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 Apostleship 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 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 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 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 Athens 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 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 penned 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 onely as
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 onely beseeching which was voluntary not commanding him to abide there 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 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. 1 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 every-where 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 and 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. 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 Timothy 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 Epistle 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 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 during 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 onely at his last going into Macedonia Acts. 20 1 as 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 onely 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 properly 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 whom 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 haue 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 many Bishops and Elders in every Church not to constitute one Monarchicall Bishop over many witnesse Acts. 11 30 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 Iraeneus Ignatius Ambrose Hierome and other ancients testifie Hence Epiphanius Eusebius testify that Paul and Peter were joynt Bishops of Rome at the same time 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 Iraeneus Eusebius Nicephorus Metraphrastes Hierome Chytraeus Baronius 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 by whose divine superior authority and presence all Episcopall Iurisdiction was suspended To close up this particular point Bucolcerus Fasciculus Temporum the Centuary writers and 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 other 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 Bishop White and others conclude Timothy to be a Bishop Answer To which I answer First that this Postscript is no Scripture all others as in M. 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 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 to 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 were 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 M. Perkins workes prooves them and that the Postscript of the first Epistle was written not onely 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 divers affirme by any Historians and Geographers till at least three hundred yeares after Christ from one Pacatius a Generall as is conceived who subdued it Since therefore it was not so stiled till 〈◊〉 hâ—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 the 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. Tenthly 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 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 little 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 onely 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 because neither the body nor Postscript of that Epistle nor any other Scripture whatsoever stiles him either a Bishop or Bishop of Ephesus though hee was resident at Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him but 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
hee that ordaineth or consecrateth Ministers is greater in Iurisdiction power order or degree then the parties consecrated and ordained is a notorious dotage and untruth broached at first by Epiphanius to confute Aërius his orthodox opinion of the parity of Bishops and Presbyters and since that taken up at second hand by Bellarmine and other Iesuites the Councell of Trent Bishop Downham with other Patriots of the Popes and Prelates Monarchy and last of all like Coleworts twice sodde usurped by all our Prelates in their high Commission at Lambeth in their Censure of Doctor Bastwicke who laid the whole weight and burthen of their Episcopall superiority and precedency over other Ministers upon this rotten counterfeit Pillar unable any wayes to support it as these ensuing demonstrations will evidence at large bejond all contradiction For first of all we know that Cardinals and Bishops at this day as the people and Clergy yea the Emperor heretofore doe elect and consecrate the Pope yet they are not greater in order dignity power or Iurisdiction then the Pope but inferior and hee farre superior to them in all these We read that Metropolitanes Patriarkes Primates and Archbishops are created consecrated and installed by ordinary Bishops as the Arch-bishops of Canterburry and Yorke have oftentimes beene by the Bishops of London Rochester Winchester Salisbury and the like yet are they not greater in dignity power authority place or order then they but subordinate and subject to them whom they thus ordaine in every of these We know by dayly experience that one Bishop consecrates and ordaines another and hee a second and that second a third yet all of them are of equall power and Iurisdiction not different or distinct in order or degree and sometimes the last of the three in respect of his Bishopricke takes precedency of the rest that ordained him as the Bishops of London Durham and Winchester doe here with us and other Bishops the like in forraigne parts So some Ministers joyne with the Bishop in the ordination and laying of hands on others yet one of them is not superior in Iurisdiction order or degree to the other Now were this our Prelates objected Paradoxe true the Cardinals should be greater in order power and degree then the Popes the Bishops then Patriarkes Metropolitanes Primates and Archbishops one Bishop one Minister then another yea there should be so many different degrees among Bishops and Ministers as there are successive subordinate ordinations which is both false and absurd S. Hierom in his Epistle to Evagrius and on Titus 1. with Alcuvinus De Divinis Officiis c. 37. affirme that in the primitive Church Bishops were both Elected and consecrated by Presbyters and the Scripture is expresse that both Paul and Timothy were ordained by the Presbytery Acts 13. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 14. If the Bishops reason then be orthodoxe it followes inevitably that in the Apostles times and the primitive Church Pres byters were superior in Iurisdiction order and Degree to Bishops yea to Paul and Timothy the one an Apostle the other an Euangelist and not Bishops Lords paramount over them as they now pretend and then farewell their Hierarchy which they so much contend for The Archbishop of Canterbury who stood much upon this argument at Doctor Bastwicks Censure both crowned our Soveraigne Lord King Charles and baptised his sonne Prince Charles will hee therefore conclude that hee is greater in power authority place and Iurisdiction then they The Archbishops of Canterbury have usually crowned and baptized the Kings of England and the Archbishops of Rheemes the Kings of France will they therefore inferre Ergo they are greater in power dignity and authority then they as the Popes argue that they are greater then the Emperors because the Bishops of Rome have usually crowned the Emperors Are the Princes Electors in Germany greater then the Emperors or of Poland Bohemia and Sweden greater then their Kings because they elect and create them Emperors and Kings Are the Lord Major of London and Yorke or the Major of other Citties inferior to the Commons or the Lord Chauncellors of our Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge lesse honorable potent and inferior to the Doctors Procters and Masters of Arts or the heades or Masters of the Colleadges and Halls in them subordinate or lesse worshipfull or eminent then the fellowes because they are elected constituted and created by them to be such Are the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament not so good as those freeholders Cittizens and Burgesses who elect them or the Masters of Companies inferior to those that choose them If not as all must grant how is this maxime true that hee who constitutes ordaines or consecrates another is greater then the parties constituted ordained or consecrated and that in Iurisdiction place order and degree Our Popish Preists are not afraid to proclaime that in their consecration of the Sacrament they create their very Creator and make no lesse then Christ himselfe are they therefore greater and higher in order and degree then Christ the great and onely High Preist the * Cheife Shepheard and Bishop of our Soules whose Vicar and Substitute the Pope himselfe doth but claime to be Certainly if this their Popish proposition be true they must needs be one order and degree Higher in point of Preisthood then Christ himselfe who must then lose his titles of High Preist and cheife Shepheard because every Masse-Preist will be paramount him in that hee not onely consecrates but creates him too We read in Scripture that Kings Preists and Prophets were usually annointed and consecrated to be such with oyle was therefore the oyle that consecrated them greater or better then they Are the font and water better then the children baptized in or with them The Diadems better then Kings because they crowne them or the very hands of Bishops and Ministers worthier then Ministers ordained by them If not then are not Bishops greater then the Ministers which they ordaine or consecrate since both are but instruments Servants not prime originall agents Lords or Supreme absolute actors in these severall consecrations and actions If we cast our eyes either upon nature or policy we finde this proposition of our Prelates a meere â—alsehood In nature we â—ee that a man begets a man an horse an horse an asse an asse a dogge a dogge c. equall one to the other in nature quality species and degree the sonne being as much a man as the Father the colt as much an horse as the steed that begott him In Civill or Politique Constitutions wee see the like In our Vniversities Doctors and Professors of Divinity Phisicke Law Musicke create other Doctors of the same Professions equall to themselves and as much Doctors in these arts as they one Doctor in each of these being as much and no more a Doctor then another save onely in point of time or antiquity
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 onely of diligent 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 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 onely 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 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 degree above a Preshyter but onely such a Bishop as was equall the same and no wayes different from an Elder as all the Fathers 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 others 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 whose 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 Fourthly 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 not certainely resolved and so no inference can be infallibly raised thence Secondly Admit it is meant of ordination as most conceive it yet that prooves not Timothy to be a Bishop since not onely 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. Psal 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 onely 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 onely 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 was not so much as to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses at least first examined and our 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 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 â—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 pâ—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 raâ—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 or 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 6. 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 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 32. 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 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 onely 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 many Elders Ministers and Deaâ—ons in it who did joyntly teach and instruct it and 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 Secondly wee at this day have many Prebends Canons and Ministers in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church yea in every Colledge in our Vniversities and elsewhere yet but one Church and Congregation Thirdly We have in many other Churches in the Country where the Parishes are large and there are divers Chappels of ease many Curates and Ministers yet but one Church one Parish not a Dioces neither is the cheife Minister either a Bishop or Diocaesan though hee have diverse Curates and Ministers under him to assist him in his Ministery yea in many places where there is but one Church no such Chappels of ease and the Parish great we have severall Ministers Lecturers and Curates in some 4 or 5 in most 2 or 3 yet no Dioces no Bishopricke Neither is this a Novelty but an ancient constitution not onely instituded by the Apostles and continued ever since but likewise enjoyned by the Councell of Oxford under Stephan Langhton Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of our Lord 12 22. which decreed that in all Parish Churches where the Parish is great there should be 2 or 3 Presbyters at the least according to the greatnes of the Parish and the value of the Benefice least that one onely Minister being sicke or otherwise debilitated Ecclesiasticall Benefits which God forbid should be either withdrawne or denied to the Parishioners that were sicke or willing to be present at divine offices The multitude or plurality therfore of the Elders in the Church of Ephesus is no argument at all to proove that is was a Dioces or that Timothy was a Diocaesan Bishop because hee had Ministers and Curates under him for then our Deacons Archdeacons and Pluralists who have many livings Chappels and so many Curates and Ministers under them should be Diocaesan Bishops too by this reason Secondly I answer that admit there were divers Churches and Congregations in Ephesus which is very improbable the greatest part of the Citizens being Idolaters and the Citty itselfe a worshipper of the great Goddesse Diana and of the Image which fell downe from Jupiter Acts. 19 21. to 41. yet it can not be prooved that Timothy was cheife Bishop and Superintendent over all these Churches but onely of one of them as every Minister and Bishop of England is a Minister and Bishop of the Church of England but not a Minister and Bishop in and over all the Curches of England but in and over his owne Parish Church and Dioces onely For Paul himselfe who planted that Church and resided in it for three yeares space during which time it is like there was no Diocaesan Bishop of it but himselfe expresly cals the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Bishops and Overseers of that Church and that by the Holy Ghostes owne institution and thereupon exhorts them to take heed to all the flocke and to feed and rule that Church of God which hee had purchased with his owne blood Acts. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Since therefore every one of these Elders by the Holy Ghostes institution and Paules resolution was no other but a Bishop over his owne flocke if severall both to instruct and rule it it is certaine that Timothy if hee were a Bishop of Ephesus and there were many Churches there was onely Bishop of one of them not of all and
but a meere Preist to wit in the want or defect of Bishops All the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and Clergy of England in their Booke intituled The institution of a Christian man subscribed with all their hands and dedicated to King Henry the 8. An. 1537. Chapter of Orders and King Henry the 8. himselfe in his Booke stiled A necessary â—rudition for any Christian man set out by authority of the Statute of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approoved by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Netherhowse of Parliament prefaced with the Kings owne Royall Epistle and published by his speciall commaund in the yeare 1543. in the chapter of Orders expresly resolve that â—reists and Bishops by Gods Law are one and the same and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both Learned Martin Bucer in his Booke of recalling and bringing into use againe the lawfull ordination of Ministers and of the office of Pastors in his Scripta Anglicana written here in England p. 254. 255. 259. 291. 292. 293. and on Math. 16. layes downe these Conclusions First That the power of ordination rests principally and originally in Christ himselfe Prince of Pastors Secondly That this power is secondarily and derivately in the whole Church whose consent is requisite in the election and ordination of Ministers Thirdly That the actuall power of Ordination and imposition of hands belongs as well to Presbyters as to Bishops that they ought to joyne with the Bishop in the laying on hands and that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyters Fourthly That Bishops and Ministers have the power of imposition of hands in them onely instrumentally not originally as servants to the whole Congregation Fifâ—ly That the examination and ordination of Ministers ought to be made publikely in the Church where they are elected to be Ministers before all the Congregation All which he prooves by sundry Scriptures and Histories Peter Martyr his coaetaman Regius professor in the â—niversity of Oxford in the dayes of King Edward the 6. in his Commentary upon the 2. Kings 2. 23. and in his Common places printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1576. Class 4. Loc. 1. Sect. 23. p. 849. writes thus The Papists cannot object grievous sinnes against the Ministers of the Gospell but they oppose onely some slight that I say not ridiculous thinge they say that our Pastors have no imposition of hands and thence they indeavour to conclude that they are not to be reputed just Governours of the Church and that the Congregations which are taught and governed by them are no true Churches but Convenâ—â—cles of revâ—lters And this they say as if the imposition of hands were so necessary that without it there can be no ministry in the Church when notwithstanding Moses consecrated Aaron his Brother and his Children offering divers kindes of Sacrifices on which no man formerly had layd on hands Likâ—wâ—se Iohn the Baptist brought in a new right of Baptisme and administred it to the Iewes when as yet no hands had beene layd upon him and hee himselfe had beene baptised of no man Paul also called by Christ in his journey did not presently goe to the Apostles that they might lay hands upon him but hee taught in Arabia for 3. yeares space and ministred to the Churches before that hee went up to the Apostles his Antecessors as himselfe witnesseth in his Epistle to the Galathians We reject not the imposition of hands but retaine it in many Churches which if we receive not from their Bishops we are not to be blamed for it for they would not confâ—rre it on us unlesse wee would depart from sound Doctrine and likewise bind our selves by Oâ—th to the Roman Antichrist In which words hee resolves First That the imposition of hands is no such essentiall part of a Ministers ordination but that it may be omitted and that those who are elected and lawfully called to the Ministery by the suffrage of the whole Church and people are Ministers lawfully called and ordained without this Ceremony Secondly That the imposition of hands belongs to Ministers as well as Bishops and that those who are ordained Ministers in the reformed Churches where they have no Bishops onely by the laying on of hands of other Ministers are lawfully ordained Thirdly That this position that the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops that those are no true Ministers who are ordained without a Bishop is but a vaine ridiculous Popish Cavill Our Prelates therefore should be ashamed to ground both their owne and Titus his Episcopall Hierarchie upon it Learned Doctor Whitaker writing against Bellarmine saith that this text of the 1. Tim. 4. 14. makes very much against the adversaries For from this place wee understand that Timâ—thy receiveth imposition of hands from the Elders who at that time governed the Church by a common Councell and against Duraeus hee argues thus Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius Bucer and others were Presbyters and Presbyters by Gods Law are the same with Bishops therefore they might lawfully ordaine other Presâ—yters Doctor Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemâ—sh Testament Annot. on Tit. 1. Sect. 2. and Doctor Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 5. generall Controversie quaest 3. part 2. write thus Although in the Scripture a Bishop and an Elder is of one order and authority in preaching the word c. yet in government by ancient use of speech hee is onely called a Bishop which is in the Scripture called cheife in governement to whom the ordination or consecration by imposition of hands was allwayes principally committed Not that imposition of hands belongeth onely to him for the rest of the Elders that were present at ordination did lay on their hands or else the Bishop did lay on his hands in the name of the rest We differ from the Papists in this They affirme that not principally and cheifly but solely and wholly the right of consecrating and giving Orders appertaineth unto Bishops But concerning the power of giving Orders we say that though it were cheifly in the Apostles yet the Pastors and Elders together with them layd on their hands Acts. 13. 3. 4. and as S. Paul speaketh of his laying on of hands 2. Tim. 1. 6. so hee maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Tim. 4. 14. And the Rhemists on that place mislike not the practise of their Church that their Preists doe lay on their hands together with the Bishop upon his head that is to be ordained What else doth this signifie but that they have some interest in ordaining together with the Bishop The 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 3. Decrees thus Let all the Preists that are present hold their hands next to the Bishops hand upon the head of him that is to be ordained Againe Can. 14. of the same Councell The Bishop must not give orders but in the presence and assembly of the Clergy By this then it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and
then Timothies present instruction as Gersonius Bucerus rightly observes Finally learned 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 Church to bring the guilty person into Iudgement openly to reproove which not onely Superiors may doe but also aequals and inferiors In the Roman Republike Knights did judge not onely 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 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 Obj. 6. If any in the sixt place object that 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 Theodoret and Beda affirme him to be Bishop of all Asia not of Ephesus onely and so an Archbishop rather then a Bishop Their Testimonies therefore being so discrepant and dubious are of no validity Secondly Many of the Fathers affirme Peter to have beene Bishop of Rome and to have continued Bishop there for divers yeares yet Marsilius Patavinus Carolus Molinaeus with sundry 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 apparant 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 onely as they stiled Peter Bishop of Rome and Antioch Iames Bishop of Ierusalem Marke Bishop of Alexandria and the like not that they were Bishops properly so called or such as ours are now but onely 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 Irenaeus Tertullian and others who call them Bishops onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Answ 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 onely 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 Aquila 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 onely 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
instituted onely at first by severall Councells and Princes are no divine or Apostolicall but onely a humane institution This all the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their institution of a Christian man dedicated to King Henry the 8. fol. 59. 60. resolve in these tearmes IT IS OVT OF ALL DOVBT that there is no mention made neither in Scripture neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctor or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power order or Jurisdiction betweene the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they WERE ALL EQVALL IN POWER AVTHORITY AND IVRISDICTION And that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops IT WAS DEVISED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholike Church and that either by the consent and authority or else at least BY THE PERMISSION AND SVFFRANCE OF THE PRINCES AND CIVILL POWERS for the time ruling For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old Testament thought it expedient to make an order of Degrees to be among Bishops and spirituall governours of the Church and so ordained some to be Patriarkes some to be Metropolitans some to be Archbishops some to be Bishops and to them did limit severally not onely their certaine Diocesse and Provinces wherein they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certaine bounds and limits of their Jurisdiction and power c. The same is averred by learned Bishop Hooper in his Exposition upon the 23. Psalme fol. 40. who sayth that Archbishops were first ordained in Constantines time yea Archbishop Whitgift himselfe confesseth as much that Archbishops are neither of divine or Apostolicall but humane institution since the Apostles times And Patricke Adamson Archbishop of S. Andrewes in Scotland in his publike recantation in the Synode of Fiffe in Scotland Anno 1591. professed sincerely ex animo that Bishops and Ministers by Gods word were all equall and the very same That the Hierarchy and superiority of Bishops over other Ministers NVLLO NITITVR VERBI DEI FVNDAMENTO had no foundation at all in the word of God but was a meere humane Institution long after the Apostles times from whence the Antichristian Papacis of the Bishop of Rome hath both its rise and progresse and that for 500. yeares last past it hath beene the cheifest instrument of persecuting and suppressing the truth and Saints of God in all Countries and Kingdomes as all Histories manifest Thus this Archbishop in his Palinody disclaiming not onely Archbishops but ever Diocaesan Bishops to be of divine but onely of humane institution long after the Apostles giving over his Archbishopricke thereupon and living a poore dejected life This being then granted on all hands it is cleare that Titus could not be Bishop of all Creete for then hee should be an Archbishop having divers Bishops under him those Elders which hee placed in every Citty of Creete being no other but Bishops Tit. 1. 7. as all acknowledge and Arch-bishops were not instituted till after the Apostles and Titus dayes For these reasons I conceive that Titus was not Bishop of Creete having no Episcopall or Archiepiscopall See there appointed to him which learned Gersonius Bucerus hath at large manifested to such who will take paines to peruse him Obj. 1. If any object 1. that the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus stiles him Titus ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Ergo hee was Bishop or Archbishop of Creete Answ 1. I answer 1. that as this and all other Postscripts are no part of the Scripture or Epistles as Mr. Perkins workes proove at large but an addition of some private person since as is evident by the words themselves in the preterimperfect tense and third person IT WAS WRITTEN TO TITVS c. therefore no convincing authority so this clause ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians is no part of the Postscript but a late appendix to it not found in any of the Coppies of this Epistle which the Fathers follow in their Commentaries in few or no ancient Greeke Latine or English Coppies and Translations of this Epistle in few or no Testaments or late Commentators And had Titus been Bishop of Creete it is like Paul would have given him this Title in the Epistle where hee stiles him Titus his owne Sonne after the Common faith c. 1. v. 4. as well as in the Postscript which in truth is none of his but some others Perchance Oecumenius his addition the first that mentions it 1050. yeares after Christi since hee speakes of Bishops by name in that Epistle Tit. 1. 7. But of this see more in the answere to the Postscript of Timothy Secondly I answer that this Postscript is directly false for it saith that this Epistle was written from Nicopolls of Macedonia Now it is cleare by the 12. verse of the third chapter of this very Epistle that Paul was not at Nicopolis when hee writ it but at some other place for hee writes thus to Titus when I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus be diligent â—ocome unto me to Nicopolis for THERE not here I have intended to winter Now had Paul then been at Nicopolis hee would have written thus for here not there I have intended to winter there being ever spoken of a place from which we are absent here only of a place present The Postscripâ— therfore being false as Mr. Perkins workes hence conclude can be no part of Canonicall scripture nor Epistle none of Paules penning but a meere ignorant Appendix of some scribe or comentator of after times and so no solid proofe to manifest Titus Bishop or Archbishop of Creete not at Nicopolis when this Epistle was written Obj. 2. If they secondly object that Paul left Titus in Creete to set in order the things that were wanting Tit. 1. 5. Ergo hee was a Bishop Answ 2. I answere that this is a meere inconsequent and I may argue in the like nature Our Archbishops and Bishops especially those who turne Courtiers Counsellers of State and Nonresidents leave their Archdeacons Chauncellers Commissaries Vicars generall and Officialls to visit order correct their Dioces and to set in order those Ceremonies Altars Images and Church ornaments which were well wanting now too much abounding in them Ergo Archdeacons Chauncellers Vicars generall and Officials are Archbishops and Bishops of those Dioces The King sends his Indges Commissioners and under Officers to some Counties or Citties to sett Causes Counties people Armes Forts Citties in good order and to see defects in these supplied Ergo Iudges Commissioners and Officers are Kings Churchwardens ought
Hyperius thus seconds him The imposition of hands in the election of a Bishop or Deacon to approove the person to the multitude or people was made by THE ELDERS in whom this authority rested whence it is here added with the laying on of hands by the authority of the Preisthood or as it is more significantly and plainely expressed in the Greeke with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery which signifieth the whole Congregation of Elders And they agreed that hee who was elected by the Consent of many should be commended and approoved as a fitt person by this externall signe Which is thus backed by Hemingius The imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is the right of ordination which the SENATE or Eldership of the Church or other Ministers of the Gospell did administer Pezelius thus jumpes in Iudgement with them Heretofore the authority of ordination was granted to Bishops at least by a humane institution yet so that the suffrages of the Church might not be excluded from the Election of Ministers and that the other Presbyters should be present at the examination and lay their hands together on him that was to be ordained For so Gratian Can. Presbyter Distinct. 23. when a Presbyter is ordained the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters likewese that are present shall hold their hands upon his head close to the Bishops hands which tended to this purpose that the Presbyters likewise might retaine the right of conscerating or ordaining to themselves and that so they might manifest that what ever the Bishop should doe that hee did it not in his owne name alone but in the name of all Musculuâ— Harpes on the same string thus It must plainely be confessed that the Ministers of Christ heretofore were elected the people being present and consenting and they were ordained and confirmed OF THE ELDERS by the laying on of hands This forme of electing Ministers is Apostolicall and lawfull which hee there prooves at large The Noble Mornay Lord of Tlessis sings the same tune in these wordes These things being thus prooved we adde that the right of laying on of hands and ordaining Ministers is in the power of the Presbyters And this verily concerning the Apostles dayes is more apparent then that it can be so much as doubted of For saith Paul to Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that is of the Presbyters or Elders Moreover Timothy himselfe ordained Elders and since a Bishop and a Presbyter are names of one and the same function if the Bishops challenge this right to themselves from the Scriptures the Presbyters also may doe the same but if they deny it to Presbyters in this very thing they aâ—rogate this right to themselves And verily this was a good forme of argument in the Church in Ancient times Hee can baptise hee can consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords body which are the greater an more honourable Actions because Sacraments of undoubted truth of Highest note and use Therefore hee may lay on hands which is lesse Now in ordaining Elders the Bishop laying his hands on the head of those that were to be ordained the rest of the Elders likewise did lay on their hands as appeares out of many places of the Decrees The Centurie writers informe us That in the Apostles time the Apostles did not assume to themselves the power of electing and ordaining Elders and Deacons but they had the suffrage and consent of the whole Church and that they and the other Ministers of the Church with them did ordaine and lay hands on them which they proove by Acts. 6. and 13. and 14. and 19. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. And in the 2. and third Century following c. 6. they affirme that Bishops and Ministers were thus elected and ordained the Elders as well as the Bishops laying their hands on them The Confession of Saxonie c. 12. resolves expresly that it belongs to the Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfully elected and called The Synod of Petrocomia Artic. 6. in Poland decreed That no Patron should receive or admit any Minister to teach in his Church unlesse hee were lawfully ordained and sent by the Superintendents and the Elders and had a good and certaine testimoniall from them and the Synod of Wlodislania Artic. 8. and 12. determines thus The ordination and mission of Ministers into certaine places to worke in the Lords vineyard is committed to the Superintendents and to the Ministers and Elders their Colleagues not to Bishops Georgius Major in his Enar in Philip. 1. 1. writes thus That there is no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Paul witnesseth in the 1. Tim. 4. 14. where hee saith Neglect not the grace that is in thee c. by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery that is of the Order or Colleadge of the Presbyters by which it is shewed that Timothy was called and ordained to his Episcopall function by the Presbyters Therefore at that time PRESBYTERS HAD THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION as well as Bishops neither was there any difference betweene them To these I might adde Master John Calvin Piscator Marlorat and most other Protestant Commentators on the 1. Tim. 4. 14. Zanchius Destatu peccati Legal in quartum Praeceptum Chemnitius Loc. Com. pars 3. De Eccles c. 4. and Examen Concilij Tridentini pars 2. De Sacram. Ordinis pag. 224. 225. c. where hee prooves at large that the election and vocation of Ministers belongs to the whole Church to the people as well as the Clergy that the imposition of hands belongs to Presbyters as well as Bishops Wherefore the Apostle sâ—ith 1. Tim. 4. 14. that Timothy had a grace and a guift by the imposition of hands neither saith hee onely of my hands but hee addes also of the Presbytery that there should be thought no difference whether any one were ordained either by the Apostles or by the Elders Aâ—tonius Sadeel Respons ad Repetita Turriani Sophism pars 2. Locus 12. Beza de diversis Ministrorum Gradibus Iunius Contr. 5. l. c. 3. n. 3. Chamierus Paustratia Cathol Tom. 2. de Oecum Pontif. c. 6. with sundry other writers of the reformed Churches who averre and proove against the Papists and Iesuites that the power of election and ordination of Ministers by the word of God belonges to the whole Church and Congregation and the imposition of hands to Ministers Elders and Presbyters as well as to Bishops and to Bishops onely as they are Ministers But hee that hath handeled and prooved this most largely and fully of all others is Gersonius Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae being an answer to Bishop Downhams Sermon of Bishops p. 261. 262. 283. 287. 292. 294. 299. 310. 318. to 367. 464. 465. 493. 498. 499. 524. 618. where this point is so learnedly and substantially
without due examination or making Ministers without a title as many now doe for which the Canons prescribe they shall be suspended from giving Orders for two yeares space are inferior in order and degree to Bishops who may execute this power and ordaine and so one Bishop shall be superior in order and degree to another Bishop which none ever yet affirmed yea all our Bishops being prohibited and disabled by their owne Canons to ordaine Ministers or Deacons at any time but onely at the 4. solemne times appointed and that in the presence of the Deane Archdeaâ—on or two Prebends at the least or of 4. other grave Persons being Masters of Art at least and allowed for publike Preachers it will hereupon follow that Bishops onely at these 4. times of the yeare are greater in dignity and degree then Ministers because they may then ordaine but not at other seasons when they have no power or authority to conferre orders upon any being restrained by the Canon All which being layd together discovers the weakennes the absurdity of this our Prelates Theory on which they build both their owne Titus his hierarchy which now fall quite to ruine with this their sandy foundation which I have here 〈◊〉 ever dissipated subverted if I mistake not Obj. 5. If any finally object that the Fathers stile Titus the first Bishop of Crete and Timothy of Ephesus therefore they were Diocaesan Bishops and superior in Jurisdiction and degree to other Ministers and so by consequence are other Diocaesan Bishops as well as they Answ 1. I answer First that neither S. Paul nor S. Luke who lived in their times and knew them farre better then any Fathers or writers since ever so much as once terme or stile them Bishops much lesse the first or sole Diocaesan Bishops of Crete or Ephesus which no doubt they would have done had they beene in truth Diocaesan Bishops there and the name the office of a Bishop so honorable and sublime above that of Ministers even Iure Divino as our Prelates and their flatterers now pretend Their testimonies therefore who stile them onely Ministers or Euangelists never Bishops is to be preferred before all Fathers and writers who stile them Bishops being neither acquainted with their persons or functions nor living in their age Secondly No Father ever stiles them or either of them a Diocaesan or sole Bishop of Crete or Ephesus the thing which ought to be prooved but Bishops onely as they stiled other Ministers the name the office of Bishops and Presbyters being but one and the same and promiscuously used in the Apostles times all Presbyters being then called Bishops and all Bishops Presbyters as is evident by Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. Tit. 1. 5. 7. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. Iohn 1. 3. Iohn 1. Philemon 9. with all ancient all moderne Commentators on these texts Whence the Translators of our last authorized English Bible affixe these Contents to Titus 1. 6. to 10. which treates of the quality of Bishops How they that are to be chosen MINISTERS ought to be qualified And the Booke of ordination of Ministers confirmed by two severall Acts of Parliament prescribes the 1. Tim. c. 3. Acts 20. and Titus 〈◊〉 to be read both at the ordination of Ministers and Consecration of Bishops and so intimates yea interpretes that Bishops and Ministers in the Scriptures language are both one in name and office and were so reputed in the Primitive Church Thirdly The Fathers use the word Elders and Bishops promiscuously calling Elders Bishops and Bishops Elders Hence Papias the Auditor of S. John and companion of Polycarpus writes thus in the Preface of his bookes It shall not seeme grievous untome if that I compile in writing and commit to memory the things which I learned of the Elders If any came in place which was a follower of the Apostles forthwith demaunded the words of the Elders what Andrew what Peter what Philip what Thomas or Iames or John or Mathew or any other of the Lords Disciples what Ariston and the Elder John Disciples of the Lord had sayd Here hee stiles not onely Bishops but even Apostles Elders Polycarpus his companion and Coaetanian writes thus in his Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to Presbyters and Deacons as to God let the Presbyters be simple and mercifull in all things Now those whom hee here stiles Presbyâ—ers S. Paul expresly termes Bishops Philip. 1. 1. Justine Martyr in his second Apology used neither the name Bishop nor Elder but termes the Minister onely Hee who is sett over the Brithren Hee who holds the first place in reference to the Deacon who held the second place not to any Elders of an inferior order to him And least any one should dreame that Iustine Martyr here speakes of a Bishop Tertullian who lived neere about that time or within few yeares in his Apology writes thus Praesident nobis probati quique Seniores c. Approoved Elders not Bishops are sett over us having obtained this honor not with any price but by a good testimony Whence it is evident that in his age every Christian Congregation had divers Elders not one Diocaesan Bishop over it to feede and rule it according to the practise of the Apostles times Acts. 14. 23. c. 20. 17. 28 c. 21. 18. Philip. 1. 1. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Tit. 1. 5. Iames 5. 14. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. Hence learned Apollinarius cals the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Ancyra in Galatia Presbyters And Clemens Alexandrinus relating the Story of the young man delivered by S. Iohn to a Bishop to traine up in the feare of God twice together cals him interchaingably both a Bishop and an Elder as Meridith Hamner a Bishop Englisheth it So Ireneus one of the ancientest of all the Fathers stiles Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna That holy and Apostolike Elder yea hee termes the Bishops of Rome themselves Elders They saith hee that were Elders before Soter of the Church which now thou governest I meane Anacletus Pius Hyginus Thelesphorus and Xystus neither did so observe it themselves neither left they any such commaundement unto posterity And the same Father Adversus Haereses l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 43. 44. oftentimes stiles Bishops Elders and Elders Bishops making Presbyters equall to Bishops in all respects and Successors to the Apostles as well as much as they So Dionysius Alexandrinus in his Epistle to Xystus Bishop of Rome about the yeare of Christ 240. writes thus There was a certaine Brother reputed to be of our Church and Faith very aged priusquam ego etiam creatus Episcopus and created a BISHOP before I was and as I thinke before blessed Heraclas was made a Bishop Where hee expresly termes this party who was but a Minister or Presbyter onely in that Church A BISHOP and saith hee was created a
as well temporall and civill as Ecclesiasticall and all these their offices stiled in Greeke a Bishopricke since every Pastor Watchman Presbyter Minister Rector and Curate who takes care of watcheth feedeth overlooketh instructeth or keepeth the flock and people committed to his charge is even in the Scriptures Language called a Bishop and said to act to doe the office of a Bishop since those who out of charity love or freindship goe to visit others who are either sicke poore Fatherlesse or otherwise distressed and God himselfe when hee comes to punish or shew mercy unto others are in the Greeke and Scripture phrase said to visit and play the Bishops as appeareth by the forecited Scriptures and by Acts. 15. 36. Where Paul said to Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Let us goe againe and visit our Brethren in every City where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they doe From which text the Rhemists would make Bishops ordinary visitation to be Jure Divino but this was no Lordly Episcopall visitation such as our Bishops now keepe for we read of no visitation Articles oathes fees or presentmens in it neither were Paul and Barnabas Bishops but it was a meere visitation of love as one freind visits another not of Jurisdiction as the last words And see how they doe together with the Councell of Laodicea Can. 57. expound it and verse 14. Symon hath declared how God 〈◊〉 at the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name And Acts. 7. 23. When Moses was full 40. yeares old it came into his heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to visit his brethren the children of Israell and since these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to visit oversee or play the Bishop imply no Lordship Soveraingty Dominion Jurisdiction or Lordly Episcopall authority in them at least no such as our Bishops now claime and exercise but rather an Act of humility charity Service and inferiority to the persons visited as is evident by Mathew 25. 3. 6. 43. Acts. 7. 23. c. 15. 36. Iam. 1. 27. Heb. 2. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 5. It hence unanswerably followes that Bishops Episcopall Lordly visitations are not Iure Divino and that other Ministers are as much Visitors and may visit as well as they that every Presbyter Minister Curate who doth faithfully discharge his duty is as much as truly as properly a Bishop both in the Scriptures language and in Gods account as any Diocaesan Bishop or Prelate whatsoever That those Bishops who merge themselves in pleasures idlenesse or secular affaires and doe not diligently faithfully intirely give themselves to preach Gods word instruct and teach the people visit the Fatherlesse imprisoned sicke poore widdowes and flockes committed to them which few of our Prelates now deine to doe are in truth in Gods in Christs account and in the Scriptures language no Bishops at all what ever they pretend that the word Bishop is not a title of Dominion Soveraingty Jurisdiction Glory Power Preheminency Pompe State Authority and Commaund as our Bishops who now presume to monopolize it to themselves alone though common 〈…〉 God 's word and ancient writers to every Minister pretend but of humility office service labor care circumspection watchfulnesse meeknesse tender-heartednesse charity familiarity and brotherly kindnes which most Prelates have now quite shaken off The Fathers stiling therefore of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus or Titus Bishop of Crete or Bishops will neither proove them to be Diocaesan or sole Bishops of those Churches or that they had a superiority or Iurisdiction as they were Bishops over all other Ministers or Presbyters in those Churches or that Archbishops or Bishops are Iure Divino superior to or different in order or degree from Presbyters who have the selfesame Commission or authority given them by Christ as they and so have equall authority with them and are as much Bishops every way by Gods Law as they even as every High Commissioner of the Quorum is as much an High Commissioner as the Archbishop of Canterbury or Yorke and hath as much authority as an High Commissioner as they since they have all the selfesame Commission which gives no greater power to one of them then the other but the same to both Indeed had Christ given a different Commission to his Apostles and the seaventy Disciples or to Timothy and Titus then to other Elders and Bishops of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete or to Bishops then hee hath given to Presbyters and Ministers there might have beene some ground to have prooved the 12. Apostles Timothy Tytus and Bishops greater in Iurisdiction power authority and degree then the 70. Disciples Presbyters and other Ministers by divine institution But since it is apparant by the Scriptures that the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples what ever some men have rashly determined to the contrary had but one and the selfe-same commission given unto them by Christ that Timothy Titus Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates have no other no larger Patent Commission or authority granted unto them by Christ then Presbyters and ordinary Ministers as the booke of Ordination manifests where the same words are used the same commission given from God to Ministers at the ordination of every Minister as there is to Bishops at the consecration of any Archbishop or Bishop since they are all joyned together in one and the selfesame divine Charter and all claime by one and the selfesame grant as is evident by Math. 28. 19. 20. Marke 6. 15 16. Iohn 20. 22. 23. Acts. 1. 8. c. 10. 47. c. 20. 17. 28. Col. 4. 17. 1. Tim. 3. 1. to 7. c. 4. 12. 13. c. 5. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. c. 6. 11. 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 14. 15. 16. c. 4. 1. to 16. Tit. 1. 5. to 14. c. 2. 1. to 15. c. 3. 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. Pet. 1. 12. 13. 1. Cor. 1. 12. 13. 17. c. 3. 4. 5. to 11. 21. 22. c. 4. 1. 6. 7. 17. c. 9. 16. 17. c. 13. 29. 30. 31. 32. Ephes 4. 11. 12. with other Scriptures it is most apparant and undeniable that by Gods word and institution they are all equall both in point of office power Iurisdiction and authority not one of them greater higher or superior then the other having the selfe-same divine ordination commission office and charge Finally Eusebius records onely that Timothy IS REPORTED to be the First Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Crete So that all the Fathers Authorities who follow Eusebius are grounded onely upon this bare report not upon any certainty therfore not to be granted or relyed on The rather because there have beene anciently in Crete no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops Suffâ—â—aganes now it is very improbable that Paul would
so no Diocaesan Bishop as our Prelates and their flatterers vainely pretend Timothy therefore being neither a Bishop nor first sole or any Bishop of Ephesus or of any other place or if a Bishop no Diocaesan Bishop but of one Church and congregation onely as these premises evidence all our Prelates inferences drawne from his example to proove their Episcopall Authority and Jurisdiction Iure Divino which for the most part hang upon his Episcopall rochet onely fall quite to ground and their Episcopall Authority together with it I now proceed to the next Question wherein I shall likewise discusse whether the power of ordination belongs onely to Bishops not to Presbyters And whether this Paradoxe of the Prelates be true that ordainers are greater in Iurisdiction and degree then those that are ordained to wit Whether Titus were ever Bishop or Archbishop of Crete What ever the common bruite and Error of these or former times conceive under correction I perswade my selfe that Titus was no Bishop nor Archbishop of Crete and that for these ensuing reasons First because the Scripture never stiles him a Bishop nor S. Paul who often stiles him his partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians not Cretians the Messenger of the Churches not Bishop and the glory of Christ 2 Cor. 8 23 6 16. his Sonne Titus 1 6 his brother 2. Cor. 7. 6 13 14. never Bishop as some would make him Secondly Because his cheifest imployment was to the Church of Corinth after that hee had been left by Paul in Creet as Paules partner and fellow-helper in that Church 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12 18. Thirdly Because hee was Paules companion attendant partner fellow-helper Messenger fixed to no setled place of residence as Bishops were 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 6. 13. c. 8. 6. 16. 23. c. 12. 18. Gal. 2 1. 3. 2. Tim. 4. 10. sent by him from Rome long after his being in Crete into Dalmatia 2. Tim. 4. 10. Fourthly Because Paul writes expresly to him Tit. 1. 5. not that hee ordained him Archbishop or Bishop of Crete but that hee left him in Creet for a season for this cause that hee should sett in order the things that were wanting and ordaine Elders in every Citty as hee had appointed him Therefore was hee there onely as Paules Vicar generall Commissary or substitute to order those things in such sort as hee had appointed him which Paul could not dispatch whiles hee was residing not as the Archbishop or Lord Bishop of Creet to order all things there by his owne Episcopall Jurisdiction and authority as hee listed himselfe Fifthly Hee expresly charged him to come to him diligently to Nicopolis when hee should sent Arthemas or Tychicus to him for there hee intended to winter Tit. 3. 12. By which it is evident that his stay in Creet by Paules appointement was very short not above halfe a yeare if so much after which wee never read hee returned thither though we finde hee was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia that hee went up to Hierusalem with Paul and came to him during his imprisonment at Rome Gal. 2. 1. 3. 2. Cor. 2. 13. c. 7. 13. 14. c. 8. 6 16. 23. c. 12. 8. 2. Tim. 4. 10. His short abode therefore in Creet without returning thither prooves him to be no Bishop Sixtly Paul chargeth him to bring Zenas the Lawyer and and Apollos diligently on their way that nothing might be wanting to them Tit. 3. 13. Now it is very unlikely that an Arch-bishop or Bishop of Creete wherein were 90. walled Cities would stoope so low as to waite thus upon Lawyer as Zenas or a Disciple as Apollos was unlesse hee were far more Humble then any Archbishops or Prelates in these our times who are commonly so insolently proud as to disdaine all familiar conversations with Lawyers or Ministers Seaventhly Paul left Titus Bishop of no one Citty in Creete and hee expresly enjoynes him to ordaine not one but many Elders in the plurall number in every Citty of Creete Tit. 1. 5. 7. where there were no lesse then 90. walled Citties in Homerus time which Elders were no other but Bishops and so tearmed by him v. 7. For a BISHOP must be blamelesse c. as Hierom. Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret Sedulius Primasius Remigius Beda Raubanus Maurus Bruno Theophilact Oecumenius Anselme Lyra Hugo Cardinalis Aquinas with other moderne Commentators on this text accord If then Paul gives expresse directions to Titus to ordaine many Elders and Bishops in every Citty of Creete constituting him a Bishop in none of them that we read of an apparant argument that hee was no Bishop there because hee had there no Bishops See at all and was no sole Bishop of any one Citty it is not probable that hee constituted him sole Archbishop or Bishop of all Creet which had anciently no lesse then 4. Archbishops and 21. Bishops in it it being the Apostles practise to place many Bishops and Elders in one Church but never one Bishop or Archbishop over many Churches Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 20. 28. Hence Athanasius Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophilact on Titus 1. 5. 7. write thus Here hee will have Bishops to be understood for Presbyters or Ministers as we have elsewhere often said neither verily would hee have the charge of the whole Iland to be permitted or granted to one man but that every one should have his owne proper cure charge allotted him for hee knew that the labour paines would be the lighter and that the people would be governed with greater diligence if that the Doctor or teacher should not be distracted with the government of many Churches but should onely give himselfe to the government of one and study to compose and adorne it with his maners So also Peter Lombard Alphonsus de Castro Doctor Barnes and others on and from this text determine Eightly All generally accord that Archbishops yea Metropolitanes BISHOPS themselves are not of divine or Apo stolicall but Papall and humane Constitution witnesse Pope Nicolas apud Gratianum Distinct 22. c. 1. Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropolis primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Ecclesiarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem INSTITVIT ROMANA ECCLESIA Which Pope Anacletus in his 3. Epist. c. 3. doth likewise averre and Pope Lucinus and Clement in Gratian Distinct 80. affirme as much informing us that Archbishops and Primates are the Successors of the Hathenish Arch-Flamens and to be placed onely in those Citties where the Arch-Flamens had their Sees with which Peter Lombard accords lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Hence our Historians record of King Lucius the first Christian Prince of this our Realme that hee instituted 3. Archbishoprickes and 25. Bishop-rickes and Bishops in stead of the 3. Arch-Flamens and 25. Flamens changing their Sees into Bishoprickes and Archbishop-rickes by which it is evident that Archbishops Patriarkes and Metropolitans