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-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
Tutamen Evangelicum OR A DEFENCE OF Scripture-Ordination Against the EXCEPTIONS of T. G. In a Book Intituled Tentamen Novum Proving That Ordination by Presbyters is Valid Timothy and Titus were no Diocesan Rulers The Presbyters of Ephesus were the Apostles Successors in the Government of that Church and not Timothy The First Epistle to Timothy was Written before the Meeting at Miletus The Ancient Waldenses had no Diocesan Bishops c. By the Author of the Plea for Scripture-Ordination Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum Consecratio reservatur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris Art 28. Doctr. Joh. Wiclef in Conc. Constantiens London Printed for Zachary Whitworth Bookseller in Manchester 1697. THE PREFACE J. O. Published some Years since A Plea for Scripture-Ordination Proving by Scripture and Antiquity That Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is Valid Several Hands were said to be at Work preparing Remarks upon it at length after near Three Years Silence comes forth a sort of Answer by one Mr. T. G. Rector of B. in Lancashire an Author well known in his Countrey by some Prerogative Sermons which he Printed some Years since I. He Fronts his English Book with a Latine Title and calls it Tentamen Novum that is A new Tryal of Skill Here is an implicit Confession of a baffled Cause he dare not trust to the Old Arguments for Episcopacy but is glad to betake himself to New Shifts It 's a desperate Cause that needs new Arts to support it The plain English of Tentamen Novum is this Gentlemen I am very sensible the Cause I Plead for cannot stand on its old Foundations therefore I will make a New Effort and try Whether the lofty Fabrick of Diocesan Episcopacy may not be Supported on the Slender and Nice Foundations of a new Point of Chronology If this fails the Cause is lost However his Title looks a little Modest but a Man of Assurance cannot be long Conceal'd under a Vizard for in the very next Words he calls his Argument a Demonstration For thus his Title-Page runs Tentamen Novum Proving that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Rulers by an Argument drawn frhm the time of St. Paul 's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus and leaving Titus at Crete as it is demonstrated by Bishop Pearson A Doubtful Attempt and a Consident Demonstration are something inconsistent But I have been so kind to him as to Reconcile the Title-Page to the Title of his Book by proving his Supposed Demonstration to be only a Tentamen Novum a new and fruitless Attempt to defend an Un-scriptural Hierarchy This the Reader way find in the Third and Fourth Chapter of this Book II. I desire the Reader to observe That there is but one Chapter Chap. V. in the Rector's Book which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea and in that he briefly touches upon Two or Three of Ten Arguments which J. O. has urged for Ordination by Presbyters This is Tentamen Novum a new way of Answering Books He pretends to Answer J. O's Plea for Scripture-Ordination which is the Running-Title of the whole Book and so would persuade his Reader that he has Answer'd the whole I will not impeach his Candour in this Form of Speech which shews his Skill in a Rhetorical Figure that Substitutes a Part for the whole As if a vain-glorious Captain who had Attack'd a Company or two should say by a Romantick Syneedoche he had beaten an Army III. The Design of his Book is to prove That meer Presbyters have no Inherent Power of Ordination and that all Ordinations by Presbyters are a Nullity This Notion is very singular and I hope has but few Patrons in the Church of England because 1. It Vn-churches all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea who have no Bishops of the English Species and by this Gentleman's Principles no Ministry no Sacraments and consequently no Salvation He owns a true Ministry in the Popish Church and overthrows the Ministry of the Reformed Churches His Neighbours of the Romish Communion are obliged to conn him Thanks for the Service he would have done to their Cause against the Reformed Interest To say Theirs is a Case of Necessity but so is not ours is to triste as J. O. hath prov'd in his Book but Mr. G. wisely passed over that Chapter as if it were not there 2. This uncharitable Hypothesis contradicts the Moderate and Learned Defenders of Episcopacy who generally grant the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters though they judge it irregular where Bishops may be had Mr. Hooker allows the Ordination of Presbyters alone on this Principle That the Church can give them Power for according to him all Power is originally in the whole Body Eccl. Polit. VII p. 37 38. Bishop Downame grants That extraordinarily in case of necessity Presbyters may ordain without Bishops and gives this Reason for the Validity of their Ordination because Imposition of Hands in Confirmation and Reconciliation of Penitents were reserv'd to Bishops as well as Ordination and yet in the absence of Bishops may be done by Presbyters Def. of his Cons Serm. III. 3. P. 69 108. Forbes acknowledges That Jure Divino Presbyters have the Power of Ordaining as well as of I reaching and Baptizing though they must use it under the Bishop's Inspection in those places that have Bishops Iren. p. 164. The same was the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Usher See his Life and Reduct by Dr. Bernard The Arch-Bishop of Spalato speaks to the same purpose De Rep. Eccles in several places He saith That the Presbyterial Order hath always the Keys annexed and that when any is Ordain'd Presbyter the Keys are given him and Jurisdiction with Orders by Divine Right Lib. V. Cap. 12. p. 473. 3. This Hypothesis condemns the very Church of England who in her Articles Composed by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and the Clergy in Convocation and Confirm'd by Parliament 13. Eliz. 12. allows the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea which are by Presbyters Art 23. Those we ought to Judge lawfully Call'd and Sent which be chosen and call'd to this Work by Men who have Publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard * Vid. Rog. in Prop. 5. The Article doth not say None are Lawfully call'd but by Bishops but that Ministers ought to be Call'd by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation which Ordaining Presbyters may have and actually have in the Foreign Reform'd Congregations The Church of England acknowledged Ordinations by Presbyters and look'd upon Superiour Bishops to be but a prudential Constitution of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Book Cap. IX which Mr. G. also prudently overlooks We may presume he hath good Reason for his Omissions The Ordinations of Foreign Churches were not Question'd here before Bishop Laud's time My Lord Bacon complains of it as a new thing and uncommon
does he mean that some of them have strong presumptions others have moral assurance of the Succession Or rather that their moral assurance is no more than a strong presumption and so the meaning is they strongly presume they are Ministers but cannot be certain upon this Principle This is but very cold comfort to one who labours under Fears and Temptations about his acceptance with God in the Exercise of his Ministry The inextricable difficulties about the Succession which have puzzled the most Learned and diligent Inquirers may increase but can have no tendency to remove his Doubts The Waldenses prov'd their Call to the Ministry by the Success Act Mon. p. 234. and not by the Suecession of it as we noted before and instead of perplexing their Heads with an uninterrupted Succession they asserted this Position Such as hear or obey the word of God and have a right Faith are the right Church of Christ and to this Church the Keys of the Church are given to drive away Wolves and to institute true Pastors Nor are they singular in this Principle it is asserted by the Learned Defenders of the Reformation in their Discourses against the Jesuits the stiff Maintainers of this Succession and they have demonstrated That the Being of the Christian Church cannot depend upon this Succession and that it hath been interrupted again and again There may be a sort of Succession without a true Church as in the Romish false Church there may be a true Church without a Succession as the Foreign Reformed Churches Eccl. Polit. Lib. VII p. 37 38. Mr. Hooker affirms the whole Church visible the true original Subject of all Power and thence infers that a continued Succession of Bishops is not necessary to Ordination This Strongly Presumptuous Gentleman should have answered J. O's Reasons against this Succession before he had talk'd of his moral assurance concerning it But some people are never more sure than when they are furthest from Truth Thus I have follow'd him through his tedious Preface let not the Reader blame me for want of Method in some places because I follow the Author in his Digressions CHAP. II. The Jewish Church not the first established Church The Levitical Priesthood no Pattern for Gospel Ministers Clemens Romanus Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modell'd his Church after the Jewish Pattern or left it in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His 1. instance of Ordination from Acts 1. consider'd 2. The Ordination of the seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments Prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections answer'd 3. His third instance of Ordination from Act. 9.17 consider'd 4. His fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This instance of Ordination by Presbyters vindicated His account of Apostles and Prophets examin'd 5. His instance from Acts 14.13 examin'd 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7. 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. vindicated 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 For Ordination by Presbyters vindicated Dr. Owen defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9. 1 Pet. 5.2 vindicated HE takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Apostles were Superiour to Presbyters which no Body ever deny'd This is the chief Scope of the first Chapter of his Book in which he hath furnished us with some rare Notions of Church Government He tells us P. 1. that the Church of the Jews was the first established Church in the World that we know of Had God no Church in the World for about 24.50 Years till the Law was given upon Mount Sinai Were there no worshipping Congregations no Divine Laws of Worship in the World before Moses's Time We read of Sacrifices and Invocation on the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.3 4 24. And were there no Assemblies for those Acts of Worship We read of the Sons of God as distinct from the Daughters of Men and that the mixture of the professedly Holy Seed of Seth with the prophane Gainites sill'd the World with Wickedness Gen. 6. The degeneracy of the Sons of God the visible Church of God at that Time caus'd the Flood He that can believe that God had no Church before the Flood may also believe there never was a Flood Did Noah the Father of the new World who had immediate Rcvelation from God as most of the Patriarchs had establish no Church among his numerous Posterity Was God indifferent whether he would have a Church Or was Noah unfaithful in transmitting the Divine Establishment to his Off-spring It is true they soon degenerated Gen. 11. but that 's an Argument they had been a Covenant-People Was there no Church establish'd in Abrabam's numerous and princely Family Gen. 14.14 23.6 He erected Altars for Sacrifice and call'd upon the Lord whereever he came God renew'd his Covenant with him and admitted his Infant Seed by Circumcision into a visible Church-membership whereby they were distinguished from the rest of the World Did righteous Melchizedeck King of Salem who was Priest of the most High God as the Patriarchs generally were take no care to establish a Church among his Subjects I hope one may lawfully doubt this Gentleman's Notions of Church-Government who thus blunders about the very existence of a Church But continues he P 1. The Jewish Church was govern'd by a High-Priest Inferior Priests and Levites 1. I begin now to suspect the Reason why he would have no establish'd Church before the Jewish he does not read of any subordinate Priests and Levites that were subject to the Patriarchal Priests He seems to be content that God should have no Church in the World for almost 2500 Years rather than want a Model for his Hierarchy consisting of Bishops Priests and Deacons This is agreeable enough to his Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops are essential to a Church 2. The High-Priest Priests and Levites are not the Model for Gospel Churches for we read of no Institution of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the New Testament We find Bishops and Deacons there Phil. 1.1 but the Scripture-Bishop is the same with the Scripture-Presbyter 3. The Jewish High-Priest was an eminent Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession He is one as the Jewish High-Priest was and in this respect we follow the Jewish Typical President Wo are under Jesus Christ our only Chief-Priest who hath appointed Presbyters and Deacons as under Officers in the Christian Church 4. This is the great Argument of the Papists for the Pope's Supremacy the Jews had one Chief-Priest therefore the Christians must have one Chief-Bishop So Bellarmine Argues De Rom. Pontif. I. 9. It is unhappy that the Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy equally serve the Papacy The Fathers especially Clemens Romanus saith the Rector seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons Ibid. The first answering the High Priest the second the Inferiour Priests and the third the Levites Either the Rector has never read Clemens Romanus or
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 longâ—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.
Apostle but Apostles Superiour to them Acts 15.2 and so were Prophets and Evangelists But we do not find that they were under the Inspection of one Apostle Prophet or Evangelist more than another but Subject to all and willing to be guided by them as there was occasion 4. Were not the Apostles Heads of the Bishops also This we have proved already The Superiority of the Apostles over the Presbyters doth not in the least diminish their Power as such it was fit they should act under the Inspection of the Apostles who were Infallibly Assisted by the Holy Ghost After a great deal of needless labour to himself and Reader at length he grants P. 25. That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery of which Paul was the principal Head Here you have his own Confession That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is great and will one time or other extort Self-condemning Testimonies out of the Mouths of Adversaries But he adds That Paul was the principal Head of this Presbytery Head is an Ambiguous Word If he means by it Supreme Governour it belongs properly to Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church and Head over all things to it Eph. 1.22 5.23 No Apostle is ever call'd Head much less principal Head either of the Church or of the Presbytery in all the N. Testament It 's a Title the Pope of Rome affects If he means a subordinate Governour as I presume he doth he was no more the Head of this Presbytery than of all other Presbyteries not only in Churches Planted by him but in all others to whom the Spirit guided him His Power was the same in Rome and Coloss where he found Churches Established by others as in Ephesus or Corinth where lie settled Churches himself If the Apostle join'd the Presbytery with him in Ordination as the Rector confesseth he did it is sufficient to demonstrate That Presbyters have an inherent Power of Ordaining The Apostle's being President of the Presbytery makes no more for Bishops than it doth for Presbyters for neither of them pretend to Succeed the Apostles in the extent of Apostolical Power and all Presbyteries have a Moderator or President for Order's sake Upon the whole Matter it 's clear to me P. 27. saith Mr. G. That the Presbytery spoken of 1 Tim. 4.14 includes the Apostle Paul 1. He told us before that Paul was included in the Words by Prophecy now he includes him in the Presbytery Let us see what Sense this Interpretation makes The gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy i. e. Paul and Silas with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery i. e. of Paul and ordinary Ministers The Gift according to this Interpretation was given by the laying on of the Hands of Paul with the laying on of the Hands of Paul risum teneatis 2. The Apostles are distinguished from the Presbytery Acts 15.23 IV. The Fourth thing he hath undertaken is to consider Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Prophecy P. 28. with the laying on of the Hands of the Fresbytery Heace he infers That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets in the presence or witness and with the consent of the Presbyters 1. J. O. Prov'd in his Plea p. 47 48. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously in the N. T. which Mr. G. takes no notice of 2. Himself applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Paul by affirming that he is included in the Presbytery 3. He forgot himself in saying That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets for he own'd p. 25. That he was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is one and the same but Error is inconsistent with it self 4. The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signifies more than their presence witness and consent for the presence witness and consent of the People was requisite as he confesseth but they never laid on Hands in Ordination 5. He makes Paul one of the Presbytery the laying on of his Hands according to this Hypothesis signify'd no more than his Presence and Consent Thus in denying Ordination by Presbyters he destroys Apostolical Ordination and consequently that which is Episcopal He Flurts at the Learned and Judicious Dr. Owen whose Name will live in the Church of God when such Men as he are written in the Dust He disingeniously makes the Dr. to say That we are Justify'd by Faith with good Works P. 29. that Faith is the Instrument whereby Justification is convey'd and good Works wherewith it is conferr'd He shou'd have shew'd the place where Dr. Owen saith so but this he cou'd not do The Words are his own and easily betray the Author though he wou'd fain father them upon the Doctor Dr. Owen saith according to the Scriptures That we are Justisy'd by Faith without Works the Rector makes him to say we are Justisy'd by Faith with Works In the next Lines he contradicts himself and explains the Drs. with Works by without Works for he affirms That the Presbyters contributed no more unto Ordination than good Works in the Drs. Opinion do unto Justification that is nothing at all 1. He told us once That the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signified Ordination P. 25. afterward it signified only Consent P. 28. and here it signifies nothing at all We must crave the help of his Learned Neighbour who communicated a Quotation in J. O's Book to him to reconcile him to himself 2. It seems good Works contribute something to our Justification in the Rector's Opinion he declares himself fully of that Opinion in the next Paragraph and saith He is so far of the Drs. mind that in Justification Faith is the first and chief Instrument of Conveyance This implies That good Works are a secondary and subordinate Cause of Justification I will put this Gentleman in mind of a Passage or two in the Book of Homilies St. Paul declareth nothing here upon the behalf of Man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively Faith And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every Man that is Justify'd but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying so that altho' they be all present together in him that is Justify'd yet they Justifie not all together * Serm. of Salvat Part 1. P. 13. Edit 1673. In the Second Part of the same Homily †P. 15. Ib. we have this remarkable Passage This Faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us this is the strong Rock and Foundation of Christian Relligion this Doctrine all old and ancient Authors of Christ's Church do approve this Doctrine advanceth and fetteth forth the true Glory of Christ and beateth down the vain glory of Man This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted a Christian Man nor for a fetter forth of Christ's Glory but for an Adversary to
