Commentary on Revelation, Lecture 3 · Part 1
Concerning the identity of Angel, Bishop, and Presbyter.
IT may possibly seem strange to some, that in the Exposition of all these Epistles, we have still applied what is spoken to, or of, the Angels, as being spoken to, or of, ordinary Ministers: whereas to some, it appeareth, that these Angels were some singular and eminent persons, having Jurisdiction and Authority over other Ministers, such as usually is given to Bishops and Prelates as contradistinct from the other: and that therfore this Exposition and Application, which all alongst, doth confound Bishops and Ministers, as if there were no distinction amongst them, is not to be admitted.
To say something to this now, upon the close of all the Epistles: We do indeed acknowledge that this Exposition doth confound the same, and will admit of no distinction amongst them, as amongst Officers of the Church of a higher and lower place. And although we hinted somewhat of the reasons of this, Chap. 1. vers. 20. Yet we shall attest any serious Reader (who will ponder and weigh the series of these Epistles, and the application of them) if he can judge it possible to expound, and apply these Epistles in any usefull and practicall manner, and not be necessitate to understand what is spoken of, or to these Angels, as being spoken of, and to, the Ministers of these Churches. And, having now gone through the same, we professe our selves to be more confirmed in the Exposition of this title Angel, which was formerly given. And if it were not so, we truly would not know how to expound these Epistles, or to apply the same to one, such as this Bishop, contradistinguished from Ministers or Presbyters, is supposed to be. And although we purpose not to disgresse in this; yet that it be not looked upon as any unreasonable thing thus to confound Bishops and Ministers, and to take them for one and the same Officer, we shall propose these four considerations,
The first is, That we are sure this is agreeable to Scripture: and if in Scripture they be thus confounded, it must certainly be safest to speak with it. Now that the Scripture doth so, may appear from these Scriptures, which even many of the Ancients have made use of for this end. The first is, Act. 20. where (vers. 17.) Paul doth call the Elders of Ephesus; and when he hath continued for a time to speak unto them (vers. 28.) he doth give them this stile of Bishops (for what is translated Overseers, is in the Original, foreign) In which place they are most evidently spoken of as one, both in respect of name, and in respect of Office.
The second place, is, Philip. 1.1. where Paul directeth his Epistle, beside the Saints, to the Bishops and Deacons, without mentioning of any Minister or Presbyter. The reason why they are called Bishops, in the plural number, is, not because there were plurality of Lord-Bishops, as distinct from Ministers in one City; but it is, because by Bishops, is understood the plurality of Ministers that were therein. And Chrysostome upon the words observeth, That in the Scripture, distinction is not made betwixt these titles; but the same that is a Minister, is also a Bishop.
The third place, is, Tit. 1. by comparing, vers. 5. with vers. 7. where in the one, these words are, for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should ordain Elders (or Ministers) in every City. and in the 7. vers. after he hath given some directions concerning their qualification, he doth subjoyn this as a reason enforcing the observation of the same, for a Bishop must be blamelesse, &c. and if both were not one, there could be no force in his so reasoning. The word also rendered Bishop, is that same which was in the former places.
