Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	diocesan_n	diocese_n	2,722	5	11.0439	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53662	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.	Owen, James, 1654-1706.	1697 (1697)	Wing O710; ESTC R9488	123,295	224

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-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 C●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

207 Parishes in Crete which divided between twenty five Bishops there falls but Eight Parishes to the share of each Bishop and an over-plus of 7 25 Parts How different were these from Modern Bishopricks A Bishop may better Over-see Eight or Nine Parishes than Eight or Nine Scores of Parishes J. O. Proved that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could ordinarily meet in one place because that Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily Receiv'd the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time Mr. G. Answers That Ignatius's one Altar signifies not one Numerical P. 143. but one Specifical Altar Then Ignatius's one Bishop must signifie not one Numerical but one Specifical Bishop He thinks there was more than one Numerical Altar because after the Words Alledged by J. O. Ignatius goes on thus Ibid. Let that Eucharist be accounted good and firm which is Celebrated under the Bishop or which he consents to Vnder the Bishop is plainly in his presence and not under his Authority as he explains it as being opposed to his Consent in his absence His consenting that the Presbyters might Administer in his absence doth not prove more than one Altar The Parson of one Parish which hath but one Altar may consent that his Curates may Administer the Eucharist He further proves there were many Altars under Ignatius his Bishop from that Passage Where-ever the Bishop appears there let the People be even as where Jesus Christ is not appears as he falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is the Catholick Church Nothing could have been produced more impertinently than this Passage which shews that the Multitude must be where the Bishop was or appear'd his Appearance must be understood of his personal visible Appearance To talk of an Invisible Appearance is ridiculous And yet you must understand it so saith our Author It is not to be understood of his Person but Authority saith he even as Jesus Christ is with the Catholick Church not in his Person but in his Spiritual Power 1. This is worse and worse Ignatius did not say Where Christ appears as he to serve a Design falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but where Jesus Christ is Ignatius knew Jesus Christ to be Invisible on Earth since his Ascension and that a Bishop was visible and therefore saith where the Bishop appears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and where Christ is 2. To deny Christ to be personally present with his Church is to deny him to be the Second Person in the Trinity I hope he believes the Divinity and Omnipresence of our Lord Jesus Christ though in a Transport of Zeal he forgot the Form of Sound Words The Spiritual Power of Christ doth not exclude his Personal Presence Some Men will talk any thing though never so little to the purpose rather than yield to the Evidence of Truth P. 145. He tells us that the Church of Ephesus took in all Asia the proper because all they that dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus viz. at Ephesus He might as well have said That the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia Pontus and Asia c. for those heard the Word of the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem Acts 2.9 11. He saith J. O. should have Enter'd the Lists with Dr. Maurice P. 146. who Answer'd Mr. B. and Mr. Cl. about the extent of Bishopricks J. O's Subject being Ordination he was not concern'd in Dr. Maurice's Book though he said something occasionally concerning the Extent of Churches from Ignatius and others He complains J. O. hath troubled them with a New Book upon an Old Subject Ibid. without adding any thing considerable to it It seems J. O's Book hath created some trouble to them but what is the trouble Is it that he writes a New Book upon an Old Subject That cannot be it for the Rector hath done so himself If it be a fault to write upon an Old Subject no Man must write at all for there is scarce any thing New under the Sun Or does it trouble him that J. O. hath not added any thing considerable to the Subject that cannot be also except we suppose his own Performance which has little of Addition to what is found in Bellarmine and other Popish Authors to be a Trouble to him I doubt then something else in the Book troubles him He can tell what it is for he had good Reason why he would not Answer a Book which he undertakes to Answer but contents himself with a few slight Remarks upon two or three Chapters and leaves the greatest part of the Book untouch'd I leave it to such as have read other Authors upon the Subject of Ordination by Presbyters to Judge of J. O's performance whether the Subject has receiv'd any Improvement by it He takes a great deal of Pains to prove what no Body denies P. 146 147 148 149. viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Agreement or Unity and not always one place as J. O. render'd it in those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give diligence to Assemble together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more frequently for when ye often come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ign. ad Eph. p. 25. or into one place the Powers of Sathan are destroy'd One would think J. O's Translation very natural for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to one place and so must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows immediately after But it ought not to be so render'd here saith our Author And the Proof is There might have been several Places for Worship at Ephesus p. 148. But he does not prove there were several places I have proved the contrary from the one Altar mention'd in Igna. ad magna p. 34. He thinks Ignatius does not intend one place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 149. because he speaks a little after of the Vnity of their Faith Might they not have Unity of Faith in one place But we have sufficiently prov'd above That Ignatius his Church ordinarily met in one place Dr. Burnet acknowledges there was but one Numerical Altar to one Diocess in Ignatius's time as J. O. quoted him P. 30. Mr. G. passes by the Bishop unsaluted The Learned Mr. Mede confesseth That in those First Times they had but one Altar to a Diocesan Church This he confirms by Instances out of Justin Martyr and out of Cyprian Ep. 40.72 73. De Vnit Eccl. c. Mede of Churches P. 48 49 50. I will not contend with him about the number of Churches built at Constantinople by Constantine the Great but 't is very improbable that they should be two Hundred as he extravagantly talks Socrates mentions but Two Nicephorus speaks of Three Great Temples whereof that of Sophia which he ascribes to Constantine was built by Constantius his Son and was but an Addition to the Temple of Irene He speaks also of Four

can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing

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

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-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

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

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

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. Cap●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

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

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

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

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-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

Christianity had no Consecrated Temples nor Altars ‖ Arnob. adv Gent. lib. VI. For this Reason Caecilius in Minucius Foelix reproaches the Christians and asks Cur nullas Aras habent nulla Templa Why have they no Altars no Temples no visible Images † Min. Foel Octav. p. 29. Oxon. Minucius answers What Temple can I build unto Him whom the World which is Created by His Power cannot contain And since I a Man dwell more at large shall I include so great a Majesty within one little House Is He not better Consecrated in the bottom of our Hearts * Ibid. p. 94. To the same purpose speaks Clemens Alexandrinus He that is endued with Knowledge saith he Honours God that is gives Thanks for the knowledge of an upright Life neither in a definitive place nor in a select Temple nor on certain stated Festivals but through his whole Life and in every place And a little after Every place is truly Sacred in which we Converse with God ‖ Strom. 7. The Heathen built their Temples upon the Graves or Ashes of their Dead as Arnobius affirms † Lib. VI. For this reason Clemens Alexandrinus calls them Sepulchers You call them saith he by the specious Name of Temples but they were Sepulchers that is Sepulchers were call'd Temples * In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These they dedicated by certain Ceremonies to the Memory of their deceas'd Friends whom they honoured as Gods and accounted their Temples Sacred as Caecilius speaks ‖ Vbi supr p. 18 19. He complains that the Christians despised them as polluted Graves † p. 25. The wiser sort of Heathens acknowledged that their Consecrated Temples had no real Holiness in them No Edifice saith Plato in Clemens Alexandrinus is of any great worth or truly Holy that is built by sordid Mechanicks * Strom. V. In imitation of them the Christians as they degenerated from the Apostolical Simplicity built Temples in honour of departed Saints and Martyrs They call'd their Temples after their Names Dedicated them to such and such Saints in Memory of which they kept Festivals which gave occasion to our Wakes We have some Instances of these Dedications and Festivals in the Fourth Century Euseb Vit. Constant IV. Nazian Orat. in Nov. Dominic No Instance can be given of any Dedication of Temples till about Constantine's time and the Dedications of that Age were no Ceremonious Consecrations they were only celebrated with Solemn Prayers Praises Preaching and Administring the Eucharist which are the stated Duties to be performed in such places The first performance of these Religious Duties can have no more Vertue for Consecration of the Place than the continued Series of them Eusebius mentions also some Orations in Commendation of the Benefactor and the Magnificency of the Structure which were delivered at those Solemnities * Vit. Const IV. 45. These had no Consecrating Vertue in them Ceremonious Consecrations appropriated unto Bishops were unknown in the three first Centuries I find but one Instance of it in the Fourth Century and that in the Roman Church in which Superstitions grew faster than in other Churches and this instance is very dubious The Roman Council under Sylvester is said to Decree That no Presbyter presume to Celebrate Mass but in Places Consecrated by the Bishop ‖ Epit. Syn. Rom. Sub. Sylvest The Acts of this Council are justly suspected to be Spurious for certain the Twentieth Canon which forbids Judging the first Seat is so Vid. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. Above a hundred Years after A. D. 456. an Irish Council under St. Patrick determin'd That no Presbyter who had built a Church do offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice until he bring the Bishop to Consecrate it C. 23. About the Year 494. the Power of Consecrating Churches which the Bishops had before appropriated to themselves was restrained to Metropolitans by Pope Gelasius † Ep. IX c. 4. 25. In the Year 619. the Second Council of Sevil acknowledges That the Consecration of Churches is forbidden Presbyters Novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis by certain new Ecclesiastical Canons * Con. His 2 Can. 7. The Consecration of Altars is almost as ancient as the Consecration of Churches It is mention'd about the Year of Christ 506. in the Council of Agatha Can. 10. 29. and about the Year 563. in the Council of Braga ‖ Conc. Bracar Can. 37. For the same reason that we have laid aside the Consecration of Altars we may also that of Churches We conceive that all places are equally near to Heaven and that all Places where the Worship of God is Celebrated are equally Holy God looks more on the disposition of the Worshipper than he doth on the place of Worship † Aug. de Vnit Cap. 16. as Austin well speaks 1. Mr. G. will do well to shew us 1. some Warrant from the New Testament for Consecration and Holiness of Places which he seems so fond of 2. When he hath done that let him shew us what Authority from the New Testament the Bishops have to appropriate the Consecration of Churches to their Order Did Timothy or Titus whom he calls Bishops Consecrate Churches 3. If the Gospel give them no such Power can he shew any Canons made since the Reformation that do impower them to Consecrate Places of Worship We have Forms for the Ordering of Priests and Deacons and for the Consecrating of Bishops and arch-Arch-Bishops we have a Form for Confirmation also but no Form nor Order nor Direction about the Consecration of Churches that ever I cou'd meet with Indeed the Roman Pontifical can supply us with one Dr. Heylin tells us that Arch-Bishop Laud had a design to draw up an English Pontifical to be approv'd by the Convocation in the Year 1640. This new Pontifical was to contain among other things a Form to be observed by all arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops for Consecrating Churches Church-Yards and Chapels * Laud's Life p. 441. But the Troubles of the Time obliged him to defer the prosecution of it till a fitter conjuncture When King Charles II. returned and the Bishops had all the advantage they could desire they did not prosecute the design not being so violent in that Point as Laud and his Party had been 4. Wherein doth a Consecration promote the acceptance of our Devotions with God Is the Worship of God more acceptable in a Consecrated than in an Vnconsecrated Place If it be not what are we the better for Consecration If it be let the Rector prove it Can he shew any Promise that is made to Consecrated Places as such under the Gospel He cannot produce either a Command of Precedent for Consecration of Places under the Gospel nor a Promise to such Places above others Jesus Christ Promises to meet his People in all places without distinction Mat. 18.20 John 4.21 23. 1 Tim. 2.8 He dwelleth not in material temple Acts 7.49 and 17.24 The Rector hath studied this Subject and

way of managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles consider'd The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no Power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops proved 1. From their Doctrine That Bishops and Presbyters are the same 2. From their own Testimony 3. The Testimony of F. Paul 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops P. 1 to 45. Chap. II. Whether the Jewish Church was the First Established Church The Levitical Priest-hood no Pattern for Gospel-Ministers Clemens Rom. Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modelled His Church after the Jewish Pattern or left His Church in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His first 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 Acts 9.17 consider'd 4. His Fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated The difference between Apostles and Prophets as stated by him consider'd 5. His fifth Instance from Acts 14.13 Examined 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 P. 45. to 99. Chap. III. The Apostle left the Government of Ephesus in the Presbyters This Establishment prov'd to be his last Divine Perpetual Acts 20. Explain'd This Government never alter'd Presbyters a Divine Remedy against Schism Superiour Bishops not the Remedy Timothy no Diocesan Bishop An unfix'd 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 P. 99. to p. 121. Chap. IV. The first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome Acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Asserters of Episcopacy Bp. Hall Dr. Hammond c deny'd by the Rhemists Bp. Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 consider'd 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 Answer'd Acts 20.25 Consider'd P. 121. to p. 141. Chap. V. Of Evangelists whether they were fixed Neg. Acts 21.8 consider'd Timothy and Titus unfixed Hilarius his Account of Evangelist Eusebius's Testimony Vindicated Mark no fixed Evangelist Chrysostom's Account of Evangelists agreeing with Eusebius P. 141. to p. 151. Chap. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Power 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 Bp. 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 Dr. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's second Argument for Ordination by Presbyters and third Argument Vindicated Presbyters succeeded the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect P. 151. to p. 190. ERRATA PAge 11. Marg. after 80. read 1. P. 12. M. for 1235. r. 1245. P. 14. M. for 5.30 r. 530. P. 26. M. f. P. 14. r. p. 13 14. P. 35. l. 25. r. Pope's Casualties P. 46 l. 20. f. 24. r. 26. P. 53. l. 22. f. 72. r. 73. P. 63. M. f. clerios r. clericis P. 67. l. 13. dele a. l. 15 r. resolved P. 87. l. 6. r. Sanhedrin P. 89. l. 11. f. of r. at p. 100. l. 10. f. 18. r. 28. p. 104. l. 3. r. story p. 106. l. 31. r. Presbyters p. 109. l. 38. r. Mal. 2.1.7 p. 111. l. 38. r. Diocess p. 120. l. 7. r. 2 Cor. 2.12 13. p. 122. l. 15. r. Goncession p. 140. l. 13. r. ye p. 143. l. 13. r. Cretensis p. 148. l. 3.15 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 30. p. 149. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 151. l. 22. r. Crambe p. 153. l. 8. r. there p. 157. l. 12. r. Apostle p. 160. l. 2. f. 22. r. 2.2 l. ult r. an p. 172. l. 36. f. dot r. not p. 175. l. 8. r. Conduct A Defence of Scripture-Ordination c. CHAP. I. The Dissenters Justified in their Way of Managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles Considered The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops prov'd 1. From their Doctrine 2. From their own Testimony 3. From F. Paul's Testimony 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted succession of Bishops BEFORE he enters upon his Subject he desires his common Reader to observe the unfair way the Dissenters have in managing Controversies Pref. p. 2. 1. Do they pick up imperfect Notes of Sermons Preached a Year or two before and take upon them to Confute them when the Authors are dead and cannot Vindicate themselves This were a little unfair but he knows who did so when he Preached his Sermon of Consecration in Answer to a Sermon of Mr. Baldwin under the Fictitious Name of Calvin as I am told because forsooth Calvus is Bald and Vin is Wine and so you have the English of Calvin que Bald-wine Doubtless so Learned an Etymologist can give a Reason why the odd Epithet of Bald is attributed to Wine I am apt to think Calvin himself as Learned as he was never thought of this rare Etymon of his Name But to return to our Subject 2. Do the Dissenters use to lodge their Manuscripts in some Friend's hand with a charge that none shall see them except they undertake to Answer them and promise to return them the same Day This is an unfair way of managing Controversies and it is much more unfair for a Man to triumph that a Manuscript clog'd with inch unreasonable Conditions is not Answer'd The Rector can Name the unfair Man that hath thus managed the Controversie of the Consecration-Sermon mention'd before 3. Or do the Dissenters pretend to Answer Books and leave the greatest part of them unanswered He knows who does so also and Insinuates in his Title Page as if he had Answered the Whole when indeed deed it is far otherwise This is an unfair way of managing Controversies which somebody is guilty of But let 's hear how he proves his Charge I. In most of their Books be the Argument what it will Pref. they represent us as Arminians saith he Persons that have a sore place complain they are hurt if one do but touch them This Charge of Arminianism is either true or false if true confess it and give glory to God if false disprove it I doubt the Rector cannot acquit himself whatever others do for

Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a● desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been

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

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

this Scripture of the Institution of Deacons with the qualifications of Deacons in 1 Tim. 3. and it will appear their work was to serve Tables Ability or aptness to Teach is not mention'd among their Qualifications as it is in those of a Bishop or Presbyter 1 Tim. 3.2 The Apostle mentions several Characters that are common to both but distinguisheth the Bishop from the Deacon by this that the Bishop be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to Teach which is not required in the Deacons an evidence they are Ministers not of the Word but of Tables 4. The Sixth General Council of Constantinople acknowledges the Scripture-Deacons to be no more than Overseers of the Poor Thus the Council Seeing the Book of the Acts mentions Seven Deacons Ordained by the Apostles Invenimus eos locutos esse non de viris qui ministrant Mysteriis sed de Ministerio quod in usu mensarum adhibeatur Sexta Syn. in Trullo Can. 16. A. D. 692. the Council of Neocesarea determines there ought to be Seven in every Church but we having adapted the Opinion of the Fathers to the Apostles Expressions do find that they speak not of those who Ministred in the Sacred Mysteries but of such as Served at Tables Thus Chrysostom expounded the place as they add there This Testimony is the more considerable as not only containing the Opinion of 166 Bishops who lived about the latter end of the Seventh Age but affirming the Sense of the Fathers of former Ages to be the same with theirs By all which it appears That Deacons originally were but Overseers of the Poor In future Ages the case was much altered the Bishops affected to be Guardians of the Poor and to make the Deacons amends admitted them to Baptize and Preach The Bishops omit Preaching and become Servants of Tables and the Deacons from serving of Tables step up into the Pulpit and become Preachers 5. About the middle of the Fifth Age they were permitted to read Homilies in the Church but only in cases of necessity as when the Presbyter was disabled by reason of some Infirmity * Conc. Vasens Can. 4. 6. If the Ordination of Deacons as such made them Ministers of the Word and Sacraments as the Rector affirms how comes the Church of England to Ordain them again before they are compleat Ministers of the Sacrament What president have they in Scripture for this 7. It 's absurd to say That the Ordination of Deacons to serve Tables made them also Ministers of the Word and Sacraments One individual Ordination to one and the same work cannot confer two distinct Powers They may as well say the Ordination of a Parish-Priest makes him a Diocesan Bishop But let us hear the Rector's Reasons He thinks it 's clear they were Ordain'd not only to serve Tables but to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 1. Because 't is immediately noted saith he that the Word of God increased P. 4 V. 7. But he considered not that this is rather to be imputed to the Apostles giving themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word and Prayer Ver. 4. Having consigned the Service of Tables to the Deacons they attended the Ministry of the Word more constantly and with less distraction and then it follows the Word of God increased v. 7. 2. His next Reason is Stephen one of them Ibid. did great wonders c. none were able to resist the wisdom by which he spake v. 8 10. It 's not said that he Preached to the People only that he disputed in the Synagogue in defence of the Gospel which a private Man might do v. 9. 1 Pet. 3.15 3. His third Reason Philip another of them afterwards preached at Samaria ch 8. He did not Preach at Jerusalem but at Samaria after he had left Jerusalem and ceased to exercise the Office of a Deacon there Acts 8.4 5. He might be advanced to the Degree of an Evangelist Acts 21.8 If you find one that was a Presbyter half a Year ago now exercising Episcopal Jurisdicition will you say that a Presbyter as such hath Episcopal Jurisdiction Philip had served Tables at Jerusalem and afterwards preaches at Samaria does it follow that he preached as a Deacon when Preaching was no part of the Office of a Deacon as such Bishop Pearson confesseth he was an Evangelist at this time * Lect. V. in Act. p. 66. But suppose he had Preached at Jerusalem which docs not appear it was no more than what was usually done by all gifted Persons in those extraordinary times Apollos who was not perfectly Catechised in the Word of Christ nor so much as Baptized with the Baptism of Christ and therefore not Ordained by any Apostle yet Preached Acts 18.24 25. Grotius acknowledges that in those times to Persrcution private Persons might preach and he quotes to that purpose Acts 11.20 † In tali cumstantiâ evangelium praedicare non diaconorum tantum sed privatorum Grot. in Act. 8.5 Hilarius the Roman Deacon goes higher and saith That at the first planting of Christianity all were permitted to Preach Baptize and explain the Scriptures in the Congregation 1 Cor. 14.24 * Omnibus inter initia concessum est evangelizare baptizate scripturas in Ecclesia explanare Hilar. in Eph. 4. Origen being persecuted from Alexandria Preached publickly at Caesarea upon the desire of Theoctistus Bishop of the place before he was Ordain'd When Demetrius of Alexandria censured the action as irregular Theoctistus and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem Justified it and produced several Examples of the same nature * Niceph. Eccl. Hist V. 14. A Lay-man is allowed to teach at the request of the Clergy in a Council of Carthage held about the Year 436 † Laicus praesentibus clerios nisi ipsis rogantibusdocere non audeat Carth. Conc. IV. Can. 98. 4. His fourth Reason Because long after 't is observed by Luke that the rest of the Seven as I understand him preached the word in Phenice Cyprus and at Antioch P. 4. c. Acts 11.19 Luke saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they which were seatured abroad preached the Word The Rector makes bold to pervert the Text and saith the rest of the Seven Preach'd the Word and which is more unpardonable he puts the Words in a different Character as if they were the Words of Luke He has no colour to foist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest into this Text but it 's apparently done upon design to support an unscriptural Hypothesis It 's more pardonable to misrepresent a hundred Fathers than to alter one Text of the Sacred Scriptures He is a very bold Man that dare put Words in the Mouth of Inspired Writers Luke refers to Acts 8.1 They were all seattered abroad except the Apostles Who were these All Not the Six Deacons only * Pears Annal. Paul p. 1 Lect. IV. in Act. Apost p. 63 What Sense would it be to say All the

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

Teachers or ordinary Presbyters who were included in the Command of separating Paul and Barnabas for the Apostleship of the Gentiles This Ordination which was in favour of the Gentile World was intended for a President to the Gentile Churches in after Ages as Learned Dr. Lightfoot observes * Vol 1. p. 289. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters remains firm and unshaken and all that Mr. G. hath said against it serves only to discover the Strength of it He undertakes to shew the difference between Apostles and Prophets but not a Word of difference between the Prophets and the Teachers that would have discovered the Fallacy of his Reasonings He saith Apostles and Prophets had an extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit of God P. 10 11. yet with this difference The Authority of the Apostles was fixt and habitual their Character indelible and their Office perpetual I expected he would have said an infallible Assistance but it may be he intended that by extraordinary though the following Words are a little inconsistent and divest the Apostles of the extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit except in some cases The Apostles saith he for the most part P. 11. acted as it were according to their own discretion What without the Conduct of the Spirit The Rector should have had the discretion to have conceal'd so dangerous a Position which strikes at the Foundations of our Faith This Principle naturally leads to Deism and Irreligion But worse follows I suppose saith he in Matters of Importance and in Doctrines Essential guided by the Spirit I hope he does not mean as he speaks Does he but. Suppose they were guided by the Spirit Admit he means by supposing his taking it for granted then the meaning is They were guided by the Spirit only in two Cases 1. In Matters of Importance i. e. in Practicals if I underftand him Ibid. We conceive all the Rules the holy Apostles left its about the agenda of Religion were given by Inspiration and that all the practical Duties they recommend to us are Matters of Importance to us they are so what they are to this Gentleman he knows best 2. He supposes they were guided by the Spirit in Doctrines Essential 1. It 's well he ascribes any of their Doctrines to the Holy Spirit of God but why not all as well as some The Spirit was promis'd them to guide them into all Truth John 16.13 Jesus Christ saith The Spirit should guide them into all Truth No saith Mr. G. the Spirit guided them in Doctrines Essential only Christ saith The Holy Ghost shall teach you all things John 14.26 Mr. G. saith Not all things but Matters of Importance and Doctrines Essential only Doubtless the Lord Jesus was as good as his Word and gave the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit to the Blessed Apostles in all Points of Faith and Practice they recommend to us though Mr. G. doth not believe it His Vnbelief cannot make the Faith of God without effect let God be true and every man a liar Rom. 3.3.4 2. According to his n retched supposition the holy Apostles might be mistaken in Doctrines not Essential for they had not the Assistances of the Spirit as he suggests And if they might be mistaken who knows but they were mistaken and might obtrude Errors instead of Truth upon the World And if so how can it be prov'd to be our Duty to believe those Doctrines not Essential But thanks be to God we have a sure word of promise and consequently a sure rule of Faith and Practice whatever the Rector insinuates to the contrary in favour of Atheistical Spirits 3. The Learned are not agreed about the Number of Doctrines Essential those are Doctrines Essential to Christianity with some that are but Integrals if I may so say with others All Protestants are agreed that Essential Doctrines are but few so that most of the Doctrines of Christianity are but discretionary Opinions and no Dictates of the Holy Ghost with this Man Tell it not in Gath lest the uncircumcised rejoice 4. Admit the Creed call'd the Apostles be a Summary of Essential Doctrines it does not expresly assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost and therefore the Socinians can freely Subscribe it Will the Rector say the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy Ghost are Doctrines not Essential and consequently not delivered by the Spirit of God 5. Is the Superiority of Bishops an Essential Doctrine If it be they are no Christians who do not believe it for they reject an Essential Doctrine of Christianity But no Sober Protestant will affirm it for this were to damn all the Foreign Reformed Churches who believe it not If it be no Essential Doctrine as certainly it is not we are left to our liberty whether we will believe it or not for the Apostles were not guided by the Spirit in delivering it according to Mr. G's Hypothesis He proceeds to describe the Prophets Their Power saith he was not constant they spake only as the Spirit mov'd P. 11. which if he ceas'd to do they were no long●r Prophets Thus the Teachers at Antioch ordinary Ministers and under the Apostles yet being moved by the Holy Ghost became Prophets and Ordained Barnabas and Saul Here he mistakes also 1. In making the Prophets to be only such while they were actually Inspired There were Prophets by Office and they are so called when the Spirit of Prophecy did not actually move them 2 Kings 3.11 15. 1 Cor. 14.29 32. Their Power was constant though the Exercise of it was not so Nathan is call'd a Prophet when the Spirit of Prophecy was not actually upon him 2 Sam. 7.2 3. 2. All Inspirations by the Holy Ghost do not make a Prophet Balaam and Caiaphas were Inspired but no Divine Prophets Ananias was mov'd by the Holy Ghost to lay his Hands on Paul for recovering of his sight but it does not appear that he was a Prophet he is no where so call'd God's speaking to him in a Vision doth not make him a Prophet as Mr. G. fancies for so he did to Cornelius who was so far from being a Prophet that at that time he was not a Christian Acts 10.3 4. Admit the Ordinary Ministers at Antioch were inwardly mov'd by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Paul and Barnabas which is not said in the Text that doth not make them Prophets For Luke distinguisheth between the Prophets and the Teachers though Mr. G. designedly confounds them Nor doth a particular direction of the Holy Ghost constitute Prophets as appears in Ananias a Disciple and it may be a Teacher and in Cornelius neither Disciple nor Teacher 3. He calls the Teachers at Antioch Ordinary Ministers and yet saith they were Prophets that is extraordinary Ministers for himself owns Prophets to be extraordinary Officers One would think if they were ordinary Ministers they were not extraordinary If extraordinary they were not ordinary I leave it to

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

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

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

Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 and we hear no more of him 3. He thinks Titus 1.5 That thou mightest Ordain Elders not rightly Translated it should be That thou mightest appoint and settle Elders in every City This presupposes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining also 1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers for which they feign him a Bishop to wit his Ordaining of Elders This he saith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5 If this Text doth not prove his Ordaining Power no one in that Epistle doth 2. He fancies that assigning unto Presbyters their power and special places was the work of Titus in Crete and that this was after Ordination Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City or particular Church as he himself explains it Act 14.23 and were they not chosen by the Multitude before Ordination as he also confesseth in the case of his Deacon-Presbyters Acts 6. He would do well to tell us What new power was assign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders needed a Licence from their Bishop to impower them to Preach after Ordination as the Canon requires † Can. 36. Paul says he entrusts him with the charge of seeing unto the Qualifications of Elders P. 65. v. 6 7 8 9. The same though more compendious than those in 1 Tim. 3. 1. All that he might do as an Evangelist or the Apostle's Delegate as the Bishop's Chaplain or Arch-Deacon examine the Candidates for the Ministry with us 2. He wisely overlooks the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters which is asserted in both the places he Quotes Titus 1.5 6 7 8. Ordain Elders if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless The Reason were Incogent if Elder and Bishop were not the same The Qualification of Elders here are the same with those of a Bishop in 1 Tim. 3. as he confesseth Bishops and Presbyters were the same not only at first but even at this time when these Epistles were Written to Timothy and Titus which makes it evident they were Evangelists Superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 and not Bishops in a proper Sense who are one and the same with Presbyters He will not be able to give one Instance in all the New Testament of any one ordinary Minister or Elder that was made Superiour to his Brethren of the same Order with him Nor of any extraordinary Officer that was made Superiour to others of the same kind One Apostle was not made Superiour to another Apostle nor one Prophet to another Prophet nor one Evangelist to another Evangelist though the Apostles were above the Prophets and the Prophets above the Evangelists and all the Three were Superiour to the Presbyters but no one Presbyter is made Superiour in degree much less a Ruler over another Presbyter The Apostle impowers him says he Cap. 1.11 to stop the Mouths or Silence false Teachers to rebuke them sharply v. 13. that is v. 10. the Vnruly or Non-conformists c. 1. The Apostle Explains his Meaning about stopping the Mouths of false Teachers in v. 9. That he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince Gainsayers He speaks of the Presbyters ordain'd by Titus that they must be able to convince Gainsayers and so to stop their mouths Even private Persons are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stop the mouths or put to silence the ignorance of foolish men 1 Pet. 2.15 2. But suppose it be meant of an Authoritative Silencing of such it is no more than what Titus might do as an Evangelist and the Apostles Delegate 3. The Rector shews his good will to have the Nonconformists silenced but it 's well that cursed Cows have short Horns 4. The Nonconformists or uaruly Persons the Apostle speaks of were a sort of Judaizing Christians that retain'd the Legal Ceremonies and the Commandments of Men T it 1.10 13. They were not content with the Simplicity and Plainness of Gospel-Institutions but would super-add their own Inventions and impose them upon others These were the Nonconformists that would not conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel nor leave others in the quiet possession of Gospel-Priviledges unless they submitted to their Impositions Acts 15.2 Gal. 4.9 10. and 5.1 2 Col 2.20 23. Grotius gives another Character by which these Nonconformists may be known He saith That the Apostle pointed at those who taught that all Israelites had a part in the World to come * Grot. in Tit. 1.10 Not unlike some People who affirm all to be saved ‖ Vid. Com. Prayer Burial Dead that have the happiness to die in their Communion and do not lay violent Hands upon themselves We are obliged to the Rector for helping us to a right Notion of Nonconformity There are two sorts of Nonconformists Some are so call'd because they do not conform to Unscriptural Impositions these the Text speaks nothing of Others as the Rector well observes may be so call'd because they do not Conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel but impose humane ●nventions as Terms of Communion The latter of these two are the Culpable Nonconformists I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing these lest be be condemned out of his own Mouth Paul instructs him to reject a Heretick p. 66. Tit. 3.10 That he might do as an Evangelist What he transcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete and we have already consider'd Ignatius bis Bishop Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery P. 76. nor any share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles saith our Author 1. The Epistles were directed to Evangelists who were superiour to Presbyters and therefore it was fit the Exhortation should be immediately directed to them 2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters also as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church and doubtless were intended for the use of the Church unto the end of time 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3. The Presbyters are concern'd I hope in the several Directions to Purity Patience Constancy Faithfulness in dispensing the Word c. 1 Tim 6.11 12. 2 Tim. 2.3 4. and 4.1 2 3. 3. It is a very gross mistake that the Presbytery had no share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles Paul ordain'd Bishops there who among other Qualifications must be such as Rul'd well their own Houses that they might take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.4 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17 he mentions Elders that Ruled well and mere worthy of Double Honour He contradicts himself and saith that the Presbyters had some Interest in the Government tho' their Power was subordinate as appears from the Council at Jerusalem P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apostles themselves doubtless then and much more with Timothy and Titus They had no share in the Government and yet they had some Interest in it himself can best reconcile these inconsistent Propositions They were

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

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 W●iters speak t●●●e same purpose But our Author will prove it by Sc●●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

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

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

or Five lesser Oratories which were probably like our Chapels one of which did bear the Name of the Apostles the other of some Martyrs * Niceph. Eccl. Hist. VII 49. This may well agree with Eusebius's Account viz. That he built there many Oratories and splendid Houses of God † Vid. Con. III. 47. Eusebius magnifies all the Actions of Constantine and would not have omitted such a Number of Temples as the Rector fancies to be there Ignatius exhorts Polycarp Ign. ad Pol. p. 12 13. Not to neglect the Widows to be their Curator after the Lord to have frequent Assemblies to seek all by Name and not to despise the Men-Servants and Maid-Servants Here Polycarp is first to take care of the Poor Widows who were to be Relieved by him or by his Order This he could not well do without some knowledge of them 2. To have frequent Church-Meetings and to seek all by Name who ought to frequent the Publick Assemblies 3. He must not neglect the very Servants or Slaves but Exhort them not to be puffed up but to Serve for the Glory of God that they may receive of God a more glorious Liberty Ign. Ibid. He speaks of Christian Slaves and such as frequented their Church Assemblies What can the Rector say to this plain Quotation that carries it's own Evidence with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament saith he P. 152. signifies to seek the Conversion of Vnbelievers Luke 19.10 And if Polycarp must seek the Conversion of every single Person in Smyrna and deal with every one of them then J. O. has reduced this great City to a small Village This is a Chimera of his own Ignatius speaks of Believing Servants as is evident and so J. O. applied it to prove the extent of Polycarp's Church Plea p. 34. But our Author either wilfully or ignorantly confounds the Church of Smyrna and the City of Smyrna To seek all by Name saith he is to be understood not of every individual Person P. 153. but of all States and Conditions of Men even the lowest of them the Slaves This is a very poor Evasion Ignatius speaks of Religious Assemblies and of a Pastoral Care that the Bishop must seek all by Name the Servants not excepted He must take care of his whole Flock and not despise poor Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Name cannot admit of any other tolerable Sense Ignatius in the same Epistle explains himself when he saith I Salute all by Name * Ad Polyc. p. 16. and some of them he Names there And in another place he saith Ye do all of you commonly even every Man by Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meet together in Jesus Christ † Ad Eph. p. 29. By Name here respects every individual Person and not the several States and Conditions of Men. For every Member of the Church ordinarily attended Publick Ordinances and not some of all Degrees only Ignatius in both places speaks of Church-Assemblies where every one by Name was to attend and the Bishop must see that they did so and not over-look the meanest Servants Suppose his Diocesan required the Rector to seek all his Parishoners by Name and dot to despise the Servants I question whether he could satisfie the Bishop I am sure he cannot acquit himself to the chief Bishop of our Souls by telling Him he took care of some of all States and Conditions as well Servants as Masters as well Mechanicks as Rich Shop-Keepers P. 153. as he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be found in the Scriptures to which he refers Mat. 10.41 42. Eph. 1.21 And therefore they are improperly Alledged Mark 16.15 is as little to the purpose The Apostles could not possibly Preach the Gospel to every individual Creature but a Bishop might seek all his Flock by Name If you will not allow him That to seek all by Name is to be understood of all States of Men he has found out another shift P. 155. Take Care of all by Name saith he i. e. give it in Charge to thy Presbyters and Deacons to do so This is a Figment of the Rector's own Brain which he doth not pretend to ground upon any Passage in Ignatius He fancies the Primitive Bishops to be like those of the latter Ages who enlarged their Diocesses and diminished their care of the Flock The Ancient Bishops took care of the Flock in their own Persons and not by Proties 'T is true they had their Assisting Presbyters and Govern'd the Church by their United Councils the Bishop doing nothing without his Presbyters nor they without the Bishop 'T is evident to any one that reads Ignatius his Epistle to Polycarp that he speaks of Personal Duties seek all by Name and a little after saith he avoid evil Arts * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 13. The Rector may as well say He must avoid evil Arts by his Presbyters as seek all by Name by them Our Author offers one Observation for he will not be too prodigal on so tender a Subject to prove that the Church of Smyrna consisted of more Congregations than one 'T is the First Proof of this kind he has given us though we have given several to the contrary and therefore deserves regard My Observation is this saith he P. 155 156. how that Ignatius Parag. penult of the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans thus Addresses to the Bishop It will be fit O most worthy Polycarp to gather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most Venerable and August Assembly c. This implies a great number of Presbyters and Deacons Either then the Bishop of Smyrna had many Congregations under him or this little Church as J. O. believes it Swarm'd with a number of Idle and Vnnecessary Presbyters which no Man in his Wits will believe 1. This Argument he thinks better than any J. O. has produced to the contrary P. 155. unless he flatters himself by an unusual Charientism It is possible a Man of Mr. G's Character may Flatter himself whether it be unusual with him to do so I leave the Reader to pass Judgment 2. His Quotation is not in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans as he affirms but in the Epistle to Polycarp * Ign. ad Polycarp p. 15. who was Bishop of Smyrna which I suppose might occasion his mistake The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans has no such Passage 3. The Presbyters were the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Council and the Church in Ignatius's time was Govern'd by the Bishop and Presbyters in common He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presidents † Ign. ad Magn. p. 33. They were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop's Council ‖ Ad Phil. p. 43. and his Complex Spiritual Crown § Ad Mag. p. 37. that sate round about him He calls them in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that were with the Bishop * Ad Phil. p.

39. They lived with the Bishop and managed the Concerns of the Church in common they did nothing without the Bishop nor he without them Hence Ignatius Exhorts the Magnesians to do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters † Ign. p. 33. No Church Assembly was held without them ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad Tral p. 48. It does not appear by the Epistles of Ignatius that the Presbyters were Govern'd by the Bishop or Subject to him they were joynt Governours of the Church only the Bishop was chief for Orders sake The Deacons were Subject to the Bishops and Presbyters § Ad Mag. p. 31. but the Presbyters were not Subject to the Bishop It 's true they cou'd do nothing without him no more could he without them 4. It does not appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God-becoming Assembly not most Venerable and August as he renders it consisted only of the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons as he suggests It should seem rather that it was a Church-Assembly under the Cnnduct of the Bishop and Presbyters who were desired to send a Message to the Church of Antioch to comfort them in the Absence of their Bishop The next Paragraph confirms this Sense Write saith Ignatius to Polycarp to other Churches Ad Polyc. p. 15. that they do the same thing such as are able may send Foot-Messengers others may send Letters by thy Messengers In the same manner he speaks to the Church of Philadelphia It becomes you as the Church of God to appoint a Deacon to perform there at Antioch the Message of God He adds a little after some near Churches have sent Bishops and some have sent Presbyters and Deacons * Ad Phil. p. 45. It was the manner in those First Ages to send Epistles and Messengers in the Name of the whole Church as appears by the Epistles written by the Churches of Vienne and Lions to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia concerning the Sufferings of the Gallic Christians † Euseb Eccl. Hist V. 1. Therefore Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be an Assembly of the whole Church Ignatius calls the Church of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo-decentissima in two places ‖ Ign. ad Smyr p. 1. p. 8. 5. Suppose this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-becoming Assembly had consisted of the Bishop and his Presbyters it will not follow that there were a great number of Presbyters Ignatius abounds with Epithets and such as may seem if not swelling at least Superfluous He gives to the Roman Church Nine or Ten big Epithets in one breath as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He calls his Bonds God-becoming Bonds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Ad Smyr p. 8. He Stiles the Bishop of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy of God and the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becoming God As one Bishop is God-worthy so a few Presbyters may be God-becoming 6. J. O. doth not say the Church of Smyrna was a little Church it might be a large Church as many Parish-Churches are and find work enough for several Presbyters with the Bishop P. 156 157. What he saith of the Asian Angels hath been consider'd before He wonders that J. O. should say The Authorized Bibles call the Angels Ministers not Bishops J. O. added This shews the Sense of the Old Church of England agreeable to many of the Ancients such as Aretas Primosius Ambrose Gregory the Great Bede Haymo c. This he wisely over-looks P. 157 but asks What if a Man should say they expressed themselves too loosly and negligently They expressed their own Sense and that of the Ancient Church They could easily have call'd the Angels Bishops had they thought them so Our first Reformers were not such loose negligent Souls as some of those who pretend to Correct them evidence themselves to be After having spent some Pages in such Scornful Reflections as may become him but would scarce drop from a Scholar or a Gentleman especially when no Provocation is given he proceeds to an Ingenuous Confession of the weakness of this Argument for Bishops from the Asian Angels It would have been a strange Consequence he acknowledges that Angels should be expounded Bishop one that had Authority over other Ministers had not he read in Paul 's Two Epistles That Timothy had Authority over the whole Church of Ephesus and again in Ignatius P. 160. That there was a Bishop of Ephesus If these two Evidences fall him as I have proved they do this of the Asian Angels falls of it self Our Author is very angry with J. O. for saying that St. John placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ and the Angels at a greater distance Rev. 5.11 Shall we therefore say the Presbyters are more worthy than the Bishops P. 161. The Inference is much more natural than the other if Angels be Bishops Thus J. O. This plain Scripture-Observation doth so move the Rector's Choler that he cannot forbear his old Railing Language If J. O. says he has managed this Argument Honestly and Sincerely I 'll henceforward renounce all pretence to those scurvie Pieces of Morality 1. He himself acknowledges that the Words may bear that Sense J. O. puts upon them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be Govern'd of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Angels being round about the Throne and round about the Elders it follows the Elders were nearer the Throne Why doth not he disprove this Sense A Scholar should use Arguments and not Bilingsgate-Dialect Angeli ponuntur in extimo ambitu Grot. in Loc. 2. This Construction of the Words is not new their admired Grotius saith that the Angels are in the remotest place so do several others and it seems agreeable with their Office of Guarding the Church Psal 34.7 Where then is the dishonesty and insincerity of managing this Argument Is it in saying That the Inference is more natural that Presbyters are more Honourable than Bishops if Angels be Bishops Why does he not disprove this Inference J. O. did not urge this Scripture as a concluding Argument but to shew the weakness of the Argument for the Superiority of Bishops They are Angels therefore they are Superiour to Presbyters I say still J. O's Inference is much more Natural If Bishops be Angels and Angels be remoter from the Throne of Christ than Elders Elders are more Honourable than Bishops So then J. O. has managed this Argument honestly and sincerely for any thing the Rector hath said to the contrary I would wish him to consult the Honour of his Profession a little better than to perform his rash Promise of Renouncing henceforward all pretence to those scurvy Pieces of Morality as he scurvily calls them His Casuists will tell him That an immoral Promise is better broken than kept It would raise ones Stomach to see him compare Timothy

with Judas 'T is no more impossible saith he that Timothy should leave his first Love Rev. 2.2 than that Judas the Apostle should betray his Master P. 162. We must not think but that some of the Apostles Friends and Disciples made Ship-wrack of the Faith Alexander did so Acts 19.33 And why not Timothy so did Demas The Apostle saith of Timothy There was no Man like-minded Phil. 2.20 22. And that there were Prophecies concerning him that he should War a good Warfare 1 Tim. 1.18 Can any such thing be said of Judas We say Comparisons are odious was there ever a more odious one than to compare one of the most excellent New Testament Saints with the vilest of Hypocrites I will refer him to his own Words if it be not offensive to him to review them Criticks will be busie and advance Paradoxes and who can help it P. 163. Timothy shall be an Apostate-Bishop rather than no Bishop But he thinks to mend the Matter by supposing Timothy might be dead when the Revelation was written because he was an infirm Man 1 Tim. 5.23 and would scarce live to Seventy Years We have known infirm Men that were Temperate to live above Seventy J. O. observ'd that many Chronologers affirm'd that Timothy was alive then This he overlooks J. O. shew'd out of Dr. Lightfoot That the Angel of the Church was a Parish-Bishop in Conformity to the Jewish Synagogues each of which had its Angel or Bishop Our Author here enters the Lists with Dr. Lightfoot not with J. O. He hath not shew'd us saith he P. 164 165. that every Synagogue had a Presbytery Let him consult Dr. Lightf Vol. 1. p. 302. p. 611. Vol. II. p. 133. But the Rulers of the Synagogues adds he P. 165. were subject to the High-Priests and their Presbytery So are the Presbyters to Jesus Christ our great High-Priest and to all Rulers of his appointment He told us above That the High-Priest and Presbytery were the chief Court of Judicature among the Jews and had the highest Jurisdiction And so it had in things Civil and Sacred What is this to Episcopal Power over the Presbyters Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit He remembers Mr. Bois scoffs at the Bishop of L. for Arguing with Dr. Lightfoot P. 166. but does not refer to the place lest we should see what great Reason Mr. B. might have to reject Rabbinical Traditions and what little reason our Author had to charge him with scoffing When Rabbinical Learning is of any advantage we are content to make use of it if against us P. 167 we deride it saith he When it is against the Truth we reject it when there is a Harmony between it and the New Testament we receive it not for Confirmation of Divine Truth but for Illustration Mr. G. cannot deny but the Minister of every Synagogue was call'd the Angel of the Church and Bishop of the Congregation as Dr. Lightfoot hath prov'd Therefore it looks highly rational that the Angels of the Asian Churches should be so called in Allusion to the Ministers of the Synagogue Christian Oratories are call'd Synagogues James 2.2 Our Author cannot deny the Agreement in many things between both But says he The Temple-Worship whereof a great deal was Moral was as much the Pattern of the Christian as was the Synagogue-Worship and if so the Jewish Priest-hood was the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy p. 166. 1. The Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial Worship of the Temple though they perform'd the Moral parts there also The Legal Priests and the Legal Altar were Relates Heb. 7.13 14. and both were Abolished together Heb. 7.12 For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law What Law not that which concern'd the Moral Worship but the Law of Ceremonies to which the Levitical Priesthood was adapted 2. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests * Lightf Vol. II. p. 133 134 135. but none but Priests gave attendance at the Altar Heb. 7.13 Therefore the Ceremonial Worship Temple and Priesthood being Abolished and the Moral Worship which was the only Synagogue-Worship being Transplanted into the Christian Church it follows that the Jewish Priesthood was no Pattern of the Gospel-Ministry But this has been consider'd before J. O's First Instance of Ordination by Presbyters from Acts 13.1 2 3. hath been sufficiently vindicated above Cap. 2. He is in one of his hot Fits again P. 168. and Charges J. O. with insufferable Artifice Fallacy Sophistry c. for saying That if Barnabas was one of the Seventy Disciples as the Ancients affirm he was then was he of the Order of Presbyters according to that Hypothesis that makes Bishops to succeed the Twelve Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples J. O. did not call Barnabas a Presbyter but argued ad bominem He might as well have affirm'd saith he That Matthias another of the Seventy was but a Presbyter who succeeded Judas We read of Matthias his Solemn Call to the Apostleship and that he was Numbred with the Eleven Acts 1.26 but we have not the like account of Barnabas 'T is true he is call'd an Apostle Acts 14.4.14 so are Evangelists sometimes as we proved before Many conceive he was but an Evangelist Paul seems to own no Apostles in a strict Sense but the Twelve and himself 1 Cor. 15.5 7 8. It was the Prerogative of the Apostles to confer the Gifts of the Holy Ghost but we do not find that Barnabas ever confer'd that Gift Though I will not be positive but he might be a real Apostle J. O. Argued That those who have power to Dispense the Gospel to Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper have also Power of Ordination because these are Ordinances not inferiour to Ordination Et parium par est ratio They are not inferiour to Ordination 1. Preaching the Gospel is not inferiour to Ordination The Publishers of it are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 represent the great Prophet of the Church Mat. 5.20 are Workers together with God 2 Cor. 6.1 And is an Ordainer morethan this Baptism is our Solemn Dedication to God Ordination is no more only the former is to Christianity as such the latter to a particular work 2. Baptism is a Sacramental Dedication which Ordination is not 3. In the Lord's Supper the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ Jerom saith of Presbyters Ad quorum preces Corpus Sanguis Christi consicitur Now which is greater to Impose Hands or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Jesus Christ If they have Power to Consecrate Holy Things why not Holy Persons also Thus J. O. who prov'd also that the Ministerial Acts now mention'd are not inferiour to Ordination from 1 Cor. 1.17 Mat. 28.19 20.

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.

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