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-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
Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a◠desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been
subordinate to the Apostles Acts 15. and so were the Evangelists But can he produce any ordinary Presbyters that were subordinate to others of the same Order Ignatius saith he allows 'em a great stroke in ordering the Affairs of their Churches p. 77. but still in Subjection to their Bishop without whom they could do nothing It does not appear that Ignatius his Bishop could do any thing without his Presbyters no more than they could without him And long after his time the Bishop had no power to determine Church-matters without his Presbyters as appears by that Canon in the Council of Carthage Let the Bishop hear no Mans Cause without the Presence of his Clergy otherwise his Sentence shall be void unless it be confirmed by the presence of his Clergy (1) Concil Cath. IV. Can. 13. Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters and without the Consent of his People (2) Statuerim nil sine Concilio vestro sine consensu Plebis meae privatâ sentemiâ gerere Cypr. Ep. 6. To be sure then the People and their Bishop ordinarily met in one place Ignatius frequently exhorts the People to do nothing without their Bishop Presbyters and Deacons in Conjunction The Bishop and his Presbyters made one Consistory The Bishop saith he presiding in the Place of God and the Presbyters in the Place of the Council of the Apostles (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magn. p. 33. And a◠little after he mentions the Complex Spiritual Crown of the Presbytery who sat round about him in the Church (4) P. 37. Again Let all reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jesus Christ aid the Bishop as Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father and the Presbyters as the Council of God and the Conjunction of the Apostles (5) Ad Tralles p. 48. By these and many other Passages in Ignatius his Epistles it 's evident that the Bishop and Presbyters sat in Council together and were only the Guides of a Parochial Church in which the Bishop did nothing without his Presbyters nor they without him This Agreement of the Bishop and his Presbyters Ignatius compares to the Strings of a Harp and adds That under their joynt Conduct the whole Church made a Chorus a sacred Choire and by their consenting Unity made a Divine Melody (6) Ad Ephes p 19. This is agreeable to what Jerom affirms that the Churth was antiently Governed Communi Concilio Presbyterorum by the Common Council of the Presbyters (7) Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. who had a Moderator or President for Order's sake but without any Jurisdiction over the other Presbyters This Moderator at the first was not so much as chosen but the Honour was devolved in course upon the Senior Presbyter and when he died the next to him succeeded This is expresly arffirm'd by Hilarius the Deacon (8) Vt recedente uno sequens ei succedederet Hil. in Eph. 4. But the Senior Presbyters proving sometimes not so fit for the Place as he adds they changed the Succession by Seniority into that by Election The Presbyters chose the fittest Person to be their Moderator or President as is done in all the Presbyteries of the Reformed Churches This President had no new Ordination had no Power over his Brethren and was but Primus Sacerdos the first Presbyter as Hilary affirms See this Quotation more at large in J. O's Plea p. 136. (9) Mutata este ratio ut non Ordo sed Meritum crearet Episcopum c. In Eph. 4. in 1 Tim. 1.3 Thus it was at Alexandria as Jerom observes ad Evagr. By all which it appears that the Primitive Bishop was not of the same Species with our Modern Bishops and that the Government of the Churches by the Presbyters under their respective Moderators is most agreeable to the Primitive Practice He thinks that he hath sufficiently prov'd that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Governours tho not Bishops in Title ‖ P. 78. I leave it to the Impartial Reader to consider of his Proofs and my Answers As to Timothy and Titus I will add these few things and so conclude this Chapter 1. It is certain there was an Order of Evangelists in the Church Ephes 4.11 This all will acknowledge 2. They were Vnsixed Officers subordinate to the Apostles and sent by them to supply their absence in the Churches planted by them 1 Cor. 3.6 Not as their stated Pastors for they had Pastors and Teachers resident with them but to guide the New Pastors in Faith Worship and Discipline during the present Necessity until the Canon of the New Testament were written for a compleat and infallible Directory unto all Churches unto the end of Time The Apostles themselves could not be every where and the ordinary Ministers would be often at a loss without their Directions Therefore it was necessary they should entrust some Persons as Delegates to go in their names and with full instructions to the Churches to settle direct and establish them Some of these Evangelists generally attended the Apostles that they might be assistant to them Sometimes they send them to one Church sometimes to another to make a shorter or a longer stay as the circumstances of their work required and then to return again to the Apostle that sent them Thus Timothy is sent to Corinth 1 Cor. 16.10 4.17 we find him with Paul again when he writ the second Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.1 at Berea he was with Paul and abode there still with Silas Acts 17.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he did afterwards at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide still but no more as Bishop of Ephesus than of Berea And yet this is the great Argument to prove him Bishop of Ephesus that Paul besought him to abide there It 's true he soon left Berea and followed Paul to Athens Acts 17.15 whose companion he was Nor was he to stay at Ephesus but until Paul came to him 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 And in the second Epistle which was written not long after the first the Apostle calls him away to Rome and sends lychicus another Evangelist to Ephesus 2 Tim. 4.9.12.21 In 1 Thess 1.1 we find him in Athens whence he was sent to Thessalonica and thence returned back to Athens 1 Thes 3.1 2 6. After this he remov'd with Paul to Corinth Acts 18.5 thence he accompanied Paul to Asia and Ephesus Acts 19.1 thence he was sent to Macedonia v. 21 22. But it were tedious to follow him in all his Travels to so many distant places He is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and no one else is expresly so call'd but Philip Acts 21.8 Titus was such another unfixed Officer He was Paul's partner and fellow-helper 2 Cor. 8.23 and seems mostly imploy'd in the Church of Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6.16 7.6.13 Paul expected him at Troas and not finding him he had no rest
upper House of Bishops who have sometimes a considerable Influence in the Election of the very Clerks 3. The Rector may please himself with his Power of making new Laws all the Power we plead for is a Liberty for Parish-Ministers to execute the Laws of Christ in the exclusion of the Scandalous and the admission of such as are duly qualify'd for Gospel-Ordinances The Parish-Ministers or Priests as he calls them and yet is unreasonably angry with us for calling them so have Power to Heprove and Suspend for a Time We had this before in the Preface A Private Person may Reprove they can Suspend from the Lord's Supper for a time i. e. till the next Return of the Carrier or about 14 Days and then they are obliged to deliver up all to the Ordinary with whom the Offender often commutes for his Crime and returns as Impenitent as he went except he repent that he has parted with so much Money When he has made his Peace with the Ordinary or his Commissary or Chancellor the Minister must admit him or be proceeded against himself for disobeying his Superiours Is their any Presilent for this in the Gospel Did Christ or his Apostles Establish this sort of Discipline Mr. G. Challenges J. O. to prove out of Scripture That ever any Ordinary Presbyters did Excommunicate P. 126. We have but few Instances of Excommunication in Scripture but we have proved already That the Corinthian Presbyters and consequently all others had Power to Judge i. e. to decree Excommunicated as the Rector explains it those that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 See Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 2.6 2 Thess 3.6 Can the Rector who so liberally demands Scripture-Proofs give us any Instance of Presbyters Suspending for a Fortnight If he can find no Proof in Scripture That ordinary Presbyters did Suspend at all from the Communion how dare they do it for a Fortnight If he finds by Scripture they may Suspend how dare he condemn our Presbyters for Suspending Persons until they see some evidences of their Repentance But since he calls for Proofs let him shew us some Proof out of Scripture for the Power of Lay-Chancellors to Excommunicate or some Instance of commuting Penance for a Sum of Money I have read in Scripture of the Priests eating up the sin of the People and setting their Heart on their Iniquity Hosh 4 8. The Covetous Priests then got a small share out of the Sacrifices occasioned by the sins of the People Iev 6.26 10.17 but our Commuters ingross the whole Offering to themselves It is odd to hear a Man call for Scripture-Proof who cannot pretend to any Scripture-Proof for abundance of things which they Practice and Impose as Conditions of Communion on Ministers and People Tliis Gentleman has a measure and a measure that is a double measure one for himself and Brethren and another for the Dissenters Were he willing to be determined by the Scripture as he pretends our Controversies would be soon at an end He ignorantly affirms Ibid. That the Presbyterian Bishops as he calls them are at best but the Executioners of the Lay-Elders Will I know but very few of the Congregations call'd Presbyterian that have any Ruling Elders at all and those that have receive them only as Assistants to the Ministers and not as Rulers Superiour to them J. O's First Argument to prove that Presbyters may Ordain is because they are Scripture-Bishops Plea p. 12 13. He proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament times and some Ages after To this Argument the Rector answers 1. He grants they were the same in the New Testament P. 126 127. and were the Ordinary Rulers of the Church but Timothy and Titus were above them Nothing but the brightness of Truth could extort such a Confession from him for 1. If Presbyters and Bishops were the same in the New Testament let him shew us who had Power afterwards to distinguish them 2. If they be the same they have the same Powers Therefore if the Bishop has Power to Ordain so has the Presbyter If the Presbyter has no such Power no more has the Bishop Thus he has kindly Established our Argument but I hope his Episcopal Friends will not impute it to any ill design in him for he is full of good Will to their Cause and it is their own fault that they have chosen no better an Advocate 3. But he hopes to come off by saying that Timothy and Titus were above the Presbyters or Bishops for hereafter you must take them for one and the same Timothy and Titus Evangelists were above the Bishops What then It is as natural to infer thence That Presbyters are above Bishops as that Bishops are above Presbyters Not only Evangelists but Prophets and Apostles were Superiour to Ordinary Ministers But no Example has been yet produced that one Ordinary Minister was Superiour to another Ordinary Minister No instance can be given in the New Testament of any one meer Presbyter that was Superiour to another Presbyter If there must be some Church-Officers called Bishops Superiour to Presbyters because Evangelists were so by the same reason there ought to be some Church-Officers Superiour to Bishops because the Prophets were Superiour to the Evangelists and another sort of Church-Officers Superiour to them also because the Apostles were Superiour to the Prophets He Subscribes to J. O's Assertion P. 128. That there were several Bishops in one Church in the Apostles Days and that those mention'd in Scripture were not of our English Species Therefore by his own Confession English Bishops are not Scripture-Bishops But there was an Order of Church-Officers above these Presbyter-Bishops saith he as we have demonstrated in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus There were no less than three Orders above them that is Apostles Prophets and Evangelists each of them extraordinary Church-Officers Eph. 4.11 design'd for the Planting of the Christian Church as the ordinary Pastora and Teachers were appointed for the propagating of it unto the end of Time The Foundations were to be laid by those extraordinary Church-Officers the Superstructure to be carried on according to the Platform they left us by ordinary Officers J. O. Prov'd out of Justin Martyr and the Syriac Version of the New Testament That Bishop and Presbyter were the same in the Ages after the Apostles P. 13 14. This the Rector prudently overlooks He thus Paraphraseth on 1 Tim. 5.17 They who Rule well P. 129. and also labour in the Word and Doctrine deserve better than they only who Rule well but don't withal labour in the Word and Doctrine Here he supposes that some in the Church may Rule well who don't Labour in the Word and Doctrine But who are these He will not say Bishops for then the Presbyter who Rules well and Labours in the Word and Doctrine is worthy of more Honour than the Bishop that he will not like There remains no other but the
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
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
barely Asserted and not Proved II. He examines the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophecy P. 21. If Timothy was Ordain'd but once then saith he by Prophecy signifies by Prophets the Abstract for the Concrete and these Prophets were Paul and Silas I add saith he the Presbytery here mention'd or Presbyters themselves might have been Prophets too P. 22. and Ordained Timothy according to Prophecy 1. Le ts see how the Words run with this Explication Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophets with the laying on of the Hands of the Prophets Profound Sence He is resolved to make Apostles or Prophets of all that are concern'd in Ordination but the mischief on 't is the Bishops whose Cause he pleads are neither one nor t'other Prophecy with him signifies Prophets and the Presbyters were Prophets so that Timothy was Ordain'd by Prophets with Prophets The Rector has highly obliged the Learned World by this Famous Commentary If you shou'd ask why he degrades Paul an Apostle into an inferiour Order of Prophets I hope it will satisfie you that he hath made amends by exalting inferiour Presbyters into a superiour Order of Prophets One while Paul is an ordinary Minister with him another while a Prophet and sometimes he is content provided he do not stand in the way of his beloved Episcopacy he should be an Apostle 2. The Truth is by Prophecy respects the Prophecies that went before of Timothy 1 Tim. 1.18 It seems they were many if we respect the Persons Prophecying and therefore call'd Prophecies and but one if we consider the thing Prophecied and therefore call'd Prophecy * Est in 1 Tim. 4.14 The Text doth not say who these Prophets were but the Rector a Man of happy Invention hath found them out and assures us they were Paul and Silas III. He lets us see what we are to understand by Presbytery 'T is a Word borrow'd saith he from the Jewish Church P. 23. Moses took the heads of the twelve Tribes to be assistant to him in the Government unto these answer'd the Twelve Apostles but at length God commanded bim to choose Seventy Elders of the People Num. 11.16 It is worth our Remark here 1. That he made Christ and the twelve Apostles to answer unto the High Priest and the inferiour Priests p. 1 2. And he told us it was manifest it was so p. 2. but now by a new Manifestation he tells us the Twelve Apostles answer'd the Heads of the Twelve Tribes 2. Where doth he find that Moses took the Heads of the Twelve Tribes to be his Assistants in the Government before the Seventy Elders were chosen Moses himself gives a different Account he saith he judged the People alone until Jethro his Father in Law advised him to joyn others with him in the Government and that thereupon he chose not Twelve Heads of the several Tribes but Rulers of Thousands Rulers of Hundreds of Fifties and of Tens Ex. 18.13 25. Deut. 1.15 That there were Heads of the Twelve Tribes every body knows but that these were chosen exclusive or others to be Moses his Assistants in the Government is a new discovery which no body knew before We will not envy the Rector the Honour of being the first Discoverer of this Cabbala 3. The Seventy Elders of the People to whom the Presbytery answereth were chosen as himself confesseth to be Assistants to Moses in the Government This instance of his own producing evinceth that Presbyters have Power of Government The Jewish Sanhedrin was the Supream Court of Judicature among the Jews and were entrusted with the Power of Ordaining Elders At first every one that was regularly Ordain'd himself had the Power of Ordaining his Disciples but in the time of Hillel it was resolved that none might Ordain without the presence of the Nasi or President of the Sanhedrn or a License from him * Seld. de Syned II. 7. § 1. If the Presbytery answereth the Sanhedrin as the Rector confesseth it doth the Power of Government and particularly of Ordination belongeth unto it He saith the Jews call'd that Celebrated Council in their own Language P. 24. the Sanedrim but the N. T. and the Greek Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He seems to make Sanhedrin so the Jews write it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not Sanedrin as he doth a Hebrew Word whereas it is the Corruption of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Hebrew Dialect I mention this only by the by to give the Reader a taste of the Learned Rector's Skill in Philology He adds That Moses was Head Ibid. and a part of his Council of Seventy yea that Christ Himself who was also a Prophet lice unto Moses had Twelve Apostles and Seventy Disciples who made up a Presbytery 1. In Acts 22.30 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expresly distinguish'd from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is v. 5. 2. Moses was a Type of Christ and as he was Head of the Council of Seventy so is Christ of the Presbytery It is improperly said that Moses was part of the Seventy for there were Seventy or Seventy Two besides Moses 3. The Seventy Disciples answer'd the Jewish Presbytery with him above but now finding he had yielded too much he Corrects himself and makes the Twelve Apostles part of Christ's Presbytery as he calls it but the N. T. no where calls them so nor doth it appear that ever the Twelve Apostles and Seventy Disciples acted together as one Presbytery Ignatius saith he stiles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 25. the Presbytery of the Church Ignatius calls the Apostles so not the Apostles and Seventy Disciples as he insinuates in a general Sense as they call themselves Presbyters But the New-Testament sufficiently distinguisheth between Apostles and Presbyters properly so call'd but no where distinguisheth between Bishops and Presbyters So likewise if we may believe the Rector every Apostle in his Plantation Ibid. had his Presbytery in the Cities where he had settled Churches as is clear from Acts 15. but that Apostle was head of them 1. Doubtless every Constituted Church had a Presbytery which was the Church's Presbytery and not the Apostles as he calls it His Presbytery is a Form of Expression not known in the New Testament Paul doth not call the Presbytery of any Church his Presbytery 2. What if two Apostles settled a Church in Conjunction as Paul and Barnabas did many whose then was the Presbytery was it divided between both or were they joint heads of the Presbytery or did one resign his right in them to another Perhaps Mr. G. can tell us how the Point was settled without the danger of making two Apostolical Heads of the Presbytery of a Church for that would be a bad President and might warrant the setting up of Two Bishops in one Church 3. The Elders of Jerusalem had not one
in his spirit but took his leave of them and went into Macedonia 2 Cor. 12.13 We find him with Paul at Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 3. and after his being in Crete the Apostle sends for him to Nicopolis Titus 3.12 we find him with Paul at Rome whence he sent him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.12 and we hear no more of him 3. Evangelists were subordinate to the Apostles and superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 They were the Apostles Collegues and Companions and their Authorized Messengers to the Churches to set in order what was wanting in them and to instruct admonish and reprove the Presbyters as there was occasion 4. They had power to Ordain Ministers where there was need of them This appears in Eusebius who saith of them That travelling far from home they perform'd the Office of Evangelists Eccl. Hist. III. 31. and preached Christ to such as heard not of the Faith and delivered unto them the Scriptures of the holy Gospels with great application When they had laid the foundation of Christian Doctrine in certain strange places and ordained other Pastors and committed the new Converts to their Care and Conduct they went into other Countries and Nations attended with the favour and power of God Thus he Timothy and Titus who were both of them Evangelists were entrusted with the power of ordaining We have already proved That ordinary Presbyters have exercised this power much more might Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers 5. Evangelists were Temporary Officers in tho Church and are long since ceas'd as Apostles and Prophets are 6. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists as we have prov'd and therefore no Diocesan Bishops It would be a degrading an extraordinary Officer whose Power was general over all the Churches in Subordination to the Apostles to make an ordinary Officer of him and to confine his Power to one particular Church It 's like the Degrading of the Colonel of a Regiment to be the Captain of a single Company or the Confining of a Diocesan Bishop to a mean Parochial Cure Mr. G. and some Others will own they were Evangelists and Unfixed at first but that the Apostle towards his latter End had made them Bishops and that they were such when he wrote his Epistles to them which was after his first Imprisonment at Rome This he undertakes to prove in his next Chapter CHAP. IV. The First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Assertors of Episcopacy Bishop Hall Dr. Hammond c. Deny'd by the Rhemists Bishop Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 considered Jerom vindicated Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's First Bonds The Second Epistle written in his First Bonds An Objection Answered Acts 20.25 considered ONE and the leading Argument for Timothy 's being Bishop of Ephesus P. 79. saith he is grounded on 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went to Macedonia 1. To abide still doth not imply a continued residence Timothy is said to abide still at Berea where he made but a short stay Acts 17.14 15. This Argument will as soon prove him Bishop of Berea as Bishop of Ephesus 2. His stay there was but short that is until the Apostle came to him 1 Tim. 3.14 and 4.13 Mr. G. himself allows in p. 90. That the Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters under Paul whilst he was vigorous and active and had opportunity to oversee both the Flock and the Elders themselves The Apostle was vigorous and active when he writ this first Epistle to Timothy and he intended shortly to visit the Flock and Elders of Ephesus Therefore by his own Confession Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus when that Epistle was written 3. He was not fixed as Resident at Ephesus for the Apostle afterwards calls him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 21. and sends Tychicus the Evangelist to Ephesus We do not read that Timothy ever return'd to Ephesus again Thus we see the Weakness of his Leading Argument as he calls it by which we may judge of the rest He adds That the Dissenters to avoid the Argument built upon 1 Tim. 1.3 and the rest of the Epistle say That the first Epistle to Timothy was written before the Meeting at Miletus in which the Apostle committed the Flock to the Elders of Ephesus and not to Timothy Acts 20.17 28. Our Argument from Acts 20.17 28. holds good tho' that Epistle should be written after as we have proved already in Cap. 3. 2. It is not the Dissenters only as he unfairly suggests that say that this Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus It 's the general and prevailing Opinion of the greatest part of Chronologers Ancient and Modern the most Learned Asserters of Episcopacy not excepted Bishop Hall is of this Opinion * Vindic p. 97. Div. Right of Episcop Part 2d p. 38. so is Dr. Hammond and Grotius Lud. Capâ—llus Dr. Lightfoot Cary c Gothofredus quotes Athanasius Baronius c. as of the same Opinion The Rhemists were sensible that this Opinion was prejudicial to the Cause of Episcopacy and therefore they say tho' not positively That the first Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome when he was set at Liberty * Rhem. Test. Arg. in 1 Tim. They are follow'd by Bishop Pearson and by Mr. G. only with this difference That the Seminary at Rhemes deliver themselves more modestly than the Rector doth They say it seemeth so the Rector saith He hath demonstrated it One that had not read Bishop Pearson would think the Rector very ingenuous in acknowledging that he is beholden to the Bishop for what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia mentioned in 1 Tim. 1.3 That Miracle of his Time saith he p. 80. meaning Bishop Pearson in his Annales Paulini has given us a plain Account and Proof thereof All that I pretend unto is to build on his Foundation and to enlarge on what that excellent Prelate has demonstrated in a few words Thus the Rector I will not dispute whether the Learned Bishop were the Miracle of his Time if he were Miracles are grown very Common in this last Age for the Bishop had many Equals whose Learned Works are nothing inferiour to his I dare affirm that our Rector is no Miracle in Architecture for he builds very sorrily on the Bishops Foundation Instead of raising a Superstructure he has rather disturbed the Foundation The Learned Bishop discourses distinctly and clearly the Rector confusedly and darkly He refers to Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulini and pretends to enlarge on what the Bishop had demonstrated in few words but takes no notice of the Bishops enlarging on that Argument in his Dissertations whence he borrow'd what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia but would have his Reader believe the Enlargements are his own See Pears Dissert
agreed by the Learned that those who are called the Apostles Fellow-workers and were sent by them as their Messengers to the Churches to supply their Absence were Evangelists This is acknowledg'd by Mr. G. P. 118. where he speaks of Itinerant Evangelists We agree with him P. 113. That Evangelists were in Dignity and Power next to Prophets and above all other Church Officers He proceeds to give us a Description of an Evangelist Ibid. It appears saith he from 2 Tim. 4.5 that an Evangelist was one entrusted by the Apostles with the Government of some Church That Timothy was an Evangelist and that Titus therefore was another Evangelist For it has been demonstrated already Cap. 2. that all the Supream Powers of Ecclesiastical Government were committed to them in their respective Churches The meaning of this Paragraph is that Evangelists are Diocesan Bishops for he makes Timothy the Evangelist that is the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus the Evangelist or Bishop of Crete It is well he owns Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists it is as much as we desire I but Evangelists and Bishops are the same To which I Answer 1. Few or none of his Judicious Brethren will subscribe to this new Notion of Evangelists by which he evidently gives up the whole Cause When he happens now and then to Answer the Title of his Book which is Tentamen Novum by advancing some New Notion he weakly betrays the Cause he pretends strongly to defend 2. He owns Evangelists to be a Species of Church Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers according to Eph. 4.11 and consequently he denies the Diocesan Bishops to be the Pastors of their respective Churches I doubt he has forgot the Prayers of the Church in which the Bishops are call'd the Pastors of the Flock * The Prayer in the Ember Weeks If he say they are both Pastors and Evangelists he confounds those Officers whom the Apostle distinguisheth The Presbyters are the Pastors of the Flock that is the ordinary and settled Rulers of it Acts 17.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Rev. 2.27 Let them have this Power which the Holy Ghost hath given them as the proper Bishops of the Flock and when he hath prov'd Evangelists to be Diocesan Bishops we will readily receive them 3. Dr. Hammond saith that the Pastors not the Evangelists in Eph. 4.11 were the Bishops that govern'd particular Charges 4. I have fully answer'd his Arguments by which he pretends to demonstrate that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete He advances a new Order of Evangelists P. 114. 115. who were the fixed Governours of some Cities and the Countries Adjacent And cannot altogether allow their Notion who say an Evangelist was an unsetled Church-Officer that went from Place to Place to finish the Churches begun by the Apostles and particularly to ordain Elders among them And yet he grants that an Evangelist as Ravanellus expresseth it Ordain'd Elders Oppidatim in every Town or Village 1. He owns that Evangelists might Ordain in every Town and why not in every City Ravanellus explains his Oppidatim by Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City But he wilfully overlooks that for he knew that there were many Cities in Crete and according to the Rule that every City must have a Bishop Titus must be Arch-bishop of Crete And the sole Power of Ordination being in Titus it would naturally follow that none but Arch-bishops can Ordain Andrew Cretentis calls him Arch-bishop and saith he had twelve Bishops under him 2. He cannot altogether allow Evangelists to be unsetled Officers It seems he does in part allow it P. 115. it 's too bright a Truth to be deny'd but he endeavours to obscure it what he can and wou'd fain perswade his Reader that Evangelists were fixed Officers But let 's hear his Proof Philip was a fixed Evangelist because Luke leaves him at Caesarea Acts 8.40 And we find him there almost twenty Years after having a House and a settled Family Acts 21.8 1. When he has prov'd that Philip resided at Caesarea as the settled Bishop of that Church and that he was no where else all those Years he may talk of a fixed Evangelist 2. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Which he may Visit at Times Paul continued two Years at Ephesus Acts 19.10 a Year and a half at Corinth Acts 18.11 two Years in his own hired House at Rome Acts 28.30 was he therefore a settled or fixed Apostle 3. As much as we have of the History of Philip bespeaks him an unsettled Officer We find him in Samaria Acts 8.12 with the Ethiopian Eunuch in the way from Jerusalem unto Gaza Acts 8.26 at Asotus and Preaching in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea Acts 8.40 which perhaps might be his Birth-place or he might Marry there which is more likely because we read of Four Daughters he had which did Prophecy Acts 21.9 He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea * J. Pears Lect. in Act v. §. 1. 5. p. 66. 68. for he Preached up and down by Vertue of an extraordinary Call Acts 8.6 7 26 39. and it is not to be imagin'd he laid aside the Office of an Evangelist after his Marriage And therefore Luke testifies concerning him that although he was Married and had a settled Family he was an Evangelist an unsettled extraordinary Officer still Acts 21.8 9 10. He could not produce any Ancient Author that makes him Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius saith he dyed at Hierapolis †Euseb Hist III. 25. Edit Lovan 1569. His other Proof from Timothy and Titus being fixed or settled Evangelists we considered before And it is Petitio Principii I will add this 1. All that he saith to prove them fixed Officers of Ephesus and Crete depends upon his Supposition that the Epistles to them were Written after Pauls first Bonds at Rome which I have disprov'd with respect to the first Epistle to Timothy and it 's confess'd by all that this Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were Written about the same Time The Epistle to Titus was Written when Paul was in Macedonia designing to Winter in Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 He Promises to send Tychicus or Artemas unto Titus the former of these two was with Paul in Macedonia and afterwards accompanied him into Asia Acts 20.4 Therefore this Epistle was Written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome 2. Timothy and Titus were no resident Evangelists of Ephesus and Crete for the Apostle calls them both away He calls Titus to Nicopolis from Crete Tit. 3.12 which is an evidence he was to make but a short stay there to set in Order the Things that were wanting Tit. 1.5 Which when he had done he must attend the Apostle as he had done before Accordingly he went to Paul to Nicopolis and was his Companion and Messenger to several Churches and at last is sent by him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 And we hear no
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