The fourth place is, 1 Pet. 5.1.2. where Peter, exhorting the Ministers, or preaching Elders, to watch carefully over the Flock and to feed the same, expresseth the nature of their Office to consist in this, in having, or taking, the oversight of the flock: which, in the Original, is the same word, that must be applied to Bishops, and might be rendered thus, feed the flock that is among you, overseeing the same as Bishops, not by constraint but willingly: for the word is, foreign. And there were no reason for him to require Ministers to play the Bishops (to speak so) by watching so over the Flocks as belong to them, if Bishops and Ministers in the language of the Holy Ghost were not one and the same. Neither will that exception which Bellarmin hath (de Clericis, lib. 1. cap. 15.) and sundry other Papists with him, to wit, that at that time these titles were not distinguished in the Church, but used in common, as they prove out of many of the Ancients But, on the contrary, this doth confirm our assertion: For, 1. If they were not distinguished then, who can afterward distinguish them? 2. Can there be so universall and frequent mentioning of them as one, except they be really and wholly so? 3. It appeareth by these Scriptures, where not only the titles are confounded as belonging to the same Officers, but the offices themselves are confounded, both in respect of the qualifications of the persons, and in respect of ordaining and installing of them in these offices, and also in respect of the duties that are required of both. It is worth the observing which the Jesuit Lorinus hath to this purpose, Act. 20.17. who, after the rejecting of many answers, is brought to acquiesce in this as truth, that these names were common in the Apostles dayes, who did use the title of Bishop, and Presbyter indifferently: and that therefore these who are Presbyters in the one verse, are stiled Bishops in the other: he doth also afterward subjoyn this similitude to illustrate the same; As (saith he) in the Primitive time the title Papa, or Pope, was indifferently given to all eminent Bishops; but afterwards was restricted to the Bishop of Rome, for distinguishing him from others; so (saith he) the title Bishop, which was at first common to all Ministers, was at last appropriated to some few; who, for distinguishing them from others, were thus stiled, for setting forth their Authority and Jurisdiction above them. This indeed seemeth to be the …ruth, and sheweth clearly that Bishops and Popes (in the sense that some do plead for) have the same original, and are grown up by the same means, to be distinguished from others as being above them, to wit, by mens pride and humane constitutions.
I know that even by some of the Fathers these two places, to wit, Ephes. 4.11, 12. and, 1 Tim. 3.2. with 8. are adduced for the same end: because, in the first place, the Apostle reckoneth out both extraordinary and ordinary Preaching-officers, without making any mention of Bishops: which could not be, if they were not the same with Pastors that are named, as Ambrose on the place asserteth. And although it seemeth that in somethings he mis-representeth the Primitive order of the Church; yet is he forced to add, ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est: quia haec inter ipsa primordia scripta sunt. And though that last reason hath no weight in it to infer any change upon the Church now, in respect of its Office-bearers, from what it was then in the Apostles dayes, and ordained to be by them; yet this is clear, that he granteth a clear difference between the state of the Church in these dayes, wherein this distinction of Bishops from Pastors was come to some height, from what it was in the time of the Apostles, which certainly must be the most pure times of the Church. In the other place, to wit, 1 Tim. 3.1, &c. The Apostle proposeth certain rules for the trying and ordaining of one to be a Bishop, and after, in vers. 8. he doth immediatly passe to the office of a Deacon, without mentioning of a Presbyter or Minister: which sheweth, that in speaking of Bishops, he did understand Presbyters, and did acknowledge no distinct Teaching-officer between them and Deacons. And indeed the rules and qualifications are the same which he maketh common to Bishops and Presbyters, Titus 1. Chrysostome moveth the same Question on the words, vers. 8. Homilia 11. to wit, Why doth Paul passe immediatly from Bishops to Deacons, ommitting Presbyters? because (saith he) between a Bishop and a Presbyter there is almost no difference: for, the care of the Church is committed to Presbyters: and what he spoke of Bishops, doth agree to Presbyters. Only he subjoyneth, in the matter of Ordination, doth the Bishop differ from the Minister? And this difference is not to be understood to be such as was in the Apostles dayes: for, the former Scriptures will confute that. Therefore even this same Father with others, do assert that then Presbyters did ordain Bishops, as in the instance of Timothie, 1 Tim. 4. they assayed to make out; But it is a difference that was brought in afterward in the Church, and was in exercise for that time, though without any warrand from the Word. And if these Scriptural grounds hold, as by what is said, they necessarily and clearly must, it mattereth the lesse what may be said from other grounds. And so we leave this first consideration.
