 19. 
 £ Qu»m*]»rri fz-cundum Hcncrum Vocabula o t ua Ecclcfia ufim cbtinuit Epifccpatrts 
 Presbyterio major fit. &c. ] Where Augufiin afferts, that his Epifccpal Di- 
 stinction from jerom, and of a Bijhcp from a Presbyter, was only in fome 
 Tides ofRefpect, which the Churches ufe had obtained. Likewife that 
 Paffage [ in Alexandria & per totum Egyptum, (i defit Epifcopus, confecrat 
 Presbyter ] That in Alexandria, and through all Egypt, Presbyters did Or- 
 dain in Abfence of the Bifiop. Thefe, he tells his PcpijJ) Adv r erfary, he 
 Cites \_ quia plans faciunt Autcritatem Voter urn, quam ipfos plane Scripture 
 Locos ] Becaufe they efteem more the Authority of the Ancients, than 
 plain Places of Scripture* I cannot but add what he has further : If, 
 Faith he, we all allow to Presbyters , the Authority of Preaching the Go*- 
 fpel, the Adminiftration of Baptifm, the Celebration of the Lords Sup- 
 per, and if, by their Judgment, Ecclefiaftical Elections are to be made 
 [ Ecquid erit Caufa, quam ob rem non fcjfunt Eleclum SanBis Prxcibtts, cr 
 Manuum Impofitione Deo Ccnfecrare~] Upon what imaginable Ground can 
 we fuppofe, they cannot Confecrat and fet apart to God the Perfon 
 thus Elected, by Prayer andlmpofition of Hands, when the other parts 
 of this Work are brought [tanquam ad Faftigium~] to the Accompli m- 
 ment or Copeftone, as if were ? Wherefore are they [«; Indigni &bm~ 
 tiles ] as Ufelefs and Unworthy Forbidden [ Manum Opcri Jmfcnere ] 
 to fet the laft Hand to this Work, in its Accomplishment ? He adds, that 
 we eft hear Paul Magnify and Extol the Preaching cf the Gofpel,which 
 is the Pa/ler or Presbyters Function, Magnifying his own Authority 
 therein, [ Cur non Hie pothts fummum hoc Jm Ordinationis in midium propenit J 
 Wherefore prefents he not rather his chief Intereil in Ordination ? He 
 afterwards Cites jfercwj Notable Saying [_Ad quorum Prcces, Corpus &Sar.~ 
 guis Chrifli conficitur, at que interim Jus Ordinandi ipfis Presbyter js Jenegent ] 
 That Presbyters are abfurdly denyed the Right of Ordination, by whole 
 Prayers notwithfrancling 3 the Sacramental Elements aie Confecrat, to 
 Reprcfent the Body and Blood of Chrift. The Author adds [Objecro 
 utrum majus efi, Manns Jmponcre, an Cbnfii Corpus & Sanguinei* frecibui 
 conficae ? Itaque qui Presbyteros a xn;«6«6i* excludunt, ipfi prcjtcloVim ac N«tu- 
 rarn ipfitts xnr«9»6»«e, & quo J fit ipfumPresbyterii Munus, penitus ignorant^ Whe- 
 ther is greater, I pray, to Impofe Hands in Ordination, or in Prayer to 
 Confccrate the Body and Blood of Chrift - ; Therefore, fuch as exclude 
 Presbjtns from this Impofition of Hands, do ihew themlelves to be grofly 
 ignorant, both of the Nature of Ordination, and the Pafhral Office; 
 And thus, we dif mift SJ&e^whom we have found fufficieotty to Combat 
 and Word our Dr. C c But 
 
f S *Dr. Monro's Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 But to proceed, Dr. Reynolds, in the forementioned Epiftle, afterCiting 
 'leveral Fathers, for this Identity of Bifliop and Presbyter, fuch as Jercm, The- 
 c odoret, Primafius, Sedulius, Theophyl'acl, Oecumenius i Tim. 3. Yea, Orego- 
 f ry, Peliic. Lib. 2. Tit. ±9, 39. & Grut. Cap. Legimus Dift. 39. & Cr". ?5~? 
 
 * D//£. 95. He adds, that thefe, who have Labour ?4. in Reforming the 
 c Church, thefe Five Hundred Year?, have Taught, that all Papers, be 
 c they Entitled Biflwps or Priefts, have equal Authority andPoiver by GodsV/crd. 
 c Citing firft, the JValdenfes in *y£neas Silvhts Hi ft. of Bohem. Cap. 35. Next, 
 , c Marfilius Ratavinus Defenf. Vac Is Part. 2. Cap. 15. Wickliff. &c. 
 
 If the Teftimony of 'Biflwps will pleafe theDr, we will find Bifliop Jewels 
 fully Combats him in this Point: Defenf, Apol. cont. Hard: Edit. An. 1 5-70.. 
 P. 243. What meaneth Mr. Harding, faith he, to make it an Herefie to fay, 
 c that by the Scriptures of God., a Bifhop and Prleft, are all one? Knows 
 c he, how far, and to whom, he reaches the Name of anHeretick? Then 
 
 * he Cites Chryjtof. on 1 Ti?n. Horn. 11. (hewing, that [inter Epifcoputn & 
 c Presbyterum interefl ferme nihil ] Betwixt a Bijhop and Presbyter, there is al- 
 € moft no Difference. Jerom ad Evagrium, alferting that \_ Apostolus perjpi- 
 
 * cue docet eofdem efte Presbyteros quos Epifcopos'] The Apoftle clearly Teaches, 
 
 * the Bijhop and Presbyter, to be one and the fame, calling the contrary Opi- 
 € nion, a Vecordia or Folly. Alfo Attguft. Sue ft. Vet. & N. Teft. Quefl. 10 1. 
 
 * [ Quid eft Epifcopus nifi primus Presbyter ] That the Bifljpp is only the firft Prts- 
 c byter. Amb. de Dignit, Saccrd. [ Epifcopi ejrPresbyteri hna eft Ordinatio~\ Af- 
 c ferting-, that the Ordination, and confequently the Function of the Bl^ 
 * ' flyop and Presbyter, is one and the fame. All thefe and many more Holy i^- 
 t "phsrs > faith BifhopjfeW, together with Sc. Paul the Apoftle, for thus fa y- 
 ff ing, by Mr. Hidings. Advice, muft be holden forHereticks. I will add, 
 and all thefe, and many more, together with the Apoftle Paul, by thisDr c s 
 Advke, muft be holden for No-velifts, and Scots Schifmaticks. But there 
 are other Biflwp, willy et enter the Lifts with our Dr: Bifliop Pilkinior,, 
 on P.ev$lation, and in the Treatife 6i Burning of Pauls Church. Bifliop Bii- 
 jon Perpst. Gover. Cap. 2. Yea, more of the Famous Engliflj Drs. Fulk a- 
 gainft the Rhemifts on Tit. r. f. Dr. Hirmphray in Campian. &DuraumJefui- 
 tjj Part. 2. Ration. 3. TVhittaker above Cited. So alio, ad RationtsCamphi- 
 hi Ration. 6. Confutat. Durai. Lib. 6. Che?nnitius & Ge?ttiktus, the great txa- 
 rninators of the Council of Trent, the one a Divine, the other a Lawyer,. 
 doth both Condemn, as a Trent Error, our Dr's AfTertion, anent the Di- 
 ftin&ion of Bifliop and Presbyter; the one by Scriptures and Fathers, the o- 
 ther, by the Canon Law. We have heard , that Dr. Reynolds, for 
 misParity of Bijhop and Presbyter, tells us, c Its needleis to fpeak of the par- 
 c ticular Perfons, fince, its the commoiijudgment of the Churches of Hd- 
 c "jetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Coun* 
 
 *-irys, and our own i Wituefs the Harmony of Cc?fcjJiom 3 Sjff, rt.j 
 
 Now*. 
 
Chap. II. ForEpifcopacy, Examined. fp 
 
 Now, from all that is faid, whether the Bodv o^ P rot eft ant Divines and 
 Churches, be not for the Official, as well as Nominal Identity of Biflxp and 
 Viresbytef : Whether this be not likewifc the Judgment of the moft Ancient 
 and Purer Church : % w nether cur Argument be only a Confufione Nominum^ 
 and Sophiftical and Childim ; Is left to the Judgment of Judicious and 
 f mpartial Readers, who fliall Weigh whatisfaid, in the Ballances of Scrip- 
 ture and Scund Reafon. 
 
 Before I proceed, I cannot but take notice of this Dr f s petulant imper- 
 tinency in propofing our Argument. He fays, this is our great Argument, 
 
 That there is no diftincJion betwixt a Biihop and Presbyter in Scripture 
 
 And therefore, we conclude that our Argument, a Confufione no- 
 minum, is demonftrativ'e and folid. As if, when we maintain, that in 
 Scripture, there is no diftindion betwixt thefe Offices, we meant a No- 
 minal only, and not a real diverfity. Had he ever perufed the Authors he 
 Cites, or conferred with any Presbyterian, who underftands the Contro- 
 verfy, he would have found, that from the Scriptures Cited, and manv 
 Paralels, its an Official on a? efs, not a Nominal only, we plead for, and that 
 our Arguments therefrom, has fuch Nerves, as he durft not medle with. 
 The Dr. tells tfsfr. 2^.) That whether thelSijhop be of an Higher Order than 
 thePrieft, falls not under his enquiry , nor is it 'very Material— con fidered with Re- 
 fpectto the common Priesthood, an dSubor din at Officers /hey might be of the fame Or- 
 der, tho at other times, when Authority and J urifdiclitn is Na?7iedjhe Bifiop (with 
 regard to his Dignity and Power ) is ahvife reckoned above a Presbyter. Here, 1 
 niufl: fay, is a ft range Confufion, and that not Nowinum but Rerum. 1. 
 Thp.^r. is fo much for the Official Scriptural Superiority of the Biihop to the 
 Presbyter, that he affirms the Crntrar AfTertion to be a New tplnicn, 
 into the Heads of his Countrymen, and fome others, but never heard of 
 this 1400 years; For curing of which, he has fent down this Learned 
 r j!et; yet -he W*il! hot enquire, whether a Bifrop be of a higher Order, cr nct y . 
 to a Presbyter, i. e. He will not enquire whether Ilia Countn '-men or he, 
 have the Right in this Debate. If the Rifiop be not of an Higher Order,. 
 hisCoiintrey Presbyterians are Right, their Arguments, which ly level n> 
 this fcopo, are good and Conclulive, and do better his Principle of a \ 
 pirlor Order of ' Ml'nifhrs above the Pttjtir, and in efpecial under this Del | I . - 
 :ion and Character of Piftcp : The Antithefis whereof ^ viz,, that there is 
 an Oilicer called a Diih.p, mi Superior Order -ft mmine ) the Dr. Cor. - 
 tends for tan^uam pro ay is & fee x; yet he $b\% t- 
 
 (which to all men of hcofe, is the m I: (elf Matc-i- 
 
 a'.. Let anv ponder, WritJtfhdf rt)i3 fltottt p-. !*cnd< d thmtl.. 
 
 febt fall his i:;:;:lart, and evea flees at the Firft alarm. 2. Ik tells us, m 
 
 /in* 
 
6o T>n Monro's Pleadings Chap. II. 
 
 Authority arid Jurifdiftibn is named, the Bijhopwith regard to his * Dignity, is al- 
 ■wife reckoned above a Presbyter. Now, I do appeal to all Men of Com- 
 mon fenfe, whetherthe Dr dos not here Aflert. (ij A Divine Authority 
 and JurifdicHon of a Bijhop above a Presbfter. (2) By clear Confequencej 
 that he is of an higher Order than the Presbyter; or elfe, how can he be 
 in Jurifdiction and Authority above him? (%.) That the Bijhop, underthat 
 Chara&er, andeo ncmine, is thus Reprefented in the Scripture Accounts 
 ■of him. Now, all this being his Affertion, in oppofition to his Coun- 
 try-mens fuppofed Errors, how can he decline the enquiry, whetherthe 
 Bijhop be of an higher Order? Let any Judge, if he fays not this, upon the 
 Matter, the thing is -Clear in it J elf, in the Scripture Accounts; and this 
 I maintain in eppefirien to the Scots Presbyterians, whom I do hereby Char*t 
 with a new Opinion on this Groundnut am not Concerned to Examin their Argu- 
 ments, or make good my own. 3. He tells us they are fometime confidered, as of 
 ihe fame order, with reject to the common Priefihood. I Anfwer we have proved 
 thatPresbyters or Pa for s, have both name and thing of all ordinary Minifterial 
 Authoiity appropriat to them, and that with Relation thereto, the Bi- 
 fljop and the Presbyter, are in Scripture made one andthefame. (2.) When 
 he fays, they are made of the fame Order, with refpeff to the Priefthood, common 
 to either : He fpeaks Confufedly and Ignorantly,- For will he fay, that the 
 attributing to Two Church Officers, who are different, the fame Gene- 
 al or (to ipeak to the Dr c s ScopeJ the fameGenerical Priefthood,or Mini- 
 ftry, iv ill inferr, that they are of the fame order therein, or fpecifical Of- 
 fice ? Iffo, then Apoftles, who are called Presbyters or Elders, he muft fay, 
 are of the fame Order with them,- yea with Deacons alfo, fince fometimes 
 their Office and Miniftry is reprefented by fuch a term, as RepreWfcte a 
 Deaconate or common fervice. Further, I muft here warn the Doctor, to 
 take up his Shield,and beware of the Rebound of his own Blow : Was our 
 Lord of the fame Order, with the Prophets or Servants of God, becaufe 
 in the capacity of Mediator, and with Refped to a general Miniftry or 
 Service of the Father, he gets the Defignation, name and thing of Prophet, 
 Mffenger, and Servant of God ? Will the Dr. thus Blafphemoufly degrade 
 him into the fame Order with mere Creatures, who are Prophets and 
 Servants? In a word, let us hold the Dr to his affirmative, and chal- 
 lenge his proof of this Point, viz,. That in Scripture, there is an ordinary {land- 
 ing Church Officer, exhibit under the Cj^racler and defignation of a BijJjop, who is 
 sdwife Reckoned above a Presbyter or Paotor, when Authority and Jurifdiction is 
 Named. And according to the fcope, meafures, and extent of this Afier- 
 tion, let his enfuing Diicourfe, Anfwers, and proofs be examined, where- 
 in, I am fure, he has fair, dealing according to all acknowledged Laws 
 01 Difputation, 
 
 Well. 
 
Chap. II. FflrEpifcopacyv Examined. 61 
 
 Well, proceed we then to his. Proofs of, this Affertion, and the .ground : 
 of his enuring Anlw.er to this Argument, taken from, the Identity, of* Bifioy 
 and Presbyter. He tells us, that the infpired Writers, as the Jews Dkhc- 
 tomotiz>ed, or made a bipartit Diyifion ( Reader, be notfo ignorant, as to 
 itart at this term as a Goblin, the Dr. as an Englifh Oratpr, may call his 
 Greek into an Englifh Mould : And you mufi know, he is againft new ftaro\z 
 Opinions not Vhrafts) Well, what did thev Dichotomtoize ? The Clergy, faith 
 the Dr. into Two Orders, ( here he has fbundly exponed his te/m ) like 
 that of Pi ieft sand Lev its, tho as among the Jews— So, amo?jg Chrifiians, thx 
 admitted of a Sub-divifion and fubordsnation of Church Officers among themfeh;^ 
 as were- the Priefls of the Old Teftament— This, he fays, was fui table to the Lan~ 
 guage of the Heleniltical (.or Grecian) Tribes ( high Oratory / ) of the ApG- 
 ftolick Age — the Name of Priefl and. High -Trie (I being Confounded, Levit. I. 7. . 
 The Sons of Aaron the Prieftmall put Fir.e,8cc. v. 8. the Priefts,^r^j Sqns 
 ihall lay the parts, &c. Now, faith the Dr. ifPriefts and Higb-PrJcfisgc, 
 the fame Name, without any difiinclion.vf Order, notwithfi anding tfse Hjgh'PrJefts 
 extraordinary priv Hedges /he Name of High-Vrie(l lihwifi being never affixt Jo Aa- 
 ron or Eleazar, and the term but Twice orTbrice mentioned in the Becks of \lofcs 
 'while yet the Homonymie of Names pleaded not againU the Subordination 
 of Priefts ; Could it be thought. ftrange, that Apoftles or Apoftolical Men in 
 mentioning Presbyters of the New Teftament, might not make ufe of the current 
 Phrafeologv of their Countreymen, in (freaking ofPriefis and. Levites^ Dipt fling 
 them intx) two Orders, as if there were no more ?~-Tho the meanefi Jew knew the 
 high Prieftwai very Honour able, anhby all marks of eminency and Authority, Dif~ 
 ftinguifhed from ordinary VrUfis. Thus he Pag. 25. 24. 2 J. 
 
 I Anfwer, §uod hac ad riombum} What fays this to the Point ? Or how 
 lyes this Difcourfe level tonisj^ope, either to prove theB/yW/Jurifdi&i- 
 onal Authority ab^ve a VresVyter or Vaflor, as Eijhop in the Scripture Senfe, 
 or to prove, that we Argue fophiftically, when alledging that the Scrip- 
 ture makes the Ei[hop and Presbyter one in Name and thing, and that there- 
 fore, the difcriminating of both, by TLpifcopalians, is antifcriptural. How, 
 I fey, this lyes level to the Dr c s Conclufion, or can iafolid Reafon reach 
 the fame, I mutt Confefs, paffes my Comprehenfion. 1 or,' 1. Tho all 
 the Dr. fays be granted,it is palpably evident,that this pleading, if it prove 
 any thing, levels merely againft fuch as would draw the Identity of fiifop 
 and Presbyter only from this, that there is an homonymie offhefe two Names y 
 Whereas, it is the Identity of the Qualifications, Gifts, Ditt'us, and every efientiai 
 of the Office, which is the Topick and Principle Presbyterians plead from, 
 not merely the conhiiion of Names,2. The Dr. himfcf ackno\vledges,thac 
 notwithstanding ofthisfuppofed confulion of hdius*>ot DickvtQwofizing the 
 
 D d Old 
 
6% T)t\ Monro's T leadings Chap. IL 
 
 OldTeftament Church Officers,yetf&e High-Trie ft, -was diftinguijliedfrcm the 
 rtberPriefts,by marks of Eminency an id 'Atti h or ity;i or inftance,[that he is caUedHigh 
 Trieft]hnd therefore,before hisDifcourfe can have any fhadow ofAnfwer, 
 he is bound to Exhibit, in a juft Paralel, the fame Serif ture marks of Emi* 
 wency and Authority of the Diocefan Biflwp, above the Paftor or Presbyter-Bijlwp, 
 as the ScriptureExhibits in reference to the High-Priefts, above the ordi- 
 nary Priefts, or the Priefts in reference to the Levites, elfe, this Anfwer, 
 by his own Confeffion, and in the Senfe of all men of Senfe, is but 
 a pitiful Begging of the Queftion : For, upon this Ground, he might al- 
 ledge a Diftindtion betwixt the Paftor and Preaching Presbyter. He alledges 
 P. 2f. That in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings , the High-Prieft is 
 frequently diftinguifoed -by his proper and fpecial Char aBer Well then, he is o- 
 tliged to let us fee in Scripture, fuch a frequent diftinftion of the Prelaii- 
 cal or Diocefan Bifhop from the Paftor t Pre sbyter, by Jfuch a Character as the 
 Dr. makes fpecial and Peculiar, to him, and exhibit his fpecial Official dif- 
 ference therein, and fuper eminent Authority over P afters, elfe he never 
 touches the Point. We hold that the Bijhop and Presbyter are in Scripture al- 
 wife one,Name,and thing: The Dr. grants,that the High Prieft,and other 
 Priefts are not fo.but diftinguifhedjand therefore,he brings an impertinent 
 Paralel and exception anent the fometimes Community of Names of Priefts 
 and High-Priefts, unlefs he can otherwife than thus difprove and anfwer 
 our AiTertion. Befides, the Critical Difputant will here put him to prove, 
 that the infpired Writers of the New Tefl anient, followed the Pbrafeolcgie 
 of the Jevjsjin fpeaking of the NewTeftament-Church Officers,efpecialiy 
 iince we find frequent recitations of thern,in a far other ftrain andPhrafe, 
 and that in their feveralClaffes and Degrees,both ordinary and extraordi- 
 nary^ iCor. 12.2S. Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. Eph. 4.1 1. Moreover, when in that place,L<?- 
 <vi?.i.Aaron,\s called not merely thePrieft Jtut emphatice, Aaron thePrieft( who fe 
 eminent immediat Call to the Priefthood, is (0 clear ) and diftinguilhed 
 f, : o.n his Sons the Priefts J mentioned in the plural, in that very Paffage, his 
 Super-emmency above them, is infinuat, yea Afferted. The Dr. is bold 
 to aiTert, that tvhen Authority and Jurifdi&ion is Named, the Bifiop y 
 with regard to his Dignity, is alwife reckoned above a. Presbyter. Of 
 this alwife, we demand one inftance, the Dr c s extenfive Vhrafeologie, boafts 
 of aPlenty of Inftance5,but in not offering fo much as one he fiiews great 
 penury, efpecially, when,as the affirmer he ftands fo clearly obliged 
 thereto: But here, as often elfewherejhe.plys us with generals^alien from 
 the purpofe. 
 
 He tells us, (P. 26. ) Tlo neither Aaron nor Eleazar, in the beginning' 
 of the Jewim OEconomy, Wire called High Priefts, it had been Madnefs 
 irom- this Confufion of Nrmcs, to. h.we inferred an Equality 9 Jince their 
 
 Offices, 
 
Chap. II. tor fcpilcopacy, Examined. 6$ 
 
 Offices were diftinguifhed by their fpecial Mini/tries and Jurifdifiion. Her© 
 again, a Poor Repeated General, Alien from the Point; If this Dr- 
 had intended to Difpute, not to Rove with Unprofitable Talk, he mould, 
 inftead of Begging Poorly the Queftion, in Suppofing it, have made that 
 good, in the Cafe of the BiJJiop and Presbyter in the New Teftament Church 
 Government, which he here afferts of the Priefts in the Jewifti OEconomy, 
 viz,. That as the fpecial Miniftries and Jurifdiction of High Priefts and o* 
 therPriefts, were diftinguifhed, and what was appropriat to the one, de~ 
 liyed to the other under that Difpenfation, fo there is exhibit in 
 the NewTeftament, the fame DifcriminatingDiftin&ion, betwixt thcBi* 
 Piop and P aft or or Presbyter, in point of Miniftry and JuriQi&ion. It is pi- 
 ty to fee a Man Reprefented in the Frontifpiece of his B:ok, in the Cha- 
 racter of a D. D. proceeding with fuch Big Words, in a Difpute and fup- 
 pofed Confutation of the Presbyterians, yet as an Officiperdafo far miftak- 
 ing his Mak and Meafures, .that he never comes near the Point, which 
 they deny, and he undertakes, or (lands obliged to prove. 
 
 He adds ( ibid. ) Biflops were called Presbyters, wtid had Presbyters under 
 them, in the Days of the Apoftles. If he mean this of ordinary Officers, cli- 
 ftinguilhed as Bijhops from Presbyters, I deny it, and that there were any 
 fuch ordinary Officers, with fach Authority over Papers^ under the Deno- 
 mination cf either Biftjop or Presbyter. He tells us, th.it the Presbyters fitni- 
 fe the Priefts, who affift the Bi/hop in his Ecc'le/iafiick Administrations. A 
 New Begging of the Queftion. I deny either that Priefts is the New Te~ 
 ftament Defignacion of Minifters, and do confequently hold, that this I is 
 Defignation is Popijh and Anti-Scriptural, or that the Term Presbyter 01T..- 
 /flr,doth ever fignifie in theScripture fuch an Officer,as has aKelation to a 
 jBifiop of his Mould. The Dr. is bold to cell us, That iho all Bifhops 
 Presbyters, yet not all Presbyters Biftops^ a?;d therefore, to infer an Eqv.. 
 from the Promifcuous Ufe of Karnes , is neither good Lcgtck nor Good 
 ftory. But fince the Dr. exhibits no Scripture Warrand nor Hiftory, I • 
 this his Forged Diftin&ion betwixt the Rijbop and Paficr ( wherein I dare 
 appeal to all who ponders thefe his Anfwers) he fliews himfelf no good 
 Hijtorian, in Obtruding fuch Doctrine : And iince, inftead of proving, he 
 
 lptural Of 
 
 fetal Diftinction of BijJjcp and Presbyter, and grounding all his Aniuers 
 thereupon, without the lead Offer of a Proof, it is evident that his Lo^ 
 gick is as bad as his Hiftory and Divinity. 
 
 lie runs on. in the Gnu Carreer of a Vaith Princifii, (p. 27. ) He will 
 
 nott 
 
#4- 2)r. Monm'sl'Pkaclmgt Cliap* II. 
 
 hot be thought to conclude the Bijlwps Superiority tb Presbyters, from the 
 High Prieft among the Jews, But ftnCe this is all the Scripture Praof he 
 has yet offered, what then would he prove ? Tho we meet with the fame: 
 Dichotomies in the New Teftament, we ought not to conclude an Equa- 
 lity among them of the higher Order. I have often told him, that we 
 conclude the Identity of Bijhop and Presbyter, not from his Fancied Dichoto- 
 mies ', but from the Scriptures full and conftantAffertionof theE^//7/and 
 Identity of the Official Tower. And where there is fuch a Dichotomies as he 
 alledges, ( as Philip, i. i. ) our Argument proceeds not merely upon this, 
 but aftb upon this Ground and Topick,that t he-Office and Officer do there' 
 ftand fo defcribed in the Context, as neceffarly infers this our Ccnclufi- 
 cn, The Dr. tells us next, That the Jewifh OEconomy was never abro- 
 gated in the New Teftament, and that their Taxis was Divided into Su- 
 preme and Subordlnat Priefls. Thus we have a clear Vidimus what he 
 would prove from this, at leaft, what the Series of his Reafbning concludes, 
 even a (landing Primat over the Catholick Church: And therefore, needs 
 Stumble no Prote(lants, nor Amufe diem, tho he fet the Crofs upon the 
 Frontijbiece of his next Pamphlet, or upon his Breaff,as a Devout Catholick 
 Dr. of his Holy Mother Church. He adds, That fill the Jews fubdivided the 
 Vriefis into highefh and Subordinate as is clear from Philo the Jew. He; 
 told us the Scripture diftinguifhes them, pray good Mr. Dr. what need is 
 there of Proofs or Inftances from Philo, fince the Presbyterians y are fatisfied 
 in the firft,and think themfelves not concerned in the Proof it felf I 
 
 But to proceed ( P. 28. ) He is ftill upon this Idle Repeated Begging 
 the Queftion, telling us, oftheApoflesJpeakingintheJewiftiP'hrafe, Clajfmg 
 the Clergy into a Bipartit or Tripartit Div if on, as reckoned either among- them- 
 felves, or with relation to the People, as thePr lefts were by a Tripartit, while recko- 
 ned by their Diftinclions: That Community of Names , was as obferv able when 
 the Off ces were as truly diftinguift^ed as could be. But ftill we are Weary ed, 
 Calling upon our Triffling Dr, to come Home from his Prodigal Wan- 
 derings, to the Point, which is to /hew us in the Scriptures of the New 
 Teftament, fuch a true Diftin&ion of the Bijhop and Presbyters Office, as is 
 exhibit In the Offices of the Jewish OEconomy, in theOId. The Dr. af- 
 firms, That the Proeftos in the Apoftolick Age, was as much above the Subordinal 
 Presbyters, as the High Prieft among the Jews, above other Vriefts, who yet was 
 Ranked among them y without a Nominal Diftinclion. But, as in the reft, fo 
 here, the Dr. prefents us his Magifterial Diclats for Proof and Argu- 
 ment: He (houid have given us a Scripture Inftance of fuch 2.Vroeftos, or 
 firft Presbyter, Vefted with a Proftafie of this Nature in the Apoftolick Age, 
 and then drawn his Inference from the Nominal Identity. 2. What if we 
 Ihould grant the Matter of Facl:, or fuch a Proeftos in that Age? Will that 
 
 merely 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6$ 
 
 merely prove the Jus} If the Dr. £iy fo, (and he dees fay it, in his Way 
 of Arguing) then he Claps the Lawful Mitre, cr a Divine Wairand at 
 leaft, upon th^ Head of a Diotrephes, and Stamps this Jus Divinum, upon 
 the begun Myftery of Iniquity, and ether Tares, which the evil one was 
 then Sowing among the Wheat. %. That fuch a Prceftos was as much a- 
 bove thcPresbyters, as the High Prieft above other Priefrs, is as Ignorant an 
 AiTertion, and Arrant Untruth, as the Dr. could readily have let fail : 
 Whereof I will ( i.) Convince him out of his own Mouth, ur.lefs \n 
 the Point of this r^ss, he ftiH begg the Queftion. (2. ) From the Scrip- 
 ture Accounts of the High Priefts Office. Fir/l, He does acknowledge, 
 that the High Piieft was thus Termed, upon the Ground of Special Miniftries, 
 which were Eilential and Peculiar to him: Now, I pray, what were 
 the Special Minijhies of this Prceftos, and even in the Point of Order, in the 
 Apoftles Days,above his Fellows? Next > the High Prieft entred every Year 
 into the Holy of Holies, with Blood and Incenfe, and had this Preroga- 
 tive above other Priefts, the Pricfthood was Hereditary to his Firft Born^ 
 Tved to his Family, &c. And would not the Dr. Blufh, to AlTert fuch 
 like Prerogatives, as Applicable to the Prceftos, or Suppofed Fixed Pnji- 
 dent in the Apoftles Days ? But he adds, Salmafius grants, That when the 
 pretended Equality prevailed, a Preces had the Loce Primarius in Confeflu du- 
 ring Life — And that there are fuch palpable Evidences of the peculiar Honour and 
 JurijdiBion of one of the Ecckfia flick Sen at , in the Apcflolick Age, that the Lear-' 
 nedfl Sticklers for Parity cannot deny it. But if Salmafius afiert, that while this 
 pretended Proeftos had the Chair, an Official Equality ofPajhrs was cxiftenc 
 and prevailed, it is undenyable, that he deny es to this Pre f dent or Chait- 
 min, fuch an Epi/ccpal Preheminence and Dominion as theDr. pleads for, 
 and allows him only the Chair of Prefukncy, not Principality: A Moderator s 
 Chair,and no more. Again, I Challenge ourDr.to prove thisConfequence. 
 Salmafius afferts, that even an Official Equality prevailed am.ng P afters, 
 when there was a Proeftos let up, during Life : Ergo, he afferts, that this 
 Proefios was ab initio, in the Apoftonck Age, or approved by the Apcftieb. 
 For what he adds, P. 29. That the Learnedft Phad<.rs for Parity, do ackinzj'- 
 ledge a peculiar Juvifdiltion a] ; prcpriat to one of the EccUfipftick Stnat, in the A- 
 
 fojtolick Age : lie ihould have Named them, and where they afiert this : 
 'or, as for what he adduces of Salmafius, J have Jhown how far it is fit in 
 reaching hisConcluiion. AndJfct*, I am fine (whom no doubt, theDr. 
 will Avne, as an Eminent Pleader for Parity ) condemns this Humane Pre- 
 ftafie, as the Epifcopus tlumanus, diftinci fom the Divine, much moie a Pe- 
 culiarity ofjurifdi&ion in one P after over another, lor the Dr's Invidu- 
 ous Character of Sticklers for Parity, which he bellows upon Presb)teii.;n 
 Writers, the premifed Account of them, difcoyers what a Black Tbeta he 
 
 E, e ' marks 
 
46 T>r. Monro's Tleadings Chap. II- 
 
 marks himfelf with, who dare thus afperfe the Body of Reformed Chur- 
 ches and Divines. No doubt, if they were fuch Sticklers for Parity of P*- 
 /tors, or Preaching Presbyters, (for this is the Parity, which he thus igno- 
 rantly reprefents in fuch a Confufed General ) as he is for Imparity, and 
 the Prelatical Hierarchy, their Stickling were not to be Valued. 
 
 But what are thefe palpable Evidences, which convinces our gre.ateftS?/V£~ 
 hrsl — Something, faith the Dr, that makes it evident beyond all Contradiction. 
 Some mighty Evidences then we muft expect The firft, which he addu- 
 ces, is, That of the Apocalyptick Angels, among -whom, he tells us, we juftly. 
 reckon St. Polycarp Bifhop of Smyrna. But, i. How has he proved,that thefe 
 Angtlt were Jingle Prejidents, and that the Term is net taken ColleBively ? 2. 
 How does he prove, that fuch as acknowledge them Jingle Perfons, do hold 
 them to be any more xhmPrefidents pro tempore) Bez^a, I amfure, acknow- 
 ledges them only fuch . Whom the Dr, or any other, do reckon for the 
 Angel of Smyrna, when John wrote the Epiftle to that Church, is not the 
 Queftion, but whom he can prove from Scripture, to have been fuch, and 
 what the Bijhops Chara&er is in Scripture. 
 
 TheDr c s. next fuppofed evidence, is drawn (com the Epiftles ta Timothy 
 and Titus, and the Catalogues of Bijhops, fucceeding to the Apo files in their feve- 
 ralSees. To which I An fiver in fhort, Firft, That the Dr. can neither 
 prove. 1. That the Apoftles, or Timothy and Titus the Evangelifts, exer- 
 cifed an ordinary Epijcopal Authority, to . be continued in the Church. 
 Nor, 2. Can he prove or conclude from thefe Catalogues, fuch an Au- 
 thority: Since (1) They are found to confift of Officers of diverfe Cutts- 
 and unequal Authority. (2) Inconfiftent and contradictory to one ano- 
 ther. (3) They are found refolving in Apoftles or Evangeliits, whofe 
 Office, admitted of no Sueceffion, and upon this very account, can found 
 no ihadow of an Argument for what he intends, far lefs, make the thing 
 evident beyond contradiction. What the Dr. adds further in this Page, Of our 
 concluding the Equality of Presbyters of the New Teftament, from the Dichotomies 
 ufed in Chrifiian VFriters, and of the Ancients, dividing fomitimes the Clergie in- 
 to two Orders, &C. And that nothing of moment was Canonically Determined in 
 fLccUJiafiick Meetings without their Bijhops — That Cyprian compares the Evan- 
 gelical Priefthood and Adini/i rations with tht Aaronical : Is the fame naufeat-- 
 mg repeated begging of the-Queftion. with the former, wherewith, in 
 ftead of folid Scripture Proof of the Official imparity of Bijlwp and Presbyter , 
 he fills up idle Pages. How often ihall we tell him, that the point in 
 queftion, is not what Dichotomies were ufed in Chriftian Writings, or 
 who determined Canonically in Ecclefiaftick Meetings, after the Apofto- 
 iick Age ? What Comparif^ns Cyprian, Clemens, or Origen ufed in fetting 
 out the. New TeftamentMiniftry ? But what Anfwers the Dr, has to offer 
 
 to 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6j 
 
 to the premifed Scripture Arguments of Presbyterians for the Paritit o£Bi[hcf 
 and Presbyter, Jure Divino? And what proof from Scripture, from the A- 
 poftles Do&rine and Practice, he can produce for fuch a Jurifdidional 
 Power and Authority of a Bifhop, under this Character., above the V after 
 or preaching Presbyter, as he is bold to affert ? We often tell him, that we 
 plead other Grounds than his fancied Dichotomies, And tho that were 
 made one Ground, and fay further, he had difproved it, in thefe his pi- 
 ty ful Tautologies and Repetitions, what fays this to the many other Ner- 
 vous Pleadings above rehearfed? 
 
 But proceed we. P. 29. ;o. He prefles thus his often Repeated Notion 
 anent Dichotomies; Especially, fays he, fince the Ancients [cmttimes divide tht 
 Clergy into two Orders, yet upon other occafions fub divide the high eft Order, and di^ 
 ftinguifl) the Biflwp from fubordinat Vresbyters. Anf. He mould have Exhi- 
 bit thefe Ancients, and their words, thus diftinguifhing the Bijbop under 
 that Character, from all fubordinate Vresbyters. 2. The Dr. is obliged 
 ( this being the fubftratum and fuppofition of all his Anfwers, and infinu- 
 at Argument ) to exhibit the Scriptures fubdivifion of the Paftcral Office, 
 into higher and inferior Orders, and the Scripture diftin&ion of fuch 
 an ordinary Officer, as comes under the Character of Bijlmp, from Sub- 
 ordinat Preaching Vresbyters or Vafiors, As for determination in Councils, 
 he did well to add to his bold Affertion,his two Limitations, of Matters cf 
 moment, and Canonical!?, which muft be referred to his Explication. But 
 we have made appear from the Learned Junius and others, what was Pref- 
 byters intereft in Councils; and he muft be pofed who concurred and A&ed 
 Authoritatively in that Council, Adfc if i As for the Comparifon of the 
 Old and New Teftament Miniftry, ufed by fome of the Ancients, we have 
 feen what a pitiful Argument it is, in reference to his Conclufion, and 
 that the Comparifon, is only with reference to a iimiiitude, in point of 
 cfa Diftindtion and Subordination of Courts and Officers, not a Parity 
 or Identity of both OEconomies : For, this were to make an illuftrating 
 flmilitude or allufion to infer an Identity ,• with abfurdity, if the Dr. 
 fhould draw upon himfelf, who will not hifs him? I deiiderat fiill, and 
 call for the Dr,s. Scripture-proof of the Diocefan Biflwps Superiority to the 
 T aft or or Presbyter, according to the true State of the Oueition, and his un- 
 dertaking, and fuppofition in his Anfwcrs, but there is no fcent of u,t!:o 
 I am (till inQueft of the fame. 
 
 Va%. 30. He is frill repeating again his Notion and Vhantaftical Cone: ic 
 of 'Dichotomies. Well, what more to this Icope? Clemens Romanns faith 
 the Dr. divides the Clergy into two Orders, and Jo he doth the Jewiih AfflW/S 
 into Priefts and Zxvhes, tho in either there is no equality. But to this nu ulceus 
 
 repeating Dr. I muit Repeat again. 1. Tho In flumlil nliiliii Ckmtit I 
 
 Afi 
 
)6% T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap. IL 
 
 Affertion of his Hierarchical Bifiop; it touches not the Point in Queftion, 
 •which is anent ^Scripture JJJertion, of fuch an Officer, not what any Hu- 
 man Writers have Jfferted. 2. He has not made appear, Ckmens ( s fubdivifi- 
 nn of the Paftoral Office into his fancied Orders, nor the Aftertions of any 
 Writers elfe to this purpdfe. For Tertullians Teftimcny, if it prove any 
 things it proves too much, and beyond his Aflertion, Viz,. The Deacons 
 Power to Baptize, which the Dr. cannot own, without difowning the 
 Scripture-accounts of thisOffice,and the whole Body of Proteftant Church- 
 es and Divines. 
 
 But to proceed with the Dr. P. 31. In ftead of a folid Anfwer to our 
 Scripture Arguments, for the Parity of i?i/7:<?/> and Presbyter, or -our demand- 
 ed Scripture-proof of his fuppcled Imparity ,1 find the Dr. is ftill calling up 
 his pityful recocted Crambe of Dichotomies , and telling us trifflling quibles 
 of Ttrtulliansfenfe of the Seniores mentioned in hisWrit'mgs; he tells us,he is not 
 at a Point in it, whether by Seniores,Tertullian understood allPresbyters, or thefe 
 enly advanced to the Epijcopal Dignity: And what this fignirles to the point in 
 queftion often mentioned,the Appeal is madeto all confidering peifons to 
 Judge; And whether in fuch pretendedAnfwers to ourScriptureArgumems 
 fbrPr^/^ri^wGovernment OR g h* nce offered to v the view of the Learned 
 World ) and to our demand of a Scripture proof of his fuppofed Impari- 
 ty, this Man be not a poor Beggarly Trifler, and a Skirmifher with his 
 own Shadow. Befides, TertaUian afferts, that [ prafident probati quique Se- 
 niores] if the Dr. is not fur e, hut that fuch in TeriuUian's fenfe, might be 
 P-aftors, he mufi: acknowledge, that according to Tertullian, fuch presid- 
 ed, or had the Authority of a Proeftos, in Church Judicatories, as were 
 not of his Hierarchical Order: So, that he did not well to raife this fright- 
 ing Ghoft. What more to our Queftion ? We are told next, That 
 Clem. Alcxan. Strcmat. Lib. 6. reckons- up Three Orders of the Clergy* 
 What then? We reckon up Papers, Ruling Elders, Deacons. The queftion 
 is, what Degrees he affignsof the PaftoralOffice? And further, upon what 
 Scripture Warrand ? How long will J comers delight in [corning, and fools hate 
 ■Knowledge? What more? Are we yet arrived at the Dr c s. Anfwer to 
 Presbyterian Scripture Arguments, or his own Scripture Proofs cf what he 
 here beggs? No. We hear next.that Cyprian afferts theEpifcopalJurifdi&i- 
 on. But all who have read Cyprian, can tell him, that he aifu ownesthe 
 Presbyters as his Collegues, without whom he could do nothing; And therefore, 
 that he owned no fole 'Epijcopal Jurijdklhn. What more? Poly carp trou- 
 bles the Dr. who divuls the Clergie into two Orders, in his Epifkle to the Phiiip- 
 pians. What will remedy this ? Why ? He recommends Ignatius hisE- 
 piffles, where the Apoflolkk Hier archie is often mentioned. But what afiurance 
 gives the Dr. that chefe were his genuine FpiftleSj which now go under 
 
 his 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy Examined. 69 
 
 his Name,- there being Paffages in thefe Epiftles, which the Dr. himfelf 
 cannot but be afhamed of. But Pclycarp, in the Dr c s. Opinion, was a very 
 modeft humble Man, whofe ufeual Stile was, Polycarp, and the Presby- 
 ters that are with him. Which the Dr. will needs have to exprefs his Epifco- 
 pal DifiinBicn froyn them. A proof, which., if you be a Friend, you may take 
 off his Hand, when the poor empty Man has no better. I fee it is now 
 dangerous for any Minifier to fay or write, I and the P after s that are with 
 me, leaft the Dr. fatten an Epifccpal Glofs upon it. The Dr. profoundly 
 fuppofes, that nothing but an Epifcopal Jurisdiction and Priority, could 
 warrand this Phrafe, and order of his Words: The contrary whereof, can 
 be cleared, by fo many Inftances, as renders this Reafon obvioufly ridi- 
 culous. What more? we are told P. 32. 7 hat there can be nothing more ex- 
 travagant, than to conclude a Parity among Priefts, hecaufe the Ancients ufed the 
 Jevviih Phra r eohgy, fince they frequentlie ajfert the Jurifdiclion of Biflcps above 
 Presbyters. But what can be more extravagant, than this Dr c s. Trifling in 
 this Debate, and telling over and over, ad naufeam ujquc, this pityful 
 quible, not to the purpofe and the point in queftion, and in ftead of an 
 Anfwer to our Nervous Scripture- Arguments for the Official Parity of Bi- 
 JJwp and Presbyter, Jure Divino, prefenting idle repeated Stories of the An- 
 cients Phrafeologie* anent the New Teitament Church Officers, which 
 all Men of Senfe, cannot but fee, to be as far from the purpofe, as Eaft 
 is from Well; While pretending to run the Carrier of a fierce AfTault upon 
 Presbyterians, he doth nothing but chafe empty infignificant quibles, with 
 his back to his Adverfaries, and to the point, and in fuch a faint de- 
 clining of a clofs and true Scripture-Diipure, upon this Queftion, accor- 
 ding to its genuine Nature and Terms, as all Judicious Perfons, who read 
 i\\$ Pamphlet, may fee that the Presbyterians have this pityful cowardly Brag- 
 gard in Chafe, who dare not encounter them, and fairly deal Stroaks u- 
 pon the point. The Scripture AlTertion of the Authority and Jurifdicli- 
 on of the Bijhop, under that Character, over the P aft or or Presbyter, as an 
 ordinary New Tcftament Officer, is that which we are ftiilfeeking from 
 this Dr. not the Affertion of Humane Writers, Ancient cr Modern, which 
 laft notwithstanding, fo weak is his Caufe, he has not produced. 
 
 What more Anfwers ? P. 32. 33. Hermes ccr.tcmpcrary with Clemens 
 Romanus reproved their ambition , who in his time, ft rove for Dignitie and Pre- 
 ferment. Reader,here is a mighty proof cf Bifrcps their Precedencie and Offi- 
 cial Dignitie above Presbyters, and Anfwer to our Arguments to the con- 
 trary. Marr not your MocJeftVj in laughing at a Venerable Dr c s. Argu- 
 ments and Anfwers, while you read them. The Dr. tells ycu, he was 
 nth Clemens Romanus, who was of the Apoftolich Age. And 
 ho will probably be got perfwnded, that Clemens in this walkt up to the 
 
 F f Seoft 
 
7© T>r. Monro s Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 Senfe of that Eminent and very Ancient Father, the Apoftle John, who 
 reproved Diotrephes, for his afpiring after this manner. But leaft you a- 
 bufe this Citation, to infer the dangerous confequence and Here fie of the 
 cffieial .parity of Bifiop and Presbyter, the warry prudent Dr. precludes your 
 mirlake, by adding this Salvo, If there was no fuch Precedence then in the 
 Church, there was no Ground for his Reprehenfion. Mighty Reafon.' And well 
 con efpondent to his Reverend Father Bellarmins Senfe and Pleading a- 
 gainft our Divines, for the Papacle. It {hould feem, Men were never 
 zempted to ftrive for a Dignity and Preferment, in the Dr f s, Senfe, but 
 what was Lawful ; And that this very feeking and enquiry/ proves the 
 lawfulnefs, and fuppofes it. It fecms alfo, that a (7;ixt/#tii/»» Diotrephes was 
 feeking a Lawful Preheminence, when he refuted the Apoftle John, and 
 the only fault was, that the Man did not modeftly ftay till the place 
 was for him., and he for it. And in correfpondence to the Dr c s. Senfe of 
 this Reptehenfion, when P# Uer exhorted, not to be Lords over GOD c s 
 Heritage, he rebuked only an ambitious feeking of a Lawful Lordfljip. Our 
 Saviour aifo, in His great Command and Prohibition above mentioned, 
 relative to the Apoftles feeking a Vrimacie and Firft Dignitie (as the Dr. 
 calls \t) fuppofed and eftabliihed a Vrimacie in the Church,- other wife, 
 ye will wrong and expofe the Dr f s. Confequence, if you admitt not this 
 Reafoning: For, he will tell you, That elfe there was no ground for fuck 
 & Reprehenfion. 
 
 But now, ( P. 3 J.) The Dr. tells you, he is come ( after this long Tra- 
 vel and Pains, thele Way-ward and Stubborn Presbyterians has put him to/. 
 end arrived at theSumm of all that thefeReafonings amounts unto.Wc expect then,, 
 the Diftilled Spirits, the Nerves of what goes before, Epitomized, if this 
 be the Epilogue and Summ Total of what we have heard. Well, what is 
 that Summ of all ? Why ? The Helenift Jews (the Grecian Jews ) dift'w- 
 guided the High Priefi from theLevites, by the Name ofPviefi ( for which again 
 ^hilo the Jew Rands Voucher)^* none will conclude , he had noSubordinat 
 Priefls; as now adays, Presbyterians argue upon the fame Tcfick Sopbi/lically ™ 
 for when the Vriefis were compared among t hem f elves — then their Dignities and 
 Subordinations were mentioned -— when we compare the New Tefiament Priefis and 
 Deacons, we fay Vriefts and Deacons , but when we compare them among themfelvts, 
 wt acknowledge their Subordinations. Really, if this be the Comprehenfive 
 Account of all, it is pity, the Dr. has fpenc fo much Difcourfe upon ir, 
 and run himfelf out of Breath, to catch a Nothing. For,I am of the mind,, 
 that every Reader, will judge that this his Summ, might have very well 
 ierved for all, andfaved him, .the Labour of the Tedious Difcourfe,vve have. 
 l\eard * But to the point, we often tell him, ( I know not how often we 
 rauftj that ouyc Argument from Philip. 1. 1. which all this hisQuible main- 
 ly 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. yx 
 
 ly aims at, is not merely drawn from the Divificn and Dichctcmje : The 
 Senfe of the place, already exhibit by our Divines, evinces the contrary. 
 Nay further, ( which difcovers this Mans Vanity, and Qnibling Foljy in 
 this Matter) we acknowledge, that fometimes general Divifions of Church 
 Officers in the New Teftament, admits of a Subdivision, as particularly 
 Rom. 12.6,7,8. is generally acknowledged; As alfo in that of Philip, i. r. 
 But this we aflert, that thefe general Diviiions and Subdivisions, and the 
 feveral Recitations of the New Teftament Church Officers, ftill fuppofes 
 she Pa (lor- BijJjop, or Preaching Presbyter, to be the higjotft ordinary Church Officer 
 appointed of God, and that the Pafter or Preaching Presbyters Office, admits 
 no Subdivifion of Superior and Inferior Degrees, no more than the Of- 
 fice of Apoftles and Evangelifts : And we are ftill feeking from this Dr, the 
 proof of his fuppofed Affirmative, that it doth. I confefs, the Dr. Words 
 it in fo far well, When we compere, faith he, Priefts arncng thewfelves, 
 — we muft acknowledge their Subordinations — We cannot help what the 
 Dr. muft, but he muft have better Prcfpe&ives to give us, ere we can fee 
 his Subordination ofPaftcrs in the New Teftament: And as for hisNewTe- 
 ftament Priefts, we owne them not. We know there is an Holy Prieft- 
 hood and Brotherhood, whereby the Scripture points out Believers joynt 
 Priviledges, who are a Kingdom of Priefts ; and that there is a Glorious 
 High Prieft of our Profeflion, whole Priefthood is Unchangeable, and 
 palfes not to others : But for New Teftament Priefts, thus Characterized 
 as Church Officers, we are yet to Learn their Warrand from our Dr, a- 
 mong others his My fterious Points. I know the Prophecte of the Old Te- 
 ftament, as to Minifters of the New, runs thus, I wiU take of them, for 
 Friefts and Lcvites ; But, if the Dr. Strain this AUuiion, to bear the Con- 
 clusion of a futeable Name of New Teftament Officers, he will alfo upon 
 Alalachie's Prophecy anent purifying the Sens of Levi, in order to offering a * 
 offering in in every place, draw the prettv ?<:/>///; Conclusion, with his Friend 
 BelLrmin, of a sfew Teftament Sacrifice, for his New Teftament Pr, 
 And realiy, when I coniider his continued conftant DelignatLns of Mi- 
 nifters of the Gofpel, after this manner, I do judge the Cardinal and he, 
 are much one in this Senfe and Conclulion: And that which follows en- 
 firms me • For, P. jj, 34. the Dr. tells us, That the 'Old Teftament P?; 
 were by their offering Sacrifices, difingui^hed fram the Levites; and the New 71- 
 ftament Yriefls vf the hightft and jubordinat Order, are dif'piguijhcd fiom the 1 
 cons, by their effering t be Euch.iriftical Sacrifice. Now, we all knew, that 
 Vriefls and Sacrifices^ are Correlates — But the Dr. knows, that his A. 
 Divines, the Prote/lants ( tho they did paft with a Charitable ConRn. 
 on, fome of the Ancient s Alluiive Lxpidlions this way, yet ) do difowne 
 the Name and Thing of a S.icnfice, as appropriat to the Celebration of 
 that Sacrament,. P. - 
 
y % Dr. Monro's Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 P. 34. The Dr. has not yet done with his Dichotomies : And the Sum 
 of this Page is, The Jews ufed their Dichotomies of their Clergy, in the A- 
 foftolick Age -— and the Bipartite or Tripartite Divifion upon this Ground, was 
 ufed by Jewifti andChriftian Writers-— yet theft, who Reckon tht two Orders, in 
 other places, reckon up the Hierarchy of Bifiops, Presbyters and Deacons. I have 
 heard of a Beggar, who pleafed himielf, as poiTefling a great Sum, by 
 telling a piece of Money often over. How often {hall we have this more 
 than recoiled Crambe, thefe often boyled Colworts, repeated ? I am of 
 the mind, that Battolope, was never better exemplified, than in our Dr c s 
 Arguings.We are fti'il feekingfrom our naufeous Dreaming Dr. a Bipartite 
 or Tripartite Divifion of Paftors or Preaching Presbyters, in the Scriptures 
 and inipired Writings of the Apoftles,- And we do again, as often before, 
 Challenge one In ft an ct of this. We have already told him, and that not 
 once, That we hold, that there is a Subordination of Officers, and Courts 
 of Judicature, Reprefented in the New Teftament;. yea, and a tripartite 
 Divifion of Officers, 'viz. Paftors, Ruling Elders, and Deacons: But that Of- 
 ficers, Ordinary and Extraordinary, Apoftles, Evangelifts, Paftors, &c. are 
 of one Ojficial Authority, and equal in their own kind, we maintain, and are 
 iiill challenging his contrary proof. And to this Point, it is palpably 
 impertinent to tell us of Ecclefiaftical Writers, diiWngmihing Bijlwps, Elders 
 and Deacons. Befides, chat the early Proftafie that obtained, and the Bijlwps 
 Nominal diRm&ion thence enfuing, might eafily be productive of fuch a 
 Divifion, or Phrafeology, in feme of the Ancients, as he mentions, who 
 never had the Idea of his Hierarchy in their Head,- and the Authority, 
 which Presbyters are clearly found to exercife in Judicatories, after the Pro- 
 eft os came in; together with the Firft Bijhops acknowledgment of Presbyters 
 collegiat Power with them (as Cyprian particularly ) Befides, the acknow- 
 ledgment of the Identity of the Office of Bijhop and Prefer, as having 
 one and the fame Ordination, efpecially by Chrifoftom and Ambrcfe, doth 
 evince this beyond contradiction. I might add, that the Office of the 
 Presbyter or Senior, who Rules only, acknowledged by tht Ancients, asPm- 
 byterians have made appear, might eafily in fome Writers, have produced 
 this Tripartite Divifion of Bificp, Presbyter and Deacon, wouthout the leaft 
 Shadow of advantage to his Caufe. 
 
 The Dr. in the clofe of this Page, foares aloft in a Triumphing Vein; 
 telling us , That we may eafily perceive that our Argument againft Epijcopacy, 
 founded upon Dichotomies, is not only weak, but foolijJ] and extravagant. But 
 truely, the Dr. in confining all the Presbyterian Arguments againft Epifco- 
 facy, upon this head,to this one anent his fancied Dichotomies ;and offering 
 in Anfwer thereto, fuch trivial babling Repetitions, has difcovered to ail 
 judicious Readers, that weaknefs, folly 6c extra vagancie, which he im- 
 putes 
 
Chap. II. FarEpiic(^r;s^, Examined. 73 
 
 putes to us. To Convince any Ingenuous Knowing perfon hereof, let it 
 be confidered 3 that he Cites SmeBynrrim^Jus Divin. Mini ft. Arg. The imbificp. 
 of Tim. and Tit, Alt. Dcmafc. Mr. Dt<r. on Rev. He would be thought to 
 anfwer thefe Authors; and their great Argument, he represents thus, That 
 it is taken from the Identity of Biflop and Presbyter. There is no doubt,' 
 but that this is one £reat Topick and Argument, and Mr. Durham makes 
 i;fe of that Term of Identity, in the Title of his DigrcJJton upon this head. 
 But dare this xMan fay, or tho he mould have the Brow to fay it, will a- 
 r.v who ever Read fo much as one, much lefs, all of thefe Authors, be- 
 • Keve it, that it is a mere Nominal Identity 3 that they plead from, and not 
 an Official^ in all the parts and ingredients of the Office ? Or, that the 
 Strength of their Argument is drawn merely a ccnfujlcne Ncmir.um, as he 
 expreffes i:,- and not rather from many nervous Scripture grounds, which 
 m the Texts mentioned by him., and other Paralels, do evince an Official 
 Identity ? Why then, bottoms he all his Anfwers and impertinent quib- 
 lings upon this palpably falfe Suppofition ? To make what I aiTert, evi- 
 dent to conviction, one of the Authors he names, vizA Jus Div. Minifi. 
 /frg.'propofes theQueftion thus, " We undertake to prove, that accord- 
 v * ing t~ the Scripture Pattern, which is a perfect Rule, both for Doclrin 
 * and Government, a Bifiop and Presbyter, are all one, not only in Name, 
 cc but in Office; and that there is no fuch Officer in the Church, Ordain- 
 " ed by Chi i It, as a Bi[hop over Presbyter j. Then they propofe, no fewer 
 than Nine nervous Scripture Arguments^ all running to this iffue, to 
 prove an Official Identity : The Topick of the Fourth whereof, is thus 
 piopofed, u They who have the fame Name, the fame qualifications for 
 cc their Office, and the fame Orciination,and the fame work and duty re- 
 c - c uired of them, are ore and the fame Officer. Then fubfuming/thac 
 thus it is in the Scripture account of the Bifief and Presbyter. They fub- 
 join bcriptuie-proofs, to every one of thefe Claufes and Aifertions, and 
 thereupon condud that they aVe one and thefanpeOfficer. Now,upon this 
 fmall view of bat one of thefe Authors, let the World judge of this Mans 
 
 dence, in averting, that not only, that Authors Arguments, but all 
 the Arguments of the Authors he m'entions, concluds only a con- 
 
 tnominum ( as I ssit, in a diftincfc Character ) and whether. 
 
 ing of all his fuj pcfed confutation of "Presbyterian Arguments, u- 
 pon tins fuppofition and about a Dichotomic ;be r.ot>4jto-avagancy 
 
 with a'.V'iniels. Moieuver, let the Serious & Impartial, J uo|j^ince"t he ib 
 Authors he mend ns, prelents fo eonhderablc a Number of Scripture- 
 Argui L 7 or that which tl * Foaflfit Opinion, in order 
 
 to his men believe hehasfully Confuted them, and con- 
 
 vinced ths,m of foil; ;.oc in Confckftce and Rcafon. o- 
 
 bli£C \ 
 
f]^ jDr. Monro's "Pleadings Chap. II. 
 
 bliged fairly to prefent their Arguments to his Readers view, and offer 
 forrnal Reply s to them-. I may further pofe the Impartial Reader upen it, 
 whether this Man, who has never encountered their Arguments, nor try- 
 ed their Strength in a fair and formal Difpute., and yet would fain Tri- 
 umph in this boafting Famphlet, charging all their Arguments, with weak- 
 ■nefs, folly and evtravagancy, has not Written himlelf a Fool of the firft 
 Magnitude, and a perfonat Thrafo in Difput? I muft not fcrget, that while- 
 I view that Fourth Argument of the Jm Div. Mir/ift. Avg. I rind they have 
 upon the Margin, Ambrcfe c s Teflimony upon r Tim. 3. [ poft Epifcopum 
 Diaconi'or dinationem fubjicit , quare ? nifi quia Epifcopi & Vresbyteri una Ordina- 
 te eft ] After the Biftiop, the Apoftle fubjoins the Ordination of the Deacon^ 
 and upon what other ground but this ? that the Bijlop and the Presbyter 
 have one and the fame Ordination. One would think that this is a little 
 more than the aflertion of a mere Ccnfufio Nominum, and that both from 
 Scripture and Antiquity. 
 
 But to proceed, our Dr. P. %$. Cenfures Blondcl, Salmaftus, Dallie, as 
 imploying their Learning to [upper t their own Hy pot he/is with this Argument of the 
 Confufion of Names : : Kndthe Dr. regrats, that Sir Tho. Craig, a Man other- 
 wife learned in Law , was deceived with this fallacy. We fee, that in the Dr c s 
 Senfe, learned Men have been impofed upon, by this Scots Notion, but 
 when he has exhibit and anfwered their Pleadings, whom he here men- 
 tions, then, and not till then, his Cenfure is to be admitted. But he tells 
 US, That this Opinion was never heard of before the days of Aerius. Good Mr. 
 Dr. ye know the Anfwer of Trot eft ant Divines to the Papifts Objedion, 
 where was your Religion, your Church and Dctlrin before Luther? viz. That it 
 was from the beginning, and is to be found in Scripture.. The fame I affirm 
 of the Official Identity of Biflwp and Presbyter : And many Learned Proteftant 
 Divines think they have made it good, whem the Dr. may pleafe to ad- 
 vife,if hisleafure from Pamphleting work, together withfome piece of pet- 
 ty intereft, and prejudicat preoccupation of Principles, will admit of the: 
 perufal. If it be found in Scripture, it was a pretty while, it feems, be- 
 fore Aerius t But there is anE?sgli(l} Divine of fome confiderable account 
 ( good Old Whittaker if it were net, that he had got the Scots new Noti- 
 on in his Head) who hath a Saying fomewhat Rude to the Dr. Sane cum 
 Aerio fenfit Hieronymus quo minus curandum eft totks nobis objici Aerium ab> 
 infulfis hominih^. Sifuit in hac re H&retkus Aerius focittmjhartfeos habuit Hie- 
 1 onymum^JEjte/w mo do fed alios etiam veteres patresGvxcos pariter d^Latinos 
 qaemadmodum Medina confitetur. Thus he, Controverts, que ft. i.Cap. j.'Sr&.j£c\ 
 Here, we find, he fpares not to call thefe of the Dr c s Judgment Bkckijh 
 Men, in objecting this anent Aerius, affirming that not only Jercm, but, 
 lifcewife both Grwk aud Latine Father s> were of Aerius Judgment in this. 
 
 Point.. 
 
Chap- II. For Epifcopacy, Examined 7? 
 
 point. The Dr. might likewife have founds that Michael Medina Lib. i. 
 tk Sacr. Hominum Orig. & ccntinen. Cap. j. holds, that net enly Jercm, but 
 alfo Ambrof Augttft. Scdidirts, Primaflus, Cbryfoft, Theodcret, OEcumen. and 
 Thecphylacl. were of the fame mind with Atrim ; As aifo the Waldenfes and 
 Wicklifj. What more ? P^jy. Apoftle, Bijlwp and Presbyter, are fc?netime remar- 
 ked without a Diftinclicn, yet the Government of cm a?r,:ng many, is particularly 
 demonftratcd. This is fome what obfeure. No douht, Ape fries, BifJwpj, and 
 Presbyters, have general and common Names. For ih^ Govern meat of one a- 
 mcvg many^in his Senfe, I do ftill call for the Dr c s Proof, but have noRe- 
 turn. 
 
 We are told next, (P. jy, ;6. ) 77;.?? our Saviour is ceded an Apoftle, Heb. 
 i. That the Names feems reft reined to the 'twelve, and yet Matthias * called an 
 Apoftle, that the IS! a?ne was be ft owed on fever a I others , be fides the Twelve, as 
 Paul, Barnabas, Adronicus, Junius, Epaphroditus : That cur Saviour is 
 called a Bijlop, I Pet. 2. 2$. And the Government of the Ape files, Epijccpacj, 
 Act. 1.20. That Trie fts of the Apcftolick Poii'er and J':irifdic;i<n, are called Ei- 
 Jlicps ; That thus all the Fatbits under ft and 1 Tim. ;, 1. Tit. r. 7. That the 
 fiijhcps b Philip, i. I- are by Chryfoft. OEcum. Theoph. Theodo. under- 
 food cfPriefts ('ftill Priefts ) of the fecond Order: For, they conclude Epaphrod. 
 Bijhop of Philippi from Philip. 2. zf. The Br. is never wearied of this 
 Nominal Argument, which feems one cf Achillean Strength to him. I am 
 forry he is put to fo much Pains in Print, to raife fuch Formidable Batte- 
 ries againft this New Notion, and am afraid, feme Facetious Witts will al- 
 ledge, he is but getting himfeif a Heat, in Cudgelling and Beating a "Man 
 of Straw of his ownUpfettinz. But in fhert, it paffes much my Compre- 
 henfion, what he would make of all this, if not to prove that palpably di- 
 fti net Officers, do fome times come under general Names: And who knows 
 not, that this Argumentand Anfwer is ftiil ex tgnoratioue Elencbj} N;ne of 
 us doubts of this, which he offers txiTiefi; But the Dr. will ealily acknow- 
 ledge, that thefe Officers mentioned, have, in the Scripture Accounts, their 
 Marks of Diftinction clearly fee down, which makes it evident, that their 
 Communicating in the fame general Name, will not conclude an -L fa 
 in the Ojpce: And thus the Dr. and we are ealily agreed in the Applicatic a 
 of the Anfwer, when he has exhibit to us, ftrch Scipture Dilcrimi: 
 ons of the Office of the Bijhp and V after, or Preaching Presbyter, fuch :i 
 cle;r Official Imparity and L)itference,as i^ betwixt the Office cf an A\ 
 and Prabytcr, and betwixt our Saviours Apoftolate, and that of his Difci- 
 plesj a r. d betwixt his Ef ijecpacy or Overfeeing Core, and that of Apo- 
 itles. For the. Denomination of Afofik, I need not tell one, who ft 
 D. D. to his Name, i:i the Erontifpiece of his Book, how/-Y 
 underload cheNamCj properly taken, and do define the Office as diiHr.ct 
 
 fconii 
 
7 6 T>r< Monro' j* Tleadings Chap. II. 
 
 from all others : That flrft, Matthias, and thereafter Paul were added to 
 theNumb?r of Apoftles, none doubts: That the Name is fometimes taken 
 improperly, when attribute to certain Perfons, is as little doubted. As for 
 Adronicm, Junius, who are faid to be of Note among the Ape [ties, the Phrafe 
 imports in the Senfe of fome, that they were well known to the Apples; 
 Some take them to be of the Number of the Seventy ,Luk.io. Others to be 
 of the Number of the One Hundred and Twenty, mentioned AcI.j.i^.Ot 
 of thefe Converted by Fctcr.Aff.2.14. See Tool Annot. That i &j,i. and 
 Tit. i, 7. are underftood of Priefts of the firft Order, with Apoftolick 
 Power by all the Fathers, mull pafs current only 5 with thofe,, who will 
 take the Dr f s iffe dixit for Proof: But let them at their Leafure^ Pofe 
 him., whether St. Chryjofi. and Jerom y upon thefe Parages, were of 
 that Judgement., and whether he reckons them among the Fathers. That 
 the Fathers after mentioned upon Philip, i. i. Undertfood it of the Priefis 
 of the fecond Order, he mould have proved from their Words, and that 
 they underftood Epaphrcditus to be Biflwf of Philippi from Chap. 2. 2$. 
 Our Travflators renders it with the current of Proteftant Divines (as I have 
 made good^ your Meffenger, which the Context convincingly difcovers, 
 jtffc. The Meifenger that mimftredtoPzuYs wants. But the Dr. has noihiftj 
 but to cenfure them as following Beza: A pityful mift indeed. The Epifccpal 
 TranflatorS; who in their Tranfiation, fo Zealoully patronize that Cauie, 
 that the Term 1*16:1*™: is with the utmoll endeavour tranflated to that 
 Scope^ yet are fo befooled Tin the Dr c s. Senfe) as to tranflate this paf- 
 fage, 10 advantagious to Epifcopacy y contrary to the Senfe of the Ancient 
 Fathers, yea,, and the GreekEathers, fo well feen in that Language, and all 
 this to follow ^.Presbyterian Novelijl. But the Dr. preferrs Salmafius to his 
 Epifcopal Mailers, who thinks the word Apcfile, signifies Legatum Dei ad ho- 
 mines'. He is now become of Hidden Fond of Salmajlus\ But mould have 
 given us a better Account, than a bare naming oi'lValo Mefjalinus, putting 
 us tofearch all the Book^ in crder to an enquiry of what he here afferts. 
 I might tell him further, that the Complex Phrafe [your Mejfenger'] and 
 tliQ Explication of £ minifiring to Paui c s wants ] fuffictently rein ids the 
 Term Afoftle, in this place,, tho it were granted^ that ordinariy it is thus 
 taken. 
 
 But one Word more, before I part with the Dr. on this Pailage: If, in 
 the Senfe of thefe Eathers,thQBijl)cys mentioned in the Infcription of the ]£- 
 piftle, were Vriefis of the fecond Order only, and Epaphrcditus, the Chief 
 Priefi or Bifiop ; Then 1. It feems the Apoftie Paul was fomewhat rude in 
 his Salutation, to mention only thefe inferior underling Priefts, with 
 the loweft petty Deacons, pafHng quite over the High Prieft, without any 
 Him or Note of Diitinction, 2. It feems that either Awbrofe, or fome of 
 
 m '" bis 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy Examined. yy 
 
 his late E/>i/c^i/Pleaders, are pityfully bemifted, who do cite Ambrofc, as 
 holding that the Bijbops faluted by Paul, were not Bificps of that Church, 
 but extraneous Bifluft accidentally prefent; Thus the Author of the thret 
 Dialogues, P. 9. But Tbecdoret , faith the Dr. did judge, that when in the A- 
 fofiolick Age, Biceps were named as contraJiftincl from I-rieJts, they 'were, 
 called Apoftles. Itehold our critical Dr. cenfuring again the Apoftle Paul, 
 in his Salutation,- It feems alfo there were none cf the Ap itles of the Dr c s. 
 Mould, when this Apoftle gave his laft Farewel to the Elders of Epbef»s, 
 nor in the Church, which Peter wrote to ; For, Milrifiers Caere, are called 
 to act the Eijhcfs, and nothing is heard of an APcftU4»faf: And realiy I 
 think thisinadvcrtantMan,Prf///, is further to be blamed, in that defcribirg 
 of fetpurpoic, 1 Tim. and in the Epiftle to Titus, which are in the Dr's. 
 Judgement, the great Charter of the TLpifcopal Authority, the Qualifica- 
 tions and Duties of Church Officers, he was lb leavened with his Notion of 
 Dichotomies shcit he paffes quite over in filence, the High Priefi & Apofih-Bi- 
 fijcps, whole Office was chiefly under this Name and Character to have 
 been difcribed, thai the Churches then, and in after ages, together 
 with all inferior Priefls, might underftand their Duty towards them: 
 But fince, in all their Defcriptions, Recitals, and Accounts of Church 
 Officers, he and other Apoftles, were fo foregetful, as to pafs over in 
 filence, the abfolute Higb-priefi of the Chiiftian Church, the Pope's Hoi i- 
 vtfs, notwithstanding that the 7^'j'^OEconomy of Church Government 
 was never repealed, but (till (landing as a Patern to the New Teftament 
 Church, it is no wonder that they fell into this Miftakealfo. 
 
 P. 37. He tells us, That he only mc?itions this tranfiently, not infifihg ttfen it. 
 What this extends to, is fomewhat dubious; many, it is like, will be of 
 Opinion ( of whom I am one ) that what ever he has offered hitherto, 
 is a Digreffion, and but obiter to the point. But his bufinefs, he tells us, at 
 prefent, is to prove that community of Names will net prove community of Offces. 
 Truely, if this be all his buiinefs, he is a mere Officiperda, and has foiegot 
 his Epifcopal Errand in this eloborat Pamphlet : For, no Presbyterian e\ er 
 concluded this,from the mere c immunity of Names iimplely,and abftrad- 
 ed from other Grounds, drawen from the Scope and Circumftances cf 
 fuch places, as we do plead ftom Scripture upon this Point, and from 
 manv other clear Scripture Arguments, long iince exhibire to him, in 
 the Books, which he mentions, and there needs jk) more, than the read- 
 ing, to convince any perlbn, that he is ading the Tbrafo, in this bis pre- 
 tended Confutation of the lame, which doth rathe? confi.m, than weak- 
 en the perfwalion of an/ Man of Senfe, who have peruied thefe Autluis. 
 The Dr. tells us (ibid.) That Peter calls biwjclf 4 Presbyter. Well, tf this 
 Apoftle writing to Presbyters, and dehor ting them fioai acting the B$»fs 9 
 
 II h ■ and 
 
7S ^r. Monro's T leadings Chap. II. 
 
 and Lording over the Flock, put himfelf, as to an ordinary Office and 
 Miniftry Paftoral,among the number,making this one of his Arguments.; It 
 is evident that he thus afferts their proper Succeffion to him, tho not to 
 his Apoftolat, yet to his Paftoral Office of feeding by the Word and Difcipline : 
 For, his Command imports bcth. But why did he not addrefs the Chief 
 Bijhop, or High-prieft, under the ApoftolickDefignation, after this manner? 5 
 Xfhe Apoftle and inferior Presbyters among you, 1 exhort, who am alfo an Apujtle 
 or thus [The Super-eminent Bifljop and Presbyters I exhort, who alfo am aBiflwp__ 
 But the Dr c s. correcting information, is come far too late to him. I 
 might further tell him, that when he mall exhibite as clear a diftincftion 
 betwixt the Bijhop and Presbyter, as there is betwixt the Office of Apoftle s 
 and 'Presbyter, then, and not till then, his paralel Argument will appear 
 of fome force, which he draws from Peter and Johns defigning thernfelves 
 JLlders, and mall be acknowledged conclufive to his Scope. 
 
 The Dr. will next preoccuppy our Argument from i Tim. 4. 14. And 
 tells US, That the Presbytrie mentioned in that place, was a Senat, compofed of 
 Apofiles and other Priefts y but whether ofthefirft or fecond Rank, he is not certain, 
 And really, the Dr, in my poor Judgment, might have added, whether 
 there were any other Apofties in that Senat, than the Apoftle Paul, is e- 
 qually uncertain : And let me humbly intreat his Reverence, by his next, 
 to give us an Account of the Scripture Grounds of his Certainty of the 
 one, rather than of the other. That the Apoftle Paul was prefent, and 
 concurred in this Presbytrie, I know is pleaded by hi sEpifcopal Brethren,- tho 
 Collating the two places, 1 Tim. 4.1 4. and 2 Tim. 1.6. the^ different Phra- 
 feology in both being pondered, they will find the Work'pretty hard, to 
 make it good againft a Critical Difputant, and the admitting of this, ra- 
 ther Confirms, than Weakens our Pleadings from that place, as Presby- 
 terian Writers have made appear. Some have alledged, that by the Pres- 
 bytrie, we are to underftand the Office: Which Pleaders, have been long 
 iince told, that the Office has no Hands to lay on. But that other Apofties 
 were there than Paul, is aNotion, I am fure, much, if net only, behol- 
 den to the Dr c s Fertile ( that I (ay not Fond ) Invention. It were need- 
 tefs.and but to burden Paper unneceffarly,to recite Interpreters,in Oppo- 
 fition to this his Glofs : This is known to all that are acquaint with them. 
 But let us hear the Dr c s Argument upon thefe Paffages,- He tells us, It is 
 evident from 2 Tim. 1. 6. that Paul was of the Numbered that in the ether place, 
 X Tim. 4. 14. he is exhorted not to neglecl the Gift given him, with the Laying on of 
 the Hands of the Presbytrie : In the I aft, he is put in mind, t.oftir up the Gift, which 
 he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands* There is none doubts, that 
 shefe Paffages, thus ftands in the New Teftament, but had he, inftead of 
 ^*i&> Dark jSuiauating Hint, drawn out a Formal Argument, lying level 
 
 to 
 
Chap. II. ForEpifcopacy/ Examined. yp 
 
 to his Scope and Conclufion, it would have deferred our Confideration. 
 However, to prevent his Miftake, Presbyterians have lone flnce told him, 
 i. That the different Phrafe in both places, vkn p*-* in the firft, /«« in the 
 fecond, makes Pauls prefence, at leafb, Debateable, but clearly proves, 
 that the Laying on of the Presbytries Hands is evidently Diverfifled in a 
 diftind Comma, as a diftindfc Priviledge, in its felf confideitd, from the 
 Gifts given by Prophefie, and afcribed to the Layir.g on of Pauls Hands, And 
 2. That tho Paul's prefence in this A<flion were admitted, it clearly 
 proves, that even an Apoftles Laying on of Hands upon an Evangelift, 
 did not exclude the Presbytries Authoritative Impofition: And that there- 
 fore, ( by a clear Confequence, from the Greater to the Lefs ) that 
 Priviledge, much more belongs to them now, with relation to ordinary 
 Vaftors or Minifters, when the Office of Apoftles and Evangelifts is ceafed. 
 But, if I might be bold with a Perfon of the Dr f s Reverence, I would ask 
 him this Queftion: He holds Timothy was Ccnfecrat aBijlicp ; here we find 
 a Vresbytric, Laying Hands upon him with Paul, whom the Dr. holds to 
 be here A&ing the Bijlwp • How comes he then to fay, It is uncertain -whe- 
 ther they were Presbyters or Priefts of the firft or fecond Ranki Really, if he be 
 uncertain in this, he holds by clear Confequence, that mere Presbyters, 
 might have laid on Hands upon aBiJhop at hisConfecration,yea,and this by 
 Apoftolical Warrand, tho Biftwps fuperior to them, were prefent at this 
 great Work: And what Confequence in Do&rine and Practice, this will 
 fuither amount to, I leave to theDr f s Melancholick Reflection. But fur- 
 ther, in mentioning this laft Text, the Dr. fays, He ts put in mind to 
 ftir up the Gift, which he received by the Laying on of St. Pauls Hands : He 
 has alfo told us, and positively aflerted, that this Sen at was compofed of 
 Apoftles in the plural: How many there were, I think, the Dr. found it 
 .hard to determine but in this, he is clear and pofirive,that there were other 
 kpcfiks with Paul, and confequently of equal official Authority with him 
 in this Auticn. Now, upon this, I would defire his grave Judgment, 
 how comes this Apoftle to mention the laying on of his own hands fole- 
 ly, arid of no Apoftles elfe ? We find him fo humble an Apoftle and Bi- 
 iJJwp, that in the infcri prion of feveral Epiftles, he takes in the Inferior 
 CLrgy and Vresbyurs with himfeif; whence then comes this fingularity of 
 expreflion, herein attributing to himfeif folely, what was equally appli- 
 cable to other Ap. ft.es concurring with him ? What he adds further of the 
 Work and Miniftrj of Apoftles and Paftors y jewetimes cxpreft by the General ter?n 
 #i«xwi«; I have already made appear, how iniigniiicant it is to his fcope, 
 lb that it is here Idlcly repeated. 
 
 We are next told (P. 38. ) That if any infer the Community of Of 
 from the Community of Names, he cwfoundstbe higheft and low eft Rank of ()///- 
 
 
 itrs m 
 
So T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap. IL 
 
 cers. The Presbyeerlins are of his mind, when the inference is from a 
 mere Community of Names, whiJe the Offices are ctherwife diftinguiflied in 
 Scripture, bat when both Name and Office in all effentials thereof, are i- 
 dentiried, they think the Argument from hence for unofficial Parity, con- 
 cludes well; and they pity this Discontinued Repetition of his miftake, 
 in ftead of an Anfwer to their Argument. He tells us nzxt,That it is certain , 
 the Office* were carefully diftin^uifljed and fe par a ted in thoje days. This is true 
 when underftood of Church Officers in general; and hence we conclude 
 that theSpiritofGod has left us clear diftinguilhing marks of theSupericrity 
 and diftin&ion of fuch Officers, as do communicat in General Names 
 with the inferior,- and this to prevent the miftake which he inftances : 
 And therefore, unlefs the Dr. will faften a blafphemous Reflection upon 
 the Spirit, who diciat the Scriptures, he is obliged to let us fee therein 
 the diftinguilhing marks and Characters fixt to the Bijhop and Pafiors Of- 
 fice, to mew the Official difference of the one from the other : And this he 
 cannot but acknowledge neceflary to prevent the bad confequence of an 
 Official Identity, drawn from the Community of Names. And no doubt, 
 had he as fmcerely dellgned to give and receive light in this Point, as to 
 prefent a vain prattling Pamphlet, he would have examined the Presbyteri- 
 ans Arguments for the Official Identity of Bijhop and Presbyter, and endea- 
 voured to produce the Scripture diftinguilhing differences, difcriminating 
 the one from the other. 
 
 What more ? We are told (ibid.) That the Humility of Superior Officers, 
 hindered them not to difiinguijh themfelves from their fubordinat Brethren. Right; 
 Paul, no doubt owns, and ftrenuoully pleads for the Authority of his A- 
 poftolick Office, notwithftanding of his often inftanced Humble Refpecl: 
 to Officers of inferior Rank. What then ? Why ? Bijhops in the fecond Cen- 
 tury tranfcribed thisjho they preferred the difiinclion betwixt Priefts ( ftill Priefts,) 
 of the fir ft and fecond Order. But we are wearied, feeking from this Dr. I 
 the Scripure Diftin&ion of V a ft on and Presbyters into a firft and fecond 
 Order: Befides, it is odd, that no Bijhops were fo modeft and humble in 
 this point, and prudent withal, but thole of the fecond Century. "Wemuft 
 know, the Dr. prefaced thus, that he might tell us , That they ftudicd 
 humble modeft Exprefflons, and of Condi fcenfion, which he inftances in the Infcrip- 
 iion of Polycarp's Epiftle to the Phiiippians. But fince this modeft Conde- 
 fcenfion,the Dr.wili acknowledge,^^ prejudge his care to diftinguijii the Of- 
 fices ofBijhops and Priefts, of Priefts of the firft and fecond Rank, he muft either 
 exhibit this in the place cited, or he puts this Refle&ion upon Polycarp : 
 He may alfo remember, how that afteward (p. 84.) he makes Auguftine 
 to pafs from his Epifcopal Authority, in a Complement to Jerom, in his 
 fooiilh glofs on that paffage of Ep. 19. [Epifccpus Pnsbytsro > major Jecundum 
 
 honoris 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 8 1 
 
 honoris vocabula, %u& JLccIcfa uftts obtinuit'] That he was difriuguifhed from 
 Jerom, by a cuftomary Title only of a Bijhcp. As fdf thetLttgjdf AfofijJtck 
 Martyr, which he beftoWfi upon Pclycarp, we let it pafs, as capable of a 
 found Senfe,* But for that of Prince of the Ada tick Church, I remit him to 
 i Cor, 3. 5". 1 Vet. $•. 2. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 24. to be cenfured for his vain precipi- 
 tancy. 
 
 The Dr. (P. 38. ) drawing to an cndcf thefe impregnable reafoning?, 
 muft needs give us a touch of his pulfe and humcur, in concluding with 
 high Rantings,* This Argument, he telis us, he has confidcred the more carefully y 
 in that he Finds it over and over again in all the Writings of the Ecelefiafiick Le- 
 vellers, as their fir (I and I aft refuge. Trudy, if the!? Difputers he calls fo, 
 had as infpidily propofed it, far lefs repeated it fo often/as he has Parat- 
 like, canted over and over, in fo many Pages, his babling repetitions of 
 an impertinent quible, inftead of an Anfwer, they had as much expofed 
 *heir Judgment and ingenuity in this Controverfy, as I am fure, his, now 
 is, in the Senfe of all men that underftand it, and have Read the Au- 
 thors mentioned by him, whereof this petulant Scornerdifcovers he knows 
 no more but the Names. As for the Character of Ecchfiaftiek Levellers, 
 which he bellows upon the Presbyterians; I think indeed his experience,- 
 together with that of his Fellows, has taught him, that in this refpecl:, 
 they deferveit, Viz,. That their nervous Scripture Reafonings, which he 
 dare not encounter, has fo levelled and laid along, and aboard the high 
 Top-gallant of the Hierarchical Vrelat, he fo zealoufly fences for, as all his 
 Wit and Learning, will never ered it again: which in this place, is con- 
 vincingly apparent, fince among the many Argumnts ufed by them, he 
 has upon this head infifted fc long upon ( if not folely iingled Cut) this 
 one, anent the Community of Names cf Bijhop and Presbyter y which is none cf 
 the fitafl coniiderable,- and after he has difguifed it, and fpent Eight oc 
 Nine Pages, in exhibiting the outmoft of his wit to anfwer the fame, 
 the expenfc of all his endeavours, has only amounted to filch pityful im- 
 pertinent Repetitions, Battologies, and beggings of the Queltion, that it 
 is evident, this one Argument has Maftered him, and with its Weight, 
 born down his poor ftrength to the ground. 
 
 The Dr. adds (P. ;8. 39. ) That nothing is mere frivolous and trifling 
 than this Argument — that the Karnes of theloweft Officers of the Chrifiian Church 
 were frequently a fumed by the higheft; and di/linclion cf Offices is rather to be infer* 
 red from peculiar Miniftries an:! s.cls of Jurifdiclicn, than any Names we can fy 
 on. But what can be more entiling and frivolous, than this Dr f s endlcls 
 canting over and over this Quibl« and begged Mippohtion, without giv- 
 ing us any Jhadow of die peculiar Miniftries and Jutsfdjftio* 3 diftinguiJhiiig 
 ipturOy the BiJhopiiOm the Pr.jlcr cr Presbyter ? 
 
 1 i The 
 
Si T>h\ Monro's T leadings Chap. II. 
 
 The Dr. having fP. 39.) difcuffed all our Scripture Arguments for P#- 
 Vtty, as he invidioufly calls it 3 from the Command of Chrift, and the Con- 
 ferences of Scriptures, drawn a confufione nominum tells his .Reader, That 
 
 if we cannot efiablijh our new Doctrine thus, we endeavour to fupport it, by feme 
 Teftimonies of the Primitive Fathers. I am fatisfied that his Reputation ftand or 
 fall upon this Tryal, Whether he has fo much as propofed, far let anfwep- 
 cd the Scripture- pleadings of the Authors, whom he cites for tie Varity 
 of Bijhop & Vresbyter. As for his alledging that we endeavour to fupport the 
 Government we plead for, by Teftimonies of the Primitive Fathers: He 
 tiasin this, as in many other things, expofed himfelf, and is blotted as a 
 grofs Calumniator:" For, it c s the Scriptures of Truth only, and no Hu- 
 mane Teftimonies,upon which we found the Ju-s,thQ Divine Right of the 
 Government, we owne and contend for. As for Humane Teftimonies of 
 the Ancients, we look upon them as confirming Appendices of Matters of 
 Fad only, as Teftesfacli in fome Refpedr, but not as Judkes veri, it being 
 the Divine Scripture's Barr and Tribunal only, to which we bring our 
 Caufe to be decided. And to difecver to all Men, this Dr c s. impudence 
 in this point, one of the Authors he cites, viz. Jus Divin. Minift. An%. in 
 their learned Appendix, in the point of Antiquity, confifting of eight Pro- 
 pofitions, and nine^in the Matter of Ordination in fpecial, not one of which 
 this Man has dared to medle with. The very firft is, " That whatever 
 €< may be faid for Prelacy out of Antiquity, yet fas they have proved.) it 
 €C hath no foundation in the Scriptures - — That, as in the Matter of Di- 
 Cf vorce, Chrift brought the Jews to the firft inftitution of Marriage, fo we 
 fC muft in point oiEpifcopacy, fay as Chrift \_frcm the Beginning it was not 
 €< fo] Thereafter, they cite feveral of the Ancients, in proof of this, that it 
 u is not the Cuftom or Practice of the Church, but the Divine Scriptures, 
 cf which muft herein determin us, and that all Human Writings muft be 
 €< examined by tho Canonical, and Cuftcms never fo ancient, the Scrip- 
 * f tures being perfed as to all Credcnda, Vetenda, Facienda. In the fecond Prc- 
 <c pojition, fo far are they from making the moft ancient Teftimonies, or 
 €C Practice of the Church, the Foundation of our Government, that they 
 c> ' affirm and prove by clear Teftimonies and Inftances, that many Cor- 
 * ruptions crept into the Church, in the Infancy of it, and were gener- 
 cf ally received as Apoftolical Traditions, which yet Epifcopal Men them* 
 * c felves confefs to be Errors,- inftancing the Millenary Error, with diverfe 
 " others : Whence, they conclude—- That there are Doctrines and Pra- 
 €C dices, pretended to be grounded upon Apoftolical Inftitution, which 
 {C are rather to be accounted as Apocryphal. 
 
 But to proceed,upon this falfe Foundation (ibid.) the Dr being about to 
 Wot fotae ufeldsShce«5jwith his Trifling, Qpiblings^ upon feveral paflagescf 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined 8 £ 
 
 Blondel and Salmafim, muft needs, e f re he fall to work, difgorge fome 
 more of bis Venom and Gall againft the Presbyterians, his Coun- 
 trev-Meo, as vvell as Blondel. For Blondel, he would needs make 
 us believe , That in Compliance with Cromwel his Enthufafticks, b* 
 imployed'his Skill to make the Ancients contradict themfehes , and all Cot* 
 temporal Records. A bad defign no doubt, and fo bad as well as irra- 
 tional, t/'at its hard to believe the Dr : For, Blondel his Writings,as well as 
 thole of Salmafim, has obtained the Teftimony of Men of the heft note in 
 Vroteflant Churches; as the Learned ProfeiTbrs of Saitmer, and many others: 
 So that his barkings will never touch or ftain the fame. But for his Coun- 
 trey-men, Presbyterians, he is bold to tell his Reader, That they Concluded 
 Blondels Book, tobe pure and undenyable demon (I rati on, before ever they Read it. 
 If I mould return him the Words of the Vfalmift [ What flail be given thee 
 thoufalfe Tongue ?'] I think I mould merit no fevere Cenfure. What a 
 forehead, muft this Man have^ who durft fuffer his Mouth to utter, 
 much left dare to Print and exhibit to the World, fuch an impudent Ca- 
 lumny, yea, fo Vilely to afoerfe his Native Countrey? Two things, do 
 fufficiently difcover what (entiments upon this Aftertion, the World 
 may have of this Perfon, i. H4s Confcience can tell him, yea, its known 
 to all Men, who know Scotland, that fince our Reformation, there 
 hath been, and are Hundreds therein, not only of Minifters, but 
 others of the moft Confiderable Note and Character, Men of 
 Confcience and Learning, who adhere to the Presbyterian Go- 
 vernment, as having a Divine Warrand, and who have concerned 
 themlelvcs in a Search of this Coniroverfie , in the Writings 
 upon both Sides ; And if the Dr. know not this, he is a pitiful Peregxinus 
 Domi. 2. That to conclude any Mans Writings and Book, to be pure and 
 undenyable Demonftration, before a Perfon has Read the fame, is fuch a£ot- 
 tifh, Brutim Practice, fuch an Irrational Conclufion, as cannot befal any 
 Per o yhat has the moftCommonExercife of Reafon : So, that he might 
 with the fame Veracity, have told the World in his Pamphlet, that his 
 Coumrey Men, Presbyterians, are Idiots, Dunces, orBrutes, and in Point 
 of Judgment and Integrity, much of a Size with the Pcpifl) Vulgar, who- 
 Hang upon an Implicit Belief, and have but Plagiary Faith, depending 
 upon Mens Diclats and Hear- fay ; yea, and that they are all fuch, none 
 excepted. But that the Dr. may not (iince he is in his Ranting, Calum- 
 niating Vein and Humor ) be fatisfied with one fingle Lie, but make a 
 Lufty Complicated One, and let flee a whole Vollee of this Hell-Shot, at 
 his Countrey Men, he adds, That his Countrey Men think, they need no other 
 Answer, to any thing written againft them, than to fay, that Epifcopacy, and 
 M its Defwp, u autie Ruined by Bloadel *w</$alriuiius, Poor pitiable Soul I 
 
 had 
 
S^ T>r- Monro's T leadings Chap. II. 
 
 Had he gone to Jamaica, or to fome places,* where neither the Per fins, 
 nor Matter he fpeaks of. was ever heard or known, he might hope to get 
 this believed. Some of the Books he mentions, P. 22. his Conference 
 could tell him, are Written by Scotsmen, viz. Didoclav. and Mr. Durh. 
 And we know of no Anfwer returned to this Day, unto either of them : It 
 mould then feem, that hisCountreymen mould rather alledge th^e. Doth 
 he think indeed we efteem, that we need no other Anfwer, than to tell 
 of Blonde! and Sahnafius} But yet more of this Hellim Blufterings, Tfjo 
 there are, faith the Dr, (ibid.) few of them that ever read them, and that eve- 
 ry Line of 'their 'Writings, that hath Colour of Argument, has been frequently expo- 
 fid, yet fine h is theVower of Prejudice andP artiality , that they Jhut their eyes againfi 
 the clearefi Evidences produced by their Adversaries. Here f s a Deep Charge: 
 1. His Countreymen, Presbyterians, becomes fuch Peevim Ignoramus's, that 
 few of them read thefe Books. 2. So Hardned in their Prejudices againft 
 Truth, that they Jhut their Eyes againft all Convi&ions thereof, fo, that 
 a Judicial Stroke and Judgment has fallen upon them, if this Man may be 
 believed. But I will be bold to ask him, what are thefe Evidences, I 
 mean Scripture-Evidences, produced by him, or any of his Party, which 
 we have not confidered? Dare he fay, that all inScotland, Embracing the 
 Presbyterian Perfwafion, do thus ihut their Eyes ? And may we net eafily 
 Retort his Charge, and Enquire what Evidences has been produced by 
 Didoclav. Mr. Durh. and others, whom he mentions ; And befides thefe i 
 many not Named by him, to whom, neither he, nor any of his Gang, 
 have offered an Anfwer to this Day? Why do they fhut their Eyes againft 
 the Light produced by them ? Presbyterians, no doubt, need no other Evi- 
 dence, than thisP amphlet, to convince the World, that the Power of Pre- 
 judice, has Shut and Blinded this Mans Eyes againft Light. He pretends 
 therein, by his mighty Arguments, to Beat his Presbyterian Countreymen 
 from their Principles,- He prefents in the beginning of his Famous Work, 
 fome considerable Authors, whofe Writings and Arguments, he tells theW T orld, 
 they ground their Perfwafion upon, yet never offers to Scann fo much as one of them, 
 when fairly prefented in their genuinfirenph'. And let all men Judg what preju- 
 dice and partiality, this favours of? And if he be not wholly a Stranger 
 thereunto, he cannot but know, that our Judgment in this Point, is the 
 Senfe of the whole Body of Protectant Churches and Divines. And are 
 they aifo thus Hardned ? But more yet, (ibid.) the Dr. tells us further, 
 ' That it is enough for w, that Blondel has written a Book of 549 Pages, and 
 this, in our Judgment, may ban all Di/fute. Indeed, Mr. Dr. if there were 
 no more Strength or Nerves in them, than in your 339 Pages, Stuffed 
 with Bluftering Talk, and Empty Quiblings, the Defence were no De- 
 fence, We are again told, That whjn we are bidden Name the Place, which 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. g 5' 
 
 proves the New Doctrine, ive refufe any fitcb ctofs Engagement. Really,, the 
 good Narciflw here fees hisPi&ure in the Well — Decline a do(s Engagement ! 
 Let all Men that ever read the Authors he Names., judge what dojsEvgagc- 
 went, this Man has made with them,, and if he has net as evidently Sna- 
 ked away from their Arguments,, as ever did any Coward in Difput. For 
 Jerom, that he was of this Judgment cf the Parity of Btfuif and Presbjtcr, 
 the Learned have fufficientiy difcovered. But, faith he,, Saimafius ar.d 
 B'ondelj have been exvrfed by the Inccmf arable Bijhcf 0/Chefrer. Hud Presby- 
 terians put this Elegy upon any of their Writers., they had been pcfted up 
 for Admirers of Adens Perfons. But now., our Dr. will Examine feme of 
 his moil: Remarkable Teftimonies from Antiquity : Seme,, no doubr, xc; 
 all, and in the fame manner as he does the Presbyterian Scripture Arguments^ 
 L e. fo as to convince all Readers, that he Traces but Phantaftick Quib- 
 ting*, inftead of Anfvver. But being clofs in my Examining his Scripture 
 Pleadings, that I interrupt not the Series thereof, I muit. here pafs over to 
 his Second Chapter. 
 
 CHAR III. 
 
 Wherein the- T>r's Abfurd Defcription of the A- 
 poftoiick Function, in Oppofition to Prote- 
 ctant Divines, u expofed • Together with his 
 Affertion about the Succeffion ^Hierarchi- 
 cal Bifhops to Apoltles, in a proper Formal 
 Senfe: His Opinion loaded with Grojs and ^Palpable 
 Absurdities. 
 
 IN this Chapter, t.\\c Dr. having told usjhat he has Examined cur mo}} 
 fible Pretences for Parity ( And what Scripture Arguments, he has Exa- 
 mined, let any judge) gives us Encouragement, by undertaking Trulf 
 to State the Controvert, ( I am forry, he has not done it fooner ) 
 No doubt, all will acknowledge this to be, what he hands ob'iged to. Fi.C 
 to Trace his Steps, and Examine him clofs! v. 1. I am agreed with him 
 in this, That the Government cf the Chriftian Church has been c/i.u!ijl<d and fixed 
 H Apoftles, tc continue to tbe end, tvhhi'ho ofpt-je this lnfti- 
 K k 
 
&6 T>r. Monro's Pleadings Chap. Ill 
 
 lution areSchifmaticks. 2. For what he adds, ( P. 95". J That it is agreed there 
 was an Hierarchy under the Old Teftament, the High Prieft having a Superiority 
 andjurifdiclion over inferior Priefts. I rauft tell him, that we do hold, with 
 all our Divines, that this Superiority was fuch a fixed Prefidency, as had 
 adjoyned thereunto fome fpecial Miniftrations peculiar to it : And more- 
 vOver, we hold, that both the onfi and the other wasTypical, and alfo fuch, 
 as did not encroach upon the ordinary Ecclefiaftick Jurifdi&ion of the 
 Sanhedrin*, or invade their Decifive Suffrage,- as Junius particularly ob- 
 ferves. Our Dr f s Inference,, That Subordination of one Prieft to another, is not 
 fimplely unlawful ; if meant of a Subordination of Officers in general, is 
 admitted f If, of one V aft or to another, in Point of Official Authority, it is 
 a bad Inference, and a Begging of the Queftion, which k not about,what 
 may be fimplely lawful or unlawful in thisGafe, but upon the Hypothefis of 
 Gods Inftitution, in the New Teftament OEconomy and Government. 
 The Dr c s Diftin&ion (ibid.) of the Apoftles Ordinary, Permanent, Efiential 
 Power, and their Extrinfick Extraordinary Priviledges — futtable to tbe firft 
 "Plantation of Churches, is in general accorded: But his Application and Ex- 
 plication (ubjoyned, viz. That by the fir ft, they were difiinguiftjed from all fub* 
 or din at Ecclefiaftick Officers, in the Christian Church ; is that which I deny: And 
 that upon this ground: That Power, which was Ordinary, Permanent and 
 ErTential,behoved to.be fo eminenter,in theApoftles,as it was- to be tranfmit- 
 ted to /landing Officers, who were to be Inverted with the fame Ordinary, 
 Effential,Permanent Power, elfe the Dr c s affeition cannot lubfift,rhat this 
 Power was ordinary and permanent in its nature,or a Power neceffary for 
 the Churches Prefervation., when the Apoftles/at firft Cloathed. with ir.were 
 gone off: And therefore^to be Tranfmitted to fucceffive Officers, confequently, 
 thefe ordinary fucceedingOfficers were,/» this equal to f&7#,when cioathed 
 with this Power, and inverted therein; And by further neceffary Con- 
 fequence, the Apoftles were not by this effential neceiTary Power, diftin-. 
 guifoedfrom all Subordinat Ecclefiaftick Officers, k. being fuch, as- the Church- 
 es fubfiftence required the fame in all times : And befides, thefe fucceed- 
 ing Officers, when inverted with this ordinary Power, were ftiil fubordi- 
 Siat to them, as Apoftles, and cleat hed with that formal Office and Authority, i 
 know, that in this Phrafe oiSubordinat Ecclefiaftick Officers, the Dr. excluds 
 the Bijhops, in the Series of his Reafoning, that he may take them with- 
 in the cornpafs of afuppo fed. Apoftolical. ordinary Powtr over Pafiors : But how 
 abfurdJy andinconlequentialiy, as well as crofsto the Senle of found Di- 
 vines, in this Point, is already evident, and fhall yet further appear. 
 
 To proceed, the Dr. tells us, That by the fecond ( i. e. their extrinfick, ex- 
 traordinary priviledges, futed to the Firft Plantation of Churches ) they were in ca- 
 pw>l [to jwmfe their Authority with greater Succefs, in the Converfion of Infidels, 
 
 in. 
 
Chap- III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. &j 
 
 in the Government of Churches. Wherein I differ from h'm in t! is 3 that he 
 makes their Extraordinary ApoftoUcil priviledges, neceffary cnly for the 
 bene effe, which were neceffary Simpliciter, fcr the Planting and Govern- 
 ment of the Churches, in that infant State thereof: The very exercife of 
 their Apoftolical Authority,asfuch, did confift in exerting rhefe extraordi- 
 nary priviledges r For, thus, their Miffion , their Gifts, their extenfive,, 
 Power, effential to the Apoftolick Office, taken in a formal fenfe, Refpe- 
 d:ed the founding and watering of the Churches, in that Infant-ftate of 
 Chriftianity, the Eftablifhing the Gofpel Ordinances therein, and all its 
 ordinary (landing Officers. I muff, then mind the Dr. that when he fpeaks 
 of the Apoftles ordinary, permanent, effential Power, by TJfential, he 
 muff not, nay, cannnot underftand that Power, which is Efentialto tbem 3 
 as Apofiles ftricily, or under that reduplication, qua Apoftles,- For, then, 
 their Office were noL extraordinary, buta (landing Office to be fucceeded 
 to, in its intire Nature formally, as they were inverted with it, and did 
 exercife it, which is crofsto that Senfe of the Apoftolick Office, exhibit 
 by Proteflant Divines, as I mall further make appear. The Dr. will needs 
 diftinguiih, their Effential Apoficlick Office from their extraordinary Prerogatives y 
 tb^iY tranfient temporary Priviledges, who were the fir ft Apoftles, and were Limi- 
 ted to the exigences of the Fir ft Chriftian Miffion. Wherein he fpeaks confufed- 
 \y : For, i. Thefe Prerogatives futed to the Churches Firft exigence, 
 were in. fuch manner futed, as was the very Office itfef, and confe- 
 quently were Effential ingredients thereof, for this end. Hence. 2. The 
 Effential Office of the Apoftolat, as fuch, or taken in a proper formal 
 Senfe, could admit of no fuch fpiiting and diftinction, unlefs the Dr. will 
 fplit and diftinguiih the Ejfence, which he mould know confifls in indivifi- 
 bili. The Effential Apoftolick Office, the Dr. tells us (P. 96. J is neceffary pe- 
 ramanent^ perpetual, citing Matth. 28. [ ho, I am with you, alway even unto 
 the end of the World~\ Hence, in his Senfe, the Command and Promife in 
 that 6 place, imports the (landing Effential Office of Apoftolat to the end« — 
 What Harmony this keeps with the Senfe ofProteftant Interpreters, let aH 
 judg. Pool tells us, ■ The Promife imports his prefence to the end., 
 st with his Minifters, Preaching, Baptizing, Teaching to obierve what tit 
 c has Commanded. That it relates to Gofpel Miniffers, in their Iviini- 
 c " ftrations, as the Apoftles fucceffors.; thus die Englijh Notes, andBelouk 
 Divines. But that it imports a itanding Apoftolick Office to the end, nt> 
 found Proteftantc\er dreamed. 
 
 To proceed, to make this appear the more, faith the Dr. (ibid.) The A- 
 poftles as fuch, were formally and tjfintially diftingttijhcd from all other Rcckfi 
 ick I ub 01 din at Officers. Tins indeed makes it appear more, if one contra- 
 dictory PiOpolicion will prove another ; For, if the Apoftles were For- 
 
 pully 
 
"S8 T>r. Monro's "Pleadings Chap. Ill 
 
 mally and EiTentially, t e. in refpeft of their effential formal Office, di~ 
 fHnguifhed from all inferior Officers,all Officers, who were not in a pro- 
 per formal Senfe Apoftles, How could any fucceed them in this proper 
 formal Office? And confequently, How could that Office be permanent? 
 It being certain, that fuch Functions, wherein they were to be fucceed- 
 ed, could not be their Chara&eriftick as Apoftles, and their mark ofdiftinc- 
 tion fro?n fucceeding Officers. Foe inftance, the Function of Preaching and 
 Baptizing, with the appendant proportioned ordinary power of Govern- 
 ment^ was a Work and Office, wherein they were to be fucceeded. The 
 Apoftles were at firft enjoyned [go Teach, Baptise, and Difciple the Nations'] 
 ?<//// en joy ned to the Elders oiEphefm, to Feed and Rule by the Word and 
 Dilciplinc, within their Percincl 3 Hence thefe Duties fimplely confider- 
 cd, could not be that wherein they were difringuiihed from inferior Of- 
 ficers. For i. In refped of this Paftoral Work, both the Apoftle Peter 
 and John owned themielves, as Co-presbyters, which could have no good 
 Senfe, if in this they were diftinguiihed from all others. 2. Hence this 
 diftinguifning Criterion had then evaniihed, when inferior Officers had it- 
 So, that the Dr. in his Series of Reafoning, is driven upon this Scylla or 
 .Charybdis, either to fay., that their Effential 'Office perifhed with themfelves, 
 and confequently, was not permanent, in oppofition to what he afferts 
 (P. 9 j.) or elfe, in refpedfc thereof, they were not formally and efjtnti ally 
 diftingui^ed from inferior Officers, in contraction to what he afferts (P.96.) 
 I know the Dr c s tacite Evafion is, that he fuppofes the Bijhops, not to be 
 Stibordinat Officers, which, how crofs it is to the Series and Contexture of 
 his Reafoning, as well as the Senfe of found Divines, we jnall further 
 m ike appear. The difference of their OfRcQ, from that which is proper- 
 ly and formally Apoiioiick, being fo palpable, that himfelf is forced to 
 place a Difticlion betwixt the Function of the one and the other, yea, 
 and calls them a fort of fecondary Apoftles; Thus diftingui filing them from 
 thofe he would have to be Primary. 
 
 But the Dr. will now enquire (ibid.) What diftinguiihed the Apoftles from 
 the Seventy two, from Presbyters in the Modern Notion (as hefpeaks) (I could 
 v/ifli he had exhibite and refined his antique Notion) from Deacons and 
 other Offieers of the New 7'efiament. He undertakes, 1. To exhibite the Pres. 
 lbyierian c s Account of the Apoftolick Office, and tells us, That the Presbyteri- 
 and **«*/ Socinians, contrary to the uniform Testimony of Antiquity, affirm, that 
 the Apoftolick Office is ceafed as extraordinary, that the Apoftles were diflingui- 
 Jhed from Subordinat Ecclefiaftichs, by infallibility in Preaching, their power of Mi- 
 racles, their being immediztly called by our Saviour to the Apoftolat, by their un- 
 limited and unconfined Commijfion, to propagat the Gofpel among all Nations. This 
 is fush Stuff, as I dare challenge and appeal all Protectant Churches and 
 , Divines, 
 
'Chap. Iir. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 89 
 
 Divines,to give Judgment and Character upon the perfon who prefen ts ir 5 
 which I am fure, will be fuch, as will fatten upon him an infamous Stig- 
 ma: Nor (hall I here much medlewith, c r fraud upon the (hamelefs Man 
 his comparing us to, and ranking us with the blafphemous Socinians, m 
 this point, citing their Racovian Catechifm, Sea. 9. Ch?f. 2. But to con- 
 vince all, that are but acquaint in the leaft, with the Vrrteftant Doctrine 
 in this point, I ihall exhibit in fome few Inftances, their Senfe of the A* 
 poftclkk and PafioralOffice: And of a vaft Number, mail inftance but a few. 
 Firft, The PrcfeiTbrs of Leyden } Synopf. Pur. Theol. Diffuf. 42. thef. ij. 
 c They reckon among extraordinary Officers, that of the Aponolat, ad- 
 c ding Prophets and Evangelifb \j\uorum vocatio, (ay they, fust temper cr'nt 
 x -._- j} t y n-j-vo ficcltrf ad Eccltfix Dllatand<e pr op ligation em ordinata] wheje Vcea- 
 f tion was temporary or tranficat, as being ordained and appointed for the 
 f Propagation of the Church of the New Teftarnent. Thef. 18. They (hew 
 
 * the ordinary Vocation to be that, whereby Officers with ordinary Gifts 
 f performs the ordinary and Common Service of the Church — fuch as that 
 c ofPaftors and Dolors — who promot the Edification of the Church, 
 
 * through all Nations, according to Chrifts Promife \_a temforibus A- 
 
 < pofiolorum per tot urn Parr at win orbem difperfi, cdificationcm rjuibmlibet in lec is pro- 
 x movendam utyuead fir em mv.ndi Iccum habebit juxta Chrifti prcmif]ienem y Matth. 
 
 * 28. 20. Ite &Docete y &c] As being fent from the times of the Apoftles, 
 c for the Edification of rhe Church, in every place, to the end of the 
 c World, according to Chrifts Promife, *Go teach all Nations. Where it's 
 evident, that the Apoftolick Office, as fuch, in univerfum y is by them held 
 to ^ be Extraordinary , and that the Pa fieri and Doctors are their Succeffirs, 
 as ordinary Minifiers appointed for propagating the Church, and pro- 
 moting its Edification to the end of the World, and that upon the Ground 
 of, and according to that fame very Promife, which this Pamphleter pleads, 
 to prove the itanding Office of Apoftolat to the End. Thereafter, 
 c having noticed (Thefiy.) That the Apoftle having Eph,^. 11, 12. placed 
 c the three Extraordinary Officers in the fuft Rank, they add (Thef. 20.) 
 e [_hos duos tan turn extra erdinariorv.m ac ptrpetuorum 'verbi Divivi adwiniflratcrum 
 
 * vr dines ibidem conj unci im jub jit i' y cum addit eundem Chrijfum alios prseterea de- 
 c d/JJe Pajhres & Deckles'] 1 hat the Apoftle doth thereafter itibjo} n, in <i 
 c Conjunction, the Pa/lors and DUlors, as the en ly perpetual Ministers, gi 
 
 c for the Edification of the Church. Thef. 21. They thus defcrib the Apofto- 
 
 < lick Ollice {Jpoftcli erant prxconcs Evangilii univerjalcs ad Ecclefite CgtMicM 
 fund amentum, quod eft Cbriftus, ubique terrarum ponendum, ah ipfc Chrijto 
 immediate at que extra Otdimtn miffii^ ^ 0?;o abfqtte errvre—- alics doct?*di, I 
 
 c trineque ;u.c veritatem miraculis cenfirmandi a Deo inJlruHi) Citing Matth. ?M. 
 [zo. 1 CV. 5. i.. 11. Matth. ic. 1. J eh, 16. j:. Ad, Z, 2, &c. thai the 
 
 LI 
 
^o Dr. Monro's Pleadings Chap. III. 
 
 * Apo[tks were unlverjal Treacher s of the Go [pel, ftnt by Chr'-ft for laying every 
 
 * where the Foundation of the Gofpel Church , inftructcd and fumijhed with 
 6 the Gift of Teaching infallibly, and confirming their Doctrine by Miracles, having 
 c alfo an immediat and extraordinary Mifficn from him. Which Senfe is con- 
 firmed by the Paffages above cited. And here I appeal to all Men,whether 
 the learned Profefiors, offer not the fame Defcription and Ghara&erifricks 
 of the Apoftolick Office, which this Man makes the Opinion of the Scots 
 Presbyterians, and Socinians. Further, after the Defcription of the Extra- . 
 ordinary Office of Evangdifts ( Thef. 23. ) The ordinary Paftor a r/ Office, 
 is thus defcribed {Thef 2^.) cc ( P aft ores erant verbi divbri difpenfa tores, 
 H certis Ecclefiis docendls ac regendis ab Apoftolis & Evangeliftis prafefti ) That 
 cc the Paftors were Difpenfers of the Woid, appointed for Governing 
 cc - and Teaching particular Churches by the Apofiles and Evangelifts* 
 '•Adding that their Office is defcribed AB. 20. Viz: to feed and Rule, as 
 u . Bijhops fet up by the Holy Ghoft,- as alfo iTirn.^. and Tit.i. where their 
 C( Office is clearly Identified with that of the Bijhop; Likewife, 1 Pet, $. 
 " where the fame is evident. The parts of the P 'after al 'Office , common 
 cc with the extraordinary Officers,they hold to be. 1. (Populum Dei ex ver- 
 " bo Dei docere ) To Teach Gods People from his Word. 2. ( eidemjuxta 
 cc Chrifti. inftitutionem Sacramenta adminiftrart ) To Adminiirer Sacraments^ 
 * c to tnem, according to Chrifts Infiitution* ;. ( pro eodem preces ad Deum 
 u fundere, ) To Pour out Prayers for the People. 4. ( eum frano difcipli- 
 u na Ecclefiafticte intra limites cbedieutia Deo fecundum verbum ipfius debit a con- 
 " tineri) To keep them within the limits of Gofpel obedience, by there- 
 u ftraints of Ecclefiaftick Difcipline, Citing Matth. 28. anent the grand 
 u Commiffion ©{Teaching and making Difciples,&c.andA&f.i 8. i7.where 
 cc our Lord enjoins the ultimat appeal to be to. the Collegiat Body of 
 " Church Officers; So* AB. 20. 28. anent the Teaching and Governing 
 cc Power entrufted to Paftors and Elders of Ep.hefm, &c. Now, whether 
 our Senfe of the Apoftolick Office, of its extraordinary Nature, and pro- 
 per marks and effentials; As alfo, our Senfe of the P aft oral Office be not 
 fee fame, with that of the Leyden ProfefTors, let any Judge: And whether 
 thefe Profeffcrj or we, do in this ftrike hands with the Blafphemous Socini- 
 0$s as. this Man has the Fore-head to affirm, the Appeal is alfo made to 
 all' Men to judge; Nay, if he has not in "this point blotted himfelf with 
 the Stain of an infamous Calumniator, efpeciahy, it being evident, that 
 the Socinians, in the place Cited by him, do abfolutly deny a Ministerial 
 Miffion and Authority, whom the Learned Profefors, in that famePaffage, 
 Cite forthis, together with fome other places oSSccimts, and refute the. 
 lame ( Thef. 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. ) 
 
 Let us hear next the Profeffors 01 Saumer, whom we will find Fully to 
 ag&oxd with us ia this £oint ? in contjtt&aian to our Calumnious Dr. ( At- 
 
 I dmer£. 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined 9 \ 
 
 fC diver f. Minift. grad. Thef. 7. ) ( extracr dinar lor um Miniftrcrum tresfuerunt 
 c gradusjeu ordines— ApoftolifPropheta y & Evangellfta— De Apo ft "oils planum ,ecs 
 c fupremum InterEv-angelll Mlnlftros conftltueregradum quorum hajupra reliquos pre- 
 c regativa, &c.) That the Prophets,Apofrles, and Evangelifts were the three 
 c degrees of exfraordinaryMinifters, of whom theApofhes hadthefirft place; 
 c Having thefePrerogatives beyond others,which they thus recite. i.($*od 
 
 * a Domino noftrojefu Chrifto immediate vocatl, &c.) That they were called 
 
 • immediatly by Jefus Grind, to the Office of Preaching the Gcfpel to all 
 'Nations, citing Matth. 28. 18. 19, 2. (Quod ita a Splritu fan El inftrucli y 
 c &c.) That they were fo furniflied by the Spirit of GOD, and lead into 
 c all Truth, that they were infallible in Teaching, fince otberwayes, their 
 ' Function and Million had been in vain, had it been Lawful to disbe- 
 c lieve them in their Teaching. 3. (Quod nulli loco velEuUfia fmgulari ad- 
 ' ditli.) That they were fixr. to no place, or particular Church, 
 c but were to preach the Gofpel, and govern the Churches, through all 
 c places of the World, according to the Spirits Conduct. 4. (guodvlurl- 
 c bus & majoribus, &c.) That they were beyond all other Minifters, en- 
 c dued with more excellent and various Gifts of the Spirit, according to 
 ' 1 Cor. 14. 18. where Paul magnifies his gift of Tongues above all others: 
 'And mentioning the conferring the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit,by the 
 c laying on of their Hands, they add (qua omnia fuerant, &c.) All which 
 c were neceflary in the Apoftolick Office, for laying the fiift Foundation 
 c of the Chriftian Church,through the World. Flere again, the Apoftles 
 "Extraordinary Officers afferted by the SaumerVnlverfity ^and that with the fame 
 Ingredients fit upon the like grounds.as we do hold S ,hereare more of the So- 
 cinlan Vrincifles, if we may believe this Dr. and this Univcrfity, as well as 
 that of Ley den , found ignorant of, and going crefs to all Anticuity^ in this 
 Matter. The ordinary fucceeding Officers, and of the higheft Function 
 in that capacity, they hold to be the Pa/tors and Debtors, whom they aflerc 
 to derive down what was ordinary in the Apoftonck Office, to whom, 
 the Authority Confequently, and Power ofTeaching and Governing the 
 Church is committed, citing^?. 13. where mention is made of this Au- 
 thority. in the Pa/tors andTeachersofAntioch, and their joint Collegia! Power 
 in Impofition of Hands,- alfo 1 Cor. 14. 29, joj 31, 32. where the Pro- 
 phets Authoritative judging of every Member of the Coliedi;e and Socie- 
 ty, and the due Subjection of every Pr phetto theirdecin; n, isailertcd, 
 joining therewith Gbaf. 12. 29. ( Are all Apoftles ? are all 1 nfheU I m 
 Teachers? &CC. ) 
 
 Well, fhall we. offer to the Dr, yet more Scots Presbyterian Ncvdi;}s^ and; 
 
 
f% T>r. Monro's Tleadings Chap. IIL 
 
 c bliih every where, the Kingdom of God, by the Preaching of the Gof; 
 c pel. In his Explication he (hews, that in this Aphorifm, theMiniftry o* 
 
 * the Apoftles is explained in four Heads, i. [ Ex caufa fine qua 
 i non 3 ,&c ] From the Caufe and Ground, without which they could 
 c not difcharge their Apoftolical Office, and this was their immediat Voca- 
 € tion and Calling. 2. \_e fubjeclis Locis, &c.~] From the Places, where they 
 c Exercifed their Apoftolick Fun&ion, viz,, the various Kingdoms of the 
 c World. 3. [£# Fine ad quern, eK.] From the Scope and End, to which 
 
 * they were to Dired their Miniftry and Labours, viz. the Planting and 
 
 * Founding Churches, &c. 4. [ £.v Caufa Inftrumentali, &c. ] From the 
 c Inftrumental Caufe they were to make ufe of, viz. their Unfixt Preach- 
 
 < ing of the Gofpel. Here.I Appeal to all Men of Judgment, whether this 
 Account of theApoftclickOffice^is not thefame,with that which this Man 
 rejpds as Socinian. Ap'horifm. 12. [ Sequuntur Paftores, &c. ] Fie proceeds 
 
 < to Defcribe Pa/tors and Doclors, whom the Church can never want ,• in 
 the Explication, he tells us, that [.* pr<zc-e dentil m differunt Duraticne ~] 
 
 * They differ from Apoftles, Prophets and Evangelifts, in Continuance, as 
 , being of ' con ft ant Neceffity to the Church. Thus, Denying in Contradiction to 
 our Dr, the Permanency of the Apoftolick Office. Afterwards he adds., 
 
 * [OjfioiaP aftorum indicant ur.&c.'jThdt there are four Branches of ihe? aft or s, < 
 f work andOffice,'The Interpretation of Scripture,theOrdering ofGovem~ 
 
 * ment and Difcipline,the Adminiftration of the Sacraments,together with 
 
 * AuthoritativeAdmonitionsandExhoitations: She wing thereafter,that the 
 € Pafiors do Succeed to what is Ordinary in the Apoftolick and Evangeli- 
 € ftick Office:>And their Epifcopal Paftoral Authority, he proves from thefe 
 £ notable known Paflages,improven by the Presbyterians, Act. 20. 28. lfeK 
 € $. r, 2. Philip. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. Tit. 1. 5, 7. Now,! dare refer it to all 
 Men of Senfe, whether this Man, is not in this Point of the New O pin ton 
 of Scots Presbyterians 3 and (lands Antipode to our Dr c s Uniform Ttfiimcr.y of 
 all Antiquity. 
 
 Shall we Confult yet another? Turret. (Part.^. Loc. 18. gtteft.17. Thef. ^.) 
 Reafoning againft Bellarmin, in Point ofPeters pretended Primacy, he draws 
 his Argument, c \_a Natura Apoftolici Muneris ] and tells the JejuitedCardi- 
 
 * nal, and our Dr. with him, that the Apoftles had an immediat Power 
 € and Jurifdi&ion, which they received from Chrift immediatly. And 
 
 * (Thef. 4.) inAnfwer to BeUarmin, holding, (much to ourReveiend Dr c s 
 
 * Senfe and Pleading ) that Peter had the Pontifkat, as an ordinary Pa(lcr y 
 c to be therein fucceeded. He Anfwers, that igratzs fupponitur, &c. ] it 
 c is without Ground prefumed, that Peter was an ordinary Paftor, to 
 c whom any could fucceed ; Adding in the end, (! denique cu?n Apoftolatus, 
 
 * &c.) lince the Apoftolat as fuch, was an Extraordinary, Temporal, 
 
 • 'Tran- 
 
 
 
Chap. Ill, For Epifcopacy, Examined. 93 
 
 c Tranfient Function, which was to expire and ceafe in the Churchy it 
 f could have no SucceiTors: Herein flatly giving the Lie to our Dr c s Grand 
 Topick and Principle., anent the permanent Fur.tticn of Apofkclat, as necejfa- 
 ry in the Church till the End of Time. As for his Judgment cf the Pa floral 
 Office, as the Higheft Ordinary Function of the Church, and the fame 
 with that of the Scripture Biflwp and Presbyter, and by Confequence, the 
 Succeilbn thereof to what was Ordinary in the Apoftolick Office^ we have 
 already made it appear. 
 
 Mufculus ( if I may Name him again, without Angring our Dr.) is full 
 and clear to this Purpofe, ( de Offic. Mini ft. P. 3 5-8, ^-9. ) c ( Apojtclm eft, 
 " <jui 3 &c) That the Apoftles were not fet over any one particular Church, 
 but the Lords Command to them, was, that they ihould Preach theGof- 
 pel through the World, and the Command (Go, Teach all Nations ) was 
 peculiar to 'them. And ( P. 360. ) he fliews, that Paftors were the fame 
 wkhBifiops, and were in this diftinguilhed from Apoftles, that they were 
 fent to Teach and Feed particular Churches, and fixed to them. 
 c Amend. Vol an. ( Syntag.TheoLLib.*?.Cap. xi.de Minift. Ecclcjia) defcribes 
 thus the Apoftolick Office, (Apoftcli Chrifti fuernnt Chrifti Dilcipuli imme* 
 diatc ab ipfo edccli, &c. ) That the Apoftles were the Difciples of Chrift, 
 immediatly Inftru&ed by him, fent to Preach the Exhibiting of the MeJ- 
 fiah before his Afcenfion, and thereafter to Preach to the whole World, 
 and thus to Found the Gofpel Church, having thisTeftimony fromGod, 
 that they could not err in Doctrine, &c. Afterward, he tells us, 
 what were the Pr'rviltgia Apcftolorum, and the Prerogative Vr<e or dinar its 
 Novi Teftamenti Miniftris,their Prerogatives above the ordinary Minifters 
 •cf the New Teftament,- Inftancing, 1. Their immediac Inftitution by 
 Chrift. 2.Their immediat Miffion by him to Teach. 3. Their General Le- 
 gation to the whole World, with Authority of Founding Churches eve- 
 ry where.not in one place only, Citing 2 Cor. 11. 28. where Paul mews,that 
 the Care bf all the Churches was upon him. 4. The Viable Symbol and 
 Badge of this Legation, viz* the conferring of the Viiible Gifts cf the 
 Spirit by Impofition of Hands. 5. Their Immunity from all Error, after 
 their Receiving the Holy Spirit, in the Day of Pentecoft. 6. Their Ex- 
 traordinary Authority againft the Rebellious, Citing iO.ic.6,8. where 
 Paul mentions his Readinefs to Revenge all Difobedience, and the Au- 
 thority hereunent, for the Edification .of the Church, whereof he might 
 Boaft. 7. Their Prophetical Gift, in iliewing things to come. The XtL 
 Prerogative, he reprefents thus [ Authoritas qua nullm ex Difchulu ipjlrum 
 com par art cum ip/is unauam pot nit out fotefi^ qua tnhn Apofioli Chrifti iupra Ec- 
 clejiam reliejuam extitcrwit ] Their fingular Authority, which ivas offuch a Na- 
 ture, that none of thur Pijciflcs pr SucceJ]lrs 3 in an ordinary Miniftry, could be 
 
 M m [ cempa- 
 
94 5P*- Monro** *P leadings Chap. 77X 
 
 c compared with them , nor can be; For as Apoftles, they had aSuperemi" 
 c nenc Authority over the whole Church. ( P.558.) He defcribes thePtf- 
 *'(£ors to be fuch, as are fet over fome particular Flock, Citing Aft. 20. 28. 
 Here I need net tell the Dr, that this Man alfo, is of the Nwel Scots Opi- 
 nion, and if we may believe the Dr c s Reverence, -zSocinian, as to theSenfe 
 of the Extraordinary Apoftolick Office, giving., the fame. Senfe of its In- 
 gredients as we do, and holding that the Apoftles neither were, nor 
 could be fucceeded in their Office, and confequently, that their Formal 
 Office, as fuch, ceafed with themfelves. He afferts, ( ibid. ) the Official 
 Identity of the Bifaop and Presbyter ; And thereafter tells us, that ( Epifcpi 
 " ornnes- Apoftolorum Succeftores funl) AWPaftors are the prcperSuccelTors of the 
 
 * Apoftles in theGifc of Feeding. &Teaching theChurch,Citing^?J^.Z)iy?. 
 < 21. Cap. inNovo,&Hierom. up citatur Difl. gj. Cap. JLcclefia. (Ji in Apoftolorum 
 tf Loco fumm, &c. ) Afferting thztPaftors are properly in the Place of Apc- 
 c fties, in theTxercife of an Ordinary Miniftry .- Andalfo.."— ~ Urbanus.S?- 
 Ci cund:m ex.Auguft. Biff. 68. 
 
 Another yec of the .New Sects Opinion, in this point of the Apoftles ex- 
 traordinary expired Office, we may propofe, yea oppoieto the Dr. vit: 
 f the Famous and Learned Rivet. Cathol. Orthodox. Trail. 28. Que ft. 23. Bal- 
 c law the Jefuit, againft whom he difputes, propofing theQueftion in his 
 ' Catholick Catechifm (Habent ne Epifcopi in Sacer dotes rdicpuoj que cr dines pra- 
 c eminentiam) Whether Bifhcps has a Pre-eminence above Priefts, and all 
 other Orders of the Miniftry. I need not tell the Dr. the Anfwcrof 
 his Catholicus papifla, the fame it is, with that of our Catholick Dr. 
 c and upon a pretence of (univerfalis patrum confenfus) univerfal confent of 
 
 * the Fathers. The great Anfwer is (Apcflc lis Epifcopos fucceffife) 7 bat the 
 ' Hierarchical Bijlicpt have ficceeded the Apoftles, in their proper formal Office. And 
 to /Hew the fweec. Harmony betwixt thefe Dear Catholhks and Patrons of 
 c that.Caufe, our Dr. makes this the goodly Title of his fecond Chapter, 
 
 * viz: Of the fuscejfion of BijJjops to the Apoftles. And- remarkable it is, that the 
 c Catholick, Jefuit and he, pleads upon the fame very Grounds, viz; The A- 
 € poftolat called Epifcopacy AS, 1. — Then comes in James's Epifccpacy ztje- 
 *yvtfalem. After wards, the warry Jefuit ftrikes Hands with our Dr. in 
 
 /obviating the Objedion taken from the Nominal Identity of Bijhip and 
 ' Presbyter, fne wing that this will not infer the Protefta?its dangerous heiefrc. 
 
 . of "the Identity of the Office— Then comes in the Epifccpacy oi Timothy and 
 tf Talis -— yea, and our Dr c s. Teftimony of Trtuilkn is not forgot (lib. 
 x ds Baptifno) (Epifcopiis Rapti&andi autcritate pollet, &c.) That the Bifncp has 
 *"tlK power of Baptizing, then Presbyters and Deacons by his Authority, 
 
 * ihat.ths Subordination of the Ecclefiaftick Hierarchy, may be kept tn- 
 Hire,-— Thereafter the Jefuit, as our. Dr. exclaims upon the Reformers 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. $? 
 
 c as pleading fox a con fu fed Parity Well,fome will alledge,theDr.in this point, 
 is prctcy near the Sacred Order.I cannot here tranferibe all that this Trench, 
 or Scots Noveiift Presbyterian, Rivet, returns in Anfwer to this point, which 
 I really judge, had our Dr. impartially read and perufed, it would have 
 faved him the Trouble and Labour of this Pamphlet. He is firft fevere to 
 the Jefuit, and to our Dr. as to the Name Saccrdcs,or Vricft, whereby they 
 c reprefent Paffors (De Epifcporum in Sacerdctes fr a eminent is b faith he, fruf- 
 c tra di r putatur, cum facerdotum or do nullus fit in Chrijlianifipso, ut ante a decuimur, 
 c c£v.)That there isnoaccefs for aDebate concerning thePre-eminence of 
 Bificps abovs Vriefts, fince in the Chrrftian Church there is no 
 c order of PrieJb as he hath before taught, (To upon the preceeding 
 c Queftion, Par. 4.) He tells his Adverfary, the Vroteftant Churches ac- 
 f knowledges no Priefts properly fo called, for offering Sacrifice in the 
 f Chriftian Church, and that CHRIST the Eternal Priefr, has no Suc- 
 c ceflbr: Beware then Mr. Dr. of naming any more Priefts for Miniftcrs, 
 if you will accord with Rivet, but there is no ac«efs for this Admonition 
 to a Dr. fixed in his Perfwafion, again all Sects or Extraneous Ncvelifts: 
 Thereafter, he is pofitive in afferting our Principle of Parity againft 
 c his Dr. Je/uita, and our Dr. c (Negamus, faith he, Epifccpos fupra Vresby- 
 c teros jure Divino preeminent iam habere. ) Hedenys theBiihop's Preeminence 
 c by Divine Right above Paftors. Thereafter, recTting the Jefuits Mc^ 
 c dium and our Dr's ( quod Epifcopi Apofttlis, Presbyteri Difcipulis [uecijjerani ) 
 c That Bifljops Succeeded the Apoftles, and Paftors the Seventy Difciples r 
 c He anfwers thus [ hoc falCum eft, ac t+tr or um que Off] Jo contrarium quod extras 
 
 c or dinar] um fuit nemcque ipfis in eodem or dine ac atitoritate fuccejfit : 
 
 ' Quanrvis omnes verePaftores Apoftolorum in Doilrina publicaticne, ejx Juri,\!i- 
 c onis Ecclefiafticcz.exercitio, fuccejjores dici pr.Jfunt ] That this AlTcrtOn is falfo 
 € and contrary to the office of both Apoftles ojuI Evavgelifts .-which wasextraGi* 
 d'rnary, and none did fucceed them in the fame Order, Ofjice and Au'.htriiy, aitrur 
 c all true Paftors, in refpect of the publication of the Dodiin, ar.d the 
 c exercife of Eccleiiaftick Difciplin, may be called Succelfors of the Apc> 
 ? ftles. Hefe, the Scots Presbyterian Opinion, pretty clear: Mr. Dr. it iecrr/ 
 Rivet was in this Point a Sccinian, and a grofs ipmamm in all Antiquity. I 
 cannot fhujd to tranferibe his Anfwers, to our Dr's. ar.d the Jtfuits A. 
 ments Subjoined. His Anfsver to that of con » wies, j* not inter- 
 
 ring the Omencfijkf things, is thus (factor wenm a 
 
 c rum identitatem iunuire, fcjtcsrm res eadim its [unih/iy/tsr rulous eadan memi** 
 c Jantur, vera eft fytionomia, fi qui dim nom*n cam deftmticne ft con ;..■': I I ut 
 c granting that confuiion oiNamesdoes not alwife infe/the identity ot the 
 4 things tkcmfelvcs, yet when the fame tniri§* are attribute to^ thofe>, to 
 ' whom the fame Names are given, them 
 * bothNumeand thing,theName being common with the i'cm iuon.li-- 
 
 MM 
 
5>o T>r. Monro' sT leadings Chap. Ill 
 
 in this one Judicious Anfwer, he cuts the Sinews ofallour Dr c s Reafoning 
 upon this head. Then For Confirmation of this Identity, he Cites i Tim 
 3. 1, 2. Tit, 1. 5. 7. And fromthefe known pregnant Paffages pleads as 
 we do, that the Name, Qualities, and Ordination of Bijhop and Presbyter 
 are the fame. For Tertullians Testimony, which. the Dr. Jefuita (and our 
 tc Dr ) cites, he tells him, "That Tertullian fpeaks ( dehumano ordine fue 
 c tempore recepto ) of the human Order or cuftom, received in his time, 
 which \vas, that the ( probatm quifque Senior ) or every approven Presbyter 
 •f ( as he expreffes "it Apol. Cap. 39.) prefided over the Collegiat Meeting of 
 
 * Pa/tors, and was called BijJiop. The fame, he tells the Jefuit, may be 
 x applyed to Ignatius" % Epiftles,and what is Cited from them to this Scope 
 :< (fi (icutijam Jc hsbent fidem mererentur) upon condition, that they deferved 
 
 * to be credited, as.they are now prefented : But then fubjoins (fed omnibus 
 *:notum efi easaddhionibus ac dimunitionibusfuiffe corrupt as ) But it is known to 
 c all, that they have bee© corrupted with additions andDimunitions: Re- 
 c ferring upon the Margin to his Crit. Sacr. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. ^Cooks Cenfure > 
 s& Vedel. Not. 
 
 WalUus depaft. P. (mhi) 473, afcribs alfo to Apoftles the extraordinary 
 c call and Function, uponGrounds of their immediat vocation, citing Gal. i, 
 c 1. Paul's calling hmifelf an Apoftle, not of Men, nor by Man,- their in- 
 fallibility in. Dodrin, j&c. The ordinary Officers and Succeiiors of 
 c Apoftles, he holds to be the Paftors, as being firft planted by them in the 
 c Churches,- for which he Cites and improves thefe places Aft. 14. 23. 
 c where we find the Apoftles Ordaining Minifters or Elders, Church by 
 ' Church, as their proper immediat Succeffors, in an ordinary Miniftry : 
 6 Tit. 1. 5-. 7. where the Office of Bijhop and "Presbyter, is identified in 
 1 Name and thing; 2 Tim. 2. 2. where he is enjoyned to commit what 
 
 * he had heard of Paul to faithful Men, ^ able to Teach others: So Aft. 20. 
 c 28. where the Epifccpal Office is enjoined to Elders by Paul in his laft 
 c farewell to the Church oiEp befits: So alfo E,ph. 4. 11. with Rev. 2. g. In 
 *■ which places,theP^r/ power and Jurifdidion,is to this Scope afferted. 
 
 Junius Cont. £th Lib. i.Cbap, 14. Not. 1 5*. hath thefe notable words (nun- 
 ( quam inftituit Cbriftus ut Apoftolis. Secundum gradum fuccederetur qua res fi ' fuijjet 
 c jam Apoftolatus functio ordinaria dicenda ejjet, hoc autem veritati & rationi ah- 
 € verfatur : omnes Dei Jerui in Doctrinam Apoftclorum fuecejjerunt, in gradum eo- 
 c rum ntmimm adoftavit Deus. God never appointed or allowed any Juccefji- 
 c on to the Office and degree of Afoftolat, which had it been, the Office of the ! 
 c Apoftles, might be calied ordinary, but this is contrary to the Truth and 
 ' found Reafon. All the fervants of God, have fucceeded into the Do- 
 "chin of the Apoftles, but God hath adopted none of thein into the 
 ' Apoftles degree and Office. 
 
 None 
 
Chap. ITT. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examiner/. py 
 
 c None fucceeded to Apoftles and Evangelifts.as to the degree and Office 
 c ( hizhSaynes ) fince it was extraordinary and temporary. The Paftors 
 c and Presbyters, becaufe ordinary Officers, fucceed them from anothcaj 
 c Line, but not as one Brother fucceeding to another, in the Right of in- 
 c heritance — As the Laws of Mofes, during that Oeconcmv, were to be 
 c kept, tho Mofes, who delivered them, had none Succeeding him, in 
 c his Office and degree,- So, neither were the Rules in Government, pre- 
 Tented in the Epiilles cf Timothy and Titus, delivered to any fucceeding 
 c them in their Office. 
 
 c Ecclefiaftical Authority ( faith Gerfon de poteft. Ecclef confiderat. Gta ) 
 c may be confidered either formally, abfolutely, or refpe&ively, as ap- 
 c plved to this or that perfon, and executively. Altho the Authority ab- 
 € folutelv confidered .continues the fame, yet in the application, it is va- 
 f rious,- and that which was in Apoftles and Evangeiifts,remained rot al- 
 c wife with fuch Apoftles and Evangeliils: As in Point of Right, nonecou'.d 
 c fucceed to the degree of Apoftles and Evangelifts, fo in Matter of Fact, 
 c none did fucceed. 
 
 c Caujabcn ( exercit. 14.. P. 314.) makes this the quart a Ncta of the A- 
 c poftolat, VoTtftas lc?ige major & Auguftior c^uam tdli un^uam alii funclicni Spiri- 
 c tuali fuerit attribute. The fourth difcriminating mark of anApoftle, is with 
 c Caufabon, their greater and more Venerable Authority and Power, than 
 c was competent or allowed to any other Spiritual Fun&ion or Office. 
 c Which he ill u ft rats from Chryfofiom 3 1 Cor. 12. 29. afferting the Apoftles 
 c to be above all other Spiritual Functions. 
 
 Sluts nefcil ( faith Auguft.lih.z de Baptifmo cap.i.) ilium Apoftclatus Epifcpa- 
 lum cuilibet Epifcopatui prefer en darn. Who knows not that the Epifcopacy of 
 6 Apoftles, is fet above all ether £/>//c^^whatfomever ? 
 
 Now, I fupofe from what is faid, it is evident, that this Man, in ftead 
 of expoling the Presbyterians, in this account of their Judgement, anent 
 the Apoftolkk Office, hath oppofed himfelfto Proteftant Divines, and hath 
 blotted himfelf, as a Calumniator of the true Proteftant Doctrine in this 
 point, efpouiing therein the Popijh Caufe and Intereft. 
 
 But let us hear what is our Dr f s. Account of the Apoflolick Office : It is 
 thus: In oppofition to which, faith the Dr. P. 96. ( '#. e. the premifed Presbyte- 
 rian, or rather Proteftant Account of the Apoflolick OfficeJ He affirm 
 (had he added, we Catbdich and Jesuits, fonie would alledge the Epithet 
 had been futeable to his Dodiine) Well, What affirm* he ? That the nut 
 'Charachrlftlck, formal, and d>f:ni£ui firing Mark of an Apojile, was his dnftanv y 
 Supreme, Spiritual, Perpetual Power, Authority, and -furifdktkn, over ail (ub>- 
 ordinat Officers, and all others btlwving inChrijt, and his Power to tram 'fruit tb* 
 Authority to b as Succefivrs, according to the Com?/} and of cur Saviour, Here, 
 
 N a wo 
 
9 8 T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap. III % 
 
 we liare it in his own Words : Upon which, i. Let it be confidered,that 
 he prefents this Defcription and Account cf the Apoftolick Office, in op- 
 pofition to that which he premifeth as ours. We hold, as well as he, that: 
 the Apoftles had a Supreme ( though collateral 3nd aqual ) and Spiritual 
 Power and Authority over Officers and Members of "the Church: Only 
 we add thefe further Chara&erifticks of their Office, »wfe: Their extraor- 
 dinary Gifts, their immsdiat Call, including and having connected there- 
 with, an unconrlned Commiffion to propagat the Gofpel among all Na- 
 tions, as himfelf words our Tenet, and which is alfo proved from that 
 Paffage he cites, Matth, 28. Now, fince in oppofition to our Defcripti- 
 on, he holds, that his, not ours, are the proper difcriminating Marks, 
 whereby Apoftles were diftinguiihed from other Officers, he rauft of ne- 
 ceflity, hold that thefe Characters are proper to other Officers, as well 
 as them,-. For, there is no Mids: Either thefe Prerogatives were peculiar 
 to Apoftles, or proper to others alfo,and thus common to both,and it be- 
 ing fo, not to mention other properties, fince. their unconfined Commit- 
 iion to Preach to all Nations ; And he cannot but acknowledge as imme- 
 diat Officers of all the Churches, in atlu exercito/dnd in order to the found- 
 ing them^and planting Gofpel Ordinances, and Officers therein,according 
 to our Saviours Commiflion, MattkiS. is our great Mark and Chara&er- 
 iftick of an Apoftle, I challenge him tofliew me,what fucceeding ordi- 
 nary Officer, had this applicable to him, whether of his fuppofed£/>//V0- 
 ftf/Moiild or any other. TheDr. will not deny, that upon this Ground, 
 the Churches are faid to be built upon the Apoftles Foundation, and this 
 in an exclufive Senfe, not the Foundation of any fucceeding Officers, 
 whether the Dr. call them Stibordinat or otherwife,- And he knows the 
 Churches Foundation is not to be twice laid; So, thathe is obliged either' 
 *p produce fucceeding Officers with this Prerogative and Power, or ac- 
 knowledge this his Defcription naught, which he fo vainly offers, in op- 
 pofition to the Account of this Office, offered by Protectant Divines. 2. 
 Aq layes, That this power was ccnftant, perpetual, and to be transmitted to Sue- 
 offers.- Here, I ask him, whether the Apoftles were to tranfmit their 
 Power to one Succeffor and Supreme President, or to devolve their Col- 
 lateral, Uhiverfal Power over all Believers, and all Hibordinat Officers, to 
 refpedtive Succeffors, corning after every one of them? If the Dr. adhere 
 w the flrft, he- clearly homologats the Papnl Pleadings for a Primacy 0- 
 v*er the Church Univerfal: And indeed, his owning as a Patern to the 
 Nev* Teftament Church, the Continuance of the Jew:jhOEcononyy 3 does 
 much oblige him thereunto. If he affert,that every one of theApoftles had' 
 2 refpecljive Succeffor, then his Defcription obliges him to mantain that 
 s^ery faQk;Su€geffor 3 has transited UHtO him, A Perpetual, Spiritual, Con->- 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 99 
 
 ftant, Univerfal Infpeclion over all Churches, both Ministers and Believers: For,, 
 this eflential Authority of Apoftles, he affirms, they were to tranfmitt f 
 Succeffors, and that according to the Command of our Savicur. 
 
 But to proceed ,• Let us Liften to our Dr f s Explication, (P. 57. ) The- 
 Apoftles Permanent Succeffive Power, was to Preach the Go/pel, Govern the Chur- 
 ches the) Planted, give Rules and Directions to Succeffors in the fame Office, and 
 all Subordinat Ecclefiafticks, Inflict Cenfures, Communicat this Authority to cthtrs y 
 Hear Complaints, Decide Contr over fie s, Settle Church Difcipline, Conferr the Holy 
 
 Ghoft, as the Neceffity of the Faithful requires (He tells us. He under/lands 
 
 the Gifts, that muft needs attend the Authoritative Miniftry of Hily Things ) 7 his 
 being Effentially the Apoftolick Office, it remains for tver in the Church, the ordi- 
 nary Neceffities thereof, requiring it (liould continue till Chrifts coming. Here, 
 Fir ft, I would enquire again, fince the Power thus defcribed, is in theDr's 
 Senfe, Permanent and Succeffive, and neceffary to the Church, whether is it 
 fo, as devolved upon every Perfon Succeeding, and in the fame Extent, 
 and for the fame Ends, as the Apoftles Exercifed it ? If it be not, then 
 every Bcdy of Ccmmon Senfe, knows, that this Apoftolick Power and 
 Office, cannot be called Permanent andSuccejfive, and of a continued (landings 
 Neceffity in the Church, no more than a Pa/tors ordinary Power to Preach 
 and Baptize, will prove this, and that they hold this entire Apoftolick 
 Office, which he defcribes. If this Apoftolick Power and Office, be de- 
 volved in its entire extent, and to every Perfon Succeeding, then every 
 Perfon thus Succeeding, has an Entire, Unconflned, Univerfal Authori- 
 ty and Infpe&ion over all the Churches, all Ecclefiafticks and Believers, to* 
 ufe his own Terms, and are obliged by their Office, to Preach unto, and 
 Govern them all, as the Apoftles did, to give Rules, Inflicl Cenfures upon all' 
 Subordinat Officers. If he fay, that every Apoftle did not fo ExtenhVely 
 Preach and Govern : I Anfwer, even admitting fome Gradual Lifference 
 in the Extent cf the Adtual Exercife, yet this did no whit Lcffen their 
 Univerfal Commiffion, expreft Matth. 28. and the Obligation of a Pro- 
 portioned Endeavour, could not Impeach their (landing Authority over 
 all the Churches, and their Relation, in AclvExercito, as immediat Cache- 
 lick Officers thereof: And the Dr, in faying, lhat this Authority andjurif- 
 dicticn reached over all Subordinat Officers and Believers, without Exception, 
 ( which very Power, he affirms, they were to Tranjmit to Succtjjors ) con- 
 firms what I faid, and cuts him off from this Ev;uioru Tocicar this fur- 
 ther, in the fecond p'ace, it may be asked, whether thefe fuppofed Succef- 
 fors, are Authorized to Plant Churches, give Rules to them, Decide CcMrover* 
 fits, Con frr the Holy Gho(l, as the Apoftles did, with Refpeet to the End, 
 Manner, and Extent forcfaid ? If not, then fare this Power is Tr an l il 
 mt.Vtrmantnt and Succeffive, as. the Dr. calls it. If they have tj.is Po* 
 
 AroI 
 
i go T>r. Monroes Pleadings Chap. IIL 
 
 Apoftles, as above expreft; Then ft ft, there lyes upon every fuch Succef- 
 fcr, am Obligation to Plant Churches, where they were not ,- For, he 
 will not deny that the Apoftles were to Plant & to Govern the Churches 
 Planted, and to give Rules and Directions thereanent. The Abfurdity of 
 which Aflertion, is fufficiently apparent, and its neceflary Dependence 
 upon what he afferts, no lefs evident. But while we fpeak of Succeflbrs 
 giving Rules, the Dr. would do well to inform us, what Rules he means, 
 whether the Apoftles Rules, or others ? If the fame, then they could not 
 Succeed the Apoftles in Authoritative, Infallible Delivery of the firft Gofpel 
 Rules, this Work being already done : If others,* then the Dr. will afcribe 
 to them fuch a Nomothetkk Authority as to Rules, as no Church can now 
 acclaim, in the Senfe of all Vroteftant Divines. If he fay, he means an Ap- 
 plication or Declarator of Apoftolick Rules, in particular Cafes : Then I 
 Anfwer, This is not the Apoftolical Delivery of Rules, as all Men know, but 
 is toto ccslo different from it, both in its Nature and Extent,- So, thst this 
 Shift will not help the Dr. cut of the Briars. But in the next place, the 
 Dr. has told us, of an Apoftolical derived Power in Deciding Controver/ies, which 
 he appropriats to the Bijlwps their Succej] or s, and in the Sequel of his Reafoning, 
 muft atribute it to every one of them. And here, I would enquire of him, 
 how did the Apoftles Decide Controverfies? The Dr. will not deny^ that 
 any one of the Apoftles,by virtue of their Authority jand Infallibility _, could 
 decide Controversies infallibly,as being our Saviours Living Oracles. and ha- 
 ving the Mind ofChrift : And what Bijhop, or Succeeding Church Officer, I 
 pray, has this Power and Authority? We know, General Councils have erred 
 in their Deciiions: But the Dr. gives a greater Power to every Bifiop, by 
 this his New Notion. Or, if theDr allay and leffen this Decifion, either as 
 to Extent or Authority ,then he isftill in the Briars,and baffles his own de- 
 finition and explication. Further, the Dr. has told us, the Bifhops fuueed-s 
 the Apoftles in giving the Holy Ghoft. The Scriptures tells us the Apoftles gave 
 the Holy Ghoft, and even Miraculous vifible Gifts thereof, by impositi- 
 on of Hands,- and we have heard, that Protejtant Divines afcribe this to 
 them, as one of their incommunicable Prerogatives: The Dr. will needs 
 have them fucceeded in this. But being fomeway fenfible of the abfurdi- 
 ty of this lax Aflertion, he reftri&s it to fuch Gifts, as muft needs attend the 
 Authoritative Miniftry of Holy things. Be it fo,- but will he fay, that the A- 
 poftles did no otherways give the Holy Ghoft ? This he cannot 
 affert. Then I fay. i. He muft acknowledge, that here is a defe- 
 <5tive, maimed, not- an intire Succeffion in this work and part ol 
 their Office. 2. The Dr would be puzzled to /hew a Reafon, why 
 he reftridts and limits this Point of the SuccefIion,rather than the ren\ 
 Finally, the Dr. calls this Power of the Apoftles, Supreme, and no doubt, 
 
 lines 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 101 
 
 fince ic is with him, one Criterion of the Apoftolick Office, and 
 competent to all their SuccelTors the Biftops, in this Apoftolick extent; 
 For, he affirms, that thisVower of the apoftles, is perpetual and 'nccefary in the 
 Church, and that the Bifocps are their proper Succefjors therein: And here. the Dr. 
 would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould, ii Point of 
 Power, thc^GBifiops are, whom he ownstofucceed to this Apofioiick Of- 
 fice : For, thztde facto, there is a great variety in the extent of their Pow- 
 er, he will not deny. Whether doth he hold, that every ordinary hiffcp 
 isfuch a Snccellor ? or the ArcbBifap ? or only Vrimats ? If every liffcp 
 does thus fucceed (which theSeries of his Arguing feems to in port . then 
 I would know, how a BijJjop with a derived, fubaltern, fuborcinat Power, 
 limit to a certain, and m^y be, not a very great Precinct or diftiid, can 
 be fiicl to fucceed the Apoftles, inaSuprenie Jurifdiffion over all Believers and 
 Qcchfu [ticks ? Let him make Senfe of this, if lie can: If he fay that 
 the Bijbops Succceilion relates to their Power within their own diftrid : 
 Then, i. They no more fucceed the Apoftles, in the Power by him de- 
 fcribed,thonSucceftbrs to a Sheriff in a. Kingdom, can be faid to fucceed 
 < to theRegal Throne. 2. If he once break fquare thus, and infringe his own 
 Rule, his meafures and defcription, he muft confequently acknowledge, 
 that a Govjernmentin the fmaileft precinct, yea, even of a Pallor over his 
 Flock,, is e.ittims, a Succefion to the Apoftles. If he fay, the Pajtor has no 
 Rule over Ecclcfia [ticks, and confequently, no Apoftolick Succeffion, irr 
 his Senfe : I Anfwer, neither has the Bijlops over all EcclcfJiicks, which is 
 alfo his Senfe and defcription of the Apoftolick Succeffion. Ir he own, that 
 only ArchBificps. are fuch Succeffcrs; Then, 1. How comes he to owne 
 the Biftcps, in univerfum, as fucceeding the Apoftles, in a Rectoral Power. 
 2. Since the Bijhops can give Rules to fubordinat Ecdtfuifticks, Vrcach if their 
 Lord(hi>psp\ea.fe, give Rttlts of Difiplin hear complaints, tkcide Contr ovey fits ,8cc 
 wherein he makes this Apoftclick oucceflicn to confift, bew can he deny, 
 even to Diccefan Bijhps, this Succefilon? ;.Suppofe,but one Da cefan Church 
 in a Countrey gathered, the Dr. will not deny an Apoftolick Succcfli- 
 on and Government, there, according to Ins pattern and Principles. 
 
 But to proceed, if the. Di hold, that only the great ArchBifhofs or 
 Metrapolir.-ins, have this Supremacy and Apoftolick Micccllion; 1 would 
 . upon what ground, he can defend this in his Principles f I know 
 none, except that of the extent of tbdr Voiver, be alledged. But tiere the 
 Dr. is ftill at odds with himfelf: For the Apoikiiek Power, which 
 he holds to be SiiceitJtd unto and Vermanent, extended to all 
 Churches, to all Eccltfiafiuks and Belhvcrs. And bclides, fuppoie an . 
 
 zCcuncil AlVcmblcd, the Dr. will not alicit, chat he Jias an Autho- 
 r i c \ ' parang unt to it, bv Lis Othce, and that there may not be a 
 
 whole Power may be pai amount to his, in 
 O o the 
 
'noi T>r. Monro's Tie-actings* Chap IIL 
 
 the Council, or otterwife. Thus, we fee how our Dr. in his Phantaftick 
 Description of the Apoftolat, and Pleadings for theBijhops Succeffion thereunto, 
 has involved himfelf, and is Rolling Sififkw Stone, which ftill returns 
 upon him ., and renews his Labour, 
 
 But in the next place, the Dr. ( P. 97. 98. ) tells us, That extraordina- 
 ry Gifts of the Holy Gkofl, Vower of Miracles, Language?, other Spiritual Furni- 
 ture, were temporary, extrinpck advantages, neceffary fur firfi forming the Chrifli- 
 *p. Church, and when this Fabrick is creeled, Scaffoldings are removed. But I. 
 fliould think, if the Apoftolick work and necelfary duties required thefe 
 extraordinary Gifts, as neceffary advantages and furniture for the fame,then- 
 they wereintrinfick 3 not extrinfick to the Office it felf} Which I will prove 
 to the Dr, by a paralel Argument, the Topick whereof, he muft needs 
 owne : , To be apt ta Teach, to have Spiritual knowledge, and the Gifi 
 of. utterance, in a competent Meafure, prudence, a competent know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures , and Languages thereof, he will acknowledge 
 are needful for the. Paftoral work of Feeding by the word and Doclrin ; 
 Therefore, fay I, they are eflential and intrinfick to the Paftoral Office- 
 For, 1. Elfe there were no need of a previous trial of thefe Gifts, in or- 
 der to admiflion to that Office. And 2. Gpd conjoins the call to the Office, 
 with the Gifts for it, and the one in an ordinary way, muft be made Ap- 
 pearby the other: I hope, the Dr and I are agreed- as to the Soundnefs of 
 this Reafoning. Now, iet me fubfum upon this Conc!ufion;In likeman- 
 tier, the Apoftolick Office required thefe works or duties, whereunta 
 were neceffarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Furniture for the. 
 feme. 1. They were to teach all Nations,; this they could not do without 
 the Gift oFTpngues^herefore on the day of Pentico ft, they were thus feal-, 
 Ie.d j Yea were^ Commanded to ftay and wait at J.erufalem for this Seal, 
 x. Another piece of their work, was, to Confirm their DcBrin by Miracles y 
 then new and unknown, thus to feal their Commiflion to an Infidel world 
 as alfo, to th& Jews-, as Mofes and Aaron wereto Pharach and Ifrael, be- 
 fore whom- the Signs were ihown of the Rod and Leprous hand : This 
 Work-required the Gift of Miracles. 3. They were to form the.Chri- 
 iH-arr Church, and lay the ground- plort of its Government, and de- 
 IlVer the Rules and plat-form cf its Doctrine and, WoHhip y This requir- 
 ed #»-*»/*#/£/£ directive Power and Authority, in reference to all the Ordi- 
 xinnces and- Officers thereof. 4. Their Work and Office required an im- 
 inedtat Relation, ia aclu Jecundo, to all Churches, fo that they were r 
 while alive> foiely fuch Oxricers thereof: Hence, their very Office being, 
 of this Nature,and fuppofing the Chrifti^n Church a forming .& ere&ing,, 
 iris: certain, that taken in a proper formal S-enfi, with thefe its Ingredients,: 
 %i%.tkt,$tr>§Ql&ng which is remqved, when .this Fabrickis ere&ed^ fmce, t 
 
 now 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. ro^ 
 
 now no Mortal can pretend to fueh a Million, Commiffion, and Autho- 
 rity. Further, The Command, [Go teach- all Nations'] he muft hold ftill ?i- 
 gent, as effentially included in the Apoftolick Office, for he diftinguiihes 
 this part of their Permanent Power, from their extraordinary expired Vrivi- 
 kdges (P. 96.) fo that he muft needs acknowledge, that this requiring 
 the Gift of Tongues, it was efTential thereunto. Again, he holds, theie 
 is a Supreme Power of Government, conftantand tranfmitted to the Church: 
 And this Supreme Power neceiTarly requires, (ij Infallibility in all the 
 Methods and Meafures of Government,- For, that upon the ground of 
 fuch a Supremacy, the Apoftles had an Infallibility, in all their Meafures 
 and Ordinances of Government, delivered to the Churches, the Dr. will 
 not deny. (2.) He cannotdeny this neceflary Confequence, That there- 
 fore, they were priviledged with unaccountableneis and uncontrolable 
 Power ,• And this in hrs Principles, he muft needs held to be tranfmitted: 
 For, {{Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer thefe two, furely nothing 
 will. And the Dr. will not fay, that Supremacy over all Church Officers 
 and Members, are temporary expired Priviledges ,• Fcr this he clearly 
 diftinguimes from them : And it being thus, the Queftion hill recurrs ta 
 what Bijhops he afcribs this? Whether to fome of them who are of Special 
 Character, or to all ? If to all-,then none- of them are fubordinat and ac- 
 countable to another,as being all Infallible and Supreme, in the Exercile 
 of their Government. If to iome only, under what Character are they 3* 
 Primats, Arcb-bifoops, or Patriarchs ? And- whether are they fubjed: to one- 
 Head? If to one Head, then they lofs the Priviledge of Supremacy, 
 wherein the Dr. makes an Apoftolick Succeffion roconiift: Yet it will fee" 
 hard to fay, that they were not fubjed to a General Council.as to therrDoc- 
 trine and Adminiftration: And fure I am, the Dr. willafiert, that the A-- 
 poftles had fuch a Supreme Power, as put them beyond the reach of Sub-* 
 je&icn to any Church Judicatory, and this their Supreme Authority, he 
 alTerts to be Conflant and Permanent, ftill neceflary for the Church, and 1 
 died not with their Perfons: So, that here is another confufed Maze and 
 Farrago of Inconhftencies. 
 
 But further, toftiew how this Mans precipitant folly has involved him,' 
 two things are again considerable: lirjt, He holds the Jtivijk Olxonomy 
 never to have been abrogar, but to be ftill vigent, as it exemplifies a Pat- 
 tern to the New Teftament Church ; This he acknowledges had a Su-> 
 preme High Prieft, who was an OJicumCiiick^Pi clidcnt over that C hurcli , 
 uver all inferior Priefts and' all their Courts : For, he wil be far front 
 admitting any inferior Priefts to ihare in this Priviledge. Hence, it ine- 
 vitably follows, that this Supremacy is in his Senfe, applicable only toThe* 
 Supreme 0£cumenickPjeiident P that the Chriftian Church. may come up 1 .- 
 
i o$ *Dr* Monro" j T leadings Chap. /jf. 
 
 to its Pattern. And it being thus, let us in the next place fee, how he not- 
 withstanding c:offes this in two Points; i. In making this Ccnflant, Supreme, 
 Spiritual Power, over ail Members and Officers in the Chriftian Church, to 
 have beenfirftexercifed by every one of the Twelve Apoftles, and by them 
 derived to their refpeccive Succeflbrs. 2. In holding in difcriminatim , and 
 without any note ofdi function of one from another, that the Bifl)ops(\ea, 
 a\\Bi{l)ops ) are Succeflbrs of the Apoftles^ he means in a proper formal 
 Scnfe: For,thisisthevery Title of this goodly Chapter,of the SucceJJion ofBi- 
 flwps from the Apcftles, asisfaid. Further, I would gladly know, whether 
 ourDr.ownes any Church-Power to have been tranfmitted toPresbytersorPa- 
 ftors, and to be ailerted, Act. 20 28. 1 Pet, j. 2. Beb. 12. 7. 17. and 
 many fuch places, pleaded by the Presbyterians: It is probable, he will ac- 
 knowledge this:fothatit be within theirPrecincts,& infubordinationto the 
 BijJjops. Now,I pray,why will he deny them thePriviledge of Succeffion to 
 Apcftles, in point of Church Power? He hath no Shadow of Ground, un- 
 lefs upon the Account of a Precarious Dependence upon the Bijhcp ,• So, 
 that it is not a Supreme Spiritual Power, as he defines that of the Bijlwps, as 
 fucceeding Apoftles therein. And I befeech him, why are not the Bi- 
 ■jlops, upon this Ground of their Precarious Dependance upon Superior £/- 
 (Jjops, equally cut off from this Priviledge ? If he fay, the Biflwps Power 
 reaches to Church Officers under them, not that of Presbyters; I have al- 
 ready told him, what an InHgnificant Evafion this is, and that he cuts 
 himfelf oiF from this Anfwer, in that he makes this Apoftolick Power, 
 which is Tranfmitted to Suceeffors, to be a Jurifdiction and Authority 0- 
 ver all Subordinat Officers, all Ecclefia flicks, and all others Believing inChrifi. And 
 he tells us, That the Apoftles were to give Directions to their Suceeffors in the fame 
 Office. So, that if it be not thus underftood, who can reconcile his Words 
 to Senfe?For, he diftinguiihes the Suceeffors to their Office, from fuch as. he 
 calls Subordinat Eccleflajlhks, who have no fuch Authority. And to fay the 
 -Office is perpetual and permanent, that the Office imports Effentially a Supreme 
 Power over all Church Officers and Members, and is thus diftinguifned from all 
 Inferior Offices, that this very Office is derived to Suceeffors, as being Efftn- 
 tial and neceffary to the Church Government in all Ages , and yet that thefe Suc- 
 eeffors, one or more, have a Power Encircled within a certain Plott of 
 Ground or Biftrict, is fuch -a palpable Contradiction and Non-Senie, as 
 none can be more evident. 
 
 We are told, ( P. 98. ) That the E 'fence of the Apofi -click Office, confifted p& 
 in the forementioned extraordinaryPriviledges— but in f^Rectoral PowQr, Tranf- 
 mitted to their Suceeffors in all Ages. I have told him, and made ir appear, 
 that their Recloral Power, ncceffarly included thefe Priviledges, and fince 
 he acknowledges, that the Effence of their Office confifted in. their Retfo- 
 rd 
 
Chap. III. /wEpifcopacy, Examined. 1D5 
 
 ral Power, it does neceflarly follow, that thefe being of the Effence of that 
 Power, they were Eflemial to the Office. We acknowledge with him, 
 that they were by their Office diftinguifhed from Subordinat Officers ,• 
 The Dr. infers, That therefore, this DifiincJion muft ccnfift in fcmething fo pecu- 
 liar to them, as its incommunicable to any Orders of Officers not Honoured with this 
 Character. Before I come to a direct Anfwer, I will here cleave all his 
 Reafoning afunder, with a Wedge of his own Setting. The Apoftles U- 
 niverfal, Unconftnedlnfpe&ion over all Churches ,Pianted and to be Plan- 
 ted and as Carholick Univerfal Ministers thereof, in AciuLxacito, is thst 
 whereby they are diftinguifhed from other Officers, who are not of that 
 Character: And being thus diftinguifhed, this mult of neceffity be thetf- 
 ience of their Office ,• for it is the Etfence, frcm which Eflfentia! Diftin- 
 ctions flows : Yet, we will find the Dr. Difuwning and Denying this 
 ( P. 96. ) Next, from hence, its eafie to infer, that to giveSucceffors the 
 true Apoftoiick Character and Power, it muft be of this Nature and Ex- 
 tent eife its Hetrogeneous unto, and comes fhort of its Pattern. Will 
 an ^Rational Man deny, that the Recloral Power derived to Apoftles by 
 our Saviour, wherein he fays, the Effence of their Office did confift, was 
 of this Nature and Extent ? Now, let him produce, if he can, anyone 
 Officer or Succeffor, with this Character. Again, that whereby they were 
 difiinguijhed, or what was peculiar to them, may be understood two ways, 
 1. Materially, or Simplely. 2. Formally, or as making up their Complex 
 'Office, with its other Ingredients, and as properly fubfervient to the pro- 
 per, formal, immediat Ends thereof. In che rirftSenfe, there were feve- 
 ral things, whereby they were not properly diftinguifhed from other Of- 
 ficers at that time,conlidering them materially and remotely,-(uch as Gifts 
 of Tongues,Miracles, &c. which others had in their own Sphere and De- 
 gree : But formally, they were proper to Apoltles, conlidering their De- 
 gree, Circumftances, and proper immediat End. Others had Gifts of 
 Tongues, and of Miracles, but thefe Gifts were diftinguifhed from thole 
 of Apofties, upon the Ground above expreft. I would make it evident by 
 a Scripture Inltance: Our Saviour (hews what Miraculous Signs Aral! fol- 
 low them that believe ,• And in theie firft times, gives Inftarice,ws. their 
 Cafting out Devils, Speaking with Tongues, Taking up Serpents with- 
 out Hurt, ( this we read cf Paul, Acl.2%.) thetr Drinking Deadly Things 
 without Prejudice • vet Paul foj s. fpeaking of thefe extraordinary Gifts, 
 \_trudy the Signs, Wonders and Mighty Deeds of an Afoftk are wrct^ 
 
 you] but notwithstanding this, we knbw that Stop btn y tho no Apoftle, 
 
 did Wonders among the People. But who knows not, that in the Apo- 
 ftles, theie Actings of the Diviue Power, weie of another and 
 for another immediat End, was, To Confirm and Ratifie an < i*^k 
 
 P p Autho- 
 
ico6 T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap. IIL 
 
 Authority, as the Churches Infallible^ Univerfal, Firft Meffengers, upon 
 whofe Do&rine, the Foundation of the Church was to be laid ? Thus, ac- 
 cording to the Senfe of the Judicious and Learned Vrofejfors of Ley den, their 
 Oifice confifted in this, 'that they were Chrifts Univerfal AmbaJJadours to lay e- 
 very where the Foundation of the Gojpel Church, and were fent immediatly and ex~ 
 traordinarly by him , inflrucled with Infallibility in Doclrine, and Power to Confirm 
 it with Miracles. So, that in their Senfe, and in the Senfe of Sound Di- 
 vines, already exhibit, when we fpeak of the Apoftoiicfc Office, fome- 
 things were more remotely, and lefs principally, Ingredients therein,* 
 foraethings,, more immediatly and properly, to Which the other- was fubr- 
 fervient. Their Office lay in that Univerfal Legation mentioned, and 
 as Levelled at that great End of Founding the Gofpel Church, which ner 
 ceflarly included their immediat Million, as is {aid ; other things 3 as Cor- 
 respondent to this End, were Ingredients in their Office, in the remote 
 Senfe above cleared, fuch as the Gifts of Xongues, Miracles, &c This 
 ferves to Unravel our Dr f s Foolilh Notion, which he has ( P. 98,99.,) to • 
 difprove our Senfe of the Apoftolick Office: Such as, Firft, That the Lai- 
 ty, many of them, had Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft. hAnfwer, ( not 
 to ftand upon his Expreffion, the Laity, or upon an Enquiry, who of them, 
 had thefe Extraordinary, Mimfteriai Gifts ) by denying they were either 
 ol that Nature, Meafure, or for fuch an immediat End, as thofe of the 
 Apoftles. None certainly, had fuch a. clear comprehenfive, immediat, 
 infallible Light in Divine things as they,* And many things may convince 
 the Dr. of this his Error : For, Firft, What meant elfe their Solemn Ext- 
 raordinary Seal of the Spirit, Ach 2. ftriking the World with fuch Ad- 
 miration? What need the Promife of the Spirit, to lead them unto all 
 Truth, and endue them with Power fromon High? Again, the Dr. will 
 acknowledge, that the Apoilolick Office was to Plant the Chriftian Church, 
 and Gofpel. Ordinances through the World,* And therefore, he muft, by 
 neQeffary,Confequence, acknowledge, that their Gifts behoved to be, of 
 fuck a. Nature ax d Meafure, as were fated to thuEnd, and in fpecial to the im- 
 mediat infallible Government of the Churches, and the.Direciion of both Mem- 
 bers and Officers thereof, in their refpe&ive Duties: Hence, our Lord 
 fpent fourcy Days, after hisRefurre&ion^in infrrudting them in the things, 
 pertaining to his Kingdom, that they might bg thus immediatly fitted for 
 tiiis ; Work. The Dr. will not deny, that the Vaftoral Gifts before Inftan- 
 ced, of Scriptural Knowledge, Skill in the Languages, Prudence, eH. are 
 proper Ingredients in that Office, and Charbcleritficks thereof, as fund 
 ta the .Ends of the fame, and the Evidences of 'the Divine Call,, all other things 
 concurring, notwithftanding that fome of the Laity may have thefe Gifts. 
 Mm$9i their .Infallibility^ the. Dx< tells us^ that the Evangelifts .and Seventy 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. icy 
 
 Difciples were fuch. I Anfwer } { bppofing the Seventy to be Evangelifts,I deny 
 this Infallibility c:mpetent to them,underiranding it of fuch a Nature and ' 
 Extent as competent unto ApoPrles^and an Ingredient of their Office, elfe 
 I befeech him,why was Timothy, after his Inauguration intruded by theA- 
 poflle,in reference to fomany Points of his Office and Duty,and fo many 
 things pointed out to him to beware of? As for Lukes Writing from the Te- 
 ftimony of Eye-witnejfes and Minifiers oftbeJVcrd; Any with half an Eye. may 
 fee, that this falls utterly fhort of proving an Apoftclick Infallibility, in 
 its Nature and Extent, and with lefpecl to its L~dj,- Altho the Spirit of 
 GODs infallible Guidance in what he wrote, is neceffarly fuppofed. 
 What he means by Under- Mini ft en, I underftard not; If the Spirit of 
 GOD, made ufe of his Information bv Apoflles or ethers, in order to 
 His End of this infallible Writing, can anv imagine that this will prove 
 .an Apoftolick Inf. Nihility, properly and formally fuch ? As fir Stephens 
 doing Aliracles, and being endued with fuch JVijdom, as Adverfarics could not re- 
 fift h'tm : I deny the Confequence, that therefore he had Infallibility, or 
 Gifts of Miracles of that Nature and Extent, or to fuch a p-oper imme- 
 diat End, as was competent to the Apoflles, r.pon the Ground aheady 
 exhibite. Next, He tells us, That Matthias was not immtdiatly, calLd, but 
 by the Apoflles, yet had power to continue that SucceJJion to the End. I deny his 
 Affertion, which is among the reft cf his gratis dicta: It is evident to any, 
 that but reads the Hiftorv, that Matthias was by GODs immediar choice 
 and Declaration by a Lot (the Difpofal whereof, is of the LORD) fee 
 a part for his Work and' Office, and GOD was fought unto by Prayer to 
 fhew His Mind, as touching this Choice: Which therefore, was immedi- 
 atly his own. It is true, the Apoflles, who had the Mind of CHRIST, 
 did with the confent cf the Church, prefent the two zt the LORD, but 
 the Choice and Call was GODs. And the prefenting of thefe Eminent 
 Perfons to GOD by the Church, will no more prove that Mttthia* w t s 
 called and authorized by them, than the Peopies prefenting the feven 
 Deacons to the Apoflles, to be ordained, will prove that they, not the 
 .Apoflles, ordained them. The Dr. tells us, That the fir ft Afofiks were Iflc- 
 
 nefes of Chrifts Re fur reel ion yet this did not make thtm Awftkr. W 
 
 does he drive at? None layes, that merely to witneis this, made an 
 them Apoflles, or that to be an immediat Witnefs of it, was iiiciiipcnlah- 
 ly needful in order to the Apoftolick Office: For, fo was not the Apotrle 
 faul: Altho there is no doubt but that the Teftimony of CMRLSTs Reilir- 
 rc&ion, was a great Point of the Apoftolick Docti'n e and Teftira6i 
 But the Dr. will needs add his Prt P, Of dje, faith he, Matthias Mi 
 an Apofile before he was btvefted. Who wouid not pit : . | ertine-nc 
 
 mrilngs? I know none who a fle its, tfaat to be a Wknefc cf CiLRl 
 
 * 
 
i oS T>r. Monro's Tleadings Chap- III. 
 
 Refurre&ion made an Apoftle; Who knows not that feveral 'Women (in- 
 capable of a Miniftry) were among the early and firft Witneffes of our 
 LORDs Refurre&ion: Befides, that the Dr. has not proved that Matthi- 
 at was fuch an immediat Witnefs. The Dr c s. Conclufion (ibid.) is 
 That the Effence of th% Apoftolick Office, conftfied not in extraordinary Priviledgcs, 
 fo plentifully poured out on thtfirfl Minifiers and Converts. We have told him, in 
 whatSenfe,the Apoftolick Office included thefe Ingredients thereof: And 
 even granting that fome of thefe extraordinaryPriviledges or Gifts,might 
 have been in fome Senfe communicated to other Officers,-The Dr, is never 
 a white nearer his ConcIunon 3 fince the Apoftles proper Work and Fun&i- 
 on connfted in this, to lay the Foundation of the Gofpel Church, to plant 
 and water it, and as being infallibly infpired,to order theOrdinances and 
 Oncers thereof, as being Immediat and Catholick Officers of the fame : 
 Herein, we have often told him, lay their Office, as to its main Effenti* 
 als, and unto this their other Prerogatives, were Subfervient. Now, in 
 all his Inftances, he has exhibite none, who ever did or could fhare with 
 them in this Priviledge. 2. He alledges (P. 96.) That we include among the 
 Effentials of their Office, their un confined Commiffion to propagat the Gofpd 
 
 among all Nations ~- •- which neceffarly includes an Immediat Re~ 
 
 lation, in a&u fecundo , to the whole Church, and inferrs their Duty to 
 
 he of the Nature and Extent, as above expreff Yet he neither can, 
 
 nor offers to give the leaft jfhadow of any fuch Officer, that did or 
 could fhare with the Apoftles, or come up to them in this Preroga- 
 tive. The Dr. Concludes, That the Nature and Effence of the Apofiolhk 
 Office is perpetual. His Conclufion is like fome Mulhroms, that Naturalifts 
 fpeaks of as a Miracle of Nature, becaufe they grow without a Root: 
 His Reafon [that cur Saviour promifed to be with them to the end ] is as far re- 
 mote from the Conclufion, as Eaft is from Weft, taking the effence of 
 the Office, in a proper formal Senfe, as Apoftolick. For, himfelf will not 
 fay, that this promife will includ the continuance of all the Apoftolick 
 Priviledges or Gifts, feveral of which, he .holds to be expired. And there- 
 fore, it muft ftill come under trial, wherein their Office was fucceeded, 
 even when this is admitted. Flow he has proven this, to be the Nature 
 and Effence of their Office, we have feen above. Parous, with the current 
 of Proteftant Divines, takes the place he cites, to import a general promife 
 to the whole Church, in fpecal the Faithful Minifters, the Apcftles true 
 Succceflbrs,- thus he Paraphrafes it [ Nee paucis tantum diebus, fed omnibus 
 vohtfeum ero/nec vobifcum t ant um Jed & vcbis mortuis & cum veftris fucceffcribur 
 FidelibusEvangeliiDoclorlbus Ecclefiarum Vaftoribzts ufque ad confummationem fa- 
 adi~\ That the Lord promifed to be with his Apcftles, and when they 
 were gone, with all their true Su'cceffbrs, the faithful Paftc xs and Do- 
 olors of the Church till the end of the World, This 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i o-p 
 
 Th^s derived Power, faith the Dr. (P. ioo ) is ftriclly Jure Divino : No 
 rioubt,that Power which the Apoftlesderived,isfuch. He adds, that nothing 
 can more formally difiinguifli an Apcfjtle from alt other Mini ft en of the Gofpel OE- 
 cwomy, than a fupreme Spiritual Tower to Govern Ecdefiajthk affairs by their 
 Authority , of which they an to give account to cur Saviour. But we have often 
 told him, that this Supreme Tower, molt formally includes an immediat 
 Relation unto, and Univerfal infpedion over the whole Church, and the 
 nature of the Work, and confequently the Office, as is above ex.preft. 
 And the Dr. when pat to let us fee the perfons, who are the Subjects of 
 this conveyed Power, what ordinary Church Officers, are the proper Re- 
 cipients thereof, muft go to Utopia to feek them ,• and in his arguing tra- 
 verfes in an inextricable Labyrinth,- which, be fides what is faid, his in 
 this late PafTage, a new proof: For, he fays, that the Afofiles were to give 
 an account to our Saviour of this Tower, described by him. He will not 
 fay , they were to give this account merely, as all Minifiers are, 
 \h a mediat Senfe ; For thus, he would contradict his Scope, of deli- 
 neating their Supreme Power; fo, that his meaning muft be, that they 
 were to give an account only to our Saviour, and were accountable or 
 Subject to no Church Judicatory upon Earth, for their Adminiftration. 
 Now, Mr. Dr. except the Vope oi Rome, your -dear Patron, I know no 
 Church Officer, whofe head this infallible Mitre will fute ; unlets thefe 
 Supreme Infallible s be multip.ied, according to the Number of Biflwps or 
 Arch -Biflwps, it muft neceifarly refolve thus in the Supreme incontrolabte 
 Patriarch : And what abfurdity there is either in the one, or the other, I 
 need not mew. We are told next, that the Name, with the Office, was de- 
 rived to others, be/ides the Twelve-*- a?id Epaphroditus muft needs be the Phi- 
 lippians Ap of tie and YSiftop. becaufe called their Apoftle, Philip. 2. 25-. How 
 impertinent this inference is, we have heard above. The Dr. alledges, 
 the word lignifies always a Melfenger from God to Men. But Mr. Dr. 
 your always, is here notab'v baffled, fince, he is exprefly called [ their 
 M ffenger ,fent to Paul, to Mini ft er to his wa?ns~\ This looks like a Melfenger 
 from iS/Lcn to Men, unlets the Dr. will deifie the Philippians, and deny 
 them to be Men. 
 
 (P. 1 01. ) Our Engl ifh Tranfatcrs mifs their Mark, not only hire, but in 2. 
 Cor. 8. 2;. in Tranfating it thus [ the MefTengers of the Churches, and the 
 Glory of Chrift. ] What Glry of Chrift -was it, faith he. that thefe Apoftles 
 were imployed from one Church to another — ? but their Authoritative Delegation 
 w is his Glory. Therefo e, the Dr. will have them under ft ml to be their Apoftles 
 orllijhops. I Anfwer, the Tranflaton could not but know, that the Senfe 
 and context neceifarly led them to this Interpretation; the Apoftle, being 
 to commend unto this Church, while in treating of this Point of the Col- 
 
 CL q leftron 
 
no 2)r. Monro*! Pleadings Chap. III. 
 
 e&ion, the integrity of Titus, and the other Brethren, who, upon his ex- ] 
 hortation, were come unto them, f>r this end, it follows neceiTarly, 
 that their MiliDn and Milage here intimated by this epithet, muft be the 
 fame with th it of Titus; So> that both appear to be fent in the fame man- 
 ner, and to th<z fame fcope, As for the Dr c s Reafon, its palpably naught;, 
 the Apoliles fcope is., to ftir up this Church to their Duty of Chanty, by 
 thefe highEhgies put upon the VIeffenger fent to them,beginning withT/V^ 
 whom- he GUTls his Partner and Fellow- Labourer ,«and the Argument is ftrong, 
 and lyes Level to the Apoftles Scope and Conciufion, % 24. [ therefore, 
 (hew ye to them, and before the Churches, the proof your Love ~] why to them ? 
 The Reafon is, I hive imployed in this Meffage to you, fuch eminent and 
 Faithful Minifters, who are, as in that capacity, the Glory ofChrift. I muft 
 tell him further, that as CrLlIST Gloried to do the meaneft Service to his 
 Saints, and Humbled nimfelf to Death for them, fo fuch Minifters arelik- 
 e.ft their Mafter, who efteem the meaneft Service to hisEleft, their Glory, 
 and' above all worldly Dignity. Angels are Miniftring Spirits to GodsE- 
 le&-. DjvjJq deemed it m ;re Honourable to be a Door-keeper in hisHoufa 
 than all worldly Glory. Hisfenfe of Rom. 16. 7. Will not help him,againft 
 the current oft he Context and Interpreters. The Belgick Divines Tranflate: 
 it [ Rmoumd-among Apoftles'] i. e.fay they them that Preach the Gofpelhere 
 and there — or well known with the Apoftles. Diodat, and the Englijh Annot> 
 takeicto import [Excellent Evangeli [is or Preachers J or [fuch as were wellknown^ 
 to the Apoftles ] 
 
 Bat now our Dr. (P. ror. 102.) will obviat one main Objection ta- 
 ken from the narrow Limits of the fee ondarie Apoftles, as he calls them ; 
 2^£y,* ; faith he, alters not the Nature of their Apoftolieal Power, within their 
 Bounds, no more than Kings o/Judah, can be denyed the Honour of fitting upon the 
 
 Throne of 'David, in full Power and Royality, after the Apofiacy they were 
 
 a* truely Kings as any of their Predicejfors, as Solomon, tho the number of 
 Subjects wis not equal. Anf. I pray, was not in his Senfe, the Red; or all 
 Spiritual Power, which our LORD conferred upon his Difciples and A- 
 podles, of the Nature and Extent above expreft, and fuch, as he calls Su- 
 preme over all Church Officers, and all other Believers } And fayes he not ex- 
 
 prefly, that this very Power, thus-defcribed by him, is. Efentialto the A- 
 pjtolick Office, anal Permanent, and that the Apoftolick Office being no other 
 than this, remains for ever in the Church? How then is it poffible, that fiich, 
 Officers, as derive down this extenfive Apoftolick Power, mould crum- 
 ble into a petty Diocefs? How are fuch petty confined Siicceffors^Suprems, 
 ancLawr all Church Officers ? 2. The Dr. Similitudinary and paralel Rea^ 
 fon, curts the Sinews of his Pleading and Argument. It is true, Kings 
 ^2*^&fat u£oa 4( B5wi&\ Throne, in full Power ovex Judak$ But Ipray^ 
 
 dich 
 
Chap. Ill: For Epifcopacy, Examined* r r r 
 
 did they (ucceed to David or Solomons Throne or Dignity, as they leP 
 it? I trow not. Now, he has told us, that the Bijhops fucceed the Apoftles* 
 in that fame Supreme Authority over Church Officers, and all Believers, 7vhich 
 Chrifl committtd untothem. Should Englandbe divided into two Kingdoms, 
 or into an Heptarchy, will any fay, that the Man who fucceeds to one of 
 thefe petty Dominions, fucceeds to the Crown of England, or unto the 
 Kings thereof, becaufe they poflefs a part of his Throne and Dominion ? 
 Surely -not: And fo the Cafe is here. In a word, lince in the Dr f s, Senfe, 
 the narrowing the Limits of the Authority, impeaches not the Epifccpal 
 Power, and (ince, he will, no doubt, owne tbe Maxime, Majm & mi- 
 nus non variant fpeciem, Nazianzsn, and fuch Bifioys, as aie faid to have had 
 but little Dorps for their Diocejfes, had this Apoftolick Power. What con- 
 fluence this will bear, in reference to Paftors, fome whereof, have a 
 larger Diftrid:, I have already told him. 
 
 P. 102. The Apoftles Bounds and Provinces of their In fpecJion- — was not as 
 
 equal as their Power it [elf ] wherewith they were vejled Who doubts of this ? 
 
 Whatever was their Condefcenfion this way, and adjufted Meafures of 
 Travels, for the more commodious fpreading of the Gofpel, yet by ver- 
 tue of their Ccmmiffion, their Authority reached the whole World, and 
 all Churches planted and to be planted, and this ccnjundly and feveral- 
 ly. As when the twelve Spies were fent to Canaan, whatever waves they 
 might have feparatly gone, in a voluntary Condefcenfion, yet their Au- 
 thority and Commiffion, joyntly and a part, immediatly and formally, 
 reached to a fearch of the whole Land. But I need not labour in proving 
 this,- For the Dr. is. fo ingenuous, as to c^nfefs it, telling us, That thedif- 
 ferent extent of places, to which they went, did not alter or change that Reftcral 
 Power and JurifdiBion wherewith they were endued: But thus he inferrs (i!\ 
 no more did the Apoflolick Authority tranfmittcd toSuceeJJors, differ from that w 
 was lodged in the fir fi Apoftles, tho confined in its excrcije to narrower Limits. But\ 
 good Mr. Dr. the Paralel is pitty fully Lame, the Original Authority 
 lodged in the Apoftles, by our LORDs Commiffion, is, by your Con- 
 feffion and Defcription, immediatly relative to all Churches, and all Believ- 
 ers in them; So, that, this immediat Relation, and a Right to OJficiat upon Occ. 
 accordingly, was ftill Vigent and Exiitent, with any one of die Apoftles, 
 tho ordinarly exerciiing their Miniftry in never fo narrow a Circle, everv 
 one of them, being Univerfal Differs, Bijlwps, and hjpedors of the. who!". 
 Gatholick Church, planted and to be piamcd, and that ex naxma oft 
 as Apoftles: But 1 hope, ye will not fay this of the Bifijop; he being 
 properly and immediatiy related only to his Diocefs. It had been a grots 
 abfurdity to fay, Paul t ovJames^ are only Afvftle s oiiuch or fuch a Provi': 
 •and have a Relation Apoftoliculto no ether Churchy ask is prober to E 
 
 tins 
 
i it, T)r. Monroes T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 this Man as Bifhop of fuch a Diocefs, has an immediat Relation to it, and 
 to no Diocefs elfe. How often ihall we tell the Dr. ( whole naufeous Re- 
 petitions forces us to repeat) that the Apoftles were capable of no par- 
 ticular fixed Ralation to any one Flock or Diocefs, being as Apoftles^ vi 
 &natur a officii, CatholickDo&orsof the Church Cathoiick, and conflant 
 infallible Infpeclovs and Directors of its Government, and all the Ordi- 
 nances <\nc\ Officers thereof; And confequently, that this their proper for- 
 mal OFTce of Apoflolat, went off, and expired with that infant State and 
 Exigence of the Church, and couidjnever be fucceeded unto by any Church 
 Officer? 
 
 P. 105. We are told, That the Apoftles by lot divided the places of their Tra- 
 vels — and went about what fell to their flare. None doubts of this in gene- 
 ra^ tho the particular Account of their dividing the World by lots, and 
 who were to go to Afia, who to Scythia, &c. is apiece of Difcovery on 
 the back of the Bible j which we let pafs among the reft of the Dr c s pro- 
 found Notions. He adds, Its plain, that when Matthias was chofen, it was to 
 take the lot of his Minifiry and Apofilefljip. Who -doubts of this either? And 
 that every Apoftle had a fhare-of this Minifiry of Apoflolat, becaufe all 
 of the fame Office. But this will noways infer ( except by the DrYLo- 
 gick, which can prove quidlibet ex quolibet ) that they were capable of a 
 fixt Relation to any one Pofi, or Watch Tower of the Church. That 
 they Governed the Churches where they refided/as the Dr. next tells us) 
 we doubt not. Tho I add, if the Churches were conflirute in their Or- 
 ganick Beeing, according to Gofpel Rules, their Apoflolick Infpe&ion 
 was Cumulative unto,not Privative of the Government of the Ordinary Officers 
 Con flit ute therein. He adds, (ibid.) They committed their Apoftclical Epifcopal 
 Jnjpeclion to particular Perjons, who fucceeded them, evm in their Apoflolick Au- 
 thority. This is the™ z«TKf4m» the Queftion, which the Dr.flill Cants over with- 
 out Proof. We have often told him, that their Apoflolick RecJoral Power 
 ( as he calls it ) related immediatly to the Cathoiick Church : And to 
 fay, that this they committed to particular Perfons, related to one fixed 
 Poft, and by Confequence folely Paflors or Bijhops thereof, in an immedi- 
 at proper Senfe, and fubjeel: to Superior Collegiat Churches and Judica- 
 tories, ( which he muft needs hold, unlets he embrace the Independent Prin- 
 ciples, and he cannot deny, that de Faflo, the Bifiops. he pleads for, were 
 and are thus fubjed) is as great Non-Senfe, as to fay, a Man fuc<;eeding 
 to a Privat Cure, fucceeds a Metropolitans Place, or that the Perfon who 
 fucceeds to an EpifcopaJ Chair, doth fucceed to thePapacy, in its fuppofed 
 Uedoral Power. The Dr. doth here again Cant ever, That their RecJoral 
 Power diflinguifljt them from all Subordinat Officers. And from hence we ratio- 
 nally infers that all Ordinary Officers, being Infeiior and Subordinat to 
 
 diem, 
 
 1 
 
Chap. III. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examined. m> 
 
 them, this Re&oral Power reacht all Officers -and Believers, as to the J (it 
 it felf and confequently the Exercife upon Occafion: And that therefore, the 
 Dr. abfurdly calls this their Power Permanent, and as abfurdly holds, that 
 Officers related to particular Ports, did therein fucceed them. 
 
 P. icu, 104. The Dr. thus proceeds, When the Evangelical Triefthccd 
 ( fl ill Prielthood ) got its Qualified Officers, Bifhops and Priefts were not to en- 
 croach upon one another , but every one was to Feed the Flock within the Limits al- 
 lot ed to him. Now, here is aConfeffion, which contradicts and baffles all 
 his Pleadings; For, even thefe pretended fucceeding Bifijops and Apofiles, 
 in his Senfe, could not, without Impeaching Chrifts Oi der, and Encroa- 
 ching on their Fellows, go beyond their Limits, in the Exercife of their 
 Miniftry : And he will no: deny, that this Limited Miniftry flowed from 
 the very Nature of their Fixt and Limited Office: But will he dare to fry, 
 that any one of the Apoftles, werejghus Limited, cr had an Office of this 
 Nature, or that they would have jSpcroached upon the Authority of any 
 of thefe hisfuppofed fixed BijJiops, If Officiating within their Bounds, and 
 -Exercifing their Apoftolick,Re&oral Power, in an immediat manner,with- 
 out their previous Confent, as one Bijhop or Pa/lor cannot, yea may not, 
 upon this Ground, thus Officiat. But, faith the Dr, (ibid.) They were not 
 fo Confined to their Sees, hut that their Epifcopal Care reacht the whole Church, 
 as far as ww poffible ^andChrifiian Charity did require. I Anfwer, 1. So is no Pa- 
 fior fixt to his Pod, but as a Watchman upon Jerujalems Walls, and thus 
 having an immediat Relation to the Qatholick Church, his Pafior al Care, 
 in its Exercile,in an Orderly Way,is capable of a further Extenfion. The* 
 Church of God is a City, that has Watchmen fet upon her Walls, and in 
 their fcveral Ports, whole Care mutt, in a mediat Senfe, reach the whole 
 City, but cannot in its Exercife be extended, but according to the Garri- 
 fon-Laws and Discipline,- So, that thus, the Dr. will make any Pafior fuc- 
 ceed the Apojlks: For, he will not deny, that the Pafioral Care is of this 
 Nature,- Nor can he affign any Reafon why, iince the Bijhop is tyed to his 
 Limits, as well as the Pafior , the Pafior -tf/Care is not capable of fuch an Ex- 
 teniion of its Exercife, ?.s£s futeabie to the Churches Edification. But, 
 2. The Dr. fpeaks improperly and confufedly, when he affigns no other 
 Rules and Meafures of this extended Care, 'b\itCbrifiianCharity, andapof- 
 (ibility thereof merely : For, unlefs he tin n Independent , and deny all Subordi- 
 nation of Church Officers and Courts, he muft needs acknowledge, that 
 this Extenfionof Exercife, muft come under the Regulation, andAurhoii- 
 tirivc InfpecYion of Superior Judicatories ;the Spirits of the Prophets being 
 iubjeel: to the Prophets. And the Church Keprcfenutive mult be itiil fup- 
 ppied the proper Minifteiial Judges ofhej greater Good and Edifi- 
 cation, which is the great Ground of this Extenfion« So, that its pitiful- 
 
 Jl r lv 
 
i 14 T>r. Monroes T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 ly impertinent to fay, that its only Chrifiian Charity, and the flmple Voffir 
 bility- of the Thing in it Jelf confedered, whereof thePerfon himfelf is fuppofed 
 Judge, that regulats this Matter of fo high Importance. Who will fay, 
 that a- Sentinel's Exercife of Military Infpe&ion, can be extended beyond 
 his Poft and Station affigned him, by the Governour and Officers of the 
 Garrifon, upon mere Charity y and a Voffibility of this further Extenfion, 
 without Refpecl: to what the Military Difcipline, and the Authority of 
 the Governour and Officers, will allow? Now, to fubfume, I befeech 
 this Dr. to tell me plainly, and fpeak it out, were the Apoftles, by'ver- 
 tue of their Office, to extend their Apoftolick Infpedtion from one Church 
 or Countrey to another, only after this Manner, and by fuch Rules and ' 
 Meafures? And dare he deny,that they were to follow theSpiritsConduet e- 
 very where, and by vertue of their Office, had an immediat Accefs to 
 Exercife their Authority over all Cheches, wherever they came, and 
 were fubje<5t to no Churches Infpe&ioi*, or Direction in this Matter? Can 
 he not here fee a palpable Diftin&ion of the Office of Apoftolat, from all 
 ordinary Officers, as that of the Commanders of a Garrifon, who are cal- 
 led to go the Round over all the Pofts and Sentinels, to take Infpe&ion o- 
 ver, and Direcfc them, differs neceffarly and effentially from the Office 
 and Charge of thofe, who are in thefe fixed Pofts, whether their Infpe&i- 
 on be of a Larger or Leffer Extenfion ? And hence it appears, that unlefs 
 the Dr. can let us fee fuch Officers in Scripture, whofe proper Work was 
 of this Nature 3 fucceeding the Apoftles in chelnfpe&ion mentioned, and 
 haying fuch a Power devolved upon them, he will never prove it from the 
 QccafionalTranfient Officiating of Fixed Officers, beyond their Limits, Directed 
 and Authorized therein, by, and under the Infpe6Hon of Superior Church 
 Officers and Judicatories. As for his Citation of Caufabon, Exercit. 14. ad 
 Annal. Baron* N. 14. touching the Bijhops peculiar Care cf their own 
 Block, yet fo, as fuo quodam modo y they Cared for the whole Church : 
 I X nothing doubt, but that it may have a Safe and Sound Senfe, when ap- 
 ply ed^to every ¥aftor y whofe mediat Care, aclu primo, (ue modo, reaches 
 the : whole Church. And#ie Citation quite baffles the Dr. For, if their 
 care reached to a peculiar Charge committed to them infolidum, it was toto 
 *^lo different from the Apoftolick care and Ujarge^s is above made good. And 
 the Dr. in faying, that this exatlly rejembled the Features and Lineaments of the 
 Jpofteliek Office 3 {hews himfelf to be as bad 8c unskilful in the Art of Limning, 
 as unfincereand unskilful inDifput. For, fuch a Confined,Limited Mi.-» 
 niftry, under fuch Regulations, as is above exprefTed, cannomoreRepre- 
 fent the Features and Lineaments of the Apoftolick Office, in a proper 
 formal Senfe, and inks intire Nature, as delineat in Scripture, than ahand. 
 o^FpptfisaReptefcntthe Lineaments. of an imke.Body, For whathe adds* 
 
Chap. Ill: For Epifcopacy, Examined, r r 5 
 
 ibid. That Confinement to a particular See, proceeds not from the Nature of the Prieft- 
 hood y frut Rules of Prudence and Ecclefia ft ieal O Economy and Canonical Conftituti- 
 ons. He (peaks confufedly, and without Senfe. For, this being the Na- 
 tnre of the Prieft-hood or Miniftry, viz: That it is Gods Ordinance, de- 
 signed for Edification, it muft be confequently Adapted and meafured to 
 this end : And therefore, whatever Perfon, hath an ordinary Miniftry 
 committed to him, muft have it in fuch a proportion, as his Cafe andper- 
 fonal ability can reach; God committing to no Man, an immediat infpe- 
 clionof the Cathoh'ck Church, as his peculiar Charge : So, that whate- 
 ver be the particular individual Limits of the Charge, which is left to the 
 Churches Prudence to affign, yet theperfons having fuch a Limited Charge, 
 as is above difcribed, flows from the Nature of the ordinary Miniftry , 2nd 
 the State and Cafe of the Church, when the extraordinary Office of Apofto- 
 lat is expired. And to Convince the Dr. of this, and of the Folly of this 
 L XL Aflertion, that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Na- 
 ture of the P isfhood, I would put to him this Querie: Whether the Align- 
 ing unto ontBifiop an Uuniverfal Infpe&ion and Primacy over the Catho- 
 lick Chnrch, would be any impeachment of theNature of hisPrieft-hood 
 or Miniftry Afligned to him by G d, yea or not ? If not,- then who fees, 
 not that he owns the Lawfulnefs and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy y 
 cfpecialy, if the. Chureh flic uld Corroborat this by an Universal Conftitu- 
 tion ? If he fay, tn at this extenfvon were contrary to the Nature of the 
 Vrieft-hood;T\ien he Contradicts himielf, in AiTerting, that the Vrieft-hood of 
 its ownNature ^requires noConfinment,as he calls it,-anclinCalling it fo,heInfinu- 
 atsfome fort ofV iolence offered to theNature ofthisMiniftrv. Befides,thefe 
 Conftitutions he mentions, Confining Biihops to a certain Charge, are ci- 
 ther crofs orCorrefpondent to theNature and ends ofa Gofpei-Mimihv 
 expreffed in Scripture : If crofs thereunto,- then lure they are not Lawful, 
 unleis he will fay, God gives the Church Authority tocnud Conftitutions 
 crofs to his Revealed Will, and confequently paramount to his own Rules 
 and Authority : Which, whether it be greater nonlenfe or Biafphcmy, is 
 hard to determin. If they be Correfpondent to the Nature andtndscf 
 ffdAiiniftr), how can he deny, that fuch a Confinment or Conftitutions 
 proceed from theNature thereof? His Reafon added, viz. That the Apo~ 
 Jtles ordained Bijhops for the Spiritual Service of fuch as jhculd believe, is as void of 
 Senfe or connection, as any can be: For, fo are all Pajtcrs ( the trueSciin- 
 ture Bifiops ) ordained by Anoftles. But will he be bold to fav, or if h« 
 fay, will not all Men of Senfe hifs him, That the Ape fins ordained all and eve- 
 ry Biflwp or Miniftcr, for tie acfual immediat Service of all Bdievers of the C. 
 luk Church, as their proper peculiar Work and Chsrge? This he muft eicr. :: i:v y 
 oc his Reafon is nought. Nay^ will he not :huscontrad;cl: lwnieif,in affii -- 
 
 ming. 
 
n6 T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap IIL 
 
 ming his Secondary Apoftles, (as he calls them) to differ in Extenfion of 
 Power from the firft Apoftles ? 
 
 P, 105-. We are told, That the Apoftles committed their Re&oral Power over fuh- 
 crdgtat Ecclefiaftieksto particular perfons, fttcceeding in their Room, infarticular 
 Chunhes. Another piece of Repeated nonfenfe. The Apoftles by their 
 Office, had an Univerfal immediat Infpe&ion over ail Ecclefiafticks, or 
 Church Officers of the Catholick Church, as himfelf defcribs their Office: 
 Yet this their proper formal 'Office, thus described by him, he will needs 
 have them to devolve upon particular perfons, fixed to particular Church- 
 es,* as good Senfe as to lay, the King Commits his Regal Vrimacy and Re- 
 doral Power over his Kingdom, when dying, or. leaving it,unto the Man 
 whom he hath enftalled in the Office of a Sheriff. 
 
 Bat the Dr. tells us, that he will now propofe the true State of the Contro- 
 verfy. I am forry a Doclor has difouted fo long upon a Queftion, and 
 has yet the State of the Controverfy to propofe. Common Ingenuity 
 end Rules of Difpute, would have prompted him in the firft place, to 
 propofe the true State of the Queftion, and explain the Terms thereof: 
 But thefe Rules are tooPcdantick for our Dr. who isrnore inclined to Pam- 
 phleting Harrangues, than Syftematick Divinitie. Well, what State of the 
 Queftion offers he ? Thus it is, [ Whether the Apoftles committed 4 heir Ape ft 0-* 
 lick Authority , they exercifeh in particular Churches, to fuch Jingle perfons, duelie 
 and regular lie chofen; Or to a Colledge of Presbyters, acling in admins ftrat ion of 
 Ecclefiaftick Affairs in a perfect Paritse and Equalitie?] I mall be glad to admit 
 this State of the Queftion/ when one Exception is offered by way ofCau- 
 tion, Viz,: That as we grant an Ordinary Authority, which the Apoftles 
 exercifed in particular Churches, contained in their Office Eminent er 3 
 which they tranfmitted to Succeffors^ So, we deny, that. the Authority, 
 which they tranfmitted to thefe ordinary fucceeding-Officers, was an Au- 
 thority properly and formally <Apoftclical, ov fuch, ' in a formal Senfe, as them- 
 felves exerci/ed. And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Senfe 
 and Judgement of found Divines, who diftinguifh the expired Apoftolick 
 Office and Authority ,U am that ordinary Power and Authority, which they trans- 
 mitted to Succefibrs. What next ? We are told, (ibid.) That the Scripture- 
 confufion of Names (might I prefume to prefcribe a better Term to fuch a 
 Mafter of Language, as our Dr. I fhculd rather, to evite an apparent Re- 
 flection on the Holy Ghofts Language, call it Community or Homonymie) 
 will not prove Community of Offices, when perfons are undwyablie diftingui\hed y 
 with regard to their Authoritie. If we forget this mighty Caution of our 
 warry Dr. we muft not blame him, if an unwearied .Repetition will help 
 us. The Dr. will have this fixed, that we fight not in the dark. The 
 Tresbjtmans do hold this as fixed as he* What next ? 
 
 P. ioj-. 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. \\y 
 
 P. i oy. 1 06. The LORD promi fed a perpetual Duration of the Apoftolick Office ' 9 
 not in their perfonal but Spiritual Capacities he loving his Church as much after 
 
 at before his withdrawing If then they conveyed their Epifc opal Power tofingh 
 
 per fins in all particular Churches, and not to a Colledge oj Vresbyter shafting in a Va~ 
 ritie and Equal it ie, then the Divine Right of Epifcopal Government is clear lie E- 
 fiablifad. But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Tetitio VrincipH, and 
 take that For the Ground and Topick of his Argument, which is in the 
 Qtfcftios; Yea, and in the Queftion by his own Confeffion, viz: That 
 the Apoftolick Office is perpetual, permanent, andfucceeded unto, in a proper formal 
 Senfe ? What ftrange ( may I call it Impertinency, or ) Inadvertancy is 
 this? Since himfelf afferts that we deny fuch a perpetual Office of Apof- 
 tolat, and he oppofes above, his definition anent their permanent, perpetual 
 Office unto Presbyterians affertion of theoontrary, and their Definition af- 
 ferting the Apoftles Tranjitorie FuncJhn. 2. His Proof from Chrifts pro- 
 tnife and constant care of the Church, is, in the Senfe of all Pr^e/ta^unfound 
 and foolifh, and he is therein inconfiftent with himfelf : For, in their 
 Senfe (yea, and by his own Confeffion) there are many expired Prero- 
 gatives of Apoftles* yea 8c Gifts oi Officers in the firft Apoftolick Church, 
 which notwithftanding impeaches not, either that promife of Chrifts con- 
 firant Care of his Church,or his conftantLove thereunto: And therefore,k 
 reflets neither upon the cne, nor the other, that this formal Office of A- 
 poftolat, confiding of fuch expired Prerogatives, is ceafed. Nay, him- 
 felf confeffes, that without Impeachment of either of thefe, the Apoftles 
 Ext en five, universal Power is changed unto a Limited and Confined Inj'pecliox 
 cfBijhops. Tho the Contexture of his Reafoning, renders him in tiiis in- 
 confiftent with himfelf, Chrifts Care and Prcmife are abundantly verifi- 
 ed in the Eftabliihment of fuch a Government and Officers in His Church, 
 as are futed to her Edification and Prefervation in all times and places. I 
 cmnot but further remark the Dr c s. changing the Term cf \Apo ft 'click Of- 
 fice'] which he holds to be tranfmitted to Succeffors, into that of [Epifco- 
 pal Power] as if thefe were all one. But this is fuch a confufion of Names 
 and Things, as cannot be admitted. But proceed we. 
 
 The Queflicn the Dr. will needs have to be a Matter cfFaft, to be decided 
 by Teftimony. Whom the Apoftles appointed Succeffors is [ Mutter of Fad ] 
 iimplely confrdered; But t\\\$[Matter ofFatt]mui\ have a Divine Teftimony 
 to clear it, it being [a Divive FatT\ (to call ic fo) of Chrifts Infallible, Di- 
 vinely Infpired Apoftles, in the management of the Truft committed to 
 them, in founding and modelling the Gofpel Churches. And confequent- 
 ly, in enquiring into this Point, we muft take our Meafures, both from 
 their Do&rine and Practice, if we acknowledge the Apoftles had no 60- 
 vcraign, independent, but Subordinat, Subaltern Power, Authorized 
 
 S f and 
 
1 1 8 T>r. Monro's Weddings Chap IIL 
 
 and prefcribed by their great Matter/ whofe Dodrine and Meafures 
 prefcribed in his Holy Teftament, we muft therefore look unto. So tharj 
 when the Dr. afTerts, There can be no decifive frcof of this, but by- Teftimcnie?. 
 He mould have -called it [ Divine Teftimonie ] for an Human Teftimony 
 can here have no place, when the Queftion is anent the Apoftles Dcclrine 
 and Practice, in point of Church Government'. And therefore, what the Dr% 
 adds, viz: That the Teftimony a Hedged by him and the Epifcopalians, is fe, 
 much the ftronger, upon the Ground of the Reception thereof, Difcovers his bad 
 Defign of leaving out the Qualification of Divine, in the Teftimony to 
 which- he appeals ,*- And likewayes, his abfurd alledging, that a Divins 
 Teftimony is ftrengthened* by an Human, as influencing a ftronger Prcof in 
 eodem genere Caufa. That the Church knew no other Government than Prelacy, 
 for fourteen hundred Tears fas the Dodor is bold to affert ) mall be admit- 
 ted, when he mall exhibit the full Accounts and Records cf thefe 1400 
 Years afferting fo much. To proceed. 
 
 To prove that the Apoftles ReBoral Towtr, was by them tranfmittedimmedi* 
 atfy to finale Succeffors, the Dr. tells us ( ibid. ) that he will firft view the Holy 
 Scriptures, then Ecclefaftical Records. Firft view, I fay only and properly view , 
 ift order to this proof: For, 1. our Faith of this, is a Divine Faith, which 
 therefore cannot be founded upon an human Teftimony, elfe it were but an 
 human Credulity . 2. Ecclefiaftick Records cannot be an infallible Comment u- 
 pon the Senfe of thefe Scriptures, wherein this Teftimony is contained: 
 And this uponfeveral weighty Grounds, which I have elfewhere exhibit;. 
 Since this were, (i.)Tofetupan higher Tribunal than the Scriptures. (2.) 
 Ye exelud an examination of the Human Teftimony by the Scriptures. (%.) 
 To make the Churches pradice the infallible Ruletodired our perfwafion. 
 m'rd pradice, in reference to every Scripture Truth and Duty, therein 
 held out. Befides, that neither this Dr, nor any for him, will ever exhi- 
 hie Authentick Records of the ChurchesUniverfal Practice fmce theApo- 
 1\\qs; many of the Ancients having written nothing at all, many of their 
 Writings alfo being loftmiany going under their Name, being Counterfeit, 
 and fuppofititious : And that none of thefe, did in this Matter contradict 
 t{ie Writers, whom the Dr. alledges in this Point, but did accord in judg- 
 i4>3ri£ andpradice with what he fuppofesthem to hold in Point of Epifccr 
 fifefy is a proof which lyes upon the Dodor as the affirmer, before his 
 Xrgument can be admitted as vaiid,and his Teftimonies be fuppofed har- 
 monious,- and this he will, no doubt, perform ad calendas Gr^cas* Who 
 knows not that the prime Hiftorian, Eu/ebim-, with many others, do ac~ 
 knowledge, that the mattered and maimed Records of the Eirft Ages after. 
 tliQ.ApG-fties ( which are in this Point moil confiderable ) are moft un»- 
 ^§^Ia .and 4ark^ as:© Mates*" of Fad .J. Aadudo therefor, exhibit but a.. 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifeopaey K Examined. 1 19 
 
 Lams and imperfect Teftimonyin this Matter: My work and fcope their, 
 is to examin the Dr c s Tleadmgs from a Divine Tefiimcny^ which I mall fully 
 perform. 
 
 C H A P; IV: 
 
 The T>r c s Troofofthe Divine Right of the Hierar- 
 chical Biihop, drawn from the pretended ^Epif- 
 eopaey o/"Timothy and Titus, and the Seven. 
 Afian Angels, Examined.. 
 
 HEre we find the Do&or Tracing the Steps of his Fellows, but gi- 
 ving their Notions and Arguments pitifully Inilpide, and no- 
 thing Recoded. In the fir ft place, faith he,, (P. 106, icj.) we 
 find Timothy fet over Ephefus by Paul, wRn he -went wwfoMace-- 
 donia. Which place he compares with AB-. 20. 3, 4. 1 Tin?,. 
 1* 3. [7 befought thee to abide at Ephefus, when I went into Macedonia, that 
 thou mightefi charge fome, that they Teach no olher DccJrine ] — - That Timothy 
 thereafter waited upon Paul, to yield yijfiftance in the Service cfKcligicn, he tells 
 us, cannot infer, he was difmgaged upon Occafional journeys frtm that Epifcopal 
 Inffeclion, particularly committed to him ,. in the Church of Ephefus by Pauh 
 Here is fuch aProof, as he might have feen long lince Battled andDifpro- 
 ved : 1. All that hold Timothies Office, zsEvangdift, ro be extraordinary, 
 and to have expired with that of Apoftles, (and this do the Body of IV- 
 tefiant Divines hold, as isabove evinced) will.confequently der.y his i 
 copal Inftalment over Ephcjus ; And put the Dr. to piove, that hisEvan^e- 
 liftick Office, here exprcfly enjoyned him, was Firfk, an ordinary Office 
 to be continued: Secondly, Formally and properly Epifcopal ,• or fuch as 1 
 import a fole and lingular Authority, Paramount to all the ordinary C 
 cers Authority in that Church, aiidExclulive thereof: Ar.d whatAnfwer 
 to thefe Demands, and Pro f of thefe Suppolitions is in the prcmifed Ar- 
 gumentjlet all Men judge .?. Had the Dr. been ferious in this Debate, ho 
 might have found, that ?rtshyter\am have exhibite from Scripture. S I 
 continual transient Jmplovments through theChurches,both before and 
 ter this fuppofed Laftalmenf. Jm Divinum M . vith dU 
 
 verfe. others, have mad<; this evident, 2, TheDr. ciiu\v ell to cxhibr 
 
i ^ o T>r. Monroes Thadings Chap. IV. 
 
 fuppofed Scripture Charter of Timothies pretended Inftalment, [Ibefougfc 
 thee to abide #r Ephefus, when 1 went /V/ta Macedonia, that thou might eft Charge 
 fome, that they Teach no other Doclrine ejrc.] Which the Presbyterians have long 
 fince told him, is a clear Proof of the contrary ,• fince there was no need 
 of fetch Importunity y if Paul had Committed the Epifcopal Charge over Ephe- 
 fus to him : For, thus he might have laid as Dreadful a Charge upon him, 
 .to abide at Ephefus^ as he doth afterward to Preach the Gojpel, 2 Tim. 4. 1.2. 
 They have told him, that the Words fpecifie an Occafional Imployment, and 
 are not Words 'of Inftalment <o any fixt Office or Bi(hoprick over that Church 
 and do clearly infmuat and point at an Intendment to Call him away 
 again- As accordingly, both he and Titus, are found actually Recalled, in 
 thefe fame Epiftles. For what the Dr. adds, That his Occafional Travels dif 
 sngaged him not from his Epifcopal Infection : It is long fince Presbyterians(zx\d 
 in fpecial, the Authors mentioned by him ) have Baffled this Anfwer,tel- 
 ling him,and fuch as have pleaded thus,that they are challenged to prove, 
 that any one, appointed Overleer of a particular Church, hadfuchaPla- 
 jnetary Motion, and Tranfient Imployment, as that of Timothy is proven 
 to have been. Or, 2. That either he or Titus, after this Imployment, did 
 oonftantly or ordinarly return to Ephefus or Crete, and not to the Places of 
 the Apoftles prefent Abode or Imployment. 3. They alfo tell him, 
 that this Anfwer is a Begging of the Queftion, fince all the Ground 
 of Inftalment exhibit here by the Dr. and his Fellows, is in that Charge in 
 Reference to Ephefus, wherein this Tranfient Imployment is clearly held 
 out. The Dr. adds, ( ibid. ) That Presbyterians would not take it kindly, if 
 told, that the Relation to their Flocks were loft, if upon Qecafions they werelmploy- 
 ed now and then to Vifit Forreign Churches. Certainly they would not, but 
 they take it as unkindly, that the Dr, inftead of an Illuftrating Argument 
 and Proof, by this Paralell, Beggs the Queftion ftill, and draws a Simile 
 from anlnftance, wherein there is a palpable Difparity and Diffimilitude; 
 For, in the Inftance adduced, the fixed Relation, Inftalment and Title 
 is fuppofed. 2. The ordinary fixed Attendance upon the Paftors Charge, 
 in Confequence thereof ; whereas, in the Cafe of Timothy his fixed In- 
 ftalment is begged, not proved, but rather a Tranfient Occafional Imploy- 
 ment pointed at in the very Place, which he Cites. Whence it clearly 
 follows, That this Tranfient Unfixt Miniftry, was Timothies Ordinary Imploy- 
 ment and Miniftry, 
 
 The Dr. proceeds to tell us ( ibid. ) That the Ancients took no notice oftha \ 
 Objeclion againft his Epifcopacy at Ephefus, and that in the 11. Act of the Coun- 
 cil of Chalcedon, Twenty feven Bishops are Reckoned from Timothy. What 
 notice the Ancients took of this Obje&ion, is not the Queftion. But 
 for the Catalogues, Presbyterians have long fince told him, what a poor Ar- 
 gument 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 1 z 1 
 
 gument this is, and have largely baffled this Phantaftical conceit; particu- 
 larly jus Divinum Minift. Ang. in Prop. 7. of the Appendix, in feveral 
 weighty Confederations., to which I refer him. They have therein made 
 appear, that in thefe Catalogues, befides, thatthereis anHomonomy in the 
 word Bifljop, the nearer they come to the A pottles days, they are themore 
 {uncertain and cntradiclory one to another; that the Catalogue-drawers 
 tpoke in the Language of their own times; and in thefe Catalogues, is a 
 far other defign than what is pretended by the Epifcopalians; that the Cata- 
 logues refolving in Apoltles or Evangelifts, who were not Biflwps, nor 
 fcouldbe properly, as not having an ordinary, but extraordinary Office, 
 the proof of a fucceflive Line of Biceps from them, which is drawn from 
 thefe Catalogues, appears palpably unfound and impertinent. 
 
 Before I pafs from this, fince the Dr. mentions AB. 20. 4, 5-. to prove 
 that Timothy was left atEphefus by Paul; He had done well to look down- 
 ward to the 28 r v. where he would have found the whole HLpifcopal Charge 
 over that Church committed after this to the Eiders or V afters of Ephefus, 
 before Timothies face, in Pauls laft farewell unto them, and this without 
 the leaft hint of any Intereft that Timothy had in or over them, or of their 
 precarious dependence upon him in this Matter. And here he might have 
 feen a pafTage looking like the Apoftles committing their Epifcopal Power, 
 or what was ordinary in their Fundion,toa Colledge of Presbyters, and con- 
 fequently a Scriptural Decifionof this Queftion and Contrcverfy againft 
 him. But to proceed. 
 
 The Dr. ( P. 107. 108 ) undertakes to prove from the Epiftles, that an 
 Epifcopal Authority was Committed to Timothy ; And to clear this by in- 
 ftances, viz,. That he is Charged not to rebuke an Elder, but intreat him, 1 Tim. 
 5. 1. Not to receive an accujation but before two or three Witneffes v, 19. To re- 
 buke fuch as Jin before* all, v. 20. Not to lay hands fuddenly, v. 22. To ordain 
 fuch Deacons as were blamelefs, 1, Tim. J. 14, i$\ Where his particular Relati- 
 on to that Church, is infinuat, the Aprfle Writing to him, to injhutl how to be- 
 have himjelfin the HoufeofGOD, &c. To thele the Dr. adds his Charge of the 
 care of Widows, and Objctts of Charity., and ordering the publick IVcrftrip and Li- 
 turgies of the Church 1 Tim: $". 9. iTim. 2. 1. I Inn. y. 21. He and he alone ,* 
 faith the Dr, is Charged to ob ferae thefe things, without preferring one he fore ano- 
 ther, doing nothing by partiality. Anf 1. It all thefe \\ dci ')] tiers ii.Vpofe 
 only in Timothy, an Evangeliftick, and confequentiv an cxrrordinary ex- 
 pired Infpection, not an Epifcopal and ordinaiy, then this Parade of the 
 Dr's Arguments cut off with one Blow: For,as for his proof of an Epifcc- 
 pal Relation to that Church, diawn from the Apoitles Jhewing his icope 
 to direct him, how to carry in the lioufe of GOD; it islo clearlv adap- 
 
 T t cd 
 
Vii i *Dr Monro's T leadings Chap- IV* 
 
 ted to tf» Evangeliftick InfpeBion over that androthr Churches, that it can af" 
 ford him no fhadow of a Reafon or Evafion. 
 
 For Convincing the Dr. of this, I mall make ufe of his own Paralel Ar- 
 gument, and turn his Weapons point upon him. He hath told us [ that- 
 no Presbyterian would think hU Relation to his Particular Flock untyed, ifimploy? 
 edto vifit now and then Forreign Churches'] Now, fuppofe, that in this transi- 
 ent viiitation of fuch Churches, the Church Rulers dp write feveral dire-* 
 ctions to fuch a Pafior, in reference to Government, adding as a preffing 
 Motive [ that he is therein inftruUed how to behave in the Church of the living. 
 God, which is his Honje, in cafe he continue ; any time in this imployment] as the 
 Afoftle here adds the^limitingClaule^/ 1 tarry longjWill theDr f sArgument 
 hold good, that this will infer fuch a Vafiors relation to thefe Churches ? 
 If he lays this, he Contradicts himfelf : And on the other hand, he will 
 net dare toaffirm, that a Minifler in this Cafe, is net capable of fuch di- 
 rections, which would upon the Matter infer, that thefe Churches were, 
 not the HoufeofGod, and that a Minifler is not concerned how, to behave 
 in them.; And if this will not conclude fuch a Paftors particular Relation 
 to thefe Churches, but fuppofeth only a tranfunt Imployment in this Cafe, . 
 then I fay, his Reafon and Argument is naught, which Infers Timothies < 
 ffecial Epifcopal relation to Ephefus; I mean to that Church, from thisexpref-- 
 "Cwnpf the. Apaftles Scope, in the premifed directions. Moreover, the Dr. 
 will not deny, thztTimothy vifited and watered feveral other Churches, 
 after this at Ephefus, and after the directions given,whileofficiating there- 
 afi.vNow, I would fain know,if the Dr. will deny,that thefe directions, to- 
 gether with this expreffed fcope thereof, viz, that he might know how to behave, 
 )inthe Church of GOD, were clearly applicable to him in his other tranfient-: 
 I rnployments therein ? If the Dr. deny this, he will fwallow Monfrruous 
 absurdities, viz,. He will affert that in other Churches, he had no Autho- 
 rity to rebuke, to receive accufations, to rebuke fuch as fin before all, to fee to 
 the VVoriTiip, to Charity, to the State and Carriage of Widows,to the right 
 Ifcftalment of Deacons, and all this without partiality, &c. If TimcthyindM 
 sbefe other Churches had this Authority ,8c the premifed prefcriptions^ to- 
 gether with the exprefe fcope thereof, were applicable to him,as officiating 
 elfe where, then they can inferno particular Relation to this Church, more. 
 ;man others. If the Dr. fay that they are applicable as in this tranfient Im- 
 ployment, Pro tunc ,but not fo asinEphefus, where hisRelation was fixed, &C: 
 the'directions confequently in a fpecial manner, applicable thereto : Who, 
 le/es not that this is a palpable and iliamelefs begging of the gueftion, fup- 
 oofing thefe prefcriptions to infer a fixed. Relation. to this Church of Epic* 
 ,, ■ whichis. the very ggefiwm andPoint in queilion ? 
 
 But 
 
Chap. IV. Eor Epifcopacy, Examined. 123 
 
 But Secondly \ to ftrike out the Bottom of the Dr f s Notion, and put this 
 to a fhort Irfue, fince, upon the one Hand, the Epifcopal Charge, as to 
 both Order and Jurifdi&ion, was by Paul, in his laft Farewel. committed 
 to the Elders orMinifters of thisChu ch oiEphefus joy ntly^. Which Charge 
 the Apoftles are found to intrufr likewiie unto Pafors, in other paraiell 
 places: And fince, upon the ®ther Hand, Timothies Infpe&ion is found 
 Tranfient, and Relative to feveral other Churches, and therein Exercifed, 
 it follows necefTarly, that what Authority he had in this Church, and is 
 fuppofed in thefe Dire&ions, and the Scope thereof, was Cumulative unto, 
 not Privative of the ordinary (landing. Authority of the fixed Payors, efta- 
 bliiTied or to be eftablimed therein, and that Timothy had no fole or Epis- 
 copal Authority , Paramount to that of Pafiors, intruded to him : Which : 
 m-iy be further confirmed upon thefe Grounds, in that, i. The Apoftles 
 themfelves Exercifed no fuch Authority in Churches conftitute, as is evi- 
 dent in the Presbytries Concurrence with Paul in Timothies Ordination,and 
 Presbyters Authoritative Excommunicati o n of the Inceftuous Corinthian-. 2 . 
 This Suppofition of fuch a Paramount Authority, would make the Apoftles, 
 iriCloathing Single Perfons there with, to contradict their Previous Dodrine- 
 and Pra&ice in the Inftalment of Pafiors, with the Epifcopal Authority. To - 
 make which convincingly apparant, one thing further I would propofe 
 to the Dr,« Whether will he deny, that feveral Prefcriptions delivered ta- 
 Timothy, were Relative to fuch Authority, fuch an Exercife of the Power 
 of Order,as is incontr overt ibly Applicable toPaftors ? I fliall take the Dr c s own , 
 Inftance, 0/ Rebuking fuch as Sin before all, Seeing to Widows, and the Objects - 
 of Charity ,• I add, To give himjclf to Read'mg, Exhortation, to take Heed to 
 himfelf and the DoBrine, to Preach the JVord, to be Infant in Sea[cn and cut cf 
 Seafon, &c. All which, the Apoftle doth with the fume Emphafs, of an 
 Explicit Special Addrefs to Timothy, prefcribe ; And to the lame Scope of 
 Dire&ing him how to behave in thsHoufe of God — Charging him asSolemn-- 
 ly to obferve the fame, as thefe that relate to the Power of Jurifdiction, • 
 But will the Dr c s Inference hold good, \Th.n therefore Timothy had a fole 
 Interefi therein ] and fuch as was Excluhve of that of Pafiors ? If his An- 
 fwer be Negative, why fhall his Argument hold good in the Point of Ju- 
 rifdirtion, and the Precepts relative thereunto? I know nothing he can 
 Anfwer, except that either Pafiors had this Authority in a Dependance 
 upon Timothy, or that the Power of Order is attribute loPafors elfewheis, 
 not that ofjurifdiction: Both which hvaiior.s are a mere Petitio Primipil, 
 and a Baffling of the great Topick and Ground of his Argument, taken- ; 
 from the Addrefs of tbife Precepts to Timothy, efpecially iince the fame Pre* 
 cepts, and : equally tuppofmg Authority in Church Government 
 attribute io.P* for/.- Wbj /.now: nor; ilia: th$£*>ite*M 
 
12^' T>r. Monro' s Thadings Chap. IV. 
 
 20. 24. the Authoritative Rebuke of the Higheft Degree, even to Ex- 
 communication, is afcribed to the Colledge of Paftors, 1 Cor. 5? As like- 
 wife, the Authoritative Admonition, is held out to be their joy nt Privi- 
 ledge, Gal.6.1. 2 Thef^.14, ij. Likewife, the Laying on of Hands in Or- 
 dination is afcribed to the Presbytrie, 17^,4.14. And they are thus found 
 clearly Judges of Scandals, as being Impowered to receive Delations, Mat. 
 1*8.16,17. And none can deny, that thefe Authoritative Precepts are di- 
 rected to them upon the conftant Handing Grounds exhibit in Scripture, 
 and to the fame Scope, <vi%, t the Precioufnefs of Souls, their Account to 
 Chrift th» great Shepherd at lvs Appearing, -^#.20.24. 1 Pet.$.i, 2, 3. 
 Cf Old TVhittaker, in Anfwer to BeUarmin, long fince to)d our T>v,(Controv. 
 €C 4. ^uefi. 1. Chap. 2.) ThdtTimothy here, isfuppofed to have no fuchDo- 
 <c minion over Elderships, or Paftors, as Vrelats afterward affumed ;:And that 
 cc Receiving the Accusation imports ( according to the ApoftlesMind ) brin- 
 cc ging a Crime or Scandal to the Church — - That the Ecclefiaftick Synod 
 <c had the Chief Intereft in,Cenfures, though even Appeals were made to 
 cr the Metropolitan. See Bucer de Vi. & Ufu. Sacr. Minifterii. Wiliet. Sinopf 
 Vapifmi Controv. 5". §ueft. 3. Van. 3. in the Appendix. Bucer de Gub. 
 P. 398. 
 
 Bebre I pafs this, I cannot but add a Remark or two further: 1. That 
 the Dr. will needs have Timothy Direcledto Order the Publick Worftrif and Li- 
 turgies of the Church. That he is Directed, 1 Tim. 2.1. and elfewhere,anerit 
 Publick Worlhip, is certain; But for Liturgies, which the Dr. thrufts in^ 
 he muft be told.they were not yet fprung up, if we may believe Tertullian, 
 and others: It is palpably evident, that in all thefe Precepts, there c s al- 
 turn filentium of Liturgies, whatever the Dr c s Love to them, might Buzze 
 in his Ears. 2. He tells us, That Timothy, and ( with Emphafis) he a- 
 lone in the Church o/Ephefus, is Charged before the Lord, to obferve thefe things, 
 &c. Thus, in the Dr c s Senfe, it teems that no V aft or, had any thing to 
 do with Rebuking Sinners, either by Doctrine or Cenfure, or the Over- 
 fight of Widows, and the Objects of Chanty, &c. Thefe being peculiar 
 to the Epifcopal Function: An AiTertion, no doubt, peculiar to the Dr. 
 But proceed we. 
 
 We are next told P. 109. That in thofe Apoftolical Direclions and Injuncti- 
 ons addrejfed perfonally to Timothy, are contained the Nature , Extent, and Au- 
 thority of the Epifcopal Power. But why calls he it not an Apoftolical Power , 
 Since in his Senfe, the Office derived is of this Nature and Character? 
 Again, if this be the Nature of the Epifcopal Power, and if thus one and the 
 fame with that of Timothy, then fure, it is not paramount to the Collegi- 
 at Power of Paftors ; For fuch, we have proved Timothies to be. Next, 
 as for the Extent thereof, we lave made appear, that his Evangeliftick , 
 
 Autho- 
 
Chap. IV. ForEpifcopacy, Examined. 125 
 
 Authority, is found extended to feveral other Churches: And therefore* 
 if the Dr. fliape Prelaws Dioeefies by this Standart, he will extend hisMea' 
 fures far beyond Ephefus. 
 
 Whac more is contained in thofe addreffed Injunctions? His relation to 
 that Church (faith the DrJ and the perpetuity of his Power. But we have a- 
 bove made appear, that thefe Injunctions can no more evince a peculiar 
 Relation to that Church,thantoothers,wherehe exercifed his Evengeliftick 
 Office, as well as in that cf Efhefus : And for the perpetuity of the Power y 
 we have told him, that the intimation of 7/w0/£/Vstranfiei,t Employment 
 in that Church, prefented in the beginning of the Epiftle, the exprefs 
 Command of doing the work of an Evangelifi therein fan Office, acknow- 
 ledged by Prote(tant Divines, to be expired,) the Apofties exprefs recalling 
 him from this tranfient Employment to the further proiecuting of his 
 Office elfe where, as likewife, his aicribing the whole Epifcopal Power, 
 after this, to the Paftors of this Church of Epbe fas, in Timothies prefence^ 
 without the leaft hint of his Intereft therein, convinceth this aflertion of 
 Falfehood. 
 
 But to prove that his Power was not tranfient , but fuccejfive and perpetual, 
 the Dr. prefents unto us the Apoflclical Command put upon him, to commit his 
 Power to faithful Mm, who frail be able to teach others. This proves indeed 
 a Succeflion of a teaching Miniftry, and of the Scripture BiflrOps and 
 Paftors who muft be apt to teach, and hold fafi the faithful Word ; But that ic 
 imports a committing his Evangeliftick Authority to SuccefTors, is the Dr f s> 
 Anti-fcriptural Dream,- Wherein, he runs crofs, i. To'the Judgement of 
 found Interpreters, as all know, fince they underitandby that which was 
 to be intruded to thefe Faithful Men, the DoBrine of the Gofpel, not the Au- 
 thority of Timothy. 2. lie cloth herein crols the Scope &: Context : And that 
 in three Points (ij In that there is here a Plurality of Succejjors fuppoied, 
 to whom this was to be committed : And if Timothie^s Authority was to be 
 devolved upon a Plurality, Dr. faiewel the Derivation of an Epijiopal 
 Power to a lingleSucceffor. (i.) The great Charaderiftick of thefe Paith- 
 ful Men, is (as is faid) that they be apt to teach, which is the very Cha- 
 racter of the Pa(tor, Chap. 5. 2. (3.) The thing which is to be com- 
 mitted is, That which Timothy had heard of Paul, Sciz. The true Doctrine 
 ef the Goff el, and the Pajtoral Charge thereancnt, which is likewife in- 
 truded to all Minifrers of the Word, Act. 20. tit. 1. 9, 
 
 But the Dr. will needs have that which is enjoyncd in this Pre- 
 cept (which ts Faithfulnefs and Ability to teach others) to be by Timothy 
 
 committed to a fingle Succeflor, us it was in folidum, his Jilt Prerogative. Re- 
 ally Dr. this is at leart [lender Dealing of Charity. What .' All Faithful 
 Teaching monopolized in the perfon of the Bijhop^ committed to him, in 
 
 U ft jolidum, 
 
ii 6- T>r. Monro's Pleadings Chap IV. 
 
 iolidum, excluding Va/lors? Many will fuppofe, that if this Work be en- 
 hanced in the Bijhop, the Diocefs will be meanly fed, efpecially fince, be- 
 fides his perfonal incapacity, to feed the whole Diocefs, his Sermons drops 
 very rarely, and many poor Sheep may ftarve in the interval. 
 
 But to proceed, theDr. (Ibid:) will have his Adverfaries to grant, That 
 Timothy 4 / fewer e x ere if ed over Ephefus, was the very fame, which he pleads 
 for, as due to Bifhops, in their particular Sees. That he had an Evangelif- 
 tick . Power, we grant, and that Bifhops take or ufurp an Authority and 
 Infpe&ion, which, with fome Presbyterians, is faid to have an apparent 
 Refemblance of that of Timothy, is true ; But that the Function exercifed 
 by Prelats, is one and the fame with that of Timothy, is denyed: For i. 
 We have proved, that neither Apoftles nor Evangelifts had a fixed or ordi- 
 nary Authority over particular Churches, or any fuch fpecial Relation there- 
 unto, as Prelats do pretend. 2. We made appear, that the Authority 
 which they exercifed, was not exclufive of,or paramount unto the ordina- 
 ry Authority and Decifive Power of Pafiors in Government, that in 
 Churches conftitute, they had neither a [ok Power, nor fole Exercife of Or- 
 dination and Jurifdi&ion, fuch as Prelats aflume, who, according to 
 the Nature of that Government, are the proper /tf/e Pa/lors of the Diocefs, 
 and the whole power of Order and Jurifdi&ion is properly and original- 
 ly feated in them, no P aft or having any thing of this, or the Exercife 
 thereof, but according as it is lett out, or derived to them, at the Bijhops 
 pleafure,* For, they deny univerfally, that the Paftoral Office hath in its 
 Nature, included any Intereft in Government. Now, this Dominion o- 
 ver Church Judicatories, thus exclufive of all Authority of Paftors in Go- 
 vernment, no Evangelift, nay, nor Apoftle ever exercifed, it being fuch 
 a Dominion in the Houfe of GOD, as is difowned and difcharged by 
 them^ 2 Cor. 1. ult. 1 Pet. f. 2, 3. Befides, the Dr. knows, that he pleads 
 for a power in Civils, and a Civil Peerage, as due toPrelats, which he dare 
 not fay, that Apoftles or Evangelifts ever exercifed, nor can he, or any 
 of his Party, make it appear, that the Apoftles gave, the leaft fliadow of 
 aWarrand for it in their Do&rine. 
 
 But to proceed, the Dr. adds (ibid.) TJjat we pretend that Timothy exer- 
 cifed his power in the Church 0/ Ephefus, under the Notion of an Evangelift, not 
 as proper Bijhop 0/ Ephefus. That he was enjoyned, and accordingly exer- 
 cifed this Orfice, and had a Command put upon him, to perform the Work, 
 of an Evangelift there, is that which (under this prodigioufly profound. 
 Dr c s Correction,) a Man tinctured with the New Scots Opinion, viz; The: 
 Apoftle, Paul pretends,* And this Office, we hold to be diftincl, tato coelo,^ 
 iron* that of the Bifljop. The Dr. faith, he will examine, this after ward,, 
 wherein, I fhali afterwards trace and iearch him*. 
 
 Bufc 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 127 
 
 But at prefent, the Dr. will havefome things to be granted \ which cannot he 
 Jenyed. If fuch indeed, its pitty the Dr. were derived fo juft a Demand. 
 What are thefe? Firfi, That the power which Timothy exercifed was Law- 
 fulin itfelf. GOD forbid, we fhould alTert that Paul enjoyned cr autho- 
 rized an unlawful power; But Lawful and Law, being Correlats, the 
 good Dr. will allow us to Diftinguifh Lawful, into that which is fo, upon 
 ground of a Standing Law or Ordinance ,• And that which is fo, upon a tem- 
 poral and tranfitory Precept, and authorized by an Extraordinary Authority 
 for the time; Which might be exemplified in a multiplicity of clear Scrip- 
 ture Inftances, if we were not difc:urfing with a venerable Dr. who can 
 diftinguifli General and Special, Ordinary and Extraordinary Precepts, 
 &c. Lawful in their own time and Circumftances. We know the Apo- 
 ftolick Univerfal Authority was Lawful, writing authentick binding E- 
 piftles, in the Execution of this Authority, conftituting Officers, Church 
 by Church, modelling them in their Organick Being, delivering to them 
 the Ordinances, their Difciplining all Nations, laying on Hands 
 in order to the Spirits Miraculous Gifts, anoynting the Sick with Oyl, in 
 order to the healing of them, &c What next? 
 
 The Do&or, in the Second Place, will have us grant, That this 
 
 f rower was prattifed by Timothy in the Church of Epeius. And true- 
 y they are highly Cenfurable, who will deny the Doctor fo Juft 
 a Demand, fo neceffarly following upon the preceeding ConcefTion, 
 and the Scripture Records of theExercife of his Power in that place. And 
 no doubt, had the Dr. knit all his Confequences as well as this, he had 
 paft for a fair and Triumphant Difputant, and Acred as a Man worthy of 
 his Cape and Orders: Only, we mult be permitted, together with this Con- 
 ceffion, to Whifper the Dr. in the Ear, 7 hat he Exercifed the fame Evange- 
 liftickOffice in other Churches, a* well as /wEphefus, yea, and both before and 
 after he was there, and he knows theConfequence, which thefe that have 
 got the Scots Notion in their Mead will draw upon him, <viz.. That there- 
 fore, Timothy had no Special Relation to that Church, nor Ordmaff ln(fe:~ 
 therein. 
 
 What is his-7£/WDefire of a Conceffion? vta That ibis Tower- 
 committed to him alone, not to a Colledge of Presbyters, Attir.g in Parity and E - 
 quality. If he mean the E-vangdijlick Power, or an EvangclifHck lnfpecti- 
 on, fuppofing (as is often toid him ) the Exiftence of the Apoftolick and 
 EvangeliftickOffices,which we hold. with all SoundDivines,tobe expired; 
 Suppoiing likewife, the Foundation of the Churches to be a laying", and 
 which we may call the Scaffolding, which the Dr. hath told us,' was to be 
 removed, when the Building is perfected ; And withal, under/landing the 
 Txrni'^w^ as Exclufive of Pafiors, and other Inferior Ordinary Church 
 
 'Officer^ 
 
1x8 *Dr. Monro's Tleadings Chap. IV, 
 
 •Officers ; And fo as not to Confine the Evangeliftick Office to Timothies 
 Perfon: This Demand is eafily granted. But here we deny two Points, r. 
 , That this Infpe&ioa, or Extraordinary Evangeliftick Power, was fo com- 
 mitted to Timothy, over this Church, at this time, as to Exclude or In- 
 haunce the Pafiors Ordinary Tower, or to infer his Sole, and confequently 
 Epifcopal Interefi in Government. 2. That the Ordinary Power of Govern- 
 ment, was not committed by Paul to a Colledge of Presbyters, as the Dr. fu.p- 
 pofes, or that the Non- committing oS. Timothies Formal Office and Power 
 as an Evangelift, to fuch a Colledge will infer fuch a Conclufion: Since, 
 thus we would faften a Contradiction uponPW, in Intrufting the whole 
 Epifcopal Power over the Church of Ephefus, after this, to a Colledge of Pres- 
 byters, ABing in Parity. 
 
 The Fourth Undenyable Point, the Dr. will have us to grant, is, That 
 there is no mention of a Spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters, ti 
 which Timothy was Accountable for his Adm migrations. I Anfwer, 1. There 
 was no need, beeaufe in that Infant- State of the Church, when (toufe 
 the Dr c s Phrafe) the Churches Fabrick was but in an Imperfect Scaffol- 
 ding Pofture,& the Ordinary Church Officers and Judicatories were aFra- 
 ming, he was Accountable to the Infallibly Infpired Great Apoftle of the 
 Gentiles, Paul, who Enjoyned him to order Things, in the Moulding 
 of that Church, as he had Commanded and Appointed him : Betides, that 
 the Nature of Timothy's Work, being a Temporary Tranfimt Infpeclion, to pals 
 off with that Exigent, 8c to give Way to his other Imployments elfewhere, 
 there was no Accefs for fuch an Infpe&ion in the Colledge of Presbyters* 
 Here I cannot but take notice 5 that the Dr. ftill adding the Claufe of Spiri- 
 tual,whzn fpeaking of Timothy's Power, muft be minded of the Bijhops Tem- 
 poral & Civil Authority , which they claim.2.We find mention made oraPro- 
 bytrie, that Ordained him, and whether, if ever fixed in any particular 
 Poft or Charge after Pauls Death, the mention of a Presley trie that Ordai- 
 ned him, will infer an Accountablenefs, is left to the Dr 4 s Contideration. 
 As alfo, whether the mention of that General Rule, 1 Or.14.52. That the 
 Spirits of the Prophets are fubjecJ to the Prof hets, will infer an Accountable- 
 nefs of all who come under a Chara&er of Prophets to their Collegiat 
 Meetings. 
 
 The Dr c s Fifth Conceffion, he will have from us, is, That the great and 
 moft eminent Branches of Epifcopal Power, were lodged in his Perfon, Viz. the 
 Ordination of fuch as were admitted unto the /acred Function, the care of the Wi- 
 dows, the cenfuring of Elders, the Authoritative prevention of Herefies; about which 
 Che tells us) the Epifcopal Authority was moft converfant in the Primitive times. 
 I am glad that the Bijhops high Office is become of fo condefcending and 
 h amble a nature and genius, that the mean bufmefs of the care of poor Wi- 
 dows, 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 1 19 
 
 Jews, or Church Eleemofynaries , is become one of the moft eminent Branches of their 
 Tower. 7; fee thefe Branches runs far out, and their Lordfiips mutt have long 
 Aims.B*y may I hope that theDr.will take along in his next famous Work 
 ( fince ne hath in this placeforgot it ) the little mean and humble exer- 
 cife cf Preaching the Gcficl conftantly and affiduoufly, fince we hud that 
 Timothy was here enjoined it, and that in Seafon and out of Seafon, to 
 which thefe Eminent Branches miy ft retch out, ifatleaft, the Dr. can obtain 
 a Licence for it of their Lordfinps, with fuch reftridions and provi- 
 fo c s, in refped of their State-Imployments, as this unwarry Man, Paul, 
 forgot to put in, who lays this in an unlimited general Precept upon the 
 Bijbop, Timothy, and with the folemnity cf an alarming Preface of Lay- 
 ing this Charge upon him before God, and the Lord Jefus Chrift, who 
 {kail judge the quick and the Dead,at his appearing and his Kingdom. 2. 
 Timothy is found fo far from having the Dr's Eminent Branches of Epifcopal 
 Power, lodged in him, that in the Scriptural Accounts, he is found, to 
 have neither Root nor Branch of the fame : The Bijhops Power is fuppofed 
 Ordinary, his was not,- the Bifiops Power is pleaded for as neceffary to the 
 Churches exedified State, in all times, and when Moulded in its OrganickBe- 
 ing, his was futed to the Moulding thereof, when m fieri as to fuch a Beings 
 the Bifiops Power is in Fixed Dioccffes, Timothies was not, but ztranfient Mi- 
 niftry, like that of the Apoftles,- The Bifiops hath fole abfolute Power in Or- 
 dination and Jurifdidion, over all Paftors of the Diocefs; Timothy had 
 no fuch Authority, but only of an Infpeclcr and Moderator, for the time of his 
 tranfient Miffion; The BilJwps affume a negative voice in all Judicatories of the 
 Diocefi, which the Dr. here owns, for he will have them fubjed to no ttfu 
 legiat Meetings of Paftors-, had Timothy aflumed this, he had contradicted and 
 battled the Apoftles Carriage Ael.ic. where ordinary Paftors ox Elders, 
 are found concurring Authoritatively with the Apoftles in the whole 
 procedure c f thatfolemn Council, both in the Difquilition, the Sentence, 
 and the Epiftle,enjoymng the Churches obedience thereunto: And lmuft 
 prefum to add with the Dr s good leave, that thisCcuncilis of more vene- 
 rable Authority, and the Conftitution thereof, of a more Divine-exem- 
 plifying influence, than any he can appeal to, as patronizing the Hier- 
 archical Prel.it, for whom he pleads. Again, had Timet by ordained alone, 
 without Paftors, where they were to be had, he would have crofted the 
 Rule of his own Ordination, and Pauls Precept fuppofmgthe fame : Had 
 he Ccnfurcd alone, or affumed a fole Intereft therein, he had crofted the 
 Apoftles Dodrin, who makes Cenfures the joint Authoritative Ads of the 
 Collguit Meetings of Paftors, 1 Cor. j. 1, 2, 4, 5", &c. 2 Thejf. 3. 14. As 
 For lIk exercifeoi fuch hpifccfalPtwer in the Primitive times, the Dr. will 
 g£i er piove t& JfrfaiF* ^le Power herein, in the l : ir[i dndPurc/l tiw€s, 
 
 X x yea 
 
'i$o ^DrMoDio^sTteadiugr Chap* IV. 
 
 yea, and even after the Epifiopus Vrxfet was fet up, and had ob/ained in 
 Judicatories. c 
 
 The Sixth Conceffion which the Dr will have from us, is, Tha^ his Au- 
 thority -was not of it f elf of a temporary duration Jr an /tent, or extraordinary, butfucb 
 *s the conftant necefftfies of the Church doth make neceffary in all Ages. That it was 
 temporary and tran/ient, is chat which we maintain, and istheSenfe ofScund 
 Vroteftant Divines, as is already made appear^ and we muft have better Argu- 
 ments to take this from us, and beat us from this Poft, than our Dr c s beg- 
 ging aiTertion, -without proof, or a Shadow of it. If the necefjity of the Church 
 calls for fuchan Office, as this of T**wc%, according to the Scripture Cha~ 
 ra&er and Accounts, then fure for that of Apofiolat alfo, in a proper for- 
 mal Senfe, with all its Prerogatives, *bm. That there be perfons impow- 
 ered ro- give infallible Commands to tranfient Evangeiifts, and by in- 
 fallible direction of the Spirit enjoining and Authorizing the exercife of 
 their Function, recalling thus the perfons Authorized by an infallible Au- 
 thority, from one Church to> the further profecuting this Work in ano- 
 ther, and this in order to the Moulding and Watering of thefe Churches. 
 Hence, 2. This Power not being properly and formally Epifcopal, but 
 contrary to fuch a Function, as well as in it felf extraordinary, and paf- 
 fed off, with, that firft State and exigence of the Church; neither can the 
 Churches conftant neceffity crave it, nor doth it in the leaft patronize. 
 the Bijhops acclaimed Power. 
 
 For what the Dr. adds of Timothy's committing his Power unto faithful Men , 
 fitch as were able to Teach others. We have above difcovered the infufnei- 
 ency of this Argument, to bear the weight of his Conclufion : And he. 
 muft prove, not barely aflert, that the Trufi Committed to him was ordinary^ 
 before it will be admitted,or his ruinous Confequence built upon this rot- 
 ten Eoundation,that therefore there was no need of an extraordinary Officer to ma* 
 %age it. 
 
 i3ut now that the Dr. hath Done with Timothy, he proceeds to Titus y 
 telling us, P. no. in. That the fame Vcwer was committed to Titus /wCrete^ 
 as om <?/Pauls Fellow -labourers : And the exception [that he was an Evarige- 
 lifb~\ which, he cannot but know to be the Senfe of the generality of found 
 $?otej/lant Divines, our Dr. is bold to call a ridiculous fubi erj uge. Truely, i£ 
 as. ridiculous as .his Arguments and Anfwers, it vyere fo at ail will. But, 
 why. ridicdousJ Becaufe, it is.no where f aid in Scripture, that he was one of them; 
 mho &'* calle d. Evangeiifts. Lcouid wifli the Dr. had been pleafed to give us 
 dr;. definition of Evangelifi, properly fo taken,that it might be (een, how 
 good. Harmony he keeps with Vrotefiant Churches, and Divines in this Point, 
 1 wft add, that our critical Dr. teems very way-ward and ill to pieafe:, 
 to^viUjQOS^^ fo called; Now 
 
 kd 
 
Chap. IV. Eor Epifcopacy, Examined. i 3 1 
 
 he cannct but Confefs Timothy is exprefiy called Evangeli(t, yea^ and empha- 
 tically enjoyned to do the -work of an "Evangel ft, yet neither will he admit 
 him to ^e.fuch. We told the Dr. that the Profejfors of Ley den have this no- 
 tion of the Office, " That Ev ange lifts were either fcriptcres Evangelki de vi- 
 " ta & morte, dfctis & "fad is Safcatoris r ~&cc. fuch as wrote the Hiftory of 
 * c our Saviours Life and Death,- or ah Afofiolis ad Evangelium una cum ipfis 
 " pr median dum vocati— fcc.fuch as were called by theApoftles toPreacfrthe. 
 cc Gofpel together with them, and attended them as their Fellow-labour- 
 fC ers,unlefs,when they were by theApoftles fetto overfee fome Churches 
 cc fcr a time,- fuch were Barn a box, Silas, Timothy and Titus, to whom 
 * f fome add the Seventy Difciples. Here is the ProtcfiantKouon of the Of- 
 fice, which clearly appears Scriptural: And upon the equality and lame- 
 nefs of Timothy and Titus Fundion and Wcrk, concluds them both Evan- 
 gelifts. I muft further tell theDr^that in Jmbrofe fenfe.Ei/ ange lifts werefuch,, 
 as did Evangelizare fine Cathedra, Preached without a fixed Charge, And Sara- 
 via himfelf (dedrverfis gradibus Minift. Cay. 6. ) upon that- Pucept of Paul, 
 Do the Work of an Evajngclift, tells us. cc That he will nor deny Timothy the 
 K Name of Evangeliftyince PWenjoyned him to perform this Office. The 
 ManknewPtftf/ put not upon him an empty Name. Eut further, the Dr. 
 will have nothing in the Office cf an Evangel's ft inccnfijtent with the Dignity of 
 Bifliop, Presbyter or Deacon. That the Evangeliftick Office, as in Scripture 
 delineat, ftandsoppolitto that ofthe Hierarchical Biflxp,! have above made 
 good. How he comes to fay., its not inccnfijtent with the Dignity of theje Offices, 
 is fome what Myfterious, fince the general acceptation of the Evangeli- 
 ftick Office, is, that it was next in Dignity to that <sf Apoftles, at 
 leaft, above all Ordinary Officers : And for the Dignity of Deacons, it 
 feemsOdd, that the Lo weft Office hath a Dignity futeablc to that ofEvan- 
 gelifts. The Dr. tells us further, TZntf Eufebius NctUn c/'Evai.gelift, is cne 
 who Preached the Gcffiel to fuch as had not heard it .or at leaf, had Re find its Light 
 and -were not Converted. tm Eufibius takes the Titie two ways, either tor 
 cc fuch as Wrote the Gofpel, or thofe that Taught it ;. and tide, again, 
 " were either fuch as had ordinary Places and Gifts, or wbofe Places ai d 
 * Gifts wcreExtraordimry^nor Settled upon any ChargQ:but wcrz sipefi do- 
 u mm Vicepr Vice- Apoftles^baving a Vicarious Care ot (he Churches^ tie 
 u Apoftles had the principal. Which Jultles with the Lr s Acccunt: And in 
 the Pa 11 age of EnfeiimrCitei by him ne makes tbeEva&gelifl W art to be a 
 Watering the Apoftles Plantations, as well as a Preaching to lochias I .1 
 not heard the Gofpel. Put he udd^.TIxit its agreeable u :L ¥m\ 8 ion pf tiib<% <f 
 titefc Offices, toPreach the Go pel to jucb. as arc not yet acquainted with it. 1 : 
 hardly intelligible.- i.Th it the iv.mgelifts Office coniifted in mere 1 re. . 
 and to iucli as. were iit the Character oilnfidds or Refijrers o[ the Gojgtj i s 
 
1 3 * *Dr. Monro'x Tleadings Chap. IV. 
 
 appears not to be Eufebius Senfe, fo he cannot mew it to be the Senfe of a- 
 nv Sound Proteftant. 2. The Dr. will not fay, that Timothy's Preaching- 
 Work in Epbefus. where he was called to be inftant therein, inSeafon and 
 out of Sealcri refpe&ed not mainly the Members of that Church, where- 
 in he was alfo called to give Attendance to Reading, Exhortation, and 
 Doctrine ; Ann moreover,by the Dr c s Confeffion,to many pieces of a Ju- 
 rifdiftional Work, which he muft either grant to fall within the Compafs of 
 his Evangelijlick Office, and confequently, that his Reftri£ed Senfe thereof 
 above expreifed,is fooiim and impertinent, or prove the Exception there- 
 of out of that Precept, and the Service andMiniftry therein enjoyned him 
 by the Apuftie, when he is thus exhorted to do the Work of anEvangelift^nd 
 make full Proof of his Mini fir y. 
 
 But now the Dr. will Anfwer the Objection taken from this Precept, 
 enjoyning the Exercife of an Evangeliftick Office. And, Firfi, He tells us, 
 There was Good Reason for it: No doubt of that,-Good Reafon,a Church Of- 
 ficer be enjoyned Diligence in bis Office. But why GoodReafon, in the Dr c s 
 Senfe? Becaufe (Taith he,) Many amongHhe Ephelians were Infidels. Here is a 
 Reafon of this Precept rare to be found elfewhere : But even granting this 
 to be one Partial Ground, that this was the only or main Ground of the Pre- 
 cept,and that his Work as an Evangelift,was only of this Nature,is among 
 the reft of the Dr c s Magifterial Didats,and gratis fuppofita. He adds,7W it ts 
 fro where infinuated,that he was only invefied with that Authority , that agrees to the 
 Notion 0/^Evangelift feparattd and dijlinguifhed -from eit her Bifhop or Presby- 
 ter. Here the Dr. ipeaks of an Evangelifls Office feparated and diftinguimed 
 from that of Bijhop or Presbyter ; Whereof he hath given us no diftind Ac- 
 count. As for that Senfe, in Reference to Preaching, which he hints as 
 that of Eufebius, and his own, we have made appear, how crofs it is to 
 the Senfe exhibit by Sound Divines, and that Timothy had an Office diftind: 
 From BiJJjopor Presbyter, which confequently this Precept enjoyns,fo,tbat it 
 is enough for us, that he was inverted ( and in that Precept, is fuppofed 
 inverted ) with fuch an Evangelifiick Office, as, is inconfiftent with the Of- 
 fice of the Bijhop, whom he pleads for. And to this purpofe, it is obfer- 
 vable, that the Term Evangelift, being thrice only uied in the New Te- 
 ftament, viz,. Aft. 21. 8. Eph. 4. n. and in this Precept: Since in 
 the other two Places, it is taken for the Extraordinary Fun&ion above 
 defcribed, why not alfo here ? Befides, tho Extraordinary Functions 
 communicat in General Names with Ordinary, as when Apofiles are 
 called Presbyters or Elders, yet he cannot mew, that Extraordinary 
 Names are nnde ufe of ( at leaft, fo Emphatically as in this 
 Precept ) to point at Ordinary Functions. If we Paralell this Com- 
 plex P-hrafe or Phrafeokgy, as the Dr. fpeaks^ with the like in Serip- 
 
 ' tui e 
 
I Chap. IV. For Epilcopacy, Examined. 1 3 ; 
 
 ture Language, this may be convincingly made good, as when we read 
 of Signs of an Apoftle, i Cor: 12. 12. Commands of Apoftles, 2 Pet. 3. 2. 
 f Foundation of Apoftles, Eph. 2. 20. Where the Term defigns a peculiar 
 Office:And thus it muft be, when the Work of an Evangelift is enjoyned to 
 Timothy. So that if the Office and Work of an Evangelift, which is in the 
 Senfe of found Divides, extraordinary and expired, be afcribed to both 
 thefe perfons, and found incompatible with the Work and Office of a 
 Prelat, the Dr r s. Evafions are evidently found nought. Suppofe a perfon 
 enjoyned to dc the Work of a Parent^ a Mag^ftrat, or a Husband, none 
 will doubt that the peculiar Relations and Duties of Parents, Magiftrats 
 and Husbands are here intimat: As likewife, if a "9 aft or be enj yned to 
 do that Work, the fame is held out. The Dr. will have it no where in- 
 finuat, That Timothy was invefted wi f h that Authority that agrees to the Noti- 
 on of an Evangelift, feparated and di ft in gulfed from cither Bifhop or Presby- 
 ter. If by Separated & Difti»guifl)cd,\iQ underftand an higher formal Office, 
 than that of Biflwp cr Presfyter, the PalTage above mentioned clearly proves 
 it, admitting the Evangelifts Office to be of that Nature, State and Rank 
 above expreir. If by Separate, he underftand fuch as is formally diftincl 
 from the Office of Bifljcp or Presbyter, and of another fpecifick Nature, the 
 Precept doth likewife clearly infinuat this. If by Only fovefted, he mean 
 fuch an Office as cannot exert the A&s or Duties competent to Scripture- 
 BijJwp or Presbyter, this is impertinent to the purpofe, and there is no need 
 of fuch Insinuation. The Apoftles and Evangelists were inverted properly 
 and formally with their Apoftolical,Evangeliftick Offices, \v\-\\tikE?iiinenttr 
 had included therein the Paftors Work and Duties. This doth abundant- 
 ly difcovcr the Drs. empty Quiblings enfuing, to be mere impertinent 
 Shifts : Such as, that one may do the Evangelifts Work, 'who is higher,- 
 Sed quid hoc ad Rhombum, the Apoftles performed the Duties and Work of 
 Paftors: But that therefore there is no peculiar Office of a P aft or diftinft 
 from that of Apoftle, is a palpably weak Confequence: And will he lay, 
 that when a P after is commanded and enjoyned Ins Work, there is no pe- 
 culiar Office and Duty fuppofed, becaufe his Office is Eminehter % contain- 
 ed in tii it of Apoftles, andth.it they performed and were enjoyned the fame 
 Duties? The Dr c s next Inftance is as fooliih: Daniel (faith he) did tie 
 JlurL of a King, yet was no King, Dan: 8. 7. He is indeed laid to do the 
 Kings Bufinefs, in a pa/five Senfe, That is, performed Service to the -King, 
 as the me an eft Servant does his greateft Mafters Buiinds in ferving him; 
 But he that will hold that upon this account, he may be laid to do the 
 Work of a King) That is, performed! the Royal Ails of Iris Regal Office t and 
 fuch as are peculiar thereunto, or that this phrafe hath the lame import 
 
 Y y as 
 
V$4 ^ r - Monro's T leadings Chap. IV. 
 
 3s Timothy's being enjoyned to the Work of an Evangelift, hath a Crack 
 in his Intelleduals. 
 
 We are told next, P. in. 112. That Philip was an Evangelift, Ad. 21. 
 8. yet alfo one of the [even Deacons mentioned Ad:. 6. But had no power to con- 
 firm the Baptized, nor to ordain to Ecclefiafiick Offices by impofiticn of Hands, as 
 Timothy. Anf. Firfl,That Philip continued in the Office of a Deacon, when 
 called an TLvangelift, is more than he offers to prcve, or will be ever able 
 to do. cc The Belgick Divines, with Diediate &c others.take the Office of Evan- 
 <c gelifihQrQ, f or the extraordinary expired Fund:ion,abcve defcribed: And 
 c: confequently, to be the fame with the Office of Timothy. Thus alfo 
 " Pool.zd. Part, paralelling this Paffage, with 2 Tim. 4. 5-. and Eph. 4. n. 
 cc And upon the laft Claufe, wherein mention is made of his Diaconate, 
 <c they affert, that having difcharged the Office of Deacon well, he did 
 cc purchafe to himfelf this Good Degree, as 1 Tim. 3. 15. Judicious Calvin 
 upon the place, offers the fame Senfe of theEvangeiifts Office, Inter Apof 
 tolos ejr.Doclores medii er ant, dec. That they had a midle Funclion betwixt Apoftle s 
 and Doctors, and an Office next to that of the Apoftclat, that they might every where 
 ft each the Gofpel, and were fett to no fixed Station or Poft. Whence, he con- 
 cludes that his Diaconate at Jeru/akm, was only tranfient, or for fometime 
 exercifed by him, and that thereafter ha was affumed to bean Evaugelift, 
 fince otherwife, it had not been warrantable to him to leave Jerufakm and 
 refide at Cefarea* He further adds, " That he is not here propofed as a 
 Cf vuluntaii^Deferter of his Office, but as one who had a more excellent 
 * f Office emrufted unto him, fo that he held not both Offices joyntly. 
 
 Secondly, For the point of Ordination: I Anfwer, Fir ft, It is more than 
 he. hath proved,or can,that7lw0?Z^ had a folelntereft therein in Churches 
 epnftitute,-And what he might do inChurches not conftitute,is not to the 
 purpofe. For 1. Ordination is found in Scripture to be the Judicial Ad: 
 of a Presbytrie, which was exercifed, even upon Timothy himfelf. 2. Paul 
 vculd not ordain alone, tho the great Apoftle of the Gentiles, but took 
 along the Presbytries Authoritative Concurrence, where a Presbytrie was 
 epnltitute, as is evident in. the Scripture Accounts of this Evangelift sO^ 
 4ination, wherein the Presbytrie Authoritatively laid on Hands, together 
 with the Apoftle. Hence it is evident, that far lefs could Timothy aiTume 
 2.fole Inter 'eft in Ordinarion, exclufive of that of the Presbytrie, when con- 
 stitute, fince his Office was inferior to that of Apoftolat, Next, Suppofing- 
 Vhilip an Evangelist, in the proper Scripture Acceptation above defcribed, 
 he was no doubt capable of the fame Employment and Exercife thereof, 
 when the Churches Cafe required it, as Timothy, elfe the Dr. will fay, 
 th^t Evangelift s had not all the fame Office and Authority,. For,. what. 
 -^add§.^tC^jfcw/w^ the Bfifit&eJ; we.. have. above ippkea ta.it a lare 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. r ^ f 
 
 And when he hath defcribed this Confirmation, and exhibite die Divine 
 Warrands thereof, and proved from Scripture, Timothies Intereft there- 
 in, I doubt n ;t to bring up Philip to the fame Piiviiedge. We are told 
 next, That to be an Evangelift, is very agreeable to all Subordinations of the 
 Cbriftian Hierarchy. Thus it feems with him, That the Term imports no 
 peculiar Office: A^d thus, if he owns siufebim Notion of Evangelifr, 
 which is to Preach the Go/pel to fucb as had not heard it, or refified it, and were 
 not Converted; He appears inconfiftent with himfelf, in making it 
 applicable to all Church Officers, and confequently appropriating to 
 them the Function of Converting Infidels , by Preaching the Gof- 
 pel, as in thefe firft times of Chriftianity : And what Harmony 
 this keeps with the Senfe of Vroteftant Divines , in Reference 
 both to the Paftoral and Evangeliftick Office, is cbvioufly evident. 
 Not to fcann the foulfom Popijl) Savour of his expreffion of Chri- 
 fiian Hierarchy, and the neceflary confequence of his abiurd afcribing the 
 Office of preaching the Gofpel, confequently, theadminiftration of the Seals 
 of the Covenant, to the meaneft and loweftof Church Officers. He adds, 
 That the primitive Biftjops were Evangelift i, and that any Bijlwp or Presbyter that 
 Converts Infidels, are as properly Evange lifts, as thefe Jo called in the Primitive Church. 
 He muft fay as this perlbn of whom our debate is, who is by the Apoftle 
 Vaul called to do the work of an Evangelift. This is fuch a grofs abfurd Af- 
 fertion, that to recite it, is to refute it. Will any Man of common Senfe 
 imagine,that when Ttmothyls thus enjoyned,he is put upon no other work, 
 or to exercife no other Fundion,than what the meaneft Dcaccn was capa- 
 ble of? Or that the Senfe of this Precept, do the Work of an Evr.vgelifr, is 
 only amounting to this, Convert Infidels ? I think indeed the Man who 
 believes -this, is an Infidel to this Scripture Light. 
 
 The Dr. is now advancing to a Scripture- proof from James, and tells 
 US, He will not debate with us, whether James was one oj the Twelve or not: Nof 
 mall I detain him upon this, it being fpoken to above, and jhall aknow- 
 ledge he had the Name and Authority of an Apoftle afciibed unto him, 
 Gal. 2. 9. and 1. 19. That he was Biflwp of Jerujahm, the Dr. tellus, is-j- 
 niformly attefted by themoft ancient lPitncfjes,ejpecially Clemens Alexandrinus «*J 
 Hegelippus. What Strength is in this Argument from Human Teftimonv, 
 and what Credit Hegifippus deferves, is above touched : But we muft tell 
 him that he mull be fet to his task; It is Divine Tejlimony and Scripture pncf\ 
 and Witneffes we are feeking, according to his undertaking, not tl 
 Clemens or Hegefippus. But he tells us y he needs not fill Text or Margin with C,;.;- 
 tions.jince all his sidv*.rfaries, and particularly Salmalius, acknowledge that U 
 the firft Biihop of Jerusalem. But truelv, he hath inftead of Scripture proof, 
 MedJiisl^wp/j/^withluchiiuff, thathe.had.dona well Ion gfince 5 thus 
 
i % 6 T>r. Monro's T leadings Chap IV. 
 
 to refolve. Here is a bold and broad amplifying Affertion, which fome 
 will be bold to call one of the Dr f s broad and fplendid Lies, What/ All 
 his Adverfaries acknowledge James firft Bijhop of Jerufakm ? I know not 
 one, nor can he Affign one of this All, that acknowledge him Bi/Jwp in the 
 Trelatical Senfe. His Inftance of S a Imafius, which is the only one to evince 
 this Ail, the Dr. Produceth, is fuch a pitiful faint Witnefs, that his ad- 
 ducing of him, ferves only to render the Dr. the Object of their Laugh- 
 ter, who are lefs Serious ; For, all that he can fay is, That James continued 
 at Jerufalem , when other Apoftles withdrew: But that he was therefore in his 
 Sznfe, Bijhop of Jerufakm, is aConfequence which will require other Rules 
 of Logick to make it good, than have been heard of. Suppofe Salmafius 
 acknowledge that the Ancients called him lb; all do know, that he afferts 
 only their expreffing the Offices of Apoftles, and other extraordinary Of- 
 ficers, after the Mode of their Times, and Denominations, which had then 
 obtained; as Junius, Whittaker, and many other Learned Proteftant Divines 
 have obferved,- And the Matter it felf is evident to allUnprejudicat Minds: 
 So, that we need not in!] ft upon this. Only, we muft again enjoy n him 
 his Task of proving a Twofold Confequence^ and help his Memory in or- 
 der to his next Undertaking againft the Presbyterians : i. James flayed at Je- 
 rufalem, when other Apoftles withdrew; Ergo, he was properly and for* 
 mally Bijhop thereof. 2. Salmafius acknowledges, that de fa Bo, the Ancients 
 .call him Bifiwp, and that he abcde at Jerufalem; Ergo, he acknowledges 
 him Bijhop of Jerufalem, and a Bifljop of the Dr c s Mould, as fucceeding the 
 Apoftolat therein, now it feems laidafide. Again, the Ancients acknow- 
 ledge, that de facto, he was Bifoop of Jerufalem, and Salmafius relates this • 
 Ergo, he ownes the Jus of the Hierarchical Bijhop. When the Dr. hath ma- 
 naged this Task, he fhall be an Apollo for his Skill. 
 
 But now (P. 113. ) the Dr. tells us, That the Account the Scriptures gives 
 its of him, is 'very agreeable to the Tefiimony of the Ancients. I am verriiy of 
 the Opinion, that the Dr c s Veneration for Antiquity is too Venerable.. I 
 ftiould think that the Dr. fhould have fpoken better Senfe and Divinity ,if 
 expreffing it in this Order, that the Teftimony of the Ancients is agreeable 
 to the Account of the Scripture, and to have made the Scripture Account 
 the Leading Tefiimony. Well, let us hear this Account of Scripture: Only 
 before we hear it, let us remember, what the Point is, which this Account 
 and Teftimony muft have Reference to, viz,. That the Apofile James was 
 properly a?id formally Bijhop 0/" Jerufalem, having a fixed Relation thereto, as his 
 proper peculiar Diocefs, and Exercifing an ordinary Epifcopal JurifdiStion ever that 
 Church. The firft Proof is, That Peter pays a Deference to him, in enjoyning 
 notice to be given him, and the Brethren, of hts Efcape from Prifon, Acl. 12. 17; 
 Here is an Account given of an Important Mercy to aFellow-Apoftle,and 
 
 other 
 
Chap. IV. ForEpifcopa'cy, Examined. 137 
 
 other Minifters at Jerufalem, but a Deference to him asi Biftcp of Jerufalem, 
 in theSenfe above exhibit, even granting the ordnary Exercife of his Apo- 
 ftleihip there,isfuch a Confequence,as no Rational Man can fdmit:For,i. 
 Were not all,whether we may (uppofe them Apoftlesor Brethren prefent, 
 concerned in this,and capable of the Deference of this Information? Yea, 
 are they not thusReprefented?2.Suppofe Apoftlcs prefenr,without any fuch 
 Refidence, or fiippofed Epifcopal Relation, will the mere Deference of 
 iuch an Information prcve this? Yea, fay this fuppofed his fpecial Refi- 
 dence there,and confequently, his and the other Brethrens Concern in the 
 Information, can any Rational Man imagine.that this Deference thusexpref- 
 f-d., will fuppofe any more, than fuch a Refidence for the time ? Beiides, 
 that the more Severe Critick, would Interrogat him,how this Information, 
 fimpViy confidered, comes under the Character of fuch a S fecial Deference 
 and Honour, as theDr. m.tkes it? Will the Report of an Important Mer- 
 cy prove this, fince another End is evident, w&. The Instruction and 
 Comfort of the Perfon Informed, fimplely confidered? TheCritick would 
 alfo Pofe the Dr. upon this, What Deference was paid in Peters firft Pcrfo- 
 ttal Vifit. to the Houfe of Mary, and the other Praying Perfons with her ? 
 I think if mention had been of John Mark his Perfonal Prefence, this De- 
 ference, by the help of theDr'sLcgick, andQuickned a litle bv his Zeal 
 for YreUcy] would have put fair to let him up as Biflicp of Jerufalem at this 
 time. 
 
 But the Dr. tells us, this Deference is taken notice of elfwhere, as Gal. 
 1. 19. Gal. 2. 1,9. For the firft PaiTage, the Apoftle tells, v. 18. that he 
 went up to Jerufalem to fee Peter. Here is fome Deference. He adc!s, 
 that he faw none of the Apoftles fave James. What Deference is here ii> 
 finuat, and in fpecial eo nomine, as Biflwp of Jerufalem, will require a new 
 Eflay of the Dr. to draw it from the Text. Pool takes the Naming of thefe 
 here to import, That the ether Apcftles being fcattereA^ and gone off to projecute 
 thtir Work, theft two Apoftles were only at this time refid^nt there, Thus it feems 
 the Dr c s great Topick from a Refidence at Jerufalem, as peculiar to James, 
 is much Weakned by this Tefrimony ,• And his Rtverence did not well to 
 raife this Ghofr. As for Pauls iecond Journey to JerufaLm, Recorded in 
 the other PaiTage, and the mention of James with Peter and Jchn y as PiU 
 lars, I know not what Shadow of Argument can be drawn therefrom, for 
 his pretended Epifcofacy at Jerufaltm, more than of Cephas and Jthm 
 Whatever Eminency in Moral Refpects is here infinuat, lure it is Shared 
 among all the three, without any Shadow of a Preference of James to the 
 re(r, and far lefs eo nomine, as Bijhop of Jerufalem, unlefs the Dr. draw the 
 Strength of his Argument from his being firit Named, and thus Patronize 
 the Popijh Argument, from the firft Nomination of Peter, to prove his Vri- 
 
 L l jnacj ; 
 
1 3 S T)r. Monro** ^Pleadings Chap. IV. 
 
 wwcy\ Which is long fince Baffled and Difowned by all Proteftant Divines. 
 The Dr. alledges, that Presbyterians would needs Impofe upon Mens Senfes 
 and Belief, their own Dreams ; as if fome Phantaiiick Perfon fhouid pre- 
 tend he fees Virions of Armies and Battallions in the Skies, and Challenge 
 and Threaten others to fee what they fee not : If his Confequences in this 
 and many other places of his Pamphkt, be not of this Nature, furely never 
 any were. 
 
 But the great Demonftration of the higheftClafs follows, which the Dr. 
 Prefaceth with a mo(l of all What is that ? Why ? Act.i^.iy. He pronun- 
 ees the Sentence of the Council by his Epifcopal Authority, Here is an Airy Vi- 
 iion indeed, a Demonfrration, the Rules whereof are exiftent only in the 
 Dr c s Brain. The Sentence and Decifion of this Apoftoiick Council, upon 
 Conference and Debate, was pronuoced by Ja?nes ; Ergo as a Deference ex- 
 hibit to him by all the Apofties above themle;ves,yea,and eo nominees Biftcp 
 of Jerufakm. What a Rope of Sand is this ? I know,ks ordinarly fuppofed 
 he prefided in the Council., but that this doth imp rt any Official Deference or* 
 Supereminency over his Feilow-Apoftles, and far iefs zsBifiop oi]eruf>hm,\s a 
 Confequence as far reniDte from this Conceflion and Suppofition, asEaft 
 from Weft. The Dr. faith, he pronunced the Sentence by his Efij copal Au- 
 thority : Thus it feems his Epifcopal Authority was a higher Sphere of Autho- 
 rity, than ever he had by his Apoftolat ; And if fo, the Dr. hath Razed all 
 his former Pleadings for aSucceilion of Epifcopacy to an Apoftolat, and muft 
 devife a higher Fun&ion, than even that of Apoftolat, to found Epifcopal 
 Authority. But the Dr. will not be thought (now that he is in a Calmer 
 Humor;fr> plead that James alone Decided by his fole Tower, wit bout Concurrence of 
 aH^sr Apofties, but as Bifhop of Jerufalem be prefided in the Council. But 
 here- it might be asked, what fort of Prefidency it is that the Dr. here a- 
 icribes to James, in this Council ? Whether the mere Vrefidency of a Modera- 
 tor y or that which is properly Epifcopal, having the foleRe&oral Power in- 
 cluded therein? The afferting of the firft only feems not Confonant to the 
 Dr c s Scope, which is to prove an Episcopal Authority inJudicatories,ashere. 
 Exemplified. If he ailert the fecond, then in Contradiction to himleif^ 
 ir& robs the reft of the Apofties of this Recloral P, wer, Monopolizing it 
 :ln the Perfon of James. Or, if he mould aicri be this Epifcopal Power to 
 blrn, with refped to the Inferior Clergy there prefent,^ he cannot deny,. 
 that his Fellow- Apofties Shared with him herein,- And fo there is nothing, 
 of fole Epifcopal Power Exemplified in this Inftance, or any thing elfe, ex- 
 cept a mere Prefidency, which might be allowed upon the Account of his, 
 ordinary Refidence at Jerufalem, by his Fellow-Apofties, not unlike un- 
 t<>, a Moderators Office allowed by a Synod to theMimfter of aCity,wherein> 
 kk aifembied, which. doth aothing impeach the, &m,e Ksftoral Power^ 
 
Chap. IV- For Epifcopacy, Examined, i 3 9 
 
 competent to every Faftor of the Judicatory. But as to the Epis- 
 copal Red?ral Power, the Dr. cannot be ignorant, that his Fellow" 
 Pleader Bijhop Downarn, in his Defence ( with whom the Dr. will not 
 defire to Juftle and Deal Streaks ) is clear and p flrive in this Aflertion of 
 the Bifhops fole Authority in Government. That Jame s prefided in the 
 Council^ I have told the Dr, is fuppofed, though I conceive it a pretty- 
 hard task to offer a demonftrative Argument from the Text to make it 
 good : But that it was as Bsjhop oljernjalem, is a phantaftick Dream, 
 which hath no fhadow of Ground. That PafTage [ My Sentence, is ] the 
 Authors of the id. Fait oi Fools Annot. with feveral others, take to be only 
 the Signification of his Judgement upon the Quefrion, in Correfponcence 
 to what Feter had before ipoken, ./Is for Simeons Succeffion to James in 
 JcmfaUm, and Hegeftppus Account of the Succeffion of Bifhops there : It 
 is fpoken to above, and what Credit is to be given ro the fuppofed Cata- 
 logue of BijJjops in Jerufahm and other pretended DioceJJ'es. Fcr what he 
 adds of Calvin's Judgement upon Gal. i. 9. As favouring his Opinion. I An- 
 fwer, Calvin takes him indeed to be among Eminent Ap-ftles, vt& In 
 Moral Refpecte, prudentia & aim dotibvs, as he expones the word Fillar 9 
 and attributs the fame Eminency to Feter and John ; And fpeaking of his 
 prefiding in the Council, he doth not pofitively aifert the Ground which 
 the Dr. alledges, but prob'ematically with afortaftis id factum, <kc. And 
 even granting his Admiflion of a Frefdency, the Confequence of an Official 
 Frefidency, and as importing a Majority of Power, far lefs eo nomine as for- 
 mally Bifiop there, is 16 very grois and obvioufly impertinent, as any with 
 half an Eye may difcover it. 
 
 The v Dr. tells us, That his Scripture Inftances do plainly demon ffrat that the 
 Apoflolical or Epi [copal Authority was conveyed to [ingle per Jons in the fir [I 1 lacta- 
 tions ofChrifti.ir/jty. What Demonftrations thefe are, I refer to the £<-... 
 to Judge fiom what is above reply ed, fuch lure, as are n: t adapted to 
 Rules that hitherto hath been heard of, whereof this is a very clear I - 
 monitration, that the Dr. in this Peroration and refined Sumni and Con- 
 clufion of his fuppofed mighty preceecling DemonfTrdtions.hath pronoun- 
 ced as great Nbne-fehfe as ever was fppkeo or wrjttejii W nich I cii:, 
 ftrat thus from t\\6-Series of his Reafoning : In his Senie, the 4 
 and Epifcupal Office is one and equal, and Apoflles as fuch, were : 
 to all Qiurch Officers except Biceps, their proper Succelfors in O;/ 
 Authority. Now, here is a bucccil\r Bijhop preferred to all Ape til'. 
 nominees Siicceif ,r-Biihop,yet deriving in his senfe alio an Apoilolato; 
 And which is yet odde., fiicceeding to an Apoftolkk Office, u ho w : 
 Apoftl a before, and by his C o&ffion thus related umo, arid I. 
 Official Authority x refpectin^ the Ghfci«h Univsrlul j \et when his 
 
 Char fp 
 
140 T>r. Monro's Tleadings Chap. IV. 
 
 Charge is Reftri&ed to Jeru[alem, as his proper Poll and Diocefs, he doth 
 upon this Ground Tranfcend all the Apoftles in Official Authority. If 
 any will fodder thefe Aifertions together, and reconcile them to found 
 Senfe and Dirinity, he muft be better skilled than all Vulcan's Gim- 
 merers. 
 
 The Dr. will not ivfift upon the Presbyterians imaginary and fuperfcial Ex- 
 ceptions -which they have invented. They muft be fuch becaufe he faith it, 
 and favc him from a Concern in Scanning them. No doubt, if as Super- 
 ficial and Imaginary as his Demonftrations, their Inventions were very 
 {hallow. 
 
 The Dr. brings next (P.,114.) the Trite Argument taken from the fe- 
 ven Afiatkk Angels: And firft tells us of Salmafius taking the Angels as denot- 
 ing the Churches y the Denomination being taken from the purer Tart of thefe Cities, 
 to which Chrift wrote. To which he replyes from the difiinclion of the Churches 
 from the Angels, Rev. 1. 20. And that the Senfe would thus be, to the Church 
 of the Churches. Not to detain him much here, we only tell him, that 
 whatever Salmafius Senfe or Efcape might be in this, he cannot deny, that 
 in the Senfe and Judgement of the Body of all Presbyterians, the Angels are 
 diftingui fried from the Churches, as the Church Reprefentative, is from the 
 Church Colleclive. Befides, himfelf acknowledges (P. 11 5 .) That the 
 Heavenly Admonitions are firft addreiTed to the Angels, and by them were 
 Communicated to the Churches: As at the clofe of every Epiftle, all are 
 called to hear what the Spirit faith to the Churches. And he will not 
 doubt that Salmafius diftinguimeth Minifters from Church Members in this 
 Point, and the Church Members concern in all that is written, he can lefs 
 doubt. Befides that, Salmafius words will hardly bear his critical and fau* 
 cy ConftrucHon, who calls them afillyfubterfuge, fince he may be fuppofed 
 to compare only the Populipurior pars (as he Terms it) with the reft of the 
 Inhabitants of thefe Towns, fo that the Addrefs diftininguiiheth them from 
 others; And the Angel of the Church, in his Senfe, will import only the 
 Church in fuch a City, not the Church of fuch a Church. 
 
 But the Dr. will not have the Angel a Multitude, but cnefrgle Angel, pre*- 
 fiding over Presbyters and People. We have already made appear, that the 
 Collective Senfe of the Term Angel, is m oft f urea ble to Scripture, and the 
 Scope of this Book. But the Dr. will needs loofe the Objection taken 
 from the Plural Addrefs of the Angel, which he thus propones, That feme 
 Inftrnclions there are in thefe Epiftle s, in which others befide the Angels, are parti- 
 cularly admonijhed. This is a piece of our Dr f s. petty Sophiftry : He muft 
 make the knot eafie, that he may know how to ioofe it. The very pro- 
 pofingof this Objection, is a yeelding of the Caufe; For, if in this Plu- 
 ral Addrefs, thefe others addreffed, be not the Angel, then there is no 
 
 Plural 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 14.1 
 
 Vlural Addrefi of the Angel himfelf, or Reprefentation of the Term Angel, 
 in a Plural Mould: But had the Dr. intended to Difpute, not to trirHe, 
 in propofing a fimple Foppery, in (lead of a Presbyterian Obje&ion, he 
 /hould have told his Reader, that we hold Cand do exhibit Inftances of 
 it) that the Angel himfelf, is addreffed Plurally, and befpoken fo in thefe 
 Epiftles, as a plurality of Officers, appear evidently to be pointed at 
 by the Term Angel. As particularly, when it is faid, To you and the reft 
 in Thyatira, Rev. 2. 24. Thus like wife v. 10. Fear none of thefe things, 
 which thou (baUfuffer : Behold the Devil fo alt ca(t fome of 'you into prijcn, that 
 ye may be trjed, and yejhafl have tribulation, &C. Be thou faithful unto death. 
 Well, what faith he' to this Objection? Why.' The Efiftle isno lefs addnfei 
 to the fingle Angel, than that cfiht Phiiippians is to the whole Church at Phi- 
 lippi, though Paul ufetb particular Ccmpef/aticns, Chap. 4. 2. 3. I-tntreat thee 
 aljo true Yoke-fe Row, help thefe Women fiLQ. But good Dr. here is both a parti- 
 cular, fpecial, diltind Precept, and under fuch a Compellation, as is /* 
 ufm&mjkpitat and difringuiihed from theBody of the Church, and thofe 
 general Precepts addreffed thereunto, So that there isno inadow of a 
 Para! el, when the Angel is plurally Addreffed, for the Precept and In- 
 junction is the very fame Fear none of theft things -which thou fhalt fuffer; 
 
 There c s a relative pointing at the fingle Term Angel Then the Devil 
 
 flail c aft ycu that ye may betryed Be thou faithful, &c. There the 
 
 fame perfons are addreffed and fpoken to, both finglely as one Angel,a.nd 
 plurally as many,& that in reference to the fame very individual Purpofe 
 and Duty, the Speech running on both to the fame Perfons, and thefame 
 Scope. So that to ufe the Dr's. Phrafe in reference to Salmafius, his An- 
 fwer to this Objection, appears to be a fill) fubterfuge, fit for nothing but 
 to move their Laughter, who are feen in this Debat, and unworthy to 
 have been uttered, much lefs printed by a Man who fets a D. D. to 
 his Name. The Dr. cannot but know that the pinch of this Debate, and 
 ftate of the Queftion betwixt him and us, is, Whether all that's fpoken of 
 this Angel, can be competent to one individual ( the contrary whereof, 
 Presbyterians have made goodj and not anent the Concerns of particular 
 Perfons, in fome fpecial Precepts of agencral Epiftie, which h ;';; term'mti 
 addreffed to the whole Church' 
 
 The Dr. adds as another mighty Anfwer, That the fecond Efiftle to Ti- 
 mothy is addrcjjed to him alone, tho the Conch f on be to all the Faithful at llphcf- 
 u$. AnJ\ That the fecond Epiftle to Timothy is addrelied to him immedi- 
 arly, no Body doubts: As for that Conciulion, The Lord J ejus be with thy 
 Spirit, Grace be with you, there can nothing thence be inferred, but : thatthe 
 Apoille in the Precepts addrelied to Timothy, deiigned the Good of the 
 whole Church: And altho what is contained in the Epiftle, have this 
 
 A a a ee- 
 
1 4.1 T>r. Monroes T leadings Chap. IV 
 
 general Scope, yet it is to be applyed pro unius cujufyue modulo, and Peo* 
 pies Duties, and that of Minifters, are to be diftinguifhed : But in the 
 plural Adrefs of the Angela the fame Duties are (as is faid) enjoynedto 
 the fame Perfons, and to the fame Scope; And the Myftical Term Angel, 
 is reprefented in a plain plural Mould, as pointing at a Plurality of Church 
 Officers. Beiides, that in thisConclufion, the People are difringuiined from 
 the perfanofT/Ttf^/j-SOjthat the Conclusion doth not foiely and imme- 
 diatly reach them : But this holds not paralel with the Dire&ion of an E- 
 piftle to a Plurality, thus Myftically reprefented by one fingle Angel The 
 Dr. adds further, That the Bijhops of tht Afiatick Churches , are faid to be 
 Angels, hi Imitation of the Jews, amcvg whom the High Vrieft vjos dig- 
 nified with- that Name, as Mai. 2. 7. Where, the Word Meffenger may 
 he tranfiated Angel. I like not the Do<5tor c s Jewip Imitations 1 If the 
 Pattern was drawn from Mai. 2. 7. Even granting this to the 
 Dr, that the Term Angel is with Allufion to that Term 01 Mtjftnger, the 
 Term and Defignation is Scriptural ,- And had his Eyes been fingle, he might 
 in looking upon that Text, have found that the Term of Mefienget 
 and Prieft, hath a plural Signification; And confequently our Ex- 
 pofition of the fingle Term Angel, in a Collective Senfe, m thefe Epiftles, 
 and Application of the Plural Addrefs to the fingle Angel, to be Exem- 
 plified in that Scripture. But the Dr. will needs fuppofe gratis, and Ma- 
 gifterially Dictat unto us, his Vetiiio Vrincipii, That the High Vrieft only was 
 Dignified with that Name: But he and his Fore-leader Dr. Hammond hath pi- 
 tifully mift the Mark in this Notion, it being palpable, that the Scope ii 
 to diced the Lords Vriefts and Minifters in their common Duties to which 
 they were called- and to fay that the High Vrieft alone was here defigned 
 and intended, will infer that the firft Verfe of that Chapter, O ye Vriefts this- 
 Gimmjindmcnt is for you, is to be underftocd only of the High Vrieft, that he 
 alone was concerned to giveGlory to the Lords Name, as is enjoy ned in the 2. 
 Verfe, and he alone threatned in the fame Verfe, with a Curfe to he inflitlecL 
 uvm his Blejfings, that he alone was to have the Law of Truth in his Mouthy 
 and to keep knowledge, as Verfes 6, 7.. and that at his Mouth only, the Law was 
 U.hef ought y Whereas all the Vriefts wer&Teachers, and Solemnly Addreffed 
 the People, in Teaching together with Mofes himfelf, Dcttt. 27.9, ic. and 
 were fent to Teach the People, 2 Chrcn. 17. 8. Befides that, had the Dr. 
 been through in Searching this Controveriie,he might have found,that as- 
 the. Term Lex;;, reprefents in this Chapter the Multitude of Levites, ioVres* 
 kfienans do plead, that the. Term. Angel, whereby the Officers of every 
 Church of Afia is reprefented, \\2it\-\\nothing peculiar in i/,befide what, is appli- 
 cable to every Minifter of theGofpe^whofe^ge/i^ F/ww?,as-well as Oliice: 
 mdA.uth9jity 3 k hereby goiated out^ And th«icfore,caiuio tin this plac^ 
 
 Iridic 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. i^ 
 
 Indigitat an Officer Superior to Tafiors or Minifters. The Dr. affert 5 * 
 That the Angels Authority was extended to Laity and Clergy. But he muft be 
 admoni/hed, that his new Term of Clergy and Laity y were not then be- 
 got; and he muft prove, nor affert without Proof, this his alledged Ex- 
 tenfion of the fingte Angel, or Vrelat his Power and Authority. The Dr. 
 pleads that the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels, becaufe.cf their 
 Spiritual Power to Preform and Chaftife thefe Abufes: AnJ. No doubt Minifters 
 have great influence upon the good or ill Frame of Churches, and this 
 will fay -as much,, yea much more for us, than for the Dr • for upon our 
 Supposition of a Plurality of Payors Addreffed in the Angel, its much more 
 futeable to fuppofe a Peoples good or ill Frame and Spiritual Condition 
 to be influenced by the good or bad Carriage of their Ptftcrs, who have 
 an immediat Infpe&ion over them, than to fuppofe it flows merely from 
 the good or bad Carriage of ontPrelat fet over their Clergy and themfclves, 
 this Infpe&ion being the more remote : And the Dr. knows we may call 
 in an old gray Hair c dWitnefs,E*^n>7;<:e,to teftifie that there hath fometimes 
 been fome diligent Paftors, and a thriving Pec pie in a Dioce/s, where the 
 Bifhop hath been naught. And befid^s, that the Dr. here pitifully beggs 
 the Queftion, he Jliould have feen how to evite the Inconvenience of Ti- 
 mothy (fo eminently commended for hisFaithfulnefs, Stedfaftnefs and Pie- 
 ty ) his falling, as Bijhop of Epbefa, from his rirft Love, and by his bad 
 Carriage influencing this bad Frame in that Church, and leading them 
 wrong. As likewite, he ihould have feen, how to make it appear, that 
 the Important Duties of Faithfulness ^ holding faft what is attained 3 not to Fear 
 Sufferings, Warnings of a Prifon Tryal, &c. are applicable to cne Perfcn fch- 
 ly. As likewife, how feveral of thefe evils charged upon the Churches, 
 could be the Objects of the Bi[lwps fuppofed Spiritual Chaftiling Power, 
 fuch as their Dead Frame, Falling from their fir ft Lcve, &c. 
 
 The Dr. ( ibid. ) will in the next place, loofe the Objection taken from 
 Rev. 2.24. But unto you I/ay^and to the reft in Thy atir a: Whence lie tells us M e 
 plead that the Epiftles were directed to a Community, becaufe the Com- 
 petition is in the Plural. To this he Anfwers, that the Word E%, is left out 
 in the mo ft Ancient Manitfripts, particularly the Alexandrian, preserved in ft* 
 Royal Library. 'Tis picy the Dv, or a Man of his Senfe was not called in 
 to Inftruct or Inform our [ai\Tra;>Jlators } who were,no doubt,as Eavourab 
 to the Epifcopal Ociufc as he ( though I will not fay they would have allow- 
 ed all his Methods in Pleading ) and he will not do.'.bt or their diligent 
 Searching the Original Text,and that thev knew of thefe AiMWiftrifUtfS \\l A 
 asDr. Hammond mc\ he, yetdo render the Text with thcCcnjunaion K.,, ac- 
 cording to theCurrent of ill the Greek Copies. Its irrange that the Dr. hath 
 fihe.Coiitidence^ugontheSuppoiition dorx Cop/,or of cwoac mofl^rea< 
 
144 ^ r - Monro's ? leading* Chap IV. 
 
 the Text without the Conjunction, to aiTert that the mofl Ancient Manufcripts 
 do thus read it,as \itheje two deferved that Character, and might ftand good 
 againft the whole Body of all tbeGrcek Copies, wherein thisParticle is found, 
 yea the whole Body of all Tranflators, as hath been Inftanced unto him by 
 Presbyterian Writers. We have above made appear,that the Text cannot be 
 confonantly read Read to the fcope or contexture, without the Conjun- 
 ction, fince after that our Lord in verf. 23. gives this general warning, I 
 will give unto every one of you according to y ur Works j&C.He adds, but untoycu and 
 unto the reft in Thyatira, viz,', you Mmifters and the People in that Church, 
 con trad i(iin<5t. f om others, &c. The Dr will needs have the words we infift 
 en, applicable to thofe mentioned in the latter end of the 23 verfe, and net proper- 
 ly to the Angel of the Church ofThyatira : And this is his Anfwer, even u- 
 pon the fuppofition of our Reading with the conjunction which he is for- 
 ced to acknowledge is the common Reading; and thus difcovershis folly in 
 oppoiing twofuppcfedCopiestoit.HisReafonis,that[^e7]^re the otherChurcb 
 es of Afia. .which becaufe mentioned In the Speech directed to the Angel of the Church 
 0/ Thyatira, the Immedlat tranfitlcn from him to them is natural and e a fie, and ail 
 the Churches mall know, VtZA the Churches of Adajhall know that 'lam He 
 which fear cheth the Reins and hearts : v. 24. But unto you ( i. e. faith the Dr.) 
 the Churches of Ana, &c. Thus hefcor c s out,and expungeth the adverfative 
 particle., [Bui] in 24 wr/<?,clearly limiting the you here, and diftinguiiliing 
 it from the more extenfive [you] in verfe 2;. I hope the Dr faw no Co- 
 pies reading the Text without the adverfative particle [ But ] The Dr. 
 lays, becaufe the Particle [ they ] in V. 23, is underftood of all the Churches of A' 
 fia, in the Speech direBed to Thyatira, the Tranfit ion from him to them is eafieand 
 natural, all the Churches of Afia fljall know, &c.-*~ But unto you i. e. the Church- 
 es of Alia, &c. If this be not an offering violence to the Text, nothing e- 
 ver was; For after that our Lord hath added a general appendant motive 
 *v. 25. that by this ftroak on Jezebel, all the Churches ihall know ( viz,: 
 the Afian Churches ) that he is a fearcher of theReins and Hearts,^. He 
 returns to an exprefs Application and Addrefs of the Speech to Thyatira 
 tffxutt uy« K*i \ojootc t«ic •» 6v*rttpoi ( Firft in general by thedifcriminating J5/tf, 
 or ft; Secondly in an exprefs mention of Thyatira. And that we may not 
 miftake it for a general partition of the Churches of Afia unto thofe of Thy- 
 atira and others ( as the Dr. dreams; he exprefly,d>" in terminis ^thus reftrids 
 the phrafe an,d addrefs to that particular Church, to you and the reft in Thy- 
 atira, not to you in all Afia. The Dr will not deny, that in this claufe 
 the ( you ) and the ( refl ) are diftinguiflied, and within diftin& Limits 
 and Marches, but fo cannot thofe of Thyatira, be diftinguiihed from the 
 Churches of Afia, whereof they are a part. For what he adds of Beta's 
 Acknowledgment of the Angel to be a Prafes, we have already made ap- 
 
 ^ pear, 
 
Chap. IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 145 
 
 pear, how infignificant this is to bear the weight of his concluflon of 
 a Vrelatkal Prefidency herefuppofed, fince he owrs him only as a Modern- 
 tor or Vrafes of the Meeting, by the Dr c s acknowledgement. But the Dr. 
 tells usfa makes him in a ridiculous manner a Weekly or Monthly Moderator, This 
 Charge ofthe Dr c s is ridiculous, Beza only pleading againft the fixed Mo- 
 derator, which with him is the Epifccpus humanus, without mentioning any 
 fuch Limits of time, as the Dr. Imputes unto him. The Dr. will needsre- 
 move the Obje&ion taken from the Angels not being called Btfiups; to which 
 he returns, That neither Baftijm nor the Sacrament of the Lords Suppn are called 
 Sacraments, though we exprcfs the Scripture Senfeofthefelnftitutions, when Jo term- 
 ing them. But by his favour, this Objection is not foinconfiderable, as he 
 imagins, n r his Anfwer fo conhderabie,- for, if the Apofties Scope was 
 to point out the Nature and Office of the Diocefan Bificp, whom the Dr. 
 diftinguiihes from inferior Officers, and owns him as diftinguimed by this 
 term£i//j0/>,which he knows to be x«r« *•*•» and in terminis a Scripture term 
 and epithet, fuch as is not the word S acr ament, it ihouldfeem this difcri- 
 minating term mould herehave been made ufe of rather than a more gene- 
 ral Term.aplicable to all Paflors. And in a word, when he mall make the 
 •Divine inftitution of the Diocefan Biflwp appear in Scripture, then his Pa- 
 ralei anfwer with reference to Terms of Trinity and Sacraments, expreffing 
 what is revealed in Scripture, though not in Scripture Terms, mall be ad- 
 mitted as valid : But till then,muft make up the Number of the reft of the 
 Di's gratis fuppo fit a and beggings ofthe Queftion. 
 
 The Dr. will needs have the whole Queftion to be determined by the An- 
 cients affirmation of a Prtlatical Succejjion to Apofties. And next by their infix- 
 ing onthisSucceffon in their Dilutes with Hereticks. And in the Third place, 
 bv the refolntion of this doubt, whether we may fafely Lean on their Authority and 
 Tradition in an affair of this Confluence. What Credit is to be given to the^tf- 
 clents in thisPoin , and what itrength is in the Argument drawn from their 
 fuppofedTeftimony, in reference to our perfwafion ofthe Divine Right of 
 Prelacy, is above full v cleared. And our fcope being to trace only tl.eDr. 
 in his pretended Scripiure- proofs, we leave him fufficiently expofed in 
 this Point of Antiquity , by thole, who have fully examined him, and 
 traced his human Vroofs on thefe heads: WiJuing him aSounder heart, ai;4 
 more iincere diligence in this Controverly. 
 
 FINIS/ 
 
 B b b 
 
£i 
 
 t 
 
 y 
 
A REVIEWandEXAMINATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Scripture-Grounds, 
 
 UPON WHICH 
 
 The AUTHOR of the Survey o/Naphtali 
 
 (Suppofed to be Mr. Andrew Honyman, Biftiop of Orkney) 
 
 Pleads for the LAWFULNESS of the 
 
 Cpiftopal -J8ffice; 
 
 Where the Arguments of the IV. Chap, of his 
 II. PART, areDifcuffed. 
 
 CHAP: I: 
 
 A Confederation of the Scripture Grounds, upon 
 which the Survey er pleads for the Lawfulnefs 
 of the Epifcopal Office. 
 
 ^JO Examin with as Succind Perfpicuity as we canine 
 Surveyers Scripture Pleadings for Epifcopacy, in this <\tb. 
 Cb#p. It is in the firft place to be noticed, how that 
 he was afraid to let his Foot upon fuch Slippery 
 Ground, as to plead directly for the NeceJJity of Prelacy, 
 upon a Divine or Apofioluk Warrand^ as know- 
 ing, that the contrary Pra&ice and Principles of al- 
 moft die whole Body of Reformed Churches and Di- 
 jwncs, do iuthisPoii^tcontradicl .him. He therefore pretends to^/v. 
 
a The Surveyer'x ^leadings Chap* L 
 
 from this fuppofd Necffity, and the Grounds thereof , and to plead only for the 
 Lawfulnefs of the Order: Yet leaft he mould feem too Cool a Pleader, he 
 prefents foms things, which he calls Pcjitive Grounds of Epifcopacy ; Where- 
 of the Fir ft in Summ is. 
 
 That Chrift hath appointed in his Church an Official I Tower \which we call Epis- 
 copal, paramount unto, and above any Power that can be Exercifed by a Jingle Pres- 
 byter alone ; Which Power of Ordination and J-uriJdicJion, is acknowledged utrin- 
 que^awful in itfelf, the only Difference is, that Presbyterians hold it to be Sea- 
 ted in a Coiledge of Presbyters, and ^Epifcopalians hold it to be Concen- 
 tred in one Perfon, yet to be Exercifed by Presbyters Concurrence and Confent x 
 So, that the Difference of this Diffufed Epifcopacy in the Presbytrie, and Contra- 
 Bed in a Jingle liiiliop, to be managed with Confent of Presbyters, is like that be- 
 tvjeen minus aperta and inznns claufa. Anf The Surveyer doth but here 
 Shufflle and Obfcure the true State of this Que/Hon, betwixt Epifcopalhns 
 and Presbyterians-, Which is this, i;i&.Upon ourSuppofal of that Authority and 
 G vernment, afcribed in Scripture to Papers or Presbyters, and their Ef- 
 fential Intereft therein, how an Omcer, who is pretended to be Diftind: 
 from them, and Superior unto them, and Enhancing and Concentring all 
 their Power in himfelf, can be conliftent with the Scripture Prefcriptions 
 in point ofGovernmenc? The Surveyer mould have known, that the Scrip- 
 ture doth not only appoint the Official Power, but its proper Subject; So that 
 the Removing it from its proper Bans and Subjed, is a palpable Impeach- 
 ment of theie Inftitutions in point of Government: And therefore, if by 
 our Lords Warrand, this Official Power is Diffufed in a Coiledge of P afters or 
 Presbyters, the Concentring it in the perfon of one Prelat, muft needs be 
 an arrant Ufurpation in Men, yea ( and if poffibie ) in Angels. Next, 
 the Survey er Nafroweth and Difguifeth the Bifhops Power he pleads for ; 
 And that feverai ways, r. He overleaps his Arrogated Power of Order, 
 whereof he is the proper and primary Subjed in the Diocefs, wherein 
 Vajtors Ad but as his Deputs. 2. His Civil Acclaimed Power, ^ He 
 feems to Tye the Exercife of it to the Confent and Concurrence of Pres- 
 byters, wherein he diiTembles the Nature of their Arrogated Jurifdidional 
 power: For, if he did mean a Concurrence and Confent, which isDeci- 
 fivej Befides.that he in this contradicts himfelf,in Concentring this Power 
 in the Prelat ,fince frujlra efi potentia qua non potefi reduci in actum ,he durft not 
 affirm that the Official Power of the Pre/^then exiftent by Law,and whom 
 he pleaded for, was of this Nature : For, according to the Law eftabti- 
 ming Prelacy y t\iQy were to Exercife their Power with Advice only, and of 
 fuch of the Clergy only, as thy fliould find ( they themfelves being Jud- 
 ges ) of known Loyaltie and Prudence. Again, mould the Survey er fay this 
 Advice was only Confultive not Decifiv* 3 he did but Mock and Preva- 
 
 ricat, 
 
Chap. I. For Ephcopacy, Examined. 5 
 
 ricat, in adding this Limitation of Presbyters Ccr.fcnt and Concurrence, 
 and in pretending thus to put fome Limitations on the Prelats fcle Exercife 
 of his lower, as if it did not fwallow up and exclude the Official Autho- 
 rity of Presbyters zv^P after s in Government. In a Word,as it is certain that 
 the Diverfifying of the Subject, diverlifieth the Specks and Kinds of Govern- 
 ment, which is evident in that of Monarchy, Democracv, Ariftocracy &c. 
 So in the point of Church Government, depending upon Divine and po- 
 fitive Inftitution, Ic is eafie to difcover fuch a vaft \ a nation upon this 
 Ground, as might have covered this Surveyer with Blufhes, and which 
 baffles his Notion with his own Similitude of the news aperta & claufa* 
 For he will not denv the Lawfuinefs of an OEcomenick or General Coun- 
 cil, in ajuft Reprefentative of all ChrifHan Churches, having an Audio* 
 rity diffufed in all the Members, which refpeds the whole Churches. 
 Now, here is the manus aperta, and in his Senfe the manus claufa, or the 
 Monopolizing and Concentring this Authority in one perfon, doth no 
 whit impeach the Lawfuinefs of the Power it feif. Then advance the ma- 
 ntis claufa, an OEcumenick Bijlwp, or Supreme Head over all the Church, 
 having all this Authority Monopolized in him, which was before diffufed 
 in the General Council. And here it may be demanded, whether this Plead- 
 er, or fuch as he, did owne fuch an Officer as Lawful cr not? If fuch an 
 Officer be owned as Lawful, then farewel the Protefiant Profefti-n, and 
 the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches againfta Papal Supremacy &: U- 
 niverfal OEcumenick Bijlcp : If fuch an Officer be held unlawful, then 
 this Notion and Argument is quit baffled and excluded, which affcrted 
 the Lawfuinefs both of the Diftufed and Contra&ed Ofhcial Power: For, 
 here the one Power is owned as warranded of GOD, and infaruted in 
 its Nature and Exercife ; The other is difowned, as contrary to His Infti- 
 tution. What the burveyer adds upon this Head, touching a Lawful De- 
 manour towards Towers that are usurped. ana entertaining fel b a MtMt- 
 
 fi trial Church, though called by an usurping Biihop, hath been iufficientlv an- 
 fwered by the Afolcglfi and Others, and the Difference fo clearly fiated 
 betwixt the Condition of a Church, wherein Vrelats are obtruded upon 
 the (landing Church Judicatories ( in which Cafe Minifters are to keep 
 their places, and contend againft them) and fuch a State and Condition 
 of a Church, wherein the Government is razed, and the Fc undation of ic 
 laid upon a Princes arrogated Supremacy over the fame, and Vrelats Autho- 
 rity as his Adminiftrators in the Government thereof, and withal) in the 
 Concurrence a formal and direct acknowledgment of both the one and 
 the other being required, as the Condition of xMinifterial Communion, 
 that nothing needs here be further added. 
 
 The Next Ground the Survejer adduceth is, That MiniflersVnkn and Af- 
 
 C c c feci* 
 
'3| The Surveyerx 'Pleadings. Chap. I. 
 
 fociation of ibemfelves, and letting over them one fingle Perfon to Moderat and Go- 
 vern the Actions of the Meeting, is Juris Divini, and that by our own Confejfion. 
 Anf. The Survtyer durff not make his Application here,- or had he done 
 fo, the abfurdity of the Confequence from this Moderator or Pref dent to 
 the Prelat he pleaded for, would have palpably appeared, and hislnconfift- 
 ency with himfelf: For i. He faith that Affociat Minifiers fet ever themselves 
 this Moderator, and this he holds to be Juris Divini, and GODs Will j And 
 if fo 3 then fure it is neither Juris Divini, nor GODs Will, that this Mo- 
 derator (I)ould be obtruded upon them by an Extraneous Power, without the leaft 
 madow of their Confent, as he could not bur know the Vrelat s he pleaded 
 for, were cbtruded upon this Church. 2. If it be GODs Will that this 
 Vrefdent be fet over Meetings of Minifters^^ww theAclions of the Meeting y 
 and preferve Due Order, then it is not His Will that this Moderator or Pre*, 
 fident mould have their whole Authority Concentred in him, as this Survey- 
 or pleads , and fo as to fmallow up their whole decifive Suffrage, and 
 render them mere Cyphers : This he cannot but acknowledge to exceed 
 far the mert governing the Actions of the Meeting, and prefer ving of Order,- 
 Whkh is the proper Work of a Moderator, I might add that the admit- 
 ting it is GODs Will, that Minifiers fet over their Affociat Meetings one 
 fingle perfon to Moderat, will not fo much as infer, that he Ihouid mo- 
 derat rfJi-zYtfw : Since 1. This will bring, under the burden of whatever 
 abufe of his Power he may be guilty of, and exclude all Help and Redrefs. 
 2c This will deny the Judicatory or Meeting, the Advantage and Ufe of 
 thefe governing Gifts and Graces, diat may be fuppofed in other Mem- 
 bers: And fure the Surveyer could not but acknowledge this contrary to 
 the Divine Law, fince the Gifts and Graces of every Minifler are given 
 by GOD for the Advantage of His Church, and to be improven accord- 
 ingly. The Minijlration of the Spirit (faith the ApoftleJ is given to every one 
 u profit withal vto6^6vi(]n e oi A Metaphor taken (as fome do judge) from 
 Bees bringing all to the common* Hive. Thus -we fee, that unlets the Sur- 
 ^tj£T. degrade the Eifocps to mere Moderators, this Reafon is utteriy remote: 
 frorrij and abfoluteiy ihort of reaching any other Conciufion. 
 
 The Third Ground is, That it is Juris Divini, by way of Approbation, that 
 tM Churches in their Minifierial Combinations for Government, jhould have one 0- 
 f&t them, who hath a fingular Power for prevention of Schifm and DifcrJer, and 
 j'A-cka Power as what is Right or JVrongin the Church, may be imputed to him, as 
 ..nifeji from the Epi files directed to the Angels of the Churches, Rey. 2.3. whom 
 Bez'a, Cartwright, Reynolds, &c. hold to be fingle perfon s. Anf. It is not. 
 dearly difcernible what ftrength is in this Reafon beyond the former, 
 linceit ftill runs upon the Jus Divinum , andmcejfity of a Prefident in 
 ^himhMieungsjn order to ibises its native, and greatEnd^'s; xhsVnvwtion-: 
 
Chap. L For Epifcopacy, Examined. f 
 
 of Schifm and Dif order : And if this be the Rule and Meafure of fuch a Pre" 
 fidencv, the Surveyer had been hard put to it, to prcve that this doth ne~ 
 ceifarly infer and require that it be fuch as fwaJlows up the whole de^ 
 cifive Power and Authority of Paftors in Government •- And that Disor- 
 der and Schifm cannot be otherwife prevented by a Prefidenv, than thu s 
 Authorized, and that referving to Paftors their decifive Authority and 
 Power cannot as well reach this End. 2. For what the Swveytr adds, 
 That the Power of the Prtfidcnt miff? be fuch, as what u Right or an.ijs y 
 may be imputed to him, as ufir.g his Power Well cr Badly: As it may have 
 a terrible Sound in the Ears of the Hierarchical PreLt ■ who 
 hath an Authority and Power extended not only to all the Paf- 
 tors of the Diocefs y but the whole Body of the People therein, as this Sttr- 
 <ueycr owns, P. 194. Since he hath thus a Work and Office of fuch 
 a Nature, as is impoflible Co be managed ; Belides, that the Charge 
 of all the evils within the Diocefs, lyethneceffarly up.n hinaj Soiikewife, 
 it is more than this Surveyer could prove that what was well oramifsin the 
 Afian Churches, is chiefly imputed to one Perfon. For, 1. It is not e- 
 nough to fay, that fomeAuthrs, though acknowledged Godly aid Learn- 
 ed, do hold them to be fingle perfons , but the Grounds h'inc fade of 
 thofe who hold them to be fuch, and of thofe who underftand the Word 
 [ Angel ] in a Collective Senfe, muft be weighed in the Ballances of the 
 Sanctuary. 2. Beta's Judgment is, that the Proeflos or Preiidenr isfirft ad- 
 vertised, thatby him all the reft of the Colledge, and <#fo the whole 
 Church might have notice made to them of that which concerned them' 
 all,-. And further, that not fomuch as the Office of a Perpetual Pre fi dent can 
 be hence inferred, as that which he holds to be the Foundation ofth^ 
 Tyranical Oligarchy, whofe Head ts the Antkhrifiian Beafi. 3. Granting a Pre- 
 fidency for prevention of Schifm and diforder, over thefe Churches, ti 9 
 Queftion ftill is to be difcuflfed, what Prefidencj it w/tsi And that it could 
 not be of the Survtytrs Suppofed Epifcopaf mould is evident, ard by the 
 Presbyterian Writers made good fromfeveral Grounds; As that ( 1.) It can- 
 not be made good,that any directions in thefe Epiftlcs 3 refpecting Govern- 
 ment,diveriine one Yafior from another,or fuppoie hteJttriJJifltcn over the. 
 reft. (2.) That without faiining a contradiction upon tne Scripture 
 count of the Presbyter or Pafiors Office, this cannot be admitted, P. 
 having the Name and thing of Ruiers, Governours and Bifbtf* attril 
 ed unto them, yea,and the Epifcopal Power being found committed to 
 Pafiors of Ephtfus ( the firft of the Churches here addreflcd ) in iW, 
 farewell to them, Aft. 20. And none will deny that the Whole Chur. 
 were fettled in dn Uniform Mould of Government. That the Coll.. . 
 Senic of.theword ^->g/,is moft lu;abu^to th | thefetEpjftk . 
 
6 The Suveyers Tleadings Chap. I. 
 
 paralel Scriptures, is above made good, and needs not be here repeated. 
 TheSurvcyer alledges P. ly^.Tbat tffagle perfonshad not been intended \t hey would 
 have been compared by the Spirit of God, not to Jingle Stars hut Confie Hat ions. Thus 
 this critical Matter ofLanguagfc will necdsTeach theSpiritofGodhowtoex- 
 prefs himfelf. Butfince he acknowledges that thefe Churches,tho made up 
 of feveral Congregations, do upon the Ground of an Unity in Govern- 
 ment, come under the denomination of one Candle flick, why may not al- 
 fo the Paftors and Minifters, becnufe of a combination in Government, 
 come under the Denomination oSfingle Stars ? Beiides, that thefe Stars or 
 Angels are ( as is above made good ) fmerimes addrefled pluraliy^ and 
 thus., upon the matter held out as Conftdlations, He adds, That we may as 
 well extend the fv en Candlefticks beyond the Seven Churches ,as the Angel beyond a 
 [ingle "Per fen. But the Spirit of GOD calling thefe Candlefticks the Seven 
 Churches, and the Stars generally the Angels of the Churches, not the Seven 
 Angels, fufriciently difcovers the impertinent folly of this Objedion : 
 But fays the Surveyer, ibid, by this Collective Senfe of the Word Angel, we will 
 take in the Ruling Elders, as Meffmgers of the Lord of Hofts, or elje ajjert that thefe 
 Churches hadnons. Anf. The Divine warrand of the Ruling Eider, is made 
 good upon clear Scripture grounds, and if behave a fhare and Interefi in 
 Church Government, the Surveyer could give no reafon, why he might 
 not in fo far , come under this Denomination, as a Church Officer, fup- 
 pofing that our Lord addreffeth in thefe Epiftles, both Church Officersand 
 Members. For what he adds of Blondels Senfe of the Authority of thefe 
 Angels, P. 6. of his Preface : It is evident to any that reads it, cc That he 
 cc afcribs the Power of Pref dents only unto them, and holds that the Proefto- 
 cc tes or Prefidents acknowledged alwife the Power of the Colledge of Presby- 
 cc ters to be above their own, and were fubjed to the Injundions of the 
 c f Meetings, as well as any other Member. 
 
 The Fourth Ground, which the Surveyer layeth down, P. 194, is this 
 That as there are ordinances merely Divine, Jo alfo mixed Ordinances^ which have 
 a Divine ground, and with all adjoyned thereunto a pofitive human Inftitution, fuch 
 as Calvin holds geniculation in prayer to be : The Epifcopal Tower being in it felf 
 Lawful, the Subjecting of it in one perfon, in a certain Circuit, is mcfl juitable for 
 preferring Unity, (uppofing the Perfon to be of greater worth, and confidently re- 
 commended by ihe light of Nature, and info far by the word of GOD, and further 
 warranded by a Lawful Church Conftitution. Anf This ground eafily appears 
 fooliih and unfound, when we confider that not only the Power it felf , is 
 of Gods appointment and inftitution, butlikewife the Subjecl thereof, and 
 and Officers Cloathed with the Power, fo that whatever Authority, the Church 
 may be fuppofed to have for regulating the Exercife, according to the ge- 
 neral Rules ofthe word, and ofChriftian prudence; yet no Church under 
 Heaven hath Authority to lift up the March-ftones, which God hath {ct, 
 
 and 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 7 
 
 and impeach his Inftitutions in Point of Government : Which Guilt, is 
 certainly Contracted either, i. In fetting up a New Officer, Cloathed with 
 fuch Authority as he hath not allowed; fuch as we have made appear the 
 Prelat to be, both in Refped of his acclaimed Civil and Eccleliaftick Au- 
 thority. 2. In Robbing the Pafior of that Authority, allowed by the great 
 Mailers Appointment and Inftitution, which, as we have made appear, 
 doth in its Effence refped an Intereft, both in the Power of Order and 
 Jurifdiction. As for Calvin, he is found in that place, to fpeck nothing 
 of the Nature of this Geniculation. or what mav give light touching the 
 Nature of thofe mixed Ordinances. Befides, that the Survtjtn Reafon 
 here adduced, from the Light of Nature, appears to Confound the 
 *»!«*«• and i?»6«x and without Refpecl to the Gofpel Rules cf Go- 
 vernment^ found a Claim thereunto,merely upon the greaterWorth and 
 Ability; A Principle which will alfo brangle the Civil Government. And 
 in a word, this Principle of Monopolizing the Power in one Perfon, in a 
 certain Circuit, for this end of Preferving Unity, will tower up this An- 
 gularity of Government in one perfon over the Bi(Jwps,thQ Arch-Bifl)ops,ti\l 
 the Hierarchy refoivein a Papacy at laft. 
 
 Proceed we to the Surveyers Fifth Ground, ibid, refolving in a Partition 
 of Three or Four Particulars, to infer a direcl poftive Institution, for the Su- 
 periority of one Church Officer, of a certain Circuit, over others. 
 Whereof the Fir ft is, That J 'e fus Chrift from his Received plenitude of Church 
 Power from his Father, to be made ufe of, till the Eleci be gathered indent his A- 
 poftlcs, with plenitude of Power for all Church Offices, necejfary for Edifying and 
 Preferving she [awe, as Power to Preach, adminifter Sacraments, preferve the 
 Church in order by Godly Difciplin; for which he Cites Joh. 20. 21. As my Fa- 
 therhath fentme,even folend I you^^H/CAsitjis acknowledged, thatjthe 
 Apoftles were fent forth for the Great end of layingtheFoundation of the 
 Gofpel Churches, and Eitabliihing the Ordinances and Offices thereof^ 
 fo tl.at whatever Officers they are found to have Iuftiruted and Authoriz- 
 ed for the Churches prefervation, and Purity of Order, ought to be re- 
 ceived with all due Reverence,- fo it is evident, that their Office was in 
 this Refped, Extraordinary, and that they were Diftinguiihed from all 
 other Officers by their immedi.it Call, their immediat Inflections from 
 Chrift, infallibility in Do&rin, a greater Amplitude of Power, i 
 Hence we have made appear, there was no Shadow of a Prehuical Power in 
 theii Olicj.cvthe exercile thereof, fin ce none of theApoflles were lit over 
 any fixed Diocefs, but had an immediat Relation to the whole Church* 
 they exercifed their Miniftry fometimes joyntlv vrd pic mifcucuily in the 
 lame place, they Ordained no Inferior Officers alone, without the C 
 
 Ddd cur 
 
8* The Surveyers Tleadings Chap. I. 
 
 currence of other Officers, where they might be had, nor Challenged, as 
 Prelats, a fole Power of Jurifdi&ion over the Churches, &c. 
 
 The Second Sabfervient ground, which the Survey er, P. 19 j, adduces, 
 IS, That the Apoftles had Succefjors to them} 'elves in that plenitude of Ordinary 
 Church Power, for that Tower was not to Ceafe till the end of the World, according 
 to the Promife, Matth. 28. 20. lam with you al way, to the end of the 
 World, meaning with them andtheir Succcjfors. Anf. That the Apoftles had 
 Succeffors, that derived down an Ordinary Church Power,in reference to 
 the Preaching of the Word, the Adminiftration of the Sacraments, and 
 fuch a Governing Power, and the exercife thereof, as is neceifary for- the - 
 Churches Edification and Prefervation in all times, is eafily admitted : 
 And this ordinary Church Power, we maintain with the Body of all Pro- 
 ieftant Divines, to be derived down by the Paftor, the proper Succeffor of 
 the Apoftles in this Work, as hath been above cleared. And this is rnoft 
 Properly that plenitude of Power, which was to continue to the end. For 
 this Surveyer, in this Difcriminating term of Ordinary Church Power , feems 
 to exclude any Succeflion of Church Officers to the. Apoftles, in eundem 
 gradum, and properly. 
 
 The Survtyer tells us in the Third place, That there are three probable Pre- 
 tenders to this Succejfion of Apoftles, Viz' Single Presbyters in the Modern Notion; 
 Coffedges of Presbyters in a full Equality of Power ,• Or fome fingle Perfons having 
 Superiority of Power over ordinary Presbyters. The Pretenfions of the People , or of 
 any other to the Church Government , He tells us, he doth pafs as Irrational: And 
 fo do we. Only I muft here fay, That as what a iingle Presbyter may do 
 in extraordinary Cafes, in Point of Jurifdi&ion, is not here the Queftion^ 
 And that therefore his three Pretenders may be Juftiy reduced to two: So 
 in his confident Rejection of all other Pretenders as Irrational, he fliould have 
 been aware of touching theKings Crown,and more confidently defended 
 his Erafiian Supremacy in Church Government; Since in the laft Edition of 
 our Scots Hierarchy , he was Owned and Eftabliilied, as the chief Officer 
 aad Head of this Church. 
 
 The Survey er will have this Queftion of the Matter of Fact, upon which the 
 Jys depends, to be determined by Hiftorkal Narrations of the Acts of the Apoftles 3 
 syd the fir ft and furejt Light, Church Hiftory can afford in the Churches pureft Times. 
 X : have made appear that this Queftion of a Divine Fact, muft be decided 
 Ly thzScripture Light allenarly, and by Confequence, not from the ABs 
 cf the Apoftles Solely, excluding what further Light in this Matter is to 
 had from their Inftru&ions, in Point cf Church Government, contain- 
 ed/in their Epifties, and likewayes from other places oi the New Tefta- 
 ment. So, that whatever Pra^ice of the Church, the Hiftory, even of 
 ftiiSft TimQSj prefects unto us^, muft be brought to this Touch ftoneand 
 
 Standard 
 
Chap. I. For Epifcopacy Examined. 9 
 
 Standard of the Scripture Inftitution, as being thereby Regulable: And 
 therefore, can make up no part of this Rule. Jn determining this Quefli- 
 on, the Survey er in the fir ft pi ace , Will not have the Falnc-s of Ordinary 
 Church "Power -, committed by the Apoftles to avy [ingle Presbyter, as 
 if he had Actual Power of Ordination, or Jurifdicthn'. That the Power 
 of Order, the Adminiftration of the Word and Sacraments is com- 
 mitted to the Pa [tor, is of it felf Evident,- That the Power of Jurif- 
 didion is committed to him, as he is by Office a Member of the Judicato- 
 ry , which is the proper adequat Subject of this Authority of Ordination 
 andjurifdiclion, is equally evident. TheStfrw/erchallengeth us to /hew 
 fuch Colledges of /ingle Presbyters, as had that Plentitude of Church Tower commit- 
 ted to them by the Apoftles, and exercifed the [ame, e[peciaUy taking in Ruling El- 
 ders. Anf If by Plentitude of Church Power, be underilood the ordinary 
 Power cf Ordination andJurifdicKon, necefiary for the Churches Edifi- 
 cation and Prefervation in all times, and as abftra&ed and diftinguifhed 
 from the extenfivePower ofApoftles ScEvangelifts,-We fivic is found feat- 
 ed in the Colkdge of Paftors and Presbyters, both in the Ads of the Apoftles, 
 and elfe where in the New Teftament. The Apoftles inftituted Paftors or 
 Presbyters x«t* titxxkft* Church by Church, and fure not to preach only 
 and adminiftrat Sacraments, but to Rule, feeing they have the Name and 
 Thing of Governors, Rulers, Overfeers, Biihops, afcribed to them; 
 And if they were to Rule, fure in Collegiat Meetings. . We rind the Ex- 
 ercife of this Power commanded and commended to Paftors or Presbyters • 
 Thus by the Apoftle to the Elders or Paftors oiEphefts, Act. 20. By the 
 Apoftle Peter 1 Pet. 5. to the Paftors of the Churches, to which he wrote. 
 We find this Jurifdiclional Power accordingly exercifed by them, both as 
 to Ordination and the higheft Cenfures, 1 Tim. ^.14. 1 Cor. f. . And 
 the Circumftances of thefe and fuch like Texts do cleary evince, that this 
 Jurifdicftional Power was to continue, thus exercifed by thtie Societies or 
 Colledges of Presbyters, when the Apoftles were gone off the Stage, and that 
 confequently they are the Proper Subject of chc Power, immediady de- 
 rived from them. As f r the Rating Elder, his Inftitution and Office 
 ing found in scripture, he is upon Divine Warrand, fuppofed a Member 
 of thefe Judicatories, when the Churches are fully csnlrituted in their Or- 
 ganick being. But the Survey er tells Lis, Wt cannot make avpear, that in the'e 
 Meetings of Presbyters, there was an Equality of Power, fence Superior Of 
 were with tl\m Ruling and Ordering their Church Ml './. Thou:;' 
 
 fotfto it were found, that in thefe i\leetings,Superior Officers were pi el" 
 yetif they be found Officers of an Extraordinary Aurfa .ricy, and whole 
 Power was Cumulative unto, not Privative of the ordinary Power 
 Authority of thefe Meetings ; 'I his is utterly icaioti; T 
 
 tiling 
 
ro The Surveyed sT leadings. Chap. I. 
 
 thing to his Purpofe and ConcluHon. 2. Whereas the Survey er peremp- 
 tory poferh us, V/here fuch a Meeting of Presbyters is found in the Ads of the 
 Apoftles fhe fliould have added, or elfe where in the NewTeftament) with- 
 out Superior Officers ordering their Meeting? We peremptorly Pofe him, what 
 SuperiorOfficer is found fet over the Colledge ofthcElders of Ephefus , when 
 "Paul gave them his laft Charge, touching the Exercife of a Joynt Epifcopal 
 Power over that Church ? What Superior Officer is found fet over the£i- 
 (hops and Paflors of the Church ofPbilippi? Orover thefe Pafiorsznd Bi(hops 
 mentioned 1 Pet. 5. .? or thefe Ruling Teachers mentioned 1 The/. 
 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 ■? Sure, thefe Governing Teachers mett for 
 Government, and thefe Meetings if found thus Conftituted, and Ex- 
 ercising an Epifcopal Power, we have therein Convincing Inftances of an 
 Epifcopal Power in a Colledge of Presbyters, without the Infpedt ion of any 
 Superior Ordinary Officers: For , as for Apoftolkal Directions hereanent, 
 they could no more impeach this Authority, than Directions with Refe- 
 rence to the Power of Order could impeach the fame. 
 
 The Survey er P. 196; brings for his third Ground, The Apofiles committing 
 the Plentitude of Ordinary Church Power to Jingle Perfons, in a Superiority over 0- , 
 ther Minifiers • In (I 'anting the Afiatick Angels, Rev. 2. 3. And Pauls Direffi- 
 . ens to Timothy and Titus, whom he fent and inftrucled with a Judiciary Power, 
 into Ephefus and Crete, and to ordain Minifters, which had been to no purpofe, 
 had this Power been competent to Pa/tors. Anf. This Trite Argument hath 
 been above at large fpoken to,- Therefore, we ihall but briefly. touch it in 
 this place. 
 
 Fir ft, -For the Afiatick Angels; We have made appear, Firft, That the 
 Collective Senfe of the word Angel, Hands upon the moft probable Foun- 
 dation, and is owned by the greater!: part of found Interpreters, as being 
 moft futeable to the Style of Prophetick Writings, reprefenting many Per- 
 fons by a fingular Typical Term, whereof frequent Inftances are exhibit; 
 to the Style of this very Book, in reprefenting many Perfons, or a Series 
 of Men, by one Symbolical Term, fuch as Whore, Woman, Beaft, &x. 
 Befides, that the Angel is found plurally addreffed, Chap. 2. 24. Next, 
 That admitting the Angeh obe a fingiePerfon,will only plead that he is the 
 Angelas prafes, or Moderator, yea, and fo pro tempore, and addreffed as the 
 Parliament is in the Perfon of the Speaker; That no Addrefs is made to 
 him with refped to any Jurifdi&ion over Paftors, nor can any Reafon be 
 given wherefore the Commendations and Reprehenfions refpechngMini- 
 fierial Dutys, muft be fixed in an Exclufive Senfe upon one Perfon, &c. 
 Next, For the Directions to Timothy and Titm; It is above made appear, 
 that their Office was Extraordinary, and palled off, like that of the A- 
 poitles,with chat .Firft. Infant State andExigence of the Church, fince it 15 
 
 made 
 
'Chap. I. For Epifcopacy Examined. 11 
 
 madeGood they were Evangelifts, in a proper formal Senfe. 2. That u~ 
 .pon this Ground, they could have no SuccefTors in their Formal Office and 
 InfpeBion, which imported a Relation to no particular Church, nor can 
 confequently repreient the Authority of any ordinary Officer, with fuch 
 a fixed Relation of this Nature and Extent. Ir. is like way qs made appear, 
 that the Epifcopal Pleaders from thefe Directions, mulf either upon this 
 Ground,extend their Power equally with that of Apoftles, or make it ap- 
 pear, that thefe Directions of this Nature, and importing this Authority, 
 were applicable to them no where elfe, and in reference to no other 
 Churches, where they are found to exercife their Office,- Either of which 
 are inevitable Abfurdities. Finally, It is made appear, that this Infpecti- 
 on was of a Tranfient Nature, did fuppofe the Exiftence and Exercife of 
 the Apoftolick Office, was Cumulative unto, not Privative of the Official 
 Authority of Paftors, and therefore cannot prove a fole and fingle Authori- 
 ty of a Prelat over Church Judicatories. 
 
 But fayes the Survey er, What need was there to fend them for this End to 
 thefe Churches, if a Jurifdiclicnal Power was competent to Paftors? This Ob- 
 jection is above fully removed. And here again we repone, 1. The In- 
 fant State of the Church requiring a Temporary Super-intendency of an 
 Evangelift, and Directions from an infallible Apoitle. 2. Epifcopalians 
 mud confefs, that in many Points, wherein Timothy and Titus are immedi- 
 atly addreifed, ordinary Paftors and Presbyters have a neceffary and effen- 
 tial Intereft, and that therefore they muft acknowledge this to be cne end 
 of thefe addreffed Inftrudions, that P^flors or Fresbyters may have a clear 
 Vidimus of their Minifterial Office and Duties; And that by confequence 
 the addrefiing of thefe Directions to Timothy and Titus will not exclude 
 Paftors from the Jurifdiciional Power,- And no more make this peculiar 
 to thefe psrfons, than the Injunctions refpedting the Reading, Preaching 
 of the Word, Convincing the Gain-fayers, and Rebuking the Scandalous, 
 folelv applicable to a Prelat, as his incommunicable Prerogatives. 
 
 The Surveyer here Cants over again the Old Song, That its the greateft 
 poffible evidence, that can be in Juch a Matter of Faff, that imrntduuly aft tr all the 
 Apoflles Death, until the Council of Nice, the Church had no ahtr Govtrn-' 
 meni, but that of Bijhops. Anf This Alfertion, efpeciuhy as reipccliivg 
 the Patriarchal Btfwp of the late Edition, vjt^: with fole Power 
 of Ordination and Juiifdiction, tyed to Preach to no rlock, and 
 deriving all his Power from the Civil Magidrate, is fo grofyr 
 abfurd, fo palpably falfe, that the very Repetition is a Confutation; chc 
 contrary having been demonitrated by fever ai Learned Pens. 1 he belt 
 Antiquaries confefs thefe hi ir times dark, as tj Matters of Fac>. But the 
 Surveyer quite miftakcs this Qucflion, which is not anenc a mere Matter 
 ^ E c e of 
 
t %• The Survey ei's *P leadings Chap. I. 
 
 tofTaSF, or the Churches Pra&ice fimplely Confidered, but anent the Apo- 
 jhlick In/lrut'tions and Inftitutions, in pint of Church Government, viz,: what Of- 
 ficers the Apoftles fet up and Inftituted, in what order, jndC loathed, 
 with what Authority, how qualified for their Office, and inftrufted therer 
 in, how they are found to have exercifedthis Power, when thus Inftitu- 
 ted and fet up. If this be clear in the Scripture Records, then no defens- 
 or aberrations therefrom, either in 3 or after the Apoftles times, can direct 
 or warrand our Imitation, nor can be an Infallible proof of the Rule^ un- 
 lefs we will extend this to Regulat us as to every ScriptureTruth and Duty 
 therein held out.Both Scripture and ChurchHiftory,do give us an account .• 
 of the early aberrationsfrom theDivineRule,both inPoint ofDoctrin,Wor- 
 fiiip and Government,fuch as thofe anent theRefurreclionJuftirlcation by 
 <goodWorks,Worfliipping of Angel s^theError of the JNicclaitans ;and inPoint 
 ofGovernment,the Myfterie ot Iniquity, die Embryon of a Papal Primacy, , 
 was. working in Pauls time, and early appeared..inDi<rtr<?/>te afpi ring after 
 a PrimacpNot to ftand upon the.A/;7/ew^r/Error,theError anent theVifion of 
 GOD, and others, early appearing thereafter. Tho Survey erwiW needs 
 frrengthen his Notion by the .Maxim, Lex currit cum praxi, & confuetudo eft 
 optima* interpres Legit: What interpretation and Senfe this is capable of, in 
 reference to Human Laws, or of whatufe, is left to the Consideration of 
 the Gentlemen of the Long Robe; But fure with refped to the Divine Law, 
 r tis dangerous and fadly lax Divinity y fkIfraelsConfuetudo and early practice 
 of Idolatrie, and the Worfhipping of Images, as that of the Golden Calf, 
 with a pretended defign to Wormip the Lord Jehovah, was a flircwd and , 
 grofs interpretation of the Second Command. The People who told Je- 
 ertmiab, thztthey would pour out Drink-Offerings to the Queen of Heaven^ be- 
 caufe their Progenitors in a long trad of time had done fo, were much in 
 this Survey ers Mind. But the great Lawgiver,who enjoy ned his People not , 
 t9 walk-after their Fathers- Commandments nor Judgments,, though of ~ 
 never fo Large an extent and long Continuance, but after his . 
 Laws and- Judgments, is of another Mind. Tertullians Rule and 
 > Prayer is good, fpeaking of Cuftom in it feif confidered and fimplely, Sar- \ 
 ge Veritas ipfti Script ur as tuas interpret are quas confuetudo non novit nam (i nofjet 
 nan ej/et: Did Guftom know Scripture, it would be afhamed cf it fclf, and, 
 eeafe to be any more : Upon which ground .he pleads,, that the Eternal . 
 Light himfelf might arife and expone his own Scriptures. . 
 
 The Survey er tells us, That in the/e preceed'mg grounds , be hath pleaded only 
 for the Lawfulnefs of 'prelacy , though the necejfity is not denied^ But fure, if thei'e 
 grounds evince any thing, they prove a Neceflity, as well as Lawfulnefs: . 
 if tha Apoftles Directions andPra&ice in the Inftitution of Church Offi- 
 ces, pariuaiic to their great. Matter* Commiffioo, together . with his fup- j 
 
 fQ&4 
 
Chap. IL For Epiicopacy Examined. i 3 
 
 pofition of the Apoftolicaland Chriftian Churches Univerfal Reception 
 and Practice, will not evince and prove this, I know nothing will : Be- 
 fides, that we heard him plead upon the Ground of a Divine lnfiitution^ 
 which will bear this Conclufion of Neceflity, not of Lawfulnefs only. 
 But in this proof of the Lawfulnefs of Prelacy, the Surveyer tells \is,he intend- 
 ed to c^uiet the Minds of People , antnt the Covenant obligation againft it, A good 
 Pillow of fecurity, no doubt this had been, had he proved, that Uni- 
 verfally and abfolutely noOath can obligeagainfl a thing in it (elf Lawful 
 or retrench our Liberty thereanent, and anfwered the Arguments urged 
 by Caftiifis on the contrary. . But it is not our purpofe to digrefs on this 
 head. He adds, That if Lawful, it at Juris Divini, that ire fubmit to aLaw- 
 ful Human Ordinance and Command, for the Lords fake: Which Reafon were 
 valid, had he made good that the Human Ordinance, in this Circumftanti- 
 ateCafe,had for its object a thing Lawful; And that the Human ordinance 
 is the FirflKule and adequat ground of our Judging the expediency of 
 a Practice hie &nunc, though in it felf Lawful : And further, that the 
 Human Ordinance can of its own Nature loofe folemn Oaths and Vows u- 
 pon the Lawgivers themfelves,and theSubjecls^ againft fuch a pra&ice-as- 
 is commanded.. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The Survey ers Exceptions and Jnjwers, which he ; 
 offers to the Scriptures ]? leaded by Presbyterians^. 
 Examined-, Tarticnlarly, To thefe Yajjages vizr . 
 Matth. 20: 25, 16: with the Yaralels Mark. 
 1 o: 4.2: Luke 22, 25: To that faffagc Mat. 
 18: 17: and A<5t: 20: 17, 28; Tit: 1: 5:. 
 7: 1 Yet: 5: 1. 2. The Vnjcundnef and Incon- 
 Ji/lencyofhis Exceptions and Glojfes made appear, - 
 
 jHE Surveyer having thus prefer] tec] his Epifcrfal Strength, and hit 
 great Grounds for proving fitlacj Lawful, doth in the ne« 
 place,undertakctoAnfwcr thcSuiftnresirgi{ma;>s.ii^ r i.ii:v\cM^ 
 cd for PreilyteriM Gcvutimivt; .which wc -flmll now Conlidcr r 
 aud.Exomla... 
 
ri^ The Surveyors T leadings Chap. XL 
 
 The Fir ft Scriptures (he tells us, P. 197.) that are made u/e of, for proving the 
 Tar it y of Minivers in the Government of the] Churchy and di, 'proving Imparity 
 or Superiority of any over others, fire Mark. 10. 42. Matth. 20, 25^ 
 26. Luke. 22. 25*, Where , becaufe our Lord is [peaking of the Kings and Great 
 Ones of 'the Earth , their Exercifag Dominion and Authority over their Subjecls, 
 forbids hisDifciples to do fo,\t {hall not be fo among you;therefore,it is concluded 
 that there foould be noSuperiority orGoverningPowerofMiniftersofthe Church aheve 
 Mmfters, but all jhould be equal. Anf. Thefe Texts have been above confi- 
 de red and improven: It is evident, that our Lord Commanded Parity of 
 Official power among his Apoftles, his Firft Minifters, and by clear Con- 
 fequence, the fame equality among Paftors, who are equal, and of the 
 fame Order as Apoftles were, and their proper SuccefTors in the ordinary- 
 power of Government. That the Prelats acclaimed Power in Civils, and 
 Dominion over Church Judicatories, brings him within the Compafs of 
 the prohibition in thefe Texts, is above made.gocd. The Survey er, in his 
 way of expreffing our Argument, feems to oppofeto this Official equality of 
 Taftors, the Superior power and Authority of greater to the leffer Judi- 
 catories, which is theneceflary Ligament of all Government, and of Pres- 
 hyterian confequently. But to proceed. 
 
 The Surveyerin his Firft Anfwer, will needs queftion, That there is at all 
 a Prohibion in thefe Texts given to Chrifts Apoftles, but only a mere prediction of 
 'what was to be their Lot in the World, Viz. That they were not to have a Stately , 
 Glorious, Pompeous, worldly Superiority over others; Chrijl afjuring them thiywert 
 to be difpijed of the World; It was aslneongruous to prohibit them to Reign as Gran- 
 dees, as to Charge a Man not to acl the King, who is affured that all his days he is to 
 he a Beggar. Anf. This pitiful Shift and Glofs, out of the Road of Inter- 
 preters, difcovers what a defperate falling Caufe the Swveyer was main- 
 taining, which needed the fupport of fuch a Conceit as this : To which 
 we oppofe. 1. The Circumftances and Scope ofthe place, clearly refut- 
 ing this irrational Subterfuge. It is evident, our Lord was here curing 
 the Difciples Emulation and finful Debate about Superiority and Chiefnefi in 
 his Church and Kingdom, and directing them, both negatively andpofitive- 
 ly 5 in the exercife of their Spiritual power, as his Minifters, and this in 
 order to the preventing of miftakes injudgment,and contravention of their 
 Practice, in Reference to the Nature and Exercife of Church Government: 
 In order to which Scope, the pointing at the events of Providence, mere- 
 ly in their external Condition, had been utterly extraneous and imperti- 
 nent. And as in this Glofs, the Survey er doth Violence to the prohibiting 
 part ofthe Text, fo mod palpably to the pofitive Injunction, He that will 
 be great or Chief, as Luke hath it, let him be as theYoungeft, recommending to 
 them a Humble Miniftry, in Oppofition to Pompous greatnefs. 2. The 
 
 6Vr- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. § V5 
 
 Surveyers Reafon is palpably abfurd and impertinent, for notwithstanding 
 of our Lords warning them of their defpifed State in the World, yet he* 
 alfo Inftruded them in the Nature andExercife of his Kingdom, did fhevv 
 he was to have a Church, which is his Kingdom, agcinft -which theGc.us 
 of Hellfoould not prevail; In which Kingdom, they being Officers andGover- 
 nours, it wasneceffary they mould underftand its nature, in order to a due 
 exercife thereof, and as neceffary it was, their SuccefTbrs fhould have the 
 -fame knowledge. The Offices in the Houfe of GOD are truely Honour- 
 able^ be counted worthy of Honour and Highly Efteemedby the Mem- 
 bers 'of the Church, was it not then neceffary, that the Nature cf this Spi- 
 ritual greatnefs and Honour, in oppofition to worldly Pcmp, mould be 
 thus-pointed out ? The Surveyer hclds there was a Prcphetick Intimation, 
 that Apoftles and their Succellbrs, mould not have a Glorious, Pompous, 
 Worldly Superiority, and thus excludes frcm an Apoftolick Succeilion, Pre- 
 tats, who are Princes of the Empire, and Peers of the Land, and muft fet 
 them in Terms of Contradiction to this his fuppofed Prophecy. 
 
 Secondly, Granting there is here a Prohibition, the Surveyer will cenfi- 
 der what is prohibited, and to whom. For the Firft, He tells us, It is 
 that Sort of Dominion exercifed among Kings cf the Gentiles, acccrdirg to the" 
 Notion the Apoftles had of Ch rifts Kingdom, Acl. I. 6. Luk. 24. 2 1. Mat. 18. i m 
 Mark 9.54. So that our Lord difcharged Earthly Pomp, Coafiive Power cf "World- 
 ly Kingdoms, not all Superiority of one of his Minifters above others, non Rem 
 fed Mudumliei. Anf. This is above Examined andCcnfuted. We have 
 made appear, that all Mafterly Power and Dominion is here forbidden, as in- 
 confident with that Humble xVLiniftry, and Miniflerial Service, enjoyned 
 in the pofitive part of this Precept, which doth not Difcriminat one Do- 
 minion frcm another, as if one fort were allowed, and another forbid- 
 den, or,as if Government, which is in the Nature of Lordfiip and Domini- 
 on, were Dive rfi fie d andDiftinguilhed in refpeft of its manner of Exercife, 
 good or bad, but all Mafterly Power, though in its felf lawful, is here, 
 . both as to matter and manner forbidden to Chrifts Minifters, in the 
 Exerciie of their Authority. This Man acknowledges Earthly Pcmp to be 
 forbidden and Worldly Grandure, and what could his thoughts be ofPn 
 being a third Eftate of Parliament, bearing State Offices of the Higheft 
 Sort ? He fays our Lord difcharged not Rem but NUintn Rii : If by this 
 Modus Rei he underftand a Civil Dominion, he hath CUC off the Prelats Civil 
 Rule, and in fo far acknowledges their Tranfgreffing this Precept : If he 
 reftricl: theSenfe to aD&wi;;/'..;;, which he mav call spiritual, he leaves frill 
 a Latitude for the higheft Exteniion thereof, even to a Papal Primacy, 
 lie tells us, that a Chicfnefs is rather fuppofed than forbidden, as he labours to 
 prove (P. 201.) fiomL;//o. 11. 16. And thus neither the Difeiples Di - 
 
 F f i item per, 
 
t6 The Survey ers T leadings Chap: II: 
 
 ftemper, nor Emulation about a Primacy, nor the Papal Pretenfions there- 
 of, are ever touched by this Prohibition, according to his Glofs: And" 
 in this, as he croffes our Lords Scope, fo he contradi&s himfelf, fince 
 ( P. 199. ) he afferts with Cyprian, that the Apoftles were Pari honoris & 
 fcteftatis confortio praditi, had equal Power and Authority. This Anfwer 
 of the Surveyer, wherein he embraces the Pcpifo Diflinction and Evafion 
 upon this Text, viz,. That our Lord difcharged that Sort of Dominion 
 only,exercifed among the Kings of the Gentiles, and as he expreffes it 
 wm Rem fed ModumRei, brings to Mind a remarkable Paflage of the Lear- 
 ned Turretin, In/litut. Theol. Elentl. Tart. 3. Loc. 18. Quefi. 16. de Regimi- 
 neEcclefia, P. mibi 164^ 165*. Having Cited this Paffage, Luk. 22. 25-, 
 26. againft the Papal Monarchy, together with the paralell, 1 Pet. $; 2. 
 And from both, having inferred that Dominion in the Church is forbid- 
 den, and a Minifterial Service enjoyned : He brings this Popi[h Argument 
 and Exception, cc Nee did potefi dpud Lucam Monanhiam & Dominationem 
 cc ab folate non interdict, [ed tantum ejus modn?n y qui non fit fimulis Domination* 
 %{ l Politico feuTyrannidiRegum Gentium • That is, Ic cannot be faid in the 
 c * place of Luke,thzt Monarchy and Dominion is not abfolutely forbidden, 
 (< but only the manner thereof, or fuch as is like to that Tyrannical Do- 
 €C minion of Earthly Kings. The Reafons of his reje&ing this Glofs, he 
 fubjoyns, "Quia Apo/lo-li non eontendebant inter fe de modo Primatm fed de Prima- 
 €( tu ipfo 3 &c. That the Apoftles were not contending about the manner of 
 * a Primacy, but the Primacy it felf, and therefore, that our Lords Anfwer 
 (c may be appofit to their Queftion,it muft needs abfolutely forbid all Do- 
 ** miniom 2. If our Lord had intended to forbid only fome Special kind 
 rc of Dominion certum Dominationh ?nodum, he had not removed their Ara- 
 €C bition, which he is here endeavouring iignally to remove, fince other 
 e: Primacies alfo do Feed Ambition. 3. Saitb he, this Phrafe [ Not fo y 
 C€ viz. flail 'it be among you'] according to the Ule of the Scripture, doth 
 €c import a firaple and abfoiute Negation, as Pfal. 1. 4. 147. 20. Ad- 
 " ding that in the paralells, Mat. 20. and Mark 10. it is exprefied 
 ^ 8».*ta>? «r«< n vptr non it a fa inter vos, It ft all net be fo amGng you. He adds. 
 "that if Chrift had allowed a Dominion to Peter, the Apoitles had been 
 ^admonilhed thereanent, and. that the Term,.r**»'.n* fignifying a Service 
 " ar Miniftry afcribed unto them, is inconiiftent therewith. He after- 
 fff - ward in the next Paragraph Anfwer s the Objection taken from theSig- 
 "mfication of the Compound Words, xtaitvjwii? and h« t <»6i*~w as impor- 
 ting a violent Domination, mewing that the Words of themfejves will 
 " not.neceifarly import fuch a thing, which he proves from fome paralel: 
 *- Texts,, and that they fignifie a fimple Dominion only, which he further 
 Cf * proves from Lukes .making ufs of cM-Sim plZViefh jnvtwn and %i% *m*u Ad-^ 
 
Chap: II: For Epifcopacy, Examined'. r y 
 
 " ding in the third place, that there was no need, that cur Lord ftiould 
 ff fpeak of a Dominion of this Nature, becaufe the Apcftles Debate 
 tc was hot about a violent Domination. He adds further, l\cc valet quod 
 c< fubjicitur, &c. It is of no weight which the VcpjjJj Adverfary pleads a- 
 " gainft the Difcharge of all Primacy hzcaufe our Lord fufcjoyns,£& that is 
 <e greateft among you, fince our Lord fpeaks nor of a true Greatnefs, in ref- 
 cc peel: of the thing it felf, but of an Imaginary, in refpeel of Affedation 
 c: and Defire: Which Matthew and Mark do expone and clear by thefe 
 Cl Words, Whofoever will be great amongft you. In the reft of his Reafons, he 
 hath feveral things to this purpofe, as if he had been exprefly Difputing 
 againft this Surveyer, as indeed upon the Matter he doth, andLifteth him 
 among the PopijJ) Adverfaries in this Point. 
 
 For that Point of the Perfcns fpeken to, the Survey er tells us, The Apoflks 
 were fometimes fpoken to, as reprefenting all Christians, Mark. 13. 37. In wLich- 
 Senfe, this Prohibition was not given to them, which wotdA firike at the Awl 
 allowed among Chrifiians: Sometimes what is Jpoken to them concerns thtmfdvcs 
 alone in their Apofrolick Capacity, as Matth. 19. 28. In which Scnfe, we cannot 
 underfiand this Prohibition, fince it would exclude all Minivers afterward: Seme- 
 things likewife w ere fpoken to them, as reprefenting only Minifiirs, as when Pow- 
 er of remitting and retaining Sins is given them, Joll. 20. In which Sen fe, we can- 
 not apply this unto them i fince this will impeach the Sap crier Authority of any of • 
 them above others, and their Authority over Inferior Minifters, evidenced in Pauls 
 Excommunicating Hymeneus and Alexander, making Decrees for the Church of 
 Corinth, &c. An f. Whatever may be faid to this Partition in itfelf,it is cer- 
 tain,the Enumeration is not fo adequat as not to admit of a Super-numc- 
 rary : Some things might be fp ken to Apoftles, which did moil nea 
 concern them as Apoftles, as being imraediatlydirecfbed to them, and 
 may have an ufeful reference, in a Subaltern and SubordinatSenfe, t 
 the Minifters of Chrift. As when our LORD faid to Iii< Apoftles, T 
 the Light of the World, the Salt of the Earth: This in fome refpe& had a peci>- 
 liar Application to them as Apoftles, and our LORDs Infallibly Inlpircd' 
 Ambaifadors, authorized to lay the Foundation of the G'ofpel Chufchj 
 prefcribe her Ordinances and inftitute her Officers, and feveral oft! 
 appointed to be the Holy Ghofts Pen-Men in writing the Scriptures, in 
 which refpeft the Chinch is faid to be Built upon dpi 
 though no Minifters elfe could jfcclaim to be in this refped the Light 1 
 ifurld, and Saltoj the Earth, or challenge a Right to the peculiar Privtk 
 es of Apoftles included therein, it is notwithftanding ceitLiin, that tl t 9 
 is a Suhordinat Application hereof unto ordinary Minifters, that l! 
 are in their Capacity and SpJ 
 
 , andliavc the Honour aadihiries dftheisidhuficnafl Office (hwefoi 
 
 •in-- 
 
1 8 7 he burveyers T leadings Chap. U. 
 
 cnjoyned and included, as well as the Apoftles had theirs. 2. Since he 
 grants the Apoftles were pari honoris & poteftatis con/ortio prtediti, and can- 
 not deny that our LORD befpoke them upon that Grcund cf an equal 
 Official Power, and _ as in that Capacity,, it follows that he befpoke Paf* 
 ton y whom he appointed to be in the fame order of an equal Official 
 Power, and to fucceed to the Apoftles in their ordinary Authority. The 
 ■ Survey er can give no Reafon wherefore our LORDdifcharged the impeach- 
 ing this inftituted Equal Power of Apoftles.by an Unlawful Dominion, and 
 not to have given the fame Prohibition to Paftors: Why a *f»™ or Chief or 
 Primat is difcharged among Apoftles, and not alfo among Paftors. The 
 Surveyers Contrary Injtances (as he calls them) of the Apoftolick Authority 0- 
 ver Minifters in the Church, are palpably Impertinent, and do mifs the 
 Mark. For 1. Their Authority in the firft plantation of Churches, can 
 no wayes conclude what is the ordinary Authority ofPafurs, in the 
 Churches ordinary and fettled Government. 2. Our Argument runs thus 
 That the Apoftles beiffg placed in an equal Sphere of a Miniftry, were e- 
 qual among themfelves as Afoftlts, formally, and equal among themfelves 
 as Gofpel Mmiftlrs upon this Ground: But that therefore, they could have 
 no Authority Apoftolical, as Apoftles, over Inferior Officers, doth no- 
 wayes follow this Suppofition, nor will it follow, thatbecaufe the Apo- 
 . illes were Minifters, and had Authority, over other Minifters, that there- 
 fore there is a Lawful Official Authority of one Paftor over another, be- 
 caufe the Apoftles were more than Minifters, viz,. Apoftles, and in that 
 Capacity had that Superiority,but not as Minifters fimplely: So that fuch 
 an 'Argument would run crofs to the common Rules. It is certain, what- 
 everAuthority they put forth in theChurches in fieri,and in directing them 
 in the Exercife of their ordinary Power, yet in fettled Judicatories they 
 are found ading as Elders and Minifters , and not as Apoftles; This hath 
 been made Good in Pauls affuming the Presbytrie in the Ordination of Ti- 
 mothy; The ordinary Elders or Minifters concurring with the Apoftles in 
 that Council, Aft. 15. Both in the Difquifition, in the Sentence, and en- 
 joy ning the Decree. But fay es the Surveyer, We muft not diftinguijh where 
 the Laiv diftinguijheth not; If nofwithftanding this Prohibition, the Apo- 
 (lles exercifed Authority over Minifters, it doth not Difcharge fuch an Autho- 
 rity ofPafiors over Paftors. Anf. The L aws of our LORD delivered in the 
 New Teftamentj and the Correfpondent Recorded Pradicetheieof, doth 
 State a clear diftinction betwixt the Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers and 
 Paftors, and that both with refped to the Nature and Extent of their pow- 
 er. The Survey er tells us., the Ambition beginning among the Apoftles, the cure 
 fljould have been applyed to them. Anf So we affirm it was in our Lords pro- 
 hibiting either a Pulatical Dominion among themfelves, or over Inferior 
 
 Of- 
 
Chap. II. ror Epiicopacy Examined. ; i 9 
 
 Officers : Bat this could not impeach their extraordinary Infpeclion ove*" 
 the Churches, which was together with their Office to pafs off, and die 
 with themfelves, when that Cafe and exigency of the Church was ever. 
 
 The Survey ers Second Counter-evidence ( P. 199. ) is drawn from 1 Cor. 
 12. 28. God bath fet in his 'Church, Eirft Apoftles, Secondarily Prophets, Thirdly 
 Teachers; which is an ordinal Numbering, with reference to the Objttt they were 
 imp toyed about; as Presbyterians hold upon this ground, the Pajhrs Office Superior 
 so the Elder. Anf. Not to ftand upon this his ordinal numbering,-nor upon 
 an enquiry wherefore thsEvangeli (I is excluded by tht Survey er in this Ac- 
 count of ordinal numbering, whom we find Numbred, fyjfc4.11.it is Evi- 
 dent, that. 1. This Inftance is extravagant from the Point : For, from 
 •our Affertion, that the Prohibition of 'Unlawful Dominion over their Fel- 
 lews, was given to Apoftles as reprefenting Pa/tors or Minijlers, he draws 
 a Conclufion,that thereupon will follow a Difcharge of the Superior Autho- 
 rity of one Pa for over another, he means an Official Superiority, the Contrary 
 whereof, he undertakes to prove by Inftances,- and here his great In- 
 ftance is drawn from the Apoftolical Authority, which the Apoftles exercifed 
 over inferior Officers; or the fuppofed ordinal Numbring oi Extraordinary 
 Oncers : But I pray, what is this to prove the Official ordinary Superiority 
 ofPafiors over Pa/tors, or to evince their Superior Degrees among them- 
 felves? Apoftles, Prophets, Evangelifts, &c. were placed in their feveral 
 Decrees, or had their fpecial Pieces of work in the Churches Infant State, 
 therefore there ought to be the fame Degrees of the Paftoral Office: What 
 Confequence is this? 2, He is inconiiftent with himfelf in this Reafoning: 
 For ( 1.) He hath alreadv diftinguifhed the Apoftles Official ordinary 
 Power, in the plenitude whereof, he alledges Vrelats do fucceed them, 
 from another, which hemuft call extraordinary, elfe his Diftindion is cht- 
 merical,and muft fly with one Wing. And (2jHe alledges fome things are 
 fpoken to them alone in their Apoftolick Capacity, which concerned none elfe; 
 and thus diftinguifhes that capacity fromthe capacity of Pafrors: Now when 
 he is about to prove, that the Apoftles, qua Paftors, or in that Capacity, 
 and under thus reduplication itrictly and properly, were above other Pa- 
 ftors, andconfequentl) that there are different Degrees of the Paftoral Of- 
 £cej As ii he had forgot his Diftinclion, he draweth his Argument from 
 the Apoftolical Ads cf Superiority over inferior Officers, and the fuppof- 
 ed Degrees of Apoftles, Pre phets and others, in that extraordinary Fun- 
 ction, wherein he palpably baffles his former funolition and Diftincflion. 
 That in the Text Cited, together with the Paralel, Eph. 4. 11. there is 
 a Numbering ( whether we call it ordinal or not ) of Extraordinary Officers, 
 now p.ift off with thete hrit rimes of Chriftianity,is the confenticnt Judg- 
 ment of found Divines, and by Confequence, that no Argument can be 
 
 G g g drawn 
 
to The Survey ers Tleadings Chap. It 
 
 drawn from hence, for diftinclion of Degrees in the Paforal Office. The 
 Survey er ( P. 200. ) cannot underpaid how the V after having a Dolhinal Supe- 
 rldrlty over other Officers of the Congregation, frculd in Point of Dzfiiplin, which' 
 is but a Per final application of the IVord fink below his Ajfifiants in the Seffion.and 
 have his Voice /wallowed up by theirs. But he might much mare wonder at 
 his own Principle, who alledges the Pajtor to have, indifpenfingtheWord 
 and Sacraments, an Authority and Power of the fame Nature, with that 
 of the Hierarchical Bijhcp, and yet when he comes from the Pulpit, ard 
 fttteth in a Judicatory with the Prelat, loffes all Authority in Govern— - 
 ment, and according to the laft Edition of our Hierarchical Prelacy, be- 
 come a mere Cipher without a Figure, having no Power but to advife the 
 Trelat, and fcarce that. As for the Pafiors Authority in the Seffion, we fay 
 that although the higherHonour allowed to theLabourer in'Word andDo- 
 cfcrin,above the Officer whoRules only, and who doth not thusLabour/wiil 
 allow therefped&deferenceroPa conflantpr^W/ in xheP^r^w/Church 
 Judidicatory,yet Ruling Elders having anEJTential intereft in Church Go-. 
 Ternment, he cannot have the fole decifive Vote, though there is Mill ac- 
 csfs to appeal to a higher Judicatory, in cafe of mal-Adminiftration. 
 
 The Survey ersThird ground \s,That if Governing Superiority be inhibit to Pa- 
 ftcr% over others, it is either of one over others y and thus we unjufily difiinguiflj this 
 Monarchical Government of one, while we allow the like Government of many , 
 which in anAriftoeraticalform } may have as much of State and Commandos of one*. 
 If we fay, that he DiJ charged all Superiority of many, or of feme Number over 0- 
 thers this will, in favour of Independents, deftroy Presbyterian Government, 
 and the Subordination of Judicatories, Anf. This is in part already removed, 
 byAvhat we have oftered-ancnt the EfTential difference, in Point of Go- 
 vernment, betwixt the Judiciary Power, as Subjected in a Coiledge or 
 Society, and the Monopolizing and concentring it in one Perfon. 1. We 
 have told him , that cur Lord hath Eftabiiihed and Inftituted both the 
 Mature and Subjeft of Church Power. 2. Having Inftiruted Pafiors- of an 
 equal Official Authority, all Pafiors as Members of the Judicatory, have 
 &n. Effenrial intereft in the deciiive Voces, and an equal decilive fuffrage 
 therein upon this Ground,- fo that there is a Clear cxcluiion of* the Mo- 
 r*opolized Government in one Perfon, who appears excluded and Dif- ; 
 charged by our Lords Inftituted Principles and Grounds of Government/ 
 iinee this Concentring of 'Government in one < robs Paficrs of this their Decifive: 
 fuffrage, excludes a free and full Conference and Debate, in order to a 
 fstable Determination, by a free fiffrage^as is exemplified in that Coun- 
 ■6*1/ A&. if. And therefore this Dominion of a Prelat over Pafiors ( bc- 
 iides his Pompous Civil Domi-ni on) brings him palpably within theCom* 
 pafs ofithis Prohibition. 3. That the Presbyterians Subordination of Judica- 
 >^ries„,, cannot fall within ths.Compafs hereof ncr come under the Sur- 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy 'Examined. 2 1 
 
 veyers imputation of State and Dominion, is many ways evident. (iJ 
 This is founded upon the Light and Law of Nature, and the Nature of all 
 Governments. (2.) This is notab'v confident with the Jurifdi&ional - 
 exercife of the Paftoral Orlice, and the- ends thereof both which theJVo- 
 latical Dcminion deftroys: This Subordination is founded upon our Lords ■ 
 lnftitution, as is evident, Matth. 18. where the gradation in Point of 
 Cenlure and Appeals, is from the LefTer to the greater Number, which 
 itlePrelafical form inverts and deftroys. As for Con%7ftifions of Affemhlies y 
 which t\\z Sur-veyer ne\t quibles ab:-u t:\V-e fay, that it is no extrinlick Judi- 
 catory jCxercifing any extrinlick power, but a more Compendious meeting 
 of the whole A£embly } wizh their Conjunct power forthepurpofes delegat- 
 ed and limited, both as to the Time and Object of their power, and are 
 accountable to. the enfuing Affcmbly for their Adminiitracion. What the 
 Surveytr adds", touching their power iofdtiifh all Ali'nifrers who will not 
 obey their Atts, &c. It is pa'pably impertinent, for no Cenfures or Punilh- 
 njents were to go beyond the Limits of their Inftru&ions and Commiflion, 
 nor ever did, or could Affembues engage to own them any otherwife; fo 
 that in whatever point they did Mulverfe, theAjj-mtxj, was ftillasan equal 
 Judge to be Appealed unto. 
 
 The Survey ers Fourth Ground and In fiance ("P. 20 r.) is, That in the Texts 
 under Debate 3 cur Lord fuppofes feme of his Dijcivles.in Comparison of ethers, were 
 to be great arid chief \ in r effect of Power and Authority > ele the Speech were not r# 
 the pitrpofe;And that our Lird directs jw:h as attained to this Chiefly andGreatncfs, 
 to Demean t-hemjelves Humbly andUfefuily , let him be as the Younger, which 
 is no Direction to Undervalue fitch , but My pnhibits an Affectation of Fknour, /i- 
 far at from the worthy Work mentioned, 1 Tim. 3. L Anf. This Popijb Glois 
 oT Be Harm in and others, we have already a: large Confuted, which, a;* 
 we have above made appear, eftablilhecli and rixeth the Pcpcs Mitre, in- 
 fTead of Levelling againlt it, as this Text certainly doth. Pr it if: ant Di- 
 vines, more appofuely to the Scope and Contexture, have cold the/\ rf 
 that our Lord (aid not, he who by my Appointment ihould be Chier, 
 enjov a Principality or Supremacy, but he that from the bad Diipoiiu- 
 on of James and John, would leek this, muft in place thereof endean 
 and emulat Spiritual Faithful Diiigencein ihcMiniiterial Duties, and : 
 to be Chief in Vertuc and Reward. That this Popijb Glofs of a fuppofu! 
 Lawful CbtefneJS or pr in z'i polity in the Church, io overthrows the Scope I 
 it .makes our Lord rather to have lnfl utn e d than Quenched, by tm 
 iwer, the Ambitious Mite of 'the two brethren, and the DiCjiples Lniu- 
 lation thereupon. That this Gloii will prove the DifdplesConceanmcix 1 
 in theLnqu4ryj ancru tho Pc wE*s t6^be%GJtfcf. 
 
 *bough apparently exc!iidi;ig£ CiviiQhififhefs or Kingly Power, yci 
 
 ■ 
 
iz *iioe snrveyers r leadings i^nap. u: 
 
 lows a Spiritual Principality. His Caution.that the Claufe7<tf him be as the ■ 
 Younger, will not import a Direction to Undervalue fuch, is fruitlefs and imper- 
 tinent,fince the Lord recommends therein a humble Minifterial Diligence, 
 as is faid. The Bijhops Work, i Tim. 3. is the Work and Office of the La- 
 borious Papor and Scripture Bijlwp, but the Afpiring Seeker of a Chief nef, 
 which the Surveyer would bring within the Compais of that Text, is con- 
 demned with the • g^Ki«rp**M»»j Diotrephes, who afpired after the fame. For 
 what he adds of the Motive drawn from our Lords Humility : We have above 
 made appear, that in the Series of their Arguing, he and "his Fellows doth 
 underprop bv fuch a Notion andGlofs of this Paffage, a Primacy or Papa- 
 cy. Ic is enough that we add here, that our Lords Exemplary Humility, 
 who is the Mailer of theHoufe, is in this place prefented, the moreftrong- 
 ly to enforce his Servants abhorring all Ambitious Ufurpation one over 
 another, fince they are all Fellow-Difciples and Servants. 
 
 ThQSurveyers Fifth Ground andCounter-InftancefP.202. > ?is this mSumm, 
 That our Lord mentioning in this "Prohibition, the Authority, not of Kings over Chief 
 Grandees, but over their Subjects, were our Glofi of hisdifcharging all Governing Supe- 
 riority admitted, it would reach a Prohibition of Government over the People, and 
 therefore our Lord discharges not the Rule of one or fome Minifters over Minifters y 
 but only the Lordly and Earthly Way of it. Anf As the Dominion and Arbitra- 
 ry Power, which our Lord here difcharged, is certainly fuch, as refpeds 
 both Minifters and People, Church Members and Church Officers, and a 
 fortiori, as reaching Church Officers, becaufe refpe&ing Church Members : 
 Whence the Apoftle Peter, Copying out this Direction of his Mafter, ex- 
 horted Minifters not to Lord over Gods Heritage*, So we have made appear,thac 
 the Power and Dominion of the Hierarchical Bijhop, is fuch as encroaches 
 upon the juft Liberties both of Minifters and People, robbing the one of 
 their Decisive Suffrage and Jurifididional Power, the other of their juft Li- 
 berty in the Call of Minifters, and in other things. Here again, we may 
 notice, how this Surveyer overfhoots ftill his Mark, and wanders from the 
 Point, while endeavouring to prove that an Official Inequality of Pafiors 
 is not here prohibited; And drawing his Proof from the fuppofed Supe- 
 riority of Apoftles over ordinary Paftors. Again, the Surveyer acknowled- 
 ged, that there is here difcharged a Dominative, Worldly and Lordly Govern- 
 ment, and thus the Text forces him to give a Deadly Blow to his Darling 
 Trelats, who owne the Title, Name and Thing of Lordjhip, and both 
 Civil and Spiritual Dominion, they being owned as Spiritual Lords, and 
 Lords of the High Court of Parliament. 
 
 . The next Scripture made ufe of for Presbyterian -Government, and a- 
 gainft Epifcopacy, which the Surveyer ( P. 203. ) undertakes to Anfwer, 
 is that Paffage, Matth. 18. 17. If thy Brother trefpafs againft thee, &c. 
 
 go 
 
Chap: II: ror Hpilcopacy, examined. 1 3 
 
 go tell the Churchy Sec. Whence he faith we argue, That Chrift cur Lord giv* 
 ing out the great Charter of cenfuring Jurifdiclion to be exercifed among his Subjects, 
 doth not give that Tower to one Man, a Biflwp, but to the Church, and one Man 
 cannot be a Chunk. In Anfwer to this, the Survey er in the fir ft place pro- 
 fefjes to difclaim Eraftus way, which dtnys an inherent Difcipline and Government 
 in the Church for cor reeling Offences, and keeping Ordinances in Purity. Which 
 contradi&s his Zealous Pleading for the Kings Ecclefiaftick Supremacy in 
 thisP*ra/>i?/<f£,asitwastheneftablimedby Law,and fere wed up to the higheft 
 pinacleof an Arbitrary Dominion,fo that the Vrelats were declared to Acl 
 as his Commijfioncrs ^accountable to him in their pretended Ecclefiaftick Adminiflra- 
 tionSy and the Government it felf, is in our Laws called and owned, as his Maje- 
 ftie's Ecclefiaftick Government. But though the Surveyer pretends to difownc 
 Eraftm way, yet he fpends a confiderable Difcourfe in fighting with their 
 Weapons. In order to this Scope he tells us, That a Courfe u here preferr- 
 ed for charitable removing privat Quarrels arifing among Brethren, both to gain 
 their Friend(hip and their Souls too, from the guiltiness of t^e Breach of Charity, 
 which he tells us, is clear from V. 21. 22. And from the paralel, Luk. 17. 2, 3, 4, 
 Hence he inferrs, that our Lords Direction is in Limitation to privat Injuries, and 
 not be extended to the whole Latitude of all Offences, to which this Direction can- 
 not be extended. Anf. Firft, It is evident that our Lord here prefcribs this 
 Method of removing Offences, viz. That when more privat Means reach 
 not the end, and the perfon privatly admonifhed is not gained and con- 
 rinced of his Mifcarriage, the Matter is to be brought to the publick hear- 
 ing of the Church, and finch a Church and Collegiat Meeting, as is fup- 
 pofed to be cloathed with power to cenfure Ecclefjaftically. So that ad- 
 miting there is a Remedy here prefcribed fc r the removal of the privat 
 Offences, it is frill under the Notion of Scandals that might arife among 
 them in point of Chanty, and Equity^ And hen^e it is evident, that the 
 Gaining, here made the Scope of Efealing with the offending Brother, 
 refpe&s mainly the gaining of his Soul to GOD: So the word is taken 
 Jam. f. 20. and the gaining cfhis Friendfhip, only in a SubordinatSenfe. 
 As fpr the Paffages cired, neither v. 21. 22. of this Chap, nor Luk. 1-. 1. 
 2. 3, 4. ('which the Surveyer himfelf dare not call exactly paralel to the 
 •place under debate) can evince that the Offences mentioned were no- 
 thing but mere privat Injuries, and not Scandals j as Mr. Gillefpie in the 
 Aarons Rod y Lib. 5. Ch. 2. hath abundantly proved: And admitting there 
 is a Medium betwixt privat Injuries and all Offences, this piace is meant 
 only of Offences and Scandals,- Nor can it be hence inferred, that tl.v 
 _more gruffer and the Icljcr Scandals may not fall under a diverfc Conii- 
 .deration, with reference to fome pieces of a Method of Procedure, as is 
 
 II h h cyi- 
 
evident from what the Apoftle prefcribes, i Cor. 5-. in reference to the 
 removal of that attrccious Scandal of the inceftuous Corinthian. 
 
 The Surveyor (P. 20;, 204 2oj. / )fpends a long Difcourfe in endeavour- 
 ing to load with Abfurdities, the Diftin&ion betwixt Civil and Ecclefiaft- 
 ick Powers^ upon the account of the Varieties of Offences arifing upon 
 fins ofOmiffion and.Commiffion, fins' of Quotidian Incur fi 011, Scandals 
 from f A<5tions Criminal, or in point of Civil Injuries, of Oppreffion, &c. 
 And Injuries in order to thejoynting of the fupfofed Dijcipline, as he calls it, with 
 the Civil Government, whin the Civil Injuries and Scandal are joyned, whether ht 
 JJjall complain to the Church to fudge of the Scandal fine e thus the Church will Judge 
 the Civil injury, and invade the Magijlrats part, or elfe pronounce the Aftions Scan- 
 dalous, and Cenfure blindly , following the antecedent Judgment oj the Magiftrat, 
 $r otherwife be neceffitat to review the whole Vrocefs de novo, &c. Anf. Afc Mat- 
 ters coming before thefe Refpe&ive Judicatories, muft be confidered Mat- 
 terially and Formally, fo the proper difference betwixt the two JurifdidH- 
 ons, with refped to the Objed, is to be drawn from the Formalities of 
 the Anions, or the ratiojubqua, they come under their Refpe&ive cogniz- 
 ances. It cannot be the Materiality of the A<5Hon fimplely, for this would 
 make the Two Powers inevitably to- Juftle, and the Church might not 
 medle with any A&ion, which the Civil Magiftrates Power doth in a- 
 try Cafe touch, fuch as habituated Adultery, Perjury, Inceft,; &e. So that 
 the Scandal being the proper formal Objeft of the Churches Power, the 
 fame A&ion,as under the other formalis Ratio of the Civil injury ,is the pfor 
 per objeel: of the Magiftrats Cognizance,- and in the Cafe wherein the Ci- 
 vil injury is dubious, the Magiftrats Right ftands good,as to a Priority in 
 the Cognizance. Likewife, there are Civil wrongs, wherein the Cafe 
 is fo dubious, that before the Legal Decifion, the Perfon wronging, can- 
 not be prefumed to have Acle^ from a bad Principle or purpofe, butlrom 
 the ground of a miftaken Right, and therefore after the Legal Decifion, 
 no Scandal can be concluded. And in cafes wherein there is manifeft 
 Scandal, the Churches Power takes place, and herein there is no neceffity, 
 as the Surveyer pretends, either for a blind following the Magiftrats 
 Decifion in this Point, or an immediat medlingwith Civil Proceifes. For 
 the Scandals Mentioned by him,we fay, that as in the Circumftantiais.of 
 procedure; there is fuch variety allowed to the prudentials of Church Go- 
 vernours, according to the General Rules of the Word, as cannot Juftle 
 with the Method piefcribed in this Text, fo thefe Sins, whether of om- 
 miffion, ordinary incut fion, of opinion, in Matters Civil or Criminal, 
 in fo faras hctbituat and fcandalous,do come- under the Churches Cogniz- 
 ance, underftanding this ftill with the due Caution premifed, touching 
 she Scandal of Civil injuries ; For Scandals in Matters Criminal, if the 
 
 . Magi- 
 
cnap. ii. ror rpucopacy, nxaminea. i<$ 
 
 Magiflrats Sword of Juftice do ftrike, in removing the Perfon from the 
 LarukoHhe Living, there is a prevention of any further dealing ; 
 If he neglect his Duty, the Church is to follow the ordinary Methods for 
 gaining the Perfons Soul, and removing the Scandal. In a word, the 
 Civil & Ecelefiaftici: Jurifdictions being both Gods appointments, as this 
 Surusyer mould not deny, ic neceffarly tbllows,that they have their diftinct 
 Limits and Meafures drawn,their proper Ends and Obje&s appointed by 
 the God of Order, and therefore cannot be faid of themfelves, to inter- 
 fere, and clam together, without a, Blafphemous reflection upon him, 
 who is the Author cf both; fo that whatever practical interfeirings and abufe 
 of Power, men in either Capacity may be guilty, cf, can no more reflect 
 upon thefe Ordinances themfelves,than Mans Sinful abufe can be faid to 
 impeach the Divine Authority of the Office he fuftains. I add this -remark 
 further, that the Survey er doth in the Premifed difcourfe palpably contra- 
 dict himfelf, while endeavouring to afperfe a true Ecclefiaftickjurifdicli- 
 on, for he profeffes to difclaim Erafius his way, and afferts there ought to 
 he a Godly Difciplin in the Church, for correcting Offenders, and keeping the 
 Houfe of GOD and his Ordinances in Purity, and confequently he profefles to 
 own an intrinjick Church Government di ft in ft from the Civil, and by further 
 confequence, a coordination of the two Powers and Jurifdiclions, and 
 likewife a neceflary mutual Subjection ofperfonsCloathedtherewith,tothe 
 RefpecHve Authority of the one and the other Jurifdi&ion;yet in his mu- 
 fter offuppofed abfurdities, he impugns this Principle, and endeavours to 
 prove that without palpable Confufions and claming of Societies, there 
 can be no exercife cf this Government. Befides, he pretends to impugn 
 only the received fenfe of this Paflage, and to keep within thefe Limits, 
 yet while attempting to prove, that this is not tfie lenfe of the place, he 
 rambles out into fuch a Difcourfe, as if it prove anything, doth evince 
 that neither this, nor any other place of Scripture, doth hold out an Ec- 
 clefiaftick Jurifdi&ionand Difciplin,as properly and formally diltinci from 
 the Civil. 
 
 The Surveyors next Anfwer ( P. 205*. ) is in Summ this, Jhatjuppofrnfr 
 the Church Collective cannot be here under flood, but the Reprefentative only, in the 
 Matter of Representation, it is indifferent ^whether thty be one or rnany^ cm Commif- 
 fwner may represent a Prtsbytrie in an Affembly : So that tell the Church, is tell th$ 
 Prefidents and Rulers of the Re jpetlive Churches, or ttU him that's Chief, with his AJfi- 
 Jlant. An]. The State of the Queftion is whether the word uvo+m or 
 Church, doth here import fuch an imbodied Society or Court, as is the 
 proper Subjecl of a Jurifdidtional Cenfuring Lower, and to whom the Ap- 
 peal is to be made after more privat Dealings, which if evinced, theHi- 
 erachical Vrtlats arrogated Power monopolizing this Juiiitlirtion, ftnd (to 
 
 U1C 
 
UiC Uic ourucycri thrill j turiLcrtu rag 1111s rvuLllUl uy ill IJllJUClI lQlciv, IS 1UI 
 
 ftciently overthrown, as contrary to the Scripture Pattern, and ctofs tc 
 this great Rule and Standart : For the word «xxm(« it is the Conferment 
 Judgement ofCriticks andlnterpreteis,that it n atura ^ly fignifies aC*tus,znd 
 Catas evocatus,z concio convocatorum 3 an ivdicta concio, thus Su Idas; thus Demofk- 
 henes; and in Scripture it points out generally a Convocation, as Act.. 19 
 32. and a Convocation in curia, or a Catuscivilis,v.^. And fometimes its 
 put for the Affembly of Believers, fometimes for the Church Militant, 
 fometimes for a Province, Kingdom or City: Compare Eph. y. 23. with 
 All. 8. i^.Rev. 12. f. Rom. 16. j. And here goodTnterpreters do confe 
 quently take it to Reprefent the Ecclefiaftick Senat or Vresbytrie, making it 
 one and the fome with that t&ih**** 1 7':w.4.i4.Hence the Verb ^axituam, 
 properly flgnifies in Condone dclibero } Verba facio, to Confult, D enD ^rat 
 and Difcourfe m Publick Affembly. The Text convinces of this,- , For, 
 1. The Gradation is from the Leffer to the Greater Number. 2. Our 
 Lord, v. 19, 20. fpeaks of an agreeing on Earth , and gathering together in his 
 Name. Befides, that the Survey er himfelf expones the Church, of the Ruler t 
 and Governours, who, if they have a joynt Effential Intereft in their Juris- 
 diction, he overthrows liis Opinion of GoAcencnng this in the Prelat; if 
 he afcribe the Jurifdi&ional Decifive Authority to one, .who is.Chief, ma- 
 king the reft but his Afliftants, he againcontradi&s himfelf, in feemi ng to 
 afcribe this Ruling Power to the -whole Meeting, for thus the Senfe could 
 not be as he fays, tell the Rulers and Governours. For what he adds of Cow- 
 miffioners, it is palpably abfurd : For, 1. The Churctv Reprefentative, or 
 the Officers thereof, have a Divine immediat InfKtution, are fet by God 
 therein, and have not a derived Authority from' the Church. 2. It is the 
 Court it felf, not the Deputed Commiffioner, one or more, which is the 
 proper Subjed of the Jurifdidfcional Power. 3. To make the Paralel hold, 
 he behoved to fay trie Prelats have a derived Power, as Cbmmiflioner, 
 from the Church, the Falfliood whereof is apparent. 
 
 The Surveyer adds, ( P. 206. ) That the attributing a JurifdiBional Tower 
 to the Church, is nothing againfi him, who alldwsmf to one fingle Bifloop this Pow- 
 er, without the Council of Presbyters, according to the 4th. Council of Carthage, 
 Can. 23. -though ^nothing is to be done without the Biflwp. -Anf. In Stating the 
 Queftion with^the Presbyterians, ( P. 192. ) he tells us, It is whether this 
 Power be equally Diffused in the whole CoUedge of Presbyter s , or Concentred in one 
 Terfon: Now- if the Perfon of the Bi(bop be cl$e Centre, he cannot allow 
 this Official Powtr to ftep beyond thatCentre,- So, that no Members of the 
 Meeting have any Intereft therein. He adds here, as likeways in the 
 place before Cited, That the Bifhop muft exercise this Powtr with the Concur- 
 rence amhht AJJifianu of Presbyters $ But this can import no Exercife of Ju - 
 
 ' iifdiclion. 
 
 __ 
 
I v^nap. 11. ror npncopacy, nxamtnea. 27 
 
 r ifdi#ion, fince privat Perfons may Counfel and Advife, who have no 
 Decifive Suffrage: And he knew, that in the late Edition of our Hierar- 
 chical Prelacy, the Clergy were to Advife the Bifiop only, an d fcarce thar. 
 So that our Prelats, in iuch Exercife of their Power, baffled that Ad of 
 theCouncil of Carthage, which he mentions. The Surveyer adds, That there 
 u a Plurality of Officers, even where this Inequality of Power is fuppofed, whether 
 Judging or Advifing. But if one only Judge, and the reft are but mere Ad- 
 vifers, the Judging Power being thus Concentred in one, there is no fuch 
 Court, as is the Subject of a JurifdidHonal Power ; So that the Surveyer 
 bewrays great Impudence, in faying that the Determination properly flows 
 from them aH, fince the Authority is thus Concentred in one. B ut fays the 
 Surveyer, fince the Organick Church is made up of Rulers and Ruled, the Notion of 
 a Church will not import an Equality of Power in all. Anf. This Paralel is pal- 
 pably unjuft and impertinent, fince the Church Organick, confidered thus 
 complexly, doth neceifarly and effentially include Members and Officers, 
 Rulers and Ruled, and confequently a necefiary Inequality ,• But the Surveyer 
 could not deny, that in this place, the *xk\.6,* or Church, imports a Soci- 
 ety or Colledge of Rulers only, which can come under no fuch Confidera- 
 tion of a neceiTary Inequality. 
 
 The Survey ers Fourth Anfwer is in Summ, That we find the higbefl Cenfures 
 of the Church inflicted by the Authority offingle Perfons, who ever otherwife concur- 
 red; So Paul excommunicat Hymeneus and Alexander, i Tim. i. 2c. And to 
 fay he atled as a Member of a Quorum, is to make him a vain Boafier, and te 
 make the Scripture fpeak what we will. Anf. The Surveyer muft acknowledge, 
 yea &hath acknowledged the difference betwixt theApoftolickAuthority, 
 in the Framing and Conftitution of Churches, and the Exercife of their 
 Power, in Churches already conftitute in their Organick Beeing : In the 
 firft Cafe, there was an indifpenfible neceflity of exerting a fingular A- 
 poftolick Authority, when no Officers were to concur, and Churches 
 were not fully Moulded in theirOrganick Beeing: And we heard himfelf di- 
 ftinguifh the Apoftles ordinary and extraordinary Power: In the other Cafe, 
 when Churches were conftitute, it is evident, and hath been made good, 
 that they did aflume the Official Concurrence of ordinary ChurchRulers. 
 The Surveyer challenged! us to produce a Warrand for our Affirtion of Paul* 
 acting hereupon an extraordinary Apoftolick Authority. Thus he challenges the 
 Apoftle Paul to produce his Warrand for this his Apoftolick Ading,which 
 he has long fince pcoduced and recorded,if this Man had been pleafed to 
 read and conlider it. Whereas he tells us, It wot none of the extraordinary 
 Characters of the Apoftles to act in thefe Matters, by bis twn only Authority ; \\ c 
 fay it was, where Churches were not confticuce, and no ordinary Orh- 
 cers to concur: And this Sttrijej£r might be challenged, as the Atfirmer,to 
 
 1 i i prov* 
 
z8 The Surveyers T leadings Chap, II. 
 
 prove. that this A& was put Forth in an Organick Church, where ordina- 
 ry Officers were : to concur, or elfe in denying this to be one of the Cha- 
 xa&erifticks of the Apoftolick Office, he afperfes his Apoftolick Power and 
 Authority. He adds,That yvhat was beyond their immediat Calling infallible Di- 
 recJion^Himited Jurifdiclion,&c. was tranfmittable to his Suicefors, and actually 
 tranfmitted toTimoxhy and Titus. It \sAnfwered,WQ have made appear, that 
 their immediat Calling, confidered with reference to itsNature aridEnd of 
 Planting Churches,Conftituting the Officers & Ordinances thereof,did ne- 
 ceffarly include this Authority in this firft Framing of Churches, which 
 neither was nor could be tranfmitted," unlefs it be pleaded that the Chur- 
 ches Foundation could be twice laid. For Timothy and Titus, we have a- 
 bove fpoken to their Authority and Office, and made appear that it was 
 iranftent and extraordinary, as that of Apoftles, and to be Exercifed with the " 
 Authoritative Official Concurrence of ordinary Officers" or Presbyters, ' 
 where they were Planted. 
 
 The Surveyers Fifth Anfwer and Exception ( P. 267. J is, That there is 
 vn this Text an Allufion to the Jewifh Church Courts, wherein there were Chief and 
 $ ub or dmat Rulers, both in lhe§anhe6rin and Synagogues. Anf Unlefs the Bur- 
 <veyez can ma&e appear, that the whole Jurifdifrional Tower and Authority ' 
 therein, was fo Concentred in one Vtrfon, as there was nothing of it left .. 
 to any of the Members,- and that their Work was'orilyto give Ajjent unta 
 the fole Decifive I)e termination and Sentence of that onePerfoh/ihisArj- | 
 fwer will neverTielp the Hierarcnicar^i/fcop, whofe Power was of this Na- 
 ture, according to our Laws. If it be fuppofed that, thejurifdidional Pow- 
 er, was competent to the Whole Colkdge in thefe. Meetings, the Paflage 
 Hands flill in its Condemning Forceagainft the Hierarchical Bijhop. . Tfrat .; 
 the whole Jurifdi&ional Power in the Sanhedrin, was Concentred in the 
 Perfonof the High Prieft, none can, without extreme Impudence,aflert. 
 We heard that the Learned Junius ("and feveral others ) do affert.that the 
 ordinary Jurifdi&ion was penes concejfum Sacerdctum, competent to the whole 
 Meeting of the Priefts. The Levits, as well as the Vriefts, were to ftrew 
 • the Sentence of Judgment in. Matters' and Queftions brought before them, 
 Dim. 17. 8, ^> 10. So Jehojhaphat, 2 Chron. 19, 8, 9. feftoring this Ban- * 
 hedrtn,_ let the Levites, as well as the Vriefts, to Judge the Controverfies that 
 ' came before them, by way of Appeal. And though we find that- the High * 
 Prieft did' pronounce- the Sentence of Judgment, 2 Chron.- 19. n. with j 
 Dent. i7fc 12.. this will not infer the Surveyers Conclusion of his fole Decifive 
 Suffrage, fince tn'e- 'Moderator otanAJJemblymay pronounce the Sentence j 
 flowing from their joy nt Decifive Votes. For tht Rulers ofSynagogues,fmcs 1 
 we read of them, and of Chief Rulers in the plural, Mark 5,22.. Acl.1%,15. 
 compared with ^.'i 8,8/1 7. it is evident there could' be no peculiar J urif-- J 
 ^i&ion1o*$|&i in one exclufive of tfie'r^fh His 
 
2hap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined, + 29. 
 
 His Laft Exception to this Paffage is, That the Remedy here prefcribed wai 
 
 refently to be made ufe of, upon the rifing of 'Scandals , and therefore, was not for 
 
 Scandals to arife a long time thereafter, Anf This firft Seminarie of theChri- 
 
 Han Church, being at prefent under our Lords . immediat Infpection, 
 
 here was no fuch Accefs for a prefent Ufe of thisRemedy,&: therefore this 
 
 iule and Remedy was mainly prefcribed for after-times,as the Charter of 
 
 :he Churches Jurifdi&ion. The Author of the fecond part of PooVs Annot. 
 
 kvell obferves upon this Paffage, " That we are not to underftand our Sa- 
 
 :c viour as fpeaking with relation Unto the prefent time, but the. time to 
 
 :f come, and giving Laws, which mould take place, and abide from the 
 
 :c gathering of the £hriftian Church : And if the Church be underftood of 
 
 :t thofe that have the Authority of Binding and Loofing,they fliew that the 
 
 ff prefent Church of Apoftles, was to conftitute particular Churches, to 
 
 u whom, when conftituted,in force of this precept, fuch Offences were to 
 
 €C be told, &c. The Survey er asks, Suppofe Scandals then arifing, V. G. Juda: 
 
 ?ivin% Scandal to Peter, would our Lord haw fent them to the Sanhedrin of the 
 ews ? Upon the Ground I now offered,/ the Negative Anfwer is clear $ 
 The Complaint was to be made to this glorious Head of the Church, in 
 whom all Church-Authority is truely concentred, and in telling him, the 
 Church was told. But the Surveyer tells us of Bucers Affertipn, That Chrift 
 And his Apofiles were a Jtijfiiicnt Reprefentative Chriftian-Cburch ,• And this Primz- 
 tivePresbytrie andReprefentative^he profejfes to accept well of, where was no "Equali- 
 ty of Power intheMembcrs. Anf. TheSurveyer knew there was here an ab.lolute 
 Dominion of the Churches Glorious Head over a Society of Officers^ 
 And if he will ftill have fuch aitanding Pattern of aileprefentative Church, 
 viz,, a Supreme Vicar having the Radical Authority thereof, the 1\;\ 
 will joyn iffue with him in his gladful Acceptance thereof.. That there 
 was no Equality of Power in the Members, contradicts Jus former Affer- 
 pOfi, anent an Equality of an Official Power among the Apofiles, unlefs he will 
 put Chriit the Glorious Head among thefe Members, and degrade Him 
 from his Head-ihip. He tells us further, Jhut in this Primitive Vattcn;, 
 there was no Inter-mixture of Lay-Elders. A witty Knack andN-ti -n indeed. ' 
 He hath told us P. 199. of feveral Claffesand Degrees of Church Office] 
 which he thinks exemplifies the continual Handing Meafures for tl 
 Chriftian Church,from that Paffage, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Firft Apofiles, >■ 
 rily Vrofbtt s J hirdly Teachers, after that Miracles^ and he will not ^ doubt 
 Evangdijls like waves are of the Number, who are reckoned Eph. 4/ Our 
 Surwyer faw no mixture of thefe in this Vresbytrie, nor of the X>aftor y whom ' 
 he diftinguilhes from the Apoftolick Office, the Btfljops being wit. 
 their SucceiVors: So that the poor Man was upon the Charybdis QJ 
 either co acknowledge tljat this Vresbytrie was not lb complcat as it light 
 to have-been, and thus forced to contradict what he here affcrtb, J 
 
3 o The Surveyers ^leadings Chap. II: 
 
 c ording to this Form all others afterwards (hould be framed ( for this will make 
 *he Pattern and after Copies manck and defective ) Or elfe,if he acknow- 
 ledge that in this Primitive Seminary and Embvyon of Church Judicatories, 
 all ordinary Officers were not prefent, he behoved to confels that his 
 Charge againft Lay-Elders fas he calls them) becaufe not here, was imper- 
 tinent and groundlefs. TheSurveyer calls (or fuch a Presbytrie to end aR our 
 Qcntroverfie. That is a Presbytrie with a Head, having a Soveraign Abfo- 
 lute Dominion over all the Members: And fince he would not with the 
 Millenaries, have our Lord to reign perfonally on Earth, he here wifhed 
 for a Supreme infallible Vicar to end the Controverfie. In his Difiike of 
 hetrogenous Mixtures in Church Judicatories, he mighj have reflected 
 upon the High Commijjion Court, with its threefold Intermixture, i. Of 
 Members, viz,. His Reverend Fathers the Bijhops, and Lay- Lords, Nobles, 
 and other States-men. 2. Of Matters cognofcible and Objefts of their 
 Power, viz. Scandals, and Civil Crimes. 2. Of the A&ings of the Ccurt, 
 like the Popes Ecce duogladii, Fyning, Confyning., Imprifonment ,• As alfo., 
 Ecclefiaftick Cenfures of Excommunication, Deprivation, &c. One Re- 
 mark further I add upon this Paflage of Scripture. The Surveyer founds 
 his Argument upon the Allufion made to the Jewifli Courts: But 1. It is evi- 
 dent in general, there are Scripture Allufions, that will not fo much as 
 plead for the Lawfulnefs oi the thing alluded to, witnefs, the Vfalmift al- 
 lufion to Charming, and our Lords warning that h« comes as a Thie£ 
 2. Should he plead for a compleat equality betwixt the Jewijh, and Chri- 
 ftian Church Judicatories, he would plead for anOecumenick JSificp and 
 fixed Prefident over the whole Chriftian Church, as there was a Supreme 
 High Prieft fet over the Jewijh; fo that this Argument proving too much, 
 and beyond his Aflertion, proves nothing. 3. It is enough to found the 
 allufion, that there be fomelikenefs of the things compared,* and thus in 
 this Cafe, there being in the Jewijli Church, Courts, a futable Subordina- 
 tion oftheLeffer to the greater, and a Correfpondent Official Power fear- 
 ed therein, the allufion ftands good, intire, and evident upon thisground,* 
 that Chriftian Church Courts are offucha Nature. 
 
 The Survey er(P. 207. 208. ) makes his next Affault upon our Argument 
 for the Official identity of Bijhop and Presbyter, drawn from AB. 20. 17. 
 28.where theEldcrs of the Church lent for by Puul to Miletus, are called 
 Bijhops : And from lha'.f& where he thats called an Elder, is called alfo 
 a BiJIjop, and the Names are ufed as Synonimous,fo 1 Fet. 5, 1. 2. the £/- 
 ders are iWfx»(rom«' fuch as have everfight over the Flock. The Argument 
 with the Surveyer runs thus, If there were no Bijhops in the Apoflles days, differ- 
 ing from Presbyters in Office, there ought to be none now : PiUt thtre were none fuch 
 in the Apofiks days. Ergo ; We do for Brevity reft upon this hint of Argu- 
 ment 
 
Chap: IT: For Epifcopacy , Examined. 3 1 
 
 merit, haying fpoken to it above, as deducible from thefe Texts. His 
 nV'ft Anfwer is, That the fir ft proportion is not fo indubitable as it feems; Aid 
 his proof 'is , that Beza, though holding the Scripture Bifliop and Presbyter to be Me 
 and the fame, yet acknowledges the Lawfuhiejs of that Fpifcopacy, wbich he calls 
 < human; And therefore, though no fuch Biflwps had been in the Apoflles time, the 
 Churches appointment of Juch a Con (litution. guided by the Spirit, might be a fit 
 means for Conservation of Peace. Anfi Firft, The Surveyers founding the un- 
 foundnefs of the propofition upon thefuppofed fentiments of Bcz,a , as it 
 appears palpably unfound 3 unlefs Beza werefuppofed infallible, fo it ise- 
 vident ( and if we could here fray upon it, mightbe made good at large, 
 from many PafTages of Beza, which w T e have elfewhere produced ) that 
 he difowns the human Vroftafe, as a recefs from the Divine appointment, 
 and the fiiftftep of the Churches defection in point of Government. On 
 Philip. 1. 1. he tells us, " of the community of the Name of Btfhop and 
 c ' Presbyter, which Continued till he who was in the Affembly fetover the 
 
 x: reft began to be peculiarly called the Bifiop; from hence, faith he 3 
 
 ci the Devil began to lay the firft Foundation of Tvrannie in the Church 
 cc of GOD. And difcourfing further of the Afcenfion that was made from 
 Biflwps to the higher Officers of the Hierarchy till it came to Patriarchs, &c. 
 It? hath this remarkable Paffage at the clcfe of hisDifcourfe, cc Behold of 
 cc how great moment and confequence it is to decline, even in a hair- 
 cc breadth from the Word of GOD. Now, this Surveyer might have pon- 
 dered what Senfe or Divinity it could be in him, or Beza, to afTert that 
 the Church is guided by the Spirit in her declunngs from the word of GOD. To this 
 Scope we might Cite many Paflages of Beza; See ( for brevity ) Bez,aad 
 Cap. 9. apud^arav. num. 20. Beza Refp. C. 11. N. 3. Like wife in Que/}. 2. 
 Referent. Sarav. P. y2. In which Paflages ( and many fuch like ) wetir.ri 
 him clearly condemning this Human Profiafie, in fo far as tranfeending 
 the Limits of a Moderators OfEce. . 
 
 The Surveyor next coming to the Second propofition of the Argument, 
 tells us } That itsfooner afjirmed than proven, that there were no Bi(hcps in the Apo- 
 files days, differing from Presbyter s in :he modern notion: And he cent pares the Pres- 
 byterians to the Melancholick Man in Athens, who concerned I every Ship 
 arriving in the Harbour, as his own property A Charge :';lince in 
 fuch like llypochondriack diirempcrs, thcSurvejer (as his I'c'.Ichvs) would 
 needs have the Hierarchic \\ Bifiop of their New Notion, ; .d under 
 the Denomination of theScripture-/?//kp:Yea(and in a I iftemper beyond 
 that of the Man at Athens ) will often lap him under the ] \on 
 Preslyter, where there fs not fomuch as an appearance of this aufpici- 
 ousai effel. The cells us, That the Nkme of] 
 in I J ly Scripture , a difiing ' onejort oj Qfliccrsfrem all ubtrs, al- 
 
 k k though 
 
3*1 i m. Durveyers Pleadings Chap: 11: 
 
 though fometlmes the Scripture requires that it muftbe looked en as DiflinguiMng 
 ihoje that are under that Name from other Officers. Anf The proportion he! 
 impugns, is, That in the Apoftles days, there were no Biihops Superior to Presby- 
 ters, no Ordinary Officers of the Hierarchical Mould, or Biflwps of his Mo- 
 dern Notion. That from, thefe places Cited, it is aparent, that the Or- 
 dinary Church Officers Inftituted by Apoftles, were Biflwps and Presbyters, 
 of the fame Official Mould and Authority, to whom the Feeding and Go- 
 verning of the Church is enjoyued promifcuoufly : And all his Anfwerto. 
 the Proportion amounts to this, that the Name ofVresbyter is femetimesamore 
 general Name } than to feint at an ordinary Officer: An Anfwer utterly remote 
 ii roni the Point,as is obvious to any that confide] s, That it touches not. i. 
 T-he Official Identity of the Bijhop and Presbyter, in the PafTages Cited, and 
 Sheir equal Official Authority, as ordinary Church Officers, given to Feed' 
 and Rule the Church jointly, which is a neceffary Confequence of the. 
 former. 2. The unwarrantablenefs of fuch an Officer, as the Hierarchi- 
 cal Prelat, whofe Office encroaches upon, and robs them of that Power 
 allowed them of GOD, which is another Neceflary Confequence drawn [ 
 from this Ground, This Charge is the more evident in that he hath ac- - 
 feiowledged, that fometime-s thefe Names of Biihop and Presbyter, diftino-uiflj- 
 esjhafe that are under the fame , from other Officers. And in the Paliages 
 Cited, he cannot but acknowledge them thus diftingui/hed : Sure they 
 ace fo, at leaft for any thing he hath faid. He tells us, he will in this 
 and other Confiderations, remove, cur Miftake : But fure he hath here .pre- 
 ferred his own. 
 
 He adds, (P. 209. )That in the Rehear fal of Church Officers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. 
 with Eph. 4. ir. Presbyters are not in the Number , though Bi/hops, and they 
 arg comprehend under the Name, of V afters and Teachers, which foews tha^t the 
 Name, is not appointed to deftgn any certain Or dtr of Minifters. Anfflhz Survey ex 
 could not but grant,that the Hierarchical Bijlwp, according to his modern 
 Notion, as diltinguiflied by this Name from the P after or Presbyter, is in 
 Tigris of thefe Rolls, and therefore, upon his own Principle, this.JV*we is 
 mfc appointed to deftgn any certain Order of Mini fers: And where is then his war« ~ 
 raiid.ior the Hierarchical Bifiop, as thus diftinguiiued i Likewife the Sur~ 
 <vtysr very unhappily made the Name, of Teacher, the Charact en flick of his 
 Hierarchical Bijhop, who, looks upon Teaching as none of his work, nor is 
 Chargeable^*/*?. Prelat, with any deficiency in his Office, though his Ser~ ~ 
 ^npns drop but once or twicc^pro forma ^nd on Solemnities from. one years 
 ^Qd to another. In a word, as the Surveyer in this Reafon quite ruined 
 his Caufe and affertion, fo it is evident, .that in the Scripture Accounts 
 oiiheinftitution and work pf Presbyters, the work.and Office is found ' 
 ^ fame, with that of thefe. ordinary Officers, Cited 1 Q07. 12.. Efh. : ^ , 
 
 iinca: 
 
Chap. 11. tor npncopacy, Examined. 33 
 
 fmce both Teaching and Government, are evidently, commuted untothem 
 Act. 20. 28. with Tit. r. ^: 7. 1 Tim. $-. 17. But tor the Divine limita- 
 tion of his Hierarchical Prelat, or any proper designation for his Office in 
 that Capacity, our Surveyer, after all the Travels of his Surveying Noti- 
 ons, brings us home nothing but a 000 inventus eft. He adds as a proof of his 
 f6rmer Aiiertion,7W he knows no placeof 'Scripture pvhere the wcrdEldetmtfi nceci- 
 point out an Officer fixed to a^particular Charge in Teaebin? and Rul'rag, having no 0- 
 ther above him in Power, or havingPowcr over any ether Officers. But he->/nould 
 have pointed us to the place, where the Diocefan Bif»op of his new Mould, 
 is reprefented in Scripture, under the Name of either JSifbop or Tresbyteri 
 And if he give over this difcoverv , and the Anfwer of our demand herea- 
 nent, hemuft takehome and LodgethisArgument with himfcif, and when 
 he falls upon a go :d anfwer, beftow itforusuponhimfelf. ButforfuchPres- 
 byters or Elders, ashedothdefiderat, he might have found them in the fame 
 Text of Act.20.i7,28.impowered with the ordinaryOrfice and Authority of. 
 Teaching and Ruling the Church, as-fucceeding the Ap: files in this or- 
 dinary Office, yea and fixed as the ordinary Officers of this Church of 
 Ephefm for this end • as likewife Elders thus fetup with an Epifccpal Tower 3 
 and fixed to their Charges, Tit; 1. c. with 1 Pet. ^. Likewife 1 Tim. j. 17, 
 We have Elders or Presbyters fuppofed to have a fixed Relation to- that * 
 Church, having alfo a Teaching and Governing Power: Yea Act. 14. 2;, 
 We find fuch Paflors -or Presbyters, ordained Church by Church, or in e- 
 very Church. But the Surveyer adds, That Presbyterians bold Elders to he ■ 
 of two Ranks, and therefore, if the Ruling Elders are not to be here Juppofed s they 
 make the fir ji Constitution of Churches manck and difclive, without RulingELL*-s 
 or Deacons ; Or if they include both under the Name cf Elders, he can with fc 
 Ground, include the Majores Presbytcri, or BifJjops/Iijli-aH from the Mine re ■ 
 Vapors. Anf. Whether we affert there are Ruling Elders here or not, his 
 Hierarchical Bifliop is not in the lead helped, or his Pleading for him 
 Jtrengthened. For, if we fhall fay, that in this fir ft plantation of the 
 Churches, there were only Teaching Elders or Paftors appointed, who 
 were in tuto to appoint and ordain Ruling Elders and Deac.ns, his abf 
 dity is eaiily evaded, if we (halibut fuppoie that which is ealily iiippoiable, 
 that in the firft Conitirution of Churches, there was a gradual proceed 
 and the chief Officers, the Pa/lors,firi\ ordained and impoueied,- as above. 
 fiid : If we embrace the other Anfwer, and affirm chat Elders of b 
 forts^ were here ordained, his Inference hath no ihadow of a Conaevttou 
 hereupon, fince we do make good from Scripture, the Diilindion of -the, ' 
 Teaching .and Ruling Eider, who.hoth come under this general l)eh 
 tion. But f r his Hierarchical Bilhop, Wis Inititution, JName, or 0B 
 Sunveyerx&n give us no Jhacic . > 1 
 
'34 The Survey ets T leadings Chap. 1L 
 
 f i ppofing fuch an Officers Exiftence. Befides, though it were granted* 
 t ha, fuch a Diftindlion could be admitted,- where finds this Sm-vcyer the 
 Deacons in thefe Catalogues? And how will he thus evite the Rebound of his 
 own Blow, and his own abfurdity of a manck Conftitution cf the Primi- 
 tive Churches ? For what he adds, That Irenarus Bifoop cf Lyons, is called a 
 Presbyter of his Church uf Lyons. It is certain, Biflwps were fometimes fo 
 called, and therefore they were the more guilty who did appropriat the 
 Name Biftop to a pretended Office, Superior to ^Presbyter, eipeciallyfince 
 this Retention of the Name Presbyter , was from fome Impreffion of the 
 New Teframent Times and Writings, wherein the two Names are pro- 
 mifcuoufly ufed to point at cne and the fame Officer. And it would feem 
 this Name, which, with Beda fignifieth Sapienti* Maturitatem, fhould have 
 been rather afifumed by thefe pretended Fathers, than that of Bijhop, which 
 with him imports indufiriarn c ur a p aft oralis, the Induftry of the Paftoral 
 Care, a Work that Prelats are found little to concern themfelves about. 
 
 There is another Paflage, wherein he might have feen fuch Presbyters as 
 he defiderats, viz. AB. ijr. 22, 23. where mention is made of Apoftles 
 and Elders, meeting in that Council at jerufalem, who muft needs be un- 
 derftood of fixed Pallors ofthatChuch. The Surveyer (P. 210 J offers 
 to our thoughts, Whet her James,?/^ LORDS Brother galled by the Ancients Bifiop 
 of Jerufalem, and is a DifinB per fon from the two ef that Name, comes under any 
 ef the >fe Denominations? We have above made appear, in collating this Paf- 
 lage with Gal. 2. 1. 9. Gal. 1. 19. That this James who is called the Lords 
 Brother, is called an Apoftle, and fuch an Apoftle as Peter and others,, 
 & 17. 18. Which is alfo clear from this, that v/e read of a James the lefs, 
 Mark. 15*. 14. Which ( as Jerom contra Hehidium reafonsj had been no 
 fk Diffinftion, had there been three James's. The Harmony of Interpre- 
 ters taking James to be an Apoftle in Gal. 1. 19. is above made appear- 
 fuch as Hfiius, Partem, Gomarus, Menochius, Pifcator, Tirinm, Simplicim 3 
 &c.The Surveyer was not to be troubled in a Counter-enquiry, To what pur- 
 pofe he propofed the Queflion ? Or next, under which of thefe Names 
 he comprehended the Deacons? But for us, a rational Account may be 
 given, If it be faid they are comprehended under none of thefe Names, 
 ..there being in this Meeting put forth a Diataclick, Critick, and Dogma- 
 tick Power and Authority, in none of which^Deacons as fuch, have anJn- 
 terefr, their Work and Intereft being to ferve Tables. 
 
 To that Paffage 1 Pet. 5-. where the fixed Eiders or Presbyters of the 
 Churches have afcribed unto them an Authority in Feeding and Ruling 
 the fame^ The Surveyer Aniwers,That the Name of Presbyter it common to all 
 Church Officers, Higher and Lower, even to Apofiles,as Beza .acknowledges. Anf.Ho 
 hath already acknowledged, That it mu(t fometimes. in Scripture be looked on, 
 
t "vjsap. 
 
 li. ror npncopacy, examined. 55 
 
 as diftinguijhing tbofe pointed out thereby from other Officers; So that it may here 
 denote a Preaching Paftor in fpecial, notwithstanding that in a general 
 Senfe,Superior Officers had thatName,fuch as Apoftles.He could not deny 
 the peculiar Office of a Deacon, though the word fuxwi or ii*y.*vi* is fome- 
 times appropriat to Superior Officers. And befides, that the prcper 
 Name and Defoliation of the Superior Officer, he cannot /hew to be 
 given to the Inferior, though the Superior in a General Senfe, have 
 fometimes the Name of the Inferior attributted to them. He might 
 'have here feen , that thefe Officers or Presbyters have an Epifco- 
 pal Infpeftion and Overfight over the Flock afcribed unto them, and that 
 of fuch a Nature, as imports a ccmpleat Official Equality, and Ex- 
 cludes Lofdlnip over GODS Heritage: Which doth clearly Juftle out 
 his Hierarchical] Prelat, as having no Entered in Church Government. 
 The Survey er further tells us, There is no ground to ajjert that the Presbyters 
 Ac!:. 20. 17. 28. were fuch only in the Modern Notion, and none of them Biflwps in 
 the Modern Notion : And to obviat an Objection from their Relation to E- 
 phefus, he adds, 7 hat they were net only Elders of that Church, hut of the Chur- 
 ches of Add. about, fo far as in a tratijient Vlfit they might get Intelligence. This 
 often baffled Subterfuge, Episcopalians hzsz been told, is contrary to the 
 Senfe of Ancient Fathers, Jerom, Theodoret,Chryfofd?n: contrary to feveral 
 Councils; contrary to the Syriack Tranflaiion, which reads the" Text thus, 
 he fent to Ephefus, and called the Elders of the Church 0/ Ephefus. Dr. Light- 
 foot holds, " they were the Twelve, upon whom the Apoftle Paul impo- 
 " fed Hands, and gave them the Spirit, Aft. 19.6. and fuch others ( if 
 " any fuch were) whom 7imcthy had ordained. See Lightfoot Harm.Chrcn. 
 N. Tefl. The Text fays, He fent to Ephefus, and called the Elders of the 
 Church: Sure of that Church to which he fent, and there is no /hadow of 
 a hint of any other Elders there prefent. Again, he fent for the Elders of 
 the Church f\n the Singular Number, viz,, that particular Church: But the 
 Survtyers Glofs will read the Elders of the Churches, in the Plural, viz. of 
 Afia, then mett at Ephefns. The Scripture exprefTes Provincial Churches 
 in the plural, as the Churches of Afia, Rev. 1. n. Churches of JudeaMit 
 otherwife of the Church oiJerujale?n, Corinth, in the fingular, which were 
 in Cities. Neither will the old rorten Eva lion help the Surveyer, viz,. < 
 that*/. 18. its laid % he Preached throughout all A\\a, and v. 2j. fpeaking to 
 thefe that were conveened, he faith, you all among whom 1 have gone Preach- 
 ing the Kingdom of 'God; from which he pleads, thtre were others prejent, as- 
 well as the Elders of Epht{us,wf)o might be prober Biflicps in their places: Since it 
 is evident, that the Term [ AH ye J doth properly relate to the Elders of 
 Ephefus then prefent, and Was immediatlv ipoken to them: Such Univer- 
 fdl Terms, uied in iuch a Senfe, and to fuch a Scope, are very ordinal v 
 
 Eli 
 
5 6 The Surveyors T leadings Chap. II. I 
 
 and cafeable,as if one mould fay to a certain Number of an Affembly, ye are 
 all now MJJoheJjk would not imply the prefence of all the Members. Again, 
 the Apoftle might fpeak many things, which did import the Concern and 
 Duty of all, though the Speech were dire&ed immediatly and perfonally 
 to thofe only that were prefent. When he faid, Tou all among whom I hav§ 
 gone, Vreachingthe Kingdom of God, the Survey er will not be bold to. fay this ■ 
 will infer that thefe all were prefent, cr that the Speech did import fo 
 much. As for the Paffages Cited, viz,, v. i8,_2j. . It is Anfwered, that. 
 the Apoftle fpent molt of thefe Years in Epbefm only, viz*, two Years and 
 three Months, and the Superplus in the places adjacent,- So that thefe El- 
 ders could not be ignorant, how the whole was fpent. Some have obfer- 
 ved further, that there is nothing of a peculiar Addrefs here to a fuppofed , 
 Bijhqp. of Efbt fus, and that all thefe Elders are Charged with the Oversight 
 of that Flock. But the Surveyer will not have the- Presbyters here to be meaned-: 
 in tht refrained Signification, or that this Term Jhould reftrain the Term ofBiJhop.But: 
 we.reftrain none of them from their due and Native Signification, as im- 
 porting the Preaching Presbyter or Paftor, As for his enlarged Significa- 
 tion, ftretching to an Hierarchical Prelat, it is the Chimera of his own 
 Fancy, whereof he hath offered no Shadow of a Proof. 
 
 To that Text of Tit. 1.5. wherein the Bifliop and Elder are found clearly 
 Identified, and a Plurality of" them fixed in that one Church ,• The Survey- 
 er ( P. 2ii. ) repones again his Old Reco&ed, Crambe of the Majores &-- 
 Minor es Presbyteri, as comprehended in thefe Terms, and tells US of. an Analogical 
 Reafoning which the Apoftle ufes, from the Qualifications and Duties of the Bifliop y 
 properly Jo called, to jhew the necejfity of the like in all Presbyters, who are com- 
 prehended under their Order. AnfAs his Suppofition cf the properly and im- 
 properly called Bijhopsjs (till begged by him without any ground, & as ea- . 
 lilV denyed bv us,as affirmed by him,- So his Glofs and Reafon adduced, 
 isxlearly crofs to the TextjSince the Apoftle mewing Tit us 3 how the Elders 
 to be ordained in every City, were to be qualified, adds this Reafcn of 
 Advice, for a Bifliop muft be blamelefs ; this >*?, or for, is- caufal, ' ihewing 
 the Identity of the Office, as well as the Name, elfe the Reafoning were 
 fetfe: Should a Chancellor in one of the Univerfities ( faith SmecJymntts y who 
 ufeth this illuftrating Similitude ) give Order to his Vice- Chancellor, to ad- 
 mit none to the Degree of Batchelour of Arts, but fuch as were able to 
 Preach, or keep a Divinity A<&, for Batchelouts of Divinity muft befo: What . 
 Reafon or Equity were in this? And we may enquire here what Rea- 
 fp!2 is- this, The improperly called Bifliop muft be fo and fo qualified, becaufethe 
 BlflioDof the higher Order and, di ft inB Function muft be fo qualified} Gerard* 
 de Minift. Ecclef. ufeth the fame Reafon to mew the Abfurdity of iuch a 
 Qlo\s, The. Apoftle in, the Series of ..his Reafoning* Identifies, both; the,: 
 
 Work ii 
 
Chap. II. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 37 
 
 Work and Office of Biflior/'and Presbyter: But this Survey er will needs 
 corred him, and caft in his Limiting Cautions, and inftead of that identi- 
 ty, that the Apoftle afferrs of the Offices, make them only in feme Senfe 
 the fame, not intirely. He tells us, That in Sacerdotal Acts they are the famci 
 But he cannot fay; that the Apoftles Identity here afferted, reaches and 
 includes only the Ads of Order, and is not to be extended to the Exer- 
 cife of Jurifdidion. As for the Acts of Order, the Hierarchical Biihop, 
 is in their Principles, the proper Primary Subject of the Sacerdotal Ads 
 and Authority in the whole DioceJJ, whereas that of the Paftor is Precari- 
 ous, and Subaltern to his,and fixed to one Flock. He calls ( P. 20c ) the 
 Ads of Jurifdidicn a Perfcnal Application only of the Word, or of the Tower of 
 Orders yet he doth here Diverfifie them,fo that though he aflert the Paftor 
 is the very. fame with the Prelat in the Sacerdotal Ads, he is not fo in 
 thofe ofjurifdidion. But we cannot. ftand to Trace all the Inconfiften- 
 cies of the Survey ers Notions, 
 
 This diftindion of Vresbjtcrs of the Firft and Second Order, in a New 
 Tetitio principii, ferves his turn as an Anfwer to our Argument from 1 Per, 
 y. And here we are again told, That she Presbyterians allow two Ranks and 
 Orders of Presbyters : Where it would feem, he Screws up his Hierarchical 
 Vrelat,\n this and the preceedingAnfwers to aDivine Right ? and thus quites 
 andjuftles with what he often pretends anent aRight he calls partlyEtcUfi- 
 a/tick Again, the Text afcribs an Epifcopal Authority and overfight to 
 thefe Elders and Bijhops, which as is faid in former Cafes and Inftances, o- 
 verthrows the Hierarchical Frelats fole arrogated Power in Ordination and 
 Jurifdidion. It hath further this unlucky aiped upon my LordBijhcp, that 
 the Bifrops or Elders here,are enjoined an immediatMinift trial lnJpctiio?i ever 
 the Flocks, and diligently to Feed the fame by found Dodrin, are forbid- 
 den to be Lords over GGDs Her et age, much more to be Veers in Parliament, 
 which pitifully plucks the Plums of their ZWj7;//>;Grandure, and maris the'r 
 Figure in Herauldiy. They are bidden beware of the Filthy Lucre, which 
 will much ftraiten their Revenues, which doth lb far overftretch the al- 
 lowed Maintainance of a Laborious Vafior. . ButofthL, enough. 
 
 CE^A P^ 
 
^1> The Surveyors Tleadings Chap. Ill: 
 
 C H A P. at 
 
 Some more Exceptions and Anfwers oftheSurvey- 
 er, examined, Viz-.Tfl that Yajfage, i Cor. 5: 
 To that ofEfh. 4: 11. (To which the Tara- 
 Jels, 1 Cor: 1 1. 28. Row: 1 z: ^, 7, 8: ^reft? h 
 jojned*) To that Tajfage Philip: 1: 1. And to 
 1 Tim; 4: 14: His unfoundnefs and inconjiften- 
 cy therein, further made appear. 
 
 i Roceed we to that confiderable Text i Cor. 5. the energy and 
 force whereof, in order to the evincing a Presbyterial Authori- 
 ricy ofPaflors in that Church, is abovefpoken to. He tells us, 
 It isalledged that the Church of Corinth, not having a Bijhop, is ac 
 "knowledged by the Apofile to -have the Power of Ecclefiaftick cenfures, e- 
 *oen of Excommunication, and is reproved for not executing thefe Cenfures, and ex- 
 horted fpeedily to execute the fame.; that hence it is concluded, feeing this Apofiolick 
 Church was foConftitut with fuch a Power of Excommunication, by its own Officers 
 andPresbyters without a Bijhop, that therefore all other Churches, (Iwuld have the 
 fame Poller, according to the Word of GOD. In Anfwer to this, die Survey er 
 ( not unlike a Fugitive Criminal, who will flee to a place of the greateft 
 hazard otherways, fohe may efcape thePurfuer ) Fleeth to the exploded 
 Notion of the Independents, a Party (landing in moft oppofit Terms to the 
 Epifcopalians , telling us f that this Power ofjurifdiclion and Cenfure, is not found 
 here in the Elderjhip, or in them alone, fince the whole Church is Jftoken to in this 
 Matter ; There is Fornication among you, y£ are puffed up, &c. and all 
 the Saints, Are concerned, of whom he faith, they Judge them that are 
 within: That it were ft 'range, that Elders, who are not warned, (hould be concern- 
 ed, and not the People, who are expnfly named; that there is no mow mention oft he 
 Governing Presby trie there, than of the Governing Bifhop. Anf. The Survey- 
 er here, is fo unhappy, as to Raze the Foundation of all his pleading, 
 which, if it have any foundation at all, muft needs be grounded 
 upon, and fuppofe a Diftin&ion of the Church Reprejentative and 
 Collective, Church Officers and Church Members'. Nay, he Curs the Throat of 
 his Affertion, P. 203, That there is anEcdefiafiicalJurifdiU$on y and Cenfure^ 
 
 and 
 
aria JJPJCiptlTJ n.uavi>t\rjzi* w t uz\->uhh,v 3 fvi Keeping \jvcu \j t utTHiJtzc * in i H7ty:wuivii 
 
 no perfon of common Senfe or Reafon can but afcribero a diftind: Select 
 Society from the whole Community: For, if all were Correctors and Rul- 
 ers, there is no Correlate of this Relative Power, or perfons to be Ruled. If 
 he underftand the PafTage, Do not ye Judge them that are within} ofa Juris- 
 dictional Power and Authority, it muft needs have fome Objetl, and con- 
 fequently muft have for its Subject, fome Seletl Order of Men, diftincl: from 
 the Collective Body. Next, who knows not, that the Directions Gene- 
 rally addreiTedin the Epiftles, to the whole Incorporation or Body of the 
 Church, are to be understood and appl) ed fro unius cujufyue Modulo, ac- 
 cording to Perfons feveral places and capacities, though the General Ad- 
 drefsfuppofes ftill the General Concern of all ? When the Aprftle thus en- 
 joins Warn them that are unruly, and again, if any obey not our Word, in this 
 Epijrle, mark that Man ( which all do underftand of a Cenfuring mark, as 
 the word imports ) who will al ledge that thefe Authoritative Acts were 
 competent to every individual ? 
 
 The Surveyer forefeeing this, tells us, P. 212. That though this in feme 
 things willhold^ yet in the ujual Stile of the Apoftolick Epi'tles, there are distinc- 
 tive Notes and Periods, that each perfon may know the Precepts wherein they arc 
 concerned, and Apoftrophees made to feveral Ranks, as Minifters, Mafters y 
 Servants, to evite a dangerous Confufion : And upon the fame ground *n acknowledg- 
 ed Jurisdiction in any of the Presbyters, would have here procured a diftinguijli- 
 ing of them Jrcrn the People. Anf The Survey ers Conccflion [That Jcmetimes 
 Precepts are not to be apply ed and apprcpriat to all,difiributively, but refpeclively, ac- 
 cording as Several perfons or forts of Perfons are concerned in thefeCommands contained 
 in Epiftles directed to the colktlive Body] hath razed the Foundation of this 
 Anfwer, which, from the Non-nomination of Elders, concludes the col- 
 lective Body of the People to beaddrefled only, andftiffled itin the Birth: 
 Since he muft acknowledge, that fometimes peculiar Duties, and fuch, 
 wherein fome perfons only have a fpecial Intereft, are thus promifcuoul- 
 ly and generally propounded, and even in this fame Epiftle : And then 
 it would have futed his Thoughts to ponder, how in this Cafe, he could 
 evite his own Confequence and Charge of a dangerous Confufion follow- 
 ing thereupon, unlefs he quite the Topick ofthis his Argument and Rea- 
 fon ,• It would have likewayes futed his thoughts to aiiign his diftindive 
 Notes and Apoftrophees in the Palfagcs ciccd, and the Apoftles Precepts 
 touching the Lords Supper in the n. Chr.p. As likewayes to aflign fuch 
 in the Pafiages, which do intiuft a Jurifdidional Power to Elders: I 
 mean fuch diftin&ivc Notes and Apoftrophees, as would have diftingui- 
 flied the Bijhp properly fo called, from his Minor and improperly fo called 
 Bifiops, in order to the eviting the Confufion of their Ofhces, and to cut 
 off the dangerous Presbyterian Confequence and Error of underitanding 
 
 M m in the 
 
f- 40 i ne Mirveyers *r leadings- Chap: 111: 
 
 the Bijhop and Presbyter to be Indentified in Name and Thing. He ac- 
 knowledged that in fome things this our Anfwer will hold: And fure, if in any 
 Cafe, it muft in this, where Rulers are fuppofed Exiftent, and a compe- 
 tent knowledge of their Official Authority, both in themfeives and the 
 People. 
 
 The Survey er adds, That there is a deep filenee xoncerning Presbyters Jurif* 
 diction, or a fixed Pre sby trie at Corinth, at this time, though there were Teach- 
 ers and Eminent Teachers, ^Extraordinary Prophets , i Cor. 14. Anf. TheSur- 
 veyer will not difowne, that in that 1 Cor. 14. There is a Tryal and an^ 
 Examination of the DoBrine, afcribed to thefe Teachers, therefore he can- 
 not deny them the Authority of Judging thofe that are within, mentioned. 
 12. v. of y. Ch. But for the Survey ers deep filenee, which he alledges, of a. 
 Presbyterial Jurifdi<fHon here, he might have found it removed by a full 
 Scripture Sound, had he pondered, Firit, in General, the Jurifdi&ional 
 Power afcribed to Pallors and Teachers, fuch as is imported in thefe. 
 Names mentioned, ws. Rulers, Governours, Overfeers, Biinops, Mini- 
 fters, Stewards, AmbaiTadors. And next in Special, that this Church of " 
 Corinth is clearly found to have been a Presbyterial Church, and under the 
 Ihfpe&ion of a Presbyterial ajjociat Minifiry. 1. cc There was a great mul- 
 titude cf Believers there, mention being made of many Believers, of 
 € many Baptized and added to the Church,- All whom Paul Baptized not 
 c himfelf, confequently, are fuppofed to be Baptized by other Minifters : 
 c God Iikewayes having a great Harveft of Souls there, d^ much People in that 
 € City, upon which Paul was encouraged to ftay among them for fo confi- 
 c derable a time, as the Year and fix Moneths, compare Acl. 18. 1. 7, 8 3 , 
 ff, 9, 10, 11. This multitude behoved to be divided in particular Congre- 
 gations. 2. There is- correfpondent Plenty of Minifters and Preachers 
 
 * found there, pointing it out as a Presbyterial Church, and not one fingle 
 1 Congregation,' firft Paul flayed all this time at Ccrinth^s a Ma/ler Builder, 
 'having other under Builders, Act. 18. 11, 1 Cor. ;. 10. an cccafion of. 
 ( their Doting, fome upon one, fome upon a fecond, fome upon a third 
 c Teacher -, So that there appears a plenty of Preachers there., who had 
 c their feveral FlocksandFollowers; And P^/fpeaks of their not having, 
 r many Fathers, though they had ten thoufand Inftru&ers, compare 1 
 i Cor. 3. with 1 Cor. f. 14. Mention is Iikewayes made of a Subordinati- 
 on • of Prophets to Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.29. Conlldering Iikewayes the 
 
 * Diviiion of Tongues and Languages, this Church cou!d not be one Con-- 
 c gregation, but united in a Presbyterial Clajfical Unity, Which in a word, 
 c is further confirmed f rom< this Principle, that we read of a Plurality of. 
 r Churches, there, while the Apoftie vfayes, Let your V/omtn keep filenee inthz- 
 l Cbfircbesyit,?*" tHxx^mjf. hefayesnot^JTew^, in genera^ but your Wo°* 
 
 mm 
 
men inioai\^rJUTcn, ici uiiia xiuiaiii_y uiiiugit; v^ujj^icgctuuiib m v^orinio y 
 
 ' are called and owned as one Church, in rhe lnfcription of the Epiltle, 
 c which could not be merely upon the Ground of Heart-unity, for thus 
 c they were jure charitatis, nor inregard of an Explicit Church-Covenant, 
 '"whereof the Scripture is filent, nor in refpect of the Miniftration of the 
 c Word and Sacraments, for thefe were difpenfed in Angle Congregati- 
 t ons feverally, fince they could not all meet in one Congregation: So 
 c that of neceffity they are owned and defigned as one Church, in regard 
 c of one joynt Adminiftration of Government among them, by one com- 
 c mon Presbyterie or Colledge of Elders, affociated for that End. See Jus Di- 
 vin. Minift. Ecclef. P. {mihi) 206. 207, 208. That the Prophets menti- 
 oned 14. Ch. were ordinary Pafiors and Minifters of that Church, not ex- 
 traordinary Officers, as the Survejer infmuats, fince Rules and Directions 
 aptly agreeing to ordinary Pafiors are impofed up:n them, for the well 
 ordering their Minift erial Exercifes, is upon this and many other Grounds 
 made good by Mr. Rutherford, in his Due Right ofPresbyt. P. 466. 46-. 
 
 The Survey er in his next Anfwer, is, in with (landing the Evidence 
 of this Scripture, driven upon the contrary extreme of afcribing the Au- 
 thority and Jurisdiction here mentioned to the Apoftle Paul folely. He 
 tells us, That the Apoftle (peaks of the Sentence, as proceeding from him ft If t he ugh 
 the declaring and executing thereof was committed unto /^Corinthians, that they 
 are charged for not mourning that the Inceftuons might be taken away by (Mb as had 
 Power : And it were improper to fay, a Man wire to take a thing away from him- 
 felf Anf.Ths plain reading of the Text,is a fuincient Confutation of this 
 Diftortion and Glofe. The Apoftle certainly reprehends thisChurch, and 
 imputs a Guilt to them,as to Non-procedure,in this Matter. Now the ( 
 ftion is,wherein their Negligence appeared? And this is bed fcen and un- 
 derftood, in pondering the Duty enjoyned, viz* their Judging fucb as 
 were within, Purging out the Inf eel ions bad Leaven y the Delivery untaSatan, &c. 
 comp. v. 5*, n, 12. with 2 Cor. 2. 6. If they had no Authority herea— 
 nent, why is fuch a Defecl: and Negligence reprehended ?' This Survey er, 
 in making diem only the Promulgates and Executors of thaApcftles pre- 
 vious Sentence, taketh the Guilt of this Negligence fr.m the Corinthians^ 
 and puts it upon the Apoftle Paul. The Survey ers Glofs upon the Apo- 
 ftles Rebuke, as to their not mourning over chisWickedne(s > *j*&. That 1 
 fought not with Tears to fuJj as had Power to inflict the Cenfierel If meant of w 
 Power lodged in the Apoftle, is contrary to theScope, fince they aire 
 joyned to deliver the Pcrfon to Satan, and tc put him awaj fern u?xc?;g ;< 
 felves. But (ays the Sui ve\ er, the word ytxMt« i have judged; . 
 Apoftle s fole Determination, that none are taken in him in tbdti 
 
 fure, mid imports he required inly the I ' their\ Sentence. We have al- 
 
 ready removed this ObiewLion, the Apgftlcs giving his Apofiolick J 
 
 ovej 
 
4i Ihe butveyezsr leadings i^nap. 111. 
 
 ment, a$ touching the Neceffity and Expediency of the Thing, can no 
 more exclude and prejudge the Authority and Intereft of the Ordinary 
 Church Officers herein, than his giving his Apoftolick Judgment in any o- 
 ther Uncontroverced Duty, wherein the Perfons enjoyned the fame,have 
 an infallible Intereft, will bear fuch a Conclufion. Suppofe the Apoftle 
 giving his Judgment touching Archippus greater Diligence in hisMiniftry ; 
 And giving his Judgment in the Point of Marriage, and the Duties there- 
 of, as one that bad found mercy to be faithful, can this prejudge the Intereft 
 of the Perfons concerned in the Duties enjoyned ? Or would the Survey- 
 er have faid, that Pauls requiring the Obedience of Church Officers, in 
 any Point of their Minifteriai Duties, and fhewing them that he had jud- 
 ged fuch and fuch things to be their Duty, will conclude they had no Au- 
 thority and Intereft therein, antecedaneoufly to fuch Judging andEnjoyn- 
 ing? Surely not at all. Nay fuppoJe his Hierarchical BiJJwp, fet up in this 
 Church, with his arrogated Power of Ordination and Cenfures, and that 
 upon his NegleB of putting forth his Power , Paul had thus declared, that he 
 had already judged the Neceffity and Expediency of fuch Duties, will 
 this prove that the Bilhop was deftitute of all this Authority antecedane- 
 oufly to fuch Judging, or had none previous thereunto ? The Surveyer 
 could not fay it, and no more could he aflert it in this cafe. The Apoftle 
 faith, to whom you forgive any thing, 1 do alfo, which looks like the Apoftles 
 correfponding with the inherent Authority in thefe Officers, fo that the 
 Apofties Judging in this Cafe, was to prevent and obviat their Preten- 
 ces of Delay, and quicken them to their Duty. > 
 
 But the Surveyer, (P. 213. ) from that Paffage, when you are men toge- 
 ther with my Spirit, and the Power of the Lordjefm, inferrs, That fomething was 
 to be done, beyond the Authority of the Church of Corinth, viz. Delivering of the 
 Man to Satan to be tormented outwardly, which Paul only by his Miraculous Power, 
 could ejfetfuat. Anf. Suppofe fuch an extraordinary Appendix, diftincl: from 
 the Cerifure it felff which may be upon weighty grounds called in doubt) 
 it doth no whit impeach the intrihfick, ordinary Authority of the Church 
 Officers, in the inflicting of that Cenfure, though this Miraculous Effed, 
 attending the fame, were afcribeable to Apoftolick Authority. Again,tha 
 Surveyer, in the Series of his Reafoning, fhutting up both the Sentence in 
 its felf, and this Miraculous Appendant ( which two, he muft needs di- 
 ftinguifti, unlefs he totally deny the Right of Excommunication in the 
 Churches) within the Sphere of an Apoftolick Prerogative, renders ufe- 
 lefs, and cafts a blot upon feveral Clatifes of the Sacred Text j fuch as their 
 Solemn Meeting together, here enjoyned, and that exprefly, in order to the 
 delivering of the Man to Satan, which doth include the intire Sentence and 
 Puni/hmeat, and that this Punijhment is exprefly laid to be infiitled by many, 
 
 viz. 
 
Chap. III. tor npiicopacy, examined. 43 
 
 viz. the Church Officers as diftincl: from the Church Members, for thus they 
 are called in Oppofition to the Colleitive Body. Beftdes, that the Apo- 
 ftie in this Paffage joyning frrfr. in their gathering together , and ttten menti- 
 oning his Spiritual Confirming Pre fence, holds out that the firft was an Autho- 
 ritative gathering together, the other a Confirming Approbation, for then i_li- 
 eouragement in this Exercife of their intrinilck P wer and Authority, as 
 all Sound Interpreters take it. Again, the Separating here enjbi ned,muft 
 be an Active, Judicial Separating this Per/on from them ( as the Leper and 
 .Unclean Perfon under the Law, was thus feparat from the Congregation^ 
 which doth imporran Authoritative Intereft of Church Rulers, in putting 
 forth this Cenfuring Acl, whereas the Surveyer makes it a confequemial 
 withdrawing only from a Perfon already Cenfured. 
 
 The Surveyer in his third Anfwer, tells us, That though a Cenfuring Vcwer 
 were in thefe Church Officers, it can make not king for us, unUfs we could prove they 
 were fingh Presbyters, in the Modern Notion; There were Prophet shore above or- 
 dinary Officers, wlfr might have this Power, and it is uncertain whither ordinary 
 Presbyters were here fettled. Anf. The Surveyer hath forgot that he hath 
 acknowledged upon that Paffage iCcr. 12. That there were here fuch 
 Taftors and Teachers, as will include the Biftops, and likewife Presbyters : 
 Befides, that the Apoftie diverfifies the Ordinary and Extraordinary Gifts, 
 v. 8. 9. 10. Likewife, he knew there were in Corinth many Inftructers, 
 and fuch as were fettled in every Church, Aft 13.1, 2, 5. Compared with 
 Ch. 14. 2%. Viz,. Preaching Elders andPresbyters/o that he could not with a- 
 ny Shadow of Reafon,fuppofe they were all extraordinary Officers. And 
 in a word, if he alTerted,there were here mixed Officers, he not only made 
 thcPower and Authority oftheextraordinaryOfficers,tofwallowup that of 
 theP*/?0rj,but likewife he crofted his monopolizing this extraoidinan Pow- 
 er in the Apoftie. Again, fince he could not fay the Apoftie in thefe 
 Injunctions, doth by diftinclive notes or Apoflrophees, diverliiy the Ordina- 
 ry from the Extraordinary Officers, in the point of this high Jurifdidio- 
 nal Ad, he baffiled and excluded his Firft Anfwer. And in a word, giv- 
 ing by this Anfwer, a JurifdicVional Power and Authority in this Act, to 
 a Collegiat Meeting oj Church C j;<:trs, and ailerting that it was jo\ .ntly thus 
 put forth by them, he did thus bid farewell to my Led Bift.ops lingular 
 prerogative in this Matter, and generally in Point of 'Government. 
 
 His laft Anfwer \bfThat if this \ ower were fuppofed in the or dinar yChurchOffi- 
 cers of Corinth, they might have had this by delegation and Cent;.- iff en of thesipc- 
 ftle. But where did the Surveyer read this Commiiiion i What account 
 can he give of fuch a delegated Power bevond the Liicr.tiul Authority of 
 Vafiors y to deliver to Satan, purge out the old Leaven, to mcit tigither for ifolS 
 great Jui ifdictionul Aft r And why was the Apoltle Paul (b fatally Crofs 
 
 N n n to 
 
44 L he survey ers T leadings Chap. Ill: 
 
 to the Diocefan Prelate as^not to deliver this Commifficn to him ? But we. 
 rauft know this Chimerical fancy (lands upon the ftrong Pillar of this in- 
 fallible Survey ers maybe, or might be, and this is all the proof we muft ex- 
 pert But what is the laft ihifcand dead lift ? We are told next, 1 hat this 
 In/lance of the Church, of Corinth is but one, 'which' cannot make a Rule, without 
 the fur e knowledge of the Divine Direclion, wfiich theApofttles hud to keep an uni- 
 form courfe in Juch external Matters. Anf As none will fay, that the Ape flies • 
 did conftitute the Chriftian Church as a fpeckled Bird, witha Hetroge- 
 nous or various Mixtures of forms of Government, fo» in this Pcint they 
 had their Matters great Rules and Meafures preieribe&to them, and fuch 
 Rules as overrhrows the Hierarchical Biihop. Firft, We may remind the 
 great Rule in Mft. 18. recommending a fubordination of lefter to great- 
 er Judicatories, pointing likewife at the Collegiat Meeting of Church Of 
 ficers, as the proper fubjed of thejurifdi&ional Power, in oppofition to 
 what he pleads for, viz: the concentring this in one Prelaw Next, what 
 furer direction can we have in this Point^than that the^poftles are found 
 EftabliJhing, wherever a Church wasgathered,fuch Officers as haveNames 
 and Titles of lntrinfick, Official Power and Authority ingraven upon them, 
 and are found exercifing an equal, Official Pcwer in Government? Thus 
 in the PafTage now debated, and i Cor. 12. 28. Comp, with Eph. 4. 11. 
 and with Aft: 14. 23. Tit. 1. ^,7. Heb, 13.7, 17, 1 Thef. y. 12. 
 
 Presbyterian Writers do exhibit a large account and indu&ion of thefe 
 Names and Titles 3 importing Authority: Such as that of Presbyter or El- 
 der, Acl. if. 2, 4, with 20, 17, 1 Tim. f. 17. 1 Vet. f. 1. A Title of Po- 
 litical Rulers, Judg. 8. 14. Thus exprefled by the LXXII. Interpreters. 
 The Title of^Bifoop importing a Power and Charge over the Flocks. 20. 
 28. Vh ; J. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1.5-. 7. A word made ufe of alfo by thefe In- 
 terpreters to point at the Civil Magiftrats Power, Num. 31. 14. The 
 Tide and Name of »w»c which iignifies Conductor, Captain, Gover- 
 wvr, Leader: A word fetting forth the Power of Civil Rulers, Dcut. 1. 13. 
 2 Cbron. 5. .1. And thus they are diftinguimed from the Church and Saints,,. 
 Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. The Title of Stewards over the Lords Houfe and Fa- 
 mily : OiVaflors and Shepherds,who are to feed Tedo and Pabulo; a Title 
 likewife attributed to the Civil Magiftrat, Ifa. 24. 28. comp. 1 Cor. 4. 
 1. Luk. 12. 42. Gal. 4. 2. Rom. 13.2. 3. Now, our Lord Commanding his A- 
 pofiiestoDifcipleall Nations, or fcrrothtm- into Churches, and theApo- 
 illes purfuant to this Commiflion, being found to have placed fuch Offi- 
 cers in the Churches, and thefe being found exercifing a joint Official Au- 
 thpiity in greater and leffer Judicatories, either the Apoftles Divine Bi- 
 region herein mud be acknowledged, and their walking up to it in this 
 P^iat ofaa uniform MQuld of Government or d>eir Faithfulnefc in th©j 
 
 exe-.- 
 
Chap: 111. ror Jbpilcopacy, hxammed. 4 5 
 
 execution of their great Truft is impeached and called in Ouefrion. Thu- 
 we have feen, that after this pregnant Text, hath tcffed this Pitiful Surs 
 vever from one extFeam to another, i n fee king, fomeihifc of Anfwer, and 
 driven him upon the Pinacles and Precipies of contradictory Anfwers, all 
 his fantaftick quiblings iffueth in this miferable fluff of calling into Que- 
 flion the Uniformity of the Apoftolick Church Government. 
 
 The Surveyer next alfaults our Argument from the net mentij?ungoftheBi- 
 jhopin th.-Catalogue of Church Officers ,but palpably difguifes it, as if we argu- 
 ed merelv from the non nomination of tbeBifiop in Eph,4.i i.amcrg the Officers 
 there mentioned. asGifted to the Church. The Argument is this,That there being' 
 feveral Recitations of Church Officers of Divine appointment and Infli- 
 tution, as in that PafTage Eph. 4. and likewife 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 6. 
 7* The Diocefan Hierarchical Jtifiop is found in none of them, and we 
 may add, and likewife in none of the Accounts of ordinary Church Offi- 
 cers, exhibit in Scripture,- and therefore is no Officer appointed- of GOD. 
 He tells US, That though not mentioned under that Name, they are mentioned un- 
 der the Name ofPafiors and Teachers. But, as he unjuftly fuppofes that our 
 Argument Concludes from that one place,fo he deals as unjuftly, or un- 
 skilfully in lapping them up under the Name of Teachers,wh:, to little con- 
 cern themfelves in that work, and marrs his defign in making them Suc- 
 ceed to the Apoftles, in the plenitude of their ordinary Power , as he doth, P. 
 194, 19$-. for thus they are to be included rather in the Name of Apoftles, 
 or elfe he muft bringup Pallors and Teachers to the fame Succeflion. The 
 Surveyer could not exhibit different Degrees of the Apoftolick cr Evan- 
 geiiftick Office,why then did he afligndirrerentDegrees of the Paftoral Of- 
 fice? This Confequence, the Surve) er calls weak, becaufea Governing Supe- 
 riority among Apoftles and Evangelifts, -was partly impraflicable, partly unnecejfa- 
 rj y the) feUlom living in ordinary Societies, becaufe oj thzir Dijperfon, for fpeedy 
 [preading of the Go/pel, and having infallible dirdlion in their Mini I try: Whereas 
 Paftors living in Soeiety, and fixed upon their Charges, their Afjvciatiins have need' 
 ■ offome Governing Superiority among them } to be a Nerve and SinntW of their I 
 on, and that the Prudence of feme may reprefs the Levity of ethers. An/. This ' 
 Reafon is but the ignis fat uus of our Surveyers fancy : Firft as touching Apo- 
 ftles, we find them not withstanding of the infallible conduct of theSpirj*:, 
 joyning Counfel together, yea, and with concurrence ot ordinary Offi- 
 cers, as Ad. 1 ^.and a Moderator of the Meeting preliding, whom his Par:v 
 will needs make us believe did. preside -as Bilhcp of JemfiUm; ib that rbis 
 very Colledge of Apoftles had.theSupetkitendcncv of tl\hEpifcopalN> 
 in their Senle. And none can deny that pprfons managing one worl . 
 far difperied, hive the greater need of a Correiponding hear. 
 osfor Pallors, wc hud their focial.Govcmmeiubv common Couniel i: 
 
 biti 
 
4-6 % ipeDurveyeisrieaaings i^nap. in. 
 
 bit in Scripture, and that their Union was aPresbyterial, Claffical Union, 
 and did not Coalefce into the Headship of a Hierarchical Prelat.Eefides,the 
 Surveyer is a niggardly Difpenfer of Governing Prudence, when Mono- 
 polizing it in onePrelat, and denying it to the reft of the Members of the 
 Socictvr of Paftors: Or, if he allow it to more than onePerfon, he plucks 
 the Hierarchical Bifhop from his Seat, and difownes the Concentring cf 
 this Authority in his Perfon. For what he adds of the Early Reception of 
 this fuppofed Headflrip of the Hierarchical Prelat by the -whole Church : His Con- 
 fident Affertion is eafily Anfwered by a uell grounded Denyal. He is bold 
 to iliy, there is nothing in Scripture againft this Officer: But his palpable 
 Perverlion of the Scriptures pleaded againft him, difcovers there is more 
 laid againft him., than he was able to Anfwer, and thefe Texts pleaded, 
 appears the more forcible after all his faint Eflays this way. 
 
 He offers in the next place ( P. 214. ) a Reply to our Argument from 
 Thilip. r. 1. From which we argue, That there being here a Plurality in one 
 and the fame Churchy who mufl need be Pafiors and Officers therein : Therefore, the 
 Scripture Bifhop is not the Hierarchical Bijloop, fince the Apofile falutcs thefe Paftors 
 joyntfy* as Officers of the Higheft Rank, under this Notion of being Bijlwps there- 
 of and without the leaf; hint of a r effect to any Superior Officer fet. over them : Be- 
 fides , that no Inferior Officers are denominat by the Name proper to the Superior. In 
 Anfwer to this, the Surveyer fir ft takes notice, that in this Epiftle only, the Di- 
 rection is by Paul to the Officers, as contradiftinct from the Church, whereas in the 
 reft of the Epiflles, he includes them in the Organick Church, without expref men- 
 tioning of them,. Anf. Not to ftand upon this Variety in the Infcription 
 of Epiftles, wherein fometimes the Apoftle Stile himfelf by his Authority, 
 fometimes not, fometimes affociats with himfelf, Officers of an Inferior 
 Order, fometimes not. It is noticeable here, how 'this Man, in a pal- 
 pable Contradiction to himfelf, doth quite baffle and run down his firft 
 large Anfwer to our Argument from 1 Cor. 5-. which concludes the People 
 only to be befpoken, becaufe Officers are not Named: Whereas here he 
 acknowledges, that except in this one Epiftle, in the reft the Church Officers are 
 included in the OrganickChurch , without the expref mentioning ofthem.But to pro- 
 ceed, the Surveyer will needs, with Ambrofe, have the Reajon of the Difference 
 to be, that they were not Bijhops and Deacons of that Church, but prefent withVau\ 
 and Timothy at Writing of the Epiftle ^ and affumed as Confenters with him; and 
 this he makes par : alel with Gal. 1. All the Brethren that are with me. He 
 tells us, the Apoftle calls them not Bijlwps and Deacons of Philippi, but abfolutely 
 Bifjops and Deacons, and the Copulative [ 6v, ] may refer to Paul an d Timothy, 
 the Writers, as well as to the Saints at Philippi. Anf. The Surveyer, in ap- 
 proving this palpably abfurd Glofs, difcovers how miferably he is put to 
 it, to find out a Lurking Hole and Subterfuge from this Argument: For 
 ( not tofpeak of Ambrofe Sentiments, wherein the Surveyer cannot make 
 
 it 
 
 
Contradiction, that the Apoftles ufual Method in thelnfcription of all the 
 Epiftles is, Firft, To defcribe himfelf, either by his Office of Apoftle, 
 or otherwayes, as the Pen-man of the Epiftles together with Others 
 ( if any fuch be ) whom he is pleafed to Aflbciat with him in the In- 
 fcription: And then in a Diftindl Claufe and Branch to Defcribe 
 thefe, whether perfons or Churches, to whom the Epiftle is Addref- 
 ed. And we dare confidently Challenge fuch as embrace this Senfe 
 to exhibit a contrary Inftance in acy of the Epiftles, or to mew 
 where the perfons fuppofed prefent with the Apoftle, are in 
 their Defcription caft behind his Character of himfelf, and the De- 
 fcription of the Perfons to whom he writes. Nay, this fo evident, that 
 the Surveyers own Inftance Gal. i. baffles his Anfwer : For, after Pauls 
 Defcription of himfelf, as the Spirit of GODS Pen-Man, calling himfelf 
 an Apoftle, not of Men, neither by Man, &c. He doth in the 2 v. add, and all 
 that are with me ; And next defcribes thofe to whom the Epiftle is direct- 
 ed, viz. Unto the Churches o/Galatia. The Surveyer inverts the Order, and 
 would make the Words run thus, Paul an Apoftle, &c. unto the Churches of 
 Galatia^ and all the Brethren, &c. And that of 1 Cor. 1. fhould thus run and 
 be Senfed, Paul an Apnftle unto the Churches of GOD at Corinth, and Softhz- 
 nes our Brother, point blank crofs to the Scope and Order of the Text. 
 Thus alfo 2 Cor. 1. 1. Paul an Apoftle of Jefus Chrifi, &c. unto the Churches of 
 GOD at Corinth, and Timothy our Brother. Thus the Senfe of this place 
 Philip. 1. 1. is (with the Surveyer) Paul and T\mothtus, the Servants of Jefrss 
 Chrijl, to the Saints in Chrift jefus at Philippi, with the Biflwps and Deacons 
 with Paul. What Senfe, or rather Non-fenfe is this ? He could aflign no 
 Inftance of fuch a Traje&ion of the copulative 6vt, as he here admitts, 
 nor any Reafon why Timothy is not ranked with thefe Bifhops. 
 
 The Surveyer P. 215. to ftrengthen one abfurd Notion with another, 
 doth in the fecond place alledge, That there was here a cafual Mufter of other 
 BiJJwps of Macedonia gathered at Philippi the Metropolis thereof to consult the 
 good of the Churches; And tells us, That the Apoftle fpeaks generally, as to the 
 Saints at Philippi, Ch.4.21. And not only of that Church, fo of thefe Biftjcpsand 
 Deacons taken univerfally as ?nett there, though not of that particular Church. But 
 this fantaftical Mufter-mafter of thefe Lxtraneous Officers, as he can give 
 no fhadow of Ground for this Matter of Fact, which is the Subftratum of 
 his Reafon &: Anfwer,- So he doth in aflcrting Fhilifpi to be the Metropolis 
 of Macedonia, either in a Civil ovEccleftaftick Se«/e,contradidthe Judgement 
 of feveral of the Learned- And as he ftill beggs the Queftion.in fiippofing 
 the Exiftence of his Diocefan Vrelat, fo there isnothingin this EpWllc, that 
 might be fuppofed to have the leaft refpeci to the Ends of fuch a Meeting) 
 
 O o o oi 
 
" /£$. 7 he survey ers *r leadings unap. in. 
 
 or can give Ground to extend the Bijhops, Deacons, or Saints, beyond the 
 Limits of that Church., unlefs fuch an Extenfion be applyed toother 
 Churches, in the like cafe of Epiftles addrelTed to them, as Ephe[m 3 Rcme 9 
 &c. Nay, where there is in the Infciiption of Epiftles, fuch an exprefs' 
 Extenfion in reference to the perfons addreffed, we find it. in a diftincl 
 Glaufe,* Thus i Cor. i. 2. after this general Infcription and Defignation,- 
 viz. Unto the Church of GOD, which is at Corinth, there folic ws this Exten-V 
 lion, with all that in every place call up >on the Name ofJefmChrifi. Thus 2- 
 Cor. 1. 1. After the Direction to that particular Church which is at Cor- 
 inth, follows this exprefs Extenfion, with all the Saints that are in all A- 
 chaia. 
 
 The Surveyer \n his / hird Anfwer, will admit the Bifccps and Dcaccns^ 
 to be lelated to that particular Church: But tells us, Thts will vet prcve. : ■ 
 they were all Bijhops of an equal Degree. It is good. that the Surveyer will, at laft 
 admit thefe Bifljops to be the fettled Biflwps here, and will take them off,; 
 and likewife the Deacons, whofe work-is only to ferve Tables, from his 
 alledged great and general Confutes, anent the Cafe of the Churches of 
 Macedonia. But for what is here forged and pretended, we have told him, 
 that the Scripture Bifnops or Paftors are of equal Official Authoring 
 and that he would here mind aud take home his own Reafon, viz,, that 
 there is no fuch Notes of Diftinffion, or DiJ criminating Characters, as he ftands, 
 fo much upon, in the Apoftles Salutation. The Surveyer tells us, 'the ge- 
 neral Name might be common to the Bijhops, ftriBly jo called, and the Inferior Bi- 
 poops : As in a Letter directed to the Magiftrats of a City, and terming them Magi- 
 ftrats in general, though one only is fuppofed a Provoft, and others Bailiffs : Thus 
 Saluting the Bificps in cumulo, he denyeth not their different Degrees. Anf. Be- 
 ftdes, that the Surveyer is ftill renewing his Petitio Principii, and fuppofing 
 theExiftence of his Hierarchical Prelat, he mould have pondered theRul^ 
 Similitudo adPompam, &c. A Similitude may illuftrat a thing propofed ot 
 fuppofed, but cannot prove a thing in Queftion. Next, this Similitude 
 overthrows his Scope: For, 1. There is not here a Naming of all in cu- 
 mulo, but under diitincl: Epithets of Bifhops and Deacons, diverfifying a& , 
 he acknowledged, Church Officers of a diftincl: Character and Office. 2. 
 He makes the Term Bijhops to be the Name diftinguifliing theDiocefan, as 
 under that Character, from Presbyters, and who is fuppofed to be but one 
 in one Church,- Thus looking to hisSimilitude 3 he makes theApoftle fpeak 
 as improperly, as if a Plurality of Provofts, or Provofts in the plural, were 
 faluted in a Letter to one City. But the Surveyer P. 216. urges, That 
 fince we own two forts of 'Elders, the Preaching and Ruling "Elder, and eompre* 
 hind them under the Name Bifoop, we mu/i owne it that there are diverfe Ranks 
 of Officers, faluted under that Name ,• Or if dij owning this, it follows that the A*- 
 foftle did not intend to vjr.it e to fuch, tho fuppofed Church Officers, Anf This Di- . 
 
 lemma. 
 
t>crrtrrtu> is t.iuwi\tu, ami jjumiio ujuui . j.i wv»- lav xul.ii wni^tla wcjc \\yj\. clS 
 
 yet exiftent in this Church, it only follows,that it was not yet fully confti- 
 tute in all its Officers : Or, if in the next place, we admit them exiftent, 
 the Surveyer hath no Advantage: For, i. We admit this Divinely inflitu- 
 ted Officer, as eminenter included in the Office of the Biinop or Paftor, both 
 having the general Notion of Inffeciion applicable unto them,- But the Hi- 
 erarchical Biihop is but a half Divinely appointed Officer, by his Confeflion. 
 2. The admitting of the Ruling Elder, impeaches not the equal P wer of 
 Paftors, here faiuced in the Plural, but the admitting of the Hierarchi- 
 cal Prelat overt!. rows this, and confequently the Apoftles Scope. But 
 the Surveyer tells us, he may, upon cur ground, bring in the Superior and Infer i- 
 or D.-grees of Btfirps and Presbyters, under this general Name of Bijhops. Anfi 
 We can comprehend none under this Defignation, who have not ourLords 
 Inftitution, as all Infpe&ors and Governours of hislloufe mufr, elfe they 
 run unfent, and cannot be called his Stewards, not having aCcmmiflion 
 from him. We include the Elder, as a Divinely inftituted Officer, whofe 
 Divine Inftitution we make good, bat do reject the Hierarchical Preiat, 
 as an Officer of Mans deviling: And the Surveyer might, under Pretenco 
 of this general Name, and upon fuch aTopick, advance Cardinals, Frimats, 
 or whom he pleafed. 
 
 The Surveyer, in the fourth place, will needs loofe the Objection, that 
 the Name of the Superior Officer is not given to the Inferior: To which 4 
 he gives this Return, That the Name of the Superior Officer is given to the Infe- - 
 rior, in refieft of fome common Dignity,, Qualifications^ or Accidents, competent to 
 both; as the Name of\?TQ$bytQV,both via afcenfus and defcenfus is given to Su- 
 perior and Inferior Officers, as Beza confeffes on i Pet. j, Anf. The Surve\ er 
 here hath difguifed the Strength and Nerves of this Objection. We know 
 that Superior and Inferior Officers do come under general Names and De- 
 signations: But our Affertion is this, That no Name of the Superior Offi- 
 cer, which is the proper Cbaracteridick of his Office, and whereby he isdiftin- 
 guifhed from the Interior, is attributed to fuch Inferior Officers, fince this 
 would Brangle the Scriptures Diftinclion thereof, and remove the March- 
 Stones, which God hath fee ,• So that his Inftance of the common Name 
 to Superior and Inferior Officers, upon the ground of common Qualifica- 
 tions, is impertinent to the Point: lor no Names of this Nature and 1m- 
 po.t, can be the proper dilHnguilhing Names of the Superior from the in- 
 ferior,fmce this woud infallibly infer aConfuiion in ti e Holy Ghofts Lan- 
 guage, fuch as cann t without Blafphemv be imputed to him.. Thus the 
 Name Apoftle, in its proper Senfe, or Evangeliit,is afcribed to r.o Infi 
 or Officer. To apply this, the N .me oi Bi hop, is in the$ 
 cipies, a diftinguUhing Character o£ an Officer iupciior to aPaftoj 
 
fo l he surveyers r leadings Cnap: 1U : 
 
 bytev; and therefore the Abfurdity of his Inference or paralel Reafon, is 
 palpably evident ,• this Name being by his own Confeflion, afcribed to 
 ordinary Paftors. 
 
 The Surveyer in the Fifth place, repeats again to us for Anfwer,this poor, 
 hungry fhift, which we have before refuted, v£*: That granting there were 
 none but mere Presbyters at that time, in that Church of Philippi, who are cal- 
 led titihopsy et upon what grounds Jh.tH the Conftitution thereof he the Measure of all 
 Churches, unlefs aDivine Rule for Managing the Government in that uniform man- 
 ner could be produced? Anf The Survey er in Repeating this Subterfuge, which 
 he made ufe of, to efchew our Argument drawn from the State of the 
 Church of Corinth, told us, that that Churchy which is but one, ought not to be 
 a Rule to others, and that one infiance cannot make a Rule. Here it feems he 
 he hath found another Infiance, to make the Number two, yet this will not 
 pleafe him, unlefs a Divine Rule be produced, for managing the Govern- 
 ment in that manner. It is certain, that the Apoftles pra&ice,in the con- 
 ftitution of Churches, in their Officers and Ordinances, purfuant to their 
 great Mailers Commiflion hereanent, and upon the neceffary fuppofition 
 of their Infallibility and Faithfulnefs, in managing this Truft, is a fuffi- 
 cient Rule and Divine Warrand to found our Perfwafion and Faith in this 
 Matter. This is fo clear,that the Epifcopalians muft either acknowledge it^or 
 baffle and overthrow their own Principles andArguings for Prelacy: For I 
 pray, how will they make their fuppofed Conftitution of the Churches 
 oiEphefus & Crete, under the pretended Epifcopal Infpe&ion of Timothy 
 and Titus, a Standart and Meafure for all Chriftian Churches, if this A- 
 poftolick Conftitution therereof, be not admitted, as an infallible ground 
 of this Argument? And if Presbyterians mall repone to their Epifcopal Plead- 
 ings, that the Conftitution of thefe Churches, cannot be a Standart for e- 
 ver, unlefs a Divine Rule be produced, for managing the Government in that u- 
 v if or m manner, they are deftitute of an Anfwer : So, that it appears the 
 Survey er behoved either in granting the Churches of Corinth and of Philip- 
 pi, to be thus governed, to yield the Caufe to the Presbyterians, in acknow- 
 ledging a Divine Presbyterial Confiitution of thefe Churches , or ftocd obliged to 
 retract and difown all his Epifcopal Pleadings, in the Inftances exhibit. 
 The 'Epifcopalians might have found that thele Inftances are exhibited by 
 us as proofs and Demonftrations of the common Univerial Rule. The 
 Conftitution of the other Apoftolick Churches, afcer this manner, hath 
 been exhibit and evinced, as by feveral others, fo in fpecial, by the Ju- 
 dicious Authors of the Jus Divin, Minift. Ecdef. who have at large made 
 appear and proven a Presbyterial, Clafficai Unity, ^nd equal Official Au- 
 thority of Paftors in Government, i. In the Church of Jerufalem. 2. In 
 the Church of Ant ioch. 3. In the Church of Ep.hefus. 4. In the Church of 
 
 Co- 
 
Chap. 111. tor Jbpncopacy, Examined. 5 r 
 
 Corinth. And that in all thefe Inftances,there is in the Word, a Pattern o 
 1 Presbyterian Governmenr,in common, over diverfe (ingle Congregations in 
 one Church. See Jus Divin. jvfinif. Ecckfl from P.292. &c. And in fpeeial, 
 the Survey er and his Fellows might have found this made good, which he 
 here pretended to feek a Proof of, PUu That the Pattern of the faid Pw- 
 hytrie and Tresbyterian Government's for a Rule to the Churches ofChrift 
 in all after Ages. Which is made good, 
 
 "Fir/2, From this, that theFirft Churches were immediatly Planted and 
 cc Governed by Chrifts own Apoftles and Difcipies. The ftrength of this 
 cc Reafon is illuftrared from feveral Grounds,* As that 1. The Apoftles im- 
 cc media tiy received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Chrift him- 
 ic feif, Matth. 16. 19. Job. 20. 21. 23. 2. Had immediatly the promife 
 Cf of his perpetual prefence in their Miniftry, Matth. 28. 18. 19. 20, The 
 fc plentiful donation of the Spirit to lead into all Truth, Job. 14. 16. AB % 
 " if. Job. 16. 14,1 5*. ;.They received immediatly Commands from Chrift, 
 cc after his Refurre&ion, and were inftru&ed Forty days, in the Nature 
 cc of his Kingdom. That they were firft and immediatly Baptized of the 
 ce Holy Ghoft extraordinary Att.i.i-to ^.So that whether we conllderthe 
 "Spirits infallible influence upon the Apoftles in this great work of order- 
 Cf ing and Governing the Primitive Churches,or their performing Chrifts 
 " Commandments in this work, which he did impofeupon them,touching 
 " his Kingdom, and confequently their infallibly Right ufe of the Keys 
 tc of his Kingdom, which he Committed to rhem, it is evident beyond all 
 " contradi&ion, that the Pattern of their Practices herein,rauft be a Rule 
 "for all the fucceeding Churches. 
 
 Secondly, This is made good from the end propofed by the Holy Ghoft 
 cc in the careful Records of the Apoftolical Churches State and Govern- 
 ff ment,* which muft needs be in order to fucceeding Churches imitation, 
 w fince this Record, as the other Scriptures, muft needs be si * t.f »/w« T ip*i ftfn- 
 fc h*m*» for our Learning or InftruBion ; which Inftruclion muft Relate, not 
 <c merely to the Faclum, but mainly to the Jus, vsza the Reafons and 
 " groundsof this Apoftolical Government, this beingthe moft proper and 
 u profitable Inftruction. 
 
 fc Thirdly, That, if in the Point of Government, fuchApoftolick Patterns 
 u will not amount to an obligatory Rule, we will impeach the Authority 
 tc of other Ads of Religion, received from them, and bottomed only and 
 cc Chiclh upon the Foundation of the Practice of Chrifts Apoftles, and 
 
 Apoftolical Churches, fuch as the Reciving of the Lords Supper on the 
 " Lords days,&C. See Jus Divin. Minij'. Eccltf. P.2 13,214. Nay, this is lb 
 evident, that the Surveyor without contradicting himfeif, cannot but ad- 
 mit this Rule; For P. i^y, lie will needs have cue atatenoLaarjfgl of this 
 
 P p p Cluo 
 
" ,z 7 he survey eisr leadings Chap. llL 
 
 Queftion to depend upon the Hiftorical Narrations of the AcJs of the Apo^ 
 files contained in Scripture, and the fureft Light. Hiftory can afford in the 
 Churches moft Virgin times. Now, here is exhibit Hiftorical Accounts 
 and Narrations of the Churches pure and Primitive pure Conftitution in 
 itsfirft and moft Virgin times, why then did he ( in Contradiction to him- 
 felf ) call for another Rule ? 
 
 But the Surveyer, P. 216. 217. prefents yet another evafion^ That thin 
 Qhurch might have kad aBifhop, Eminenter,/o called, though not prefenv at Phi- 
 lippic That wt cannot otherwife account *>/"Epaphroditus, who is called their A* 
 poftle,Philip»2.2?. or Mejfevger ,a* the AngelsRev.2. and 3. are called the Angels 
 of theChurches;and not for any Temporal Implofment of being fent with their Alms- y 
 it being too high a Stile to give Men upon fo low an Account', Thus 2 Cor. 8. 23. 
 Wereadofthe Mejfevger s of 'the Cburches y and the Glory ofChrift. Anf We have 
 above removed the Foundation ofthis exception, both in Reference to . 
 Epaphroditus, and the Afian Angels. That Epaphroditus gets the Name of 
 their Apoftle and Meffenger Catachreftice and improperly, and confe- 
 quently that he was no fuch Bifliop, as the Surveyer pretends, is. moft e*- 
 vident in the Sacred. Text, fince. he is thus termed, with refpecx to that fpe- 
 cial Employment of carrying the Churches Benevolence toPauL For the : 
 Apoftle, after he hath called him their Meffenger, doth exprefly ad joy n 
 this ground of the Epithet and Denomination, viz. He that Minifiredto I 
 my Wants , which doth clearly reftrift and. explain the Term [_ Mejfenger *] 
 in this Context. Befides, that v. ;o. he is laid ro come to fupply their 
 Lack of Service towards the Apoftle,- and the Apoftle mentioning him a- 
 gain, Ch. 4. 18. tells this Church, That he received from Epaphroditus the - 
 things that were fent by them: As for the_SurveyersException,7A?? this was too .. 
 high a Stile to be given upcnfo low .an Account , comparing this with 2 Cor. 8.22. 
 I have above told fuch Pleaders, that the Service of the Churches,and the. 
 Intersil: of Ghrift in them, is fuch a Honourable Employment, as ; the moft 
 eminent need not be aihamed of, fince he who is Lord of all,came not to 
 be Miniftred unto, bu-t toMinifter,- and.the Holy Angels, literally fo cal- 
 led, thinly it no Difparagement to their High Eftate and £>ignity,to be fent 
 forth as Meffengers, to Minifter and do Service to the meaneft, who are 
 Heirs of Salvation. For that Paffage,2 Cor, 8. we have made appeajyhat it 
 rather Confirms,, than Impugns our Anfwer andExpofitkn of this Scripture 
 anent EpaphroditusiTho Apoftles Sccpe in that place,being evidently to ftir 
 up the Church to a large Ex predion of their Charity and Bounty, upon the 
 Account, of the Fidelity and Worth of the Meffengers fent to them for 
 that end. Next, I might tell this. Survey er,that Epaphroditus and thefe other 
 Meffengers, being reftri&edly called Meffivgers ofthe Churches, and with, a 
 fcecial refpe& to the Ein^lQyment.fpeciheciin theText^ are thus diftin* 
 
 guifhed,, 
 
tJiap: 111. tor Hpncopacy, nxaminea. 5 3 
 
 guifhed from the Apoftles, who properly are Chrifts Mcjfengers to the Chur- 
 ches; And therefore, Perfons under this Chara&er of Mtffengersfrom Chur- 
 ches to Churches, have not that fpecial proper Signature, which theSurvey- 
 er pleads for, upon the account of the general Name, Mejfenger, apply ed 
 to them. In a word, in this Conjecture, as the Surveyer prelents but a 
 new Petitio Principii and groundless Fancy, without the leaft fhadow of 
 Proof, fo, its baffled by his ownPrinciple,who thinks it below his fuppo- 
 fed great Men to be fent upon a Temporary Employment. Now, it is 
 certain that Epaphroditus was fent with this Churches Benevolence toPaul % 
 and it would have puzzled this Surveyer to Anfvrer the guerie: Why mm 
 eJfe,but the fole and eminent Bijhop was fent with this Benevolence* As likewavs* 
 to Anfwer further thefe Queries, Firft, Why the Apoftle Paul put the pro^ 
 per Name and Chara&eriftick of this fole and eminent Bijhcp, upon all the 
 Paftors of the Church of Philippi ? Which, upon his Principles, did draw 
 with it great Inconveniences,- as tending i. To caft a Cloud of Igno- 
 rance upon thefe Paftors,in reference, to a Perfon, to whom they did owe 
 important Duties. 2. This might tend to involve them in the Temptati- 
 on of a Sinful Emulous Difpoiition and Breach among themfelves: And 
 no body will judge, that the Apoftle was not careful to prevent this. Be- 
 fides, this could not confift with that high Efteem of Epaphroditus, which 
 the Apoftle here expreffes, thus to deal with him, and in fpecial, to make 
 him theMeffenger of fuch Derogatory Expressions, in thisEpiftle, where- 
 in he is fo much commended. Thus we have feen, that the Evidence of 
 this Scripture, as Hkewife of the preceeding, doth quite difpel the Milt of 
 the Surveyors fond Exceptions. 
 
 The Surveyer tells us, He finds one Scripture -mere, wherein, becaufe Prcs- 
 bytrie is Named , we account we have great Advantage for cur J Fay • The 
 Paflage is 1 Tim. 4. 14. Whereas , he may more juftly triumph' in t'je 
 ward Bifhop, fo often mentioned in Scripture. Me profeileth his Refolutiofl 
 prcjj'dy toconfi-ler this place : And his Replyes mall be prefselv conlider- 
 ed. His. firft Reply is, That we utnnU pn-ve that by Vresbytrie here is meant a 
 Colledge of jingle Presbyters, in the Modem Notion, and not rather the Dignity and 
 Office of a Presbyter, as Calvin (Inftitut. Lib. 4. Cap. ;.) Jerom, and trL'rs 
 alfo do judge. Aaf. 1. Not toitand up n the Survcycrs cutting oftbv this 
 Glofs, Presbyters from ib much as a content to.Timoihics Ojdination,whidi 
 in contradiction to himfclf here, he doth in his other Rcplyes'to this 
 Text, allow them. It is in this place very coniidorable that this Word 
 * f i/i^T,p;o» or Presbytrie, being ufed on'y thrice in the New Tcftamenr 
 Lnk. 11. 66. and Alt. 11. j. and in this Paflage under Debate ; Since in' 
 the two firft places, it muft neceit'uly be taken, for a Cmcejjm Presbyter*- 
 um y a Colledge of Elders, or Vresbyurs, this Surveyer could offcfc-fcO fhadow of 
 
 Reaiha - 
 
54- The. Survey ersTleddings Ghap. Ill: 
 
 Reafon cr Evidence for the altering the Signification in this Paffage i 
 Since r. The Scope and Circumftances do clearly lead to this its ordina- 
 ry Acceptation. And 2, There can no fuch Expofition be offered here, 
 without a very grofs Imputation upon the Language and Senfe of theHc- 
 ly Ghofr,-It differing little fromNon-fenfejf at all reconcilable to Senfe ; thus 
 to read the Text, Neglec'l not the Gift given thee &c t by the laying on oftheBavls 
 of the Office*. For what Hands hath an Office to lay on? Net only Reafon, 
 but the very Ear difrelifhes fuch a Senfe:Efpecally, if theMatter of Fad: be 
 admitted (m oppofition to which, the Surveyer could give no Evidence) 
 that as there was Ruling Officers or Presbyters then exiftent, -fo they did 
 defaffo, lay Hands upon Timothy, For Cahins Judgement, we find that 
 in his Commentary upon the place, he afferts that (uch as underftand the 
 Word Presbytrie here, in a colledive Senfe, and to import the Colledge and 
 Meeting of Presbyters, do, in bis Judgement, put a right Senfe upon the Words; So 
 that he cannot be reckoned as holding the Survey ersGlpU: And however, 
 we do not judge that moft worthy Perfon (as neither Jerom in this point, 
 Inferior to Greek Fathers) infallible, or our (elves obliged jurare in ejus ver- 
 ba. As for the Authors after cited, asunderftandingtheTerm in his Senfe; 
 It is one thing to fay that the Term *iw&vr'*fHv and wp^t/rfp'** have been 
 indifferently ufed by Greek Authors, for the Office and Order of a Presby- 
 ter; it is a far other thing to fay, that the Scripture Term in thefe three 
 •Paffages, is fo to be under ftood ; Since here the fignifi cation of the Word 
 is to be drawn from the Scope and Contexture of the place of Scripture 
 where it is, which muft needs Over-rule and Determin the Signification 
 in this PalTage, though it were granted that fometimes Greek Authors did 
 ufe it in another Signification, The Language of the Holy Ghoft in thefe 
 three Paffages, as it doth certainly Over- rule all other Greek Authors, (o 
 the Term in the three Paffages exhibited, doth palpably appear to be of 
 one and the fame Signification, viz,, pointing at a Colledge of Presbyters or 
 Elders. Befides, that there want not Eccieiiaftick and Greek Authors thus 
 understanding it,- Such as Chryfoftcm, Theodoret, TheophylacJ. For what the 
 Survey er adds out of Bilfon, P. 77. That ordinarly in Ancient Greek Councils 
 wfi'jfc'jTifiw and Wftf@yE%£j& have been ufed indifferently for thcOffice avdOrder of 
 a Presbyter: Citing Council of Nice, Can. 2. Antioch,Can. 18. Afric. Can. 
 i%6. Eufeb. Lib. 6. Cap. 8. It is Anfwered, Fir ft, It is acknowledged by 
 Bilfcn, that the Councils mentioned,ufe the Word ^«M&irip7iii> which is dif- 
 ^inct from wpsr^uTip/cr. Next, as Camero is clear and politive for our Senfe 
 of theWord T^^ni^icvon Matth.iK. 5-. And afferts that the contrary Accep- 
 tation for th e Office and Dignity of Presbyter, contradids both the Sig- 
 nification of the Word, and the Apoilles Scope,- So he fhews further, that 
 jrarely dcthth e Word ir^^j^m import the Office, but where the Wcid 
 
 tfp:f#V7:pi7cp 
 
^iChap. JZZ. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 5? 
 
 Trp^/SvTsp 7«r may be underftood. Hen. Stephanas takes the Word here to im- 
 port Catum omnium illorum qui in -uerbo labor abant, the Colledge of fuch as 
 labour in the Word and Doarine. And the ether Paralels Luk. 22. 66. 
 vnd A8. 22. ?. he expones of the Meeting of Elders. Scapula expones 
 the Word in this Paffage, C<etus Fresbyterorum Vresbyterium, a Presbytrie 
 or Colledge and iVIeeting of Presbyters. The Paflage of Eufeb. Lib. 6. C. 
 8. may be taken without any Violence offered to the Words, to import 
 the Colledge of Presbyters,-and in Camero's Judgement rrpc^urtpw may be 
 taken for irp*r£u7«:«7«r # In a word, it is enough to baffie this Exception, 
 that as this Term in Greek and Ecclefiafiick Authors, is crdinarly thus 
 taken, for which frequent Inftances might be given, fo it is certain, and 
 enough for us, that it's alwayes taken in a Collegiat Senfe, in the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Teftament. And in the Paralels mentioned, it were 
 grofs Non-fenfe to take the Word in the Surveyers Senfe, and to fay that 
 the Office of Elders did meet together, and the Office of Eiders did bear 
 Witnefs to Paul, fo it carrieththe fame Incongruity and abfurd Senfe with 
 it, to affert that the Office laid Hands upon Timothy. The Surveyer next ex- 
 cepts againft our Argument drawn from the Paralels, That therein the 
 word imports not a Meeting of Chri/lian presbyters , but only o/Jewifh Elders , 
 perfecting Chrifl and His Apoflles: That though the Term were taken in this Senfe 
 only in this place, thtre wants not Varalel Inftances of fuch an acceptation of words y 
 As the word [Church] is taken but once Matth. 18. 17. for a Representative 
 Church, jo the 1 Cor. ir. 10. the wurd [Power] in that place of Scripture only 
 fignifies the Covering and Vail upon the Womans head, as a token of Subjeclicn to 
 her Husband". And that it is enough in fuch Cafes, that the Strain of the Context 
 requires a Varrjing from the Acceptation of the word in other places. Anf. The 
 Strength of our Argument is drawn, both from the ordinary Acceptation 
 ef the Word, which hath its own fecondary weight, and likewiie, and 
 mainly from this, that the Scope and Contexture of this PalTage, do clear- 
 ly plead for the Acceptation of the Word in the ordinary Senfe, and not 
 to varry from it. And therefore hisAflerticn^Titaf theStrain of the Context re- 
 quires a varry ing from this ordinary accept ationinthis plact^hwt his bold begging 
 of the Queflton; For of this, he neither offers, nor can offer any folid proof. 
 Nay, the contrary, is the confentient Judgement of Interpreters. " The 
 €C Impolition of Hands here fignifies ConfentandEle&ion, whereof it was 
 iC a Sign, faith Vatabulus. The whole is fignified by a part, viz,, of the Or- 
 igination, faith Eftius, To wit, of the wholeCcremony of the Presbvtries 
 <c Ordination. Prayer was added with Impolition of Hands, faith QrffjmL 
 I hope he will n t fay the Office prayed. Camero cenfures xhe contrary 
 Expofition, upon feveral Grounds. 1. Cf Becaufe the Impoling of the 
 '" hands of the Office, is aharih laying, and founds improperly. 2. De- 
 
 Q^q q cauli 
 
^ The Sutveyers 'Pleadings Chap: III: 
 
 cc caufe the word *pi<?£vA?top never fignifies the Office, wherever it oo 
 " curs in the new Teftament, citing the Paralels Luke. 22. 66. Acl. 22 
 cc y. As 1 ike wife, becaufe the Office is fignified by the word mpe&nfiw but 
 cc here the word fignifies a Colledge or embodied Court. 3. Becaufe-73- 
 cc mothy's Authority was greater, than that it could be called a Presbyter- 
 cc ate. Bullinger upon the place tells us, that this is one motive whereby 
 " the Apoftle ftirrs up Timothy to diligence in his Office, that befides the 
 <c Prophefies that went before of him, and his inward impulfe acceditpra- 
 cc terea & manuum Seniorum impofitio, qua i(tacomprobawit, & publico muneri 
 " fublice prafecit, That he had the Impofition of the Hands of the Elders 
 fc or Presbyters, fealing and confirming his inward impulfe^ in the Prophe- 
 €C fies that went before, and which did inftall him in this pubiick Office, 
 c c Varaus upon the place, mews that Timothy was thus taken into the Or- 
 <f der and Society of Paftors : And upon Ch. 1. v. 6. of 2^Epiftle, col- 
 elating together theimpofing of P^«/jHands,and the Hands of the Presby- 
 * c trie, heihewsthe Reafon thus, quia Paul us unus fuit ex Presbyter to, vel 
 c - Presbyterii nowwe,impo(uitjBecaute Paul was one of ■ thatPresbytrie,orimpo£- 
 <c ed hands in their NamejWhere it is evident heunderftandsthe Prebytrie 
 in acollegiat fenfe, for a Meeting of Paftors, Pifcator upon the place,fl]iew5j 
 "That Timothy is ftirred up to diligence, firft upon the account ofhisfin- 
 " gular vocation to this Function, by the Revelation of the Holy Ghoft ; 
 " And next,by the vocation of theChurch, obeying this Command of the 
 Ci Holy Ghoft, inimpofingtheHandsofthePresbprie upon him, becaufe die 
 cc Presbyters or Paftors by this Rite ordained the Minifters of the Church. Diodat. 
 "upon the place tels us, that by the Presbytrie, we are to underftand thq 
 cc laying on of the Hands of the Elders; mewing that thus the Italian reads 
 cc the Text, and thefe Elders, he expones to be the Paftors and other Guides of 
 tff ii&e<i4«r^paralelHngthisSenfeoftheE/^r/,with that of ^#.1 1.30. where 
 we read of the Churches -benevolence fent to- the Eiders andChurch Rulers, 
 €( for the Relief of the Poor Saintsin Judea. The Belgick Divines upon the 
 " vplace,Tranflate thisClaufe of the Elderfiip, Thit isffay they)of thtAfiem- 
 €C ty of the Elders, or Overfeers of the Church, &c. The Eng. Annot. upon the 
 •place having added to the word Presbytrie, the Phrale of [ Elderjhip*^ 
 thus proceed,- ; " Some by Presbytrie underftand the Office of a .Presbyter, 
 <c vjhxchTimothy . received by impofition of Hands^but the word *fw@v7i?t99 
 " is never taken in Scripture for the Office of a Presbyter, but for theCompa- 
 €C ny of Elder s^ who here laid hands upon Timothy, when he was Ordained: 
 And they add the.agreeablenefs hereunto of the Canon of the qtb Council 
 " of Carthage, and the Pracliceofthe Reformed Churches to this day. Pool, id 
 < c Party Paraphrafeth this Paffage thus, That Timothy's Office was given 
 cf by theRevelation of theDivine Will,by the extraordinary Influence of 
 *? the. Spirit of GQE), and the .laying on of the. Hands of the Presbytrie, 
 
 " was. 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 57 
 
 Cc was a declaration of it.The laft claufe of 6.v. i G&.of 2iEpiftle,they thus 
 ff Paraphrafe,That litis called to the improvement of thofe Spiritual abili- 
 Cf ties given him upon thePrayers ofVaul & thePresbytrie,whenhe was by 
 u them fet a part to the work of an Evangel ift/or the end,for which GOD 
 "had given them to him. To thefe Expofitors, many others might be ad- 
 ded, exponing this word and term, of a Collegiat Meetings fnch as Menocht- 
 ms, Tirinus, Zegerius, Sligelius, Bez>a, Simplicists, Vorftius, &c. 
 
 But now to proceed ( after this little digreffion with Interpreters J to 
 our Surveyers Inftances and Exceptions taken from theTerms in Matth. 18. 
 i Cor. ii. We Anfwer, that the exception is palpably abfurd,- For he could 
 not deny that thefe terms [ Church ] and [ ¥ower\ are Ordinarly taken in 
 Scripture in another Senfe, than in thefe PafTages,though thecircumftances 
 of thefeScriptures plead for varrying from thatAcceptation:But he neither 
 did, nor could make it appear,that thisTerm Presbytrie under debate, is ever 
 in Scripture taken in thisAcceptation,nor could he deny,that it is taken in 
 our Senfe elfewhere ; So that his Exception touches not the Point: And 
 as much ridiculous,if not morels that other Exception which he offers to 
 the paralel Paflages, viz,. That Rulers therein fignifies Civil Rulers, and Rulers 
 who were Enemies to Chrifi : For, whatever were the Moral Qualities cf the 
 Rulers, if the Word fignifies a Collegiat Meeting of Rulers, it is enough to 
 our purpofe, and evinceth our Argument from the paralels, to be good 
 and valid, unlefs he could evince a contrary Acceptation, which he doth 
 not fo much as effay. He could not deny, that the Legal Confiitut ion of one 
 Affembly orParliament, is a far and diftincl thing from the Qualities of the 
 Alembers, who confequently come truely under thefe Denominations upon 
 the ground of aLegalConftitution. And fuppofing our Senfe of the Word 
 Presby trie, and the xMatter of Fact to be fuch as we aflert, he could not, 
 without making himfelf moft ridiculous, infer from thefe Paralels, that 
 the Members Conftituent of this Presbv trie, were either Civil Ruhr s, or 
 bad. 
 
 The Surveyer, ( P. 217,218. ) is bold to call this our Exception againfr 
 his Senfe, viz,. That the Office hath no Hands to impofe, a ridiculous Ob- 
 jection flowing vom a Mifiake of the Meaning of the Text, which attributes not the 
 impojed Hands to the Presbytrie, as to an Agent or Efficient, but only limits and de- 
 termines that Impofition of Hands whicb'T'imothy had from the A[ 'file, or other high 
 Officers of the Church, to the particular u\e and end for which Hands were impojtd 
 on him, viz.. the giving him a Power of a Presbyter or Elder. Anf. Here is li 
 ftrange Expofition, c bfcuring rather than clearing the Text. Had the A- 
 poftle no other way oi expr effing the end of the Ordination, and its Na- 
 ture, than by telling him of Hands of the Office laid upon him, whidi in 
 all common Senle, doth relate to an Agent orlnitrunu nt, and not 1 
 Limitation and Ule ofhis Office? A Man may thus fallen the l 
 
 tafti 
 
5 5 1 be burveyersi J leadings Chap. 111. 
 
 taftick Senfes upon Scripture. Befides, he holds that there were eminent 
 high Officers with Taut, and concurring with this Impofition of Hands 
 upon Timothy : Why then will he ftrike off their Hands fom being here 
 meaned, when Impofition of Hands is fo exprefly mentioned ■? The Sur- 
 Teyer thus further Senfeth the Words, Negled: not the Gift given thee by* 
 the Laying on of Hands, not Confirmatory, not Reconciliatory, but Impofition of 
 HandsOrdinatory, whereby thou was ordained, or made aPresbyter. ^tf/.Befides^that 
 this Divifion of Impofition of Hands, is as odd, as his Senfe of the Text, 
 it is ftrange, that he admits of Impofition of Hands upon Timothy, in or- 
 tter to this end of making him a Minifter, and yet denyeth the Presby trie 
 here to import a Collegiat Meeting, thus impofing. He holds that the Senfe 
 is, Negle ft not the Gift given by the Laying on of the Hands, whereby thou was ordai- 
 ned. Now, pray, what hinders thefe Hands to be the Hands of the CoUegi- 
 at Meeting impofing the fame ? Whereby the Senfe is ours, or otherwife, 
 in Contradi&ion to himfelf, he makes the Office the Or Gaining Agent. If he 
 acknowledge this place paralel with 2 Tim. 1. 6. he cannotbut fee a like 
 Oonftru&ion in both, of the Term of Hands, with the Genitive. Nor can 
 he deny that the Impofition of Hands is ever conftru&ed with the Office 
 in other Paralels, Aft. 6. 6. and 1;. 3. He calls our Reafon againft his 
 <jlofs ridiculous, but whether hisReturn be not mou ridiculous , is left to the 
 Reader to judge. 
 
 We are told for his next Answer, That were a Tresbytrie here admitted, there is 
 nothing in the Context to evince that it was a Clajfical Presbytrie, to which only vse 
 afcribe Ordination, and not a Congregational orParoch Presbytrie. Anf.Here again, 
 ^the Survey er is driven to feek melter among the Independents, but is ruined 
 •in this Shift,- For, upon his Suppofition, that a Congregation, or one Pa- 
 llor with Unpreaching Elders, is the Subjed ol an Ordaining Power, the 
 Vrelaticai as well as ths Presbyterian Ordination-, is overthrown. The places 
 above referred to, and hinted at, do abundantly clear and evince the Di- 
 vine Inftitution of ClaJficalPresbytries, and Collegiat Meetings of Paftors of 
 feveral Congregations, in order to a Minifterial Rule and Jurifdi&ional 
 Authority over the fame, and confequently, that they are the propfcrSub- 
 je& of the Ordaining Power. The Treatife above mentioned, Cb. 10. 
 befides feveral others,have abundantly evinced-thisPoint,that the Fraternity 
 or Community of the Faithful , and confequently ofthe particular fingle 
 Congregation, cannot be the proper Subject cf the Jurifdi&ionai Power, 
 nor the Power of Older; and both are cleared by a large Account ofthe 
 one and the other ; See P. 95, 96,91, 98. This Surveyer did but ridicule 
 the Scriptures, or rather expofe himfeif, while .pretending tz impugn the 
 Presbyterians, and anfwer their Scripture Reafonings, for he comes on 
 <wich his may -be this, and may be the other Senfe $ trie onefenfe [may be] 
 
 itrik- 
 
Chap- III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 59 
 
 itriking out and Contradicting the other, whereas, in the Judgement of 
 all who own the Truth and the Authority of the Scriptures, the true fenfe 
 is but one, fince otherwife there can be no Truth, where there are diffe- 
 rent and various Senfes. In his firft Anfwer, he will needs have High Of- 
 ficers of the Church ( as he calls them ) to concur with the Apoftle Paul in 
 Impoiing Hands upon Timothy; thefe High Officers, he no doubt advances 
 far above the Sphere of Presbyters andPaftors,and puts them in the Cha- 
 racter of his Magnates or Hierarchical Bijhops; yet in this fecond Anfwer, 
 he will needs (in a palpable Contradiction to the Firftj croud in all thefe 
 High Officers into one Congregation; yea, and pofitively allerts, that there is no 
 evidence in the Text to prove that this Presbytrie was any other than a Paroch-Pres- 
 by trie; and that it will trouble the Presbyterians to prove the contrary : But 
 would it not much more have troubled this Fantaftical Dictator, with his 
 Linfey -Wool fey, party coloured Senfes and Comments, to prove that thefe 
 High Officers, near to the Apoftclick Character, were all related to one Con- 
 gregatibn, and but a Meeting of a Paroch Presbytrie, as he fpeaks. 
 
 His Third anfwer is taken from collating this Paffage with 2 Tim. r. 6. 
 where Paul enjoins Timothy to ftir up the Gift thstis in him, /<*, by the put- 
 ting on of my Hands , as here, 1 Tim. 4. 14. He faith, Grace Was given thee 
 fUT«, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie. The former place import- 
 ing his Authority in the Action, and the latter the concern and confent of the Meet- 
 ing of Presbyters with him : So that granting a Presbytrie prefent, tbere is no or- 
 daining power can be hence inferred. Anf. We have already made appear, that 
 thefe places Collated, do clearly evince a Presbyterial Authority in the 
 Point of Ordination, and that fince the impofing of Pauls hands in order 
 to the Gifts, is clearly diftinguiihed from the impofing of the Hands of the 
 Presbytrie, which muft needs refpecl his Ordination, and confequently 
 their Authoritative influence thereupon, thefe Texts collated, do confirm 
 this Point; and further do thus give light unto it, that fuppoiing that the 
 Impofition of Pauls hands, and the Hands of the Presbytrie, were contem- 
 porary, the Presbyterian Caufe is the more ftrengthened, in that the im- 
 pofing of an Apoftles Hands, did not fwallow up, nor exclude the Pres- 
 bytriesAuthoritative impofition: So that this Authority may be much more 
 now fuppofed competent to them, when the Office of Apoftle is gone. 
 1 muft here again Reflect upon it, that this cur vertumncus Expolitor, who 
 will needs have in his Firft Anfwer, feveral High Officers to concurr with 
 Paul, in this Impofition of Hands, makes Timothy thereby to receive a 
 Presbyterate only : And I pray what needs"' fuch High Officers to concur 
 with PW, in order to this end? But in this Aiiiwor, We find ordinary 
 Pa/tors concurring in the Ordination of this his ltippoied Pi for the 
 
 .ever 111 collating theft Texts, inlinuats no Officers of a bigbei Order, 
 
 il r r t© 
 
"6o The Survey ers T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 to have been prefent^except theApoftle VaukAnd indeed thePaffages them- 
 feives do only point at the Presbytrie and the Apoftle Paul. Here alfo, 
 Presbyters are found laying hands upon our Survey er and his Fellows fup- 
 pofed Hierarchical Prelat, fet over the Church of Efhefus. 
 
 Next, he acknowledges that the mention of impofing of Pauls hands 
 2 Tim, i. 6. with the emphatick <ft«, or by, refpedis the Gift of GOD in him, 
 wherein he feems to diftinguifti the ww* and t £•*»* the Authority and 
 the Gift, yet expones this precifely of Pauls Authority in his Ordination, ex- 
 clufive of that of the Presbytrie : But fo it is, that the impofing of Hands, 
 in order to Gifts of the Spirit, he muft needs acknowledge to be of it felf 
 diftincl: from fuch an Impofition of Hands, as is in order to Ordination : 
 Yea, even fome of his own party acknowledge, that Hands were twice 
 laid upon Timothy, and once by the Presbytrie alone. Befides, that Paf- 
 fage i Tim, 4. 14. we find him very confufedly and inconfideratly ex- 
 poning thus, Viz,, The Grace given him with (t**?*) the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytrie: Whereas the Text runs thus, neglect not the Gift that is in 
 thee, which was given thee by Prophefe, with the laying on of the Hands of the 
 Presbytrie; where it is evident, the Gift given, and the Prophefie, are in 
 two diftind Claufes,, and the laying on of Hands of the Presbytrie , is in the third 
 and laft, and diverfifled by a diftinct Particle p «t* both from the Gifr, 
 and from ihe Profhefie: So that it is apparent,that this Grace ov'Gift, hith a 
 fpecial Refped to thzProphefie, but the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytrie, 
 is here fet down in a diftind:Claufe,as a diltind Priviledge from the other 
 two, and therefore, muft either import their Authoritative a&ion, or doth 
 here fignifie nothing; efpeciaily/incefas is faidjthe variation of the phrafe 
 piT«, or with, doth here import fo much, and diverfifie the one from the 
 other. Which baffles his Senfe and Expoiition, that makes the impofing 
 of the Presby tries hands to import no more but a Confent or Concurrence; 
 The folly of which Expofition is further evidenced in that. i.This folemn 
 Action of Impofing Hands, being in the Scripture Accounts and Senfe, a 
 badge of Authoritative Blejfing, muft neeeds import much more, than a bare 
 Confent or Concurrence/ for he will not dare to fay, that all thofe whofe 
 Hearts do concur in praying for the Bltffing, had right to impofe hands 
 upon the Ordained. 2. He tells us in the beginning of his Anfwer, that 
 the Presbytrie impofed not hands alone without a Higher Officer joyned with them 
 in the Ail.. Now, I pray, what was this Ad, if not of Ordination} Now, 
 if the Presbytrie had an Authoritative Concurrence in the Ad, or rather 
 an influence thereupon, as their A6t, how can he fay they did only con- 
 tent to the thing ? For, upon this ground of a naked confent, he could 
 not fay that .Paul' was joined with him in the Ad, which imports their 
 joint Authoritative. Concurrence \ (\£ this phrafe have any Senfe ) and yet not- 
 
 witk- 
 
Chap. HI. FtfrEpifcopacy, Examined. ^^^ 
 
 (landing of this, according to his expofition, in the latter part of his Anf* ' 
 wer, the Action was Pauls alone, and not theirs,- and he Confines the 
 Authority of che Action, within the compafs of the Apoftles Impofition 
 folely. I onlv add, if che Actions were fuppofed diverfe, as feverals dohold, 
 the Surveyer hath no Shield nor Buckler againft fuch a Weapon, which 
 notwithstanding quite baffles this his Anfwer, if admitted. 
 
 His fourth Anfwer is, That fine e the Name of Presbyter or Elder , even in Ee- 
 za f s Senfe on i Pet. 5*. comprehends in general, all who have arty Eccle/iaftnk 
 Funclion, the Officers here might be of a higher Jort than fingle Presbyters, even ad- 
 mitting the Term Presbytrie, to import s Collcgiat Mating. An]. The Survner 
 is (till here repeating his groundleis Conjectures, and beggings oftheQue- 
 ftion, for an Anfwer, yea, and confuting and baffling himfelf in thefe his 
 fantaftick Quiblings ; For, bef.des that the exiftenee of ordinary Officers, 
 Superior to Presbyters, and cloathed with Epifcopal Authority is itill 
 begged by him, in feveral other Refpe&s, this his Conjecture is moft un- 
 accountable and repugnant to the Text; For neither, firft, can he make 
 appear that fuch a Meeting of fuch Officers of a higher Order than • 
 fingle Presbyters, comes under the Scripture Denomination of a Fresbjtrie, 
 in any Paffages of Holy Write, or that when Officers of a higher Order, 
 mett with Presbyters, they had no diftincl: Specification by their Titles or 
 Names,- As when the Apoftles mett withthe Elders Ail. iy. and Prophets 
 and Teachers mett tcgether Act, 13. we find diftinguiihing Epithets and • 
 Names given to thefe Officers. 
 
 Next, As this conjecturing Surveyer, could give no account, whether 
 this Meeting was folely of extraordinary Officers, or a Meeting mixed 
 of Ordinary and Extraordinary, whether of his fuppofed Bijlwps, with 
 thefe Extraordinary Officers, or not, So, whatever Anfwer he might em- 
 brace, he is (till in the Briars, and overthrows his own Scope,- For, be- 
 fides that he cannot give account, why a Colledge of Prelats is called a 
 Presbytrie, or to what end fuch a mixed Meeting can be here fuppofed : If 
 his Conjecture be admitted, they could be ru )?aroch Presbytrie j And thus 
 his fecond Anfwer is baffled, whichfuppofeth this. Again, if there were 
 in this Meeting higher Officers than Presbyters, he would needs giant that ; 
 the ordaining Authority was not monopolized in one : And thus 1. He 
 aflf. onts and excludes all his former Pleadings for thefole Authority of the 
 Prelatical BijJwp in Ordination. 2. He aliens that all here impoling 
 Hands, did Authoritatively Concur, and therefore none of them were nicie 
 Conlenters (as he ailedges this Presbytrie was J and this univerlaiiy, u ith- 
 out Exception of any one of the Number,- And the Authority of the Ac- 
 tion wasnot folely Pauls: And thus again, hehath given a deadly wound 1 
 to his third Anfwer, aliening fo much. In a word, if all were i 
 
 %atf / 
 
^6z The Survey ers T leadings Chap: III: 
 
 vary Officers, the fole Authority of the Prelat in Ordination fa fuppofed 
 ordinary Officer,) is no way concluded, nor that of a Presbytrie impeach- 
 ed: If they were all ordinary Officers, this Joynt Authoritative Concurrence, 
 cutts the throat of the Prelats arrogated fole Intereft in Ordination: If mix- 
 ed Officers of a Superior and Inferior Order, this Survey er could give no 
 ft ado w of a Reafon wherefore the Vapors did not Authoritatively concurr. 
 I need not mention the common Maxim,pleaded by fome of his Party, in 
 a like Cafe, ABiones funt fuppofitorum, the Authoritative Ad is afcribed to 
 the whole Collegiat Meeting or Presbytrie, without the leaft. fhadow of a 
 Diftin&ion of the Intereft and Authority of one Member from another, 
 and he hath before -told us, that non tft diftinguendum ubi lex won diflinguit. 
 
 The Surveyer adds, If he was ordained a Bijhop, as fome of the moft Learned 
 Commentators of the Ancients do think, as Chryfofiom, Theodoret,Theophy- 
 lact and Oecumenius, That Presbytrie might be a Meeting of Bifrops, concurring 
 according to their Mind in that work with the Apoftle PauL . Anf The Surveyor 
 ftriving againft the Light of this Scripture, is ftill more and more involv- 
 ed in the Briars. Before, he would needs Yaws' Timothy to receive but the 
 Office of a Presbyter in this Ordination, and thus he exprefly paraphrafeth 
 the Text, Neglect not the Gift which is gi'ven thee by the laying on oj c Hands , 
 whereby thou was ordained or made a Vresbyter: This he feteth down in diftind: 
 Charaders,as the Genuin Senfe of the Text : Now, here he quits this poft, 
 and will admit that he was ordained a Bijhvp ; For he Ownes and Defends 
 the Senfe of the Authors cited to this Scope, fo that we know not where 
 to find this Proteus, in thefe his inconfiftent Anfwers. Again, if Bifhops 
 here concurred in this Ordination of a Bifhop, he wil grant that they all 
 Authoritatively concurred, and were not mere Confenters in the AcHon : 
 And thus again farewel his third Anfwer, which monopolized this Au- 
 
 : thority in the perfon of Paul, or elfe he muft fay that all thefe Bifhops 
 were Apoftles. Again, if not Apoftles, but ordinary Officers, then lure, 
 Paulpuz forth no Extraordinary Authority in this Cafe, but acted as an 
 ordinary Biftop^ and then it would puzzle this Surveyer to fhew where- 
 fore the Apoftle imputs this Ordination to the Laying on of his Hands Jolelie, 
 
 . or why upon our true Suppofition (which he cannot difprovej viz,. That 
 
 ; the perfons concurring were Paftors or Presbyters, the prefence of Paul, or 
 the laying on of his Hands, did fwallow up or exclude their Authority, 
 rather than that of a fuppofed Bifljopi, in this Matter. As for the Authors 
 mentioned, it is above made appear, that they fpoke of Scripture Church 
 Officers, according to the Practice and Style of their own Times. The 
 Surveyed calls this a foul Imputation, as if they did wreft the Scriptures, to colcur 
 
 ,pire Practice of their own times. Anf Here again the Surveyer is put upon 
 thjs piciful Dilemma, viz. cidiediemuitdifowne the Commentoi rhefe An* 
 
 chvts. 
 
Chap. III. For Epifcopacy, Examined. 6^^^ 
 
 cknts, and yeeld to the Strength of this Objection ( which "truely makes 
 the beft Apology for this Expofition) or elfe he muft acknowledge that 
 his preceeding Anfwers puts him under this foul Imputation of palpable 
 wrefting the Holy Scriptures,to patronize the Antifcriptnral Hierarchical 
 Prelat, and irnputs the fame to thefe Fathers; For it is evident to any that 
 reads his Anfwers, that thefe Fathers Senfe of this Text, and his forego- 
 ing Anfwers, are Antipods, yea and crofs and deftroy one another. The 
 Senfe and Comments of thefe Fathers, which he is fo Zealous in defend- 
 ing, makes Timothy to have received an Epifcopacy, in his Ordination: 
 His firft Anlwer makes him to be ordained only a Presbyter : His third An- 
 fwer makes the Authority of Ordaining to be only the Apdftle Pauls, and 
 the reft of the Meeting to be but Ccr.Jcnters : The Comment of thefe Fa- 
 thers, makes them all to concurr with Official Authority - Forfuch, cer- 
 tainly that of Diocefan Bificps, isheld to be: The Comment of thefe Fa- 
 thers makes the Members of the Meeting fuch Bifiops, as had every one of 
 them Authority over a Dlccefs, and conlequcntly over many Ccngrcgathnsi 
 His firft Anfwer makes them all Congregational Ehhrs, and crouds them 
 within the fmall Circuits of one Paroch. Now, this Sutvqtr might, or 
 any of his way, may ftill call in Vulcans Gymmerers to fodder thefe Af- 
 fertions with themfelves, and with the Fathers Comments, if they can. 
 That the Expre(Ii;ns of the Fathers touching Scripture Church Officers, 
 were of that Mould, as is faid, hath been made gzod by feveral of the 
 Learned, and is in this convincingly apparent, in that they put the Names 
 of BijJwps and Arch- bijlwps, or Metropolitans, upon Timothy and Titus. We 
 need not here again remind what is above made good touching Ambrofe 
 AfTertion upon Eph.^.Non per omnia con-veniunt ,&:c.That the Practice of the 
 Church then ( he is fpeaking in point of Church Government J did not 
 fate in every thing the Writings of the Apoftles. And that of Cbryfoftom 
 on i Tim. %. Horn. ir. That betwixt the Office of Bijlwp and Presbyter, there is 
 almoft no difference. As for his Charge of our wrefting the Scriptures to patro- 
 nize Human Devices ; We let it pafs among the reft of this Mans lying Im- 
 putations, it being evident to the candid Searchers of the Word, and into 
 this Controverfy, whether this perfon and his Aftociats, in their Plead- 
 ings, or the Presbyterians, be the Perverters and Wrefters of the Scriptures, 
 The Surveyor P. 219. further adds, Tbst if the Ordination 0/ Timothy to 
 Wvangelift, be fpoken of here, under the Name of Presbytrie, may well he. 
 comprehended a Meeting of Apoftles cr ILvangc lifts, or Apoftclical Mcn y fitmg tht 
 conjugated word Presb) trie, may be of as great a Latitude and Signification as to a 
 ing, as Presbyter is to a Perfon. Anf Here is a new flight of our Sur- 
 i fancy, Timothy now ftepping up to be an Evangeliir, and the Or- 
 cUiners Apoftles or livangelifts, or Ap-ftolical Men: Butfure, if they be 
 
 S i f cither 
 
PEd'f ** K Surveyors T leadings Chap. III. 
 
 either of the firft two, as he fuppofeth, Paul is put out of his Office of a 
 Sole Ordainer here,- Yea, and in his Senfe, if any of the three be admitted, I 
 th.e Scripture Particle <d* } which he pleaded as importing Pauls Tingle ; 
 Authority in this A&ion, is expunged, that room may be made for other \ 
 Apoftles and Evangelifts, This Surveyor would be hard put to it to prcvs 
 that the Oidination of an Evangelift, necefiarly required fuch a compar- 
 ed Meeting; But as in the. reft of his Comments and Reply es, To in this^ 
 we ttiuft take his, v/ord, for proof, as if his new Prelatical Office ^if fuch 
 it was indeed, as.. Tome have Tuppofed) had derived an Infallibility into 
 his Magiiierial Didats. As for his LatitudinarianExtenTions of the word 
 'Presume, befides 5 that he hath exhibit no Scripture Inftance to prove fuch 
 an Extenfion, or evince that the word is ever taken in fuch a Senfe, he 
 ftill beggs the Queftion in its Application to this Paffage. 
 
 Next, We are (till in the dark, what he means by Apofiolick Men: If he 
 intend his Hierarchical Prelat, here is anew begging of the. Quefticn, and 
 though the word Vresbpiie might reach the comprehending of the higher 
 Officers to the Presbyter, who have the Scripture Stamp, and Signature, it 
 is a ftretching of the Term upon Tenter Pins till it crack, to make ic 
 re.ach to an Officer of a Human Invention, or a half Human Mould, as he 
 maizes the Biftjpps. It would have alfo puzzled this Surveyer , or thefe of 
 his mind, upon the fuppofnion that Timothy was here ordained an Evan- 
 gelift, to reconcile this with what he and they do plead from Pauls Di- 
 rections inthe'nrft Epiftle to.him, for his Inftalment in his Epifeopal Func- 
 tion, over the Church o£ Ephefus, wherein he is commanded to do the Work 
 of an Evangelift ; For they mult either here degrade him from this Fund-ion, 
 " upon their Supposition of his Epifeopal Inftalment, or if they make his In- 
 jjalment here Evangdiflkk, they make him to have, been twice inflated in; 
 *4)a£.Eun&iQn,. 
 
 CHAP:. 
 
Chap: IV. Fo/Epifcopacy, Examined. 6 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Wherein is conftdered the Survey ers Anfwer to the 
 Presbyterian Charge againjl the Diocefan Pre- 
 late as a new Officer, different from thofe infti- 
 tuted by our Lord, and ftanding in oppojition to the 
 Scripture Accounts of the New Tefkament Church- 
 Government : And this upon the Ground of the s^\ 
 Perfection of the Scripture Records herea- 
 nent, and our Lords Faithfulnefs in the full 
 Jnftitution of the Officers and Government of hii 
 
 Church 
 
 
 THE Surveyer, now P. 219. tells his Reader, He hath preftntedtlt 
 Summ of the Presbyterian Strength in thefe Vaffages , and given, 
 fair and j ujb Interpretations of thefe Scriptures, which they plead* 
 Whereas he hath prefented rather a Farrago of his own fantaf- 
 tick Quiblings, and contradictory Notions and Conceits, ia 
 ftead of true Interpretations of thefe places: And it is apparent that after 
 all this Mans faint Effays, \X\Q?resbytcrian Bow abidsinits Strength. Yet 
 after all is done, the Sarxv/*^ will needs attempt the removal o£ lomemore 
 Impediments in his way. 
 
 The one is, That the Presbyterians difown Epifcopacyasa Human invention,. 
 as a new Office, never appointed by Cbrift, and conje^utntlyto he exptlled htsHoufez 
 In Anfwer to this, the Surveyer having acknowledged, that there are Hu- 
 man inventions which proceed from Alenspleafures, as Matth. 1 j. 9. adds, that 
 there ar* refults of fanclified Reafonjubfervient to the orderly performance ofthe!Vor~ 
 Jlrip of God, and to the Ruling of hisHoufe, with rcjpetl to the general Rules of the. 
 Word-, Wherein as before, lie itill beggs the Qucition, in iuppoling Prela- 
 cy to be one of thefe variable Circumftances determinable by Human Prudence,and. 
 (ubfervient to the Churches good,according to the General R'des of the Ikord,wh\d\ 
 U, proved to- b& Diametrally oppohc to Chrifts LnlHtucions, in point of 
 
6 The Survey ers T leadings Chap. IV: 
 
 "Government, and {rands in oppofition to the great ends of the Churches 
 Edification, and the true Government thereof. Thereafter, he runs out 
 into an impertinent difc.ourfe anent Mini ft ers ufe of 'invention in Treaching,the 
 finging of P films with Poetical invention, of the Compofer in Metre, who had no 
 infallible inspiration; A.nd asks if we account ^Confeflion of Faith, Catechifm, 
 and thi Holy Covenant, Human Inventions, as to their outward frame} And 
 enquires farther, what we will anfwer to one that fiould plead thus, was not 
 Chrift and his Apoftles wife enough, and could have ft dcnvn Jujg forms, if they 
 .had judged them neceffary, &cc. and -not left them to Mans inventions} Anf The 
 impertinency of all this evidently appears, wherr we confider, that our 
 -Queftion with them, is anent an Office and Officer not appointed by the 
 Lord, and crofs to his Inftitutirns, in Point of Government, whether 
 Men may fee him up in theHoufe of God.yeaor not. His Inftances fpeak 
 only of theLawfulnefs of ourReafon sncChriftianPrudence,inaciear fub- 
 ferviency to the obedience of Commanded Ordinances; for fuch is Preach- 
 ing, and Minifterial inftruclion, C at ech if ng^nd Singing of P (alms; So thatthefe 
 ieing Commanded Ordinances and Inftitutions, the proper fubfervient 
 means thereof, do in a Remote Senfe, fall within the compafs cf the Di- 
 vine Commands, enjoining the fame,* fuch are thefe he mentions, viz. a 
 methodical form of Sound words, digefted into Catechifms, for the Peo- 
 ples inftru&ion and growth of Knouiedge,the framing o(Pfalms,comm en- 
 ded for the ufe of Singing ( a Commanded Duty ) into fuch a Metrical 
 Compofure., as is fuitable hereunto, I mean keeping frill clofe to the Sa- 
 cred Text, and not varying from the true and genuine Senfe of the words; 
 the Minifter making ufe of San&ified Reafon, in a fuitable Methodical in- 
 vention, to digeft the Matter he delivereth, in the beft Mould, for the 
 Cafe and Edification of the People,to whom he is the Mouth of God^and 
 mufLdivide the Word of Truth aright unto them, applying it fcr Docl:- 
 rin, Reproof, Exhortation, &c. according to their various Conditions. 
 For the Covenant, which the Surveyer in derilion calls Holy, it falls under 
 the fame Conlideration with the preceeding Inftances^ befides the clear 
 Scripture Precedents, recommending and warranding the Pra&ice. Thefe 
 I fay, are fo far from reaching any Patrociny to the letting up of a Prelat, 
 whofe Office encroaches upon the Due Rights of a true Gofpel Miniftry, 
 and confequently ftands in oppofition both to Divine Inftitutions and 
 ends of Government, that this defence appears no defence at all. For 
 ■what he adds of the Creed and Doxolcgie, it is removed by what is laid, and 
 we need only to add,that the end of fuchObfervances is better reached in 
 theprefent Practice of our Church, in point of Worlhip, than with fuch 
 Obfervances. 
 
 But 
 
Chap. IV. ForEpifcopacy Examined. 
 
 But theSftrtiejer appears very angry at the calling the Dtoctfan Biftop a 
 A 7 !'^ Office* ,not Inftituted by GOD in his Ho life, and fpei ds to this Scope 
 many words, P. 222. 225. which is this in Summ. Firft Jbat the Prelati- 
 cal Funclion, is only a new Dignity and Authority granted fir Peace fate, to tneMi- 
 nifter above others, within the bounds of the (ame Order, Anf, Firft, the Ssr? 
 vejerihonld have confidered that his Splicing of a fupj inely Infli- 
 
 tuted Oirke,and dividing the WoikandDuties thereof unto different Sub- 
 jects and Recipients, is upon the Matter a deviling of New Orders, ancUB 
 one therewith. Do net Papifis tell us, that the Piieftis the Higheft Or- 
 der of Miniftry,and oomprifes, with the DLiunate, their whole Hierarchy^ 
 which is nothing eTfe/but an extension of thefe ? Suppcfe the VufuraiPcw- 
 er of Order were thus Split, that one Rank or degree of Men were allow- 
 ed only to Baptize, not to Preach, others to Preach, not at ail to Baptize, 
 who will difown it, that thefe were Antifcriptural Finnan lr. 
 dividing what GOD hath conjoined ? And once admitting this, what li- 
 mits can be fet to Mens inventions in this Point ? Or how can the Multi- 
 * plyxll Orders in Popery be condemned,, and all the Swarm of their new in- 
 vented Officers ? Sure, the folid ground of Condemning them, is, that 
 they are a Spurious Brood, inverting and deftroying the End, Union and 
 Order of the Divinely appointed Officers of the Hcufe of GOD. The 
 Splitingof the Actings of the Power of Order is furely condemnedupon 
 this Grcund of the Onenefs and Identity ofthis'Office of the l?aficr : And 
 if theCafeftands thus with Reference to the Power and Exercife of Order, 
 why is not the cafe the fame in the Point of jurisdiction, which is for the 
 fame end as the other ? Moreover, if upon pretence of Order and Uni- 
 ty, this extenfion of the exercife were admitted, in the Method he pleads, 
 this Jurifdictional Power may beextended to the higheft degree, even of 
 aPatriarchat or Pophkme, for the Pope doth pretend he is but of the or- 
 der of Prieftood, and the loweft Rank of that Hierarchy have, by this 
 Principle^ fundamental aptitude for the higheft Office and extent of their 
 Order. The Survey er will have a Power left to the Church, to Rank Mi- 
 nifters, with a Refpecl to Union,- and here is an Union of the I 
 al Church, refolving in fuch an Officer, and clearly going upon his Prin- 
 ciple of the way of uniting particular Churches : And who will doubt 
 that the Union of the Church Univerial hath the fame Ground with that 
 of Particular Churches ? 
 
 In a word, the Folly of this Difcourfe appears in this, that Minifrcrs 
 who have an unqueftionable intereft in Ordination and Jurifdiction, ar®- 
 
 -d by the Great Mafter, duely to exercife both,as they (hall Anl 
 to him, and therefore muft not, but upon their perril denude thcmlclves 
 ef any piece of that Work and Authority committed to them; this -be'. 
 
 T t t * tlrt 
 
W ^he Survey ers Tkadings Chap. IV- 
 
 the Talent, whereof they are to give an account to him, who hath given 
 to every one of his Servants their Work. The diftin&ion of the Diocef- 
 an, Hierarchical Prelat from the Presbyter, as a New Officer b is evident, 
 whether we confider hxsNew Name ,of Bifiop or Arcbbijhop; his New work oi 
 Governing the Dlocefs, befides his Truft in the Civil Government; mV 
 "New Orjinaticn or Ccwfecrsitiun to his New work; his diflinft Qualifications, ifi 
 confequence of the whole, from the Paftcr or Minifies : So that he appears 
 in all thefe Refpe&s, a Compared New. Officer, and fuppofiag the Paftors 
 Divine Authority, aNewUfurper, The Survey er teiis us, He is no New 
 Officer y fince the inferior Officer doing th fame A£is> it is not a^nidlity. But, as this 
 Reafon would tend to the former Antifcriptural fpliting of Offices, fo that 
 the Epifcop/lians will not allow this Conceflion, is by this time evident. 
 We all know who have in a late practice, condemned the Presbyteriai 
 Ordination of the Protefiant Church o£ France. For what he adds of the. 
 Eower of the Commifion of Jjf>mblin> to Fortirie his Notion, the Difparity- . 
 is palpable and apparent, whether we confider the Powers Deputing ^nd 
 giving, Commifhon, tnz^ The King, in the Cafe cf the Prelats; thzChurcb- 
 e's P r eprefc?3tati've or Affembljj in the Cafe of the Ctmmifficn : The. Vrclai . 
 receiving a New Ordination; The Ccmmiffioners not: The Ccmmiffion- 
 ers being limited as to their work- and continuance by the Affembly, and 
 as being Anfwerable unto diem, not the Vrelats &c. But of this above. 
 As for his difcourfe cf Superintendents, P. 225. The Author of the Vin- 
 diciaEpiftcl&Vhilaclclfhi again!} Sfotfwwds Calumnies, hath at large made, 
 good the.vaft and effential [difference betwixt the transient Office. of the 57/- 
 ferintendents and that oiFrclats, P. 31. 52. in no iefs than Twelve Instances 
 to which, for brevitie, we refer the Reader. 
 
 The Survcjer P. 225. 224. attempts in the next place 3 to anfwer the 
 Qb.je.<5Hon againft thelikrarchical Prclat taken from.Chri fits Vahhfulnefs y and the 
 Scriptures perfetlion : From tbeCcmparifon inftitut in Scripture betwixt Cbrifit and 
 Mofoj in point ofFaithfulnefsjnthcOrderingand Institution of thtGovtrnment and: 
 Ordinances of the Houfe of God, The Argument is no doubt very consider- 
 able upon both grounds, if we {halibut fuppofe the Abfolute Perfection 
 ©fail ourMtdiators Offices, and the Correfpondent Exercifes thereof, for 
 the Edification and. Salvation of his Church, and efpecially under the • 
 Gofpel Difpenfation: As a Prophet, he hath fully revealed the Counfel j 
 and Mind of GOD, foas nothing is to be added to his Divine Revelati- 
 ons thereof, no new Rules, Truths or Duties to be ; fuperadded- beyond -\ 
 She limits he, hath revealed : As a Priefr, his Satisfaction, hisloterceffion, 
 isfo full, that no pretended fubfervient Interceifors or Saviours,,, are to be- 
 deyifed by Men: . Thus fui aad perfect is the E.xercife of his Kingly Of-- 
 %_s,_ in appointing the Officers, Cenfures,. Laws and Government of his.-, 
 IfeSfec* Tfcv-Argunient, appear^ fijnbet, inyiaeiWy. flxong when we - 
 
 poad&u- 
 
fctfap. IV For Epifcopacy, Examined. 
 
 Ponder two things. Firft, What the faithfalnefsof Mofes under the Legal 
 difpenfation, did reach unto, which our Blefled Lords Soveraign Faith- 
 fulnefs doth exceed, i. Mofes appointed the Officers of the Hcufe cj r G< d their 
 feveral Orders and Degrees, their Work and Duties, in fo far that his In- 
 ftitutionsdid amount to determin a fpecies of Government. 2. All his Ap- 
 pointments hereanent were fixed and unalterable, fo as none might ado to 
 or detracl: therefrom. 3. They were hence not Committed to the cifpof- 
 al of the Civil Magiftrate,to mould them after the Rules of worldly Poli- 
 cy. 4-Thefe Officers were not to denude themfelves of any part of theAu- 
 thority andFuncHon committed to them,or of theexercife thereof. Hence, 
 it inevitably follows,that theGovernment andOfficers of theChurchcfthe 
 New Teftament, is in all thefe Points of the like Nature,*, the Species is 
 determined,theOffices andOfficers are unalterable 5 are not to be Fa/hioned 
 bv Mens Laws at their arbitriment, are to continue in this Fixed Mould 
 of his Infticution, and Method of its Official Exercife, till his Returning 
 again. 
 
 Secondly, The Scriptures Perfection clears this abundantly, all things to- 
 be believed and pra&ifed, in order to Salvation, are perfectly contained 
 therein, and there being fo much delivered in Scriptures, touching the Go- - 
 vernment, Laws and Offices of the Houfe of GOD, and in order to the 
 InftrucVion,both of Church Rulers and Church Members, in their Refpe- 
 diveDutiesjif thefeDirecYions,LawsandInftitutions be not compleatly cor- 
 respondent to thefe ends, the Scriptures perfection is palpably impeached, 
 and the infinitWifdom of the Lawgiver blafphemed. 
 
 To this Argument the Surveyer Anfwe rs, That in order to tin great end of, 
 our Lords Prophetical and Kingly Offices, He hath given particular Commands con* 
 cerning the iffentials of the Government of His Houfe, and general Commands to . 
 Air eel the Frudence of His Church, to order what is Left to Chriflian Liberty, for 
 the befi Ends • And that it is preposterous, to fancy a thing necefary, and then aU 
 ledge Chrifl hath infii:uted the \air.e, becaufe Faithful, but rather ufen this ground, 
 we map reafon the nccefpty of the thing from his Appointment. Anf This is re- 
 moved in a word, by this one V option y That if we acknowledge thefe: 
 EJJkntials do include all neceflary Offices andOfficers of the Church, 
 and do draw the Limits and Meafures of their A&ings, Qualifications, 
 and the Nature of their Power, with fuch Exaclnefs, as none may juftle 
 with, or encroach upon their Priviiedges therein ,• We can offer fuch 
 Scripture Difcoveries in this Point, as do fufficiently lay afide the Dio- 
 cefan 1 Frelat, and prove him fuch an Heteroclite, as his Office cannot be 
 brought up to the Scripture Rules. Thus, wc are fo far from fuch Rea- 
 foning, as this fancy cai Surveyer impuis to. us, that on the contrary, we 
 dflluppofe and proYc.the ScriDturcinitituuoiis in this Point , and upon 1 
 
gffo i /.?£ ourveyers r leadings ; unap. ,iv 
 
 the -Scripture Difcoveries thereof, we reafon thel^ceffity from our Lords 
 •Faith fdnefs. But if the Survey er did hold that the Offices and Officers of 
 the Houfe of GOO , their Duties and Qualification, jgre fuch things as 
 falls within the compafs cf the Churches Liberty, to difpofe asfhe thinks fit: i. It 
 .might be enquired, what he or thofe cf his Mind will ovvne as EJJentialsi 
 Next^ To what end are all the Scrip-are Directions and Inftitutions in 
 •this Point delivered unto the Church of GOD? And why upon this 
 'Grou^dfdie mpft extended Hierarchy may not be pleaded for ? 3. How. 
 thfcs can Iqnfift with that exprefs Defign of the Scriptures Perfection, 
 i>/W To make, not only the ordinary Chriftian , but alfo the Man of *§ 
 God j the Minifter of God, perfect and thorowly furnifhed to every good Work, or e- 
 very piece of his Office and Duty ; and with this further Expreffion of this Defio-n of 
 Mini ferial In ftrucl 'ions propofed by the Apoftle, 1 Tim. 3. 15. viz. To inftrucl the 
 Man of God how to behave in the Houfe of God, which is His Church?. In An- 
 fwer to this, the Surveyer acknowledges the Scriptures Perfection, to make the 
 Man. of GOD wife toSalvation, and furnifti him for every good Work, 
 either £/ the general or particular Precepts thereof , but that it belongs not to the. 
 Perfection of the Scripture, to contain the particular Rules for all the Circumftan- 
 tials of Church Government, more than it doth for all the particular Practices of our 
 commm Life. Anf. Behold the Hierarchy, in this our Surveyers great EJfay, 
 turned into the Dwarf of a mere Cir cum fiance. Behold alfo his Zeal for 
 right ordering of the Houfe of GOD, what Officers muft Rule therein, 
 what the Nature of their Work and Power is, what Duties are commit- 
 ted to them, what the. Nature and: Species of the Government 
 muft be, whether it muft run to the Extrems of Monarchy, or the Anabap- 
 tiftical Morellian way, of Anarchy, or the midie Forms ,• All, or either of 
 thefe is but a mere Circumftance, with our Surveyer. Let any Judge, if he 
 gave not here mamts viblas to the Presbyterians, and yeelded up his Caufe 
 to them: For no Man ofSenie^wiil call the Matters, inftanced mere G>- 
 cumftances; And if they be not,the Scriptures Perfe&ion,for the ends men- 
 tioned, muft clearly reach the Determination thereof. The Surveyer told 
 Lis, That the work of the Bijhopj. Tun. 3. Doth import the V/ork and Office of the. 
 Hierarchical Prelat; And he has acknowledged here theScriptures Perfecti- 
 on to furniih the Minifter of Chrift for every good Work, yea, he hath 
 after ted .P. 194. 197. That theplentitude of 'the Apoftolick Power, committed by 
 our Lord to the Apo files , for the great End of the Churches Edification and Union, 
 was by them committed to the Bilhops, as their proper SucceJJors. Now, how 
 thefe Aftertions can confift with his Describing and Owning here the 
 Work and Office of the Biflwp as a mere Circumftance, wherein the Scrip- 
 tures gives no certain diftind: Sound, muft be put among the reft of his 
 myfterious Inventions, 
 
Chap, IV. For Epifcopacy, Examined, yr 
 
 Two or three things further, I add, and I have done with this Survey* 
 W-r Firfi, It is generally acknowledged by all Sound Divines, That there 
 is no Lawful Church Office or Officer of the Houfe of GOD, but what 
 ttiufthave our LORD'S pofitive Grant or Inftitution: And this is fortified 
 fey ieveral Grounds, i. Whatever is not of Faith is fin, in general, and who- 
 ever pretends to Officiat in Chrifts Houfe and Kingdom, as an Officer 
 Iherein, ads fine titulo, and his Actings are void ,• And therefore he can- 
 not ad in 'Faith, if there be not a Divine Warrand for the Office he fii- 
 fiains, and the Official Exercife and Aclings thereof. 2. If we acknow- 
 ledge Chrifts 'Kingly Power and Headfhip over the Church, as a political 
 Body, whereof he is the political Head, giving her her Laws and Officers, 
 ffa. 9. 6. Matth. 28. 18. Job. f. 22. As in all Kingdoms, no perfon can - 
 claim an Office of State, or Magiftracy, without the Warrand of the 
 Laws,and the Kings Authority thereto Interpofed, fo all Church Powifr 
 and Authority, muft be conveyed to Church Officers by this Glorious 
 KING f s Authentick Commiffion or Grant. Now, none can pretend to 
 any Grant or Commiffion from Him, but what is in the Scriptures j 
 Which is efpecially evident, and further convincingly clear, both from 
 the Perfe&icn of His Word and Teftament hereanentj And likewife, 
 from this, that the Church Government in the whole of it, muft needs be 
 acknowledged to be founded upon a Divine and pofitive Inftitution. 
 
 Secondly, Our LORD did thus actually exercife His Kingly Power, 
 
 (and derived the fame to Church Officers, thus hegave the Power to Bind 
 and Loofe, and the Keys of the Kingdom of Lleaven to his Apoftles, 
 I promifed His Prefence with them and their Succeffors to the End,- And 
 1 this for the Edification and Building up of His Church, till her Warfare 
 is accomp\i!hcd, Matth. 16. 18. 19, with Matth. 18. 19. 20. job. 21. 23. 
 Matth. 28. 18. 19, 20. 2 Cor. 8. 13. Efb. 4. n. 12. 
 
 Finally, When this Fundamental Truth of our LORD'S political Head- 
 fliip and Influences accordingly, in the Government of the Church, and 
 the Perfection of His Holy Teftament, in reference to the Laws, Ordi- 
 nances, and Officers thereof, is denyed, the Foundations k of a Chriftiaa 
 Church are removed, the Rules, Limits, and Boundaries, in reference 
 t<3 the Duties, both of Church Officers and Members, fo annihilate, as 
 the Church becomes a Chaos of all Confufion and arbitrary Diforder 
 whatfomevcr, or at leaft the Leaden and Verfatile Rule of Worldly Wit 
 dom, being made her Meafures of Ordinances and Government, a Doer 
 for Inundati ns of a 1 Errors and Superftitions, and for the jnoft 
 ;ed Ufurpations and Diforders, in point of Government, that the 
 Wicked Mind of Man, by the influence of Satan, can invent. 
 
 F I N I S. 
 
 V 41 41 
 
The CONTENTS 
 PART I. 
 
 HAP I. Dr. Scot's dating of the Queftion, and his Argument taken 
 from the Inftitution of of our Saviour, Examined. Pag.' iM 
 
 CHAP.II.HisArgument,from the Pra&ice of theApoftles,Examined.P.ii.^ 
 
 CHAP. III. His Argument taken from an alledged pun&uai Conformity J 
 of the Primitive Church, to Chrifts Inftitution,, and 'the Apoftolick J 
 PradHce, in Point of Epifcopacy, Confidered. Pag. s.i 
 
 CHAP; IV. His Argument Examined,, t^ken from our Saviours alledged I 
 Allowance and Approbation of Epifcopal Government, in hisEpiitles^ 
 to (he Seven Afian Churches. Pag. 69.. i 
 
 CHAP. V. The Dr c s Scripture proofs of a Fourfold Miniftry or Prerogative 
 ofaBp.asSuperiortoaPafi-orinPoint cfGovernment,Confidered. Pag.S^. 
 
 pa r r. II. 
 
 CHAP. I. Dr, Monro's unfoundand Impertinent Reile&ionsupon ©ur firft 
 
 Reformers, as to Church Government, expofed : Together with his- 
 
 unfbund and Popim Method in his Anlwer to the Argument againft 
 
 f „ Epifcopacy, from Mattb. 20. 25. And with the Paralel Texts. Pag. ijx 
 
 pSxl CHAP. II. A Confutation of what he OiFers in Anfwer to our Argument 
 
 : r * - for Parity of Paftors, taken from tbe Official Identity of Bifhop and 
 
 Presbyter, in Scripture, Pag. 31J 
 
 m £HAP. III. The Dr f s abfurd defcriptfon of the Apoftolick Fundion, in 
 
 foyi^ oppofition to Proteftant Divines, expofed: His Aifertion about the Sue- 
 
 ceffion of Hierarchical Bilhops to Apoftles, in a proper formal Senfe: 
 
 4srhji\ His Opinioja Loaded with grofs and palpable Abfurdities- Pag. 85 
 
 CHAP.l V.His proof of theDivineRight of theHierarchical Bp.from the pre- 
 
 P jj tended Epifcopacy of Tm.&Tit.&c the 7 Afian Angels,examined.P.ii9. 
 
 PART III 
 CHAP. I. A- Consideration of the Scripture Grounds, upon which the. 
 Survey er pleads for the Lawfulnefs pf the £pifcopal Office. Pag. 1.. 
 ^j^^CHAP. II. His Anfwers offered to the Scriptures, pleaded by Presbyteri- 
 ans, I^amined; viz*. Mat. 20. 25-, 26. with the Paraiels, Mark 10 42. 
 Lttk. 22. 25-. Mat. 18. 17. Act. 20. 17, 28. lit. 1. y, 7. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. The 
 imfoundnefs and inconfiftency of his Gloffes made appear. Pag. 13. 
 CHAP. Ill, Some more of his Exceptions and Anfwers examined, viz* 
 to 1 Cor. s.Eph. 4. 11. ( To which the Paraiels, i Cor. 12. zS.Rom. 12. 6. . 
 *]' y 8. are to be joyned ) to Philip. 1. r. And to 1. Tim. 4. 14. His un- 
 foundnefs, and inconfiftency therein, further made appear., Pag. 38., 
 GHAP. IV. Wherein is confidered his Anfwer to our Charge againii: the 
 Diocefan Prelat, as a New Officer, different from thofe Inftirutcd by- 
 our Lord, and (landing in oppoi tiah to the New Teftamem Church-. 
 Government, and this upon the Ground ofthe Perfection of the Scrip- 
 cure/Records hereanent, and our Lords Fatehfulnefs. in. the ful Inili^u-v 
 ttO&G&ha. Officers- ar,d .& avcrnaieiik cthis*, Cixuxcii,, J£az» & • 
 
.-> 
 
 T 
 
 
 '# 
 
 //^5 
 
 //-/ 
 
 »