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
judg'd by the Nobles They put us in a worse Condition say the Confederate Nobles then God would have the Pagans to be in when he said Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods We Decree and Enact that from henceforth no Clerk or Lay-Man bring any Cause before the Ordinary or his Delegate except it be that of Heresie Matrimony or Usury That so our Jurisdiction being revived and that they who are enrich'd by our Impoverishment may be reduced to the State of the Primitive Church They conclude in the Words of the Emperor's Letter It was always our Intention to oblige the Clergy of every Order especially the greatest to continue the same in the Faith that they were in the Primitive Church leading an Apostolical Life M. West ad An. 1247. p. 217 218. and imitating the Humility of the Lord Jesus The Civil Dominion of the Clergy was one of the main Grievances of the Bohemians which they would have redress'd in the Council of Basil Fox's Acts and Mon. ad An. 1438. Their Delegates Disputed fifty Days upon this and three other Articles in the Council The Lordly Titles and Dominion of the Clergy were very offensive to several Confessors and Martyrs in this Kingdom before the Reformation That eminent Light of his Age Jo. Wickliff affirm'd Non stat purè Clericum absque Mortali peccato civiliter dominari that it was a Mortal Sin for a Clergy-Man to exercise Civil Dominion My Lord Cobham calls the Possessions and Lordships of Bishops the Venom of the Church Swinderby Wals Hist p. 208. a learned Confessor and Martyr as Mr. Fox thinks hath these Words If Men speaken of worldly Power and Lordships Fox ad Ann. Do. 1413. and Worships with other Vices that reignen therein what Priest that desires and has most hereof in what Degree soever he be he is most Antichrist of all the Priests that ben on Earth John Purvey Fox ad A. D. 1390. a Learned Writer against Popery whom Thomas Walden calls the Library of Lollards and Gloser upon Wickliff saith It is a great Abomination that Bishops Monks and other Prelates Ibid. p. 5.30 Edit 1576. be so great Lords in this World whereas Christ with his Apostles and Disciples never took upon then secular Dominion He adds That all Christians ought to the utmost of their Power and Strength to swear that they will reduce such shavelings to the Humility and Poverty of Christ and his Apostles William Tindal that famous Instrument of Reformation who was burnt in Flanders by the Instigation of the English Monks because he had translated the Scriptures to the English Tongue writes That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing that Bishops should deal in Civil Causes See his Works p. 124. and in p. 140. What Names have they My Lord Bishop my Lord Arch-Bishop if it please your Lordship if it please your Grace The brightness of this Truth hath shined upon some Doctors of the Roman Church in the darkest Times Ocham wrote against the temporal Dominion of the Pope and Prelates Gen. 45. ad An. Dom. 1338. Ad nihilum deducens potestatem Papae Praelatorum in temporali Dominio Acts and Mon. p. 667. as Nauclerus tells us One of the Cardinals in the Council of Basil in a warm Speech for Amedeus Duke of Savoy Candidate for the Popedom hath these Words I have often consented unto their Opinion which said it was expedient that the Temporal Dominions should be divided from the Ecclesiastical Estate For I did think that the Priests should thereby be made more apt to the Divine Ministry The Roman Pagan Priests medled not in Civil Affairs because if they had they must of Necessity either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neglect the Worship of the Gods or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prejudice the Citizens by omitting the Duties owing to the one or the other which would often interfere Plut. Quest Rom. ult The very Light of Nature taught the Heathen that the Service of the Gods and Attendance upon secular Imployments were inconsistent For this Reason the Apostle forbids the Ministers of Jesus Christ especially Bishops To entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life 2 Tim. 2.3 4. I will conclude this Head with a Passage or two out of Mouns Jurieu's Pastoral Letters to the persecuted French Protestants In his first Pastoral Letter Past Let. 1. p. 4 5. he thus animadverts upon The Pastoral Letter of my Lord the Bishop of Meaux These Gentlemen are well advanc'd since the Authors and Founders of Christianity who call'd themselves plainly by their own Names without any other Title than that of Servants of Jesus Christ and Apostles of our Lord. My Lord's St. Peter and St. Paul had forgotten to set the Character of their Grandeur on the Front of their Pastoral Letters or Epistles 'T is not very Edifying to see the marks of Pride and worldly Vanity on the front of a Pastoral Letter He adds a little after Do not suffer your selves to be abused by those that tell you that in some Protestants States the Bishops retain the same Honours The Bishops of England have this to say for themselves that they are Peers of the Realm to which State and Condition the Name and Title of my Lord doth appertain and belong But besides I am perswaded that the wiser of these Gentlemen will willingly sacrifice these Titles which do not suff ciently bespeak the Humility of a Minister of Jesus Christ to a general Reformation in the Church when it shall be receiv'd I hope by this Time the Reader is convinced how impertinently Mr. G. Appeals to the Quakers Pref. p. 4. whom he calls indifferent Persons and honest in this Case because they have quarrell'd not at the Title of Lord only but at that of Master also Jesus Christ and his Apostles the General Council of Chalcedon the Fathers Princes Confessors and Doctors here witnessing against the Lordly Titles and Dominion of Bishops were no Quakers J. O. will not contend for the Title of Master which Mr. G. in Conformity to his indifferent Quaker doth not think fit to give him in his whole Book 3. A third Way saith the Rector is to accuse us of symbolizing with Papists p. 5. I cou'd wish there were no occasion for this Charge Our Disagreement with the Church of England is in those things wherein she agrees with that of Rome and in which both of them disagree with the Practise of the Apostles and the Reformed Churches abroad He tells us out of Euseb Lib. 1. it should have been Lib. 2. c. 16. That Mark constituted Churches in Alexandria that so great a Multitude both of Men and Women there embraced the Christian Faith c. These Churches Mark govern'd and after him Bishop Anianus as is shew'd in these Papers This Quotation he the rather produces because it has been over-look'd of late This
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
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
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
way of managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles consider'd The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no Power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops proved 1. From their Doctrine That Bishops and Presbyters are the same 2. From their own Testimony 3. The Testimony of F. Paul 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops P. 1 to 45. Chap. II. Whether the Jewish Church was the First Established Church The Levitical Priest-hood no Pattern for Gospel-Ministers Clemens Rom. Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modelled His Church after the Jewish Pattern or left His Church in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His first Instance of Ordination from Acts 1. Consider'd 2. The Ordination of the Seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections Answer'd 3. His third Instance of Ordination from Acts 9.17 consider'd 4. His Fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated The difference between Apostles and Prophets as stated by him consider'd 5. His fifth Instance from Acts 14.13 Examined 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7.1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Vindicated 8.1 Tim. 4.14 for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated Dr. Owen Defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9.1 Pet. 5.2 Vindicated P. 45. to 99. Chap. III. The Apostle left the Government of Ephesus in the Presbyters This Establishment prov'd to be his last Divine Perpetual Acts 20. Explain'd This Government never alter'd Presbyters a Divine Remedy against Schism Superiour Bishops not the Remedy Timothy no Diocesan Bishop An unfix'd Evangelist Of the Asian Angels not so call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels Ignatius his Bishop not Diocesan Titus no Diocesan Bishop Presbyters are Rulers P. 99. to p. 121. Chap. IV. The first Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome Acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Asserters of Episcopacy Bp. Hall Dr. Hammond c deny'd by the Rhemists Bp. Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 consider'd Jerom Vindicated Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's first Bonds The second Epistle written in his first Bonds An Objection Answer'd Acts 20.25 Consider'd P. 121. to p. 141. Chap. V. Of Evangelists whether they were fixed Neg. Acts 21.8 consider'd Timothy and Titus unfixed Hilarius his Account of Evangelist Eusebius's Testimony Vindicated Mark no fixed Evangelist Chrysostom's Account of Evangelists agreeing with Eusebius P. 141. to p. 151. Chap. VI. Of Parish-Discipline Presbyters have Power of Government 1. J. O's first Argument for Ordination by Presbyters viz. the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters acknowledged 1 Tim. 5.17 consider'd 1 Tim. 1.3 doth not prove Timothy Bp. of Ephesus Dr. Whittaker Vindicated Ignatius's One Altar explain'd The extent of the Church of Ephesus An Objection Answer'd Rev. 5.11 Vindicated Dr. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated 2. J. O's second Argument for Ordination by Presbyters and third Argument Vindicated Presbyters succeeded the Apostles Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated More Testimonies to the same effect P. 151. to p. 190. ERRATA PAge 11. Marg. after 80. read 1. P. 12. M. for 1235. r. 1245. P. 14. M. for 5.30 r. 530. P. 26. M. f. P. 14. r. p. 13 14. P. 35. l. 25. r. Pope's Casualties P. 46 l. 20. f. 24. r. 26. P. 53. l. 22. f. 72. r. 73. P. 63. M. f. clerios r. clericis P. 67. l. 13. dele a. l. 15 r. resolved P. 87. l. 6. r. Sanhedrin P. 89. l. 11. f. of r. at p. 100. l. 10. f. 18. r. 28. p. 104. l. 3. r. story p. 106. l. 31. r. Presbyters p. 109. l. 38. r. Mal. 2.1.7 p. 111. l. 38. r. Diocess p. 120. l. 7. r. 2 Cor. 2.12 13. p. 122. l. 15. r. Goncession p. 140. l. 13. r. ye p. 143. l. 13. r. Cretensis p. 148. l. 3.15 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 30. p. 149. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 151. l. 22. r. Crambe p. 153. l. 8. r. there p. 157. l. 12. r. Apostle p. 160. l. 2. f. 22. r. 2.2 l. ult r. an p. 172. l. 36. f. dot r. not p. 175. l. 8. r. Conduct A Defence of Scripture-Ordination c. CHAP. I. The Dissenters Justified in their Way of Managing Controversies Calvin Vindicated Bishops Lordly Titles Considered The Parallel between the Canons in Acts 15. and the English Canons Parish-Ministers have no power of Discipline The Waldenses had no Superiour Bishops prov'd 1. From their Doctrine 2. From their own Testimony 3. From F. Paul's Testimony 4. By several Instances of Ordination by their Presbyters in England before the Reformation Of the uninterrupted succession of Bishops BEFORE he enters upon his Subject he desires his common Reader to observe the unfair way the Dissenters have in managing Controversies Pref. p. 2. 1. Do they pick up imperfect Notes of Sermons Preached a Year or two before and take upon them to Confute them when the Authors are dead and cannot Vindicate themselves This were a little unfair but he knows who did so when he Preached his Sermon of Consecration in Answer to a Sermon of Mr. Baldwin under the Fictitious Name of Calvin as I am told because forsooth Calvus is Bald and Vin is Wine and so you have the English of Calvin que Bald-wine Doubtless so Learned an Etymologist can give a Reason why the odd Epithet of Bald is attributed to Wine I am apt to think Calvin himself as Learned as he was never thought of this rare Etymon of his Name But to return to our Subject 2. Do the Dissenters use to lodge their Manuscripts in some Friend's hand with a charge that none shall see them except they undertake to Answer them and promise to return them the same Day This is an unfair way of managing Controversies and it is much more unfair for a Man to triumph that a Manuscript clog'd with inch unreasonable Conditions is not Answer'd The Rector can Name the unfair Man that hath thus managed the Controversie of the Consecration-Sermon mention'd before 3. Or do the Dissenters pretend to Answer Books and leave the greatest part of them unanswered He knows who does so also and Insinuates in his Title Page as if he had Answered the Whole when indeed deed it is far otherwise This is an unfair way of managing Controversies which somebody is guilty of But let 's hear how he proves his Charge I. In most of their Books be the Argument what it will Pref. they represent us as Arminians saith he Persons that have a sore place complain they are hurt if one do but touch them This Charge of Arminianism is either true or false if true confess it and give glory to God if false disprove it I doubt the Rector cannot acquit himself whatever others do for
Passage is a little unluckily produced for 1. It over-throws the Notion of the learned Assertors of Episcopacy that a Diocess is the lowest Species of a Church and that particular Congregations are but Oratories and no Churches A Bishop and a Church being Relatives But Eusebius speaks of Churches of Alexandria therefore there must be Bishops of Alexandria not one Bishop and this agreeable enough to the Apostolical Platforms who appointed several Bishops in one City Acts 20.17 28. Phil. 1.1 2. Mark was an Evangelist an extraordinary unfixed Officer Eph. 4.11 1 Pet. 5.13 Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion and an Evangelist Hist 11.14.23 Ibid. 3. Anianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the Ministry of the Church of Alexandria not as a Bishop of a Superior Order to the Presbyters there but as an honourable President in their Assemblies such a Moderator as the Reformed Churches have in their Synods and Assemblies without Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues And that he was no more Cap. to p. 126. 130. J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Plea out of Jerom and Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria where we have a clear Proof of Presbyters Ordaining for almost two hundred Years together The Rector did not judge it adviseable to meddle with J. O's Remarks upon the Church of Alexandria Either he had read that Chapter in J. O's Book or he had not If he had he is inexcusable if not he should read Books before he undertake to answer them Prov. 18.13 He that answereth a Matter before he heareth or understandeth it it is Folly and Shame unto him 4. Moreover so great a Multitude saith the Rector out of Euseb there embraced the Faith c. He suppresseth the rest of the Sentence which is thus that even Philo judg'd it worth while to describe their way of Living Our Author would perswade us by this half Sentence that there were vast numbers of Converts in Alexandria in Mark 's Time but leaves out the rest by a Cunning c. for he knew the invalidity of Euseb's Reason that Philo had described the Christians in Egypt whereas the Truth is he writes of the Essenes and not of the Christians as the Learned have prov'd This I Note only by the by as an Instance of this Gentleman's unfairness in quoting Authors otherwise I am not concern'd in the numbers of the Alexandrian Converts for as they increas'd there and in other Places they multiplied into more Churches who had Pastors assign'd them with Power of Discipline over their respective Flocks In short the instance of the Alexandrian Bishop makes altogether for us for he was but the chief Presbyter as an Arch-Deacon was the chief Deacon chosen and named by the Presbyters without any Consecration and in his room the Presbyters ordain'd another as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea Mr. G. in the next Place shews the Parallel between their Church Goverment and that of the Apostles Our Episcopal Government saith he is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws made and consented unto by the Convocation consisting of Bishops and Presbyters and by the Multitude of Believers that is their Representatives in Parliament And thus it was in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. Let 's a little consider this Paragraph 1. I expected he would