Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 10

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 1 · Chapter 10

p. 127CHAP. X.

The Informers great argument for Prelacy, from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. Their Episcopal office disproved, from the office of Evangelist, ascribed expresly to the one, and by good consequence to the other, from many circumstances of the sacred text, and the judgement of Interpreters. The Informers pleadings from there power in ordination and jurisdiction, supposed in the precepts addressed to them there anent; from the necessity of this power, the concernment of of after-ages therein, &c, examined. The unsoundenes and inconsistency of his arguing and answers upon this head, several wayes discovered.

THe Informer presents unto us Nixt, the pretended Episcopacy of Tymothy and Titus at Ephesus and crete, and the Douhter alledging [that Paul calls all the Miniters at Ephesus and crete, Bishops,] He rejoynes That Tymoth and Titus were Bishops as the word foreign or Bishop was afterward taken, that is, had a power in ordination and Iurisdiction over and above inferiour Ministers. This argument from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, as also the nixt, taken from the supposed Episcopal power of the seven Asian Angels, hath been so fully answered and baffled by many, That it is, a wonder how he hath the confidence to repone to us these oft sodden coleworts. We gave already a hint in the St A…gument; of the acknowledged extraordinary function of Tymothy and Titus, which is abundantly p. 128cleared by many, from their unfixed motion and officiating, their occasional transient imployment in these places, Paules actual revocation of them both there from, the condition of these Churches, as being but in fieri as to their organick settlement and constitution: Particularly, that their power in ordination and Jurisdiction was not episcopall, I prove from these grounds. 1. In Churches already constitut, this Authority was not solely resident in Tymothy and Titus Falluntur, qui putant (saith Calvin, Instit: lib: 4. Cap. 3.) &c. that is, they are mistaken who judge either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus at crete to have exercised any impite or Dominion to dispose of things each at his own pleasure, they were set over the people (no word of their being set over Ministers) to go before them in good and wholsome Counsells in relation to the placeing of Ministers, not that they might doe as they pleased excluding others. Since Paul himself neither imposed hands nor did excommunicat alone, and since (as I said above) a wholl colledge or Presbytery of Apostles acted nothing pro imperio, but in Churches constitut had elders going along with them in all that Sinodal procedour Act 15. Farrless would Timothy and Titus assume this episcopal preheminence, who were inferiour to any of the Apostles, therefore their power in this was not episcopall. 2. That authoritie which was intrusted to the elders and Ministers in commone, /was not intrusted to any one officer, such as Timothie; But so it is that after the Church of Ephesus was exedified and compleated in its organick being, and after Timothy had gotten his charge as to ordination and Jurisdiction in Ephesus, Paul committed the wholl episcopal power to the elders (as is said) before Timothies face in his last farewell, Act. 20. therefore he intrusted him with no episcopall preheminence in or over that Church when compleated in its organick being. 3. They whose power stands so circumstantiat p. 127as to ordination and jurisdiction over these Churches, that it excluds Episcopale preheminence, properly and formally such, their power in ordination and jurisdiction, cannot be prelatical, nor ground ane argument for prelacie: but such is the power of Timothie and Titus. For 1. As Diocesian Bishops they ought to have been determinatly and designedly set and fixed there, as the officers of these Churches, but the contrary appears in the text [I befought the to abide at Ephesus] and againe [I left thee at Crete, and to set in order things that are wanting] which words point at ane occasional transient, employment there, not a fixed instalement. 2. In these Epistles they are both Called back without the least intimation of their returneing. 3. If their power was Episcopall and ordinary, then in the apostles prescriptions and rules anent their Successours, their power and authority ought to have been described, and rules given touching the gifts, Call, ordination &c. of the diocesian Bishop, but the Apostle prescribes no rules for any officer higher then a Pastour, & supposes still that he is the highest ordinary officer, in all his directions as to Church government. 4. Add to this, That Paul never calls Timothy, or Titus, Bishops, though frequently making mention of them, but Ministers, Souldiers of Christ, workmen, the Churches messengers &c. 1. Tim. 4. 6. 2. Tim. 2. 3. and 15. 2. Cor. 8. Supposing them his attendants in his Apostolick function; Their accompanying Paul in his Travells is largely described by the divines at the Ile of wight. 1. Timothy is found at Berea with Paul, Act. 17. 14. then at Athens 15. Thence Paul sends him to Thessalonica 1. Thess. 3. 1. Then, hav…ig been at Macedonia with Paul, he came to him to Corinth Act. 18. 5. Then he is with him at Ephesus, and thence sent into Macedonia Act. 19. 22. Whither Paul, went after him, and was by him accompanied into Asia Act. 20. 4. He is with him at Troas 5. v. and at Miletum p. 12817. v. where Paul gave the elders his last charge as the Bishopes of that Church. And after this, he is found either in journeys, or absent from Ephesus. Forafter he is found a prisoner with Paul at Rome, being mentioned as his companion in these epistles written while Paul was at Rome; as that to the philippians, Philip. 1. to philemon. 1. 1. and to the colloss. 1. 2. and he is never found againe at Ephesus, & neer the end of the Apostles pilgrimage, he is sent for to Rome. So Titus is found at Ierusalem, befor he came to Crete, Gal. 1. 2. thence is sent for to Nicopolis, Tit. 3. 12. then to Corinth, then he is expected at Troas 2. Cor. 2. 12. and meets with Paul in Macedonia. 2. Cor. 7. 6. whence he is sent againe to Corinth 2. Cor. 8. 6. & after this, neer the time of paules death, is found at Rome, from whence he went not to Crete, but unto Dalmatia, 2. Tim. 4. 10. And after this is not heard of in Scripture. So that from their various journeys, the order of them, the time spent in them, the nature of their employment, which was to be the Apostles Copartners in their Apostolick function, and negotiat the affaires of the Churches where the Apostles traveled, and the Sciptures silence touching their being Beshops of any one Church, These divines conclude that they could not be diocesian Bishops.

Others doe remarke severale other pregnant Circumstances in the sacred text, specially relating to Timothy which doe evince him to be neither Bishop at all, nor particularly at Ephesus in the prelatical sense. As 1. That paul stirres him up to diligence upon this motive, that thus he shall be agood minister of Christ, not a Bishop of Christ, 1. Tim. 4. 6. He was therefore a Minister Bishop, but nothing else. 2. That when Paul wrote this first epistle to him, he was but newly entered into the ministery. 1. Tim. 1. 3. with Act. 16. 1. 2. 3. &c. And Paul will not have a Novice to be a Bishop. 3. He is p. 129commandes to intreat elders as Fathers. 4. To Honour them doubly that rule well, therefore he was not to be a Father over these elders 5. That he had his gift by the laying one of the hands of the presbysery, which could not be ane episcopall function. 6. That Paul appointes him to reside there only untill his owne return from Macedonia, to instruct the people for someshorte time until he came to him againe 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15.—7. That assoone as Paul came from Macedonia to Ephesus, he sent Timothie into Achaia, himself staying at Ephesus and Asia for a season. Act. 19. 22. to 40. v. and from thence he returned to Macedonia, and through it unto Asia, accompanied with Timothy and others, after which we never read that he returned to Ephesus. 8. That Timothie was sent to many churches to confirme and strengthen them, as, to Macedonia Act. 19. 22. To Thessalonica. 1. Thess. 1. 2. 3. To philippi. chap. 2. 19. 20. but never to Ephesus after his first departure. 9. That though he is joyned with Paul in the Inscription of some Epistles. Collos. 1. philip. 1. and frequent mention is made of him in the epistles to severall Churches, 1. Cor. 4. 17. Philip. 2. 19. 20. 1. Thess. 3. 2. 6. Hebr. 13. 23. Yet there is [altum silentium] of him in the Epistles to the Ephesians, his own supposed diocess. 10. That Paul laid hands upon the disciples who were ordained in that church after his supposed episcopacie. That as Timothie was sent to confirme. Instruct and Comfort other Churches, as Philippi, Troas. So Paul writes to him. 2 Tim. 4. 12. that Tychicus was for this same end. sent to Ephesus: and that he wrote the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians from Rome, whom the Apostle (chap. 6. 21. v. of the Epistle directed to that church) sent to them as a faith full Minister, who therefore lookes liker their Bishop then Timothie. That the same is supposable of Titus is also apparent, both in that he is called (as Timothy), not Bishop, but Pauls fellow helper, and p. 130that concerning the Corinthians, not the Cretians, and likewayes in that he is imployed to the church in corinth, after he was left by Paul at crete, as his fellow helper in that church, 2. Cor. 2. 13. and was fixed to no one place of residence. That being charged to come to Paul at Nicopolis, his stay is found very short at Crete, so that after half a years residence there he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia &c.

