The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, Part 2 (1 of 3)

The Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus · Part 2 (1 of 3)

p. 35Whether Timothy were ever a Diocaeſan Biſhop, or firſt, or ſole Biſhop of Epheſus?

QVESTION. I.

IF the multitude, or common received opinion might take place, or our Prelates be the Iudges of this Controverſy, they would preſently conclude affirmatively without diſpute; that Timothy was a Diocaeſan Biſhop; yea, the firſt and ſole Biſhop of the Epheſians. But if the Scripture, or verity may be umpire, it will evidently appeare, firſt, that Timothy was no Biſhop (I meane no ſuch Biſhop as Iure divino or humano, is different from an ordinary Presbyter in dignity and degree) much leſſe Biſhop, or firſt or ſole Biſhop of Epheſus, as is generally conceived; which I ſhall clearly evidence by theſe enſuing Scriptures and reaſons.

That Timothy was no Biſhop in this ſence, is apparant.

1. Firſt, becauſe S. Paul and Luke, who were beſt acquainted That Timothy was no Biſhop.with him, and make frequent mention of him, never ſtile him a Biſhop, neither is hee termed a Biſhop in any text of Scripture. S. Paul in his Epiſtles to him, cals him, his owne p. 36Sonne in the faith: 1. Tim. 1. 2. A good MINISTER (not a Biſhop) of Jeſus▪ Christ▪ 1. Tim. 4. 6. His dearly beloved Sonne. 2. Tim. 1. 2. A good Soldier of Jeſus Christ. 2. Tim. 2▪ 3. A … in that needed not to be aſhamed▪ rightly dividing the word of God, 2. Tim. 2. 11▪ In his other Epiſtles, hee tearmes him▪ … 1. Theſ. 3. 2. … Rom. 16. 21. His Brother and beloved Sonne. 1. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Cor. 1. 19. Col. 1. 1. A workeman of the Lord, 1. Cor. 16, 10. A ſervant of Jeſus Christ, Phil. 1, 1. but never a Biſhop. S. Luke termes him Paules Companion, Miniſter, attendant, and fellow-worker onelyonly, Acts 16, 1, 2, 3, c. 17, 14, 15, c. 18, 5, c. 19, 22, c. 20, 4. never ſo much as intimating him to be a Biſhop. The Scripture therefore never phraſing him a Biſhop, nor giving him that Title, among all his other Epithites; is an infallible argument, that he was in truth no Biſhop, but rather an Euangeliſt, as hee is expreſly ſtiled, 2. Tim. 4, 5. Doe the worke of an Euangeliſt.

2. Secondly, Becauſe he was S. Paules Aſſociate, Copartner, Brother and fellow-helper in his Apoſtolicall function, whence he often ſtiles him, his Brother, his fellow-worker; and conjoynes him with him in the Prologue▪ the inſcription of most of his Epiſtles, which are written in both their names, witnes▪ 2. Cor. 1, 1, c. 4, 17. 2. Cor. 1, 1, 19. Col. 1, 1, 1. Theſ. 1, 1, c. 3, 2. 2. Theſ. 1, 1. Phil. 1, 1, c. 2, 19. Rom. 16, 21. Heb. 13, 23. Timothy therefore being a Copartner with S. Paul in his Apoſtle-ſhip, or Apoſtolicall function, ſuperior in degree to the Epiſcopall office, (as is apparant by Epheſ. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 12. 18. and the generall conſent of all men,) it is not probable that hee would deveſt himſelfe of his Apoſtolicall Iuriſdiction, to become an inferior Biſhop, or relinquiſh a Superior to take up an inferior degree. Who ever ſaw of late any Archbiſhop or Biſhop to deny himſelfe of his Archiepiſcopall or Epiſcopall preeminency, to be made a poore Country Vicar or Curate? And can we then conjecture, that Timothy would relinquiſh his p. 37Apoſtleſhip for an Epheſian Biſhop-pricke; or elſe, hold it by way of Commendam with his Apoſtleſhip? (Commendams being not of ſuch antiquity, and a meere late Popiſh innovation) or deſcend from an aaSee Gerſonius Bucerus De Gubernatione Eccleſiae: p. 512. 513. usque 518.Evangeliſt-ſhip to a Biſhop-ricke?

3. Thirdly, becauſe Timothy was ever either accompanying S. Paul in his Travels or bonds, as his fellow-helper, miniſter, and aſſiſtant; or elſe, ſent by him from one Church to another, as his Meſſenger, Delegate, or College, to eſtabliſh comfort, and inſtruct them; being never long reſident in any one fixed place, or Church, as all Biſhops were. bbSee Cent. Magd l. 2. c. 10. Col. 625. 626.We read Acts 16, 1, uſque 12. That Timothy came firſt of all to Paul when hee was at Derbe and Liſtra; Paul then taking him to goe forth with him; and that they went both together through the Churches of Phrygia, Galatia, Aſia, Myſia, and at laſt came to Philippy where hee abode with Paul; and from thence wrote the firſt Epiſtle of Paul to the Corinthians, as the **If Postſcripts be of Credit as the Biſhops make them.Postſcript manifeſts. In which Epiſtle hee writes thus unto them: 1, Cor. 16, 10. Now if Timotheus come, ſee that hee may be with you without feare; for he worketh the worke of the Lord as I alſo doe. And c. 4, 17. For this cauſe have I ſent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved Sonne and faithfull in the Lord, who ſhall bring you into remembrance of my wayes which be in Chriſt, as I teach everywhere in every Church. By which it is apparant, that Timothy was ſent by Paul from Philippi to Corinth (after this Epiſtle) to inſtruct them; Where he continuing a while, repaired againe to Paul to Philippi; and there joynes with Paul in the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, written in both their names; 2. Cor. 1. 1. informing them in the 19. verſe: That the Sonne of God Jeſus Chriſt, who was preached among them by us, even by me, Sylvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. By which it is evident, that Timothy had before this ſecond Epiſtle written, preached Ieſus Chriſt among the Corinthians by Pauls appointment. After which, Paul remooving from Philippy, Timothy accompanied him to Theſſalonica and B…a, where hee abode, till Paul came to p. 38Athens; from whence hee ſent a commaund to Timothy to Berea, to come to him with all speed to Athens, where hee ſtayed for him: Acts. 17, 13, 14, 15, 16. Which he did accordingly: joyning with Paul in the firſt and ſecond Epistle to the Theſſalonians, written from Athens, in both their names. 1. Theſſ. 1. 1. 2. Theſ. 1. 1. yea whiles Paul ſtayed at Athens, hee ſent Timothy from thence to the Theſſalonians, to eſtabliſh and comfort them concerning their faith; that they ſhould not be mooved by their afflictions, where he continuing for a space, came from them againe to Paul to Athens, bringing him good tidings of their faith and charity: 1. Theſ. 3, 1. to 7. After this, hee remooveth with Paul to Corinth, from thence being ſent into Macedonia hee came againe to Paul unto Corinth. Acts. 18, 5, from whence Paul writing his Epiſtle to the Romans, remembers the ſalutation of Timotheus his Worke-fellow to the Romans, among others: Rom. 16, 11. After this Paul remooving to † If Timotheus were then Biſhop of Epheſus, why did Paul thus ſend him from his Cure, and Biſhops See?Epheſus, ſent Timotheus & Eraſtus (two of them who there miniſtred unto him) into Macedonia; himſelfe ſtaying in Aſia for a ſeaſon▪ Acts. 19, 20. From whence Paul afterwards paſſed into Macedonia & Grece, & then returning into Aſia, Timotheus & others accompanied him; and going before taried for him at Troas, Acts 20, 4, 5. Whether Paul ſent for the Elders and Biſhops of the Church of Epheſus, giving them a ſtrict and ſevere charge, to take heed to themſelves, and to all the flocke over which the holy Ghost had made them Biſhops, to feed the Church of God which he had purchaſed with his owne blood: v. 17. 28. &c. A taſke fitter for Timothy to enjoyne them, had he beene their Diocaeſan, then Paul; and a charge more meet for Timothy to receive, then they; had he then beene Biſhop of the See of Epheſus: who being ſo neare Epheſus, ſhould have accompanied theſe Elders of his Church to Epheſus, when Paul diſmiſſed them, rather then have left his flocke at randome after ſo ſtrict a charge to feed them. But yet though the Elders went backe to their Cures from Miletus, Timothy did not ſo, for from thence hee accompanied Paul to Jeruſalem, Acts. 21, 15, 16, 17. and from thence to Rome. For the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians written from Rome, is p. 39penned in both their names, Col. 1, 1. and the Epistle to the Hebrewees, as the Poſtſcript teſtifieth▪ was written to the Hebrewes from Italy, by Timothy; where Timothy was for a while impriſoned, and then ſet at liberty, Heb. 13. 23. After which Paul writes his Epiſtle to the Philipptans from Rome, where hee was in bondes; at which time Timothy was preſent with him joyning in this Epiſtle: Philip. 1. 1. informing the Philippians, that hee trusted to ſend Timotheus ſhortly unto them, that hee alſo might be of good comfort, when he ſhould know their eſtate, Philip▪ 2, 19. whether Timothy being ſent by him, as is moſt probable, Paul wrote his ſecond Epiſtle to him, at his ſecond appearing before Nero, charging him to doe his diligence to come ſhortly to him before winter, 2. Tim. 4, 9, 21. he being then not at Epheſus, but at Troas or Philippi; as is apparant by 2. Tim. 4, 12, 13. and Philip. 2, 19. Timothy therefore thus ever accompanying Paul in his Travels and Bondes, and traveling from one Church to another by his appointment and miſſion, never keeping any fixed reſidence in any one place, much leſſe at Epheſus, could not be Biſhop or Presbyter of any particular Church; the Apoſtles inſtituting no non-reſident Biſhops or Elders, but ſuch onelyonly as were to reſide with thoſe flockes, over which the Holy Ghoſt had made them Biſhops, or Overſeers, to watch over and feed them with the bread of life, and to goe in and out before them both in life and doctrine. 14. Acts. 23, c. 20, 28, 29, c. 21, 17, 18. 1. Pet. 5, 1, 2, 3. Col. 4, 17. Rom. 12, 6, 7, 8. 1, Tim. 5, 17. 2, Tim. 4. 3. Tit. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. Iohn. 10, 3, 4, 5, 14, 16, 27, 28. Ezeck. 34, 2. to 25. Ier. 23, 3, 4. c. 3, 15. Iſay. 56, 10, 11, c. 40, 11. Zech. 11, 17.

4. Fourthly, Becauſe Paul, who beſt knew Timothies condition, expreſly termes him, A Miniſter of God (not a Biſhop) 1. Theſ. 3, 2. informing him, that if he did put the Brethren in minde of theſe things he enjoynes him, he ſhould ſhew himſelfe a good Minister (not a Biſhop) of Ieſus Chriſt, 1, Tim. 4▪ 6. Therefore certainly he was no Biſhop, but a Miniſter, when this Epiſtle was written to him, unleſſe it be granted, that every p. 40Miniſter is a Biſhop, as S. Paul doth phraſe them. Acts. 20, 28. Tit. 1, 5, 7. Which the Oppoſites dare not grant, though an undoubted truth: Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 3, 1, 2, 3.

5. Becauſe when Paul wrote his firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, hee was then very young in yeares, 1. Tim. 4, 12. and but **See 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15.1 Tim 3:141 Tim 3:15newly entred into the Miniſtery: whence hee charged him, to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to meditate upon theſe things, and to give himſelfe wholy to them, that his profiting might appeare unto all men. 1. Tim. 4, 13, 15. Inſtructing him in that Epiſtle, how and what to preach, and how to demeane himſelfe in his Miniſtry, into which hee was then but freſhly entred, as moſt Expoſitors on this Epiſtle accord; and the 1. Tim. 1, 3. compared with Acts. 16, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10. c. 18, 19, 20, 21. c. 20. 1. to 13. clearly demonſtrate. Timothy therefore being but young in yeares, and newly entred into the Miniſtry, when this firſt Epiſtle was written to him, was queſtionles not inſtituted ſole Biſhop of Ephefus, by Paul; who in his very Epiſtle to him 1. Tim. 3, 6. among other qualifications of a Biſhop enumerates this, That he must not be a Novice (as Timothy then was) leaſt being lifted up with pride, he ſhould fall into the condemnation of the Devill: and ſo ſhould have contradicted his owne inſtructions to Timothy, that a Biſhop must be no Novice, in creating him a Biſhop; (which queſtionles he would not doe) being but then a Novice.

6. Becaufe Paul in the 1. Tim. 5, 1. chargeth Timothy, Not to rebuke an Elder, but to intreat him as a Father. If Timothy then were not to reproove them as a Father over them, but to intreat Elders, as his Fathers, he was certainly no Lord Biſhop or Superintendent over Elders, but they rather Superiours unto him, being to entreat them onelyonly as ſpirituall Fathers; whereas Lord Biſhops and their Chauncellours too, in our dayes, eſteeme the very beſt and graveſt Miniſters under them, not as Fathers, but as underlings, vicars, and Curates to them; not entreating p. 41them as Fathers, but rating, reviling, and domineering over them as if they were their Curs and vaſalls, and they their Lords and Maiſters.

7. Becauſe Timothy was to account thoſe Elders that ruled well, eſpecially thoſe who laboured in the word and Doctrine, worthy of double honor. 1, Tim. 5, 17. Hee therefore being to render double honor to thoſe Elders that ruled well and laboured in the word and doctrine; and not to receive double honor from them; could be no Biſhop, Father, or Lord paramount over them. Mal. 1, 6. Math. 15, 4. Rom. 13, 7. 1, Tim. 6, 1. Honor ever coming for the moſt part, from the inferior to the ſuperior.

8. Becauſe Paul exhorts Timothy, not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, 1, Tim. 4, 14. Now that gift which was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, was not his Epiſcopall function, (unleſſe the oppoſites grant, that he was conſecrated Biſhop of Epheſus by the Preſbyters of Epheſus:) but his Miniſteriall onelyonly: being therefore exhorted to exerciſe his Miniſteriall function onelyonly, and to ſhew himſelfe a good Minister of Ieſus Christ, 1, Tim. 4, 6, 14, not to exerciſe any Epiſcopall authority; he was queſtionleſſe then no Biſhop, but a Miniſter when this Epiſtle was compi…ed.

9. Becauſe though Timothy, in the Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle to him, be falſely ſtiled, the firſt Biſhop of the Epheſians, as I ſhall hereafter manifeſt, yet in the body and Poſtſcript of the firſt Epiſtle, hee is named Timothy onelyonly, without any mention of his Epheſian Biſhopricke; hee was therefore no Biſhop either of Epheſus or any other place, when Paul ſent his firſt Epiſtle to him; for otherwiſe hee would have beene ſtiled, the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus in the Poſtſcript of the firſt Epiſtle, as well as of the ſecond, as is probable.

p. 4210. It would not ſtand with the Pompe and State of Biſhop, (eſpecially in our dayes) to be commaunded and poſted up and downe, from place to place, in ſuch maner as Timothy was by Paul, 1, Cor. 4, 7. Acts. 17, 14, 15. 1, Theſſ. 1, 3, 1, to 7. Acts. 19, 22, Phil. 3, 19. 2, Tim. 4, 9, 21, muchleſſe, to Minister, to Paul, as Timothy did, Acts. 19, 22, but leaſt of all, to carry Paules Cloake, his Bookes, and Parchments after him, which Timothy is enjoyned to bring from Troas to Rome, 2, Tim. 4, 13. An office which our proud Prelates would ſcorne to execute, though Paul himſelfe ſhould commaund them, as being incompatible with their Epiſcopall dignity: Timothy therefore being ſo much at Pauls beck, as to be his Meſſenger, his Minister, his cloake carrier, and booke-bearer (even when ſome ſay hee was the great Monarchicall Prelate of all Epheſus and Aſia) was certainly no Biſhop, at leaſtwiſe no ſuch Lordly Biſhop as thoſe of this age are.

2. Secondly. As all theſe ſeverall reaſons evidence Timothy to That Timothy was not Biſhop of Epheſus.be no Biſhop, ſo in the next place, I ſhall manifeſt him to be no Biſhop at all of Epheſus, at leaſtwiſe not the firſt, or ſole Diocaeſan Biſhop of that Citty, and ſo by conſequence, no Biſhop at all, if not of Epheſus; ſince no other Biſhopricke is aſſigned to him. The infallible verity whereof I ſhall thus demonſtrate.

1. First, there is not one ſyllable in Scripture (wherein the Titles and actions of Timothy are frequently mentioned) which either directly, or by way of neceſſary conſequence, imply Timothy, to be either a Biſhop, or Biſhop of Epheſus; which Paul in his Epiſtles to Epheſus, and Timothy, and S. Luke in the Acts, would never have pretermitted, had Timothy beene a Biſhop of that famous Citty.

2. The Scripture makes no mention of Timothies being at Epheſus; or of his preaching there, ſave onelyonly that Paul beſought (not commanded or ordered) him to abide ſtill to Epheſus, p. 43whiles hee went into Macedonia, that he might charge ſome that they teach no other Doctrine; neither give heed to fables, and endleſſe genealogies, which Minister questions rather then edefying, 1, Tim. 1, 3, 4, and to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, till hee came thither himſelfe, which was but a ſhort time after, 1, Tim. 4, 13, 14, 15. Paul therefore not inſtituting Timothy any Diocaeſan Biſhop of Epheſus, but onelyonly beſeeching (which was voluntary not commanding) him, to abide there (**1. Tim. 3. 14. c. 4. 13. Gerſonius, Bucerus, De Gubernatione Eccleſiae. p. 502. uſque 507.1 Tim 3:14 till his owne returne from Macedonia,) both to inſtruct the people, and to further himſelfe in his owne Studies; not to reſide there during life; it is an unanſwerable argument, that he did not conſtitute him Biſhop of Epheſus, … ſome vainely hence inferre: See 1, Tim. 3, 14, 15.

3. When Timothy was thus deſired to abide at Epheſus by Paul, hee was ‡ but newly entred into the Ministery, as appeares † Vide Chytraeum On a mast. in Timotheum, & Gerſonium Bucerum: Diſſertat. De Guber. Eccleſiae. p. 506. 507.by the 1, Tim. 1, 3, c. 3, 15, compared with Acts. 16, 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, and by the 1, Tim. 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14. Now it is not probable, that Paul would conſtitute Timothy a Diocaeſan Biſhop of all Epheſus, yea the very firſt Biſhop of that famous See, being but a youth, ſo ſoone as hee had ordained him to be a Miniſter: and before hee knew how to behave himſelfe, in the houſe and Church of God, which then hee did not, 1, Tim. 3, 15.

4. Aſſoone as Paul returned againe from Macedonia to Epheſus, hee ſent Timothy into Achaja, himſelfe ſtaying at Epheſus in Aſia for a ſeaſon, Acts. 19, 22, to 40, and from thence returned into Macedonia; and through it into Aſia, accompanied with Timotheus, and others: Acts. 20, 1, to 7, after which wee never read that Timothy writ, came or returned to Epheſus. Now if Timothy had beene Biſhop of Epheſus, it is not probable that Paul upon his returne from Macedonia, would have ſent him from Epheſus into Macedonia, to Corinth, Philippi, & other Churches there, as he did Acts 19, 22, c. 20, 4, 5. 1 Cor. 14. 17, 2 Cor. p. 441, 19. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Theſ. 3, 1, 2 6, or that Timothy would have gone from his owne Epiſcopall See, into another Biſhops Dioces, and never returned to his owne Cure of Epheſus, (which for ought we read hee never did after his firſt departure thence) contrary to Pauls owne direction to the Biſhops of Epheſus, Acts. 20, 28.

5. Wee read, that Paul ſent Timothy into Macedonia, Acts. 19, 22. to preach the Ghoſpell to the Church of God there; that he ſent him to the Church of Corinth to bring them in remembrance of his wayes which were in Christ, as hee t…ught everywhere, in every Church, and to worke the worke of the Lord, 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10, and that hee accordingly preached Ieſus Christ the Sonne of God among them, 2, Cor. 1, 19. That hee likewiſe ſent him to the Church of Theſsalonica, to eſtabliſh and comfort… them, concerning their faith, 1, Theſſ. 3, 1, 2, 3, 4. and after that to Philippi from Rome, that hee might know the Sate of the Philippians, hee having no man like minded, who would ſo naturally care for their ſtate as Timothy. Phil. 2, 19, 20. But wee never read that Paul ſent him to Epheſus either to comfort, exhort, confirme, inſtruct them, or to know their State after his firſt departure thence; which he would queſtionleſſe have done, had hee beene their Biſhop, rather then thus have imployed him to other Churches. Timothy therefore was rather Biſhop of theſe Cities and Churches then of Epheſus.

6. As Timothy was ſent by Paul to the Churches of corinth, Philippi, and Theſſalonica, ſo hee joynes with Paul in his Epistles written to thoſe Churches, directed to them in both their names: witneſſe 2, Cor. 1, 1, Phil. 1, 1. 1, Theſ. 1, 1, 2, Theſ. 1, 1, in which Epiſtles Paul makes frequent of Timothy: witneſſe 1, Cor. 4, 17, c. 16, 10. Phil. 2, 19. 1, Theſ. 3, 2, 6. Moreover hee joynes with Paul in writings to the Coloſſians: Col. 1, 1, and Paul in his Epiſtle to the Romans, c. 16, 21, remembers his ſalutation by name to the Church and Saints of Rome, p. 45and in his Epiſtle to the Hebrewes written by Timothy as his Scribe, hee makes mention of his delivery out of priſon by name, Hebr. 13, 23. **Note well.But in the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, written from Rome, long after Timothy was ſuppoſed to be made Biſhop of Epheſus; Timothy neither joynes with Paul in the inditement or ſalutation, neither doth Paul ſo much as once name or mention him throughout that Epiſtle, as he doth in all the other Epiſtles to the Churches whether hee ſent him, and in every of his Epiſtles elſe to any Church, except in his Epiſtle to the Galathians. Timothy therefore doubtleſſe was not Biſhop of Epheſus at this ſeaſon; elſe he would have vouchſafed to have joyned with Paul in his Epiſtle to the Epheſians, as well as in his Epiſtles to other Churches; or Paul being his ſpeciall Friend and applauder, would have made ſome honorable mention and commendation of him to the Church of Epheſus, (his owne peculiar Dioces as ſome affirme,) as he doth in his Epiſtles to moſt other Churches, where he was never Biſhop. An unanſwerable argument in my opinion, that Timothy was never Biſhop of Epheſus, ſince there is no newes at all either from, or of, or to, or concerning him in Pauls Epiſtle to the Epheſians, of which hee is ſurmiſed, to be the firſt, ſole and genuine Biſhop.

7. If Timothy were Biſhop of Epheſus when Paul writ his firſt Epiſtle to him why then did Paul himſelfe excommunicate Hymenus and Philetus, and deliver them unto Satan, and not write to Timothy to excommunicate theſe Heretickes, and play the Bishop in his owne Dioces, …, Tim. 1, 20. yea why did Paul himſelfe, no Timothy, lay hands upon the Diſciples, there ordained after ſuch time as he was Biſhop there, Acts. 19, 1, 6, 7? Was it becauſe Timothy was a negligent, or impotent Biſhop, unwilling or unable to excommunicate Heretickes, or ordaine Miniſters? or in truth, becauſe he was no Biſhop then and there? Not the firſt of theſe, ſince p. 46Timothy was neither negligent, nor impotent in his function: therefore the latter, he being then, no Biſhop, nor yet exerciſing his Epiſcopall Juriſdiction there.

8. Had Timothy beene Biſhop of Epheſus, when Paul wrot his firſt Epiſtle to him, no doubt Paul when hee ſent for the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, to Miletus to take his finall fare well of them, and made a ſolemne ſpeech unto them, charging them, To take heed unto themſelves and to the flock over the, which the Holy Ghoſt had made them Biſhops, to feed the Church of God, which he had purchaſed with his owne blood, and Acts. 20, 17, to 38, would have made ſome ſpeciall mention of Timothy, and directed his ſpeech more particularly to him by name; as being the Prime Biſhop of that Church, to whom this charge did principally appertaine. But Paul in that ſpeech of his, makes no particular mention at all of Timothy, neither directed hee any part of his ſpeech to him, he being none of the Elders of Epheſus ſent for to Miletus, or any of that number whom the Holy-Ghost had made Biſhops of that flock and Church: hee coming along with Paul out of Macedonia into Aſia to Troas and Miletus, Acts. 20, 3, 4, 5, &c. and ſo none of the number of Elders ſent for and called from Epheſus to Miletus, to whom this ſpeech of Paul was applyed. Therefore queſtionles hee was not then Biſhop, muchleſſe ſole Biſhop of Epheſus, as ſome groundleſly affirme, againſt this unanſwerable text.

9. Paul himſelfe, as hee ſent Timothy to Philippi, Troas, and other Churches, to inſtruct, confirme, comfort, and inquire of their eſtates; ſo hee expreſly writes to Timothy, 2, Tim. 4, 12, that he had ſent Tychicus unto Epheſus, for the ſelfeſame purpoſe. Which Tychicus as hee did write the p. 47Epiſtle of Paul to the Epheſians from Rome, ſo Paul in that very Epiſtle of his to the Epheſians, c. 6, v. 21, 22, acquaintes them; That Tychicus a beloved brother and faithfull Minister in the Lord, ſhould make knowne to them all things: whom (ſaith he) I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, that ye might know our affaires, and that he might comfort your hearts. So that if there were any particular Dioceſan Biſhop of Epheſus inſtituted by Paul, this Tychicus (whom Dorotheus makes one of the 70. Diſciples and Biſhop of Chalcedon in Bithinia) was more like to be the man, then Timothy, as theſe two Scriptures evidence.

10. Paul himſelfe makes mention of Elders in the Church of Epheſus RVLINGWELL, and laboring in the word and doctrine, and ſo worthy of double Honor, 1, Tim. 5, 17. Which Elders hee expreſly ſtiles, Biſhops of Epheſus, Acts. 20, 27, 28. Theſe therefore being instituted Biſhops of Epheſus even by the Holy Ghoſt himſelfe, and ruling, feeding, and taking the care, the overſight of that Church by his appointment, queſtionleſſe Timothy at the ſelfeſame ſeaſon would not be Biſhop there.

3. Thirdly, As Timothy was neither a Biſhop, nor Biſhop That Timothy was neither the ſole, nor the first-Biſhop of Epheſus.of Epheſus; ſo muchleſſe was hee the firſt, or ſole Biſhop there, as the Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle to him in ſome late Coppies, tearmes him. Not the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus: For, as that Church was firſt planted by S. Paul, who continued therefore a ſeaſon: Acts. 18, 19, 20, c. 19, 1, to 41, c. 20, 17, to 38. 1, Cor. 15, 32, c. 16, 8. 2, Tim. 1, 18, and after that for two yeares and three moneths ſpace together, diſputing dayly in the Schoole of one Tyrannus, ſo that all they who where in Aſia heard the Goſpell, Acts. 19, 8, 9, 10, p. 48during which time of Paules reſidence there (in all 3. Yeares, Acts. 20, 31,) there needed no Biſhop to governe and ſway the Church, neither is it probable that any Dioceſan Biſhop was there conſtituted: So the two firſt that Paul left behinde him at Epheſus at his firſt comming thither, to inſtruct that Church were Priſcilla and Aquila, Acts. 18, 18, 19, during whoſe abode there, while Paul went from thence to Antioch, and over all the Countrie of Galatia and Phrygia, in order ſtrengthning all the Diſciples; a certaine Iew, named Apollos, borne at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures came to Epheſus; Who being instructed in the way of the Lord, and ſervent in the ſpirit, ſpake and taught diligently the things of the Lord; and began to ſpeake boldly in the Lord: whom when Aquila and Priſcilla had heard, they tooke him unto them, and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly: Acts. 18, 22, to 27. So that Aquila whom Paul left firſt at Epheſus before Timothy, and Apollos who thus preached there, may with greater reaſon be ſtiled, the firſt Biſhops of Epheſus, then Timothy; whom Paul intreated to ſtay there onelyonly at his laſt going into Macedonia: Acts. 20, 1 as ††Bucerus De Gubernat. …ccleſ p. 506 uſque 510. Cent. Magdeb. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Col. 626.most accord. Beſides, we read, that Paul at his ſecond comming to Epheſus, before Timothy was conſtituted Biſhop thereof, finding certaine Diſciples there, al out 12. in number, who were onelyonly baptiſed into the baptiſme of Iohn, and had not received the Holy Ghoſt ſince they beleived, baptized them in the name of the Lord Ieſus, and when hee had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghoſt came on them, and they ſpake with tongues, and prophecied: Acts. 19, 1. to 18. Which 12. abiding at Epheſus, as is moſt probable, by Acts. 20, 17, 28, 29, to rule and inſtruct the Lords flocke in that Citty; may more p. 49properly be termed, the firſt Biſhops of the Epheſians, then Timothy, who as hee was not the firſt, ſo muchleſſe was hee the ſole Biſhop of that See; as is infallibly evident by Acts. 20. 4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 28, 29. Where wee read, that Paul returning through Macedonia in to Aſia, to goe to Ieruſalem, to the Feaſt of Pentecoſt, there accompanied him, Gajus ef Derbe, and Timotheus; with others: (where Timothy reckoned to be of Derbe, not Epheſus) All theſe going before to Troas accompanied Paul to Miletus; who from thence ſent to Epheſus, and called to him the Elders of that Church to Miletus. And when they were come thither, hee ſaid unto them. Yee know from the firſt day that I came into Aſia, after what maner I have beene with you at all ſeaſons &c. Take heed therefore unto yourſelves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made YOV BISHOPS (ſo the Greeke, yea the Latine and ancient Engliſh Tranſlations truly render it) to feed the Church of Christ, which hee hath purchaſed with his owne blood. &c. from whence it is apparant.

Firſt, That the Church of Epheſus at that time, had not one but many Biſhops, and that by the very inſtitution of the Holy Ghost: Therefore Timothy could not be ſole Biſhop there, by Pauls inſtitution, in oppoſition to the holy Ghoſt.

Secondly, That theſe Biſhops knew from the firſt day that Paul came into Aſia, after what maner he had been with them at all ſeaſons: and therefore, in all likelyhood, were appointed Biſhops of Epheſus at the very firſt planting of that Church, before Timothy was ſetled Biſhop: ſo that he was not the firſt Biſhop there; but theſe rather, before, or as ſoone as he.

Thirdly, That Timothy was then neither Elder, nor Biſhop of that Church at this time when Paul tooke his farewell of it; hee comming with Paul out of Macedonia to Miletus, and being none of the Elders and Biſhops ſent for, from Epheſus, to p. 50whom alone Paul directed his speech: who had hee then beene ſole or prime Biſhop of that See, Paul would not have ſtiled the Elders which he ſent for, Biſhops of that flocke, at leaſtwiſe hee would have made ſome ſpeciall mention of Timothy in this ſpeech of his, and given him ſome ſpeciall inſtructions for the inſtructing and governing of that Church: Or at leaſt have honored Timothy ſo farre, as to have made him give this Epiſcopall charge. and inſtruction to the Elders and Biſhops of his owne proper Church and Dioces, or to have enjoyned them in ſpeciall maner to reverence, honor and yeild him all Canonicall obedience as their ſupreame Diocaeſan. All which Paul utterly neglects, or forgets to doe; or particularly to charge Timothy to take heed to or feed this flocke, hee being ofta Nonreſident from it, as I have prooved. Yea, making ſuch hast to be at Hieruſalem by the feast of Pentecost, v. 16. that hee could not ſpare time to goe to Epheſus, hee needed not to hauehave ſent for the Elders of Epheſus to Miletus to give them theſe inſtructions, ſince Timothy their Biſhop was then preſent with him, to whom hee might and would no doubt have imparted them, without further trouble, hath hee then in truth beene Biſhop of that Church. But this ſending for theſe Elders in his haſt, and ſtiling them Biſhops of that flocke, &c. without any mention at all of Timothy, who was none of the Elders ſent for to Epheſus, is an infallible evidence, that hee was neither Biſhop, nor firſt or ſole Biſhop of that Citty. Adde wee to this, that when Paul exhorted Timothy to abide at Epheſus, there were then in that Citty Elders, who did both rule well, and labor in the word and doctrine, and ſo were worthy double honor, …, Tim. 5, 1, 17, 19. Now theſe very Elders, as Paul himſelfe affirmes, were made BISHOPS of the Church of Epheſus by the Holy Ghoſt, Acts. 20, 17, 28. Therefore Timothy could not be the first, the ſole Biſhop of the Epheſians as the falſe Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle to him, ſtiles him. Moreover; it was the Apoſtles maner in thoſe times to place ‡‡See Gerſonius Bucerus, De Guber. Eccleſ. p. 302, 303, 304.many Biſhops and Elders in every Church, not to conſtitute one Monarchicall Biſhop over many: witneſſe Acts. 11, p. 5130▪ c. 14, 23, c. 15, 2, 4, 6, 22, 13, c. 16, 4, c. 20, 17, 28. c. 21, 18, c. 22, 5. Phil. 1, 1. 1, Tim. 5, 17. 1, Pet. 5, 1, 2, 3, Tit. 1, 5, 7, Iam. 5, 14. Hebr, 13, 17. Acts. 13, 1, 2. 1. Cor. 14, 29, 30, 31, 32. 1. Theſ. 5, 12, 15, Rom. 16, 3, 9, 12. Col. 1, 7, c. 4, 9, 12, 17. which teſtify, that there were many Biſhops and Elders both at Ieruſalem, Corinth, Philippi, Rome, Theſſalonica, Coloſſe, Epheſus, yea in all other Churches, in Crete and elſewhere, at one time, by which the Church of God was taught and joyntly governed, as by a common Councell of Biſhops and Elders, as ggContra haereſ. l. 4. c. 43 44. and l. 3. c. 2.Iraeneus, hhEpist. 5. 6. 7. 8.Ignatius, iiCom. in Phil. l. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7.Titus 1:5Titus 1:7Ambroſe, kkIn Epheſ. 4.Eph 4Hierome, and llSedulius in Tit. 1. 5.Titus 1:5other ancients teſtifie. Hence mmContra Haereſes l. 1. Haereſ. 27. col. 88. 89. Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 3. c. 31.Epiphanius & Euſebius teſtify, that Paul and Peter were joynt Biſhops of Rome at the ſame time; & nnApologia contra Gentes c. 39.Tertullian writing of the Church-governors in his age, ſaith; Praeſident nobis probati Seniores, &c. that approoved Elders (not one Diocaeſan Biſhop) were Preſidents over every ſeverall Christian Congregation; and in his booke de Corona Militis, hee affirmes the ſame▪ Since therefore the Apoſtles themſelves ordained many Elders and Biſhops in every Citty and in Epheſus too, it is neither poſſible, nor probable, that Timothy alone ſhould be conſtituted ſole Biſhop of Epheſus. Finally it is recorded by ‡‡Adverſ. Haer. l. 3. c. 3Iraeneus, ppEccl. Hiſt. l. 3, c. 23,Euſebius, qqEccl. Hiſt. l. 2. 42. 44. 46.Nicephorus rrIn Lipom. De vitis Sanct. l. 1. de Iohanne.Metraphraſtes, ssCatal. Script. Eccl. Iohannes.Hierome, ttOnomaſt. in Ioan.Chytraeus, uuAnnal. Tom. 1.Baronius, **Auguſt. Epiſt. 86.and many others quoted to my hand by Gerſonius Bucerus: Diſſertatio De Gubernatione Eccleſiae p. 520. to 526. That S. Iohn the beloved Apostle after the Councell held at Hieruſalem Acts. 15. reſorted to Epheſus reſiding, governing, and inſtructing that Church which Paul had planted, after Pauls departure thence, with the Churches in Aſia thereunto adjoyning, even till Trajanes dayes; and that though he were baniſhed thence by Domitian for a ſeaſon, yet after his exile hee returned thither againe, writing an Epiſtle to that Church during the time of his baniſhment, Revel. 2. 1. which hee names before all the other Churches of Aſia. If S. Iohn then kept his reſidence at Epheſus, and ruled that Church by his Apoſtolicall power, even till Trajanes dayes; how could Timothy be ſole Biſhop and Superintendent there? there being no need of a Biſhop, where an Apoſtle was preſent and reſident to governe, p. 52by whoſe divine ſuperior authority and preſence all Epiſcopall Iurisdiction was ſuſpended. To cloſe up this particular point; **Chronol. Iſag.Bucolcerus, xxDe Timatheo.Faſciculus Temporum, the yyCent. 1. l 2. c. 10. col. 626.Centuary writers, and zzNiceph l. 3. c. 71. Vincentius Spec. Hiſt. l. 38. c. 10.ſome others record that Timothy ſurvived S. Iohn, living till about the yeare of Chriſt 108. and was then martyred in the third perſecution under Trajan, or under Nero, or Domitian. If this were true, and that Timothy continued Biſhop of Epheſus till his death, as the Patriotes of our Prelates affirme, then by their owne doctrine, it will neceſſarily follow, that Timothy was the Angel of the Church of Epheſus (which they interpret to be the Biſhop of that Sea) to whom S. Iohn writes. Rev. 2. 1. 5. charging him that hee had left his firſt love; and therefore admoniſhed him, to remember whence hee was fallen, to repent, and doe the firſt workes &c. But it is not credible, nor probable, that Timothy a man ſo pious, ſo laborious, ſo vigilant, and ſo much applauded by Paulin moſt of his Epiſtles, ſhould be this backſliding Angell of the Church of Epheſus, (which the contents of our authorized Bibles, to omit all bbBeda in Apoc. 1. and 2. Aretas in Apocal. 2. & 3. Ambroſ. Auſbert in Apoc. l. 2. & Primaſius in Apoc. 2. Brightman. Gerſonius Bucerus De Guber. Eccl. p. 205. 393 408. 419. 422. 433. uſque 466. 472. 484. 485,Rev 1Rev 2other Commentators,) of the laſt tranſlation, affirme, to bee the Ministers (not the Biſhop) of that Church, as ſome Apoſtatizing Prelates gloſſe it,) therefore from thence, and all other the premiſes, I may now ſafely conclude, that Timothy was not a Biſhop, nor yet the firſt, ſole, Dioceſan Biſhop of Epheſus, as our Prelates groundleſly affirme; whoſe allegations to the contrary I ſhall next propoſe and refell, that ſo the truth may be more perſpicuous.

Object. …. The firſt allegation to proove Timothy a Biſhop, when Paul writ the firſt Epiſtle to him, is the Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle, which runns thus; the ſecond Epiſtle unto Timothius, ordained the first Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the ſecond time. Hence ccPreface to the Treatiſe of the Sabbath. Biſhop Downham in his conſecration ſermon.Biſhop White and others, conclude Timothy to be a Biſhop.

p. 53Anſwer. To which I anſwer; First, that this Poſtſcript is no Scripture, (& all others as in ‡‡Comment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499.Gal 6M. Perkins workes is prooved at large) no part of the Epiſtle, no Appendix of S. Paules, but a private obſervation, annexed to it, by ſome Scribe or other after the Epiſtle written without any divine inſpiration; as the words themſelves demonſtrate; The SECOND Epiſtle unto Timotheus ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the ſecond time. Where obſerve; Firſt, that this Poſtſcript is written not in the name of Paul, but of ſome third perſon as the whole frame of it Demonſtrates.

Secondly, that this Poſtſcript is no direction given by Paul to Timothy as the words (the ſecond Epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians, was written &c.) evidence, but a direction of ſome Notary or **Perchance Theodoret. the firſt in whom I finde any Poſtſcripts. 430. yeares after Christ.Commentator to the Reader, who here ſpeakes both of Paul and Timothy in the third perſon.

Thirdly, The words WAS WRITTEN &c. in the preter imperfect tenſe, ſhewes this poſtſcript to be a meere addition of ſome Scribe or Expoſiter, ſome good ſpace after the Epiſtle written; not of Paul himſelfe, at the time when he writt it; all the Poſtſcripts of his other Epiſtles, appearing manifeſtly not to bee his, by the ſame reaſon.

Fourthly, It is here called, the ſecond Epiſtle unto Timotheus, in relation to the firſt; and the firſt Epiſtle to him, written many yeares before it, is likewiſe ſtiled, in the Poſtſript of it, The firſt to Timothy with reference to the ſecond. As therefore the Poſtſcript of the firſt Epiſtle was certainly added by ſome Notary after the ſecond Epiſtle written, ſince it is called the firſt in relation to it: ſo no doubt the Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle was annexed to it after the firſt Epiſtle, and it was tranſcribed and bound up together, by the ſame party that added the Poſtſcript p. 54to the firſt; the Poſtſcript ſtiling them thus the 1. and 2. in regard of their mutuall relation one to the other; after they were both conjoyned, and the New Teſtament and Paules Epiſtles, digeſted into that order and method, wherein now they are placed, both in manuſcripts and printed Coppies.

Fifthly, It is very unlikely, that Paul would make ſuch a Poſtſcript as this. For as theſe words (was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the 2. time) ſound not of Paules language but ſome others; ſo the ſecond Epiſtle unto Timotheus ordained the first Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians, ſavour not of his inditing; who never in any of his Epiſtles to him or others ſtiles him a Biſhop, much leſſe ordained the first Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians, neither would he have made ſuch a deſcription of Timothy as this, to Timothy himſelfe.

Sixtly, None of the other Apostles have any Poſtſcripts added to any of their Epiſtles; it is likely therefore that Paul guided by the ſame Spirit, added none to all, or any of his, but that they **See Master Perkins comment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499. when this is largely prooved.Gal 6were added by ſome other, who either transſcribed and collected his Epiſtles together, or commented on them; as were the ſeverall Titles both before and over his ſeverall Epiſtles, and the contents before each Chapter, both in manuſcripts, and printed Copyes.

Seaventhly, It is apparant, that the Poſtſcripts of many, of Paules Epiſtles are forged and falſe, as **Comment. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 498. 499.Gal 6M. Perkins workes prooves them; and that the Poſtſcript of the firſt Epiſtle was written not onelyonly after the ſecond penned, but likewiſe three hundred yeares after Chriſt or more. For it runns thus. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the cheifeſt City of Phrygia Pacatiana. For Phrygia was not ſurnamed Pacatiana (as ††See Tripart. Hiſt. l. 11. c. 3. Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 7. the Title of the Chapter. Socrates. Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 7. c. 3. Nicephorus. Eccl. hiſt. l. 14. c. 11. (the firſt who ſtile it Pacatiana) and thoſe who have lately commē ted on, and written againſt this Poſtſcript. Surius Conc. Can. 1. p. 453. Tom. 2. 2. p. 11. 12. 221. 438. 461. 479. 480. 483. 488 413. 499. 503. 505. 520. 553. 580. 589. 599. 601. Carolin Sigonius de occidentali Imperio. l. 3. p. 90.divers affirme by any Historians and Geographers,) till at leaſt p. 55three hundred yeares after Chriſt; from one Pacatius, a Generall, as is conceived, who ſubdued it. Since therefore it was not ſo ſtiled till … h…undred yeares after Chriſt, this Poſtſcript muſt needs be added after that time; and ſo in all likelyhood the Poſtſcript of the ſecond Epiſtle too, being both made by the ſame author, at the ſame time; and the firſt, firſt both in time and order, as is moſt probable, neither would Paul doubtleſſe make ſuch a Poſtſcript to tell Timothy that Laodicea, was the cheifeſt Citty of Phrygia Pacatiana, it being ſo neere to Epheſus, and as well knowne to Timothy as to Paul. Who as **Maſter Perkins Commentar. on Gal. 6. p. 497. 499. 499.Gal 6the Rhemiſts and Baronius confeſse was never at Laodicea, which they proove by Gal. 2. 1. and ſo this Poſtſcript is but a meere falſe.

Eightly, This Poſtſcript is directly contrary to the very preface and body of the Epiſtle, written no doubt by Paul; which as it expreſly ſtyles Timothy an Euangeliſt, not a Biſhop; exhorting him to make full proofe of his Miniſtery; not of his Biſhopricke. c. 4. v, 5. So Paul therein, and in the firſt Epiſtle, ever termes him, his dearly beloved Sonne. 2. Tim. 1. 2. c. 2. 1. 1. Tim. 1. 2. 18. A man of God: 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 3. 17. not a Biſhop: and in the 2. Tim. 4. 12. but a little above the Poſtſcript, Paul writes expreſly to him, that hee had ſent Tychicus to Epheſus to know their affaires, comfort their hearts, and make knowne to them all things. Hee being a beloved brother and faithfull Miniſter in the Lord Epheſ. 6. 21. 22. and neither Timothy his Curate and underling, muchleſſe his Succeſſor at Epheſus, as is probable.

Ninthly, This Poſtſcript is directly contradictory to many fore-alleadged Scriptures, which proove Timothy to be no Biſhop, muchleſſe the firſt or ſole Biſhop of the Church of the Epheſians; therefore not to be beleeved. See Acts. 20. 28.

p. 56Tenthly, The Poſtſcript itſelfe, but eſpecially the clauſe of it, (ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Epheſians) whereon this objection is grounded, is but a late addition, not extant in any of the Fathers workes who have commented on this Epiſtle, (except Occumenius, who lived 1050. yeares after Chriſt; the firſt in whom this clauſe of the Poſtſcript is found) nor in the moſt ancient beſt, Greeke, Latine, Arabick, Engliſh, or other Copyes and Tranſlations, whither manuſcript, or printed; therefore to be rejected, as counterfeit coyne.

Eleventhly, ddEccleſ. Hiſt. l. 3. c. 4. as Meredith Hammer an Engliſh Biſhop, Engliſhed it, in his Engliſh tranſlation of Euſebius.Euſebius, writes, that Timothy WAS REPORTED TO BE (not that he verily was) the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus, therefore this Poſtſcript either was not in being in his age, or elſe it had no more credit then a bare report, not ſufficient to reſolve that Timothy was undoubtedly and of a truth Biſhop of Epheſus: The firſt who makes mention of any of theſe Poſtſcripts is Theodoret 430. yeares after Chriſt, who perchance then added them to Paules Epiſtles; but in his Poſtſcripts this clauſe (ordained the the firſt Biſhop of the Epheſians, With that of Titus, ordained the firſt Biſhop of the Church of the Cretians) cannot be found.

Secondly, admit this Poſtſcript true, and authenticall, that Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus when this ſecond Epiſtle was written, being but a ee2. Tim. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. with all Expoſitors on this Epiſtle and the Poſtſcript of it if of any force or truth2 Tim 4:62 Tim 4:72 Tim 4:82 Tim 4:9little before Paules death, yet this is no good proofe. that hee was Biſhop of Epheſus, when the firſt Epiſtle was penned, being ſome 10. or 12. yeares before, as moſt conjecture; for if it be a good argument; that Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus, when the ſecond Epiſtle was written to him, becauſe the Poſtſcript of it onelyonly ſtiles him ſo: it is as good or a better argument for me to ſay; that Timothy was no Biſhop of Epheſus, when the firſt Epiſtle was directd to him, p. 57becauſe neither the body nor Poſtſcript of that Epiſtle; nor any other Scripture whatſoever, ſtiles him, either a Biſhop, or Biſhop of Epheſus, though hee **1. Tim. 1. 3. 4.1 Tim 1:31 Tim 1:4was reſident at Epheſus, when the first Epiſtle was written to him; ‡‡2. Tim. 4. 12. Epheſ. 6. 21. 22.2 Tim 4:12Eph 6:21Eph 6:22but not when the ſecond was ſent him; and ſo ſhould much more have beene ſtiled a Biſhop, in the firſt Epiſtle and Poſtſcript, then in the ſecond. Now all the Prelates and Papiſts arguments, by which they would proove Timothy a Biſhop, are drawen from his firſt Epiſtle, not his ſecond, the Poſtſcript therefore of his ſecond Epiſtle is no argument to proove, that he was a Biſhop when the firſt Epiſtle was written: for why then ſhould not the Poſtſcript of the firſt Epiſtle ſtile him a Biſhop as wel as the ſecond? yea, rather then the ſecond? ſince the firſt hath much matter in it, both concerning the offices and qualities of a Biſhop, the ſecond very little, or nothing, ſave onelyonly of ff2. Tim. 4. 1. 2.2 Tim 4:12 Tim 4:2diligent and conſtant preaching in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon; which belongs indifferently to all Biſhops and Miniſters, and is ſo farre from being proper and peculiar to Biſhops in theſe dayes, that it is hardly common to or with any of them; Rare to moſt of them, and altogether improper to ſome of them, who ggFox Acts & Monuments pag. 1153. Nicolaus De Clemangijs de corrupto Eccl. Statu c. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Biſhop Latymers Sermon of the plough.like the dunsticall Biſhop of Dunkleden, thinke it no part of their Epiſcopall office, and that they were never ſo much as ordained to preach, but rather to ſit mute and domineere like Lords, and that preaching belongs onelyonly to Curats, and inferior Miniſters, not to Lordly Prelates, who ſeldome climbe now into a Pulpit above once a yeare, whereas Chryſoſtome, Auguſtine, Ambroſe, Cyrill, Hooper and other Biſhops anciently preached once at leaſt every day.

Obj. 2. The ſecond allegation is this; that Paul deſcribes to See the Rhemiſts in their Preface to this Epiſile.Timothy the office, qualities, carriage, and duties of a Biſhop, inſtructing him how to demeane himſelfe in that office, 1. Tim. 3, 4. and 5. Therefore hee was a Biſſhop.

Anſw. 1. To this I anſwer: firſt, that Paul by a Biſhop in this Epistle meanes no Diocaeſan Biſhop in dignity and p. 58degree above a Preshyter, but onelyonly ſuch a Biſhop as was equall, the ſame, and no wayes different from an Elder; as all the hhHierom, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtome, Sedulius, Primaſius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Remigius, Rabanus, Maurus, Anſelmus, Occumenius, Alenfis, Lombard, Bruno with all late Expoſitors on 1. Tim. 3. Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 7. Acts. 20. 17. 28. and Maſter Cartwright, in his Anſwer to the Rhemiſts Preface.1 Tim 3Phil 1:1Titus 1:5Titus 1:7Acts 20:17Acts 20:28Fathers and moſt moderne Expoſitors on this and other texts accord. Such a Biſhop I acknowledge Timothy to be, and ſo this inſtruction to him implyes; but that hee was a Diocaeſan Biſhop, ſuperior in dignity to a Presbyter, this text and argument cannot evince.

Secondly, Admit it meant of a Diocaeſan Biſhop, yet it followes not thence, that Timothy was ſuch a one: this Epiſtle being written rather to inſtruct others then Timothy, who was ſo well tutered before, both by his grand mother, Lois and Paul, 1. Tim. 6. 12. 20. c. 4. 6. 14. 16. 2. Tim. 1. 5. 6. 13. 14. c. 2. 2. c. 3. 10. 14. 15. rather, for a patterne of the qualification and duety of Miniſters; to direct the Church in all future ages, then to informe Timothy at that time: whence in both theſe Epiſtles there are ſome predictions of the Apoſtacy and degeneracy of the laſt times; more neceſſary for iiNon ſolum Timotheum ſed & omnem per hoc admonet Epiſcopum: Oecumenius in 1. Tim. 5. 1.1 Tim 5:1others then Timothy to know, 1. Tim. 5. 24. 25. c. 6. 15. c. 4. 1. to 7. 2. Tim. 3. 1. to 10.

Thirdly, there is in the ſame chapter inſtructions given, concerning Deacons, Widdowes, and others; yet Timothy was neither Deacon nor Widdow; which being neceſſary for the Church of God, and for Timothy alſo to know, as hee was an Euangeliſt, a fellow-helper and aſſiſtant of Paul in his Miniſteriall and Apoſtolicall function, and as his delegate to order and regulate the Church accordingly, argue him to be no more a Biſhop, as is ſurmiſed; then that every Minister and Chriſtian for kk2. Tim. 3. 16. 1. Tim. 6. 1. to 21.2 Tim 3:161 Tim 6:1–21whoſe inſtruction and direction this Epiſtle was written as well as for Timothies are Biſhops; or then any Archbiſhops, or Biſhops inſtructions to their Archdeacons, Vicars Generalls, Chauncellers or Officials for Eccleſiaſticall affaires, or Viſitations, argue them to be Archbiſhops or Biſhops.

p. 59Fourthly, We read of divers bookes, concerning the office and regiment of Kings, of Magiſtrates, and Captaines dedicated to young Princes, and others who were neither Kings, Magiſtrates, nor Captaines; of diverſe tractates concerning Biſhops, inſcribed to ſuch who were no Biſhops; yet the dedicating of ſuch Treatiſes to them, did neither conſtitute or neceſſarily imply them to be Kings, Magiſtrates, Captaines, Biſhops. Why then ſhould this Epiſtle to Timothy, wherein are ſome things concerning the office, qualities, and duties of a Biſhop, proove him convincingly to be ſuch a one.

Obj. 3. The third evidence to proove Timothy a Biſhop, is taken from the 1. Tim. 5. 22. Where hee is enjoyned, to lay hands ſuddenly on no man; that is, to ordaine no man ſuddenly, a Miniſter. Therefore certainly, hee was a Biſhop, becauſe none but Biſhops have power to ordaine Miniſters.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer firſt, that the laying on of hands hath divers ſignifications in Scripture. Sometimes, it is taken for an apprehenſion of another, as a Mal factor to puniſh, or bring him to judgement for his offences, Exod. 24. 11. Eſther 8. 7. Gen. 37. 22. Exod. 6. 13. Nehem. 13. 1. Luke. 21. 22. in which ſence it may be well taken here, as the proceeding verſes evidence. Sometimes it is uſed for reconciliation of perſons at variance, Iob. 9. 33. Sometimes for benediction or bleſſing of another, Matth. 9. 15. Sometimes for curing and healing, Mark. 5. 23. Math. 19. 18. Mark. 6. 5. Luke. 4. 40. Sometimes for confirmation, as many affirme, Acts, 8. 17. 18. 19. Sometimes for ordination, as Acts. 6, 6 cap. 8, 17. 11. cap. 13. 3. 1. Timoth. 4. 14. 2. Timoth. 1. 6. Acts. 19. 6. In which of theſe ſences it is here meant is ‡‡Div… Baſilius it a interpretatus eſt, quaſi nihil hujus capitis ad ordinationem pertineat. Occumenius, in 1. Tim. 5. 22.1 Tim 5:22not certainely reſolved, and ſo no inference can be infallibly raiſed thence.

p. 60Secondly, Admit it is meant of ordination▪ as moſt conceive it; yet that prooves not Timothy to be a Biſhop, ſince not onelyonly Apoſtles, Euangelists, and the Apoſtles fellow-helpers had power of ordination, as they were ſuch, Act. 1, 22, 25, 26. c. 6, 6, c. 8, 17, 18, c. 13, 1, 2, 3. c. 14▪ 23, c. 19, 6. Tit. 1, 5. 2, Tim. 1. 6. but even Preſbyters themſelves: Acts. 9, 17. c. 13, 1, 2, 3. c. 14, 23▪ 1. Tim. 4, 14. and Timothy might exerciſe this power in all or either of theſe reſpects, not as a Biſhop; which for ought appeares hee never was; neither read wee in Scripture that ordination belongs of right to Biſhops, as Biſhops; muchleſſe, that it is appropriated unto them.

Obj. 4. The fourth objection to proove Timothy a Biſhop▪ is this; that hee is commaunded to rebuke ſuch as ſinned openly before all men, that others might feare, 1, Tim. 5, 20. Therefore hee was a Biſhop.

Anſw. 1. I anſwere, that the argument is an inconſequent.

Firſt, Becauſe hee might doe this as an Euangeliſt, or as Paules aſſociate or ſubſtitute, by vertue of his Apoſtolicall authority, not of his owne Epiſcopall Iuriſdiction, as Biſhops Officials, Chauncellors and Vicars Generall, rebuke, correct and viſit others, not in their owne names, or by their owne authorities, but their Lords.

Secondly, Hee might doe this as a Miniſter, every Miniſter having power ſufficient in the publike Ministery of the word, openly to rebuke all ſinnes and ſinners, Iſay. 5, 8. 1, 2. Tim. 4, 2, 3. Tit. 1, 13, c. 2, 15. Marke. 6, 18, 19, 20. 2, Sam. 12, 7.

Thirdly, Hee might doe this as a private Chriſtian; every Chriſtian being enjoyned in any caſe to rebuke his neighbour, and not to ſuffer ſinne upon him: Levit. 19. 17. Prov. 9, 8. Eccleſ. 9, 5. and ſo is every Magiſtrate to doe, Nehem. 13. 11. to 31. p. 61Pſal. 141. 5. This therefore is no argument of any Epiſcopall Juriſdiction; the rather, becauſe this rebuke was to be publikely in the Church before all, not in a private Chamber or Conſiſtory Court, (as all Expoſitors accord) in which our Biſhops pronounce their Cenſures.

Obj. 5. The fift argument to proove Timothy a Biſhop, is the 1 Tim. 5, 19. Against an Elder receive not an accuſation, but before two or three witneſſes. Hee had power to receive an accuſation againſt Miniſters, that ſo hee might correct them; therefore hee was a Biſhop.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer firſt, that this is a meere Non ſequitur.

For 1. Hee might have this power, to receive ſuch accuſations as an Euangeliſt, and Paules Coadjutor.

Secondly, As Paules Delegate or Officiall; as our Biſhops Officialls, Vicars and Chauncellors now exerciſe Epiſcopall Iuriſdiction under them; as their ſubſtitutes onelyonly, not by any inherent Epiſcopall dignity or authority in themſelves.

Thirdly, Hee might doe it by the appointement and mutuall conſent of the people, who had power in all caſes of difference, to conſtitute any man a Iudge, though no Biſhop, 1. Cor. 6, 1, to 7.

Fourthly, Hee might doe it onelyonly as an Elder; Elders having power to rule well, 1. Tim. 5. 17. and ſo by conſequence, to receive accuſations, and to correct delinquents by reproofes or Eccleſiasticall Cenſures, with the conſequent of the Congregation, 1, Cor. 5, 4, 5. 11, 12, c. 6, 1, to 7. Gal. 6, 1. 2. Theſſal. 3. 14, 15.

Fifthly, I had almoſt added, that hee might have done it as an Eccleſiaſticall Commiſſioner, but that I conſidered▪ that hee p. 62was, not ſo much as to receive an accuſation, against an Elder but under two or three witneſſes at least, firſt examined; and our † Conference at Hampton Court. p. 89. 90. Me…ini Celſae Commiſſionis Anatomia. Fullers argument. 1607 The Petition of Greivances 7. Iacobi.Eccleſiasticall Commiſſioners and Biſhops are ſo farre from this divine Apoſtolicall precept, by which they would proove Timothy, and themſelves to be Biſhops Iure divino, that they will purſevante, ſilence, ſuspend, impriſon Miniſters and Elders and put them to ſelfe accuſing one ex officio▪ oathes and upon every jealoſie, ſuspition, and private accuſation of any drunkard, raſcall or without two or three witneſſes or accuſers, firſt examined against them, and brought face to face. A direct proofe, that neither they nor their proceedings are Iure divino.

Anſw. 2. Secondly, I anſwer, that by Elder in this text, (as m Chryſost. Theodoret. Theophilact. Oecumenius, and other on this text. The Brethren of London in King Henry the 8. his dayes in their Letter to Thomas Philips▪ Fox Acts and Monumens. p. 951.many conceive) is not meant a Presbyter, or Miniſter, but an ancient man, as it is taken in the firſt verſe of the chapter: ſo as it prooves not, that Timothy had any Eccleſiaſticall Juriſdiction over the Elders that were Miniſters of Epheſus, who ruled that Church, v. 17. and …w… Biſhops of it, Acts. 20▪ 28. Where Paul enjoynes them, to take heed to themſelves; as having no Superintendent paramount them; not giving Timothy any charge to take heed to them.

Thirdly, Admit theſe Elders were Miniſters, yet Timothy had no judiciary p…wer over them, to ſuſpend or correct them: ſince v. …. hee is expreſly enjoyned, not to rebuke an Elder, but intreat him as a Father: which is farre from giving him any ſuch Epiſcopall Iuriſdiction over them as our Biſhops now exerciſe and uſurpe; uſing godly Miniſters and ra…ing them, rather like dogs and ſcullions, then Elders.

Fourthly, The words are not; that hee ſhould not excommunicate, ſuſpend, convent or cenſure an Elder, but that hee ſhould not receive an accuſation against him, but before two or three witneſses. Now to condemne or cenſure, is one thing, to receive an accuſation, another. The firſt not but a Iudge p. 63or cheife officer can doe; the ſecond, every regiſter, clerke, informer, or under officer; Yea, every private Chriſtian is capable to receive an accuſation, and every ordinary Minister too, against another ſuperior to him in age, eſtate, or place, either privately to admoniſh him, that is accuſed, of his fault, or to reproove him for it; or to counſell him how to repent and redreſſe it; or to comfort him if hee be dejected with it, or to informe against him to the Magiſtrate, or whole Congregation, or to pray to God for his amendement. Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. Levit. 19. 7. Gal. 6. 1. 2. Theſſ. 3. 14. 15. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 24. Tit. 1. 10. to 14. 2. Iohan. 10. 11. Iud. 22. 23. which well expound this text.

Fifthly, The true meaninge of this text is this, that Timothy and other Chriſtians of what quality ſoever, eſpecially Miniſters, ſhould not lightly receive or beleeve any ill report, cheifly of an Elder or Miniſter, without ſufficient teſtimony of the truth thereof by two of three able witneſſes; as will plainely appeare by paralelling it with Pſal. 15. 3. Numb. 35. 30. Deut. 17. 6. c. 19. 15. Hebr. 10. 28. and with Math. 18. 15. 16. 17. where our Saviour ſaith thus: Moreover, if thy brother ſhall treſpas againſt thee, goe and tell him his fault betweene him and thee alone: if hee ſhall heare thee, thou haſt gained thy brother: But if hee will not heare thee, then take with thee two or three more, that in the mouth of two or three witneſſes, every word may be eſtabliſhed; and if hee ſhall neglect to heare them, tell it to the Church, and if hee neglect to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as an beathen man and publican. A perfect Commentary on this text of Paul, and a direct cenſure of our Biſhops ex officio, oathes, and proceedings by the parties owne ſelfe-accuſing oath, and anſwere without or before witneſſes produced.

p. 646. This text (admitt it gives power to Timothy to take accuſations againſt an Elder before two or three witneſſes;) yet it excludes not the other Elders of Epheſus from having like power with him; it gives him not any ſole power to heare and determine complaints without the other Elders aſſiſtance or conſent, but together with them, Math. 18, 19. 1, Tim. 5, 17. Acts. 20, 28. Hence the fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 23. and after it Gratian. Cauſ. 15. Quaeſt. 7. Cap. Nullus, Decree, That a Biſhop ſhould heare no mans cauſe without the preſence of his Clerkes; and that the ſentence of the Biſhop ſhould be void, unleſſe it were confirmed with the preſence of the Clergy: yea, Gratian in that place prooves out of the Councels of Hiſpalis, Agatha the firſt, Carthage the ſecond and fourth. Gregory, (whoſe words and Canons hee recites at large) that a Minister, Presbyter, or Deacon cannot be puniſhed, or deprived by the Biſhop alone, but by a Synode or Councell, and that the Biſhop cannot heare or determine the cauſes of Cleargymen alone, without aſſociating the Elders, of the Church, or other adjoyning Biſhops, with him; for which cauſe ††Concilium Antiochenū, Can 20. Gratian. Distinct. 18. Conc. Aphricanum, Can. 18. Chalcedonenſe. Can. 19. Nicaenū. Can. 5. Toletanum, 3. Can. 18. Synodus Francica, Anno. 742. Conc. Meldenſe, Can. 32. with many more.many ancient Councels denied, that there ſhould be two Councels kept, in each Province every yeare, to heare and determine all Eccleſiaſticall cauſes and controverſies. This text therefore prooves nothing for Timothies Eccleſiaſticall or Epiſcopall Juriſdiction, being written rather for the Churches, and Miniſters future, then Timothies preſent instruction, as nnDiſſertatio de Guber. Eccleſiae p. 506. 507. 508.Gerſonius Bucerus rightly obſerves. Finally learned ooControv. 4. Queſt. 1 c. 2. Sect. 16.Doctor Whitaker hath long ſince aſſoyled this objection in theſe words: That Timothy is commaunded not raſhly to admit an accuſation againſt an Elder, this prooves not that Timothy had power or dominion over Elders. For according to the Apoſtles minde, to receive an accuſation, is to bring a crime to the p. 65Church, to bring the guilty perſon into Iudgement, openly to reproove, which not onelyonly Superiors may doe, but alſo aequals and inferiors. In the Roman Republike Knights did judge not onelyonly the people, but alſo the Senators, and Patricij. And certainly it ſeemes not that Timothy had ſuch a Conſiſtory or Court, as was afterwards appointed to Biſhops in the Church. What this authority was, may be underſtood by that which followes; Thoſe that ſinne rebuke before all, which aequals alſo may doe. Thus Biſhops heretofore, if any Elder or Biſhop had an ill report, referred it to the Eccleſiaſticall Senate or Synod, and condemned him, if hee ſeemed worthy by a publike judgement, that is, they did either ſuſpend, excommunicate or remoove him. The Biſhop condemned nocent Elders and Deacons, not with his owne authority alone, but with the judgement of the Church and Clergy. Thoſe who where thus condemned, might lawfully appeale to the Metropolitan; but hee could not preſently alone determine, what ſeemed good to him, but permitted the Synod to give ſentence, and what the Synod decreed was ratified. The ſame anſwer Martyn Bucer, De vi & uſu. S. Miniſterij, Doctor Andrew Willet Synopſis Papiſmi. Cont. 5. Gen. Queſt. 3. part. 3. in the Appendix, and Gerſonius Bucerus De Gubernat. Eccleſiae **Vide pag. 490. uſque 524.pag. 300. to 398. (where this objection is moſt fully cleared by Councels, Fathers, and other authors teſtimonies) give unto this place: ſo that it makes no proofe at all, that Timothy was a Biſhop. So as from all theſe premiſes I may ſafely conclude, that Timothy was neither a Biſhop, nor Biſhop of Epheſus, nor firſt, nor ſole Biſhop of that See, as many overconfidently, and erroniouſly affirme.

p. 66Obj. 6. If any in the ſixt place object, that ‡‡See Gerſonius Bucerus p. 518. 519. p Eccleſ. hiſt. l. 3. c. 4. as Meredith Hamner, a Biſhop Engliſheth it.diverſe of the ancient Fathers, as Dionyſius Areopagita, Hierome, Ambroſe, Dorothew, Theodoret, Chryſostome, Epiphanius, Euſebius, Gregorie the great, Policrates, Occumenius, Primaſius, Iſidor Hispalenſis, Beda, Anſelme, Rabanus▪ Maurus, with many moderne writers affirme Timothy to be Biſhop and firſt Biſhop of the Epheſians, therefore hee was ſo.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer firſt, that as ſome of theſe Fathers are ſpurious, and not to be credited, ſo many of their teſtimonies are ambiguous, if not contradictory. p Euſebius writes, that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the firſt Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus of the Churches of Creta: which is rather a deniall then an affirmation that hee was Biſhop there in truth. **In 1. Tim. 3.1 Tim 3Theodoret, and Beda affirme him, to be Biſhop of all Aſia, not of Epheſus onelyonly, and ſo an Archbiſhop rather then a Biſhop. Their Teſtimonies therefore being ſo diſcrepant and dubious, are of no validity.

Secondly, ‡‡See Doctor Raynolds conference, with Hart. p. 213.Many of the Fathers affirme Peter to have beene Biſhop of Rome, and to have continued Biſhop there for divers yeares, yet qqDefenſor Pacis, pars. 2. c. 16. Vlricus Velenus, Petrus non veniſſe Romam, neque illicpaſſus eſt.Marſilius Patavinus, rrSenatus Conſulius Franciae contra abuſus Paparum. 162. to 172.Carolus Molinaeus, with ſundry ssDoctor Raynolds conference with Hart. c. 6. Diviſ. 3. p. 210. to 218. Balaeus in Act. Rom. Pontif. l. 1. Praefation. Chriſtopher Carlile his S. Peters life and Peregrination, prooving that Peter was never at Rome. R. Bernard his fabulous foundation of the Popedome.other late Protestant writers, both forraigne and domeſtique, affirme, and ſubſtantially proove by Scripture and reaſons; that Peter was never at Rome, nor yet Biſhop thereof. As therefore their bare authorities are no ſufficient argument, to proove Peter Biſhop of Rome, ſo neither are they ſufficient to evince Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus.

Thirdly, Theſe Fathers affirme not Timothy to be ſole Biſhop of Epheſus, or to be Diocaeſan Biſhop, or ſuch a Biſhop as is ſuperior to a Presbyter in Juriſdiction or degree; the thing which ought to be prooved; and if they affirmed any ſuch thing, yet ſeeing the fore-alleadged Scriptures contradict it in a moſt p. 67apparant maner, they are not to be credited againſt the Scriptures teſtimony.

Fourthly, The Fathers terme him Biſhop of Epheſus; not becauſe hee was any ſole Diocaeſan domineering Biſhopthere, as the objections pretend; but becauſe hee was left by Paul to teach and inſtruct them for a ſpace, till hee returned from Macedonia, and to order that Church together with the other Biſhops and Elders thereof; and being one of the eminenteſt Paſtors of that Church, next after Paul, who planted it, the Fathers terme him, the Biſhop of Epheſus, in that ſence onelyonly as they ſtiled Peter, Biſhop of Rome and Antioch, Iames Biſhop of Ieruſalem, Marke Biſhop of Alexandria, and the like; (**Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1465. Gerſonius Bucerus De Gubernat. Eccl. p. 432. uſ que 500. 519. 520. to 540. not that they were Biſhops properly ſo called, or ſuch as ours are now, but onelyonly in a large and generall appellation, becauſe they first preached the Gospell to ſuch Churches) to no other purpoſe, but to proove a perpetuall ſucceſſion of Presbyters, and doctrine in thoſe particular Churches, from the Apoſtles time till theirs, naming the eminenteſt Miniſter, for parts and gifts in each Church, the Biſhop of that Church; all which appeares, by ttAdverſ. Haereſes. l. 3. c. 2. 3. l. 4. c. 43. 44. 45.Irenaeus, uuDe Praeſcriptionibus adverſ. Haereticos.Tertullian, and xxEuſebius Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 12. 22 Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1465.others; who call them Biſhops onelyonly for this purpoſe, to derive a Succeſſion of Miniſters, and doctrine from the Apoſtles. Hee that would receive a larger anſwer to this objection, let him read Gerſonius Bucerus, de Gubernatione Eccleſiae, p. 518. to 524. 436. to 441. 498. uſque 500. 538. 539. which will give him ample ſatisfaction.

Obj. 7. If any finally object, that Paul deſired Timothy to abide ſtill at Epheſus when hee went into Macedonia: 1, Tim. 1. 3. and that the Greeke verbe foreign ſignifies a conſtant reſidence, or abiding in one place. Therefore Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus: which if it be a ſolid Argument, prooves many of our Court Nonreſident Prelates and Miniſters, to be no Biſhops (becauſe they reſide and abide, not muchleſſe preach and keepe hoſpitality on their Biſhoprickes,) rather then Timothy to be Diocaeſan Biſhop of Epheſus.

p. 68Anſw. 1. To this I anſwer, firſt, that the argument is a groſſe inconſequent. For Timothy might abide thus at Epheſus as an Euangeliſt, as an Elder, as Paules aſſiſtant, or ſubſtitute onelyonly; as an ordinary Miniſter, not as a Biſhop; his abiding therefore at Epheſus is inſufficient to conſtitute him a Diocaeſan Biſhop of that Sec.

Secondly, Paul and Titus ordained Elders in every Church to abide and continue, with their flockes: Acts. 14, 23. Tit. 1, 5, 7. yet the Oppoſites deny theſe Elders to be Diocaeſan Biſhops.

Thirdly, Every ordinary Miniſter is to reſide and abide upon his Cure, Rom. 12, 7, 8. 1, Cor. 7, 20. Ier. 23, 1, 5. If this argument therefore where ſolid, every Miniſter ſhould be a Diocaeſan Biſhop.

Fourthly, Paul left **Acts. 18. 18. 19.Acts 18:18Acts 18:19Aquila and Priſcilla at Epheſus to abide there; Will it therefore follow, that they where Diocaeſan Biſhops of the Epheſians? If not, then the argument is invalid.

Anſw. 2. Secondly, I anſwer, That Timothy was to abide at Epheſus onelyonly for a ſeaſon, till Paules returne out of Macedonia and no longer, 1, Tim. 3. 14, 15, c. 4, 13, 14. after which hee went with Paul from Macedonia into Aſia to Troas, Acts. 20. 4, 5. and from thence to Italy, Philippi, and Rome, Heb. 13, 23. Phil. 1, 1, c. 2. 19. Col. 1, 1. 2, Tim. 4. 9, 13. hee being never reſident at Epheſus, (for ought appeares in Scripture or authentique ſtory,) after Paules returne out of Macedonia. His abode therefore at Epheſus being but for ſo ſhort a time, and hee ſo great a Nonreſident from it afterward, cannot poſſibly argue him to be a Diocaeſan Biſhop of that Church.

Anſw. 3. Thirdly, Greeke word foreign, to abide, is oft applyed in Scripture to a ſhort abode, for a day or two, or ſome little ſpace, as well as to a perpetuall fixed reſidence; as Math. 15, p. 6932. Marke 8. 2. So it is in the objected text; where it is put only in oppoſition to Paules journey into Macedonia; in reſpect whereof Timothy continuing at Epheſus till his returne, might be truely ſaid, to abide there, though after his returne hee remooved thence to other Churches; as Gerſonius Bucerus, De Gubernatione Eccleſiae. p, 502. to 518, obſerves.

Anſw. 4. Fourthly, Paul did not injoyne, but beſeech Timothy to abide at Epheſus: therefore his reſidence there was but arbitrary at his owne pleaſure, not coactive, not injoyned by vertue of any Epiſcopall office; this Text therefore cannot proove Timothy to be Biſhop of Epheſus, no more then his ſtay at Corinth, and other places whether Paul ſent him, proove him to be Biſhop of thoſe Churches.

Anſw. 5. Finally, Admit Timothy to be both the firſt and Timothy no Diocaeſan Biſhop of Epheſus.ſole Biſhop of Epheſus, which is falſe; yet this makes nothing for, but againſt our Hierarchicall and Diocaeſan Biſhops: for Epheſus was but one City, one Pariſh, one Church, one flocke and Congregation; as is evident by Acts. 20. 17, 28, 29, c. 18, 24, 25, 26, c. 19, 1. to 18, Epheſ. 1, 1, c. 4, 4, 16, c. 6, 21, 22, 23. 1, Tim. 1, 3, c. 5, 17 to 23. Rev. 1, 20, c. 2. 1. So that the argument from this example is but this; Timothy was onelyonly Biſhop of one City, Pariſh, Church, Flock and Congregation, not of many: Therefore all Biſhops ought to be ſo too, as well as hee.

Obj. If any object, that the City of Epheſus was a Dioces; for it had many Elders, therefore many Pariſhes, and ſeverall Congregations? Acts. 20, 17, 28. 1, Tim. 5. 17.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer, that the argument followes not; For firſt, in the Apostles times, and in the primitive Church, every particular Church and Congregation had **See Gerſonius Bucerus Diſſertatio De Gubern. Eccl. p. 213. 246. 282. 302. 303. 304. 307. 308. 416. 417. 461. accordingly.many Elders, Miniſters, and Dea…ons in it, who did joyntly teach, and inſtruct it, p. 70and likewiſe governe and order it by their common Counſell and conſent; as is evident by Acts 1. 14. to 26. c. 2. 1. to 47. c. 3. 1. c. 4. 3. 8. 9. 20. 21. 23, 31. to 37. c. 5. 18. to 33. 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 11. 29. 30. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 2. to 23. 25, 32. c. 20. 17. to 30. c. 21. 18. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 4. to 14. c. 5. 17, Tit. 1. 5. 7. Jam. 5. 14. 1. Cor. 14. 23. to 33. Ignatius Epiſt. 5. 6, 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. Policarpus Epist. ad Philippenſes, Irenaeus contra Haereſ. l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43, 44. Tertull. Adverſus Gentes, Apolog. c. 39. Hieronymus, Sedulius, Chryſoſtomus, Primaſius, Remigius, Haymo, Kabanus Maurus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Anſelmus, Petrus Lombardus, and ſundry others, in their Commentaries, and expoſitions upon Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tit. 5. Acts. 15. and 20. 17. 28. The fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 22. 23. 24. 25. The Councell of A…en, under Ludovicus Pius, Can. 8. 10. 11. The 12. Councell of Toledo, Can. 4. and all writers generally accord.