can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing
of that Epistle on which Timothy's supposed Episcopal Power is grounded I do not pretend that my Arguments are Demonstrations as he calls his for the contrary Opinion but they carry with them the greatest probability That that Epistle was written earlier than the Rector pretends whose Arguments I have evinced to be weak and fallacious Tho' if it were written after it doth not prejudice my Argument from Acts 20. 4. In the Fourth Chapter he pretends to prove That Evangelists were fixed Church-Governours that is Bishops His main Argument by which he would Establish this fancy is a begging of the Question he takes it for granted that Timothy was a fixed Evangelist at Ephesus and Titus at Crete That they were Evangelists he cannot deny that they were unfixed I have prov'd in my Remarks on this Chapter I have prov'd Philip also to be no fixed Evangelist and vindicated Eusebius and Chrysostom 5. In the Fifth Chapter he makes a flourish as if he would answer J. O's Plea but leaves the greatest Part untouched and answers only the three first Arguments and that very slatterinly Thus you have a short Idea of his Book in which he discovers little of Argument less of Reading and nothing of Candor Tedious Digressions Nauseous Repetitions and Scornful Reflections on J. O. and the Dissenters make up very near one Third of his Book The Truth of this will appear to any intelligent and impartial Reader I should not have thought it worth while to have Answer'd it but for the clamorous Confidence of some weak People who reckon a Book unanswerable when no Reply is made unto it His Preface being large I must consider the main parts of it in a distinct Chapter and in the following Chapters shall Examine the several Chapters of his Book so as my second will answer to his first and my third to his second and so of the rest He must pardon me if I be more just to him than he has been to the Author of the Plea and if I follow him Paragraph by Paragraph in all that is material and may seem worth Answering throughout his Book For I judge it below a Scholar and a Man of Ingenuity to pick quarrels with a few Passages here and there in a Book and leave the greatest Part unanswer'd as he hath done by J. O. THE Reader may observe the Parallel between our Rector's and Dr. Manwaring 's Political Notions Condemn'd in Parliament 4 Carol. 1628. The Doctor 's Charge drawn up by a Committee of the Commons was this Rush Hist Collect. Vol. 1. p. 585. Edit 1659. 1. He labours to infuse into the Conscience of His Majesty the persuasion of a Power not bounding it self with Laws which K. James of Famous Memory calls in His Speech to the Parliament Tyranny yea Tyranny accompanied with Perjury The Rector goes beyond Manwaring in this Point for he saith That the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution And if a Prince should not give this Assurance the Rector conceives he is not obliged to Govern strictly by the present Law 2. Manwaring is charg'd to endeavour to persuade the Conscience of the Subjects that they are bound to obey Commands illegal The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though Five Hundred Men i. e. a House of Commons at once should forbid us and to this we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should happen to be an Usurper and a Tyrant 3. The third Charge against Manwaring was That he robs the Subjects of the Propriety of their Goods The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though five hundred Men should forbid because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription He complains that the Rights of the People were too much swell'd and affirms That it is one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Privileges 4. Dr. Manwaring brands them that will not lose this Propriety with most scandalous Speech and odious Titles The Rector is very liberal in odious Reflections on my Lord Shaftsbury and others who opposed the Arbitrary Proceedings in the latter end of King Charles II's Reign 5. To the same end not much unlike to Faux and his Fellows saith Mr. R. in the Name of the Committee he seeks to blow up Parliaments and Parliamentary Powers The Rector saith The Prince in effect is the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Usurp and Exercise it You see the Rector Confirms all Dr. Manwaring 's Positions and adds some grosser ones of his own especially that the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace to which he is not obliged This puts me in mind of the Words of a worthy Patriot spoken in Parliament March 22. 1627. upon occasion of Sibthorp and Manwaring 's Sermons * Rush Ibid. P. 503. It is well known saith he the People of this State are under no other Subjection than what they did voluntarily consent to by the Original Contract between King and People and as there are many Prerogatives and Priviledges conferr'd on the King so there are left to the Subject many necessary Liberties and Priviledges as appears by the common Laws and Acts of Parliaments notwithstanding what these two ‖ Sibthorp and Manwaring Sycophants have prated in the Pulpit to the contrary The Commons form'd the Charge against Dr. Manwaring into a Declaration which being Ingross'd and Read was sent to the Lords for their Concurrence Mr. Pym 's Learned Speech at the delivery of the Charge before the Lords is well worth the reading Rush ubi supr p. 595 604. Not long after the Commons proceeded to give Judgment against Dr. Manwaring 1. To be Imprisoned during the Pleasure of the House 2. To be Fined 1000 l. to the King 3. To make such a Submission as the House shall prescribe 4. To be Suspended from his Ministry three Years 5. To be disabled to have any Ecclesiastical Dignity or Secular Office 6. To be disabled to Preach at Court hereafter 7. That his said Book is worthy to be Burnt and that His Majesty may be mov'd to grant a Proclamation to call in the said Books that they may be all burnt in London and both Universities Rush Ibid. p. 605. Mr. Fuller * Church Hist Lib. XI p. 130. saith That much of this Censure was remitted upon his humble Submission at both the Bars in Parliament the Form of which you have in him and in Mr. Rushworth But the King Issued out His Proclamation for the total Suppressing of the Sermons ‖ Rush Ibid. p. 633. I mention these things not to expose the Rector who is secured by several Acts of Grace pass'd since the Publishing of those Sermons but to expose his dangerous Doctrine that overturns the Foundations of our excellent Government THE Contents of the Chapters CHAP. I. THE Dissenters Vindicated in their
judg'd by the Nobles They put us in a worse Condition say the Confederate Nobles then God would have the Pagans to be in when he said Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods We Decree and Enact that from henceforth no Clerk or Lay-Man bring any Cause before the Ordinary or his Delegate except it be that of Heresie Matrimony or Usury That so our Jurisdiction being revived and that they who are enrich'd by our Impoverishment may be reduced to the State of the Primitive Church They conclude in the Words of the Emperor's Letter It was always our Intention to oblige the Clergy of every Order especially the greatest to continue the same in the Faith that they were in the Primitive Church leading an Apostolical Life M. West ad An. 1247. p. 217 218. and imitating the Humility of the Lord Jesus The Civil Dominion of the Clergy was one of the main Grievances of the Bohemians which they would have redress'd in the Council of Basil Fox's Acts and Mon. ad An. 1438. Their Delegates Disputed fifty Days upon this and three other Articles in the Council The Lordly Titles and Dominion of the Clergy were very offensive to several Confessors and Martyrs in this Kingdom before the Reformation That eminent Light of his Age Jo. Wickliff affirm'd Non stat purè Clericum absque Mortali peccato civiliter dominari that it was a Mortal Sin for a Clergy-Man to exercise Civil Dominion My Lord Cobham calls the Possessions and Lordships of Bishops the Venom of the Church Swinderby Wals Hist p. 208. a learned Confessor and Martyr as Mr. Fox thinks hath these Words If Men speaken of worldly Power and Lordships Fox ad Ann. Do. 1413. and Worships with other Vices that reignen therein what Priest that desires and has most hereof in what Degree soever he be he is most Antichrist of all the Priests that ben on Earth John Purvey Fox ad A. D. 1390. a Learned Writer against Popery whom Thomas Walden calls the Library of Lollards and Gloser upon Wickliff saith It is a great Abomination that Bishops Monks and other Prelates Ibid. p. 5.30 Edit 1576. be so great Lords in this World whereas Christ with his Apostles and Disciples never took upon then secular Dominion He adds That all Christians ought to the utmost of their Power and Strength to swear that they will reduce such shavelings to the Humility and Poverty of Christ and his Apostles William Tindal that famous Instrument of Reformation who was burnt in Flanders by the Instigation of the English Monks because he had translated the Scriptures to the English Tongue writes That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing that Bishops should deal in Civil Causes See his Works p. 124. and in p. 140. What Names have they My Lord Bishop my Lord Arch-Bishop if it please your Lordship if it please your Grace The brightness of this Truth hath shined upon some Doctors of the Roman Church in the darkest Times Ocham wrote against the temporal Dominion of the Pope and Prelates Gen. 45. ad An. Dom. 1338. Ad nihilum deducens potestatem Papae Praelatorum in temporali Dominio Acts and Mon. p. 667. as Nauclerus tells us One of the Cardinals in the Council of Basil in a warm Speech for Amedeus Duke of Savoy Candidate for the Popedom hath these Words I have often consented unto their Opinion which said it was expedient that the Temporal Dominions should be divided from the Ecclesiastical Estate For I did think that the Priests should thereby be made more apt to the Divine Ministry The Roman Pagan Priests medled not in Civil Affairs because if they had they must of Necessity either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neglect the Worship of the Gods or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prejudice the Citizens by omitting the Duties owing to the one or the other which would often interfere Plut. Quest Rom. ult The very Light of Nature taught the Heathen that the Service of the Gods and Attendance upon secular Imployments were inconsistent For this Reason the Apostle forbids the Ministers of Jesus Christ especially Bishops To entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life 2 Tim. 2.3 4. I will conclude this Head with a Passage or two out of Mouns Jurieu's Pastoral Letters to the persecuted French Protestants In his first Pastoral Letter Past Let. 