this Scripture of the Institution of Deacons with the qualifications of Deacons in 1 Tim. 3. and it will appear their work was to serve Tables Ability or aptness to Teach is not mention'd among their Qualifications as it is in those of a Bishop or Presbyter 1 Tim. 3.2 The Apostle mentions several Characters that are common to both but distinguisheth the Bishop from the Deacon by this that the Bishop be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to Teach which is not required in the Deacons an evidence they are Ministers not of the Word but of Tables 4. The Sixth General Council of Constantinople acknowledges the Scripture-Deacons to be no more than Overseers of the Poor Thus the Council Seeing the Book of the Acts mentions Seven Deacons Ordained by the Apostles Invenimus eos locutos esse non de viris qui ministrant Mysteriis sed de Ministerio quod in usu mensarum adhibeatur Sexta Syn. in Trullo Can. 16. A. D. 692. the Council of Neocesarea determines there ought to be Seven in every Church but we having adapted the Opinion of the Fathers to the Apostles Expressions do find that they speak not of those who Ministred in the Sacred Mysteries but of such as Served at Tables Thus Chrysostom expounded the place as they add there This Testimony is the more considerable as not only containing the Opinion of 166 Bishops who lived about the latter end of the Seventh Age but affirming the Sense of the Fathers of former Ages to be the same with theirs By all which it appears That Deacons originally were but Overseers of the Poor In future Ages the case was much altered the Bishops affected to be Guardians of the Poor and to make the Deacons amends admitted them to Baptize and Preach The Bishops omit Preaching and become Servants of Tables and the Deacons from serving of Tables step up into the Pulpit and become Preachers 5. About the middle of the Fifth Age they were permitted to read Homilies in the Church but only in cases of necessity as when the Presbyter was disabled by reason of some Infirmity * Conc. Vasens Can. 4. 6. If the Ordination of Deacons as such made them Ministers of the Word and Sacraments as the Rector affirms how comes the Church of England to Ordain them again before they are compleat Ministers of the Sacrament What president have they in Scripture for this 7. It 's absurd to say That the Ordination of Deacons to serve Tables made them also Ministers of the Word and Sacraments One individual Ordination to one and the same work cannot confer two distinct Powers They may as well say the Ordination of a Parish-Priest makes him a Diocesan Bishop But let us hear the Rector's Reasons He thinks it 's clear they were Ordain'd not only to serve Tables but to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 1. Because 't is immediately noted saith he that the Word of God increased P. 4 V. 7. But he considered not that this is rather to be imputed to the Apostles giving themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word and Prayer Ver. 4. Having consigned the Service of Tables to the Deacons they attended the Ministry of the Word more constantly and with less distraction and then it follows the Word of God increased v. 7. 2. His next Reason is Stephen one of them Ibid. did great wonders c. none were able to resist the wisdom by which he spake v. 8 10. It 's not said that he Preached to the People only that he disputed in the Synagogue in defence of the Gospel which a private Man might do v. 9. 1 Pet. 3.15 3. His third Reason Philip another of them afterwards preached at Samaria ch 8. He did not Preach at Jerusalem but at Samaria after he had left Jerusalem and ceased to exercise the Office of a Deacon there Acts 8.4 5. He might be advanced to the Degree of an Evangelist Acts 21.8 If you find one that was a Presbyter half a Year ago now exercising Episcopal Jurisdicition will you say that a Presbyter as such hath Episcopal Jurisdiction Philip had served Tables at Jerusalem and afterwards preaches at Samaria does it follow that he preached as a Deacon when Preaching was no part of the Office of a Deacon as such Bishop Pearson confesseth he was an Evangelist at this time * Lect. V. in Act. p. 66. But suppose he had Preached at Jerusalem which docs not appear it was no more than what was usually done by all gifted Persons in those extraordinary times Apollos who was not perfectly Catechised in the Word of Christ nor so much as Baptized with the Baptism of Christ and therefore not Ordained by any Apostle yet Preached Acts 18.24 25. Grotius acknowledges that in those times to Persrcution private Persons might preach and he quotes to that purpose Acts 11.20 †In tali cumstantiâ evangelium praedicare non diaconorum tantum sed privatorum Grot. in Act. 8.5 Hilarius the Roman Deacon goes higher and saith That at the first planting of Christianity all were permitted to Preach Baptize and explain the Scriptures in the Congregation 1 Cor. 14.24 * Omnibus inter initia concessum est evangelizare baptizate scripturas in Ecclesia explanare Hilar. in Eph. 4. Origen being persecuted from Alexandria Preached publickly at Caesarea upon the desire of Theoctistus Bishop of the place before he was Ordain'd When Demetrius of Alexandria censured the action as irregular Theoctistus and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem Justified it and produced several Examples of the same nature * Niceph. Eccl. Hist V. 14. A Lay-man is allowed to teach at the request of the Clergy in a Council of Carthage held about the Year 436 †Laicus praesentibus clerios nisi ipsis rogantibusdocere non audeat Carth. Conc. IV. Can. 98. 4. His fourth Reason Because long after 't is observed by Luke that the rest of the Seven as I understand him preached the word in Phenice Cyprus and at Antioch P. 4. c. Acts 11.19 Luke saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they which were seatured abroad preached the Word The Rector makes bold to pervert the Text and saith the rest of the Seven Preach'd the Word and which is more unpardonable he puts the Words in a different Character as if they were the Words of Luke He has no colour to foist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest into this Text but it 's apparently done upon design to support an unscriptural Hypothesis It 's more pardonable to misrepresent a hundred Fathers than to alter one Text of the Sacred Scriptures He is a very bold Man that dare put Words in the Mouth of Inspired Writers Luke refers to Acts 8.1 They were all seattered abroad except the Apostles Who were these All Not the Six Deacons only * Pears Annal. Paul p. 1 Lect. IV. in Act. Apost p. 63 What Sense would it be to say All the
the Apostles must be presum'd to have done the same 1. If the Apostle did not appoint one Presbyter as Supreme to preside over the rest and to Succeed him in the Government of the Presbyters the Government by his own Confession must lodge in the Presbyters of the Churches in Parity 2. Timothy and Titus were not ordinary Presbyters but extraordinary Officers that is Evangelists and as such were Superiour to Presbyters as Apostles and Prophets were There is not the least hint in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that they were Ordain'd to be the Apostles Successors in Ephesus and Crete 3. The Apostle did commit the Government of the Church of Ephesus in his absence to the Presbytery in a Parity Acts 20.17 18. and that when he was taking his last leave of them without thoughts of seeing them any more v. 25. This was the proper Season for him to provide a sirgle Person to Succeed him in the Presidency over the Presbyters of Ephesus had such a Presidency been of necessary and perpetual continuance in the Church It is but rational to affirm That when the Apostles took their final leave of any Church then was the proper time to take care of it's future Government It is not to be imagin'd that the Holy Apostles wou'd be wanting in their Duty towards the Churches in such a Conjuncture as this They were Faithful Stewards of God's House and gave the necessary Rules for its future Government and Conservation accordingly the Apostle is very particular and express in giving Directions about the Government of the Church of Ephesus after his departure He sends for the Elders of Ephesus Preaches his Farewel Sermon to them Asts 20.17 36. In all which there is not one word of setting a single Person over them but the whole Government of the Church is committed to them in a State of Parity And least any shou'd think this was a prudential Constitution he tells them this Power was consign'd to them by the Holy Ghost who made them Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church of God v. 28. The Elders to whom the Government of the Church of Ephesus was thus committed by the Holy Ghost took their solemn and final leave of Paul with many Tears sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake that they shou'd see his face no more ver 38. Whether he did return again is not material at all it 's evident he thought he should not and the Elders of Ephesus thought so also There is no one Presbytery of which the Apostle took such a Solemn leave as he did of this and there is no doubt if it had been the mind of God that a single Person should be set over them but the Apostle would have mention'd it at this time He tells them in his Charge to them That he shunned not to declare to them the whole Counsel of God Acts 20.27 and immediately adds v. 28. That the Holy Ghost made them Bishops of that Flock this therefore is part of the Council of God That the Church be Govern'd by the Elders in Parity If the Superiority of Bishops had been any part of the Council of God the Apostle would not have with-held it from the Presbyters of Ephesus at this time They that affirm That the Government of this Church was afterwards chang'd must bring as clear Proof for it as we do for this Establishment It is very plain and incontestable that the Apostle left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters of that Church when he took his final leave of them And is it as plain that the First Epistle to Timothy upon which his Episcopacy is Founded was written after this Settlement of a Governing Presbytery which most Ancient and Modern Chronologers except Bishop Pearson and two or three others affirm to be written before It is very evident that the Holy Ghost appoints the Presbyters of Ephesus the sole Bishops of the Church when Paul bid them a final Farewel And is it as evident that an Evangelist as Timothy was may be degraded from an extraordinary unfixed Officer to an ordinary fixed Pastor In this Establishment of Presbytery without a Superiour Bishop it is observable that 1. It is an Apostolical Divine Establishment the Apostle was guided by the Holy Ghost in his determination v. 28. 2. It was the last Establishment which he intended to make in that Church for he had no thoughts of seeing them again 3. It was intended for a perpetual Establishment not only in the Church of Ephesus but in all other Churches Mr. G. allows the Government of this Church to be a Plat-form for other Churches p. 45. That it was Perpetual appears 1. Because the Apostle gave them his last Thoughts which are the same with his dying Thoughts for he positively tells them He shou'd see their Faces no more 2. Here is not one Circumstance in the whole Context that makes for a Temporary Establishment If any say it was Temporary he ought to prove it We may with much better Reason affirm That the appointing of Timothy an Evangelist to settle some things in Ephesus in Paul's absence was Temporary 3. Paul doth not give the least hint in his whole Discourse with the Ephesian Elders of any Bishop he had set over them or that he intended to set one hereafter It 's certain Paul must needs know what sort of Government God would have settled in his Church after his departure We cannot imagine that he was ignorant of the Pattern of God's House The extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were not given them in vain it was to lead them into all Truth Now if the Apostle knew of this pretended future Establishment of Episcopacy how comes he not to acquaint the Presbyters with it He shou'd have told them how they were to Govern the Church in Subordination to their Bishop present or future But not a word of all this in his whole Discourse A certain evidence that it was the Apostle's mind and the mind of the Holy Ghost that the Presbyters shou'd Govern the Church in common Timothy was now present or not far off Acts 20.4 6. Why had not the Apostle recommended the Presbyters to his charge They wanted a present Bishop according to Mr. G's Hypothesis for the Apostle was taking his final leave of them What shou'd hinder his being set over them His Years He was but Young when the first Epistle was written which supposes him Bishop of Ephesus 1 Tim. 4.12 There were Prophecies concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 He had been Ordain'd by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4.14 And was there no Prophecy of his being future Bishop of Ephesus If there was how comes the Apostle to suppress it in this necessary Juncture when it so greatly concern'd the Ephesian Elders to know how the Church of Ephesus was to be Govern'd after the Apostle's departure Would not the Elders of Ephesus acquiesce in this determination of the Apostle as his last and unalterable Settlement
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
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
assertions are so crude and indigested P. 90. that it would require a just Volume to make a Collection of them He would make Jerom say That it was decreed in the Apostles time that one elected out of the Presbyters who before Govern'd the Church in common was set over the rest P. 91 92. and that the Decree was occasion'd by the Corinthian Schism Here he abuses Jerom and his Reader for Rerom no where saith that the superiority of Bishops was decreed in the Apostles time Jerom proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters not only from the Epistles of Paul but from the Epistle of John the last of the Apostles Then he adds quod autem postea c. That afterwards one was chosen and set over the rest as a Remedy against Schism Jerom's afterwards must refer to the Writing of John's Epistle and so his meaning must be that after the Apostles time this Decree was made for he proves that Presbyter s and Bishops were the sam in the Apostles time 'T is true he alludes to the Corinthian Schism but it 's evident That Paul's Epistles to the Church of Corinth contain no such Remedy against Schism as the Superiority of Bishops The Corinthian Schism was a most proper occasion for the Institution of Bishops if they were the aptest remedy against Schism But there is not a word of it in Paul's Epistles to that Church Nor in Clemens's his Epistle written long after What he saith of Ignatius agreeing with Jerom in his account of Bishops we have considered before The Rector adds That the Apostle was as much concern'd at the Corinthian Schism as any other and that seeing Divisions arising every where not only at Corinth he weighed the matter well and ask'd counsel of God what he should do And in the end concluded to set one Presbyter over the rest to prevent the mischief of Schism God so appointing it 1 Tim. 1.18 1. Doubtless the Apostle was concern'd at the Corinthian Schism as it was a dishonour to God and Religion but not so much as it was against him and his authority which is the reason Mr. G. assigns He dare not say he appointed the remedy at this time he knew that would be too gross But he cunningly saith in the end he concluded to set up one Presbyter over the rest and refers us to 1 Tim. 1.18 The first Epistle to the Corinthians which mentions the Schisms there was written about the year of Christ 55 as Dr. Lightfoot calculates * Vol. 1. p. 299. The first Epistle to Timothy was written about the year 69 according to the Rector's Hypothesis So that he makes the Apostle to provide the Remedy about fourteen years after the Disease Was the Apostle weighing the matter all those years Or did he ask Counsel of God and was not heard Or did he neglect Consulting God till about the time he wrote to Timothy 2. Had not Paul weighed the matter of Schism and consulted God when he wrote to the Corinthians Doubtless he had If so we may expect a Remedy against Schism in those Epistles but there is no mention of the Superiority of Bishops in either of those Epistles therefore that is not the Remedy against Schism 3. The Church of Ephesus was in danger of being broken with Schisms when the Apostle left them without any thoughts of seeing them any more Acts 20.25 What Remedy doth he provide Not a Superiour Bishop but he commits the Flock in common to the Presbyters Acts 20.17 28. Perhaps the Rector will say he had not weigh'd the matter well at this time nor consulted God in the case For our parts we are satisfied he was infallibly guided by the Spirit of God in all the Rules of Government he left the Church and as such we receive them He has several Pages to prove that Paul was twice imprison'd at Rome It is very probable he was Eusebius saith There was a Tradition in his days of his being Acquitted the first time and that he went to several places preaching the Gospel and coming to Rome the second time he ended his Days with a blessed Martyrdom * Eccles Hist. 11 21. Several Ancient Wâ—iters speak tâ—â—â—e same purpose But our Author will prove it by Scâ—â—pture nay he 'll demonstrate it beyond all farther Controversie This Gentleman is singular at Demonstrations but let 's see the strength of them 1. Paul left Trophimus at Miletus sick P. 95. 2 Tim. 4.20 This was not when he met the Ephesian Elders for then he went with him to Jerusalem Acts 21.29 It 's most likely that he touch'd at Miletus when he return'd from Jerusalem in Bonds to Rome 't is evident he intended to sail by the Coasts of Asia Acts 27.2 and might touch at Miletus which was a part of those Asian Coasts tho' Luke doth not mention it Or if Miletum were a City of Crete as Heylin thinks he might leave him there when he touched upon those Coasts as he sail'd for Rome Acts 27.7 8. But if this Miletum be Malta antiently Melita as Grotius and Beza affirm 't is certain Paul was there in his Voyage from Judea to Rome Acts 28.1 and might leave Trophimus sick behind him as he saith he did 2 Tim. 4.20 2. It is pretty plain P. 96. Paul was once releas'd from Prison Heb. 13.24 saith the Rector I thought a Demonstration which he promis'd us made things very plain 3. That which will put the matter out of all question is the vast difference between that his Imprisonment in Acts 28. and that in the second Epistle to Timothy He was in little or no danger but held Liberâ Custodià in his first Confinement but in his second he was a close Prisoner in Chains 2 Tim. 1.16 Expected no Deliverance P. 98. 2 Tim. 4.6 7 8. 1. He was in some danger in his first Imprisonment Phil 2.23 2. And bound with a Chain Acts 28.20 3. He mentions his Deliverance that he might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles 2 Tim. 4.17 Thus we have seen the Invalidity of his Demonstrations as he calls them and how improbable his Conjectures are which pass for Demonstrations with him that the first Epistle to Timothy was written after the Congress at Miletus and after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome For the farther satisfaction of the Impartial Reader I will vindicate the Ancient Chronologers and prove that the first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome and consequently before that Meeting at Miletus in which the Apostle commits the Government of the Church of Ephesus to the Presbyters thereof and not to Timothy their pretended Bishop and if he was no Bishop when that Epistle was written he was none at all If that Epistle was writ before the Meeting at Miletus all the Arguments from that Epistle to prove him Bishop of Ephesus are impertinent For the Government of that Church was committed to the Presbyters in common and not to
way of managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles consider'd The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no Power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops proved 1. From their Doctrine That Bishops and Presbyters are the same 2. From their own Testimony 3. The Testimony of F. Paul 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops P. 1 to 45. Chap. II. Whether the Jewish Church was the First Established Church The Levitical Priest-hood no Pattern for Gospel-Ministers Clemens Rom. Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modelled His Church after the Jewish Pattern or left His Church in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His first Instance of Ordination from Acts 1. Consider'd 2. The Ordination of the Seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections Answer'd 3. His third Instance of Ordination from Acts 9.17 consider'd 4. His Fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated The difference between Apostles and Prophets as stated by him consider'd 5. His fifth Instance from Acts 14.13 Examined 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7.1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Vindicated 8.1 Tim. 4.14 for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Dr. Owen Defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9.1 Pet. 5.2 Vindicated P. 45. to 99. Chap. III. The Apostle left the Government of Ephesus in the Presbyters This Establishment prov'd to be his last Divine Perpetual Acts 20. Explain'd This Government never alter'd Presbyters a Divine Remedy against Schism Superiour Bishops not the Remedy Timothy no Diocesan Bishop An unfix'd Evangelist Of the Asian Angels not so call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels Ignatius his Bishop not Diocesan Titus no Diocesan Bishop Presbyters are Rulers P. 99. to p. 121. Chap. IV. The first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome Acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Asserters of Episcopacy Bp. Hall Dr. Hammond c deny'd by the Rhemists Bp. Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 consider'd Jerom Vindicated Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's first Bonds The second Epistle written in his first Bonds An Objection Answer'd Acts 20.25 Consider'd P. 121. to p. 141. Chap. V. Of Evangelists whether they were fixed Neg. Acts 21.8 consider'd Timothy and Titus unfixed Hilarius his Account of Evangelist Eusebius's Testimony Vindicated Mark no fixed Evangelist Chrysostom's Account of Evangelists agreeing with Eusebius P. 141. to p. 151. Chap. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Power of Government 1. J. O's first Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bp. of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Dr. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's second Argument for Ordination by Presbyters and third Argument Vindicated Presbyters succeeded the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect P. 151. to p. 190. ERRATA PAge 11. Marg. after 80. read 1. P. 12. M. for 1235. r. 1245. P. 14. M. for 5.30 r. 530. P. 26. M. f. P. 14. r. p. 13 14. P. 35. l. 25. r. Pope's Casualties P. 46 l. 20. f. 24. r. 26. P. 53. l. 22. f. 72. r. 73. P. 63. M. f. clerios r. clericis P. 67. l. 13. dele a. l. 15 r. resolved P. 87. l. 6. r. Sanhedrin P. 89. l. 11. f. of r. at p. 100. l. 10. f. 18. r. 28. p. 104. l. 3. r. story p. 106. l. 31. r. Presbyters p. 109. l. 38. r. Mal. 2.1.7 p. 111. l. 38. r. Diocess p. 120. l. 7. r. 2 Cor. 2.12 13. p. 122. l. 15. r. Goncession p. 140. l. 13. r. ye p. 143. l. 13. r. Cretensis p. 148. l. 3.15 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 30. p. 149. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 151. l. 22. r. Crambe p. 153. l. 8. r. there p. 157. l. 12. r. Apostle p. 160. l. 2. f. 22. r. 2.2 l. ult r. an p. 172. l. 36. f. dot r. not p. 175. l. 8. r. Conduct A Defence of Scripture-Ordination c. CHAP. I. The Dissenters Justified in their Way of Managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles Considered The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops prov'd 1. From their Doctrine 2. From their own Testimony 3. From F. Paul's Testimony 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted succession of Bishops BEFORE he enters upon his Subject he desires his common Reader to observe the unfair way the Dissenters have in managing Controversies Pref. p. 2. 1. Do they pick up imperfect Notes of Sermons Preached a Year or two before and take upon them to Confute them when the Authors are dead and cannot Vindicate themselves This were a little unfair but he knows who did so when he Preached his Sermon of Consecration in Answer to a Sermon of Mr. Baldwin under the Fictitious Name of Calvin as I am told because forsooth Calvus is Bald and Vin is Wine and so you have the English of Calvin que Bald-wine Doubtless so Learned an Etymologist can give a Reason why the odd Epithet of Bald is attributed to Wine I am apt to think Calvin himself as Learned as he was never thought of this rare Etymon of his Name But to return to our Subject 2. Do the Dissenters use to lodge their Manuscripts in some Friend's hand with a charge that none shall see them except they undertake to Answer them and promise to return them the same Day This is an unfair way of managing Controversies and it is much more unfair for a Man to triumph that a Manuscript clog'd with inch unreasonable Conditions is not Answer'd The Rector can Name the unfair Man that hath thus managed the Controversie of the Consecration-Sermon mention'd before 3. Or do the Dissenters pretend to Answer Books and leave the greatest part of them unanswered He knows who does so also and Insinuates in his Title Page as if he had Answered the Whole when indeed deed it is far otherwise This is an unfair way of managing Controversies which somebody is guilty of But let 's hear how he proves his Charge I. In most of their Books be the Argument what it will Pref. they represent us as Arminians saith he Persons that have a sore place complain they are hurt if one do but touch them This Charge of Arminianism is either true or false if true confess it and give glory to God if false disprove it I doubt the Rector cannot acquit himself whatever others do for
Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a◠desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been
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
does he mean that some of them have strong presumptions others have moral assurance of the Succession Or rather that their moral assurance is no more than a strong presumption and so the meaning is they strongly presume they are Ministers but cannot be certain upon this Principle This is but very cold comfort to one who labours under Fears and Temptations about his acceptance with God in the Exercise of his Ministry The inextricable difficulties about the Succession which have puzzled the most Learned and diligent Inquirers may increase but can have no tendency to remove his Doubts The Waldenses prov'd their Call to the Ministry by the Success Act Mon. p. 234. and not by the Suecession of it as we noted before and instead of perplexing their Heads with an uninterrupted Succession they asserted this Position Such as hear or obey the word of God and have a right Faith are the right Church of Christ and to this Church the Keys of the Church are given to drive away Wolves and to institute true Pastors Nor are they singular in this Principle it is asserted by the Learned Defenders of the Reformation in their Discourses against the Jesuits the stiff Maintainers of this Succession and they have demonstrated That the Being of the Christian Church cannot depend upon this Succession and that it hath been interrupted again and again There may be a sort of Succession without a true Church as in the Romish false Church there may be a true Church without a Succession as the Foreign Reformed Churches Eccl. Polit. Lib. VII p. 37 38. Mr. Hooker affirms the whole Church visible the true original Subject of all Power and thence infers that a continued Succession of Bishops is not necessary to Ordination This Strongly Presumptuous Gentleman should have answered J. O's Reasons against this Succession before he had talk'd of his moral assurance concerning it But some people are never more sure than when they are furthest from Truth Thus I have follow'd him through his tedious Preface let not the Reader blame me for want of Method in some places because I follow the Author in his Digressions CHAP. II. The Jewish Church not the first established Church The Levitical Priesthood no Pattern for Gospel Ministers Clemens Romanus Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modell'd his Church after the Jewish Pattern or left it in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His 1. instance of Ordination from Acts 1. consider'd 2. The Ordination of the seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments Prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections answer'd 3. His third instance of Ordination from Act. 9.17 consider'd 4. His fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This instance of Ordination by Presbyters vindicated His account of Apostles and Prophets examin'd 5. His instance from Acts 14.13 examin'd 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7. 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. vindicated 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 For Ordination by Presbyters vindicated Dr. Owen defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9. 1 Pet. 5.2 vindicated HE takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Apostles were Superiour to Presbyters which no Body ever deny'd This is the chief Scope of the first Chapter of his Book in which he hath furnished us with some rare Notions of Church Government He tells us P. 1. that the Church of the Jews was the first established Church in the World that we know of Had God no Church in the World for about 24.50 Years till the Law was given upon Mount Sinai Were there no worshipping Congregations no Divine Laws of Worship in the World before Moses's Time We read of Sacrifices and Invocation on the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.3 4 24. And were there no Assemblies for those Acts of Worship We read of the Sons of God as distinct from the Daughters of Men and that the mixture of the professedly Holy Seed of Seth with the prophane Gainites sill'd the World with Wickedness Gen. 6. The degeneracy of the Sons of God the visible Church of God at that Time caus'd the Flood He that can believe that God had no Church before the Flood may also believe there never was a Flood Did Noah the Father of the new World who had immediate Rcvelation from God as most of the Patriarchs had establish no Church among his numerous Posterity Was God indifferent whether he would have a Church Or was Noah unfaithful in transmitting the Divine Establishment to his Off-spring It is true they soon degenerated Gen. 11. but that 's an Argument they had been a Covenant-People Was there no Church establish'd in Abrabam's numerous and princely Family Gen. 14.14 23.6 He erected Altars for Sacrifice and call'd upon the Lord whereever he came God renew'd his Covenant with him and admitted his Infant Seed by Circumcision into a visible Church-membership whereby they were distinguished from the rest of the World Did righteous Melchizedeck King of Salem who was Priest of the most High God as the Patriarchs generally were take no care to establish a Church among his Subjects I hope one may lawfully doubt this Gentleman's Notions of Church-Government who thus blunders about the very existence of a Church But continues he P 1. The Jewish Church was govern'd by a High-Priest Inferior Priests and Levites 1. I begin now to suspect the Reason why he would have no establish'd Church before the Jewish he does not read of any subordinate Priests and Levites that were subject to the Patriarchal Priests He seems to be content that God should have no Church in the World for almost 2500 Years rather than want a Model for his Hierarchy consisting of Bishops Priests and Deacons This is agreeable enough to his Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops are essential to a Church 2. The High-Priest Priests and Levites are not the Model for Gospel Churches for we read of no Institution of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the New Testament We find Bishops and Deacons there Phil. 1.1 but the Scripture-Bishop is the same with the Scripture-Presbyter 3. The Jewish High-Priest was an eminent Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession He is one as the Jewish High-Priest was and in this respect we follow the Jewish Typical President Wo are under Jesus Christ our only Chief-Priest who hath appointed Presbyters and Deacons as under Officers in the Christian Church 4. This is the great Argument of the Papists for the Pope's Supremacy the Jews had one Chief-Priest therefore the Christians must have one Chief-Bishop So Bellarmine Argues De Rom. Pontif. I. 9. It is unhappy that the Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy equally serve the Papacy The Fathers especially Clemens Romanus saith the Rector seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons Ibid. The first answering the High Priest the second the Inferiour Priests and the third the Levites Either the Rector has never read Clemens Romanus or
