Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after hee injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemall station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so Wee adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
this angell if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of order or of gifts and parts Where is it said that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs aâ— Epistle to one angell it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels but at most onely a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may reade in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Iâ—â— Divinum of the Episcopall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessariò oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesia modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted oâ—t of the Church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot coÌ„ceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscripts and so all the rest are no part of Canonicall Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text Although our Episcopall men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here we demand whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to be subscribed thâ— first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed the second Epistle unto Timothy ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the EphesiaÌ„s was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ— editione apud Syrum interpretem If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter He doth not say Here to winter but there Where note for the present hee was not there And besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocesse but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appeares that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these
but this is but a blind wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader for wee challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine or any other of the Bishops of these times so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of former times inpoint of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in Causes Criminall where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeeld them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civill Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon naturall equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospell convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospell light can yet the Custome of the Church to which they so oft appeale may both convince them of this iniquitie and discover to all the world the contrarietie of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plaintiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after Complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and qualitâ—e of the Accuser Concilâ— prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the Witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryall without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If the crime be so publique that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saâ—ing Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which either by confession or by lawfull proofe comes to be knowne or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the dâ—fendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his Oath to answer before he knowes what his accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesâ—e of his owne Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lie without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take an Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his owne innocencie That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civill and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to heare what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular businesse but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperours who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perversè fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes towards Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civill Magisâ—rates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast Civill dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignitie unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutnesse and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperours command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicite them to present their grievances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appeares by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civill dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom Civill authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacie with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakned by the Bishops interposing in secular affaires