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
Tutamen Evangelicum OR A DEFENCE OF Scripture-Ordination Against the EXCEPTIONS of T. G. In a Book Intituled Tentamen Novum Proving That Ordination by Presbyters is Valid Timothy and Titus were no Diocesan Rulers The Presbyters of Ephesus were the Apostles Successors in the Government of that Church and not Timothy The First Epistle to Timothy was Written before the Meeting at Miletus The Ancient Waldenses had no Diocesan Bishops c. By the Author of the Plea for Scripture-Ordination Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum Consecratio reservatur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris Art 28. Doctr. Joh. Wiclef in Conc. Constantiens London Printed for Zachary Whitworth Bookseller in Manchester 1697. THE PREFACE J. O. Published some Years since A Plea for Scripture-Ordination Proving by Scripture and Antiquity That Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is Valid Several Hands were said to be at Work preparing Remarks upon it at length after near Three Years Silence comes forth a sort of Answer by one Mr. T. G. Rector of B. in Lancashire an Author well known in his Countrey by some Prerogative Sermons which he Printed some Years since I. He Fronts his English Book with a Latine Title and calls it Tentamen Novum that is A new Tryal of Skill Here is an implicit Confession of a baffled Cause he dare not trust to the Old Arguments for Episcopacy but is glad to betake himself to New Shifts It 's a desperate Cause that needs new Arts to support it The plain English of Tentamen Novum is this Gentlemen I am very sensible the Cause I Plead for cannot stand on its old Foundations therefore I will make a New Effort and try Whether the lofty Fabrick of Diocesan Episcopacy may not be Supported on the Slender and Nice Foundations of a new Point of Chronology If this fails the Cause is lost However his Title looks a little Modest but a Man of Assurance cannot be long Conceal'd under a Vizard for in the very next Words he calls his Argument a Demonstration For thus his Title-Page runs Tentamen Novum Proving that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Rulers by an Argument drawn frhm the time of St. Paul 's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus and leaving Titus at Crete as it is demonstrated by Bishop Pearson A Doubtful Attempt and a Consident Demonstration are something inconsistent But I have been so kind to him as to Reconcile the Title-Page to the Title of his Book by proving his Supposed Demonstration to be only a Tentamen Novum a new and fruitless Attempt to defend an Un-scriptural Hierarchy This the Reader way find in the Third and Fourth Chapter of this Book II. I desire the Reader to observe That there is but one Chapter Chap. V. in the Rector's Book which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea and in that he briefly touches upon Two or Three of Ten Arguments which J. O. has urged for Ordination by Presbyters This is Tentamen Novum a new way of Answering Books He pretends to Answer J. O's Plea for Scripture-Ordination which is the Running-Title of the whole Book and so would persuade his Reader that he has Answer'd the whole I will not impeach his Candour in this Form of Speech which shews his Skill in a Rhetorical Figure that Substitutes a Part for the whole As if a vain-glorious Captain who had Attack'd a Company or two should say by a Romantick Syneedoche he had beaten an Army III. The Design of his Book is to prove That meer Presbyters have no Inherent Power of Ordination and that all Ordinations by Presbyters are a Nullity This Notion is very singular and I hope has but few Patrons in the Church of England because 1. It Vn-churches all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea who have no Bishops of the English Species and by this Gentleman's Principles no Ministry no Sacraments and consequently no Salvation He owns a true Ministry in the Popish Church and overthrows the Ministry of the Reformed Churches His Neighbours of the Romish Communion are obliged to conn him Thanks for the Service he would have done to their Cause against the Reformed Interest To say Theirs is a Case of Necessity but so is not ours is to triste as J. O. hath prov'd in his Book but Mr. G. wisely passed over that Chapter as if it were not there 2. This uncharitable Hypothesis contradicts the Moderate and Learned Defenders of Episcopacy who generally grant the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters though they judge it irregular where Bishops may be had Mr. Hooker allows the Ordination of Presbyters alone on this Principle That the Church can give them Power for according to him all Power is originally in the whole Body Eccl. Polit. VII p. 37 38. Bishop Downame grants That extraordinarily in case of necessity Presbyters may ordain without Bishops and gives this Reason for the Validity of their Ordination because Imposition of Hands in Confirmation and Reconciliation of Penitents were reserv'd to Bishops as well as Ordination and yet in the absence of Bishops may be done by Presbyters Def. of his Cons Serm. III. 3. P. 69 108. Forbes acknowledges That Jure Divino Presbyters have the Power of Ordaining as well as of I reaching and Baptizing though they must use it under the Bishop's Inspection in those places that have Bishops Iren. p. 164. The same was the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Usher See his Life and Reduct by Dr. Bernard The Arch-Bishop of Spalato speaks to the same purpose De Rep. Eccles in several places He saith That the Presbyterial Order hath always the Keys annexed and that when any is Ordain'd Presbyter the Keys are given him and Jurisdiction with Orders by Divine Right Lib. V. Cap. 12. p. 473. 3. This Hypothesis condemns the very Church of England who in her Articles Composed by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and the Clergy in Convocation and Confirm'd by Parliament 13. Eliz. 12. allows the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea which are by Presbyters Art 23. Those we ought to Judge lawfully Call'd and Sent which be chosen and call'd to this Work by Men who have Publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard * Vid. Rog. in Prop. 5. The Article doth not say None are Lawfully call'd but by Bishops but that Ministers ought to be Call'd by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation which Ordaining Presbyters may have and actually have in the Foreign Reform'd Congregations The Church of England acknowledged Ordinations by Presbyters and look'd upon Superiour Bishops to be but a prudential Constitution of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Book Cap. IX which Mr. G. also prudently overlooks We may presume he hath good Reason for his Omissions The Ordinations of Foreign Churches were not Question'd here before Bishop Laud's time My Lord Bacon complains of it as a new thing and uncommon
in his days Some indiscreet Persons saith he have been told * Forte Leg. Bold in open preaching to use derogatory Speech and Censure of the Churches abroad and that so far as some of our Men as I have heard Ordain'd in Foreign Parts have been pronounced to be no Lawful Ministers †Resusc Part I. P. 137. The Jus Divinum of Episcopacy began to be urged about that time to the great Joy and Advantage of the Popish Party as appears by a Letter to a Popish Peer in Ireland from T. White Dat. Lond. Feb. 12. 1639. in which are these Words We be in a fair way e'er long to Asswage Heresie and her Episcopacy for Exetor 's Book hath done more for the Catholicks than they could have done themselves For having written that Episcopacy in Office and Jurisdiction is absolutely Jure Divino which was the old Quarrel between our Bishops and K. H. VIII during his Heresie then disputed upon which Book doth not a little trouble our Adversaries who declare this Tenent of Exetor 's to be contrary to the Laws of the Land This Letter was found with other Papers at the taking of Droghedah after the Rout of Remines Copia vera ab Origin ut fuit cum Hen. Midens Episcopo The Book which White refers to is Bishop Hall's Divine Right of Episcopacy which was alter'd and put into the Form in which we now have it by Arch-Bishop Laud. Bishop Hall's first Draught call'd Episcopacy an Ancient Holy and Divine Institution the Arch-Bishop directed him to alter it into So Ancient as that it is of Divine Institution Hall defined Episcopacy by being joyn'd with Imparity and Superiority of Jurisdiction Laud directs him to define it by a distinction of Orden Hall grants that the Presbyterian Government may be of use where Episcopacy may not be had Laud tells him this is of dangerous Consequence and that we must not use any mincing Terms nor hamper our selves for fear of speaking plain Truth though it be against Amsterdam or Geneva The Bishop of Exon found good Cause saith my Author * Dr. Heyl. Life of A. Bish Laud p. 400 401 402. to Correct the Obliquity of his Opinion according to the Rules of these Animadversions Bishop Hall's Book being finished the Arch-Bishop read it over with care and diligence In the perusal of which he took notice amongst other things That the strict Superstition of the Sabbatarians was but lightly touch'd at whereas he thought that some smarter Plaister to that Sore might have done no harm He observed also that he had passed by this Point viz. Whether Episcopacy be an Order or a Degree as not material Whereas in the Judgment of such Learned Men as he had consulted it was the main ground of the whole Cause and therefore desir'd him to alter it with his own Pen. But that which gave him most offence was That the Title of Antichrist was positively and determinately bestowed on the Pope which he allow'd not of According to which good advice saith Dr. Heylin the Bishop of Exon qualified some of his Expressions and deleted others ubi supr p. 406. It is remarkable that at the same time that the Divine Right of Episcopacy began to be asserted here the Divine Right of the Christian Sabbath was call'd in question and the Consciencious Observers of it were branded with the odious Name of Sabbatarians At the same time also the old Doctrine of the Church of England That the Pope is Anti-Christ began to be out of request 4. This Hypothesis condemns the late Episcopal Church of Scotland which admitted Ordination by Presbyters to be valid as Dr. Burnet Bishops of Sarum affirms Thus he The Bishops of Scotland never required the Presbyterian Ministers there to take Episcopal Ordination they required them only to come and act with them in Church-Judicatories Even Arch-Bishop Sharp himself when he was to be Consecrated Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews stood out for some time here in England before he would submit to take Priest's Orders No Bishop during my stay in that Kingdom ever did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be Re-ordained * Bishops of Sarum 's Vindie p. 84 85. Lond. 1696 The advancing of an Hypothesis so favourable to the Romish Church so destructive to the Reformed Churches abroad so inconsistent with the Articles of the Church of England which Mr. G. hath subscribed and so contrary to the Practice of the Scottish Bishops and the repeated Declarations of several of our English Bishops may tempt Persons to suspect the design of the Book if not of the Author But we will charitably hope he meant well and in a transport of Zeal which excludes freedom of thought might easily over-look the fatal Consequences of his indigested Principles IV. He tells us a long Story in his Preface of the occasion of his publishing of his Book p. 1. and 2. and complains that his Sermon of the Consecration and Holiness of Churches has not been Answered by the Dissenters and saith he there is good reason for it which I shall not here repeat To repeat a thing not mentioned before is a little improper I confess there is good Reason why that Sermon has not been answered and that is his not Printing it let him Publish it and he shall not long complain That that Controversie is dropt I am a Stranger to that Sermon but I expect he should prove the Consecration and Holiness of Churches by the Scripture for he allows Pref. p. 13. That we ought to be Govern'd by Scripture and to keep close to Scripture-practice I am sure he cannot prove it from the New Testament which is the peculiar Law of Christ and the Rule of Christians It doth not appear that Christ or his Apostles ever Consecrated any Places of Worship Nor can he prove it from the Old Testament By the Ceremonial Law which in the main Branches of it was more Ancient than Moses and expired with the Jewish Temple our publick Churches are so far from being holy that they are unclean because the Dead are buried there He that touched a Grave was unclean by the old Law Num. 19.16 The Jews buried their Dead not in their Temple or Synagogues but in places appropriated to that use which they accounted unclean They buried ordinarily without the Cities Lu. 7.12 * Vid. Ligh vol. II. p. 323. Their Synagogues which answer to our Parish Churches were not Consecrated as the Temple was nor was there any Law for the Consecration of them nor of their Divinity-Schools which they judged more Holy than their Synagogues ‖ Maim in Godw. Moses and Aaron II. 2. Optatus observes That the Donatists began to bury in Churches in his time and adds That it was not Lawful to Bury in the House of God * Ad Parm. lib. 3. p. 36. He seems to refer to a Law of Gratian the Emperor as Baldwin observes in his Annotations on Optatus The purest Ages of
Passage is a little unluckily produced for 1. It over-throws the Notion of the learned Assertors of Episcopacy that a Diocess is the lowest Species of a Church and that particular Congregations are but Oratories and no Churches A Bishop and a Church being Relatives But Eusebius speaks of Churches of Alexandria therefore there must be Bishops of Alexandria not one Bishop and this agreeable enough to the Apostolical Platforms who appointed several Bishops in one City Acts 20.17 28. Phil. 1.1 2. Mark was an Evangelist an extraordinary unfixed Officer Eph. 4.11 1 Pet. 5.13 Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion and an Evangelist Hist 11.14.23 Ibid. 3. Anianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the Ministry of the Church of Alexandria not as a Bishop of a Superior Order to the Presbyters there but as an honourable President in their Assemblies such a Moderator as the Reformed Churches have in their Synods and Assemblies without Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues And that he was no more Cap. to p. 126. 130. J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Plea out of Jerom and Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria where we have a clear Proof of Presbyters Ordaining for almost two hundred Years together The Rector did not judge it adviseable to meddle with J. O's Remarks upon the Church of Alexandria Either he had read that Chapter in J. O's Book or he had not If he had he is inexcusable if not he should read Books before he undertake to answer them Prov. 18.13 He that answereth a Matter before he heareth or understandeth it it is Folly and Shame unto him 4. Moreover so great a Multitude saith the Rector out of Euseb there embraced the Faith c. He suppresseth the rest of the Sentence which is thus that even Philo judg'd it worth while to describe their way of Living Our Author would perswade us by this half Sentence that there were vast numbers of Converts in Alexandria in Mark 's Time but leaves out the rest by a Cunning c. for he knew the invalidity of Euseb's Reason that Philo had described the Christians in Egypt whereas the Truth is he writes of the Essenes and not of the Christians as the Learned have prov'd This I Note only by the by as an Instance of this Gentleman's unfairness in quoting Authors otherwise I am not concern'd in the numbers of the Alexandrian Converts for as they increas'd there and in other Places they multiplied into more Churches who had Pastors assign'd them with Power of Discipline over their respective Flocks In short the instance of the Alexandrian Bishop makes altogether for us for he was but the chief Presbyter as an Arch-Deacon was the chief Deacon chosen and named by the Presbyters without any Consecration and in his room the Presbyters ordain'd another as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea Mr. G. in the next Place shews the Parallel between their Church Goverment and that of the Apostles Our Episcopal Government saith he is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws made and consented unto by the Convocation consisting of Bishops and Presbyters and by the Multitude of Believers that is their Representatives in Parliament And thus it was in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. Let 's a little consider this Paragraph 1. I expected he would have said the Episcopal Government is established upon the Word of God but he ingeniously confesseth the Truth of the Matter that it is established upon certain Canons and Laws of humane devising We conceive the Laws of Christ and the Canons of the Apostles contained in the New Testament sufficient for the Government of the Church 2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jerusalem to be as the Representatives of the People in Parliament Many of our Learned Antiquaries have industriously laboured to search into the Original of Parliaments some conceive they owe their beginning to the Normans some to the Saxons others derive them higher all confess the Rise of them like the Head of Nilus very obscure but this Gentleman by an unparallel'd Felicity of Invention has found them in the Council at Jerusalem Acts 15. where no Body before ever dreamt of them However I am glad to find him speaking any thing in favour of Parliaments for some Years ago when they were out of Request he advanced the Prerogative to that Degree that Parliaments the Bulwarks of the Subjects Liberty were very insignificant things with him I will give a few Instances 1. He would exempt the Clergy from the Power of Parliaments in Point of Taxes We the Clergy saith he are hook'd in Three Sermons of Subjection Pr. 1683 Pref. p. 4. I know not how to Pay Taxes without the consent of the Convocation 2. He will not allow the aggriev'd Subject the benefit of Petitioning and Addressing their Prince especially when he is under some disadvantage 3. He makes the King in Effect the sole Proprietor of our Estates and saith Sermon 1. p. 11 we must supply his Occasions the five hundred at once i. e. a House of Commons should forbid us because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription p. 13. The meaning is this the King has Power to Tax us without the Consent of Parliament 4. He adds and to this i. e. to supply the King without the Consent of Parliament we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should be an Vsurper and a Tyrant p. 13 14 15. Nay saith our Author a Violent and Originally unjust Power by success becomes a Legal and Righteous Authority 5. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much sweld their Properties too much enlarged their Liberties too much extended p. 17. This was in the Year 1683. when the Popish Plot had been stifled sham-Plots set on Foot for the Destruction of the best Patriots the Rights and Franchises of Cities and Corporations undermined and violated Parliaments disgraced Popery and Slavery breaking in irresistibly upon us under the Conduct and Influence of the then Duke of York 6. He affirms that the Prince is accountable to none but God for any misgovernment nay he is in Effect continues he the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Vsurp and Exercise it nor can the Subject conscientiously resist him p. 21. 7. He thinks it 's one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Priviledges 8. p. 22. He conceives the Kings Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which he is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution P. 23. 9. If a Prince should not give this Assurance it is my Judgment saith he he is not obliged to govern strictly by the present Law Ibid. I doubt I have tired the Reader with these Political Maxims Sibthorp and Mainwaring were dull Fellows to this grand Master of Politicks who has left it wholly to his Prince's good Nature whether he will make use of his multitude of Believers
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
Apostle but Apostles Superiour to them Acts 15.2 and so were Prophets and Evangelists But we do not find that they were under the Inspection of one Apostle Prophet or Evangelist more than another but Subject to all and willing to be guided by them as there was occasion 4. Were not the Apostles Heads of the Bishops also This we have proved already The Superiority of the Apostles over the Presbyters doth not in the least diminish their Power as such it was fit they should act under the Inspection of the Apostles who were Infallibly Assisted by the Holy Ghost After a great deal of needless labour to himself and Reader at length he grants P. 25. That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery of which Paul was the principal Head Here you have his own Confession That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is great and will one time or other extort Self-condemning Testimonies out of the Mouths of Adversaries But he adds That Paul was the principal Head of this Presbytery Head is an Ambiguous Word If he means by it Supreme Governour it belongs properly to Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church and Head over all things to it Eph. 1.22 5.23 No Apostle is ever call'd Head much less principal Head either of the Church or of the Presbytery in all the N. Testament It 's a Title the Pope of Rome affects If he means a subordinate Governour as I presume he doth he was no more the Head of this Presbytery than of all other Presbyteries not only in Churches Planted by him but in all others to whom the Spirit guided him His Power was the same in Rome and Coloss where he found Churches Established by others as in Ephesus or Corinth where lie settled Churches himself If the Apostle join'd the Presbytery with him in Ordination as the Rector confesseth he did it is sufficient to demonstrate That Presbyters have an inherent Power of Ordaining The Apostle's being President of the Presbytery makes no more for Bishops than it doth for Presbyters for neither of them pretend to Succeed the Apostles in the extent of Apostolical Power and all Presbyteries have a Moderator or President for Order's sake Upon the whole Matter it 's clear to me P. 27. saith Mr. G. That the Presbytery spoken of 1 Tim. 4.14 includes the Apostle Paul 1. He told us before that Paul was included in the Words by Prophecy now he includes him in the Presbytery Let us see what Sense this Interpretation makes The gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy i. e. Paul and Silas with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery i. e. of Paul and ordinary Ministers The Gift according to this Interpretation was given by the laying on of the Hands of Paul with the laying on of the Hands of Paul risum teneatis 2. The Apostles are distinguished from the Presbytery Acts 15.23 IV. The Fourth thing he hath undertaken is to consider Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Prophecy P. 28. with the laying on of the Hands of the Fresbytery Heace he infers That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets in the presence or witness and with the consent of the Presbyters 1. J. O. Prov'd in his Plea p. 47 48. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously in the N. T. which Mr. G. takes no notice of 2. Himself applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Paul by affirming that he is included in the Presbytery 3. He forgot himself in saying That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets for he own'd p. 25. That he was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is one and the same but Error is inconsistent with it self 4. The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signifies more than their presence witness and consent for the presence witness and consent of the People was requisite as he confesseth but they never laid on Hands in Ordination 5. He makes Paul one of the Presbytery the laying on of his Hands according to this Hypothesis signify'd no more than his Presence and Consent Thus in denying Ordination by Presbyters he destroys Apostolical Ordination and consequently that which is Episcopal He Flurts at the Learned and Judicious Dr. Owen whose Name will live in the Church of God when such Men as he are written in the Dust He disingeniously makes the Dr. to say That we are Justify'd by Faith with good Works P. 29. that Faith is the Instrument whereby Justification is convey'd and good Works wherewith it is conferr'd He shou'd have shew'd the place where Dr. Owen saith so but this he cou'd not do The Words are his own and easily betray the Author though he wou'd fain father them upon the Doctor Dr. Owen saith according to the Scriptures That we are Justisy'd by Faith without Works the Rector makes him to say we are Justisy'd by Faith with Works In the next Lines he contradicts himself and explains the Drs. with Works by without Works for he affirms That the Presbyters contributed no more unto Ordination than good Works in the Drs. Opinion do unto Justification that is nothing at all 1. He told us once That the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signified Ordination P. 25. afterward it signified only Consent P. 28. and here it signifies nothing at all We must crave the help of his Learned Neighbour who communicated a Quotation in J. O's Book to him to reconcile him to himself 2. It seems good Works contribute something to our Justification in the Rector's Opinion he declares himself fully of that Opinion in the next Paragraph and saith He is so far of the Drs. mind that in Justification Faith is the first and chief Instrument of Conveyance This implies That good Works are a secondary and subordinate Cause of Justification I will put this Gentleman in mind of a Passage or two in the Book of Homilies St. Paul declareth nothing here upon the behalf of Man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively Faith And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every Man that is Justify'd but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying so that altho' they be all present together in him that is Justify'd yet they Justifie not all together * Serm. of Salvat Part 1. P. 13. Edit 1673. In the Second Part of the same Homily †P. 15. Ib. we have this remarkable Passage This Faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us this is the strong Rock and Foundation of Christian Relligion this Doctrine all old and ancient Authors of Christ's Church do approve this Doctrine advanceth and fetteth forth the true Glory of Christ and beateth down the vain glory of Man This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted a Christian Man nor for a fetter forth of Christ's Glory but for an Adversary to
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
his Epistle to the Philippians Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 Philem. 1. In like manner he sends for Titus from Crete to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 and afterwards sends him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 Thus we have told him in compliance with his desires out of Sacred History That not only Timothy but Titus also removed the former to Rome the latter to Nicopolis and Dalmatia As to Ecclesiastical History we have little certain concerning Timothy or any other of the Apostle's Survivors and Successors as Eusebius observes * Hist III. 4. He saith of Timothy It is reported he was Bishop of Ephesus But other Historians say He removed from Ephesus and came into Britain and Baptized King Lucius and his Subjects and removed hence to Curie in Germany where he was Bishop and died a Martyr This is reported by grave Authors Nauclerus Petrus de Natalibus Pantaleon de viris Illustrib Germ. c. Nauclerus saith he finds this Recorded in the Legend of St. Thomas the Apostle which agrees with Legend of St. Lucius which is to be found among the Records of the Church of Curie * Chron. Vol. II. Gen. 6. p. 472. I do not pretend to warrant for the Truth of this Account There may be some Truths though intermix'd with Fables even in a Legend Arch-Bishop Vsher that great Antiquary quotes this Story in his Britan. Eccles Primord Cap. 3. It may not be improbable but Timothy might Preach in these Countries if Paul was here as the Rector seems to allow p. 90. For Timothy was his Companion in most of his Travels and Served with him in the Gospel as a Son with the Father Phil. 2.22 J. O. opposed Dr. Whittaker the Learned Cambridge Professor and Maul of Popery to Bellarmine who grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5.19 Against an Elder receive not an Accusation The Dr. saith That to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime which Equals and Inferiors may do The Rector has two or three Pages in Confutation of Dr. Whittaker P. 135 136 137 138. the Sum of which is That if Timothy was only to acquaint the Church with it he was no better than an Informer or Prosecutor He might be an Ecclesiastical Judge though he acted in Conjunction with the Church as Paul did in Excommunicating the Incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. The Doctor doth not deny him to be Superiour to the Elders as he was an Evangelist but shews the invalidity of the Argument drawn from his receiving Accusations J. O. shew'd p. 21. that the Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop and Instanced in Epithetus and the People of Assura to whom Cyprian writes not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He instanceth also in the Clergy and People of Spain who rejected Bisilides and Martialis their Bishops because they had Sacrificed to Idols The Rector wisely over-looks all this and proceeds to another Argument J. O. Asks how comes Paul to promise to come shortly to Ephesus if he had settled a Successor there Mr. G. Answers this is a trifling Objection and makes equally against the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts 20.28 Who ever thought Timothy so absolute as not to be subject to St. Paul When this Gentleman gives a diminutive Epithet to our Arguments understand him by the Rule of Contraries You may perceive by his Uneasiness that he is Gravell'd and would relieve himself by a big Word which may disparage an Argument with unthinking People 1. This trifling Objection as he calls it shews how groundless his Hypothesis is That Paul settled Timothy at Ephesus when he could over-see the Church no longer 2. It shews the weakness of his Reasonings That the Elders had no Episcopal Power because they were subject to the Apostles The Scope of a great part of his Book is to prove that the Presbyters were not Supream Governours because the Apostles were above them See P. 38 39 40 41. He does in the same place affirm Timothy and Titus to be Supream Governours Here he forgets all his former Reasonings and acknowledges Timothy Subject to Paul Either Timothy was no Supreme Governour or Bishop because he was Subject to Paul or the Presbyters of Ephesus might be Supream Governours notwithstanding their Subjection to him 3. What he adds of his visiting his Neighbour Presbyter P. 139. without claiming any Power over him and his Flock is very impertinent for an Apostolical Visitation was something different from a private Visit from one Neighbour to another I hope he will allow it to be as Solemn as any Episcopal Visitation I might return his own Words upon him But such Stuff as this does our Author impose upon his Friends Ibid. and needlessly troubles his Adversaries with but I shall forbear He thinks that the Church of Ephesus consisted of many Congregations though he agree that it consisted not of two hundred or three hundred Parishes or Congregations Ibid. as our Diocesses do Here we have his own Confession That the Modern Diocesses are very different from that of Ephesus and other Ancient Diocesses That there were more Congregations than one he proves from the Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani P. 140. 1. Suppose there were two or three Congregations in Ephesus as the London Ministers conceive there might be more than one what is two or three to two or three hundred It can never be prov'd there were more Christians in Ephesus in Timothy's or if you will in Ignatius his time than are in some of our great Parishes which contains some Ten some Twenty some Thirty Thousand Souls 2. Some of our larger Parishes have several Chapels some three some four some six He knows a Parish in his Neighbourhood * Manchester that has Seven or Eight Will he say that a Rector who has several Curates under him is a Diocesan Bishop I hear the Rector's Parish has four or five Chapels in it He thinks the number of Cities P. 142. or great Towns in Crete was extraordinary because Florus calls it a Noble Island His Proof is a little extraordinary Must every Noble Island have an extraordinary number of Cities Well but to do him a kindness I will tell him the number of the most considerable Cities or Towns in Crete Pliny who lived in Vespasian's time saith there were about Fourty Famous Towns in Crete and the Memory of about Fourty more * Nat. Hist 4.12 But let the Cities of it be more or less it is all one to my Argument We have proved Titus already to be an Evangelist and the number of Cities he was to Ordain Elders in is a Confirmation of it For by his own Confession Crete has had in it at one time Four Arch-Bishops and Twenty one Bishops †P. 142. And now we are upon this Subject let 's see the extent of their Bishopricks He tells us out of Dr. Heylin There were
207 Parishes in Crete which divided between twenty five Bishops there falls but Eight Parishes to the share of each Bishop and an over-plus of 7 25 Parts How different were these from Modern Bishopricks A Bishop may better Over-see Eight or Nine Parishes than Eight or Nine Scores of Parishes J. O. Proved that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could ordinarily meet in one place because that Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily Receiv'd the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time Mr. G. Answers That Ignatius's one Altar signifies not one Numerical P. 143. but one Specifical Altar Then Ignatius's one Bishop must signifie not one Numerical but one Specifical Bishop He thinks there was more than one Numerical Altar because after the Words Alledged by J. O. Ignatius goes on thus Ibid. Let that Eucharist be accounted good and firm which is Celebrated under the Bishop or which he consents to Vnder the Bishop is plainly in his presence and not under his Authority as he explains it as being opposed to his Consent in his absence His consenting that the Presbyters might Administer in his absence doth not prove more than one Altar The Parson of one Parish which hath but one Altar may consent that his Curates may Administer the Eucharist He further proves there were many Altars under Ignatius his Bishop from that Passage Where-ever the Bishop appears there let the People be even as where Jesus Christ is not appears as he falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is the Catholick Church Nothing could have been produced more impertinently than this Passage which shews that the Multitude must be where the Bishop was or appear'd his Appearance must be understood of his personal visible Appearance To talk of an Invisible Appearance is ridiculous And yet you must understand it so saith our Author It is not to be understood of his Person but Authority saith he even as Jesus Christ is with the Catholick Church not in his Person but in his Spiritual Power 1. This is worse and worse Ignatius did not say Where Christ appears as he to serve a Design falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but where Jesus Christ is Ignatius knew Jesus Christ to be Invisible on Earth since his Ascension and that a Bishop was visible and therefore saith where the Bishop appears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and where Christ is 2. To deny Christ to be personally present with his Church is to deny him to be the Second Person in the Trinity I hope he believes the Divinity and Omnipresence of our Lord Jesus Christ though in a Transport of Zeal he forgot the Form of Sound Words The Spiritual Power of Christ doth not exclude his Personal Presence Some Men will talk any thing though never so little to the purpose rather than yield to the Evidence of Truth P. 145. He tells us that the Church of Ephesus took in all Asia the proper because all they that dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus viz. at Ephesus He might as well have said That the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia Pontus and Asia c. for those heard the Word of the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem Acts 2.9 11. He saith J. O. should have Enter'd the Lists with Dr. Maurice P. 146. who Answer'd Mr. B. and Mr. Cl. about the extent of Bishopricks J. O's Subject being Ordination he was not concern'd in Dr. Maurice's Book though he said something occasionally concerning the Extent of Churches from Ignatius and others He complains J. O. hath troubled them with a New Book upon an Old Subject Ibid. without adding any thing considerable to it It seems J. O's Book hath created some trouble to them but what is the trouble Is it that he writes a New Book upon an Old Subject That cannot be it for the Rector hath done so himself If it be a fault to write upon an Old Subject no Man must write at all for there is scarce any thing New under the Sun Or does it trouble him that J. O. hath not added any thing considerable to the Subject that cannot be also except we suppose his own Performance which has little of Addition to what is found in Bellarmine and other Popish Authors to be a Trouble to him I doubt then something else in the Book troubles him He can tell what it is for he had good Reason why he would not Answer a Book which he undertakes to Answer but contents himself with a few slight Remarks upon two or three Chapters and leaves the greatest part of the Book untouch'd I leave it to such as have read other Authors upon the Subject of Ordination by Presbyters to Judge of J. O's performance whether the Subject has receiv'd any Improvement by it He takes a great deal of Pains to prove what no Body denies P. 146 147 148 149. viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Agreement or Unity and not always one place as J. O. render'd it in those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give diligence to Assemble together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more frequently for when ye often come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ign. ad Eph. p. 25. or into one place the Powers of Sathan are destroy'd One would think J. O's Translation very natural for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to one place and so must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows immediately after But it ought not to be so render'd here saith our Author And the Proof is There might have been several Places for Worship at Ephesus p. 148. But he does not prove there were several places I have proved the contrary from the one Altar mention'd in Igna. ad magna p. 34. He thinks Ignatius does not intend one place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 149. because he speaks a little after of the Vnity of their Faith Might they not have Unity of Faith in one place But we have sufficiently prov'd above That Ignatius his Church ordinarily met in one place Dr. Burnet acknowledges there was but one Numerical Altar to one Diocess in Ignatius's time as J. O. quoted him P. 30. Mr. G. passes by the Bishop unsaluted The Learned Mr. Mede confesseth That in those First Times they had but one Altar to a Diocesan Church This he confirms by Instances out of Justin Martyr and out of Cyprian Ep. 40.72 73. De Vnit Eccl. c. Mede of Churches P. 48 49 50. I will not contend with him about the number of Churches built at Constantinople by Constantine the Great but 't is very improbable that they should be two Hundred as he extravagantly talks Socrates mentions but Two Nicephorus speaks of Three Great Temples whereof that of Sophia which he ascribes to Constantine was built by Constantius his Son and was but an Addition to the Temple of Irene He speaks also of Four