Our second consideration, is, That this confounding both of the titles and offices of Bishop and Presbyter, will be found agreeable to the most pure Primitive times. It is true, within some few ages, difference was made between Bishops and Presbyters in the Church; yet was never that distinction counted by them to be jure divino, or by the Law of God; but as a thing belonging to order in the Church, and brought in by custome: which was, that he who was of greatest age and respect, and did preside in the meetings, was particularly called Bishop, which afterward was established by some Councels. If we might take the testimony of some Papists here, they will confirm this; Michael Medina (as he is cited by Bellarmin, lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 15.) doth affirm, that not only Ierom was of that mind with Aerius; (whose opinion was, that the Bishop and the Presbyter were equal and the same) but also, that Ambrosius, Augustinus, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostomus, Theoderetus, Oecumenius, and Theophilactus were of that same mind. Atque ita (inquit Medina) isti viri, alioqui sanctissimi, & Sanctarum Scripturarum consultissimi: quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio, deinde in Waldensibus, postremo in Ioanne Wicclifo, damnavit Eclesia, &c. Note here, that this hath been alwayes accounted the common judgement of the Waldenses and of Wicklife, with his followers, whose judgement certainly is of great weight, seing they were eminent witnesses against the Beast, whereof more may be spoken, Chap. 11. and he doth at large make out the Agreement of these Fathers with Aerius in this point, to wit, that by Divine right there is no difference between Bishop and Presbyter. This testimonie will be more clear, if we consider many of these testimonies themselves, as they are set down by Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sancta, lib. 6. annotatione, 319, & 324. where he hath the words of many of these Authors, as agreeing with Ierom, whose testimonie is most largely set down, and beside what was already cited from Ambrose, these words are added out of his Comments on 1 Tim. cap. 4. Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio: (uterque enim Sacerdos est) sed Episcopus primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Ille enim Episcop…s est, qui inter Presbyteros primus est. which is not to shew any superiority of degree, but an orderly precedencie which he that was the chief Presbyter had amongst others. He is also cited upon Philip. 1.1. where he bringeth-in, Acts 20.17. and 28. to confirm this, that Presbyters and Bishops were the same.
Beside these, we may add two more particular testimonies, The first is of Ierom, first, in his Epistle to Euagrius, where at large he asserteth and proveth this Truth: and when he proponeth the Question, Would ye have Authority? he goeth through these Scriptures, Philip. 1. Acts 20. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 4. 1 Pet. 5. and from these places doth confirm, not only the titles to be common; but that the Presbyters were by office Bishops: and for that cause he cites the Greek word, to wit, foreign, which in that place of Peter is applyed to Presbyters, to shew the identitie of the one office with the other: Yea, he addeth many other places, as the 2. and 3. Epistles of Iohn, and 1 Tim. 3. where (saith he) de ordinatione Episcopi & Diaconi dicitur; de Presbiteris, omnino reticetur: quia in Episcopo & Presbyter continetur. If it be asked, How this distinction did enter? He answers in that Epistle, quod autem postea, &c. that is, that when afterward one came to be elected and preferred to the rest, it was done for the remedy of Schism. And it is observable, that this remedy is said by him to be after Iohn's writing of his Epistles, during which time, there was no such difference. And he illustrateth it thus, as if the Deacons should peculiarly choose one from among themselves, whom they knew to be industrious and give him the title of Arch-deacon, for helping them in the mannaging of what belongs to their office orderly: thus …e. Which clearly sheweth what kind of precedency this is which he attributeth to the Bishop, even such as he would allow to a Deacon, that for some special end is advanced to some peculiar care by others. Again, he doth purposly handle this same thing in his Commentars on Titus 1. where without any prejudice by the heat of dispute, having compared vers. 5. with vers. 7. he addeth, idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: & antequam diaboli instinctu studi… in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, omnium Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesia gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizavera… suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur cateris; ad qu…m omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret; & Schismatum semina tollerentur. And lest this assertion of his should be thought to be without warrant, he addeth putat aliquis, &c. doth any think that this is not the mind of the Scripture, but our own? to wit, that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same, and that the one word, to wit, Bishop, denoteth the office; and the other, to wit, Presbyter, the age? for then they used to be well stricken in years; and Presbyter signifieth Elder. And he doth subjoyn, in this place, the Scriptures formerly mentioned for confirming the same: which he doth not only cite; but solidly reasoneth the Conclusion from them, and having cited Acts 20. he hath these words, observe here diligently, how calling the Presbyters of one City, to wit, Ephesus, he doth afterward stile them Bishops. And also maketh use of that, Heb. 13.17. where submission and subjection is required to all that watch over souls, and, saith he, ibi aequaliter inter plures Ecclesiae cura dividitur. And lest it should be thought that he esteemed this difference, which afterward followed between Bishop and Presbyter, to be of Divine institution (though in part he did then acknowledge some difference, de facto) he doth close with this, sicuti ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sib… prepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis dominicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, that is, as Presbyters know themselves to be by the custome of the Church, subject to him that is set over them; so Bishops would know that they are above Presbyters, rather by custome, than by any verity of Divine disposition or appointment: and when he cometh again to the Text, he useth this transition, videamus igitur qualis Presbyter, five Episcopus, ordinandus sit.
From which testimonies, these things are clear, 1. That there was no difference betwixt the names and offices of Bishops and Presbyters in the dayes of the Apostles, 2 That the difference was not begun by any Apostolick constitution; but upon Church-custome, the decrees of Counsels, and such other grounds. 3. That although he acknowledgeth some difference for the time, as that Bishops were to ordain, from which Presbyters were restricted; yet that is clearly asserted by him not to flow from any Divine constitution, (for there can be none imagined after the Apostles dayes) but from some humane or Church constitution, as by the former warning both to Bishops and Presbyters wherewith he closeth, is clear.
This testimony is so clear that it doth put many of the Popish adversaries to a stand. Alfonsus Castrensis (as he is cited by Bellarmin, and Sixtus Senensis, in the places formerly mentioned) doth not stand to averr, that in this Ierom did err. And Bellarmin when he hath given one answer, to wit, that Ierom intended the change betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to have begun upon the occasion of the first Schism at Corinth, because of his alluding to these words, I am of Paul, I am of Ap…llo, &c. and finding him afterward to maintain the same Doctrine from the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, and Titus, and also from the Epistles of Peter and Iohn, which were written long after the said Schism; to weaken his testimony, he saith, observandum est sanctum Hieronim…m in illa sua se… tentia non adeo constantem vid…ri, &c. whereas he is most constant, seing by mentioning these words, he doth not pitch on that particular Schism at Corinth; but, in allusion thereto, doth expresse the Schisms that followed thereafter. And we suppose there can be no … f…inging of these so direct and expresse testimonies: yet we may observe what estimation these men have really of the most eminent Fathers (whom they so much otherwayes cry up) when they differ from them.
This testimonie upon Titus, is the more observable, because, as both Sixtus Seuensis hath it, and Bellarmin doth acknowledge, Sedulius, Scotus, and Anselmus Cantuariensis Episcopus do expound these words of Paul to Titus in the same very words that are used by Ierom. And so the former testimonie is not to be accounted the testimonie of one, but the testimonie of three, beside others, who in other words encline to Ierom's mind.
The second testimonie is of that famous Father Augustine, who in his 19. Epistle (which is the last of his Epistles direct to Ierom, and is also in that order among Ierom's Epistles) when he is pressing Ierom. who was but a Presbyter to use freedom with him who was … a Bishop, and to correct him wherein he was wrong, he doth urge it thus, q…a…qu…m enim secundum honorum v…cabula, quae j…m Ecclesia usu… ob…nuit, Episcopa…us Presbyter… …jor sit.