the Apostles must be presum'd to have done the same 1. If the Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter as Supreme to preside over the rest and to Succeed him in the Government of the Presbyters the Government by his own Confession must lodge in the Presbyters of the Churches in Parity 2. Timothy and Titus were not ordinary Presbyters but extraordinary Officers that is Evangelists and as such were Superiour to Presbyters as Apostles and Prophets were There is not the least hint in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that they were Ordain'd to be the Apostles Successors in Ephesus and Crete 3. The Apostle did commit the Government of the Church of Ephesus in his absence to the Presbytery in a Parity Acts 20.17 18. and that when he was taking his last leave of them without thoughts of seeing them any more v. 25. This was the proper Season for him to provide a sirgle Person to Succeed him in the Presidency over the Presbyters of Ephesus had such a Presidency been of necessary and perpetual continuance in the Church It is but rational to affirm That when the Apostles took their final leave of any Church then was the proper time to take care of it's future Government It is not to be imagin'd that the Holy Apostles wou'd be wanting in their Duty towards the Churches in such a Conjuncture as this They were Faithful Stewards of God's House and gave the necessary Rules for its future Government and Conservation accordingly the Apostle is very particular and express in giving Directions about the Government of the Church of Ephesus after his departure He sends for the Elders of Ephesus Preaches his Farewel Sermon to them Asts 20.17 36. In all which there is not one word of setting a single Person over them but the whole Government of the Church is committed to them in a State of Parity And least any shou'd think this was a prudential Constitution he tells them this Power was consign'd to them by the Holy Ghost who made them Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church of God v. 28. The Elders to whom the Government of the Church of Ephesus was thus committed by the Holy Ghost took their solemn and final leave of Paul with many Tears sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake that they shou'd see his face no more ver 38. Whether he did return again is not material at all it 's evident he thought he should not and the Elders of Ephesus thought so also There is no one Presbytery of which the Apostle took such a Solemn leave as he did of this and there is no doubt if it had been the mind of God that a single Person should be set over them but the Apostle would have mention'd it at this time He tells them in his Charge to them That he shunned not to declare to them the whole Counsel of God Acts 20.27 and immediately adds v. 28. That the Holy Ghost made them Bishops of that Flock this therefore is part of the Council of God That the Church be Govern'd by the Elders in Parity If the Superiority of Bishops had been any part of the Council of God the Apostle would not have with-held it from the Presbyters of Ephesus at this time They that affirm That the Government of this Church was afterwards chang'd must bring as clear Proof for it as we do for this Establishment It is very plain and incontestable that the Apostle left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters of that Church when he took his final leave of them And is it as plain that the First Epistle to Timothy upon which his Episcopacy is Founded was written after this Settlement of a Governing Presbytery which most Ancient and Modern Chronologers except Bishop Pearson and two or three others affirm to be written before It is very evident that the Holy Ghost appoints the Presbyters of Ephesus the sole Bishops of the Church when Paul bid them a final Farewel And is it as evident that an Evangelist as Timothy was may be degraded from an extraordinary unfixed Officer to an ordinary fixed Pastor In this Establishment of Presbytery without a Superiour Bishop it is observable that 1. It is an Apostolical Divine Establishment the Apostle was guided by the Holy Ghost in his determination v. 28. 2. It was the last Establishment which he intended to make in that Church for he had no thoughts of seeing them again 3. It was intended for a perpetual Establishment not only in the Church of Ephesus but in all other Churches Mr. G. allows the Government of this Church to be a Plat-form for other Churches p. 45. That it was Perpetual appears 1. Because the Apostle gave them his last Thoughts which are the same with his dying Thoughts for he positively tells them He shou'd see their Faces no more 2. Here is not one Circumstance in the whole Context that makes for a Temporary Establishment If any say it was Temporary he ought to prove it We may with much better Reason affirm That the appointing of Timothy an Evangelist to settle some things in Ephesus in Paul's absence was Temporary 3. Paul doth not give the least hint in his whole Discourse with the Ephesian Elders of any Bishop he had set over them or that he intended to set one hereafter It 's certain Paul must needs know what sort of Government God would have settled in his Church after his departure We cannot imagine that he was ignorant of the Pattern of God's House The extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were not given them in vain it was to lead them into all Truth Now if the Apostle knew of this pretended future Establishment of Episcopacy how comes he not to acquaint the Presbyters with it He shou'd have told them how they were to Govern the Church in Subordination to their Bishop present or future But not a word of all this in his whole Discourse A certain evidence that it was the Apostle's mind and the mind of the Holy Ghost that the Presbyters shou'd Govern the Church in common Timothy was now present or not far off Acts 20.4 6. Why had not the Apostle recommended the Presbyters to his charge They wanted a present Bishop according to Mr. G's Hypothesis for the Apostle was taking his final leave of them What shou'd hinder his being set over them His Years He was but Young when the first Epistle was written which supposes him Bishop of Ephesus 1 Tim. 4.12 There were Prophecies concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 He had been Ordain'd by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4.14 And was there no Prophecy of his being future Bishop of Ephesus If there was how comes the Apostle to suppress it in this necessary Juncture when it so greatly concern'd the Ephesian Elders to know how the Church of Ephesus was to be Govern'd after the Apostle's departure Would not the Elders of Ephesus acquiesce in this determination of the Apostle as his last and unalterable Settlement
subordinate to the Apostles Acts 15. and so were the Evangelists But can he produce any ordinary Presbyters that were subordinate to others of the same Order Ignatius saith he allows 'em a great stroke in ordering the Affairs of their Churches p. 77. but still in Subjection to their Bishop without whom they could do nothing It does not appear that Ignatius his Bishop could do any thing without his Presbyters no more than they could without him And long after his time the Bishop had no power to determine Church-matters without his Presbyters as appears by that Canon in the Council of Carthage Let the Bishop hear no Mans Cause without the Presence of his Clergy otherwise his Sentence shall be void unless it be confirmed by the presence of his Clergy (1) Concil Cath. IV. Can. 13. Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters and without the Consent of his People (2) Statuerim nil sine Concilio vestro sine consensu Plebis meae privatâ sentemiâ gerere Cypr. Ep. 6. To be sure then the People and their Bishop ordinarily met in one place Ignatius frequently exhorts the People to do nothing without their Bishop Presbyters and Deacons in Conjunction The Bishop and his Presbyters made one Consistory The Bishop saith he presiding in the Place of God and the Presbyters in the Place of the Council of the Apostles (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magn. p. 33. And a◠little after he mentions the Complex Spiritual Crown of the Presbytery who sat round about him in the Church (4) P. 37. Again Let all reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jesus Christ aid the Bishop as Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father and the Presbyters as the Council of God and the Conjunction of the Apostles (5) Ad Tralles p. 48. By these and many other Passages in Ignatius his Epistles it 's evident that the Bishop and Presbyters sat in Council together and were only the Guides of a Parochial Church in which the Bishop did nothing without his Presbyters nor they without him This Agreement of the Bishop and his Presbyters Ignatius compares to the Strings of a Harp and adds That under their joynt Conduct the whole Church made a Chorus a sacred Choire and by their consenting Unity made a Divine Melody (6) Ad Ephes p 19. This is agreeable to what Jerom affirms that the Churth was antiently Governed Communi Concilio Presbyterorum by the Common Council of the Presbyters (7) Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. who had a Moderator or President for Order's sake but without any Jurisdiction over the other Presbyters This Moderator at the first was not so much as chosen but the Honour was devolved in course upon the Senior Presbyter and when he died the next to him succeeded This is expresly arffirm'd by Hilarius the Deacon (8) Vt recedente uno sequens ei succedederet Hil. in Eph. 4. But the Senior Presbyters proving sometimes not so fit for the Place as he adds they changed the Succession by Seniority into that by Election The Presbyters chose the fittest Person to be their Moderator or President as is done in all the Presbyteries of the Reformed Churches This President had no new Ordination had no Power over his Brethren and was but Primus Sacerdos the first Presbyter as Hilary affirms See this Quotation more at large in J. O's Plea p. 136. (9) Mutata este ratio ut non Ordo sed Meritum crearet Episcopum c. In Eph. 4. in 1 Tim. 1.3 Thus it was at Alexandria as Jerom observes ad Evagr. By all which it appears that the Primitive Bishop was not of the same Species with our Modern Bishops and that the Government of the Churches by the Presbyters under their respective Moderators is most agreeable to the Primitive Practice He thinks that he hath sufficiently prov'd that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Governours tho not Bishops in Title ‖ P. 78. I leave it to the Impartial Reader to consider of his Proofs and my Answers As to Timothy and Titus I will add these few things and so conclude this Chapter 1. It is certain there was an Order of Evangelists in the Church Ephes 4.11 This all will acknowledge 2. They were Vnsixed Officers subordinate to the Apostles and sent by them to supply their absence in the Churches planted by them 1 Cor. 3.6 Not as their stated Pastors for they had Pastors and Teachers resident with them but to guide the New Pastors in Faith Worship and Discipline during the present Necessity until the Canon of the New Testament were written for a compleat and infallible Directory unto all Churches unto the end of Time The Apostles themselves could not be every where and the ordinary Ministers would be often at a loss without their Directions Therefore it was necessary they should entrust some Persons as Delegates to go in their names and with full instructions to the Churches to settle direct and establish them Some of these Evangelists generally attended the Apostles that they might be assistant to them Sometimes they send them to one Church sometimes to another to make a shorter or a longer stay as the circumstances of their work required and then to return again to the Apostle that sent them Thus Timothy is sent to Corinth 1 Cor. 16.10 4.17 we find him with Paul again when he writ the second Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.1 at Berea he was with Paul and abode there still with Silas Acts 17.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he did afterwards at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide still but no more as Bishop of Ephesus than of Berea And yet this is the great Argument to prove him Bishop of Ephesus that Paul besought him to abide there It 's true he soon left Berea and followed Paul to Athens Acts 17.15 whose companion he was Nor was he to stay at Ephesus but until Paul came to him 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 And in the second Epistle which was written not long after the first the Apostle calls him away to Rome and sends lychicus another Evangelist to Ephesus 2 Tim. 4.9.12.21 In 1 Thess 1.1 we find him in Athens whence he was sent to Thessalonica and thence returned back to Athens 1 Thes 3.1 2 6. After this he remov'd with Paul to Corinth Acts 18.5 thence he accompanied Paul to Asia and Ephesus Acts 19.1 thence he was sent to Macedonia v. 21 22. But it were tedious to follow him in all his Travels to so many distant places He is expresly called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and no one else is expresly so call'd but Philip Acts 21.8 Titus was such another unfixed Officer He was Paul's partner and fellow-helper 2 Cor. 8.23 and seems mostly imploy'd in the Church of Corinth 2 Cor. 8.6.16 7.6.13 Paul expected him at Troas and not finding him he had no rest
in his spirit but took his leave of them and went into Macedonia 2 Cor. 12.13 We find him with Paul at Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 3. and after his being in Crete the Apostle sends for him to Nicopolis Titus 3.12 we find him with Paul at Rome whence he sent him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.12 and we hear no more of him 3. Evangelists were subordinate to the Apostles and superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 They were the Apostles Collegues and Companions and their Authorized Messengers to the Churches to set in order what was wanting in them and to instruct admonish and reprove the Presbyters as there was occasion 4. They had power to Ordain Ministers where there was need of them This appears in Eusebius who saith of them That travelling far from home they perform'd the Office of Evangelists Eccl. Hist. III. 31. and preached Christ to such as heard not of the Faith and delivered unto them the Scriptures of the holy Gospels with great application When they had laid the foundation of Christian Doctrine in certain strange places and ordained other Pastors and committed the new Converts to their Care and Conduct they went into other Countries and Nations attended with the favour and power of God Thus he Timothy and Titus who were both of them Evangelists were entrusted with the power of ordaining We have already proved That ordinary Presbyters have exercised this power much more might Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers 5. Evangelists were Temporary Officers in tho Church and are long since ceas'd as Apostles and Prophets are 6. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists as we have prov'd and therefore no Diocesan Bishops It would be a degrading an extraordinary Officer whose Power was general over all the Churches in Subordination to the Apostles to make an ordinary Officer of him and to confine his Power to one particular Church It 's like the Degrading of the Colonel of a Regiment to be the Captain of a single Company or the Confining of a Diocesan Bishop to a mean Parochial Cure Mr. G. and some Others will own they were Evangelists and Unfixed at first but that the Apostle towards his latter End had made them Bishops and that they were such when he wrote his Epistles to them which was after his first Imprisonment at Rome This he undertakes to prove in his next Chapter CHAP. IV. The First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Assertors of Episcopacy Bishop Hall Dr. Hammond c. Deny'd by the Rhemists Bishop Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 considered Jerom vindicated Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's First Bonds The Second Epistle written in his First Bonds An Objection Answered Acts 20.25 considered ONE and the leading Argument for Timothy 's being Bishop of Ephesus P. 79. saith he is grounded on 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went to Macedonia 1. To abide still doth not imply a continued residence Timothy is said to abide still at Berea where he made but a short stay Acts 17.14 15. This Argument will as soon prove him Bishop of Berea as Bishop of Ephesus 2. His stay there was but short that is until the Apostle came to him 1 Tim. 3.14 and 4.13 Mr. G. himself allows in p. 90. That the Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters under Paul whilst he was vigorous and active and had opportunity to oversee both the Flock and the Elders themselves The Apostle was vigorous and active when he writ this first Epistle to Timothy and he intended shortly to visit the Flock and Elders of Ephesus Therefore by his own Confession Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus when that Epistle was written 3. He was not fixed as Resident at Ephesus for the Apostle afterwards calls him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 21. and sends Tychicus the Evangelist to Ephesus We do not read that Timothy ever return'd to Ephesus again Thus we see the Weakness of his Leading Argument as he calls it by which we may judge of the rest He adds That the Dissenters to avoid the Argument built upon 1 Tim. 1.3 and the rest of the Epistle say That the first Epistle to Timothy was written before the Meeting at Miletus in which the Apostle committed the Flock to the Elders of Ephesus and not to Timothy Acts 20.17 28. Our Argument from Acts 20.17 28. holds good tho' that Epistle should be written after as we have proved already in Cap. 3. 2. It is not the Dissenters only as he unfairly suggests that say that this Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus It 's the general and prevailing Opinion of the greatest part of Chronologers Ancient and Modern the most Learned Asserters of Episcopacy not excepted Bishop Hall is of this Opinion * Vindic p. 97. Div. Right of Episcop Part 2d p. 38. so is Dr. Hammond and Grotius Lud. Capâ—llus Dr. Lightfoot Cary c Gothofredus quotes Athanasius Baronius c. as of the same Opinion The Rhemists were sensible that this Opinion was prejudicial to the Cause of Episcopacy and therefore they say tho' not positively That the first Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome when he was set at Liberty * Rhem. Test. Arg. in 1 Tim. They are follow'd by Bishop Pearson and by Mr. G. only with this difference That the Seminary at Rhemes deliver themselves more modestly than the Rector doth They say it seemeth so the Rector saith He hath demonstrated it One that had not read Bishop Pearson would think the Rector very ingenuous in acknowledging that he is beholden to the Bishop for what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia mentioned in 1 Tim. 1.3 That Miracle of his Time saith he p. 80. meaning Bishop Pearson in his Annales Paulini has given us a plain Account and Proof thereof All that I pretend unto is to build on his Foundation and to enlarge on what that excellent Prelate has demonstrated in a few words Thus the Rector I will not dispute whether the Learned Bishop were the Miracle of his Time if he were Miracles are grown very Common in this last Age for the Bishop had many Equals whose Learned Works are nothing inferiour to his I dare affirm that our Rector is no Miracle in Architecture for he builds very sorrily on the Bishops Foundation Instead of raising a Superstructure he has rather disturbed the Foundation The Learned Bishop discourses distinctly and clearly the Rector confusedly and darkly He refers to Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulini and pretends to enlarge on what the Bishop had demonstrated in few words but takes no notice of the Bishops enlarging on that Argument in his Dissertations whence he borrow'd what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia but would have his Reader believe the Enlargements are his own See Pears Dissert
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
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
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
Mat 18.15 16 17. 1 Cor. 5.2 Cor. 3.6 His Fancy that our Ministers ask leave of the Lay-Elders to Suspend is a great mistake Though common Sense might teach him that two or three Experienced Persons of the Congregation whom he Stiles Lay-Elders in conjunction with the Ministers are more competent Judges of Offences within the Congregation than a Lay-Chancellor who lives at a distance and is a meer Stranger and usually makes the best advantage of his Office without any great regard to the Salvation of Souls He complains That the Dissenters call them Priests in contempt P. 13. though the Word he but Presbyter contracted 1. I know no Reason why this Gentleman should be offended that we call them by a Name which themselves are so fond of The Words Priâ—sthood and Priests are used five or six times in the Form of Ordination And the Word Minister was chang'd by the Reformers of the Common Prayer in 1662. into that of Priest at least in five places in the Absolution in the Responses in the Litany and at the Communion c. 2. Admit it to be a Contraction of Presbyter we must consider Words non a quo sed ad quid as the School-men speak not as they did Originally signifie but as they do at Present It is certain that the Learned Translators of the New Testament never render the Greek Presbyter by Priest in English and they had reason for it because the Word Priest in common use signifies the Sacrificing Priests of the Law whose name is never in the New Testament given to Ministers of the Church as Dr. Fulk observes against the Rhemish Seminary Rhem. in Act 14. S. 4. who quarrel with our first Reformers for Translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder and not Priest The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are generally Translated Priest in our English Bibles and they properly signifie Sacrificing Priefts Our Author confesseth Pref. p. 14. That it is very requisite that we should not know of any interruption in the Succession of Holy Orders but it is infinite Satisfaction when we have a moral assurance that there has been none J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea that the Succession has been interrupted P. 168. to 178. and that it 's morally impossible by this Principle for any Man to know himself to be a true Minister of Christ But our Rector never takes notice of it not unlike some sort of Disputants who resolve to hold the Conclusion let what will come of the Premises He that has moral assurance that there has been no Interruption which begets in the Rector infinite Satisfaction must be sure that he who Ordain'd him was Ordain'd by a Canonical Bishop that that Bishop's Ordination was not void by Canon particularly he must be sure to know he came not in by Simony that he was not an Heretick or Erroneous in the Fundamentals or Ordain'd by a Bishop out of his own Province He must know that all the Bishops successively from the Apostles times by whom he derives his claim were thus Ordain'd one Interruption spoils the whole Line He must be able to disprove all the Interruptions mention'd by Historians He must prove that Sergius the II. not obtain the Popedom by Magie Naucl. p. 742. which he himself confessed he did that Liberius did not subscribe the Arian Confession in the Council of Sirmium that Pope Honorius in the second General Council was wrongfully condemn'd for a Heretick that Marcellinus was no Idolater nor Celestine a Nestorian Heretick that the Charge of Simony put in against the English Bishops Vide Fox Acts-ad A. D. 1405. scarce one excepted among King Henry IVth's Bishops was false If any one of these be true as all may be for ought we know to the contrary and a thousand the like the Succession of Ordaining Bishops is interrupted and the Ordinations of all that derive from them are a nullity See the Learned Reasons of the Bishop of Worcester against this Succession Iren. p. 299. The Scriptures no where mention this Succession Where was the Succession of the Jewish High-Priests when the Roman Governours set up whom they pleas'd and chang'd them annually without regard to the Divine Law See John 11.51 Joseph Antiq xviii 3. Where shall we find the Succession when the Woman is in the Wilderness and the Witnesses slain Gospel Ordinances are plain things and not clog'd with insuperable difficulties But so much is said to this Subject in J. O's Plea that it is needless to add more To justifie their Ordinations saith Mr. G. by the Example of the Lollards Pref. p. 15. is but to talk of Yesterday of those who appeared not in the World till about Henry III's Reign 1. J. O. gave about twelve Instances of Ordination by Presbyters Plea cap. x. p. 125. all more Ancient than this of the Followers of Wickliff Our Author according to his great Candor overlooks all the rest and attacks only this late Instance And why this That he might say it was but of Yesterday And yet his Yesterday is above four hundred Years ago for King Henry III. dyed in the Year 1272. 2. The Lollards as they were call'd in contempt were famous Witnesses against Antichristian Errors in their Time and abundance of them seal'd their Testimony with their Blood We cannot therefore judge so lightly of their Practise as the Rector doth It is true they labour'd under great Difficulties as he observeth but that was not the Reason of Presbyters Ordaining among them but their asserting an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to ordain as J. O. hath prov'd out of Walsingham's Hist p. 339. in the very Place which he animadverts upon but it was not his Interest to take notice of it 3. This Instance is the more considerable because the Lollards were the off-spring of the Ancient Waldenses as Perrin observes In England Hist Wald. lib. 1. c 3. saith he they were call'd Lollards from one Lollard who taught there The persecuted Waldenses being scatter'd fled into Provence and the Alps some into Calabria Bohemia Polonia and into Britain as Thuanus observes Lib. v. ad A. D. 1550. Pref. So that this is a further Confirmation that the Waldenses had no Bishops of the present English Species But saith our Author P. 15 and 16. As for Waldenses or Vaudois having had no other Ministers than Presbyters ordain'd by Presbyters for near five hundred Years past as J. O. affirms it may prove one and not the least of his mistakes when I shall here have set down what a Learned Neighbour of mine communicated to me He told me that he finds in the History of the Church of Bohemia That the Brethren of Bohemia suspecting the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters sent unto the Waldenses A. D. 1467. Michael Zamburgius their Rector with two others These find Stephen the Waldensian Bishop who with another Bishop and
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
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
why not by John also I appeal to the Learned Reader whether is most probable that the Holy Ghost should Allude to Provincial Angels the doubtful Ministers of Providence under that Denomination or to the Synagogue-Angels the known Ministers of Sacred Things 3. His third Reason to prove that Timothy left an Episcopal Successor is taken from Ignatius his Epistle to that Church P. 59. in which he Names Onesimus their Bishop 1. He knows that the Learned are not agreed whether the Epistles of Ignatius be Genuine or no Mouns Daille hath written a Learned Dissertation to prove them Spurious Doct. Pearson hath Learnedly Defended them Le Roque hath with great Judgment Answered the Learned Bishop 2. If Ignatius be Genuine which is very doubtful it should seem that in his time the Name of Bishop which the Holy Ghost gives to all Presbyters in common began to be appropriated to the first or chief Presbyter who for Order sake Presided over the rest and had the Honour of the chief Place in their Assemblies and of moderating the Debates of the Presbytery but without any Power of Jurisdiction or Government over his Brethren This was the Primitive Bishop as J. O. hath proved in his Plea p. 136. 139. out of Hilarius c. 3. Ignatius his Bishop was but the chief Pastor of a Church that ordinarily Assembled together for Personal Communion as will appear to any Impartial Person that Reads these Epistles with Observation Congregational or Parochial Bishops were throughout the World not only in Ignatius his time but in Paul's time who fixed more than one of them in every Church Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 That the Bishop's Diocess in Ignatius time and long after exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parish appears 1. The whole Diocess met together with the Bishop for Publick Worship Let all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ and the Presbytery as the Apostles Let no Church Affairs be managed without the Bishop Where the Bishop appears let the multitude be * Ign. ad Smyr p. 6. Edit Vos If the Prayer of one or two be so powerful how much more is the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church He that cometh not into one place he is proud and self-condemned †Ad Eph. p. 20. 33 34. Do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters Run all of you together into one Temple of God as to one Altar ‖ Ad Mag. p. 33 34. Where the Shepherd is there do you follow as the Sheep ought to do * Ad Phil. p. 40. 2. Baptism was generally Administred by the Bishop within his Diocess It is not lawful without the Bishop either to Baptize or to Celebrate the Lord's Supper †Ad Smy p. 6. So Tertullian Vnder the hand of our Bishop we protest That we renounce the Devil and the Pomp of this World ‖ de Cor. mil. p. 336. 3. The Bishop had but one Altar or Communion in his whole Diocess at which he had Administred the Lord's Supper to his whole Flock Give diligence to use one Eucharist for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one Cup which represents the Vnion of his Blood one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons my Fellow-Servants * Ad Phil. p. 41. One Altar here must be taken individually as one Bishop is 'T is absurd to say one specifical Altar and one individual Bishop Tertullian saith of the Lord's Supper We receive it from no hand but from the hand of the Presidents or Bishops †De Cor. Milit. p. 338. They Communicated at least once a Week in some places twice or thrice One of our Bishops would scarce be able to Administer the Lord's Supper in a whole Month to all his Diocess 4. No Marriages were made without the Bishop Those Vnions were made with the Sentence of the Bishop ‖ Ad Poly. p. 13. 5. The Bishop took care of all the Poor of the Dicess Neglect not the Widows do you take care of them next unto the Lord Let nothing be done without thy Advice let the People often Assemble together inquire after all by Name despise not Men-Servants and Maid-Servants * Ad Poly. p. 12. 13. Here the Bishop was to take care of the poor Widows of his Diocess to see that nothing be done without his Advice and that the Congregation often met together he was to take an account by Name of those that were absent not omitting Servant-Men and Maids What Diocesan Bishop can perform all this in his Diocess which consists of some Scores or hundreds of Parishes Many more Testimonies might be gathered out of these Epistles to prove that Ignatius his Bishop was but a Parish-Bishop Thus we have made it evident that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was ledged in the Presbyters of that Church and that there was no Change of the Government afterwards by the Apostles and that there was no Diocesan Bishop there in Ignatius his time The present Bishop of Salisbury doth ingenuously acknowledge That Ignatius was but the Pastor of a particular Church See the Quotation in J. O's Plea p. 30 Having invalidated the Rector's Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy from 1 Tim. and Ignatius his Epistles I proceed to consider what he hath to offer in favour of Titus his being Bishop of Crete If Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus no more was Titus of Crete for the Epistles directed to both are much of the same Strain Their Powers were the same and both were Officers of the same Species namely Evangelists Timothy is expresly so call'd and Titus was really one as will be acknowledged by the Learned for he was the Apostle's Assistant and Messenger to the Churches particularly to that of Corinth where he seems to have spent a great part of his time 2 Câ—r 2.13 7.6 8.6 The Apostle calls him his Companion and Fellow-Worker 2 Cor. 8.23 We find him with the Apostle at Jerusalem Gal. 2.13 Paul left Titus in Crete P. 63. to set in Order the things that were wanting and to Ordain Elders in every City as the Rector observes Tit. 1.5 1. It 's no where said that Paul made him Bishop of Crete The Trusts committed to him were such as an Evangelist might discharge This I presume will not be denied Eusebius expresly affirms it was part of their Work to Ordain Pastors * Eccl. Hist III. 31. And the Rector acknowledges that Branch of their Power p 115. 2. He was left in Crete but for a Season as Timothy was in Ephesus for the Apostle charges him to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 when he should send Artemas or Tychicus to him for there he intended to Winter By which it is evident his stay in Crete by Paul's appointment was not long perhaps not above half a Year if so much after which we never read of his returning thither but we find him after this sent into
Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 and we hear no more of him 3. He thinks Titus 1.5 That thou mightest Ordain Elders not rightly Translated it should be That thou mightest appoint and settle Elders in every City This presupposes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining also 1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers for which they feign him a Bishop to wit his Ordaining of Elders This he saith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5 If this Text doth not prove his Ordaining Power no one in that Epistle doth 2. He fancies that assigning unto Presbyters their power and special places was the work of Titus in Crete and that this was after Ordination Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City or particular Church as he himself explains it Act 14.23 and were they not chosen by the Multitude before Ordination as he also confesseth in the case of his Deacon-Presbyters Acts 6. He would do well to tell us What new power was assign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders needed a Licence from their Bishop to impower them to Preach after Ordination as the Canon requires †Can. 36. Paul says he entrusts him with the charge of seeing unto the Qualifications of Elders P. 65. v. 6 7 8 9. The same though more compendious than those in 1 Tim. 3. 1. All that he might do as an Evangelist or the Apostle's Delegate as the Bishop's Chaplain or Arch-Deacon examine the Candidates for the Ministry with us 2. He wisely overlooks the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters which is asserted in both the places he Quotes Titus 1.5 6 7 8. Ordain Elders if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless The Reason were Incogent if Elder and Bishop were not the same The Qualification of Elders here are the same with those of a Bishop in 1 Tim. 3. as he confesseth Bishops and Presbyters were the same not only at first but even at this time when these Epistles were Written to Timothy and Titus which makes it evident they were Evangelists Superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 and not Bishops in a proper Sense who are one and the same with Presbyters He will not be able to give one Instance in all the New Testament of any one ordinary Minister or Elder that was made Superiour to his Brethren of the same Order with him Nor of any extraordinary Officer that was made Superiour to others of the same kind One Apostle was not made Superiour to another Apostle nor one Prophet to another Prophet nor one Evangelist to another Evangelist though the Apostles were above the Prophets and the Prophets above the Evangelists and all the Three were Superiour to the Presbyters but no one Presbyter is made Superiour in degree much less a Ruler over another Presbyter The Apostle impowers him says he Cap. 1.11 to stop the Mouths or Silence false Teachers to rebuke them sharply v. 13. that is v. 10. the Vnruly or Non-conformists c. 1. The Apostle Explains his Meaning about stopping the Mouths of false Teachers in v. 9. That he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince Gainsayers He speaks of the Presbyters ordain'd by Titus that they must be able to convince Gainsayers and so to stop their mouths Even private Persons are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stop the mouths or put to silence the ignorance of foolish men 1 Pet. 2.15 2. But suppose it be meant of an Authoritative Silencing of such it is no more than what Titus might do as an Evangelist and the Apostles Delegate 3. The Rector shews his good will to have the Nonconformists silenced but it 's well that cursed Cows have short Horns 4. The Nonconformists or uaruly Persons the Apostle speaks of were a sort of Judaizing Christians that retain'd the Legal Ceremonies and the Commandments of Men T it 1.10 13. They were not content with the Simplicity and Plainness of Gospel-Institutions but would super-add their own Inventions and impose them upon others These were the Nonconformists that would not conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel nor leave others in the quiet possession of Gospel-Priviledges unless they submitted to their Impositions Acts 15.2 Gal. 4.9 10. and 5.1 2 Col 2.20 23. Grotius gives another Character by which these Nonconformists may be known He saith That the Apostle pointed at those who taught that all Israelites had a part in the World to come * Grot. in Tit. 1.10 Not unlike some People who affirm all to be saved ‖ Vid. Com. Prayer Burial Dead that have the happiness to die in their Communion and do not lay violent Hands upon themselves We are obliged to the Rector for helping us to a right Notion of Nonconformity There are two sorts of Nonconformists Some are so call'd because they do not conform to Unscriptural Impositions these the Text speaks nothing of Others as the Rector well observes may be so call'd because they do not Conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel but impose humane â—nventions as Terms of Communion The latter of these two are the Culpable Nonconformists I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing these lest be be condemned out of his own Mouth Paul instructs him to reject a Heretick p. 66. Tit. 3.10 That he might do as an Evangelist What he transcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete and we have already consider'd Ignatius bis Bishop Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery P. 76. nor any share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles saith our Author 1. The Epistles were directed to Evangelists who were superiour to Presbyters and therefore it was fit the Exhortation should be immediately directed to them 2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters also as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church and doubtless were intended for the use of the Church unto the end of time 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3. The Presbyters are concern'd I hope in the several Directions to Purity Patience Constancy Faithfulness in dispensing the Word c. 1 Tim 6.11 12. 2 Tim. 2.3 4. and 4.1 2 3. 3. It is a very gross mistake that the Presbytery had no share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles Paul ordain'd Bishops there who among other Qualifications must be such as Rul'd well their own Houses that they might take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.4 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17 he mentions Elders that Ruled well and mere worthy of Double Honour He contradicts himself and saith that the Presbyters had some Interest in the Government tho' their Power was subordinate as appears from the Council at Jerusalem P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apostles themselves doubtless then and much more with Timothy and Titus They had no share in the Government and yet they had some Interest in it himself can best reconcile these inconsistent Propositions They were
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-Church-Officer that went from Place to Place to finish the Churches begun by the Apostles and particularly to ordain Elders among them And yet he grants that an Evangelist as Ravanellus expresseth it Ordain'd Elders Oppidatim in every Town or Village 1. He owns that Evangelists might Ordain in every Town and why not in every City Ravanellus explains his Oppidatim by Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City But he wilfully overlooks that for he knew that there were many Cities in Crete and according to the Rule that every City must have a Bishop Titus must be Arch-bishop of Crete And the sole Power of Ordination being in Titus it would naturally follow that none but Arch-bishops can Ordain Andrew Cretentis calls him Arch-bishop and saith he had twelve Bishops under him 2. He cannot altogether allow Evangelists to be unsetled Officers It seems he does in part allow it P. 115. it 's too bright a Truth to be deny'd but he endeavours to obscure it what he can and wou'd fain perswade his Reader that Evangelists were fixed Officers But let 's hear his Proof Philip was a fixed Evangelist because Luke leaves him at Caesarea Acts 8.40 And we find him there almost twenty Years after having a House and a settled Family Acts 21.8 1. When he has prov'd that Philip resided at Caesarea as the settled Bishop of that Church and that he was no where else all those Years he may talk of a fixed Evangelist 2. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Which he may Visit at Times Paul continued two Years at Ephesus Acts 19.10 a Year and a half at Corinth Acts 18.11 two Years in his own hired House at Rome Acts 28.30 was he therefore a settled or fixed Apostle 3. As much as we have of the History of Philip bespeaks him an unsettled Officer We find him in Samaria Acts 8.12 with the Ethiopian Eunuch in the way from Jerusalem unto Gaza Acts 8.26 at Asotus and Preaching in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea Acts 8.40 which perhaps might be his Birth-place or he might Marry there which is more likely because we read of Four Daughters he had which did Prophecy Acts 21.9 He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea * J. Pears Lect. in Act v. §. 1. 5. p. 66. 68. for he Preached up and down by Vertue of an extraordinary Call Acts 8.6 7 26 39. and it is not to be imagin'd he laid aside the Office of an Evangelist after his Marriage And therefore Luke testifies concerning him that although he was Married and had a settled Family he was an Evangelist an unsettled extraordinary Officer still Acts 21.8 9 10. He could not produce any Ancient Author that makes him Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius saith he dyed at Hierapolis †Euseb Hist III. 25. Edit Lovan 1569. His other Proof from Timothy and Titus being fixed or settled Evangelists we considered before And it is Petitio Principii I will add this 1. All that he saith to prove them fixed Officers of Ephesus and Crete depends upon his Supposition that the Epistles to them were Written after Pauls first Bonds at Rome which I have disprov'd with respect to the first Epistle to Timothy and it 's confess'd by all that this Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were Written about the same Time The Epistle to Titus was Written when Paul was in Macedonia designing to Winter in Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 He Promises to send Tychicus or Artemas unto Titus the former of these two was with Paul in Macedonia and afterwards accompanied him into Asia Acts 20.4 Therefore this Epistle was Written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome 2. Timothy and Titus were no resident Evangelists of Ephesus and Crete for the Apostle calls them both away He calls Titus to Nicopolis from Crete Tit. 3.12 which is an evidence he was to make but a short stay there to set in Order the Things that were wanting Tit. 1.5 Which when he had done he must attend the Apostle as he had done before Accordingly he went to Paul to Nicopolis and was his Companion and Messenger to several Churches and at last is sent by him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 And we hear no
more of him It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete The Apostle calls Timothy away from Ephesus to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 for the same Reason that he sends for Mark both being profitable to him for the Ministry having none with him but Luke v. 10 11. accordingly Timothy came to him and he promises to send him to Macedonia and not to Ephesus Phil. 2.19 But it should seem he could not go as soon as he intended being made a Prisoner at Rome When he was set at Liberty he accompanied the Apostle to Judea or design'd so to do Heb. 13.23 From all which it appears that they were Evangelists in a proper Sence that is extraordinary and unsettled church-Church-Officers who assisted the Apostles in their Ministry and were their Messengers to the Churches to establish settle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apostles having Power to ordain Elders and to put forth other Acts of Government as occasion was offer'd All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus which doubtless were the same in other Churches as in Ephesus and Crete for they were Evangelists as much in one Place as in another And the Power of Evangelists was the same in all Places 3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangelists who are succeeded by the Deacons as he thinks as the Prophets are by the Presbyters and the Apostles by the Bishops Evangelists saith he did Evangelize or Preach the Gospel sine Cathedrá without a fixed residence J. O. quoted Eusebius in his Plea P. 18. to the same purpose he saith of the Evangelists Hil. in 4. Eph. That they Preached Christ to Infidels ordain'd Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations To this Mr. G. Answers It was not the proper Work of Evangelists to go up and down Preaching the Gospel Eusebius saith They went far from their Houses did the Work of Evangelists and diligently Preach'd Christ to such as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels ordain'd other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations I have proved out of Paul's Epistles they were unsettled Officers and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Gospel and Eusebius affirms they did so But saith he Eusebius writes L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangelist being Dead Annianus so he writes it for Anianus enter'd upon the Administration of the Church of Alexandria hence he infers That Mark was a resident Evangelist not roving up and down 1. He may as well say that Peter was a resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome * Eccl. Hist III. 2.4 2. Mark was no resident Evangelist he was a Companion of Peter and Paul and travell'd with them up and down and was sent by them to several Churches in Acts 12.25 we find him with Paul and Barnabas at Perga in Pamphylia he left them and went to Jerusalem Acts 13.13 he afterwards for some time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places Acts 15.39 We find him after that with Timothy or not far from him and sent for by Paul to assist him in the Ministry 2 Tim. 4.11 when he was Prisoner at Rome We find him there with Paul Philem. 24. from whence he sends him to Coloss Col. 4.10 When Peter wrote his first Epistle Mark was with him at Babylon 1 Pet. 5.13 and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a resident Evangelist 3. Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion †Lib. 2. Cap. 14.15 and adds They say he first passed over into Egypt and Preach'd there the Gospel which he had written and planted the first Churches in Alexandria Perhaps he might End his Days here in setling this Church as all the Evangelists and Apostles must end their Days in some place or other and in the Service of some Church but this could not make either Apostles or Evangelists resident Officers J. O. had said P. 119. that Chrysostom agreed with Eusebius that Evangelists were unfixed Church-Officers The Rector here exclaims against J. O's insincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He further Notes out of Chrysostom that Timothy and Titus were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 employ'd in one Place that is were resident Evangelists and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chrysostom in both Vniversities and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Design and want of Sincerity St. Chrysostom then must be acknowledg'd saith he on my side and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and resident Church-Rulers and that Timothy and Titus were so 1. Here is a very severe Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Transcriber of J. O's Copy who put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was overlook'd in the Errata I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has examin'd J. O's other Quotations it 's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains some hundreds of Quotations 2. J. O. did not leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out to serve his Cause Chrysost in Epist. Edit Donat. Veron P. 163. as Mr. G. falsly affirms but he transcribed the Passage as he sound it in the Edition which he had by him which has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. J. O's notion of Evangelists that they were unsettled Church-Officers needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimonies to confirm it for the History of the Apostles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul make it evident that they were such and Mr. G. himself cannot deny but there were Itinerant Evangelists as he calls them P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists J. O 's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scriptures and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysostom Especially 4. Having Chrysostom of his side without that Alteration Thus he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he gave Thirdly Evangelists who did not go about every where but Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquilla Pastors and Teachers were those to whose Care the the People were wholly committed What then were the Pastors and Teachers Inferiour Yes they who were resident and employ'd only in one Place as Timothy and Titus were altogether Inferiour to those that went about and Evangeliz'd He speaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Gospels In this Passage Note Chrysostom does not deny but Evangelists did go about he only saith they did not go about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did they moved
in a narrower Orb than the Apostles whose Messengers and Ministers they were and by whose appointment their Motions were guided and limitted That this is Chrysostoms meaning appears 1. From the Instance of Aquila and Priscilla which he gives these are Evangelists with Chrysostom Now these did remove from one Place to another from Rome to Corinth this remove was occasion'd by an Edict of Claudius Acts 18.1 2. some time after they removed with Paul to Ephesus ver 18. doubtless by Pauls appointment as other Evangelists did Thus we see Chrysostom's Evangelists did go up and down but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where at their own Pleasure as the Apostles did who had no Superiours to direct their Motions but the Evangelists removed under the Conduct of the Apostles The Apostles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit and went about every where whither the Spirit guided them The Evangelists were under the Conduct of the Apostles and went about also but only to such Places and Services as the Apostles directed them Priscilla a Woman is an Evangelist in Chrysostom * See Acts 18.22 I hope Mr. G. will not make a settled Church Officer that is a Bishop of her for an Evangelist and a Bishop is the same with him Chrysostom here seems to confess that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Christianity to the Women to whom the Men had not access in the Eastern Countries The same is affirm'd by Clement of Alexandria who thinks the Sisters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5 Ministred unto the Women who kept at home by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women without Reprehension or evil Suspicion * Clem. Alex Strom. III. vid. Constit Apost III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi Epiph. haer 79. 2. Chrysostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists but among the Pastors or fixed Officers whom he makes Inferiour to those that went up and down and Evangeliz'd i. e. The Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Donas Veron He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Pastors according to the received Opinion of his Age But he rightly distinguisheth between Evangelists and Pastors and makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Evangelists to be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or these that went about Preaching the Gospel Thus after all the Noise and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made its evident that Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius in his Notion of Evangelists Their calling Timothy and Titus Bishops doth not affect us who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture that they were Evangelists and not Diocesan Bishops Eusebius saith only Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and he ingeniously acknowledges that they had no certainty who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches planted by them those only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epistles It is fit therefore we shou'd be determin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Testament It s well observ'd by the Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that call'd Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon This was four hundred Years after in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after setled there no doubt they would begin the Succession with Timothy because of his Imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout He adds that this was not the Act of the Council but of a single Person delivering his Private Opinion in it and that by the by too and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council for saying that the Bishops of Ephesus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place See more in that Learned Author who judiciously Confutes their Opinion who make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302 303. The Fathers call the Apostles Bishops which all grant they were not in a proper Sence Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were both of them Apostles and Bishops at Rome Epiph. haeres xxvii The Fathers therefore when they call Apostles or Apostolical Men Bishops speak in the Language of their time and are not to be taken in a strict Sence Having gone through his Book and discovered the fallacies ot his Reasonings it were needless to take Notice of his last Chapter which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea in which there is scarce any thing which has not been consider'd already Yet for the sake of the more Ignorant Reader I will make some short replies to his Answers CHAP. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Tower of Government 1. J. O's First Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. The Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 Consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar Explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Br. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's Second and Third Argument for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Presbyters succeed the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect HE Charges J. O. with reflecting on Episcopal Ordination P. 122. but gives no Instance of any such Reflection which doubtless he would have done if he had been able Let this pass among his other Calumnies His Crambe about Jerom and Ignatius has been consider'd before P. 123. It were endless to tire my Reader and my self with nauseous Repetitions as often as this Author gives occasion He falls foully upon J. O. for saying that Parish-Priests have no Power of Discipline P. 125 126. which I have proved They have Power of Discipline saith he because all the Canons or Laws of the Church are made by the Priests of the Church of England as well as by the Bishops 1. Their Executive Power is the same with their Legislative Power that is none at all The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be Confirmed in Parliament 2. Hath every Parish-Priest a power of making Church-Laws If not this Instance is impertinently brought in to prove that the Parish-Priests have Power of Discipline If it be said they make Laws by their Representatives so do the People of England by their Representatives in Parliament Doth it follow therefore that every Free-holder hath the Power of Governing Though the Truth is the Convocation is not a Just Representative of the Clergy For in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury there are but 44 Clerks representing the Clergy the Bishops Deans Prebendaries and Arch-Deacons make up 122. The Arch-Deacons who are the Bishops Creatures as being chosen solely by them are 10 in Number more than the Clerks so that the Clerks are little more than Cyphers in Convocation there are enough in the lower House to out-vote them besides an
upper House of Bishops who have sometimes a considerable Influence in the Election of the very Clerks 3. The Rector may please himself with his Power of making new Laws all the Power we plead for is a Liberty for Parish-Ministers to execute the Laws of Christ in the exclusion of the Scandalous and the admission of such as are duly qualify'd for Gospel-Ordinances The Parish-Ministers or Priests as he calls them and yet is unreasonably angry with us for calling them so have Power to Heprove and Suspend for a Time We had this before in the Preface A Private Person may Reprove they can Suspend from the Lord's Supper for a time i. e. till the next Return of the Carrier or about 14 Days and then they are obliged to deliver up all to the Ordinary with whom the Offender often commutes for his Crime and returns as Impenitent as he went except he repent that he has parted with so much Money When he has made his Peace with the Ordinary or his Commissary or Chancellor the Minister must admit him or be proceeded against himself for disobeying his Superiours Is their any Presilent for this in the Gospel Did Christ or his Apostles Establish this sort of Discipline Mr. G. Challenges J. O. to prove out of Scripture That ever any Ordinary Presbyters did Excommunicate P. 126. We have but few Instances of Excommunication in Scripture but we have proved already That the Corinthian Presbyters and consequently all others had Power to Judge i. e. to decree Excommunicated as the Rector explains it those that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 See Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 2.6 2 Thess 3.6 Can the Rector who so liberally demands Scripture-Proofs give us any Instance of Presbyters Suspending for a Fortnight If he can find no Proof in Scripture That ordinary Presbyters did Suspend at all from the Communion how dare they do it for a Fortnight If he finds by Scripture they may Suspend how dare he condemn our Presbyters for Suspending Persons until they see some evidences of their Repentance But since he calls for Proofs let him shew us some Proof out of Scripture for the Power of Lay-Chancellors to Excommunicate or some Instance of commuting Penance for a Sum of Money I have read in Scripture of the Priests eating up the sin of the People and setting their Heart on their Iniquity Hosh 4 8. The Covetous Priests then got a small share out of the Sacrifices occasioned by the sins of the People Iev 6.26 10.17 but our Commuters ingross the whole Offering to themselves It is odd to hear a Man call for Scripture-Proof who cannot pretend to any Scripture-Proof for abundance of things which they Practice and Impose as Conditions of Communion on Ministers and People Tliis Gentleman has a measure and a measure that is a double measure one for himself and Brethren and another for the Dissenters Were he willing to be determined by the Scripture as he pretends our Controversies would be soon at an end He ignorantly affirms Ibid. That the Presbyterian Bishops as he calls them are at best but the Executioners of the Lay-Elders Will I know but very few of the Congregations call'd Presbyterian that have any Ruling Elders at all and those that have receive them only as Assistants to the Ministers and not as Rulers Superiour to them J. O's First Argument to prove that Presbyters may Ordain is because they are Scripture-Bishops Plea p. 12 13. He proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament times and some Ages after To this Argument the Rector answers 1. He grants they were the same in the New Testament P. 126 127. and were the Ordinary Rulers of the Church but Timothy and Titus were above them Nothing but the brightness of Truth could extort such a Confession from him for 1. If Presbyters and Bishops were the same in the New Testament let him shew us who had Power afterwards to distinguish them 2. If they be the same they have the same Powers Therefore if the Bishop has Power to Ordain so has the Presbyter If the Presbyter has no such Power no more has the Bishop Thus he has kindly Established our Argument but I hope his Episcopal Friends will not impute it to any ill design in him for he is full of good Will to their Cause and it is their own fault that they have chosen no better an Advocate 3. But he hopes to come off by saying that Timothy and Titus were above the Presbyters or Bishops for hereafter you must take them for one and the same Timothy and Titus Evangelists were above the Bishops What then It is as natural to infer thence That Presbyters are above Bishops as that Bishops are above Presbyters Not only Evangelists but Prophets and Apostles were Superiour to Ordinary Ministers But no Example has been yet produced that one Ordinary Minister was Superiour to another Ordinary Minister No instance can be given in the New Testament of any one meer Presbyter that was Superiour to another Presbyter If there must be some Church-Officers called Bishops Superiour to Presbyters because Evangelists were so by the same reason there ought to be some church-Church-Officers Superiour to Bishops because the Prophets were Superiour to the Evangelists and another sort of church-Church-Officers Superiour to them also because the Apostles were Superiour to the Prophets He Subscribes to J. O's Assertion P. 128. That there were several Bishops in one Church in the Apostles Days and that those mention'd in Scripture were not of our English Species Therefore by his own Confession English Bishops are not Scripture-Bishops But there was an Order of church-Church-Officers above these Presbyter-Bishops saith he as we have demonstrated in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus There were no less than three Orders above them that is Apostles Prophets and Evangelists each of them extraordinary church-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
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
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.
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-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