But

Mark was an evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure, that he was a bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the catholic testimony of the primitive church, as we shall see hereafter, so far as concerns our question. then again; an apostle might be an evangelist; St. Matthew was; St. John was; and the apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an evangelist as episcopal preeminence; for I have proved these two names, apostle and bishop, to signify all one thing. Secondly; St. Ambrose gives another exposition of evangelists; "Evangelistæ diaconi sunt, sicut fuit Philippus "." St. Philip was one of the seven, commonly called deacons, and he was also a presbyter, and yet an evangelist; and yet a presbyter, in its proportion, is an office of as necessary residence as a bishop; or else why are presbyters cried out against so bitterly, in all cases, for non-residence? and yet nothing hinders, but that St. Timothy, as well as St. Philip, might have been a presbyter and an evangelist together; and then why not a bishop too? For why should a deaconship or a presbyterate consist with the office of an evangelist more than a bishoprick? Thirdly; Another acceptation of an evangelist is also in Eusebius: "Sed et alii plurimi per idem tempus apostolorum discipuli superstites erant - Nonnulli ex his ardentiores divinæ philosophiæ, animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant; ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum prædicarent, primaque apud eos evangelii fundamenta collocantes, evangelistarum fungebantur officio." They that planted the Gospel first' in any country, were evangelists. St. Timothy might be such a one, and yet be a bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of evangelists. For so Eusebius: "Primaque apud eos fundamenta evangelii collocantes, atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendæ ecclesiæ, quam fundaverant, committentes, ipsi rursum ad alias gentes properabant." So that they first converted the nation, and then governed the church; first they were evangelists, and afterwards bishops; and so was Austin the monk, that converted England in the time of St. Gregory and Ethelbert; he was first our evangelist, and afterwards. bishop of Dover. Nay, why may they not, in this sense, be

In Ephes. iv.

VOL. VII.

"

G

c Lib. iii. Hist. c. 37.

both evangelists and bishops at the same time? insomuch as many bishops have first planted Christianity in divers. countries, as St. Chrysostom in Scythia, St. Trophimus, St. Denis, St. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word 'evangelist,' this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more evangelists for that; but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel; and thence they had their name.

4. The office of an evangelist was but temporary, and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Ecumenius, which are the only true and genuine, was to expire when Christianity was planted every where, and the office of episcopacy, if it was at all, was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent, at least not always. And how St. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, " to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," if the office, for the execution of which he gave him the rules, was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if St. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sense, neither in person, nor in succession, could those rules of St. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgment. But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of episcopacy, then it is easy to understand that St. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, but for his successors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and office of episcopacy.

5. Lastly; After all this stir, there are some of the fathers that will, by no means, admit St. Timothy to have been an evangelist. So St. Chrysostom, so Theophylact, so the Greek scholiast. Now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needless; we were safe enough without it: if it be false, then itself we see is needless, for the allegation of St. Timothy's being an evangelist is absolutely impertinent, though it had been true. But now I proceed.

SECTION XV.

St. Titus, at Crete.

TITUS was also made a bishop by the apostles. St. Paul also was his ordainer. First; "Reliqui te Creta." There St. Paul fixed his seat for him at Crete. Secondly; His work was τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθῶσαι, “ to set in order things that are wanting," viz. to constitute rites and forms of public liturgy, to erect a consistory for cognizance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer, by public destination for Divine service; and, in a word, by his authority, to establish such discipline and rituals, as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the church of God. For he that was appointed by St. Paul to rectify and set things in order, was, most certainly, by him supposed to be the judge of all the obliquities, which he was to rectify. 2. The next work is episcopal too, and it is the " ordaining presbyters in every city." Not presbyters collectively in every city, but distributively, naτà món, city by city;' that is, elders in several cities; one in one city, many in many. For by these ' elders,' are certainly meant bishops.' Of the identity of names I shall afterwards give an account; but here, it is plain, St. Paul expounds himself to mean bishops.

