Tutamen Evangelicum: OR, A DEFENCE OF Scripture-Ordination, Against the EXCEPTIONS of T. G. In a Book Intituled, Tentamen Novum, Proving, That Ordination by Presbyters is Valid; Timothy and Titus were no Diocesan Rulers; The Presbyters of Ephesus were the Apostles Successors in the Government of that Church, and not Timothy; The First Epistle to Timothy was Written be­fore the Meeting at Miletus; The Ancient Waldenses had no Diocesan Bi­shops, &c.

By the Author of the Plea for Scripture-Ordination.

Confirmatio juvenum, Clericorum Ordinatio, locorum Conse­cratio reservatur Papae & Episcopis propter cupiditatem lu­cri temporalis & honoris. Art. 28. Doctr. Joh. Wiclef. in Conc. Constantiens.

London: Printed for Zachary Whitworth, Bookseller in Manchester, 1697.

THE PREFACE.

J. O. Published some Years since, A Plea for Scripture-Ordination, Proving by Scripture and Antiquity, That Ordina­tion by Presbyters, without Bishops, is Valid.

Several Hands were said to be at Work, preparing Remarks upon it; at length, after near Three Years Silence, comes forth a sort of Answer, by one Mr. T. G. Rector of B. in Lancashire, an Author well known in his Countrey, by some Prerogative Sermons, which he Printed some Years since.

I. He Fronts his English Book with a La­tine Title, and calls it Tentamen Novum, that is, A new Tryal of Skill. Here is an implicit Confession of a baffled Cause; he dare not trust to the Old Arguments for Episcopacy, but is glad to betake himself to New Shifts. It's a desperate Cause that needs new Arts to support it.

The plain English of Tentamen Novum is this: Gentlemen, I am very sensible the [Page]Cause I Plead for cannot stand on its old Foundations; therefore I will make a New Effort, and try, Whether the lofty Fabrick of Diocesan Episcopacy may not be Sup­ported on the Slender and Nice Founda­tions of a new Point of Chronology. If this fails, the Cause is lost.

However, his Title looks a little Modest, but a Man of Assurance cannot be long Con­ceal'd under a Vizard, for in the very next Words he calls his Argument a Demonstra­tion. For thus his Title-Page runs; Tenta­men Novum, Proving that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Rulers, by an Argu­ment drawn frhm the time of St. Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus, and leaving Titus at Crete, as it is demonstrated by Bishop Pearson.

A Doubtful Attempt, and a Consident Demonstration, are something inconsistent. But I have been so kind to him as to Reconcile the Title-Page to the Title of his Book, by proving his Supposed Demonstration to be on­ly a Tentamen Novum, a new and fruitless Attempt, to defend an Un-scriptural Hie­rarchy. This the Reader way find in the Third and Fourth Chapter of this Book.

II. I desire the Reader to observe, That there is but one Chapter (Chap. V.) in the Rector's Book, which he calls an Answer to J. O's Plea, and in that he briefly touches upon Two or Three of Ten Arguments, which J. [Page]O. has urged for Ordination by Presbyters. This is Tentamen Novum, a new way of Answering Books. He pretends to Answer J. O's Plea for Scripture-Ordination, which is the Running-Title of the whole Book, and so would persuade his Reader that he has An­swer'd the whole.

I will not impeach his Candour in this Form of Speech, which shews his Skill in a Rhetorical Figure, that Substitutes a Part for the whole: As if a vain-glorious Captain, who had At­tack'd a Company or two, should say by a Romantick Syneedoche, he had beaten an Army.

III. The Design of his Book is to prove, That meer Presbyters have no Inherent Power of Or­dination; and that all Ordinations by Presby­ters are a Nullity. This Notion is very sin­gular, and I hope has but few Patrons in the Church of England, because,

1. It Ʋn-churches all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, who have no Bishops of the En­glish Species, and by this Gentleman's Princi­ples, no Ministry, no Sacraments, and conse­quently no Salvation. He owns a true Mini­stry in the Popish Church, and overthrows the Ministry of the Reformed Churches. His Neighbours of the Romish Communion are obliged to conn him Thanks for the Service he would have done to their Cause against the Re­formed Interest. To say, Theirs is a Case of Necessity, but so is not ours, is to triste, [Page]as J. O. hath prov'd in his Book, but Mr. G. wisely passed over that Chapter, as if it were not there.

2. This uncharitable Hypothesis contradicts the Moderate and Learned Defenders of Epis­copacy, who generally grant the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, though they judge it irregular where Bishops may be had.

Mr. Hooker allows the Ordination of Pres­byters alone, on this Principle, That the Church can give them Power, for according to him all Power is originally in the whole Body. Eccl. Polit. VII. p. 37, 38.

Bishop Downame grants, That extraor­dinarily, in case of necessity, Presbyters may ordain without Bishops, and gives this Reason for the Validity of their Ordination; because Imposition of Hands in Confirmation, and Reconciliation of Penitents, were reserv'd to Bishops, as well as Ordination, and yet in the absence of Bishops may be done by Presby­ters. Def. of his Cons. Serm. III. 3. P. 69, 108.

Forbes acknowledges, That Jure Divino Presbyters have the Power of Ordaining, as well as of I reaching and Baptizing, though they must use it under the Bishop's Inspection, in those places that have Bishops. Iren. p. 164.

The same was the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Usher. See his Life and Reduct. by Dr. Ber­nard. The Arch-Bishop of Spalato speaks to the same purpose. De Rep. Eccles. in several [Page]places. He saith, That the Presbyterial Order hath always the Keys annexed, and that when any is Ordain'd Presbyter, the Keys are given him, and Jurisdiction with Orders, by Divine Right. Lib. V. Cap. 12. p. 473.

3. This Hypothesis condemns the very Church of England, who in her Articles (Composed by the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and the Clergy in Convocation, and Confirm'd by Parliament, 13. Eliz. 12.) allows the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea, which are by Presbyters.

Art. 23. Those we ought to Judge law­fully Call'd and Sent, which be chosen and call'd to this Work by Men who have Pub­lick Authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard Vid. Rog. in Prop. 5..

The Article doth not say, None are Law­fully call'd but by Bishops, but that Mini­sters ought to be Call'd by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation, which Ordaining Presbyters may have, and actually have in the Foreign Re­form'd Congregations

The Church of England acknowledged Ordi­nations by Presbyters, and look'd upon Supe­riour Bishops to be but a prudential Consti­tution of the Civil Magistrate, as J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Book, Cap. IX which Mr. G. also prudently overlooks. We may [Page]presume he hath good Reason for his Omis­sions.

The Ordinations of Foreign Churches were not Question'd here before Bishop Laud's time. My Lord Bacon complains of it, as a new thing, and uncommon in his days. Some in­discreet Persons, saith he, have been told Forte Leg. Bold. in open preaching, to use derogatory Speech and Censure of the Churches abroad, and that so far, as some of our Men, as I have heard, Ordain'd in Foreign Parts, have been pronounced to be no Lawful Mini­sters Resusc. Part I. P. 137..

The Jus Divinum of Episcopacy began to be urged about that time, to the great Joy and Advantage of the Popish Party, as appears by a Letter to a Popish Peer in Ireland, from T. White, Dat. Lond. Feb. 12. 1639. in which are these Words. We be in a fair way e'er long, to Asswage Heresie and her Epis­copacy, for Exetor's Book hath done more for the Catholicks than they could have done themselves: For having written that Episcopacy in Office and Jurisdiction is ab­solutely Jure Divino, which was the old Quarrel between our Bishops, and K. H. VIII. (during his Heresie) then disputed upon, which Book doth not a little trou­ble our Adversaries, who declare this Te­nent of Exetor's to be contrary to the Laws of the Land.

[Page]This Letter was found, with other Papers, at the taking of Droghedah, after the Rout of Remines. Copia vera ab Origin. ut fuit cum Hen. Midens. Episcopo.

The Book which White refers to, is Bishop Hall's Divine Right of Episcopacy, which was alter'd, and put into the Form in which we now have it, by Arch-Bishop Laud. Bishop Hall's first Draught, call'd, Episcopacy an Ancient, Holy, and Divine Institution, the Arch-Bishop directed him to alter it into, So An­cient, as that it is of Divine Institution. Hall defined Episcopacy, by being joyn'd with Imparity and Superiority of Jurisdiction, Laud directs him to define it by a distinction of Orden. Hall grants that the Presbyteri­an Government may be of use where Epis­copacy may not be had. Laud tells him this is of dangerous Consequence, and that we must not use any mincing Terms, nor hamper our selves for fear of speaking plain Truth, though it be against Amsterdam or Geneva.

The Bishop of Exon found good Cause (saith my AuthorDr. Heyl. Life of A. Bish. Laud, p. 400, 401, 402.) to Correct the Obliquity of his Opinion, according to the Rules of these Animadversions.

Bishop Hall's Book being finished, the Arch-Bishop read it over with care and diligence. In the perusal of which, he took notice amongst other things, That the strict Superstition of the Sabbatarians, was but lightly touch'd at; [Page]whereas he thought, that some smarter Plaister to that Sore might have done no harm. He ob­served also, that he had passed by this Point, viz. Whether Episcopacy be an Order or a Degree, as not material: Whereas, in the Judgment of such Learned Men as he had con­sulted, it was the main ground of the whole Cause, and therefore desir'd him to alter it with his own Pen. But that which gave him most offence was, That the Title of Antichrist was positively and determinately bestowed on the Pope, which he allow'd not of.

According to which good advice, saith Dr. Heylin, the Bishop of Exon qualified some of his Expressions, and deleted others. ubi supr. p. 406. It is remarkable, that at the same time that the Divine Right of Episcopacy be­gan to be asserted here, the Divine Right of the Christian Sabbath was call'd in question, and the Consciencious Observers of it were branded with the odious Name of Sabbatarians. At the same time also, the old Doctrine of the Church of England, That the Pope is Anti-Christ, began to be out of request.

4. This Hypothesis condemns the late Epis­copal Church of Scotland, which admitted Or­dination by Presbyters to be valid, as Dr. Bur­net, Bishops of Sarum affirms. Thus he: The Bishops of Scotland never required the Pres­byterian Ministers there to take Episcopal Ordination; they required them only to come and act with them in Church-Judi­catories. [Page]Even Arch-Bishop Sharp himself, when he was to be Consecrated Arch-Bi­shop of St. Andrews, stood out for some time here in England, before he would sub­mit to take Priest's Orders. — No Bi­shop during my stay in that Kingdom, ever did so much as desire any of the Pres­byterians to be Re-ordained Bishops of Sarum's Vindie. p. 84, 85. Lond. 1696

The advancing of an Hypothesis so favour­able to the Romish Church, so destructive to the Reformed Churches abroad, so inconsistent with the Articles of the Church of England, (which Mr. G. hath subscribed) and so con­trary to the Practice of the Scottish Bishops, and the repeated Declarations of several of our English Bishops, may tempt Persons to suspect the design of the Book, if not of the Author. But we will charitably hope he meant well, and in a transport of Zeal, which excludes freedom of thought, might easily over-look the fatal Con­sequences of his indigested Principles.

IV. He tells us a long Story in his Preface of the occasion of his publishing of his Book, p. 1. and 2. and complains that his Sermon of the Consecration and Holiness of Churches has not been Answered by the Dissenters, and, saith he, there is good reason for it, which I shall not here repeat. To repeat a thing not mentioned before is a little improper. I con­fess there is good Reason why that Sermon has not been answered, and that is, his not Prin­ting it; let him Publish it, and he shall not [Page]long complain, That that Controversie is dropt.

I am a Stranger to that Sermon, but I ex­pect he should prove the Consecration and Ho­liness of Churches by the Scripture, for he al­lows (Pref. p. 13.) That we ought to be Go­vern'd by Scripture, and to keep close to Scripture-practice. I am sure he cannot prove it from the New Testament, which is the pecu­liar Law of Christ, and the Rule of Christians. It doth not appear, that Christ, or his Apostles, ever Consecrated any Places of Worship. Nor can he prove it from the Old Testament. By the Ceremonial Law (which in the main Branches of it was more Ancient than Moses, and expi­red with the Jewish Temple) our publick Churches are so far from being holy, that they are un­clean, because the Dead are buried there. He that touched a Grave was unclean by the old Law, Num. 19.16. The Jews buried their Dead not in their Temple, or Synagogues, but in places appropriated to that use, which they ac­counted unclean. They buried ordinarily without the Cities, Lu. 7.12 Vid. Ligh. vol. II. p. 323..

Their Synagogues, which answer to our Pa­rish Churches, were not Consecrated as the Tem­ple was: nor was there any Law for the Conse­cration of them, nor of their Divinity-Schools, which they judged more Holy than their Syna­goguesMaim. in Godw. Mo­ses and Aaron, II. 2..

Optatus observes, That the Donatists began to bury in Churches in his time, and adds, That [Page]it was not Lawful to Bury in the House of God Ad Parm. lib. 3. p. 36. He seems to refer to a Law of Gra­tian the Emperor, as Baldwin observes in his Annotations on Optatus.

The purest Ages of Christianity had no Con­secrated Temples nor AltarsArnob. adv. Gent. lib. VI.. For this Reason Caecilius in Minucius Foelix, reproaches the Christians, and asks, Cur nullas Aras habent, nulla Templa? Why have they no Altars, no Temples, no visible ImagesMin. Foel. Octav. p. 29. Oxon.? Minucius an­swers, What Temple can I build unto Him, whom the World, which is Created by His Power, cannot contain? And since I, a Man, dwell more at large, shall I include so great a Majesty within one little House? Is He not better Consecrated in the bottom of our Hearts Ibid. p. 94.?

To the same purpose speaks Clemens Alex­andrinus; He that is endued with Know­ledge, saith he, Honours God, that is, gives Thanks for the knowledge of an upright Life, neither in a definitive place, nor in a select Temple, nor on certain stated Festi­vals, but through his whole Life, and in every place. And a little after, Every place is truly Sacred in which we Converse with God Strom. 7..

The Heathen built their Temples upon the Graves, or Ashes of their Dead, as Arnobi­us affirmsLib. VI.. For this reason Clemens Alex­andrinus calls them Sepulchers; You call them, saith he, by the specious Name of [Page]Temples, but they were Sepulchers, that is, Sepulchers were call'd Temples In [...]..

These they dedicated by certain Ceremonies to the Memory of their deceas'd Friends, whom they honoured as Gods, and accounted their Temples Sacred, as Caecilius speaksƲbi supr. p. 18, 19.. He complains that the Christians despised them as polluted Gravesp. 25.. The wiser sort of Heathens acknow­ledged, that their Consecrated Temples had no real Holiness in them. No Edifice, saith Plato in Clemens Alexandrinus, is of any great worth, or truly Holy, that is built by sordid Mechanicks Strom. V..

In imitation of them the Christians, as they degenerated from the Apostolical Simplicity, built Temples in honour of departed Saints and Martyrs. They call'd their Temples after their Names, Dedicated them to such and such Saints, in Memory of which they kept Festivals, which gave occasion to our Wakes. We have some Instances of these Dedications and Festivals in the Fourth Century. Euseb. Vit. Constant. IV. Nazian. Orat. in Nov. Dominic.

No Instance can be given of any Dedica­tion of Temples till about Constantine's time, and the Dedications of that Age were no Cere­monious Consecrations; they were only cele­brated with Solemn Prayers, Praises, Preach­ing, and Administring the Eucharist, which are the stated Duties to be performed in such places. The first performance of these Religious Duties can have no more Vertue for Consecration of the [Page]Place, than the continued Series of them. Eu­sebius mentions also some Orations in Commen­dation of the Benefactor, and the Magnificen­cy of the Structure, which were delivered at those SolemnitiesVit. Const. IV. 45.. These had no Consecrating Vertue in them.

Ceremonious Consecrations appropriated un­to Bishops, were unknown in the three first Centuries.

I find but one Instance of it in the Fourth Century, and that in the Roman Church, in which Superstitions grew faster than in other Churches, and this instance is very dubious. The Roman Council under Sylvester is said to Decree, That no Presbyter presume to Ce­lebrate Mass, but in Places Consecrated by the Bishop Epit. Syn. Rom. Sub. Sylvest..

The Acts of this Council are justly suspected to be Spurious, for certain the Twentieth Canon, which forbids Judging the first Seat is so. Vid. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6..

Above a hundred Years after, A. D. 456. an Irish Council under St. Patrick determin'd, That no Presbyter, who had built a Church, do offer (the Eucharistic Sacrifice) until he bring the Bishop to Consecrate it, C. 23.

About the Year 494. the Power of Conse­crating Churches, which the Bishops had before appropriated to themselves, was restrained to Metropolitans by Pope Gelasius Ep. IX. c. 4. & 25..

In the Year 619. the Second Council of Se­vil acknowledges, That the Consecration of [Page]Churches is forbidden Presbyters, Novellis & Ecclesiasticis regulis, by certain new Ecclesi­astical CanonsCon. His. 2 Can. 7..

The Consecration of Altars is almost as an­cient as the Consecration of Churches. It is mention'd about the Year of Christ 506. in the Council of Agatha, Can. 10. & 29. and a­bout the Year 563. in the Council of Braga Conc. Bracar. Can. 37..

For the same reason that we have laid aside the Consecration of Altars, we may also that of Churches.

We conceive that all places are equally near to Heaven, and that all Places where the Wor­ship of God is Celebrated, are equally Holy. God looks more on the disposition of the Worshipper, than he doth on the place of Worship Aug. de Ʋnit. Cap. 16., as Austin well speaks.

1. Mr. G. will do well to shew us, 1. some Warrant from the New Testament, for Conse­cration and Holiness of Places, which he seems so fond of.

2. When he hath done that, let him shew us what Authority from the New Testament the Bishops have to appropriate the Consecration of Churches to their Order. Did Timothy or Ti­tus, whom he calls Bishops, Consecrate Churches?

3. If the Gospel give them no such Power, can he shew any Canons made since the Refor­mation, that do impower them to Consecrate Places of Worship. We have Forms for the Or­dering of Priests and Deacons, and for the Consecrating of Bishops and Arch-Bishops; we [Page]have a Form for Confirmation also; but no Form, nor Order, nor Direction, about the Con­secration of Churches that ever I cou'd meet with. Indeed the Roman Pontifical can supply us with one.

Dr. Heylin tells us, that Arch-Bishop Laud had a design to draw up an English Pontifical, to be approv'd by the Convocation, in the Year 1640. This new Pontifical was to contain, among other things, a Form to be observed by all Arch-Bishops and Bishops, for Consecrating Churches, Church-Yards, and ChapelsLaud's. Life, p. 441.. But the Troubles of the Time obliged him to de­fer the prosecution of it till a fitter conjuncture. When King Charles II. returned, and the Bi­shops had all the advantage they could desire, they did not prosecute the design, not being so violent in that Point, as Laud and his Party had been.

4. Wherein doth a Consecration promote the acceptance of our Devotions with. God? Is the Worship of God more acceptable in a Con­secrated, than in an Ʋnconsecrated Place? If it be not, what are we the better for Consecra­tion? If it be, let the Rector prove it. Can he shew any Promise that is made to Consecrated Places as such, under the Gospel? He cannot produce either a Command of Precedent for Consecration of Places under the Gospel, nor a Promise to such Places above others. Jesus Christ Promises to meet his People in all places, without distinction, Mat. 18.20. John 4.21, 23. [Page]1 Tim. 2.8. He dwelleth not in material temple, Acts 7.49. and 17.24.

The Rector hath studied this Subject, and can resolve these Difficulties, which we shall expect in his Celebrated Consecration-Sermon.

V. But to return to the main Subject. Our Author would say something, if he knew what, for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, but his Discourse is so cloudy, confused, and incon­sisten, that it is hard to imagine what he drives at in several places.

His Book consists of Five Chapters.

1. In the first Chapter he endeavours to prove that none but Apostles and Prophets did Ordain. Suppose this were granted him, which I have prov'd to be false, I cannot see what advantage he can make of it; for Bishops are neither Apo­stles nor Prophets. He himself makes 'em Evan­gelists, which are different from Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 4.11.

2. In the second Chapter he would prove, That St. Paul, towards the declining part of his Life, made Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete. In Answer to which, I have fully prov'd, from acts 20. That the Government of the Church of Ephesus, and by undeniable consequence of all other Churches, was committed to the Presbyters in Parity, and not to one Supreme President.

I have evidenced this Government to be Di­vine, Perpetual, and an apt Remedy against Schism. I have shew'd that it was settled by [Page]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 [Page]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, [Page]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 [Page]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 [Page]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 of that Epi­stle, on which Timothy's supposed Episcopal Power is grounded. I do not pretend that my Arguments are Demonstrations (as he calls his for the contrary Opinion) but they carry with them the greatest probability, That that Epistle was written earlier than the Rector pretends, whose Arguments I have evinced to be weak and fallacious. Tho' if it were written after, it doth not prejudice my Argument from Acts 20.

4. In the Fourth Chapter he pretends to prove, That Evangelists were fixed Church-Governours, that is, Bishops. His main Argu­ment, by which he would Establish this fancy, is a begging of the Question; he takes it for gran­ted, that Timothy was a fixed Evangelist at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. That they were Evangelists he cannot deny; that they were un­fixed, I have prov'd, in my Remarks on this Chapter. I have prov'd Philip also to be no fixed Evangelist, and vindicated Eusebius and Chry­sostom.

5. In the Fifth Chapter he makes a flourish as if he would answer J. O's Plea, but leaves the [Page]greatest Part untouched, and answers only the three first Arguments, and that very slatterinly.

Thus you have a short Idea of his Book, in which he discovers little of Argument, less of Reading, and nothing of Candor. Tedious Di­gressions, Nauseous Repetitions, and Scornful Reflections on J. O. and the Dissenters, make up very near one Third of his Book. The Truth of this will appear to any intelligent and impar­tial Reader.

I should not have thought it worth while to have Answer'd it, but for the clamorous Confi­dence of some weak People, who reckon a Book un­answerable, when no Reply is made unto it.

His Preface being large, I must consider the main parts of it in a distinct Chapter, and in the following Chapters shall Examine the several Chapters of his Book, so as my second will answer to his first, and my third to his second, and so of the rest.

He must pardon me, if I be more just to him, than he has been to the Author of the Plea, and if I follow him Paragraph by Paragraph, in all that is material, and may seem worth Answer­ing throughout his Book: For I judge it below a Scholar, and a Man of Ingenuity, to pick quar­rels with a few Passages here and there, in a Book, and leave the greatest Part unanswer'd, as he hath done by

J. O.

THE Reader may observe the Parallel between our Rector's, and Dr. Man­waring's Political Notions, Condemn'd in Par­liament, 4 Carol. 1628. The Doctor's Charge drawn up by a Committee of the Commons was this. Rush. Hist. Collect. Vol. 1. p. 585. Edit. 1659. 1. He labours to infuse into the Con­science of His Majesty, the persuasion of a Power not bounding it self with Laws, which K. James, of Famous Memory, calls in His Speech to the Parliament, Tyranny, yea, Tyranny accompanied with Perjury.

The Rector goes beyond Manwaring in this Point, for he saith, That the King's Corona­tion Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, un­to which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution: And if a Prince should not give this Assurance, the Rector conceives he is not obliged to Govern strict­ly by the present Law.

2. Manwaring is charg'd, to endeavour to persuade the Conscience of the Subjects, that they are bound to obey Commands illegal.

The Rector saith, We must supply the Prince's Occasions, though Five Hundred Men (i. e. a House of Commons) at once should forbid us, and to this we are bound in Conscience, though the Prince should happen to be an Usur­per and a Tyrant.

[Page]3. The third Charge against Manwaring was, That he robs the Subjects of the Pro­priety of their Goods.

The Rector saith, We must supply the Prince's Occasions, though five hundred Men should for­bid, because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much swell'd, and affirms, That it is one main ground of Political Government, to de­prive the Subject from being his own Judge, and Asserter of his own Privileges.

4. Dr. Manwaring brands them that will not lose this Propriety with most scanda­lous Speech, and odious Titles.

The Rector is very liberal in odious Reflections on my Lord Shaftsbury, and others, who op­posed the Arbitrary Proceedings in the latter end of King Charles II's. Reign.

5. To the same end, not much unlike to Faux and his Fellows, saith Mr. R. in the Name of the Committee, he seeks to blow up Parliaments, and Parliamentary Powers.

The Rector saith, The Prince, in effect, is the sole Sovereign Power, if he pleases to Usurp and Exercise it.

You see the Rector Confirms all Dr. Man­waring's Positions, and adds some grosser ones of his own, especially that the King's Coro­nation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, to which he is not obliged.

[Page] This puts me in mind of the Words of a wor­thy Patriot, spoken in Parliament, March 22. 1627. upon occasion of Sibthorp and Man­waring's Sermons. Rush. Ibid. P. 503. It is well known, saith he, the People of this State are under no other Subjection than what they did volun­tarily consent to, by the Original Contract between King and People; and as there are many Prerogatives and Priviledges con­ferr'd on the King, so there are left to the Subject many necessary Liberties and Privi­ledges, as appears by the common Laws and Acts of Parliaments, notwithstanding what these twoSibthorp and Man­waring. Sycophants have prated in the Pulpit to the contrary.

The Commons form'd the Charge against Dr. Manwaring into a Declaration, which being Ingross'd and Read, was sent to the Lords for their Concurrence. Mr. Pym's Learned Speech at the delivery of the Charge before the Lords, is well worth the reading. Rush. ubi supr. p. 595—604.

Not long after the Commons proceeded to give Judgment against Dr. Manwaring. 1. To be Imprisoned during the Pleasure of the House. 2. To be Fined 1000 l. to the King. 3. To make such a Submission as the House shall prescribe. 4. To be Suspended from his Ministry three Years. 5. To be dis­abled to have any Ecclesiastical Dignity, or Secular Office. 6. To be disabled to Preach at Court hereafter. 7. That his said Book [Page]is worthy to be Burnt, and that His Ma­jesty may be mov'd to grant a Proclamation to call in the said Books, that they may be all burnt in London, and both Universities. Rush. Ibid. p. 605.

Mr. FullerChurch Hist. Lib. XI. p. 130. saith, That much of this Cen­sure was remitted, upon his humble Submission at both the Bars in Parliament, the Form of which you have in him, and in Mr. Rushworth.

But the King Issued out His Proclamation for the total Suppressing of the Sermons Rush. Ibid. p. 633..

I mention these things not to expose the Rector, who is secured by several Acts of Grace pass'd since the Publishing of those Sermons, but to ex­pose his dangerous Doctrine, that overturns the Foundations of our excellent Government.

THE Contents of the Chapters.

  • CHAP. I. THE Dissenters Vindicated in their 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. [Page]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. [Page]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, [Page 2]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 [Page 3]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 I see not why he should mention it here, except it were to vent his Spleen against poor Calvin, not the English Calvin (alias Baldwin) but the French Minister of that Name, upon whom he passeth this Censure;

I am persuaded, Page 3. if the most understanding Calvinist would represent the Opinions of that great Man in their true Colours, he would fright more out of their Wits, than he could solidly satisfie, or Proselyte to his Party.

If I should attempt to represent the O­pinions of Calvin in their true Colours, I despair of satisfying a Man of Mr. G's. Kid­ney; nor would I be so spiteful, as to fright him out of his Wits: However, I hope I may, without prejudice to his Intellect, re­fer him to the Seventeenth Article of the Church of England, concerning Predestina­tion and Election, and to the Prayer at Bu­rials, [Page 4]That God would shortly accomplish the number of his Elect, which assert one of Cal­vin's most frightful Doctrines, namely, that of Election, which implies Reprobation, or Preterition. To choose, is to Select some from among others that are left.

I presume he hath declared his Assent and Consent to the Articles and Liturgy, with what Sincerity he knows best: Per­haps his pre-conceived Notions have given such a Tincture to his Eyes, as happily se­cures him from the Intellectual danger of seeing some Truths in their own Colours.

He wonders with what Confidence the little Striplings which Mr. Frankl. Instructs, so soon as they have Commenced, Ibid. he knows not what Degree, are ready to determine the Cause be­tween Arminius and Calvin, as if they were Doctors of the Chair.

I am afraid our Rector is no great Philo­sopher; for a Philosopher, who inquires into the Reasons of things, wonders at no­thing; but,

1. Why should he wonder that Mr. Fr.'s Pupils should with the same freedom de­termine for Calvin, that many raw Youths that come from the Ʋniversities do for his beloved Arminius? Can that be a Crime in ours, which passes for a Vertue in theirs?

2. To cure his wonder, I will tell him the Reason why they determine against Ar­minius, beause Judicious and Learned Mr. Fr. who as little needs my Commendation, as [Page 5]he fears the Rector's Censure, directs his Pupils to the Study of the Scriptures, and their own Hearts, which will enable them betimes to exalt the Free Grace of God, and to depress the proud and enslaved Will of Man.

3. One that is a Genuine Son of the Church, will not wonder that Mr. Fr. should acquaint his Scholars with the Or­thodox Ancient Doctrine of the Church of En­gland, whose Learned Divines Subscribed the Decrees of the Calvinistical Synod of Dort, in Conformity to the Doctrine of the English Church, which preferred them af­ter their return, and never Censured that Act of theirs.

The Sense of the Church of England may be seen in her Articles, whereof the Tenth is against Free-Will, the Thirteenth against Works preparatory to Grace, and the Seven­teenth for Predestination and Election. The Articles were Composed, A. D. 1562. Some Years after, viz. A. 1595. the Lambeth Ar­ticles came out, which were drawn up by Arch-Bishop Whitgift, with the Advice of several of his Clergy, and Subscribed by the Arch-Bishop of York, and afterwards Inserted into the Articles of the Church of Ireland These agree with that Determina­tion of the Synod of Dort. Fuller's Eccl. Hist. lib. IX. p. 230.

Why may not Mr Fr. [...]cholars as well Determine for the Doctrine contain'd in the Articles of the Church of England, [Page 6]which they Sincerely and Honestly Sub­scribe, as Mr. G. and his Friends do deter­mine against the Doctrine of the Church, under the odious Name of Calvinism? Who yet make shift to Subscribe her Articles, by the help of a sorry distinction, that they Sub­scribe them not as Articles of Faith, but as Articles of Peace; a Distinction that may help a Man to swallow the Mass or the Alcoran, when his Peace and Temporal Ad­vantages require it. Mr. Fr's. little Striplings, (as he calls them) Thanks be to God, are better instructed.

4. As to Scholastical Degrees, they are Or­namental Titles of no great Antiquity in the Christian World, invented in the Lateran Council,Gentil. exam. Con. Trid. p. 6. Ann. Dom. 1215. A wise Man values Persons by their real Worth, and not by empty Titles, which are most co­veted by such as are least worthy of them; and since the new Conformity, clog'd with such Conditions, as the Dissenters cannot comply with. For the same Reason the Waldenses and Bohemians rejected Popish Degrees, nor would Bucer accept of a Doctor's Degree in Cambridge, until the offensive initiating Ceremonies were dis­pensed with.Hoorn. sum Contr. l. 10 p. 754.

Degrees were freely given to all deser­ving Persons, before the Year 1616. when Subscription beg [...]n to be urged, by the In­terest of Dr. Laud, and his Party at Court, who procur'd an Order from K. James, [Page 7]directed to the Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Colledges and Halls, &c. in Oxon, That none should take any Degrees, without Sub­scribing the III. Articles in the XXXVI. Ca­non. Cambridge, not long after,Laud's life by Dr Hey­lin, p. 71, 72. submitted to the same Innovation. For Mr. Hildersam Commenced Batchelor, and Master of Arts, without any Subscription: But about 1617. one Mr. Smith, Minister of Clavering in Es­sex, desiring to Commence Doctor, it was imposed to put him by, and so upon all Doctors and Batchelors in Divinity, by Letters from the King. It was afterward Imposed also upon Masters of Art and Batchelors.

II. Another common Topick, as our Author tells us, Is to represent the bishops, proud and haughty Persons, and chiefly, Pref. p. 4. because of the Honourable Title of Lord given them, which is more excusable, than for every I reacher to as­sume the Title of Master: For the Law hath bestowed that Title upon the Bishops, but not that of Master upon all Preachers.

This is a general Charge, and not prov'd. I am sure. J. O. doth not Charge them with being Proud and Haughty. 'Tis true, some grave Dissenters, and sober Church-Men also, have expressed their wishes, that the Bishops would divest themselves of their Honourable Titles, and Secular Grandeur, for these Reasons, among others.

1. Because the Holy Apostles, whose Suc­cessors, they say, they are, assumed to them­selves [Page 8]no such Titles. We no where read of My Lord Peter, My Lord Paul. The A­postles little dreamt, that a sort of Men should succeed them, that would look more like the Princes of the Earth, than the plain and mortified Ministers of the Humble Jesus.

2. Lorldly Titles, and Spiritual Domi­nation, seem to be forbidden by the Great Lord of the Church, Mat. 20.25, 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great, exercise autho­rity upon them, but it shall not be so among you.

That which distinguisheth Civil Magi­strates from Gospel Ministers, is the Exer­cise of Dominion, and Titles of Honour; both these are forbidden unto Ministers. It shall not be so among you. You must not Exer­cise Lordship, and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry. The Papists, and some others object, That Ty­rannical, Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion, is here forbidden. And therefore, say they, Matthew useth the Words [...], and [...], which signifie Arbi­trary and Tyrannical Dominion.

But it will appear, that our Saviour for­bids all Dominion, as well as Tyranny, if we consider,

1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs [...], and [...], Luke 22.25. which signifie Lawful, and not Tyranni­cal Dominion. And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke, because the Apo­stle, [Page 9]speaking of Spiritual Dominion, useth the simple Verb [...], 2 Cor. 1.24. [...], Not that we have do­minion over your Faith. The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Con­sciences of Men; they reckon'd themselves Ministers, not Lords. They had the pow­er of the Word, and not of the Sword. Their Weapons were not Carnal, but Spi­ritual; [...] signifies Lawful Domi­nion. Adam's Dominion over the Crea­tures, in a State of Innocency, which was far from Tyranny, is expressed by [...], in the LXX. Gen. 1.28. [...]. Christ's Dominion, which is most Holy and Righteous, and infinitely remote from Tyranny, is set forth by the same Word, Psal. 110.2. [...], rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted, and were ambitious of. What was that? Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren, far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men; they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects: The Strife among them was, which of them should be accounted the greatest, Luke 22.24. They expected to be so many Princes, dignified with Power, and Titles of Honour above others. They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set [Page 10]up, as most of the Jewish Nation did, and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom, Mat. 20.21. They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince, and they aspire to a Temporal Do­minion. He tells them, That Dominion be­longs to Temporal Princes, but it must not be so among his Ministers.

It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes, when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant, Mat. 20.27, 28. Whosoever will be chief— let him be your ser­vant, even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto, but to Minister.

3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted, for the Dominion they de­sired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ, as their Prince and King, under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State, next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion. One would sit on his right hand, another at hi, left, in his Kingdom, Mat. 20.21. Now the Power which they desir'd, being in Subor­dination to Jesus Christ, as Lord and King, cannot be a Tyrannical Power, for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself, which were Blasphemy.

It cannot therefore be imagined, That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here, which they had no thoughts of. There­fore all Dominion, like that of the Princes of the Earth, which consists in a Coercive Power, worldly Grandeur, and swelling Titles of Honour, is here forbidden.

[Page 11]3. The Dissenters are not the only Per­sons who have opposed the Secular Domi­nion, and Lordly Titles of Bishops.

In the Primitive Church they were for­bidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs, which are the Province of Civil Magistrates, upon pain of Deprivation.

The Ancient Canons, call'd the Apostles, which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council, at Constantinople, Can. 2. Can. Apost. 6. al. 7. & 80. Saecularia officia ne­gotia (que) ab­jiciant: Ho­norum gra­dus per am­bitionem non sube­ant. Conc. Mogunt. Can. 10. Sentel in clero depu­tati, nec ad militiam, ne (que) ad ali­quam veni­ant digni­tatem mun­danam. Quasi bruta animalia, libertate a [...] desiderio suo ferun­tur. do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations, and Worldly Cares.

They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours, by the great Council of Chalce­don, Can. 7. [...].

In the Council of Mentz, which was cal­led by Charles the Great, A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secu­lar Offices and Affairs, and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour.

I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities.

Conc. Tribur. Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon, Can. 7. and pronounces an Ana­thema against those that violate this Deter­mination, as the Council of Chalcedon had done before.

The Canon adds, That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men, who are for Secular Af­fairs and Dignities, to Hippocentaurs, who are neither Horses nor Men, but are acted by a brutal Appetite.

[Page 12] Jerom desires the Bishops to remember,Memine­rint Epis­copi, se sa­cerdotes esse, non do­minos. Hie. ad Nepot. That they are Priests, not Lords.

Austin saith, Episcopacy is a name of work, and not of honour De Civ. Dei XIX. 19..

Valentinian made a Law, recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes, except those of Faith and Religion, unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Par­ties: Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands,Conc. Constant. VIII. Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes, and Em­perours must acknowledge them for their Equals.

This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe, insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour, about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity, as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of Eng­land, and to the King of France, and to many other Princes,Nobili­tatem & Dignita­tem Ʋni­versalis Ecclesiae annullare. M. West. ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Ʋni­versal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity, and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Po­verty and Humility.

It cannot be imagined, that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance, but of their excessive and su­perfluous Wealth, and of their lordly Dig­nities. But the Time was not yet come, the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Tem­poral Power, the Emperour was at last de­posed by Pope Innocent IVth, and his Coun­cil [Page 13]of Bishops at Lyons, and at last destroy'd by Manfred, his Natural or rather Unna­tural Son.

In the Year of Christ, 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Con­federacy, confirm'd by a solemn Oath, to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simpli­city. They Published an Instrument, sig­nifying, ‘That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes, and that the Sons of Slaves, or Servants, did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws, who ought to have been judg'd by the Nobles. They put us in a worse Condition (say the Confederate Nobles) then God would have the Pa­gans to be in, when he said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. We De­cree and Enact, that from henceforth no Clerk, or Lay-Man bring any Cause be­fore the Ordinary or his Delegate, ex­cept it be that of Heresie, Matrimony or Usury: That so our Jurisdiction be­ing revived, and that they, who are en­rich'd by our Impoverishment, may be reduced to the State of the Primitive Church. They conclude in the Words of the Emperor's Letter, It was always our Intention to oblige the Clergy of every Order, especially the greatest, to continue the same in the Faith, that they were in the Primitive Church, leading [Page 14]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

[Page 15]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 [Page 16]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. 'Tis 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 [Page 17]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.

[Page 18]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 Passage is a little unluckily produ­ced, for

1. It over-throws the Notion of the learned Assertors of Episcopacy, that a Diocess is the lowest Species of a Church, and that particular Congregations are but O­ratories, and no Churches: A Bishop and a Church being Relatives. But Eusebius speaks of Churches of Alexandria, there­fore there must be Bishops of Alexandria, not one Bishop, and this agreeable enough to the Apostolical Platforms, who appoint­ed several Bishops in one City, Acts 20.17, 28. Phil. 1.1.

2. Mark was an Evangelist, an extra­ordinary unfixed Officer, Eph. 4.11. 1 Pet. 5.13. Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion, and an Evangelist.Hist. 11.14.23. Ibid.

3. Anianus succeeded Mark the Evange­list in the Ministry of the Church of Alexan­dria, not as a Bishop of a Superior Order to the Presbyters there, but as an ho­nourable President in their Assemblies, such a Moderator as the Reformed Churches [Page 19]have in their Synods and Assemblies, with­out Power of Jurisdiction over his Col­legues: And that he was no more,Cap. to. p. 126. 130. J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Plea, out of Jerom and Eutychius, Patriarch of Alex­andria, where we have a clear Proof of Presbyters Ordaining for almost two hun­dred Years together. The Rector did not judge it adviseable, to meddle with J. O's. Remarks upon the Church of Alexandria. Either he had read that Chapter in J. O's Book, or he had not: If he had, he is in­excusable; if not, he should read Books before he undertake to answer them, Prov. 18.13. He that answereth a Matter before he heareth (or understandeth it) it is Folly and Shame unto him.

4. Moreover so great a Multitude (saith the Rector out of Euseb.) there embraced the Faith, &c. He suppresseth the rest of the Sentence, which is thus, that even Philo judg'd it worth while to describe their way of Living. Our Author would perswade us by this half Sentence, that there were vast numbers of Converts in Alexandria in Mark's Time, but leaves out the rest by a Cunning, &c. for he knew the invalidity of Euseb's Reason, that Philo had described the Christians in Egypt, whereas the Truth is, he writes of the Essenes, and not of the Christians, as the Learned have prov'd

This I Note only by the by, as an In­stance of this Gentleman's unfairness in [Page 20]quoting Authors, otherwise I am not con­cern'd in the numbers of the Alexandrian Converts, for as they increas'd there and in other Places, they multiplied into more Churches, who had Pastors assign'd them, with Power of Discipline over their respec­tive Flocks.

In short, the instance of the Alexandrian Bishop makes altogether for us, for he was but the chief Presbyter (as an Arch-Dea­con was the chief Deacon) chosen and named by the Presbyters without any Con­secration, and in his room the Presbyters ordain'd another, as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea.

Mr. G. in the next Place, shews the Pa­rallel between their Church Goverment, and that of the Apostles. Our Episcopal Government (saith he) is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws made and consented unto by the Convocation, consisting of Bishops and Presbyters, and by the Multitude of Belie­vers, that is, their Representatives in Parlia­ment. And thus it was in the Council of Je­rusalem, Acts 15.

Let's a little consider this Paragraph,

1. I expected, he would have said the Episcopal Government is established upon the Word of God, but he ingeniously con­fesseth the Truth of the Matter, that it is established upon certain Canons and Laws of humane devising. We conceive the Laws of Christ and the Canons of the Apostles, [Page 21]contained in the New Testament, suffici­ent for the Government of the Church.

2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jerusalem, to be as the Representatives of the People in Parliament. Many of our Learned Antiquaries have industriously la­boured to search into the Original of Parlia­ments, some conceive they owe their begin­ning to the Normans, some to the Saxons, others derive them higher, all confess the Rise of them, like the Head of Nilus very obscure; but this Gentleman by an unpa­rallel'd Felicity of Invention, has found them in the Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15. where no Body before ever dreamt of them.

However, I am glad to find him speaking any thing in favour of Parliaments, for some Years ago, when they were out of Request, he advanced the Prerogative to that De­gree, that Parliaments, the Bulwarks of the Subjects Liberty, were very insignificant things with him. I will give a few Instan­ces, 1. He would exempt the Clergy from the Power of Parliaments in Point of Tax­es. We the Clergy, saith he, are hook'd in, Three Ser­mons of Subjection, Pr. 1683, Pref. p. 4. I know not how, to Pay Taxes without the consent of the Convocation. 2. He will not allow the aggriev'd Subject, the benefit of Petitioning and Addressing their Prince, espe­cially when he is under some disadvantage. 3. He makes the King in Effect the sole Pro­prietor of our Estates, and saith,Sermon 1. p. 11 we must supply his Occasions, the five hundred at once [Page 22](i. e. a House of Commons) should forbid us, because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription.p. 13.The meaning is this, the King has Power to Tax us without the Consent of Parliament. 4. He adds, and to this (i. e. to supply the King without the Consent of Parliament) we are bound in Conscience, though the Prince should be an Ʋ ­surper and a Tyrant:p. 13, 14, 15.Nay, saith our Au­thor, a Violent and Originally unjust Power, by success becomes a Legal and Righteous Au­thority. 5. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much sweld, their Properties too much enlarged, their Liberties too much extended. p. 17. This was in the Year 1683. when the Popish Plot had been stifled, sham-Plots set on Foot for the De­struction of the best Patriots, the Rights and Franchises of Cities and Corporations undermined and violated, Parliaments dis­graced, Popery and Slavery breaking in ir­resistibly upon us under the Conduct and Influence of the then Duke of York. 6. He affirms, that the Prince is accountable to none but God for any misgovernment, nay he is in Effect, continues he, the sole Sovereign Pow­er, if he pleases to Ʋsurp and Exercise it, nor can the Subject conscientiously resist him. p. 21. 7. He thinks it's one main ground of Political Govern­ment, to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Priviledges. 8.p. 22. He conceives the Kings Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, unto which he is not [Page 23]obliged by the Fundamental Constitution. P. 23. 9. If a Prince should not give this Assurance, it is my Judgment (saith he) he is not obliged to govern strictly by the present Law. Ibid.

I doubt I have tired the Reader with these Political Maxims. Sibthorp and Main­waring were dull Fellows to this grand Ma­ster of Politicks, who has left it wholly to his Prince's good Nature, whether he will make use of his multitude of Believers, 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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:

[Page 27]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 [Page 28]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, Mat 18.15, 16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.2 Cor. 3.6.

His Fancy that our Ministers ask leave of the Lay-Elders to Suspend is a great mistake. Though common Sense might teach him, that two or three Experienced Persons of the Congregation (whom he Stiles Lay-Elders) in conjunction with the Ministers, are more competent Judges of Offences within the Congregation, than a Lay-Chan­cellor, who lives at a distance, and is a meer Stranger, and usually makes the best ad­vantage of his Office, without any great regard to the Salvation of Souls.

He complains, That the Dissenters call them [Page 29]Priests in contempt, P. 13. though the Word he but Presbyter contracted.

1. I know no Reason why this Gentle­man should be offended that we call them by a Name which themselves are so fond of. The Words Pri [...]sthood and Priests are used five or six times in the Form of Ordi­nation: And the Word Minister was chang'd by the Reformers of the Common Prayer, in 1662. into that of Priest, at least in five places, in the Absolution, in the Responses, in the Litany, and at the Communion, &c.

2. Admit it to be a Contraction of Pres­byter, we must consider Words non a quo, sed ad quid, as the School-men speak, not as they did Originally signifie, but as they do at Present. It is certain that the Lear­ned Translators of the New Testament ne­ver render the Greek Presbyter by Priest in English, and they had reason for it, because the Word Priest in common use, signifies the Sacrificing Priests of the Law, whose name is never in the New Testament given to Mini­sters of the Church, as Dr. Fulk observes a­gainst the Rhemish Seminary, Rhem. in Act 14. S. 4. who quarrel with our first Reformers, for Translating [...] Elder and not Priest.

The Hebrew [...], and the Greek [...], are generally Translated Priest in our En­glish Bibles, and they properly signifie Sa­crificing Priefts.

Our Author confesseth,Pref. p. 14. That it is very requisite that we should not know of any inter­ruption [Page 30]in the Succession of Holy Orders; but it is infinite Satisfaction when we have a moral assurance that there has been none.

J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea, that the Succession has been interrupted,P. 168. to 178. and that it's morally impossible by this Principle, for any Man to know himself to be a true Mi­nister of Christ: But our Rector never takes notice of it; not unlike some sort of Disputants, who resolve to hold the Con­clusion, let what will come of the Premises.

He that has moral assurance that there has been no Interruption, which begets in the Rector infinite Satisfaction, must be sure, that he who Ordain'd him was Ordain'd by a Canonical Bishop: that that Bishop's Or­dination was not void by Canon; parti­cularly he must be sure to know he came not in by Simony, that he was not an He­retick, or Erroneous in the Fundamentals, or Ordain'd by a Bishop out of his own Province: He must know that all the Bi­shops successively, from the Apostles times, by whom he derives his claim, were thus Ordain'd: one Interruption spoils the whole Line. He must be able to disprove all the Interruptions mention'd by Histo­rians. He must prove that Sergius the II. not obtain the Popedom by Magie, Naucl. p. 742. which he himself confessed he did, that Li­berius did not subscribe the Arian Confessi­on in the Council of Sirmium, that Pope Honorius in the second General Council was [Page 31]wrongfully condemn'd for a Heretick, that Marcellinus was no Idolater, nor Celestine a Nestorian Heretick, that the Charge of Si­mony put in against the English Bishops,Vide Fox Acts-ad A. D. 1405. scarce one excepted among King Henry IVth's Bishops was false.

If any one of these be true, as all may be for ought we know to the contrary, and a thousand the like, the Succession of Or­daining Bishops is interrupted, and the Or­dinations of all that derive from them are a nullity. See the Learned Reasons of the Bishop of Worcester against this Succession.Iren. p. 299.

The Scriptures no where mention this Succession. Where was the Succession of the Jewish High-Priests, when the Roman Governours set up whom they pleas'd, and chang'd them annually, without regard to the Divine Law? See John 11.51.Joseph An­tiq. xviii. 3.

Where shall we find the Succession when the Woman is in the Wilderness, and the Witnesses slain? Gospel Ordinances are plain things and not clog'd with insupera­ble difficulties.

But so much is said to this Subject in J. O's Plea, that it is needless to add more.

To justifie their Ordinations, saith Mr. G. by the Example of the Lollards,Pref. p. 15. is but to talk of Yesterday, of those who appeared not in the World till about Henry III's Reign.

1. J. O. gave about twelve Instances of Ordination by Presbyters, Plea cap. x. p. 125. all more Ancient than this of the Followers of Wickliff. Our [Page 32]Author according to his great Candor, over­looks all the rest, and attacks only this late Instance: And why this? That he might say, it was but of Yesterday. And yet his Yester­day is above four hundred Years ago, for King Henry III. dyed in the Year 1272.

2. The Lollards, as they were call'd in contempt, were famous Witnesses against Antichristian Errors in their Time, and abundance of them seal'd their Testimony with their Blood. We cannot therefore judge so lightly of their Practise as the Rector doth.

It is true, they labour'd under great Diffi­culties, as he observeth, but that was not the Reason of Presbyters Ordaining among them, but their asserting an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to ordain, as J. O. hath prov'd out of Walsingham's Hist. p. 339. in the very Place, which he animadverts upon, but it was not his Interest to take notice of it.

3. This Instance is the more considera­ble, because the Lollards were the off-spring of the Ancient Waldenses, as Perrin ob­serves, In England,Hist. Wald. lib. 1. c 3. saith he, they were call'd Lollards from one Lollard who taught there. The persecuted Waldenses being scatter'd fled into Provence, and the Alps, some into Calabria, Bohemia, Polonia, and into Bri­tain, as Thuanus observes.Lib. v. ad A. D. 1550. Pref.

So that this is a further Confirmation that the Waldenses had no Bishops of the present English Species.

[Page 33] But, saith our Author,P. 15, and 16. As for Walden­ses, or Vaudois having had no other Mini­sters than Presbyters, ordain'd by Presbyters for near five hundred Years past, as J. O. affirms, it may prove one, and not the least of his mistakes, when I shall here have set down what a Learned Neighbour of mine communi­cated to me. He told me, that he finds in the History of the Church of Bohemia. ‘That the Brethren of Bohemia, suspecting the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, sent unto the Waldenses (A. D. 1467.) Mi­chael Zamburgius, their Rector, with two others. These find Stephen the Waldensi­an Bishop, who with another Bishop, and some Ministers create Zamburgius, and his two Companions, Bishops, conferring on them the Power to Ordain Ministers. This is sufficient, saith he, to make a Man doubt J. O's Quotations.’

This Quotation, which Mr. G. borrow'd of his Learned Neighbour, and Triumphs in as a wonderful discovery of the State of the Waldenses, he might have found in J. O's Plea, p. 157. quoted out of the Histo­ry of Bohemia, to which he refers his Rea­der in the Margin of his Book.

The Rector is a singular Man for answer­ing Books, who must be obliged to his Learned Neighbours for a Quotation, which any Common Reader cou'd find in the Book which he undertakes to Answer. A Man who reads Books with so little Observation, [Page 34]may be presum'd to answer them with lèss Judgment.

The Reader may see the Remarks upon that Story in J. O's Plea, which may con­vince him, that the Waldensian Bishops were only the Senior Pastors, with whom the Power of Ordination was entrusted for Or­ders sake, as was done here in the late Times of Presbytery, and is still both here and in the Foreign Reformed Churches. In all Ordinations by Presbyters, there is a Moderator, or President, who is the Chief Manager of the Action for Order's sake, but in Conjunction with his Brethren, over whom he claims no Jurisdiction or Superi­ority in Power. This was the State of the Waldenses, their Bishops were only Nominal and Titular, but had no Power over their Brethren: They were only for Orders sake the Principal Managers of Ordination. This appears,

1. Because it was their received Doctrine that all Presbyters are in a State of Parity. To this purpose they speak in a certain Confession of their Faith, Perr. Hist. I. 13. Art. V. We hold that the Ministers of the Church ought not to have any Superiority over the Clergy.

Aeneas Silvias, who wrote a Book of their Doctrines,Inter sa­cerdotes nullum dis­crimen, Boh. Hist. de Vald. Dogm. reports this concerning them, that they affirm the Roman Bishop to be equal to other Bishops, and that between Priests there is no difference.

The same is affirm'd concerning them by [Page 35] Nauclerus, he represents them saying, That all Priests are equal, Chronog. Vol. 2. Gen. 47. and it is not any Superi­our Dignity, but the Merits of their Conver­sation that advances some above others.

This was the constant Doctrine of our English Apostle John Wickliff, Vide Hist. Arg. ad Ann. Dom 1389. and his Fol­lowers, as Walsingham Notes, in several Places.

This also was the Doctrine of the Bohe­mians, who were enlighten'd by Wickliff's Books. The Taborites in their Confession say, That the conferring of Orders only by Bi­shops, Ex consue­tudine ha­bertur eccle­siae. Lyd. Wald. p. 23. and that they have greater Authority than other Ministers, is not from any Faith or Authority of the Scriptures, but from the Cu­stom of the Church.

The Bishops they receiv'd from the Wal­denses, were made by two of their Titular Bishops, Hist. of the Persec. of Bohem. and some Presbyters, which be­speaks them to be no Superiour Order of Ministers, for Presbyters cannot make Bi­shops of the English Species.

One of the Articles against John Hus, the Bohemian Martyr, was that he affirm'd, That all Priests are of like Power, Acts and Mon. in Conc. Constant. and that the Reservation of the Casualties, the ordering of Bishops, and the Consecration of Priests were invented only for Covetousness.

2. That they had no real Bishops Supe­riour to Presbyters is evident from their own Testimony. The Papists misrepre­sented them (as some others would do now) that they had Bishops, to whom they [Page 36]paid a mighty deference. This was most false,Hist. Wald. l. 10. as Perrin evinceth out of their own Writings. The Monk Rainerius (saith he) reports many things touching the Vocation of the Pastors of the Waldenses, which never were. As that which is imposed upon them, that they have one greater Bishop, and two Followers, which he calls the Elder Sou and the Younger, and a Deacon, that he laid his Hands on others with Sovereign Authority, and sent them whither he thought good, like a Pope. That they had no such Bishop, he proves out of the Book of the Pastors, George Maurel, and Peter Mascon, who give this account of their Discipline.

The last that are Receiv'd (or Ordain'd) are to do nothing without the Leave and License of their Seniours Receiv'd (or Ordain'd) be­fore them; as also, they that are first ought not to attempt any thing without the Approba­tion of their Companions, to the end that all things might be done amongst us in Order.

The Reader may note here,

1. That the Waldensian Bishops were only the Seniour Pastors.

2. That these had no Power over other Ministers.

3. That they cou'd not put forth any Act of Government, without the Approbation of their Brethren: So that the Waldensian Churches were Govern'd by the Common Council of the Presbyters or Pastors.

4. All this was for Order's sake. I leave [Page 37]it to the Impartial, to Judge whether this sort of Government has any thing of the Form of our Episcopal Government.

These Testimonies are sufficient to satis­fie unprejudiced Persons, that the Walden­ses had no Bishops Superiour to Presbyters, but I will add a few more ex abundanti.

3. That they had no Bishops in a proper Sense appears by Father Paul's description of them. ‘The People of the Valleys were a part of the Waldenses, who four hundred Years sinceHe ends his History with the Year 1563. forsook the Church of Rome, and in regard of the Persecutions, fled in­to Polonia, Germany, Puglia, Provence, and some of them into the Valleys of Mount­senis, Lucerna, Angronia, Perosa, and St. Martin. These having always continued in their Separation with certain Ministers of their own, whom they called Pastors, when the Doctrine of Zuinglius was plan­ted in Geneva, did presently unite them­selves with those, as agreeing with them in Points of Doctrine and principal Rites.Hist. of C. of Trent, Lib. V. ad A. D. 1559’ Thus he.

Observe in this Quotation,

1. He ascribes to the Waldenses certain Ministers (not Bishops) whom they call'd Pastors. If there had been any Superiour Bishops among them, so exact an Historian would not have omitted them.

2. He saith, they agreed in Doctrinos and Rites with those of Geneva.

[Page 38]3. They presently united with them by rea­son of this agreement.

I hope the Rector will not affirm, That the Protestants of Geneva had Bishops; no more had the Waldenses, who agreed with them in Rites and Doctrines, and among other Doctrines in this of the Parity of Bi­shops and Presbyters, and so readily united with them.

I doubt it will not be so easie to reconcile this Gentleman to the Doctrines and Rites of Geneva. To be sure then his Notions of Episcopacy are very different from those of the Anti-Popish Waldenses.

4. That they had no Bishops may be fur­ther evidenced by their Ordinations here in England, which were by Presbyters and not by Bishops.

Walsingham saith,Vt eorum Presbyteri, more Pon­ti [...]icum, no­vos crea­rent Pres­byteros. Hist. Arg. p. 339. ad A. D. 1389 That their Presbyters, after the manner of Pontifs (or Bishops) cre­ated new Presbyters, affirming that every Priest had as great power of binding and loosing, and performing all other Ecclesiastical Acts, as the Pope himself hath or can give.

This was not a case of meer necessity, for they assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain. These Presbyters made by Presbyters, were the eminent Witnesses a­gainst Anti-christian Usurpations in this Land, and many of them Sacrificed their Lives for the Testimony of Jesus.

Their Ordinations, though private, by reason of the Iniquity of the Times, were [Page 39]many and considerable. If they Ordain'd Ministers in K. Rich. II. time, as Walsingham saith they did,Ʋbi supra. much more under K. Henry IV. and the following Reigns, when they could not have Episcopal Ordinations, if they had desired them; the Bishops being become their mortal Enemies, and conspi­ring their Destruction by the bloody Sta­tute de Haereticis comburendis, and Arch-Bishop Arundel's wicked Constitutions.

In the Year 1401. I find one of their Presbyters burnt at Smithfield. Walsingham, according to the old Popish Hypothesis, that none but Bishops cou'd Ordain, calls him Pseudo-Presbyter, Hist p. 364 a false Presbyter.

In the Year 1414. William Cleydon, an inveterate Lollard (as the Monk calls him) made his own Son a Priest.In tantam dementiam ruerat—ut etiam sili­um propri­um sacer­dotem constitueret. Hist. Arg. p. 390. Act & Mon. ad A. D. 1391. It is not to be doubted but he was a Presbyter himself, though not Popishly Ordain'd, and with the Assistance of others Ordain'd his Son.

Mr. William Swinderby, an Eminent and Learned Confessor, in the Sentence which the Bishop of Hereford past upon him, is said to pretend himself to be a Priest. Had he been Ordain'd by a Bishop, he had been a real Priest, in the Bishop's account, but ha­ving no such Ordination he calls him a pretended Priest.

Mr. W. Thorp went to the Lollards, and by them was sent to Preach. The Arch-Bi­shop of Canterbury tells him,Ibid ad A. 1407. p. 514, 516. That no Bishop would admit him to Preach, and that he was not sent or licensed by them,

[Page 40]They could not submit to Episcopal Or­dinations,Ibid. without taking unlawful Oaths, as Mr. Thorp saith to the Arch-Bishop; before whom he proves the Truth of their Mission, from the Success of their Ministry in the Conversion of Souls.Letters of Licerse from the Bishop were invented here about this time, to obstruct the course of the Gos­pel. Since this afore­said witnessing of God, saith he, sufficeth to all true Preachers, we think that we do not the of­fice of Priesthood, if that we leave our Preach­ing because that we have not, or may not have duly Bishops Letters to witness, that we are sent of them to Preach.

John Purvey, a Learned Writer against Popery, saith in one of his Books, That every holy Man, who is a Minister of Christ, although he be not shaven, is a true Priest Or­dain'd of God, Act & Mon. p. 529. although no Mitred Bishop ever lay his Character upon him.

We read of Four Ministers in the famous Congregation at Hamersham, who all died Martyrs for the Truth. Tho. Man, call'd Dr. Man, one of them, confessed that he had turn'd 700 People to his Doctrine. He was burnt in Smithfield. Another of them, Tilesworth, call'd Dr. Tilsworth, was burnt at Amersham: The third, Rob. Cosin, other­wise call'd Dr. Cosin, was burnt in Bucking­ham: The fourth was hang'd in the Bishop of Lincoln's Prison. The three former were formally declared Hereticks, and delivered up to the Secular Power, but none of them are own'd for Priests by their Judges, or degraded by them, which they must have [Page 41]been by the Popish Laws, had they been Ordain'd by Bishops, before the Secular Arm could reach them.

One Tho. Arthur, who at length Abjured (as several others did, and yet afterwards died Martyrs) about the Year 1531. as he answer'd to some Articles of Wickliff's Do­ctrine laid to his Charge, told the People, Good People, if I should suffer Persecution for the preaching of the Gospel of God, Ib. p. 973. yet there is s [...]ven Thousand more that would preach the Gos­pel of God, as I do now. Note here,

1. That the Preachers of Wickliff's Do­ctrine were very numerous here at this time; Mr. Arthur affirms them to be 7000, perhaps he puts a definite for an indefinite Number, alluding to the 7000 in Israel, that had not bow'd down the Knee to Baal. It cannot be denied but by 7000 he intends a great number.

2. This great number of Ministers must be Ordain'd by Presbyters, for the Bishops would send none of them, as was observed be­fore. They clog'd their. Ordinations with such hard conditions, as the Conscientious Lollards could not comply with, and used all the precautions possible to hinder their Preaching.

We see here, notwithstanding the severe Persecutions against the poor Lollards, they grew and increas'd exceedingly, as the Is­raelites in Egypt, and had so many Thou­sands of Faithful and Laborious Ministers, [Page 42]who must be Ordain'd by Presbyters, the Bishops being their Sworn Enemies, and obliged by their Pontifical Oath to extirpate them.

The Lollards here were a Branch of the old Waldenses, as we prov'd before, and as may be gathered from that Passage in Rai­nerius, who saith,Contra. Wald. c. 4. There is hardly any Coun­try, into which this Sect hath not made a shift to creep.

And being I am upon this Quotation, I will observe one thing in Rainerius; he saith they were more pernicious to the Church of Rome, than any other Sect, for three Rea­sons. 1. ‘Because more lasting; for some say that it hath been ever since the time of Silvester, and others deduce it since the time of the Apostles. 2. Because more general; there is hardly any Country into which it hath not crept. 3. Because all others are abominable to God for the im­manity of their Blasphemies; but this of the Waldenses only carries with it a great shew of Piety, because they live justly be­fore Men, and believe truly of God, and all the Articles of the Creed, only they blaspheme and hate the Roman Church.’

If they are so Ancient as Rainerius seems to confess, and had no Bishops, as I have prov'd, J. O's. Assertion, That they had no Bishops for 500 Years holds good, nay, he might have said 1500 Years, according to this account of Rainerius.

[Page 43]I hope I have sufficiently prov'd that the Waldenses had Superiour Bishops for 500 Years last past, and Explain'd, or rather Vindicated his Learned Neighbour's (as he calls it) but indeed J. O's. Quotation.

He concludes his Preface with a strong pre­sumption and moral assurance of the uninter­rupted Succession of Orders. p. 17.

It should seem, if I understand him, that a strong presumption and moral assurance, are one and the same with him, which most will acknowledge to be very different things. Or 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 [Page 44]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. [Page 46]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.

[Page 47]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 [Page 48]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.

[Page 49] The Fathers, especially Clemens Romanus, saith the Rector, seems to make this a Presi­dent for the Government of Christian Churches by a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons; Ibid. The first answering the High Priest, the second the Inferiour Priests, and the third the Levites.

Either the Rector has never read Clemens Romanus, or he disingenuously abuses his Reader, for

1. Clemens no where saith, as he makes him to speak, that there were Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as three distinct Offi­cers in the Christian Church.

2. He no where saith, that the Bishop answer'd the High Priest, the Presbyter the In­feriour Priests, and the Deacon the Levites. There is not a Word of this in all that E­pistle to the Corinthians, to which Mr. G. refers us.

3. He mentions but two Orders of New Testament Officers, Bishops and Deacons. The Apostles, saith he, Preaching the Gospel in Countrys and Cities, ordain'd the first Fruits of them (that believ'd) having tried them by the Spirit to he Bishops and Deacons, for them that should afterwards believe [...]. Clem. ad Cor..

The same Officers were in the Church of Corinth at this Time, which the Apostle had settled in the Church of Philippi, Phil. 1.1. Bishops and Deacons. There were se­veral Bishops in the single Church of Phi­lippi, and not one Chief, so in this Church of Corinth, which was govern'd by several [Page 50]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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52]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, its 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 [Page 53] 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.

[Page 54]Having told us how Christ Modelled his Flock, whilst he was on Earth, he proceeds to acquaint us in what State he left it at his Death. Here he is at a loss what to say, and yet must needs teach his Reader what he does not understand himself.

He seem'd, p. 2. saith he, to leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy, or in the Power of Twelve.

When I read these Words, I turn'd to the Errata, and expected to find them Cor­rected there, as sight is put for blindness, p. 8. but was disappointed.

Did the Lòrd Jesus leave his Church in a State of Oligarchy? The Writers of Politicks say, that Oligarchy is the Corruption of Ari­stocracy.

Oligarchy, (saith Burgersdicius,) is the Dis­ease and Destruction of Aristocracy: And he describes it to be the Oppression of the Mul­titude by a few of the Nobles, who exclude their Collegues, usurp the Government, and tram­ple upon The Laws Idea Doct. Pol. Cap. 22. §. 10.11..

Bodin, the Famous Lawyer, saith, That Oligarchy is a factious Aristocracy, or a Seig­niory of a very small number of Lords, as were the thirty Tyrants of Athens, and the Ro­man Triumviri, who oppress'd the Liberty of the People. And for this Reason, adds he, the Ancients have always taken this Word O­ligarchy in an evil Part De Re­publ. II. 6..

An Error in Politicks is excusable enough in a Divine, but a Man, who takes upon [Page 55]him to write Political Sermons, and to Pub­lish a Book of Church Government, should not blunder about the Common Terms which School-Boys understand.

I presume he meant Aristocracy, for he explains himself, that Christ left his Church in the Power of Twelve. This also is a mi­stake, for Judas, one of the Twelve, was gone, or going to his own Place. It is true, Matthias succeeded in his Room, but Christ left not his Church in the Power of Twelve, exclusive of other Apostles. Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, was not Infe­riour to the Chief Apostles.2 Cor. 11.5. and 12.11. Many judge Barnabas an Apostle of equal Authority with the rest.

He thinks the Church was govern'd after Christ's Ascension by the Apostles in a Parity, p. 2. that we easily grant, but do not under­stand the Proof of it, For, saith he, neither did he commit the Power unto the Twelve themselves, but was wholly silent therein. How then came they by it? He adds, by Order of Nature, one would think.

One would think the Rector were in a Dream, when these Words dropt from him. He makes the Apostles to govern the Church by an usurped Power, which Christ never committed to them. If this be so, all their Acts become nullities, which over­turns the Foundations of Christianity, and makes their Episcopal Successors act by an u­surped Power.

[Page 56]You must not admire, that he denies the governing Power to Presbyters, for the ve­ry Apostles had it not from Jesus Christ, as he positively speaks.

He is positive, they had it not from Je­sus Christ, but is not certain how they came by it, only he thinks it must by Order of Nature fall to their share.

He shou'd help us to a New Dictionary to explain his Terms: What he means by the Order of Nature is hard to understand. If he means by it, that the Eldest should be preferr'd, as in the Patriarchal Government, his Expression is very improper, for the A­postolical Power was not founded in natu­ral Generation, but in a positive Institution, and if the Order of Nature must carry the Power, the Eldest Apostle must succeed in the Government, which destroys the Parity he allows.

It seems he over-look'd, Mat. 16.19. John 20.21, 22, 23. Mat. 28.18, 19, 20. Where Christ commits the Power unto his Apostles.

We will now proceed to his Scripture Instances of Ordination, in which he pre­tends the Presbyters had no share.

In some of his Instances, Ordination is not concern'd, in others, Presbyters could not be concern'd, because they were not in being, in others the Presbyters had a hand, as we shall evince, notwithstanding his en­deavours to exclude them.

[Page 57]I. His first Instance of Ordination in Acts 1. we are not concern'd in, for none ever question'd the Apostles Power of Ordaining before this Gentleman, who denies their having a Power from Jesus Christ, and where else they could have it, is a Mystery which Mr. G. only is concerned to unfold.

If Matthias was Ordain'd, as he saith he was, it is an instance of Ordination without Imposition of Hands. Dr. Willet infers from it, That Imposition of Hands is not of the Essence of Orders; Synop. Pap. Con. 16. q. 2. which Assertion he confirms as the Protestant Doctrine; and if so, persons may be true Ministers, though the Bishops have not laid hands on them.

II. His next Instance is the Ordination of the Seven Deacons, Acts 6. concerning whom he saith,P. 3. & 4. They were designed to distri­bute the publick Alms unto the Poor, the mul­titude of Believers chose them, the Apostles approv'd them, and appointed them over that Business (of distributing the publick Chari­ty) by Fasting and Prayer, and laying on of hands, (v. 6.) whereby also they became Or­dained to the Ministry of the Word and Sacra­ments.

It's observable here;

1. He acknowledges the People's right to chuse Ministers; Why then are they de­prived of it, and no Overtures made to­wards the Restoring of this Power to them? It were a Province worthy of a Convocation, instead of laying new Burthens on the mul­titude [Page 58]of Believers, to contribute their En­deavours to have their Ancient Priviledges restored.

2. He owns that the Imployment where­unto the Seven Deacons were first design'd, was to serve Tables; but he adds, of his own, their Ordination for the Business made them al­so Ministers. But this is a great mistake:

1. Because the very Apostles found it too difficult a Province to serve Tables, and to attend the Ministry of the Word, Act. 6.2. It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables. V. 3, 4. Wherefore look ye out among you Seven Men — whom we may appoint over this Business, but we will give our selves continually to Prayer, and to the Mi­nistry of the Word.

The Ministry of the Word, and the Serving of Tables are distinct Offices, and inconsistent in the ordinary exercise of them, otherwise there were no force in the Apostles reason­ing, that they must not leave the Word to serve Tables. If serving of Tables was a hinderance to the Apostles Ministry, would it not be also to that of the Deacons. What Absurdity do they put upon the Apostles, who would make them say, We cannot at­tend the Ministry of the Word, and serve Ta­bles, wherefore Brethren, choose you among you Seven Men, whom we may appoint to do both.

2. The occasion of chusing Deacons was the necessity of the Poor, whom the Apo­stles were desirous to have relieved out of [Page 59]the publick Alms, and could not do it themselves, being taken up with the Mini­stry of the Word. The end of the Insti­tution was to serve Tables, Acts 6.3. Pur­suant to this end, the People chose Seven, not to Preach, but to serve Tables: Pursu­ant to this choice the Apostles appointed them over that business, by Fasting, and Pray­er, and laying on of Hands, Acts 6.3, 6. Here is not one Syllable of Ordination to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments. The end of the Institution, Choice and Ordination, was to Serve Tables, and no other is men­tioned.

3. Compare 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 [Page 60]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 InfirmityConc. 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, [Page 61]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 'tis 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.

[Page 62]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 timeLect. 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.

[Page 63] 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 natureNiceph. 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 436Laicus praesentibus clerios nisi ipsis rogan­tibusdocere non audeat. Carth. Conc. IV. Can. 98..

4. His fourth Reason, Because long after 'tis 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 [Page 64]seattered abroad, except the Apostles. Who were these All? Not the Six Deacons on­lyPears. Annal. Paul. p. 1 & Lect. IV. in Act. Apost. p. 63. What Sense would it be to say, All the Six Deacons (for Stephen the Seventh was Martyred) were scattered, except the Apostles? All were scattered. That is, all the 120, which made up that Famous Council in Acts 1.15 except the Apostles.Vid. Lighis. in loc. Lucius of Cyrene, who was none of the Seven Dea­cons, was one of those that were sc attered, Acts 11.19, 20. and 13.1.

The Rector wou'd persuade, they were only the Six Deacons that were scattered, of which Philip Preached in Samaria, and he has found the rest in Acts 11.19.

We have seen the invalidity of his Four Reasons, to prove Deacons to be Ministers of the Word▪ and Sacraments.

He is apt to believe these Deacons were af­terwards called Elders, P. 6. as having power to Mi­nister the Word and Sacrament, first mention­ed Acts 11.30. but it will not follow that they were equal with the Apostles.

They that are so dispos'd may take Con­jectures for Articles of Faith, but we have prov'd the Deacons to be very different from Presbyters, and if the Church of Eng­land did not think them so, she wou'd not Ordain them over again to make Presbyters of them.

Who ever affirm'd Presbyters to be equal with the Apostles? Dare he say Bishops were equal with them?

[Page 65] Ordination at least must be excepted, saith the Rector. I always thought the Apostles excell'd Presbyters in far greater things than that of Ordination; but if you be so good natur'd as to allow the Rector, that the Apostles were superiour to Presbyters in point of Ordination, and intrusted none but the Bishops with it after their Decease, he is even content that a Presbyter should be equal with an Apostle in other respects.

Though Elders are first mentioned, Acts 11.30. they were in being before; they are spoken of as the ordinary settled Go­vernours of the Churches.

Mr. G. proceeds to prove, That Presby­ters could not Ordain, P. 7, 8▪ because Philip the Dea­con could not confer the Holy Ghost upon the be­lieving Samaritans; the Apostles sent Peter and John, who by Prayer, and laying on of Hands, confer'd the Holy Ghost upon them, Acts 8.12, 15, 17. and thereby Ordain'd them. Therefore the Government of the Church, and Ordination, was lodg'd in the Apostles only, or as Supreme.

1. He is not sure Ordination was intend­ed there, himself owns, That some may, P. 7 and with reason, believe it Confirmation. So doth Dr. Hammond, and sevcral others; and if we understand Confirmation by this mira­culous Conferring of the Holy Ghost, his Argument is spoil'd.

2. If Ordination was intended, it no more prejudices Presbyters Power of Ordaining, [Page 66]than it doth that of the Bishops, for neither can confer those extraordinary Gifts.

3. All that had power of Ordination had not power of giving the Holy Ghost. Evan­gelists were trusted with the former, but not with, the latter. Timothy and Titus Ordain­ed, but did not give the Holy Ghost.

He fancies that Simon Magus desired the Ordaining Power, v. 19. Give me this Pow­er. What Power, What Power, P. 8. saith the Rector? Not Power to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and to administer the Holy Sacraments. Like e­nough, for Simon Magus as little cared for that, as some others who have possess'd themselves of that Power he so much covet­ed. What Power was it? I doubt not but you'l expect some rare Discovery, having rais'd our Expectations to a great heighth, at length he resolves the Question, and tells us, it was a Power of conferring that Power, i. e. as he explains it, That on whom­soever he laid his hands, he might be Ordained to the Ministry. That is in plain terms, he desired to be made a Bishop, and to be in­trusted with the ordaining power, I question whether the Power then was so profitable as it has prov'd since; however, we are o­blig'd to this Gentleman, for helping us to so clear a Notion of Simony.

III. He finds another Ordination in Acts 9.17.p. 8, 9. Where it is said, That Ananias laid his hand upon Saul: this might he to Ordain him, for he laid his hands on him, not only that he [Page 67]might receive his sight, but be also filled with the Holy Ghost. But I desire the Reader to ob­serve, that according to this Hypothesis, Saul was Ordained before he was Baptized. He was Ordained, as he calls it, v. 17. and was Baptized after Ananias had laid his hands on him, v. 18. That is, he is first made an Apostle, then a Christian.

