Churches to return home which Iudas accepted, Sylas did not; for we read ver. 34. notwithstanding it pleafed Sylas to abide there ftill. Afterwards this Sylas is affumed by St. Paul into a partnership, Act. 15. 39. 40. ere he joyned with him in Apoftofical works: Wherefore Indas and Sylas at their firft emiffion from Terufalem, were Elders of that Church, or Minifters of the fecond and inferiour order, whofe emiffion, and the after exercife of a part of their function by Prophefie, perfwading the Gentile Beleevers to fubmit to the Jewish Churches decrees, is all that is proved by the Assemblies Texts in proof of Iudas his Evangelizate. But how far they are from proving him fuch an Evangelift, as is defined by Calvin, or Spanhemius, any one who is not partial, or irrational may eafily determine, for in or out of that Chapter (except in the forementioned places) he is not fpoken of, much less faid to be affociated with any Apostle, or fent forth by him with Apoftolical authority, to plant new, or prune old Churches; all which fhould have been proved, ere. the Affembly had fo ventroudly called him an Evangelift. Buti let us fee whether they have any better hap with Sylas, concer ning whom hath been obferved. Firft his emiflion by the fame Sylas his Apoftles, at the fame time, and for the fame work with Tudas. Evangelizate Act. 15. 22. confequently that they were then both of one or

examined.

Fifth Ex

ception. The feventy Difciples were Evangelifts

no

1. Calvins cited text doth not prove it.

der. Secondly, his affumption afterwards by St, Paul into a
partnership, Act. 15, 39,40. This affumption, and the fuce
ceeding affociate actions done, both by St. Paul and Sylas, is
only held forth by the numerous Texts cited by the affembly, in
proof of Syla's his Evangelizate, In all which the word Evan-
gelift, or any word of kin to it, is not used, nor in any of
them, neither do they hint his inferiority, or fubordination
infe
to St. Paul to plainly do they prove him no Evangelift in a
Presbyterian fenfe, although our affembly Lay the contrary. Be
fides if either Iudas, or Sylas was an Evangelift, from, and after
the time that Sylas was affociated by St, Paul, then forthwith
the
e other is deofficed, for both of them could not be Evange
Ims in one fenfe, becaufe their works before, and after Sylas:
his affumption were divers, and each fubordinate unto other
Thus we take our farewel ofthe fourth Exception. 16

Fifth Exception. The feventy Difciples were no Evangelifts. The affirmative is Calvins and Bucanus's, and they both pretend to prove it by Luk. 1o. 1, where Chrifts defignation, and emiffion of the feventy into every place and City, whither be bimfelf would come, is recorded. Which work were it allowed to

be

t;

that text to

be an Evangelizate, or the work-men to be Evangelifts in a proper and diftinct fenfe, it would ftand the Definers in noftead, the miffion and works of the feventy Difciples being no way parallel to the miffion, and works affigned by their Definition unto the Presbyterian Evangelift: We dare trust any Reader to compare the Text and the Definitions, and will tranfcribe neither of them. But perhaps we may fave him (as well as our 2 Calvin felves a labour; for Calvin ferves this Text as the former will not allow brings the record and fpeaks without it, yea which may feem fpeak ef Evanincredible, he did not think the perfons there mentioned, to be gelifts. fuch Evangelifts as he defines, for his Commentary upon the text, puts the fortaffe in his Definition out of doubt, there he faith, The feventy Disciples had properly no legation commit red to them; which is moft repugnant, Firft, to the nature of an Evangelift. Secondly, to Calvins own Definition of an Evangelift. Thirdly, to what St. Luke writes of the feventy Dif ciples.

Nulla his difcipulis proprie fuit commia lega tio. Cal. ad Luk. 10. 1.