In which words it is indeed asserted, that a Bishop was more than a Presbyter, at that time, yet the rise of that is shown to be from the use or custome which had now obtained in the Church. Neither can that exception of Bellarmin and some others be of force, to wit, that Augustine doth compare, not the use of the Christian Church in that time with what was formerly, but the use of these words in the Christian Church with what was before Christ: and so the use of the Church, and Divine institution, according to this meaning, will be one: This (I say) doth most grossely contradict that Fathers intent: for, 1. His scope is to shew that though he was called a Bishop, and Ierom but a Presbyter, that yet indeed there was no difference, but only such as use and custome had brought in into the Church, whereas if we expound custome or use otherwayes, Augustine would seem rather to assert and aggrege the distance that was between him and Ierom, than any way to diminish the same. When yet his scope is clear to lessen that distance of superiority that seemed to be between him and him because of these titles. 2. The very expression will bear the same, quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, &c. which necessarily importeth, that sometimes such difference was not in custome in the Church: and where will it be found in Augustine that he compareth any custome of the Church after Christ with what was before, as different customes of different times of the same Church? for to him, and almost all the Fathers, usus, or consuetudo Ecclesiae, is ever taken, when given, as a ground of any practice, as contradistinguished from Divine institution, as in the last cited words of Ierom is clear. Also, it may have its own weight, that he is now writing to Ierom whose judgement in these things was not unknown to him: he must therefore be supposed to use the same, as it was understood by him.
Also in that book, which is intituled, Liber quaestionum Veteris & Novi Testamenti among August. his Works, Quaest. 101. when he hath proven from 1 Tim. 3. the Bishop and Presbyter to be one, quid est enim Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter? and after he marketh, that although the Bishops used to stile Presbyters, Compresbyteri; yet, saith he, they never say to the Deacons Condiaconi. And whoever be the Author, it sheweth that in the Primitive times this title Bishop, was rather given as a note of respect to some eminent Ministers, than as that which did constitute a different Office or Officer especially jur… divino. And that there was another kind of identity between Ministers and Bishops then any of them and Deacons, though Ministers virtually comprehend that office also.
It is like it may be objected, that all antiquitie did condemn Aerius, whose opinion is said to be this, that he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Answ. It is the judgement of Learned Rivetus in his Catholicus orthodoxus, in his reply to the same charge given by Ballius, tractatu secundo Quaest. 22. That Aerius was condemned by them, not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth, in this, but as imprudently in practice brangling the order then established amongst them, to the hazard of their union. And there are two clear proofs of this, 1. Because where the same tenents were maintained, as in Ierom, and others; yet where these persons continued in the unity of the Church, they were never branded with any name of Heresie for the same. 2. Because even Augustine, who reckons up this Heresie of Aerius, doth yet acknowledge this difference to be by no Divine constitution, as we have formerly seen. And who will consider the rolls of Heresies, set down by these Fathers, will find that oftentimes such are reckoned among Hereticks, who much rather ought to be accounted Schismaticks. It is observable also, that even adversaries grant that none of these Fathers do condemn him for denying that distinction to be jure divino, (for which see Estius, lib. 4. pag. 35.) but for denying it simply, And so now we leave our second consideration.
The third consideration, is, that there is some footsteps of this identity of Bishop and Presbyter in the most corrupt Writtings of the most impure School-men: which may appear in these three, 1. In that, generally, Episcopacy is holden to be no distinct order from Presbytery; and that Presbytery, or Priesthood (as they speak) is the highest order in all their Hierarchie. And this is current as the doctrine of Lombardus the Master of Sentences, Hugo, Aquinas, Thomas Waldensis, and generally of all the Thomists at least. And though they seem to make Bishops to be of a more eminent degree; yet by Estius, and some others alledged by him, this is not thought sufficient to distinguish one office from another. And indeed considering their Doctrine in all the other branches, or orders of their Hierarchie, it will well follow, that these two, being the same order, cannot be admitted to be distinct Officers, seing in no other order such a distinction is admitted.
2. We may gather it from their acknowledging of this to have been a truth in the Primitive times. Thus Lombardus, the great Master of Sentences, lib. 4. distinct. 24. when he giveth the reason why only two orders, to wit, Presbyteratus, and Diaconatus, are mentioned by way of excellency in the Canons, and are called, Ordines Sacri: he subjoyneth this as the reason, quia hos so…os primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis pr… ceptum Apostoli habemus; and doth for this end cite, 1 Tim. 3. and Act. 6. Again, that great School-man Cajetan, on Titus 1.5. and 7. hath these words, ubi adverte eundem gradum, idemque officium, significari à Paulo nomine Presbyteri, & nomine Episcopi… Nam praemisit, idcirco reliqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros: & modo probando regulam, dicit, oportet enim Episcopum, &c. By which words, the identity of these two offices is most clearly asserted, and confirmed: and this also will be found to be the mind of many moe.
If it be asked, how then these more eminent degrees of Bishop, Arch-bishop, Patriarch, &c. did enter into the Church; and, how these differences have arisen? Answ. The same Lombardus in that same place, de quadripartito ordine Episcoporum, doth ommit his former alledging of the custom of the Old Testament, and other things which he abused, and out of Isidorus layeth it down thus, borum autem discretio à Gentilibus intro-ducta videtur; qui suos flamines, alios simpliciter flamines, alios archi-flamines, alios pr…to-flamines apellabant. Sacerdotes enim Gentilium, flamines dicebantur, &c. Which is in sum, this difference seemeth to be brought in from the Gentiles who used so to stile their Priests, as to call some Priests simply, others Arch-priests, others again first-Priests, &c. and considering that the root of the Roman Hierarchie, to wit, Papacy, and the ordering thereof, did arise from the superstitious Christians their imitating of the heathenish Pontifex maximus (whereof we may see somewhat, cap. 13. lect. 4.) it is no wonder that these inferiour pillars be of the same kind. And if there were any shew from the Word for such differences, it would seem that this great Master had not gone to the Gentiles to be beholden to them for the same. Also Estius when he is to prove the superiority of Bishops, he hath these words, quod autem jure divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores, et si non ita clarum est è sacris literis, aliunde tamen abunde probari potest, &c. in lib. 4. senten. distinct. 24. and so he citeth Popes constitutions, Canons of Councils, &c.
In the third place, this will appear from the considering of the answers that generally are given by them to these places of Scripture alledged, whereby it is concluded that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same; which are generally one of these two, 1. Some say, that though the office in the Primitive times was distinct; yet the titles of Presbyter and Bishop, were common. But we have found already this to be a miserable shift: because, 1. This identity of the names so circumstantiated, proveth the identity of the offices as was said; 2. Because these places do not only apply the titles indifferently; but do indifferently apply the duties, qualifications, and every other thing that belongeth to such officers, and offices; and there is nothing spoken of the one in Scripture, but it is also spoken of the other, neither any thing required as a qualification in, or duty from the one, but is also done in reference to the other, and that expresly. A second answer, is that of Scotus, and some others who follow him, in lib. 4. sententiarum, distinct. 24. quaestione unica; where he endeavoureth thus to remove that Objection, because (saith he) at first Believers were few, and so few Ministers were needful, and it was not necessary that there should be Officers instituted in every degree; but (saith he) when the Believers did multiplie, then it was necessary. Where there is a double fault, 1. That contrary to the Scripture it is asserted that then the Church was not numerous, when as yet very soon the Apostles were necessitated to choose Deacons for their help. 2. That it supponeth, that when the Church is lesse numerous, there may not only be fewer Officers, but that she may want some wholly of such and such a degree. Adde, that it supponeth de facto, that the Church in the Apostles dayes was not so compleatly constitute in respect of the kind of Officers as afterward: which is altogether inconsistent with that perfect plat-form of the Church in the Primitive Apostolick times. And when such answers are made by the learnedest of that party to such Arguments, what is it, but indeed the granting, upon the matter, that there was no such distinction, or distinct offices of Bishop and Presbyter in the Primitive times in use and practice in the Church?
Our fourth and last consideration, is, That this confounding of Angel and Minister in this place, is necessary from the consideration of the scope and other circumstances of the Text, whatever might be said from other places. For, 1. we cannot see how otherwayes these Epistles can be profitably expounded and applied with relation to the state of these particular Churches, except this be, as was hinted at the entry of this Question. 2. It is certain that our Lords purpose, is, to point out the condition of the ordinary Ministers of the Churches as well as of the people, or of any supposed particular Bishop. And if this be the Lords scope, then they must be comprehended under this Title Angel, to whom the Epistles are directed: and if so, then what is spoken of the Angel, must be applied to them indifferently, seing the Lord maketh no difference: therefore, either we must altogether leave out Ministers from being considered in these Epistles, or we must thus apply to them what is spoken to, and of, the Angels. 3. What is spoken here to, or of the Angels, will agree to what in other Scriptures is spoken to, and of, ordinary Ministers … to Preach the Word, to convince gain-sayers, to censure the unruly, to fulfill their Ministrie, to have an open door, and such like. All which we will find applied to ordinary Ministers in other Scriptures; and therefore cannot but be so here also. 4. Seing in no other Scripture there is expresse distinction made between Bishop and Presbyter; and seing it is usuall to Iohn to speak of Presbyter or Elder, as of the highest office that was to be in ordinary in the Church; (for which cause, he calleth himself an Elder) and seing also he doth never mention p…heminence in one Officer above another, but in the person of Diotrephes (and that with indignation) as may be seen in his second and third Epistles. And lastly, Seing he never mentioneth Bishop, or any other Teaching-officer but Presbyter in his Doctrine and Writings. Is it probable that under this figurative stile, in a Prophetical book any other Officer than a Presbyter, especially such as should have preheminence over his brethren, should be understood, and upon this place alone be grounded, it being ever most safe in such obscure figurative places to expound the same by what is more clear? And it would seem strange that the institution of Presbyters; yea, and of Deacons with their qualifications, &c. should be so clear and expresse in the Word, and that yet this Superiour Officer should be so darkly pointed at, and there be no qualifications, directions or rules given concerning him, but what are to be borrowed from the inferiour Pastor. 5. It would also, upon this suppofition, be difficult to find out who these particular Bishops could be: For, 1. some make Timothie to be dead, and Iohn now to be Bishop of Ephesus: and can Iohn himself, write to himself, being at that time not in Ephesus? 2. If we take Timothie to be the Angel mentioned, will it be charitable to account him to have fillen so from his first love? yea, supposing it to be Onesimus, it will be hard to construct so of him: And so we might go through the rest. Beside, there is in all these Epistles a special sibnesse and sympathie between the condition of the Angel and Church: therefore what is directed to the Angel at the entry, is applied to the Churches in the close of every Epistle: yea, these Angels are supposed to have much immediat influence upon the conditions good or ill of these Churches. Now, it may be conceived how the Churches and their particular Ministers may come to be of the same temper; but it cannot be conceived how it can be so ordinarily between a Diocesian Bishop and many Congregations under him: for, experience hath proven that oftentimes there may be a cold dead Bishop, and yet where the Ministers are lively, the people may be in good condition: but usually when Ministers are lifelesse, although the Bishop were lively, yet are the people for the generality of them but in a dead condition. Lastly, If what is spoken to Angels here, be to be appropriated to one Bishop, then it behoved to be said, that it were only the Bishop that had the door opened to him in Preaching, as in Philadelphia; that he only were commended for his labour and patience, as in Ephesus; that he only did convert souls, and in that peculiar sense, were said to have few unspotted persons under him, as in the Epistle to Sardis, &c. And if these things cannot be astricted to Bishops, so understood, but must agree to all Ministers in such cases, Then must the title Angel be so applyed in these Epistles.
We know these things are more fully and accurately made out by many others, to whom we refer the Reader: and in particular, to that accurate Peice of the Ministers of the Province of London, called Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, and to the Books that are frequently mentioned therein: for, it is not our purpose to insist in this: only we conceive that from these considerations there is ground sufficient for our exposition and application of these Epistles. It is not unworthy the marking also, that Augustine, expounding that word, in the 104. Psalm (which is to him the 103.) He maketh his Angels Ministers, &c. he doth understand by Angels, Praedicatores Evangelii, or Preachers of the Gospel, without any further distinction or title; which certainly must be done with respect to this place. I shall only adde a word of that zealous, and pious writer, Learned Mr. Boyd, who having clearly made out this by many Scriptures and Citations of Fathers both against Papists and others, who (saith he) in this were papixantes, doth close with a saying of famous Whitaker against Sanders, who having cited Ierom's reason for the bringing in of Bishops for the preventing of Schism, Hoc Veri-verbium gravissimè subjungit (saith he) sed ipso morbo deterius penè remedium fuit: Nam ut primo unus Presbyter reliquis praelatus est, & factus Episcopus; ita postea unus Episcopus, reliquis est praelatus. Sic ista consuetudo Papam cum suâ Monarchiâ peperit, & paulatim in Ecclesiam invexit. And then doth subjoyn of himself, Nec ego sanè video, si semel hoc remedium, ut ad schismata vel tollenda vel praecavenda necessarium, admittamus & amplectamur, cur aut quomodo gradus sistendus sit, donec ad unum summum Patriarcham sive Pontificem Occumenicum, qui solus toti praesit Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, tandem deveniamus, atque hoc Italus velit, & magno mercetur Abaddon ille Romanus, qui cum suis asseclis, eodem hoc utuntur argumento, ad Monarchiam suam in Ecclesiâ firmandam.
The same Learned Author also, coming to consider this place of the Revelation, after other answers, doth assert, that under this title Angel, a plurality of Ministers, may be understood, (as we formerly did expound the place) whom Christ writeth to in the singular number, 1. That He might shew that there was an unity amongst the Ministers, as well as amongst the members: and so He keepeth the number of them, proportionably to the number of the Churches. And, 2. Because, by naming them so, the Lord would have them minded that some way they did constitute but one, and are, in respect of their oversight, so to concur in caring for the one Flock, as being each of them Ministers thereof, in whole; and in particular, written unto by Jesus Christ, for that end. And so this naming of Angel, in the singular number, will rather remove all supposed difference amongst them, than establish the same: because so what is written to one, is written to every Angel, or Minister, in these Churches: which is the thing that at first we asserted.
An Author of late (to wit, Doctor Hamond) among many other strange things which he hath, doth take an unheard-of way to evite the former Arguments: and because he cannot deny but the Scripture doth take Bishops and Presbyters for one and the same, he doth therefore, first, acknowledge this to be truth: But, 2. asserteth that both are to be understood of Diocesian Bishops, and not of Presbyters, as they are understood now. And therefore, 3. doth deny that in the Apostles times there was any middle sort of Presbyters, as he calleth them, betwixt Diocesian Bishops and Deacons. 4. That many mentioned in the Scripture, and these seven Angels in particular, were Metropolitan Bishops, having power over Diocesian Bishops. All which he asserteth with a great deal of confidence, and doth illustrate the then Government of the Church from the fourth Chapter of this Book: which, to him holdeth forth, 1. The Metropolitan of Ierusalem, as signified by the person that sitteth upon the Throne. 2. Four and twenty Diocesian Bishops sitting on Thrones by him, which (saith he) no doubt was exactly the number of the inferiour Bishops of Iudea, although the same cannot be made out by History. These are represented by the four and twenty Elders. 3. Seven spirits, signifie the seven Deacons which were in that Church: thus (saith he) was the estate of the Church in Iohns time, and no other Officer was as yet instituted.
Although these be vanities beyond any thing which he condemneth in Mr. Brightman himself, and exceedingly unsuitable to the scope of the Spirit; and though there can be little expectation to convince any who so unwarrantably asserteth their own imagination as a certain truth, without any warrand from the Word, or any History; yet we must say somewhat, seing the stresse lyeth here, whether there were any Presbyters in the dayes of the Apostles, in the notion that we now take Presbyters? or, whether all preaching Officers were then only Bishops with Jurisdiction, as he doth understand them? For if there were Presbyters in this notion as we speak; and if, according to his own principles, Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same, Then it will follow that at that time they were both preaching Presbyters or Elders. For, in pleading that there were such Presbyters, we purpose not to plead for any middle order, as he calleth it; but, according as himself saith… the asserting of a Lord-bishop to have been instituted in these dayes, doth necessarily deny the office of Preaching▪presbyters to have then been in the Church of Christ: so, upon the contrary, it will follow, that if it be made out that there was such an Officer as this Presbyter in the Church of Christ, Then this of Bishops, as distinct from it, must also fall. