CHAP. I. The Doctor 's stating of the Question , Examined : Together with his first Argument taken from the Institution of our Saviour .

BEING about to Examin the Pleadings of this Doctor , for the Divine Right of Episcopacy ; it is necessary , that we first view how he states the Question . All do know that a right Understanding of the State and Terms of the Question , is indispensibly needful for the Decision of any Controversy . To give then , the state of the Question in the Drs. terms , which he represents in a distinct character page 388. He thus exhibits the Claim of both Parties ; having told us , that the Presbyterial and Episcopal , are the two main rival Forms of Church Government , pretending to Divine Institution : The Presbyterian , saith he , is that which is seated in an Equality or Parity of Church Officers : The Episcopal , is that which is placed in a superior Order of Church Officers , called Bishops , to whom the other Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject and subordinat . The Latter of which , he undertaks to prove , to be the true form of Government institut by our Saviour : And that 1. from our Saviours Institution . 2. From the Practice of the Holy Apostles . 3. From the punctual Conformity of the Primitive Church to both . 4. From our Saviours declared Allowance and Approbation of the Primitive Practice in this Matter .

First , As to the State of the Question : I find the Dr. doth pitifully prevaricat and mistake his Measures . 1. In representing Presbyterian Government , as consisting in a parity of Church Officers ; whereas , it is evident , we own & maintain a Beautiful Subordination , both of Officers and Courts in Church Government ; that Parochial Sessions are subordinate to Presbytries ; Presbytries to Provincial Synods ; Synods in a National Church , to National Assemblies : Thus likewise , we hold the Pastors Office , to be above that of the Ruling Elder ; the Ruling Elders Office , above that of the Deacon : Tho upon most solid Grounds , we maintain against Prelatists , an Equality in the Pastoral Office : And that among the New Testament Officers , both Ordinary and Extraordinary , there is a Partity , in their own kind , no Apostle above another , no Evangelist above another ( both which Offices taken in a proper formal Sense , we hold to be expired ) Thus as to Ordinary Officers , no Pastor above another , nor Elder , &c. 2. He represents Episcopal Government , as seated in a Superior Order of Church Officers , called Bishops , to whom the Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject ; but doth not particularly condescend upon the Nature of that Superiority , which in stating the question , should have been premised , and whether he understands it of a Superiority Specifical or Gradual , and in Order or Jurisdiction , or both : However , the Dr. in the strain of his Dispute , gives us to understand , that he takes the Superiority of the Bishop , as importing such an Absolut and Essential Interest in Government , as leaves the Pastor nothing but the Doctrinal Key ; wherein he disowns Two Points of a Concession , owned by many , if not most Episcopalians : ( and in so far discovers the Singularity and Unsoundness of his Pleading ) First , That the Bishop , is no Officer , properly or essentially distinct from the Presbyter , but only an Officer made distinct for order of Government : Thus K. Charles I. in his Conference with Mr. Henderson , who certainly had the Sense and Judgment of all the English Episcopal Doctors , at that time : And the present Bishop of Salisbury , in his last Dialogues , authorized by our Episcopal Church , and published in Defence thereof , in K. Charles II. Reign , 4 th . Conference , pag. 310 , 311. tells us , That he is not clear anent the Notion ( as he calls it ) of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter , and acknowledges the Presbyter , to be of the highest Office in the Church , telling us , That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office : And he gives this Reason of his Judgment , That since the Sacramental Actions , are the highest of Sacred Performances , he cannot but acknowledg , that such as are impowered for them , must be of the highest Office in the Church : And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter , as a meer groundless Notion , and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading . Secondly , Our Scots Episcopalians , and many of the English , plead for such an Episcopal Power , as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters , and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors , in Government , as allows them a Share and Interest therein , and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts , That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government . Let any peruse Bp. Honyman , part 2. Survey of Naph . Bp. Burnet ubi supra , Bp. Lightons Two Letters , in reference to the Case of Accommodation ; yea Bp. Hall himself , in the Defence of his Remonstrance , presented to the Parliament of England , against Smectymnuus , printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident , the Bishop , in that Defence , is so angry at the Word Sole , in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government , that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists , to keep their Sole , for the use of their Shoes . It is then clear , that in the State of the Question , or Ground of this Debate , the Dr. is not one with his Fellows , which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon .

The Divine Right of Episcopacy , See page 388 , 389 , 390 , 391. he endeavours , First , to prove by the Institution of our Saviour : And his great Argument is , That Christ in His Lifetime , institut two Orders of Ministers , viz. That of the Apostles , and the Seventy Disciples , whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles , from this Ground , That they are mentioned a part as Distinct , and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue . Eph: 4.11 . 1 Cor. 12.28 . That the Scripture mentions the Twelve , and the other Disciples distinctly , and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples , and by this Call and Ordination of Christ , separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples ; that the Apostles immediate Successors , were chosen out from the seventy Disciples , for most part : Thus sayes he , Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip Paul at Caesarea ; Clement Peter at Rome , by the Testimony of Dorotheus , Eusebius ; And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius , together with Epiphanius and Ierem , Matthias was one of the Seventy , that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles , to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate , Acts 1.16 . And a Succession saith be , in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person , in whose place another succeeds , and that the person succeeding , had not that Power and Office before his Succession . That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority , he proves from Luk 10.16 . compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face , but shews that such as heard them , did hear him , &c. As also from this , That Ananias one of them , Baptized Paul . Acts 9.18 . Philip , another of them , the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel .

Answer . This Discours and Argument , with reference to the Drs. Scope , with a very ordinary Attention , will appear , to be but a beating of the Air , and to consist of Magisterial Dictates , instead of proof : For First , it is evident , That the generality of all Protestant Divines , and Churches , yea many Episcopalians themselves , do hold that the Office , of Apostles and Evangelists is expired , and died with their Persons , so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession : And indeed the thing it self is evident , and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission , unconfined Inspection , extraordinary Gifts , &c. And that the Evangelists Office , did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate , and did consist in a planetary Motion , to Water where they Planted , and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles , and Commissions from the Apostles 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 Supposition , tho a Subordination were granted ; yet if both Offices are expired , it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers , or essentially distinct Orders , in the Pastoral Office , which is the Point he has to prove . This will be convincingly clear , upon Two Grounds . ( 1. ) That the body of all Protestant Divines , do hold , That neither Apostle nor Evangelist , had any fixed Posts or Charges , and so consequently , the one could not Succeed the other therein , nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them , in this their Function . And ( 2. ) That the Office , as well of the one , as the other , was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church ; the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World , to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein ; and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations , as is above exprest . And therefore , that State and Exigence of the Church , being gone off , so are these Offices , suted thereunto . And among many other Proofs , I would fain know , what he , or any of his Perswasion , will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture , viz. Their Gifts of Tongues , Gifts of Healing , raising the Dead , striking with Death , and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat , as Peter , Ananias and Saphira ; Paul , Elim●s the Sorcerer , &c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office . If sutab●e Gifts be the Badg of an Office , as , to be apt to Teach , is of the Pastoral Office , ( 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 , Extraordinary Gifts & Works , must be the Badg of that Office , which is Extraordinary : So that the Drs. Proof of fixed , standing , distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers , from this Instance , is quite overturned , if the Office , either of the Apostles , or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary .

Next , the weakness of the Drs. Proof , further appears , in that , instead of Proving , he takes for Granted without Proof . First , That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission , from that of the Seventy ; for nothing of his pretended Proofs , give the least shadow of this . The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach , as the Apostles themselves were , and for what appears from Scripture , with the same Authoritative Mission , since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve , and superadded to them , Luk. 9.1 , 2. &c. and 10.1 , 2 , 3. &c. And for the Point of Succession ( of which afterwards ) the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof , of either of these Two . ( 1. ) That there were Successors to the Apostles , in their formal Office of Apostolate . ( 2. ) That these his supposed Successors , were of the number of the Seventy Disciples , for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof , or he says nothing . Again ( in the 3d. place ) Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles ; yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading , that even upon this Supposition , it is utterly lost and ruined , unless he can make it appear , that these Seventy had in their Commission , the Doctrinal Key only , but no interest in the Government , which is his Supposition all along , as to the Pastoral Office . Now , it is evident , beyond contradiction , that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument , amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point , viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government , had both the Keys committed unto them only , and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest , having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them : And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion , viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers , as are called Bishops , in a superior order to Pastors , as specifically distinct from them , intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First , as well as the Power of Order , and nothing at all thereof to the Second , but the Doctrinal Key only .

Before I proceed , See pag. 392. let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection , taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office : His Answer is , That this is a begging of the question , since we allow that Christ institut the Office , but gave no signification , that it was but for a Season . But First , How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question , in supposing , that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification ? He should know that we own , and can make good the contrary : And the current of all Protestant Divines , owning the Apostolick Office , to be extraordinary and expired , must and do by necessary consequence hold , That the Temporary Nature of the Office , hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof , our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation , that the Office was not to Continue , but to Expire with the Persons who carried it . The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet , if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession , which is not ours , but by him falsly imputed to us . Next , the Office it self , in its Nature and End , being , as is said , Temporary ( and owned so , by the Body of all our Divines ) It necessarly follows , that our Lords Institution , terminat upon and relative to the Office , was likewise thus Temporary , and determined to a certain Season : As under the Law , Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances , being to represent Christs Death , the very Nature of the Institution , did determin the Continuance till Christs coming , and offering Himself , and no longer : As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited , did expire at his Death . Nay , our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations , to every Creature , and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church , in actu exercito , both planted and to be planted , to which they had an immediat Relation , and instructing them , with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues , of Miracles , &c. did thus ex natura rei , and from the Nature of the Institution it self , discover His design , as to the transient Office , thus institut , and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church , it was to pass off with the same . Sure , should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction , because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl , or for the continuance of such Gifts , as the Dr. will acknowledg expired , because of our Lords Institution , and giving the Gifts , and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season , and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office ; he would answer , That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self , now comprobat by the Event , discovers the temporary Design thereof , and that it was not to Continue ; and that therefore , there was no need , that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator , in the Institution , or Collation of the Gift : Which Answer , he may bestow for us , upon himself , as to the Point in hand .

Again , to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head , let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles . If he mean a Succession to their Office , in its Nature and Extent , as delineat in Scripture , then he runs himself into gross Absurdities : For , 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut , and that de facto , there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs , with an universal , unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church , to be continued therein , with a Collateral and Equal Power . 2. If he say this ( as he needs must , if he speak to the Point , and consequentialy ) he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors , from among the 70 Disciples , viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas , his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip , St. Paul at Cesarea ; Clement , St. Peter at Rome . For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World , where Churches were planted , or to be planted ; how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem , Cesarea , and Rome ? If their Ministry was confined to these Posts , how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection ? And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office ? To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts , succeeds the Apostolick Office , which was of this universal Extent , makes as good Sense and Harmony , as to say , that the Person , who is installed Dean of Canterburry , succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof , and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat , and his Primacy over England . 3. I would know , whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession , doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances , viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas , with these other Instances of Simeon , Philip and Clement , at Ierusalem , Cesarea , and Rome ? If he do not , then his paralel Argument , as to the Point of Succession , is by his own Confession , like the Legs of the Lame , not equal ; it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances , while the Persons instanced , as succeeding , are not of the same and equal Power and Authority : If he say , That he understands Successors , in the same Apostolick Power ; then I would fain know , how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon , with a fixed Post at Ierusalem , Philip at Cesarea , Clement at Rome , with the Succession of Matthias , in the Apostolick Office , by the Divine Appointment , without the least hint of any fixed Station , but with an universal Inspection , as the other Apostles had .

But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma : If he mean by Successors to the Apostles , a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters , in a certain Precinct , not unto their Office and Authority every way , or with reference either to their Gifts , their immediat Mission , their extensive Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches ( as some Episcopalians , who speak more cautiously than the Dr. do express and limit this Succession ) then it is easy , to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of the Answer , is as much in a Premunire , and that his Answer may be easily broken with a Wedg of his own setting , and that his Adversary may easily pull his Spear out of his Hand and Kill him with it ▪ For , 1. His Answer to those who alledg the Apostolick Office and Power , to be Temporary as suted to the Necessity and Exigence of that Time , and Case of the Church , without intention of deriving it into a Succession , is , First , That this is said without so much as a plausible colour of Reason : p. 392. And if there be no plausible colour of Reason , in denying a Succession to the Apostolick Office , the Dr. in embracing this Answer , is without all colour of Reason . 2. He tells us , That we acknowledg our Saviour institut the Apostolick Office , and that in His Institution He gave no Intimation , that it was but for a Season , and that thus in calling the Apostolick Office such , we presum to make Christs Institutions Temporary , without producing the Intimations of His Will , and that upon this Ground , we may repeal all Institutions of Christianity . &c. But I pray , whether doth not the Dr. in this Answer , make our Lords Institution of the Apostolick Office Temporary , as in its Nature suited to that Exigence of the Time , and Infant State of the Church ? And whether , he is not upon his own Ground , obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords Will hereanent ? And if he cannot produce it , or rather doth hold it clearly intimat in the Nature of the Office it self , then the Dr. must either confess our Exception and Answer to his premised Argument , about a Succession to the Apostles , to be valid and sound , or this his Answer and Evasion to be nought , and that he is therein contradictory to himself , and liable to that Absurdity , wherewith he charges us , viz. Of making temporary , and cassing all our Lords Institutions , and over-ruling the Will of God by arrogant Presumption : Which is the high-flown Imputation , the Dr. puts upon our Answer .

But to bring this Matter to a short Issue , and to strick out the Bottom of his great Notion and Topick . The Power of the Keys , or the Power of Order and Jurisdiction , lying in authoritative Dispensing of Gospel Ordinances , viz. The Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments , together with the appendent Power of Disciplin and Government , which was the substantial & main Piece of the Apostolick Authority and Office , and to be derived in a Succession , as necessary for the Churches Preservation , in all times ; we hold to be seated properly in the Pastoral Office , which succeeds to that of the Apostles , in the respect , and for the end mentioned , and in point of this Authority and Power , we hold , that any Pastor is equal to an Apostle ; which , beside many other Reasons , that might be adduced , appears demonstratively , by this Scripture Ground , viz. That it is evident in Scripture , that the Apostles in the first Constitution of Churches , planted Presbyters or Pastors therein , as the highest Ordinary Officers , to feed with the Word and Government , Acts 14.23 . Tit. 1.5 . with Act. 20.17 . 1 Cor. 5.4 , 12. v. compared with 2 Cor. 2.6 . &c. And not only so , but left these Presbyters or Pastors , as their immediat Successors , committing the whole Government to them , in their last Farewels to the Churches , without the least hint of a Super-institution of any Officers of an higher Order , Act. 20.17.18.28 . 1 Pet. 5.2 , 3 , 4. compared with 1 Thess. 5.12 , 13. &c. Hence it may be thus Argued , These , whom the Apostles placed as Chief , in the first Constitution of the Churches , and left as their immediat Successors , in their last Farewels , which they gave to the Churches , these have no ordinary Officers , superior to them , in the Church , by Divine or Apostolick Warrant : But the Apostles placed first , Presbyters or Pastors , feeding immediatly with the Word , Doctrin and Government , as their proper immediat Successors , and to these they committed the Churches , in their last Farewels : Therefore , the Pastor hath no ordinary superior Officer to him , in Church Government , by Divine or Apostolick Warrant .

Thus , we see the utter Insufficiency of the Drs. Proof , from this Argument , anent the Seventy Disciples , which may save us the labour of pursuing such Advantages , as the Exact and Critical Disputant might have against him , in his way of handling this Argument . It is not clear from his Discourse , whether he place these Seventy Disciples in the Office of Evangelists , or of ordinary Ministers : If he suppose and assert the First , the Strength of his Argument , is sufficiently Refuted , by what is said above : it being palpably absurd , to infer different Degrees of the Pastoral Office , from the Superiority of Apostles to Evangelists . If the Second , the Consequence is as absurd ; the many Prerogatives of Apostles above ordinary Pastors , making such an Inference , palpably ridiculous . His Proof of the Succession of these Seventy to Apostles , in their Office , upon which he founds his Assertion of the Subordination of the one to the other , is drawn from the Succession of Simeon to Iames at Ierusalem ; Philip to Paul at Cesarea ; Clemens to Peter at Rome : In which he palpably falls short , as to two essential Points thereof . 1. He offers no Divine , but an Human Testimony , as to this Matter of Fact , viz. of Dorotheus , Eusebius . 2. He offers no Proof from Scripture , that the Persons instanced , were of those Seventy , mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord sent forth after the Twelve Apostles . That the Apostles were chosen from among the Disciples , or that they are first named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Ephes. 4. is a pitiful hungry Proof : For the Dr. will not say , that the Seventy were not also taken from among the number of Disciples , or that all coming under this general Denomination , were Church Officers . And as to the other point of the Nomination of the Apostles first in the Catalogue of Church Officers , even supposing it will import some special Prerogatives of these Twelve , it is utterly remote from proving either , First , that these Seventy might not have been in the character of Evangelists , and consequently had a correspondent Authority , eo nomine : Or Secondly , That supposing them by their Mission , to have had the same extensive Authority with the Twelve Apostles , that the foresaid Prerogatives of Apostles did enervat this their Authority and Commission , which was immediatly from our Lord , as well as that of the Apostles , and in its Nature and Extent , never retracted or limited , for any thing can be seen in Scripture . For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy , as being in Office , not in Power and Jurisdiction : To which he answers , That the Office including the Power , must import a Superiority in Power . It is , 1. here impertinent to the Purpose and Point , he has to prove : For upon supposition , that both Offices were Extraordinary and Ceast , even admitting a Superiority of Apostles to the Disciples , it will never prove essentially different Degrees in the Pastoral Office , as is said . And 2. Admitting some special Prerogatives , in the Apostolick Office , above that of the Seventy , with a special respect to their Gifts , the Jurisdiction and Power , of both the one and the other , with a general Respect to Church Government , and the great and standing Ends thereof , might notwithstanding be of the same Nature and Extent . It is also 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 Ecclesiastick Officers : Which in general , he cannot but know , that Presbyterians do accord unto , since we hold the Pastoral Office , to be above that of the Elder ; and that of the Elder , above the Deacon : Whereas , the State of the Question , and the Drs. Undertaking therein , is anent a superior Order of Officers called Bishops , to whom the Order of Pastors is subject and subordinat ; or essentially different Functions in the Pastoral Office , or Degrees thereof . Now to prove this special , specifical Subordination instanced , from a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers in general , is to argue , a genere ad speciem affirmative . Est animal ; Ergo est homo . By which Reasoning , our poorest Tyrones in the Logicks , would thus derid their Fellows ( I shall not say the Dr. for good Manners sake ) Es animal ; Ergo es brutum . And so , I dismiss the Drs. first Argument .