The Diocesans Trial, Part 2 · Argument 3

The Diocesans Trial · Part 2 · Argument 3

p. 25The third Argument.

Those whom the Apostles ordained, were of Apostolicall institution. p. 26But they ordained Bishops. Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction.

First, th…y ordained Iames Bishop of Jerusalem presently after Christs ascention. Ergo. they ordained Bishops. This is testified by Eusebius, lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Cl…ment and Hegesippus: yea, that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time, lib. 7. cap. 19. & 32. This our owne author Ierom testifieth, Catalog. Script. Epiph. ad haer. 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. & 33. Amb…os. in Galath. 1.9. Doroth…us in Synopsis. Aug. contra C…es. lib. 2. cap. 37. the generall Councell of Const. in Trull. cap. 32. For though hee could not receive power of order, yet they might g…ve him power of jurisdiction, and assig…e him his Church. So th…t though he were an Apostle, yet having a singular assignation, and staying here till death, he might justly be called the B…shop, as indeed he was. If he were not the Pastor, whom had …hey fo… the…r Pastor?

Secondly, those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters; they were in order and majority of power before other. But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, though they had o…her called Bishops. Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption; that he is so called as their eminent Pastor, is manifest by authorities. Ierom. in Phil. 2. T…erd. and Ch…y…ost. on the same place. Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thi…her. Yea this, that he was sent, did argue him there Bishop: for when th… Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops.

Thirdly, Archippus they instituted at Colosse. Ergo.

Fourthly, Timothy and …itus were instituted Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete. Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus. That which is presupposed in their Epistles, is true. But it is presupposed that they w…re Bishops in these Churches. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Ep…s…opall authority given them to bee exercised in those Church…s, th…y are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there. But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches. Ergo. The assumption proved. 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus, bee patternes of the Episcopall function, informing them, and in them all bishops, then they were bishops. But they are so. Ergo. 2 Againe, whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches, doth prescribe the very dutie of bishops, hee doth presuppose them bishops. But Paul doth so: For what is the office of a bishop beside teaching, but to ordaine and governe: and govern… with …ingularity p. 27of preheminence, and majority of power in comparison of other. Now these are the things which they have in charge, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. 1 Tim. 1.3.11. 2 Tim. 2.16. Ergo. 3. Those things which were written to informe not onelyonly Timothy and Titus, but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops, those were written to Diocesan▪ bishops. But these were so. Ergo, to Diocesan b…shops. Now that Dioc…san bishops were their successours, is proved. 1. Either they, or Presbyters, or Congregations. Not the latter. 2. Againe, Those who did su…ceed them were their successours. But Diocesan bishops did. Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities. In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Counsell of Chalcedon. And in Crete, though no one is read to have succeeded, yet there were bishops Diocesan. And we read of Phillip bishop of Gor…i…a the Metropolis. 4. Those who were ordinarily resident, and lived and died at these Chur…hes, were there bishops. But Timothy was bid abide here, Titus to stay to correct all things, and they lived and died here. For Timothy it is testified by H…gisippus, and Clement and Eusebius out of them, whom so refuse to believe, deserve t…emselves no beliefe. Ergo, they were there bishops. Againe, Jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita & morre Sanct. Antonius par. 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these doe depose, that they lived and died there. Further, to prove them bishops. 5. Their function was Evangelicall and extraordinary, or ordinary; not the first, …h…t was to end. For their function as assigned to these Churches, and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction, was not to end. Ergo. Assumption proved. That function which was necess…y to the being of the Church, was not to end. But the funct…ō …h…y had as being assigned to certaine Ch…rches, is necessary to the be…ng of the Church, Ergo, &c. 6. Finally, that Antiquity testifieth, agreeing with Scripture, is true. But they testifie that they were bishops, which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirme. Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 4. D… nis. Areopag. Doroth. in Synopsi. Amb…ose p…oe…n. in 1. Tim. 1. Jerom. 1. Tim. 1.14. 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo. Chrysostom. in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5 Prïmas. prefat. in 1. Tim, 1.1. Theod. praefat. in Tit. O…cum. Sedulius. 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories. Greg. L…b. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34.

Answer.

We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme, with all the instances brought to prove it.

F…st, for Iame…, we deny he was ordained bishop, or that it can be proved from antiquity, that he was more then other Apostles. That which Eusebius reporteth, is grounded on Clement, whom wee know to be a forged magni…ier of Romish orders, and in this story he doth p. 28seeme to imply, that Christ should have ordeyned Peter, Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops. Seeing he maketh these to have ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignity, which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus doe plainely affirme. Secondly, as the ground is suspected; so the phrase of the Fathers, Calling him the Bishop of that Church, doth not imply that he was a B…shop properly so called. The Fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply, not in their strict and formall propriety. Ierom on the first to the Galathians, and in his Epistle to Damasus, affirmeth, that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles. So many Fathers call Phillip an Apostle. Clem. 5. Consi. cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ul…. Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others. In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops; not in propriety of speech, but because they did such things as Bishops doe, and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them. Thus Peter, Paul, Iohn, Barnabas, and all the rest, are by he Ancients called Bishops.

Object. This is granted true, touching others, but not in this instance of Iames: because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture, a… well as all other Story; that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Jerusalem, Iohn the Baptist did still abide with them even to death. Answer. Though this be but very conjecturall, yet it nothing bettereth the cause here. It followeth not, He did abide with this Church. Ergo, he was the proper Bishop of this Church. For not abiding in one Church doth m…ke a Bishop: but he must so abide in it, that he must from the power of his office, onelyonly be bound to teach that Chu…ch: secondly, to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it: thirdly, to governe it with a power of jurisdiction, limited onelyonly to that Church. But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumc…sion by his office, as they should from all the world resort thither. Secondly, he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ, and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth. Ergo, not as an ordinary Bishop. Thirdly, as the rest in what Provinces soever they rested, had not their jurisdiction diminished, but had power occasionally, as well where they were not, as where they were; so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more sounded out of Iames, that he did in this circumstance of residing, more neerely expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other. It is plaine, Antiquity did hold them all Bishops, and gather them so to be, a Priari & Post…riori: the Author de quaest. vet. & nov. t…st. cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis institius…e p…usquam escenderet: imponens manus Apostolis, ordinavit eos in Episcopus. Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church; but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could p. 29regularly doe. Oecum. cap. 22. in Act. It is to bee noted, faith hee, tha… Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops: for they did not make Bishops onelyonly, but Presbyters also. Now wee must conster the ancient, as taking them onelyonly eminently and virtually to have been Bishops, or else wee must judge them to have been of this minde, That the Apostles had both as extraordinarie Legats, most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto, as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors, with power of teaching and governing, such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them: which indeed Doctor Downam himselfe confuteth, as Popish, and not without reason, though while hee doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly, himselfe doth confirme it not a little.

Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings.

First, That which might make us doubt of all their teaching, and writing, is to bee hiffed forth as a most dangerous assertion. But to make Iames, and so any of them, have both these offices in proprietie, might make us doubt. Ergo. The assumption proved thus. That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour, when they teach from one office, as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infallible discerning, when they teach from the other, that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write. But this opinion doth so. Ergo. The proposition is, for ought I see, of necessarie truth, the assu…ption no lesse true. For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infallibly, as hee was formally the ordinary bishop of Jerusalem, let us heare it: if there were none, may not I question, whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour? For if hee taught them as an ordinarie bishop, and did write his Epistle so, then certainly it might erre. If he did not teach them so, then did hee not that hee was ordained to, neither was hee properly an ordinary Pastor, but taught as an extraordinarie Embassadour from Christ.

Secondly, Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one, but the one must expell the other, were never by God conjoyned in one person. But these doe so. Ergo. The assumption is manifest. Because it is plaine, none can be called to teach as a Legat extraordinarie, with infallible assistance, and unlimited jurisdiction, but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church, teaching as an ordinary person, with jurisdiction limited to that one Church. Againe, one can no sooner bee called to doe this, but at least the exercise of the other is suspended. Thirdly, that which is to no end, is not to bee thought to bee ordained of God. But to give one an ordinarie authority whereby to doe this or that in a Church, who p. 30had a higher and more excellent power of office, whereby to doe those same things in the same Church, is to no end. Ergo.

Object. But it will be denied that any other power of order, or to teach and administer sacraments was given, then that he had as an Apostle: but onelyonly jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church.

Answer. To this I reply, first, that if hee had no new power of order, he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and formally so called. Secondly, I say power of governing ordinary was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come. Object. But it was not in vaine, that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church. Answer. If by the mutuall agreement in which th…y were guided by the spirit, it was thought meere, that Iames should abide in Jerusalem, there tending bo…h the Church of the Jewes, and the whole circumcision, as they by occasion resorted thither, then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here, then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked. But they did thinke it meete that hee should there tend that Church, and with that Church all the Circumcision, as they occasionally resorted thereto. Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there, y…t his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters, towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Jewes, Galath. 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode, as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor, what did hee need assignation under any other title. Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned, unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person, viz. of an ordinary Pastor, which hee could not bee who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors h…ve.

Fourthly▪ that calling which hee could not exercise without being much abased, that hee never was ordained unto, as a point of honour for him. But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary B…shop, but hee must bee abased. Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction but in one Church, hee must teach as an ordinary man liable to errour. Ergo, hee was never ordained to bee a Bish…p properly. If it bee sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop? True it is, hee might have beene assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling, and be no whit abased: but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority, caring not for that Church, but the whole number of the Jewes, which hee might doe without travelling. Because p. 31who so keeped in that Church, hee did neede to goe for…h as the rest; for the Jewes from all parts come to him. But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governour, without becomming many degrees lower then hee was. For to live without goi…g for…h, in the mother Church of all the world, as an ordinary Pa…tor, was much lesse honour then to travaile as Peter one while into Assyria, another while through Pontus, Galatia, Bithinia, as an Apostle. Even as to sit at home in worshipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour …ither or thither. Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes. Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the rest, but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling. As for that question, who was their ordinary Pastor, it is easily answered. Their Presbyters, such as Linus, or Clemens in Rome, such as Ephesus and other Churches had. Iames was their Pastor also, but with extraordinary authority. What needed they an ordinary Bishop, which grew needfull (as the favourers of the Hierarchy say) to supply the absence of Apostles, when now they were to decease? What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together, and one to reside during his life, according to the current of the story? Thus much about the first instance.

To the second instance of Epaphroditus, and the argument drawen from it. First, we deny the p…oposition. For had some ordinary Pastors beene so stiled, it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other: wherefore unlesse this be inter…erted, it is unsound, viz. Those ordinary Pastors, who are called Apostles in comparison of others, because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination, jurisdiction, and peerelesse preheminency, which they did not give to others, they are above others. Secondly, the Assumption is false altogether: First, th…t Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor: Secondly, that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church. Obi. But the judgement of Ierom, Theodoret, Chrysostome, is that he was. Answ. The common judgement is, that he was an egregious teacher of theirs, but further then this, many of the testimonies doe not depose. Now so he might be: for he was an Evangelist, and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher, yea an egregious teacher, or Doctor of them. Nay, Saint Ambrose doth plainely insinuate, that he was an Evangelist: for he saith he was made their Apostle by the Apostle, while he sent him to exhort them, and because he was a good man, he was desired of the people. Where hee mak…th him sent, not for perpetuall residence amongst them, but for the …ransunt exhorting of them, and maketh him so desired of the p. 32Philippians, because hee was a good man, not because hee was their ordinary Pastor. Ieroms testimony on this place doth not evince. For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken, and as appliable to one, who as an Evangelist did instruct them, as to any other. Th…d. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop, but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus, and other Evangelists are said to have been bishops: which how true it is, in the next argument shall bee discussed. For even Theodoret doth take him to have beene such an Apostolicke person as Timothy and Titus were. Now these were as truly called bishops as the Apostles themselves. Neither is the rule of Theodore… to bee admitted: for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee communicated then with ordinarie Pastors, where now there was danger of confounding those eminent Ministers of Christ, with others, and when now the Apostles were deceased, that then it should cease to bee ascribed to them. Againe, how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie, that hee must bee a person thus and thus (according to Pauls Canons) qualified: all is voided, and made not to belong to a bishop. For those who are called bishops, were Presbyters and no bishops, bishops being then to be understood onelyonly u…der the name of Apostles and Angels. Thirdly, antiquity doth testifie, that this was an honour to bishops, when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them. But if they ever had been tea…med by the name of Apostles before, this had been a debasing of them. Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles. In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded. Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised, nor had, and therefore could not bee succeeded in it. The Apostles gave to Presbyters tha… which Christ gave them out of his power; even the power of ordinary government. They are bid foreign, and foreign, to feed as well by government as doctrine. They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock. What feare of tyranny where there is no power of government? But lay authorities aside, consider the thing from the text it selfe. First, Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him, hee having purposed to have sent Timothy, who as yet could not bee imployed. I thought it necessary to send Spa…br…dit us to you. Secondly, hee doth imply, that Epaphraditus had not returned to them, but that hee sent him; and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it. It is like, hee was but sent till Timothy might bee dispatched to them. Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle, as their ordinary and eminent Pastor. In the Scriptures, none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them. Now this is undoubted, the Philippians had sent him to Paul. It is then most probable when he is p. 33…lled their Apostle, it is in regard he was sent by them, which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words, who hath ministred to me the things …e…dfull which you sent by him. Object. But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve, should be used of those sent civilie. Not so, for while the persons sending are signified, they are sufficiently contradistinguished; it being the Priviledge of the Apostles, that they were the Apostles of Christ J…sus, not simply that they were Apostles. Secondly, Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent. For though Christ meane it of himselfe, yet he implies it by a discourse, a genere ad speciem. Thirdly, we see the like phrase, 2 Cor. 8 The Apostles of the Churches. For Chrysost…me there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present. That doth not hinder, they were by Paul to the Churches, therefore the churches might not send them with their contributions. Neither is this an argument that he was their bishop, because their church sent him: for they sent Apostles themselves and Evangelists also more ordinarily, it being their office to goe from church to church, for the edification of them.

For the instance of Archipus I finde it not urged.

Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus.

First, we deny the Antecedent, that they were instituted bishops by Paul. And in the first presillogisme we deny the Assumption: that the Epistles doe presuppose so much. And to the prosillogisme, tending to prove this assertion denyed, we answer: first, to the propo…ition, by distinguishing the Episcopall authority, which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall, and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it. The Proposition is true, understanding it of authority in both these regards; those who are presupposed to have had authority Episcopall given them, both for the substance of it, and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary bishop, they are presupposed bishops: but this is denyed. For they are presupposed to have and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it, as Apostles had also; but not to have and exercise in that manner and formallity which doth agree to a Bishop, but which doth agree to an Evangelist, and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Evangelist, to exercise all that power …hey did exercise as Evangelists. There is nothing that Paul writeth … Timothy to doe in Ephesus, or to Titus Cr…te, which himselfe present in person might not and would not have done. If wee should reason then thus: Hee who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches, he is presupposed to have beene bishop in them. This proposition is not true, but with limitation: Hee who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner, which doth agree to the office of a Bishop, hee was Bishop; but not …ee who exerciseth the p. 34power secundum aliam rationem & modum: viz. after such a manner at doth agree to an Apostle.

To the second maine proofe, wee deny the proposition. If patternes for Bishops, then written to Bishops. The reason is, Apostles, Evangelists, ordinary Pastors, have many things common in their administration. Hence is it, that the example of the one may be a patterne to another, though they are not identically and formally of one calling. Councells have enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles, as being patternes for them, Vide Aug. De doctrin. Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4.

To the third reason. Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the very duties of Bishops, bee doth take them to have beene Bishops. The Proposition is not true without a double limitation. If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped, he doth not therefore presuppose them bishops, because th…se are duties of Evangelists, agreeing to bishops onelyonly by usurpation. Againe, should he propose those duties which, say they, the w…ord doth ascribe and appropriate to bishops, yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them, it will not follow that he doth take them for bishops: not that Paul doth purpose the very duties of bishops, both in substance and manner of performance. Secondly, we deny him to purpose for substance the duties of bishops. For hee doth not bid him ordaine, as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers, nor governe with power directive and corrective over others. This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power. Thirdly, Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act, when now churches were constituted, but with concurrence of those churches; salv… uni useuiusque Ecclesiae iure, the Apostles did not otherwise. For thoug… Paul wrote to him alone, that was because he was occupied not onelyonly in churches perfectly framed, but also in the erecting and framin… of oth…rs. Secondly, because they were in degree and dignity abov… all other ordinar… governours of the Church, which their Cons… like preheminencye was sufficient, why they should be written alone.

To the fourth reason: Those things which were written to inform not onelyonly Timothy and Titus, but all their successours, who were Dioces… Bishops, thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops. But these were so, E… The Proposition is not true, because it presupposeth that noth… written to any persons, can informe Diocesan bishops, unlesse … persons to whom it is, written be formally in that selfe same ord… For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Ap… stolique, it might informe any Doctor or Pastor wh…tsoever. Seco… ly, wee deny Diocesan bishops are (de jure) successours. As for p. 35equivocall Catalogue which maketh all who are read bishops to have beene Diocesan, we shall speake of them hereafter. The bishops betweene Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedon Councell, were not all of one cut: and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations. Ther… is no more to prove Phillip of Gortina a Metropolitan, then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria. For what doth story relate, but that Phillip was amongst other a bishop of those Churches which were in Crete. There are many Churches in England, a Minister of which Churches is such an one, that is one Minister amongst others of those Churches. To that of their residing there and dying in these Churches. First, the proposition is not necessary. For as Iames might reside exercising an Apostolicall inspection in a particular Church, so might these exerc…se an Evangelicall function how long soever they resided. Secondly, the assumption will not bee found true for ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers. For Timothy, though he be exhorted to stay at Ephesus, yet this doth not argue it, that he was enjoyned ordinary residence. For first it was a signe he was not bishop, because Paul did exhort him, for he would well have knowne, he might not, being their ordinary Pastor leave them, further then the more important good of the Church should occasion. 2. He is bid to stay there, not finally, but till the Apostle should come to him, which though he might be delayed, it is plaine he then intended. So Titus is placed in Crete, not to stay there, and set downe his rest, but foreign, further to set, as it were, and exedisie the fabricke, which Paul had begun. God gave Ceremonies foreign, is not ever a correcting of any thing amisse, but a setling every thing right, by erecting the substance foreshadowed. But say it were correcting, it were but such a correction as one might performe in transitu, with a little longer stay, though not ordinary residence. By Scripture the contrary is manifest.

For first, it is not like that Timothy was placed bishop after Pauls being at Rome; for when Paul saith he prayed him, when now hee was going to Macedonia, to stay at Ephesus, he doth intimate that when hee left him they were there both together. Secondly, when he wished him to abide there, hee had a meaning to come unto Timothy th…ther where he left him, so as at least to call on him, and see the Church. But Paul after his parting from the Presbyters knew he should never see the Ephesians more. Act. 20. If wee say he doth foretell it for likely, so we may say, that of wolves a…ising was, and call all into question. Neither is it likely, but that teares would have broke his heart, and made h…m yeeld in the p…remptories of his speech, had not his soule beene divinely perswaded. Thirdly, he had no meaning when he left them to constitute p. 36Timothy to be their Bishop: for he would not have omitted sue h…a… argument of consolation to hearts so heavy. Not he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle. Hee telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them, or to send others. Fourthly, Timothy was with Paul while hee was in bonds at Rome, as witnesse those inscriptions of the Epistles to the C…ll…ins and Philippians; yea Timothy was so with him, as to bee imployed by him, sent forth, and returne to him, which is manifest. Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus, yet he was not placed to be resident, for in the end of the Epistle, he doth bid Timothy come to him, and bring Mark…, that they might minister to him. Againe when hee did write the 2. Epistle, Timothy was not Ephesus, for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Priscilla and Onesiphor…. Object. But is like these were at Ephesus, for there Paul left Aquila and Priscilla. They came occasionally, they did not fi…e there, which Chrysostome also judgeth. And the house of Onesiphorus, Bernard taketh it, was at Iconium in Lycaonia, so that it is like he was in his native countrey at this time, even Iconium, Listra, Derbe, which happily is the cause why the Scholasticall story doth make him Bishop of Lystra, because hither he was last sen…. He was so here, as that the Apostle did but send him to see them, for hee biddeth him come b…fore winter. Besides, there are many probalities he was not at Ephesus, for he speaketh of it through the Epistle, as a place now remote from him. Thou knowest what Onesiph…rus did for mee at Ephesus, not where now thou art. I have sent Tychius to Ephesus, not to thee, to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent. Finally, after Paules death hee did not returne to Ephesus, but by common consent went to Iohn the Apostle, and very little before his death came to Ephesus, if ever. As for the: Fathers therefore in this point, if they testifie ordinary residence, which they doe not, wee have liberty to renounce them; but they testifie onelyonly that he remained in that Church, because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make, and he is thought to have suffered martyrdome there. So for Titus, when Paul sent him to Crete to doe that worke is uncertaine; but this is certaine, it was before his writing to the Corinths the second time, and going to Rome. This likewise that Paul was then in travelling, and as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis. When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there, for hee doth bid him to meete him at Nicopolis, where he meant to be as it is likely, but Titus comming did not meete him there, but at length fo…nd him in Macedonia, whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians, thanking God for his promptnesse even of his owne …cord to be imployed amongst them, 2 Cor. 8.16. which doth p. 37shew he had not beene made an ordinary bishop any where. We find that he did accompany Paul at Rome, 2 Tim. 4.10. and when Paul writ his second Epistle to Timothy, he was in Dal…atia. Whence Aquina… doth thinke him to have beene bishop of that place. Wherefore wee thinke him that will bee carried from such presumptions, (yea manifest arguments) by Hegesippus, Clemens, and history grounded on them, to be too much affected to so weake authors, and wish not credit with him, who counts him unworthy credit, that will not sweare what such men depose.

Touching the proofe that followeth, That either function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary, or ordinary. But their function as assigned to those Church…s was not extraordinary. We deny this assumption, with the proofe of it. That the function that these exercised as assigned to certaine Churches (these two by name) was necessary to the being of the Church. The reason is, because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner; viz. as Evangelists; and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner, was not necessary to perpetuate the being of the Church. Assignation to churches to doe the worke of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary: no… assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists.

To that finall reason, what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true, and so to be …aken. What they speake so agreeing, that it is virtually conteined in them, and may rightly be deduced from them, is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith. But what they speake not plainely contradicted, but yet no way included, may be adm…tted side human…, if the first relators be well qualified witnesses. But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus, it is is in effect of light credulity. A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declining.

To the assumptiō we answer. What do not some ancient enough cal Timothy? Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while, a Presbyter another while, & in like sense others a Primate & a Bishop. Lyra proveth him from many authorities to have been an Arch-bishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. But to gather on these, that he was in propriety of speech all these, were absurd. Object. I, but they call him bishop on other grounds, because assigned to this Church. Answ. They call him bishop because he was assigned to this Church, not onelyonly to teach, but also to ordaine Deacons, Presbyters. For wheresoever they found this done, and by whomsoever, they did call them bishops, as I noted before from Oecumen. The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these bishops, because they made longer stay in these Churches then Evangelists did usually, & did preach p. 38and ordaine, and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishopes in their time used to doe. But that he was not an Evangelist, and more then an ordinary bishop they do not deny. Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1 …im. pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusqu… Episcopus, etiamsi ad …em…us in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicav…rit & sacr…s ordi…nes promoveris, unde quidem vocant cum Episcopum. Finally, should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinary Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end; they should testifie a thing, as I hope I have shewed, contrary to Scripture, y…a contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist. As for the shew from …he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently.

Now to shew th…t th…y were not properly b…shops. First, we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episcopall duties a while, but w…re not there fixed, to make their ordinary abode. Therefore not b…shops properly. Secondly, th…y who did the worke of an Evangelist in all that they did, did not perform formally the worke of a bishop. But these did so. As is vouched of Timothy, Doe the worke of an Ev…ngelist. Ergo. The Proposition is proved. If an Evangelist and b…shop cannot be formally of one office, then the act of an Evangelist, and the act of an ordinary Pastor or bishop cannot be formally one. For when everything doth agere secundum quod actis est; those things which are not thesame formally, their worke and effect cannot be formally the same. But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or bishops, are not formally the same. Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth, by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ g…ve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church. For as an Apostle is distingu…shed from a Prophet, a Prophet from an Evangelist, so an Evangelist from an ordinary Teacher.

Object. But it may be said, they were not distinct, but that the superiour contained the inferiour, and Apostles might be Evangelists properly, as Matthew and Iohn were.

A…sw. That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt. The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently, in as much as they could doe. alti…ri tamen ra…ione, what the inferiour did. This sense is tollerable. But that formally the power of all ot…er offices suites w…th the Apostles, is false. My Lord chiefe Just…e of England is not formally a Constable. As for the latter, true, an Apostle might be also a penmen of the Gospell, but this maketh not an Evangelist more then an Apostle, but doth per cecidens, come to them both. And even as a Preacher or Pastor, writing Commentaries, and publishing other Treatises, this commeth per cecidens to his calling, it doth not make him a Pastor, but more illustrious p. 39and fruitfull in that regard then another. So Ma…k… and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gospels, for then none should have beene Evangelists that had not written, but in this regard they were more renowned then other. Custome hath so prevailed, saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew, that wee call them Evangelists, (viz. the Writers of the Gospells) whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists. These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension, but the first writer of the Gospell, being an Apostle, was at least eight yeares after. Secondly, they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles, but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles. Thirdly, they were such as by labour of ministery (common for the generall of it to all other) did gather Saints, and build Christs Body. Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministery common to Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, but the publishing of it.

Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome, and o…hersome, those he did not give conjoynedly to one and the same persons. But these callings he gave to some one, to others another. Else he must have said, he gave the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists, the same to be Evangelists and Pastors. Ergo.

That calling which is not compatible with the calling of an Evangelist, that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist. But the call…ng of a bishop is such. For a bishop is tyed to a particular Church. The calling of an Evangelist is a calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministery, to gather Saints, and edifie Christs body, without any limitation to any particular Church. Ergo, Paul never annexed the calling of a bishop to an Evangelist.

The calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospell, nor to preach it simply: for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist. But this doth difference them, to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church. Thus Phillip thus all those who were the Apostles helpers, working the work of the Lord as they did were Evang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour, as …usebius reporteth, Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel, without fixing my selfe in any certaine place; and a calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church, are incompatible.

Lastly, that which would have debased Timothy and Titus, that Paul did not put upon them. But to have brought them from the honour of serving the Gospell, as Collaterall companions of the Apostles to be ordinary Pastors, had abased them. Ergo, this to be ordinary Pastors Paul did not put upon them. Object. The assumption it denyed, it was no abasement. For before they were but Presbyters, and afterward by imposition of hands were made bishops. p. 40why should they receive imposition of hands, and a new ordination, if they did not receive an ordinary calling? we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands. I answer, This deny all with all whereon it is builded … grosse: For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour, is to abase them. But the Evangelists office was superiour to Pastors. Ergo. The assumption proved. First, Every office is so much the greater, by how much the power of it is of ampler extent and lesse restrained. But the Evangelists power of reaching and governing was illimited. Ergo. The assumption proved. Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle; there an Evangelist might doe that which belonged to him. But that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation. Ergo. Secondly, every Minister by how much he doth more approximate to the highest, by so much he is h…gher. But the companions, & coadjutors of the Apostles, were neerer then ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Who are next the King, in his Kingdome, but those who are Regis Comites. The Evangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines. Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes. 4. That the Evangelists in an ambulatory course spreading the Gospell, were above any bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certaine Church. Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weake conceite. For every Prsbyter (properly so called) was constituted in a certaine Church to doe the worke of the Lord in a certaine Church, But Evangelists were not, but to doe the worke of the Lord in any Church as they should be occasioned. Ergo, they were no Presbyters properly so called. Now for their ordination; Timothy received none as the Doctor conceiveth, but what hee had from the hand of the Apostle and Presbyters, when now he was taken of Paul to be his companion. For no doubt but the Church which gave him a good testimony, did by her Presbyters concurre with Paul in his promoting to that office. Obj. What, could they lay on hands with the Apostles, which Phillip could no…, and could they enter one into an extraordinary office? Answ. They did lay on hands with the Apostles, as it is expresly read, both of the Apostles and them. It is one thing to use precatory imposition, another to use miraculous imposition, such as the Apostles did, whereby the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred. In the first, Presbyters have power. Neither is it certaine, that Phillip could not have imposed hands, and given the Holy Ghost. For though he could, he might choose in wisedome for their greater confirmation and edification to let that be done by persons more eminent. Finally, imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinary office. p. 41For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vocation from God. As the calling of Evangelists, though extraordinary, was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets. Secondly, men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruitfull exercise of their immediate and extraordinary callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours, as Paul and Barnabas were. Howsoever, it is plaine, that Timothy by imp…sition of hands, was ordained to no calling, but the calling of an Evangelist. For that calling he was ordained to, which he is called on by Paul to exercise, and fully execute. But he is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist. Ergo, that calling he was ordained to.

That worke which exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop, was not put upon an ordinary bishop. But Titus his worke did so: for it was to plant Presbyters Towne by Towne through a Nation, Ergo. For the ordinary plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame, exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop. But this was Titus his worke. Ergo. Bishops are given to particular Churches when now they are framed, that they may keepe them winde and wether tight, they are not to lay foundations, or to exedifie some imperfect beginnings. But say Titus had beene a bishop: he is no warrant for ordinary bishops, but for Primates whose authority did reach through whole Ilands. Nay, if the Doctors rule out of Theodor…t were good, it would serve for a bishop of the plurality cut. For it is said he placed Presbyters city by city, or Towne by Towne, who are in name onelyonly bishops, but not that he placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it. He therefore was the sole bishop of them, the rest were but Presbyters, such as had the name, not the office and government of Bishops.

Finally, were it granted that they were ordinary bishops, and written to doe the things that bishops doe, yet would it not be a ground for their majority of power in matter sacramentall and jurisdiction, as is above excepted.