4. No reason can be given why this Government of the Church of Ephesus should be afterwards chang'd The Rector thinks it was done as a Remedy against the Schisms p. 47. But the Establishment of the Presbytery in Ephesus was for a Remedy against Schisms as appears Acts 20.28 29 30. After my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you not sparing the flock and of your selves shall men arise This he mentions as a reason why the Elders of Ephesus should oversee the Flock v. 28 31. This Remedy was appointed by the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost which cannot Err in Judgment He knows how to provide apt and effectual Remedies He is in one Mind and does not appoint that to day which he repents of to morrow His Provisions are not meerly prudential like those of Men's devising to whom future Events are wrapt up in obscurity and therefore upon tryal of their aptness to the ends for which they were design'd change their thoughts concerning them and take new measures It is not so with the All-wise God He sees the End in the beginning and Effects in their Causes and with Him is no variableness nor shadow of turning Now let 's hear what the Rector can say for the Change of this Government by Presbyters settled in the Church of Ephesus He Promises to Treat of three Things 1. Of the Plantation and Government of the Church of Ephesus by Paul so long as he was in a condition to manage the Affairs of the Church 2. He 'll shew the last Orders he took about the Government of this Church of Ephesus in his absence 3. He 'll give us the glory of it unto the Writing of Ignatius 's Epistles As to the first we agree with him that the Presbyters of Ephesus were Subject to Paul and good reason for it for he was an Apostle infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost He observes two Things from Acts 20.28.1 That the Apostle committed the Government of this Church in his absence unto these Presbyters or Bishops for I 'll suppose at present that the Title and Power of Bishops belong'd to them 1. Here 's a plain acknowledgment of our Hypothesis That the Government of the Ephesian Church was devolv'd upon the Presbyters there but he insinuates as if this was only for a time i. e. during his absence whereas the Apostle intended to see their Faces no more so that his Absence was to be perpetual as to his present Intention at least and consequently the Power committed to these Presbyters was perpetual 2 He seems loath to call them Bishops but is so kind as to suppose it at present though the Holy Ghost expresly calls them so and made them so Acts 20.28 Feed the stock over which the Holy Ghost made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops 2dly He observes from this Scripture p. 47. That Paul certainly fore-saw that Schisms would arise among them He did so and provided a Remedy against them by committing the Government there to the Presbyters If Diocesan Episcopacy had been the Remedy how comes the Apostle not to mention it at this time He makes mention of the Disease v. 29. as he confesseth and why not of the Remedy also neither here nor in the Epistle to the Ephesians which he observes was written to give a check to their Schisms chap. 4. That Epistle and Chapter mentions the several degrees of Ministers in Christ's Church chap. 4. v. 11. but not a word of a Bishop as the Center of Vnity in the whole Epistle Nor does he require one ordinary Minister to obey another either in this Epistle or that to the Corinthians who were pester'd with Schisms also as he takes notice If Bishops had been the Remedy the Apostle would not have omitted mentioning them having such proper occasion given him and writing designedly to them upon that Subject We would reckon him but a sorry Physician that would prescribe several Remedies for a Distemper and omit the onely proper Remedy Such a Spiritual Physician the Rector makes the Apostle to be He says he foresaw the Schisms of the Ephesians wrote an Epistle to unite them p. 47. and has a warm Discouase about Vnity Chap. 4. And wrote another to the Corinthians to cure their Divisions But has not so much as touch'd upon his proper Remedy of Diocesan Bishops There is a like warm Exhortation to Unity Phil. 2.1 2. and yet that Church was Governed by Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1.1 and not by one Superiour Bishop 2. The Second thing he promis'd was to tell us P. 48. The Order he took afterwards about the Government of the Church of Ephesus which was this The Apostle being set at liberty and returning back from Italy to the East and being now old Phil. v. 9. and finding that Factions and Divisions every where increas'd and prevail'd Constituted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus as doubtless he did the same in all other places 1 Tim. 1.3 1. He takes it for granted the Epistle to Timothy was written after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome which I deny We shall hear his Proofs in the next Chapter which we will there consider If he be mistaken in this Point of Chronology as I shall prove he is then all his Reasonings from this Epistle fall to the ground 2. There were Factions and Divisions in the Churches long before as he himself confesseth and as is apparent from 1 Cor. 3. Why had not the Apostle provided this Remedy sooner to have prevented the increase and prevalence of them A Distemper is easier prevented than cured If Divisions increased under the Government of the Apostles was the new Order of Bishops like to put a stop to them Why is this then assign'd as the Reason of the Institution 3. 1 Tim. 1.3 Does not say that Paul Constituted him Bishop of Ephesus It is agreed by the Ancients that St. John the Apostle was at Ephesus and resided there for a considerable time after St. Paul's departure thence and after the Writing of the First Epistle to Timothy Euse Hist Eccl. III. 17. al. 18. Iren. adv Haer. III. 3 Hierom. Catal. Scrip. Eccl. Eusebius upon the Testimony of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus affirms that he return'd to Ephesus after he was releas'd from his Banishment at Patmos and lived there and among the other Asian Churches until Trajan's Days His ordinary Residence was at Ephesus as Eusebius and Clemens c. affirm If St. John kept his Residence at Ephesus and ruled that Church as he did other Churches of Asia by his Apostolical Power Timothy could not be the Supreme Ruler of the Church of Ephesus Where an Apostle was Present and Resident to Govern his Superiour Authority Suspended all Episcopal Jurisdiction so that according to the Rector's own Principle there was no need of a Bishop while an Apostle could Oversee the Church 4. He gives not the least Proof that Paul made Bishops in all other Places Doubtless it was so saith he you must take
or no. He is the sole soveraign Power and not obliged to take the Coronation Oath or to govern according to the Established Laws if we may believe our Rector I will not trouble my self or the Reader by making Remarks upon these Passages which are but a few of many with which his Three Sermons abound All these you may find in the first These Sermons were design'd as he tells us Pref. 10 the Serm. p. 3. and I dare believe him To assure the higher Powers of his steadiness and fidelity and of may more in these Northern Climates It was a Point of mighty Consequence to the higher Powers to be assured of the Rector's Fidelity especially in a time when the Prince was under some disadvantage Most happy Prince who can assure himself of the Fidelity of such a Man as Mr. G. for in him he assures himself of many more in these Northern Climates The higher Powers then in being were highly obliged to so Profound a Casuist who by another Tentamen Novum attempted to prove the Jus Divinum of Absolute Monarchy and Arbitrary Government But all well-deserving Expectants have not the Happiness of being Preferred according to their Merits But to return to his Parallel 3. The Council at Jerusalem under the Conduct of the Holy Ghost injoyn'd the necessary forbearance of a few things to avoid offence Acts 15.28 The Convocation has made Canons injoyning the Practise of abundance of unnecessary things to create offence That Council widen'd the Door to Church-Fellowship by taking away the ancient ceremonial Terms of Communion and breaking down the partition Wall between Jews and Gentiles The Convocation has straitned the Door to Church-Fellowship by setting up new ceremonial Terms of Communion and erecting a partition Wall between Brethren 