vid. 28. ibid.

2. It was the laft Settlement he intended to make
there, and therefore he tells 'em they fhouldy^^ hisFacs
nQ more. Ver. 2$,

3. 'Twas intended for a perpetual Eftablifhment,
not only in the Church of Ephefusy but in all other
Churches. That it was perpetual appears, becaufe

The Apoftle gave 'em his dying Thoughts, for he
pofitively tells 'em, he fhou'd fee their Faces no more.
If any therefore fay it was temporary, he ought to
prove it.

Befides, Taul in his Difcourfe with the Ephefian
Presbyters does not give the leaft Hint of any Bifhop
he had fet over 'em, or that he intended to itt one
hereafter j this therefore was the laft and determin-
ing Settlement.

4. No Reafon can be given why this Government
fhou'd be afterwards chang'd, fince 'tis here fettled
by him, with whom there is no Variablenefs nor Shi>
dew of turning. He is always in one Mind.

I 4 Three



J ao A VindxccLtim of

Three Things urg'd by the Adverfary for ;hc
Change of this Government :

* T. That the Appftle committed tlie Goveritment

* of this Cliurch, /// tis ^^fence, unto thefe Presbyters

* (or Bifhops) FoYy fays the Rcdpr, riljuppoje at pre-
*â–  fent th:it the ^Tith and Tower of Bijhops belong d to \m.

Anj\ Here's an Acknowledgment that the Govern-
ment of the Ephefian Church was at firft devolved up-
on the Presbyters therej but, Viu^j during his A^fcnce^
fay they.

A' Be itfo; but his Ahjence was to be perpetual, if
any Credit be to be given to an infpired Perfon, who
tells 'em exprefly, / know ye fi all fee tny Face no 7nore.
ABs 20. 25.

' 2. Tatil being fet at Liberty, or returning back
*^ from Italy to the £///?, and being npw old, and
^ finding Divifions every where encreas'di, conftituted
"- T^imothy Bifliop of Bph^fiuh as doubtlefs he did in
^ all other Places.

Anf Doubtlefs not a Word of all this is true, the
Divifions excepted j the Iniinuation, that the Epiflle
to T'imothy was written after VauVs Imprifonment at
Rome is falfe. The Scripture no where fays thit
Vaul conftituted T'imothy Bifhop of Ephefius- St. John
was there for fome Time after St. Paurs Departure,
fo that there was no need of a Bifhop, while an Apo-
iflle cou'd overfee the Church himfelf. E,ufeb* 3. 17, 18
Jren. adv. Har. 3.

* And that Taul made B/'JJjops in all other Places, is
what was never yet prov'd^ if by thcfe he means
Diocefans.

Here, he adds, ^ That T'lmothy left a Succeflbr, be-
' caufe Chrifl direds his Meffage to xhc Angeioi the
' Church in the lingular Number, arid not to the
' Presbytery "in phe pkiral

Anf. The Word Angel is taken colledively for d.
Multitude, fo 'tis in Rev. 14. d^. / faw another Angel
ft) in themidn of HeazTriy I e. many Minifters. So
' •• ■■ - ■ Mat



Mr. J. OwenV flea. 1 1 1

Mai. 2, 7. T^he Pnefts Lips (in the plural Number)
jbould keep Knowledge^ and they fiould feek the Law at his
Mouth, for he is the Mejfenger, — He, in the fin^ulat
Number, is the Mejfenger (or Angel as the LXX) oj
the Lord. Here all the Jewijh Priefls are fpoken of as
if they had been one fingle Man ; nay more, they are
call'd the Jngcl, juft as the Paftors of the feven A/tan
Churches are term'd-

Or thefe Angels might be Prefidents of thofe Pref-
byteries, becaufe they are confider*d cbere as the Di-
fpenfcrs of the Word and Sacraments, which is not
the OfEcc of a Diocefau Bifiiop, as diftind from Pref-
byters.

If by the Angels of the Afiatick Churches we un-
derftand their Diocefan Bifhops, then they are their
Bi/Iiops, who are exprefiy charged with all thefe Sins,
for which God threatens to remove their Candlc-
fticks, for the Declenfions there are imputed to the
Angels of the Churches.