But the Doubter acknowledging [Timothy and Titus, their power over Ministers at Ephesus and crete, since they are taught how to ordaine them, what qualifications are requisite, how to proceed in their tryalls and censures, alledges that this they had, as evangelists & companiones to the Apostles in their laboures and as appointed to settle and water these Churches which they had planted.] In what respect these things are attribute to these Church officers, will be after examined, when we shall consider how our informer pleads for their episcopall power upon these grounds. But to this exception of the Doubter, he answers That this supposes them to be extraordinarie officers, whose office was not to continue in the Church. And the Doubter affirmeing this. [Because Timothy is called ane Evangelist 2. Tim. 4. 5. and that therefore he could not be a Bishop] To this our Informer Rejoynes That in a large sense, he was ane Evangelist or a preacher of the gospell, but that he was ane Evangelist in astrict sense, can no mor be proved from that scripture; then that he was a deacon: Because the Apostle in that same place sayes, fulfill thy deaconship, as the Greek signifies. Or that Philip was ane extraordinary evangelist, because he is called ane evangelist Act. 2. 8. for he was a deacon Act. 6. and Act. 8. 5. did preach the gospell, but was not therefore one of these extraordinary evangelists whose office was to cease in the Church. And Finallie, He tells us that ordination and jurisdiction is properly no worke of ane Evangelist p. 131but rather preaching and spreading the gospell] Ans. 1. This man casts up but a mist of Insignificant words in this distinction, whereby he endeavoures to elude so clear a scripture. Timothies Evangelistick office, wee see, is a gripping argument which our Informer would faine Elude, but with what success shall presently appear. He grantes he was ane Evangelist in a large sense or a preacher, but not in the strict sense, but what that strict sense is, in which he denyes Timothy to be ane Evangelist, he doth not clear, and so his strict sense is left without sense, and his distinction must flie with one wing. He knew that his assigneing ane explication of his strict sense, would have so palpably included Timothy, that his evasion would be presently shut up: therefore he left the other branch of his distinction, a meer mute under the clouds, and gives us a distinction which stands upon one leg. 2. If he will take Eusebius sense (Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33. o… 37. with some) he will tell him [that this title is taken but two wayes, either for such as wrote the Gospel, (in which sence we grant that none of them were Evangelists, or such as taught the Gospel, and these againe were either such as had ordinary places or gifts, or whose plaees and giftes were extraordinary, that is, who were not settled upon any one charge, but were Apostolorum vice, having a vicarius care of all the Churches, as the Apostles had the principal care.] The Evangelists (as Ambrose phrases it) did Evangelizar sine Cathedra, or preached without a fixed charge. Here, by the way I cannot but admire the inconsistant subtilty (may I call it so) of Saravia (de divers. grand. minist. cap. 6.) who, in answer to Beza, pleading [that the appellation of Evangelist is given not to every on who preached, but to the Apostles temporary coadjutors in watring the Churches, not yet fully constitut &c.] tells him that Apostolus nunquam Timotheum—Euangelistae nomine compellat. That the Apostle p. 132no where puts the Title of Evangelist upon Timothy, and that this title was given to none but Philip. Yet immediatly addes-Evangelistae nomen non nego Timotheo, quem Paulus Evangelistae …pus sacere jubet, I deny not the name of Evangelist to Timothy, whom the Apostle bides, do the work of ane Evangelist. If he deny not this name to him and the thing therein imported, how can he quanel the Apostles not putting this title upon him, or deny him the title, and the peculiar office therein imported. Calvin takes the word hereto Import that special extraordinary office mentioned. Ephes. 4. Now that Timothy was such ane Evangelist, is already fully proved and by consequence that the objection stands untouched and unanswered by him. viz. That he was ane unfixed extraordinarie officer, and not to continue, and therefore any authority which he is supposed to have over this Church, layes no foundation of Prelacie. For he sayes nothing to this consequence, but admitts it upon the supposition that Timothy was ane Evangelist in a strict sense, and ane extraordinary officer. Cartwright answering the Rhemises upon this place, takes it in the strict sense mentioned, telling the Jesuites that Paules calling Timothy once ane Evangelist, hath more pith in it then all denominations of Pishop that others can give him.

3. The Informers reason of denying the special office of Evangelist to be here imported, viz That he might be as well called a Deacon, as being enjoyned to fulfull his Miuistery or Deaconship in the Greek, is very poor. For 1. It being clear that the Scripture holdes out such ane office as that of Evangelist, specifically distinct fromother offices. Ephes. 4. (as this man acknowledges) and it being equally certain that this or any other office and relation hath a work and dutie proper andpeculiar therunto and likewayes that the office layes ane obligation upon the person who carryes it, to perform the duties thereof. And Finallie. Jt being evidently the Apostles Scope, from the consideration of the office, to exhort to the duties suitable thereunto, its destrable p. 133by its own light that Timothy is here stirred up to the duties of that peculiar station & office which we have proved he sustained; & thereforit cannot be understood of a general Ministery or service. Will any doubt what the sense of such phrases is, [do thework of a parent] [do the work of a Master] [do the work of a Pastour] who knowes what the office and relation of a parent, master, and Minister is, and that this phrase importes, this precept enjoynes the duties proper to such relations and offices. So the case is here, which none will doubt of but this Informer who starts needles doubts, when he cannot answer his presbyterian Doubter. 2. The Deacons office haveing in Scripture its limites drawn, the circumstances of the place where the word Diaconia stands, discovers when we are to take it in a generall sense, and when this inferiour officer is pointed out. So it were absurd when Archippus is bidden fullfill his Ministery, or when the Apostle calls himself a Minister, to imagine that the proper formall office of Deacon is ascribed to the one or the other: But the service there meaned is ane Apostolicall and Pastorall service, not the service of Tables. Now, fulfill, or make full proofe of thy Ministery (as our Translatores doe weill render it, giveing the deacon a peculiar Inglish terme according to the greek sound of the word to avoide confusion) is exigeticall▪ the Ministery he is to fulfill, is his Evangelistick Ministery, the latter expounds the former, so that in the very phrase it self, the evangelistick office is asserted and the deaconship denyed. The phrafe of Evangelist, & especially the workof ane Evangelist, determins his peculiar office; there being no other Evangelists in the scripture sense, but either those that wrote or published the gospell in that extraordinary way, and Timothy being clearly one of such, it must needs import the Evangelist in a peculiar sense, and is distinct from the generall phrase of Ministery in the latter branch of the words, which stands limited and restricted by the first part as Isaid. p. 134Again, since he includes in the generall terme [Episeopus] his diocesian Bishop, as distinct from a presbyter, in philip. 1. and Act. 20. Wee may with farr better evidence take in the peculiar evangelist here, the office properly taken, being both a scripture office, and likewayes so clearly applicable to the person to whom this precept is given, non of which he can say in his case. Moreover, I wonder whither he would admitt this his gloss, if this phrase were directed to a Pastour as it is here to Timothy [doe the worke of a Pastour, make full proofe of thy Ministery] would he think this a good argument or reason to deny him to be a Pastour, because the latter branch of the sentence expresses a deaconship? Sure he would not: or had the Apostie expressed the first branch of the precept thus, doe the worke of a …ishop, would he have taken this answer from us, that Timothy might be as well proved a deacon from that place? Sure, he would here tel us that th… fi… r…trictive phrase, determines the subsequent generall one, and that different offices may well share in generall names.

3. The phrase of doeing the worke of ane Evangelist, if we compare scripture with it self, will appear upon Two grounds to import a peculiar Evangelist. 1. Such a sense must needs be admitted in paralleel phrases where the Syntax and construction is like …o this, As [the signes of ane Apostle] 2 Cor. 12: 12. [commands of Apostles] 2 Pet. 3: 2 [foundation of Apostles] Ephes 2 20. who will deny but that the word Apostle is here peculiarly designeing the office, & why not also [the workeof aneEvangelist] especially it being his scope to stirr up Timothy to diligence from the consideration of the office, and others to the greater reverence of him. 2 The terme of Evangilist occuring only thrice in the new Testament (viz) Act. 21. 8 Ephes 4. 11. and in this place under debate: since the first Two places, doe …yond all question speak o… the Evangelist in a strict and proper sense, h… (I pray) & why doth it change its signification here? Extraordinary p. 135functions communicats with inferiour offices in the general names, as when the Apostles are called pres byters in a general designatione, but extraordinary names are not made use of to point at ordinary functions, at least when the office is so distinctly pointed at as in this place

4. He stumbleth yet againe here into a materiall contradiction, whil telling us, That Timothy was ane evangelist in a large sense, that is, One who proached the Gospel, which he contradistinguishes from ane Evangelist in a strict sense, denying Timothy to be such, and that strictly termed Evangelist had it for his work to preach and spread the Gospell, as he seems to insinuat in the close of his answer, if at least he mean it of his strictly called evangelist (for his way of expressing it is very indistinct.) But however he will not say that Timothy was no otherwayes ane Evangelist then in the sense wherein any ordinary Minister is such. And if he understand him to be ane Evangelist as haveing a more large unfixed or universal office of preaching the gospel with extraordinary gifts, and as coajutor of the Apostles, as Hooker himself, together with Eusebius do take it, as being thus contradistinct from writers of the Gospel, how comes he onelyonly to acknowle… h… ane Evangelist in a general sense, as a preacher of the Gospel simply? I would know what this Informer calls ane Evangelist in a strict sense, sure he will not say that it is meerly preaching the Gospel which makes up this office, for that he makes the large sense; is it preaching and spreading the gospell with extraordinary gifts ad unfixedly? (as he seems to insinuat by making this the proper worke of ane Evangelist) then surely he will not deny but this was Timothy's worke, and so he must be ane Evangelist in the strict sense, against what he first asserts. He acknowledges the ordinary Evangelists or preachers, were to preach and spread the Gospell within their Sphere, and so the strict Evangelist p. 136must be distinguished from them by unfixed preaching and spreading the Gospell: which (besides what is mentioned) will bring a new inconvenienc upon our Informer and dash him against his principle of fixing Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. Yet againe, though Philip preached the Gospell upon the dispersion and spread it unfixedly, yet he denyes him to be one of these extraordinary Evangelists whose office was to cease: So that he doth (as to this) distinguish preaching and spreading the Gospell from the proper worke and characteristick of the Evangelist strictly taken Thus it is hard to know what he calls ane Evangelist or how he understands it: For neither will he admitt power in ordination and jurisdiction to be ane ingredient in this office, and thus it is neither fixed nor unfixed preaching or government either, that with him will make up this office properly taken, if we consider the whole structure of his reasoning.

5. As for what he sayes of philip, That it will not follow, he was ane extraordinary Evangelist, though termed ane Evangelist, since he was a Deacon. I answer, that Philip was not ane Evangelist properly so called, is by him poorly and gratis asserted, and worse proved; Learned Calvin upon the place tells us That his Deaconship was a temporal and transient function, then expired, because otherwayes it had no been free to him to leave Jerusalem and go to cesaria; And that he is not here proposed as a voluntar deserter of his office, but as one who had a more excellent office intrusted to him, Which two grounds will put faire to prove that he was not a deacon still. Then he adds [Evangilistae meo judiciointer Apostolos & doctores medii erant, munus enim obibant Apostolis proximum ut passim Evangelium praedicarent, nec praeficerentur certae Stationi—That is, Evangelists were sett in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctours, had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles p. 137and Doctours, had ane office nixt to that of the Apostles, that they might every where preach the gospell and were not fixed to any Station. He gives this reason of his description of the Evangelist, Because, (Ephes. 4.) the Apostle describing the order of the Church doth in such manner substitut them to Apostles, as he shews that they had a more inlarged office of teaching intrusted to them then to Pastours whose worke was tyed to certain places. Hence he concludes that Philips deaconship at Jerusalem, was onelyonly temporall. And for some time there exercised by him, and that he was afterby the Church assumed to be ane Evangelist. In which words wee see. 1. He doth upon weightie grounds prove him to have been no Deacon at that time wherein he is called ane Evangelist. 2. That he was ane Evangilist in the strict and proper sense as it is taken. Eph. 4.—3. That Evangelists are officers above ordinarie teachers or pastours, and in this distinct from them (in the judgement of this great divine) that they were fixed to no certan charge, as they, but as being nixt Apostles had ane indefinit unfixed Ministery; all which is cross to this mans blunt confused discourse of this mater, and cutts the sinews of Timothy's supposed Episcopacy.

Lastlie, Where he affirms that ordination and jurisdiction were no proper worke of ane Evangelist, but preaching and spreading the Gospell. 1. I urge him thus, if preaching and spreading the gospel was the characteristick of the Evangelist (He must mean it in a more extensive way then ordinary Pastours if he speak sense) then sure he cannot deny but that Timothy thus preached and spread the gospel as the Apostles Coajutor in many Churches, as is cleared above. Whence it followes by his own Confession. 1. That Timothy's office was extraordinary and is ceased, for he affirmes that the office p. 138of ane Evangelist whom he calls extraordinary was to cease in the Church. 2. That he had no Episcopall authority in ordination and jurisdiction, He being ane Evangelist in a sense beyond any ordinary preacher, and upon the other hand ordination and jurisdiction by his confession, not being his proper worke who is ane Evangilist. So that Pauls calling him ane Evangelist must lay him by from being a Prelat, and consequently all the Informers pleading from his supposed power in ordination and jurisdiction in the 1. Epistle written to him, is frivolous and vaine. For in his sense he could not Act both the worke of evangelist and Prelat, these being according to his pleading, inconsistent. But nixt, the wonder is, how this man comes to divide [preaching and spreading of the gospell] from [the power of ordination jurisdiction] since he cannot but acknowledge that the Apostles did both these, and affirms that their office was episcopal, as we heard above. And after he will tell us that Catalogues of Bishops are drawen from the Apostles, and by Ierom, from marke the Evangelist who was Bishop of Alexandria. Then it seems this power in ordination (wherein, with him the Chief part of my Lord Bishops office lyes) was very well consistent with both the Apostles and Evangelists their unfixed inlarged preaching and spreading of the gospell; The Apostles unfixed preaching & spreading of the gospell, sure he will not deny: nor can he deny to marke, the Evangelists office in the strictest sense he can imagine: so that both are with him compatible. Thus we see in withstanding the truth, hee is still in the briers of Contradictiones.

The Doubter excepts aganist his reason [That philip might be both a deacon and Evangilist] To which he answers [That by the same Reason Timothie and Titus might be both Bishops and Evangelists] I answer 1. We have showen already, That philip ceased to be a deacon at Jerusalem when he became ane Evangelist. 2. Supposing he were p. 139yet the Informers answer and parallel, is naught. For 1. Philipes becoming ane Evangelist was ane advancement to a higher office, holding still ane inferiour, which is eminenter included in it, as he will grant, but making ane Evangelist a Bishop is a degrading of a high extraordinary superiour officer, to ane ordinary inferiour.

2. As ane Evangilist properly so called, his work was to preach and spread the gospel unfixedly, as a Bishop, his work he will say, was ordination and jurisdiction, which Two we heard him affirme to be incompatible.

Besides, in separating the power of ordination and jurisdiction, from the Evangelistick office, he is contradicted by Saravia, who in many places mantaines the contrary (degrad: cap. 1.—and Cap. 16. and cap. 23) And here I shall shew our Informer how he hath run cross to his great Master in his glosses upon several of these Texts under debate, that it may appear, what babellike builders our prelates Advocates are.

Upon that passage (Matth. 20) I finde he is a little more ingenuous then this is Disciple, and plainely speakes out what he but mutters (exam: tract: de episc: tripl: quest: 1. pag: 70. after he hath repeated that Text with its parallel in Luke, he adds. Ex his verbis quaero num cuiquam sano videri possit D. Iesum sustulisse aut prohibuisse primatum aut principatum? & non potius docuisse quid eum deceat, qui in Ecclesia primus & princeps futurus erat &c that is, From these Wordes I demand whither any that is sound can judge, that the Lord Iesus did take away primaci and principality, and did not rather teach what becomes him, who was to be first and Prince in the Church—and thereafter he tells us that Christ by his own example did shew what sort of primaci it is that the allowes in his Church, so that he doth in downright express terms plead for a supreme patriarch or pope representing Christs pritcipality over the Church, & what harmony this keeps with the judgment of protestant divines upon that passage, any may judge. The Informers p. 140holdes That there was to be no inequality of power among the 12 Apostles (although he is not consistent with himself in this, as is already observed) but Saravia runs so far cross to him in this assertion that he mantaines a primaci of power among them.

That the Bishops, saluted with the deacons, (Phil: 1.) were meer Presbyters, he is forced to acknowledge, and so condemnes our Informers shifts, about Extraneus Bishops accidently there, or with the Apostle himself, or that the Diocesian is included in the word [Bishop]—in epistola ad Philippenses salutem dicit Episcopis & diaconis, unde quemadmodum intelligitur Philippensium ecclesiam habuisse Presbyteros & diac…nos &c. (de Grad: Cap: 8.) In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul salutes the Bishops and deacones, hence as we are given to understand, that the Church of the Philippians had Presbyters and Deacons, &c. Again, the Informer layes aside the Highpreist, as a type of Christ, when he pleads for prelacie from the Jewish Church-government. But in this Saravia gives him the lie fort. He holds the inferiour priests to have been in there administration types of Christ as well as the high priest. And 2. That the Government, whether of the inferiour or high priests, is not abolished as typical (de honor: praes: & prysb: deb: cap: 10, & de Divers: grad Miniser: cap 14.) Besides, the Informer holds that that place 2 Tim. 2: 4. Commandes Churchmen to be as Abstract as possible from publik civil imployments, and not intangle themselves therein. But Saravia adstricts the affairs of this life spoken of in that Scripture, unto the endeavours which belonges to the nourishment and mantainance of this life, and holds that it doth not at all speak of nor discharge Churchmens holding of publick state imployments under Princes. He minces not the matter as this man. Vitae negotia (saith he] sunt ea quibus, quae ad hujus vitae victum pertinent, comparantur, non quae sunt p. 151principis aut civitatis publica. And [de …on: praesul. & Presbit: deb:] he praefixes this title unto: Cap: 26. As that which he undertakes to prove—Idem Homo tanquam episcopus curam ecclesiae Domino Iesu, & fidem ac obsequium regi tanquam ipsius beneficiarius reddere potest. That the same man may perform his duety to Christ as a Bishop, and attend the Church, and also render faith and obedience to the King as his vassal &c.

The doubter nixt excepts to better purpose That they could not be Bishops, because they were not settled at these places, especially Timothy, had he been Bishop at Ephesus, he had been fixed to his charge, but he was left only there upon occasional imployment, and for a season, 1 Tim. 1: 3. To this he answers 1. That they were rare and singular persons usefull for the Apostle at that time, and therefore it is no wonder that they were called from their particular charge when the Churches good required it. Philip. 2: 19, 20 2 Cor. 8: 23. As with us a Minister may be called from his charge for a season when the good of the Church else where requires it. To which I rejoyne 1. This answer supposes the thing in Question (viz) [That Timothie and Titus were once fixed as Bishops in these Churches] But the ground of the exception is, That because their occasionall transient Imployment in these places, is so clear & expresse, therefor they were never fixed to these Churches as their particular charge, but had it for their charge to water all the Churches which the Apostles planted, and attend their planetarie motion from Church to Church. So that they cannot be in their worke and duty paralleled to a Pastours transient Imployment from his particular charge for the Churches greater good, whose fixed charge is supposed. But we have proved that Timothie and Titus their ordinarie Imployment was this transient and unfixed Ministery: which is clearly holden out in scriptur p. 142both befor and after their officiating in these Churches. 2, It is also cleared above, that as the scripture is utterly silent of their return to these Churches againe, after Pauls recaling them from the same, and after their transient Imployment therein: So we have made it likewayes appear, that they did officiat thereafter in many other Churches, performing to them the same duties of Evangelists as in Ephesus and crete. And that in Ephesus, elders were called Bishops, and had the whole Episcopal charge before Timothie, committed to them in paules last farewell. In a word, it can never be made good that any who were fixed to particular charges, did so travell up and down as these Evangilists are proved to have done. Againe he t…lls us That Gerard thinks they were first Evangelists, then made Bishops by Paul at Ephesus and Crete. Ans. If he think so too, he must quite all his plea for their Episcopacie from these Epistles: for Paul calls Timothy to doe the worke of ane Evangelist here, and Titus worke was the same: And he must understand this in the strict sense (if he offet Gerards exception to any purpose) which, according to him, secludes power in ordination and jurisdiction. So that a worke and office being enjoyned Timothy in this Epistle, which hath nothing to doe with ordination and iurisdiction, he was not yet made a Bishop, and if not yet, it will be hard to find out his commission and patent afterward in scripture, since he was in perpetual evangilistick Imployments, and sure if Paul ever designed him Bishop over Ephesus, he would not have called the elders of Ephesus, Bishopes, befor Timothy in his last farewell. We heard Saravia plead that Paul intitles not Timothy an Evangelist [non compellat nomine Evangelistae] how did he not see that [that Paul, numquam compellat nomine episcopi, never puts upon Timothy or Titus, the title or name of a Bishope, neither in the inscriptiones of the p. 143Epistles writen to them, nor in any place of these Epistles, or else where in scripture, nor injoynes any of them to do the work of Bishop. As he injoynes one of them expresly to do the work of ane Evangelist. And since the Apostle, disertis verbis, in … these elders of Ephesus, Bishops, and (to use Saravia's phrase) compellat nomine Episcoporum, and that with the signal emphasis, of being made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, his reason from epi…hets and compellations, will the more strongely evinc them to be such. 2. This is a great degrading of ane Evangelist, and derogatorie to his high function, to make him a Bishop. The Councel of Chaldecon judges it sacrilegious to degrade a Bishop to a Presbyter, such must he acknowledge this degrading to be, and therefore that being once Evangelists, of necessity they behoved to continue so. Next, the Doubter objects, what we have been saying, that Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus the Charge, not to Timothy, which he would not have done, had he been Bishop, since it is probable he was present at this time, for v. 4. He was in Pauls companie. Here he gingerly nibbles at this Argument least it prick him, omitting these pregnant circumstances of the context. 1. That this was Pauls last and farewell exhortation. 2. That he not only gives these elders the Charge over that Church before Timothy, and not to him, but also the wholl Episcopal charge, foreign, to feed and rule as the Holy Ghosts Bishops set over the same, which comprehends both ordination and jurisdiction. But what sayes he to this Argument. 1: It may be he was not …et settled Bishop as Gerard thinks. But sure he had all the … as Bishop which the first Epistle afoords him, from which this man derives his Episcopacy, and power in ordination and jurisdiction: and if, for all these, …ur Informer will grant that he might have been not …s yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist. Then 1. he must p. 144acknowledge that all his pleading for his Episcopac in the nixt pages, from the power he is supposed … have in the first epistle, is but a beating of the aire an impertinent, since it might be Antecedaneous to h… Episcopacie: and by the Informers confession, he mig… have had yet no more Episcopal relation to the Church, then any who was never Bishop there. Henc… 2. Not being yet Bishop, but ane Evangelist still, (a… Gerard takes him) in a traveling posture up and down with the Apostle (as also Bishop Hall, Downam and Hooker acknowledge him) I wonder how this man wil sustean his denyal, that he was ane Evangelist in the proper and strict sense, such as his was. Sure, if this his supposition, or [may be] will hold good, timothies office, as suc… ane Evangelist, was to cease in the Church, as he expresseth it, and Pauls bidding him doe the work of ane Evangelist sufficiently Unbishops him at least pro tunc, which notwithstanding we heard him deny. 2. He tell us] that Irenaeus who lived not long after the Apostles thinks there were Asian Bishops mingled with the elders of Ephesus, and with Timothie their Bishop to whom in common Paul made that exhortation comprehending the [Bishops] under the name of [elders] as Apostles were sometymes called] Ans. We may be much in love with this scripture in the present debate, since it forces adversaries upon such simple incoherent shifts. First, it may be he was not yet made Bishop—then least that concession prove too gripping, there must be other Bishops of Asia, minglcd with these elders, and Timothie of necessitie must be now▪ Bishop, or hardly well after, and their own Bishop and the extraneous ones, must be all shuffled up unde the name of elders, and exhorted in common, a he shifts the argument from Philip. 1. But th… text it self sufficiently discovers the folly of this poo… shift. For 1. Paul called the elders from Ephesus, an… p. 145the elders of the Church there, not imaginary elders or Bishops from other places. 2. He sent for the elders of the Church, in the singular number, not of the Churches, and so all he sent for had a particular relation to that Church, for had there been elders of other Churches there, It would have been expressed elders of the Churches: If other elders or Bishops of Asia had been there, they would have receaved the Scripture denomination of provincial Churches, which are expressed in the plural. So we read of Churches of Asia, Revel. 1: II. Churches of Iudea Gal. 1: 22. Next, This answer still supposes [The existence of the diocesian Bishop over Presbyters at that time] which is a poor begging of the question. Wee prove from this and such like texts, that the Bishops of Asia, and Ephesus were meer Pastours, who had in Common the Epicopal charge over the Church, and that the Holy Ghost set up these, and none else. Infine, This is but a meer shift in the Iudgment of Chrysostom, Hierom, Theodoret, and the Current of Interpreters, who take these elders for meer Presbyters, and is contrare to the Syriack translation, which reads it, Presbyteros ecclesiae Ephesinae. So the Concilium Aquisgravense.

But now comes his proofe of Timothie, and Titus, their Episcopacie from these Epistles. His first Reason in general, is That in these Epistles more fully then any where else in the new Testament, Paul gives direction to Timothie and Titus how to carry in ordination and jurisdiction, which Two comprehends the Episcopall office. Ans. 1. With him there is a possibilitie, or may be, that forall these directions, Timothy and Titus were evangelists still, and not yet Bishops; and so these directions might be given to them as extraordinary officers, who, according to him, were to cease, and consequently though comprehensive of the Episcopal office, yet the office might cease with their persons as exercised in that manner, and the power of ordination p. 146and jurisdiction be deryved to different recipients, to be exercised in another maner, (viz) by presbyters in common. 2. By what consequence will he infer ane Episcopall authority and inspection, from the Apostles prescribing rules to them anent ordination and jurisdiction? May not all Ministers be herin directed, as well as Timothy and Titus? or will his giving directions to them in this poynt infer their sole and singular authority therein? Surely not at all in Churches constitute: and as for what they did in the frameing and constitution of Churches yet in fieri, as to their organick being, is not to the purpose. 3. We did shew above that the prelats power, and their way as to ordination and jurisdiction, is in its very nature, different from that which either Apostle or Evangilist exercised, as being a dominion and arbitrary power, yea including in it a civil dominion, and derived from the civil Magistrat. None of which can be said of any authority which Timothy and Titus are here supposed to have: In a word, as it is clear that the elders of Ephesus, at Paul's last farewell, were intrusted with the whole power of ordination, and jurisdiction, and as the Episcopi were commanded foreign, to feed and rule with out any respect to Timothy: which clearly demonstrats that he (and consequenly Titus) had no Episcopal power of ordination and jurisdiction, over these Churches, established in their persons, by any prescriptions here delivered; So it is as evident that the same prescriptions might be delivered to any Moderator of a Synod, or vntounto a transiently visiting Minister, though even in relation to a province, which being necessarly to be understod Salvo jure Ecclesiae, would import no Episcopall or sole authority, and thus the case is here.

But what were these directions importing this power? He instances 1. [In the qualifications which they must require in such as were to be ordained-not suddenly to lay on hands, which respects ordination, next, the rules anent government, how to rebuke p. 147offenders, not to receave ane accusation, but before two or three witnesses, how to deal with heretikes, &c. Ans. 1. These Apostolik directions in point of Government, are good & excellent, but how doth he prove that the adressing of these directions, to Timothie, will infer his Sole and single authority in all these, so as to seclude Presbyters from their share therein? And if he prove not this, it will say nothing to evince ane Episcopal authority. What if such directions were adressed to a Moderator? would that infer his Authoritie over the Synod? Nay, since a Presbytry laid on hand's upon Timothy himself, Since the Presbyters of this Church of Ephesus, had the Episcopal power in Common, committed to them as the Holy Ghosts Bishops, Since the Corinth-Presbytery did excommunicat the incestuous, we may clearly infer, that these directions, though immediatly addressed to Timothy, yet belonged to Presbyters of that and Other Churches, as well as him. 2. Supposing that this adress will give him a speciall Interest herein, yet how will the Informer prove that it respects Timothy any other way, and in any other Capacity, then of ane Euangelist, which he sayes it might be, he yet was, and not a Bishop? He dissallowes not of Gerards opinion, who sayes, that he was not yet made Bishop; Now, if these Rules were to be observed by him, and this his supposed singular Authority exercised [as ane Evangelist, whose office was to cease,] It will plead nothing for the Episcopal power. Surely upon our supposition, that he was a fellow-helper and assistant of Paul, in his Apostolik function, and had a transient occasional Imployment here, as is clearely held out in the Text, these rules are very suitable unto him in that capacity. Besids, these Directions are for instruction of every man of God, or Minister, in point of Church-Government 2. Tim. 3: 16. 1 Tim. 4. 6: But doth not give them Episopal power. Or will he say that every man p. 148hath the formal office, or place, in the nature whereof he is instructed? The dedication of a book to a man anent rules of kingly Government will not make the man, or suppose him, either King or Governour.

In the 3d. place. As to these Directions themselves, particularly as to Timothies direction, as to laying on of hands, 'tis Answered, that laying on of hands in ordination, is found in Scripture a Presbyterial Acte competent to meer Presbyters, which (as I said) they exercised upon Timothy himself, though Paul was present, 1 Tim 4: 14. 2 Tim. 1. 5. And therefor Timothy could have no single, or Episcopal authority therein in Churches Constitute So that the precept directs Presbyters as well as him in that point. Nay, this addressed direction mainly respected them, as the proper subject of this power, and the Presbytery received their lesson here (not to lay on hands suddenly) rather then Timothy. Nixt, As for his Authority and directions anent rebuking and Censures. I answ. That neither can this be Timothy's sole prerogative, for either it is meaned of a Privat rebuke, and this every Christian hath authority in: Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Levit. 19: 17. Prov. 9: 8. Or of a ministerial rebuke: and this is competent to every Minister of the word, Isa. 58: 1. 2 Tim. 41, 2. Ti…. 1: 13. 2; Sam. 12: 8. And besides, Institutions and reproofs of Church officers, will not prove a fixed Episcopal power. Prophets rebuked, but had no jurisdiction over Priests, nor Paul over Peter, though he reproved him. As for that which he particularly mentions about receiving ane accusation against ane Elder, It is answered. That this also belongs to the official juridical power of Elders, since Ruling & Government attribute to them in Scripture, doth necessarily import ane authority to receive accusations, and correct delinquents by reproofs and censures, Matth. 8: 16. 17. There is ane accusation to be delated p. 149ecclesiae, to the Church, or the juridical Court, not to one Prelat, as is above cleared; and therefore the direction anent the receiving of the accusation, respects them who were to judge upon it, and not the Prelat. Compare this with 1 Cor. 5: 4, 5. The Presbyters must meet together to rebuke the Incestuous there and they that are Spiritual must restore the delinquent, Gal. 6: 1. The Church officers, or Ministers of Thessalonica must note and admonish authoritatively the disobedient Brother, 2 Thess. 3: 14, 15. To which I may add, that as upon the one hand Timothy is forbidden to rebuke ane elder, and positively enjoyned [doubly to honour them, when faithful] So, the receiving ane accusation, is no more then that which every privat Christian and Minister is capable of, even against the superiour, whither in state, or age, in relation to admonition, Counsel or Comfort accordingly. Levit. 19: 17. Gal. 6: 1, 2 Joh. 10, 11. None in whatever capacity are exeemed from this precept, not to receive accusations lightly. Hence the 4th. Council of Carthage (cited by Blond. Apol. Sect. 4) enacted That no Bishop should hear ane accusation without the Clergie, and that without their assent, the sentence should be voyd. where was the negative voyce here. Whittaker, thus answers the Popish pleading upon this text, and our Informers too (controv. 4. Quest. 1. Cap. 2.) That Timothy is commanded not rashly to receive ane accusation, proves not that he had dominion over Elders, which according to the Apostles minde is to bring a crime to the Church, to bring the guilty into judgement, openly to reprove, which not only superiors may doe, but also equals and inferiors. In the Roman Republick, the Kings did not only judge the people, but also the Senators and patricii; and certainly it seems not that Timothy had such a … sistory and Court as was afterward appointed to Bishops in the Church, what this authority was may be p. 150understood by that which followes, [those that sin rebuke before all], which equals also may doe. Thus bishops heretofore, if any elder or Bishop had ane ill report, referred it to the eeclesiastick Senat or, Synod, and condemned him if he seemed worthy, by a publick judgement, that is, did either suspend, excommunicat, or remove him, the Bishop condemneing nocent elders or deacons, not by his authority alone, but with the judgment of the Church and clergie—& in case of appeals, even to the Metropolitan he could doe nothing without the Synod & what they did was ratified. The same is the answer of Bucer de vt & usu, Sacr. Minister: Willet. Sinops. Papis Contr. 5, Ques. 3▪ part 3, In the appeudix Eucer. de Gub. pag. 300. to 398.

The Informer tells us in the next place that these directions concern after, ages and are of ordinary use: and therefore they cannot be extraordinary officers in these Acts—that in calling Timothy and Titus, extraordinary officers in these Acts, we lead the way to their errour, who call ordination and jurisdiction, extraordinary. Answ. As we have proved, that none of these directions will infer in Timothy ane Episcopal Power properly such, but that any power he had above Presbyters; was by his special Evangelistick Legation, so the concernment of after ages in these directions, and their being of constant use, is a pitiful argument to prove the continuanc of the power in that manner. Are not all the old Testament precepts anent the antiquated ceremonies, all the acts & directions given to extraordinary officers, both under the Old and New Testament, of perpetual use in after ages? But are they therefore to be imitated and retained? What will he say to the Papists, pleading for the anoin… of the sick upon the Apostle James his precept [let the elders anoint the sicke with oile, and pary] this is ane Act enjoyned to ordinary officers, viz, to elders, p. 151and joyned with with prayer, a constant standing dutie: and he will not say that this Apostolick precept is to be ex punged as useles. What? must we therefore retean anointing? would he not in this case distinguish betwixt that which is a constant dutie, and a temporarie concomitant and appendix. Acted not the Apostles extraordinarely in their very preaching, both as to its extent, its confirmation by miracles, their gifts of tongues, and are not the Acts of preaching and baptizing of constant use in the Church? Must not this Informer grant that these Apostolick Acts of preaaching and baptizing are perpetual, though the mould and maner is extraordinary and gone, in so far as their extraordinary Apostolick power interposed therein. Thus the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction are moral, but the modusrei, is extraordinary, in so farr as their Evangelistik authority, and special legation, interposed therein. He must either acquiesc in this, and acknowledge this his argueing Sophistick and pueril, or he will contradict what he said before, anent the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges, which are gone with them, viz, infaillibilitie, their immediat call, sending to all nations, and what else was necessary for the first founding of the Church. Now, is not that which was thus necessary, of perpetual use? Are we not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets? Are not the ordinances and Ministery receaved from them, of perpetuall use? And their most extraordinary Acts, if we mean it of improvement. Nay, did not the new-Testament Church receave the Law of God, and ordinances from the Jewes? Must we therefore Judaize? 2. How will he prove that the asserting, that any officer hath ane extraordinary authority conversant about such ane Act, will give ground to say, that the Act it self, is extraordinary, or the ordinance touched by that Act, expyred? Will his asserting, that the Apostles exercised ane extraordinary authority which is now ceased, in their preaching unfixedly, by ane immediat call, and confirming their doctrine with miracles, and strange tongues, give ground to conclude that the ordinances of preaching and baptizing are expired also? I trow he will not grant this. How then will our asserting, that Timothy and Titus put forth ane extraordinary Evangelistick authority in ordination, and jurisdiction infer, that the Acts of ordination and jurisdiction, or these ordinances themselves, are expired? can he not distinguish betwixt the power it self, and the different subject, and manner of its exercise, ordinary or extraordinary? can he not see in Scripture ane extraordinary power derived, and cut out in a succession of different and ordinary channels, and diverslie exercised? Sayes he not that the Apostles had ane extraordinary power, of both ordination and jurisdiction, and both the keyes. But I trow he asserts that, there are different recipients, who bring down ane ordinary power by succession. Some (Prelats forsooth) have the key of Governmant, others (viz,) Presbyters, have preaching for their work, but no rule properly. And sayes he not that the extensive authority, in which the Apostles exercised their Ministry, is gone, and a limited ordinary Ministry derived from them. If the extraordinary Mission of twelve Apostles, hath derived from it a Ministery and ecclesiastick authority spread throw all Church-officers in the world, who succeed them not into the same office, let this Informer shew me, why may not Timothies Evangelistick extraordinary power in ordination and jurisdiction, be deryved by, and seatted, in a Presbytery, though the Evangelistick Office is extraordinary, and (as such) not succeeded unto. The service, and worke of teaching, and governing to continue in all times, doth not render the Apostolick mission or commission, ordinarie, nor infer their being succeded in idem officium, & eundem gradum, the p. 153ordinary power being institut and settled in the hands of ordinary officers, by a new warrand and commission, according to the Scripture rules of ordination. The office of Moses was not rendered ordinary, because many works of Government exercised by him, were recommitted to the Elders of Israel; and so the case is here. The Evangelists extraordinary office and commission (necessary, as that of the Apostles, for the first founding of the Churches, and watering and building them up in their organick being, & for settling all their ordinary officers) is changed into the Presbytery their ordinary Collegiat power of ordination & jurisdiction; which we find was in the Apostolick Churches exercised, and even in this of Ephesus.

His 2d Reason to prove them Bishops, is, Because their commission at Ephesus & Crete, was n…t voyded upon the first settling of Ministers in those places, therefore their office was to be constant, since if meerly as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there, then they were to give place to the Presbytery when some Ministers were ordained: but they did not so:—…itus needed not ordain Elders in every city, if some few ordained might ordain the rest. Ans. 1. This is a poor argument, and hath no twist of a connexion [their commission at these places was not voyded upon the first settleing of Ministers,] ergo, [they were not extraordinary officers, but had a standing Episcopacie there] which is a meer rope of sand. The Apostles office and commission was not voyded over all Churches when settled, Ergo, they had no extraordinary inspection, office, or commission, towards all these Churches. What consequence is here? So may it be said of these Vicarious Apostles, their commission to these or other Churches could not be voided or expired, though they were never so much settled, but they were prore nata to visite and water all the Churches, and bring Apostolick instructions to them, and reports from them anent p. 145their case. We have proved that Timothie and Titus exercised their extraordinary office, and commission, towards many other Churches, after their return from these of Ephesus, & Crete, so that their commission towards these or other Churches, could be no more voided whil the Apostles Imployed them therin, then their office. Besid, this Informer should advert, that Timothy is left To charge some that they teach no other doctrine which was a commission beyond the meer settling of Ministers, and supposing some already settled. 2. Will he say that Timothy and Titus were ordinary standing officers or Bishops, over these severall Churches, where they might reside some time, and have Imployment therin, even after they had officers of their own? did they not visite and water many other Churches, were they therefore their Bishops? if so he must quickly transport them to be Bishops of other Churches, after they were Bishops here: & exalt them to metropolitan's as some of the ancients make them. 3. Their Evangelistik inspection, direction, and assistence, even after some ordinary officers were settled, could no more prejudge the ordinary power and authority of these officers, then the Apostles extraordinary inspection, and infallible universal directive power, could prejudge the Churches ordinary authority, in ordination and jurisdiction. The Apostles power (which could not be voyded, nor expyre, whil they were alive) being Cumulative unto, but not privative of, the Churches ordinary power, so it is here. I would ask our Informer, was Pauls apostolick commission to Crete and Ephesus, voyded, after Bishops were set up there? Nay, he will not say it. But did this Null the Episcopall power of Timothy and Titus, over these Churches? I trow not. Well, no more could Timothys extraordinary inspection make voyd the ordinary power of presbyters. 4. We told him already that how long soever Timothy and Titus were resident there, they were to doe nothing pro imperio, p. 155and were not to lord it over the presbyters. 5. Although elders once ordained, have power to ordaine others, yet the bene esse, did call for the Inspection and direction of such highely gifted and extraordinary officers herein, as these were. And Moreover, in that Infant-state of the Church, Apostolick precepts and rules in reference to Church government, and the exercise of both the keyes, were to be delivered by these extraordinary officers, & consequently might call for, & protract their continuanc therein, even after ordinary officers were ordained. Infine. He cannot deny but that the Apostle recalled both Timothy and Titus from these places, to the further prosecution of their employment in other Churches, and that their transient imployment therein is held out, after their return from Ephesus and Cret; as likwayes their occasionall employment in both these places, which will in so farr voyd their commission in relation to them, as clearly to refu… the supposed episcopal ordinary charge which he alledges they exercised. Next, from the Authores of jus divinum Minist: evangel: [concluding against the peoples power of ordination, upon Timothy and Titus being left at these places to ordaine elders] The Informer inferrs against them thus, why was Timothy or Titus left to ordaine elders, after some were ordained by Paul, If Ministers so ordained could ordaine the rest? and after some were ardained by Timothy and Titus, they were left still upon that imployment. I answer, his inference touches not these Reverend authors in the least. The ordaineing of elders in relation to the beue esse, even after some elders were there, and the furder directing and compleating of these Churches in their members and officers, did require ane Evangelistick inspection, though the ordinarie power of ordaineing, remained with the ordinary elders and Church officers, as the scripture doth clearly hold out. Paul haveing after committed to the elders of this Church of Ephesus the whol power of p. 156government. But the scripture gives not the least hint of the peoples power to ordaine, but attributs this still to Church officers as proper to them. So that this Inference stands good in the generall [though some were converted to Christianity there, yet they could not ordaine officers, but Church officers were sent upon that Imployment] ergo. Church officers must ordaine, and not the people: but the speciall inference will not hold, ergo, Biohops must only ordaine for the reasons already given, no more then from Paules ordaining the first elders, it will follow [ergo Paul, or ane Apostle only, must ordaine] which is a Consequence our Informer dare not admitt, else he will contradict himself. It is a good consequence [Paul, a Church officer, preached and baptized] ergo [none but Church officers must preach and baptize] but [ergo, none but ane Apostle must preach and baptize] is bad logick. So his inference is neither logicall nor theological.

His 3d. Reason to prove Timothy a Bishop, is taken from Pauls solemne Charge 1. Tim. 6. 13. to keep. what he had commanded him, till the appearing of Iesus Christ. That presbyterians (particularly, jus divinum Minist. pag. 74.) hold these Directions to be for all ages of the Church, making them paralleel with Matth. 28. 20. anent Christs promised presence to the end and 1: Tim. 5. 7, 21. Anent Pauls Charge to observe these things. Whence he concludes that they were to have successors in their office, and were not extraordinary officers, since these divines say, page 160. [That Apostolick examples in things necessary for the good of the Church, and which cary a perpetuall equiry and reason in them, have the force of a rule] and the Apostles setting Timothy and Titus, over these Churches, is ane example Apostolick for the good of the Church, and hath a perpetuall reason and equitie in it. Ans. 1. Wee have made it appear that no directions given to Timothy will amount to demonstrat any episcopall dominion over this Church, and that he had no sole or arbitrary power p. 157either in ordination or jurisdiction, & consequently that the charge of [keeping that which was commanded him] will Import & inferr no keeping of ane Episcopall charge. 2. Wee have also shewed what a bad consequence it is, to argue from the perpetual use of precepts or directions, given to extraordinary officers, in relation to extraordinary acts, towards the Churches imitating of these acts, and retaineing these expired functions, which is palpably a nonsequitur, as this man can not deny, else he will swallow horrid absurdities. Every thing which is for our constant use and Improvement, is not likwayes for our Imitation. Againe, 3. I would ask this Informer, if the Command 1. Tim. 6. 13. joyned with the promise Matth. 28. 20. Will not reach and include every peece of the Apostolik and evangelistik office? Sure he cannot deny this, and yet he acknowledges there were severall peeces of their work temporary and expyred. Will he dare to say that what the apostle commanded Timothy in this Epistle, was confined within Ephesus, or reached him only as oversieing that Church, and not in relation to his Evangilistick office throw all the Churches? and that the promise Matth. 28. did not reach the most extraordinary Apostolick Acts; So that himself must distinguish (unless he be inconsistent with himself) betwixt what is moral, and extraordinary, in this command and charge, and accordingly reached by the promise. 4. His citation from the Ius divin. Minist: &c Cuts the throate of his cause: for argueing thus against privat persons intrudeing into the ministry [That the scripture layes down rules for calling men to that office] they instance in the qualifications of the person, Citeing 1. Tim. 3. 2, 3. anent the properties of the scripture Bishop or presbyter. Then they add [That the Scripture directs as to the maner of his calling, viz, who are to ordaine, how hee is to be ordained, citeing 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, that the presbytery is to ordaine, and ordaine by the laying p. 158on of hands—adding, that these directions are for all ages, and citeing. …1 Tim. 6: 13, 14.] Now, if these perpetuall directions for all ages, be touching no other Bishops but these in 1 Tim. 3: 1. And anent ordination by the hands of the Presbytery, surely those are Presbyterial not Episcopal directions, and doe palpably exclude Timothy…s standing Episcopacy; So that he did not well to raise this Ghost. Next, ane Apostolical example for the good of the Church, is not that which they hold to have the force of a rule, as the Informer belies them but ane example in things necessary for the good of the Church. And as this, so the next citation out of that book, burnes his fingers. For the authores having cited. 2. Tim. 2: 2, In order to their scope of pleading for ordination as a perpetuall standing ordinance, Timothy being in that place enjoyned to commit those things which he had heard from Paul, to faithfull men who shall be able to teach o…hers. They infer. 1. A necessity of setting apart some to be teachers in Christs Church. 2. The qualifications of such, viz, they must be faithfull men, and able to teach. 3. That Timothy is enjoyned to committ what he had heard to faithful men, which they understand of ordination of ministers, that there might be a perpetuall succession of teachers. And comparing it with the former citation, it appears that they hold these precepts to import the deryvation of the ordinary power of teaching and Government to ordinary Ministers. And when the Anti-Ministeriall party object [that these are but examples, which doe not amount to make up a rule] they give. this answer [that Apostolick examples in things necessary for the Church, and which have a perpetuall reason and equity in them, have the force of a rule] now, this example is anent the committing of ane ordinary power of ordination, and jurisdiction, to faithfull Ministers and teachers, which quit justles out the prelatical power. For since they hold Timothy's singular p. 159way in this, as ane Evangelist, was to cease (which they must needs doe upon the forementioned ground, the Presbyterial, and the singular power being inconsistent in the same subject) they must needs place this Evangelistick power among these examples which doe not obleidge, and it is ordination it self, and its continuance in this manner by ordinary teachers which they expresly plead for, as the Apostolick example, which hath a perpetual reason and equity, and the force of a rule; not Timothies singular power herin which they hold to be expired. So that the Informers assumption viz; That Timothies Evangelistick Inspection by the Apostles apointment over this Church, as also that of Titus, is such ane exemple, as hath a perpetuall reason and equity in it. He might have found to be rejected by these divines (had he read that peece attentivly) as no way following from (yea contrare unto) their assertion and it is still left at h…s door to prove and make good.

His Last Reason, to prove the Episcopacy of Timothy and T…us, is taken from Testimonies. That Polycrates and Eusebius affirme Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus.—That Leontius Bish: os Magnesià in the generall Council of Calcedem Act 11. points out a Series of Tuentie Seven Bishops in Ephesus, from Timothy &c: Ans: Since the scriptures doe clearly hold out his extraordinary Evangilist…k function, and there is nothing therein which can in the least infer his having ane ordinary episcopall power, The Informers pleading upon this head being found frivolous and leaning upon that known fallacy viz, to argue from [The singularity of ane extraordinary officer] to the [Singularity of ane ordinary perpetuall officer] in Church government which will as well set up (upon the ground of the Apostles universall inspection) patriarchs, or popes as prelats: Surely the improper styles and designations which the Ancients put upon Timothy or Titus, who spoke in the language of their owne times, is a very insignificant proof to Counter ballance p. 160Scripture light in this mater. Tertullians saying (cited by park, l 2. C, 7.) is here remarkable, Si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis &c: that is truest which is first that is first which is from the beginning, that is from the beginning which is from the Apostles. Their opinions who call them Bishops, are for most part borrowed from Eusebius, of whose hallucinations Scaliger gives large prooses, and yet all that he sayes is foreign It is reported; and this report he had from a fabulus Clemens. The ancients likewayes call the Apostles themselves Bishops, peter of Rome, James of Jerusalem. Yea Theodoret Calls Timothy and Titus Apostles of Asia and crete, which the Informer will not justifie. Yea some call them Motropolitanes, Arch Bishops, patriarchs, and this because (saith Walo Messalinus) they did these Acts which afterward by human Custome, were appropriat to Bishops, which (saith he) they did as Evangelists, as one of them is expressly called. As for jerom, it is certain that he both mantaines and proves the Bishop and elder to be one in Scripture, when disputing that point in his Commentar upon Titus: and therefore when at any time he gives these evangelists such appellations he doth it allusively, and improperly, according to the degenerat custome of his time. As for the Catalogues of Bishops, from Scriptur times, they are found to terminat upon Apostles or Evangelists, as that of Ierusalem, comes up to Iames the Apostle: that of Antioch, to peter: So that of Rome, to peter, and Paul: that of Alexandria, unto mark &c: Now, they were not ordinary officers, nor succeeded in eundum gradum. And besid, there are ecclesiastick customes traced up by some to the Apostolick tymes, which not with standing are acknowledged not to be of divine oppointment. Some first Bishops were but primi presbiteri (as we shall after shew) How lost they the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, which their first founders had, in so short a time? This sole power in ordination and jurisdiction p. 161(which our prelats now acclaime, and this man pleads for) will not be found till Three hundred years after Christ, if at all then. The gross mistak of many ancients in their constituting of Bishops, appears in this instance. That many fathers affirm peter to have been Bishop of Rome, and to have continued Bishop there for many years. Yet Marsilius patavinus pars: 2. c: 16. Carolus Molinaeus, Scen: Consult: franc: contr: abusus &c: Paparum) proves by scripture and reason that peter was never at Rome. In a word, the ancients call them …shops, as likwayes Apostles such, not properly (saith Bucer. de Gub: Eccles: p. 432. So fox, Act mon: p. 11465) but in a large or general appellation, because they first preached the gospel to these Churches—and to this end, To prove a perpetuall succession of sound preachers, and sound doctrine, in those particular Churches from the Apostles tyme to their own; nameing the eminentest Ministers for parts and gifts, the Bishops of these Churches: which Method & scope of Catalogues, appears by Irenaeus, Tertullian, cited by Mi…prin. (un Bish: of Tim: and Tit: p. 34.)

The Doubter objects against Timothies Episc. That he was ordained by the layingon of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim 4. 14. and therefore could not be a Bishop, Since a Presbytery which is a company of Ministers, cannot make a Bishop. To this the Informer returns, 1. That Calvin thinks that by presbytery is meaned the office. I answer, Suppose Calvin think so what will that say to the argument it self? Againe Calvine upon the place, doth not wholly dissoun the ordinary comment, which takes the presbytery for a company of elders, but thinks it may well sustean Presbiterium qui hio (saith he) Collectivum nomen esse putant, pro collegio presbiterorum positum, recte Sentiunt meo judicio. Such as esteem the presbitery here to be a collective word put for the assembly of elders, doe rightly judge in my judgement. Besids that the greek word foreign or Presbyterie, especially as it stands p. 162here constructed, cannot in any tollerable sense import the office, for the office hath no hands to lay on.