4. The Council at Jerusalem freed the Christians from a divine Yoke namely Circumcision the Convocation binds a humane Yoke of burthensome Ceremonies on our Necks The Apostles asserted that Christian Liberty which the Lord Jesus purchased at a dear rate and obliged us to maintain Gal. 5.1 Others unjustly deprive us of it and mancipate us under more beggarly Elements than those of the Jewish Pedagogy Gal. 4.9 Had the Apostles Successors imitated the excellent temper of their wise Fathers in this Council the Christian World had not been divided into so many Factions as it is at this Day When Rehoboam's little Finger proves heavier than Solomon's Loins no wonder there is a Schism in Israel 5. The Council at Jerusalem made no new Canon only thought fit to continue some divine Prohibitions that were obliging before Acts 15.29 The Convocation hath made but 141 new Canons concerning most of which there is no Divine Law The Canons of that Council are contained in one short Verse v. 29. The Canons of our Synod make a large Volume 6. The Canons of that Council have no Penalty annexed the Decree of the Council ends thus v. 29. From which if ye keep your selves ye shall do well Fare ye well Our Canons thunder out terrible Anathema's and Excommunications ipso facto not known to the Apostles against all the breakers of them 7. The Canons at Jerusalem were made by the Apostles Elders and the whole Church v. 22. Our Canons are made by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation which are the true Church of England by representation as Can. 139. obligeth us to believe on pain of Excommunication Mr. G. makes the Parliament to represent the Multitude of Believers that is the Church according to his Parallel for he makes the Bishops to answer the Apostles the Presbyters the Elders and the Parliament the whole Church or multitude of Believers I leave the Rector to the Censure of his Diocesan who is obliged by the Canon to Excommunicate and not to restore him until he repent and publickly revoke this his wicked error * Can. 139 in affirming the Parliament to be the Church representative instead of the Convocation I hope the Impartial Reader is now fully convinced how exactly the Episcopal Government as described by this Gentlemen agrees with the Council at Jerusalem He is angry with J. O. for saying Parish Priests have no power of Discipline Pref. p. 14 and Answers They have power to rebuke and admonish and suspend for a while from the Lord's Supper This is in effect an acknowledgment of the Truth of what J. O. Asserts They have power to rebuke and admonish so have private Persons Lev. 19.17 Col. 3.16 The Admonitions of a Master who hath no Power to use the Rod will have little influence upon froward Lads But Parish Ministers can suspend for a while For how long But for fourteen Days at the farthest and then they are obliged to put the whole Matter out of their Power and to commit it to the Ordinary See the Rubrick before the Communion The true State of the Case is this 1. They have no power left them to judge whom to Baptize and whom not Can. 68. but must Baptize all that are offered though the Children of Jews Infidels Deists c. who have no right to the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace 2. They have no power to forbear giving the Eucharist to any one how notorious an Offender soever unless they will prosecute him at the Bishop's Court nor then but for once So that if he pays his Fees and be Absolved there though the Minister know him to be never so Impenitent he must give it him the next time And the Prosecution is so troublesome odious and fruitless that it is very rarely undertaken 3. They have no Power to call Persons to Repentance openly before the Church 4. They have no Power to judge any Person to be Excommunicate nor to absolve any Person that is Penitent after Excommunication they only read the Chancellor's Sentence who is usually a Lay-man sent them in the Bishop's Name much like our Cryers in Civil Courts that publish the Orders of the Court Yea though they are satisfied in their Consciences that the Chancellor's Decree is sometimes unjust Et clave errante Excommunicating a Consciencious Person scrupling a Ceremony as was done in the late Reigns or absolving an Impenitent Person who hath Commuted for Notorious Scandal yet they must publish it or be Suspended All the Power left them is the Privilege of being the Chancellor's Servants to execute all his Decrees without once Examining whether they be right or wrong Many Sober Conformists who have a tender concern for the Souls under their Charge have complained of this Restraint and impute the growing Debaucheries of the People to the want of Parish Discipline The very Liturgy complains That the Godly Primitive Discipline is wanting in our Churches See the Office of Commination If the Parish-Ministers have the Power of Discipline as the Rector would have us believe the more to blame they for admitting all Persons promiscuously to the Lord's Supper It is rarely that any scandalous Persons are excluded as they ought to be
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
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
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
agreed by the Learned that those who are called the Apostles Fellow-workers and were sent by them as their Messengers to the Churches to supply their Absence were Evangelists This is acknowledg'd by Mr. G. P. 118. where he speaks of Itinerant Evangelists We agree with him P. 113. That Evangelists were in Dignity and Power next to Prophets and above all other Church Officers He proceeds to give us a Description of an Evangelist Ibid. It appears saith he from 2 Tim. 4.5 that an Evangelist was one entrusted by the Apostles with the Government of some Church That Timothy was an Evangelist and that Titus therefore was another Evangelist For it has been demonstrated already Cap. 2. that all the Supream Powers of Ecclesiastical Government were committed to them in their respective Churches The meaning of this Paragraph is that Evangelists are Diocesan Bishops for he makes Timothy the Evangelist that is the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus the Evangelist or Bishop of Crete It is well he owns Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists it is as much as we desire I but Evangelists and Bishops are the same To which I Answer 1. Few or none of his Judicious Brethren will subscribe to this new Notion of Evangelists by which he evidently gives up the whole Cause When he happens now and then to Answer the Title of his Book which is Tentamen Novum by advancing some New Notion he weakly betrays the Cause he pretends strongly to defend 2. He owns Evangelists to be a Species of Church Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers according to Eph. 4.11 and consequently he denies the Diocesan Bishops to be the Pastors of their respective Churches I doubt he has forgot the Prayers of the Church in which the Bishops are call'd the Pastors of the Flock * The Prayer in the Ember Weeks If he say they are both Pastors and Evangelists he confounds those Officers whom the Apostle distinguisheth The Presbyters are the Pastors of the Flock that is the ordinary and settled Rulers of it Acts 17.28 1 Pet. 5.2 Rev. 2.27 Let them have this Power which the Holy Ghost hath given them as the proper Bishops of the Flock and when he hath prov'd Evangelists to be Diocesan Bishops we will readily receive them 3. Dr. Hammond saith that the Pastors not the Evangelists in Eph. 4.11 were the Bishops that govern'd particular Charges 4. I have fully answer'd his Arguments by which he pretends to demonstrate that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete He advances a new Order of Evangelists P. 114. 115. who were the fixed Governours of some Cities and the Countries Adjacent And cannot altogether allow their Notion who say an Evangelist was an unsetled Church-Officer that went from Place to Place to finish the Churches begun by the Apostles and particularly to ordain Elders among them And yet he grants that an Evangelist as Ravanellus expresseth it Ordain'd Elders Oppidatim in every Town or Village 1. He owns that Evangelists might Ordain in every Town and why not in every City Ravanellus explains his Oppidatim by Tit. 