1. In terms and express words: "To ordain elders in every city; if any be the husband of one wife, &c. For a bishop must be blameless :" that is, 'the elders that you are to ordain in several cities, must be blameless; for else they must not be bishops.' 2. The word geσßuréρous cannot hinder this exposition; for St. Peter calls himself σvungeσßútepov, and St. John, presbyter electæ dominæ,' and ' presbyter dilectissimo Gaio.' Such presbyters as these were apostolical; and that is as much as episcopal, to be sure. 3. St. Paul adds further, "A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God "." "Who, then, is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?" St. Paul's bishop is 'God's steward;' and God's steward' is the ruler of his household,' says our blessed Saviour himself; and, therefore,

a Tit. i.

not a mere presbyter; amongst whom, indeed, there is a parity, but no superintendence of God's making. 4. St. Paul does, in the sequel, still qualify his elders or bishops, with more proprieties of rulers: "A bishop must be no striker; not given to wine." They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts, in his stewards' or rulers' accounts. "If the steward of the house will drink and be drunk, and beat his fellow-servants, then the Lord of that servant shall come, and divide him his portion with unbelievers." The steward of the household, this ruler, must not be rápoivos, nor я×TMиs; no more must a bishop; he must not be "given to wine; no striker." "Neque enim pugilem describit sermo apostolicus, sed pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat," saith St. Jerome. Still, then, these are the rulers of the church, which St. Titus was to ordain; and, therefore, it is required, he should rule well his own house; for how else shall he take charge of the church of God? Implying, that this, his charge, is to rule the house of God. 5. The reason why St. Paul appointed him to ordain those bishops in cities, is in order to coercive jurisdiction; because "many unruly and vain talkers were crept in," (verse 10), and they were to be silenced, ous de iπOTOμíe," their mouths must be stopped." Therefore they must be such elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent preachers, which to a single presbyter, either by Divine or apostolical institution, no man will grant; and to a college of presbyters, St. Paul does not intend it, for himself had given it singly to St. Titus. For I consider,

ἐπιστομίζειν,

Titus alone had coercive jurisdiction before he ordained these elders; be they bishops, be they presbyters. The presbyters which were at Crete before his coming, had not episcopal power, or coercive jurisdiction; for why, then, was Titus sent? As for the presbyters which Titus ordained, before his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at all: they were not presbyters. If they had a coercive jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, then Titus had it before in his own person; (for they that were there before his coming, had not, as I showed ;) and, therefore, he must also have it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others;

b Advers. Jovinian.

or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordained? For plus juris in alium transferre

nemo potest, quam ipse habet.'

Howsoever it be then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person; and then it follows undeniably, that either this coercive jurisdiction was not necessary for the church, (which would be either to suppose men impeccable, or the church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of schism and tumultuary factions, without possibility of relief); or if it was necessary, then, because it was in Titus, not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authority to do it, with the same power he had himself; and, therefore, since he alone had this coercion in his own person, so should his successors; and then, because a single presbyter could not have it over his brethren, by the confession of all sides, nor the college of presbyters, which were there before his coming, had it not; (for why, then, was Titus sent with a new commission?) nor those which he was to ordain, if they were but mere presbyters, could not have it, no more than the presbyters that were there before his coming; it follows, that those elders, which St. Paul sent Titus to ordain, being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false doctors and prating preachers, and with authority to silence them (as is evident in the first chapter of that epistle); these elders, I say, are verily, and, indeed, such as himself calls bishops, in the proper sense and acceptation of the word.

6. The Cretan presbyters, who were there before St. Titus's coming, had not power to ordain others; that is, had not that power that Titus had. For Titus was sent thither, for that purpose, therefore, to supply the want of that power. And now, because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the church; that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world; and mere presbyters could not do it; and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him; it follows undeniably, that St. Paul sent Titus to ordain men, with the same power that himself had; that is, with more than his first Cretan presbyters, that is, bishops; and he means them in the proper sense.

7. That by elders in several cities,' he means 'bishops,'