can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing
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
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
the Apostles must be presum'd to have done the same 1. If the Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter as Supreme to preside over the rest and to Succeed him in the Government of the Presbyters the Government by his own Confession must lodge in the Presbyters of the Churches in Parity 2. Timothy and Titus were not ordinary Presbyters but extraordinary Officers that is Evangelists and as such were Superiour to Presbyters as Apostles and Prophets were There is not the least hint in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that they were Ordain'd to be the Apostles Successors in Ephesus and Crete 3. The Apostle did commit the Government of the Church of Ephesus in his absence to the Presbytery in a Parity Acts 20.17 18. and that when he was taking his last leave of them without thoughts of seeing them any more v. 25. This was the proper Season for him to provide a sirgle Person to Succeed him in the Presidency over the Presbyters of Ephesus had such a Presidency been of necessary and perpetual continuance in the Church It is but rational to affirm That when the Apostles took their final leave of any Church then was the proper time to take care of it's future Government It is not to be imagin'd that the Holy Apostles wou'd be wanting in their Duty towards the Churches in such a Conjuncture as this They were Faithful Stewards of God's House and gave the necessary Rules for its future Government and Conservation accordingly the Apostle is very particular and express in giving Directions about the Government of the Church of Ephesus after his departure He sends for the Elders of Ephesus Preaches his Farewel Sermon to them Asts 20.17 36. In all which there is not one word of setting a single Person over them but the whole Government of the Church is committed to them in a State of Parity And least any shou'd think this was a prudential Constitution he tells them this Power was consign'd to them by the Holy Ghost who made them Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church of God v. 28. The Elders to whom the Government of the Church of Ephesus was thus committed by the Holy Ghost took their solemn and final leave of Paul with many Tears sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake that they shou'd see his face no more ver 38. Whether he did return again is not material at all it 's evident he thought he should not and the Elders of Ephesus thought so also There is no one Presbytery of which the Apostle took such a Solemn leave as he did of this and there is no doubt if it had been the mind of God that a single Person should be set over them but the Apostle would have mention'd it at this time He tells them in his Charge to them That he shunned not to declare to them the whole Counsel of God Acts 20.27 and immediately adds v. 28. That the Holy Ghost made them Bishops of that Flock this therefore is part of the Council of God That the Church be Govern'd by the Elders in Parity If the Superiority of Bishops had been any part of the Council of God the Apostle would not have with-held it from the Presbyters of Ephesus at this time They that affirm That the Government of this Church was afterwards chang'd must bring as clear Proof for it as we do for this Establishment It is very plain and incontestable that the Apostle left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters of that Church when he took his final leave of them And is it as plain that the First Epistle to Timothy upon which his Episcopacy is Founded was written after this Settlement of a Governing Presbytery which most Ancient and Modern Chronologers except Bishop Pearson and two or three others affirm to be written before It is very evident that the Holy Ghost appoints the Presbyters of Ephesus the sole Bishops of the Church when Paul bid them a final Farewel And is it as evident that an Evangelist as Timothy was may be degraded from an extraordinary unfixed Officer to an ordinary fixed Pastor In this Establishment of Presbytery without a Superiour Bishop it is observable that 1. It is an Apostolical Divine Establishment the Apostle was guided by the Holy Ghost in his determination v. 28. 2. It was the last Establishment which he intended to make in that Church for he had no thoughts of seeing them again 3. It was intended for a perpetual Establishment not only in the Church of Ephesus but in all other Churches Mr. G. allows the Government of this Church to be a Plat-form for other Churches p. 45. That it was Perpetual appears 1. Because the Apostle gave them his last Thoughts which are the same with his dying Thoughts for he positively tells them He shou'd see their Faces no more 2. Here is not one Circumstance in the whole Context that makes for a Temporary Establishment If any say it was Temporary he ought to prove it We may with much better Reason affirm That the appointing of Timothy an Evangelist to settle some things in Ephesus in Paul's absence was Temporary 3. Paul doth not give the least hint in his whole Discourse with the Ephesian Elders of any Bishop he had set over them or that he intended to set one hereafter It 's certain Paul must needs know what sort of Government God would have settled in his Church after his departure We cannot imagine that he was ignorant of the Pattern of God's House The extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were not given them in vain it was to lead them into all Truth Now if the Apostle knew of this pretended future Establishment of Episcopacy how comes he not to acquaint the Presbyters with it He shou'd have told them how they were to Govern the Church in Subordination to their Bishop present or future But not a word of all this in his whole Discourse A certain evidence that it was the Apostle's mind and the mind of the Holy Ghost that the Presbyters shou'd Govern the Church in common Timothy was now present or not far off Acts 20.4 6. Why had not the Apostle recommended the Presbyters to his charge They wanted a present Bishop according to Mr. G's Hypothesis for the Apostle was taking his final leave of them What shou'd hinder his being set over them His Years He was but Young when the first Epistle was written which supposes him Bishop of Ephesus 1 Tim. 4.12 There were Prophecies concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 He had been Ordain'd by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4.14 And was there no Prophecy of his being future Bishop of Ephesus If there was how comes the Apostle to suppress it in this necessary Juncture when it so greatly concern'd the Ephesian Elders to know how the Church of Ephesus was to be Govern'd after the Apostle's departure Would not the Elders of Ephesus acquiesce in this determination of the Apostle as his last and unalterable Settlement
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
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
more of him It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete The Apostle calls Timothy away from Ephesus to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 for the same Reason that he sends for Mark both being profitable to him for the Ministry having none with him but Luke v. 10 11. accordingly Timothy came to him and he promises to send him to Macedonia and not to Ephesus Phil. 2.19 But it should seem he could not go as soon as he intended being made a Prisoner at Rome When he was set at Liberty he accompanied the Apostle to Judea or design'd so to do Heb. 13.23 From all which it appears that they were Evangelists in a proper Sence that is extraordinary and unsettled Church-Officers who assisted the Apostles in their Ministry and were their Messengers to the Churches to establish settle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apostles having Power to ordain Elders and to put forth other Acts of Government as occasion was offer'd All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus which doubtless were the same in other Churches as in Ephesus and Crete for they were Evangelists as much in one Place as in another And the Power of Evangelists was the same in all Places 3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangelists who are succeeded by the Deacons as he thinks as the Prophets are by the Presbyters and the Apostles by the Bishops Evangelists saith he did Evangelize or Preach the Gospel sine Cathedrá without a fixed residence J. O. quoted Eusebius in his Plea P. 18. to the same purpose he saith of the Evangelists Hil. in 4. Eph. That they Preached Christ to Infidels ordain'd Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations To this Mr. G. Answers It was not the proper Work of Evangelists to go up and down Preaching the Gospel Eusebius saith They went far from their Houses did the Work of Evangelists and diligently Preach'd Christ to such as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels ordain'd other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations I have proved out of Paul's Epistles they were unsettled Officers and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Gospel and Eusebius affirms they did so But saith he Eusebius writes L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangelist being Dead Annianus so he writes it for Anianus enter'd upon the Administration of the Church of Alexandria hence he infers That Mark was a resident Evangelist not roving up and down 1. He may as well say that Peter was a resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome * Eccl. Hist III. 2.4 2. Mark was no resident Evangelist he was a Companion of Peter and Paul and travell'd with them up and down and was sent by them to several Churches in Acts 12.25 we find him with Paul and Barnabas at Perga in Pamphylia he left them and went to Jerusalem Acts 13.13 he afterwards for some time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places Acts 15.39 We find him after that with Timothy or not far from him and sent for by Paul to assist him in the Ministry 2 Tim. 4.11 when he was Prisoner at Rome We find him there with Paul Philem. 24. from whence he sends him to Coloss Col. 4.10 When Peter wrote his first Epistle Mark was with him at Babylon 1 Pet. 5.13 and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a resident Evangelist 3. Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion †Lib. 2. Cap. 14.15 and adds They say he first passed over into Egypt and Preach'd there the Gospel which he had written and planted the first Churches in Alexandria Perhaps he might End his Days here in setling this Church as all the Evangelists and Apostles must end their Days in some place or other and in the Service of some Church but this could not make either Apostles or Evangelists resident Officers J. O. had said P. 119. that Chrysostom agreed with Eusebius that Evangelists were unfixed Church-Officers The Rector here exclaims against J. O's insincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He further Notes out of Chrysostom that Timothy and Titus were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 employ'd in one Place that is were resident Evangelists and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chrysostom in both Vniversities and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Design and want of Sincerity St. Chrysostom then must be acknowledg'd saith he on my side and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and resident Church-Rulers and that Timothy and Titus were so 1. Here is a very severe Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Transcriber of J. O's Copy who put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was overlook'd in the Errata I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has examin'd J. O's other Quotations it 's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains some hundreds of Quotations 2. J. O. did not leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out to serve his Cause Chrysost in Epist. Edit Donat. Veron P. 163. as Mr. G. falsly affirms but he transcribed the Passage as he sound it in the Edition which he had by him which has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. J. O's notion of Evangelists that they were unsettled Church-Officers needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimonies to confirm it for the History of the Apostles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul make it evident that they were such and Mr. G. himself cannot deny but there were Itinerant Evangelists as he calls them P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists J. O 's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scriptures and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysostom Especially 4. Having Chrysostom of his side without that Alteration Thus he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he gave Thirdly Evangelists who did not go about every where but Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquilla Pastors and Teachers were those to whose Care the the People were wholly committed What then were the Pastors and Teachers Inferiour Yes they who were resident and employ'd only in one Place as Timothy and Titus were altogether Inferiour to those that went about and Evangeliz'd He speaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Gospels In this Passage Note Chrysostom does not deny but Evangelists did go about he only saith they did not go about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did they moved
in a narrower Orb than the Apostles whose Messengers and Ministers they were and by whose appointment their Motions were guided and limitted That this is Chrysostoms meaning appears 1. From the Instance of Aquila and Priscilla which he gives these are Evangelists with Chrysostom Now these did remove from one Place to another from Rome to Corinth this remove was occasion'd by an Edict of Claudius Acts 18.1 2. some time after they removed with Paul to Ephesus ver 18. doubtless by Pauls appointment as other Evangelists did Thus we see Chrysostom's Evangelists did go up and down but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where at their own Pleasure as the Apostles did who had no Superiours to direct their Motions but the Evangelists removed under the Conduct of the Apostles The Apostles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit and went about every where whither the Spirit guided them The Evangelists were under the Conduct of the Apostles and went about also but only to such Places and Services as the Apostles directed them Priscilla a Woman is an Evangelist in Chrysostom * See Acts 18.22 I hope Mr. G. will not make a settled Church Officer that is a Bishop of her for an Evangelist and a Bishop is the same with him Chrysostom here seems to confess that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Christianity to the Women to whom the Men had not access in the Eastern Countries The same is affirm'd by Clement of Alexandria who thinks the Sisters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5 Ministred unto the Women who kept at home by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women without Reprehension or evil Suspicion * Clem. Alex Strom. III. vid. Constit Apost III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi Epiph. haer 79. 2. Chrysostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists but among the Pastors or fixed Officers whom he makes Inferiour to those that went up and down and Evangeliz'd i. e. The Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Donas Veron He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Pastors according to the received Opinion of his Age But he rightly distinguisheth between Evangelists and Pastors and makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Evangelists to be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or these that went about Preaching the Gospel Thus after all the Noise and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made its evident that Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius in his Notion of Evangelists Their calling Timothy and Titus Bishops doth not affect us who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture that they were Evangelists and not Diocesan Bishops Eusebius saith only Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and he ingeniously acknowledges that they had no certainty who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches planted by them those only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epistles It is fit therefore we shou'd be determin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Testament It s well observ'd by the Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that call'd Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon This was four hundred Years after in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after setled there no doubt they would begin the Succession with Timothy because of his Imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout He adds that this was not the Act of the Council but of a single Person delivering his Private Opinion in it and that by the by too and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council for saying that the Bishops of Ephesus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place See more in that Learned Author who judiciously Confutes their Opinion who make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302 303. The Fathers call the Apostles Bishops which all grant they were not in a proper Sence Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were both of them Apostles and Bishops at Rome Epiph. haeres xxvii The Fathers therefore when they call Apostles or Apostolical Men Bishops speak in the Language of their time and are not to be taken in a strict Sence Having gone through his Book and discovered the fallacies ot his Reasonings it were needless to take Notice of his last Chapter which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea in which there is scarce any thing which has not been consider'd already Yet for the sake of the more Ignorant Reader I will make some short replies to his Answers CHAP. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Tower of Government 1. J. O's First Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. The Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 Consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar Explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Br. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's Second and Third Argument for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Presbyters succeed the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect HE Charges J. O. with reflecting on Episcopal Ordination P. 122. but gives no Instance of any such Reflection which doubtless he would have done if he had been able Let this pass among his other Calumnies His Crambe about Jerom and Ignatius has been consider'd before P. 123. It were endless to tire my Reader and my self with nauseous Repetitions as often as this Author gives occasion He falls foully upon J. O. for saying that Parish-Priests have no Power of Discipline P. 125 126. which I have proved They have Power of Discipline saith he because all the Canons or Laws of the Church are made by the Priests of the Church of England as well as by the Bishops 1. Their Executive Power is the same with their Legislative Power that is none at all The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be Confirmed in Parliament 2. Hath every Parish-Priest a power of making Church-Laws If not this Instance is impertinently brought in to prove that the Parish-Priests have Power of Discipline If it be said they make Laws by their Representatives so do the People of England by their Representatives in Parliament Doth it follow therefore that every Free-holder hath the Power of Governing Though the Truth is the Convocation is not a Just Representative of the Clergy For in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury there are but 44 Clerks representing the Clergy the Bishops Deans Prebendaries and Arch-Deacons make up 122. The Arch-Deacons who are the Bishops Creatures as being chosen solely by them are 10 in Number more than the Clerks so that the Clerks are little more than Cyphers in Convocation there are enough in the lower House to out-vote them besides an
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-Scripture-Bishops But there was an Order of Church-Officers above these presbyter-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
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
to him because the Apostle hids him be instant in Preaching the Word By no means saith Mr. G. because the Apostle directs him expresly to appoint other Teachers 2 Tim. 22. We desire to see some like Passages of other Ordainers beside Timothy The Apostle or rather the Holy Ghost appointed several Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 If the Power of Ordination belongs to Bishops as such these Ephesian Bishops were Ordainers It is an old and a true Maxim Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia 2. But lest we should want other Ordainers he 'l furnish us with some from 2 Tim. 2.2 which tho' his Argument inclines him to understand it of Teachers at present yet in another Mood he explains it of Ordainers p. 53. J. O. prov'd that Timothy could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul himself took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 To this the Rector saith It is something to the purpose if it were well prov'd 1 Tim. 4.14 has been fully discuss'd already saith he And fully Vindicated say I from his Self-Contradicting-Exceptions J. O. Gives another Reason to prove that Timothy could not be entrusted with the sole Power of Ordination because Paul Join'd Barnabas with him Acts 14.23 The Rector Answers The Mischief is Barnabas was Paul 's equal Ibid. and an Apostle as well as himself Acts 14.4.14 Many think Barnabas was not Paul's equal that he was properly an Evangelist * Vid. Sad. ad Tur. Soph. p. 783. Evangelists were Secondary Apostles Apostoli vicarii as some call them They seem to be included in Apostles 1 Cor. 12.28 compar'd with Eph. 4.11 'T is true he is call'd an Apostle Acts 14.4 14. so are others who were not Apostles in a strict Sense Rom. 16.7 2 Cor. 8.23 Phil. 2.25 2. But suppose he were an Apostle in a strict Sense and Paul's equal J. O's Argument still holds good If Paul and Apostle Join'd Barnabas with him another Apostle or Evangelist it 's not likely that Timothy would Ordain alone but that he join'd the Bishops of Ephesus with him If an Apostle would not lay on Hands alone much less would an Evangelist 'T is but J. O's Dream says he P. 134. when he talks of other ordinary Presbyters Ordaining with these two Apostles I desire to see this made out by any tolerable Conjecture 1. J. O. did not affirm that Presbyters Ordain'd with Paul and Barnabas Acts 14.23 because it is uncertain whether there were any in these Churches before this time 2. But if there were any 't is probable they join'd in the action as they did in Timothy's Ordination 1 Tim. 4.14 which may ground a probable Conjecture Paul's intention to go to Ephesus Ibid. 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 hinders not Timothy from being the Resident Bishop there as he thinks 1. His intention of going shortly to Ephesus shews the inconsistency of Mr. G's Hypothesis for he told us before p. 90. That the Apostle Govern'd the Church of Ephesus himself by the Presbyters in his absence who were responsible to him This continued so long saith he as he was vigorous and active and had opportunity to over-see both the Flock and the Elders themselves And now he tells us That this Church was Govern'd by a Bishop when the Apostle was both able and resolved to oversee it 2. He told us before that the Presbyters were responsible to Paul and now he makes Timothy responsible to him Nothing can be inferr'd from their being subject to Paul that does not equally affect Timothy 3. If Paul's going to Timothy does not hinder his being Resident at Ephesus I hope Timothy's going to Paul doth 2 Tim. 4.21 Except the Rector can prove that Timothy had an ubiquitarian Body If he saith he return'd again in a little time to Ephesus he ought to prove it which he can never do from the Writings of the Apostles He chargeth J. O. with foisting the Words till he came Ibid. into 1 Tim. 1.3 This Charge is as groundless as it is disingenuous for J. O. did not quote thc Words of Scripture but gave the meaning of it in these Words Paul did not injoyn Timothy to be resident at Ephesus but besought him to abide there till he came 1 Tim. 1.3 4.13 14. which he intended shortly to do 1 Tim. 3.14 15. The Joyning of the Scriptures together and the Explaining of one Scripture by another will be allow'd by any one that does not seek occasions of quarrelling Till I come bespeaks a Temporary Stay at Ephesus for he was besought by Paul to supply his absence there when the Apostle came in Person there was no need of a Substitute Whether Timothy went from Ephesus to Paul or whether Paul went from Macedonia to Ephesus it 's one and the same thing his Work there was Temporary and became unnecessary when the Apostle was with him Thus Paul sent him not long before this to Macedonia and sometime after follow'd him thither Acts 19.21 22. In like manner he design'd to follow him to Ephesus 1 Tim. 3.14 The Rector takes for granted what he should have prov'd That Timothy was obliged to perpetual Residence at Ephesus which has not been yet proved He calls him away 2 Tim. 4.21 and so he doth Titus from Crete Tit. 3.12 All that hath been hitherto urged for his perpetual Residence at Ephesus is that in 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus These words do not look like the Installing of a Bishop in his Diocess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies frequently a short abode Mat. 15.32 Mark 8.2 Timothy is said to abide still at Athens when his stay was very short there Acts 17.14 15. He calls upon us to prove that Timothy was Furnished with the same Powers at Corinth P. 135 Philippi Thessalonica c. I will prove it from his own Confession p. 130. The unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for 'em Thus he Here he ascribes the Power of Govenirg and Ordaining unto the unfix'd Evangelists and yet has the Confidence to require us to prove it Whereas then saith he Ibid. Paul besought him to abide and reside at Ephesus and we never find him in the Apostle's Company again nor in any other place after we must take him for the Resident Evangelist or Bishop here until J. O. shall please to tell us out of Sacred or Ecclesiastical History whither he removed I will shew him that Timothy was in Paul's Company and in another place after Paul besought him to abide at Ephesus In order to which I desire him to grant this reasonable Supposition viz. That the Second Epistle to him was Written after the First In the First Epistle Paul said he besought him to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 In the Secod Epistle he calls him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Doubtless he went thither according to the Apostle's Order and we find him there with the Apostle when he wrote
41. In another place Reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jesus Christ and the Bishop as Jesus Christ and the Presbyters as the Council of God and the Conjunction of the Apostles And a little before Be Subject to the Presbytery as the Apostles of Jesus Christ * Ad Tral p. 48. He speaks more expresly a few Pages after Be inseparably Vnited to God Jesus Christ and the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Orders of the Apostles i. e. the Presbyters †Ibid. p. 50. I leave it to the Impartial Reader 's Judgment whether all these Expressions put together do not make it plain That the Presbyters according to Ignatius Succeed the Apostles Can any thing be express'd with more clearness They preside in the place of the Bench of the Apostles They must be followed as the Apostles reverenc'd as the Conjunction of the Apostles and as the Orders of Apostles But our Author proceeds in his usual and proper Stile J. O ' s. last disingenuous Perverting the Sense of Ignatius P. 178. has put me saith he upon the Examination of his Testimony out of Irenaeus For I must confess I dare not trust him in any thing that he offers out of Antiquity See the Candor of this Gentleman he declines J. O's Testimonies out of Antiquity and yet turns over above a Hundred Pages to search out one or two Quotations that he may Cavil at them Having treated J. O. with such scornful and ill Language so often in his Book it is not to be expected he should forbear bestowing upon him some of his best Compliments now at parting And he is the more obliged to him for them because they are Undeserved and are the free Emanations of the Rector's good Nature His attempt upon Ignatius failing him he proceeds to J. O's Second Quotation out of Irenaeus which was this Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur Here he taxes J. O 's Sincerity for a literal Fault of the Printer's P. 179. who instead of Presbyterorum Printed Presbyteriorum with the Addition of the Letter i This would pass for a Venial Fault among Friends but Mr. G. is as severe a Judge as he is a Corrector of the Press But saith he J. O. like a Man wise in his Generation turn'd Presbyters into Presbyteries Ibid. that this place may be understood not of Bishops but of the Colledges of Presbyters but Irenaeus by Presbyters means Bishops 1. J. O. spoke of Presbyters not Presbyteries Succeeding the Apostles and quoted Irenaeus for Proof He does not use the Word Presbytery in all that Argument p. 179 180. 2. Mr. G. cannot deny but Irenaeus saith the Presbyters Succeeded the Apostles but he thinks by Presbyters he means Bishops We think so too and thence infer That Presbyters and Bishops are the same in Irenaeus as they are in Paul's Epistles He saith in another place We must obey those Presbyters that are in the Church who received their Succession from the Apostles as we have shewn who with the Succession of their Episcopacy have received the certain Grace of Truth according to the Father's Pleasure And a little after Such Presbyters the Church nourisheth of whom the Prophet saith I will give thee Rulers in Peace and Bishops in Righteousness ‖ Iren. ad Haeres IV. 43 44. Observe here 1. That Presbyters Succeed the Apostles 2. Presbyters have an Episcopacy 3. Those whom Irenaeus calls Presbyters he calls also Bishops Irenaeus his Bishop was but the first Presbyter as Hilarius the Roman Deacon calls him * Int. ad Ephes By those first Presbyters who for Order sake had the precedency of the rest Irenaeus and others derive the Succession But the Churches were Governed not by those single Presbyters or Bishops alone but by the College of Presbyters in common among whom the Senior Presbyter or the most worthy had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Seat but without Power of Jurisdiction over his Brethren As the Athenians reckon'd the Years in which the Archontes Govern'd their Republic by the first Archon though there were Nine of them in all and the Lacedemonians denominated the Years of their Ephori who were Five in all by the Name of the First * Vid. Blon Apol. Pref. p. 38. so the Fathers derive the Succession of Presbyters by the First and Chief Presbyter to whom the Name of Bishop by degrees was appropriated Thus we have Vindicated Ignatius and Irenaeus against the angry Exceptions of our Author I will add one or two more but with no design to stir up his Choler Jerom saith of them They the Clergy Succeed in the Apostolical Degree they make the Body of Christ with their Sacred Mouths and by them we are made Christians He speaks not of Bishops but of the Clerici without Distinction even of all that Administer the Eucharist and Baptize And a little after expresly Names the Presbyters The Presbyter saith he may deliver me to Satan if I offend †Hieron Ep. ad Heliodor Origen in Mat. 16. makes all Presbyters to succeed the Apostles in the Power of the Keys Prosper makes all Holy Priests that conscienciously discharge the Duties of their Office the Successors of the Apostles If the Holy Priests saith he turn many to God by their Holy Living and Preaching who can doubt such to be Partakers of the Contemplative Vertue by whose Example and Instruction many are made Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven These are the Ministers of the Word the Hearers of God the Oracles of the Holy Spirit These are the Successors of the Apostles of the Lord * Isti sunt Apostolor Domini Successores Prosp de Vit. Con. Templ I. 25. The same is affirm'd by Ambrose * De dign Sacerdot Cap. 1. Claves Regni Coelorum in beato Petro Apostolo cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes Cyprian also speaks to the same purpose Christ saith to the Apostles and to all Ecclesiastical Rulers who by a deputed Ordination Succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth Me and he that heareth Me heareth Him that sent Me †Dicit ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione Succedunt Ep. LXIX I do not deny but Cyprian calls the Bishops Praepositi Church-Rulers and speaks here of himself who was a Bishop but the Words are general and must include the Presbyters also 1. Because he saith all the Praepositi succeed the Apostles The Presbyters as well as the Bishops are the Praepositi in Cyprian so he calls them The Lord chose the Apostles that is the Bishops and Praepositos * Ep I. XV. Rulers Here Cyprian calls the Presbyters Praepositos and he makes the Bishops and the Praepositi equally to Succeed the Apostles 2. He saith all the Praepositi Succeed the Apostles to whom Christ sayeth he that heareth you heareth Me. Now these Words of Christ belong to the Presbyters as much as to the Bishops He that heareth them heareth Christ Therefore these Words were spoken to them also as the Apostles Successors according to Cyprian And this is agreeable to the 1 Pet. 5.1 where the Apostle Peter Writing to to Presbyters calls himself a Presbyter Had the Apostle written thus The Bishops which are among you I exhort who am also a Bishop this would have been cried up for an Invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors for he Writes to Bishops and calls himself a Bishop The Argument is ours to prove that Presbyters succeed the Apostles who Stile themselves Presbyters in the ordinary part of their Office We do not deny but the Bishops succeed the Apostles but as Presbyters and not as an Order of Church-Officers Superiour to Presbyters and therefore Irenaeus as we observed before saith The Presbyters Succeed the Apostles making Presbyters and Bishops to be the same according to the Holy Scriptures I have already prov'd That the Presbyters of Ephesus Succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church Timothy was left there in Paul's Absence when he intended to come to Ephesus himself shortly 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 The Presbyters were entrusted with the Government of the Church when he had no Thoughts of seeing them again Acts 20.25.38 Timothy an Evangelist was to supply the Temporary Absence of Paul from that Church the Presbyters his perpetual Absence and therefore are properly his Successors in the Government of that Church FINIS
or no. He is the sole soveraign Power and not obliged to take the Coronation Oath or to govern according to the Established Laws if we may believe our Rector I will not trouble my self or the Reader by making Remarks upon these Passages which are but a few of many with which his Three Sermons abound All these you may find in the first These Sermons were design'd as he tells us Pref. 10 the Serm. p. 3. and I dare believe him To assure the higher Powers of his steadiness and fidelity and of may more in these Northern Climates It was a Point of mighty Consequence to the higher Powers to be assured of the Rector's Fidelity especially in a time when the Prince was under some disadvantage Most happy Prince who can assure himself of the Fidelity of such a Man as Mr. G. for in him he assures himself of many more in these Northern Climates The higher Powers then in being were highly obliged to so Profound a Casuist who by another Tentamen Novum attempted to prove the Jus Divinum of Absolute Monarchy and Arbitrary Government But all well-deserving Expectants have not the Happiness of being Preferred according to their Merits But to return to his Parallel 3. The Council at Jerusalem under the Conduct of the Holy Ghost injoyn'd the necessary forbearance of a few things to avoid offence Acts 15.28 The Convocation has made Canons injoyning the Practise of abundance of unnecessary things to create offence That Council widen'd the Door to Church-Fellowship by taking away the ancient ceremonial Terms of Communion and breaking down the partition Wall between Jews and Gentiles The Convocation has straitned the Door to Church-Fellowship by setting up new ceremonial Terms of Communion and erecting a partition Wall between Brethren 4. The Council at Jerusalem freed the Christians from a divine Yoke namely Circumcision the Convocation binds a humane Yoke of burthensome Ceremonies on our Necks The Apostles asserted that Christian Liberty which the Lord Jesus purchased at a dear rate and obliged us to maintain Gal. 5.1 Others unjustly deprive us of it and mancipate us under more beggarly Elements than those of the Jewish Pedagogy Gal. 4.9 Had the Apostles Successors imitated the excellent temper of their wise Fathers in this Council the Christian World had not been divided into so many Factions as it is at this Day When Rehoboam's little Finger proves heavier than Solomon's Loins no wonder there is a Schism in Israel 5. The Council at Jerusalem made no new Canon only thought fit to continue some divine Prohibitions that were obliging before Acts 15.29 The Convocation hath made but 141 new Canons concerning most of which there is no Divine Law The Canons of that Council are contained in one short Verse v. 29. The Canons of our Synod make a large Volume 6. The Canons of that Council have no Penalty annexed the Decree of the Council ends thus v. 29. From which if ye keep your selves ye shall do well Fare ye well Our Canons thunder out terrible Anathema's and Excommunications ipso facto not known to the Apostles against all the breakers of them 7. The Canons at Jerusalem were made by the Apostles Elders and the whole Church v. 22. Our Canons are made by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation which are the true Church of England by representation as Can. 139. obligeth us to believe on pain of Excommunication Mr. G. makes the Parliament to represent the Multitude of Believers that is the Church according to his Parallel for he makes the Bishops to answer the Apostles the Presbyters the Elders and the Parliament the whole Church or multitude of Believers I leave the Rector to the Censure of his Diocesan who is obliged by the Canon to Excommunicate and not to restore him until he repent and publickly revoke this his wicked error * Can. 139 in affirming the Parliament to be the Church representative instead of the Convocation I hope the Impartial Reader is now fully convinced how exactly the Episcopal Government as described by this Gentlemen agrees with the Council at Jerusalem He is angry with J. O. for saying Parish Priests have no power of Discipline Pref. p. 14 and Answers They have power to rebuke and admonish and suspend for a while from the Lord's Supper This is in effect an acknowledgment of the Truth of what J. O. Asserts They have power to rebuke and admonish so have private Persons Lev. 19.17 Col. 3.16 The Admonitions of a Master who hath no Power to use the Rod will have little influence upon froward Lads But Parish Ministers can suspend for a while For how long But for fourteen Days at the farthest and then they are obliged to put the whole Matter out of their Power and to commit it to the Ordinary See the Rubrick before the Communion The true State of the Case is this 1. They have no power left them to judge whom to Baptize and whom not Can. 68. but must Baptize all that are offered though the Children of Jews Infidels Deists c. who have no right to the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace 2. They have no power to forbear giving the Eucharist to any one how notorious an Offender soever unless they will prosecute him at the Bishop's Court nor then but for once So that if he pays his Fees and be Absolved there though the Minister know him to be never so Impenitent he must give it him the next time And the Prosecution is so troublesome odious and fruitless that it is very rarely undertaken 3. They have no Power to call Persons to Repentance openly before the Church 4. They have no Power to judge any Person to be Excommunicate nor to absolve any Person that is Penitent after Excommunication they only read the Chancellor's Sentence who is usually a Lay-man sent them in the Bishop's Name much like our Cryers in Civil Courts that publish the Orders of the Court Yea though they are satisfied in their Consciences that the Chancellor's Decree is sometimes unjust Et clave errante Excommunicating a Consciencious Person scrupling a Ceremony as was done in the late Reigns or absolving an Impenitent Person who hath Commuted for Notorious Scandal yet they must publish it or be Suspended All the Power left them is the Privilege of being the Chancellor's Servants to execute all his Decrees without once Examining whether they be right or wrong Many Sober Conformists who have a tender concern for the Souls under their Charge have complained of this Restraint and impute the growing Debaucheries of the People to the want of Parish Discipline The very Liturgy complains That the Godly Primitive Discipline is wanting in our Churches See the Office of Commination If the Parish-Ministers have the Power of Discipline as the Rector would have us believe the more to blame they for admitting all Persons promiscuously to the Lord's Supper It is rarely that any scandalous Persons are excluded as they ought to be
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
he disingenuously abuses his Reader for 1. Clemens no where saith as he makes him to speak that there were Bishops Priests and Deacons as three distinct Officers in the Christian Church 2. He no where saith that the Bishop answer'd the High Priest the Presbyter the Inferiour Priests and the Deacon the Levites There is not a Word of this in all that Epistle to the Corinthians to which Mr. G. refers us 3. He mentions but two Orders of New Testament Officers Bishops and Deacons The Apostles saith he Preaching the Gospel in Countrys and Cities ordain'd the first Fruits of them that believ'd having tried them by the Spirit to he Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. ad Cor. The same Officers were in the Church of Corinth at this Time which the Apostle had settled in the Church of Philippi Phil. 1.1 Bishops and Deacons There were several Bishops in the single Church of Philippi and not one Chief so in this Church of Corinth which was govern'd by several Bishops whom Clemens calls Presbyters These govern'd the Church in Common He does not mention any chief Bishop in Corinth but he affirms that the Presbyters there perform'd the Duties of their Episcopacy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Corinthians to be subject to their Elders * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish this excellent Epistle of Clemens which I hear is lately done into English were in every hand It would abundantly satisfie the unprejudiced that the Order of Superiour Bishops had no being in the Church in Clemens his Time He writes to the Corinthian Church about Schism and that occassion'd by some of their Presbyters but has not one Word of Obedience to a Superiour Diocesan Bishop as the remedy against Schism The only Passage that gives the least umbrage to a Diocesan Episcopacy is that which mentions High-Priests Priests and Levites under the Law and a little after Bishops and Deacons under the Gospel Not that he makes the former Patterns of the latter for then he would have said Bishops Priests and Deacons as the Rector falsly affirms he doth but he expresly saith the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons We must explain Clemen's Bishops and Deacons by the New Testament and not by the Old for he speaks of an Apostolical Institution which we must look for in Pauls Epistles and not in the Levitical Law Now we find Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Paul's Bishops and Clemen's Bishop are the same Paul's Bishops were Presbyters for there were several of them in one Church Phil. 1.1 Clemen's Bishops are but Presbyters of which there were several in the Church of Corinth The force of Clemens his Argument is this As the Old Testament Church was guided by a Divine Institution in the Levitical Priesthood so must we in the Gospel-Ministry They rested in the Orders of the Old Law and we must in those of the New Testament The Orders are different as he expresly declares but the Authority enjoyning them is the same That we must thus understand him appears further from these Words of his * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the Name of Episcopacy for this very Reason therefore having perfect Knowledge thereof before hand they ordained the aforesaid Officers i. e. Bishops and Deacons Clement observes here 1. That the Apostles did foresee there would be Contentions about the Order and Dignity of Bishops in the Church 2. That they took care to accommodate the Differences about Episcopacy by settling Officers in the Church 3. The Officers they settled were Bishops and Deacons and of these Bishops there were several in a Church who govern'd it in Common as we find in Ephesus Acts 20.17 28. and at Philippi Phil. 1.1 and here at Corinth It is manifest saith the Rector That Jesus Christ whilst on Earth modell'd his little Flock p. 2. according to this Pattern himself being as it were the High-Priest the twelve Apostles his seconds and the seventy Disciples still of a loner Rank This is spoken with great Assurance it is manifest saith he but you must take his bare Word for Proof 1. Is it manifest that Jesus Christ was as it were the High Priest This is a dangerous Assertion and savours of Socinianism The Socinians deny the reality of Christ's Priesthood and Satisfaction the Rector makes him but as it were High Priest If he will be at the Pains to read the Epistle to the Hebrews he will find that Jesus Christ had a real Priesthood and that he was and is the High Priest of our Profession I hope the Rector is no Socinian but when I compare this with some odd Passages of his about Justification of which hereafter it s no breach of Charity to say he ought to clear himself from the appearance of that growing Heresie They that are sound in the Faith ought to study a Form of sound Words The Scripture no where calls Jesus Christ as it were a High Priest He that can degrade Jesus Christ from the Honour of a real Priesthood to advance the honourable Order of Bishops is but as it were a Friend that is no real one to either 2. Is it manifest that the twelve Apostles were under Christ as the Priests under the Chief Priests That they were under him none Questions but not as Priests for they were none as all Protestants confess And I hope this Gentleman will not make them Priests in a Popish Sense to offer up the Idolatrous Sacrifice of the Mass The number of Twelve has no relation to the Priesthood The Priests were divided into twenty four Orders and not into twelve 1 Chron. 24. Bishop Andrews makes the twelve Apostles to answer the Princes of the twelve Tribes Form of Goverr p. 25. which our Rector mistook perhaps for twelve Priests But be it as it will Num. 1.16 he is manifestly mistaken in his Notion of the Apostles as well as of Christ 3. Is it manifest that the seventy two Disciples answer'd the Levites Bishop Andrews and other Assertors of Episcopacy make them to answer the seventy two Elders whom no Man but Mr. G. will affirm to be a Bench of Inferiour Levites Num. 11.16 The Great Council of seventy had the supream Judicature under Moses who was not the High Priest which he 'll scarce allow the Presbyters much less the Deacons whom the seventy Disciples represented according to his Parallel Having told us how Christ Modelled his Flock whilst he was on Earth he proceeds to acquaint us in what State he left it at his Death Here he is at a loss what to say and yet must needs teach his Reader what he does not understand himself He seem'd p. 2. saith he to leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy or in the Power of Twelve When I read these Words I turn'd
Six Deacons for Stephen the Seventh was Martyred were scattered except the Apostles All were scattered That is all the 120 which made up that Famous Council in Acts 1.15 except the Apostles †Vid. Lighis in loc Lucius of Cyrene who was none of the Seven Deacons was one of those that were sc attered Acts 11.19 20. and 13.1 The Rector wou'd persuade they were only the Six Deacons that were scattered of which Philip Preached in Samaria and he has found the rest in Acts 11.19 We have seen the invalidity of his Four Reasons to prove Deacons to be Ministers of the Word and Sacraments He is apt to believe these Deacons were afterwards called Elders P. 6. as having power to Minister the Word and Sacrament first mentioned Acts 11.30 but it will not follow that they were equal with the Apostles They that are so dispos'd may take Conjectures for Articles of Faith but we have prov'd the Deacons to be very different from Presbyters and if the Church of England did not think them so she wou'd not Ordain them over again to make Presbyters of them Who ever affirm'd Presbyters to be equal with the Apostles Dare he say Bishops were equal with them Ordination at least must be excepted saith the Rector I always thought the Apostles excell'd Presbyters in far greater things than that of Ordination but if you be so good natur'd as to allow the Rector that the Apostles were superiour to Presbyters in point of Ordination and intrusted none but the Bishops with it after their Decease he is even content that a Presbyter should be equal with an Apostle in other respects Though Elders are first mentioned Acts 11.30 they were in being before they are spoken of as the ordinary settled Governours of the Churches Mr. G. proceeds to prove That Presbyters could not Ordain P. 7 8 because Philip the Deacon could not confer the Holy Ghost upon the believing Samaritans the Apostles sent Peter and John who by Prayer and laying on of Hands confer'd the Holy Ghost upon them Acts 8.12 15 17. and thereby Ordain'd them Therefore the Government of the Church and Ordination was lodg'd in the Apostles only or as Supreme 1. He is not sure Ordination was intended there himself owns That some may P. 7 and with reason believe it Confirmation So doth Dr. Hammond and sevcral others and if we understand Confirmation by this miraculous Conferring of the Holy Ghost his Argument is spoil'd 2. If Ordination was intended it no more prejudices Presbyters Power of Ordaining than it doth that of the Bishops for neither can confer those extraordinary Gifts 3. All that had power of Ordination had not power of giving the Holy Ghost Evangelists were trusted with the former but not with the latter Timothy and Titus Ordained but did not give the Holy Ghost He fancies that Simon Magus desired the Ordaining Power v. 19. Give me this Power What Power What Power P. 8. saith the Rector Not Power to labour in the Word and Doctrine and to administer the Holy Sacraments Like enough for Simon Magus as little cared for that as some others who have possess'd themselves of that Power he so much coveted What Power was it I doubt not but you 'l expect some rare Discovery having rais'd our Expectations to a great heighth at length he resolves the Question and tells us it was a Power of conferring that Power i. e. as he explains it That on whomsoever he laid his hands he might be Ordained to the Ministry That is in plain terms he desired to be made a Bishop and to be intrusted with the ordaining power I question whether the Power then was so profitable as it has prov'd since however we are oblig'd to this Gentleman for helping us to so clear a Notion of Simony III. He finds another Ordination in Acts 9.17 p. 8 9. Where it is said That Ananias laid his hand upon Saul this might he to Ordain him for he laid his hands on him not only that he might receive his sight but be also filled with the Holy Ghost But I desire the Reader to observe that according to this Hypothesis Saul was Ordained before he was Baptized He was Ordained as he calls it v. 17. and was Baptized after Ananias had laid his hands on him v. 18. That is he is first made an Apostle then a Christian He makes Ananias but a private Believer or Disciple P. 9. His being call'd a Disciple v. 10. is no evidence of it for the Apostles are so call'd Acts 1.15 How comes he to forget that Dorotheus calls him a Bishop of Damascus This would have something help'd his Hypothesis seeing he was tesolv'd to have him Ordained before he was Baptized e'en let it pass for an Episcopal Ordination But that which spoils all is Paul saith of himself that he was an Apostle not of Men neither by Man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Gal. ◠1 IV. In the next place he considers the Ordination in Acts 13.1 2 3. P. 10. Now there were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers and the Holy Ghost said unto them Separate me Barnabas and Saul J. O. Argued from this Instance that Presbyters have Power to Ordain for the Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 What saith Mr. G. to this even nothing to the purpose Ibid. The Persons here spoken of saith he were Teachers that is ordinary Ministers generally speaking but call'd Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ to Ordain Barnabas and Saul 1. He confounds Prophets and Teachers which are distinguished here and in 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Prophets were extraordinary Teachers ordinary Officers this Gentleman to serve a turn makes them one and the same If this be not to pervert the Scripture I know not what is Luke saith There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers That is if we may believe the Rector Prophets and Prophets for the Teachers were Prophets saith he 2. The Teachers are call'd Prophets saith he They are so call'd by him and not by the Holy Ghost 3. They are called Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ by the Holy Ghost as he thinks How can he prove that the Holy Ghost did speak by Immediate Revelation to the Teachers here The Text speaks nothing of it Dixit spiritus per Prophet as istos Grot. in loc It 's most reasonable to think he signify'd his Mind by one or more of the Prophets to the rest of the Ministers then to fancy he advanced the Teachers into the order of Prophets for the time Had the Revelation been Communicated to all in Common what needed the Evangelist to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets But there were both in Antioch Prophets to whom the Revelation came and
him that can to reconcile these Contradictions V. His next Instance of Ordination is from Acts 14.23 p. 12. The Ordinations mention'd there were by Apostles and not by Presbyters as he saith This Instance makes as little for him as the former because 1. There was good Reason why the Apostles alone shou'd ordain Presbyters in Churches that had no Ministers in them until the Apostles had constituted them Presbyters cou'd not ordain before they were in being He is aware of this Reason and allows these Churches had no Presbyters in them at this Time p. 13. But this saith he was not the Reason for then Philip wou'd have laid Hands on those that were Ordain'd at Samaria The Instance of Philip we considered before If he were a Deacon as he affirms all will own he had no Power of Ordination If an Evangelist as it should seem from Acts 21.8 all will own Evangelists might Ordain But they cou'd not give the extraordinary Gift of the Holy Spirit which was given by the Apostles 2. The Apostles made Elders in every Church with the Suffrages of the People So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Ordain'd Acts 14.23 signifies * Significat hos suffragiis electos esse Erasmus in loc The Multitude of Believers chose the Deacons whom Mr. G. wou'd have to be the same with these Elders before the Apostles Ordain'd them And so they did the two Candidates for the Apostleship Acts 1. Mr. G. allows this Power of the People Now if these Ordinations be presidents unto us as he takes them to be they are but ill follow'd by our Episcopal Ordainers for the Election of the People seldom precedes their Ordinations 3. They Ordain'd Elders in every Church not one but many and why not Bishops also if they had been necessary T is evident there were none at this Time The Apostles left the Churches under the Care or these Elders without Superiour Bishops It will be said these Elders were subject to the Apostles And were not the Bishops subject to the Apostles also I hope none will say they were equal to them How come the Apostles not to Ordain a Bishop in every Church when they themselves made but a short stay with them Acts 14.23 24. They cou'd not personally oversee them all and if Bishops had been necessary in their absence doubtless they wou'd have appointed them It will be said they intended to return to visit them again but when they they took their last leave of them then they appointed Bishops for their Successors This is notoriously false for the Apostle Paul commits the Church of Ephesus to the Government of the Presbyters there when he took his last leave of them intending to see them no more Acts 20.17 25 28. whether he did see them again or no is nothing to the purpose for 't is certain he thought he shou'd see them no more How comes he then not to leave a Superiour Bishop over the Presbyters of Ephesus for his Successor when he was taking his final leave of them No one Instance can be given in all the New Testament of the Apostles ordaining a single Person to succeed them as a fixed Officer in the Government of any one Church when they took their last leave of it When the Apostle left Timothy at Ephesus he intended to come again 1 Tim. 3.14 when Titus had ordain'd Elders in Crete to govern the Churches there the Apostle calls him away Tit. 3.12 His next Act of Church Government which he finds in Acts 15. p. 13. we have considered before None that I know of have argued for Presbyters ordaining from this place as he imagines they might He grants that Elders have a share in the Deliberative and Legislative Part of Church-Government p. 14. But seems loath to trust them with the Executive Power He gives them the greater and more difficult part of Church-Government viz. a Power of making Laws and denies them the easier and less honourable Power of executing those Laws He observes p. 15. The Elders were subordinate to the Apostles Who ever denied it And so were Timothy and Titus his supposed Bishops The Epistles written to them are convincing Evidences of their Subordination to Paul 1 Tim. 1.18 and 4.16 and 6.13 14. 2 Tim. 4.1 9 13. He charges him orders him to bring his Cloak and personally to attend him So he enjoins Titus to attend him Titus 3.12 His Epistles to both are in a stile at least equally Authoritative with that which Bishops use in their Pastoral Letters to their Clergy And therefore all the Reasonings of Mr. G. from the Subordination of Presbyters to the Apostles are impertinent for Timothy and Titus whom he calls Bishops were subordinate to the Apostles So that if Presbyters had no Power of Government no more had Bishops for these were under the Apostles also He saith James was not the Apostle p. 16. but Brother of Christ Paul reckons him among the Apostles Gal. 1.19 Other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lord's Brother Bishop Pearson observes that the Opinion that makes him no Apostle took rise from the Fictitious Writings of Clemens Lect. in Act. Apost p. 58. VI. He sinds an Ordination in Acts 19.6 p. 17. 7. In which Paul only laid his Hands on twelve Persons at Ephesus and not Timothy and Erastus who were with Pául at this Time Acts 19.22 1. It is not said that Timothy and Erastus were with Paul when he laid his Hands on those twelve Men Acts 19.22 doth not prove it for it speaks of Paul's sending them to Macedonia which was about two Years after Acts 19. 10 21 22. 2. But suppose they were Paul laid Hands on those twelve Men to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on them which Timothy and Erastus could not do Act. 19.6 This Power was peculiar to the Apostles Act. 8.17 we do not read that any Prophets or Evangelists were ever entrusted with this Power * Pears Lect. V. in Act. p. 68. much less were ordinary Officers The Case of Ananias was singular and depended on a particular Revelation which is an Evidence that the Power of giving the Holy Ghost was not inherent in him as in the Apostles Acts 9.17 3. If there be any force in this Argument it excludes Bishops as well as Presbyters from the Power of Ordination for neither of them cou'd nor can confer the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost which were given by the Apostles Hands VII He thinks that the Corinthian Elders had no Power of Excommunication p. 17. Paul decreed it saith he and commanded them to Confirm and Publish it 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. 1. If they had no Power why doth the Apostle reprove them for not doing it 1 Cor. 5.2 and enjoyn them to avoid disorderly Walkers ver 13. and to Judge them that are within ver 14. To Judge is to Decree as the Rector expounds it in v. 3.
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
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
4. No reason can be given why this Government of the Church of Ephesus should be afterwards chang'd The Rector thinks it was done as a Remedy against the Schisms p. 47. But the Establishment of the Presbytery in Ephesus was for a Remedy against Schisms as appears Acts 20.28 29 30. After my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you not sparing the flock and of your selves shall men arise This he mentions as a reason why the Elders of Ephesus should oversee the Flock v. 28 31. This Remedy was appointed by the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost which cannot Err in Judgment He knows how to provide apt and effectual Remedies He is in one Mind and does not appoint that to day which he repents of to morrow His Provisions are not meerly prudential like those of Men's devising to whom future Events are wrapt up in obscurity and therefore upon tryal of their aptness to the ends for which they were design'd change their thoughts concerning them and take new measures It is not so with the All-wise God He sees the End in the beginning and Effects in their Causes and with Him is no variableness nor shadow of turning Now let 's hear what the Rector can say for the Change of this Government by Presbyters settled in the Church of Ephesus He Promises to Treat of three Things 1. Of the Plantation and Government of the Church of Ephesus by Paul so long as he was in a condition to manage the Affairs of the Church 2. He 'll shew the last Orders he took about the Government of this Church of Ephesus in his absence 3. He 'll give us the glory of it unto the Writing of Ignatius 's Epistles As to the first we agree with him that the Presbyters of Ephesus were Subject to Paul and good reason for it for he was an Apostle infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost He observes two Things from Acts 20.28.1 That the Apostle committed the Government of this Church in his absence unto these Presbyters or Bishops for I 'll suppose at present that the Title and Power of Bishops belong'd to them 1. Here 's a plain acknowledgment of our Hypothesis That the Government of the Ephesian Church was devolv'd upon the Presbyters there but he insinuates as if this was only for a time i. e. during his absence whereas the Apostle intended to see their Faces no more so that his Absence was to be perpetual as to his present Intention at least and consequently the Power committed to these Presbyters was perpetual 2 He seems loath to call them Bishops but is so kind as to suppose it at present though the Holy Ghost expresly calls them so and made them so Acts 20.28 Feed the stock over which the Holy Ghost made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops 2dly He observes from this Scripture p. 47. That Paul certainly fore-saw that Schisms would arise among them He did so and provided a Remedy against them by committing the Government there to the Presbyters If Diocesan Episcopacy had been the Remedy how comes the Apostle not to mention it at this time He makes mention of the Disease v. 29. as he confesseth and why not of the Remedy also neither here nor in the Epistle to the Ephesians which he observes was written to give a check to their Schisms chap. 4. That Epistle and Chapter mentions the several degrees of Ministers in Christ's Church chap. 4. v. 11. but not a word of a Bishop as the Center of Vnity in the whole Epistle Nor does he require one ordinary Minister to obey another either in this Epistle or that to the Corinthians who were pester'd with Schisms also as he takes notice If Bishops had been the Remedy the Apostle would not have omitted mentioning them having such proper occasion given him and writing designedly to them upon that Subject We would reckon him but a sorry Physician that would prescribe several Remedies for a Distemper and omit the onely proper Remedy Such a Spiritual Physician the Rector makes the Apostle to be He says he foresaw the Schisms of the Ephesians wrote an Epistle to unite them p. 47. and has a warm Discouase about Vnity Chap. 4. And wrote another to the Corinthians to cure their Divisions But has not so much as touch'd upon his proper Remedy of Diocesan Bishops There is a like warm Exhortation to Unity Phil. 2.1 2. and yet that Church was Governed by Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1.1 and not by one Superiour Bishop 2. The Second thing he promis'd was to tell us P. 48. The Order he took afterwards about the Government of the Church of Ephesus which was this The Apostle being set at liberty and returning back from Italy to the East and being now old Phil. v. 9. and finding that Factions and Divisions every where increas'd and prevail'd Constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus as doubtless he did the same in all other places 1 Tim. 1.3 1. He takes it for granted the Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome which I deny We shall hear his Proofs in the next Chapter which we will there consider If he be mistaken in this Point of Chronology as I shall prove he is then all his Reasonings from this Epistle fall to the ground 2. There were Factions and Divisions in the Churches long before as he himself confesseth and as is apparent from 1 Cor. 3. Why had not the Apostle provided this Remedy sooner to have prevented the increase and prevalence of them A Distemper is easier prevented than cured If Divisions increased under the Government of the Apostles was the new Order of Bishops like to put a stop to them Why is this then assign'd as the Reason of the Institution 3. 1 Tim. 1.3 Does not say that Paul Constituted him Bishop of Ephesus It is agreed by the Ancients that St. John the Apostle was at Ephesus and resided there for a considerable time after St. Paul's departure thence and after the Writing of the First Epistle to Timothy Euse Hist Eccl. III. 17. al. 18. Iren. adv Haer. III. 3 Hierom. Catal. Scrip. Eccl. Eusebius upon the Testimony of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus affirms that he return'd to Ephesus after he was releas'd from his Banishment at Patmos and lived there and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's Days His ordinary Residence was at Ephesus as Eusebius and Clemens c. affirm If St. John kept his Residence at Ephesus and ruled that Church as he did other Churches of Asia by his Apostolical Power Timothy could not be the Supreme Ruler of the Church of Ephesus Where an Apostle was Present and Resident to Govern his Superiour Authority Suspended all Episcopal Jurisdiction so that according to the Rector's own Principle there was no need of a Bishop while an Apostle could Oversee the Church 4. He gives not the least Proof that Paul made Bishops in all other Places Doubtless it was so saith he you must take
why not by John also I appeal to the Learned Reader whether is most probable that the Holy Ghost should Allude to Provincial Angels the doubtful Ministers of Providence under that Denomination or to the Synagogue-Angels the known Ministers of Sacred Things 3. His third Reason to prove that Timothy left an Episcopal Successor is taken from Ignatius his Epistle to that Church P. 59. in which he Names Onesimus their Bishop 1. He knows that the Learned are not agreed whether the Epistles of Ignatius be Genuine or no Mouns Daille hath written a Learned Dissertation to prove them Spurious Doct. Pearson hath Learnedly Defended them Le Roque hath with great Judgment Answered the Learned Bishop 2. If Ignatius be Genuine which is very doubtful it should seem that in his time the Name of Bishop which the Holy Ghost gives to all Presbyters in common began to be appropriated to the first or chief Presbyter who for Order sake Presided over the rest and had the Honour of the chief Place in their Assemblies and of moderating the Debates of the Presbytery but without any Power of Jurisdiction or Government over his Brethren This was the Primitive Bishop as J. O. hath proved in his Plea p. 136. 139. out of Hilarius c. 3. Ignatius his Bishop was but the chief Pastor of a Church that ordinarily Assembled together for Personal Communion as will appear to any Impartial Person that Reads these Epistles with Observation Congregational or Parochial Bishops were throughout the World not only in Ignatius his time but in Paul's time who fixed more than one of them in every Church Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 That the Bishop's Diocess in Ignatius time and long after exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parish appears 1. The whole Diocess met together with the Bishop for Publick Worship Let all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ and the Presbytery as the Apostles Let no Church Affairs be managed without the Bishop Where the Bishop appears let the multitude be * Ign. ad Smyr p. 6. Edit Vos If the Prayer of one or two be so powerful how much more is the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church He that cometh not into one place he is proud and self-condemned †Ad Eph. p. 20. 33 34. Do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters Run all of you together into one Temple of God as to one Altar ‖ Ad Mag. p. 33 34. Where the Shepherd is there do you follow as the Sheep ought to do * Ad Phil. p. 40. 2. Baptism was generally Administred by the Bishop within his Diocess It is not lawful without the Bishop either to Baptize or to Celebrate the Lord's Supper †Ad Smy p. 6. So Tertullian Vnder the hand of our Bishop we protest That we renounce the Devil and the Pomp of this World ‖ de Cor. mil. p. 336. 3. The Bishop had but one Altar or Communion in his whole Diocess at which he had Administred the Lord's Supper to his whole Flock Give diligence to use one Eucharist for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one Cup which represents the Vnion of his Blood one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons my Fellow-Servants * Ad Phil. p. 41. One Altar here must be taken individually as one Bishop is 'T is absurd to say one specifical Altar and one individual Bishop Tertullian saith of the Lord's Supper We receive it from no hand but from the hand of the Presidents or Bishops †De Cor. Milit. p. 338. They Communicated at least once a Week in some places twice or thrice One of our Bishops would scarce be able to Administer the Lord's Supper in a whole Month to all his Diocess 4. No Marriages were made without the Bishop Those Vnions were made with the Sentence of the Bishop ‖ Ad Poly. p. 13. 5. The Bishop took care of all the Poor of the Dicess Neglect not the Widows do you take care of them next unto the Lord Let nothing be done without thy Advice let the People often Assemble together inquire after all by Name despise not Men-Servants and Maid-Servants * Ad Poly. p. 12. 13. Here the Bishop was to take care of the poor Widows of his Diocess to see that nothing be done without his Advice and that the Congregation often met together he was to take an account by Name of those that were absent not omitting Servant-Men and Maids What Diocesan Bishop can perform all this in his Diocess which consists of some Scores or hundreds of Parishes Many more Testimonies might be gathered out of these Epistles to prove that Ignatius his Bishop was but a Parish-Bishop Thus we have made it evident that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was ledged in the Presbyters of that Church and that there was no Change of the Government afterwards by the Apostles and that there was no Diocesan Bishop there in Ignatius his time The present Bishop of Salisbury doth ingenuously acknowledge That Ignatius was but the Pastor of a particular Church See the Quotation in J. O's Plea p. 30 Having invalidated the Rector's Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy from 1 Tim. and Ignatius his Epistles I proceed to consider what he hath to offer in favour of Titus his being Bishop of Crete If Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus no more was Titus of Crete for the Epistles directed to both are much of the same Strain Their Powers were the same and both were Officers of the same Species namely Evangelists Timothy is expresly so call'd and Titus was really one as will be acknowledged by the Learned for he was the Apostle's Assistant and Messenger to the Churches particularly to that of Corinth where he seems to have spent a great part of his time 2 Câ—r 2.13 7.6 8.6 The Apostle calls him his Companion and Fellow-Worker 2 Cor. 8.23 We find him with the Apostle at Jerusalem Gal. 2.13 Paul left Titus in Crete P. 63. to set in Order the things that were wanting and to Ordain Elders in every City as the Rector observes Tit. 1.5 1. It 's no where said that Paul made him Bishop of Crete The Trusts committed to him were such as an Evangelist might discharge This I presume will not be denied Eusebius expresly affirms it was part of their Work to Ordain Pastors * Eccl. Hist III. 31. And the Rector acknowledges that Branch of their Power p 115. 2. He was left in Crete but for a Season as Timothy was in Ephesus for the Apostle charges him to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 when he should send Artemas or Tychicus to him for there he intended to Winter By which it is evident his stay in Crete by Paul's appointment was not long perhaps not above half a Year if so much after which we never read of his returning thither but we find him after this sent into
assertions are so crude and indigested P. 90. that it would require a just Volume to make a Collection of them He would make Jerom say That it was decreed in the Apostles time that one elected out of the Presbyters who before Govern'd the Church in common was set over the rest P. 91 92. and that the Decree was occasion'd by the Corinthian Schism Here he abuses Jerom and his Reader for Rerom no where saith that the superiority of Bishops was decreed in the Apostles time Jerom proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters not only from the Epistles of Paul but from the Epistle of John the last of the Apostles Then he adds quod autem postea c. That afterwards one was chosen and set over the rest as a Remedy against Schism Jerom's afterwards must refer to the Writing of John's Epistle and so his meaning must be that after the Apostles time this Decree was made for he proves that Presbyter s and Bishops were the sam in the Apostles time 'T is true he alludes to the Corinthian Schism but it 's evident That Paul's Epistles to the Church of Corinth contain no such Remedy against Schism as the Superiority of Bishops The Corinthian Schism was a most proper occasion for the Institution of Bishops if they were the aptest remedy against Schism But there is not a word of it in Paul's Epistles to that Church Nor in Clemens's his Epistle written long after What he saith of Ignatius agreeing with Jerom in his account of Bishops we have considered before The Rector adds That the Apostle was as much concern'd at the Corinthian Schism as any other and that seeing Divisions arising every where not only at Corinth he weighed the matter well and ask'd counsel of God what he should do And in the end concluded to set one Presbyter over the rest to prevent the mischief of Schism God so appointing it 1 Tim. 1.18 1. Doubtless the Apostle was concern'd at the Corinthian Schism as it was a dishonour to God and Religion but not so much as it was against him and his authority which is the reason Mr. G. assigns He dare not say he appointed the remedy at this time he knew that would be too gross But he cunningly saith in the end he concluded to set up one Presbyter over the rest and refers us to 1 Tim. 1.18 The first Epistle to the Corinthians which mentions the Schisms there was written about the year of Christ 55 as Dr. Lightfoot calculates * Vol. 1. p. 299. The first Epistle to Timothy was written about the year 69 according to the Rector's Hypothesis So that he makes the Apostle to provide the Remedy about fourteen years after the Disease Was the Apostle weighing the matter all those years Or did he ask Counsel of God and was not heard Or did he neglect Consulting God till about the time he wrote to Timothy 2. Had not Paul weighed the matter of Schism and consulted God when he wrote to the Corinthians Doubtless he had If so we may expect a Remedy against Schism in those Epistles but there is no mention of the Superiority of Bishops in either of those Epistles therefore that is not the Remedy against Schism 3. The Church of Ephesus was in danger of being broken with Schisms when the Apostle left them without any thoughts of seeing them any more Acts 20.25 What Remedy doth he provide Not a Superiour Bishop but he commits the Flock in common to the Presbyters Acts 20.17 28. Perhaps the Rector will say he had not weigh'd the matter well at this time nor consulted God in the case For our parts we are satisfied he was infallibly guided by the Spirit of God in all the Rules of Government he left the Church and as such we receive them He has several Pages to prove that Paul was twice imprison'd at Rome It is very probable he was Eusebius saith There was a Tradition in his days of his being Acquitted the first time and that he went to several places preaching the Gospel and coming to Rome the second time he ended his Days with a blessed Martyrdom * Eccles Hist. 11 21. Several Ancient Wâ—iters speak tâ—â—â—e same purpose But our Author will prove it by Scâ—â—pture nay he 'll demonstrate it beyond all farther Controversie This Gentleman is singular at Demonstrations but let 's see the strength of them 1. Paul left Trophimus at Miletus sick P. 95. 2 Tim. 4.20 This was not when he met the Ephesian Elders for then he went with him to Jerusalem Acts 21.29 It 's most likely that he touch'd at Miletus when he return'd from Jerusalem in Bonds to Rome 't is evident he intended to sail by the Coasts of Asia Acts 27.2 and might touch at Miletus which was a part of those Asian Coasts tho' Luke doth not mention it Or if Miletum were a City of Crete as Heylin thinks he might leave him there when he touched upon those Coasts as he sail'd for Rome Acts 27.7 8. But if this Miletum be Malta antiently Melita as Grotius and Beza affirm 't is certain Paul was there in his Voyage from Judea to Rome Acts 28.1 and might leave Trophimus sick behind him as he saith he did 2 Tim. 4.20 2. It is pretty plain P. 96. Paul was once releas'd from Prison Heb. 13.24 saith the Rector I thought a Demonstration which he promis'd us made things very plain 3. That which will put the matter out of all question is the vast difference between that his Imprisonment in Acts 28. and that in the second Epistle to Timothy He was in little or no danger but held Liberâ Custodià in his first Confinement but in his second he was a close Prisoner in Chains 2 Tim. 1.16 Expected no Deliverance P. 98. 2 Tim. 4.6 7 8. 1. He was in some danger in his first Imprisonment Phil 2.23 2. And bound with a Chain Acts 28.20 3. He mentions his Deliverance that he might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles 2 Tim. 4.17 Thus we have seen the Invalidity of his Demonstrations as he calls them and how improbable his Conjectures are which pass for Demonstrations with him that the first Epistle to Timothy was written after the Congress at Miletus and after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome For the farther satisfaction of the Impartial Reader I will vindicate the Ancient Chronologers and prove that the first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome and consequently before that Meeting at Miletus in which the Apostle commits the Government of the Church of Ephesus to the Presbyters thereof and not to Timothy their pretended Bishop and if he was no Bishop when that Epistle was written he was none at all If that Epistle was writ before the Meeting at Miletus all the Arguments from that Epistle to prove him Bishop of Ephesus are impertinent For the Government of that Church was committed to the Presbyters in common and not to
of him Phil. 2.23 As he was aged he lived in constant expectations of Death as he was a Prisoner in danger of being made a Sacrifice he could not but think his dissolution was approaching 2 Cor. 5.2 3 4. Acts 20.23 Being stricken in Years and wasted with indefatigable Labours and hard Sufferings and in Expectation of the Fiery Tryal he might well say he had finished his course 2 Tim. 4.7 But yet he did not expect to dye very suddenly for he sends a Letter from Rome to Timothy at or near Ephesus to desire him to come to him before Winter 2 Tim. 4.21 It wou'd require a considerable time to send a Letter from Rome to Ephesus and for Timothy to return from Ephesus to Rome and to take Mark with him who it should seem was at Corinth all this could not be done under three or four Months and perhaps a longer time considering the several Winds that were necessary for such a Voyage Had Paul been under a Sentence of Death at this time he could not have made an appointment for Timothy to come unto him at a distant time Prisoners in constant Expectations of Death do not use to make appointments for a remote Time to come Thus we have Vindicated the Ancient and Received Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was Written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome and have also proved that the Second Epistle to him was Written in his First Bonds and therefore the Journey to Macedonia mention'd in 1 Tim. 1.3 must be that in Acts 20.1 2. Our Argument then holds good That Timothy was no Bishop of Ephesus because he was no Bishop there when the First Epistle was Written to him for Paul commits the whole Government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of it after the Writing of that Epistle and at a time when Timothy was present or not far off Acts 20.4.17 18 28. And when the Apostle knew he should never see their faces more Acts 20.25 To this last Scripture the Rector opposeth two Things 1. He Corrects the Translation and saith it should be rendred I know that ye shall no more see my face all of you P. 107. 't is in no wise probable that all of them saw his face any more Death and other Casualties would doubtless hinder it The Elders to whom he spake those Words we may presume understood Paul's meaning a little better than the Rector They all wept sore and sorrow'd most of all for the Words which he spake that they should see his Face no more Acts 20.37 38. The Words All of you are here omitted which spoils the Parson's gloss It cannot be imagin'd they wou'd all have wept so passionately had they expected to have seen him again It 's Pity but our Critical Author had been there to explain Paul's Words and to mitigate their ill grounded sorrow by telling them they shou'd see his Face again tho perhaps some of them might Dye before he came again But he himself is sensible of the impertinency of this new Criticism and therefore adds that he will not insist on it 2. When Paul saith P. 108. he knew they shou'd see his Face no more 't is to be understood of a conjectural Knowledge only as he saith 1. It is enough to confirm our Argument that he thought he shou'd see their Faces no more 't is undeniable he had no Hopes of seeing them again and wou'd not be wanting to settle the Government of this Church at this Time And it is as undeniable he settled the Government in the Presbyters and not in a Diocesan Bishop Acts 20.17 28. The Assertors of Episcopacy and among others Mr. G. saith That the Apostles settled the Government by Bishops when they were leaving the Churches and could not oversee them any longer This was the Case here The Apostle is leaving the Church of Ephesus without any thoughts of seeing it again and at this Time commits the Government of the Church to the Presbyters Nor was this Constitution Temporary or Prudential but Divine Acts 20.17 28. It was an appointment of the Holy Ghost Take heed to your selves and the stock saith the Apostle over which the Holy Ghost made you Bishops to feed the Church of God but of this we have spoken before 2. Paul doth not use to express himself so positively when he speaks conjecturally It wou'd look like rashness if not worse in any of us to say positively I know I shall never see such a Place or People and afterwards to excuse it by saying it was only a conjectural Knowledge The Holy Apostle did not use Lightness in his Speech 2 Cor. 1.17 18. he saith in Acts 20.29 I know that grievous Wolves shall enter in among you Was this also a conjectural Knowledge If this was a certain Knowledge as it is evident by the Event it was why shou'd we not understand ver 25. of a certain Knowledge 3. In the Form of Ordaining Priests the Words are thus rendred And now behold I am sure that henceforth yea all through whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my Face no more * Form of Ordaining Pr. Lond. Edit for Bl. Pawlet 1684. 4. It has not been yet proved that Paul was at Ephesus after this Time One wou'd expect a very clear Proof that he was afterwards there from those that dare Charge the Apostle with rashness in his Expressions All the Proof we have is but a qualified Promise of visiting Macedonia and Coloss again Phil. 2.24 Philem. 22. 1. But what is this to Ephesus Here is not a Promise of seeing the Church of Ephesus again It will be said it is likely he did I say it is more likely he did not because he himself said he knew he shou'd never see them again 2. He doth not positively Promise to see Macedonia and Coloss again Phil. 2.24 Philem. 22. I trust c. Here he speaks more doubtfully and not so positively as in Acts 20.25 I know c. This Gentlemans way of arguing is very singular when the Apostle speaks doubtfully I trust he is sure he performed But when he speaks positively I know he is sure he was mistaken He expounds his Conjectural Expressions for Absolute and his Absolute Expressions for Conjectural I overlook his confident Triumphs and weak Reflections with which he stuffs the concluding Pages of this Chapter as having nothing of Argument in them and therefore not worthy my Notice I will follow him to his next Chapter which Treats CHAP. V. Of Evangelists Whether they were fixed Neg. Acts 21.8 considered Timothy and Titus unfixed Hilarius his account of Evangelists Eusebius's Testimony vindicated Mark no fixed Evangelists Chrysostom's account of Evangelists agreeing with Eusebius THis Species of Church Officers saith he P. 113. is spoken of but thrice in the Holy Scriptures Acts 21.8 Eph. 4.11 2 Tim. 4.5 The Office and Work are spoken of in many Places but the Name only in three Places It is
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
What can our Author say to this Instead of answering J. O's P. 170. Arguments he saith He knows not by what Authority J. O. has enter'd into the Comparison His Scripture-Reasons are his Authority which Mr. G. has not touched only he nibbles at 1 Cor. 1.17 which is a Text saith he that few understand but at length he gives the meaning of it Paul's main work saith he was to Preach not to Baptize P. 171. If Preaching was his main Work it was not inferiour to Ordination It doth not hence follow that Preaching is a more honourable Office than Baptizing P. 172. saith the Rector None ever affirm'd the Office to be more Honourable for the Office is one and the same Preaching and Baptizing are Acts of one and the same Office The Apostle seems to prefer the Work of Preaching before that of Baptizing so doth Christ also who Preached Himself but committed the Work of Baptizing to his Disciples John 4.2 Though he blames J. O. for comparing Ministerial Acts yet he cannot forbear doing it himself Ordaining saith he is a higher Ministerial Act than Baptizing P. 173. Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum J. O. thinks Christ mentioned the chief part of a Minister's Work in Mat. 28.19 20. Go Teach Baptize c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part of the Apostle's Commission He would have said Go Ordain Preach Baptize c. Ordination therefore is not the principal part of a Minister's Office but rather Subordinate to Preaching and Baptizing and included here as the Lesser in the Greater A Commission usually Specifies the principal Acts which one is impowered to do and do not run à minori ad majus Mr. G. takes no notice of J. O's Argument but pretends that the Reason why the Lord's Supper Ibid. and Ordination are not mention'd in Mat. 28.19 20. is because they were mentioned before Luke 22.19 John 20.21 So Teaching and Baptizing were mentioned before and practised by the Apostles Christ gives them no new Commission at this time only enlargeth their former Commission They Taught and Baptized before but in one Nation only now they are sent to all Nations It is agreed that Mat. 28.19 20. contains the Commission not only of the Apostles but of their Successors to the end of Time for the Work of the Ministry v. 20. I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Amen Either this Commission doth impower them to Ordain Successors in the ordinary part of their Ministry or it doth not if it doth not it 's imperfect and insufficient for the continuance of a Gospel-Ministry unto the end of the World in pursuance of the Promise made to that end v. 20. Ordination is not mentioned in John 20.21 and it must needs be implied in Mat. 28.19 20. as a necessary means for the continuance of the Church unto the end of Time If this Commission in Mat. 28.19 20. doth impower the Apostles to Ordain as doubtless it doth then the Ordaining Power must be included in Teaching and Baptizing as Subordinate and Subservient to them He says The Power of Conferring other Powers P. 174. is greater than those other Powers John 13.16 If this be true the Bishops who make an Arch-Bishop are greater than he And those who Consecrate the Pope are greater than the Pope John 13.16 doth not speak of Ordination all that can be gathered from it is That we should learn Humility of Jesus Christ who is our Lord and Master John 13.13 14 15 16. Inferiours often confer Superiour Powers Bishops do Crown Kings a Recorder or Town-Clerk may Swear a Mayor 'T is endless to follow our Author in all his undidigested Notions and yet I cannot but touch on 'em for the sake of the less Judicious Readers who expect his Book Answered Paragraph by Paragraph He affirms but cannot prove That the Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves P. 175. We have prov'd the contrary already He asks with what Effrontery dares J. O call Peter Lombard to his Assistance Ibid. who says the Ancients argued from Baptism to Ordination Lomb. Lib. 4. Dist 25. I have Answered this already In short the Testimony of an Adversary is Valid against himself He acknowledges That if the Ordaining Power did by Scripture-Charter belong to the Presbyters P. 176. then to pretend to deprive 'em of it were a Nullity I have proved that it does belong to them by Scripture-Charter And therefore his Instance of a Presbyter Baptizing a Believer who hath no Power to Baptize another is not to the purpose He has often profess'd That he will not trace J. O. through the Fathers and Ancient Writers So he doth p. 122. and p. 175. and yet as a Man who is no Slave to his Word he will needs be nibbling at Antiquity where he thinks he has any advantage so he does p. 116. and p. 119. and in the concluding Pages of his Book He makes a long stride from p. 58. of J. O's Plea P. 177 188. to p. 179. and there he picks quarrel with two Quotations of his which shew the Presbyters to Succeed the Apostles as much as the Bishops He skips over but 120 Pages of J. O's Book and yet would persuade the World he has Answer'd it Suppose I had done so by his Book which I have answered in all that 's material Paragraph by Paragraph would not some People be tempted to think it unanswerable and that I undertook what I was not able to perform But to proceed to the Remarks on J. O's Quotations Ignatius saith That the Presbyters Succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles There 's nothing more unfair saith my Author P. 178. than to misrepresent the Meaning of an Author J. O. only Quoted the Words without Explication how then could he misrepresent the meaning But the meaning is as he tells us That the Presbyters are the Bishops Seconds as the Apostles were Jesus Christ's Seconds Our Rector wants a Second to explain his Explication it is so obscure and unintelligible I hope he would not make Ignatius say that the Bishops are as much the Head of the Presbyters as Christ is of the Apostles But let 's hear Ignatius himself I exhort you saith he * Ad Mag. p. 33. do all your Works in the Concord of God the Bishops presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters in the place of the Bench or Council of the Apostles and the Deacons who are precious to me to whom is committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ. So in another place Let all of you follow the Bishops as Jesus Christ followed the Father and follow the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as the Command of God †Ign. ad Smyr p. 6. He saith one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons And a little after he calls the Apostles the Presbytery of the Church ‖ Ad Phil. P.
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
I see not why he should mention it here except it were to vent his Spleen against poor Calvin not the English Calvin alias Baldwin but the French Minister of that Name upon whom he passeth this Censure I am persuaded Page 3. if the most understanding Calvinist would represent the Opinions of that great Man in their true Colours he would fright more out of their Wits than he could solidly satisfie or Proselyte to his Party If I should attempt to represent the Opinions of Calvin in their true Colours I despair of satisfying a Man of Mr. G's Kidney nor would I be so spiteful as to fright him out of his Wits However I hope I may without prejudice to his Intellect refer him to the Seventeenth Article of the Church of England concerning Predestination and Election and to the Prayer at Burials That God would shortly accomplish the number of his Elect which assert one of Calvin's most frightful Doctrines namely that of Election which implies Reprobation or Preterition To choose is to Select some from among others that are left I presume he hath declared his Assent and Consent to the Articles and Liturgy with what Sincerity he knows best Perhaps his pre-conceived Notions have given such a Tincture to his Eyes as happily secures him from the Intellectual danger of seeing some Truths in their own Colours He wonders with what Confidence the little Striplings which Mr. Frankl Instructs so soon as they have Commenced Ibid. he knows not what Degree are ready to determine the Cause between Arminius and Calvin as if they were Doctors of the Chair I am afraid our Rector is no great Philosopher for a Philosopher who inquires into the Reasons of things wonders at nothing but 1. Why should he wonder that Mr. Fr.'s Pupils should with the same freedom determine for Calvin that many raw Youths that come from the Vniversities do for his beloved Arminius Can that be a Crime in ours which passes for a Vertue in theirs 2. To cure his wonder I will tell him the Reason why they determine against Arminius beause Judicious and Learned Mr. Fr. who as little needs my Commendation as he fears the Rector's Censure directs his Pupils to the Study of the Scriptures and their own Hearts which will enable them betimes to exalt the Free Grace of God and to depress the proud and enslaved Will of Man 3. One that is a Genuine Son of the Church will not wonder that Mr. Fr. should acquaint his Scholars with the Orthodox Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England whose Learned Divines Subscribed the Decrees of the Calvinistical Synod of Dort in Conformity to the Doctrine of the English Church which preferred them after their return and never Censured that Act of theirs The Sense of the Church of England may be seen in her Articles whereof the Tenth is against Free-Will the Thirteenth against Works preparatory to Grace and the Seventeenth for Predestination and Election The Articles were Composed A. D. 1562. Some Years after viz. A. 1595. the Lambeth Articles came out which were drawn up by Arch-Bishop Whitgift with the Advice of several of his Clergy and Subscribed by the Arch-Bishop of York and afterwards Inserted into the Articles of the Church of Ireland These agree with that Determination of the Synod of Dort * Fuller's Eccl. Hist. lib. IX p. 230. Why may not Mr Fr. â—cholars as well Determine for the Doctrine contain'd in the Articles of the Church of England which they Sincerely and Honestly Subscribe as Mr. G. and his Friends do determine against the Doctrine of the Church under the odious Name of Calvinism Who yet make shift to Subscribe her Articles by the help of a sorry distinction that they Subscribe them not as Articles of Faith but as Articles of Peace a Distinction that may help a Man to swallow the Mass or the Alcoran when his Peace and Temporal Advantages require it Mr. Fr's little Striplings as he calls them Thanks be to God are better instructed 4. As to Scholastical Degrees they are Ornamental Titles of no great Antiquity in the Christian World invented in the Lateran Council Gentil exam Con. Trid. p. 6. Ann. Dom. 1215. A wise Man values Persons by their real Worth and not by empty Titles which are most coveted by such as are least worthy of them and since the new Conformity clog'd with such Conditions as the Dissenters cannot comply with For the same Reason the Waldenses and Bohemians rejected Popish Degrees nor would Bucer accept of a Doctor 's Degree in Cambridge until the offensive initiating Ceremonies were dispensed with Hoorn sum Contr. l. 10 p. 754. Degrees were freely given to all deserving Persons before the Year 1616. when Subscription begâ—n to be urged by the Interest of Dr. Laud and his Party at Court who procur'd an Order from K. James directed to the Vice-Chancellor the Heads of Colledges and Halls c. in Oxon That none should take any Degrees without Subscribing the III. Articles in the XXXVI Canon Cambridge not long after Laud's life by Dr Heylin p. 71 72. submitted to the same Innovation For Mr. Hildersam Commenced Batchelor and Master of Arts without any Subscription But about 1617. one Mr. Smith Minister of Clavering in Essex desiring to Commence Doctor it was imposed to put him by and so upon all Doctors and Batchelors in Divinity by Letters from the King It was afterward Imposed also upon Masters of Art and Batchelors II. Another common Topick as our Author tells us Is to represent the bishops proud and haughty Persons and chiefly Pref. p. 4. because of the Honourable Title of Lord given them which is more excusable than for every I reacher to assume the Title of Master For the Law hath bestowed that Title upon the Bishops but not that of Master upon all Preachers This is a general Charge and not prov'd I am sure J. O. doth not Charge them with being Proud and Haughty 'T is true some grave Dissenters and sober Church-Men also have expressed their wishes that the Bishops would divest themselves of their Honourable Titles and Secular Grandeur for these Reasons among others 1. Because the Holy Apostles whose Successors they say they are assumed to themselves no such Titles We no where read of My Lord Peter My Lord Paul The Apostles little dreamt that a sort of Men should succeed them that would look more like the Princes of the Earth than the plain and mortified Ministers of the Humble Jesus 2. Lorldly Titles and Spiritual Domination seem to be forbidden by the Great Lord of the Church Mat. 20.25 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so among you That which distinguisheth Civil Magistrates from Gospel Ministers is the Exercise of Dominion and Titles of Honour both these are forbidden unto Ministers It shall not be so among you You must not Exercise
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
does he mean that some of them have strong presumptions others have moral assurance of the Succession Or rather that their moral assurance is no more than a strong presumption and so the meaning is they strongly presume they are Ministers but cannot be certain upon this Principle This is but very cold comfort to one who labours under Fears and Temptations about his acceptance with God in the Exercise of his Ministry The inextricable difficulties about the Succession which have puzzled the most Learned and diligent Inquirers may increase but can have no tendency to remove his Doubts The Waldenses prov'd their Call to the Ministry by the Success Act Mon. p. 234. and not by the Suecession of it as we noted before and instead of perplexing their Heads with an uninterrupted Succession they asserted this Position Such as hear or obey the word of God and have a right Faith are the right Church of Christ and to this Church the Keys of the Church are given to drive away Wolves and to institute true Pastors Nor are they singular in this Principle it is asserted by the Learned Defenders of the Reformation in their Discourses against the Jesuits the stiff Maintainers of this Succession and they have demonstrated That the Being of the Christian Church cannot depend upon this Succession and that it hath been interrupted again and again There may be a sort of Succession without a true Church as in the Romish false Church there may be a true Church without a Succession as the Foreign Reformed Churches Eccl. Polit. Lib. VII p. 37 38. Mr. Hooker affirms the whole Church visible the true original Subject of all Power and thence infers that a continued Succession of Bishops is not necessary to Ordination This Strongly Presumptuous Gentleman should have answered J. O's Reasons against this Succession before he had talk'd of his moral assurance concerning it But some people are never more sure than when they are furthest from Truth Thus I have follow'd him through his tedious Preface let not the Reader blame me for want of Method in some places because I follow the Author in his Digressions CHAP. II. The Jewish Church not the first established Church The Levitical Priesthood no Pattern for Gospel Ministers Clemens Romanus Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modell'd his Church after the Jewish Pattern or left it in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His 1. instance of Ordination from Acts 1. consider'd 2. The Ordination of the seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments Prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections answer'd 3. His third instance of Ordination from Act. 9.17 consider'd 4. His fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This instance of Ordination by Presbyters vindicated His account of Apostles and Prophets examin'd 5. His instance from Acts 14.13 examin'd 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7. 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. vindicated 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 For Ordination by Presbyters vindicated Dr. Owen defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9. 1 Pet. 5.2 vindicated HE takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Apostles were Superiour to Presbyters which no Body ever deny'd This is the chief Scope of the first Chapter of his Book in which he hath furnished us with some rare Notions of Church Government He tells us P. 1. that the Church of the Jews was the first established Church in the World that we know of Had God no Church in the World for about 24.50 Years till the Law was given upon Mount Sinai Were there no worshipping Congregations no Divine Laws of Worship in the World before Moses's Time We read of Sacrifices and Invocation on the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.3 4 24. And were there no Assemblies for those Acts of Worship We read of the Sons of God as distinct from the Daughters of Men and that the mixture of the professedly Holy Seed of Seth with the prophane Gainites sill'd the World with Wickedness Gen. 6. The degeneracy of the Sons of God the visible Church of God at that Time caus'd the Flood He that can believe that God had no Church before the Flood may also believe there never was a Flood Did Noah the Father of the new World who had immediate Rcvelation from God as most of the Patriarchs had establish no Church among his numerous Posterity Was God indifferent whether he would have a Church Or was Noah unfaithful in transmitting the Divine Establishment to his Off-spring It is true they soon degenerated Gen. 11. but that 's an Argument they had been a Covenant-People Was there no Church establish'd in Abrabam's numerous and princely Family Gen. 14.14 23.6 He erected Altars for Sacrifice and call'd upon the Lord whereever he came God renew'd his Covenant with him and admitted his Infant Seed by Circumcision into a visible Church-membership whereby they were distinguished from the rest of the World Did righteous Melchizedeck King of Salem who was Priest of the most High God as the Patriarchs generally were take no care to establish a Church among his Subjects I hope one may lawfully doubt this Gentleman's Notions of Church-Government who thus blunders about the very existence of a Church But continues he P 1. The Jewish Church was govern'd by a High-Priest Inferior Priests and Levites 1. I begin now to suspect the Reason why he would have no establish'd Church before the Jewish he does not read of any subordinate Priests and Levites that were subject to the Patriarchal Priests He seems to be content that God should have no Church in the World for almost 2500 Years rather than want a Model for his Hierarchy consisting of Bishops Priests and Deacons This is agreeable enough to his Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops are essential to a Church 2. The High-Priest Priests and Levites are not the Model for Gospel Churches for we read of no Institution of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the New Testament We find Bishops and Deacons there Phil. 1.1 but the Scripture-Bishop is the same with the Scripture-Presbyter 3. The Jewish High-Priest was an eminent Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession He is one as the Jewish High-Priest was and in this respect we follow the Jewish Typical President Wo are under Jesus Christ our only Chief-Priest who hath appointed Presbyters and Deacons as under Officers in the Christian Church 4. This is the great Argument of the Papists for the Pope's Supremacy the Jews had one Chief-Priest therefore the Christians must have one Chief-Bishop So Bellarmine Argues De Rom. Pontif. I. 9. It is unhappy that the Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy equally serve the Papacy The Fathers especially Clemens Romanus saith the Rector seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons Ibid. The first answering the High Priest the second the Inferiour Priests and the third the Levites Either the Rector has never read Clemens Romanus or
to the Errata and expected to find them Corrected there as sight is put for blindness p. 8. but was disappointed Did the Lòrd Jesus leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy The Writers of Politicks say that Oligarchy is the Corruption of Aristocracy Oligarchy saith Burgersdicius is the Disease and Destruction of Aristocracy And he describes it to be the Oppression of the Multitude by a few of the Nobles who exclude their Collegues usurp the Government and trample upon The Laws * Idea Doct. Pol. Cap. 22. §. 10.11 Bodin the Famous Lawyer saith That Oligarchy is a factious Aristocracy or a Seigniory of a very small number of Lords as were the thirty Tyrants of Athens and the Roman Triumviri who oppress'd the Liberty of the People And for this Reason adds he the Ancients have always taken this Word Oligarchy in an evil Part * De Republ II. 6. An Error in Politicks is excusable enough in a Divine but a Man who takes upon him to write Political Sermons and to Publish a Book of Church Government should not blunder about the Common Terms which School-Boys understand I presume he meant Aristocracy for he explains himself that Christ left his Church in the Power of Twelve This also is a mistake for Judas one of the Twelve was gone or going to his own Place It is true Matthias succeeded in his Room but Christ left not his Church in the Power of Twelve exclusive of other Apostles Paul who was not one of the Twelve was not Inferiour to the Chief Apostles 2 Cor. 11.5 and 12.11 Many judge Barnabas an Apostle of equal Authority with the rest He thinks the Church was govern'd after Christ's Ascension by the Apostles in a Parity p. 2. that we easily grant but do not understand the Proof of it For saith he neither did he commit the Power unto the Twelve themselves but was wholly silent therein How then came they by it He adds by Order of Nature one would think One would think the Rector were in a Dream when these Words dropt from him He makes the Apostles to govern the Church by an usurped Power which Christ never committed to them If this be so all their Acts become nullities which overturns the Foundations of Christianity and makes their Episcopal Successors act by an usurped Power You must not admire that he denies the governing Power to Presbyters for the very Apostles had it not from Jesus Christ as he positively speaks He is positive they had it not from Jesus Christ but is not certain how they came by it only he thinks it must by Order of Nature fall to their share He shou'd help us to a New Dictionary to explain his Terms What he means by the Order of Nature is hard to understand If he means by it that the Eldest should be preferr'd as in the Patriarchal Government his Expression is very improper for the Apostolical Power was not founded in natural Generation but in a positive Institution and if the Order of Nature must carry the Power the Eldest Apostle must succeed in the Government which destroys the Parity he allows It seems he over-look'd Mat. 16.19 John 20.21 22 23. Mat. 28.18 19 20. Where Christ commits the Power unto his Apostles We will now proceed to his Scripture Instances of Ordination in which he pretends the Presbyters had no share In some of his Instances Ordination is not concern'd in others Presbyters could not be concern'd because they were not in being in others the Presbyters had a hand as we shall evince notwithstanding his endeavours to exclude them I. His first Instance of Ordination in Acts 1. we are not concern'd in for none ever question'd the Apostles Power of Ordaining before this Gentleman who denies their having a Power from Jesus Christ and where else they could have it is a Mystery which Mr. G. only is concerned to unfold If Matthias was Ordain'd as he saith he was it is an instance of Ordination without Imposition of Hands Dr. Willet infers from it That Imposition of Hands is not of the Essence of Orders * Synop. Pap. Con. 16. q. 2. which Assertion he confirms as the Protestant Doctrine and if so persons may be true Ministers though the Bishops have not laid hands on them II. His next Instance is the Ordination of the Seven Deacons Acts 6. concerning whom he saith P. 3. 4. They were designed to distribute the publick Alms unto the Poor the multitude of Believers chose them the Apostles approv'd them and appointed them over that Business of distributing the publick Charity by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of hands v. 6. whereby also they became Ordained to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments It 's observable here 1. He acknowledges the People's right to chuse Ministers Why then are they deprived of it and no Overtures made towards the Restoring of this Power to them It were a Province worthy of a Convocation instead of laying new Burthens on the multitude of Believers to contribute their Endeavours to have their Ancient Priviledges restored 2. He owns that the Imployment whereunto the Seven Deacons were first design'd was to serve Tables but he adds of his own their Ordination for the Business made them also Ministers But this is a great mistake 1. Because the very Apostles found it too difficult a Province to serve Tables and to attend the Ministry of the Word Act. 6.2 It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables V. 3 4. Wherefore look ye out among you Seven Men whom we may appoint over this Business but we will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word The Ministry of the Word and the Serving of Tables are distinct Offices and inconsistent in the ordinary exercise of them otherwise there were no force in the Apostles reasoning that they must not leave the Word to serve Tables If serving of Tables was a hinderance to the Apostles Ministry would it not be also to that of the Deacons What Absurdity do they put upon the Apostles who would make them say We cannot attend the Ministry of the Word and serve Tables wherefore Brethren choose you among you Seven Men whom we may appoint to do both 2. The occasion of chusing Deacons was the necessity of the Poor whom the Apostles were desirous to have relieved out of the publick Alms and could not do it themselves being taken up with the Ministry of the Word The end of the Institution was to serve Tables Acts 6.3 Pursuant to this end the People chose Seven not to Preach but to serve Tables Pursuant to this choice the Apostles appointed them over that business by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of Hands Acts 6.3 6. Here is not one Syllable of Ordination to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments The end of the Institution Choice and Ordination was to Serve Tables and no other is mentioned 3. Compare
So that according to his own Interpretation the Elders had Power to Decree an Excommunication He fancies the Apostle to be a sort of Lay-Chancellour and the Corinthian Elders to be like the Presbyters of the Church of England who have the Priviledge of Publishing the Excommunicating Decrees of the Chancellour 2. He alters and perverts the sacred Text for thus he renders and explains it 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have judged have Decreed as tho I were present personally concerning him that hath so done this Deed Ibid. In the Name or Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gather'd together and of my Spirit that is by my Authority with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan The English Translation according to the Original renders it When ye are gathered together and my Spirit he renders it of my Spirit as if the Construction were in the Name of my Spirit that is by my Authority * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that the whole Authority of excommunicating the Incestuous Person had been in Paul and none in the Church The Syriac which is very Ancient renders it That ye all gather together and I with you in Spirit with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ So doth the Ancient Latin Version express it * Congregatis vobis meo spiritu Thus the Rector disturbs the Order of the Text contradicts the most approved Versions both Ancient and Modern to serve a Design The Apostle speaks of the Presence of his Spirit joyning with and going before the Corinthian Elders but doth not assume the sole Power to himself He enjoyns them by his Apostolical Authority to do their Duty and allows them to Judge those within 1 Cor. 5.12 In like manner he enjoyns several things to Timothy and Titus The same Apostle saith Mr. G. excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander p. 17. 1 Tim. 1.20 No Elder joyning with him He cannot prove there were any Elders in Ephesus when Paul excommunicated these two Men or if there were any that they did not joyn with him But suppose the Apostle did Excommunicate them by his eminent Apostolical Authority and deliver them to Satan to be tormented by him which some think he did I see not what Advantage he can make of it except he could prove That Bishops are endued with the same miraculous Power VIII He comes at length to Timothy's Ordination p. 18. here he Notes from 2 Tim. 1.6 That Timothy was ordain'd by Paul without Elders mention'd This Scripture he saith the Presbyterians seldom take notice of and Mr. Pryn passes it over in silence Mr. Pryn doth mention it * The unbish of Timothy and Titus p. 76. Edit 1660. and allows that Paul laid on his Hands in Conjunction with the Presbytery The Rector being unprovided with better Matter sills part of two Pages with an Invective against Mr. Pryn for passing over this 2 Tim. 1.6 in Silence by this the Reader may see what Credit is to be given to this Gentleman's Accusations J. O. also hath consider'd this Scripture in his Plea p. 46. and saith That Pauls laying on of Hands upon Timothy might be for ought appears to the contrary for the conferring the Holy Ghost which was given by the laying on of the Apostles Hands Acts 8.17 18. but if he laid Hands for Ordination its certain he join'd the Presbyters with him which he had not done if their had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as such He promises to shew p. 10. that 1 Tim. 4.14 makes little or nothing for Presbyterian Ordination and to reconcile it with their's and it's Parallel 2 Tim. 1.6 It is a Favour that he allows the 1 Tim. 4.14 to make a little for Ordination by Presbyters but he is not sure whether it makes little or nothing for us This Gentleman is so Tenacious that where he yields an Inch you may reckon an Ell is due The Words are these 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This is a clear Instance as we think for Ordination by Presbyters No saith the Rector it makes little or nothing for it But let 's hear his Proof He has four things to offer which if they fail him our Instance holds good I. It 's no doubt with him but that Timothy was Ordained twice P. 20 first a Presbyter by Prophecy with the Presbytery and then a Bishop by Paul How will he prove this Why Paul was Ordain'd twice first a Minister of the Word in ordinary then unto the Apostleship of the Gentiles 1. His Proof wants another Was the Apostle Paul but an ordinary Minister at first Who was called not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ Gal. 1.1 who was caught up into the Third Heaven 2 Cor. 12.2 and had abundance of Revelations v. 7. who saw the Lord Jesus and reckons himself one of the Apostles from the time of his miraculous Conversion 1 Cor. 15.8 9. Gal. 1.15 16 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem he speaks of the time immediately following his Conversion to them which were Apostles before me This implies he was an Apostle himself at that time * Pears Ann. Paul p. 2. Was he but an ordinary Minister who had the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 9.17 He that has the Confidence to make one of the chief Apostles an ordinary Minister may with equal assurance assert every ordinary Minister to be a chief Apostle St. Paul expresly saith That he was not taught his Gospel by Men but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1.12 Was he but an ordinary Minister who receiv'd his Gospel by extraordinary Revelation Bishop Pearson's Judgment which is follow'd by the Rector in his Annals I presume is of some value with him The Bishop will set him at rights he owns Paul to be an Apostle before the Mission mention'd in Acts 13.1 2. This he doth both in his Annals p. 2. and in his Lection in Act. Apost p. 74 75. So doth Eusebius Eccl. Hist II. 1. 2. He was sent by Revelation unto the Gentiles before the Ordination mention'd in Acts 13. as appears Acts 22.18.21 The Ordination mention'd there did not make him an Apostle as the Rector dreams but he had an antecedent immediate Call from Jesus Christ The Holy Ghost thought fit he should enter upon the Stated Exercise of his Apostolical Ministry amongst the Gentiles at the Door of Ordination by Presbyters for a President of Ordination to the Gentile Churches When the great Apostle of the Gentiles enters at this Door it 's fit that ordinary Ministers shou'd and if Presbyters may lay hands on an Apostle much more on inferiour Ministers 3. He allows that Timothy was made a Presbyter by Presbyters but that he was made a Bishop by Paul is
his ipse dixit for Proof and then all your Doubts will vanish He confesses that the Apostle might justly Admonish and Commend Timothy P. 49. The Scope of his former Chapter was to prove the Presbyter◠were Subject to the Apostles and therefore were not Supreme Governours Now he owns Timothy to be Subject to the Apostle So that his Argument that the Presbyters had no Power of Government because Subject to the Apostles is thrown out of Doors by himself Had he been so kind as to insert this Concession in its proper place he would have spared us the trouble of several Remarks upon the former Chapter He picks out of Paul 's Epistle to Timothy the particular Rules and Orders P. 49 50. which are prescribed unto him for the discharge of his Episcopal Office The several Powers committed to Timothy in this Epistle he might execute as he was an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4 5. and Assistant of Paul in his Apostolical Function and as his Delegate to Order and Regulate the Church It was Timothy 's part to see to the Qualifications of those who were to be Ordained at Ephesus P. 50. If this be the proper work of a Bishop how come our Bishops to depute this work to one of their Presbyters At his death he left a Successor with the same Powers P. 55. Timothy was an Evangelist an extraordinary Officer Eph. 4.5 11. Did he leave Successors with the same extraordinary Powers If Evangelists one Species of extraordinary Officers have Successors why should not Apostles and Prophets also have Successors assigned them Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were alike extraordinary and Superiour to Pastors and Teachers the ordinary Officers of Christ's Church No reason can be given why one sort of extraordinary Officers should be continued more than the rest which are confessedly ceas'd But let 's hear his Proofs 1. It was no ways likely but that Timothy was expresly Impower'd by St. Paul to provide for the future Government of the Church and perhaps his Commission is in that 2 Tim. 2.2 or if not yet he would of his own accord settle it upon the same bottom that himself had received it from the Apostle Something he would say but knows not what I expected a clear Proof but we are put off with a perhaps it was so or so or so one way or other it must be It 's likely he was Impower'd to provide for the future Government of the Church Paul provided for it in Acts 20.28 His Commission in 1 Tim. 22.11 is to commit the things that he had heard of Paul to faithful Men which should be able to Teach others also Is this a Commission to Ordain Bishops Are all Teachers Bishops The Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 are but meer Teachers with him and now the Teachers in Ephesus are Ordaining Bishops The Bishops which the Holy Ghost made in Ephesus he degrades into ordinary Teachers who have no Ordaining Power and now when it serves his turn he advances the Teachers Ordained by Timothy into the Order of Superiour Bishops But Timothy would of his own accord settle the Government as he received it He received the Power of an Evangelist which was Temporary as was that of the Apostles and Prophets 2. Timothy left a Successor P. 56. because Christ directs his Message to the Angel of the Church in the singular Number if that Church had been Govern'd by a Presbytery the Message must have been Express'd in the Plural 1. Angel is a Metaphorical Term and is generally applied to the Heavenly Spirits which are Ministring Spirits to the Heirs of Salvation Heb. 1.14 So that this Title denotes a Ministry rather than Degrees of Superiority 2. Angel is often taken collectively and seldom personally in the Mysterious Book of the Revelation Rev. 9.11 14.6 8 9. And so are Stars used which are the same with Angels Rev. 1.20 12.1 8.10 9.1 They are Mystical Terms and no clear Consequence can be deduced from them Austin in his Disputations with the Donatists excepts against Mystical Figurative Scriptures and requires some clear Texts that carry their own Evidence with them * Haec Mystica sunt opertasunt Figurata sunt aliquid manifestum quod interprete non egeat stagitamus De Vnit Eccl. Cap. XIX The Epistles were Dedicated to all the Churches as well as to the Angels and by the same reason must be directed to all the Ministers as well as to one Can it be imagined that the Spirit should speak to all the Churches and not to all the Ministers 3. There were several Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 and doubtless all of them were concerned in Christ's Message though it might be directed to one as President or Moderator for Order's sake But Mr. G. will never be able to prove that one Angel had Jurisdiction over the rest 4. If there were any thing of certainty in the Celestial Hierarchy which is described by the Supposititious Dionysius the Order of Angels strictly call'd so is the lowest of all the rest * Extremo loco inter Coelestes Essentias Angelicam proprietam obtinent De Coel. Hierar Cap. 9. How comes that to be the highest Order among Ecclesiastical Angels which is the lowest among Celestial Argels He adds the Reason why 't is said Angel in the singular Number because saith he there was an Opinion current in those Days that every Province had his peculiar Guardian Angel Deut. 32.8 in the LXX Dan. 12.1 10.12 13. 1. The current Opinion of a Provincial Guardian Angel is very doubtful at the best and without Foundation in the Scriptures he quotes 2. The Seventy Interpreters render Deut. 32.8 He set the bounds of the People accordirg to the number of the Angels of God whereas according to the Hebrew it should be according to the number of the Children of Israel They seem to allude to the Jewish Fabulous Tradition concerning the Seventy Angels set over the Seventy Nations of the World †Lights Vol. II. p. 402. 3. According to this Allusion the Rector would have the Holy Ghost to constitute but one Bishop for one Province or Nation and but Seventy for all the Nations of the World But the Holy Ghost who is no Friend to Fabulous Traditions mentions Seven Angels in one Province namely the Pronconsular Asia and there were as many in every Church as there were Presbyters therein 4. Is it not more probable that the Spirit alludes to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Argel of the Church as the Jews call'd the publick Minister of every Synagogue * Lights Vol. II. p. 133. in Conformity to the Language of the Old Testament Job 33.23 Hag. 1.13 Mal. 21.7 He is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messenger or Angel †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 2.7 in LXX is taken collectively for all Teaching Priests Mal. 3.1 8. 2.7 If Angel be taken Collectively by Malachi
1. de Succession Rom. Episc Cap. IX S. 5. ad S. 10. But let 's consider what the Rector has to offer out of Dr. Pearson Thus he goes on The Characteristick of the precise time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus is set down by Paul himself P. 80. 1 Tim. 1.3 When I went into Macedonia This was not saith he at any of those times of Paul's going into Macedonia remembred in the Acts and therefore it was after the Apostle bad the Ephesians farewel at Miletus Here he spends several Pages to shew it was none of the times mention'd by St. Luke 1. Tho' Luke doth not mention in Acts 20. Timothy's being left at Ephesus it is enough that Paul mentions it 1 Tim. 1.3 In Acts 19.21.22 Paul sends Timothy into Macedonia appointing him to call at Corinth by the way and intends himself to stay at Ephesus until he should come thither again to him 1 Cor. 16.10 11. He chargeth the Corinthians to Conduct him forth in Peace that he might come to him for he looked for him with the Brethren It 's most likely then he return'd from Macedonia to Ephesus unto Paul The disturbance there occasion'd Paul's departure before the time he had fix'd 1 Cor. 16.8 And so he setteth for Macedonia as he intended 1 Cor. 16.5 Acts 20.1 At his departure from Ephesus he leaves Timothy there behind not as a Resident but in his absence to supply the present Necessity 1 Tim. 1.3 4. until he return'd again which he intended shortly to do 1 Tim. 2.3 14. 2. Nothing can be concluded from Luke's silence in this point for it is certain that he does not mention all the Journeys either of Paul or Timothy In Acts 20.1 2. he saith that Paul departed from Ephesus to go into Macedonia but speaks nothing of his stay at Troas which tho' but short was not without some Success Yet this Omission of Luke 2 Cor. 2.12 13. doth supply Where doth Luke mention Paul's preaching the Gospel in Illiricum which we are sure he did before his Imprisonment at Rome Rom. 15.19 Nor doth he mention his preaching in Arabia which is spoken of in Gal. 1.17 Nor doth Luke mention Timothy's Journey to the Thessalonians to confirm them in the Faith In Acts 17.13 14. we find him at Berea with Paul and Silas who were driven from Thessalonica by Persecution Paul experts him speedily at Athens vers 15. And we hear no more of him till Paul came to Corinth Acts 18.15 But what 's omitted by Luke is mention'd by Paul in 1 Thes 3.1 2. viz. That Timothy was sent to Thessalonica while Paul staid at Athens Now because I find Timothy in Berea a Town of Macedonia Acts 17.13 14. and sometime after coming from Macedonia to Corinth Acts 18.5 Shall I therefore conclude that he was in Berea all that time When I find Paul expecting him in Athens and sending him from thence to Thessalonica between those times as is mention'd by himself in 1 Thess 3.1 2. With as much reason may the Rector conclude that because he finds Timothy in Macedonia Acts 19.21 22. And there again about half a year after Acts 20.4 That therefore he was not out of Macedonia in all that time Tho' we find the Apostle expecting him at Ephesus 1 Cor 16.10 11. And leaving him there 1 Tim. 1.3 when he went into Macedonia He may as rationally affirm That the first Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome which all acknowledge to be written before because it mentions a Journey of Timothy's to Thessalonica which Luke in the History of the Acts of the Apostles takes no notice of As the Epistle to the Corinthians Romans and Thessalonians supply some Passages in the Travels of Paul and Timothy omitted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles even so doth the first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 1.3 supply what 's omitted in Acts 20. It is usual in all Histories for one Author to supply It what 's omitted by another And in Scripture-History what 's omitted in the Books of Kings is inserted in the Chronicles which are therefore call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things omitted by the Lxx. What 's omitted by one Evangelist is reported by another So what 's omitted by Luke is mentioned by the Apostle to Timothy to wit That he besought him to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Luke no where mentions Titus Paul's Companion whom the Apostle so often mentions in his Epistles Paul after his Release from his first Imprisonment at Rome continues our Author went back to visit the Eastern Churches P. 87. as he intended Phil. 1.25 26. and 2.24 Philem. 22. Heb. 13.23 He went from Italy to Crete and so to Judea In his passage by Crete which was his way by Sea to Judea he planted a Church there For no other time can be assign'd for it but this All this is confidently affirm'd after the Rector's usual way But 1. Here is no express proof that he visited the Church of Ephesus after his Imprisonment at Rome He might visit the Philippians Colossians and the Churches of Judea without ever seeing Ephesus as he had positively said he should not Acts 20.25 2. It is not certain whether he visited the Philippians and Colossians after his Imprisonment at Rome for he doth not positively promise it He seems uncertain what would become of him Phil. 2.23 24. He had some hopes of seeing them but was not certain Philem. 22. Nay had he pass'd a Promise of seeing them again it doth not necessarily follow he did see them Many things might happen to divert his Intentions as it happen'd with respect to the Promise he made of Visiting the Corinthians 2 Cor. 1.15 16 17. 3. The Learned Dr. Lightfoot assigns another time * Vol. 1. p. 309. for Paul's visiting of Crete and that was when he return'd from Macedonia to Greece Acts 20. 2. And then he left Titus there Tit. 1.5 thinking that he should presently after a little stay in Greece have set towards Jerusalem As he was about to fall into Syria the Jews laid wait for him which made him to return through Macedonia Acts 20.3 About that time as Dr. Lightfoot conceives he writ the Epistle to Titus in which he calls him to Nicopolis where he intended to winter Tit. 3.12 It is certain he winter'd in those Parts for the Spring following he sails into Asia Acts 20.6 He had some thoughts of wintering in Corinth 1 Cor. 16.6 But It seems altering his Resolution he determined to winter in Nicopolis a City in Epirus not very far distant from Corinth Titus according to appointment came to him and was sent by him to Corinth to hasten the Collection for the Saints in Judea 2 Cor. 8.16 17. We do not deny but St. Paul might go into Spain and perhaps to Britain also as some affirm but no Man ever affirm'd so palpable an untruth as that all the Fathers should say so before this man whose
Timothy who was an Evangelist and not the fixed ordinary Governour of any one Church Acts 20.17 28. 2 Tim. 4 5. That Paul left Timothy at Ephesus and wrote his First Epistle to him before his Imprisonment at Rome appears 1. From his Journey to Macedonia mention'd 1 Tim. 1.3 which can be no other than that in Acts 20. as most of the Learned agree and as is proved already 2. From his Excommunicating Alexander the Copper-Smith 1 Tim. 1.20 who is the same Person that is mention'd Acts 19.33 * Vid. Grot. in 1 Tim. 1.20 and Estium Lightfoot Vol. 1. p. 306. This Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy as we may rationally suppose and so is mention'd as a late thing 3. That place in 1 Tim. 3.14 15. where the Apostle saith That he hopes to come shortly unto Timothy agrees well with the time of his stay in Macedonia and Greece mention'd in Acts 20.1 2. He design'd to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost 1 Cor. 16.8 but was driven away sooner by the Tumult there Acts 20.1 and spent very near a whole Year in Macedonia Greece and those parts and return'd for Asia after Easter in the following Year Acts 20.6 having Winter'd in Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 Sometime this Year while he was in Macedonia or the parts thereabouts he writes his first Epistle to Timothy telling him He design'd to be shortly with him 1 Tim. 3.14 Accordingly not long afterwards he Sail'd for Asia and came to Miletus the time being far spent that he could not conveniently go to Ephesus Acts 20.15 16. Obj. But Timothy was with Paul in Macedonia when he set out for Asia Acts 20.4 How comes he to leave Ephesus seeing the Apostle desir'd him to stay there till he came Answ The Learned Dr. Lightfoot conceives it very probable That Paul designing to have Sail'd for Syria Acts 20.3 came near to Timothy and there discovering the danger that was laid in his way by the Jews which also might have involv'd Timothy he brought him away back again with him and so both return'd again into Macedonia and when Winter was over they set for Asia again * Lightf Vol. 1. p. 312. 4. Tiie First Epistle to Timothy must be Written before Paul's first Imprisonment because the Second Epistle was Written in his first Bonds as the Famous Dr. Lightfoot affirms †Lightf Vol. 1. p. 324. and so doth the Learned Dr. Hammond § Ham. in 2 Tim. a Zealous Assertor of Episcopacy to whose Opinion I Subscribe for these Reasons 1. When the Second Epistle was written to Timothy he was a Young Man therefore Paul bids him flee youthful lusls 2 Tim. 2.22 For the same reason he saith 1 Tim. 4.12 Let no Man despise thy Youth See 1 Cor. 16.11 Suppose Timothy was about 24 or 25 Years old when Paul took him into the Ministry Acts 16.34 which was about the Year of Christ LI. * Lightf Vol. 1. p. 294. from this time to Paul's Second Bonds and Martyrdom which happen'd A. D. LXX †Euseb or LXVIII say others ‖ Lightf there pass'd near XX Years so that by the lowest Computation Timothy must be above XL. when the Apostle was under his Second Confinement at Rome It is not likely the Apostle should caution him against youthful lusts 2 Tim. 2.22 at three or four and fourty Years old especially being a sickly man 1 Tim. 1.23 Therefore he wrote this Second Epistle to Timothy many Years before his last Confinement i. e. in his first Bonds when Timothy was indeed a young Man about 33 or 34 or perhaps Younger not much Elder than when he wrote his first Epistle to him in which he saith let no man despise thy youth 1 Tim. 4.12 Or when he sent his First Epistle to the Corinthians which all confess to be Penn'd before his first Bonds that chargeth them not to despise him for the same Reason 1 Cor. 16.11 * Vid. Pise Grot. in Loc. For the same Reason he calls him Son 1 Tim. 1.2.18 2 Tim. 2.1 2. Paul sends for Timothy to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 His Letter finds him some where near Ephesus 2 Tim. 4.19 1.16 18. 4.13 Accordingly Timothy came to Rome and it doth not appear that he came thither before this time that he was sent for The last mention we have of him in the Acts is That he accompanies Paul into Asia Acts 20.4 We read nothing of him in Paul's Voyage to Rome therefore 't is most likely he parted with Paul at Miletus and staid among the Asian Churches until he was sent for by Paul to Rome After his coming thither the Epistle to the Philippians Colossians and Philemon were written for his Name is Prefixed to them as well as Paul's Now these Epistles were written in his First Bonds at Rome Phil. 1.26 2.23 24. Philemon 22. This will not be deny'd therefore the Second Epistle to Timothy was written in his first Bonds though sometime before these 3. Timothy is desir'd to bring Mark with him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.11 Accordingly he went to Rome and was with Paul at Rome when he wrote his Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon Col. 4.10 Philem. 24. which Epistles were undoubtedly written in his first Bonds It cannot be pretended that Mark went with Paul to Rome there is not the least mention of him either in Scripture or any other approved Author as Paul's Companion to Rome He was sent for in this Second Epistle to Timothy to come along with him to Rome and it is certain he was with Paul in his first Bonds 4. He mentions in 2 Tim. 3.11 his Sufferings which befel him at Ieonium at Lystra and Antioch of which we have an account in Acts 14. Now this Persecution happen'd about the Year of Christ 49 or 50 * Lightf Vol. 1. p. 291. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome was in the Year of Christ 68 or as others 69 which was the Year in which he wrote this Epistle according to this new Hypothesis So that his Persecutions at Antioch Lyconium and Lystra were near 20 years before his last Imprisonment at Rome Now it is not likely that the Apostle would mention an Event so long past when there were other latter Sufferings of his that were much fresher in his Memory Therefore we may rather think that he mentions his Sufferings at Antioch c. as a late thing not very many Yeats past and if so this Second Epistle was written much earlier than is pretended 5. The Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds as Mr. G. confesseth p. 86 87. and was sent by Tychicus Eph. 6.21 who was also the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians Col. 4.7 which was written at the same time with that to Ephesus as he observeth p. 87. Tychicus had gone along with Paul for Rome Acts 20.5 This sending of Tychicus to Ephesus is mention'd in 2 Tim. 4.12 Therefore this Second Epistle to Timothy