Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Of Evangeliſts. Whether they were fixed? Neg. Acts 21.8. conſidered. Timothy and Titus unfixed. Hilarius his account of Evangeliſts. Euſebius's Teſtimony vindicated. Mark no fixed Evangeliſts Chryſoſtom's account of Evangeliſts, agreeing with Euſebius.
THis Species of Church Officers, ſaith he,P. 113. is ſpoken of but thrice in the Holy Scriptures, Acts 21.8. Eph. 4.11. 2 Tim. 4.5.
The Office and Work are ſpoken of in many Places, but the Name only in three Places. It is agreed by the Learned, that thoſe who are called the Apoſtles Fellow-workers, and were ſent by them as their Meſſengers to the Churches to ſupply their Abſence, were Evangeliſts: This is acknowledg'd by Mr. G. P. 118. where he ſpeaks of Itinerant Evangeliſts.
We agree with him,P. 113. That Evangeliſts were in Dignity and Power next to Prophets, and above all other Church Officers.
He proceeds to give us a Deſcription of an Evangeliſt, Ibid.It appears, ſaith he, from 2 Tim. 4.5. that an Evangeliſt was one entruſted by the Apoſtles with the Government of ſome Church. That Timothy was an Evangeliſt, and that Titus therefore was another Evangeliſt. For it has been demonſtrated already (Cap. 2.) that all the Supream Powers of Eccleſiaſtical Government were committed to them in their reſpective Churches.
The meaning of this Paragraph is, that Evangeliſts are Dioceſan Biſhops, for he makes Timothy the Evangeliſt, that is, the Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus the Evangeliſt or Biſhop of Crete. It is well he owns Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists, it is as much as we deſire. I, but Evangeliſts and Biſhops are the ſame. To which I Anſwer.
1. Few or none of his Judicious Brethren will ſubſcribe to this new Notion of Evangeliſts, by which he evidently gives up the whole Cauſe. When he happens now and then to Anſwer the Title of his Book (which is Tentamen Novum) by advancing ſome New Notion, he weakly betrays the Cauſe he pretends ſtrongly to defend.
2. He owns Evangeliſts to be a Species of Church Officers diſtinct from Paſtors and Teachers according to Eph. 4.11. and conſequently he denies the Dioceſan Biſhops to be the Paſtors of their reſpective Churches. I doubt he has forgot the Prayers of the Church, in which the Biſhops are call'd the Paſtors of the Flock*The Prayer in the Ember Weeks..
If he ſay they are both Pastors and Evangeliſts, he confounds thoſe Officers whom the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth.
The Preſbyters are the Paſtors of the Flock, that is the ordinary and ſettled Rulers of it. Acts 17.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. (Rev. 2.27.) Let them have this Power which the Holy Ghoſt hath given them, as the proper Biſhops of the Flock, and when he hath prov'd Evangeliſts to be Dioceſan Biſhops, we will readily receive them.
3. Dr. Hammond ſaith, that the Paſtors (not the Evangelists) in Eph. 4.11. were the Biſhops that govern'd particular Charges.
4. I have fully anſwer'd his Arguments by which he pretends to demonſtrate that Timothy and Titus were Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete.
He advances a new Order of Evangelists, P. 114. 115.who were the fixed Governours of ſome Cities and the Countries Adjacent: And cannot altogether allow their Notion, who ſay an Evangeliſt, was an unſetled Church-Officer that went from Place to Place to finiſh the Churches begun by the Apoſtles, and particularly to ordain Elders among them: And yet he grants that an Evangeliſt, as Ravanellus expreſſeth it, Ordain'd Elders Oppidatim, in every Town or Village.
1. He owns that Evangeliſts might Ordain in every Town, and why not in every City? Ravanellus explains his Oppidatim, by Tit. 1.5. foreign, in every City: But he wilfully overlooks that, for he knew that there were many Cities in Crete, and according to the Rule that every City muſt have a Biſhop, Titus muſt be Arch-biſhop of Crete: And the ſole Power of Ordination being in Titus, it would naturally follow, that none but Arch-biſhops can Ordain. Andrew Cretentis calls him Arch-biſhop, and ſaith, he had twelve Biſhops under him.
2. He cannot altogether allow Evangeliſts to be unſetled Officers, It ſeems he does in part allow it,P. 115. it's too bright a Truth to be deny'd, but he endeavours to obſcure it what he can, and wou'd fain perſwade his Reader, that Evangeliſts were fixed Officers: But let's hear his Proof.
Philip was a fixed Evangeliſt, becauſe Luke leaves him at Caeſarea, Acts 8.40. And we find him there almoſt twenty Years after, having a Houſe and a ſettled Family, Acts 21.8.
1. When he has prov'd, that Philip reſided at Caeſarea, as the ſettled Biſhop of that Church, and that he was no where elſe all thoſe Years he may talk of a fixed Evangelist.
2. May not an unſettled Officer have a ſettled Family? Which he may Viſit at Times? Paul continued two Years at Epheſus, Acts 19.10. a Year and a half at Corinth, Acts 18.11. two Years in his own hired Houſe at Rome, Acts 28.30. was he therefore a ſettled or fixed Apoſtle?
3. As much as we have of the Hiſtory of Philip beſpeaks him an unſettled Officer. We find him in Samaria, Acts 8.12. with the Ethiopian Eunuch, in the way from Jeruſalem unto Gaza, Acts 8.26. at Aſotus, and Preaching in all the Cities, till he came to Caeſarea, Acts 8.40. which perhaps might be his Birth-place, or he might Marry there, which is more likely, becauſe we read of Four Daughters he had, which did Prophecy, Acts 21.9. He was an Evangeliſt before he came to Caeſarea *J. Pearſ. Lect. in Act v. §. 1. & 5. p. 66. 68., for he Preached up and down by Vertue of an extraordinary Call, Acts 8.6, 7, 26, 39. and it is not to be imagin'd he laid aſide the Office of an Evangeliſt after his Marriage: And therefore Luke teſtifies concerning him, that although he was Married, and had a ſettled Family, he was an Evangelist, an unſettled extraordinary Officer ſtill, Acts 21.8, 9, 10. He could not produce any Ancient Author that makes him Biſhop of Caeſarea. Euſebius ſaith he dyed at Hierapolis †Euſeb. Hiſt. III. 25. Edit. Lovan. 1569..
His other Proof from Timothy and Titus being fixed or ſettled Evangeliſts, we conſidered before: And it is Petitio Principii.
I will add this.
1. All that he ſaith to prove them fixed Officers of Epheſus and Crete, depends upon his Suppoſition that the Epiſtles to them were Written after Pauls firſt Bonds at Rome, which I have diſprov'd with reſpect to the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, and it's confeſs'd by all that this Epiſtle to Timothy, and the Epiſtle to Titus were Written about the ſame Time. The Epiſtle to Titus was Written, when Paul was in Macedonia deſigning to Winter in Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12, He Promiſes to ſend Tychicus or Artemas unto Titus, the former of theſe two was with Paul in Macedonia, and afterwards accompanied him into Aſia, Acts 20.4. Therefore this Epiſtle was Written before Paul's firſt Impriſonment at Rome.
2. Timothy and Titus were no reſident Evangelists of Epheſus and Crete, for the Apoſtle calls them both away: He calls Titus to Nicopolis from Crete, Tit. 3.12. which is an evidence he was to make but a ſhort ſtay there, to ſet in Order the Things that were wanting, Tit. 1.5. Which when he had done, he muſt attend the Apoſtle, as he had done before: Accordingly he went to Paul to Nicopolis, and was his Companion and Meſſenger to ſeveral Churches, and at laſt is ſent by him to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.10. And we hear no more of him. It cannot be made to appear that ever he return'd more to Crete.
The Apoſtle calls Timothy away from Epheſus to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9. for the ſame Reaſon that he ſends for Mark, both being profitable to him for the Miniſtry, having none with him but Luke, v. 10, 11. accordingly Timothy came to him, and he promiſes to ſend him to Macedonia, and not to Epheſus, Phil. 2.19. But it ſhould ſeem he could not go as ſoon as he intended, being made a Priſoner at Rome: When he was ſet at Liberty he accompanied the Apoſtle to Judea, or deſign'd ſo to do, Heb. 13.23.
From all which it appears, that they were Evangeliſts in a proper Sence, that is, extraordinary and unſettled Church-Officers who aſſiſted the Apoſtles in their Miniſtry. and were their Meſſengers to the Churches to eſtabliſh, ſettle and build them up as they had Directions from the Apoſtles, having Power to ordain Elders, and to put forth other Acts of Government as occaſion was offer'd. All this is evident from the Powers committed to Timothy and Titus. which doubtleſs were the ſame in other Churches, as in Epheſus and Crete, for they were Evangeliſts as much in one Place as in another: And the Power of Evangeliſts was the ſame in all Places.
3. This agrees with the account that Hilarius gives of Evangeliſts, who are ſucceeded by the Deacons, as he thinks; as the Prophets are by the Presbyters, and the Apoſtles by the Biſhops.
Evangeliſts, ſaith he, did Evangelize or Preach the Goſpel, ſine Cathedrá, without a fixed reſidence.
J. O. quoted Euſebius in his Plea (P. 18.) to the ſame purpoſe, he ſaith of the Evangeliſts,Hil. in 4. Eph. That they Preached Chriſt to Infidels, ordain'd Paſtors, and paſſed into other Countries and Nations.
To this Mr. G. Anſwers, It was not the proper Work of Evangeliſts to go up and down Preaching the Goſpel.
Euſebius ſaith, They went far from their Houſes, did the Work of Evangeliſts, and diligently Preach'd Chriſt to ſuch as had not as yet heard the Word of Faith, and deliver'd to them the Scriptures of the Holy Goſpels, ordain'd other Paſtors, and went into other Countries and Nations.
I have proved out of Paul's Epiſtles, they were unſettled Officers, and therefore it was their proper Work to go up and down Preaching the Goſpel, and Euſebius affirms they did ſo.
But, ſaith he, Euſebius writes, L. 2. Cap. 24. That Mark the Evangeliſt being Dead, Annianus (ſo he writes it for Anianus) enter'd upon the Adminiſtration of the Church of Alexandria; hence he infers, That Mark was a reſident Evangeliſt, not roving up and down.
1. He may as well ſay, that Peter was a reſident Apoſtle, becauſe Euſebius ſaith, that Linus ſucceeded him in the Government of the Church of Rome *Eccl. Hiſt. III. 2.4..
2. Mark was no reſident Evangeliſt, he was a Companion of Peter and Paul, and travell'd with them up and down, and was ſent by them to ſeveral Churches, in Acts 12.25. we find him with Paul and Barnabas, at Perga in Pamphylia; he left them and went to Jeruſalem, Acts 13.13. he afterwards for ſome time accompany'd Barnabas to Cyprus and other Places, Acts 15.39. We find him after that with Timothy, or not far from him, and ſent for by Paul to aſſiſt him in the Miniſtry, 2 Tim. 4.11. when he was Priſoner at Rome. We find him there with Paul, Philem. 24. from whence he ſends him to Coloſs, Col. 4.10. When Peter wrote his firſt Epiſtle, Mark was with him at Babylon, 1 Pet. 5.13. and yet our Rector has the Confidence to call him a reſident Evangeliſt.
3. Euſebius calls him Peter's Companion†Lib. 2. Cap. 14.15., and adds, They ſay he firſt paſſed over into Egypt, and Preach'd there the Goſpel, which he had written, and planted the firſt Churches in Alexandria.
Perhaps he might End his Days here in ſetling this Church, as all the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles muſt end their Days in ſome place or other, and in the Service of ſome Church; but this could not make either Apoſtles or Evangeliſts reſident Officers.
J. O. had ſaid,P. 119. that Chryſoſtom agreed with Euſebius, that Evangeliſts were unfixed Church-Officers. The Rector here exclaims againſt J. O's inſincerity in putting the Affirmative for the Negative, that is foreign for foreign and leaving out foreign.
He further Notes out of Chryſoſtom, that Timothy and Titus were foreign, employ'd in one Place, that is, were reſident Evangelists, and he tells us he has employ'd his Friends to examine all the Editions of Chryſoſtom in both Ʋniverſities, and finds that nothing could lead J. O. into this Error but Deſign, and want of Sincerity. St. Chryſoſtom then must be acknowledg'd (ſaith he) on my ſide, and to have affirm'd the Evangelists were fixed and reſident Church-Rulers, and that Timothy and Titus were ſo.
1. Here is a very ſevere Charge for a Syllabical Mistake of the Tranſcriber of J. O's Copy, who put foreign for foreign which was overlook'd in the Errata. I doubt not but this Candid Gentleman has examin'd J. O's other Quotations, it's well he can find no more faults in a Book that contains ſome hundreds of Quotations.
2. J. O. did not leave foreign out to ſerve his Cauſe,Chryſost. in Epist. Edit. Donat. Veron. P. 163. as Mr. G. falſly affirms, but he tranſcribed the Paſſage as he ſound it in the Edition which he had by him, which has not foreign.
3. J. O's notion of Evangeliſts, that they were unſettled Church-Officers, needed neither Euſebius nor Chryſoſtom's Teſtimonies to confirm it, for the Hiſtory of the Apoſtles and Evangelists in the Acts and Epistles of Paul, make it evident that they were ſuch, and Mr. G. himſelf cannot deny but there were Itinerant Evangelists, as he calls them, P. 118. and he owns it to be the general Opinion, which he would rectifie by his Notion of fixed Evangelists. J. O's Notion of Evangelists being grounded on the Scriptures, and agreeable to the received Opinion of the Learned, he cou'd be under no Temptation to alter foreign into foreign in Chryſostom, Eſpecially:
4. Having Chryſostom of his ſide, without that Alteration, Thus he, foreign, &c. he gave, Thirdly Evangeliſts who did not go about every where, but Preached the Goſpel as Priſcilla and Aquilla. Paſtors and Teachers were thoſe to whoſe Care the the People were wholly committed. What then, were the Paſtors and Teachers Inferiour? Yes, they who were reſident and employ'd only in one Place, as Timothy and Titus, were altogether Inferiour to thoſe that went about and Evangeliz'd. He ſpeaks a little after of Evangelists who wrote the Goſpels. In this Paſſage Note.
Chryſoſtom does not deny, but Evangelists did go about, he only ſaith, they did not go about foreign every where, as the Apoſtles did; they moved in a narrower Orb than the Apoſtles whoſe, Meſſengers and Ministers they were, and by whoſe appointment their Motions were guided and limitted.
That this is Chryſostoms meaning appears, 1. From the Inſtance of Aquila and Priſcilla, which he gives, theſe are Evangeliſts with Chryſostom: Now theſe did remove from one Place to another, from Rome to Corinth, this remove was occaſion'd by an Edict of Claudius, Acts 18.1, 2. ſome time after they removed with Paul to Epheſus, ver. 18. doubtleſs by Pauls appointment, as other Evangeliſts did. Thus we ſee Chryſoſtom's Evangeliſts did go up and down but not foreign, every where at their own Pleaſure, as the Apoſtles did, who had no Superiours to direct their Motions, but the Evangeliſts removed under the Conduct of the Apoſtles. The Apoſtles were immedintely under the Conduct of the Spirit, and went about every where, whither the Spirit guided them: The Evangeliſts were under the Conduct of the Apoſtles, and went about alſo, but only to ſuch Places and Services as the Apoſtles directed them.
Priſcilla a Woman is an Evangeliſt in Chryſoſtom *See Acts 18.22., I hope Mr. G. will not make a ſettled Church Officer, that is, a Biſhop of her, for an Evangeliſt and a Biſhop is the ſame with him.
Chryſostom here ſeems to confeſs that Women went about to communicate the Doctrine of Chriſtianity to the Women, to whom the Men had not acceſs in the Eaſtern Countries. The ſame is affirm'd. by Clement of Alexandria, who thinks the Siſters mention'd in 1 Cor. 9.5. Miniſtred unto the Women who kept at home, by whom the Doctrine of our Lord might enter into the Apartments of the Women, without Reprehenſion or evil Suſpicion *Clem. Alex. Strom. III. vid. Conſtit. Apost. III. 15. Conc. Laod. Can. xi. Epiph. haer. 79..
2. Chryſostom doth not reckon Timothy and Titus among Evangelists, but among the Pastors or fixed Officers, whom he makes Inferiour to thoſe that went up and down and Evangeliz'd, i. e. The Evangeliſts.
— foreign. In Eph. 4. foreign. Edit. Donas. Veron.
He calls Timothy and Titus fixed Paſtors, according to the received Opinion of his Age: But he rightly diſtinguiſheth between Evangeliſts and Paſtors, and makes the foreign, or Evangeliſts to be the ſame with the foreign, or theſe that went about Preaching the Goſpel.
Thus after all the Noiſe and Clamour which Mr. G. hath made, its evident that Chryſostom agrees with Euſebius in his Notion of Evangeliſts.
Their calling Timothy and Titus Biſhops doth not affect us, who make the Holy Scriptures the Rule of our Faith, and not the Sentiments of any fallible Men. We have prov'd from Scripture, that they were Evangeliſts, and not Dioceſan Biſhops. Euſebius ſaith only,Hist. III. 4. it is reported that Timothy was the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus, and he ingeniouſly acknowledges, that they had no certainty, who ſucceeded the Apoſtles in the Government of the Churches planted by them, thoſe only excepted who are mentioned in Paul's Epiſtles. It is fit therefore we ſhou'd be determin'd in this Point by the Writings of the New Teſtament.
Its well obſerv'd by the Learned Biſhop of Worcester, that the firſt that call'd Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus was Leontius Biſhop of Magneſia in the Council of Chalcedon. This was four hundred Years after, in which time Records being loſt, and Biſhops being after ſetled there, no doubt they would begin the Succeſſion with Timothy, becauſe of his Imployment there once for ſetling the Churches thereabout. He adds, that this was not the Act of the Council, but of a ſingle Perſon, delivering his Private Opinion in it, and that by the by too, and he was contradicted in the Face of the Council, for ſaying, that the Biſhops of Epheſus had all of them been ordain'd upon the Place.
See more in that Learned Author, who judiciouſly Confutes their Opinion, who make Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus. Dr. Stillingfleet Iren. p. 302, 303. The Fathers call the Apoſtles Biſhops, which all grant they were not in a proper Sence. Epiphanius ſaith, that Peter and Paul were both of them Apoſtles and Biſhops at Rome. Epiph. haereſ. xxvii. The Fathers therefore, when they call Apoſtles or Apoſtolical Men Biſhops, ſpeak in the Language of their time, and are not to be taken in a ſtrict Sence.
Having gone through his Book, and diſcovered the fallacies ot his Reaſonings, it were needleſs to take Notice of his laſt Chapter, which he calls an Anſwer to J. O's. Plea, in which there is ſcarce any thing, which has not been conſider'd already. Yet for the ſake of the more Ignorant Reader, I will make ſome ſhort replies to his Anſwers.