Page images
PDF
EPUB

men without Scripture warrant with the other, being the fittest and ableft Reformers. This fhall conclude our feventh Exception, and answer to the Objections which might be made against it. We proceed to the

Eight Except. Eighth Exception. Bucanus bemifts his Readers Judgment none of Buca- with a Fog of bold pretentions, he calls them Scripture proof nus his Scrip- concerning the Evangelizate of several persons nominated in the

tures prove

this definiti

òn.

new Testament When upon examination, they will prove him felf an Evangelift in the fenfe of his Definition, as foon as any whom he calls by that name. How thick do Evangelifts drop from his Pen? Luke, Mark, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Philip; And what a large fcope of holy ground do they overfpread? Tit. 1. 5. Act. 16. 3. 2 Tim. 4. 5. ver. 11, 12, 2 Cor. 8. 23. A&t. 21.8. Luk. 10. 1. Rom. 16. 7. These Scriptures are eight in number, fix whereof neither name, nor take no tice of any Evangelift. The other two name Evangelifts in the particular perfons of Philip, A&t. 21. 8. and Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.5. But our Definer doth not refolve us, whether Timothy and Philip did precisely, and feparately all the works mentioned in his Definition, or whether they both of them wrought one and the fame works, neglecting therein, as alfo do all the reft of his brethren, the principal part of his duty, which is when words are equivocal, or of divers fenfes, (as the word Evangelift is to fegregate, and difperfe the common fignifications, and to limit by exprefs enumeration of fpecial Acts, the distinct fenfe wherein he accepts them. This had Bucanus had leifure, or a will to have done, he would foon have perceived, that the term Evangelift could not agree to Philip and Timothy, in one fenfe: But fince he omits it wholy, we fhall not urge it any farther in this place, hereafter we will do it with our full ftrength, when preparatory to our Definition of the Officer, we fhall separate the Equivocal fenfes of the name; Whether with the two Texts, Act. 21. 8. 2 Tim, 4.5. we refer it. Befides, could Timothy and Philep, be both of them proved to be formal and proper Evangelifts, and their works altogether the fame, what is this to the proof of the Evangelizate of Luke, Mark, Tychicus and Titus, whom, or any of whom no Scripture calls Evangelifts, nor can it thence be proved that all of them did only the fame works one with another, or with Philip and Timothy. The fole proving whereof would have contributed more to the Definition of this Officer, then either Bucanus, Calvin, or all the rest of the Definers have effected. But let

[ocr errors]

us confider what Bueanus hath done; Tit. 1.5. is his leading proof, there we read. For this cause left I thee in Creet, that thon fhouldft fet in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee. Here is the words of the Text, but where is the Evangelift? or how fhall we know it treats of an Evangelift? Are we answered, that although the word Evangelift be not Syllabically written in it, yet what was fo loudly called for before answers here, namely Titus did the fame works at Creet, as Timothy did at Ephesus; but Timothy is called an Evangelift, therefore he and Titus are both of them Evangelifts. Ireply; the works required to be done by Titus in this Text, were ordination of Minifters, and fetting things in order, which must be understood of giving Rules a bout Difcipline, or exercife of Ecclefiaftical Cenfures, or both of them; If which were Timothies works at Ephefus, and with relation to them, he is called fuch an Evangelift by St. Paul, as Bucanus, Beza, Calvin, and Zanchy define, then Timothy, and Titus were both of them Evangelifts. But in finding two Evangelifts, we have loft two other things, viz. Ordination of Minifters, and exercife of Ecclefiaftical Difcipline and Cenfures, for thofe Definers fay, the Evangelifts were temporary, now operation follows being, and longer then the Office the work cannot continue.

It is faid what was temporary in them, is perpetual in the or- obj. dinary Officers, or Presbyters.