have said the Episcopal Government is established upon the Word of God but he ingeniously confesseth the Truth of the Matter that it is established upon certain Canons and Laws of humane devising We conceive the Laws of Christ and the Canons of the Apostles contained in the New Testament sufficient for the Government of the Church 2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jerusalem to be as the Representatives of the People in Parliament Many of our Learned Antiquaries have industriously laboured to search into the Original of Parliaments some conceive they owe their beginning to the Normans some to the Saxons others derive them higher all confess the Rise of them like the Head of Nilus very obscure but this Gentleman by an unparallel'd Felicity of Invention has found them in the Council at Jerusalem Acts 15. where no Body before ever dreamt of them However I am glad to find him speaking any thing in favour of Parliaments for some Years ago when they were out of Request he advanced the Prerogative to that Degree that Parliaments the Bulwarks of the Subjects Liberty were very insignificant things with him I will give a few Instances 1. He would exempt the Clergy from the Power of Parliaments in Point of Taxes We the Clergy saith he are hook'd in Three Sermons of Subjection Pr. 1683 Pref. p. 4. I know not how to Pay Taxes without the consent of the Convocation 2. He will not allow the aggriev'd Subject the benefit of Petitioning and Addressing their Prince especially when he is under some disadvantage 3. He makes the King in Effect the sole Proprietor of our Estates and saith Sermon 1. p. 11 we must supply his Occasions the five hundred at once i. e. a House of Commons should forbid us because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription p. 13. The meaning is this the King has Power to Tax us without the Consent of Parliament 4. He adds and to this i. e. to supply the King without the Consent of Parliament we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should be an Vsurper and a Tyrant p. 13 14 15. Nay saith our Author a Violent and Originally unjust Power by success becomes a Legal and Righteous Authority 5. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much sweld their Properties too much enlarged their Liberties too much extended p. 17. This was in the Year 1683. when the Popish Plot had been stifled sham-Plots set on Foot for the Destruction of the best Patriots the Rights and Franchises of Cities and Corporations undermined and violated Parliaments disgraced Popery and Slavery breaking in irresistibly upon us under the Conduct and Influence of the then Duke of York 6. He affirms that the Prince is accountable to none but God for any misgovernment nay he is in Effect continues he the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Vsurp and Exercise it nor can the Subject conscientiously resist him p. 21. 7. He thinks it 's one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Priviledges 8. p. 22. He conceives the Kings Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which he is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution P. 23. 9. If a Prince should not give this Assurance it is my Judgment saith he he is not obliged to govern strictly by the present Law Ibid. I doubt I have tired the Reader with these Political Maxims Sibthorp and Mainwaring were dull Fellows to this grand Master of Politicks who has left it wholly to his Prince's good Nature whether he will make use of his multitude of Believers
does he mean that some of them have strong presumptions others have moral assurance of the Succession Or rather that their moral assurance is no more than a strong presumption and so the meaning is they strongly presume they are Ministers but cannot be certain upon this Principle This is but very cold comfort to one who labours under Fears and Temptations about his acceptance with God in the Exercise of his Ministry The inextricable difficulties about the Succession which have puzzled the most Learned and diligent Inquirers may increase but can have no tendency to remove his Doubts The Waldenses prov'd their Call to the Ministry by the Success Act Mon. p. 234. and not by the Suecession of it as we noted before and instead of perplexing their Heads with an uninterrupted Succession they asserted this Position Such as hear or obey the word of God and have a right Faith are the right Church of Christ and to this Church the Keys of the Church are given to drive away Wolves and to institute true Pastors Nor are they singular in this Principle it is asserted by the Learned Defenders of the Reformation in their Discourses against the Jesuits the stiff Maintainers of this Succession and they have demonstrated That the Being of the Christian Church cannot depend upon this Succession and that it hath been interrupted again and again There may be a sort of Succession without a true Church as in the Romish false Church there may be a true Church without a Succession as the Foreign Reformed Churches Eccl. Polit. Lib. VII p. 37 38. Mr. Hooker affirms the whole Church visible the true original Subject of all Power and thence infers that a continued Succession of Bishops is not necessary to Ordination This Strongly Presumptuous Gentleman should have answered J. O's Reasons against this Succession before he had talk'd of his moral assurance concerning it But some people are never more sure than when they are furthest from Truth Thus I have follow'd him through his tedious Preface let not the Reader blame me for want of Method in some places because I follow the Author in his Digressions CHAP. II. The Jewish Church not the first established Church The Levitical Priesthood no Pattern for Gospel Ministers Clemens Romanus Vindicated Whether Jesus Christ modell'd his Church after the Jewish Pattern or left it in a State of Oligarchy as our Author saith His 1. instance of Ordination from Acts 1. consider'd 2. The Ordination of the seven Deacons They were Ministers of Tables not of the Word and Sacraments Prov'd from Scripture and Antiquity Objections answer'd 3. His third instance of Ordination from Act. 9.17 consider'd 4. His fourth from Acts 13.1 2 3. This instance of Ordination by Presbyters vindicated His account of Apostles and Prophets examin'd 5. His instance from Acts 14.13 examin'd 6. Acts 19.6 7. consider'd 7. 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. vindicated 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 For Ordination by Presbyters vindicated Dr. Owen defended The Rector unsound in the Doctrine of Justification 9. 1 Pet. 5.2 vindicated HE takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Apostles were Superiour to Presbyters which no Body ever deny'd This is the chief Scope of the first Chapter of his Book in which he hath furnished us with some rare Notions of Church Government He tells us P. 1. that the Church of the Jews was the first established Church in the World that we know of Had God no Church in the World for about 24.50 Years till the Law was given upon Mount Sinai Were there no worshipping Congregations no Divine Laws of Worship in the World before Moses's Time We read of Sacrifices and Invocation on the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.3 4 24. And were there no Assemblies for those Acts of Worship We read of the Sons of God as distinct from the Daughters of Men and that the mixture of the professedly Holy Seed of Seth with the prophane Gainites sill'd the World with Wickedness Gen. 6. The degeneracy of the Sons of God the visible Church of God at that Time caus'd the Flood He that can believe that God had no Church before the Flood may also believe there never was a Flood Did Noah the Father of the new World who had immediate Rcvelation from God as most of the Patriarchs had establish no Church among his numerous Posterity Was God indifferent whether he would have a Church Or was Noah unfaithful in transmitting the Divine Establishment to his Off-spring It is true they soon degenerated Gen. 11. but that 's an Argument they had been a Covenant-People Was there no Church establish'd in Abrabam's numerous and princely Family Gen. 14.14 23.6 He erected Altars for Sacrifice and call'd upon the Lord whereever he came God renew'd his Covenant with him and admitted his Infant Seed by Circumcision into a visible Church-membership whereby they were distinguished from the rest of the World Did righteous Melchizedeck King of Salem who was Priest of the most High God as the Patriarchs generally were take no care to establish a Church among his Subjects I hope one may lawfully doubt this Gentleman's Notions of Church-Government who thus blunders about the very existence of a Church But continues he P 1. The Jewish Church was govern'd by a High-Priest Inferior Priests and Levites 1. I begin now to suspect the Reason why he would have no establish'd Church before the Jewish he does not read of any subordinate Priests and Levites that were subject to the Patriarchal Priests He seems to be content that God should have no Church in the World for almost 2500 Years rather than want a Model for his Hierarchy consisting of Bishops Priests and Deacons This is agreeable enough to his Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops are essential to a Church 2. The High-Priest Priests and Levites are not the Model for Gospel Churches for we read of no Institution of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the New Testament We find Bishops and Deacons there Phil. 1.1 but the Scripture-Bishop is the same with the Scripture-Presbyter 3. The Jewish High-Priest was an eminent Type of Jesus Christ the High-Priest of our Profession He is one as the Jewish High-Priest was and in this respect we follow the Jewish Typical President Wo are under Jesus Christ our only Chief-Priest who hath appointed Presbyters and Deacons as under Officers in the Christian Church 4. This is the great Argument of the Papists for the Pope's Supremacy the Jews had one Chief-Priest therefore the Christians must have one Chief-Bishop So Bellarmine Argues De Rom. Pontif. I. 9. It is unhappy that the Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy equally serve the Papacy The Fathers especially Clemens Romanus saith the Rector seems to make this a President for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons Ibid. The first answering the High Priest the second the Inferiour Priests and the third the Levites Either the Rector has never read Clemens Romanus or
he disingenuously abuses his Reader for 1. Clemens no where saith as he makes him to speak that there were Bishops Priests and Deacons as three distinct Officers in the Christian Church 2. He no where saith that the Bishop answer'd the High Priest the Presbyter the Inferiour Priests and the Deacon the Levites There is not a Word of this in all that Epistle to the Corinthians to which Mr. G. refers us 3. He mentions but two Orders of New Testament Officers Bishops and Deacons The Apostles saith he Preaching the Gospel in Countrys and Cities ordain'd the first Fruits of them that believ'd having tried them by the Spirit to he Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. ad Cor. The same Officers were in the Church of Corinth at this Time which the Apostle had settled in the Church of Philippi Phil. 1.1 Bishops and Deacons There were several Bishops in the single Church of Philippi and not one Chief so in this Church of Corinth which was govern'd by several Bishops whom Clemens calls Presbyters These govern'd the Church in Common He does not mention any chief Bishop in Corinth but he affirms that the Presbyters there perform'd the Duties of their Episcopacy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Corinthians to be subject to their Elders * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish this excellent Epistle of Clemens which I hear is lately done into English were in every hand It would abundantly satisfie the unprejudiced that the Order of Superiour Bishops had no being in the Church in Clemens his Time He writes to the Corinthian Church about Schism and that occassion'd by some of their Presbyters but has not one Word of Obedience to a Superiour Diocesan Bishop as the remedy against Schism The only Passage that gives the least umbrage to a Diocesan Episcopacy is that which mentions High-Priests Priests and Levites under the Law and a little after Bishops and Deacons under the Gospel Not that he makes the former Patterns of the latter for then he would have said Bishops Priests and Deacons as the Rector falsly affirms he doth but he expresly saith the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons We must explain Clemen's Bishops and Deacons by the New Testament and not by the Old for he speaks of an Apostolical Institution which we must look for in Pauls Epistles and not in the Levitical Law Now we find Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Paul's Bishops and Clemen's Bishop are the same Paul's Bishops were Presbyters for there were several of them in one Church Phil. 1.1 Clemen's Bishops are but Presbyters of which there were several in the Church of Corinth The force of Clemens his Argument is this As the Old Testament Church was guided by a Divine Institution in the Levitical Priesthood so must we in the Gospel-Ministry They rested in the Orders of the Old Law and we must in those of the New Testament The Orders are different as he expresly declares but the Authority enjoyning them is the same That we must thus understand him appears further from these Words of his * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the Name of Episcopacy for this very Reason therefore having perfect Knowledge thereof before hand they ordained the aforesaid Officers i. e. Bishops and Deacons Clement observes here 1. That the Apostles did foresee there would be Contentions about the Order and Dignity of Bishops in the Church 2. That they took care to accommodate the Differences about Episcopacy by settling Officers in the Church 3. The Officers they settled were Bishops and Deacons and of these Bishops there were several in a Church who govern'd it in Common as we find in Ephesus Acts 20.17 28. and at Philippi Phil. 1.1 and here at Corinth It is manifest saith the Rector That Jesus Christ whilst on Earth modell'd his little Flock p. 2. according to this Pattern himself being as it were the High-Priest the twelve Apostles his seconds and the seventy Disciples still of a loner Rank This is spoken with great Assurance it is manifest saith he but you must take his bare Word for Proof 1. Is it manifest that Jesus Christ was as it were the High Priest This is a dangerous Assertion and savours of Socinianism The Socinians deny the reality of Christ's Priesthood and Satisfaction the Rector makes him but as it were High Priest If he will be at the Pains to read the Epistle to the Hebrews he will find that Jesus Christ had a real Priesthood and that he was and is the High Priest of our Profession I hope the Rector is no Socinian but when I compare this with some odd Passages of his about Justification of which hereafter it s no breach of Charity to say he ought to clear himself from the appearance of that growing Heresie They that are sound in the Faith ought to study a Form of sound Words The Scripture no where calls Jesus Christ as it were a High Priest He that can degrade Jesus Christ from the Honour of a real Priesthood to advance the honourable Order of Bishops is but as it were a Friend that is no real one to either 2. Is it manifest that the twelve Apostles were under Christ as the Priests under the Chief Priests That they were under him none Questions but not as Priests for they were none as all Protestants confess And I hope this Gentleman will not make them Priests in a Popish Sense to offer up the Idolatrous Sacrifice of the Mass The number of Twelve has no relation to the Priesthood The Priests were divided into twenty four Orders and not into twelve 1 Chron. 24. Bishop Andrews makes the twelve Apostles to answer the Princes of the twelve Tribes Form of Goverr p. 25. which our Rector mistook perhaps for twelve Priests But be it as it will Num. 1.16 he is manifestly mistaken in his Notion of the Apostles as well as of Christ 3. Is it manifest that the seventy two Disciples answer'd the Levites Bishop Andrews and other Assertors of Episcopacy make them to answer the seventy two Elders whom no Man but Mr. G. will affirm to be a Bench of Inferiour Levites Num. 11.16 The Great Council of seventy had the supream Judicature under Moses who was not the High Priest which he 'll scarce allow the Presbyters much less the Deacons whom the seventy Disciples represented according to his Parallel Having told us how Christ Modelled his Flock whilst he was on Earth he proceeds to acquaint us in what State he left it at his Death Here he is at a loss what to say and yet must needs teach his Reader what he does not understand himself He seem'd p. 2. saith he to leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy or in the Power of Twelve When I read these Words I turn'd
this Scripture of the Institution of Deacons with the qualifications of Deacons in 1 Tim. 3. and it will appear their work was to serve Tables Ability or aptness to Teach is not mention'd among their Qualifications as it is in those of a Bishop or Presbyter 1 Tim. 3.2 The Apostle mentions several Characters that are common to both but distinguisheth the Bishop from the Deacon by this that the Bishop be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to Teach which is not required in the Deacons an evidence they are Ministers not of the Word but of Tables 4. The Sixth General Council of Constantinople acknowledges the Scripture-Deacons to be no more than Overseers of the Poor Thus the Council Seeing the Book of the Acts mentions Seven Deacons Ordained by the Apostles Invenimus eos locutos esse non de viris qui ministrant Mysteriis sed de Ministerio quod in usu mensarum adhibeatur Sexta Syn. in Trullo Can. 16. A. D. 692. the Council of Neocesarea determines there ought to be Seven in every Church but we having adapted the Opinion of the Fathers to the Apostles Expressions do find that they speak not of those who Ministred in the Sacred Mysteries but of such as Served at Tables Thus Chrysostom expounded the place as they add there This Testimony is the more considerable as not only containing the Opinion of 166 Bishops who lived about the latter end of the Seventh Age but affirming the Sense of the Fathers of former Ages to be the same with theirs By all which it appears That Deacons originally were but Overseers of the Poor In future Ages the case was much altered the Bishops affected to be Guardians of the Poor and to make the Deacons amends admitted them to Baptize and Preach The Bishops omit Preaching and become Servants of Tables and the Deacons from serving of Tables step up into the Pulpit and become Preachers 5. About the middle of the Fifth Age they were permitted to read Homilies in the Church but only in cases of necessity as when the Presbyter was disabled by reason of some Infirmity * Conc. Vasens Can. 4. 6. If the Ordination of Deacons as such made them Ministers of the Word and Sacraments as the Rector affirms how comes the Church of England to Ordain them again before they are compleat Ministers of the Sacrament What president have they in Scripture for this 7. It 's absurd to say That the Ordination of Deacons to serve Tables made them also Ministers of the Word and Sacraments One individual Ordination to one and the same work cannot confer two distinct Powers They may as well say the Ordination of a Parish-Priest makes him a Diocesan Bishop But let us hear the Rector's Reasons He thinks it 's clear they were Ordain'd not only to serve Tables but to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 1. Because 't is immediately noted saith he that the Word of God increased P. 4 V. 7. But he considered not that this is rather to be imputed to the Apostles giving themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word and Prayer Ver. 4. Having consigned the Service of Tables to the Deacons they attended the Ministry of the Word more constantly and with less distraction and then it follows the Word of God increased v. 7. 2. His next Reason is Stephen one of them Ibid. did great wonders c. none were able to resist the wisdom by which he spake v. 8 10. It 's not said that he Preached to the People only that he disputed in the Synagogue in defence of the Gospel which a private Man might do v. 9. 1 Pet. 3.15 3. His third Reason Philip another of them afterwards preached at Samaria ch 8. He did not Preach at Jerusalem but at Samaria after he had left Jerusalem and ceased to exercise the Office of a Deacon there Acts 8.4 5. He might be advanced to the Degree of an Evangelist Acts 21.8 If you find one that was a Presbyter half a Year ago now exercising Episcopal Jurisdicition will you say that a Presbyter as such hath Episcopal Jurisdiction Philip had served Tables at Jerusalem and afterwards preaches at Samaria does it follow that he preached as a Deacon when Preaching was no part of the Office of a Deacon as such Bishop Pearson confesseth he was an Evangelist at this time * Lect. V. in Act. p. 66. But suppose he had Preached at Jerusalem which docs not appear it was no more than what was usually done by all gifted Persons in those extraordinary times Apollos who was not perfectly Catechised in the Word of Christ nor so much as Baptized with the Baptism of Christ and therefore not Ordained by any Apostle yet Preached Acts 18.24 25. Grotius acknowledges that in those times to Persrcution private Persons might preach and he quotes to that purpose Acts 11.20 †In tali cumstantiâ evangelium praedicare non diaconorum tantum sed privatorum Grot. in Act. 8.5 Hilarius the Roman Deacon goes higher and saith That at the first planting of Christianity all were permitted to Preach Baptize and explain the Scriptures in the Congregation 1 Cor. 14.24 * Omnibus inter initia concessum est evangelizare baptizate scripturas in Ecclesia explanare Hilar. in Eph. 4. Origen being persecuted from Alexandria Preached publickly at Caesarea upon the desire of Theoctistus Bishop of the place before he was Ordain'd When Demetrius of Alexandria censured the action as irregular Theoctistus and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem Justified it and produced several Examples of the same nature * Niceph. Eccl. Hist V. 14. A Lay-man is allowed to teach at the request of the Clergy in a Council of Carthage held about the Year 436 †Laicus praesentibus clerios nisi ipsis rogantibusdocere non audeat Carth. Conc. IV. Can. 98. 4. His fourth Reason Because long after 't is observed by Luke that the rest of the Seven as I understand him preached the word in Phenice Cyprus and at Antioch P. 4. c. Acts 11.19 Luke saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they which were seatured abroad preached the Word The Rector makes bold to pervert the Text and saith the rest of the Seven Preach'd the Word and which is more unpardonable he puts the Words in a different Character as if they were the Words of Luke He has no colour to foist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest into this Text but it 's apparently done upon design to support an unscriptural Hypothesis It 's more pardonable to misrepresent a hundred Fathers than to alter one Text of the Sacred Scriptures He is a very bold Man that dare put Words in the Mouth of Inspired Writers Luke refers to Acts 8.1 They were all seattered abroad except the Apostles Who were these All Not the Six Deacons only * Pears Annal. Paul p. 1 Lect. IV. in Act. Apost p. 63 What Sense would it be to say All the
Six Deacons for Stephen the Seventh was Martyred were scattered except the Apostles All were scattered That is all the 120 which made up that Famous Council in Acts 1.15 except the Apostles †Vid. Lighis in loc Lucius of Cyrene who was none of the Seven Deacons was one of those that were sc attered Acts 11.19 20. and 13.1 The Rector wou'd persuade they were only the Six Deacons that were scattered of which Philip Preached in Samaria and he has found the rest in Acts 11.19 We have seen the invalidity of his Four Reasons to prove Deacons to be Ministers of the Word and Sacraments He is apt to believe these Deacons were afterwards called Elders P. 6. as having power to Minister the Word and Sacrament first mentioned Acts 11.30 but it will not follow that they were equal with the Apostles They that are so dispos'd may take Conjectures for Articles of Faith but we have prov'd the Deacons to be very different from Presbyters and if the Church of England did not think them so she wou'd not Ordain them over again to make Presbyters of them Who ever affirm'd Presbyters to be equal with the Apostles Dare he say Bishops were equal with them Ordination at least must be excepted saith the Rector I always thought the Apostles excell'd Presbyters in far greater things than that of Ordination but if you be so good natur'd as to allow the Rector that the Apostles were superiour to Presbyters in point of Ordination and intrusted none but the Bishops with it after their Decease he is even content that a Presbyter should be equal with an Apostle in other respects Though Elders are first mentioned Acts 11.30 they were in being before they are spoken of as the