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City But he wilfully overlooks that for he knew that there were many Cities in Crete and according to the Rule that every City must have a Bishop Titus must be Arch-bishop of Crete And the sole Power of Ordination being in Titus it would naturally follow that none but Arch-bishops can Ordain Andrew Cretentis calls him Arch-bishop and saith he had twelve Bishops under him 2. He cannot altogether allow Evangelists to be unsetled Officers It seems he does in part allow it P. 115. it 's too bright a Truth to be deny'd but he endeavours to obscure it what he can and wou'd fain perswade his Reader that Evangelists were fixed Officers But let 's hear his Proof Philip was a fixed Evangelist because Luke leaves him at Caesarea Acts 8.40 And we find him there almost twenty Years after having a House and a settled Family Acts 21.8 1. When he has prov'd that Philip resided at Caesarea as the settled Bishop of that Church and that he was no where else all those Years he may talk of a fixed Evangelist 2. May not an unsettled Officer have a settled Family Which he may Visit at Times Paul continued two Years at Ephesus Acts 19.10 a Year and a half at Corinth Acts 18.11 two Years in his own hired House at Rome Acts 28.30 was he therefore a settled or fixed Apostle 3. As much as we have of the History of Philip bespeaks him an unsettled Officer We find him in Samaria Acts 8.12 with the Ethiopian Eunuch in the way from Jerusalem unto Gaza Acts 8.26 at Asotus and Preaching in all the Cities till he came to Caesarea Acts 8.40 which perhaps might be his Birth-place or he might Marry there which is more likely because we read of Four Daughters he had which did Prophecy Acts 21.9 He was an Evangelist before he came to Caesarea * J. Pears Lect. in Act v. §. 1. 5. p. 66. 68. for he Preached up and down by Vertue of an extraordinary Call Acts 8.6 7 26 39. and it is not to be imagin'd he laid aside the Office of an Evangelist after his Marriage And therefore Luke testifies concerning him that although he was Married and had a settled Family he was an Evangelist an unsettled extraordinary Officer still Acts 21.8 9 10. He could not produce any Ancient Author that makes him Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius saith he dyed at Hierapolis †Euseb Hist III. 25. Edit Lovan 1569. His other Proof from Timothy and Titus being fixed or settled Evangelists we considered before And it is Petitio Principii I will add this 1. All that he saith to prove them fixed Officers of Ephesus and Crete depends upon his Supposition that the Epistles to them were Written after Pauls first Bonds at Rome which I have disprov'd with respect to the first Epistle to Timothy and it 's confess'd by all that this Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were Written about the same Time The Epistle to Titus was Written when Paul was in Macedonia designing to Winter in Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 He Promises to send Tychicus or Artemas unto Titus the former of these two was with Paul in Macedonia and afterwards accompanied him into Asia Acts 20.4 Therefore this Epistle was Written before Paul's first Imprisonment at Rome 2. Timothy and Titus were no resident Evangelists of Ephesus and Crete for the Apostle calls them both away He calls Titus to Nicopolis from Crete Tit. 3.12 which is an evidence he was to make but a short stay there to set in Order the Things that were wanting Tit. 1.5 Which when he had done he must attend the Apostle as he had done before Accordingly he went to Paul to Nicopolis and was his Companion and Messenger to several Churches and at last is sent by him to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 And we hear no
upper House of Bishops who have sometimes a considerable Influence in the Election of the very Clerks 3. The Rector may please himself with his Power of making new Laws all the Power we plead for is a Liberty for Parish-Ministers to execute the Laws of Christ in the exclusion of the Scandalous and the admission of such as are duly qualify'd for Gospel-Ordinances The Parish-Ministers or Priests as he calls them and yet is unreasonably angry with us for calling them so have Power to Heprove and Suspend for a Time We had this before in the Preface A Private Person may Reprove they can Suspend from the Lord's Supper for a time i. e. till the next Return of the Carrier or about 14 Days and then they are obliged to deliver up all to the Ordinary with whom the Offender often commutes for his Crime and returns as Impenitent as he went except he repent that he has parted with so much Money When he has made his Peace with the Ordinary or his Commissary or Chancellor the Minister must admit him or be proceeded against himself for disobeying his Superiours Is their any Presilent for this in the Gospel Did Christ or his Apostles Establish this sort of Discipline Mr. G. Challenges J. O. to prove out of Scripture That ever any Ordinary Presbyters did Excommunicate P. 126. We have but few Instances of Excommunication in Scripture but we have proved already That the Corinthian Presbyters and consequently all others had Power to Judge i. e. to decree Excommunicated as the Rector explains it those that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 See Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 2.6 2 Thess 3.6 Can the Rector who so liberally demands Scripture-Proofs give us any Instance of Presbyters Suspending for a Fortnight If he can find no Proof in Scripture That ordinary Presbyters did Suspend at all from the Communion how dare they do it for a Fortnight If he finds by Scripture they may Suspend how dare he condemn our Presbyters for Suspending Persons until they see some evidences of their Repentance But since he calls for Proofs let him shew us some Proof out of Scripture for the Power of Lay-Chancellors to Excommunicate or some Instance of commuting Penance for a Sum of Money I have read in Scripture of the Priests eating up the sin of the People and setting their Heart on their Iniquity Hosh 4 8. The Covetous Priests then got a small share out of the Sacrifices occasioned by the sins of the People Iev 6.26 10.17 but our Commuters ingross the whole Offering to themselves It is odd to hear a Man call for Scripture-Proof who cannot pretend to any Scripture-Proof for abundance of things which they Practice and Impose as Conditions of Communion on Ministers and People Tliis Gentleman has a measure and a measure that is a double measure one for himself and Brethren and another for the Dissenters Were he willing to be determined by the Scripture as he pretends our Controversies would be soon at an end He ignorantly affirms Ibid. That the Presbyterian Bishops as he calls them are at best but the Executioners of the Lay-Elders Will I know but very few of the Congregations call'd Presbyterian that have any Ruling Elders at all and those that have receive them only as Assistants to the Ministers and not as Rulers Superiour to them J. O's First Argument to prove that Presbyters may Ordain is because they are Scripture-Bishops Plea p. 12 13. He proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament times and some Ages after To this Argument the Rector answers 1. He grants they were the same in the New Testament P. 126 127. and were the Ordinary Rulers of the Church but Timothy and Titus were above them Nothing but the brightness of Truth could extort such a Confession from him for 1. If Presbyters and Bishops were the same in the New Testament let him shew us who had Power afterwards to distinguish them 2. If they be the same they have the same Powers Therefore if the Bishop has Power to Ordain so has the Presbyter If the Presbyter has no such Power no more has the Bishop Thus he has kindly Established our Argument but I hope his Episcopal Friends will not impute it to any ill design in him for he is full of good Will to their Cause and it is their own fault that they have chosen no better an Advocate 3. But he hopes to come off by saying that Timothy and Titus were above the Presbyters or Bishops for hereafter you must take them for one and the same Timothy and Titus Evangelists were above the Bishops What then It is as natural to infer thence That Presbyters are above Bishops as that Bishops are above Presbyters Not only Evangelists but Prophets and Apostles were Superiour to Ordinary Ministers But no Example has been yet produced that one Ordinary Minister was Superiour to another Ordinary Minister No instance can be given in the New Testament of any one meer Presbyter that was Superiour to another Presbyter If there must be some Church-Officers called Bishops Superiour to Presbyters because Evangelists were so by