He makes Ananias but a private Believer or Disciple. P. 9. His being call'd a Disciple, v. 10. is no evidence of it; for the Apostles are so call'd, Acts 1.15. How comes he to forget that Dorotheus calls him a Bishop of Damascus? This would have something help'd his Hypothesis; seeing he was te­solv'd to have him Ordained before he was Baptized, e'en let it pass for an Episcopal Ordination.

But that which spoils all is, Paul saith of himself that he was an Apostle, not of Men, neither by Man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Gal. [...].1.

IV. In the next place he considers the Ordination in Acts 13.1, 2, 3.P. 10. Now there were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, and the Holy Ghost said unto them, Separate me Barnabas and Saul. J. O. Argued from this Instance, that Presbyters have Power to Ordain, for the Ordainers were Pro­phets and Teachers: now Teachers are or­dinary Presbyters, who are distinguished from Prophets, and other extraordinary Officers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. What [Page 68]saith Mr. G. to this? even nothing to the purpose.Ibid. The Persons here spoken of, saith he, were Teachers, that is, ordinary Mini­sters, generally speaking, but call'd Prophets, because they received this special Command from Christ, to Ordain Barnabas and Saul.

1. He confounds Prophets and Teachers, which are distinguished here, and in 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Prophets were extraor­dinary, Teachers ordinary Officers; this Gentleman, to serve a turn, makes them one and the same. If this be not to pervert the Scripture, I know not what is. Luke saith, There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers: That is, if we may believe the Rector, Prophets and Prophets, for the Teachers were Prophets, saith he.

2. The Teachers are call'd Prophets, saith he: They are so call'd by him, and not by the Holy Ghost.

3. They are called Prophets, because they received this special Command from Christ by the Holy Ghost, as he thinks. How can he prove that the Holy Ghost did speak by Immediate Revelation to the Teachers here? The Text speaks nothing of it:Dixit spi­ritus per Prophet as istos. Grot. in loc. It's most reasonable to think he signify'd his Mind by one or more of the Prophets to the rest of the Ministers, then to fancy he ad­vanced the Teachers into the order of Pro­phets for the time.

Had the Revelation been Communicated to all in Common, what needed the Evan­gelist [Page 69]to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers? It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets. But there were both in Antioch, Prophets to whom the Revelation came, and Teachers, or ordinary Presby­ters, who were included in the Command of separating Paul and Barnabas for the A­postleship of the Gentiles.

This Ordination which was in favour of the Gentile World, was intended for a President to the Gentile Churches in after Ages, as Learned Dr. Lightfoot observesVol 1. p. 289..

This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters remains firm and unshaken, and all that Mr. G. hath said against it, serves only to discover the Strength of it

He undertakes to shew the difference be­tween Apostles and Prophets, but not a Word of difference between the Prophets and the Teachers, that would have discovered the Fallacy of his Reasonings.

He saith, Apostles and Prophets had an ex­traordinary Assistance of the Spirit of God, P. 10, 11. yet with this difference; The Authority of the Apo­stles was fixt and habitual, their Character in­delible, and their Office perpetual.

I expected he would have said an infalli­ble Assistance, but it may be he intended that by extraordinary, though the following Words are a little inconsistent, and divest the Apostles of the extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit, except in some cases.

The Apostles, saith he, for the most part, P. 11. [Page 70] acted as it were according to their own discre­tion. What? without the Conduct of the Spirit?

The Rector should have had the discretion to have conceal'd so dangerous a Position, which strikes at the Foundations of our Faith.

This Principle naturally leads to Deism and Irreligion.

But worse follows. I suppose (saith he) in Matters of Importance, and in Doctrines Essential, guided by the Spirit. I hope he does not mean as he speaks. Does he but. Suppose they were guided by the Spirit? Ad­mit he means by supposing, his taking it for granted, then the meaning is, They were guided by the Spirit only in two Cases.

1. In Matters of Importance, i. e. in Pra­cticals, if I underftand him.Ibid. We conceive all the Rules the holy Apostles left its a­bout the agenda of Religion, were given by Inspiration, and that all the practical Duties they recommend to us are Matters of Im­portance; to us they are so, what they are to this Gentleman, he knows best.

2. He supposes they were guided by the Spirit in Doctrines Essential.

1. It's well he ascribes any of their Doctrines to the Holy Spirit of God; but why not all as well as some ? The Spirit was promis'd them to guide them into all Truth, John 16.13. Jesus Christ saith, The Spirit should guide them into all Truth: No, saith Mr. G. the Spirit guided [Page 71]them in Doctrines Essential only. Christ saith, The Holy Ghost shall teach you all things, John 14.26. Mr. G. saith, Not all things, but Matters of Importance, and Doctrines Es­sential only.

Doubtless the Lord Jesus was as good as his Word, and gave the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit to the Blessed Apostles in all Points of Faith and Practice they recommend to us, though Mr. G. doth not believe it. His Ʋnbelief cannot make the Faith of God without effect; let God be true, and every man a liar. Rom. 3.3.4

2. According to his n retched supposition the holy Apostles might be mistaken in Doctrines not Essential, for they had not the Assistan­ces of the Spirit, as he suggests: And if they might be mistaken, who knows but they were mistaken, and might obtrude Er­rors instead of Truth upon the World? And if so, how can it be prov'd to be our Duty to believe those Doctrines not Essential? But, thanks be to God, we have a sure word of promise, and consequently a sure rule of Faith and Practice, whatever the Rector insinuates to the contrary, in favour of Atheistical Spirits.

3. The Learned are not agreed about the Number of Doctrines Essential; those are Doctrines Essential to Christianity with some, that are but Integrals (if I may so say) with others. All Protestants are a­greed that Essential Doctrines are but few; so that most of the Doctrines of Christi­anity [Page 72]are but discretionary Opinions, and no Dictates of the Holy Ghost, with this Man. Tell it not in Gath, lest the uncircumcised re­joice.

4. Admit the Creed (call'd the Apostles) be a Summary of Essential Doctrines, it does not expresly assert the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore the Socinians can freely Subscribe it. Will the Rector say the Divinity of Christ, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost are Doctrines not Essential, and consequently not delivered by the Spirit of God?

5. Is the Superiority of Bishops an Essential Doctrine? If it be, they are no Christians who do not believe it, for they reject an Essential Doctrine of Christianity: But no Sober Protestant will affirm it, for this were to damn all the Foreign Reformed Churches, who believe it not: If it be no Essential Doctrine, as certainly it is not, we are left to our liberty, whether we will believe it or not, for the Apostles were not guided by the Spirit in delivering it, according to Mr. G's. Hypothesis.

He proceeds to describe the Prophets. Their Power (saith he) was not constant, they spake only as the Spirit mov'd, P. 11. which if he ceas'd to do, they were no long [...]r Prophets. Thus the Teachers at Antioch (ordinary Mi­nisters, and under the Apostles, yet) being mo­ved by the Holy Ghost, became Prophets, and Ordained Barnabas and Saul. Here he mis­takes also:

[Page 73]1. In making the Prophets, to be only such while they were actually Inspired. There were Prophets by Office, and they are so called, when the Spirit of Prophecy did not actually move them, 2 Kings 3.11, 15. 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. Their Power was constant, though the Exercise of it was not so, Nathan is call'd a Prophet, when the Spirit of Prophecy was not actually upon him, 2 Sam. 7.2, 3.

2. All Inspirations by the Holy Ghost do not make a Prophet. Balaam and Caiaphas were Inspired, but no Divine Prophets. Ananias was mov'd by the Holy Ghost to lay his Hands on Paul, for recovering of his sight, but it does not appear that he was a Prophet; he is no where so call'd. God's speaking to him in a Vision, doth not make him a Prophet, as Mr. G. fancies, for so he did to Cornelius, who was so far from being a Prophet, that at that time he was not a Christian, Acts 10.3, 4.

Admit the Ordinary Ministers at Antioch were inwardly mov'd by the Holy Ghost, to Ordain Paul and Barnabas, which is not said in the Text, that doth not make them Prophets. For Luke distinguisheth between the Prophets and the Teachers, though Mr. G. designedly confounds them. Nor doth a particular direction of the Holy Ghost constitute Prophets, as appears in Ananias, a Disciple, (and it may be a Teacher) and in Cornelius, neither Disciple, nor Teacher.

[Page 74]3. He calls the Teachers at Antioch, Or­dinary Ministers, and yet saith they were Prophets, that is, extraordinary Ministers, for himself owns Prophets to be extraordi­nary Officers. One would think, if they were ordinary Ministers, they were not ex­traordinary: If extraordinary, they were not ordinary. I leave it to him that can to re­concile these Contradictions.

V. His next Instance of Ordination is from Acts 14.23.p. 12. The Ordinations mention'd there, were by Apostles and not by Presbyters, as he saith.

This Instance makes as little for him as the former, because

1. There was good Reason why the A­postles alone shou'd ordain Presbyters in Churches that had no Ministers in them, until the Apostles had constituted them. Presbyters cou'd not ordain before they were in being.

He is aware of this Reason, and allows these Churches had no Presbyters in them at this Time;p. 13. But this, saith he, was not the Reason, for then Philip wou'd have laid Hands on those that were Ordain'd at Samaria. The Instance of Philip we considered before. If he were a Deacon, as he affirms, all will own he had no Power of Ordination: If an Evangelist, as it should seem from Acts 21.8. all will own, Evangelists might Or­dain: But they cou'd not give the extraor­dinary Gift of the Holy Spirit, which was given by the Apostles.

[Page 75]2. The Apostles made Elders in every Church with the Suffrages of the People. So [...] (which we render, Or­dain'd, Acts 14.23.) signifies,Signifi­cat hos suf­fragiis ele­ctos esse. E­rasmus in loc. The Multi­tude of Believers chose the Deacons (whom Mr. G. wou'd have to be the same with these Elders) before the Apostles Ordain'd them: And so they did the two Candidates for the Apostleship, Acts 1. Mr. G. allows this Power of the People: Now if these Ordinations be presidents unto us, as he takes them to be, they are but ill follow'd by our Episcopal Ordainers, for the Election of the People seldom precedes their Ordina­tions.

3. They Ordain'd Elders in every Church, not one, but many, and why not Bishops also, if they had been necessary? Tis evi­dent there were none at this Time. The Apostles left the Churches under the Care or these Elders, without Superiour Bishops. It will be said, these Elders were subject to the Apostles: And were not the Bishops subject to the Apostles also? I hope none will say they were equal to them.

How come the Apostles not to Ordain a Bishop in every Church, when they them­selves made but a short stay with them?Acts 14.23, 24. They cou'd not personally oversee them all, and if Bishops had been necessary in their absence, doubtless they wou'd have appoin­ted them.

It will be said, they intended to return to [Page 76]visit them again, but when they they took their last leave of them, then they appointed Bishops for their Successors.

This is notoriously false, for the Apostle Paul commits the Church of Ephesus, to the Government of the Presbyters there, when he took his last leave of them, inten­ding to see them no more,Acts 20.17, 25, 28. whether he did see them again or no, is nothing to the purpose, for 'tis certain he thought he shou'd see them no more: How comes he then not to leave a Superiour Bishop over the Presbyters of Ephesus, for his Successor, when he was taking his final leave of them? No one Instance can be given in all the New Testament of the Apostles ordaining a single Person to succeed them as a fixed Officer in the Government of any one Church, when they took their last leave of it.

When the Apostle left Timothy at Ephe­sus, he intended to come again, 1 Tim. 3.14. when Titus had ordain'd Elders in Crete, to govern the Churches there, the Apostle calls him away, Tit. 3.12.

His next Act of Church Government, which he finds in Acts 15.p. 13. we have consi­dered before. None that I know of have argued for Presbyters ordaining from this place, as he imagines they might.

He grants that Elders have a share in the Deliberative and Legislative Part of Church-Government: p. 14. But seems loath to trust them [Page 77]with the Executive Power: He gives them the greater, and more difficult part of Church-Government, viz. a Power of ma­king Laws, and denies them the easier and less honourable Power of executing those Laws.

He observes,p. 15. The Elders were subordinate to the Apostles: Who ever denied it? And so were Timothy and Titus his supposed Bi­shops.

The Epistles written to them are convin­cing Evidences of their Subordination to Paul, 1 Tim. 1.18. and 4.16. and 6.13, 14. 2 Tim. 4.1, 9, 13. He charges him, orders him to bring his Cloak, and personally to attend him.

So he enjoins Titus to attend him, Titus 3.12. His Epistles to both are in a stile at least equally Authoritative with that which Bishops use in their Pastoral Letters to their Clergy: And therefore all the Reasonings of Mr. G. from the Subordination of Pres­byters to the Apostles, are impertinent, for Timothy and Titus whom he calls Bishops, were subordinate to the Apostles. So that if Presbyters had no Power of Government, no more had Bishops, for these were under the Apostles also.

He saith, James was not the Apostle, p. 16. but Brother of Christ. Paul reckons him among the Apostles. Gal. 1.19. Other of the Apo­stles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother. Bishop Pearson observes, that [Page 78]the Opinion that makes him no Apostle, took rise from the Fictitious Writings of Clemens, Lect. in Act. Apost p. 58.

VI. He sinds an Ordination in Acts 19.6,p. 17. 7. In which Paul only laid his Hands on twelve Persons at Ephesus, and not Timothy and Erastus who were with Pául at this Time, Acts 19.22.

1. It is not said that Timothy and Era­stus were with Paul, when he laid his Hands on those twelve Men: Acts 19.22. doth not prove it, for it speaks of Paul's sending them to Macedonia, which was about two Years after, Acts 19. 10, 21, 22.

2. But suppose they were, Paul laid Hands on those twelve Men to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on them, which. Timothy and Erastus could not do.Act. 19.6. This Power was peculiar to the Apostles,Act. 8.17. we do not read that any Prophets or Evangelists were ever entrusted with this PowerPears. Lect. V. in Act. p. 68. much less were ordinary Officers. The Case of Ananias was singular, and depended on a particular Revelation, which is an Evidence that the Power of giving the Holy Ghost was not inherent in him, as in the Apostles, Acts 9.17.

3. If there be any force in this Argu­ment, it excludes Bishops as well as Presby­ters from the Power of Ordination, for neither of them cou'd nor can confer the ex­traordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were given by the Apostles Hands.

[Page 79]VII. He thinks that the Corinthian Elders had no Power of Excommunication: p. 17. Paul de­creed it, saith he, and commanded them to Confirm and Publish it, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5.

1. If they had no Power, why doth the Apostle reprove them for not doing it? 1 Cor. 5.2. and enjoyn them to avoid dis­orderly Walkers, ver. 13. and to Judge them that are within, ver. 14. To Judge is to Decree, as the Rector expounds it in v. 3. So that according to his own Interpretati­on, the Elders had Power to Decree an Ex­communication. He fancies the Apostle to be a sort of Lay-Chancellour, and the Co­rinthian Elders to be like the Presbyters of the Church of England, who have the Pri­viledge of Publishing the Excommunicating Decrees of the Chancellour.

2. He alters and perverts the sacred Text, for thus he renders and explains it, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. I verily, as absent in Body, but present in Spirit, have judged (have Decreed) as tho I were present (personally) concerning him that hath so done this Deed: Ibid. In the Name (or Authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gather'd together and of my Spirit (that is, by my Authority) with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan.

The English Translation, according to the Original, renders it, When ye are ga­thered together, and my Spirit, he renders it, of my Spirit, as if the Construction were [Page 80] 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 itCongre­gatis 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 [Page 81]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 itThe 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. [Page 82]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 [Page 83]before me. This implies he was an Apostle himself at that timePears. 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 [Page 84]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 barely Asserted and not Proved.

II. He examines the meaning of [...], Prophecy. P. 21. If Timothy was Ordain'd but once, then, saith he, by Prophecy, signifies by Pro­phets, the Abstract for the Concrete, and these Prophets were Paul and Silas.

I add (saith he) the Presbytery here men­tion'd, or Presbyters themselves, might have been Prophets too, P. 22. and Ordained Timothy ac­cording to Prophecy.

1. Lets see how the Words run with this Explication, Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophets, with the laying on of the Hands of the Prophets. Profound Sence! He is resolved to make Apostles or Prophets of all that are concern'd in Ordination, but the mischief on't is, the Bishops whose Cause he pleads, are neither one nor t'other.

Prophecy with him signifies Prophets, and the Presbyters were Prophets, so that Timo­thy was Ordain'd by Prophets with Prophets. The Rector has highly obliged the Learned World by this Famous Commentary. If [Page 85]you shou'd ask why he degrades Paul an A­postle, into an inferiour Order of Prophets, I hope it will satisfie you, that he hath made amends by exalting inferiour Presbyters, into a superiour Order of Prophets. One while Paul is an ordinary Minister with him, another while a Prophet, and sometimes he is content, provided he do not stand in the way of his beloved Episcopacy, he should be an Apostle.

2. The Truth is, by Prophecy respects the Prophecies that went before of Timothy, 1 Tim. 1.18. It seems they were many, if we re­spect the Persons Prophecying, and there­fore call'd Prophecies, and but one if we consider the thing Prophecied, and there­fore call'd Prophecy Est. in 1 Tim. 4.14.. The Text doth not say who these Prophets were, but the Rec­tor, a Man of happy Invention, hath found them out, and assures us they were Paul and Silas.

III. He lets us see what we are to un­derstand by Presbytery. 'Tis a Word bor­row'd (saith he) from the Jewish Church. P. 23. Moses took the heads of the twelve Tribes to be assistant to him in the Government; unto these answer'd the Twelve Apostles: but at length God commanded bim to choose Seventy Elders of the People, Num. 11.16. It is worth our Remark here.

1. That he made Christ and the twelve Apostles to answer unto the High Priest, and the inferiour Priests, p. 1, 2. And he [Page 86]told us, it was manifest it was so, p. 2. but now by a new Manifestation, he tells us the Twelve Apostles answer'd the Heads of the Twelve Tribes.

2. Where doth he find that Moses took the Heads of the Twelve Tribes, to be his As­sistants in the Government, before the Seven­ty Elders were chosen. Moses himself gives a different Account: he saith, he judged the People alone, until Jethro, his Father in Law, advised him to joyn others with him in the Government; and that there­upon he chose, not Twelve Heads of the several Tribes, but Rulers of Thousands, Ru­lers of Hundreds, of Fifties, and of Tens, Ex. 18.13, 25. Deut. 1.15. That there were Heads of the Twelve Tribes every body knows, but that these were chosen exclusive or others, to be Moses his Assistants in the Go­vernment, is a new discovery, which no body knew before. We will not envy the Rec­tor the Honour of being the first Discoverer of this Cabbala.

3. The Seventy Elders of the People, to whom the Presbytery answereth, were cho­sen (as himself confesseth) to be Assistants to Moses in the Government.

This instance of his own producing, evinceth that Presbyters have Power of Go­vernment. The Jewish Sanhedrin was the Supream Court of Judicature among the Jews, and were entrusted with the Power of Ordaining Elders.

[Page 87]At first, every one that was regularly Or­dain'd himself, had the Power of Ordaining his Disciples; but in the time of Hillel, it was resolved that none might Ordain, with­out the presence of the Nasi, or President of the Sanhedrn, or a License from himSeld. de Syned. II. 7. § 1..

If the Presbytery answereth the Sanhe­drin, as the Rector confesseth it doth, the Power of Government, and particularly of Ordination belongeth unto it.

He saith the Jews call'd that Celebrated Council in their own Language, P. 24. the Sanedrim, but the N. T. and the Greek Tongue [...], or [...]. He seems to make San­hedrin (so the Jews write it [...], and not Sanedrin, as he doth) a Hebrew Word, whereas it is the Corruption of [...], in a Hebrew Dialect. I mention this only by the by, to give the Reader a taste of the Learned Rector's Skill in Philology.

He adds, That Moses was Head, Ibid. and a part of his Council of Seventy; yea, that Christ Himself, who was also a Prophet lice unto Mo­ses, had Twelve Apostles, and Seventy Disci­ples, who made up a Presbytery.

1. In Acts 22.30. the [...] is expresly distinguish'd from the [...], as the [...] is, v. 5.

2. Moses was a Type of Christ, and as he was Head of the Council of Seventy, so is Christ of the Presbytery. It is improper­ly said that Moses was part of the Seventy, for there were Seventy, or Seventy Two, besides Moses.

[Page 88]3. The Seventy Disciples answer'd the Jewish Presbytery with him above, but now finding he had yielded too much, he Corrects himself, and makes the Twelve Apostles part of Christ's Presbytery, as he calls it; but the N. T. no where calls them so, nor doth it appear that ever the Twelve Apostles, and Seventy Disciples, acted to­gether as one Presbytery.

Ignatius (saith he) stiles them [...], P. 25. the Presbytery of the Church.

Ignatius calls the Apostles so (not the A­postles and Seventy Disciples, as he insinu­ates) in a general Sense, as they call them­selves Presbyters. But the New-Testament sufficiently distinguisheth between Apostles and Presbyters properly so call'd, but no where distinguisheth between Bishops and Presbyters.

So likewise, if we may believe the Rector, every Apostle in his Plantation, Ibid. had his Pres­bytery in the Cities where he had settled Churches, as is clear from Acts 15. but that Apostle was head of them.

1. Doubtless every Constituted Church had a Presbytery, which was the Church's Presbytery, and not the Apostles, as he calls it. His Presbytery is a Form of Expression not known in the New Testament. Paul doth not call the Presbytery of any Church his Presbytery.

2. What if two Apostles settled a Church in Conjunction, as Paul and Barnabas did [Page 89]many; whose then was the Presbytery? was it divided between both? or were they joint heads of the Presbytery? or did one resign his right in them to another? Perhaps Mr. G. can tell us how the Point was settled, without the danger of making two Apostolical Heads of the Presbytery of a Church, for that would be a bad President, and might warrant the setting up of Two Bishops in one Church.

3. The Elders of Jerusalem had not one 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 [Page 90]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.

[Page 91] 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 [Page 92]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, [Page 93]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 [Page 94]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 Christ and his Gospel.’

Note here,

1. That the Doctrine which the Rector ridicules in Dr. Owen, is the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church of England, and of all ancient Authors of Christ's Church.

2. That whosoever joyns Works with Faith, in the Act of Justifying, is an Ad­versary to Christ, and his Gospel. and not to be reputed for a Christian.

Either the Rector hath subscribed the Book of Homilies, or he hath not; If he hath not, he hath no Legal Right to his Bene­fice, being not duly qualify'd according to the Statute, which requires all Ecclesiasti­cal Persons to Subscribe the XXXIX Arti­cles (on pain of Deprivation) whereof the XXXV Article declares, That the Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholsome Doctrine, and necessary for these times. The [Page 95]same Subscription is required by the Canon in this Form; Can. 36. I N. N. do willingly, & ex animo, Subscribe to these Three Articles above mention'd, and to all things that are con­tain'd in them. The Third Article in the Canon respects the XXXIX Articles of Religion, which the Subseriber is to ac­knowledge to be all agreeable to the Word of God.

If he hath Subscribed the Articles, and consequently the Book of Homilies, he hath Subscribed to the Sentence of his own Con­demnation, viz. That he who joyns Works with Faith, in the Office of Justifying, is an Adver­sary to Christ, and his Gospel, and not to be reputed for a Christian.

He that is so liberal in passing Sentence on his Neighbours as no true Ministers, shou'd review the Sentence he has passed upon himself, as no true Christian, while he corrupts the Foundation-Doctrine of Justi­fication.

Thus I have vindicated 1 Tim. 4.14. from the weak and Self-contradicting Ex­ceptions of the Rector. The rest of this Chapter is only a recapitulation of his long perplex'd Commentary upon that plain Text.

He refers 1 Pet. 5.2. where the Elders are exhorted [...] and [...], to Feed the Flock, and to take the over-sight of it, P. 37. to an Appendix by it self, because he knows not in what order of Time to place it.

Let it be imagin'd (saith he) for it cannot [Page 96]be proved to be written before it was Decreed throughout the World, that one Presbyter shou'd be set over the rest.

No such Decree can be produced in Scri­pture, nor was there any such Decree made in the Apostolical Times.

This is a meer Fiction of his own.

He allows the Elders in 1 Pet. 5. to be Governours,P. 38, 39. but not Supreme Governours, for Christ and Peter was above them.

Did ever Man more egregiously Trifle? who ever affirmed Elders to be Supreme Governours, equal to Christ and his Apostles? Peter here exhorts the Elders to Feed, or Govern the Flock (for so [...] signi­fiesJohn 22.16. Rev. 2.27.) and to perform the Duties of Bi­shops ( [...]) towards them, and he does not set one Presbyter over the rest, there­fore they were to Govern and Oversee the Church in a State of Parity.

But saith Mr. G. Peter was a Shepherd a­bove them.

1. So were all Apostles, Prophets, and E­vangelists, above ordinary Presbyters: But he cannot shew in all the N. T. that Per­sons of one and the same Order, were set over others of that Order; as for Example, That any one Apostle was set over the other Apostles, or any one Prophet set over the rest of the Prophets, or any one Evangelist set over the other Evangelists, nor any one ordinary Presbyter set over the other Presbyters. Until he has proved [Page 97]this, which has not been yet done, he does nothing.

2. He ascribes unto Peter a large Diocess, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and By­thynia, 1 Pet. 1.1.

He acknowledges,p. 39. That Pastors and Tea­chers are the lowest rank and degree of Church Officers, Eph. 4.11. And if so, they are all in a State of Parity: for those in the lowest degree, cannot be at the same time, and in the same respect in a superiour Degree. He makes Bishops of a superiour Degree above Pastors and Teachers; if so, they are either Apostles, or Prophets, or Evangelists, for the N. T. knows no other Church Officers, Eph. 4.11. Now Apostles, Prophets and Evange­lists, were extraordinary Officers (as the Learned acknowledge) which are ceased long ago. Therefore the Rector has exclu­ded the Bishops from the Catalogue of N. T. Ministers.

He doth not find any express Commission given to these Elders, P. 41. for exercising the several Supreme Acts of Power and Authority, such as he noted in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

1. Timothy and Titus are no where ex­presly call'd Bishops, but Timothy is expresly call'd an Evangelist. He that pleads for an express Commission, shou'd produce such an one constituting Timothy and Titus Dioce­san Bishops, which he'l never be able to do.

2. These Elders are commanded to govern the Flock, and to perform the Duties of Bishops, [Page 98]and consequently are entrusted with the Episcopal Power.

Observe the Rector's way of Arguing, he wou'd persuade us that Timothy and Titus, who are no where called Bishops, and one of them expresly call'd an Evangelist, were real Bishops; and that the Jewish Elders, who are bid to govern or feed the Flock, and to do the Duties of Bishops, have nothing to do with the Episcopal Power.

In like manner, when the Apostle tells the Elders of Ephesus, That the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops of the Flock, to feed, or govern the Church of God Acts 20.17, 28., he wou'd per­suade us these are no Bishops, though the Ho­ly Ghost expresly affirms it; and that Ti­mothy, who is expresly commanded to do the Work of an Evangelist, was Bishop of Ephesus.

They whom the Holy Ghost Constitutes Bishops, must be no Bishops with him, and he whom the Holy Ghost declares to be an Evangelist, must pass for a Bishop.

He must pardon us if we believe these express Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, before his ungrounded Assertions.

CHAP. III. Remarks upon bus Second Chapter of the Govern­ment of the Church of Ephesus and Crete. The Apostles left the Government of the Church of Ephesus in the Presbyters. This Establishment his last, divine, perpetual. Acts 20. Explain'd. The Government by Presbyters in parity never alter'd. Presby­tery a Divine Remedy against Schism. Su­periour Bishops not the Remedy. Timothy no Diocesan Bishop, an unfixed Evangelist. Of the Asian Angels, not so call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels. Ignatius his Bishop, not Diocesan. Titus no Diocesan Bishop. Presbyters are Rulers.

HE undertakes to shew that St. Paul, toward the declining part of his Life, p. 45. and in his ab­sence from the Churches, did not commit the Government to the Presbyterles in Parity, but appointed one as Supreme to preside over them in his absence, and by consequence to Succeed him, when he departed the World. This(saith he) I shall demonstrate he did in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and by a reason­able Consequence in all his other Churches, and the rest of 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.

[Page 100]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 [Page 101]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.

[Page 102]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? [Page 103]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? 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.

[Page 104]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 Ʋnity in the whole Epistle. Nor does [Page 105]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 Ʋnity, 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, [Page 106]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 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 [Page 107]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 [Page 108]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 themHaec My­stica sunt, opertasunt, Figurata sunt ali­quid mani­festum quod inter­prete non egeat stagitamus. De Ʋnit. 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 [Page 109]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 restExtremo 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 'tis 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 WorldLights▪ 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 SynagogueLights. 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.

[Page 110]If Angel be taken Collectively by Malachi, why not by John also? I appeal to the Learned Rea­der, whether is most probable, that the Holy Ghost should Allude to Provincial Angels, the doubtful Mi­nisters of Providence (under that Denomination) or to the Synagogue-Angels, the known Ministers of Sacred Things.

3. His third Reason to prove that Timothy left an Episcopal Successor, is taken from Ignatius his Epi­stle to that Church,P. 59. in which he Names Onesimus their Bishop.

1. He knows that the Learned are not agreed, whether the Epistles of Ignatius be Genuine or no; Mouns. Daille hath written a Learned Dissertation to prove them Spurious. Doct. Pearson hath Lear­nedly Defended them. Le Roque hath with great Judgment Answered the Learned Bishop.

2. If Ignatius be Genuine, which is very doubt­ful, it should seem that in his time the Name of Bishop, which the Holy Ghost gives to all Presbyters in common, began to be appropriated to the first or chief Presbyter, who for Order sake Presided over the rest, and had the Honour of the chief Place in their Assemblies, and of moderating the Debates of the Presbytery, but without any Power of Jurisdiction or Government over his Brethren.

This was the Primitive Bishop, as J. O. hath proved in his Plea (p. 136. 139.) out of Hilarius, &c.

3. Ignatius his Bishop was but the chief Pastor of a Church that ordinarily Assembled together for Personal Communion, as will appear to any Impar­tial Person that Reads these Epistles with Observa­tion. Congregational, or Parochial Bishops were throughout the World, not only in Ignatius his time, but in Paul's time, who fixed more than one of them in every Church, Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1.

That the Bishop's Diocess in Ignatius time, and long after, exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parish, appears,

1. The whole Diocess met together, with the Bishop, for Publick Worship. Let all follow the [Page 111]Bishop, as Jesus Christ, and the Presbytery as the Apo­stles— Let no Church Affairs be managed without the Bishop. Where the Bishop appears, let the multitude be Ign. ad Smyr. p. 6. Edit. Vos..

If the Prayer of one or two be so powerful, how much more is the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church. He that cometh not into one place, he is proud and self-condemned Ad Eph. p. 20. 33, 34..

Do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters; Run all of you together into one Temple of God, as to one Altar Ad Mag. p. 33, 34..

Where the Shepherd is, there do you follow, as the Sheep ought to do Ad Phil. p. 40..

2. Baptism was generally Administred by the Bi­shop within his Diocess.

It is not lawful without the Bishop, either to Baptize, or to Celebrate the Lord's Supper Ad Smy. p. 6..

So Tertullian, Ʋnder the hand of our Bishop we pro­test, That we renounce the Devil, and the Pomp of this World de Cor. mil. p. 336..

3. The Bishop had but one Altar, or Communi­on, in his whole Diocess, at which he had Admi­nistred the Lord's Supper to his whole Flock. Give diligence to use one Eucharist, for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup, which represents the Ʋnion of his Blood, one Altar, and one Bishop, with the Presbytery and Deacons, my Fellow-Servants Ad Phil. p. 41..

One Altar here must be taken individually, as one Bishop is. 'Tis absurd to say, one specifical Altar, and one individual Bishop.

Tertullian saith of the Lord's Supper, We receive it from no hand, but from the hand of the Presidents, or Bishops De Cor. Milit. p. 338.. They Communicated at least once a Week, in some places twice or thrice. One of our Bishops would scarce be able to Administer the Lord's Supper in a whole Month to all his Diocess.

4. No Marriages were made without the Bishop: Those Ʋnions were made with the Sentence of the Bi­shop Ad Poly. p. 13..

5. The Bishop took care of all the Poor of the Di­cess. Neglect not the Widows; do you take care of them next unto the Lord: Let nothing be done without [Page 112]thy Advice; let the People often Assemble together; inquire after all by Name; despise not Men-Servants, and Maid-Servants Ad Poly. p. 12. 13..

Here the Bishop was to take care of the poor Widows of his Diocess, to see that nothing be done without his Advice, and that the Congregation of­ten met together; he was to take an account by Name of those that were absent, not omitting Ser­vant-Men and Maids. What Diocesan Bishop can perform all this in his Diocess, which consists of some Scores, or hundreds of Parishes?

Many more Testimonies might be gathered out of these Epistles, to prove that Ignatius his Bishop, was but a Parish-Bishop.

Thus we have made it evident, that the Govern­ment of the Church of Ephesus was ledged in the Presbyters of that Church, and that there was no Change of the Government afterwards by the Apo­stles, and that there was no Diocesan Bishop there in Ignatius his time. The present Bishop of Salisbu­ry, doth ingenuously acknowledge, That Ignatius was but the Pastor of a particular Church. See the Quotation in J. O's. Plea, p. 30,

Having invalidated the Rector's Arguments for Diocesan Episcopacy, from 1 Tim. and Ignatius his Epistles, I proceed to consider what he hath to offer in favour of Titus, his being Bishop of Crete.

If Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, no more was Titus of Crete; for the Epistles directed to both, are much of the same Strain. Their Powers were the same, and both were Officers of the same Species, namely, Evangelists.

Timothy is expresly so call'd, and Titus was really one, (as will be acknowledged by the Learned) for he was the Apostle's Assistant, and Messenger to the Churches, particularly to that of Corinth, where he seems to have spent a great part of his time; 2 C [...]r. 2.13. & 7.6. & 8.6. The Apostle calls him his Companion, and Fellow-Worker, 2 Cor. 8.23. We find him with the Apostle at Jerusalem, Gal. 2.13.

[Page 113] Paul left Titus in Crete, P. 63. to set in Order the things that were wanting, and to Ordain Elders in every City, as the Rector observes, Tit. 1.5.

1. It's no where said that Paul made him Bishop of Crete: The Trusts committed to him were such as an Evangelist might discharge: This I presume will not be denied. Eusebius expresly affirms, it was part of their Work to Ordain PastorsEccl. Hist. III. 31.. And the Rector acknowledges that Branch of their Pow­er, p, 115.

2. He was left in Crete but for a Season (as Ti­mothy was in Ephesus) for the Apostle charges him to come to him to Nicopolis,Tit. 3.12 when he should send Ar­temas or Tychicus to him, for there he intended to Winter.

By which it is evident his stay in Crete, by Paul's appointment, was not long, perhaps not above half a Year, if so much; after which we never read of his returning thither; but we find him after this sent into Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.10. and we hear no more of him.

3. He thinks Titus 1.5. That thou mightest Ordain Elders, not rightly Translated; it should be, That thou mightest appoint and settle Elders in every City. This presupposes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining also.

1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers, for which they feign him a Bishop, to wit, his Or­daining of Elders: This he saith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5. If this Text doth not prove his Or­daining Power, no one in that Epistle doth.

2. He fancies that assigning unto Presbyters their power and special places, was the work of Titus in Crete, and that this was after Ordination. Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City, or particular Church, as he himself explains it? Act 14.23. and were they not chosen by the Multitude before Ordination, as he also confesseth in the case of his Deacon-Presby­ters, Acts 6. He would do well to tell us, What new power was assign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination? Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders need­ed [Page 114]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 Ʋnruly, or Non-conformists, &c.

1. The Apostle Explains his Meaning about stop­ping the Mouths of false Teachers, in v. 9. That he [Page 115]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, Tit 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 [...]nventions as Terms of Communion.

The latter of these two are the Culpable Noncon­formists. [Page 116]I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing these, lest be be condemned out of his own Mouth.

Paul instructs him to reject a Heretick, p. 66. Tit. 3.10.

That he might do as an Evangelist.

What he transcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete, and we have already consider'd Ignatius bis Bishop.

Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery,P. 76.nor any share in the Government commu­nicated to them in these Epistles, saith our Author.

1. The Epistles were directed to Evangelists, who were superiour to Presbyters; and therefore it was fit the Exhortation should be immediately di­rected to them.

2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters also, as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church; and doubtless were intended for the use of the Church unto the end of time, 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3.

The Presbyters are concern'd, I hope, in the se­veral Directions to Purity, Patience, Constancy, Faithfulness in dispensing the Word, &c. 1 Tim, 6.11, 12. 2 Tim. 2.3, 4. and 4.1, 2, 3.

3. It is a very gross mistake, that the Presbytery had no share in the Government communicated to them in these Epistles. Paul ordain'd Bishops there, who among other Qualifications must be such as Rul'd well their own Houses, that they might take care of the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17. he mentions Elders that Ruled well, and mere wor­thy of Double Honour.

He contradicts himself, and saith, that the Presby­ters had some Interest in the Government, (tho' their Power was subordinate) as appears from the Council at Jerusalem,P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apostles them­selves; doubtless then, and much more with Timo­thy and Titus. They had no share in the Govern­ment, and yet they had some Interest in it; himself can best reconcile these inconsistent Propositions.

They were subordinate to the Apostles, Acts 15. and so were the Evangelists: But can he produce [Page 117]any ordinary Presbyters, that were subordinate to others of the same Order?

Ignatius, saith he, allows 'em a great stroke in or­dering the Affairs of their Churches, p. 77. but still in Sub­jection to their Bishop, without whom they could do nothing.

It does not appear that Ignatius his Bishop could do any thing without his Presbyters, no more than they could without him. And long after his time, the Bishop had no power to determine Church-mat­ters without his Presbyters; as appears by that Ca­non in the Council of Carthage, — ‘Let the Bi­shop hear no Mans Cause without the Presence of his Clergy; otherwise his Sentence shall be void, unless it be confirmed by the presence of his Cler­gy.’ Concil. Cath. IV. Can. 13.

Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters, and without the Consent of his Peo­ple.Statue­rim nil sine Concilio vestro & si­ne consensu Plebis meae privatâ sentemiâ gerere. Cypr. Ep. 6.

To be sure then the People and their Bishop ordi­narily met in one place.

Ignatius frequently exhorts the People to do no­thing without their Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons in Conjunction. The Bishop and his Presbyters made one Consistory: The Bishop, saith he, presiding in the Place of God, and the Presbyters in the Place of the Council of the Apostles. [...] Magn. p. 33. And a [...] little after he mentions the Complex Spiritual Crown of the Presby­tery, who sat round about him in the Church. P. 37.

Again, Let all reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jesus Christ, aid the Bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the Presbyters as the Council of God, and the Conjunction of the Apostles. Ad Tralles. p. 48.

By these and many other Passages in Ignatius his Epistles, it's evident that the Bishop and Presbyters sat in Council together, and were only the Guides of a Parochial Church, in which the Bishop did no­thing without his Presbyters, nor they without him. This Agreement of the Bishop and his Presbyters; Ignatius compares to the Strings of a Harp; and adds, That under their joynt Conduct the whole [Page 118]Church made a Chorus, a sacred Choire, and by their consenting Unity made a Divine Melody. Ad Ephes. p, 19.

This is agreeable to what Jerom affirms, that the Churth was antiently Governed Communi Concilio Presbyterorum, by the Common Council of the Pres­byters.Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. who had a Moderator or President, for Order's sake, but without any Jurisdiction over the other Presbyters. This Moderator at the first was not so much as chosen, but the Honour was devolved in course upon the Senior Presbyter; and when he died, the next to him succeeded. This is expresly arffirm'd by Hilarius the Deacon.Ʋt re­cedente uno sequens ei succede­deret. Hil. in Eph. 4. But the Senior Presby­ters proving sometimes not so fit for the Place, as he adds, they changed the Succession, by Seniority, into that by Election. The Presbyters chose the fittest Per­son to be their Moderator or President, as is done in all the Presbyteries of the Reformed Churches. This President had no new Ordination, had no Power over his Brethren, and was but Primus Sacerdos, the first Presbyter, as Hilary affirms. See this Quota­tion more at large in J. O's Plea, p. 136.—Mu­tata este ra­tio, ut non Ordo sed Meritum crearet E­piscopum, &c. In Eph. 4. & in 1 Tim. 1.3.

Thus it was at Alexandria, as Jerom observes, ad Evagr. By all which it appears, that the Primitive Bishop was not of the same Species with our Modern Bishops; and that the Government of the Churches by the Presbyters, under their respective Moderators, is most agreeable to the Primitive Practice.

He thinks that he hath sufficiently prov'd that Timo­thy and Titus were Diocesan Governours, tho not Bi­shops in Title P. 78. I leave it to the Impartial Reader to consider of his Proofs, and my Answers.

As to Timothy and Titus, I will add these few things, and so conclude this Chapter.

1. It is certain there was an Order of Evange­lists in the Church, Ephes. 4.11. This all will ac­knowledge.

2. They were Ʋnsixed Officers, subordinate to the Apostles, and sent by them to supply their absence, in the Churches planted by them, 1 Cor. 3.6. Not as their stated Pastors, for they had Pastors and Tea­chers resident with them; but to guide the New [Page 119]Pastors in Faith, Worship and Discipline, during the present Necessity, until the Canon of the New Te­stament were written for a compleat and infallible Directory unto all Churches unto the end of Time. The Apostles themselves could not be every where, and the ordinary Ministers would be often at a loss without their Directions. Therefore it was necessa­ry they should entrust some Persons, as Delegates, to go in their names, and with full instructions to the Churches, to settle, direct and establish them.

Some of these Evangelists generally attended the Apostles, that they might be assistant to them.

Sometimes they send them to one Church, some­times to another, to make a shorter or a longer stay, as the circumstances of their work required, and then to return again to the Apostle that sent them.

Thus Timothy is sent to Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.10. & 4.17. we find him with Paul again, when he writ the second Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1.1. at Berea he was with Paul, and abode there still with Silas, Acts 17.14. [...], as he did afterwards at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. I besought thee, [...] to abide still, but no more as Bishop of Ephesus than of Berea. And yet this is the great Argument to prove him Bishop of Ephesus, that Paul besought him to abide there. It's true, he soon left Berea, and fol­lowed Paul to Athens, Acts 17.15. whose companion he was: Nor was he to stay at Ephesus, but until Paul came to him, 1 Tim. 3.14. & 4.13. And in the second Epistle, which was written not long after the first, the Apostle calls him away to Rome, and sends ly­chicus, another Evangelist to Ephesus, 2 Tim. 4.9.12.21. In 1 Thess. 1.1. we find him in Athens, whence he was sent to Thessalonica, and thence returned back to Athens, 1 Thes. 3.1, 2, 6. After this he remov'd with Paul to Corinth, Acts 18.5. thence he accompanied Paul to Asia and Ephesus, Acts 19.1. thence he was sent to Macedonia, v. 21, 22. But it were tedious to follow him in all his Travels to so many distant pla­ces. He is expresly called an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and no one else is expresly so call'd but Philip, Acts 21.8.

[Page 120] Titus was such another unfixed Officer. He was Paul's partner, and fellow-helper, 2 Cor. 8.23. and seems mostly imploy'd in the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 8.6.16, & 7.6.13. Paul expected him at Troas, and not finding him, he had no rest in his spi­rit, but took his leave of them, and went into Ma­cedonia, 2 Cor. 12.13. We find him with Paul at Je­rusalem, Gal. 2.1, 3. and after his being in Crete, the Apostle sends for him to Nicopolis, Titus 3.12. we find him with Paul at Rome, whence he sent him to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.12. and we hear no more of him.

3. Evangelists were subordinate to the Apostles, and superiour to Presbyters, Eph. 4.11. They were the Apostles Collegues and Companions, and their Authorized Messengers to the Churches, to set in order what was wanting in them, and to instruct, admonish and reprove the Presbyters, as there was occasion.

4. They had power to Ordain Ministers where there was need of them. This appears in Eusebius, who saith of them, ‘That travelling far from home, they perform'd the Office of Evangelists,Eccl. Hist. III. 31. and preached Christ to such as heard not of the Faith, and delivered unto them the Scriptures of the holy Gospels with great application. When they had laid the foundation of Christian Doctrine in cer­tain strange places, and ordained other Pastors, and committed the new Converts to their Care and Conduct, they went into other Countries and Na­tions, attended with the favour and power of God.’ Thus he. Timothy and Titus, who were both of them Evangelists, were entrusted with the power of ordai­ning, We have already proved, That ordinary Presbyters have exercised this power, much more might Evangelists, who were extraordinary Officers.

5. Evangelists were Temporary Officers in tho Church, and are long since ceas'd, as Apostles and Prophets are.

6. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, as we have prov'd, and therefore no Diocesan Bishops. It would [Page 121]be a degrading an extraordinary Officer, whose Power was general over all the Churches, in Sub­ordination to the Apostles, to make an ordinary Officer of him, and to confine his Power to one particular Church. It's like the Degrading of the Colonel of a Regiment, to be the Captain of a single Company; or the Confining of a Diocesan Bi­shop, to a mean Parochial Cure.

Mr. G. and some Others, will own they were Evangelists, and Unfixed at first, but that the Apo­stle towards his latter End had made them Bishops, and that they were such when he wrote his Epistles to them, which was after his first Imprisonment at Rome: This he undertakes to prove in his next Chapter.

CHAP. IV. The First Epistle to Timothy was written be­fore Paul's Imprisonment at Rome, ac­knowledged by the Ancients, and by the Lear­ned Assertors of Episcopacy, Bishop Hall, Dr. Hammond, &c. Deny'd by the Rhe­mists, Bishop Pearson, &c. Paul's Jour­ney to Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3. considered. Jerom vindicated. Reasons to prove that the First Epistle to Timothy was written be­fore Paul's First Bonds. The Second Epi­stle written in his First Bonds. An Obje­ction Answered. Acts 20.25. considered.

ONE and the leading Argument for Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus,P. 79. saith he, is grounded on 1 Tim. 1.3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went to Macedonia.

[Page 122]1. To abide still, doth not imply a continued re­sidence. Timothy is said to abide still at Berea, where he made but a short stay, Acts 17.14, 15. This Ar­gument will as soon prove him Bishop of Berea, as Bishop of Ephesus.

2. His stay there was but short, that is, until the Apostle came to him, 1 Tim. 3.14. and 4.13. Mr. G. himself allows in p. 90. That the Church of Ephesus was Govern'd by Presbyters under Paul, whilst he was vigorous and active, and had opportunity to oversee both the Flock and the Elders themselves. The Apostle was vigorous and active when he writ this first Epistle to Timothy, and he intended shortly to visit the Flock and Elders of Ephesus. Therefore by his own Con­fession Timothy could not be Bishop of Ephesus when that Epistle was written.

3. He was not fixed as Resident at Ephesus, for the Apostle afterwards calls him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9, 21. and sends Tychicus the Evangelist to Ephesus. We do not read that Timothy ever return'd to Ephe­sus again.

Thus we see the Weakness of his Leading Argu­ment, as he calls it, by which we may judge of the rest.

He adds, That the Dissenters, to avoid the Argument built upon 1 Tim. 1.3. and the rest of the Epistle, say, That the first Epistle to Timothy was written before the Meeting at Miletus, in which the Apostle committed the Flock to the Elders of Ephesus, and not to Timothy, Acts 20.17, 28.

Our Argument from Acts 20.17, 28. holds good, tho' that Epistle should be written after, as we have proved already in Cap. 3.

2. It is not the Dissenters only (as he unfairly suggests) that say that this Epistle was written be­fore the Meeting at Miletus; It's the general and prevailing Opinion of the greatest part of Chrono­logers, Ancient and Modern, the most Learned As­serters of Episcopacy not excepted. Bishop Hall is of this OpinionVindic, p. 97. & Div. Right of Episcop. Part 2d. p. 38., so is Dr. Hammond and Grotius, Lud. Cap [...]llus, Dr. Lightfoot, Cary, &c, Gothofredus [Page 123]quotes Athanasius, Baronius, &c. as of the same Opi­nion.

The Rhemists were sensible that this Opinion was prejudicial to the Cause of Episcopacy, and there­fore they say, tho' not positively, That the first Epi­stle to Timothy, was written after Paul's first Impri­sonment at Rome, when he was set at Liberty Rhem. Test. Arg. in 1 Tim. They are follow'd by Bishop Pearson and by Mr. G. only with this difference, That the Seminary at Rhemes deliver themselves more modestly than the Rector doth; They say, it seemeth so; the Rector saith, He hath demonstrated it.

One that had not read Bishop Pearson, would think the Rector very ingenuous in acknowledging that he is beholden to the Bishop for what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. 1.3.

That Miracle of his Time (saith he,p. 80. meaning Bishop Pearson) in his Annales Paulini, has given us a plain Account and Proof thereof: All that I pretend unto is, to build on his Foundation, and to enlarge on what that excellent Prelate has demonstrated, in a few words. Thus the Rector.

I will not dispute whether the Learned Bishop were the Miracle of his Time; if he were, Miracles are grown very Common in this last Age, for the Bishop had many Equals, whose Learned Works are nothing inferiour to his.

I dare affirm that our Rector is no Miracle in Ar­chitecture, for he builds very sorrily on the Bishops Foundation. Instead of raising a Superstructure, he has rather disturbed the Foundation; The Learned Bishop discourses distinctly and clearly, the Rector confusedly and darkly.

He refers to Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulini, and pretends to enlarge on what the Bishop had demon­strated in few words; but takes no notice of the Bishops enlarging on that Argument in his Disserta­tions, whence he borrow'd what he pretends to say on Paul's Journey to Macedonia, but would have his Reader believe the Enlargements are his own. See [Page 124]Pears. Dissert. 1. de Succession. Rom. Episc. Cap. IX. S. 5. ad S. 10.

But let's consider what the Rector has to offer out of Dr. Pearson. Thus he goes on.

‘The Characteristick of the precise time of Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus, is set down by Paul himself,P. 80. 1 Tim. 1.3. When I went into Ma­cedonia: This was not, saith he, at any of those times of Paul's going into Macedonia, remembred in the Acts, and therefore it was after the Apostle bad the Ephesians farewel at Miletus.’ Here he spends several Pages to shew it was none of the times mention'd by St. Luke.

1. Tho' Luke doth not mention (in Acts 20.) Timo­thy's being left at Ephesus, it is enough that Paul mentions it, 1 Tim. 1.3. In Acts 19.21.22. Paul sends Timothy into Macedonia, appointing him to call at Corinth by the way, and intends himself to stay at Ephesus, until he should come thither again to him, 1 Cor. 16.10, 11. He chargeth the Corinthians to ‘Conduct him forth in Peace, that he might come to him, for he looked for him with the Bre­thren.’ It's most likely then, he return'd from Macedonia to Ephesus, unto Paul. The disturbance there, occasion'd Paul's departure before the time he had fix'd, 1 Cor. 16.8. And so he setteth for Mace­donia, as he intended, 1 Cor. 16.5. Acts 20.1.

At his departure from Ephesus, he leaves Timothy there behind, not as a Resident, but in his▪ absence to supply the present Necessity, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4. until he return'd again, which he intended shortly to do, 1 Tim. 2.3, 14.

2. Nothing can be concluded from Luke's silence in this point: for it is certain that he does not mention all the Journeys either of Paul or Timothy, In Acts 20.1, 2. he saith that Paul departed from Ephesus to go into Macedonia, but speaks nothing of his stay at Troas, which tho' but short, was not without some Success: Yet this Omission of Luke, 2 Cor. 2.12, 13. doth supply.

Where doth Luke mention Paul's preaching the [Page 125]Gospel in Illiricum, which we are sure he did, be­fore his Imprisonment at Rome, Rom. 15.19. Nor doth he mention his preaching in Arabia, which is spoken of in Gal. 1.17.

Nor doth Luke mention Timothy's Journey to the Thessalonians, to confirm them in the Faith. In Acts 17.13, 14. we find him at Berea with Paul and Silas, who were driven from Thessalonica by Persecution. Paul experts him speedily at Athens, vers. 15. And we hear no more of him till Paul came to Corinth. Acts 18.15. But what's omitted by Luke, is menti­on'd by Paul, in 1 Thes. 3.1, 2. (viz.) That Timo­thy was sent to Thessalonica, while Paul staid at Athens.

Now because I find Timothy in Berea, a Town of Macedonia, Acts 17.13, 14. and sometime after com­ing from Macedonia, to Corinth, Acts 18.5. Shall I therefore conclude that he was in Berea all that time? When I find Paul expecting him in Athens, and sending him from thence to Thessalonica, between those times, as is mention'd by himself in 1 Thess. 3.1, 2. With as much reason may the Rector conclude, that because he finds Timothy in Macedonia, Acts 19.21, 22. And there again about half a year after, Acts 20.4. That therefore he was not out of Mace­donia in all that time; Tho' we find the Apostle ex­pecting him at Ephesus, 1 Cor, 16.10, 11. And lea­ving him there, 1 Tim. 1.3. when he went into Ma­cedonia. He may as rationally affirm, That the first Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after Paul's Imprisonment at Rome, (which all acknowledge to be written before) because it mentions a Journey of Timothy's to Thessalonica, which Luke, in the History of the Acts of the Apostles, takes no notice of.

As the Epistle to the Corinthians, Romans, and Thessalonians, supply some Passages in the Travels of Paul and Timothy, omitted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, even so doth the first Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 1.3, supply what's omitted in Acts 20.

It is usual in all Histories, for one Author to sup­ply It what's omitted by another: And in Scripture-History, what's omitted in the Books of Kings, is in­serted [Page 126]in the Chronicles, which are therefore call'd [...], Things omitted, by the Lxx. What's omitted by one Evangelist, is reported by ano­ther.

So what's omitted by Luke, is mentioned by the Apostle to Timothy, to wit, That he besought him to stay at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. Luke no where menti­ons Titus, Paul's▪ Companion, whom the Apostle so often mentions in his Epistles.

‘Paul, after his Release from his first Imprison­ment at Rome, (continues our Author) went back to visit the Eastern Churches,P. 87. as he intended, Phil. 1.25, 26. and 2.24. Philem. 22. Heb. 13.23. He went from Italy to Crete, and so to Judea. In his pas­sage by Crete (which was his way by Sea to Judea) he planted a Church there: For no other time can be assign'd for it but this.’

All this is confidently affirm'd, after the Rector's usual way. But,

1. Here is no express proof that he visited the Church of Ephesus, after his Imprisonment at Rome. He might visit the Philippians, Colossians, and the Churches of Judea, without ever seeing Ephesus, as he had positively said he should not, Acts 20.25.

2. It is not certain whether he visited the Philip­pians and Colossians, after his Imprisonment at Rome, for he doth not positively promise it. He seems un­certain what would become of him, Phil. 2.23, 24. He had some hopes of seeing them, but was not cer­tain, Philem. 22. Nay, had he pass'd a Promise of seeing them again, it doth not necessarily follow he did see them. Many things might happen to divert his Intentions▪ as it happen'd with respect to the Pro­mise he made of Visiting the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 1.15, 16, 17.

3. The Learned Dr. Lightfoot assigns another timeVol. 1. p. 309. for Paul's visiting of Crete, and that was when he return'd from Macedonia to Greece, Acts 20. 2. And then he left Titus there, Tit. 1.5. thinking that he should presently after a little stay in Greece, have set towards Jerusalem; As he was about to fall [Page 127]into Syria, the Jews laid wait for him, which made him to return through Macedonia, Acts 20.3. About that time, as Dr. Lightfoot conceives, he writ the Epistle to Titus, in which he calls him to Nicopolis, where he intended to winter, Tit. 3.12. It is certain he winter'd in those Parts, for the Spring following he sails into Asia, Acts 20.6. He had some thoughts of wintering in Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.6. But It seems, altering his Resolution, he determined to winter in Nicopolis a City in Epirus, not very far distant from Corinth. Titus, according to appointment, came to him, and was sent by him to Corinth, to hasten the Collection for the Saints in Judea, 2 Cor. 8.16, 17.

We do not deny but St. Paul might go into Spain, and perhaps to Britain also, as some affirm, but no Man ever affirm'd so palpable an untruth, as that all the Fathers should say so, before this man, whose 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.

'Tis 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 [Page 128]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 calculatesVol. 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.

[Page 129]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 MartyrdomEccles. Hist. 11, 21.. Several Ancient W [...]iters speak t [...] [...]e same purpose. But our Author will prove it by Sc [...]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; 'tis 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, 'tis 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.

[Page 130] ‘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 Timothy who was an Evangelist, and not the fixed ordinary Go­vernour of any one Church, Acts 20.17, 28. 2 Tim. 4, 5.

[Page 131]That Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, and wrote his First Epistle to him, before his Imprisonment at Rome, appears,

1. From his Journey to Macedonia, mention'd 1 Tim. 1.3. which can be no other than that in Acts 20. as most of the Learned agree, and as is proved already.

2. From his Excommunicating Alexander the Copper-Smith, 1 Tim. 1.20. who is the same Per­son that is mention'd Acts 19.33Vid. Grot. in 1 Tim. 1.20. and Estium, & Lightfoot, Vol. 1. p. 306..

This Excommunication was not long after his Apostacy, as we may rationally suppose, and so is mention'd as a late thing.

3. That place in 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. where the Apo­stle saith, That he hopes to come shortly unto Timothy, agrees well with the time of his stay in Macedonia and Greece, mention'd in Acts 20.1, 2. He design'd to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, 1 Cor. 16.8. but was driven away sooner by the Tumult there, Acts 20.1. and spent very near a whole Year in Mace­donia, Greece, and those parts, and return'd for Asia after Easter in the following Year, Acts 20.6. having Winter'd in Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12. Sometime this Year, while he was in Macedonia, or the parts thereabouts, he writes his first Epistle to Timothy, telling him, He design'd to be shortly with him, 1 Tim. 3.14. Accordingly, not long afterwards, he Sail'd for Asia, and came to Miletus, the time being far spent, that he could not conveniently go to Ephe­sus, Acts 20.15, 16.

Obj. But Timothy was with Paul in Macedonia, when he set out for Asia, Acts 20.4, How comes he to leave Ephesus, seeing the Apostle desir'd him to stay there till he came?

Answ. The Learned Dr. Lightfoot conceives it very probable, ‘That Paul designing to have Sail'd for Syria, Acts 20.3. came near to Timothy, and there discovering the danger that was laid in his way by the Jews, which also might have involv'd Timothy, he brought him away back again with him, and so both return'd again into Macedonia, [Page 132]and when Winter was over, they set for Asia againLightf. Vol. 1. p. 312..’

4. Tiie First Epistle to Timothy must be Written before Paul's first Imprisonment, because the Second Epistle was Written in his first Bonds, as the Fa­mous Dr. Lightfoot affirmsLightf. Vol. 1. p. 324.; and so doth the Learned Dr. Hammond Ham. in 2 Tim., a Zealous Assertor of Episcopacy, to whose Opinion I Subscribe for these Reasons;

1. When the Second Epistle was written to Timo­thy, he was a Young Man; therefore Paul bids him flee youthful lusls, 2 Tim. 2.22. For the same reason he saith, 1 Tim. 4.12. Let no Man despise thy Youth. See 1 Cor. 16.11.

Suppose Timothy was about 24 or 25 Years old when Paul took him into the Ministry, Acts 16.34. which was about the Year of Christ, LI.Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 294.; from this time to Paul's Second Bonds and Martyrdom, (which happen'd A. D. LXX.Euseb., or LXVIII. say othersLightf.) there pass'd near XX Years; so that by the lowest Computation, Timothy must be above XL. when the Apostle was under his Second Confine­ment at Rome. It is not likely the Apostle should caution him against youthful lusts, 2 Tim. 2.22. at three or four and fourty Years old, especially being a sickly man, 1 Tim. 1.23.

Therefore he wrote this Second Epistle to Timo­thy, many Years before his last Confinement, i. e. in his first Bonds, when Timothy was indeed a young Man, about 33, or 34, or perhaps Younger, not much Elder than when he wrote his first Epistle to him, in which he saith, let no man despise thy youth, 1 Tim. 4.12. Or when he sent his First Epistle to the Corinthians (which all confess to be Penn'd be­fore his first Bonds) that chargeth them not to de­spise him for the same Reason, 1 Cor. 16.11Vid. Pise & Grot. in Loc..

For the same Reason he calls him Son, 1 Tim. 1.2.18. 2 Tim. 2.1.

2. Paul sends for Timothy to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9. His Letter finds him some where near Ephesus, 2 Tim. 4.19. & 1.16, 18. & 4.13. Accordingly Timothy [Page 133]came to Rome, and it doth not appear that he came thither before this time that he was sent for. The last mention we have of him in the Acts is, That he accompanies Paul into Asia, Acts 20.4. We read nothing of him in Paul's Voyage to Rome, therefore 'tis most likely, he parted with Paul at Miletus, and staid among the Asian Churches, until he was sent for by Paul to Rome. After his coming thither, the Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, were written, for his Name is Prefixed to them, as well as Paul's: Now these Epistles were written in his First Bonds at Rome, Phil. 1.26. & 2.23, 24. Philemon. 22. This will not be deny'd: therefore the Second Epistle to Timothy was written in his first Bonds, though sometime before these.

3. Timothy is desir'd to bring Mark with him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.11. Accordingly he went to Rome, and was with Paul at Rome, when he wrote his Epis­tles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Col. 4.10. Philem. 24. which Epistles were undoubtedly written in his first Bonds. It cannot be pretended that Mark went with Paul to Rome; there is not the least mention of him, either in Scripture, or any other approved Author, as Paul's Companion to Rome. He was sent for in this Second Epistle to Timothy, to come along with him to Rome, and it is certain he was with Paul in his first Bonds.

4. He mentions, in 2 Tim. 3.11. his Sufferings which befel him at Ieonium, at Lystra and Antioch, of which we have an account in Acts 14. Now this Persecution happen'd about the Year of Christ, 49, or 50Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 291. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome, was in the Year of Christ 68, or as others, 69, which was the Year in which he wrote this Epistle, accord­ing to this new Hypothesis: So that his Persecutions at Antioch, Lyconium, and Lystra, were near 20 years before his last Imprisonment at Rome. Now it is not likely that the Apostle would mention an Event so long past, when there were▪ other latter Suffer­ings of his that were much fresher in his Memory.

Therefore we may rather think, that he men­tions [Page 134]his Sufferings at Antioch, &c. as a late thing, not very many Yeats past, and if so, this Second Epistle was written much earlier than is pretended.

5. The Epistle to the Ephesians was written in Paul's first Bonds, (as Mr. G. confesseth, p. 86, 87.) and was sent by Tychicus, Eph. 6.21. who was also the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians, Col. 4.7. which was written at the same time with that to Ephesus, as he observeth, p. 87. Tychicus had gone along with Paul for Rome, Acts 20.5. This sending of Tychicus to Ephesus is mention'd in 2 Tim. 4.12. Therefore this Second Epistle to Timothy, which mentions this Journey of Tychicus to Ephesus, was written about the same time.

6. It is agreed by all, That Paul was not set at Liberty in his last Imprisonment at Rome, but he was delivered from the Confinement mention'd in the Second Epistle to Tim. Chap. 4.17. Therefore that Epistle was not written in his last Bonds. He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion, that all the Gentiles might hear the Gospel. That is, that he might go about, and preach the Gospel to many Nations▪

This is agreeable to the account that the Fathers give of his Preaching the Gospel to several Nations after his Imprisonment. Hence it's evident, saith Estius Est. in Loc. That this Epistle was not written in Paul's Last Bonds.

7. It is undeniable that Luke accompanied Paul to Rome, Acts 27. & 28. He includes himself all along in the Narrative he gives of their dangerous Voyage to Rome, and speaks in the first Person plu­ral, Chap. 28.16. When we came to Rome. He was at Rome with Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians, which was written in his First Bonds, as is confess'd, Col. 4.14. And so he was when Paul sent the Second Epistle to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.11. Therefore this Epistle was Penn'd during his First Bonds.

8. He mentions his Cloak, &c. which he left at Troas with Carpus, 2 Tim. 4.13. These were left [Page 135]there, as it seems, as he was going among his Na­tion in Judea, Acts 20.16. where he had no occa­sion for his Roman Habit, which might have proved inconvenient in Judea, among his own Countrey-Men, who were too much prejudiced against him already, Acts 21.21. and to whom he was desirous to render himself acceptable by all Lawful Compli­ances, Acts 21.26. But now he was at Rome, he had need of his Roman Garb, which was the Pallium, or Cloak. There is no Evidence of his passing by Troas to Rome, in his last Journey thither, nor can any reason be given why he should leave his Cloak there, as he went to Rome and Roman Colonies: but it looks Rational enough that he should do so, when he was going into Judea, and that he should send for it in his first Imprisonment at Rome, whither he was carried Prisoner from Judea. And therefore this Second Epistle was Written in his first Bonds.

9. It should seem he was under a favourable Con­finement, when he writ the Second Epistle to Timo­thy, for he mentions only one Chain, 2 Tim. 1.16. and so doth Luke, in Acts 28.20. which speaks of his first and favourable Confinement, Eph. 6.20. In his Second Imprisonment he was more severely handled, as all agree. Now such as were in strict Custody were bound with two Chains, Act. 12.6. Hence it should seem to follow, that this Second Epistle to Timothy, which speaks but of one Chain, was Writ­ten in Paul's First Imprisonment, which was more favourable than the Second.

10. Demas was with Paul at Rome, in his First Imprisonment, Col. 4.14. but the tediousness of Paul's Confinement, and the love of this present world, which is inconsistent with patient Suffering, tempt­ed him to forsake the Apostle, 2 Tim. 4.10. We read nothing of his being there in his Second Im­prisonment, but we are sure he was there in his first Imprisonment, and that he left him in his Bonds, 2 Tim. 4.10. which we may rationally conclude were his first Bonds.

I will not mention Paul's leaving Trophimus at Mi­letus [Page 136]sick, 2 Tim. 4.20. which might well be when he went in Bonds from Judea to Rome, as we ob­serv'd before.

Nor will I insist upon Erastus abiding at Corinth, 2 Tim. 4.20. Rom. 16.23. Acts 19.22. when Paul sent for Mark from thence unto him. That he was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Second Epistle thi­ther, may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19Vid. Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 311.. who was chosen of the Churches to travel — Mark was chosen by the Church of Jerusalera, Acts 12.25. and by the Church at Antioch, Acts 13.5. It's true, Paul had taken some distaste at Mark; Acts 15.39. but he was reconciled to him again, as appears from 2 Tim. 4.20. We have prov'd already, that Mark was sent for in Paul's First Imprisonment, therefore his Reason that Erastus abode at Corinth, to supply Mark's Absence, refers to the same time.

These Reasons put together, may be sufficient to satisfie any unbiass'd Man (for nothing will con­vince Prejudiced and Interessed Persons) that the Second Epistle to Timothy was Written in Paul's first Bonds, and therefore his First Epistle must be writ­ten before his First Bonds, when he was in Macedo­nia, or thereabouts, 1 Tim. 1.3. Acts 20.1, 2. Un­less any will say, That his Second Epistle was Writ­ten before the First.

It is remarkable that this Epistle has more Cha­racters, and all concurring, of the Time in which it was written, than any one of Paul's Epistles, the Holy Ghost so ordering the Matter, for the Con­viction of such as are willing to receive the Truth.

There is one Passage in this Epistle, which hath occasioned some Doubt about the time of it, viz. 2 Tim. 4.6. I am now ready to be offer'd, and the time of my departure is at hand. Which some have understood of his approaching Martyrdom. [...], I am prepared, or ready for death▪ as the Sacrifices were for Offering: this seems to respect his Martyrdom as near at hand.

But if we compare this with other Scriptures, it will be evident that he speaks not of an approach­ing [Page 137]Martyrdom, but that he was grown old, and worn with Travels and hard Labour, and could not now last long: And besides all this, in Bonds at present, and so in continual danger.

Thus Lightfoot, Hammond, and others understand the place, and that this is the meaning of it will further appear:

  • 1. He useth the same Words in the Epistle to the Philippians, which was written in his first bonds, Phil. 2.17. [...], if I be offered upon the Sacrifice of your Faith.
  • 2. He speaks the same thing in different Expres­sions some Years before, Acts 21.13. I am ready to dye at Jerusalem. 1 Cor. 4.9. God hath set us forth to be as it were, [...], appointed to death. 1 Cor. 15.31. I dye daily. So in 2 Cor. 4.11. [...], we are always delivered unto death.
  • 3. That a sudden Martyrdom is not intended in 2 Tim. 4.6. appears from v. 17, 18. I was deli­vered— and the Lord shall deliver me. Much like that in 2 Cor. 1.10. Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us.
  • 4. Suppose the words should imply some appre­hensions of his approaching Death; that he had long before, 2 Cor. 1.8, 9. We despaired even of life, but had the sentence of death in our selves.
  • 5. The Apostle was now grown aged, as is evi­dent in the Epistle to Philemon, Written in his first Bonds, Philem. v. 9.22. and a Prisoner, not know­ing how God would dispose of him, Phil. 2.23. As he was aged he lived in constant expectations of Death; as he was a Prisoner, in danger of being made a Sacrifice, he could not but think his dissolu­tion was approaching, 2 Cor. 5.2, 3, 4. — Acts 20.23.

Being stricken in Years, and wasted with indefa­tigable Labours, and hard Sufferings, and in Ex­pectation of the Fiery Tryal, he might well say he had finished his course, 2 Tim. 4.7.

[Page 138]But yet he did not expect to dye very suddenly, for he sends a Letter from Rome to Timothy, at, or near Ephesus, to desire him to come to him, before Winter, 2 Tim. 4.21. It wou'd require a consider­able time to send a Letter from Rome to Ephesus, and for Timothy to return from Ephesus to Rome, and to take Mark with him, who it should seem was at Corinth: all this could not be done under three or four Months, and perhaps a longer time, consider­ing the several Winds that were necessary for such a Voyage.

Had Paul been under a Sentence of Death at this time, he could not have made an appointment for Timothy to come unto him at a distant time. Pri­soners in constant Expectations of Death, do not use to make appointments for a remote Time to come.

Thus we have Vindicated the Ancient and Re­ceived Opinion, That the First Epistle to Timothy was Written before Paul's Imprisonment at Rome, and have also proved that the Second Epistle to him was Written in his First Bonds; and therefore the Journey to Macedonia mention'd in 1 Tim. 1.3. must be that in Acts 20.1, 2.

Our Argument then holds good, That Timothy was no Bishop of Ephesus, because he was no Bishop there when the First Epistle was Written to him, for Paul commits the whole Government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of it, after the Writing of that Epistle, and at a time when Timothy was present, or not far off. Acts 20.4.17, 18—28. And when the Apostle knew he should ne­ver see their faces more, Acts 20.25.

To this last Scripture the Rector opposeth two Things.

1. He Corrects the Translation, and saith it should be rendred — I know that ye shall no more see my face all of you; P. 107. — 'tis in no wise probable that all of them saw his face any more, Death, and other Ca­sualties would doubtless hinder it.

The Elders, to whom he spake those Words, we [Page 139]may presume understood Paul's meaning a little bet­ter than the Rector. They all wept sore, and sorrow'd most of all for the Words which he spake, that they should see his Face no more, Acts 20.37, 38. The Words All of you are here omitted, which spoils the Parson's gloss. It cannot be imagin'd they wou'd all have wept so passionately, had they expected to have seen him again. It's Pity but our Critical Author had been there to explain Paul's Words, and to mi­tigate their ill grounded sorrow, by telling them, they shou'd see his Face again, tho perhaps some of them might Dye before he came again. But he himself is sensible of the impertinency of this new Criticism, and therefore adds that he will not insist on it.

2. When Paul saith, P. 108. he knew they shou'd see his Face no more, 'tis to be understood of a conjectural Knowledge only, as he saith.

1. It is enough to confirm our Argument, that he thought he shou'd see their Faces no more, 'tis un­deniable he had no Hopes of seeing them again, and wou'd not be wanting to settle the Government of this Church at this Time: And it is as undeniable, he settled the Government in the Presbyters, and not in a Diocesan Bishop, Acts 20.17, 28.

The Assertors of Episcopacy, and among others, Mr. G. saith, ‘That the Apostles settled the Go­vernment by Bishops, when they were leaving the Churches, and could not oversee them any longer: This was the Case here.’ The Apostle is leaving the Church of Ephesus, without any thoughts of see­ing it again, and at this Time commits the Govern­ment of the Church to the Presbyters. Nor was this Constitution Temporary or Prudential, but Di­vine, Acts 20.17, 28. It was an appointment of the Holy Ghost, Take heed to your selves and the stock, saith the Apostle, over which the Holy Ghost made you Bi­shops, to feed the Church of God, but of this we have spoken before.

2. Paul doth not use to express himself so positive­ly, when he speaks conjecturally. It wou'd look like [Page 140]rashness, if not worse, in any of us, to say positive­ly, I know I shall never see such a Place, or People, and afterwards to excuse it, by saying it was only a con­jectural Knowledge. The Holy Apostle did not use Lightness in his Speech, 2 Cor. 1.17, 18. he saith in Acts 20.29. I know that grievous Wolves shall enter in among you. Was this also a conjectural Knowledge? If this was a certain Knowledge, as it is evident by the Event, it was, why shou'd we not understand, ver. 25. of a certain Knowledge?

3. In the Form of Ordaining Priests, the Words are thus rendred. And now behold, I am sure, that henceforth yea all (through whom I have gone Preach­ing the Kingdom of God) shall see my Face no more Form of Ordaining Pr. Lond. Edit. for Bl. Pawlet, 1684..

4. It has not been yet proved that Paul was at E­phesus after this Time. One wou'd expect a very clear Proof that he was afterwards there, from those that dare Charge the Apostle with rashness in his Expressions. All the Proof we have is but a qualifi­ed Promise of visiting Macedonia and Coloss again, Phil. 2.24. Philem. 22.

1. But what is this to Ephesus? Here is not a Promise of seeing the Church of Ephesus again. It will be said it is likely he did, I say, it is more like­ly he did not, because he himself said, he knew he shou'd never see them again.

2. He doth not positively Promise to see Macedo­nia and Coloss again, Phil. 2.24. Philem. 22. I trust, &c. Here he speaks more doubtfully and not so positively as in Acts 20.25. I know, &c. This Gentlemans way of arguing is very singular, when the Apostle speaks doubtfully, I trust, he is sure he performed: But when he speaks positively, I know, he is sure he was mistaken. He expounds his Conje­ctural Expressions for Absolute, and his Absolute Ex­pressions for Conjectural.

I overlook his confident Triumphs, and weak Re­flections with which he stuffs the concluding Pages of this Chapter, as having nothing of Argument in them, and therefore not worthy my Notice.

I will follow him to his next Chapter, which Treats.

CHAP. V. Of Evangelists. Whether they were fixed? Neg. Acts 21.8. considered. Timothy and Titus unfixed. Hilarius his account of Evangelists. Eusebius's Testimony vindi­cated. Mark no fixed Evangelists Chry­sostom's account of Evangelists, agreeing with Eusebius.

THis Species of Church Officers, saith he,P. 113. is spoken of but thrice in the Holy Scriptures, Acts 21.8. Eph. 4.11. 2 Tim. 4.5.

The Office and Work are spoken of in many Pla­ces, but the Name only in three Places. It is 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 [Page 142]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 FlockThe 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 [Page 143]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 [Page 144]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. [Page 145]4.10. And we hear no more of him. It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete.

The Apostle calls Timothy away from Ephesus to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9. for the same Reason that he sends for Mark, both being profitable to him for the Ministry, having none with him but Luke, v. 10, 11. accordingly Timothy came to him, and he promises to send him to Macedonia, and not to Ephesus, Phil. 2.19. But it should seem he could not go as soon as he intended, being made a Prisoner at Rome: When he was set at Liberty he accompanied the Apostle to Judea, or design'd so to do, Heb. 13.23.

From all which it appears, that they were Evan­gelists in a proper Sence, that is, extraordinary and unsettled Church-Officers who assisted the Apostles in their Ministry. and were their Messengers to the Churches to establish, settle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apostles, having Power to ordain Elders, and to put forth other Acts of Go­vernment as occasion was offer'd. All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus. which doubtless were the same in other Churches, as in Ephesus and Crete, for they were Evangelists as much in one Place as in another: And the Power of Evangelists was the same in all Places.

3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangelists, who are succeeded by the Dea­cons, as he thinks; as the Prophets are by the Pres­byters, and the Apostles by the Bishops.

Evangelists, saith he, did Evangelize or Preach the Gospel, sine Cathedrá, without a fixed residence.

J. O. quoted Eusebius in his Plea (P. 18.) to the same purpose, he saith of the Evangelists,Hil. in 4. Eph. ‘That they Preached Christ to Infidels, ordain'd Pastors, and passed into other Countries and Na­tions.’

To this Mr. G. Answers, It was not the proper Work of Evangelists to go up and down Preaching the Gospel.

Eusebius saith, ‘They went far from their Houses, [Page 146]did the Work of Evangelists, and diligently Preach'd Christ to such as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith, and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Gospels, ordain'd other Pa­stors, and went into other Countries and Nations.’

I have proved out of Paul's Epistles, they were unsettled Officers, and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Gospel, and Eusebius affirms they did so.

But, saith he, Eusebius writes, L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangelist being Dead, Annianus (so he writes it for Anianus) enter'd upon the Admini­stration of the Church of Alexandria; hence he infers, That Mark was a resident Evangelist, not roving up and down.

1. He may as well say, that Peter was a resident Apostle, because Eusebius saith, that Linus succeeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome Eccl. Hist. III. 2.4..

2. Mark was no resident Evangelist, he was a Com­panion of Peter and Paul, and travell'd with them up and down, and was sent by them to several Churches, in Acts 12.25. we find him with Paul and Barnabas, at Perga in Pamphylia; he left them and went to Jerusalem, Acts 13.13. he afterwards for some time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places, Acts 15.39. We find him after that with Ti­mothy, or not far from him, and sent for by Paul to assist him in the Ministry, 2 Tim. 4.11. when he was Prisoner at Rome. We find him there with Paul, Philem. 24. from whence he sends him to Co­loss, Col. 4.10. When Peter wrote his first Epistle, Mark was with him at Babylon, 1 Pet. 5.13. and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a resi­dent Evangelist.

3. Eusebius calls him Peter's CompanionLib. 2. Cap. 14.15., and adds, They say he first passed over into Egypt, and Preach'd there the Gospel, which he had written, and planted the first Churches in Alexandria.

Perhaps he might End his Days here in setling this Church, as all the Evangelists and Apostles must end their Days in some place or other, and in the [Page 147]Service of some Church; but this could not make either Apostles or Evangelists resident Officers.

J. O. had said,P. 119. that Chrysostom agreed with Euse­bius, that Evangelists were unfixed Church-Officers. The Rector here exclaims against J. O's insincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative, that is [...] for [...] and leaving out [...].

He further Notes out of Chrysostom, that Timothy and Titus were [...], em­ploy'd in one Place, that is, were resident Evangelists, and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chrysostom in both Ʋniversities, and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Design, and want of Sincerity. St. Chrysostom then must be acknowledg'd (saith he) on my side, and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and resident Church-Rulers, and that Timothy and Titus were so.

1. Here is a very severe Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Transcriber of J. O's Copy, who put [...] for [...] which was overlook'd in the Errata. I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has exa­min'd J. O's other Quotations, it's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains some hundreds of Quotations.

2. J. O. did not leave [...] out to serve his Cause,Chrysost. in Epist. E­dit. Donat. Veron. P. 163. as Mr. G. falsly affirms, but he transcribed the Passage as he sound it in the Edition which he had by him, which has not [...].

3. J. O's notion of Evangelists, that they were unsettled Church-Officers, needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimonies to confirm it, for the Hi­story of the Apostles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul, make it evident that they were such, and Mr. G. himself cannot deny but there were Itin­erant Evangelists, as he calls them, P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion, which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists. J. O's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scrip­tures, and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned, he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter [...] into [...] in Chrysostom, Especially:

[Page 148]4. Having Chrysostom of his side, without that Alteration, Thus he, [...], &c. he gave, ‘Thirdly Evan­gelists who did not go about every where, but Preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquilla. Pa­stors and Teachers were those to whose Care the the People were wholly committed. What then, were the Pastors and Teachers Inferiour? Yes, they who were resident and employ'd only in one Place, as Timothy and Titus, were altogether Inferi­our to those that went about and Evangeliz'd.’ He speaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Gospels. In this Passage Note.

Chrysostom does not deny, but Evangelists did go about, he only saith, they did not go about [...] every where, as the Apostles did; they moved in a narrower Orb than the Apostles whose, Messengers and Ministers they were, and by whose appointment their Motions were guided and limitted.

That this is Chrysostoms meaning appears, 1. From the Instance of Aquila and Priscilla, which he gives, these are Evangelists with Chrysostom: Now these did remove from one Place to another, from Rome to Corinth, this remove was occasion'd by an Edict of Claudius, Acts 18.1, 2. some time after they re­moved with Paul to Ephesus, ver. 18. doubtless by Pauls appointment, as other Evangelists did. Thus we see Chrysostom's Evangelists did go up and down but not [...], every where at their own Plea­sure, as the Apostles did, who had no Superiours to direct their Motions, but the Evangelists removed under the Conduct of the Apostles. The Apostles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit, and went about every where, whither the Spirit guided them: The Evangelists were under the Con­duct of the Apostles, and went about also, but only to such Places and Services as the Apostles directed them.

Priscilla a Woman is an Evangelist in Chrysostom See Acts 18.22., I hope Mr. G. will not make a settled Church Officer, that is, a Bishop of her, for an Evangelist and a Bi­shop is the same with him.

[Page 149] Chrysostom here seems to confess that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Christi­anity to the Women, to whom the Men had not ac­cess in the Eastern Countries. The same is affirm'd. by Clement of Alexandria, who thinks the Sisters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5. Ministred unto the Women who kept at home, by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women, without Reprehension or evil Suspicion Clem. A­lex. Strom. III. vid. Constit. A­post. III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi. Epiph. haer. 79..

2. Chrysostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists, but among the Pastors or fixed Officers, whom he makes Inferiour to those that went up and down and Evangeliz'd, i. e. The Evangelists.

— [...]. In Eph. 4. [...]. Edit. Donas. Veron.

He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Pastors, according to the received Opinion of his Age: But he right­ly distinguisheth between Evangelists and Pastors, and makes the [...], or Evangelists to be the same with the [...], or these that went a­bout Preaching the Gospel.

Thus after all the Noise and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made, its evident that Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius in his Notion of Evangelists.

Their calling Timothy and Titus Bishops doth not affect us, who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith, and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture, that they were Evangelists, and not Diocesan Bishops. Eusebius saith only,Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, and he ingeniously acknowledges, that they had no certainty, who succeeded the Apo­stles in the Government of the Churches planted by them, those only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epistles. It is fit therefore we shou'd be de­termin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Testament.

[Page 150]Its well observ'd by the Learned Bishop of Worce­ster, that the first that call'd Timothy Bishop of Ephe­sus was Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon. This was four hundred Years after, in which time Records being lost, and Bishops being after setled there, no doubt they would begin the Succession with Timothy, because of his Imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout. He adds, that this was not the Act of the Council, but of a single Person, delivering his Private Opinion in it, and that by the by too, and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council, for saying, that the Bi­shops of Ephesus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place.

See more in that Learned Author, who judiciously Confutes their Opinion, who make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302, 303. The Fathers call the Apostles Bishops, which all grant they were not in a proper Sence. Epiphanius saith, that Peter and Paul were both of them Apostles and Bishops at Rome. Epiph. haeres. xxvii. The Fathers therefore, when they call Apostles or Apostolical Men Bishops, speak in the Language of their time, and are not to be taken in a strict Sence.

Having gone through his Book, and discovered the fallacies ot his Reasonings, it were needless to take Notice of his last Chapter, which he calls an Answer to J. O's. Plea, in which there is scarce any thing, which has not been consider'd already. Yet for the sake of the more Ignorant Reader, I will make some short replies to his Answers.

CHAP. VI. Of Parish-Discipline. Presbyters have Tower of Government. 1. J. O's. First Argu­ment for Ordination by Presbyters, viz. The Identity of Bishops and Presbyters ac­knowledged. 1 Tim. 5.17. Consider'd. 1 Tim. 1.3. doth not prove Timothy Bi­shop of Ephesus. Dr. Whittaker Vindi­cated. Ignatius's. One Altar Explain'd. The extent of the Church of Ephesus. An Objection Answer'd. Rev. 5.11. Vindica­ted. Br. Lightfoot's Notion of Angel Vindicated. 2. J. O's. Second and Third Argument for Ordination by Presbyters Vindicated. Presbyters succeed the Apostles. Ignatius and Ireneus Vindicated. More Testimonies to the same effect.

HE Charges J. O. with reflecting on Episcopal Ordination, P. 122. but gives no Instance of any such Reflection, which doubtless he would have done, if he had been able. Let this pass among his other Calumnies.

His Crambe about Jerom and Ignatius has been consider'd before:P. 123. It were endless to tire my Rea­der and my self with nauseous Repetitions, as often as this Author gives occasion.

He falls foully upon J. O. for saying that Parish-Priests have no Power of Discipline, P. 125, 126. which I have proved. They have Power of Discipline, saith he, because all the Canons, or Laws of the Church, are [Page 152]made by the Priests of the Church of England, as well as by the Bishops.

1. Their Executive Power is the same with their Legislative Power, that is, none at all. The Acts of Convocation are no Laws, till they be Confirmed in Parliament.

2. Hath every Parish-Priest a power of making Church-Laws? If not, this Instance is impertinent­ly brought in, to prove that the Parish-Priests have Power of Discipline. If it be said they make Laws by their Representatives; so do the People of Eng­land by their Representatives in Parliament: Doth it follow therefore, that every Free-holder hath the Power of Governing? Though the Truth is, the Convocation is not a Just Representative of the Clergy. For in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, there are but 44 Clerks representing the Clergy; the Bishops, Deans, Prebendaries and Arch-Deacons, make up 122. The Arch-Deacons, who are the Bishops Creatures, as being chosen solely by them, are 10 in Number more than the Clerks: so that the Clerks are little more than Cy­phers in Convocation, there are enough in the low­er House to out-vote them, besides an upper House of Bishops, who have sometimes a considerable In­fluence in the Election of the very Clerks.

3. The Rector may please himself with his Pow­er of making new Laws, all the Power we plead for is, a Liberty for Parish-Ministers to execute the Laws of Christ, in the exclusion of the Scandalous, and the admission of such as are duly qualify'd for Gospel-Ordinances.

The Parish-Ministers, or Priests, as he calls them, (and yet is unreasonably angry with us for calling them so) have Power to Heprove, and Suspend for a Time.

We had this before in the Preface. A Private Person may Reprove; they can Suspend from the Lord's Supper for a time, i. e. till the next Return of the Carrier, or about 14 Days, and then they are obliged to deliver up all to the Ordinary; with [Page 153]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 [Page 154]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.

[Page 155] 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, [Page 156] 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.

[Page 157]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 [Page 158]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 [Page 159]charged with Insincerity, one that Defends the Re­formed Churches against the Popish Writers, tho' he quotes them sometimes against themselves; or one who under the Name of a Protestant, joyns with the Popish Church and Doctors, in destroying the Ministry of the greatest part of the Protestant Re­formed Churches.

Since we like not Popish Arguments,P. 132. one thing he will be bold to tell J. O. that he will here meet with an Argument borrowed from Bishop Pearson, which he thinks neither any Papist, nor J. O. himself ever thought of before.

Who so bold as blind Bayard? This Man bold­ly tells us, That no Papist ever thought of Bishop Pearson's Argument, drawn from the time of Wri­ting the Epistles to Timothy, &c. I shewed before that the Seminary at Rhemes thought of the Bishop's Argument before he was born.

The Rector has a great many Qualities that are very singular, this among others, That when he is remotest from Truth, he is then most confident.

He thinks J. O. never thought of this Argument be­fore. His Memory is as defective as his Reading. J. O. told him before his Book was talk'd of, that he had thought of this Argument, and had prepared a Dissertation to Vindicate the Old Chronology. Some Gentlemen that were then present, may re­lieve his Memory, if need he.

J. O. Argued, that those Words, Lay hands sud­denly on no Man, do not prove the sole Power of Ordination in Timothy.

To this he answers, It ought to be hence concluded, that the sole Power of Ordination was in Timothy,P. 133. till J. O. can produce a like Commission given to the Presbyters.

That has been proved from Acts 13.1, 2. 1 Tim. 4.14.

He adds, J. O's. Reason is a very pleasant one, it may as well follow (saith J. O.) that the sole Power of Teaching belongs to him, because the Apostle hids him be instant in Preaching the Word. By no means, [Page 160]saith Mr. G. because the Apostle directs him expresly to appoint other Teachers. 2 Tim. 22. We desire to see some like Passages of other Ordainers, beside Ti­mothy.

The Apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost, appoin­ted several Bishops in Ephesus, Acts 20.28. If the Power of Ordination belongs to Bishops as such, these Ephesian Bishops were Ordainers. It is an old, and a true Maxim, Quatenus ad omne valet con­sequentia.

2. But lest we should want other Ordainers, he'l furnish us with some from 2 Tim. 2.2. which tho' his Argument inclines him to understand it of Teachers at present, yet in another Mood he ex­plains it of Ordainers, p. 53.

J. O. prov'd that Timothy could not receive the sole Power of Ordination, because Paul himself took in the Presbyters, 1 Tim. 4.14.

To this the Rector saith, It is something to the purpose, if it were well prov'd. 1 Tim. 4.14. has been fully discuss'd already, saith he. And fully Vin­dicated say I, from his Self-Contradicting-Excep­tions.

J. O. Gives another Reason to prove that Timothy could not be entrusted with the sole Power of Or­dination, because Paul Join'd Barnabas with him, Acts 14.23.

The Rector Answers, The Mischief is, Barnabas was Paul's equal, Ibid. and an Apostle as well as himself, Acts 14.4.14.

Many think Barnabas was not Paul's equal; that he was properly an EvangelistVid. Sad. ad Tur. Soph. p. 783.. Evangelists were Secondary Apostles, Apostoli vicarii, as some call them. They seem to be included in Apostles, 1 Cor. 12.28. compar'd with Eph. 4.11.

'Tis true, he is call'd an Apostle, Acts 14.4, 14. so are others, who were not Apostles in a strict Sense, Rom. 16.7. 2 Cor. 8.23. Phil. 2.25.

2. But suppose he were an Apostle in a strict Sense, and Paul's equal, J. O's. Argument still holds good. If Paul and Apostle, Join'd Barnabas with [Page 161]him, another Apostle, or Evangelist; it's not likely that Timothy would Ordain alone, but that he join'd the Bishops of Ephesus with him. If an Apostle would not lay on Hands alone, much less would an Evangelist.

'Tis but J. O's. Dream, says he,P. 134. when he talks of other ordinary Presbyters Ordaining with these two A­postles. I desire to see this made out by any tolerable Conjecture.

1. J. O. did not affirm that Presbyters Ordain'd with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14.23. because it is uncertain whether there were any in these Churches before this time.

2. But if there were any, 'tis probable they join'd in the action, as they did in Timothy's Ordination, 1 Tim. 4.14. which may ground a probable Con­jecture.

Paul's intention to go to Ephesus,Ibid. 1 Tim. 3.14. & 4.13. hinders not Timothy from being the Resident Bishop there, as he thinks.

1. His intention of going shortly to Ephesus, shews the inconsistency of Mr. G's. Hypothesis; for he told us before (p. 90.) That the Apostle Govern'd the Church of Ephesus himself by the Presbyters in his ab­sence, who were responsible to him. This continued so long, saith he, as he was vigorous and active, and had opportunity to over-see both the Flock and the El­ders themselves. And now he tells us, That this Church was Govern'd by a Bishop, when the Apo­stle was both able and resolved to oversee it.

2. He told us before that the Presbyters were re­sponsible to Paul, and now he makes Timothy responsi­ble to him. Nothing can be inferr'd from their be­ing subject to Paul, that does not▪ equally affect Ti­mothy.

3. If Paul's going to Timothy does not hinder his being Resident at Ephesus, I hope Timothy's going to Paul doth, 2 Tim. 4.21. Except the Rector can prove that Timothy had an ubiquitarian Body. If he saith he return'd again in a little time to Ephe­sus, [Page 162]he ought to prove it; which he can never do from the Writings of the Apostles.

He chargeth J. O. with foisting the Words till he came, Ibid. into 1 Tim. 1.3. This Charge is as groundless as it is disingenuous; for J. O. did not quote thc Words of Scripture, but gave the mean­ing of it in these Words:

‘Paul did not injoyn Timothy to be resident at Ephesus, but besought him to abide there till he came, 1 Tim. 1.3. & 4.13, 14. which he intend­ed shortly to do, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15.’

The Joyning of the Scriptures together, and the Explaining of one Scripture by another, will be allow'd by any one that does not seek occasions of quarrelling.

Till I come, bespeaks a Temporary Stay at Ephe­sus, for he was besought by Paul to supply his ab­sence there; when the Apostle came in Person, there was no need of a Substitute.

Whether Timothy went from Ephesus to Paul, or whether Paul went from Macedonia to Ephesus, it's one and the same thing, his Work there was Tem­porary, and became unnecessary, when the Apostle was with him.

Thus Paul sent him not long before this to Ma­cedonia, and sometime after follow'd him thither, Acts 19.21, 22. In like manner he design'd to fol­low him to Ephesus, 1 Tim. 3.14.

The Rector takes for granted what he should have prov'd, That Timothy was obliged to perpetu­al Residence at Ephesus, which has not been yet proved. He calls him away, 2 Tim. 4.21. and so he doth Titus from Crete, Tit. 3.12.

All that hath been hitherto urged for his per­petual Residence at Ephesus, is that in 1 Tim. 1.3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus. These words do not look like the Installing of a Bishop in his Diocess: [...] signifies frequently, a short abode, Mat. 15.32. Mark 8.2. Timothy is said to [Page 163] abide still at Athens, when his stay was very short there, Acts 17.14, 15.

He calls upon us to prove that Timothy was Fur­nished with the same Powers at Corinth, P. 135; Philippi, Thessalonica, &c.

I will prove it from his own Confession, p. 130. The unfix'd Evangelists Govern'd the Churches under the Apostles, and Ordain'd Elders for 'em: Thus he. Here he ascribes the Power of Govenirg and Or­daining unto the unfix'd Evangelists; and yet has the Confidence to require us to prove it.

Whereas then, saith he,Ibid. Paul besought him to abide and reside at Ephesus, and we never find him in the Apostle's Company again, nor in any other place after; we must take him for the Resident Evangelist or Bishop here, until J. O. shall please to tell us out of Sacred or Ecclesiastical History, whither he removed.

I will shew him that Timothy was in Paul's Com­pany, and in another place, after Paul besought him to abide at Ephesus. In order to which I desire him to grant this reasonable Supposition, viz. That the Second Epistle to him was Written after the First.

In the First Epistle Paul said he besought him to stay at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. In the Secod Epistle he calls him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9, 21. Doubtless he went thither, according to the Apostle's Order, and we find him there with the Apostle, when he wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.1. Philem. 1. In like manner he sends for Titus from Crete to Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12, and afterwards sends him to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.10.

Thus we have told him, in compliance with his desires, out of Sacred History, That not only Timo­thy, but Titus also, removed, the former to Rome, the latter to Nicopolis and Dalmatia.

As to Ecclesiastical History, we have little certain concerning Timothy, or any other of the Apostle's Survivors and Successors, as Eusebius observesHist: III. 4.

[Page 164]He saith of Timothy, It is reported he was Bishop of Ephesus.

But other Historians say, He removed from Ephe­sus, and came into Britain, and Baptized King Lu­cius, and his Subjects, and removed hence to Cu­rie in Germany, where he was Bishop, and died a Martyr.

This is reported by grave Authors, Nauclerus, Petrus de Natalibus, Pantaleon de viris Illustrib. Germ. &c.

Nauclerus, saith he, finds this Recorded in the Legend of St. Thomas the Apostle, which agrees with Legend of St. Lucius, which is to be found among the Records of the Church of Curie Chron. Vol. II. Gen. 6. p. 472..

I do not pretend to warrant for the Truth of this Account. There may be some Truths, though in­termix'd with Fables, even in a Legend. Arch-Bishop Vsher, that great Antiquary, quotes this Story, in his Britan. Eccles. Primord. Cap. 3.

It may not be improbable but Timothy might Preach in these Countries, if Paul was here, as the Rector seems to allow, p. 90. For Timothy was his Companion in most of his Travels, and Served with him in the Gospel, as a Son with the Father, Phil. 2.22.

J. O. opposed Dr. Whittaker, the Learned Cam­bridge Professor, and Maul of Popery, to Bellarmine, who grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction, upon 1 Tim. 5.19. Against an Elder receive not an Accu­sation. The Dr. saith, That to receive an Accusation, is to acquaint the Church with the Crime, which Equals and Inferiors may do.

The Rector has two or three Pages in Confuta­tion of Dr. Whittaker, P. 135, 136, 137, 138. the Sum of which is, That if Timothy was only to acquaint the Church with it, he was no better than an Informer, or Prosecutor.

He might be an Ecclesiastical Judge, though he acted in Conjunction with the Church, as Paul did in Excommunicating the Incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. The Doctor doth not deny [Page 165]him to be Superiour to the Elders, as he was an Evangelist, but shews the invalidity of the Argu­ment drawn from his receiving Accusations.

J. O. shew'd (p. 21.) that the Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop, and Instanced in Epithetus, and the People of Assura, to whom Cyprian writes not to admit For­tunatianus to be Bishop again, because he had de­nied the Faith. He instanceth also in the Clergy and People of Spain, who rejected Bisilides and Martialis, their Bishops, because they had Sacrificed to Idols.

The Rector wisely over-looks all this, and proceeds to another Argument.

J. O. Asks how comes Paul to promise to come shortly to Ephesus, if he had settled a Successor there?

Mr. G. Answers, this is a trifling Objection, and makes equally against the Presbyters of Ephesus, Acts 20.28. Who ever thought Timothy so absolute, as not to be subject to St. Paul?

When this Gentleman gives a diminutive Epi­thet to our Arguments, understand him by the Rule of Contraries. You may perceive by his Uneasiness that he is Gravell'd, and would relieve himself by a big Word, which may disparage an Ar­gument with unthinking People.

1. This trifling Objection, as he calls it, shews how groundless his Hypothesis is, That Paul settled Ti­mothy at Ephesus, when he could over-see the Church no longer.

2. It shews the weakness of his Reasonings, That the Elders had no Episcopal Power, because they were subject to the Apostles. The Scope of a great part of his Book, is to prove that the Presbyters were not Supream Governours, because the Apo­stles were above them. See P. 38, 39, 40, 41. He does in the same place affirm, Timothy and Titus to be Supream Governours. Here he forgets all [Page 166]his former Reasonings, and acknowledges Timothy Subject to Paul.

Either Timothy was no Supreme Governour or Bishop, because he was Subject to Paul, or the Presbyters of Ephesus might be Supream Governours, notwithstanding their Subjection to him.

3. What he adds, of his visiting his Neighbour Presbyter, P. 139. without claiming any Power over him and his Flock, is very impertinent; for an Apostolical Visitation, was something different from a private Visit from one Neighbour to another.

I hope he will allow it to be as Solemn as any Episcopal Visitation. I might return his own Words upon him, But such Stuff as this does our Author im­pose upon his Friends, Ibid. and needlessly troubles his Adver­saries with, but I shall forbear.

He thinks that the Church of Ephesus consisted of many Congregations, though he agree that it con­sisted not of two hundred or three hundred Parishes or Congregations, Ibid. as our Diocesses do.

Here we have his own Confession, That the Mo­dern Diocesses are very different from that of Ephe­sus, and other Ancient Diocesses.

That there were more Congregations than one, he proves from the Jus Divinum Ministerii Angli­cani. P. 140.

1. Suppose there were two or three Congrega­tions in Ephesus, as the London Ministers conceive there might be more than one, what is two or three, to two or three hundred? It can never be prov'd, there were more Christians in Ephesus, in Timothy's, or if you will in Ignatius his time, than are in some of our great Parishes, which contains some Ten, some Twenty, some Thirty Thousand Souls.

2. Some of our larger Parishes have several Cha­pels, some three, some four, some six: He knows a Parish in his NeighbourhoodManche­ster. that has Seven or Eight: Will he say that a Rector, who has several Curates under him, is a Diocesan Bishop.

[Page 167]I hear the Rector's Parish has four or five Chapels in it.

He thinks the number of Cities, P. 142. or great Towns in Crete was extraordinary, because Florus calls it a No­ble Island. His Proof is a little extraordinary. Must every Noble Island have an extraordinary number of Cities?

Well, but to do him a kindness, I will tell him the number of the most considerable Cities or Towns in Crete.

Pliny, who lived in Vespasian's time, saith there were about Fourty Famous Towns in Crete, and the Memory of about Fourty moreNat. Hist. 4.12.. But let the Ci­ties of it be more or less, it is all one to my Argu­ment: We have proved Titus already to be an Evangelist, and the number of Cities he was to Or­dain Elders in is a Confirmation of it. For by his own Confession, Crete has had in it, at one time, Four Arch-Bishops, and Twenty one BishopsP. 142.. And now we are upon this Subject, let's see the ex­tent of their Bishopricks. He tells us out of Dr. Heylin, There were 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.

[Page 168]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.

Ʋnder 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 — Where­ever 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 [Page 169]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 [Page 170]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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnit. Eccl. &c. Mede of Churches, P. 48, 49, 50.