1. p. 4 5. he thus animadverts upon The Pastoral Letter of my Lord the Bishop of Meaux These Gentlemen are well advanc'd since the Authors and Founders of Christianity who call'd themselves plainly by their own Names without any other Title than that of Servants of Jesus Christ and Apostles of our Lord. My Lord's St. Peter and St. Paul had forgotten to set the Character of their Grandeur on the Front of their Pastoral Letters or Epistles 'T is not very Edifying to see the marks of Pride and worldly Vanity on the front of a Pastoral Letter He adds a little after Do not suffer your selves to be abused by those that tell you that in some Protestants States the Bishops retain the same Honours The Bishops of England have this to say for themselves that they are Peers of the Realm to which State and Condition the Name and Title of my Lord doth appertain and belong But besides I am perswaded that the wiser of these Gentlemen will willingly sacrifice these Titles which do not suff ciently bespeak the Humility of a Minister of Jesus Christ to a general Reformation in the Church when it shall be receiv'd I hope by this Time the Reader is convinced how impertinently Mr. G. Appeals to the Quakers Pref. p. 4. whom he calls indifferent Persons and honest in this Case because they have quarrell'd not at the Title of Lord only but at that of Master also Jesus Christ and his Apostles the General Council of Chalcedon the Fathers Princes Confessors and Doctors here witnessing against the Lordly Titles and Dominion of Bishops were no Quakers J. O. will not contend for the Title of Master which Mr. G. in Conformity to his indifferent Quaker doth not think fit to give him in his whole Book 3. A third Way saith the Rector is to accuse us of symbolizing with Papists p. 5. I cou'd wish there were no occasion for this Charge Our Disagreement with the Church of England is in those things wherein she agrees with that of Rome and in which both of them disagree with the Practise of the Apostles and the Reformed Churches abroad He tells us out of Euseb Lib. 1. it should have been Lib. 2. c. 16. That Mark constituted Churches in Alexandria that so great a Multitude both of Men and Women there embraced the Christian Faith c. These Churches Mark govern'd and after him Bishop Anianus as is shew'd in these Papers This Quotation he the rather produces because it has been over-look'd of late This
some Ministers create Zamburgius and his two Companions Bishops conferring on them the Power to Ordain Ministers This is sufficient saith he to make a Man doubt J. O's Quotations This Quotation which Mr. G. borrow'd of his Learned Neighbour and Triumphs in as a wonderful discovery of the State of the Waldenses he might have found in J. O's Plea p. 157. quoted out of the History of Bohemia to which he refers his Reader in the Margin of his Book The Rector is a singular Man for answering Books who must be obliged to his Learned Neighbours for a Quotation which any Common Reader cou'd find in the Book which he undertakes to Answer A Man who reads Books with so little Observation may be presum'd to answer them with lèss Judgment The Reader may see the Remarks upon that Story in J. O's Plea which may convince him that the Waldensian Bishops were only the Senior Pastors with whom the Power of Ordination was entrusted for Orders sake as was done here in the late Times of Presbytery and is still both here and in the Foreign Reformed Churches In all Ordinations by Presbyters there is a Moderator or President who is the Chief Manager of the Action for Order's sake but in Conjunction with his Brethren over whom he claims no Jurisdiction or Superiority in Power This was the State of the Waldenses their Bishops were only Nominal and Titular but had no Power over their Brethren They were only for Orders sake the Principal Managers of Ordination This appears 1. Because it was their received Doctrine that all Presbyters are in a State of Parity To this purpose they speak in a certain Confession of their Faith Perr Hist I. 13. Art V. We hold that the Ministers of the Church ought not to have any Superiority over the Clergy Aeneas Silvias who wrote a Book of their Doctrines Inter sacerdotes nullum discrimen Boh. Hist de Vald. Dogm reports this concerning them that they affirm the Roman Bishop to be equal to other Bishops and that between Priests there is no difference The same is affirm'd concerning them by Nauclerus he represents them saying That all Priests are equal Chronog Vol. 2. Gen. 47. and it is not any Superiour Dignity but the Merits of their Conversation that advances some above others This was the constant Doctrine of our English Apostle John Wickliff Vide Hist Arg. ad Ann. Dom 1389. and his Followers as Walsingham Notes in several Places This also was the Doctrine of the Bohemians who were enlighten'd by Wickliff's Books The Taborites in their Confession say That the conferring of Orders only by Bishops Ex consuetudine habertur ecclesiae Lyd. Wald. p. 23. and that they have greater Authority than other Ministers is not from any Faith or Authority of the Scriptures but from the Custom of the Church The Bishops they receiv'd from the Waldenses were made by two of their Titular Bishops Hist of the Persec of Bohem. and some Presbyters which bespeaks them to be no Superiour Order of Ministers for Presbyters cannot make Bishops of the English Species One of the Articles against John Hus the Bohemian Martyr was that he affirm'd That all Priests are of like Power Acts and Mon. in Conc. Constant and that the Reservation of the Casualties the ordering of Bishops and the Consecration of Priests were invented only for Covetousness 2. That they had no real Bishops Superiour to Presbyters is evident from their own Testimony The Papists misrepresented them as some others would do now that they had Bishops to whom they paid a mighty deference This was most false Hist Wald. l. 10. as Perrin evinceth out of their own Writings The Monk Rainerius saith he reports many things touching the Vocation of the Pastors of the Waldenses which never were As that which is imposed upon them that they have one greater Bishop and two Followers which he calls the Elder Sou and the Younger and a Deacon that he laid his Hands on others with Sovereign Authority and sent them whither he thought good like a Pope That they had no such Bishop he proves out of the Book of the Pastors George Maurel and Peter Mascon who give this account of their Discipline The last that are Receiv'd or Ordain'd are to do nothing without the Leave and License of their Seniours Receiv'd or Ordain'd before them as also they that are first ought not to attempt any thing without the Approbation of their Companions to the end that all things might be done amongst us in Order The Reader may note here 1. That the Waldensian Bishops were only the Seniour Pastors 2. That these had no Power over other Ministers 3. That they cou'd not put forth any Act of Government without the Approbation of their Brethren So that the Waldensian Churches were Govern'd by the Common Council of the Presbyters or Pastors 4. All this was for Order's sake I leave it to the Impartial to Judge whether this sort of Government has any thing of the Form of our Episcopal Government These Testimonies are sufficient to satisfie unprejudiced Persons that the Waldenses had no Bishops Superiour to Presbyters but I will add a few more ex abundanti 3. That they had no Bishops in a proper Sense appears by Father Paul's description of them The People of the Valleys were a part of the Waldenses who four hundred Years since * He ends his History with the Year 1563. forsook the Church of Rome and in regard of the Persecutions fled into Polonia Germany Puglia Provence and some of them into the Valleys of Mountsenis Lucerna Angronia Perosa and St. Martin These having always continued in their Separation with certain Ministers of their own whom they called Pastors when the Doctrine of Zuinglius was planted in Geneva did presently unite themselves with those as agreeing with them in Points of Doctrine and principal Rites Hist. of C. of Trent Lib. V. ad A. D. 1559 Thus he Observe in this Quotation 1. He ascribes to the Waldenses certain Ministers not Bishops whom they call'd Pastors If there had been any Superiour Bishops among them so exact an Historian would not have omitted them 2. He saith they agreed in Doctrinos and Rites with those of Geneva 3. They presently united with them by reason of this agreement I hope the Rector will not affirm That the Protestants of Geneva had Bishops no more had the Waldenses who agreed with them in Rites and Doctrines and among other Doctrines in this of the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters and so readily united with them I doubt it will not be so easie to reconcile this Gentleman to the Doctrines and Rites of Geneva To be sure then his Notions of Episcopacy are very different from those of the Anti-Popish Waldenses 4. That they had no Bishops may be further evidenced by their Ordinations here in England which were by Presbyters and not by Bishops Walsingham saith
Vt eorum Presbyteri more Pontiâ—icum novos crearent Presbyteros Hist Arg. p. 339. ad A. D. 1389 That their Presbyters after the manner of Pontifs or Bishops created new Presbyters affirming that every Priest had as great power of binding and loosing and performing all other Ecclesiastical Acts as the Pope himself hath or can give This was not a case of meer necessity for they assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain These Presbyters made by Presbyters were the eminent Witnesses against Anti-christian Usurpations in this Land and many of them Sacrificed their Lives for the Testimony of Jesus Their Ordinations though private by reason of the Iniquity of the Times were many and considerable If they Ordain'd Ministers in K. Rich. II. time as Walsingham saith they did Vbi supra much more under K. Henry IV. and the following Reigns when they could not have Episcopal Ordinations if they had desired them the Bishops being become their mortal Enemies and conspiring their Destruction by the bloody Statute de Haereticis comburendis and Arch-Bishop Arundel's wicked Constitutions In the Year 1401. I find one of their Presbyters burnt at Smithfield Walsingham according to the old Popish Hypothesis that none but Bishops cou'd Ordain calls him Pseudo-Presbyter Hist p. 364 a false Presbyter In the Year 1414. William Cleydon an inveterate Lollard as the Monk calls him made his own Son a Priest In tantam dementiam ruerat ut etiam silium proprium sacerdotem constitueret Hist Arg. p. 390. Act Mon. ad A. D. 1391. It is not to be doubted but he was a Presbyter himself though not Popishly Ordain'd and with the Assistance of others Ordain'd his Son Mr. William Swinderby an Eminent and Learned Confessor in the Sentence which the Bishop of Hereford past upon him is said to pretend himself to be a Priest Had he been Ordain'd by a Bishop he had been a real Priest in the Bishop's account but having no such Ordination he calls him a pretended Priest Mr. W. Thorp went to the Lollards and by them was sent to Preach The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury tells him Ibid ad A. 1407. p. 514 516. That no Bishop would admit him to Preach and that he was not sent or licensed by them They could not submit to Episcopal Ordinations Ibid. without taking unlawful Oaths as Mr. Thorp saith to the Arch-Bishop before whom he proves the Truth of their Mission from the Success of their Ministry in the Conversion of Souls Letters of Licerse from the Bishop were invented here about this time to obstruct the course of the Gospel Since this aforesaid witnessing of God saith he sufficeth to all true Preachers we think that we do not the office of Priesthood if that we leave our Preaching because that we have not or may not have duly Bishops Letters to witness that we are sent of them to Preach John Purvey a Learned Writer against Popery saith in one of his Books That every holy Man who is a Minister of Christ although he be not shaven is a true Priest Ordain'd of God Act Mon. p. 529. although no Mitred Bishop ever lay his Character upon him We read of Four Ministers in the famous Congregation at Hamersham who all died Martyrs for the Truth Tho. Man call'd Dr. Man one of them confessed that he had turn'd 700 People to his Doctrine He was burnt in Smithfield Another of them Tilesworth call'd Dr. Tilsworth was burnt at Amersham The third Rob. Cosin otherwise call'd Dr. Cosin was burnt in Buckingham The fourth was hang'd in the Bishop of Lincoln's Prison The three former were formally declared Hereticks and delivered up to the Secular Power but none of them are own'd for Priests by their Judges or degraded by them which they must have been by the Popish Laws had they been Ordain'd by Bishops before the Secular Arm could reach them One Tho. Arthur who at length Abjured as several others did and yet afterwards died Martyrs about the Year 1531. as he answer'd to some Articles of Wickliff's Doctrine laid to his Charge told the People Good People if I should suffer Persecution for the preaching of the Gospel of God Ib. p. 973. yet there is sâ—ven Thousand more that would preach the Gospel of God as I do now Note here 1. That the Preachers of Wickliff's Doctrine were very numerous here at this time Mr. Arthur affirms them to be 7000 perhaps he puts a definite for an indefinite Number alluding to the 7000 in Israel that had not bow'd down the Knee to Baal It cannot be denied but by 7000 he intends a great number 2. This great number of Ministers must be Ordain'd by Presbyters for the Bishops would send none of them as was observed before They clog'd their Ordinations with such hard conditions as the Conscientious Lollards could not comply with and used all the precautions possible to hinder their Preaching We see here notwithstanding the severe Persecutions against the poor Lollards they grew and increas'd exceedingly as the Israelites in Egypt and had so many Thousands of Faithful and Laborious Ministers who must be Ordain'd by Presbyters the Bishops being their Sworn Enemies and obliged by their Pontifical Oath to extirpate them The Lollards here were a Branch of the old Waldenses as we prov'd before and as may be gathered from that Passage in Rainerius who saith Contra. Wald. c. 4. There is hardly any Country into which this Sect hath not made a shift to creep And being I am upon this Quotation I will observe one thing in Rainerius he saith they were more pernicious to the Church of Rome than any other Sect for three Reasons 1. Because more lasting for some say that it hath been ever since the time of Silvester and others deduce it since the time of the Apostles 2. Because more general there is hardly any Country into which it hath not crept 3. Because all others are abominable to God for the immanity of their Blasphemies but this of the Waldenses only carries with it a great shew of Piety because they live justly before Men and believe truly of God and all the Articles of the Creed only they blaspheme and hate the Roman Church If they are so Ancient as Rainerius seems to confess and had no Bishops as I have prov'd J. O's Assertion That they had no Bishops for 500 Years holds good nay he might have said 1500 Years according to this account of Rainerius I hope I have sufficiently prov'd that the Waldenses had Superiour Bishops for 500 Years last past and Explain'd or rather Vindicated his Learned Neighbour's as he calls it but indeed J. O's Quotation He concludes his Preface with a strong presumption and moral assurance of the uninterrupted Succession of Orders p. 17. It should seem if I understand him that a strong presumption and moral assurance are one and the same with him which most will acknowledge to be very different things Or
to the Errata and expected to find them Corrected there as sight is put for blindness p. 8. but was disappointed Did the Lòrd Jesus leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy The Writers of Politicks say that Oligarchy is the Corruption of Aristocracy Oligarchy saith Burgersdicius is the Disease and Destruction of Aristocracy And he describes it to be the Oppression of the Multitude by a few of the Nobles who exclude their Collegues usurp the Government and trample upon The Laws * Idea Doct. Pol. Cap. 22. §. 10.11 Bodin the Famous Lawyer saith That Oligarchy is a factious Aristocracy or a Seigniory of a very small number of Lords as were the thirty Tyrants of Athens and the Roman Triumviri who oppress'd the Liberty of the People And for this Reason adds he the Ancients have always taken this Word Oligarchy in an evil Part * De Republ II. 6. An Error in Politicks is excusable enough in a Divine but a Man who takes upon him to write Political Sermons and to Publish a Book of Church Government should not blunder about the Common Terms which School-Boys understand I presume he meant Aristocracy for he explains himself that Christ left his Church in the Power of Twelve This also is a mistake for Judas one of the Twelve was gone or going to his own Place It is true Matthias succeeded in his Room but Christ left not his Church in the Power of Twelve exclusive of other Apostles Paul who was not one of the Twelve was not Inferiour to the Chief Apostles 2 Cor. 11.5 and 12.11 Many judge Barnabas an Apostle of equal Authority with the rest He thinks the Church was govern'd after Christ's Ascension by the Apostles in a Parity p. 2. that we easily grant but do not understand the Proof of it For saith he neither did he commit the Power unto the Twelve themselves but was wholly silent therein How then came they by it He adds by Order of Nature one would think One would think the Rector were in a Dream when these Words dropt from him He makes the Apostles to govern the Church by an usurped Power which Christ never committed to them If this be so all their Acts become nullities which overturns the Foundations of Christianity and makes their Episcopal Successors act by an usurped Power You must not admire that he denies the governing Power to Presbyters for the very Apostles had it not from Jesus Christ as he positively speaks He is positive they had it not from Jesus Christ but is not certain how they came by it only he thinks it must by Order of Nature fall to their share He shou'd help us to a New Dictionary to explain his Terms What he means by the Order of Nature is hard to understand If he means by it that the Eldest should be preferr'd as in the Patriarchal Government his Expression is very improper for the Apostolical Power was not founded in natural Generation but in a positive Institution and if the Order of Nature must carry the Power the Eldest Apostle must succeed in the Government which destroys the Parity he allows It seems he over-look'd Mat. 16.19 John 20.21 22 23. Mat. 28.18 19 20. Where Christ commits the Power unto his Apostles We will now proceed to his Scripture Instances of Ordination in which he pretends the Presbyters had no share In some of his Instances Ordination is not concern'd in others Presbyters could not be concern'd because they were not in being in others the Presbyters had a hand as we shall evince notwithstanding his endeavours to exclude them I. His first Instance of Ordination in Acts 1. we are not concern'd in for none ever question'd the Apostles Power of Ordaining before this Gentleman who denies their having a Power from Jesus Christ and where else they could have it is a Mystery which Mr. G. only is concerned to unfold If Matthias was Ordain'd as he saith he was it is an instance of Ordination without Imposition of Hands Dr. Willet infers from it That Imposition of Hands is not of the Essence of Orders * Synop. Pap. Con. 16. q. 2. which Assertion he confirms as the Protestant Doctrine and if so persons may be true Ministers though the Bishops have not laid hands on them II. His next Instance is the Ordination of the Seven Deacons Acts 6. concerning whom he saith P. 3. 4. They were designed to distribute the publick Alms unto the Poor the multitude of Believers chose them the Apostles approv'd them and appointed them over that Business of distributing the publick Charity by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of hands v. 6. whereby also they became Ordained to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments It 's observable here 1. He acknowledges the People's right to chuse Ministers Why then are they deprived of it and no Overtures made towards the Restoring of this Power to them It were a Province worthy of a Convocation instead of laying new Burthens on the multitude of Believers to contribute their Endeavours to have their Ancient Priviledges restored 2. He owns that the Imployment whereunto the Seven Deacons were first design'd was to serve Tables but he adds of his own their Ordination for the Business made them also Ministers But this is a great mistake 1. Because the very Apostles found it too difficult a Province to serve Tables and to attend the Ministry of the Word Act. 6.2 It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables V. 3 4. Wherefore look ye out among you Seven Men whom we may appoint over this Business but we will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word The Ministry of the Word and the Serving of Tables are distinct Offices and inconsistent in the ordinary exercise of them otherwise there were no force in the Apostles reasoning that they must not leave the Word to serve Tables If serving of Tables was a hinderance to the Apostles Ministry would it not be also to that of the Deacons What Absurdity do they put upon the Apostles who would make them say We cannot attend the Ministry of the Word and serve Tables wherefore Brethren choose you among you Seven Men whom we may appoint to do both 2. The occasion of chusing Deacons was the necessity of the Poor whom the Apostles were desirous to have relieved out of the publick Alms and could not do it themselves being taken up with the Ministry of the Word The end of the Institution was to serve Tables Acts 6.3 Pursuant to this end the People chose Seven not to Preach but to serve Tables Pursuant to this choice the Apostles appointed them over that business by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of Hands Acts 6.3 6. Here is not one Syllable of Ordination to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments The end of the Institution Choice and Ordination was to Serve Tables and no other is mentioned 3. Compare
Six Deacons for Stephen the Seventh was Martyred were scattered except the Apostles All were scattered That is all the 120 which made up that Famous Council in Acts 1.15 except the Apostles †Vid. Lighis in loc Lucius of Cyrene who was none of the Seven Deacons was one of those that were sc attered Acts 11.19 20. and 13.1 The Rector wou'd persuade they were only the Six Deacons that were scattered of which Philip Preached in Samaria and he has found the rest in Acts 11.19 We have seen the invalidity of his Four Reasons to prove Deacons to be Ministers of the Word and Sacraments He is apt to believe these Deacons were afterwards called Elders P. 6. as having power to Minister the Word and Sacrament first mentioned Acts 11.30 but it will not follow that they were equal with the Apostles They that are so dispos'd may take Conjectures for Articles of Faith but we have prov'd the Deacons to be very different from Presbyters and if the Church of England did not think them so she wou'd not Ordain them over again to make Presbyters of them Who ever affirm'd Presbyters to be equal with the Apostles Dare he say Bishops were equal with them Ordination at least must be excepted saith the Rector I always thought the Apostles excell'd Presbyters in far greater things than that of Ordination but if you be so good natur'd as to allow the Rector that the Apostles were superiour to Presbyters in point of Ordination and intrusted none but the Bishops with it after their Decease he is even content that a Presbyter should be equal with an Apostle in other respects Though Elders are first mentioned Acts 11.30 they were in being before they are spoken of as the ordinary settled Governours of the Churches Mr. G. proceeds to prove That Presbyters could not Ordain P. 7 8 because Philip the Deacon could not confer the Holy Ghost upon the believing Samaritans the Apostles sent Peter and John who by Prayer and laying on of Hands confer'd the Holy Ghost upon them Acts 8.12 15 17. and thereby Ordain'd them Therefore the Government of the Church and Ordination was lodg'd in the Apostles only or as Supreme 1. He is not sure Ordination was intended there himself owns That some may P. 7 and with reason believe it Confirmation So doth Dr. Hammond and sevcral others and if we understand Confirmation by this miraculous Conferring of the Holy Ghost his Argument is spoil'd 2. If Ordination was intended it no more prejudices Presbyters Power of Ordaining than it doth that of the Bishops for neither can confer those extraordinary Gifts 3. All that had power of Ordination had not power of giving the Holy Ghost Evangelists were trusted with the former but not with the latter Timothy and Titus Ordained but did not give the Holy Ghost He fancies that Simon Magus desired the Ordaining Power v. 19. Give me this Power What Power What Power P. 8. saith the Rector Not Power to labour in the Word and Doctrine and to administer the Holy Sacraments Like enough for Simon Magus as little cared for that as some others who have possess'd themselves of that Power he so much coveted What Power was it I doubt not but you 'l expect some rare Discovery having rais'd our Expectations to a great heighth at length he resolves the Question and tells us it was a Power of conferring that Power i. e. as he explains it That on whomsoever he laid his hands he might be Ordained to the Ministry That is in plain terms he desired to be made a Bishop and to be intrusted with the ordaining power I question whether the Power then was so profitable as it has prov'd since however we are oblig'd to this Gentleman for helping us to so clear a Notion of Simony III. He finds another Ordination in Acts 9.17 p. 8 9. Where it is said That Ananias laid his hand upon Saul this might he to Ordain him for he laid his hands on him not only that he might receive his sight but be also filled with the Holy Ghost But I desire the Reader to observe that according to this Hypothesis Saul was Ordained before he was Baptized He was Ordained as he calls it v. 17. and was Baptized after Ananias had laid his hands on him v. 18. That is he is first made an Apostle then a Christian He makes Ananias but a private Believer or Disciple P. 9. His being call'd a Disciple v. 10. is no evidence of it for the Apostles are so call'd Acts 1.15 How comes he to forget that Dorotheus calls him a Bishop of Damascus This would have something help'd his Hypothesis seeing he was tesolv'd to have him Ordained before he was Baptized e'en let it pass for an Episcopal Ordination But that which spoils all is Paul saith of himself that he was an Apostle not of Men neither by Man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Gal. ◠1 IV. In the next place he considers the Ordination in Acts 13.1 2 3. P. 10. Now there were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers and the Holy Ghost said unto them Separate me Barnabas and Saul J. O. Argued from this Instance that Presbyters have Power to Ordain for the Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 What saith Mr. G. to this even nothing to the purpose Ibid. The Persons here spoken of saith he were Teachers that is ordinary Ministers generally speaking but call'd Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ to Ordain Barnabas and Saul 1. He confounds Prophets and Teachers which are distinguished here and in 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Prophets were extraordinary Teachers ordinary Officers this Gentleman to serve a turn makes them one and the same If this be not to pervert the Scripture I know not what is Luke saith There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers That is if we may believe the Rector Prophets and Prophets for the Teachers were Prophets saith he 2. The Teachers are call'd Prophets saith he They are so call'd by him and not by the Holy Ghost 3. They are called Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ by the Holy Ghost as he thinks How can he prove that the Holy Ghost did speak by Immediate Revelation to the Teachers here The Text speaks nothing of it Dixit spiritus per Prophet as istos Grot. in loc It 's most reasonable to think he signify'd his Mind by one or more of the Prophets to the rest of the Ministers then to fancy he advanced the Teachers into the order of Prophets for the time Had the Revelation been Communicated to all in Common what needed the Evangelist to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets But there were both in Antioch Prophets to whom the Revelation came and
him that can to reconcile these Contradictions V. His next Instance of Ordination is from Acts 14.23 p. 12. The Ordinations mention'd there were by Apostles and not by Presbyters as he saith This Instance makes as little for him as the former because 1. There was good Reason why the Apostles alone shou'd ordain Presbyters in Churches that had no Ministers in them until the Apostles had constituted them Presbyters cou'd not ordain before they were in being He is aware of this Reason and allows these Churches had no Presbyters in them at this Time p. 13. But this saith he was not the Reason for then Philip wou'd have laid Hands on those that were Ordain'd at Samaria The Instance of Philip we considered before If he were a Deacon as he affirms all will own he had no Power of Ordination If an Evangelist as it should seem from Acts 21.8 all will own Evangelists might Ordain But they cou'd not give the extraordinary Gift of the Holy Spirit which was given by the Apostles 2. The Apostles made Elders in every Church with the Suffrages of the People So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Ordain'd Acts 14.23 signifies * Significat hos suffragiis electos esse Erasmus in loc The Multitude of Believers chose the Deacons whom Mr. G. wou'd have to be the same with these Elders before the Apostles Ordain'd them And so they did the two Candidates for the Apostleship Acts 1. Mr. G. allows this Power of the People Now if these Ordinations be presidents unto us as he takes them to be they are but ill follow'd by our Episcopal Ordainers for the Election of the People seldom precedes their Ordinations 3. They Ordain'd Elders in every Church not one but many and why not Bishops also if they had been necessary T is evident there were none at this Time The Apostles left the Churches under the Care or these Elders without Superiour Bishops It will be said these Elders were subject to the Apostles And were not the Bishops subject to the Apostles also I hope none will say they were equal to them How come the Apostles not to Ordain a Bishop in every Church when they themselves made but a short stay with them Acts 14.23 24. They cou'd not personally oversee them all and if Bishops had been necessary in their absence doubtless they wou'd have appointed them It will be said they intended to return to visit them again but when they they took their last leave of them then they appointed Bishops for their Successors This is notoriously false for the Apostle Paul commits the Church of Ephesus to the Government of the Presbyters there when he took his last leave of them intending to see them no more Acts 20.17 25 28. whether he did see them again or no is nothing to the purpose for 't is certain he thought he shou'd see them no more How comes he then not to leave a Superiour Bishop over the Presbyters of Ephesus for his Successor when he was taking his final leave of them No one Instance can be given in all the New Testament of the Apostles ordaining a single Person to succeed them as a fixed Officer in the Government of any one Church when they took their last leave of it When the Apostle left Timothy at Ephesus he intended to come again 1 Tim. 3.14 when Titus had ordain'd Elders in Crete to govern the Churches there the Apostle calls him away Tit. 3.12 His next Act of Church Government which he finds in Acts 15. p. 13. we have considered before None that I know of have argued for Presbyters ordaining from this place as he imagines they might He grants that Elders have a share in the Deliberative and Legislative Part of Church-Government p. 14. But seems loath to trust them with the Executive Power He gives them the greater and more difficult part of Church-Government viz. a Power of making Laws and denies them the easier and less honourable Power of executing those Laws He observes p. 15. The Elders were subordinate to the Apostles Who ever denied it And so were Timothy and Titus his supposed Bishops The Epistles written to them are convincing Evidences of their Subordination to Paul 1 Tim. 1.18 and 4.16 and 6.13 14. 2 Tim. 4.1 9 13. He charges him orders him to bring his Cloak and personally to attend him So he enjoins Titus to attend him Titus 3.12 His Epistles to both are in a stile at least equally Authoritative with that which Bishops use in their Pastoral Letters to their Clergy And therefore all the Reasonings of Mr. G. from the Subordination of Presbyters to the Apostles are impertinent for Timothy and Titus whom he calls Bishops were subordinate to the Apostles So that if Presbyters had no Power of Government no more had Bishops for these were under the Apostles also He saith James was not the Apostle p. 16. but Brother of Christ Paul reckons him among the Apostles Gal. 1.19 Other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lord's Brother Bishop Pearson observes that the Opinion that makes him no Apostle took rise from the Fictitious Writings of Clemens Lect. in Act. Apost p. 58. VI. He sinds an Ordination in Acts 19.6 p. 17. 7. In which Paul only laid his Hands on twelve Persons at Ephesus and not Timothy and Erastus who were with Pául at this Time Acts 19.22 1. It is not said that Timothy and Erastus were with Paul when he laid his Hands on those twelve Men Acts 19.22 doth not prove it for it speaks of Paul's sending them to Macedonia which was about two Years after Acts 19. 10 21 22. 2. But suppose they were Paul laid Hands on those twelve Men to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on them which Timothy and Erastus could not do Act. 19.6 This Power was peculiar to the Apostles Act. 8.17 we do not read that any Prophets or Evangelists were ever entrusted with this Power * Pears Lect. V. in Act. p. 68. much less were ordinary Officers The Case of Ananias was singular and depended on a particular Revelation which is an Evidence that the Power of giving the Holy Ghost was not inherent in him as in the Apostles Acts 9.17 3. If there be any force in this Argument it excludes Bishops as well as Presbyters from the Power of Ordination for neither of them cou'd nor can confer the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost which were given by the Apostles Hands VII He thinks that the Corinthian Elders had no Power of Excommunication p. 17. Paul decreed it saith he and commanded them to Confirm and Publish it 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. 1. If they had no Power why doth the Apostle reprove them for not doing it 1 Cor. 5.2 and enjoyn them to avoid disorderly Walkers ver 13. and to Judge them that are within ver 14. To Judge is to Decree as the Rector expounds it in v. 3.
Christ and his Gospel Note here 1. That the Doctrine which the Rector ridicules in Dr. Owen is the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church of England and of all ancient Authors of Christ's Church 2. That whosoever joyns Works with Faith in the Act of Justifying is an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel and not to be reputed for a Christian Either the Rector hath subscribed the Book of Homilies or he hath not If he hath not he hath no Legal Right to his Benefice being not duly qualify'd according to the Statute which requires all Ecclesiastical Persons to Subscribe the XXXIX Articles on pain of Deprivation whereof the XXXV Article declares That the Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholsome Doctrine and necessary for these times The same Subscription is required by the Canon in this Form Can. 36. I N. N. do willingly ex animo Subscribe to these Three Articles above mention'd and to all things that are contain'd in them The Third Article in the Canon respects the XXXIX Articles of Religion which the Subseriber is to acknowledge to be all agreeable to the Word of God If he hath Subscribed the Articles and consequently the Book of Homilies he hath Subscribed to the Sentence of his own Condemnation viz. That he who joyns Works with Faith in the Office of Justifying is an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel and not to be reputed for a Christian He that is so liberal in passing Sentence on his Neighbours as no true Ministers shou'd review the Sentence he has passed upon himself as no true Christian while he corrupts the Foundation-Doctrine of Justification Thus I have vindicated 1 Tim. 4.14 from the weak and Self-contradicting Exceptions of the Rector The rest of this Chapter is only a recapitulation of his long perplex'd Commentary upon that plain Text. He refers 1 Pet. 5.2 where the Elders are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed the Flock and to take the over-sight of it P. 37. to an Appendix by it self because he knows not in what order of Time to place it Let it be imagin'd saith he for it cannot be proved to be written before it was Decreed throughout the World that one Presbyter shou'd be set over the rest No such Decree can be produced in Scripture nor was there any such Decree made in the Apostolical Times This is a meer Fiction of his own He allows the Elders in 1 Pet. 5. to be Governours P. 38 39. but not Supreme Governours for Christ and Peter was above them Did ever Man more egregiously Trifle who ever affirmed Elders to be Supreme Governours equal to Christ and his Apostles Peter here exhorts the Elders to Feed or Govern the Flock for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies * John 22.16 Rev. 2.27 and to perform the Duties of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 towards them and he does not set one Presbyter over the rest therefore they were to Govern and Oversee the Church in a State of Parity But saith Mr. G. Peter was a Shepherd above them 1. So were all Apostles Prophets and Evangelists above ordinary Presbyters But he cannot shew in all the N. T. that Persons of one and the same Order were set over others of that Order as for Example That any one Apostle was set over the other Apostles or any one Prophet set over the rest of the Prophets or any one Evangelist set over the other Evangelists nor any one ordinary Presbyter set over the other Presbyters Until he has proved this which has not been yet done he does nothing 2. He ascribes unto Peter a large Diocess Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythynia 1 Pet. 1.1 He acknowledges p. 39. That Pastors and Teachers are the lowest rank and degree of Church Officers Eph. 4.11 And if so they are all in a State of Parity for those in the lowest degree cannot be at the same time and in the same respect in a superiour Degree He makes Bishops of a superiour Degree above Pastors and Teachers if so they are either Apostles or Prophets or Evangelists for the N. T. knows no other Church Officers Eph. 4.11 Now Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were extraordinary Officers as the Learned acknowledge which are ceased long ago Therefore the Rector has excluded the Bishops from the Catalogue of N. T. Ministers He doth not find any express Commission given to these Elders P. 41. for exercising the several Supreme Acts of Power and Authority such as he noted in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus 1. Timothy and Titus are no where expresly call'd Bishops but Timothy is expresly call'd an Evangelist He that pleads for an express Commission shou'd produce such an one constituting Timothy and Titus Diocesan Bishops which he 'l never be able to do 2. These Elders are commanded to govern the Flock and to perform the Duties of Bishops and consequently are entrusted with the Episcopal Power Observe the Rector's way of Arguing he wou'd persuade us that Timothy and Titus who are no where called Bishops and one of them expresly call'd an Evangelist were real Bishops and that the Jewish Elders who are bid to govern or feed the Flock and to do the Duties of Bishops have nothing to do with the Episcopal Power In like manner when the Apostle tells the Elders of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops of the Flock to feed or govern the Church of God * Acts 20.17 28. he wou'd persuade us these are no Bishops though the Holy Ghost expresly affirms it and that Timothy who is expresly commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist was Bishop of Ephesus They whom the Holy Ghost Constitutes Bishops must be no Bishops with him and he whom the Holy Ghost declares to be an Evangelist must pass for a Bishop He must pardon us if we believe these express Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures before his ungrounded Assertions CHAP. III. Remarks upon bus Second Chapter of the Government of the Church of Ephesus and Crete The Apostles left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters This Establishment his last divine perpetual Acts 20. Explain'd The Government by Presbyters in parity never alter'd Presbytery a Divine Remedy against Schism Superiour Bishops not the Remedy Timothy no Diocesan Bishop an unfixed Evangelist Of the Asian Angels not so call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels Ignatius his Bishop not Diocesan Titus no Diocesan Bishop Presbyters are Rulers HE undertakes to shew that St. Paul toward the declining part of his Life p. 45. and in his absence from the Churches did not commit the Government to the Presbyterles in Parity but appointed one as Supreme to preside over them in his absence and by consequence to Succeed him when he departed the World This saith he I shall demonstrate he did in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete and by a reasonable Consequence in all his other Churches and the rest of
Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 and we hear no more of him 3. He thinks Titus 1.5 That thou mightest Ordain Elders not rightly Translated it should be That thou mightest appoint and settle Elders in every City This presupposes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining also 1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers for which they feign him a Bishop to wit his Ordaining of Elders This he saith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5 If this Text doth not prove his Ordaining Power no one in that Epistle doth 2. He fancies that assigning unto Presbyters their power and special places was the work of Titus in Crete and that this was after Ordination Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City or particular Church as he himself explains it Act 14.23 and were they not chosen by the Multitude before Ordination as he also confesseth in the case of his Deacon-Presbyters Acts 6. He would do well to tell us What new power was assign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders needed a Licence from their Bishop to impower them to Preach after Ordination as the Canon requires †Can. 36. Paul says he entrusts him with the charge of seeing unto the Qualifications of Elders P. 65. v. 6 7 8 9. The same though more compendious than those in 1 Tim. 3. 1. All that he might do as an Evangelist or the Apostle's Delegate as the Bishop's Chaplain or Arch-Deacon examine the Candidates for the Ministry with us 2. He wisely overlooks the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters which is asserted in both the places he Quotes Titus 1.5 6 7 8. Ordain Elders if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless The Reason were Incogent if Elder and Bishop were not the same The Qualification of Elders here are the same with those of a Bishop in 1 Tim. 3. as he confesseth Bishops and Presbyters were the same not only at first but even at this time when these Epistles were Written to Timothy and Titus which makes it evident they were Evangelists Superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 and not Bishops in a proper Sense who are one and the same with Presbyters He will not be able to give one Instance in all the New Testament of any one ordinary Minister or Elder that was made Superiour to his Brethren of the same Order with him Nor of any extraordinary Officer that was made Superiour to others of the same kind One Apostle was not made Superiour to another Apostle nor one Prophet to another Prophet nor one Evangelist to another Evangelist though the Apostles were above the Prophets and the Prophets above the Evangelists and all the Three were Superiour to the Presbyters but no one Presbyter is made Superiour in degree much less a Ruler over another Presbyter The Apostle impowers him says he Cap. 1.11 to stop the Mouths or Silence false Teachers to rebuke them sharply v. 13. that is v. 10. the Vnruly or Non-conformists c. 1. The Apostle Explains his Meaning about stopping the Mouths of false Teachers in v. 9. That he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince Gainsayers He speaks of the Presbyters ordain'd by Titus that they must be able to convince Gainsayers and so to stop their mouths Even private Persons are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stop the mouths or put to silence the ignorance of foolish men 1 Pet. 2.15 2. But suppose it be meant of an Authoritative Silencing of such it is no more than what Titus might do as an Evangelist and the Apostles Delegate 3. The Rector shews his good will to have the Nonconformists silenced but it 's well that cursed Cows have short Horns 4. The Nonconformists or uaruly Persons the Apostle speaks of were a sort of Judaizing Christians that retain'd the Legal Ceremonies and the Commandments of Men T it 1.10 13. They were not content with the Simplicity and Plainness of Gospel-Institutions but would super-add their own Inventions and impose them upon others These were the Nonconformists that would not conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel nor leave others in the quiet possession of Gospel-Priviledges unless they submitted to their Impositions Acts 15.2 Gal. 4.9 10. and 5.1 2 Col 2.20 23. Grotius gives another Character by which these Nonconformists may be known He saith That the Apostle pointed at those who taught that all Israelites had a part in the World to come * Grot. in Tit. 1.10 Not unlike some People who affirm all to be saved ‖ Vid. Com. Prayer Burial Dead that have the happiness to die in their Communion and do not lay violent Hands upon themselves We are obliged to the Rector for helping us to a right Notion of Nonconformity There are two sorts of Nonconformists Some are so call'd because they do not conform to Unscriptural Impositions these the Text speaks nothing of Others as the Rector well observes may be so call'd because they do not Conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel but impose humane â—nventions as Terms of Communion The latter of these two are the Culpable Nonconformists I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing these lest be be condemned out of his own Mouth Paul instructs him to reject a Heretick p. 66. Tit. 3.10 That he might do as an Evangelist What he transcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete and we have already consider'd Ignatius bis Bishop Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery P. 76. nor any share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles saith our Author 1. The Epistles were directed to Evangelists who were superiour to Presbyters and therefore it was fit the Exhortation should be immediately directed to them 2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters also as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church and doubtless were intended for the use of the Church unto the end of time 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3. The Presbyters are concern'd I hope in the several Directions to Purity Patience Constancy Faithfulness in dispensing the Word c. 1 Tim 6.11 12. 2 Tim. 2.3 4. and 4.1 2 3. 3. It is a very gross mistake that the Presbytery had no share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles Paul ordain'd Bishops there who among other Qualifications must be such as Rul'd well their own Houses that they might take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.4 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17 he mentions Elders that Ruled well and mere worthy of Double Honour He contradicts himself and saith that the Presbyters had some Interest in the Government tho' their Power was subordinate as appears from the Council at Jerusalem P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apostles themselves doubtless then and much more with Timothy and Titus They had no share in the Government and yet they had some Interest in it himself can best reconcile these inconsistent Propositions They were
more of him It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete The Apostle calls Timothy away from Ephesus to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 for the same Reason that he sends for Mark both being profitable to him for the Ministry having none with him but Luke v. 10 11. accordingly Timothy came to him and he promises to send him to Macedonia and not to Ephesus Phil. 2.19 But it should seem he could not go as soon as he intended being made a Prisoner at Rome When he was set at Liberty he accompanied the Apostle to Judea or design'd so to do Heb. 13.23 From all which it appears that they were Evangelists in a proper Sence that is extraordinary and unsettled Church-Officers who assisted the Apostles in their Ministry and were their Messengers to the Churches to establish settle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apostles having Power to ordain Elders and to put forth other Acts of Government as occasion was offer'd All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus which doubtless were the same in other Churches as in Ephesus and Crete for they were Evangelists as much in one Place as in another And the Power of Evangelists was the same in all Places 3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangelists who are succeeded by the Deacons as he thinks as the Prophets are by the Presbyters and the Apostles by the Bishops Evangelists saith he did Evangelize or Preach the Gospel sine Cathedrá without a fixed residence J. O. quoted Eusebius in his Plea P. 18. to the same purpose he saith of the Evangelists Hil. in 4. Eph. That they Preached Christ to Infidels ordain'd Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations To this Mr. G. Answers It was not the proper Work of Evangelists to go up and down Preaching the Gospel Eusebius saith They went far from their Houses did the Work of Evangelists and diligently Preach'd Christ to such as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels ordain'd other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations I have proved out of Paul's Epistles they were unsettled Officers and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Gospel and Eusebius affirms they did so But saith he Eusebius writes L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangelist being Dead Annianus so he writes it for Anianus enter'd upon the Administration of the Church of Alexandria hence he infers That Mark was a resident Evangelist not roving up and down 1. He may as well say that Peter was a resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome * Eccl. Hist III. 2.4 2. Mark was no resident Evangelist he was a Companion of Peter and Paul and travell'd with them up and down and was sent by them to several Churches in Acts 12.25 we find him with Paul and Barnabas at Perga in Pamphylia he left them and went to Jerusalem Acts 13.13 he afterwards for some time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places Acts 15.39 We find him after that with Timothy or not far from him and sent for by Paul to assist him in the Ministry 2 Tim. 4.11 when he was Prisoner at Rome We find him there with Paul Philem. 24. from whence he sends him to Coloss Col. 4.10 When Peter wrote his first Epistle Mark was with him at Babylon 1 Pet. 5.13 and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a resident Evangelist 3. Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion †Lib. 2. Cap. 14.15 and adds They say he first passed over into Egypt and Preach'd there the Gospel which he had written and planted the first Churches in Alexandria Perhaps he might End his Days here in setling this Church as all the Evangelists and Apostles must end their Days in some place or other and in the Service of some Church but this could not make either Apostles or Evangelists resident Officers J. O. had said P. 119. that Chrysostom agreed with Eusebius that Evangelists were unfixed Church-Officers The Rector here exclaims against J. O's insincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He further Notes out of Chrysostom that Timothy and Titus were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 employ'd in one Place that is were resident Evangelists and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chrysostom in both Vniversities and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Design and want of Sincerity St. Chrysostom then must be acknowledg'd saith he on my side and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and resident Church-Rulers and that Timothy and Titus were so 1. Here is a very severe Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Transcriber of J. O's Copy who put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was overlook'd in the Errata I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has examin'd J. O's other Quotations it 's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains some hundreds of Quotations 2. J. O. did not leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out to serve his Cause Chrysost in Epist. Edit Donat. Veron P. 163. as Mr. G. falsly affirms but he transcribed the Passage as he sound it in the Edition which he had by him which has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. J. O's notion of Evangelists that they were unsettled Church-Officers needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimonies to confirm it for the History of the Apostles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul make it evident that they were such and Mr. G. himself cannot deny but there were Itinerant Evangelists as he calls them P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists J. O 's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scriptures and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysostom Especially 4. Having Chrysostom of his side without that Alteration Thus he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he gave Thirdly Evangelists who did not go about every where but Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquilla Pastors and Teachers were those to whose Care the the People were wholly committed What then were the Pastors and Teachers Inferiour Yes they who were resident and employ'd only in one Place as Timothy and Titus were altogether Inferiour to those that went about and Evangeliz'd He speaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Gospels In this Passage Note Chrysostom does not deny but Evangelists did go about he only saith they did not go about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did they moved
in a narrower Orb than the Apostles whose Messengers and Ministers they were and by whose appointment their Motions were guided and limitted That this is Chrysostoms meaning appears 1. From the Instance of Aquila and Priscilla which he gives these are Evangelists with Chrysostom Now these did remove from one Place to another from Rome to Corinth this remove was occasion'd by an Edict of Claudius Acts 18.1 2. some time after they removed with Paul to Ephesus ver 18. doubtless by Pauls appointment as other Evangelists did Thus we see Chrysostom's Evangelists did go up and down but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where at their own Pleasure as the Apostles did who had no Superiours to direct their Motions but the Evangelists removed under the Conduct of the Apostles The Apostles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit and went about every where whither the Spirit guided them The Evangelists were under the Conduct of the Apostles and went about also but only to such Places and Services as the Apostles directed them Priscilla a Woman is an Evangelist in Chrysostom * See Acts 18.22 I hope Mr. G. will not make a settled Church Officer that is a Bishop of her for an Evangelist and a Bishop is the same with him Chrysostom here seems to confess that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Christianity to the Women to whom the Men had not access in the Eastern Countries The same is affirm'd by Clement of Alexandria who thinks the Sisters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5 Ministred unto the Women who kept at home by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women without Reprehension or evil Suspicion * Clem. Alex Strom. III. vid. Constit Apost III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi Epiph. haer 79. 2. Chrysostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists but among the Pastors or fixed Officers whom he makes Inferiour to those that went up and down and Evangeliz'd i. e. The Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Donas Veron He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Pastors according to the received Opinion of his Age But he rightly distinguisheth between Evangelists and Pastors and makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Evangelists to be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or these that went about Preaching the Gospel Thus after all the Noise and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made its evident that Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius in his Notion of Evangelists Their calling Timothy and Titus Bishops doth not affect us who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture that they were Evangelists and not Diocesan Bishops Eusebius saith only Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and he ingeniously acknowledges that they had no certainty who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches planted by them those only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epistles It is fit therefore we shou'd be determin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Testament It s well observ'd by the Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that call'd Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon This was four hundred Years after in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after setled there no doubt they would begin the Succession with Timothy because of his Imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout He adds that this was not the Act of the Council but of a single Person delivering his Private Opinion in it and that by the by too and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council for saying that the Bishops of Ephesus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place See more in that Learned Author who judiciously Confutes their Opinion who make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302 303. The Fathers call the Apostles Bishops which all grant they were not in a proper Sence Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were both of them Apostles and Bishops at Rome Epiph. haeres xxvii The Fathers therefore when they call Apostles or Apostolical Men Bishops speak in the Language of their time and are not to be taken in a strict Sence Having gone through his Book and discovered the fallacies ot his Reasonings it were needless to take Notice of his last Chapter which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea in which there is scarce any thing which has not been consider'd already Yet for the sake of the more Ignorant Reader I will make some short replies to his Answers CHAP. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Tower of Government 1. J. O's First Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. The Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 Consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar Explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Br. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's Second and Third Argument for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Presbyters succeed the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect HE Charges J. O. with reflecting on Episcopal Ordination P. 122. but gives no Instance of any such Reflection which doubtless he would have done if he had been able Let this pass among his other Calumnies His Crambe about Jerom and Ignatius has been consider'd before P. 123. It were endless to tire my Reader and my self with nauseous Repetitions as often as this Author gives occasion He falls foully upon J. O. for saying that Parish-Priests have no Power of Discipline P. 125 126. which I have proved They have Power of Discipline saith he because all the Canons or Laws of the Church are made by the Priests of the Church of England as well as by the Bishops 1. Their Executive Power is the same with their Legislative Power that is none at all The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be Confirmed in Parliament 2. Hath every Parish-Priest a power of making Church-Laws If not this Instance is impertinently brought in to prove that the Parish-Priests have Power of Discipline If it be said they make Laws by their Representatives so do the People of England by their Representatives in Parliament Doth it follow therefore that every Free-holder hath the Power of Governing Though the Truth is the Convocation is not a Just Representative of the Clergy For in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury there are but 44 Clerks representing the Clergy the Bishops Deans Prebendaries and Arch-Deacons make up 122. The Arch-Deacons who are the Bishops Creatures as being chosen solely by them are 10 in Number more than the Clerks so that the Clerks are little more than Cyphers in Convocation there are enough in the lower House to out-vote them besides an
Presbyterians Ruling Elder whom he vindicates by his kind Paraphrase Had this Gentleman been retain'd by them he could not better have pleaded their Cause And although the Elders P. 130. proceeds he received a Commission from St. Paul and Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. will it thence follow that there was none to Over-rule them Or does it hence appear That these Elders had Power to Ordain 1. It hence follows they were real Bishops as he has confessed and if Ordination be a Branch of Episcopal Power as he saith it is these Elders had Power to Ordain 2. It hence follows that these Presbyters were the Supream Ordinary Church-Rulers if Bishops be such The extraordinary Superiour Rulers were Temporary He dare almost Swear it Ibid. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies not the Ordaining Power Verily saith he If this be so every Believer hath the same Power for they are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishops or as we Translate it to look diligently lest any Man fail of the Grace of God Heb. 12.15 Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock as the Pastors of it If they be not this Allegation is impertinent He saith the ordinary Elders had not the Supreme Authority over the Churches Ibid. after the time we have Assign'd nor did they ever Ordain Elders This implies That the Ordinary Elders had the Supreme Authority before the time he assign'd and it is certain the Elders of Ephesus had it in Acts 20.28 He cannot prove they were ever depriv'd of it We have prov'd that they had the Supream Authority after the Writing of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus We have also prov'd out of Acts 13.1 2. and 1 Tim. 4.14 That ordinary Elders did Ordain and have Vindicated those Texts from his corrupt Glosses J. O. observed that the Apostles does not mention Superiour Bishops in his Catalogue of Gospel-Ministers Ibid. Eph. 4.11 Mr. G. Assigns this for a Reason Bishops as a distinct Species of Church-Officers were not as yet established The Itenerant or unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for ' em 1. Here is a fair Confession there were no Bishops in the Christian Churches when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written which was in Paul's First Bonds at Rome We have prov'd that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before his First Bonds and so Timothy could be no Bishop of Ephesus 2. The Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters Acts 20.28 without either Evangelist or Apostle to over-see them that we read of The Apostle commits the Flock wholly and solely to them when he parted with them having no thoughts of ever seeing them again v. 25. 