2 The Informer flies to his old shift of sh…uding the diocesian Bishops under the lapp of these presbyters, which he tells us we need not think strange of since he hath shewed that the [Apostles] are called elders or [presbyters.] Ans. Wee have already disproved what he alledges from the Apostles being called elders (in agenerall sense) here, as befor, he but begges the Question in supposing his imaginary different degrees of preaching presbyters or Pastours to be at this tyme existent, which (untill he make it appear from Scripture) is as easily denyed by us, as affirmed by him. What a pitiful cause must that be which needs the support of such vaine shifts? In phil: 1. and Act. 20. Bishops (diocesian Bishops) must be set up among the presbyters. So here they must be brought into this presbytery, whereas the very Question is anent the being and existence of any such Bishops at all at this tyme. Next, If hi-man were posed upon it, why he maks the presbyters here to be of his imagined hiest class of diocesian Bishops, and not also in all plac…s where they are mentioned, as Dr. Hamon doth: And how it comes that there were so many Bishops so early here befor Ephesus, Crete, and other Churches had even his inferiour elders or ordinary Ministers? He could give no answer but what would render him rediculous, in his running the Circlestick, and begging the Question. Besides Timothy was yet no Bishop, for he was advanced to this office when set over Ephesus in the Informers judgement: and he was now only (with him) a sort of unfixed preacher of the gospell, or ane Evangelist in his large sense. And Hooker sayes the Evangelists were presbyters of prime sufficiency assumed by the Apostles to attend them. This resolver will have him to be no other wayes ane Evangelist, p. 163then Philip, who, he supposes, was still a deacon when so termed. Thus it evidently appears that Timothy, according to him, and upon the sequel of that answer, receaved at the utmost but a meer presbyterat in his ordination; and then I wonder what needs a number of Bishops be mustered together for ordaining him? Might not Paul and the Inferiour presbyters ordaine such ane one? Thus we see he is still inconsistent what himself in all his shifts. But he hath a 3d. Answer taken from the laying on of pauls hands, mentioned 2. Tim. 1. 6 which (he sayes) gave the substance of the ordination, although the presbyters might share in the Ceremonial pare of is. Ans: 1. If it were denyed that the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 6 affirmes That Timothy was ordained by the laying one of his hands since hementiones onelyonly [the gift conferred by the laying on of his handes which] Paul might confer upon him antecedaniously to his ordination, since he laid on hands in order to gifts of the Spirit abstracting from ordination as other Apostles did Act. 8. 17. And also because the different maner of expression in 2. T…m. 1. 6. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. viz, foreign in the one place, and foreign in the other, diversifies the conferring of gifts, and the ordination, or at least wil plead that Pauls laying on of hands was in order to the Conferring of the gifts, and not necessarie for the ordination it self, which he receaved intirely by the laying on of the presbyteryes hands, even supposeing that they were both contemporarie; If I say, Some presbyterian Doubter should suggest these difficulties to our Informer, he would be puzled to come liquide off with this his answer. Surely [the Charisma] the gift, is a differing thing from the office. And the Apostles laying on of hands as ane Apostle, being in a speciall way in order to the end mentioned thouh contemporarie with the presbytryes action, yet mig…t be temporary and expired. 2. What Calls he the cemonial part (distinguished from that substantial pat p. 164of his ordination, which Paul gave) which he admitts the presbyters unto, if we will. Nay Sir, we will not; 'tis known your party are much in love with ceremonies, and we quite them unto you, where they want substance. Was it the Ceremonial part to lay on hands? Then I would propose to our Informer. 1. That since this was neither in order to the gifts, which Paul gave, nor any part of the sacred authority and mission as a Church officer, which Paul only gave according to him, what signified their laying on of handes at all? Was it only to signifie their consent? Where can he shew in all the scriptures, where laying on of hands is mentioned, that it Imports onelyonly consent, and not authoritie? this Ceremonie, borrowed from the old Testament, doth alwayes present a badge of ane Authoritative blessing, flowing from Prophets, Patriarchs and others, to which though there were many assenters, yet none of these assenters laid on hands. Next, since this Ceremonie was used by our Lord, towards his Apostles, and thereafter by them, and particularly in this work: & withall, since it must needs Import here a solemne blessing of, a setting apart unto God, and sending out into his vineyeard, the person thus ordained (not to debate whither this Ceremonie be of the essence of ordination, as some judge, yea or not) let our Informer shew me, why it may not, upon all these grounds be looked upon as a badge of Ministerial authority, and supposing this authority inherent in the presbyters. I would ask him, 3. Since Paul commended the whol official power of ordination & jurisdiction, to the presbyters, Act. 20. & Peter. 1. Epist. 5. Ch: Imputs ane foreign, or actuall exercise of Episcopall authority, to the elders, who were (as himself acknowledges) set over the flocks onelyonly, and so none of his imaginary Prelat elders? With what sense or reason, can he or anyelse say that they could not share in the substantials of ordination. many no doubt concurred p. 165with the publick blessing at Timothies ordination: for I suppose it was done in the view and presen ce of the assembly, But did any of them lay on hands? Besyds, we might here tell him that the word foreign, or presbytery, doth alwayes Import a juridicall authoritative Court, so the word is taken Luk. 22. 66. and Act. 22. 5. As likewayes the word [presbyter.] Imports ane officer cloathed with authority, so that this Court of elders, must needs have ane interest in much more then the rituales of ordination.

His Last Exception, is, That upon our supposition, That Timothy was ane extraordinary officer and Evangelist, he could not be ordained by ordinary inferiour officers or Ministers. Ans. 1. As some say of the Prince, that though Major Singulis, greater then every single person, yet he is, Minor universis, lesse then the whol body, so it may be said, that though Timothy, as ane Evangelist, were superiour to any meer elder; yet ane eldership, the juridical Court, the Church representative, might be above him; if at least such a superiority was here necessary; else let him say, whither the Prophets at Antioch, were in Capacity to Impose hands upon Paul, and Barnabas, and send them out upon a gospel legation. Himself is bound to answer this, whither these Inferiour officers, in that act, were greater then he, yea or not, and how these ordinary officers and teachers could authoritatively bless, and lay hands upon ane Apostle. And when he hath cleared this, he will easily exped our difficulty in this point. 2. Though it were granted, that a presbytery, consisting of meer ordinary officers, could not ordain ane Evangelist, yet I hope he will grant, that a presbytery, where such a one as paul was, might doe it, who as ane Apostle, might ordaine alone. If he say, what is then become of our presbyterial ordination, which we draw from this text? I answer, it is much confirmed, but not weakened by what is said, for if the Apostle p. 166Paul took along in this high Act [the ordination even of ane Evangelist] the authoritative concurrenc of a Presbytery, therefore much more doth this power of ordination belong to the Presbytery now, in relation to ordinary Church officers or fellow Presbyters, when the office of Apostles and Evangelists is ceased. 3. If the ground and topick of our Informer's argument [They who ordaine must be greater then he who is ordained] were denied, he would be more puzeled to make it good, then he Imagines. Because 1. The blessing in ordination being only ministerial and instrumental by way of service but not by ane original primative authority (as a learned man distinguishes here) God and Christ alone ordaining thus, whose servants and Ministers, both the ordained and ordainers are. Ephes. 4: 11, 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 9: 37, 38. 2 Cor 4: 5. 1 Cor. 3: 5. 21, 22. Act. 13: 1, 6. The ordination will no more infer a superiority over the ordained, then peoples blessing of God will make them greater then Hee, Jacobes blessing of Pharaoh, will make him greater then Pharaoh, the peoples blessing of Solomon, greater then Solomon. The Kings Acturney (saith he) who drawes the noble-man or officer of state, His patent and commission, is not greater then hee, But the King who is the original of temporall honour. So Ministers in this work doe only draw out the Kings patent and apply it, but Christ only is the original proper ordainer. As for that text, Hebr. 7: 7. He sayes i… is meaned of Christ himself who by Melchisedeck his type, blessed Abraham by his own inherent authority and power. 2. Admitting that the ordainers, behoved to be greater then the ordained before the ordination is execut, yet it will not necessarly follow, that they must be still greater after the ordination is past & finished, the very end of it being to conferr upon the ordained a like Ministery with that which themselves p. 167have. Hee instances Matthias and Paul, who were inferiour to the Apostles, before they were called and ordained: But being called, they became equal with other Apostles in Apostolick power, dignity, degree, &c. Wee might exemplitie this in other instances, (if intending to Press it) As the armie Creats the Emperor, which of the two is greater? Three Bishops creat a Metropolitan, the Council of Cardinals a pope &c. But enough is said to rectifie our Informer's thoughts of Timothy and Titus and so we proceed unto h…s next Argument.