of qua distinct from the Aopstles Eph. 4.11 How sad a thing is it to see a Doctor so deceived are all the rest spoken of as distinct and doth he dream this is not see then if the Apostle hath in any other Scripture distinguished them if he seeth it not heer 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath placed in the Church first Apostles 2. Prophets see if God hath not distinguished them by a first and second This man would have confounded the Church Ministry mâ—king of two one with the men of his mind it is nothing to make all one 4. He tels us by foundation was not ment the Apostles but their Doctrine I having cited the text Eph. 2.20 this is clear enough expressed that it is the foundation of the Apostles not that the Apostles as the Papists say of Peter are the foundations of the Church there was no foundation for the Doctor to make this learned exception P. 5. Dr. The Church of the Gospel is built on the truths delivered by the old Prophets as is clear by Acts 26.22 Luke 24.27 2 Pet. 1.19 Resp To me it is much to see so grave a man fight with his own shadow for in this he hath not hit me at all I granted this in my Book which might wel have saved him his learned labour Dr. But the Prophets subordinate to the Apostles were no more founders to the Church then the Evangelists Resp For men of reputed learning and esteeme I see it is nothing to say any thing though never so clear against the truth Eph. 2.20 we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets I provoke you Mr Doctor to shew where it is said that we are built upon the Evangelists Dr. Titus was no where called Evangelist was he therefore none Resp Mr. Doctor How shall I believe he was if the Scripture say not of him he was one I am sure you have no Gospel makes him such that ever he wrote unlesse it be one lately brought from Rome Dr. What need Marke and Luke be called Evangelists seeing their worke doth speake them such Resp You may easily see Mr. Doctor is good at the begging of the question and passing by the matter objected viz. That the Evangelists office 2 Tim. 4 5. is a ministeriall Church worke and not a writing work as I have proved at large in my Letters sent to the Assembly and printed but not Answered because you have not leisure as in your Letters formerly you say concerning this Book Dr. The worke of an Evangalist is not only to Preach but to order matters by Apostolical direction Tit. 1.5 Resp 1. This then shewes your Evangelist was no extraordinary officer in the Church for what he did he did by direction as you and I should do in the Church were we faithful and no otherwise 2. In my forme of Gospel Government for Gospel Churches and in this book you so sift to find chaffe in I have allowed as well Government as Teaching to the Church Ministry according to Jesus Christ and you prove no more for Titus is not for this worke here or any where called Evangelist nor were any where else for that particular act Dr. Is not the writing the history of Christ's life the worke of an Evangelist and if Marke and Luke did this why should they not be called Evangelists Resp An risum teneatis amiei Mr Doctor if they did this why yet should they be called Evangelists unlesse you can canonise them for such by authority of the Presbytery that now is Doctor And is not the work extraordinary was it not indited and directed by the Spirit in Mark and Luke as well as in Mathew and John Resp M. Doctor When you wrot notes on my Book and had it communicated in that disgracefull way as this was I thought you had not vented your self into such like Quries as these 2. A man would have thought your reading would have taught you to distinguish between an Apostle and an Evangilist 3. I thought my former letter to you of this point would have made you blot out this dul notion seeing the Gospel you so much talk of Luke 1. was by him but a setting in order things believed amongst us as himself saith and not inspired into him ver 2. As they delivered them to us And here M. Doctor Who were these but Mark and Luke and then by whom but by eie witnsses which were it is likely Matthew and John with the rest of the Apostles and it may be said of the seventy of which Mark and Luke were not but had it from them that were as is plain and clear to him that is not blinded Doctor And is not the hystory of Christ a fundamentall truth of the Gospel Resp And M. Doctor The Amanuenses of many of the Psalms thâ— Prophets the Epistle of the Romans Tertius Rom. 16.22 were not made there by Evangelists yet are their writings not authoritative they being dictated to by the Apostles and Prophets P. 6. Dr. Rom. 10.15 From Esay 52.7 Is not to be understood of the distinct office of the Evangelist as he differs from the Apostle Prophet Pastor and Teacher but to Evangelize there doth comprehend all the testimony of Jesus in all respects but especially of the Apostles worke and if this be so then from the generall denomination of Evangelizing the distinct office of the Evangelist can be no more proved to be ordinary then from the generall name of Messengers 2 Cor. 8.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Apostolical Office is ordinary as Preachers are in some sense Evangelists viz. in respect of the glad tydings that they preach Resp That Evangelizing was applyed to the whole Gospel ministry I granted and thence proved that it was an ordinary Office in the Church yet to teach and apply peace with the good things of the Gospel to the strong men in Christ onely was the proper worke of the Church Evangelist to which Paul applieth that of 1 Cor. 1.17 he distinguishing the Teachers Ministry under the act of Baptizing who taught also and the Evangelists Ministry which Paul in Corinth as an ordinary Minister officiated with other his fellow helpers 2. For your parallel place 2 Cor. 8.23 I would you would take your Bible and see how God distinguished these Apostles from the others 1 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Collos 1.1 Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ the Apostles 2 Cor. 8.23 are Apostles of the Churches Sir I may say to you of this as Christ to the blind Pharisees ye errre not knowing the Scriptures so that this Scripture proves not any hinderance to my conclusion as you seem to affirme but that thence it appears because the name is given in common to the ordinary Ministry it was but an ordinary office in the Church which oft as Pastors and Teachers to remaine therein to the end Dr. That Timothy and Titus were imployed only about one place is so directly opposite to Scripture that nothing can
Dr DVRIE'S DEFENCE OF THE PRESENT MINISTRY Being compared with the Gospel and Gospel Ministry turnes into smoke and vanisheth As is made to appear in the ensuing Treatise By a Witnesse of the Gospel JOHN BRAINE Gal. 2.14 When I saw they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel I said to Peter before them all c. Printed in the Year 1649. To the Honourable the Committee of the County of South-Hampton The Learned Assembly at Westminster and the Godly and wel-affected of the County aforesaid TO you first of the Assembly I commend these things because you are they to whom the Supreme Authority of the Nation hath committed the care and judgement of these and the like differences that you may judge between us and make publike if you please your dissent from what is not of Gospel proof on either part To you the Honourable Committee aforesaid I humbly present these also that you hereby may see that by this or by the other cries of men of diffeâ—â— judgements Is â—â—â—â—â—e 〈◊〉 â—o be spoyled or wounded by you spoyled of that by your word and hand-writing you have for my Ministeriall labours promised me it being the life of me and my great family or wounded in my name who have lived though in weaknesse according to the testimonies of Christ and give me leave to mind you that of God That the labourer is worthy of his hire To you my faithfull and beloved friends of the Soake the City of Winton and County aforesaid I leave this as my loving remembrance to you advising you to beware of the secret practises of men against the Gospel as of works of darknesse and deep dishonesty in them that do them from whome and from which things keep your selves And 〈◊〉 Mr Doctor Durie I challenge a breach of promise who near twelve moneths since by letter promised me your notes on my booke and you contrary thereunto send my book and your bitter notes on it to my adversaries what hand you had in the private communicating of them I know not but leave to God Sir in obedience to Christ onely I have forborne to returne you railing for railing nor would I have you for this thinke I have forgot any good I have received from you but acknowledge the least thaâ—â—ulnâ—sse Sir I have not wronged you a word as I know in trâ—â—scribing your noâ—es they shall be compared with the Originall at your command bâ— any indifferent man Sir all that I have done herein is for the Gospel my dearesâ— friend for whome I desire to forsake all and althings and yet rest Gladly yours to serve you and al the forementioned according to the Gospel service of God John Braine To the Reader Reader THese Notes of Dr Duries I found written on the margent of a Booke properly mine owne being Intituled The smoke of the Temple cleared by the light of the Scripture lying one Shop-keepers Table where I live which I taking away with me was after sent for to make appearance before two Justices of the County aforesaid who were desired to grant a Warrant to apprehend me Fellon-like therefore but honestly refused it who after on my appearance because I would not surrender the said book chosing rather to obey the Law passively in that point then actively I was and now stand ingaged to make appearance at the next Quarter-Sessions to make Answer before the Bench for thus illegally seizing on my owne proper goods being a book sent Mr Doctor upon his sending to one Mr Ellis for him to call on me to send him one of my Books as the said Mr Ellis told me and not give him one nor was it by me given now that this onely câ—uâ—â— aforesaid must he taken in the businesse I thinke cannot but seem strange to all that read it These Notes made in answer to the Doctor by me were of two dayes making which will plead for their imperfection for thy better understanding the Treatise the letter P. is put for what page of the Book called The smoake of the Temple c. the Doctor drew his observation from and the Scripture added to it shews the ground the Doctor drew his assertions from which I doubt not but will clear many things in Scripture hid formerly to the world and prove profitable to all that read them by beeing compared things with things But to come to the Doctors observations themselves he passeth by the three first pages as having nothing to object and begins with page 4. striving if he had strength enough to remove the Evangelist from his owne into anothers place and so I leave him to his lift and triall of his strength who may as soone by help of a leaver role the round world out of his place as the Evangelist out of his and sooner too so unable is man found to be when he strives against Truth Luke 16.29 compared with Eph. 2.20 P. 4. Doctor WHat is here said of the Apostles is appliable unto Evangelists Resp 1. This is petitio principii or a begging the thing in question Mr Doctor You would have it so 2. The Scriptures were given by Divine inspiration to the Apostles and Prophets but not the ordinary Evangelists 3. Nor are the Evangelists to be proved as the Apostles are to be in any extraordinary way in the Church God in 2 Ephes 20. saith the Apostles and Prophets are of the Foundation but not Evangelists Dr. I say those Prophets who were before Christs time are properly to be understood Eph. 2.20 because they were the foundation upon which the Church was built as appears by Acts 26.22 2 Pet. 1.19 yet I hold that the Prophets which are named Eph. 4.11 are distinct from those Antient ones these are not the foundation of the Christian Church but these were the Apostolicall office 〈◊〉 doth ementer 〈◊〉 comprehend these but not these for these were before the Apostles nor are the Prophets named Eph. 4.11 qua distinct from the Apostles but if at all they are to be â—united the foundation it is onely as in and under the Apostolical office Then besides by the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets is only meant the doctrine Apostolical and Prophetical whereof Christ is the substance that is the one corner stone and is it not so also in respect of the Evangelists Resp 1. For Answer to this confused masse take my owne words in my Book by Prophets I understand not only those wrot before Christs time but those wrot since also 2. Whereas he saith The Antient ones are not the foundation of the Christian Church It is clear the Prophets before Christ are in the same way a foundation to the now Church as the Prophets that were since 1 Peter 1.12 Not to themselves but to us saith the Apostle speaking to those under the Gospel administrations they did minister these things in a Church administration only they were not in this time 3. He saith The Prophets are not spoken
it contains that this vapour should come from the Doctor I know not Chap 2. vers 1. he begins with Little Children vers 12. and vers 18. chap 3. vers 7. vers 18. chap 4. vers 4. chap 5.21 and in all the Epistle not a word more but in chap 2. vers 13 14. of young Men or Fathers at all P. 14. The third part of Ministry or second of the Church Miniâ—â—ry Dr. This notion of distinguishing the ministry and its parts in abstracto from Church ministry to make the third in the one the second in the other is another whimsey which he frames to himself Resp Was there ever man in so vile a manner would so secretly have wounded the truth and a mans reputation by reproach as this man endeavours calling my distinguishing the Ministry without the Church from that within the Church proudly Notions and whimseys I received base tearms in his Letters before but I answered them in mildnesse and humilitie but this secret trechery I cannot but take notice of 1. Where he saith that I make the third in the one the second in the other is a whimsey of his own head if there be any whimsey in it and none of mine 2. If the man were sensible he would understand that Paul 2 Tim 2.11 was a Preacher an Apostle and a Teacher of the Gentiles 1. See here is a Preacher before the Apostle not in dignity but did in ministry precede the Apostle he being the first in thâ— Chuâ—ch ministry and the Teacher the last as in Eph 4.11 which being the extreams of the Church ministry comprehend the rest of Prophet Evangelist and Pastor under them which I dare to maintain against Mr Doctor by word or writing and prove his language to be but little better then blasphemy and railing Dr. That Saint Peters second Epistle was written to the Jews of his particular charge in Jerusalem is contrary to Peters own words as in 2 Pet. 3.1 it appears the second Epistle was written to whom the first was and it is clear the first was not written to tâ—oâ—e of Jerusalem but to those of Pontus c. 1 Pet. 1.1 So that to please himself in these whimsies he care not what he saith or what conjectures he makes contrary to the text sure when he wrote this his whimsey did blind him so that he did mistake the one Epistle for the other for it is in the first Epistle chap. 1. verse 2. that he gives them the title of the Elect and the dispersed are the Elect by this it appears with what carelesse fantasticalnesse this is written Resp 1. Fri nd in my Epistle to the Reader I let him know of which he also in a Letter wrote me and rebuked me for doing this thing in haste yet see with what bitternesse he carps at a mistake of putting the Elect to the second Epistle which is in the first 2. That I may when I meet with Truth honour it though it should have come from a deâ—â—â—l I do acknowledge the mistake and the pettish man never spake any thing that was considerable but now in this But 1. I commend to be considered where an Epistle formerly written mâ—y not be absent by the malice of the Jewes as one seemes to be of the Corinths 1 Cor. 5.9 2. Lest any man should thinke I should object this without ground to uphold my whimsies and fantasies pray observe 2 Pet. 3.15 he mentions the Epistle of Paul to them which was that of the Hebrews which without question was written to the Church at Jerusalem Heb. 13.23 if Timothy come shortly I will see you which was not the dispersed Jewes in these several parts of the world but the Church at Jerusalem of which after most of his Epistles written from Rome to the Gentiles he writes to Galatia and is going for Jerusalem with Titus 18 years after his conversion nor did he teach the Gospel but to the Church of Jerusalem amongst the Jews Heb. 3.1 he cals them partakers of the heavenly call Acts 18.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Peters most aboad was at Jerusalem as he that will but observe the History of the Acts mâ—y wel find it and so was James it being agreed that James Peter and John should minister to the Circumcision 4. Timothy it may be could not go up with him at that time for he questions where he would or not Heb. 13.23 and he seemes to speak to a particular People and of a particular place P. 15. The whole Epistle doth concerne such onely as are exercised Dr. This kind of arguing from some words to infer such consequences is so silly and frivolous that a man can scarce consider it with patience Resp I say It is the doctrine of the whole Epistle he saith this is only of some words he should do well to shew that the Epistle doctrinally concerns excercised Christians or that joy it is in some one he begins only with exhortation to grow unto grace and ends with the same the whole matter tending thereunto yet he cries O silly and frivolous as having nothing else to say for himselfe in which he sounds like an empty barrell Dr. Here we have a fourth part of Church ministry even now we had but the second where is then the third of Church ministry then he said before there were but three distinct persons to be Teachers in the Church and now he brings in four Resp 1. Before you have the second Church ministry as you confesse 2. You inquire for third 3. Before you say there were but three distinct persons to be Teachers in the Church 4. I have desired you not to take exceptions at the corruptnesse of the Copy and yet how the good man catches at a flie will not any understanding men that reads it say you want but matter to carp at and to raile a man would scarce believe your empty tearmes when you passe by things you know not how to except against or what to say unto to say they are things not to be considered 〈◊〉 predecessors part you act to the life that was done by the Spanish Cardinall to the Pope on the Letter of Grosted as at leisure you may peruse in the book of Acts and Monuments they were not so wise as you therein nor so subtile as appears in the carriage of this businesse Dr. It contradicts also the former order asserted viz. that the Evangelist is before the Pastor and Teacher and now he is placed behind them so the Evangelist is double both first and last these intricacies do shew that all these things are written aâ— random without any judgement or consideration Resp 1. That the Evangelist is placed behind the Pastor and Teacher is because he is here last handled 2. He that will enumerate the Church officers and begin with the Apostles and goeth downward comes last to the Doctor but he that begins with the Doctor and goeth upward in order to the Apostles doth not destroy the