ordinary settled Governours of the Churches Mr. G. proceeds to prove That Presbyters could not Ordain P. 7 8 because Philip the Deacon could not confer the Holy Ghost upon the believing Samaritans the Apostles sent Peter and John who by Prayer and laying on of Hands confer'd the Holy Ghost upon them Acts 8.12 15 17. and thereby Ordain'd them Therefore the Government of the Church and Ordination was lodg'd in the Apostles only or as Supreme 1. He is not sure Ordination was intended there himself owns That some may P. 7 and with reason believe it Confirmation So doth Dr. Hammond and sevcral others and if we understand Confirmation by this miraculous Conferring of the Holy Ghost his Argument is spoil'd 2. If Ordination was intended it no more prejudices Presbyters Power of Ordaining than it doth that of the Bishops for neither can confer those extraordinary Gifts 3. All that had power of Ordination had not power of giving the Holy Ghost Evangelists were trusted with the former but not with the latter Timothy and Titus Ordained but did not give the Holy Ghost He fancies that Simon Magus desired the Ordaining Power v. 19. Give me this Power What Power What Power P. 8. saith the Rector Not Power to labour in the Word and Doctrine and to administer the Holy Sacraments Like enough for Simon Magus as little cared for that as some others who have possess'd themselves of that Power he so much coveted What Power was it I doubt not but you 'l expect some rare Discovery having rais'd our Expectations to a great heighth at length he resolves the Question and tells us it was a Power of conferring that Power i. e. as he explains it That on whomsoever he laid his hands he might be Ordained to the Ministry That is in plain terms he desired to be made a Bishop and to be intrusted with the ordaining power I question whether the Power then was so profitable as it has prov'd since however we are oblig'd to this Gentleman for helping us to so clear a Notion of Simony III. He finds another Ordination in Acts 9.17 p. 8 9. Where it is said That Ananias laid his hand upon Saul this might he to Ordain him for he laid his hands on him not only that he might receive his sight but be also filled with the Holy Ghost But I desire the Reader to observe that according to this Hypothesis Saul was Ordained before he was Baptized He was Ordained as he calls it v. 17. and was Baptized after Ananias had laid his hands on him v. 18. That is he is first made an Apostle then a Christian He makes Ananias but a private Believer or Disciple P. 9. His being call'd a Disciple v. 10. is no evidence of it for the Apostles are so call'd Acts 1.15 How comes he to forget that Dorotheus calls him a Bishop of Damascus This would have something help'd his Hypothesis seeing he was tesolv'd to have him Ordained before he was Baptized e'en let it pass for an Episcopal Ordination But that which spoils all is Paul saith of himself that he was an Apostle not of Men neither by Man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Gal. ◠1 IV. In the next place he considers the Ordination in Acts 13.1 2 3. P. 10. Now there were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers and the Holy Ghost said unto them Separate me Barnabas and Saul J. O. Argued from this Instance that Presbyters have Power to Ordain for the Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 What saith Mr. G. to this even nothing to the purpose Ibid. The Persons here spoken of saith he were Teachers that is ordinary Ministers generally speaking but call'd Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ to Ordain Barnabas and Saul 1. He confounds Prophets and Teachers which are distinguished here and in 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Prophets were extraordinary Teachers ordinary Officers this Gentleman to serve a turn makes them one and the same If this be not to pervert the Scripture I know not what is Luke saith There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers That is if we may believe the Rector Prophets and Prophets for the Teachers were Prophets saith he 2. The Teachers are call'd Prophets saith he They are so call'd by him and not by the Holy Ghost 3. They are called Prophets because they received this special Command from Christ by the Holy Ghost as he thinks How can he prove that the Holy Ghost did speak by Immediate Revelation to the Teachers here The Text speaks nothing of it Dixit spiritus per Prophet as istos Grot. in loc It 's most reasonable to think he signify'd his Mind by one or more of the Prophets to the rest of the Ministers then to fancy he advanced the Teachers into the order of Prophets for the time Had the Revelation been Communicated to all in Common what needed the Evangelist to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets But there were both in Antioch Prophets to whom the Revelation came and
in his spirit but took his leave of them and went into Macedonia 2 Cor. 12.13 We find him with Paul at Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 3. and after his being in Crete the Apostle sends for him to Nicopolis Titus 3.12 we find him with Paul at Rome whence he sent him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.12 and we hear no more of him 3. Evangelists were subordinate to the Apostles and superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 They were the Apostles Collegues and Companions and their Authorized Messengers to the Churches to set in order what was wanting in them and to instruct admonish and reprove the Presbyters as there was occasion 4. They had power to Ordain Ministers where there was need of them This appears in Eusebius who saith of them That travelling far from home they perform'd the Office of Evangelists Eccl. Hist. III. 31. and preached Christ to such as heard not of the Faith and delivered unto them the Scriptures of the holy Gospels with great application When they had laid the foundation of Christian Doctrine in certain strange places and ordained other Pastors and committed the new Converts to their Care and Conduct they went into other Countries and Nations attended with the favour and power of God Thus he Timothy and Titus who were both of them Evangelists were entrusted with the power of ordaining We have already proved That ordinary Presbyters have exercised this power much more might Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers 5. Evangelists were Temporary Officers in tho Church and are long since ceas'd as Apostles and Prophets are 6. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists as we have prov'd and therefore no Diocesan Bishops It would be a degrading an extraordinary Officer whose Power was general over all the Churches in Subordination to the Apostles to make an ordinary Officer of him and to confine his Power to one particular Church It 's like the Degrading of the Colonel of a Regiment to be the Captain of a single Company or the Confining of a Diocesan Bishop to a mean Parochial Cure Mr. G. and some Others will own they were Evangelists and Unfixed at first but that the Apostle towards his latter End had made them Bishops and that they were such when he wrote his Epistles to them which was after his first Imprisonment at Rome This he undertakes to prove in his next Chapter CHAP. IV. The First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome acknowledged by the Ancients and by the Learned Assertors of Episcopacy Bishop Hall Dr. Hammond c. Deny'd by the Rhemists Bishop Pearson c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 considered Jerom vindicated Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before Paul's First Bonds The Second Epistle written in his First Bonds An Objection Answered Acts 20.25 considered ONE and the leading Argument for Timothy 's being Bishop of Ephesus P. 79. saith he is grounded on 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went to Macedonia 1. To abide still doth not imply a continued residence Timothy is said to abide still at Berea where he made but a short stay Acts 17.14 15. This Argument will as soon prove him Bishop of Berea as Bishop of Ephesus 2. His stay there was but short that is until the Apostle came to him 1 Tim. 3.14 and 4.13 Mr. G. himself allows in p. 90. That the Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters under Paul whilst he was vigorous and active and had opportunity to oversee both the Flock and the Elders themselves The Apostle was vigorous and active when he writ this first Epistle to Timothy and he intended shortly to visit the Flock and Elders of Ephesus Therefore by his own Confession Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus when that Epistle was written 3. He was not fixed as Resident at Ephesus for the Apostle afterwards calls him to Rome 2 Tim. 4.9 21. and sends Tychicus the Evangelist to Ephesus We do not read that Timothy ever return'd to Ephesus again Thus we see the Weakness of his Leading Argument as he calls it by which we may judge of the rest He adds That the Dissenters to avoid the Argument built upon 1 Tim. 1.3 and the rest of the Epistle say That the first Epistle to Timothy was written before the Meeting at Miletus in which the Apostle committed the Flock to the Elders of Ephesus and not to Timothy Acts 20.17 28. Our Argument from Acts 20.17 28. holds good tho' that Epistle should be written after as we have proved already in Cap. 3. 2. It is not the Dissenters only as he unfairly suggests that say that this Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus It 's the general and prevailing Opinion of the greatest part of Chronologers Ancient and Modern the most Learned Asserters of Episcopacy not excepted Bishop Hall is of this Opinion * Vindic p. 97. Div. Right of Episcop Part 2d p. 38. so is Dr. Hammond and Grotius Lud. Capâ—llus Dr. Lightfoot Cary c Gothofredus quotes Athanasius Baronius c. as of the same Opinion The Rhemists were sensible that this Opinion was prejudicial to the Cause of Episcopacy and therefore they say tho' not positively That the first Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome when he was set at Liberty * Rhem. Test. Arg. in 1 Tim. They are follow'd by Bishop Pearson and by Mr. G. only with this difference That the Seminary at Rhemes deliver themselves more modestly than the Rector doth They say it seemeth so the Rector saith He hath demonstrated it One that had not read Bishop Pearson would think the Rector very ingenuous in acknowledging that he is beholden to the Bishop for what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia mentioned in 1 Tim. 1.3 That Miracle of his Time saith he p. 80. meaning Bishop Pearson in his Annales Paulini has given us a plain Account and Proof thereof All that I pretend unto is to build on his Foundation and to enlarge on what that excellent Prelate has demonstrated in a few words Thus the Rector I will not dispute whether the Learned Bishop were the Miracle of his Time if he were Miracles are grown very Common in this last Age for the Bishop had many Equals whose Learned Works are nothing inferiour to his I dare affirm that our Rector is no Miracle in Architecture for he builds very sorrily on the Bishops Foundation Instead of raising a Superstructure he has rather disturbed the Foundation The Learned Bishop discourses distinctly and clearly the Rector confusedly and darkly He refers to Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulini and pretends to enlarge on what the Bishop had demonstrated in few words but takes no notice of the Bishops enlarging on that Argument in his Dissertations whence he borrow'd what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia but would have his Reader believe the Enlargements are his own See Pears Dissert
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
Presbyterians Ruling Elder whom he vindicates by his kind Paraphrase Had this Gentleman been retain'd by them he could not better have pleaded their Cause And although the Elders P. 130. proceeds he received a Commission from St. Paul and Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. will it thence follow that there was none to Over-rule them Or does it hence appear That these Elders had Power to Ordain 1. It hence follows they were real Bishops as he has confessed and if Ordination be a Branch of Episcopal Power as he saith it is these Elders had Power to Ordain 2. It hence follows that these Presbyters were the Supream Ordinary Church-Rulers if Bishops be such The extraordinary Superiour Rulers were Temporary He dare almost Swear it Ibid. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies not the Ordaining Power Verily saith he If this be so every Believer hath the same Power for they are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishops or as we Translate it to look diligently lest any Man fail of the Grace of God Heb. 12.15 Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock as the Pastors of it If they be not this Allegation is impertinent He saith the ordinary Elders had not the Supreme Authority over the Churches Ibid. after the time we have Assign'd nor did they ever Ordain Elders This implies That the Ordinary Elders had the Supreme Authority before the time he assign'd and it is certain the Elders of Ephesus had it in Acts 20.28 He cannot prove they were ever depriv'd of it We have prov'd that they had the Supream Authority after the Writing of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus We have also prov'd out of Acts 13.1 2. and 1 Tim. 4.14 That ordinary Elders did Ordain and have Vindicated those Texts from his corrupt Glosses J. O. observed that the Apostles does not mention Superiour Bishops in his Catalogue of Gospel-Ministers Ibid. Eph. 4.11 Mr. G. Assigns this for a Reason Bishops as a distinct Species of Church-Officers were not as yet established The Itenerant or unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for ' em 1. Here is a fair Confession there were no Bishops in the Christian Churches when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written which was in Paul's First Bonds at Rome We have prov'd that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before his First Bonds and so Timothy could be no Bishop of Ephesus 2. The Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters Acts 20.28 without either Evangelist or Apostle to over-see them that we read of The Apostle commits the Flock wholly and solely to them when he parted with them having no thoughts of ever seeing them again v. 25. 3. He grants that Evangelists were unfix'd Officers under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders as such Timothy and Titus might Ordain Elders in Ephesus and Crete as unfix'd Evangelists for such they were after the Epistles written to them 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Tit. 3.12 2 Tim. 4.10 Therefore those Epistles do not make them fixed Governours as he supposeth J. O. took notice that the Papists urge the Instances of Timothy and Titus for Superiour Bishops against the Protestants and that the Bishops best Arguments have been dextrously manag'd against the whole Reformation What can the Rector say to this Matter of Fact is so plain that he cannot deny it and therefore endeavours to palliate it as well as he can J. O. says he in this very Book has made use of the Popish School-Men P. 131. p. 55. 107. and therefore I cannot avoid taxing him with great Insincerity and Partiality The Rector's Invention runs low that he can find nothing but the old dull thred-bare charge of Insincerity which we have had over and over But the comfort of it is his Tongue is no Slander All the difference between J. O's Arguments out of the Popish Doctors and Mr. G's Arguments out of them is this 1. He treads in their Steps without once naming them J. O. names them all along when he makes use of them 2. J. O. Quotes the Popish Doctors against themselves and for the Reformed Churches who most of them have no Bishops and all will allow that the Testimony of an Adversary is good against himself Mr. G. improves their Arguments against the Reformed Churches whom they and he condemn as no Churches for want of Ordaining Bishops The Rector is too cunning to deliver thc Conclusion in express Words but he lays down and endeavours to establish those Premisses that necessarily infer this conclusion That Popish Ordinations are valid and that all the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches except those in England and Ireland by Bishops are a Nullity This is the design of his Book in which he pretends to prove That no ordinary Presbyter hath Power to Ordain and that no Instance can be given in all the New Testament of any Ordaining Presbyter and that Bishops are Superiour to Presbyters by a Divine Right The Truth is the Performance is as weak as the Undertaking is bold I leave it to the Reader to Judge who is to be charged with Insincerity one that Defends the Reformed Churches against the Popish Writers tho' he quotes them sometimes against themselves or one who under the Name of a Protestant joyns with the Popish Church and Doctors in destroying the Ministry of the greatest part of the Protestant Reformed Churches Since we like not Popish Arguments P. 132. one thing he will be bold to tell J. O. that he will here meet with an Argument borrowed from Bishop Pearson which he thinks neither any Papist nor J. O. himself ever thought of before Who so bold as blind Bayard This Man boldly tells us That no Papist ever thought of Bishop Pearson's Argument drawn from the time of Writing the Epistles to Timothy c. I shewed before that the Seminary at Rhemes thought of the Bishop's Argument before he was born The Rector has a great many Qualities that are very singular this among others That when he is remotest from Truth he is then most confident He thinks J. O. never thought of this Argument before His Memory is as defective as his Reading J. O. told him before his Book was talk'd of that he had thought of this Argument and had prepared a Dissertation to Vindicate the Old Chronology Some Gentlemen that were then present may relieve his Memory if need he J. O. Argued that those Words Lay hands suddenly on no Man do not prove the sole Power of Ordination in Timothy To this he answers It ought to be hence concluded that the sole Power of Ordination was in Timothy P. 133. till J. O. can produce a like Commission given to the Presbyters That has been proved from Acts 13.1 2. 1 Tim. 4.14 He adds J. O's Reason is a very pleasant one it may as well follow saith J. O. that the sole Power of Teaching belongs
207 Parishes in Crete which divided between twenty five Bishops there falls but Eight Parishes to the share of each Bishop and an over-plus of 7 25 Parts How different were these from Modern Bishopricks A Bishop may better Over-see Eight or Nine Parishes than Eight or Nine Scores of Parishes J. O. Proved that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members than could ordinarily meet in one place because that Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily Receiv'd the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time Mr. G. Answers That Ignatius's one Altar signifies not one Numerical P. 143. but one Specifical Altar Then Ignatius's one Bishop must signifie not one Numerical but one Specifical Bishop He thinks there was more than one Numerical Altar because after the Words Alledged by J. O. Ignatius goes on thus Ibid. Let that Eucharist be accounted good and firm which is Celebrated under the Bishop or which he consents to Vnder the Bishop is plainly in his presence and not under his Authority as he explains it as being opposed to his Consent in his absence His consenting that the Presbyters might Administer in his absence doth not prove more than one Altar The Parson of one Parish which hath but one Altar may consent that his Curates may Administer the Eucharist He further proves there were many Altars under Ignatius his Bishop from that Passage Where-ever the Bishop appears there let the People be even as where Jesus Christ is not appears as he falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is the Catholick Church Nothing could have been produced more impertinently than this Passage which shews that the Multitude must be where the Bishop was or appear'd his Appearance must be understood of his personal visible Appearance To talk of an Invisible Appearance is ridiculous And yet you must understand it so saith our Author It is not to be understood of his Person but Authority saith he even as Jesus Christ is with the Catholick Church not in his Person but in his Spiritual Power 1. This is worse and worse Ignatius did not say Where Christ appears as he to serve a Design falsly renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but where Jesus Christ is Ignatius knew Jesus Christ to be Invisible on Earth since his Ascension and that a Bishop was visible and therefore saith where the Bishop appears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and where Christ is 2. To deny Christ to be personally present with his Church is to deny him to be the Second Person in the Trinity I hope he believes the Divinity and Omnipresence of our Lord Jesus Christ though in a Transport of Zeal he forgot the Form of Sound Words The Spiritual Power of Christ doth not exclude his Personal Presence Some Men will talk any thing though never so little to the purpose rather than yield to the Evidence of Truth P. 145. He tells us that the Church of Ephesus took in all Asia the proper because all they that dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus viz. at Ephesus He might as well have said That the Church of Jerusalem took in the Parthians and Dwellers in Mesopotamia Cappadocia Pontus and Asia c. for those heard the Word of the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem Acts 2.9 11. He saith J. O. should have Enter'd the Lists with Dr. Maurice P. 146. who Answer'd Mr. B. and Mr. Cl. about the extent of Bishopricks J. O's Subject being Ordination he was not concern'd in Dr. Maurice's Book though he said something occasionally concerning the Extent of Churches from Ignatius and others He complains J. O. hath troubled them with a New Book upon an Old Subject Ibid. without adding any thing considerable to it It seems J. O's Book hath created some trouble to them but what is the trouble Is it that he writes a New Book upon an Old Subject That cannot be it for the Rector hath done so himself If it be a fault to write upon an Old Subject no Man must write at all for there is scarce any thing New under the Sun Or does it trouble him that J. O. hath not added any thing considerable to the Subject that cannot be also except we suppose his own Performance which has little of Addition to what is found in Bellarmine and other Popish Authors to be a Trouble to him I doubt then something else in the Book troubles him He can tell what it is for he had good Reason why he would not Answer a Book which he undertakes to Answer but contents himself with a few slight Remarks upon two or three Chapters and leaves the greatest part of the Book untouch'd I leave it to such as have read other Authors upon the Subject of Ordination by Presbyters to Judge of J. O's performance whether the Subject has receiv'd any Improvement by it He takes a great deal of Pains to prove what no Body denies P. 146 147 148 149. viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Agreement or Unity and not always one place as J. O. render'd it in those Words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give diligence to Assemble together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more frequently for when ye often come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ign. ad Eph. p. 25. or into one place the Powers of Sathan are destroy'd One would think J. O's Translation very natural for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to one place and so must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows immediately after But it ought not to be so render'd here saith our Author And the Proof is There might have been several Places for Worship at Ephesus p. 148. But he does not prove there were several places I have proved the contrary from the one Altar mention'd in Igna. ad magna p. 34. He thinks Ignatius does not intend one place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 149. because he speaks a little after of the Vnity of their Faith Might they not have Unity of Faith in one place But we have sufficiently prov'd above That Ignatius his Church ordinarily met in one place Dr. Burnet acknowledges there was but one Numerical Altar to one Diocess in Ignatius's time as J. O. quoted him P. 30. Mr. G. passes by the Bishop unsaluted The Learned Mr. Mede confesseth That in those First Times they had but one Altar to a Diocesan Church This he confirms by Instances out of Justin Martyr and out of Cyprian Ep. 40.72 73. De Vnit Eccl. c. Mede of Churches P. 48 49 50. I will not contend with him about the number of Churches built at Constantinople by Constantine the Great but 't is very improbable that they should be two Hundred as he extravagantly talks Socrates mentions but Two Nicephorus speaks of Three Great Temples whereof that of Sophia which he ascribes to Constantine was built by Constantius his Son and was but an Addition to the Temple of Irene He speaks also of Four
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.