[Page 171]I will not contend with him about the number of Churches built at Constantinople, by Constantine the Great; but 'tis 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 or Five lesser Oratories, (which were probably like our Chapels) one of which did bear the Name of the Apostles, the other of some MartyrsNiceph. Eccl. Hist. VII. 49..

This may well agree with Eusebius's Account, viz. That he built there many Oratories, and splendid Houses of GodVid. Con. III. 47.. Eusebius magnifies all the Actions of Constantine, and would not have omitted such a Number of Temples, as the Rector fancies to be there.

Ignatius exhorts Polycarp, Ign. ad Pol. p. 12, 13. Not to neglect the Wi­dows, to be their Curator after the Lord — to have frequent Assemblies, to seek all by Name, and not to de­spise the Men-Servants, and Maid-Servants.

Here Polycarp is, first, to take care of the Poor Widows, who were to be Relieved by him, or by his Order. This he could not well do, without some knowledge of them.

2. To have frequent Church-Meetings, and to seek all by Name, who ought to frequent the Pub­lick Assemblies.

3. He must not neglect the very Servants, or Slaves, but Exhort them not to be puffed up, but to Serve for the Glory of God, that they may receive of God a more glorious Liberty. Ign. Ibid. He speaks of Christian Slaves, and such as frequented their Church Assemblies.

What can the Rector say to this plain Quotation that carries it's own Evidence with it?

[...] in the New Testament, saith he,P. 152. signifies to seek the Conversion of Ʋnbelievers, Luke 19.10. And [Page 172]if Polycarp must seek the Conversion of every single Person in Smyrna, and deal with every one of them, then J. O. has reduced this great City to a small Village.

This is a Chimera of his own; Ignatius speaks of Believing Servants, as is evident, and so J. O. ap­plied it to prove the extent of Polycarp's Church, Plea, p. 34. But our Author either wilfully or igno­rantly, confounds the Church of Smyrna, and the City of Smyrna.

To seek all by Name, saith he, is to be under­stood not of every individual Person, P. 153. but of all States and Conditions of Men, even the lowest of them, the Slaves.

This is a very poor Evasion. Ignatius speaks of Religious Assemblies, and of a Pastoral Care, that the Bishop must seek all by Name, the Servants not excepted. He must take care of his whole Flock, and not despise poor Servants. [...], by Name, cannot admit of any other tolerable Sense. Ignatius, in the same Epistle, explains himself, when he saith, I Salute all by Name Ad Polyc. p. 16., and some of them he Names there. And in another place he saith, Ye do all of you commonly, even every Man by Name, ( [...]) meet together in Jesus Christ Ad Eph. p. 29..

By Name here respects every individual Person, and not the several States and Conditions of Men. For every Member of the Church ordinarily at­tended Publick Ordinances, and not some of all De­grees only. Ignatius, in both places, speaks of Church-Assemblies, where every one by Name was to attend, and the Bishop must see that they did so, and not over-look the meanest Servants.

Suppose his Diocesan required the Rector to seek all his Parishoners by Name, and dot to despise the Ser­vants. I question whether he could satisfie the Bishop: I am sure he cannot acquit himself to the chief Bishop of our Souls, by telling Him he took care of some of all States and Conditions, as well Servants [Page 173]as Masters, as well Mechanicks, as Rich Shop-Keepers, P. 153. as he speaks.

[...] is not to be found in the Scriptures to which he refers, Mat. 10.41, 42. Eph. 1.21. And therefore they are improperly Alledged.

Mark 16.15. is as little to the purpose. The Apostles could not possibly Preach the Gospel to every individual Creature, but a Bishop might seek all his Flock by Name.

If you will not allow him, That to seek all by Name, is to be understood of all States of Men, he has found out another shift.P. 155. Take Care of all by Name, saith he, i. e. give it in Charge to thy Presby­ters and Deacons to do so.

This is a Figment of the Rector's own Brain, which he doth not pretend to ground upon any Passage in Ignatius. He fancies the Primitive Bi­shops to be like those of the latter Ages, who en­larged their Diocesses, and diminished their care of the Flock: The Ancient Bishops took care of the Flock in their own Persons, and not by Proties.

'Tis true, they had their Assisting Presbyters, and Govern'd the Church by their United Councils, the Bishop doing nothing without his Presbyters, nor they without the Bishop.

'Tis evident to any one that reads Ignatius his Epistle to Polycarp, that he speaks of Personal Du­ties, seek all by Name, and a little after, saith he, avoid evil Arts [...], &c. p. 13.. The Rector may as well say, He must avoid evil Arts by his Presbyters, as seek all by Name by them.

Our Author offers one Observation (for he will not be too prodigal on so tender a Subject) to prove that the Church of Smyrna consisted of more Congrega­tions than one.

'Tis the First Proof of this kind he has given us, (though we have given several to the contrary) and therefore deserves regard.

My Observation is this, saith he,P. 155, 156. how that Ignatius (Parag. penult. of the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans) thus [Page 174]Addresses to the Bishop. It will be fit, O most worthy Polycarp, to gather [...], a most Venerable and August Assembly, &c. This implies a great number of Presbyters and Deacons: Either then the Bishop of Smyrna had many Congregations un­der him, or this little Church, (as J. O. believes it,) Swarm'd with a number of Idle, and Ʋnnecessary Pres­byters, which no Man in his Wits will believe.

1. This Argument he thinks better than any J. O. has produced to the contrary, P. 155. unless he flatters himself by an unusual Charientism.

It is possible a Man of Mr. G's. Character may Flatter himself, whether it be unusual with him to do so, I leave the Reader to pass Judgment.

2. His Quotation is not in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, as he affirms, but in the Epistle to Poly­carp Ign. ad Polycarp. p. 15., who was Bishop of Smyrna, which I suppose might occasion his mistake. The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, has no such Passage.

3. The Presbyters were the Bishop's [...], his Council, and the Church in Ignatius's time was Govern'd by the Bishop and Presbyters in common. He calls them [...], Presidents Ign. ad Magn. p. 33.. They were [...], The Bishop's Coun­cil Ad Phil. p. 43., and his Complex Spiritual Crown Ad Mag. p. 37., that sate round about him. He calls them in another place, [...], the Presbyters that were with the BishopAd Phil. p. 39.. They lived with the Bi­shop, and managed the Concerns of the Church in common; they did nothing without the Bishop, nor he without them. Hence Ignatius Exhorts the Magnesians to do nothing without the Bishop and PresbytersIgn. p. 33.. No Church Assembly was held with­out them [...]. Ad Tral. p. 48..

It does not appear by the Epistles of Ignatius, that the Presbyters were Govern'd by the Bishop, or Subject to him, they were joynt Governours of the Church, only the Bishop was chief, for Orders sake. The Deacons were Subject to the Bishops and PresbytersAd Mag. p. 31., but the Presbyters were not Subject [Page 175]to the Bishop. It's true, they cou'd do nothing with­out him, no more could he without them.

4. It does not appear that [...], The God-becoming Assembly, (not most Ve­nerable and August, as he renders it) consisted only of the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, as he sug­gests. It should seem rather that it was a Church-Assembly, under the Cnnduct of the Bishop and Presbyters, who were desired to send a Message to the Church of Antioch, to comfort them in the Ab­sence of their Bishop.

The next Paragraph confirms this Sense: Write, saith Ignatius to Polycarp, to other Churches, Ad Polyc. p. 15. that they do the same thing; such as are able may send Foot-Messengers, others may send Letters by thy Messengers.

In the same manner he speaks to the Church of Philadelphia, It becomes you, as the Church of God, to appoint a Deacon to perform there (at Antioch) the Message of God. He adds a little after, some near Churches have sent Bishops, and some have sent Presby­ters and Deacons Ad Phil. p. 45..

It was the manner in those First Ages to send Epistles and Messengers, in the Name of the whole Church, as appears by the Epistles written by the Churches of Vienne and Lions, to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, concerning the Sufferings of the Gallic Christians Euseb. Eccl. Hist. V. 1..

Therefore Ignatius his [...], seems to be an Assembly of the whole Church. Ignatius calls the Church of Smyrna [...], Deo-decentissima in two placesIgn. ad Smyr. p. 1. & p. 8..

5. Suppose this [...], God-becoming Assembly, had consisted of the Bishop and his Presbyters, it will not follow that there were a great number of Presbyters.

Ignatius abounds with Epithets, and such as may seem, if not swelling, at least Superfluous. He gives to the Roman Church Nine or Ten big Epi­thets, in one breath, as [...], [Page 176] &c. He calls his Bonds, God-becoming Bonds, [...] Ad Smyr. p. 8..

He Stiles the Bishop of Smyrna [...], worthy of God, and the Presbytery, [...], be­coming God. As one Bishop is God-worthy, so a few Presbyters may be God-becoming.

6. J. O. doth not say the Church of Smyrna was a little Church, it might be a large Church, (as many Parish-Churches are) and find work enough for several Presbyters with the Bishop.P. 156, & 157. What he saith of the Asian Angels hath been consider'd be­fore.

He wonders that J. O. should say, The Authoriz­ed Bibles call the Angels Ministers, not Bishops. J. O. added, ‘This shews the Sense of the Old Church of England, agreeable to many of the An­cients, such as Aretas, Primosius, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Bede, Haymo, &c.’

This he wisely over-looks:P. 157, but asks, What if a Man should say they expressed themselves too loosly and negligently?

They expressed their own Sense, and that of the Ancient Church. They could easily have call'd the Angels Bishops, had they thought them so. Our first Reformers were not such loose, negligent Souls, as some of those who pretend to Correct them, evi­dence themselves to be.

After having spent some Pages in such Scornful Reflections as may become him, but would scarce drop from a Scholar, or a Gentleman, especially when no Provocation is given, he proceeds to an Ingenuous Confession of the weakness of this Argu­ment for Bishops from the Asian Angels.

It would have been a strange Consequence, he ac­knowledges, that Angels should be expounded Bishop, one that had Authority over other Ministers, had not he read in Paul's Two Epistles, That Timothy had Authority over the whole Church of Ephesus, and again in Ignatius,P. 160. That there was a Bishop of Ephesus.

[Page 177]If these two Evidences fall him, as I have proved they do, this of the Asian Angels falls of it self.

Our Author is very angry with J. O. for saying that ‘St. John placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ, and the Angels at a greater distance, Rev. 5.11. Shall we therefore say the Presbyters are more worthy than the Bishops?P. 161. The Inference is much more natural than the other, if Angels be Bishops. Thus J. O.’

This plain Scripture-Observation, doth so move the Rector's Choler, that he cannot forbear his old Railing Language. If J. O. says he; has mana­ged this Argument Honestly and Sincerely, I'll hence­forward renounce all pretence to those scurvie Pieces of Morality.

1. He himself acknowledges, that the Words may bear that Sense J. O. puts upon them: that [...] and [...] may be Govern'd of [...], or coupled with [...], and so the Angels being round about the Throne, and round about the Elders, it follows the Elders were nearer the Throne. Why doth not he disprove this Sense? A Scholar should use Arguments, and not Bilingsgate-Dialect.

Angeli po­nuntur in extimo am­bitu Grot. in Loc.2. This Construction of the Words is not new; their admired Grotius saith, that the Angels are in the remotest place: so do several others, and it seems agreeable with their Office of Guarding the Church, Psal. 34.7.

Where then is the dishonesty and insincerity of ma­naging this Argument? Is it in saying, That the Inference is more natural, that Presbyters are more Honourable than Bishops, if Angels be Bishops? Why does he not disprove this Inference? J. O. did not urge this Scripture as a concluding Argu­ment, but to shew the weakness of the Argument for the Superiority of Bishops. They are Angels, therefore they are Superiour to Presbyters. I say still, J. O's. Inference is much more Natural, If Bishops be Angels, and Angels be remoter from the Throne [Page 178]of Christ than Elders, Elders are more Honourable than Bishops.

So then J. O. has managed this Argument honest­ly and sincerely, for any thing the Rector hath said to the contrary.

I would wish him to consult the Honour of his Profession a little better, than to perform his rash Promise of Renouncing henceforward all pretence to those scurvy Pieces of Morality, as he scurvily calls them. His Casuists will tell him, That an immoral Promise is better broken than kept.

It would raise ones Stomach to see him compare Timothy with Judas. 'Tis no more impossible, saith he, that Timothy should leave his first Love, Rev. 2.2. than that Judas the Apostle should betray his Master. P. 162. We must not think but that some of the Apostles, Friends and Disciples, made Ship-wrack of the Faith. Alex­ander did so, Acts 19.33. And why not Timothy; so did Demas.

The Apostle saith of Timothy, There was no Man like-minded, Phil. 2.20, 22. And that there were Prophecies concerning him, that he should War a good Warfare, 1 Tim. 1.18. Can any such thing be said of Judas? We say, Comparisons are odious, was there ever a more odious one, than to compare one of the most excellent New Testament Saints, with the vilest of Hypocrites? I will refer him to his own Words, if it be not offensive to him to re­view them. Criticks will be busie, and advance Pa­radoxes, and who can help it? P. 163. Timothy shall be an Apostate-Bishop, rather than no Bishop. But he thinks to mend the Matter, by supposing Timothy might be dead, when the Revelation was written, because he was an infirm Man, 1 Tim. 5.23. and would scarce live to Seventy Years. We have known infirm Men that were Temperate, to live above Seventy. J. O. observ'd, that many Chronologers affirm'd, that Timothy was alive then. This he overlooks. J. O. shew'd out of Dr. Lightfoot, That the Angel of the [Page 179]Church was a Parish-Bishop, in Conformity to the Jewish Synagogues, each of which had its Angel, or Bishop.

Our Author here enters the Lists with Dr. Light­foot, not with J. O. He hath not shew'd us, saith he,P. 164, 165. that every Synagogue had a Presbytery.

Let him consult Dr. Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 302. & p. 611. & Vol. II. p. 133.

But the Rulers of the Synagogues, adds he,P. 165. were sub­ject to the High-Priests, and their Presbytery.

So are the Presbyters to Jesus Christ, our great High-Priest, and to all Rulers of his appointment. He told us above; That the High-Priest and Pres­bytery were the chief Court of Judicature among the Jews, and had the highest Jurisdiction: And so it had in things Civil and Sacred. What is this to Episcopal Power over the Presbyters? Let the Bishops produce as clear a Charter for their Or­der, as the High Priests did for theirs, and we'll submit.

He remembers Mr. Bois scoffs at the Bishop of L. for Arguing with Dr. Lightfoot,P. 166. but does not refer to the place, lest we should see what great Reason Mr. B. might have to reject Rabbinical Traditions, and what little reason our Author had to charge him with scoffing.

When Rabbinical Learning is of any advantage, we are content to make use of it, if against us, P. 167 we deride it, saith he.

When it is against the Truth we reject it; when there is a Harmony between it, and the New Te­stament, we receive it not for Confirmation of Di­vine Truth, but for Illustration. Mr. G. cannot de­ny but the Minister of every Synagogue was call'd the Angel of the Church, and Bishop of the Congrega­tion, as Dr. Lightfoot hath prov'd: Therefore it looks highly rational that the Angels of the Asian Churches should be so called, in Allusion to the Mi­nisters of the Synagogue. Christian Oratories are [Page 180]call'd Synagogues, James 2.2. Our Author can­not deny the Agreement in many things between both: But, says he, The Temple-Worship, whereof a great deal was Moral, was as much the Pattern of the Christian, as was the Synagogue-Worship: and if so, the Jewish Priest-hood was the Pattern of the Christian Hierarchy, p. 166.

1. The Jewish Priesthood was appropriated to the Ceremonial Worship of the Temple, though they perform'd the Moral parts there also. The Legal Priests, and the Legal Altar, were Relates, Heb. 7.13, 14. and both were Abolished together, Heb. 7.12. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. What Law? not that which concern'd the Moral Worship, but the Law of Ceremonies, to which the Levitical Priesthood was adapted.

2. The Moral Worship in the Synagogues might be performed by such as were no PriestsLightf. Vol. II. p. 133, 134, 135., but none but Priests gave attendance at the Altar, Heb. 7.13. Therefore the Ceremonial Worship, Temple, and Priesthood, being Abolished, and the Moral Worship (which was the only Synagogue-Worship) being Transplanted into the Christian Church, it follows that the Jewish Priesthood was no Pattern of the Gospel-Ministry. But this has been consider'd before.

J. O's. First Instance of Ordination by Presbyters, from Acts 13.1, 2, 3. hath been sufficiently vindi­cated above, Cap. 2.

He is in one of his hot Fits again,P. 168. and Charges J. O. with insufferable Artifice, Fallacy, Sophistry, &c. for saying, ‘That if Barnabas was one of the Seventy Disciples (as the Ancients affirm he was) then was he of the Order of Presbyters, accord­ing to that Hypothesis, that makes Bishops to suc­ceed the Twelve Apostles, and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples,’

[Page 181] J. O. did not call Barnabas a Presbyter, but ar­gued ad bominem.

He might as well have affirm'd, saith he, That Mat­thias, another of the Seventy, was but a Presbyter, who succeeded Judas.

We read of Matthias his Solemn Call to the Apo­stleship, and that he was Numbred with the Ele­ven, Acts 1.26. but we have not the like account of Barnabas.

'Tis true, he is call'd an Apostle, Acts 14.4.14. so are Evangelists sometimes, as we proved before. Many conceive he was but an Evangelist. Paul seems to own no Apostles in a strict Sense, but the Twelve and himself, 1 Cor. 15.5, 7, 8. It was the Preroga­tive of the Apostles to confer the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, but we do not find that Barnabas ever con­fer'd that Gift. Though I will not be positive but he might be a real Apostle.

J. O. Argued, ‘That those who have power to Dispense the Gospel, to Baptize, and Administer the Lord's Supper, have also Power of Ordina­tion, because these are Ordinances not inferiour to Ordination. Et parium par est ratio. They are not inferiour to Ordination.’

‘1. Preaching the Gospel is not inferiour to Or­dination. The Publishers of it are Ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5.20. represent the great Prophet of the Church, Mat. 5.20. are Workers together with God, 2 Cor. 6.1. And is an Ordainer morethan this?’

‘Baptism is our Solemn Dedication to God. Or­dination is no more, only the former is to Chri­stianity as such, the latter to a particular work.’

‘2. Baptism is a Sacramental Dedication, which Ordination is not.’

‘3. In the Lord's Supper, the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine, as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ. Jerom saith of Presbyters, Ad quorum preces Corpus & Sanguis Christi consicitur. [Page 182]Now which is greater, to Impose Hands, or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? If they have Power to Consecrate Ho­ly Things, why not Holy Persons also?’ Thus J. O. who prov'd also, that the Ministerial Acts now mention'd, are not inferiour to Ordination, from 1 Cor. 1.17. Mat. 28.19, 20.

What can our Author say to this? Instead of answering J. O's.P. 170. Arguments, he saith, He knows not by what Authority J. O. has enter'd into the Compa­rison.

His Scripture-Reasons are his Authority, which Mr. G. has not touched; only he nibbles at 1 Cor. 1.17. which is a Text, saith he, that few under­stand; but at length he gives the meaning of it.

Paul's main work, saith he, was to Preach, not to Baptize. P. 171.

If Preaching was his main Work, it was not infe­riour to Ordination.

It doth not hence follow, that Preaching is a more honourable Office than Baptizing, P. 172. saith the Rector.

None ever affirm'd the Office to be more Ho­nourable, for the Office is one and the same; Preach­ing and Baptizing are Acts of one and the same Office. The Apostle seems to prefer the Work of Preaching, before that of Baptizing: so doth Christ also, who Preached Himself, but committed the Work of Baptizing to his Disciples, John 4.2.

Though he blames J. O. for comparing Ministe­rial Acts, yet he cannot forbear doing it himself.

Ordaining, saith he, is a higher Ministerial Act than Baptizing. P. 173. Turpe est Doctori, cùm culpa redar­guit ipsum.

J. O. thinks ‘Christ mentioned the chief part of a Minister's Work in Mat. 28.19, 20. Go Teach, Baptize, &c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part of the Apostle's Com­mission, He would have said, Go, Ordain, Preach, Baptize, &c. Ordination therefore is not the [Page 183]principal part of a Minister's Office, but rather Subordinate to Preaching and Baptizing, and in­cluded here, as the Lesser in the Greater. A Com­mission usually Specifies the principal Acts which one is impowered to do, and do not run à minori ad majus.’

Mr. G. takes no notice of J. O's Argument, but pretends that the Reason why the Lord's Supper, Ibid. and Ordination are not mention'd in Mat. 28.19, 20. is be­cause they were mentioned before, Luke 22.19. John 20.21.

So Teaching and Baptizing were mentioned be­fore, and practised by the Apostles. Christ gives them no new Commission at this time, only enlar­geth their former Commission: They Taught and Baptized before, but in one Nation only, now they are sent to all Nations.

It is agreed, that Mat. 28.19, 20. contains the Commission, not only of the Apostles, but of their Successors, to the end of Time, for the Work of the Ministry, v. 20. I am with you alway, even un­to the end of the world. Amen.

Either this Commission doth impower them to Ordain Successors, in the ordinary part of their Mi­nistry, or it doth not; if it doth not, it's imper­fect and insufficient for the continuance of a Gospel-Ministry unto the end of the World, in pursuance of the Promise made to that end, v. 20. Ordina­tion is not mentioned in John 20.21. and it must needs be implied in Mat. 28.19, 20. as a necessary means for the continuance of the Church unto the end of Time.

If this Commission in Mat. 28.19, 20. doth im­power the Apostles to Ordain, as doubtless it doth, then the Ordaining Power must be included in Teaching and Baptizing, as Subordinate and Subser­vient to them.

He says, The Power of Conferring other Powers, P. 174. is greater than those other Powers, John 13.16.

[Page 184]If this be true, the Bishops who make an Arch-Bishop are greater than he: And those who Conse­crate the Pope are greater than the Pope. John 13.16. doth not speak of Ordination, all that can be gathered from it is, That we should learn Hu­mility of Jesus Christ, who is our Lord and Master, John 13.13, 14, 15, 16.

Inferiours often confer Superiour Powers: Bi­shops do Crown Kings; a Recorder, or Town-Clerk, may Swear a Mayor.

'Tis endless to follow our Author in all his undi­digested Notions, and yet I cannot but touch on 'em, for the sake of the less Judicious Readers, who expect his Book Answered Paragraph by Paragraph.

He affirms, but cannot prove, That the Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves. P. 175. We have prov'd the contrary already. He asks with what Effrontery dares J. O, call Peter Lombard to his Assistance, Ibid. who says the Ancients argued from Baptism to Or­dination. Lomb. Lib. 4. Dist. 25.

I have Answered this already. In short, the Testimony of an Adversary is Valid against him­self.

He acknowledges, That if the Ordaining Power, did by Scripture-Charter belong to the Presbyters, P. 176. then to pretend to deprive 'em of it were a Nullity.

I have proved that it does belong to them by Scripture-Charter: And therefore his Instance of a Presbyter Baptizing a Believer, who hath no Power to Baptize another, is not to the purpose.

He has often profess'd, That he will not trace J. O. through the Fathers, and Ancient Writers: So he doth p. 122. and p. 175. and yet as a Man who is no Slave to his Word, he will needs be nibbling at Antiquity, where he thinks he has any advan­tage; so he does p. 116. and p. 119. and in the con­cluding Pages of his Book.

He makes a long stride from p. 58. of J. O's. Plea,P. 177, 188. to p. 179. and there he picks quarrel with [Page 185]two Quotations of his, which shew the Presbyters to Succeed the Apostles as much as the Bishops. He skips over but 120 Pages of J. O's. Book, and yet would persuade the World he has Answer'd it. Sup­pose I had done so by his Book, (which I have an­swered in all that's material, Paragraph by Para­graph) would not some People be tempted to think it unanswerable, and that I undertook what I was not able to perform. But to proceed to the Remarks on J. O's. Quotations.

Ignatius saith, That the Presbyters Succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles.

There's nothing more unfair, saith my Author,P. 178. than to misrepresent the Meaning of an Author.

J. O. only Quoted the Words, without Explica­tion, how then could he misrepresent the meaning?

But the meaning is, as he tells us, That the Pres­byters are the Bishops Seconds, as the Apostles were Je­sus Christ's Seconds.

Our Rector wants a Second to explain his Expli­cation, it is so obscure and unintelligible.

I hope he would not make Ignatius say, that the Bishops are as much the Head of the Presbyters, as Christ is of the Apostles. But let's hear Ignatius himself. I exhort you, saith he,Ad Mag. p. 33. do all your Works in the Concord of God, the Bishops presiding in the place of God, and the Presbyters in the place of the Bench (or Council) of the Apostles, and the Deacons, who are precious to me, to whom is committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ.

So in another place: Let all of you follow the Bi­shops, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the Presbytery as the Apostles, and reverence the Dea­cons as the Command of God Ign. ad Smyr, p. 6..

He saith one Bishop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons. And a little after, he calls the Apostles, the Presbytery of the Church Ad Phil. P. 41..

In another place, Reverence the Deacons, as the Command of Jesus Christ, and the Bishop as Jesus [Page 186]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 Ʋnited to God, Jesus Christ, and the Bi­shop, [...], and the Orders of the Apostles, i. e. the PresbytersIbid. 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, [Page 187]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 RighteousnessIren. 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 himInt. 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 [Page 188]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 FirstVid. 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 LordIsti sunt Apostolor. Domini Successores Prosp. de Vit. Con. Templ. I. 25..’

[Page 189]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, [Page 190]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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.