To prevent fo invidious a Refledion, we fay, that
by Angels are not iinderilood any particular Men,
but the Paftors, and their Churches; and therefore
the Epiftles in the 2d and 3d of Revelations cud thus:
He that has an Ear let him hear what the Spirit f^th to
the Churches. Rev- 2. 7. 1 7. 29. —

By ^«^t/ therefore is not meant a fingje Perfon', but
^ Multitude j upon which Account we find a Change
in the Number ,* fo' Rev. 2. 10. Fear none of thoja
'Jtijings which lthou']/halt fufer, behold the D^vil fiall caji
fome of [you] into Prifon, in the Plural Number.

Befides, the Word Angel does not import Jurifdi-
ftion and Government, which is appropriated to
Diocefans, but is a Name of Miniftry, and fignilies
a Meffenger or Servant, and fo every Minifter is an
Angel or Meffenger of the Church.

Again, there's no mention made of thofe AJiatkk
Angels, as an Order fuperior to Presbyters ; and till
this be prov'd, the 4rguinent drawn from em is itx-
cpnclufive. Ephe-



1 ai A Vindication of

Ephefmy the firft of the feven Churches, had at this
Time a Presbytery of true Scriptural Bifliops fettled
in it. AEls 20. 17. 28. which is fufficient to overthrow
the Arguments drawn by Prelatifts from, the Apoca-
lyptical Angel.

' 3. The third Reafon to prove the Change of
« Presbytery into Prelacy^ is taken from Ignatius s Epi-

* file to that Church, in which he Name$ Onefimiis

* their Bifhop ; and therefore 'timothy left an Epifco-
•"ipal SucceHbr.

' A^f' If Ignatius be genuine, which is very doubt-
ful^ all that can be gathered from. him, is, the Name
of Bijhof, which the Holy Ghoft gives to all Presby-
ters in common,- in his Time began to be appropiat-
cd to the fenior Presbyter, who for Order*s-fake pre-
sided over the reft in their AHemblies, but without
any Power of Jurifdidion over his Brethren. And
when he died, the next to him fucceeded; tho* after-
wards, when the fenior Presbyter proving not fit for
the Place, they changed the SuccefTion by Seniority,
into that by Eledion, as Hilarius the Deacon affirms
in Ephef. 4.

The Presbyteries chofe the fitteft Perfon to be their
Moderator or Prefident, as is done in all the Pref-
byteries of the Reformed Churches. Now, that Pre-
Jident had no new Ordination, or Authority ; and
therefore primitive Bifhops were not of the fame Spe-
cies with the modern.

That this was the primitive Bifhop, is proved in
the Plea.

That Paul fix'd more than one Bifhop in a Church,
Phil I. I. AB.S 20. 28. and therefore congregational
Bifhops vv'-ere common before Ignatims Time i and
that JgnatiMis Bifhop, was but the Paftor of a Church,
or a Parochial Bifhop only, will evidently appear
from the enfuing Paffages taken out of his Epiftles.
In the Days of Ignatimy
' f. The \^hole Dioc^fs met, together with the K-

' ^' fhop.



Mr.]. Owm'sTlea. ii^

(hop, for publick Worftip, which {hews that it ex-
ceeded not the Bounds of a modern Parifh. M. Smyrn.
Edit. VoJ. p. 6. ad. Eph.p. 20, 35, 34. ad. Magn, FhiL

2. Baptifm was generally adminiftred by the Bi-
fhop within his Diocefs, which proves it to be Paro-
chial. Ad. Sntyrn- /. '6.

3. The Bifhop had but one Communion- Table in
his whole Diocefs, at which he adminiftred the
LordVSupper to his whole Flock ,• therefore they
were not very numerous. Ad, Vhil. p> 41. 7'ert, deCor.
Milit.f' 338.

4. No Marriages were made without the Bifhop.
Ad. Tcly. p. 13.

5. The Bifhop himfclf took Care of the Poor of
hh Diocds. Ad. Voly. p. 12, 13.

Now what Diocefan Bifhop can perform all the a-
bove-mention*d iV^^ts in his Diocefs, which perhaps
confifts of Hundreds of Pariflies ? But they are very
confiftent with the Duty of a Parochial Bi/hop, and
fuch a one Ignatims Bifiiop was, nay muft be.

The learned Mr. Boyfe of Dublin^ in his Account of
the anciem Ep/fcopacy, has, in my Judgment, put that
Matter beyond Difpute, if Demonftration may pafs
for Argument. Printed at London, 171 2.

' But, fays the Redor, I'itus was left in Crete to
* ordain Elders in every City.

A.* T'itus wa.s an Evangelift, part of whofe Work
was to ordain ; but 'tis no where faid that Paul
made him Bifhop of Crete. He was foon fent from
thence to NicopoUs^ as "Tit. 3, 12.

After he went this time from Crete, we never read
of his returning thither again. But after this we
find him fent into Dalmatiay and we hear no more of
him. 2 TIw. 4. 10.

If I'imothy was not a Bifhop of Ephefns, no more
was T'ltus of Crete, for the Epiftles direded to both are
of the fame Strain, and were both Officers of the
fame Species, viz,, EvangeliftS'

C H A P.



I 2 4* -^ Vindication of

Chap. IV.

*3riiP-0tby ffo Bijhof {of Ephefus) hut an Evange-
iij}. The Nature and Duration of the Evangelick
Office conjtder'^d, Dr, Pearfon'j Chronological
Scheme in Favour of Bifhop Timothy refuted.
Taul vprit his firji Epiflle to Timothy before his
hnfrifmimem at Rome, proved at large. The
Preshperial EJlablifljment at gpheCus, unalter-
able.

^ npHE leading Argument, fays the Redor, for
A * 7imotbys being Bifhop of ^f/^^^y, isground-

* ed on I 7/w. i . 5 . 1 befought thee tfi abide ftill at E-

* phefus ichen I went to Macedonia.

Anf To abide ftill ^ does not imply a continued Re-
fidence ,* for the fame T'imothy is faid to abide ftill at
Bereay of which 'tis not as much as pretended that
he was Bifhop. AB^ 17. 14.

. But Silas and T'lmothy abode there ftill, /. e. at Be-
rea^ and yet, Verf. 15:. are fent for away. So that his
ftay there was but fliort.. See alfo i Cor. 16, 6,5. It
?nay be 1 vjill abidey yeUy and Winter with you, — iV/ not
fee joit now by the Way, but I truft to tarry a while *-with
yQii. Here to abide, Signifies, to tarry a while,

2. That he was not fix'd as Refident at Ephefus, is
evident, becaufe the Apoftle calls him from thence to
Rome, and fent Ty^hicus, the Evangelift, to Ephefus^
2 TI'w. 4» 9> 21. Do thy Diligente to come jhortly to me^
X. e. at Rome, We don't read that 'timothy ever re-
turned to Ephefus again. Let the Adverfaries make
it out li they can.

And fuppofe he did return, of which there's not
one V/ord in Scripture, this would be of no ufe to
them, becaufe,
'^^ â–  ' 5. timo-



Mr, J. Owen'j TUa. i a 5

^: T'imothy was an Evangelift, 2 7/;;/. 4. 5. Do //;^
^Fo;^ of rt« ^vangeliR • but Bifhops arc not Evange-
lifts. Now,

Evangelilh were unfix'd Officers, fent by the Apo-
flles as their Collegucs to fiipply their Abfence in the
New-planted Churches, to guide the People, and their
ftated Paftors who were refident with 'em, during the
prefent Neceflity. i Cor. 3. 6. i Ccr. 16. 10. and 4. 17.

Thefe Evangelifts had Power to ordain Minifters^
where there was need of em. Ephef. 6,

Thefe Evayigehfls were temporary Officers in the
Church, and ceafed with the Apoflles and Prophets.
So that if this be a leading Argument, 'tis a blind one*

* The Diflcnters, fays he, to avoid the Force of

* this Argument fay, that the firfl Epiftle to T'imothy

* was writ before the Meeting at Miletus, by which

* the Apoftle co|:Ermitted the Flock to the Ephefuin

* Elders, and ^6t to em.

j^nf. Not only the Diffenters fay that this Epiftle
was writ before the Congrefs at Miletus, but 'tis the
prevailing Opinion of moft Chronologers, the moft learn-
ed Aflerters of Epifcopacy not excepted, as Bilhop
HaU, Dr. Hammond, Grotius, Liid.CapelluSy Dr. Light-
jooty Gary; Gothofredus quotes j^thajtajsus, BaroniuSy a^
of the fame Opinion. The Rhe?mfis were fenfible of
this, therefore don't deliver emfelves fo confidently
upon the Subjed as the ReBor does.

But let the Epiftle be written after, it does not pre-
judice our Argument from ^ifis 20. 17, 28. (vid.cap.
3.) nor can it do fo till exprefs Scripture be forbid to
pafs for Evidence.

* The Charaderiftick, adds he, of the precife time

* of Taul's befeeching Timothy to abide at Epbefus,
"■ is fetdown by P/7«/ himfelf, i 7/>«. i. 3. This was.

* fays Dr. Pearson, at any of thofe Times ot PauVs

* going into Macedonia, remembered in the A^s, and
^ therefore 'twas after the Apoftles bid the Ephejlans

* farewel at Miletus,



126 A T^indication of

Anf. Tho Luke in AEls 20. does not mention Tim(h
thys being left at Ephefus, 'tis enough that Paul men-
tions it, I 7/>»- 1' S. I hef ought thee to abide flill at. Efhe-
fusy "when I li^ent into Macedonia.

*Tis certain Luke does not mention all the Journeys
of Pauli and 'Timothy ; there are other Paffages omit-
ted by Lukey that are mentioned by Paul in his Epi-
flles to the Corinthians, Romans, T%eJJalonians, Timothy.
Thus Luke takes no Notice of Paul's being at Toas,
Illy ri cum, Arabia, 2 Cor. 2. 12. Rom, 15. i^.Gal. i. 17.
nor of Timothy s Journey to the Thcjjalonians. This \%
but what is ufual in Hifiories, for one Author to fup-
ply what is omitted by another.

So what is omitted by Luke is mention'd by Paul
to Timothy, viz. That he befought him to flay at Ephefiis,
I Tim. I. 3. Luke no where mentions Titus, Paul's
Companion^ whom the Apoftle fo often mentions in
his Epiflles.

' Paul, after his Releafe from his Imprifonment at

* Rome, continues the ReElor, went back to vifit the

* Eaftern Churches. — In his PafTage by Crete, he

* planted a Church there, for no other Time caq be
« afTign'd for it but this, /^. 87.

Anf. All this is confidently afErm'd, but here's no
Proof that he viCit^d the E^hefian Church after his Im-
prifonment at Rome,

As for Paul's vifiting of Crete, the learned Lightfoot
afligns another Time, and that was when he return-
ed from Macedonia to Greece, AEls 20.2. and then he
left Titus there. Tit. i. 5.

' The Redor wou'd make Jerom fay, that 'twas

* decreed in the Apoftles Time, that one eleded out

* of the Presbyters, who before govern d the Church

* in common, was fet over the reft, and that the De-

* cree was occafion'dby the Corinthian Schifm./'.pi.2 2.

Anf. Jerom no where fays that tiie Superiority of
Bifliops was decreed in the Apoftles Time ; after he
has proved the Identity of Bifliops and Presbyters, he

* adds.



Mr. J. Owen'i-P/m, 117

adds, Qiiod astern po/Iea."- That afterwards, /. e, 2fter
the Apoftles Time, one Presbyter was chofen and
fct over the. reft, as a Remedy againft Schifm.

In St. Paul's Epiftles to the Corinthians there's no
mention of the Superiority of Bifhops, nor of any
Defign to inftitute fuch an Order, as an apt Remedy
againft Schifm. Nor is there any mention of it in-
Clement's Epiftle, written to *em long after.

That Taul left T'imothy at Ephefus, and wrote his
Erft Epiftle to him before his Imprifonmcnt at Rome
appears,

1. From his Journey to Macedonia, mentioned
I T'im. I. 5. which can be other than that mentioned
in the AEisy cap, 20. as moft of the Learned agree.

2. From his excommunicating Alexander the Cop-
per-Smith, i 'fim. i . 26. who is the fame Perfon that
is mentioned ^<5?j ip. 33. This Excommunication,
which fuppofcs him a Chriftian and an Apoftle, was
not long after his Apoftacy.

3. From the Apoftle's Hopes to come Jhonly unto T'i-*
fnothy, I Fet. 3. 14,15. which agrees well with the
Time of his ftay in Macedonia and Greece, mention'd
in ABs 20. I, 2. from whence 'tis thought he writ
his firft Epiftle to him, with whom he hoped to be
Pmtly, I "lim, 3. 14. Accordingly, foon after he came
to Miletus, the Time being ifar fpent, that he could
not conveniently go to Ephefus. JB, 20. 15, 16.

4. The firft Epiftle to T'imothy muft be written be-
fore Vaurs firft Imprifonment, becaufe the fecond E-
piftle was written in his firft Bonds, as the learned
Lightjoot and Hammond affirm. This is likely enougli
i^ we confider tht following Reafons,

I. When the fecond Epiftle was written to T;?;?^//;;',
he was young. 2 Tim. 2. 22. Flee youthful Lufts. Not
much older than when the firft Epiftle was writ to
him, in which he fays. Let no Man defpife thy Touth,
I Tim.^. 11, For the fame Reafon he charges the
'"^(Corinthians (to whom he writ before his firft Bonds)

not



ia8 A Vindication of

not todefpife him= i Con i6* ii- being fent for, came
to Taul at Rome. 2 Tim, 4. ig. and i. it, 18. and 4.
13. After his coming thither, the Epiftles to the
VhilippianSy Colojjtans and Vhilemon were written, for
'Timothys Name is prefixed to 'em as well as Faufs,
N6w> 'twill not be deny'd, but thefe Epiftles were
written in his firft Bonds at Romey ?hil. i. 26. and 2.
2?;, 24. Thilemon. 22. therefore the fecond Epiftle to
Timothy- was written in his firft Bonds, tho'fome time
before thefe-

3. ?aul\ Sufferings, mentioned 2 T/w- 3. ii- which
happen'd at Iconium, Lyfira and Jmioch, twenty Years
before the Apoftle's fecond Imprifonment at Ro7?ie,
imply that the fecond Epiftle was penn'd fooner, than
his fecond Imprifonment ; for 'tis not likely the Apo-
file would mention Events (o .long iince part, when
thete were other later Sufferings of his, that were
much frefher in his Memory.

4. Tychkus was at Rome in Paul's firft Bonds, and car-
ried thence the Epiftles to the Ephejums and Coloffians*
This fending oiTychicus to Ephefus, is mention'd 2 Ti7fi'
4. 1 2. therefore this fecond Epiftle x.oTi?nothy was written
about the fame Time, viz.* in his firft Bonds. Th-nt
he was with Vattl in both his Bonds at Roma can't be
prov'd.

5. It's agreed that Vaul was hot (tt at Liberty in
his laft Iinprifonment at RomC) but he was deliver'd
from the Confinenlent mentioned 2 Tim. 4. 1 7. there-
fore that Epiftle was not writ in his laft Bonds-

6- Ltike was with Paul at Rome when he wrote the
Epiftle to the Coloffians, which was penn'd in his firft-
Bonds, as is confefs'd, Col. 4. 14. and fo he w^s
when Vaul fent the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, 2 Tim-
4. II. therefore this Epiftle was written during his
firft Bonds.

7. Pa2cl was under a favourable Confinement when
he writ his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, for he men-
tions only one Chain. 2 Tim. i» 16- ABs 28. 20. Eph.



Mr. J. O wenV Tka. 1 2 9

\5, 2a. Ill his fecond Imprifonment he was more feve-
ly handled, as all agree.

Now fLicli as were in flrid Cuftody were bound
with two Chains, between two Soldiers, \Acis 12. 6.
Hence it fhou'd feem to follow, that this fecond Epi-
ftle to Timot/jy, which fpeaks but of one Chain, was
written in Paul's firil: Imprifonmenr.

8. Demas was with t^aul at Rome in his firft Im-
prifonment, Col. 4. 14. but not in his fecond Impri-
fonment. He left him in his Bonds, which we may
rationally conclude were his firft, 2 Tim. 4. co, 11.
There is no Evidence of his being with him in both.
This is abfurd and contradidory, fays the Redor.

^' 52, 53-

Anf, Not fo j for Mr. O. prov'd he was there in
Paurs firft Bonds, and the Reclor fliould prove that
he was in the fecond ; then indeed the Argument
would be reconciieable to both fides, as he fays.

Well then, Timothy was no Bifhop of Ephefuf, be*
caufe he was no Bifliop there when the firil Epiftle
was written to him ; for Fatil commits the whole Go-
vernment of the Ephefian Church to the Presbyters of
it, after the writing of that Epiftle, and at a Time
when Timothy was prefent, or not far off. A'^s 20. 4:
17. 18.— -28. And that when the Apoitle knew, he

Jhotild never fee their Faces fnore- Acis 20. 25.

To this lafl: Scripture he oppofes two Things :
-I. He corrects the Tranilation, and fays, it Ihould

1 be rendered — / know that ye Jhall no more fee my Fac^

. all of you.

I Anf, The E-phefian Presbyters to whom he fpake
thefe Words, underfcood em as his laft, thereforeyor-
rovSd mofl of all for the Words that he fpoke, that they
fhould fee his Face no more. ACts 20. 37, 38. /• 107.

2. When Faul faith, he knew thef Jbould fee his Face
no morey 'tis to be underflood of a conje^ural Knowledge
vnly^ faith he. />. ]o8.

K Jnf



1 ^o A Vmdicat'ion of

Anf, I. Admit it Were fo^that/;.^ thought he Jhvuld fee
their F^'ue 'no more^ 'tis enough to confirm the Argu-
ment. If he only thought it, there's no doubt, but he
would have made the fame Settlement among 'em, as
ii he were certain ; and therefore this Turn given the
Text, will not anfwer the End.

2. But after ail, we can't fuppofe an infpir'd Apo-
file would fpeak fo pofitruely^ when he fpeaks coiijdhi"
rally. It would look raili in a fallible Man, to fay
pofitively, I knoiu I fhall nevrr fee fiich a Veopicy and af-
terwards, when he happens to fee 'em, to excufe the
Matter by faying, ^tivas only a coyijeEliiral KnoivkJge.

Did the holy Apoftle uk Lightnefs in his Speech >
His Words are theie, / kmvj that ye fiall fee my Face
no more. A6ts 20-25. / btovj ; this is not a bare Ccnje-
flure, but a certain Knowledge. He does not fay, /
thinky or hcpe, but / k,icw. No Man calls KnowledgCj
which is but zConjeBnre ; riurclore a certain Know-
ledge is here underilood, a V nowledge not built up-
on Probabilities, biif Certainty. So the Word is ta-
ken in other Places, as

Ads 20. 29. / knowt^at grievous IJ/olves fjall e}7ter in
among you. And they did fo. . And was this alfo a
conjedural Knowledge ?

Again, 1 john 1. 3. JVe know that v^e know him, if
v^e keep his Cc?nmanJs, 1 John 3-14. TVe know that we
have pafs'd from Death to Life.— 2 Cor. 5. i. IVe know - *
Are thefe Inftances of Knowledge, but Conjedures ?

And, as to that otht^r Scripture which the Adver-
fary tells us, muft be undcrftood conjedurally, tho'
fpoken pofiti vely, let us view it ; 'tis Phtl. i. 25. /
kucw 1 fhall abide and continue with you all.
â–  Anf. Even o:hx. here, fignifies certain Kmzvledge of his
Deliverance, and of his coming to Philippic

3. The Church of England reads the Words thus— -
/ am fure—ye Jhall fee ffiy- Face no more. See Form of Or-
dination.

St. Paul fsivSi I biow: the Church fays, lamfure;
** all



Mr. J. Ovven'i Tlea. \ 3 i

all this is but a ConjeBurc^ fays a Son of the Church :
To refine thus upon the Apoftic, and afllime the Li-
berty of turning his certain Precliclions into ivild Conjc'
Bures^ is a high Crime in any, more efpccially in a
Divine of the Eftablifhn\ent.

' But, he fays, T'lmoth/y the then fuppofed B:flio[^

* o( Ephefus, might be omitted by the Apolllc in his

* Farewel-Scrmon, as the PreiOyters in his firft Epiftic

* to T:jNot/)y, wherein he treats of Church-Govern-

* ment, and one would think cou'd net have forgot

* em, when he was difconrfing on fuch an Argument.

* T,N. C p. 51. Pani.

Jnf I'll allure the Reader he did not forget 'cm.
Witnefs iTim.j. 15. Z,^? t/7^ Presbyters t/j.i? Rule well
be counted worthy of double Honour. And, cap. 5.

If T'nnothy was their fupremc Governour, how
comes Paul to commit the Government of his Church
to his Presbyters in Parity, which at the fame time
he calls Bijfjops ? AEls 20. 17, 28. A Text fo plain for
Presbyterial Parity, that all the World can't over-*
throw. All that the admired Oracles of Prelacy
have hitherto done, has been only to amufe their Rea-
ders by perplexing it with pervcrfe GlofTes.



Chap. V.

The Original^ Office and Continucir.ce of the Evan^
gelijls accounted for ; were not Bijhops* Philip
a^d Mark m refident Officers.

T^HIS Chapter is wholly taken up W^ith a Dif-
-i courfe about Evangelifisy who were unfix'd Of-
ficers in the Church, bur our Adverfary thinks, they
were Diocefm Bifiops, becaufe all thefupreme Govern-
ment of their refpedive Churches were committed
to em. />. 113, K 2 Anf



1^1 A V^fftdtcation oj

AnJ. Evangelifts being confefledly a Species*of ex-
traordinary Church-Officers, I take it to be a Dimi-
nution of their Charader to be limited to particular
Churches. I fancy .an EngUjh Bifliop would think
himfelf degraded if his Power were reduced, and con-
fined to a little Parifh. To fet this Matter in its true
"Light, 'twill be neceflary to confider their Original
and Office. 'Tis certain,

1. The Apoftles needed Afliil:ants to vifit the New-
planted Churches in their Abftnce, for they could
not be every where, nor always water what they had
planted.

2. Thefe new Churches needed the Prefence of the
Apoftles, or Perfons deputed by 'em, to fupply what
was wanting, for the Canon of the New-Teftament
was not yet fram'd.

3. The Evangelifts were thefe Afliftants, agreed by
all, and plain in the New-Teftament, they were fe-
condary Apoftles, fent abroad to perfect the great
Work begun by the Apoftles themfclves.

4. Their Ufe in the Church was temporary. We
read of none that were to fucceed 'em or the Apo-
ftles but Pafiors and "feachers, who, according to Dr.
Hammondy were the Bifliops that govern*d particular
Charges then, in Eph. 4. 1 1 .

5. The Evangelifts were an extraordinary kind of
Officers, as the Apoftles were, and are fo counted,
Efh, 4. f I .

6. They did no more fix in one Place than the A-
poftles 6X6.^ for if they were not with em, they were
lent to the Places where they had fettled Churches.

The Apoftles made a confiderable ftay in fome
Churches, as Vaul at Efhefusy not as Biftiop of it, but
an Apoftle. The Evangelifts refided in no other
Senfe.

It ought therefore to be prov'd, that the Apoftles