the same reason there ought to be some Church-Officers Superiour to Bishops because the Prophets were Superiour to the Evangelists and another sort of Church-Officers Superiour to them also because the Apostles were Superiour to the Prophets He Subscribes to J. O's Assertion P. 128. That there were several Bishops in one Church in the Apostles Days and that those mention'd in Scripture were not of our English Species Therefore by his own Confession English Bishops are not Scripture-Bishops But there was an Order of Church-Officers above these Presbyter-Bishops saith he as we have demonstrated in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus There were no less than three Orders above them that is Apostles Prophets and Evangelists each of them extraordinary Church-Officers Eph. 4.11 design'd for the Planting of the Christian Church as the ordinary Pastora and Teachers were appointed for the propagating of it unto the end of Time The Foundations were to be laid by those extraordinary Church-Officers the Superstructure to be carried on according to the Platform they left us by ordinary Officers J. O. Prov'd out of Justin Martyr and the Syriac Version of the New Testament That Bishop and Presbyter were the same in the Ages after the Apostles P. 13 14. This the Rector prudently overlooks He thus Paraphraseth on 1 Tim. 5.17 They who Rule well P. 129. and also labour in the Word and Doctrine deserve better than they only who Rule well but don't withal labour in the Word and Doctrine Here he supposes that some in the Church may Rule well who don't Labour in the Word and Doctrine But who are these He will not say Bishops for then the Presbyter who Rules well and Labours in the Word and Doctrine is worthy of more Honour than the Bishop that he will not like There remains no other but the
Presbyterians Ruling Elder whom he vindicates by his kind Paraphrase Had this Gentleman been retain'd by them he could not better have pleaded their Cause And although the Elders P. 130. proceeds he received a Commission from St. Paul and Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. will it thence follow that there was none to Over-rule them Or does it hence appear That these Elders had Power to Ordain 1. It hence follows they were real Bishops as he has confessed and if Ordination be a Branch of Episcopal Power as he saith it is these Elders had Power to Ordain 2. It hence follows that these Presbyters were the Supream Ordinary Church-Rulers if Bishops be such The extraordinary Superiour Rulers were Temporary He dare almost Swear it Ibid. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies not the Ordaining Power Verily saith he If this be so every Believer hath the same Power for they are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to play the Bishops or as we Translate it to look diligently lest any Man fail of the Grace of God Heb. 12.15 Are all Believers bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently to the Flock as the Pastors of it If they be not this Allegation is impertinent He saith the ordinary Elders had not the Supreme Authority over the Churches Ibid. after the time we have Assign'd nor did they ever Ordain Elders This implies That the Ordinary Elders had the Supreme Authority before the time he assign'd and it is certain the Elders of Ephesus had it in Acts 20.28 He cannot prove they were ever depriv'd of it We have prov'd that they had the Supream Authority after the Writing of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus We have also prov'd out of Acts 13.1 2. and 1 Tim. 4.14 That ordinary Elders did Ordain and have Vindicated those Texts from his corrupt Glosses J. O. observed that the Apostles does not mention Superiour Bishops in his Catalogue of Gospel-Ministers Ibid. Eph. 4.11 Mr. G. Assigns this for a Reason Bishops as a distinct Species of Church-Officers were not as yet established The Itenerant or unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders for ' em 1. Here is a fair Confession there were no Bishops in the Christian Churches when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written which was in Paul's First Bonds at Rome We have prov'd that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before his First Bonds and so Timothy could be no Bishop of Ephesus 2. The Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters Acts 20.28 without either Evangelist or Apostle to over-see them that we read of The Apostle commits the Flock wholly and solely to them when he parted with them having no thoughts of ever seeing them again v. 25. 3. He grants that Evangelists were unfix'd Officers under the Apostles and Ordain'd Elders as such Timothy and Titus might Ordain Elders in Ephesus and Crete as unfix'd Evangelists for such they were after the Epistles written to them 2 Tim. 4.9 21. Tit. 3.12 2 Tim. 4.10 Therefore those Epistles do not make them fixed Governours as he supposeth J. O. took notice that the Papists urge the Instances of Timothy and Titus for Superiour Bishops against the Protestants and that the Bishops best Arguments have been dextrously manag'd against the whole Reformation What can the Rector say to this Matter of Fact is so plain that he cannot deny it and therefore endeavours to palliate it as well as he can J. O. says he in this very Book has made use of the Popish School-Men P. 131. p. 55. 107. and therefore I cannot avoid taxing him with great Insincerity and Partiality The Rector's Invention runs low that he can find nothing but the old dull thred-bare charge of Insincerity which we have had over and over But the comfort of it is his Tongue is no Slander All the difference between J. O's Arguments out of the Popish Doctors and Mr. G's Arguments out of them is this 1. He treads in their Steps without once naming them J. O. names them all along when he makes use of them 2. J. O. Quotes the Popish Doctors against themselves and for the Reformed Churches who most of them have no Bishops and all will allow that the Testimony of an Adversary is good against himself Mr. G. improves their Arguments against the Reformed Churches whom they and he condemn as no Churches for want of Ordaining Bishops The Rector is too cunning to deliver thc Conclusion in express Words but he lays down and endeavours to establish those Premisses that necessarily infer this conclusion That Popish Ordinations are valid and that all the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches except those in England and Ireland by Bishops are a Nullity This is the design of his Book in which he pretends to prove That no ordinary Presbyter hath Power to Ordain and that no Instance can be given in all the New Testament of any Ordaining Presbyter and that Bishops are Superiour to Presbyters by a Divine Right The Truth is the Performance is as weak as the Undertaking is bold I leave it to the Reader to Judge who is to be charged with Insincerity one that Defends the Reformed Churches against the Popish Writers tho' he quotes them sometimes against themselves or one who under the Name of a Protestant joyns with the Popish Church and Doctors in destroying the Ministry of the greatest part of the Protestant Reformed Churches Since we like not Popish Arguments P. 132. one thing he will be bold to tell J. O. that he will here meet with an Argument borrowed from Bishop Pearson which he thinks neither any Papist nor J. O. himself ever thought of before Who so bold as blind Bayard This Man boldly tells us That no Papist ever thought of Bishop Pearson's Argument drawn from the time of Writing the Epistles to Timothy c. I shewed before that the Seminary at Rhemes thought of the Bishop's Argument before he was born The Rector has a great many Qualities that are very singular this among others That when he is remotest from Truth he is then most confident He thinks J. O. never thought of this Argument before His Memory is as defective as his Reading J. O. told him before his Book was talk'd of that he had thought of this Argument and had prepared a Dissertation to Vindicate the Old Chronology Some Gentlemen that were then present may relieve his Memory if need he J. O. Argued that those Words Lay hands suddenly on no Man do not prove the sole Power of Ordination in Timothy To this he answers It ought to be hence concluded that the sole Power of Ordination was in Timothy P. 133. till J. O. can produce a like Commission given to the Presbyters That has been proved from Acts 13.1 2. 1 Tim. 4.14 He adds J. O's Reason is a very pleasant one it may as well follow saith J. O. that the sole Power of Teaching belongs
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
can resolve these Difficulties which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon V. But to return to the main Subject Our Author would say something if he knew what for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy but his Discourse is so cloudy confused and inconsisten that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places His Book consists of Five Chapters 1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain Suppose this were granted him which I have prov'd to be false I cannot see what advantage he can make of it for Bishops are neither Apostles nor Prophets He himself makes 'em Evangelists which are different from Apostles and Prophets Eph. 4.11 2. In the second Chapter he would prove That St. Paul towards the declining part of his Life made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete In Answer to which I have fully prov'd from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches was committed to the Presbyters in Parity and not to one Supreme President I have evidenced this Government to be Divine Perpetual and an apt Remedy against Schism I have shew'd that it was settled by the Apostle when he could Over-see that Church no more and had no prospect of ever seeing it again It 's pretended by the late Asserters of Episcopacy That the Apostles when they took their last leave of the Churches settled Bishops for their Successors to preside over the Presbyters as a Remedy against the growing Schisms I have demonstrated from the 20th of the Acts That it is quite otherwise that St. Paul left the Presbyters of Ephesus as his ordinary Successors in the. Government of that Church and that in prospect of Schisms and of his final departure from them The evidence of this Establishment is so bright and convincing that our Author cannot but acknowledge it p. 47. and the poor shifts which he useth there to avoid the force of this unanswerable Argument shews the power of Interest and Temptation upon self-convicted minds The Proofs for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus depends upon a nice Point of Chronology which at best is doubtful and amounts to no more than a probability and is not capable of a Demonstration This leaves the Foundations of Episcopacy doubtful and uncertain But our Proof that the Government of the Church of Ephesus was settled in the Elders of that Church is grounded upon plain matter of Fact that cannot he deny'd It 's certain that the Apostle had no prospect of seeing the Ephesian Elders any more when he committed the Government of that Church to them Acts 20.25 28. and therefore the Elders of Ephesus succeeded the Apostle in the Government of that Church But it is not certain that the Apostle made Timothy Supream Governour of that Church afterwards Most Chronologers the Defenders of Episcopacy not excepted are of Opinion That the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the Congress at Miletus mention'd in Acts 20.17 whence it naturally follows that his Charge in Ephesus was occasional and temporary as an unfixed Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and the Government of that Church was left in the Elders of it Acts 20.17 28. as the Supream and Perpetual Governours of it after the Apostle Paul It seemeth no small disparagement to the Diocesan Cause that the grand Patrons of it so extreamly differ among themselves and cannot agree about the Foundations of it The Popish Writers Jesuits and others do generally affirm That Bishops were settled betimes by the Apostles in all Churches and that though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were common the Offices were distinct The old Protestant Writers confess That God hath prescribed no one Form of Church-Government in the New Testament so Whitgift in Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. and Hooker's Eccl. Polit. Lib. III. and if no Form be commanded therefore not the Prelatical Others both Papists and Protestants do say That the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament were Bishops in a proper Sense thus Petavius and Hammond but with this difference Petavius thinks there were many Bishops in one Church as in Ephesus and that the simple manners of the Church would then bear this till Ambition had corrupted Men. Dr. Hammond conceives there was but one Bishop in one Church This Notion of Bishops without Subject Elders was begun by Scotus as Fr. a Sancta Clara intimateth Some late Writers acknowledge That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first but that the Apostles towards the latter end of their Days appointed the new Order of Superiour Bishops Bishop Pearson Dr. Beveridge and others go this way The former Hypothesis makes all the Presbyters mention'd in the New Testament to be real Bishops and this makes all the Bishops mention'd there to be meer Presbyters and pretends that Diocesan Bishops were settled afterwards Our Author espouses this last Opinion and pleads for it in his loose and confused way This Hypothesis is no less precarious than the former and receives very little Confirmation from the Author of Tentamen Novum It were much more honourable and safer for the Defenders of Episcopacy to fix it on the best Foundation it hath to wit the Laws of the Land by which the first Reformers professedly held it It was the express Doctrine of the Old Church of England before Bishop Land's time That Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters are an appointment of the Civil Magistrate as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea p. 113 114. This is agreeable to the Laws of the Land which acknowledge nothing by Divine Right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter 37. Hen. VIII Cap. 17. It is Enacted and Declared That Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from his Royal Majesty the Supream Head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by Holy Scriptures all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical The same is declared in an Act of Parliament made 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 2. in these Words All Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland See Cook 's Rep. de Jure Reg. Eccl. Fol. 8. The Institution of a Christian Man Printed in the Year 1543. and allow'd by both Houses of Parliament mentions two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons as of Divine Right 3. In the Third Chapter the Rector attempts to prove That the first Epistle to Timothy was mitten after Paul's first Bonds at Rome and consequently after the Meeting at Miletus Acts 20.17 In my Animadversions on this Chapter I have Vindicated the Ancient Chronologers and prov'd by several Arguments That that Epistle was written before the Meeting at Miletus and by necessary consequence the Government of the Church of Ephesus was in the Presbytery after the writing
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
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
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
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
So that according to his own Interpretation the Elders had Power to Decree an Excommunication He fancies the Apostle to be a sort of Lay-Chancellour and the Corinthian Elders to be like the Presbyters of the Church of England who have the Priviledge of Publishing the Excommunicating Decrees of the Chancellour 2. He alters and perverts the sacred Text for thus he renders and explains it 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have judged have Decreed as tho I were present personally concerning him that hath so done this Deed Ibid. In the Name or Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gather'd together and of my Spirit that is by my Authority with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan The English Translation according to the Original renders it When ye are gathered together and my Spirit he renders it of my Spirit as if the Construction were in the Name of my Spirit that is by my Authority * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that the whole Authority of excommunicating the Incestuous Person had been in Paul and none in the Church The Syriac which is very Ancient renders it That ye all gather together and I with you in Spirit with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ So doth the Ancient Latin Version express it * Congregatis vobis meo spiritu Thus the Rector disturbs the Order of the Text contradicts the most approved Versions both Ancient and Modern to serve a Design The Apostle speaks of the Presence of his Spirit joyning with and going before the Corinthian Elders but doth not assume the sole Power to himself He enjoyns them by his Apostolical Authority to do their Duty and allows them to Judge those within 1 Cor. 5.12 In like manner he enjoyns several things to Timothy and Titus The same Apostle saith Mr. G. excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander p. 17. 1 Tim. 1.20 No Elder joyning with him He cannot prove there were any Elders in Ephesus when Paul excommunicated these two Men or if there were any that they did not joyn with him But suppose the Apostle did Excommunicate them by his eminent Apostolical Authority and deliver them to Satan to be tormented by him which some think he did I see not what Advantage he can make of it except he could prove That Bishops are endued with the same miraculous Power VIII He comes at length to Timothy's Ordination p. 18. here he Notes from 2 Tim. 1.6 That Timothy was ordain'd by Paul without Elders mention'd This Scripture he saith the Presbyterians seldom take notice of and Mr. Pryn passes it over in silence Mr. Pryn doth mention it * The unbish of Timothy and Titus p. 76. Edit 1660. and allows that Paul laid on his Hands in Conjunction with the Presbytery The Rector being unprovided with better Matter sills part of two Pages with an Invective against Mr. Pryn for passing over this 2 Tim. 1.6 in Silence by this the Reader may see what Credit is to be given to this Gentleman's Accusations J. O. also hath consider'd this Scripture in his Plea p. 46. and saith That Pauls laying on of Hands upon Timothy might be for ought appears to the contrary for the conferring the Holy Ghost which was given by the laying on of the Apostles Hands Acts 8.17 18. but if he laid Hands for Ordination its certain he join'd the Presbyters with him which he had not done if their had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as such He promises to shew p. 10. that 1 Tim. 4.14 makes little or nothing for Presbyterian Ordination and to reconcile it with their's and it's Parallel 2 Tim. 1.6 It is a Favour that he allows the 1 Tim. 4.14 to make a little for Ordination by Presbyters but he is not sure whether it makes little or nothing for us This Gentleman is so Tenacious that where he yields an Inch you may reckon an Ell is due The Words are these 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery This is a clear Instance as we think for Ordination by Presbyters No saith the Rector it makes little or nothing for it But let 's hear his Proof He has four things to offer which if they fail him our Instance holds good I. It 's no doubt with him but that Timothy was Ordained twice P. 20 first a Presbyter by Prophecy with the Presbytery and then a Bishop by Paul How will he prove this Why Paul was Ordain'd twice first a Minister of the Word in ordinary then unto the Apostleship of the Gentiles 1. His Proof wants another Was the Apostle Paul but an ordinary Minister at first Who was called not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ Gal. 1.1 who was caught up into the Third Heaven 2 Cor. 12.2 and had abundance of Revelations v. 7. who saw the Lord Jesus and reckons himself one of the Apostles from the time of his miraculous Conversion 1 Cor. 15.8 9. Gal. 1.15 16 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem he speaks of the time immediately following his Conversion to them which were Apostles before me This implies he was an Apostle himself at that time * Pears Ann. Paul p. 2. Was he but an ordinary Minister who had the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 9.17 He that has the Confidence to make one of the chief Apostles an ordinary Minister may with equal assurance assert every ordinary Minister to be a chief Apostle St. Paul expresly saith That he was not taught his Gospel by Men but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1.12 Was he but an ordinary Minister who receiv'd his Gospel by extraordinary Revelation Bishop Pearson's Judgment which is follow'd by the Rector in his Annals I presume is of some value with him The Bishop will set him at rights he owns Paul to be an Apostle before the Mission mention'd in Acts 13.1 2. This he doth both in his Annals p. 2. and in his Lection in Act. Apost p. 74 75. So doth Eusebius Eccl. Hist II. 1. 2. He was sent by Revelation unto the Gentiles before the Ordination mention'd in Acts 13. as appears Acts 22.18.21 The Ordination mention'd there did not make him an Apostle as the Rector dreams but he had an antecedent immediate Call from Jesus Christ The Holy Ghost thought fit he should enter upon the Stated Exercise of his Apostolical Ministry amongst the Gentiles at the Door of Ordination by Presbyters for a President of Ordination to the Gentile Churches When the great Apostle of the Gentiles enters at this Door it 's fit that ordinary Ministers shou'd and if Presbyters may lay hands on an Apostle much more on inferiour Ministers 3. He allows that Timothy was made a Presbyter by Presbyters but that he was made a Bishop by Paul is
Apostle but Apostles Superiour to them Acts 15.2 and so were Prophets and Evangelists But we do not find that they were under the Inspection of one Apostle Prophet or Evangelist more than another but Subject to all and willing to be guided by them as there was occasion 4. Were not the Apostles Heads of the Bishops also This we have proved already The Superiority of the Apostles over the Presbyters doth not in the least diminish their Power as such it was fit they should act under the Inspection of the Apostles who were Infallibly Assisted by the Holy Ghost After a great deal of needless labour to himself and Reader at length he grants P. 25. That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery of which Paul was the principal Head Here you have his own Confession That Timothy was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is great and will one time or other extort Self-condemning Testimonies out of the Mouths of Adversaries But he adds That Paul was the principal Head of this Presbytery Head is an Ambiguous Word If he means by it Supreme Governour it belongs properly to Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church and Head over all things to it Eph. 1.22 5.23 No Apostle is ever call'd Head much less principal Head either of the Church or of the Presbytery in all the N. Testament It 's a Title the Pope of Rome affects If he means a subordinate Governour as I presume he doth he was no more the Head of this Presbytery than of all other Presbyteries not only in Churches Planted by him but in all others to whom the Spirit guided him His Power was the same in Rome and Coloss where he found Churches Established by others as in Ephesus or Corinth where lie settled Churches himself If the Apostle join'd the Presbytery with him in Ordination as the Rector confesseth he did it is sufficient to demonstrate That Presbyters have an inherent Power of Ordaining The Apostle's being President of the Presbytery makes no more for Bishops than it doth for Presbyters for neither of them pretend to Succeed the Apostles in the extent of Apostolical Power and all Presbyteries have a Moderator or President for Order's sake Upon the whole Matter it 's clear to me P. 27. saith Mr. G. That the Presbytery spoken of 1 Tim. 4.14 includes the Apostle Paul 1. He told us before that Paul was included in the Words by Prophecy now he includes him in the Presbytery Let us see what Sense this Interpretation makes The gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy i. e. Paul and Silas with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery i. e. of Paul and ordinary Ministers The Gift according to this Interpretation was given by the laying on of the Hands of Paul with the laying on of the Hands of Paul risum teneatis 2. The Apostles are distinguished from the Presbytery Acts 15.23 IV. The Fourth thing he hath undertaken is to consider Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Prophecy P. 28. with the laying on of the Hands of the Fresbytery Heace he infers That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets in the presence or witness and with the consent of the Presbyters 1. J. O. Prov'd in his Plea p. 47 48. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously in the N. T. which Mr. G. takes no notice of 2. Himself applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Paul by affirming that he is included in the Presbytery 3. He forgot himself in saying That Timothy was properly Ordain'd by Prophets for he own'd p. 25. That he was Ordain'd by the Presbytery Truth is one and the same but Error is inconsistent with it self 4. The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signifies more than their presence witness and consent for the presence witness and consent of the People was requisite as he confesseth but they never laid on Hands in Ordination 5. He makes Paul one of the Presbytery the laying on of his Hands according to this Hypothesis signify'd no more than his Presence and Consent Thus in denying Ordination by Presbyters he destroys Apostolical Ordination and consequently that which is Episcopal He Flurts at the Learned and Judicious Dr. Owen whose Name will live in the Church of God when such Men as he are written in the Dust He disingeniously makes the Dr. to say That we are Justify'd by Faith with good Works P. 29. that Faith is the Instrument whereby Justification is convey'd and good Works wherewith it is conferr'd He shou'd have shew'd the place where Dr. Owen saith so but this he cou'd not do The Words are his own and easily betray the Author though he wou'd fain father them upon the Doctor Dr. Owen saith according to the Scriptures That we are Justisy'd by Faith without Works the Rector makes him to say we are Justisy'd by Faith with Works In the next Lines he contradicts himself and explains the Drs. with Works by without Works for he affirms That the Presbyters contributed no more unto Ordination than good Works in the Drs. Opinion do unto Justification that is nothing at all 1. He told us once That the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery signified Ordination P. 25. afterward it signified only Consent P. 28. and here it signifies nothing at all We must crave the help of his Learned Neighbour who communicated a Quotation in J. O's Book to him to reconcile him to himself 2. It seems good Works contribute something to our Justification in the Rector's Opinion he declares himself fully of that Opinion in the next Paragraph and saith He is so far of the Drs. mind that in Justification Faith is the first and chief Instrument of Conveyance This implies That good Works are a secondary and subordinate Cause of Justification I will put this Gentleman in mind of a Passage or two in the Book of Homilies St. Paul declareth nothing here upon the behalf of Man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively Faith And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Hope Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every Man that is Justify'd but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying so that altho' they be all present together in him that is Justify'd yet they Justifie not all together * Serm. of Salvat Part 1. P. 13. Edit 1673. In the Second Part of the same Homily †P. 15. Ib. we have this remarkable Passage This Faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us this is the strong Rock and Foundation of Christian Relligion this Doctrine all old and ancient Authors of Christ's Church do approve this Doctrine advanceth and fetteth forth the true Glory of Christ and beateth down the vain glory of Man This whosoever denieth is not to be accounted a Christian Man nor for a fetter forth of Christ's Glory but for an Adversary to
his ipse dixit for Proof and then all your Doubts will vanish He confesses that the Apostle might justly Admonish and Commend Timothy P. 49. The Scope of his former Chapter was to prove the Presbyter◠were Subject to the Apostles and therefore were not Supreme Governours Now he owns Timothy to be Subject to the Apostle So that his Argument that the Presbyters had no Power of Government because Subject to the Apostles is thrown out of Doors by himself Had he been so kind as to insert this Concession in its proper place he would have spared us the trouble of several Remarks upon the former Chapter He picks out of Paul 's Epistle to Timothy the particular Rules and Orders P. 49 50. which are prescribed unto him for the discharge of his Episcopal Office The several Powers committed to Timothy in this Epistle he might execute as he was an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4 5. and Assistant of Paul in his Apostolical Function and as his Delegate to Order and Regulate the Church It was Timothy 's part to see to the Qualifications of those who were to be Ordained at Ephesus P. 50. If this be the proper work of a Bishop how come our Bishops to depute this work to one of their Presbyters At his death he left a Successor with the same Powers P. 55. Timothy was an Evangelist an extraordinary Officer Eph. 4.5 11. Did he leave Successors with the same extraordinary Powers If Evangelists one Species of extraordinary Officers have Successors why should not Apostles and Prophets also have Successors assigned them Apostles Prophets and Evangelists were alike extraordinary and Superiour to Pastors and Teachers the ordinary Officers of Christ's Church No reason can be given why one sort of extraordinary Officers should be continued more than the rest which are confessedly ceas'd But let 's hear his Proofs 1. It was no ways likely but that Timothy was expresly Impower'd by St. Paul to provide for the future Government of the Church and perhaps his Commission is in that 2 Tim. 2.2 or if not yet he would of his own accord settle it upon the same bottom that himself had received it from the Apostle Something he would say but knows not what I expected a clear Proof but we are put off with a perhaps it was so or so or so one way or other it must be It 's likely he was Impower'd to provide for the future Government of the Church Paul provided for it in Acts 20.28 His Commission in 1 Tim. 22.11 is to commit the things that he had heard of Paul to faithful Men which should be able to Teach others also Is this a Commission to Ordain Bishops Are all Teachers Bishops The Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 are but meer Teachers with him and now the Teachers in Ephesus are Ordaining Bishops The Bishops which the Holy Ghost made in Ephesus he degrades into ordinary Teachers who have no Ordaining Power and now when it serves his turn he advances the Teachers Ordained by Timothy into the Order of Superiour Bishops But Timothy would of his own accord settle the Government as he received it He received the Power of an Evangelist which was Temporary as was that of the Apostles and Prophets 2. Timothy left a Successor P. 56. because Christ directs his Message to the Angel of the Church in the singular Number if that Church had been Govern'd by a Presbytery the Message must have been Express'd in the Plural 1. Angel is a Metaphorical Term and is generally applied to the Heavenly Spirits which are Ministring Spirits to the Heirs of Salvation Heb. 1.14 So that this Title denotes a Ministry rather than Degrees of Superiority 2. Angel is often taken collectively and seldom personally in the Mysterious Book of the Revelation Rev. 9.11 14.6 8 9. And so are Stars used which are the same with Angels Rev. 1.20 12.1 8.10 9.1 They are Mystical Terms and no clear Consequence can be deduced from them Austin in his Disputations with the Donatists excepts against Mystical Figurative Scriptures and requires some clear Texts that carry their own Evidence with them * Haec Mystica sunt opertasunt Figurata sunt aliquid manifestum quod interprete non egeat stagitamus De Vnit Eccl. Cap. XIX The Epistles were Dedicated to all the Churches as well as to the Angels and by the same reason must be directed to all the Ministers as well as to one Can it be imagined that the Spirit should speak to all the Churches and not to all the Ministers 3. There were several Bishops in Ephesus Acts 20.28 and doubtless all of them were concerned in Christ's Message though it might be directed to one as President or Moderator for Order's sake But Mr. G. will never be able to prove that one Angel had Jurisdiction over the rest 4. If there were any thing of certainty in the Celestial Hierarchy which is described by the Supposititious Dionysius the Order of Angels strictly call'd so is the lowest of all the rest * Extremo loco inter Coelestes Essentias Angelicam proprietam obtinent De Coel. Hierar Cap. 9. How comes that to be the highest Order among Ecclesiastical Angels which is the lowest among Celestial Argels He adds the Reason why 't is said Angel in the singular Number because saith he there was an Opinion current in those Days that every Province had his peculiar Guardian Angel Deut. 32.8 in the LXX Dan. 12.1 10.12 13. 1. The current Opinion of a Provincial Guardian Angel is very doubtful at the best and without Foundation in the Scriptures he quotes 2. The Seventy Interpreters render Deut. 32.8 He set the bounds of the People accordirg to the number of the Angels of God whereas according to the Hebrew it should be according to the number of the Children of Israel They seem to allude to the Jewish Fabulous Tradition concerning the Seventy Angels set over the Seventy Nations of the World †Lights Vol. II. p. 402. 3. According to this Allusion the Rector would have the Holy Ghost to constitute but one Bishop for one Province or Nation and but Seventy for all the Nations of the World But the Holy Ghost who is no Friend to Fabulous Traditions mentions Seven Angels in one Province namely the Pronconsular Asia and there were as many in every Church as there were Presbyters therein 4. Is it not more probable that the Spirit alludes to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Argel of the Church as the Jews call'd the publick Minister of every Synagogue * Lights Vol. II. p. 133. in Conformity to the Language of the Old Testament Job 33.23 Hag. 1.13 Mal. 21.7 He is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messenger or Angel †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 2.7 in LXX is taken collectively for all Teaching Priests Mal. 3.1 8. 2.7 If Angel be taken Collectively by Malachi
Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 and we hear no more of him 3. He thinks Titus 1.5 That thou mightest Ordain Elders not rightly Translated it should be That thou mightest appoint and settle Elders in every City This presupposes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining also 1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers for which they feign him a Bishop to wit his Ordaining of Elders This he saith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5 If this Text doth not prove his Ordaining Power no one in that Epistle doth 2. He fancies that assigning unto Presbyters their power and special places was the work of Titus in Crete and that this was after Ordination Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City or particular Church as he himself explains it Act 14.23 and were they not chosen by the Multitude before Ordination as he also confesseth in the case of his Deacon-Presbyters Acts 6. He would do well to tell us What new power was assign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders needed a Licence from their Bishop to impower them to Preach after Ordination as the Canon requires †Can. 36. Paul says he entrusts him with the charge of seeing unto the Qualifications of Elders P. 65. v. 6 7 8 9. The same though more compendious than those in 1 Tim. 3. 1. All that he might do as an Evangelist or the Apostle's Delegate as the Bishop's Chaplain or Arch-Deacon examine the Candidates for the Ministry with us 2. He wisely overlooks the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters which is asserted in both the places he Quotes Titus 1.5 6 7 8. Ordain Elders if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless The Reason were Incogent if Elder and Bishop were not the same The Qualification of Elders here are the same with those of a Bishop in 1 Tim. 3. as he confesseth Bishops and Presbyters were the same not only at first but even at this time when these Epistles were Written to Timothy and Titus which makes it evident they were Evangelists Superiour to Presbyters Eph. 4.11 and not Bishops in a proper Sense who are one and the same with Presbyters He will not be able to give one Instance in all the New Testament of any one ordinary Minister or Elder that was made Superiour to his Brethren of the same Order with him Nor of any extraordinary Officer that was made Superiour to others of the same kind One Apostle was not made Superiour to another Apostle nor one Prophet to another Prophet nor one Evangelist to another Evangelist though the Apostles were above the Prophets and the Prophets above the Evangelists and all the Three were Superiour to the Presbyters but no one Presbyter is made Superiour in degree much less a Ruler over another Presbyter The Apostle impowers him says he Cap. 1.11 to stop the Mouths or Silence false Teachers to rebuke them sharply v. 13. that is v. 10. the Vnruly or Non-conformists c. 1. The Apostle Explains his Meaning about stopping the Mouths of false Teachers in v. 9. That he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince Gainsayers He speaks of the Presbyters ordain'd by Titus that they must be able to convince Gainsayers and so to stop their mouths Even private Persons are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stop the mouths or put to silence the ignorance of foolish men 1 Pet. 2.15 2. But suppose it be meant of an Authoritative Silencing of such it is no more than what Titus might do as an Evangelist and the Apostles Delegate 3. The Rector shews his good will to have the Nonconformists silenced but it 's well that cursed Cows have short Horns 4. The Nonconformists or uaruly Persons the Apostle speaks of were a sort of Judaizing Christians that retain'd the Legal Ceremonies and the Commandments of Men T it 1.10 13. They were not content with the Simplicity and Plainness of Gospel-Institutions but would super-add their own Inventions and impose them upon others These were the Nonconformists that would not conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel nor leave others in the quiet possession of Gospel-Priviledges unless they submitted to their Impositions Acts 15.2 Gal. 4.9 10. and 5.1 2 Col 2.20 23. Grotius gives another Character by which these Nonconformists may be known He saith That the Apostle pointed at those who taught that all Israelites had a part in the World to come * Grot. in Tit. 1.10 Not unlike some People who affirm all to be saved ‖ Vid. Com. Prayer Burial Dead that have the happiness to die in their Communion and do not lay violent Hands upon themselves We are obliged to the Rector for helping us to a right Notion of Nonconformity There are two sorts of Nonconformists Some are so call'd because they do not conform to Unscriptural Impositions these the Text speaks nothing of Others as the Rector well observes may be so call'd because they do not Conform to the Simplicity of the Gospel but impose humane â—nventions as Terms of Communion The latter of these two are the Culpable Nonconformists I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing these lest be be condemned out of his own Mouth Paul instructs him to reject a Heretick p. 66. Tit. 3.10 That he might do as an Evangelist What he transcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete and we have already consider'd Ignatius bis Bishop Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery P. 76. nor any share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles saith our Author 1. The Epistles were directed to Evangelists who were superiour to Presbyters and therefore it was fit the Exhortation should be immediately directed to them 2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters also as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church and doubtless were intended for the use of the Church unto the end of time 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3. The Presbyters are concern'd I hope in the several Directions to Purity Patience Constancy Faithfulness in dispensing the Word c. 1 Tim 6.11 12. 2 Tim. 2.3 4. and 4.1 2 3. 3. It is a very gross mistake that the Presbytery had no share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles Paul ordain'd Bishops there who among other Qualifications must be such as Rul'd well their own Houses that they might take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.4 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17 he mentions Elders that Ruled well and mere worthy of Double Honour He contradicts himself and saith that the Presbyters had some Interest in the Government tho' their Power was subordinate as appears from the Council at Jerusalem P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apostles themselves doubtless then and much more with Timothy and Titus They had no share in the Government and yet they had some Interest in it himself can best reconcile these inconsistent Propositions They were
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