દ

First, to the nature of an Evangeliff, who is a Church-officer inftituted by Chrift, but to be an officer without legation, or appointment to the office, is as impoffible, as to be a natural Father without a Child. Secondly, to Calvins own Definiti on of the Evangelift, wherein he gives him an employment, and confequently an appointment to it, for how can any fupply the Apoffles places without legation to that charge? to what purpofe is all the noife of the Apoftolical ordination, a affociation, or emiffion, if the Evangelifts had no legation, but acted upon their own heads. Thirdly, to what St. Luke writes of the feventy, he is in nothing more exact throughout his Hiftory, then in the diftinct enumeration of their commiffion, ordination, and emiffion; That one Chapter Luk. 10. prefents us with four obfervables concerning them. Firft their defignation, Luk. 10. 1. After thefe things the Lord appointed o ther feventy alfo In which few words are confiderable, firft who appointing? the Lord Chrift; Secondly who appointed? other feventy alfo, fome were appointed before, thefe were other feventy allo; Thirdly when appointed? after thefe things, i. e. after what precedes in this Hiftory, and particularly after the emiffion of the twelve in the foregoing Chapter. Fourthly, after what manner they were appointed? vide herenunciated, demonftrated, or published, as electors to Civil offices, give notice of their Eligees. Suffice this for explication of the first

L 2

obfervable

10. 19.

obfervable in St. Lukes Hiftory concerning the feventy. Secondly, their Commiffion, and work in the last part of ver. 1. vCE. 5. and ver. 16. together with the ground of both, ver. 2. and their priviledges ver. 4. Thirdly their Emiffion, ver. 3. Fourthly, their Confirmation, or continuance in the harveft after their firft fruits were brought in, and accounted for ver. 19. Behold I give you power, &e. This notes continuance of Chrifts prefence with them, for he doth not speak in the past cense of what he had given, but in the present tenfe of what he now gives, and confirms. This nineteenth verfe is a good way from the beginning of the Chapter; and Calvin hath now forgot what he wrote on the firft verfe. For there he faith, they bad no In pofterum legation, here he faith, Cbrift confirms his Difciples for the future. confirmat Di Scipulos. This latter is true; and confirmed by Euthymius, as Maldo Calvad Luc. nate upon the place quotes him. The result of all this is, either Calvin did not define the Evangelift, or the feventy Di ciples (himself being Judge) were no Evangelifts. What then! doth Calvin contradict himself? he doth fo, and I would to God that were all, it were no more then a particular confir mation of this general axiom, that all men are lyars. But there is more in it, for when pretenders to explain, do obfcure things, 'tis defignedly to pucker,intangle, and ruffle them Thirdly, fo inte infolvable knots: However Polanus, and Spanhemius lend and Spanhe us a fharp fword to cut them in pieces, for perceiving Calvins felf-willednefs, and fingle ftanding against all Antiquity, to be too obvious to be publiquely owned, they endeavour to turn Polan. partit. Theol. lib. 1. the knot of the Text another way, and fay, The Seventy were s p. 127. Span- fort of Apoftolical men, diftinct from Apoftles, and Evangelifts; but hem.difput. de they do not tell us what fort of Apoftolical men they were, or miniftrorum wherein their diftinction from Apoftles, and Evangelifts did confift, and I beleeve they were well enough content to leave it fo: Whereby they make all before cited of the Seventy, to be a meer dumb fhew, and tranfient ceremony, and leave Presbyters at a lofs about the original of their own order. Whether because upftart-like they are afhamed to own their poor Pa rents, let others determine. To these fhifts are modern wits reduced, and in thefe by-paths do they wander, when they are weary of the old way, beaten with the track of former Saints; and difdain to acknowledge any able labourer in Gods Vineyard, befide, or before themfelves. Antiquity with one. Fourthly fo mouth proclaims the Presbyterate of the Seventy, and fays, doth Antiqui- Presbyters fucceed them, as Bishops fucceed the Apoftles; but

doth Polanus

mius.

vocatione,

ty.

modern

modern Presbyters fay, They were Evangelifts, Apest dical men, any thing, nothing (for they Jay their office was temporary, and dif continued) rather then they will confent to Antiquity, or yeild to truth. But both opinions act upon fome reafons, let the reader judge which are moft convincing, and forcible. The Antients living nigh to the Apoftles times, and reflecting upon the diftinct, and fucceffive ordination of Bishops; and Presbyters from time to time, were careful to find out, and keep apart their originals, and first locations in the Church. This fo farr as concerns Presbyters, was the ordination of the se→ venty Difciples; and was the reason why the Antients alwaies called them Presbyters. But our Definers living at a great distance from the Primitive times, when the Church state was much corrupted: Papal tyranny by a way peculiar to all tyrants, having confounded all orders, except thofe of its own erecti on. They designing reformation(whether because they were of the lower order, or because the Magiftrates, and Common- Our Preswealths, under which they lived, would admit only of thofe byterian Afofficers who complyed most friendly with their Civil Govern fembly tartly ments, or for other reafons which themselves can give) did ut- diffenting breurging the terly renounce the fuperiour Ecclefiaftical order. This at- thren to a full tempt being fo contrary to Chrifts diverse Institutions of the conformity,to twelve Apostles, and feventy Difciples, the plain constitutions their govern of the Church at Jerufalem, in Apoftles, and Elders, and the both of them ment (which frame of all other Churches, front our Lords afcenfion untill in the Bifhops their time,they were neceffitated to countenance one evil, by dayes called the perpetration of another, and having thrown out the office the discipline to wreft those texts from truth, and the expofition of all for-ceive from of God) remer Saints, which might, (as this of St. Luke) be a Land-mark them a fmaror Mere-ftone, to discover the former diverfity, and diftincti- ter denyal, on betwixt the officers. But enough is faid ofthis fifth Ex they alledg ception, and we matter not what Readers think it too much, fo ing that, what hath been spoken be truth, as we verily beleeve it is. there may be a greater wa riation, from

government which is established in a divine right whereby they imply there is fuch a government but diftinct from the Presbyterian) much more from a government which is not eftablished on a Jus divinum. They add in the fame,But when the government it felf, hath its toleration from the ftate, &c. Diffenters answer to the Affemblies papers before the Committee for accommodation, pag. 25. Our perfetation is, faith the learned Hooker Cipeaking of the Presbyterian government that no are had ever knowledge of it but only our s,that they which defend it, devised it, that neither Chrift, nor his Apoftles at any ime taught it, but the contrary. Hooker's Ecclefiaftical Policy, Lib. 3. Sect. 10.

Sixth

Sixth Exception. This paffage, Gofpel-writers were Evangelifts (which vein-like conveys corrupt blood through the body of the former Definitions) fupplies matter to our fixth Exception. We would free our felves and Readers from miftakes: Wherefore be it known we level our Exception, not against the calling Gofpel writers Evangelifts, for fuch they were in a general and large fenfe, but against the Definers unwarinefs, who being to define, a yet continuing Church-officer, and citing a text which treats of him in that notion, fhould yet notwithstanding caft up Scripture-writers in their number, between whose order and our obfervation, the holy Ghoft draws a veile, for inftance St. Luke. And whose work was not official, but oftemporary, and extraordinary Revelation; the major part of the twelve Apostles, being no Scripture-writers, when others not of their number, as St. Luke, and St. Mark were. Befides the word Evangelift is not used of the Pen-men of holy Writ, in all the new Teftament, which we afcribe to Gods wifdome, and efpecial care of his Churches peace, leaft otherwife brain-fick giddy, and vain-glorious perfons perceiving that text speaks of a formed Church, and of fucceffive Churchofficers(as indeed it doth) fhould affume confidence to profess what others have the impudence to conceive, namely that there is a ftanding Church-officer who may write a fifth Gospel, and third TeftaMorbaarhed ment of the holy Ghost, because Chrift hath fet fome Evangeapdailifts, or Golpel-writers in the Church, till we all come in the ubalaa 2 web nity, Oẹ, which terms are generally accknowledged to com7th prehend every period of time, from the firft age of the Chriftian Churches militancy, until the victory which advanceth her to the flate and bleffednefs of triumphant glory. Moreover, Vid Baron modern Enthusiasts may hence be encouraged to cenfure the ad gofdém and proceedings of the antient Church in rejecting Bafilides his Gospel, writ A. C. 120. Valentinus his Gofpel, promulga a Scapula ad verbum exted, A. C. 14 Marcions Gospel and Apoftolick inftrument Scythianu published, A. C. 146. And Mants his Gofpel, and twelve X Thefauro Apostles fent forth to preach it, A. C. 277. Thefe inconveniStephani. ences are forefeen by more ocular Authors, fame (a) whereoffay, relle Eftf. ad opel-writers are called Evangelists tralatitiously; (b) others say, Eph. 4.11.they were fo called improperly. Our learned Whitaker, (c) adMinto bie judgeth Bellarmine interpreting Evangelifts in this text by Gofgram feite, pel-writers, to be worthy of fcorn not anwer. Finally, no 6. Whitak one book of Scripture, bears the name of Philip or Timothy, or comes commended to the Church fingly under their name.

minus-15 2

To. 2.con

trov., pag.

$30.

But