Ianfwer. Besides the unfoundness of the diftin&tion, it be-sol. ing both Antifcriptural, and weakly built in the brains of its firft Forgers; the Objection is levelled by a bare review of that Church-state, where Timothy was exhorted to abide, and do those works of Ordination & Government.That Church was Ephefis, fhe had Presbyters affixed to her ere he came thither, as hath been already proved in the foregoing part of this dif courfe, and fhall be more fully evidenced in the remaining and Propofition following part. Neither is there any one Scripture extant of concerning Presbyters ordaining fingly, feparate, and diftin&t from the Presby terial higher Order. I know from what misinterpreted Texts they ordination in derive their challenge, and fhall in fit place (even the Tract of the Affemblies Apoftles) glean out the Tares which they have mingled among Parliament. the Wheat: Suffice it here to hint, that the fingle pillar of Chapt. of the Presbyterian Ordination, in the Judgment of our Affembly is power of or1 Tim. 4. 14. But Calvin the founder of their Difcipline could difcern it to look that way. This Gillespy puts off flightly, and Cited by Fus

B b

advice to the

dination.

divin. I. par.

faith pag. 181.

Jus divin.

1. par pag. 4.

Annot. ad 1 Tim. 4. 14. &ad 2 Tim.

1. 6.

faith it was one of Calvins few mistakes. Calvins mistakes I am not concerned in, but I wonder Gillespy fo farr miftook the intereft of his party in this acknowledgment; the confequence utterly overthrowing the Presbyterian Platform, it implying Calvin built it upon a wrong foundation; whereat fhall we hold our peace, and fuffer Presbyters to give Presbytery what fense they please in 1 Tim.4.14.yet comparing it,with 2 Tim 1.6. It proves nothing lefs,then their ordainingfingly,& diftinct from the higher order: Hence the London Minifters write in the Line against these two Texts in the Margent ;that S. Paul was ordained by Chrift,Timothy by Paul & the Presbytery. This is alfo the judgment of the Affembly.But of this largely in the Tract concerning Apostles. And to return to the point before us. I lay,and affirm that if Timothy, and Titus were temporary Evangelists, because either of them performed the fame Ecclefiaftical Acts of Ordination and Cenfures; then were those Acts as well as their Office, temporary. Thefe Rocks are avoided by fteering clofe to the scope of St. Paul, in 2 Tim. 4. 1. ad fin. 6. And we hope the Reader will be fatisfied upon bare reading of the words, that Timothy is called an Evangelift upon another score, then for Ordination of Minifters, exercife of Difcipline, &c. However he may expect a full explication of that Text hereafter in this difcourfe, when we examin the validity of the Presbyte rian Arguments in proof of Timothies Evangelizate.

We proceed at prefent to examin the reft of Bucanus his Scriptures; whereof 2 Cor. 8. 23. is another,which though it be not next in his order, and ranking of his Texts, yet because it concerns Evangelift Titus, we take liberty to examin it in this place. The holy Ghoft there dictates. If any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner, and fellow helper concerning you, or cur brethren be enquired of,they are the Messengers(mono, the Apostles) of the Churches, and the glory of Chrift.Can any Text fpeak less of the Evangelift then this doth? what advantageth it a cause to fub pana many witneffes, who appearing in Court will not lay their hand upon the book, or if they do either fland mute, or speak not to the point in controverfie. 'Tis true St. Paul calls Titus, Gripy andrs or partner,and fellow-belper: But what are these words towards the proof of an Evangelift, or an Officer who is inferiour in dignity, and next in Office unto the Apostles. The word properly fignifies one of two,or more,who hold,and exercise the lame thing, Eftate, Trade, or Office in common among them; wherein all have a like propriety, fuch part

nership.

nership, not confifting in ones value, or estimation of another, but in every of their joynt intereft, for instance, it is used of men of the fame vocation, thus Luk. 5. 10. And fo was alfo Fames, and John the fons of Zebedee, which were partners, 0100 TOR with Simon. i. e. they were all Fishermen, and traded upon a common Stock. St. Paul calls Philemon his partner, ver. 17. and urgeth it as an Argument, why he should receive his Runnagate fervant Onefimus into favour, and employment; which partnership let it confift either in work, or wealth, implies joynt intereft and concernment, otherwife St. Pauls argument had been weak and invalid. Thus fufferers of like affliction, Heb. 10 33. and sharers of like grace, 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 4. 1 Cor. 10. 13. and ver. 20. 2 Cor. 1. 7. are all of them expreffed by this word xrs. The fubftantive xvia which with us are stems fprouting from one and the fame root, is used of the Act of the other Apoftles, receiving S.Paul & Barnabas into a fellowship of their Office.Gal.2.9. And when James,Cephas,& John, who seemed to be pillars,perceived the grace which was given to me,they gave to me and Barnabas the right band of fellowship, novias And why did they give it, even as it follows in the verfe, that we should go unto the Heathen, they unto the Circumcifion. This being the ufual fenfe of the word ours in other places, therefore Titus being called St. Pauls partner,doth more probably evince his Apoftolate then his Evangelizate, especially if we reflect upon him; either ordaining elders, and fetting things in order at Creet, Tit. I. 5.or accompanying his fellow travailers in this Text of the Epifile to the Corinthians; Who are called ἀδελφὸς ἡμῖν Απόςολοι Ἐκκλησιῶν or our brethren the Apostles of the Churches...

