Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 2

Defense of Scripture Ordination · Chapter 2

p. 45CHAP. 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. p. 46Dr. 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.

p. 47Did 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 p. 48before 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.

p. 49The 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 **foreign. 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 p. 50Biſhops 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 **foreign..

He exhorts the Corinthians to be ſubject to their Elders **foreign..

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 p. 51Pauls 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**foreign., 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 p. 52there 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 p. 53real 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.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.Num 11:16The 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.

p. 54Having 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 p. 55him 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 12.11.2 Cor 11:52 Cor 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.

p. 56You 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.

p. 57I. 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 p. 58of 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 p. 59the 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 foreign, 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 p. 60Acts mentions Seven Deacons Ordained by the Apoſtles, Invenimus eos locutos eſſe non de viris qui miniſtrant Myſteriis, ſed de Ministerio quod in uſu menſarum adhibeatur Sexta Syn. in Trullo, Can. 16. A. D. 692.the Council of Neoceſarea determines there ought to be Seven in every Church; but we having adapted the Opinion of the Fathers to the Apoſtles Expreſſions, do find that they ſpeak not of thoſe who Miniſtred in the Sacred Myſteries, but of ſuch as Served at Tables. Thus Chryſoſtom expounded the place, as they add there.

This Teſtimony is the more conſiderable, as not only containing the Opinion of 166 Biſhops, who lived about the latter end of the Seventh Age, but affirming the Senſe of the Fathers of former Ages to be the ſame with theirs. By all which it appears, That Deacons originally were but Overſeers of the Poor. In future Ages the caſe was much altered, the Biſhops affected to be Guardians of the Poor, and to make the Deacons amends, admitted them to Baptize and Preach. The Biſhops omit Preaching, and become Servants of Tables, and the Deacons from ſerving of Tables, ſtep up into the Pulpit, and become Preachers.

5. About the middle of the Fifth Age they were permitted to read Homilies in the Church, but only in caſes of neceſſity, as when the Presbyter was diſabled by reaſon of ſome Infirmity**Conc. Vaſens. Can. 4..

6. If the Ordination of Deacons as ſuch, made them Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, as the Rector affirms, how comes the Church of England to Ordain them again, p. 61before 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. 4V. 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.

p. 623. His third Reaſon, Philip, another of them, afterwards preached at Samaria, ch. 8.

He did not Preach at Jeruſalem but at Samaria, after he had left Jeruſalem, and ceaſed to exerciſe the Office of a Deacon there, Acts 8.4, 5. He might be advanced to the Degree of an Evangeliſt, Acts 21.8. If you find one that was a Presbyter half a Year ago, now exerciſing Epiſcopal Juriſdicition, will you ſay that a Presbyter, as ſuch, hath Epiſcopal Juriſdiction? Philip had ſerved Tables at Jeruſalem, and afterwards preaches at Samaria, does it follow that he preached as a Deacon, when Preaching was no part of the Office of a Deacon, as ſuch. Biſhop Pearſon confeſſeth he was an Evangeliſt at this time**Lect. V. in Act. p. 66..

But ſuppoſe he had Preached at Jeruſalem, which docs not appear, it was no more than what was uſually done by all gifted Perſons in thoſe extraordinary times.

Apollos, who was not perfectly Catechiſed in the Word of Chriſt, nor ſo much as Baptized with the Baptiſm of Chriſt, and therefore not Ordained by any Apoſtle, yet Preached, Acts 18.24, 25.

Grotius acknowledges, that in thoſe times to Perſrcution, private Perſons might preach, and he quotes to that purpoſe, Acts 11.20.††In tali cumstantiâ evangelium praedicare, non diaconorum tantum ſed & privatorum. Grot. in Act. 8.5.Acts 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.Eph 4

p. 63Origen being perſecuted from Alexandria, Preached publickly at Caeſarea, upon the deſire of Theoctiſtus, Biſhop of the place, before he was Ordain'd.

When Demetrius of Alexandria cenſured the action as irregular, Theoctiſtus and Alexander, Biſhop of Jeruſalem, Juſtified it, and produced ſeveral Examples of the ſame nature**Niceph. Eccl. Hiſt. V. 14..

A Lay-man is allowed to teach at the requeſt of the Clergy, in a Council of Carthage, held about the Year 436††Laicus praeſentibus clerios niſi ipſis rogantibusdocere non audeat. Carth. Conc. IV. Can. 98..

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 65Ordination 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. 7and 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, p. 66than 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 p. 67might 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 p. 68ſaith 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 p. 69to have call'd the Ordainers Prophets and Teachers? It wou'd have been enough to call them Prophets. But there were both in Antioch, Prophets to whom the Revelation came, and Teachers, or ordinary Presbyters, who were included in the Command of ſeparating Paul and Barnabas for the Apoſtleſhip of the Gentiles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Principle naturally leads to Deiſm and Irreligion.

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

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

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

1. It's well he aſcribes any of their Doctrines to the Holy Spirit of God; but why not all as well as ſome ? The Spirit was promis'd them to guide them into all Truth, John 16.13. Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, The Spirit ſhould guide them into all Truth: No, ſaith Mr. G. the Spirit guided p. 71them 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. 3.3.4Rom 3:3Rom 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 p. 72are 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:

p. 731. 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.

p. 743. 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.

p. 752. The Apoſtles made Elders in every Church with the Suffrages of the People. So foreign (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.Acts 14:23Acts 14:24 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 p. 76viſit 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.Acts 20:17Acts 20:25Acts 20:28 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 p. 77with 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 p. 78the 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.Acts 19:6 This Power was peculiar to the Apoſtles,Act. 8.17.Acts 8:17 we do not read that any Prophets or Evangeliſts were ever entruſted with this Power**Pearſ. 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.

p. 79VII. 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 p. 80in the Name of my Spirit, that is, by my Authority **foreign.; intimating that the whole Authority of excommunicating the Inceſtuous Perſon had been in Paul and none in the Church.

The Syriac which is very Ancient, renders it, That ye all gather together, and I with you in Spirit, with the Power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. So doth the Ancient Latin Verſion expreſs it**Congregatis vobis & meo ſpiritu. Thus the Rector diſturbs the Order of the Text, contradicts the moſt approved Verſions, both Ancient and Modern, to ſerve a Deſign. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Preſence of his Spirit, joyning with, and going before the Corinthian Elders, but doth not aſſume the ſole Power to himſelf. He enjoyns them by his Apoſtolical Authority to do their Duty, and allows them to Judge thoſe within, 1 Cor. 5.12. In like manner he enjoyns ſeveral things to Timothy and Titus.

The ſame Apoſtle (ſaith Mr. G.) excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander,p. 17. 1 Tim. 1.20. No Elder joyning with him.

He cannot prove there were any Elders in Epheſus, when Paul excommunicated theſe two Men; or if there were any, that they did not joyn with him, But ſuppoſe the Apoſtle did Excommunicate them by his eminent Apoſtolical Authority, and deliver them to Satan to be tormented by him (which ſome think he did) I ſee not what Advantage he can make of it, except he p. 81could prove, That Biſhops are endued with the ſame miraculous Power.

VIII. He comes at length to Timothy's Ordination,p. 18. here he Notes from 2 Tim. 1.6. That Timothy was ordain'd by Paul without Elders mention'd. This Scripture, he ſaith, the Presbyterians ſeldom take notice of, and Mr. Pryn paſſes it over in ſilence.

Mr. Pryn doth mention it**The unbiſh. of Timothy and Titus. p. 76. Edit. 1660., and allows that Paul laid on his Hands in Conjunction with the Presbytery. The Rector being unprovided with better Matter, ſills part of two Pages with an Invective againſt Mr. Pryn, for paſſing over this, 2 Tim. 1.6. in Silence, by this the Reader may ſee what Credit is to be given to this Gentleman's Accuſations.

J. O. alſo hath conſider'd this Scripture in his Plea, p. 46. and ſaith, That Pauls laying on of Hands upon Timothy might be, for ought appears to the contrary, for the conferring the Holy Ghoſt, which was given by the laying on of the Apoſtles Hands, Acts 8.17, 18. but if he laid Hands for Ordination, its certain he join'd the Presbyters with him, which he had not done, if their had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters as ſuch.

He promiſes to ſhew, p. 10.that 1 Tim. 4.14. makes little or nothing for Presbyterian Ordination, and to reconcile it with their's and it's Parallel, 2 Tim. 1.6.

It is a Favour that he allows the 1 Tim. p. 824.14. 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. 20firſt 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 p. 83before me. This implies he was an Apoſtle himſelf at that time**Pearſ. Ann. Paul. p. 2..

Was he but an ordinary Miniſter who had the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 9.17. He that has the Confidence to make one of the chief Apoſtles an ordinary Miniſter, may with equal aſſurance aſſert every ordinary Miniſter to be a chief Apoſtle.

St. Paul expreſly ſaith, That he was not taught his Goſpel by Men, but by the Revelation of Jeſus Chriſt, Gal. 1.12. Was he but an ordinary Miniſter who receiv'd his Goſpel by extraordinary Revelation? Biſhop Pearſon's Judgment, which is follow'd by the Rector in his Annals, I preſume is of ſome value with him. The Biſhop will ſet him at rights: he owns Paul to be an Apoſtle, before the Miſſion mention'd in Acts 13.1, 2. This he doth both in his Annals, p. 2. and in his Lection in Act. Apoſt. p. 74, 75. So doth Euſebius, Eccl. Hiſt. II. 1.

2. He was ſent by Revelation unto the Gentiles, before the Ordination mention'd in Acts 13. as appears Acts 22.18.21. The Ordination mention'd there did not make him an Apoſtle, as the Rector dreams, but he had an antecedent immediate Call from Jeſus Chriſt.

The Holy Ghoſt thought fit he ſhould enter upon the Stated Exerciſe of his Apoſtolical Miniſtry amongſt the Gentiles, at the Door of Ordination by Presbyters, for p. 84a 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 foreign, 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 p. 85you 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. 4.14.1 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 p. 86told 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.

p. 87At 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 him**Seld. 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 foreign, or foreign. He ſeems to make Sanhedrin (ſo the Jews write it foreign, and not Sanedrin, as he doth) a Hebrew Word, whereas it is the Corruption of foreign, 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 foreign is expreſly diſtinguiſh'd from the foreign, as the foreign 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.

p. 883. 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 foreign, 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 p. 89many; 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 p. 90extort 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.

p. 91Upon 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 foreign—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 foreign and foreign uſed promiſcuouſly in the N. T. which Mr. G. takes no notice of.

2. Himſelf applies foreign as well as foreign, 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 p. 92the 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, p. 93and 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 p. 94is 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 p. 95ſame 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 foreign and foreign, 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 p. 96be 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 foreign ſignifies**John 22.16. Rev. 2.27.Rev 2:27) and to perform the Duties of Biſhops (foreign) 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 p. 97this, 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, p. 98and 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.Acts 20:17Acts 20:28, 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.