he disingenuously abuses his Reader for 1. Clemens no where saith as he makes him to speak that there were Bishops Priests and Deacons as three distinct Officers in the Christian Church 2. He no where saith that the Bishop answer'd the High Priest the Presbyter the Inferiour Priests and the Deacon the Levites There is not a Word of this in all that Epistle to the Corinthians to which Mr. G. refers us 3. He mentions but two Orders of New Testament Officers Bishops and Deacons The Apostles saith he Preaching the Gospel in Countrys and Cities ordain'd the first Fruits of them that believ'd having tried them by the Spirit to he Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. ad Cor. The same Officers were in the Church of Corinth at this Time which the Apostle had settled in the Church of Philippi Phil. 1.1 Bishops and Deacons There were several Bishops in the single Church of Philippi and not one Chief so in this Church of Corinth which was govern'd by several Bishops whom Clemens calls Presbyters These govern'd the Church in Common He does not mention any chief Bishop in Corinth but he affirms that the Presbyters there perform'd the Duties of their Episcopacy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Corinthians to be subject to their Elders * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish this excellent Epistle of Clemens which I hear is lately done into English were in every hand It would abundantly satisfie the unprejudiced that the Order of Superiour Bishops had no being in the Church in Clemens his Time He writes to the Corinthian Church about Schism and that occassion'd by some of their Presbyters but has not one Word of Obedience to a Superiour Diocesan Bishop as the remedy against Schism The only Passage that gives the least umbrage to a Diocesan Episcopacy is that which mentions High-Priests Priests and Levites under the Law and a little after Bishops and Deacons under the Gospel Not that he makes the former Patterns of the latter for then he would have said Bishops Priests and Deacons as the Rector falsly affirms he doth but he expresly saith the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons We must explain Clemen's Bishops and Deacons by the New Testament and not by the Old for he speaks of an Apostolical Institution which we must look for in Pauls Epistles and not in the Levitical Law Now we find Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Paul's Bishops and Clemen's Bishop are the same Paul's Bishops were Presbyters for there were several of them in one Church Phil. 1.1 Clemen's Bishops are but Presbyters of which there were several in the Church of Corinth The force of Clemens his Argument is this As the Old Testament Church was guided by a Divine Institution in the Levitical Priesthood so must we in the Gospel-Ministry They rested in the Orders of the Old Law and we must in those of the New Testament The Orders are different as he expresly declares but the Authority enjoyning them is the same That we must thus understand him appears further from these Words of his * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the Name of Episcopacy for this very Reason therefore having perfect Knowledge thereof before hand they ordained the aforesaid Officers i. e. Bishops and Deacons Clement observes here 1. That the Apostles did foresee there would be Contentions about the Order and Dignity of Bishops in the Church 2. That they took care to accommodate the Differences about Episcopacy by settling Officers in the Church 3. The Officers they settled were Bishops and Deacons and of these Bishops there were several in a Church who govern'd it in Common as we find in Ephesus Acts 20.17 28. and at Philippi Phil. 1.1 and here at Corinth It is manifest saith the Rector That Jesus Christ whilst on Earth modell'd his little Flock p. 2. according to this Pattern himself being as it were the High-Priest the twelve Apostles his seconds and the seventy Disciples still of a loner Rank This is spoken with great Assurance it is manifest saith he but you must take his bare Word for Proof 1. Is it manifest that Jesus Christ was as it were the High Priest This is a dangerous Assertion and savours of Socinianism The Socinians deny the reality of Christ's Priesthood and Satisfaction the Rector makes him but as it were High Priest If he will be at the Pains to read the Epistle to the Hebrews he will find that Jesus Christ had a real Priesthood and that he was and is the High Priest of our Profession I hope the Rector is no Socinian but when I compare this with some odd Passages of his about Justification of which hereafter it s no breach of Charity to say he ought to clear himself from the appearance of that growing Heresie They that are sound in the Faith ought to study a Form of sound Words The Scripture no where calls Jesus Christ as it were a High Priest He that can degrade Jesus Christ from the Honour of a real Priesthood to advance the honourable Order of Bishops is but as it were a Friend that is no real one to either 2. Is it manifest that the twelve Apostles were under Christ as the Priests under the Chief Priests That they were under him none Questions but not as Priests for they were none as all Protestants confess And I hope this Gentleman will not make them Priests in a Popish Sense to offer up the Idolatrous Sacrifice of the Mass The number of Twelve has no relation to the Priesthood The Priests were divided into twenty four Orders and not into twelve 1 Chron. 24. Bishop Andrews makes the twelve Apostles to answer the Princes of the twelve Tribes Form of Goverr p. 25. which our Rector mistook perhaps for twelve Priests But be it as it will Num. 1.16 he is manifestly mistaken in his Notion of the Apostles as well as of Christ 3. Is it manifest that the seventy two Disciples answer'd the Levites Bishop Andrews and other Assertors of Episcopacy make them to answer the seventy two Elders whom no Man but Mr. G. will affirm to be a Bench of Inferiour Levites Num. 11.16 The Great Council of seventy had the supream Judicature under Moses who was not the High Priest which he 'll scarce allow the Presbyters much less the Deacons whom the seventy Disciples represented according to his Parallel Having told us how Christ Modelled his Flock whilst he was on Earth he proceeds to acquaint us in what State he left it at his Death Here he is at a loss what to say and yet must needs teach his Reader what he does not understand himself He seem'd p. 2. saith he to leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy or in the Power of Twelve When I read these Words I turn'd
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
Six Deacons for Stephen the Seventh was Martyred were scattered except the Apostles All were scattered That is all the 120 which made up that Famous Council in Acts 1.15 except the Apostles †Vid. Lighis in loc Lucius of Cyrene who was none of the Seven Deacons was one of those that were sc attered Acts 11.19 20. and 13.1 The Rector wou'd persuade they were only the Six Deacons that were scattered of which Philip Preached in Samaria and he has found the rest in Acts 11.19 We have seen the invalidity of his Four Reasons to prove Deacons to be Ministers of the Word and Sacraments He is apt to believe these Deacons were afterwards called Elders P. 6. as having power to Minister the Word and Sacrament first mentioned Acts 11.30 but it will not follow that they were equal with the Apostles They that are so dispos'd may take Conjectures for Articles of Faith but we have prov'd the Deacons to be very different from Presbyters and if the Church of England did not think them so she wou'd not Ordain them over again to make Presbyters of them Who ever affirm'd Presbyters to be equal with the Apostles Dare he say Bishops were equal with them Ordination at least must be excepted saith the Rector I always thought the Apostles excell'd Presbyters in far greater things than that of Ordination but if you be so good natur'd as to allow the Rector that the Apostles were superiour to Presbyters in point of Ordination and intrusted none but the Bishops with it after their Decease he is even content that a Presbyter should be equal with an Apostle in other respects Though Elders are first mentioned Acts 11.30 they were in being before they are spoken of as the ordinary settled Governours of the Churches Mr. G. proceeds to prove That Presbyters could not Ordain P. 7 8 because Philip the Deacon could not confer the Holy Ghost upon the believing Samaritans the Apostles sent Peter and John who by Prayer and laying on of Hands confer'd the Holy Ghost upon them Acts 8.12 15 17. and thereby Ordain'd them Therefore the Government of the Church and Ordination was lodg'd in the Apostles only or as Supreme 1. He is not sure Ordination was intended there himself owns That some may P. 7 and with reason believe it Confirmation So doth Dr. Hammond and sevcral others and if we understand Confirmation by this miraculous Conferring of the Holy Ghost his Argument is spoil'd 2. If Ordination was intended it no more prejudices Presbyters Power of Ordaining than it doth that of the Bishops for neither can confer those extraordinary Gifts 3. All that had power of Ordination had not power of giving the Holy Ghost Evangelists were trusted with the former but not with the latter Timothy and Titus Ordained but did not give the Holy Ghost He fancies that Simon Magus desired the Ordaining Power v. 19. Give me this Power What Power What Power P. 8. saith the Rector Not Power to labour in the Word and Doctrine and to administer the Holy Sacraments Like enough for Simon Magus as little cared for that as some others who have possess'd themselves of that Power he so much coveted What Power was it I doubt not but you 'l expect some rare Discovery having rais'd our Expectations to a great heighth at length he resolves the Question and tells us it was a Power of conferring that Power i. e. as he explains it That on whomsoever he laid his hands he might be Ordained to the Ministry That is in plain terms he desired to be made a Bishop and to be intrusted with the ordaining power I question whether the Power then was so profitable as it has prov'd since however we are oblig'd to this Gentleman for helping us to so clear a Notion of Simony III. He finds another Ordination in Acts 9.17 p. 8 9. Where it is said That Ananias laid his hand upon Saul this might he to Ordain him for he laid his hands on him not only that he might receive his sight but be also filled with the Holy Ghost But I desire the Reader to observe that according to this Hypothesis Saul was Ordained before he was Baptized He was Ordained as he calls it v. 17. and was Baptized after Ananias had laid his hands on him v. 18. That is he is first made an Apostle then a Christian He makes Ananias but a private Believer or Disciple P. 9. His being call'd a Disciple v. 10. is no evidence of it for the Apostles are so call'd Acts 1.15 How comes he to forget that Dorotheus calls him a Bishop of Damascus This would have something help'd his Hypothesis seeing he was tesolv'd to have him Ordained before he was Baptized e'en let it pass for an Episcopal Ordination But that which spoils all is Paul saith of himself that he was an Apostle not of Men neither by Man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Gal. ◠1 IV. In the next place he considers the Ordination in Acts 13.1 2 3. P. 10. Now there were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers and the Holy Ghost said unto them Separate me Barnabas and Saul J. O. Argued from this Instance that Presbyters have Power to Ordain for the Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 What saith Mr. G. to this even nothing to the purpose Ibid. The Persons here spoken of saith he were Teachers that is ordinary Ministers generally speaking but call'd Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ to Ordain Barnabas and Saul 1. He confounds Prophets and Teachers which are distinguished here and in 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Prophets were extraordinary Teachers ordinary Officers this Gentleman to serve a turn makes them one and the same If this be not to pervert the Scripture I know not what is Luke saith There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers That is if we may believe the Rector Prophets and Prophets for the Teachers were Prophets saith he 2. The Teachers are call'd Prophets saith he They are so call'd by him and not by the Holy Ghost 3. They are called Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ by the Holy Ghost as he thinks How can he prove that the Holy Ghost did speak by Immediate Revelation to the Teachers here The Text speaks nothing of it Dixit spiritus per Prophet as istos Grot. in loc It 's most reasonable to think he signify'd his Mind by one or more of the Prophets to the rest of the Ministers then to fancy he advanced the Teachers into the order of Prophets for the time Had the Revelation been Communicated to all in Common what needed the Evangelist to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets But there were both in Antioch Prophets to whom the Revelation came and
Teachers or ordinary Presbyters who were included in the Command of separating Paul and Barnabas for the Apostleship of the Gentiles This Ordination which was in favour of the Gentile World was intended for a President to the Gentile Churches in after Ages as Learned Dr. Lightfoot observes * Vol 1. p. 289. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters remains firm and unshaken and all that Mr. G. hath said against it serves only to discover the Strength of it He undertakes to shew the difference between Apostles and Prophets but not a Word of difference between the Prophets and the Teachers that would have discovered the Fallacy of his Reasonings He saith Apostles and Prophets had an extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit of God P. 10 11. yet with this difference The Authority of the Apostles was fixt and habitual their Character indelible and their Office perpetual I expected he would have said an infallible Assistance but it may be he intended that by extraordinary though the following Words are a little inconsistent and divest the Apostles of the extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit except in some cases The Apostles saith he for the most part P. 11. acted as it were according to their own discretion What without the Conduct of the Spirit The Rector should have had the discretion to have conceal'd so dangerous a Position which strikes at the Foundations of our Faith This Principle naturally leads to Deism and Irreligion But worse follows I suppose saith he in Matters of Importance and in Doctrines Essential guided by the Spirit I hope he does not mean as he speaks Does he but. Suppose they were guided by the Spirit Admit he means by supposing his taking it for granted then the meaning is They were guided by the Spirit only in two Cases 1. In Matters of Importance i. e. in Practicals if I underftand him Ibid. We conceive all the Rules the holy Apostles left its about the agenda of Religion were given by Inspiration and that all the practical Duties they recommend to us are Matters of Importance to us they are so what they are to this Gentleman he knows best 2. He supposes they were guided by the Spirit in Doctrines Essential 1. It 's well he ascribes any of their Doctrines to the Holy Spirit of God but why not all as well as some The Spirit was promis'd them to guide them into all Truth John 16.13 Jesus Christ saith The Spirit should guide them into all Truth No saith Mr. G. the Spirit guided them in Doctrines Essential only Christ saith The Holy Ghost shall teach you all things John 14.26 Mr. G. saith Not all things but Matters of Importance and Doctrines Essential only Doubtless the Lord Jesus was as good as his Word and gave the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit to the Blessed Apostles in all Points of Faith and Practice they recommend to us though Mr. G. doth not believe it His Vnbelief cannot make the Faith of God without effect let God be true and every man a liar Rom. 3.3.4 2. According to his n retched supposition the holy Apostles might be mistaken in Doctrines not Essential for they had not the Assistances of the Spirit as he suggests And if they might be mistaken who knows but they were mistaken and might obtrude Errors instead of Truth upon the World And if so how can it be prov'd to be our Duty to believe those Doctrines not Essential But thanks be to God we have a sure word of promise and consequently a sure rule of Faith and Practice whatever the Rector insinuates to the contrary in favour of Atheistical Spirits 3. The Learned are not agreed about the Number of Doctrines Essential those are Doctrines Essential to Christianity with some that are but Integrals if I may so say with others All Protestants are agreed that Essential Doctrines are but few so that most of the Doctrines of Christianity are but discretionary Opinions and no Dictates of the Holy Ghost with this Man Tell it not in Gath lest the uncircumcised rejoice 4. Admit the Creed call'd the Apostles be a Summary of Essential Doctrines it does not expresly assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost and therefore the Socinians can freely Subscribe it Will the Rector say the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy Ghost are Doctrines not Essential and consequently not delivered by the Spirit of God 5. Is the Superiority of Bishops an Essential Doctrine If it be they are no Christians who do not believe it for they reject an Essential Doctrine of Christianity But no Sober Protestant will affirm it for this were to damn all the Foreign Reformed Churches who believe it not If it be no Essential Doctrine as certainly it is not we are left to our liberty whether we will believe it or not for the Apostles were not guided by the Spirit in delivering it according to Mr. G's Hypothesis He proceeds to describe the Prophets Their Power saith he was not constant they spake only as the Spirit mov'd P. 11. which if he ceas'd to do they were no longâ—r Prophets Thus the Teachers at Antioch ordinary Ministers and under the Apostles yet being moved by the Holy Ghost became Prophets and Ordained Barnabas and Saul Here he mistakes also 1. In making the Prophets to be only such while they were actually Inspired There were Prophets by Office and they are so called when the Spirit of Prophecy did not actually move them 2 Kings 3.11 15. 1 Cor. 14.29 32. Their Power was constant though the Exercise of it was not so Nathan is call'd a Prophet when the Spirit of Prophecy was not actually upon him 2 Sam. 7.2 3. 2. All Inspirations by the Holy Ghost do not make a Prophet Balaam and Caiaphas were Inspired but no Divine Prophets Ananias was mov'd by the Holy Ghost to lay his Hands on Paul for recovering of his sight but it does not appear that he was a Prophet he is no where so call'd God's speaking to him in a Vision doth not make him a Prophet as Mr. G. fancies for so he did to Cornelius who was so far from being a Prophet that at that time he was not a Christian Acts 10.3 4. Admit the Ordinary Ministers at Antioch were inwardly mov'd by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Paul and Barnabas which is not said in the Text that doth not make them Prophets For Luke distinguisheth between the Prophets and the Teachers though Mr. G. designedly confounds them Nor doth a particular direction of the Holy Ghost constitute Prophets as appears in Ananias a Disciple and it may be a Teacher and in Cornelius neither Disciple nor Teacher 3. He calls the Teachers at Antioch Ordinary Ministers and yet saith they were Prophets that is extraordinary Ministers for himself owns Prophets to be extraordinary Officers One would think if they were ordinary Ministers they were not extraordinary If extraordinary they were not ordinary I leave it to
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
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