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
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
more of him It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete The Apostle calls Timothy away from Ephesus to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 for the same Reason that he sends for Mark both being profitable to him for the Ministry having none with him but Luke v. 10 11. accordingly Timothy came to him and he promises to send him to Macedonia and not to Ephesus Phil. 2.19 But it should seem he could not go as soon as he intended being made a Prisoner at Rome When he was set at Liberty he accompanied the Apostle to Judea or design'd so to do Heb. 13.23 From all which it appears that they were Evangelists in a proper Sence that is extraordinary and unsettled Church-Officers who assisted the Apostles in their Ministry and were their Messengers to the Churches to establish settle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apostles having Power to ordain Elders and to put forth other Acts of Government as occasion was offer'd All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus which doubtless were the same in other Churches as in Ephesus and Crete for they were Evangelists as much in one Place as in another And the Power of Evangelists was the same in all Places 3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangelists who are succeeded by the Deacons as he thinks as the Prophets are by the Presbyters and the Apostles by the Bishops Evangelists saith he did Evangelize or Preach the Gospel sine Cathedrá without a fixed residence J. O. quoted Eusebius in his Plea P. 18. to the same purpose he saith of the Evangelists Hil. in 4. Eph. That they Preached Christ to Infidels ordain'd Pastors and passed into other Countries and Nations To this Mr. G. Answers It was not the proper Work of Evangelists to go up and down Preaching the Gospel Eusebius saith They went far from their Houses did the Work of Evangelists and diligently Preach'd Christ to such as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels ordain'd other Pastors and went into other Countries and Nations I have proved out of Paul's Epistles they were unsettled Officers and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Gospel and Eusebius affirms they did so But saith he Eusebius writes L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangelist being Dead Annianus so he writes it for Anianus enter'd upon the Administration of the Church of Alexandria hence he infers That Mark was a resident Evangelist not roving up and down 1. He may as well say that Peter was a resident Apostle because Eusebius saith that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome * Eccl. Hist III. 2.4 2. Mark was no resident Evangelist he was a Companion of Peter and Paul and travell'd with them up and down and was sent by them to several Churches in Acts 12.25 we find him with Paul and Barnabas at Perga in Pamphylia he left them and went to Jerusalem Acts 13.13 he afterwards for some time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places Acts 15.39 We find him after that with Timothy or not far from him and sent for by Paul to assist him in the Ministry 2 Tim. 4.11 when he was Prisoner at Rome We find him there with Paul Philem. 24. from whence he sends him to Coloss Col. 4.10 When Peter wrote his first Epistle Mark was with him at Babylon 1 Pet. 5.13 and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a resident Evangelist 3. Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion †Lib. 2. Cap. 14.15 and adds They say he first passed over into Egypt and Preach'd there the Gospel which he had written and planted the first Churches in Alexandria Perhaps he might End his Days here in setling this Church as all the Evangelists and Apostles must end their Days in some place or other and in the Service of some Church but this could not make either Apostles or Evangelists resident Officers J. O. had said P. 119. that Chrysostom agreed with Eusebius that Evangelists were unfixed Church-Officers The Rector here exclaims against J. O's insincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He further Notes out of Chrysostom that Timothy and Titus were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 employ'd in one Place that is were resident Evangelists and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chrysostom in both Vniversities and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Design and want of Sincerity St. Chrysostom then must be acknowledg'd saith he on my side and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and resident Church-Rulers and that Timothy and Titus were so 1. Here is a very severe Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Transcriber of J. O's Copy who put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was overlook'd in the Errata I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has examin'd J. O's other Quotations it 's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains some hundreds of Quotations 2. J. O. did not leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out to serve his Cause Chrysost in Epist. Edit Donat. Veron P. 163. as Mr. G. falsly affirms but he transcribed the Passage as he sound it in the Edition which he had by him which has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. J. O's notion of Evangelists that they were unsettled Church-Officers needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimonies to confirm it for the History of the Apostles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul make it evident that they were such and Mr. G. himself cannot deny but there were Itinerant Evangelists as he calls them P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists J. O 's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scriptures and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysostom Especially 4. Having Chrysostom of his side without that Alteration Thus he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he gave Thirdly Evangelists who did not go about every where but Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquilla Pastors and Teachers were those to whose Care the the People were wholly committed What then were the Pastors and Teachers Inferiour Yes they who were resident and employ'd only in one Place as Timothy and Titus were altogether Inferiour to those that went about and Evangeliz'd He speaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Gospels In this Passage Note Chrysostom does not deny but Evangelists did go about he only saith they did not go about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where as the Apostles did they moved
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
Christianity had no Consecrated Temples nor Altars ‖ Arnob. adv Gent. lib. VI. For this Reason Caecilius in Minucius Foelix reproaches the Christians and asks Cur nullas Aras habent nulla Templa Why have they no Altars no Temples no visible Images †Min. Foel Octav. p. 29. Oxon. Minucius answers What Temple can I build unto Him whom the World which is Created by His Power cannot contain And since I a Man dwell more at large shall I include so great a Majesty within one little House Is He not better Consecrated in the bottom of our Hearts * Ibid. p. 94. To the same purpose speaks Clemens Alexandrinus He that is endued with Knowledge saith he Honours God that is gives Thanks for the knowledge of an upright Life neither in a definitive place nor in a select Temple nor on certain stated Festivals but through his whole Life and in every place And a little after Every place is truly Sacred in which we Converse with God ‖ Strom. 7. The Heathen built their Temples upon the Graves or Ashes of their Dead as Arnobius affirms †Lib. VI. For this reason Clemens Alexandrinus calls them Sepulchers You call them saith he by the specious Name of Temples but they were Sepulchers that is Sepulchers were call'd Temples * In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These they dedicated by certain Ceremonies to the Memory of their deceas'd Friends whom they honoured as Gods and accounted their Temples Sacred as Caecilius speaks ‖ Vbi supr p. 18 19. He complains that the Christians despised them as polluted Graves †p. 25. The wiser sort of Heathens acknowledged that their Consecrated Temples had no real Holiness in them No Edifice saith Plato in Clemens Alexandrinus is of any great worth or truly Holy that is built by sordid Mechanicks * Strom. V. In imitation of them the Christians as they degenerated from the Apostolical Simplicity built Temples in honour of departed Saints and Martyrs They call'd their Temples after their Names Dedicated them to such and such Saints in Memory of which they kept Festivals which gave occasion to our Wakes We have some Instances of these Dedications and Festivals in the Fourth Century Euseb Vit. Constant IV. Nazian Orat. in Nov. Dominic No Instance can be given of any Dedication of Temples till about Constantine's time and the Dedications of that Age were no Ceremonious Consecrations they were only celebrated with Solemn Prayers Praises Preaching and Administring the Eucharist which are the stated Duties to be performed in such places The first performance of these Religious Duties can have no more Vertue for Consecration of the Place than the continued Series of them Eusebius mentions also some Orations in Commendation of the Benefactor and the Magnificency of the Structure which were delivered at those Solemnities * Vit. Const IV. 45. These had no Consecrating Vertue in them Ceremonious Consecrations appropriated unto Bishops were unknown in the three first Centuries I find but one Instance of it in the Fourth Century and that in the Roman Church in which Superstitions grew faster than in other Churches and this instance is very dubious The Roman Council under Sylvester is said to Decree That no Presbyter presume to Celebrate Mass but in Places Consecrated by the Bishop ‖ Epit. Syn. Rom. Sub. Sylvest The Acts of this Council are justly suspected to be Spurious for certain the Twentieth Canon which forbids Judging the first Seat is so Vid. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. Above a hundred Years after A. D. 456. an Irish Council under St. Patrick determin'd That no Presbyter who had built a Church do offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice until he bring the Bishop to Consecrate it C. 23. About the Year 494. the Power of Consecrating Churches which the Bishops had before appropriated to themselves was restrained to Metropolitans by Pope Gelasius †Ep. IX c. 4. 25. In the Year 619. the Second Council of Sevil acknowledges That the Consecration of Churches is forbidden Presbyters Novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis by certain new Ecclesiastical Canons * Con. His 2 Can. 7. The Consecration of Altars is almost as ancient as the Consecration of Churches It is mention'd about the Year of Christ 506. in the Council of Agatha Can. 10. 29. and about the Year 563. in the Council of Braga ‖ Conc. Bracar Can. 37. For the same reason that we have laid aside the Consecration of Altars we may also that of Churches We conceive that all places are equally near to Heaven and that all Places where the Worship of God is Celebrated are equally Holy God looks more on the disposition of the Worshipper than he doth on the place of Worship †Aug. de Vnit Cap. 16. as Austin well speaks 1. Mr. G. will do well to shew us 1. some Warrant from the New Testament for Consecration and Holiness of Places which he seems so fond of 2. When he hath done that let him shew us what Authority from the New Testament the Bishops have to appropriate the Consecration of Churches to their Order Did Timothy or Titus whom he calls Bishops Consecrate Churches 3. If the Gospel give them no such Power can he shew any Canons made since the Reformation that do impower them to Consecrate Places of Worship We have Forms for the Ordering of Priests and Deacons and for the Consecrating of Bishops and Arch-Bishops we have a Form for Confirmation also but no Form nor Order nor Direction about the Consecration of Churches that ever I cou'd meet with Indeed the Roman Pontifical can supply us with one Dr. Heylin tells us that Arch-Bishop Laud had a design to draw up an English Pontifical to be approv'd by the Convocation in the Year 1640. This new Pontifical was to contain among other things a Form to be observed by all Arch-Bishops and Bishops for Consecrating Churches Church-Yards and Chapels * Laud's Life p. 441. But the Troubles of the Time obliged him to defer the prosecution of it till a fitter conjuncture When King Charles II. returned and the Bishops had all the advantage they could desire they did not prosecute the design not being so violent in that Point as Laud and his Party had been 4. Wherein doth a Consecration promote the acceptance of our Devotions with God Is the Worship of God more acceptable in a Consecrated than in an Vnconsecrated Place If it be not what are we the better for Consecration If it be let the Rector prove it Can he shew any Promise that is made to Consecrated Places as such under the Gospel He cannot produce either a Command of Precedent for Consecration of Places under the Gospel nor a Promise to such Places above others Jesus Christ Promises to meet his People in all places without distinction Mat. 18.20 John 4.21 23. 1 Tim. 2.8 He dwelleth not in material temple Acts 7.49 and 17.24 The Rector hath studied this Subject and
can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops arch-Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing
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
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
Vt eorum Presbyteri more Pontiâ—icum novos crearent Presbyteros Hist Arg. p. 339. ad A. D. 1389 That their Presbyters after the manner of Pontifs or Bishops created new Presbyters affirming that every Priest had as great power of binding and loosing and performing all other Ecclesiastical Acts as the Pope himself hath or can give This was not a case of meer necessity for they assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain These Presbyters made by Presbyters were the eminent Witnesses against Anti-christian Usurpations in this Land and many of them Sacrificed their Lives for the Testimony of Jesus Their Ordinations though private by reason of the Iniquity of the Times were many and considerable If they Ordain'd Ministers in K. Rich. II. time as Walsingham saith they did Vbi supra much more under K. Henry IV. and the following Reigns when they could not have Episcopal Ordinations if they had desired them the Bishops being become their mortal Enemies and conspiring their Destruction by the bloody Statute de Haereticis comburendis and Arch-Bishop Arundel's wicked Constitutions In the Year 1401. I find one of their Presbyters burnt at Smithfield Walsingham according to the old Popish Hypothesis that none but Bishops cou'd Ordain calls him Pseudo-Presbyter Hist p. 364 a false Presbyter In the Year 1414. William Cleydon an inveterate Lollard as the Monk calls him made his own Son a Priest In tantam dementiam ruerat ut etiam silium proprium sacerdotem constitueret Hist Arg. p. 390. Act Mon. ad A. D. 1391. It is not to be doubted but he was a Presbyter himself though not Popishly Ordain'd and with the Assistance of others Ordain'd his Son Mr. William Swinderby an Eminent and Learned Confessor in the Sentence which the Bishop of Hereford past upon him is said to pretend himself to be a Priest Had he been Ordain'd by a Bishop he had been a real Priest in the Bishop's account but having no such Ordination he calls him a pretended Priest Mr. W. Thorp went to the Lollards and by them was sent to Preach The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury tells him Ibid ad A. 1407. p. 514 516. That no Bishop would admit him to Preach and that he was not sent or licensed by them They could not submit to Episcopal Ordinations Ibid. without taking unlawful Oaths as Mr. Thorp saith to the Arch-Bishop before whom he proves the Truth of their Mission from the Success of their Ministry in the Conversion of Souls Letters of Licerse from the Bishop were invented here about this time to obstruct the course of the Gospel Since this aforesaid witnessing of God saith he sufficeth to all true Preachers we think that we do not the office of Priesthood if that we leave our Preaching because that we have not or may not have duly Bishops Letters to witness that we are sent of them to Preach John Purvey a Learned Writer against Popery saith in one of his Books That every holy Man who is a Minister of Christ although he be not shaven is a true Priest Ordain'd of God Act Mon. p. 529. although no Mitred Bishop ever lay his Character upon him We read of Four Ministers in the famous Congregation at Hamersham who all died Martyrs for the Truth Tho. Man call'd Dr. Man one of them confessed that he had turn'd 700 People to his Doctrine He was burnt in Smithfield Another of them Tilesworth call'd Dr. Tilsworth was burnt at Amersham The third Rob. Cosin otherwise call'd Dr. Cosin was burnt in Buckingham The fourth was hang'd in the Bishop of Lincoln's Prison The three former were formally declared Hereticks and delivered up to the Secular Power but none of them are own'd for Priests by their Judges or degraded by them which they must have been by the Popish Laws had they been Ordain'd by Bishops before the Secular Arm could reach them One Tho. Arthur who at length Abjured as several others did and yet afterwards died Martyrs about the Year 1531. as he answer'd to some Articles of Wickliff's Doctrine laid to his Charge told the People Good People if I should suffer Persecution for the preaching of the Gospel of God Ib. p. 973. yet there is sâ—ven Thousand more that would preach the Gospel of God as I do now Note here 1. That the Preachers of Wickliff's Doctrine were very numerous here at this time Mr. Arthur affirms them to be 7000 perhaps he puts a definite for an indefinite Number alluding to the 7000 in Israel that had not bow'd down the Knee to Baal It cannot be denied but by 7000 he intends a great number 2. This great number of Ministers must be Ordain'd by Presbyters for the Bishops would send none of them as was observed before They clog'd their Ordinations with such hard conditions as the Conscientious Lollards could not comply with and used all the precautions possible to hinder their Preaching We see here notwithstanding the severe Persecutions against the poor Lollards they grew and increas'd exceedingly as the Israelites in Egypt and had so many Thousands of Faithful and Laborious Ministers who must be Ordain'd by Presbyters the Bishops being their Sworn Enemies and obliged by their Pontifical Oath to extirpate them The Lollards here were a Branch of the old Waldenses as we prov'd before and as may be gathered from that Passage in Rainerius who saith Contra. Wald. c. 4. There is hardly any Country into which this Sect hath not made a shift to creep And being I am upon this Quotation I will observe one thing in Rainerius he saith they were more pernicious to the Church of Rome than any other Sect for three Reasons 1. Because more lasting for some say that it hath been ever since the time of Silvester and others deduce it since the time of the Apostles 2. Because more general there is hardly any Country into which it hath not crept 3. Because all others are abominable to God for the immanity of their Blasphemies but this of the Waldenses only carries with it a great shew of Piety because they live justly before Men and believe truly of God and all the Articles of the Creed only they blaspheme and hate the Roman Church If they are so Ancient as Rainerius seems to confess and had no Bishops as I have prov'd J. O's Assertion That they had no Bishops for 500 Years holds good nay he might have said 1500 Years according to this account of Rainerius I hope I have sufficiently prov'd that the Waldenses had Superiour Bishops for 500 Years last past and Explain'd or rather Vindicated his Learned Neighbour's as he calls it but indeed J. O's Quotation He concludes his Preface with a strong presumption and moral assurance of the uninterrupted Succession of Orders p. 17. It should seem if I understand him that a strong presumption and moral assurance are one and the same with him which most will acknowledge to be very different things Or
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.
So that according to his own Interpretation the Elders had Power to Decree an Excommunication He fancies the Apostle to be a sort of Lay-Chancellour and the Corinthian Elders to be like the Presbyters of the Church of England who have the Priviledge of Publishing the Excommunicating Decrees of the Chancellour 2. He alters and perverts the sacred Text for thus he renders and explains it 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have judged have Decreed as tho I were present personally concerning him that hath so done this Deed Ibid. In the Name or Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gather'd together and of my Spirit that is by my Authority with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan The English Translation according to the Original renders it When ye are gathered together and my Spirit he renders it of my Spirit as if the Construction were in the Name of my Spirit that is by my Authority * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that the whole Authority of excommunicating the Incestuous Person had been in Paul and none in the Church The Syriac which is very Ancient renders it That ye all gather together and I with you in Spirit with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ So doth the Ancient Latin Version express it * Congregatis vobis meo spiritu Thus the Rector disturbs the Order of the Text contradicts the most approved Versions both Ancient and Modern to serve a Design The Apostle speaks of the Presence of his Spirit joyning with and going before the Corinthian Elders but doth not assume the sole Power to himself He enjoyns them by his Apostolical Authority to do their Duty and allows them to Judge those within 1 Cor. 5.12 In like manner he enjoyns several things to Timothy and Titus The same Apostle saith Mr. G. excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander p. 17. 1 Tim. 1.20 No Elder joyning with him He cannot prove there were any Elders in Ephesus when Paul excommunicated these two Men or if there were any that they did not joyn with him But suppose the Apostle did Excommunicate them by his eminent Apostolical Authority and deliver them to Satan to be tormented by him which some think he did I see not what Advantage he can make of it except he could prove That Bishops are endued with the same miraculous Power VIII He comes at length to Timothy's Ordination p. 18. here he Notes from 2 Tim. 1.6 That Timothy was ordain'd by Paul without Elders mention'd This Scripture he saith the Presbyterians seldom take notice of and Mr. Pryn passes it over in silence Mr. Pryn doth mention it * The unbish of Timothy and Titus p. 76. Edit 1660. and allows that Paul laid on his Hands in Conjunction with the Presbytery The Rector being unprovided with better Matter sills part of two Pages with an Invective against Mr. Pryn for passing over this 2 Tim. 1.6 in Silence by this the Reader may see what Credit is to be given to this Gentleman's Accusations J. O. also hath consider'd this Scripture in his Plea p. 46. and saith That Pauls laying on of Hands upon Timothy might be for ought appears to the contrary for the conferring the Holy Ghost which was given by the laying on of the Apostles Hands Acts 8.17 18. but if he laid Hands for Ordination its certain he join'd the Presbyters with him which he had not done if their had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as such He promises to shew p. 10. that 1 Tim. 4.14 makes little or nothing for Presbyterian Ordination and to reconcile it with their's and it's Parallel 2 Tim. 1.6 It is a Favour that he allows the 1 Tim. 4.14 to make a little for Ordination by Presbyters but he is not sure whether it makes little or nothing for us This Gentleman is so Tenacious that where he yields an Inch you may reckon an Ell is due The Words are these 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This is a clear Instance as we think for Ordination by Presbyters No saith the Rector it makes little or nothing for it But let 's hear his Proof He has four things to offer which if they fail him our Instance holds good I. It 's no doubt with him but that Timothy was Ordained twice P. 20 first a Presbyter by Prophecy with the Presbytery and then a Bishop by Paul How will he prove this Why Paul was Ordain'd twice first a Minister of the Word in ordinary then unto the Apostleship of the Gentiles 1. His Proof wants another Was the Apostle Paul but an ordinary Minister at first Who was called not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ Gal. 1.1 who was caught up into the Third Heaven 2 Cor. 12.2 and had abundance of Revelations v. 7. who saw the Lord Jesus and reckons himself one of the Apostles from the time of his miraculous Conversion 1 Cor. 15.8 9. Gal. 1.15 16 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem he speaks of the time immediately following his Conversion to them which were Apostles before me This implies he was an Apostle himself at that time * Pears Ann. Paul p. 2. Was he but an ordinary Minister who had the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 9.17 He that has the Confidence to make one of the chief Apostles an ordinary Minister may with equal assurance assert every ordinary Minister to be a chief Apostle St. Paul expresly saith That he was not taught his Gospel by Men but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1.12 Was he but an ordinary Minister who receiv'd his Gospel by extraordinary Revelation Bishop Pearson's Judgment which is follow'd by the Rector in his Annals I presume is of some value with him The Bishop will set him at rights he owns Paul to be an Apostle before the Mission mention'd in Acts 13.1 2. This he doth both in his Annals p. 2. and in his Lection in Act. Apost p. 74 75. So doth Eusebius Eccl. Hist II. 1. 2. He was sent by Revelation unto the Gentiles before the Ordination mention'd in Acts 13. as appears Acts 22.18.21 The Ordination mention'd there did not make him an Apostle as the Rector dreams but he had an antecedent immediate Call from Jesus Christ The Holy Ghost thought fit he should enter upon the Stated Exercise of his Apostolical Ministry amongst the Gentiles at the Door of Ordination by Presbyters for a President of Ordination to the Gentile Churches When the great Apostle of the Gentiles enters at this Door it 's fit that ordinary Ministers shou'd and if Presbyters may lay hands on an Apostle much more on inferiour Ministers 3. He allows that Timothy was made a Presbyter by Presbyters but that he was made a Bishop by Paul is
Apostle but Apostles Superiour to them Acts 15.2 and so were Prophets and Evangelists But we do not find that they were under the Inspection of one Apostle Prophet or Evangelist more than another but Subject to all and willing to be guided by them as there was occasion 4. Were not the Apostles Heads of the Bishops also This we have proved already The Superiority of the Apostles over the Presbyters doth not in the least diminish their Power as such it was fit they should act under the Inspection of the Apostles who were Infallibly Assisted by the Holy Ghost After a great deal of needless labour to himself and Reader at length he grants P. 25. That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery of which Paul was the principal Head Here you have his own Confession That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is great and will one time or other extort Self-condemning Testimonies out of the Mouths of Adversaries But he adds That Paul was the principal Head of this Presbytery Head is an Ambiguous Word If he means by it Supreme Governour it belongs properly to Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church and Head over all things to it Eph. 1.22 5.23 No Apostle is ever call'd Head much less principal Head either of the Church or of the Presbytery in all the N. Testament It 's a Title the Pope of Rome affects If he means a subordinate Governour as I presume he doth he was no more the Head of this Presbytery than of all other Presbyteries not only in Churches Planted by him but in all others to whom the Spirit guided him His Power was the same in Rome and Coloss where he found Churches Established by others as in Ephesus or Corinth where lie settled Churches himself If the Apostle join'd the Presbytery with him in Ordination as the Rector confesseth he did it is sufficient to demonstrate That Presbyters have an inherent Power of Ordaining The Apostle's being President of the Presbytery makes no more for Bishops than it doth for Presbyters for neither of them pretend to Succeed the Apostles in the extent of Apostolical Power and all Presbyteries have a Moderator or President for Order's sake Upon the whole Matter it 's clear to me P. 27. saith Mr. G. That the Presbytery spoken of 1 Tim. 4.14 includes the Apostle Paul 1. He told us before that Paul was included in the Words by Prophecy now he includes him in the Presbytery Let us see what Sense this Interpretation makes The gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy i. e. Paul and Silas with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery i. e. of Paul and ordinary Ministers The Gift according to this Interpretation was given by the laying on of the Hands of Paul with the laying on of the Hands of Paul risum teneatis 2. The Apostles are distinguished from the Presbytery Acts 15.23 IV. The Fourth thing he hath undertaken is to consider Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Prophecy P. 28. with the laying on of the Hands of the Fresbytery Heace he infers That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets in the presence or witness and with the consent of the Presbyters 1. J. O. Prov'd in his Plea p. 47 48. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously in the N. T. which Mr. G. takes no notice of 2. Himself applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Paul by affirming that he is included in the Presbytery 3. He forgot himself in saying That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets for he own'd p. 25. That he was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is one and the same but Error is inconsistent with it self 4. The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signifies more than their presence witness and consent for the presence witness and consent of the People was requisite as he confesseth but they never laid on Hands in Ordination 5. He makes Paul one of the Presbytery the laying on of his Hands according to this Hypothesis signify'd no more than his Presence and Consent Thus in denying Ordination by Presbyters he destroys Apostolical Ordination and consequently that which is Episcopal He Flurts at the Learned and Judicious Dr. Owen whose Name will live in the Church of God when such Men as he are written in the Dust He disingeniously makes the Dr. to say That we are Justify'd by Faith with good Works P. 29. that Faith is the Instrument whereby Justification is convey'd and good Works wherewith it is conferr'd He shou'd have shew'd the place where Dr. Owen saith so but this he cou'd not do The Words are his own and easily betray the Author though he wou'd fain father them upon the Doctor Dr. Owen saith according to the Scriptures That we are Justisy'd by Faith without Works the Rector makes him to say we are Justisy'd by Faith with Works In the next Lines he contradicts himself and explains the Drs. with Works by without Works for he affirms That the Presbyters contributed no more unto Ordination than good Works in the Drs. Opinion do unto Justification that is nothing at all 1. He told us once That the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signified Ordination P. 25. afterward it signified only Consent P. 28. and here it signifies nothing at all We must crave the help of his Learned Neighbour who communicated a Quotation in J. O's Book to him to reconcile him to himself 2. It seems good Works contribute something to our Justification in the Rector's Opinion he declares himself fully of that Opinion in the next Paragraph and saith He is so far of the Drs. mind that in Justification Faith is the first and chief Instrument of Conveyance This implies That good Works are a secondary and subordinate Cause of Justification I will put this Gentleman in mind of a Passage or two in the Book of Homilies St. Paul declareth nothing here upon the behalf of Man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively Faith And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every Man that is Justify'd but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying so that altho' they be all present together in him that is Justify'd yet they Justifie not all together * Serm. of Salvat Part 1. P. 13. Edit 1673. In the Second Part of the same Homily †P. 15. Ib. we have this remarkable Passage This Faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us this is the strong Rock and Foundation of Christian Relligion this Doctrine all old and ancient Authors of Christ's Church do approve this Doctrine advanceth and fetteth forth the true Glory of Christ and beateth down the vain glory of Man This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted a Christian Man nor for a fetter forth of Christ's Glory but for an Adversary to
4. No reason can be given why this Government of the Church of Ephesus should be afterwards chang'd The Rector thinks it was done as a Remedy against the Schisms p. 47. But the Establishment of the Presbytery in Ephesus was for a Remedy against Schisms as appears Acts 20.28 29 30. After my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you not sparing the flock and of your selves shall men arise This he mentions as a reason why the Elders of Ephesus should oversee the Flock v. 28 31. This Remedy was appointed by the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost which cannot Err in Judgment He knows how to provide apt and effectual Remedies He is in one Mind and does not appoint that to day which he repents of to morrow His Provisions are not meerly prudential like those of Men's devising to whom future Events are wrapt up in obscurity and therefore upon tryal of their aptness to the ends for which they were design'd change their thoughts concerning them and take new measures It is not so with the All-wise God He sees the End in the beginning and Effects in their Causes and with Him is no variableness nor shadow of turning Now let 's hear what the Rector can say for the Change of this Government by Presbyters settled in the Church of Ephesus He Promises to Treat of three Things 1. Of the Plantation and Government of the Church of Ephesus by Paul so long as he was in a condition to manage the Affairs of the Church 2. He 'll shew the last Orders he took about the Government of this Church of Ephesus in his absence 3. He 'll give us the glory of it unto the Writing of Ignatius 's Epistles As to the first we agree with him that the Presbyters of Ephesus were Subject to Paul and good reason for it for he was an Apostle infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost He observes two Things from Acts 20.28.1 That the Apostle committed the Government of this Church in his absence unto these Presbyters or Bishops for I 'll suppose at present that the Title and Power of Bishops belong'd to them 1. Here 's a plain acknowledgment of our Hypothesis That the Government of the Ephesian Church was devolv'd upon the Presbyters there but he insinuates as if this was only for a time i. e. during his absence whereas the Apostle intended to see their Faces no more so that his Absence was to be perpetual as to his present Intention at least and consequently the Power committed to these Presbyters was perpetual 2 He seems loath to call them Bishops but is so kind as to suppose it at present though the Holy Ghost expresly calls them so and made them so Acts 20.28 Feed the stock over which the Holy Ghost made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops 2dly He observes from this Scripture p. 47. That Paul certainly fore-saw that Schisms would arise among them He did so and provided a Remedy against them by committing the Government there to the Presbyters If Diocesan Episcopacy had been the Remedy how comes the Apostle not to mention it at this time He makes mention of the Disease v. 29. as he confesseth and why not of the Remedy also neither here nor in the Epistle to the Ephesians which he observes was written to give a check to their Schisms chap. 4. That Epistle and Chapter mentions the several degrees of Ministers in Christ's Church chap. 4. v. 11. but not a word of a Bishop as the Center of Vnity in the whole Epistle Nor does he require one ordinary Minister to obey another either in this Epistle or that to the Corinthians who were pester'd with Schisms also as he takes notice If Bishops had been the Remedy the Apostle would not have omitted mentioning them having such proper occasion given him and writing designedly to them upon that Subject We would reckon him but a sorry Physician that would prescribe several Remedies for a Distemper and omit the onely proper Remedy Such a Spiritual Physician the Rector makes the Apostle to be He says he foresaw the Schisms of the Ephesians wrote an Epistle to unite them p. 47. and has a warm Discouase about Vnity Chap. 4. And wrote another to the Corinthians to cure their Divisions But has not so much as touch'd upon his proper Remedy of Diocesan Bishops There is a like warm Exhortation to Unity Phil. 2.1 2. and yet that Church was Governed by Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1.1 and not by one Superiour Bishop 2. The Second thing he promis'd was to tell us P. 48. The Order he took afterwards about the Government of the Church of Ephesus which was this The Apostle being set at liberty and returning back from Italy to the East and being now old Phil. v. 9. and finding that Factions and Divisions every where increas'd and prevail'd Constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus as doubtless he did the same in all other places 1 Tim. 1.3 1. He takes it for granted the Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome which I deny We shall hear his Proofs in the next Chapter which we will there consider If he be mistaken in this Point of Chronology as I shall prove he is then all his Reasonings from this Epistle fall to the ground 2. There were Factions and Divisions in the Churches long before as he himself confesseth and as is apparent from 1 Cor. 3. Why had not the Apostle provided this Remedy sooner to have prevented the increase and prevalence of them A Distemper is easier prevented than cured If Divisions increased under the Government of the Apostles was the new Order of Bishops like to put a stop to them Why is this then assign'd as the Reason of the Institution 3. 1 Tim. 1.3 Does not say that Paul Constituted him Bishop of Ephesus It is agreed by the Ancients that St. John the Apostle was at Ephesus and resided there for a considerable time after St. Paul's departure thence and after the Writing of the First Epistle to Timothy Euse Hist Eccl. III. 17. al. 18. Iren. adv Haer. III. 3 Hierom. Catal. Scrip. Eccl. Eusebius upon the Testimony of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus affirms that he return'd to Ephesus after he was releas'd from his Banishment at Patmos and lived there and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's Days His ordinary Residence was at Ephesus as Eusebius and Clemens c. affirm If St. John kept his Residence at Ephesus and ruled that Church as he did other Churches of Asia by his Apostolical Power Timothy could not be the Supreme Ruler of the Church of Ephesus Where an Apostle was Present and Resident to Govern his Superiour Authority Suspended all Episcopal Jurisdiction so that according to the Rector's own Principle there was no need of a Bishop while an Apostle could Oversee the Church 4. He gives not the least Proof that Paul made Bishops in all other Places Doubtless it was so saith he you must take
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
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
upper House of Bishops who have sometimes a considerable Influence in the Election of the very Clerks 3. The Rector may please himself with his Power of making new Laws all the Power we plead for is a Liberty for Parish-Ministers to execute the Laws of Christ in the exclusion of the Scandalous and the admission of such as are duly qualify'd for Gospel-Ordinances The Parish-Ministers or Priests as he calls them and yet is unreasonably angry with us for calling them so have Power to Heprove and Suspend for a Time We had this before in the Preface A Private Person may Reprove they can Suspend from the Lord's Supper for a time i. e. till the next Return of the Carrier or about 14 Days and then they are obliged to deliver up all to the Ordinary with whom the Offender often commutes for his Crime and returns as Impenitent as he went except he repent that he has parted with so much Money When he has made his Peace with the Ordinary or his Commissary or Chancellor the Minister must admit him or be proceeded against himself for disobeying his Superiours Is their any Presilent for this in the Gospel Did Christ or his Apostles Establish this sort of Discipline Mr. G. Challenges J. O. to prove out of Scripture That ever any Ordinary Presbyters did Excommunicate P. 126. We have but few Instances of Excommunication in Scripture but we have proved already That the Corinthian Presbyters and consequently all others had Power to Judge i. e. to decree Excommunicated as the Rector explains it those that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 See Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 2.6 2 Thess 3.6 Can the Rector who so liberally demands Scripture-Proofs give us any Instance of Presbyters Suspending for a Fortnight If he can find no Proof in Scripture That ordinary Presbyters did Suspend at all from the Communion how dare they do it for a Fortnight If he finds by Scripture they may Suspend how dare he condemn our Presbyters for Suspending Persons until they see some evidences of their Repentance But since he calls for Proofs let him shew us some Proof out of Scripture for the Power of Lay-Chancellors to Excommunicate or some Instance of commuting Penance for a Sum of Money I have read in Scripture of the Priests eating up the sin of the People and setting their Heart on their Iniquity Hosh 4 8. The Covetous Priests then got a small share out of the Sacrifices occasioned by the sins of the People Iev 6.26 10.17 but our Commuters ingross the whole Offering to themselves It is odd to hear a Man call for Scripture-Proof who cannot pretend to any Scripture-Proof for abundance of things which they Practice and Impose as Conditions of Communion on Ministers and People Tliis Gentleman has a measure and a measure that is a double measure one for himself and Brethren and another for the Dissenters Were he willing to be determined by the Scripture as he pretends our Controversies would be soon at an end He ignorantly affirms Ibid. That the Presbyterian Bishops as he calls them are at best but the Executioners of the Lay-Elders Will I know but very few of the Congregations call'd Presbyterian that have any Ruling Elders at all and those that have receive them only as Assistants to the Ministers and not as Rulers Superiour to them J. O's First Argument to prove that Presbyters may Ordain is because they are Scripture-Bishops Plea p. 12 13. He proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament times and some Ages after To this Argument the Rector answers 1. He grants they were the same in the New Testament P. 126 127. and were the Ordinary Rulers of the Church but Timothy and Titus were above them Nothing but the brightness of Truth could extort such a Confession from him for 1. If Presbyters and Bishops were the same in the New Testament let him shew us who had Power afterwards to distinguish them 2. If they be the same they have the same Powers Therefore if the Bishop has Power to Ordain so has the Presbyter If the Presbyter has no such Power no more has the Bishop Thus he has kindly Established our Argument but I hope his Episcopal Friends will not impute it to any ill design in him for he is full of good Will to their Cause and it is their own fault that they have chosen no better an Advocate 3. But he hopes to come off by saying that Timothy and Titus were above the Presbyters or Bishops for hereafter you must take them for one and the same Timothy and Titus Evangelists were above the Bishops What then It is as natural to infer thence That Presbyters are above Bishops as that Bishops are above Presbyters Not only Evangelists but Prophets and Apostles were Superiour to Ordinary Ministers But no Example has been yet produced that one Ordinary Minister was Superiour to another Ordinary Minister No instance can be given in the New Testament of any one meer Presbyter that was Superiour to another Presbyter If there must be some Church-Officers called Bishops Superiour to Presbyters because Evangelists were so by the same reason there ought to be some Church-Officers Superiour to Bishops because the Prophets were Superiour to the Evangelists and another sort of Church-Officers Superiour to them also because the Apostles were Superiour to the Prophets He Subscribes to J. O's Assertion P. 128. That there were several Bishops in one Church in the Apostles Days and that those mention'd in Scripture were not of our English Species Therefore by his own Confession English Bishops are not Scripture-Bishops But there was an Order of Church-Officers above these Presbyter-Bishops saith he as we have demonstrated in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus There were no less than three Orders above them that is Apostles Prophets and Evangelists each of them extraordinary Church-Officers Eph. 4.11 design'd for the Planting of the Christian Church as the ordinary Pastora and Teachers were appointed for the propagating of it unto the end of Time The Foundations were to be laid by those extraordinary Church-Officers the Superstructure to be carried on according to the Platform they left us by ordinary Officers J. O. Prov'd out of Justin Martyr and the Syriac Version of the New Testament That Bishop and Presbyter were the same in the Ages after the Apostles P. 13 14. This the Rector prudently overlooks He thus Paraphraseth on 1 Tim. 5.17 They who Rule well P. 129. and also labour in the Word and Doctrine deserve better than they only who Rule well but don't withal labour in the Word and Doctrine Here he supposes that some in the Church may Rule well who don't Labour in the Word and Doctrine But who are these He will not say Bishops for then the Presbyter who Rules well and Labours in the Word and Doctrine is worthy of more Honour than the Bishop that he will not like There remains no other but the
Presbyterians Ruling Elder whom he vindicates by his kind Paraphrase Had this Gentleman been retain'd by them he could not better have pleaded their Cause And although the Elders P. 130. proceeds he received a Commission from St. Paul and Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. will it thence follow that there was none to Over-rule them Or does it hence appear That these Elders had Power to Ordain 1. It hence follows they were real Bishops as he has confessed and if Ordination be a Branch of Episcopal Power as he saith it is these Elders had Power to Ordain 2. It hence follows that these Presbyters were the Supream Ordinary Church-Rulers if Bishops be such The extraordinary Superiour Rulers were Temporary He dare almost Swear it Ibid. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies not the Ordaining Power Verily saith he If this be so every Believer hath the same Power for they are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishops or as we Translate it to look diligently lest any Man fail of the Grace of God Heb. 12.15 Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock as the Pastors of it If they be not this Allegation is impertinent He saith the ordinary Elders had not the Supreme Authority over the Churches Ibid. after the time we have Assign'd nor did they ever Ordain Elders This implies That the Ordinary Elders had the Supreme Authority before the time he assign'd and it is certain the Elders of Ephesus had it in Acts 20.28 He cannot prove they were ever depriv'd of it We have prov'd that they had the Supream Authority after the Writing of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus We have also prov'd out of Acts 13.1 2. and 1 Tim. 4.14 That ordinary Elders did Ordain and have Vindicated those Texts from his corrupt Glosses J. O. observed that the Apostles does not mention Superiour Bishops in his Catalogue of Gospel-Ministers Ibid. Eph. 4.11 Mr. G. Assigns this for a Reason Bishops as a distinct Species of Church-Officers were not as yet established The Itenerant or unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for ' em 1. Here is a fair Confession there were no Bishops in the Christian Churches when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written which was in Paul's First Bonds at Rome We have prov'd that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before his First Bonds and so Timothy could be no Bishop of Ephesus 2. The Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters Acts 20.28 without either Evangelist or Apostle to over-see them that we read of The Apostle commits the Flock wholly and solely to them when he parted with them having no thoughts of ever seeing them again v. 25. 3. He grants that Evangelists were unfix'd Officers under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders as such Timothy and Titus might Ordain Elders in Ephesus and Crete as unfix'd Evangelists for such they were after the Epistles written to them 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Tit. 3.12 2 Tim. 4.10 Therefore those Epistles do not make them fixed Governours as he supposeth J. O. took notice that the Papists urge the Instances of Timothy and Titus for Superiour Bishops against the Protestants and that the Bishops best Arguments have been dextrously manag'd against the whole Reformation What can the Rector say to this Matter of Fact is so plain that he cannot deny it and therefore endeavours to palliate it as well as he can J. O. says he in this very Book has made use of the Popish School-Men P. 131. p. 55. 107. and therefore I cannot avoid taxing him with great Insincerity and Partiality The Rector's Invention runs low that he can find nothing but the old dull thred-bare charge of Insincerity which we have had over and over But the comfort of it is his Tongue is no Slander All the difference between J. O's Arguments out of the Popish Doctors and Mr. G's Arguments out of them is this 1. He treads in their Steps without once naming them J. O. names them all along when he makes use of them 2. J. O. Quotes the Popish Doctors against themselves and for the Reformed Churches who most of them have no Bishops and all will allow that the Testimony of an Adversary is good against himself Mr. G. improves their Arguments against the Reformed Churches whom they and he condemn as no Churches for want of Ordaining Bishops The Rector is too cunning to deliver thc Conclusion in express Words but he lays down and endeavours to establish those Premisses that necessarily infer this conclusion That Popish Ordinations are valid and that all the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches except those in England and Ireland by Bishops are a Nullity This is the design of his Book in which he pretends to prove That no ordinary Presbyter hath Power to Ordain and that no Instance can be given in all the New Testament of any Ordaining Presbyter and that Bishops are Superiour to Presbyters by a Divine Right The Truth is the Performance is as weak as the Undertaking is bold I leave it to the Reader to Judge who is to be charged with Insincerity one that Defends the Reformed Churches against the Popish Writers tho' he quotes them sometimes against themselves or one who under the Name of a Protestant joyns with the Popish Church and Doctors in destroying the Ministry of the greatest part of the Protestant Reformed Churches Since we like not Popish Arguments P. 132. one thing he will be bold to tell J. O. that he will here meet with an Argument borrowed from Bishop Pearson which he thinks neither any Papist nor J. O. himself ever thought of before Who so bold as blind Bayard This Man boldly tells us That no Papist ever thought of Bishop Pearson's Argument drawn from the time of Writing the Epistles to Timothy c. I shewed before that the Seminary at Rhemes thought of the Bishop's Argument before he was born The Rector has a great many Qualities that are very singular this among others That when he is remotest from Truth he is then most confident He thinks J. O. never thought of this Argument before His Memory is as defective as his Reading J. O. told him before his Book was talk'd of that he had thought of this Argument and had prepared a Dissertation to Vindicate the Old Chronology Some Gentlemen that were then present may relieve his Memory if need he J. O. Argued that those Words Lay hands suddenly on no Man do not prove the sole Power of Ordination in Timothy To this he answers It ought to be hence concluded that the sole Power of Ordination was in Timothy P. 133. till J. O. can produce a like Commission given to the Presbyters That has been proved from Acts 13.1 2. 1 Tim. 4.14 He adds J. O's Reason is a very pleasant one it may as well follow saith J. O. that the sole Power of Teaching belongs
to him because the Apostle hids him be instant in Preaching the Word By no means saith Mr. G. because the Apostle directs him expresly to appoint other Teachers 2 Tim. 22. We desire to see some like Passages of other Ordainers beside Timothy The Apostle or rather the Holy Ghost appointed several Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 If the Power of Ordination belongs to Bishops as such these Ephesian Bishops were Ordainers It is an old and a true Maxim Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia 2. But lest we should want other Ordainers he 'l furnish us with some from 2 Tim. 2.2 which tho' his Argument inclines him to understand it of Teachers at present yet in another Mood he explains it of Ordainers p. 53. J. O. prov'd that Timothy could not receive the sole Power of Ordination because Paul himself took in the Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 To this the Rector saith It is something to the purpose if it were well prov'd 1 Tim. 4.14 has been fully discuss'd already saith he And fully Vindicated say I from his Self-Contradicting-Exceptions J. O. Gives another Reason to prove that Timothy could not be entrusted with the sole Power of Ordination because Paul Join'd Barnabas with him Acts 14.23 The Rector Answers The Mischief is Barnabas was Paul 's equal Ibid. and an Apostle as well as himself Acts 14.4.14 Many think Barnabas was not Paul's equal that he was properly an Evangelist * Vid. Sad. ad Tur. Soph. p. 783. Evangelists were Secondary Apostles Apostoli vicarii as some call them They seem to be included in Apostles 1 Cor. 12.28 compar'd with Eph. 4.11 'T is true he is call'd an Apostle Acts 14.4 14. so are others who were not Apostles in a strict Sense Rom. 16.7 2 Cor. 8.23 Phil. 2.25 2. But suppose he were an Apostle in a strict Sense and Paul's equal J. O's Argument still holds good If Paul and Apostle Join'd Barnabas with him another Apostle or Evangelist it 's not likely that Timothy would Ordain alone but that he join'd the Bishops of Ephesus with him If an Apostle would not lay on Hands alone much less would an Evangelist 'T is but J. O's Dream says he P. 134. when he talks of other ordinary Presbyters Ordaining with these two Apostles I desire to see this made out by any tolerable Conjecture 1. J. O. did not affirm that Presbyters Ordain'd with Paul and Barnabas Acts 14.23 because it is uncertain whether there were any in these Churches before this time 2. But if there were any 't is probable they join'd in the action as they did in Timothy's Ordination 1 Tim. 4.14 which may ground a probable Conjecture Paul's intention to go to Ephesus Ibid. 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 hinders not Timothy from being the Resident Bishop there as he thinks 1. His intention of going shortly to Ephesus shews the inconsistency of Mr. G's Hypothesis for he told us before p. 90. That the Apostle Govern'd the Church of Ephesus himself by the Presbyters in his absence who were responsible to him This continued so long saith he as he was vigorous and active and had opportunity to over-see both the Flock and the Elders themselves And now he tells us That this Church was Govern'd by a Bishop when the Apostle was both able and resolved to oversee it 2. He told us before that the Presbyters were responsible to Paul and now he makes Timothy responsible to him Nothing can be inferr'd from their being subject to Paul that does not equally affect Timothy 3. If Paul's going to Timothy does not hinder his being Resident at Ephesus I hope Timothy's going to Paul doth 2 Tim. 4.21 Except the Rector can prove that Timothy had an ubiquitarian Body If he saith he return'd again in a little time to Ephesus he ought to prove it which he can never do from the Writings of the Apostles He chargeth J. O. with foisting the Words till he came Ibid. into 1 Tim. 1.3 This Charge is as groundless as it is disingenuous for J. O. did not quote thc Words of Scripture but gave the meaning of it in these Words Paul did not injoyn Timothy to be resident at Ephesus but besought him to abide there till he came 1 Tim. 1.3 4.13 14. which he intended shortly to do 1 Tim. 3.14 15. The Joyning of the Scriptures together and the Explaining of one Scripture by another will be allow'd by any one that does not seek occasions of quarrelling Till I come bespeaks a Temporary Stay at Ephesus for he was besought by Paul to supply his absence there when the Apostle came in Person there was no need of a Substitute Whether Timothy went from Ephesus to Paul or whether Paul went from Macedonia to Ephesus it 's one and the same thing his Work there was Temporary and became unnecessary when the Apostle was with him Thus Paul sent him not long before this to Macedonia and sometime after follow'd him thither Acts 19.21 22. In like manner he design'd to follow him to Ephesus 1 Tim. 3.14 The Rector takes for granted what he should have prov'd That Timothy was obliged to perpetual Residence at Ephesus which has not been yet proved He calls him away 2 Tim. 4.21 and so he doth Titus from Crete Tit. 3.12 All that hath been hitherto urged for his perpetual Residence at Ephesus is that in 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus These words do not look like the Installing of a Bishop in his Diocess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies frequently a short abode Mat. 15.32 Mark 8.2 Timothy is said to abide still at Athens when his stay was very short there Acts 17.14 15. He calls upon us to prove that Timothy was Furnished with the same Powers at Corinth P. 135 Philippi Thessalonica c. I will prove it from his own Confession p. 130. The unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for 'em Thus he Here he ascribes the Power of Govenirg and Ordaining unto the unfix'd Evangelists and yet has the Confidence to require us to prove it Whereas then saith he Ibid. Paul besought him to abide and reside at Ephesus and we never find him in the Apostle's Company again nor in any other place after we must take him for the Resident Evangelist or Bishop here until J. O. shall please to tell us out of Sacred or Ecclesiastical History whither he removed I will shew him that Timothy was in Paul's Company and in another place after Paul besought him to abide at Ephesus In order to which I desire him to grant this reasonable Supposition viz. That the Second Epistle to him was Written after the First In the First Epistle Paul said he besought him to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 In the Secod Epistle he calls him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Doubtless he went thither according to the Apostle's Order and we find him there with the Apostle when he wrote
his Epistle to the Philippians Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 Philem. 1. In like manner he sends for Titus from Crete to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 and afterwards sends him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 Thus we have told him in compliance with his desires out of Sacred History That not only Timothy but Titus also removed the former to Rome the latter to Nicopolis and Dalmatia As to Ecclesiastical History we have little certain concerning Timothy or any other of the Apostle's Survivors and Successors as Eusebius observes * Hist III. 4. He saith of Timothy It is reported he was Bishop of Ephesus But other Historians say He removed from Ephesus and came into Britain and Baptized King Lucius and his Subjects and removed hence to Curie in Germany where he was Bishop and died a Martyr This is reported by grave Authors Nauclerus Petrus de Natalibus Pantaleon de viris Illustrib Germ. c. Nauclerus saith he finds this Recorded in the Legend of St. Thomas the Apostle which agrees with Legend of St. Lucius which is to be found among the Records of the Church of Curie * Chron. Vol. II. Gen. 6. p. 472. I do not pretend to warrant for the Truth of this Account There may be some Truths though intermix'd with Fables even in a Legend Arch-Bishop Vsher that great Antiquary quotes this Story in his Britan. Eccles Primord Cap. 3. It may not be improbable but Timothy might Preach in these Countries if Paul was here as the Rector seems to allow p. 90. For Timothy was his Companion in most of his Travels and Served with him in the Gospel as a Son with the Father Phil. 2.22 J. O. opposed Dr. Whittaker the Learned Cambridge Professor and Maul of Popery to Bellarmine who grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5.19 Against an Elder receive not an Accusation The Dr. saith That to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime which Equals and Inferiors may do The Rector has two or three Pages in Confutation of Dr. Whittaker P. 135 136 137 138. the Sum of which is That if Timothy was only to acquaint the Church with it he was no better than an Informer or Prosecutor He might be an Ecclesiastical Judge though he acted in Conjunction with the Church as Paul did in Excommunicating the Incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. The Doctor doth not deny him to be Superiour to the Elders as he was an Evangelist but shews the invalidity of the Argument drawn from his receiving Accusations J. O. shew'd p. 21. that the Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop and Instanced in Epithetus and the People of Assura to whom Cyprian writes not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He instanceth also in the Clergy and People of Spain who rejected Bisilides and Martialis their Bishops because they had Sacrificed to Idols The Rector wisely over-looks all this and proceeds to another Argument J. O. Asks how comes Paul to promise to come shortly to Ephesus if he had settled a Successor there Mr. G. Answers this is a trifling Objection and makes equally against the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts 20.28 Who ever thought Timothy so absolute as not to be subject to St. Paul When this Gentleman gives a diminutive Epithet to our Arguments understand him by the Rule of Contraries You may perceive by his Uneasiness that he is Gravell'd and would relieve himself by a big Word which may disparage an Argument with unthinking People 1. This trifling Objection as he calls it shews how groundless his Hypothesis is That Paul settled Timothy at Ephesus when he could over-see the Church no longer 2. It shews the weakness of his Reasonings That the Elders had no Episcopal Power because they were subject to the Apostles The Scope of a great part of his Book is to prove that the Presbyters were not Supream Governours because the Apostles were above them See P. 38 39 40 41. He does in the same place affirm Timothy and Titus to be Supream Governours Here he forgets all his former Reasonings and acknowledges Timothy Subject to Paul Either Timothy was no Supreme Governour or Bishop because he was Subject to Paul or the Presbyters of Ephesus might be Supream Governours notwithstanding their Subjection to him 3. What he adds of his visiting his Neighbour Presbyter P. 139. without claiming any Power over him and his Flock is very impertinent for an Apostolical Visitation was something different from a private Visit from one Neighbour to another I hope he will allow it to be as Solemn as any Episcopal Visitation I might return his own Words upon him But such Stuff as this does our Author impose upon his Friends Ibid. and needlessly troubles his Adversaries with but I shall forbear He thinks that the Church of Ephesus consisted of many Congregations though he agree that it consisted not of two hundred or three hundred Parishes or Congregations Ibid. as our Diocesses do Here we have his own Confession That the Modern Diocesses are very different from that of Ephesus and other Ancient Diocesses That there were more Congregations than one he proves from the Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani P. 140. 1. Suppose there were two or three Congregations in Ephesus as the London Ministers conceive there might be more than one what is two or three to two or three hundred It can never be prov'd there were more Christians in Ephesus in Timothy's or if you will in Ignatius his time than are in some of our great Parishes which contains some Ten some Twenty some Thirty Thousand Souls 2. Some of our larger Parishes have several Chapels some three some four some six He knows a Parish in his Neighbourhood * Manchester that has Seven or Eight Will he say that a Rector who has several Curates under him is a Diocesan Bishop I hear the Rector's Parish has four or five Chapels in it He thinks the number of Cities P. 142. or great Towns in Crete was extraordinary because Florus calls it a Noble Island His Proof is a little extraordinary Must every Noble Island have an extraordinary number of Cities Well but to do him a kindness I will tell him the number of the most considerable Cities or Towns in Crete Pliny who lived in Vespasian's time saith there were about Fourty Famous Towns in Crete and the Memory of about Fourty more * Nat. Hist 4.12 But let the Cities of it be more or less it is all one to my Argument We have proved Titus already to be an Evangelist and the number of Cities he was to Ordain Elders in is a Confirmation of it For by his own Confession Crete has had in it at one time Four Arch-Bishops and Twenty one Bishops †P. 142. And now we are upon this Subject let 's see the extent of their Bishopricks He tells us out of Dr. Heylin There were
Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a◠desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been
judg'd by the Nobles They put us in a worse Condition say the Confederate Nobles then God would have the Pagans to be in when he said Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods We Decree and Enact that from henceforth no Clerk or Lay-Man bring any Cause before the Ordinary or his Delegate except it be that of Heresie Matrimony or Usury That so our Jurisdiction being revived and that they who are enrich'd by our Impoverishment may be reduced to the State of the Primitive Church They conclude in the Words of the Emperor's Letter It was always our Intention to oblige the Clergy of every Order especially the greatest to continue the same in the Faith that they were in the Primitive Church leading an Apostolical Life M. West ad An. 1247. p. 217 218. and imitating the Humility of the Lord Jesus The Civil Dominion of the Clergy was one of the main Grievances of the Bohemians which they would have redress'd in the Council of Basil Fox's Acts and Mon. ad An. 1438. Their Delegates Disputed fifty Days upon this and three other Articles in the Council The Lordly Titles and Dominion of the Clergy were very offensive to several Confessors and Martyrs in this Kingdom before the Reformation That eminent Light of his Age Jo. Wickliff affirm'd Non stat purè Clericum absque Mortali peccato civiliter dominari that it was a Mortal Sin for a Clergy-Man to exercise Civil Dominion My Lord Cobham calls the Possessions and Lordships of Bishops the Venom of the Church Swinderby Wals Hist p. 208. a learned Confessor and Martyr as Mr. Fox thinks hath these Words If Men speaken of worldly Power and Lordships Fox ad Ann. Do. 1413. and Worships with other Vices that reignen therein what Priest that desires and has most hereof in what Degree soever he be he is most Antichrist of all the Priests that ben on Earth John Purvey Fox ad A. D. 1390. a Learned Writer against Popery whom Thomas Walden calls the Library of Lollards and Gloser upon Wickliff saith It is a great Abomination that Bishops Monks and other Prelates Ibid. p. 5.30 Edit 1576. be so great Lords in this World whereas Christ with his Apostles and Disciples never took upon then secular Dominion He adds That all Christians ought to the utmost of their Power and Strength to swear that they will reduce such shavelings to the Humility and Poverty of Christ and his Apostles William Tindal that famous Instrument of Reformation who was burnt in Flanders by the Instigation of the English Monks because he had translated the Scriptures to the English Tongue writes That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing that Bishops should deal in Civil Causes See his Works p. 124. and in p. 140. What Names have they My Lord Bishop my Lord Arch-Bishop if it please your Lordship if it please your Grace The brightness of this Truth hath shined upon some Doctors of the Roman Church in the darkest Times Ocham wrote against the temporal Dominion of the Pope and Prelates Gen. 45. ad An. Dom. 1338. Ad nihilum deducens potestatem Papae Praelatorum in temporali Dominio Acts and Mon. p. 667. as Nauclerus tells us One of the Cardinals in the Council of Basil in a warm Speech for Amedeus Duke of Savoy Candidate for the Popedom hath these Words I have often consented unto their Opinion which said it was expedient that the Temporal Dominions should be divided from the Ecclesiastical Estate For I did think that the Priests should thereby be made more apt to the Divine Ministry The Roman Pagan Priests medled not in Civil Affairs because if they had they must of Necessity either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neglect the Worship of the Gods or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prejudice the Citizens by omitting the Duties owing to the one or the other which would often interfere Plut. Quest Rom. ult The very Light of Nature taught the Heathen that the Service of the Gods and Attendance upon secular Imployments were inconsistent For this Reason the Apostle forbids the Ministers of Jesus Christ especially Bishops To entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life 2 Tim. 2.3 4. I will conclude this Head with a Passage or two out of Mouns Jurieu's Pastoral Letters to the persecuted French Protestants In his first Pastoral Letter Past Let. 1. p. 4 5. he thus animadverts upon The Pastoral Letter of my Lord the Bishop of Meaux These Gentlemen are well advanc'd since the Authors and Founders of Christianity who call'd themselves plainly by their own Names without any other Title than that of Servants of Jesus Christ and Apostles of our Lord. My Lord's St. Peter and St. Paul had forgotten to set the Character of their Grandeur on the Front of their Pastoral Letters or Epistles 'T is not very Edifying to see the marks of Pride and worldly Vanity on the front of a Pastoral Letter He adds a little after Do not suffer your selves to be abused by those that tell you that in some Protestants States the Bishops retain the same Honours The Bishops of England have this to say for themselves that they are Peers of the Realm to which State and Condition the Name and Title of my Lord doth appertain and belong But besides I am perswaded that the wiser of these Gentlemen will willingly sacrifice these Titles which do not suff ciently bespeak the Humility of a Minister of Jesus Christ to a general Reformation in the Church when it shall be receiv'd I hope by this Time the Reader is convinced how impertinently Mr. G. Appeals to the Quakers Pref. p. 4. whom he calls indifferent Persons and honest in this Case because they have quarrell'd not at the Title of Lord only but at that of Master also Jesus Christ and his Apostles the General Council of Chalcedon the Fathers Princes Confessors and Doctors here witnessing against the Lordly Titles and Dominion of Bishops were no Quakers J. O. will not contend for the Title of Master which Mr. G. in Conformity to his indifferent Quaker doth not think fit to give him in his whole Book 3. A third Way saith the Rector is to accuse us of symbolizing with Papists p. 5. I cou'd wish there were no occasion for this Charge Our Disagreement with the Church of England is in those things wherein she agrees with that of Rome and in which both of them disagree with the Practise of the Apostles and the Reformed Churches abroad He tells us out of Euseb Lib. 1. it should have been Lib. 2. c. 16. That Mark constituted Churches in Alexandria that so great a Multitude both of Men and Women there embraced the Christian Faith c. These Churches Mark govern'd and after him Bishop Anianus as is shew'd in these Papers This Quotation he the rather produces because it has been over-look'd of late This
to the Errata and expected to find them Corrected there as sight is put for blindness p. 8. but was disappointed Did the Lòrd Jesus leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy The Writers of Politicks say that Oligarchy is the Corruption of Aristocracy Oligarchy saith Burgersdicius is the Disease and Destruction of Aristocracy And he describes it to be the Oppression of the Multitude by a few of the Nobles who exclude their Collegues usurp the Government and trample upon The Laws * Idea Doct. Pol. Cap. 22. §. 10.11 Bodin the Famous Lawyer saith That Oligarchy is a factious Aristocracy or a Seigniory of a very small number of Lords as were the thirty Tyrants of Athens and the Roman Triumviri who oppress'd the Liberty of the People And for this Reason adds he the Ancients have always taken this Word Oligarchy in an evil Part * De Republ II. 6. An Error in Politicks is excusable enough in a Divine but a Man who takes upon him to write Political Sermons and to Publish a Book of Church Government should not blunder about the Common Terms which School-Boys understand I presume he meant Aristocracy for he explains himself that Christ left his Church in the Power of Twelve This also is a mistake for Judas one of the Twelve was gone or going to his own Place It is true Matthias succeeded in his Room but Christ left not his Church in the Power of Twelve exclusive of other Apostles Paul who was not one of the Twelve was not Inferiour to the Chief Apostles 2 Cor. 11.5 and 12.11 Many judge Barnabas an Apostle of equal Authority with the rest He thinks the Church was govern'd after Christ's Ascension by the Apostles in a Parity p. 2. that we easily grant but do not understand the Proof of it For saith he neither did he commit the Power unto the Twelve themselves but was wholly silent therein How then came they by it He adds by Order of Nature one would think One would think the Rector were in a Dream when these Words dropt from him He makes the Apostles to govern the Church by an usurped Power which Christ never committed to them If this be so all their Acts become nullities which overturns the Foundations of Christianity and makes their Episcopal Successors act by an usurped Power You must not admire that he denies the governing Power to Presbyters for the very Apostles had it not from Jesus Christ as he positively speaks He is positive they had it not from Jesus Christ but is not certain how they came by it only he thinks it must by Order of Nature fall to their share He shou'd help us to a New Dictionary to explain his Terms What he means by the Order of Nature is hard to understand If he means by it that the Eldest should be preferr'd as in the Patriarchal Government his Expression is very improper for the Apostolical Power was not founded in natural Generation but in a positive Institution and if the Order of Nature must carry the Power the Eldest Apostle must succeed in the Government which destroys the Parity he allows It seems he over-look'd Mat. 16.19 John 20.21 22 23. Mat. 28.18 19 20. Where Christ commits the Power unto his Apostles We will now proceed to his Scripture Instances of Ordination in which he pretends the Presbyters had no share In some of his Instances Ordination is not concern'd in others Presbyters could not be concern'd because they were not in being in others the Presbyters had a hand as we shall evince notwithstanding his endeavours to exclude them I. His first Instance of Ordination in Acts 1. we are not concern'd in for none ever question'd the Apostles Power of Ordaining before this Gentleman who denies their having a Power from Jesus Christ and where else they could have it is a Mystery which Mr. G. only is concerned to unfold If Matthias was Ordain'd as he saith he was it is an instance of Ordination without Imposition of Hands Dr. Willet infers from it That Imposition of Hands is not of the Essence of Orders * Synop. Pap. Con. 16. q. 2. which Assertion he confirms as the Protestant Doctrine and if so persons may be true Ministers though the Bishops have not laid hands on them II. His next Instance is the Ordination of the Seven Deacons Acts 6. concerning whom he saith P. 3. 4. They were designed to distribute the publick Alms unto the Poor the multitude of Believers chose them the Apostles approv'd them and appointed them over that Business of distributing the publick Charity by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of hands v. 6. whereby also they became Ordained to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments It 's observable here 1. He acknowledges the People's right to chuse Ministers Why then are they deprived of it and no Overtures made towards the Restoring of this Power to them It were a Province worthy of a Convocation instead of laying new Burthens on the multitude of Believers to contribute their Endeavours to have their Ancient Priviledges restored 2. He owns that the Imployment whereunto the Seven Deacons were first design'd was to serve Tables but he adds of his own their Ordination for the Business made them also Ministers But this is a great mistake 1. Because the very Apostles found it too difficult a Province to serve Tables and to attend the Ministry of the Word Act. 6.2 It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables V. 3 4. Wherefore look ye out among you Seven Men whom we may appoint over this Business but we will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word The Ministry of the Word and the Serving of Tables are distinct Offices and inconsistent in the ordinary exercise of them otherwise there were no force in the Apostles reasoning that they must not leave the Word to serve Tables If serving of Tables was a hinderance to the Apostles Ministry would it not be also to that of the Deacons What Absurdity do they put upon the Apostles who would make them say We cannot attend the Ministry of the Word and serve Tables wherefore Brethren choose you among you Seven Men whom we may appoint to do both 2. The occasion of chusing Deacons was the necessity of the Poor whom the Apostles were desirous to have relieved out of the publick Alms and could not do it themselves being taken up with the Ministry of the Word The end of the Institution was to serve Tables Acts 6.3 Pursuant to this end the People chose Seven not to Preach but to serve Tables Pursuant to this choice the Apostles appointed them over that business by Fasting and Prayer and laying on of Hands Acts 6.3 6. Here is not one Syllable of Ordination to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments The end of the Institution Choice and Ordination was to Serve Tables and no other is mentioned 3. Compare
Christ and his Gospel Note here 1. That the Doctrine which the Rector ridicules in Dr. Owen is the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church of England and of all ancient Authors of Christ's Church 2. That whosoever joyns Works with Faith in the Act of Justifying is an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel and not to be reputed for a Christian Either the Rector hath subscribed the Book of Homilies or he hath not If he hath not he hath no Legal Right to his Benefice being not duly qualify'd according to the Statute which requires all Ecclesiastical Persons to Subscribe the XXXIX Articles on pain of Deprivation whereof the XXXV Article declares That the Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholsome Doctrine and necessary for these times The same Subscription is required by the Canon in this Form Can. 36. I N. N. do willingly ex animo Subscribe to these Three Articles above mention'd and to all things that are contain'd in them The Third Article in the Canon respects the XXXIX Articles of Religion which the Subseriber is to acknowledge to be all agreeable to the Word of God If he hath Subscribed the Articles and consequently the Book of Homilies he hath Subscribed to the Sentence of his own Condemnation viz. That he who joyns Works with Faith in the Office of Justifying is an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel and not to be reputed for a Christian He that is so liberal in passing Sentence on his Neighbours as no true Ministers shou'd review the Sentence he has passed upon himself as no true Christian while he corrupts the Foundation-Doctrine of Justification Thus I have vindicated 1 Tim. 4.14 from the weak and Self-contradicting Exceptions of the Rector The rest of this Chapter is only a recapitulation of his long perplex'd Commentary upon that plain Text. He refers 1 Pet. 5.2 where the Elders are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed the Flock and to take the over-sight of it P. 37. to an Appendix by it self because he knows not in what order of Time to place it Let it be imagin'd saith he for it cannot be proved to be written before it was Decreed throughout the World that one Presbyter shou'd be set over the rest No such Decree can be produced in Scripture nor was there any such Decree made in the Apostolical Times This is a meer Fiction of his own He allows the Elders in 1 Pet. 5. to be Governours P. 38 39. but not Supreme Governours for Christ and Peter was above them Did ever Man more egregiously Trifle who ever affirmed Elders to be Supreme Governours equal to Christ and his Apostles Peter here exhorts the Elders to Feed or Govern the Flock for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies * John 22.16 Rev. 2.27 and to perform the Duties of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 towards them and he does not set one Presbyter over the rest therefore they were to Govern and Oversee the Church in a State of Parity But saith Mr. G. Peter was a Shepherd above them 1. So were all Apostles Prophets and Evangelists above ordinary Presbyters But he cannot shew in all the N. T. that Persons of one and the same Order were set over others of that Order as for Example That any one Apostle was set over the other Apostles or any one Prophet set over the rest of the Prophets or any one Evangelist set over the other Evangelists nor any one ordinary Presbyter set over the other Presbyters Until he has proved this which has not been yet done he does nothing 2. He ascribes unto Peter a large Diocess Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythynia 1 Pet. 1.1 He acknowledges p. 39. That Pastors and Teachers are the lowest rank and degree of Church Officers Eph. 4.11 And if so they are all in a State of Parity for those in the lowest degree cannot be at the same time and in the same respect in a superiour Degree He makes Bishops of a superiour Degree above Pastors and Teachers if so they are either Apostles or Prophets or Evangelists for the N. T. knows no other Church Officers Eph. 4.11 Now Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were extraordinary Officers as the Learned acknowledge which are ceased long ago Therefore the Rector has excluded the Bishops from the Catalogue of N. T. Ministers He doth not find any express Commission given to these Elders P. 41. for exercising the several Supreme Acts of Power and Authority such as he noted in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus 1. Timothy and Titus are no where expresly call'd Bishops but Timothy is expresly call'd an Evangelist He that pleads for an express Commission shou'd produce such an one constituting Timothy and Titus Diocesan Bishops which he 'l never be able to do 2. These Elders are commanded to govern the Flock and to perform the Duties of Bishops and consequently are entrusted with the Episcopal Power Observe the Rector's way of Arguing he wou'd persuade us that Timothy and Titus who are no where called Bishops and one of them expresly call'd an Evangelist were real Bishops and that the Jewish Elders who are bid to govern or feed the Flock and to do the Duties of Bishops have nothing to do with the Episcopal Power In like manner when the Apostle tells the Elders of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops of the Flock to feed or govern the Church of God * Acts 20.17 28. he wou'd persuade us these are no Bishops though the Holy Ghost expresly affirms it and that Timothy who is expresly commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist was Bishop of Ephesus They whom the Holy Ghost Constitutes Bishops must be no Bishops with him and he whom the Holy Ghost declares to be an Evangelist must pass for a Bishop He must pardon us if we believe these express Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures before his ungrounded Assertions CHAP. III. Remarks upon bus Second Chapter of the Government of the Church of Ephesus and Crete The Apostles left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters This Establishment his last divine perpetual Acts 20. Explain'd The Government by Presbyters in parity never alter'd Presbytery a Divine Remedy against Schism Superiour Bishops not the Remedy Timothy no Diocesan Bishop an unfixed Evangelist Of the Asian Angels not so call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels Ignatius his Bishop not Diocesan Titus no Diocesan Bishop Presbyters are Rulers HE undertakes to shew that St. Paul toward the declining part of his Life p. 45. and in his absence from the Churches did not commit the Government to the Presbyterles in Parity but appointed one as Supreme to preside over them in his absence and by consequence to Succeed him when he departed the World This saith he I shall demonstrate he did in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete and by a reasonable Consequence in all his other Churches and the rest of
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
agreed by the Learned that those who are called the Apostles Fellow-workers and were sent by them as their Messengers to the Churches to supply their Absence were Evangelists This is acknowledg'd by Mr. G. P. 118. where he speaks of Itinerant Evangelists We agree with him P. 113. That Evangelists were in Dignity and Power next to Prophets and above all other Church Officers He proceeds to give us a Description of an Evangelist Ibid. It appears saith he from 2 Tim. 4.5 that an Evangelist was one entrusted by the Apostles with the Government of some Church That Timothy was an Evangelist and that Titus therefore was another Evangelist For it has been demonstrated already Cap. 2. that all the Supream Powers of Ecclesiastical Government were committed to them in their respective Churches The meaning of this Paragraph is that Evangelists are Diocesan Bishops for he makes Timothy the Evangelist that is the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus the Evangelist or Bishop of Crete It is well he owns Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists it is as much as we desire I but Evangelists and Bishops are the same To which I Answer 1. Few or none of his Judicious Brethren will subscribe to this new Notion of Evangelists by which he evidently gives up the whole Cause When he happens now and then to Answer the Title of his Book which is Tentamen Novum by advancing some New Notion he weakly betrays the Cause he pretends strongly to defend 2. He owns Evangelists to be a Species of Church Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers according to Eph. 4.11 and consequently he denies the Diocesan Bishops to be the Pastors of their respective Churches I doubt he has forgot the Prayers of the Church in which the Bishops are call'd the Pastors of the Flock * The Prayer in the Ember Weeks If he say they are both Pastors and Evangelists he confounds those Officers whom the Apostle distinguisheth The Presbyters are the Pastors of the Flock that is the ordinary and settled Rulers of it Acts 17.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Rev. 2.27 Let them have this Power which the Holy Ghost hath given them as the proper Bishops of the Flock and when he hath prov'd Evangelists to be Diocesan Bishops we will readily receive them 3. Dr. Hammond saith that the Pastors not the Evangelists in Eph. 4.11 were the Bishops that govern'd particular Charges 4. I have fully answer'd his Arguments by which he pretends to demonstrate that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete He advances a new Order of Evangelists P. 114. 115. who were the fixed Governours of some Cities and the Countries Adjacent And cannot altogether allow their Notion who say an Evangelist was an unsetled Church-Officer that went from Place to Place to finish the Churches begun by the Apostles and particularly to ordain Elders among them And yet he grants that an Evangelist as Ravanellus expresseth it Ordain'd Elders Oppidatim in every Town or Village 1. He owns that Evangelists might Ordain in every Town and why not in every City Ravanellus explains his Oppidatim by Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City But he wilfully overlooks that for he knew that there were many Cities in Crete and according to the Rule that every City must have a Bishop Titus must be Arch-bishop of Crete And the sole Power of Ordination being in Titus it would naturally follow that none but Arch-bishops can Ordain Andrew Cretentis calls him Arch-bishop and saith he had twelve Bishops under him 2. He cannot altogether allow Evangelists to be unsetled Officers It seems he does in part allow it P. 115. it 's too bright a Truth to be deny'd but he endeavours to obscure it what he can and wou'd fain perswade his Reader that Evangelists were fixed Officers But let 's hear his Proof Philip was a fixed Evangelist because Luke leaves him at Caesarea Acts 8.40 And we find him there almost twenty Years after having a House and a settled Family Acts 21.8 1. When he has prov'd that Philip resided at Caesarea as the settled Bishop of that Church and that he was no where else all those Years he may talk of a fixed Evangelist 2. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Which he may Visit at Times Paul continued two Years at Ephesus Acts 19.10 a Year and a half at Corinth Acts 18.11 two Years in his own hired House at Rome Acts 28.30 was he therefore a settled or fixed Apostle 3. As much as we have of the History of Philip bespeaks him an unsettled Officer We find him in Samaria Acts 8.12 with the Ethiopian Eunuch in the way from Jerusalem unto Gaza Acts 8.26 at Asotus and Preaching in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea Acts 8.40 which perhaps might be his Birth-place or he might Marry there which is more likely because we read of Four Daughters he had which did Prophecy Acts 21.9 He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea * J. Pears Lect. in Act v. §. 1. 5. p. 66. 68. for he Preached up and down by Vertue of an extraordinary Call Acts 8.6 7 26 39. and it is not to be imagin'd he laid aside the Office of an Evangelist after his Marriage And therefore Luke testifies concerning him that although he was Married and had a settled Family he was an Evangelist an unsettled extraordinary Officer still Acts 21.8 9 10. He could not produce any Ancient Author that makes him Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius saith he dyed at Hierapolis †Euseb Hist III. 25. Edit Lovan 1569. His other Proof from Timothy and Titus being fixed or settled Evangelists we considered before And it is Petitio Principii I will add this 1. All that he saith to prove them fixed Officers of Ephesus and Crete depends upon his Supposition that the Epistles to them were Written after Pauls first Bonds at Rome which I have disprov'd with respect to the first Epistle to Timothy and it 's confess'd by all that this Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were Written about the same Time The Epistle to Titus was Written when Paul was in Macedonia designing to Winter in Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 He Promises to send Tychicus or Artemas unto Titus the former of these two was with Paul in Macedonia and afterwards accompanied him into Asia Acts 20.4 Therefore this Epistle was Written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome 2. Timothy and Titus were no resident Evangelists of Ephesus and Crete for the Apostle calls them both away He calls Titus to Nicopolis from Crete Tit. 3.12 which is an evidence he was to make but a short stay there to set in Order the Things that were wanting Tit. 1.5 Which when he had done he must attend the Apostle as he had done before Accordingly he went to Paul to Nicopolis and was his Companion and Messenger to several Churches and at last is sent by him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 And we hear no
in a narrower Orb than the Apostles whose Messengers and Ministers they were and by whose appointment their Motions were guided and limitted That this is Chrysostoms meaning appears 1. From the Instance of Aquila and Priscilla which he gives these are Evangelists with Chrysostom Now these did remove from one Place to another from Rome to Corinth this remove was occasion'd by an Edict of Claudius Acts 18.1 2. some time after they removed with Paul to Ephesus ver 18. doubtless by Pauls appointment as other Evangelists did Thus we see Chrysostom's Evangelists did go up and down but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every where at their own Pleasure as the Apostles did who had no Superiours to direct their Motions but the Evangelists removed under the Conduct of the Apostles The Apostles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit and went about every where whither the Spirit guided them The Evangelists were under the Conduct of the Apostles and went about also but only to such Places and Services as the Apostles directed them Priscilla a Woman is an Evangelist in Chrysostom * See Acts 18.22 I hope Mr. G. will not make a settled Church Officer that is a Bishop of her for an Evangelist and a Bishop is the same with him Chrysostom here seems to confess that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Christianity to the Women to whom the Men had not access in the Eastern Countries The same is affirm'd by Clement of Alexandria who thinks the Sisters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5 Ministred unto the Women who kept at home by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women without Reprehension or evil Suspicion * Clem. Alex Strom. III. vid. Constit Apost III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi Epiph. haer 79. 2. Chrysostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists but among the Pastors or fixed Officers whom he makes Inferiour to those that went up and down and Evangeliz'd i. e. The Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Donas Veron He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Pastors according to the received Opinion of his Age But he rightly distinguisheth between Evangelists and Pastors and makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Evangelists to be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or these that went about Preaching the Gospel Thus after all the Noise and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made its evident that Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius in his Notion of Evangelists Their calling Timothy and Titus Bishops doth not affect us who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture that they were Evangelists and not Diocesan Bishops Eusebius saith only Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and he ingeniously acknowledges that they had no certainty who succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches planted by them those only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epistles It is fit therefore we shou'd be determin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Testament It s well observ'd by the Learned Bishop of Worcester that the first that call'd Timothy Bishop of Ephesus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon This was four hundred Years after in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after setled there no doubt they would begin the Succession with Timothy because of his Imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout He adds that this was not the Act of the Council but of a single Person delivering his Private Opinion in it and that by the by too and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council for saying that the Bishops of Ephesus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place See more in that Learned Author who judiciously Confutes their Opinion who make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302 303. The Fathers call the Apostles Bishops which all grant they were not in a proper Sence Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were both of them Apostles and Bishops at Rome Epiph. haeres xxvii The Fathers therefore when they call Apostles or Apostolical Men Bishops speak in the Language of their time and are not to be taken in a strict Sence Having gone through his Book and discovered the fallacies ot his Reasonings it were needless to take Notice of his last Chapter which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea in which there is scarce any thing which has not been consider'd already Yet for the sake of the more Ignorant Reader I will make some short replies to his Answers CHAP. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Tower of Government 1. J. O's First Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. The Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 Consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar Explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Br. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's Second and Third Argument for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Presbyters succeed the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect HE Charges J. O. with reflecting on Episcopal Ordination P. 122. but gives no Instance of any such Reflection which doubtless he would have done if he had been able Let this pass among his other Calumnies His Crambe about Jerom and Ignatius has been consider'd before P. 123. It were endless to tire my Reader and my self with nauseous Repetitions as often as this Author gives occasion He falls foully upon J. O. for saying that Parish-Priests have no Power of Discipline P. 125 126. which I have proved They have Power of Discipline saith he because all the Canons or Laws of the Church are made by the Priests of the Church of England as well as by the Bishops 1. Their Executive Power is the same with their Legislative Power that is none at all The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be Confirmed in Parliament 2. Hath every Parish-Priest a power of making Church-Laws If not this Instance is impertinently brought in to prove that the Parish-Priests have Power of Discipline If it be said they make Laws by their Representatives so do the People of England by their Representatives in Parliament Doth it follow therefore that every Free-holder hath the Power of Governing Though the Truth is the Convocation is not a Just Representative of the Clergy For in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury there are but 44 Clerks representing the Clergy the Bishops Deans Prebendaries and Arch-Deacons make up 122. The Arch-Deacons who are the Bishops Creatures as being chosen solely by them are 10 in Number more than the Clerks so that the Clerks are little more than Cyphers in Convocation there are enough in the lower House to out-vote them besides an
with Judas 'T is no more impossible saith he that Timothy should leave his first Love Rev. 2.2 than that Judas the Apostle should betray his Master P. 162. We must not think but that some of the Apostles Friends and Disciples made Ship-wrack of the Faith Alexander did so Acts 19.33 And why not Timothy so did Demas The Apostle saith of Timothy There was no Man like-minded Phil. 2.20 22. And that there were Prophecies concerning him that he should War a good Warfare 1 Tim. 1.18 Can any such thing be said of Judas We say Comparisons are odious was there ever a more odious one than to compare one of the most excellent New Testament Saints with the vilest of Hypocrites I will refer him to his own Words if it be not offensive to him to review them Criticks will be busie and advance Paradoxes and who can help it P. 163. Timothy shall be an Apostate-Bishop rather than no Bishop But he thinks to mend the Matter by supposing Timothy might be dead when the Revelation was written because he was an infirm Man 1 Tim. 5.23 and would scarce live to Seventy Years We have known infirm Men that were Temperate to live above Seventy J. O. observ'd that many Chronologers affirm'd that Timothy was alive then This he overlooks J. O. shew'd out of Dr. Lightfoot That the Angel of the Church was a Parish-Bishop in Conformity to the Jewish Synagogues each of which had its Angel or Bishop Our Author here enters the Lists with Dr. Lightfoot not with J. O. He hath not shew'd us saith he P. 164 165. that every Synagogue had a Presbytery Let him consult Dr. Lightf Vol. 1. p. 302. p. 611. Vol. II. p. 133. But the Rulers of the Synagogues adds he P. 165. were subject to the High-Priests and their Presbytery So are the Presbyters to Jesus Christ our great High-Priest and to all Rulers of his appointment He told us above That the High-Priest and Presbytery were the chief Court of Judicature among the Jews and had the highest Jurisdiction And so it had in things Civil and Sacred What is this to Episcopal Power over the Presbyters Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Order as the High Priests did for theirs and we 'll submit He remembers Mr. Bois scoffs at the Bishop of L. for Arguing with Dr. Lightfoot P. 166. but does not refer to the place lest we should see what great Reason Mr. B. might have to reject Rabbinical Traditions and what little reason our Author had to charge him with scoffing When Rabbinical Learning is of any advantage we are content to make use of it if against us P. 167 we deride it saith he When it is against the Truth we reject it when there is a Harmony between it and the New Testament we receive it not for Confirmation of Divine Truth but for Illustration Mr. G. cannot deny but the Minister of every Synagogue was call'd the Angel of the Church and Bishop of the Congregation as Dr. Lightfoot hath prov'd Therefore it looks highly rational that the Angels of the Asian Churches should be so called in Allusion to the Ministers of the Synagogue Christian Oratories are call'd Synagogues James 2.2 Our Author cannot deny the Agreement in many things between both But says he The Temple-Worship whereof a great deal was Moral was as much the Pattern of the Christian as was the Synagogue-Worship and if so the Jewish Priest-hood was the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy p. 166. 1. The Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial Worship of the Temple though they perform'd the Moral parts there also The Legal Priests and the Legal Altar were Relates Heb. 7.13 14. and both were Abolished together Heb. 7.12 For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law What Law not that which concern'd the Moral Worship but the Law of Ceremonies to which the Levitical Priesthood was adapted 2. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no Priests * Lightf Vol. II. p. 133 134 135. but none but Priests gave attendance at the Altar Heb. 7.13 Therefore the Ceremonial Worship Temple and Priesthood being Abolished and the Moral Worship which was the only Synagogue-Worship being Transplanted into the Christian Church it follows that the Jewish Priesthood was no Pattern of the Gospel-Ministry But this has been consider'd before J. O's First Instance of Ordination by Presbyters from Acts 13.1 2 3. hath been sufficiently vindicated above Cap. 2. He is in one of his hot Fits again P. 168. and Charges J. O. with insufferable Artifice Fallacy Sophistry c. for saying That if Barnabas was one of the Seventy Disciples as the Ancients affirm he was then was he of the Order of Presbyters according to that Hypothesis that makes Bishops to succeed the Twelve Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples J. O. did not call Barnabas a Presbyter but argued ad bominem He might as well have affirm'd saith he That Matthias another of the Seventy was but a Presbyter who succeeded Judas We read of Matthias his Solemn Call to the Apostleship and that he was Numbred with the Eleven Acts 1.26 but we have not the like account of Barnabas 'T is true he is call'd an Apostle Acts 14.4.14 so are Evangelists sometimes as we proved before Many conceive he was but an Evangelist Paul seems to own no Apostles in a strict Sense but the Twelve and himself 1 Cor. 15.5 7 8. It was the Prerogative of the Apostles to confer the Gifts of the Holy Ghost but we do not find that Barnabas ever confer'd that Gift Though I will not be positive but he might be a real Apostle J. O. Argued That those who have power to Dispense the Gospel to Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper have also Power of Ordination because these are Ordinances not inferiour to Ordination Et parium par est ratio They are not inferiour to Ordination 1. Preaching the Gospel is not inferiour to Ordination The Publishers of it are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 represent the great Prophet of the Church Mat. 5.20 are Workers together with God 2 Cor. 6.1 And is an Ordainer morethan this Baptism is our Solemn Dedication to God Ordination is no more only the former is to Christianity as such the latter to a particular work 2. Baptism is a Sacramental Dedication which Ordination is not 3. In the Lord's Supper the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ Jerom saith of Presbyters Ad quorum preces Corpus Sanguis Christi consicitur Now which is greater to Impose Hands or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Jesus Christ If they have Power to Consecrate Holy Things why not Holy Persons also Thus J. O. who prov'd also that the Ministerial Acts now mention'd are not inferiour to Ordination from 1 Cor. 1.17 Mat. 28.19 20.
What can our Author say to this Instead of answering J. O's P. 170. Arguments he saith He knows not by what Authority J. O. has enter'd into the Comparison His Scripture-Reasons are his Authority which Mr. G. has not touched only he nibbles at 1 Cor. 1.17 which is a Text saith he that few understand but at length he gives the meaning of it Paul's main work saith he was to Preach not to Baptize P. 171. If Preaching was his main Work it was not inferiour to Ordination It doth not hence follow that Preaching is a more honourable Office than Baptizing P. 172. saith the Rector None ever affirm'd the Office to be more Honourable for the Office is one and the same Preaching and Baptizing are Acts of one and the same Office The Apostle seems to prefer the Work of Preaching before that of Baptizing so doth Christ also who Preached Himself but committed the Work of Baptizing to his Disciples John 4.2 Though he blames J. O. for comparing Ministerial Acts yet he cannot forbear doing it himself Ordaining saith he is a higher Ministerial Act than Baptizing P. 173. Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum J. O. thinks Christ mentioned the chief part of a Minister's Work in Mat. 28.19 20. Go Teach Baptize c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part of the Apostle's Commission He would have said Go Ordain Preach Baptize c. Ordination therefore is not the principal part of a Minister's Office but rather Subordinate to Preaching and Baptizing and included here as the Lesser in the Greater A Commission usually Specifies the principal Acts which one is impowered to do and do not run à minori ad majus Mr. G. takes no notice of J. O's Argument but pretends that the Reason why the Lord's Supper Ibid. and Ordination are not mention'd in Mat. 28.19 20. is because they were mentioned before Luke 22.19 John 20.21 So Teaching and Baptizing were mentioned before and practised by the Apostles Christ gives them no new Commission at this time only enlargeth their former Commission They Taught and Baptized before but in one Nation only now they are sent to all Nations It is agreed that Mat. 28.19 20. contains the Commission not only of the Apostles but of their Successors to the end of Time for the Work of the Ministry v. 20. I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Amen Either this Commission doth impower them to Ordain Successors in the ordinary part of their Ministry or it doth not if it doth not it 's imperfect and insufficient for the continuance of a Gospel-Ministry unto the end of the World in pursuance of the Promise made to that end v. 20. Ordination is not mentioned in John 20.21 and it must needs be implied in Mat. 28.19 20. as a necessary means for the continuance of the Church unto the end of Time If this Commission in Mat. 28.19 20. doth impower the Apostles to Ordain as doubtless it doth then the Ordaining Power must be included in Teaching and Baptizing as Subordinate and Subservient to them He says The Power of Conferring other Powers P. 174. is greater than those other Powers John 13.16 If this be true the Bishops who make an Arch-Bishop are greater than he And those who Consecrate the Pope are greater than the Pope John 13.16 doth not speak of Ordination all that can be gathered from it is That we should learn Humility of Jesus Christ who is our Lord and Master John 13.13 14 15 16. Inferiours often confer Superiour Powers Bishops do Crown Kings a Recorder or Town-Clerk may Swear a Mayor 'T is endless to follow our Author in all his undidigested Notions and yet I cannot but touch on 'em for the sake of the less Judicious Readers who expect his Book Answered Paragraph by Paragraph He affirms but cannot prove That the Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves P. 175. We have prov'd the contrary already He asks with what Effrontery dares J. O call Peter Lombard to his Assistance Ibid. who says the Ancients argued from Baptism to Ordination Lomb. Lib. 4. Dist 25. I have Answered this already In short the Testimony of an Adversary is Valid against himself He acknowledges That if the Ordaining Power did by Scripture-Charter belong to the Presbyters P. 176. then to pretend to deprive 'em of it were a Nullity I have proved that it does belong to them by Scripture-Charter And therefore his Instance of a Presbyter Baptizing a Believer who hath no Power to Baptize another is not to the purpose He has often profess'd That he will not trace J. O. through the Fathers and Ancient Writers So he doth p. 122. and p. 175. and yet as a Man who is no Slave to his Word he will needs be nibbling at Antiquity where he thinks he has any advantage so he does p. 116. and p. 119. and in the concluding Pages of his Book He makes a long stride from p. 58. of J. O's Plea P. 177 188. to p. 179. and there he picks quarrel with two Quotations of his which shew the Presbyters to Succeed the Apostles as much as the Bishops He skips over but 120 Pages of J. O's Book and yet would persuade the World he has Answer'd it Suppose I had done so by his Book which I have answered in all that 's material Paragraph by Paragraph would not some People be tempted to think it unanswerable and that I undertook what I was not able to perform But to proceed to the Remarks on J. O's Quotations Ignatius saith That the Presbyters Succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles There 's nothing more unfair saith my Author P. 178. than to misrepresent the Meaning of an Author J. O. only Quoted the Words without Explication how then could he misrepresent the meaning But the meaning is as he tells us That the Presbyters are the Bishops Seconds as the Apostles were Jesus Christ's Seconds Our Rector wants a Second to explain his Explication it is so obscure and unintelligible I hope he would not make Ignatius say that the Bishops are as much the Head of the Presbyters as Christ is of the Apostles But let 's hear Ignatius himself I exhort you saith he * Ad Mag. p. 33. do all your Works in the Concord of God the Bishops presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters in the place of the Bench or Council of the Apostles and the Deacons who are precious to me to whom is committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ. So in another place Let all of you follow the Bishops as Jesus Christ followed the Father and follow the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as the Command of God †Ign. ad Smyr p. 6. He saith one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons And a little after he calls the Apostles the Presbytery of the Church ‖ Ad Phil. P.
41. In another place Reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jesus Christ and the Bishop as Jesus Christ and the Presbyters as the Council of God and the Conjunction of the Apostles And a little before Be Subject to the Presbytery as the Apostles of Jesus Christ * Ad Tral p. 48. He speaks more expresly a few Pages after Be inseparably Vnited to God Jesus Christ and the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Orders of the Apostles i. e. the Presbyters †Ibid. p. 50. I leave it to the Impartial Reader 's Judgment whether all these Expressions put together do not make it plain That the Presbyters according to Ignatius Succeed the Apostles Can any thing be express'd with more clearness They preside in the place of the Bench of the Apostles They must be followed as the Apostles reverenc'd as the Conjunction of the Apostles and as the Orders of Apostles But our Author proceeds in his usual and proper Stile J. O ' s. last disingenuous Perverting the Sense of Ignatius P. 178. has put me saith he upon the Examination of his Testimony out of Irenaeus For I must confess I dare not trust him in any thing that he offers out of Antiquity See the Candor of this Gentleman he declines J. O's Testimonies out of Antiquity and yet turns over above a Hundred Pages to search out one or two Quotations that he may Cavil at them Having treated J. O. with such scornful and ill Language so often in his Book it is not to be expected he should forbear bestowing upon him some of his best Compliments now at parting And he is the more obliged to him for them because they are Undeserved and are the free Emanations of the Rector's good Nature His attempt upon Ignatius failing him he proceeds to J. O's Second Quotation out of Irenaeus which was this Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur Here he taxes J. O 's Sincerity for a literal Fault of the Printer's P. 179. who instead of Presbyterorum Printed Presbyteriorum with the Addition of the Letter i This would pass for a Venial Fault among Friends but Mr. G. is as severe a Judge as he is a Corrector of the Press But saith he J. O. like a Man wise in his Generation turn'd Presbyters into Presbyteries Ibid. that this place may be understood not of Bishops but of the Colledges of Presbyters but Irenaeus by Presbyters means Bishops 1. J. O. spoke of Presbyters not Presbyteries Succeeding the Apostles and quoted Irenaeus for Proof He does not use the Word Presbytery in all that Argument p. 179 180. 2. Mr. G. cannot deny but Irenaeus saith the Presbyters Succeeded the Apostles but he thinks by Presbyters he means Bishops We think so too and thence infer That Presbyters and Bishops are the same in Irenaeus as they are in Paul's Epistles He saith in another place We must obey those Presbyters that are in the Church who received their Succession from the Apostles as we have shewn who with the Succession of their Episcopacy have received the certain Grace of Truth according to the Father's Pleasure And a little after Such Presbyters the Church nourisheth of whom the Prophet saith I will give thee Rulers in Peace and Bishops in Righteousness ‖ Iren. ad Haeres IV. 43 44. Observe here 1. That Presbyters Succeed the Apostles 2. Presbyters have an Episcopacy 3. Those whom Irenaeus calls Presbyters he calls also Bishops Irenaeus his Bishop was but the first Presbyter as Hilarius the Roman Deacon calls him * Int. ad Ephes By those first Presbyters who for Order sake had the precedency of the rest Irenaeus and others derive the Succession But the Churches were Governed not by those single Presbyters or Bishops alone but by the College of Presbyters in common among whom the Senior Presbyter or the most worthy had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Seat but without Power of Jurisdiction over his Brethren As the Athenians reckon'd the Years in which the Archontes Govern'd their Republic by the first Archon though there were Nine of them in all and the Lacedemonians denominated the Years of their Ephori who were Five in all by the Name of the First * Vid. Blon Apol. Pref. p. 38. so the Fathers derive the Succession of Presbyters by the First and Chief Presbyter to whom the Name of Bishop by degrees was appropriated Thus we have Vindicated Ignatius and Irenaeus against the angry Exceptions of our Author I will add one or two more but with no design to stir up his Choler Jerom saith of them They the Clergy Succeed in the Apostolical Degree they make the Body of Christ with their Sacred Mouths and by them we are made Christians He speaks not of Bishops but of the Clerici without Distinction even of all that Administer the Eucharist and Baptize And a little after expresly Names the Presbyters The Presbyter saith he may deliver me to Satan if I offend †Hieron Ep. ad Heliodor Origen in Mat. 16. makes all Presbyters to succeed the Apostles in the Power of the Keys Prosper makes all Holy Priests that conscienciously discharge the Duties of their Office the Successors of the Apostles If the Holy Priests saith he turn many to God by their Holy Living and Preaching who can doubt such to be Partakers of the Contemplative Vertue by whose Example and Instruction many are made Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven These are the Ministers of the Word the Hearers of God the Oracles of the Holy Spirit These are the Successors of the Apostles of the Lord * Isti sunt Apostolor Domini Successores Prosp de Vit. Con. Templ I. 25. The same is affirm'd by Ambrose * De dign Sacerdot Cap. 1. Claves Regni Coelorum in beato Petro Apostolo cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes Cyprian also speaks to the same purpose Christ saith to the Apostles and to all Ecclesiastical Rulers who by a deputed Ordination Succeed the Apostles he that heareth you heareth Me and he that heareth Me heareth Him that sent Me †Dicit ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione Succedunt Ep. LXIX I do not deny but Cyprian calls the Bishops Praepositi Church-Rulers and speaks here of himself who was a Bishop but the Words are general and must include the Presbyters also 1. Because he saith all the Praepositi succeed the Apostles The Presbyters as well as the Bishops are the Praepositi in Cyprian so he calls them The Lord chose the Apostles that is the Bishops and Praepositos * Ep I. XV. Rulers Here Cyprian calls the Presbyters Praepositos and he makes the Bishops and the Praepositi equally to Succeed the Apostles 2. He saith all the Praepositi Succeed the Apostles to whom Christ sayeth he that heareth you heareth Me. Now these Words of Christ belong to the Presbyters as much as to the Bishops He that heareth them heareth Christ Therefore these Words were spoken to them also as the Apostles Successors according to Cyprian And this is agreeable to the 1 Pet. 5.1 where the Apostle Peter Writing to to Presbyters calls himself a Presbyter Had the Apostle written thus The Bishops which are among you I exhort who am also a Bishop this would have been cried up for an Invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors for he Writes to Bishops and calls himself a Bishop The Argument is ours to prove that Presbyters succeed the Apostles who Stile themselves Presbyters in the ordinary part of their Office We do not deny but the Bishops succeed the Apostles but as Presbyters and not as an Order of Church-Officers Superiour to Presbyters and therefore Irenaeus as we observed before saith The Presbyters Succeed the Apostles making Presbyters and Bishops to be the same according to the Holy Scriptures I have already prov'd That the Presbyters of Ephesus Succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church Timothy was left there in Paul's Absence when he intended to come to Ephesus himself shortly 1 Tim. 3.14 4.13 The Presbyters were entrusted with the Government of the Church when he had no Thoughts of seeing them again Acts 20.25.38 Timothy an Evangelist was to supply the Temporary Absence of Paul from that Church the Presbyters his perpetual Absence and therefore are properly his Successors in the Government of that Church FINIS