Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 6

Defense of Scripture Ordination · Chapter 6

p. 151CHAP. 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 p. 152made 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 p. 153whom 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 p. 154as 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.

p. 155Timothy and Titus, Evangeliſts, were above the Biſhops. What then? It is as natural to infer thence, That Presbyters are above Biſhops, as that Biſhops are above Preſbyters.

Not only Evangeliſts, but Prophets and Apoſtles were Superiour to Ordinary Miniſters. But no Example has been yet produced, that one Ordinary Miniſter was Superiour to another Ordinary Miniſter. No inſtance can be given in the New Teſtament of any one meer Preſbyter that was Superiour to another Preſbyter.

If there muſt be ſome Church-Officers, called Biſhops, Superiour to Preſbyters, becauſe Evangeliſts were ſo; by the ſame reaſon there ought to be ſome Church-Officers Superiour to Biſhops, becauſe the Prophets were Superiour to the Evangeliſts; and another ſort of Church-Officers Superiour to them alſo, becauſe the Apoſtles were Superiour to the Prophets.

He Subſcribes to J. O's. Aſſertion,P. 128. That there were ſeveral Biſhops in one Church in the Apoſtles Days, and that thoſe mention'd in Scripture, were not of our Engliſh Species.

Therefore by his own Confeſſion, Engliſh Biſhops are not Scripture-Biſhops.

But there was an Order of Church-Officers above theſe Presbyter-Biſhops, ſaith he, as we have demonſtrated in the Churches of Crete and Epheſus.

There were no leſs than three Orders above them, that is, Apoſtles, Prophets, and Evangeliſts, each of them extraordinary Church-Officers, Eph. 4.11. deſign'd for the Planting of the Chriſtian Church, as the ordinary Paſtora and Teachers were appointed for the propagating of it unto the end of Time.

The Foundations were to be laid by thoſe extraordinary Church-Officers, the Superſtructure to be carried on, according to the Platform they left us, by ordinary Officers.

J. O. Prov'd out of Juſtin Martyr, and the Syriac Verſion of the New Teſtament, That Biſhop and Preſbyter were the ſame in the Ages after the Apoſtles, p. 156P. 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, foreign, (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 foreign implies not the Ordaining Power. Verily, ſaith he, If this be ſo, every Believer hath the ſame Power, for they are bid, foreign 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, foreign, 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.

p. 157This 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 p. 158againſt 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 p. 159charged 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, p. 160ſaith Mr. G. becauſe the Apoſtle directs him expreſly to appoint other Teachers. 2 Tim. 22. We deſire to ſee ſome like Paſſages of other Ordainers, beſide Timothy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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 p. 161him, 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, p. 162he 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: foreign ſignifies frequently, a ſhort abode, Mat. 15.32. Mark 8.2. Timothy is ſaid to p. 163abide ſtill at Athens, when his ſtay was very ſhort there, Acts 17.14, 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 164He 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.Gen 6.

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 p. 165him 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 p. 166his former Reaſonings, and acknowledges Timothy Subject to Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 168He 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 foreign) 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 foreign, 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 (foreign) 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 p. 169in 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 p. 170ſlight 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 foreign ſignifies ſometimes Agreement or Unity, and not always one place, as J. O. render'd it in thoſe Words of Ignatius, foreign—give diligence to Aſſemble together (foreign) more frequently — for when ye often come together, foreign—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 foreign refers to one place, and ſo muſt foreign, 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 foreign, 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.

p. 171I 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 Martyrs**Niceph. Eccl. Hist. VII. 49..

This may well agree with Euſebius's Account, viz. That he built there many Oratories, and ſplendid Houſes of God††Vid. 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?

foreign in the New Testament, ſaith he,P. 152. ſignifies to ſeek the Converſion of Ʋnbelievers, Luke 19.10. And p. 172if 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. foreign, 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, (foreign) 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 p. 173as Maſters, as well Mechanicks, as Rich Shop-Keepers, P. 153.as he ſpeaks.

foreign 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 **foreign, &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 p. 174Addreſſes to the Biſhop. It will be fit, O moſt worthy Polycarp, to gather foreign, 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 foreign, his Council, and the Church in Ignatius's time was Govern'd by the Biſhop and Preſbyters in common. He calls them foreign, Preſidents ††Ign. ad Magn. p. 33.. They were foreign, 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, foreign, the Preſbyters that were with the Biſhop**Ad 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 Preſbyters††Ign. p. 33.. No Church Aſſembly was held without them‖‖foreign. 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 Preſbyters§§Ad Mag. p. 31., but the Preſbyters were not Subject p. 175to the Biſhop. It's true, they cou'd do nothing without him, no more could he without them.

4. It does not appear that foreign, 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 foreign, ſeems to be an Aſſembly of the whole Church. Ignatius calls the Church of Smyrna foreign, Deo-decentiſſima in two places‖‖Ign. ad Smyr. p. 1. & p. 8..

5. Suppoſe this foreign, 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 foreign, p. 176&c. He calls his Bonds, God-becoming Bonds, foreign **Ad Smyr. p. 8..

He Stiles the Biſhop of Smyrna foreign, worthy of God, and the Preſbytery, foreign, 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.

p. 177If 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 foreign and foreign may be Govern'd of foreign, or coupled with foreign, 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 p. 178of 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 p. 179Church 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. 167we 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 p. 180call'd Synagogues, James 2.2. Our Author cannot deny the Agreement in many things between both: But, ſays he, The Temple-Worſhip, whereof a great deal was Moral, was as much the Pattern of the Chriſtian, as was the Synagogue-Worſhip: and if ſo, the Jewiſh Prieſt-hood was the Pattern of the Chriſtian Hierarchy, p. 166.

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

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

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

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

p. 181J. 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. p. 182Now 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 p. 183principal 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.

p. 184If 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 p. 185two 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 p. 186Chriſt, 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, foreign, and the Orders of the Apostles, i. e. the Preſbyters††Ibid. p. 50..

I leave it to the Impartial Reader's Judgment, whether all theſe Expreſſions put together, do not make it plain, That the Preſbyters according to Ignatius, Succeed the Apoſtles. Can any thing be expreſs'd with more clearneſs? They preſide in the place of the Bench of the Apoſtles. They muſt be followed as the Apoſtles, reverenc'd as the Conjunction of the Apoſtles, and as the Orders of Apoſtles.

But our Author proceeds in his uſual and proper Stile.

J. O's. laſt diſingenuous Perverting the Senſe of Ignatius,P. 178. has put me, ſaith he, upon the Examination of his Teſtimony out of Irenaeus. For I muſt confeſs, I dare not truſt him in any thing, that he offers out of Antiquity.

See the Candor of this Gentleman, he declines J. O's Teſtimonies out of Antiquity, and yet turns over above a Hundred Pages, to ſearch out one or two Quotations that he may Cavil at them.

Having treated J. O. with ſuch ſcornful and ill Language, ſo often in his Book, it is not to be expected he ſhould forbear beſtowing upon him ſome of his beſt Compliments now at parting. And he is the more obliged to him for them, becauſe they are Undeſerved, and are the free Emanations of the Rector's good Nature.

His attempt upon Ignatius failing him, he proceeds to J. O's. Second Quotation out of Irenaeus, which was this. Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem, p. 187quae eſt ab Apoſtolis, quae per Succeſſionem Presbyteriorum in Eccleſiis cuſtoditur.

Here he taxes J. O's: Sincerity, for a literal Fault of the Printer's,P. 179. who inſtead of Presbyterorum Printed Presbyteriorum, with the Addition of the Letter (i). This would paſs for a Venial Fault among Friends, but Mr. G. is as ſevere a Judge, as he is a Corrector of the Preſs.

But, ſaith he, J. O. like a Man wiſe in his Generation, turn'd Presbyters into Presbyteries, Ibid.that this place may be underſtood not of Biſhops, but of the Colledges of Presbyters; but Irenaeus by Presbyters means Biſhops.

1. J. O. ſpoke of Presbyters (not: Preſbyteries) Succeeding the Apoſtles; and quoted Irenaeus for Proof. He does not uſe the Word Preſbytery in all that Argument, p. 179, 180.

2. Mr. G. cannot deny but Irenaeus ſaith, the Presbyters Succeeded the Apoſtles, but he thinks by Presbyters he means Biſhops. We think ſo too, and thence infer, That Preſbyters and Biſhops are the ſame in Irenaeus, as they are in Paul's Epiſtles.

He ſaith in another place, We must obey thoſe Presbyters that are in the Church, who received their Succeſſion from the Apostles (as we have ſhewn) who with the Succeſſion of their Epiſcopacy, have received the certain Grace of Truth, according to the Father's Pleaſure. And a little after: Such Presbyters the Church nouriſheth, of whom the Prophet ſaith, I will give thee Rulers in Peace, and Biſhops in Righteouſneſs‖‖Iren. ad. Haereſ. IV. 43, 44..

Obſerve here, 1. That Preſbyters Succeed the Apoſtles. 2. Preſbyters have an Epiſcopacy. 3. Thoſe whom Irenaeus calls Preſbyters, he calls alſo Biſhops. Irenaeus his Biſhop was but the firſt Preſbyter, as Hilarius the Roman Deacon calls him**Int. ad. Epheſ..

By thoſe firſt Preſbyters (who for Order ſake, had the precedency of the reſt) Irenaeus, and others, derive the Succeſſion. But the Churches were Governed not by thoſe ſingle Preſbyters, or Biſhops p. 188alone, but by the College of Presbyters in common, among whom the Senior Preſbyter, or the moſt worthy, had the foreign, or chief Seat, but without Power of Juriſdiction over his Brethren.

As the Athenians reckon'd the Years in which the Archontes Govern'd their Republic, by the firſt Archon, though there were Nine of them in all; and the Lacedemonians denominated the Years of their Ephori (who were Five in all) by the Name of the Firſt**Vid. Blon. Apol. Pref. p. 38.; ſo the Fathers derive the Succeſſion of Preſbyters, by the Firſt and Chief Preſbyter, to whom the Name of Biſhop, by degrees, was appropriated.

Thus we have Vindicated Ignatius and Irenaeus, againſt the angry Exceptions of our Author. I will add one or two more, but with no deſign to ſtir up his Choler.

Jerom ſaith of them, They (the Clergy) Succeed in the Apoſtolical Degree, they make the Body of Chriſt with their Sacred Mouths, and by them we are made Chriſtians. He ſpeaks not of Biſhops, but of the Clerici, without Diſtinction, even of all that Adminiſter the Euchariſt, and Baptize. And a little after expreſly Names the Preſbyters. The Presbyter, ſaith he, may deliver me to Satan, if I offend ††Hieron. Ep. ad Heliodor..

Origen, in Mat. 16. makes all Preſbyters to ſucceed the Apoſtles, in the Power of the Keys.

Proſper makes all Holy Prieſts, that conſcienciouſly diſcharge the Duties of their Office, the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles.

If the Holy Prieſts (ſaith he) turn many to God, by their Holy Living and Preaching, who can doubt ſuch to be Partakers of the Contemplative Vertue, by whoſe Example and Inſtruction, many are made Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven? Theſe are the Miniſters of the Word, the Hearers of God, the Oracles of the Holy Spirit. Theſe are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles of the Lord**Iſti ſunt Apoſtolor. Domini Succeſſores Proſp. de Vit. Con. Templ. I. 25..

p. 189The 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, p. 190and 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.

End of the text · James Owen, Defense of Scripture Ordination (1697)