3. He grants that Evangelists were unfix'd Officers under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders as such Timothy and Titus might Ordain Elders in Ephesus and Crete as unfix'd Evangelists for such they were after the Epistles written to them 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Tit. 3.12 2 Tim. 4.10 Therefore those Epistles do not make them fixed Governours as he supposeth J. O. took notice that the Papists urge the Instances of Timothy and Titus for Superiour Bishops against the Protestants and that the Bishops best Arguments have been dextrously manag'd against the whole Reformation What can the Rector say to this Matter of Fact is so plain that he cannot deny it and therefore endeavours to palliate it as well as he can J. O. says he in this very Book has made use of the Popish School-Men P. 131. p. 55. 107. and therefore I cannot avoid taxing him with great Insincerity and Partiality The Rector's Invention runs low that he can find nothing but the old dull thred-bare charge of Insincerity which we have had over and over But the comfort of it is his Tongue is no Slander All the difference between J. O's Arguments out of the Popish Doctors and Mr. G's Arguments out of them is this 1. He treads in their Steps without once naming them J. O. names them all along when he makes use of them 2. J. O. Quotes the Popish Doctors against themselves and for the Reformed Churches who most of them have no Bishops and all will allow that the Testimony of an Adversary is good against himself Mr. G. improves their Arguments against the Reformed Churches whom they and he condemn as no Churches for want of Ordaining Bishops The Rector is too cunning to deliver thc Conclusion in express Words but he lays down and endeavours to establish those Premisses that necessarily infer this conclusion That Popish Ordinations are valid and that all the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches except those in England and Ireland by Bishops are a Nullity This is the design of his Book in which he pretends to prove That no ordinary Presbyter hath Power to Ordain and that no Instance can be given in all the New Testament of any Ordaining Presbyter and that Bishops are Superiour to Presbyters by a Divine Right The Truth is the Performance is as weak as the Undertaking is bold I leave it to the Reader to Judge who is to be charged with Insincerity one that Defends the Reformed Churches against the Popish Writers tho' he quotes them sometimes against themselves or one who under the Name of a Protestant joyns with the Popish Church and Doctors in destroying the Ministry of the greatest part of the Protestant Reformed Churches Since we like not Popish Arguments P. 132. one thing he will be bold to tell J. O. that he will here meet with an Argument borrowed from Bishop Pearson which he thinks neither any Papist nor J. O. himself ever thought of before Who so bold as blind Bayard This Man boldly tells us That no Papist ever thought of Bishop Pearson's Argument drawn from the time of Writing the Epistles to Timothy c. I shewed before that the Seminary at Rhemes thought of the Bishop's Argument before he was born The Rector has a great many Qualities that are very singular this among others That when he is remotest from Truth he is then most confident He thinks J. O. never thought of this Argument before His Memory is as defective as his Reading J. O. told him before his Book was talk'd of that he had thought of this Argument and had prepared a Dissertation to Vindicate the Old Chronology Some Gentlemen that were then present may relieve his Memory if need he J. O. Argued that those Words Lay hands suddenly on no Man do not prove the sole Power of Ordination in Timothy To this he answers It ought to be hence concluded that the sole Power of Ordination was in Timothy P. 133. till J. O. can produce a like Commission given to the Presbyters That has been proved from Acts 13.1 2. 1 Tim. 4.14 He adds J. O's Reason is a very pleasant one it may as well follow saith J. O. that the sole Power of Teaching belongs
with Judas 'T is no more impossible saith he that Timothy should leave his first Love Rev. 2.2 than that Judas the Apostle should betray his Master P. 162. We must not think but that some of the Apostles Friends and Disciples made Ship-wrack of the Faith Alexander did so Acts 19.33 And why not Timothy so did Demas The Apostle saith of Timothy There was no Man like-minded Phil. 2.20 22. And that there were Prophecies concerning him that he should War a good Warfare 1 Tim. 1.18 Can any such thing be said of Judas We say Comparisons are odious was there ever a more odious one than to compare one of the most excellent New Testament Saints with the vilest of Hypocrites I will refer him to his own Words if it be not offensive to him to review them Criticks will be busie and advance Paradoxes and who can help it P. 163. Timothy shall be an Apostate-Bishop rather than no Bishop But he thinks to mend the Matter by supposing Timothy might be dead when the Revelation was written because he was an infirm Man 1 Tim. 5.23 and would scarce live to Seventy Years We have known infirm Men that were Temperate to live above Seventy J. O. observ'd that many Chronologers affirm'd that Timothy was alive then This he overlooks J. O. shew'd out of Dr. Lightfoot That the Angel of the Church was a Parish-Bishop in Conformity to the Jewish Synagogues each of which had its Angel or Bishop Our Author here enters the Lists with Dr. Lightfoot not with J. O. He hath not shew'd us saith he P. 164 165. that every Synagogue had a Presbytery Let him consult Dr. Lightf Vol. 1. p. 302. p. 611. Vol. II. p. 133. But the Rulers of the Synagogues adds he P. 165. were subject to the High-Priests and their Presbytery So are the Presbyters to Jesus Christ our great High-Priest and to all Rulers of his appointment He told us above That the High-Priest and Presbytery were the chief Court of Judicature among the Jews and had the highest Jurisdiction And so it had in things Civil and Sacred What is this to Episcopal Power over the Presbyters Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit He remembers Mr. Bois scoffs at the Bishop of L. for Arguing with Dr. Lightfoot P. 166. but does not refer to the place lest we should see what great Reason Mr. B. might have to reject Rabbinical Traditions and what little reason our Author had to charge him with scoffing When Rabbinical Learning is of any advantage we are content to make use of it if against us P. 167 we deride it saith he When it is against the Truth we reject it when there is a Harmony between it and the New Testament we receive it not for Confirmation of Divine Truth but for Illustration Mr. G. cannot deny but the Minister of every Synagogue was call'd the Angel of the Church and Bishop of the Congregation as Dr. Lightfoot hath prov'd Therefore it looks highly rational that the Angels of the Asian Churches should be so called in Allusion to the Ministers of the Synagogue Christian Oratories are call'd Synagogues James 2.2 Our Author cannot deny the Agreement in many things between both But says he The Temple-Worship whereof a great deal was Moral was as much the Pattern of the Christian as was the Synagogue-Worship and if so the Jewish Priest-hood was the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy p. 166. 1. The Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial Worship of the Temple though they perform'd the Moral parts there also The Legal Priests and the Legal Altar were Relates Heb. 7.13 14. and both were Abolished together Heb. 7.12 For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law What Law not that which concern'd the Moral Worship but the Law of Ceremonies to which the Levitical Priesthood was adapted 2. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests * Lightf Vol. II. p. 133 134 135. but none but Priests gave attendance at the Altar Heb. 7.13 Therefore the Ceremonial Worship Temple and Priesthood being Abolished and the Moral Worship which was the only Synagogue-Worship being Transplanted into the Christian Church it follows that the Jewish Priesthood was no Pattern of the Gospel-Ministry But this has been consider'd before J. O's First Instance of Ordination by Presbyters from Acts 13.1 2 3. hath been sufficiently vindicated above Cap. 2. He is in one of his hot Fits again P. 168. and Charges J. O. with insufferable Artifice Fallacy Sophistry c. for saying That if Barnabas was one of the Seventy Disciples as the Ancients affirm he was then was he of the Order of Presbyters according to that Hypothesis that makes Bishops to succeed the Twelve Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples J. O. did not call Barnabas a Presbyter but argued ad bominem He might as well have affirm'd saith he That Matthias another of the Seventy was but a Presbyter who succeeded Judas We read of Matthias his Solemn Call to the Apostleship and that he was Numbred with the Eleven Acts 1.26 but we have not the like account of Barnabas 'T is true he is call'd an Apostle Acts 14.4.14 so are Evangelists sometimes as we proved before Many conceive he was but an Evangelist Paul seems to own no Apostles in a strict Sense but the Twelve and himself 1 Cor. 15.5 7 8. It was the Prerogative of the Apostles to confer the Gifts of the Holy Ghost but we do not find that Barnabas ever confer'd that Gift Though I will not be positive but he might be a real Apostle J. O. Argued That those who have power to Dispense the Gospel to Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper have also Power of Ordination because these are Ordinances not inferiour to Ordination Et parium par est ratio They are not inferiour to Ordination 1. Preaching the Gospel is not inferiour to Ordination The Publishers of it are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 represent the great Prophet of the Church Mat. 5.20 are Workers together with God 2 Cor. 6.1 And is an Ordainer morethan this Baptism is our Solemn Dedication to God Ordination is no more only the former is to Christianity as such the latter to a particular work 2. Baptism is a Sacramental Dedication which Ordination is not 3. In the Lord's Supper the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ Jerom saith of Presbyters Ad quorum preces Corpus Sanguis Christi consicitur Now which is greater to Impose Hands or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Jesus Christ If they have Power to Consecrate Holy Things why not Holy Persons also Thus J. O. who prov'd also that the Ministerial Acts now mention'd are not inferiour to Ordination from 1 Cor. 1.17 Mat. 28.19 20.