The other word uvey or fellow helper,is promiscuously used of any kind of helpers, either temporal or fpiritual; Thus Aquila, and Prifcilla are called St. Pauls helpers. Rom. 16. 3. Greet Aquila, and Prifcilla my helpers. What Aquila was we difpute not, but Prifcilla could not be St. Pauls helper in the Minifterial Office, the being of the Sex prohibited to take Orders. Contrariwife, Titus was St. Pauls helper in Office, he being engaged at Creet upon diftinct Apoftolical works; which whether they make both St. Paul, and Titus to be of one Order, or one an Apoftle, the other an Evangelift, let the prudent Reader determine; our bufinefs is to proceed to the examination of the refidue of Bucanus his Text; whereof, A&t. 16. 3. is the third. It concerns Evangelift Timothy, and relates how St. Paul took, and circumcifed him; which I believe Bucanus mif

Bb 2

took

In loc.

[ocr errors]

ftook for his taking him, and fending him forth to Evangelize, the words are him (i. e. Timothy, of whom the difcourfe is continued from the first verfe) would S. Paul have to go forth with him, and took him and circumcifed him, becanfe of the Jews which dwelt in those quarters, for they all knew that his father was a Greek This Timothy long after miniftred to St. Paul, A&t. 19. 12. confequently could not be at the time of St. Pauls circumcifing him his Companion and Fellow labourer, for the reafons expreffed in the fecond Exception of this difcourfe, pag. 69. 49 Suffice this in examination of his third, proceed we to his fourth Text, which is 2. Tim. 4. 11, 12. This is his proof of three Evangelifts, let us read it, and beed it well; the words are. Only Luke is with me, take Mark and bring him along with thee, for he is profitable unto me for the Ministry; And Tychicus bave I fent to Ephefus. Here are three men named, Luk, Mark, and Tychicus, but were a thousand Alembicks fet to the Text, and wonder-working Paracelfus alive to tend them, he could not thence extract three, yea not one Evangelift; for inftance. Only Luke is with me; what pity is it that as an Evangelist is not added? or is fuch addition needlefs? was every companion to the Apoftles an Evangelift? Alas it cannot be, for Barnabas was with St. Paul, Act. 14. 14. and yet he; Prifcilla was with St. Paul, A&t. 18.18. and yet fhe was no Evangelift. Bring Mark along with thee; where fhall we find the Evangelift in this phrafe? If we grope by conjecture, 'tis because our Author leads us into, and leaves us in the dark; was Markan Evangelift,because he travailed in company, or was defired to accompany with Timothy the Evangelift? The primitive cuftom yet continuing, that Officers of the fame Order fhould travailin couples. This proves one incertainty by another more incertain, till Timothies Evangelizate be clearly, and convincingly proved. But what if Timothy was no Evangelift in the sense of Bucanus his Definition: And what if Mark were the fame perfon whom Barnabas affumed into a partnership, as is probably affirmed by Efthius, and A Lapide. Then Mark was as farr from being an Evange lift,as the Text is from mentioning it. Ticbicus have I fent to Ephelus but wherefore? could he be fent upon no other errand,except to Evangelize? What was Timothy, and the Church at Ephefus Echnick, and yet to hear the first news of Chrift; or is an Apoftles Meffenger; and an Evangelift terms Equivalent ? If we will beleeve the Poflfcript to the Epistle to the Romans, it will affure us that Phele carried it to Rome, but I hope none

will

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »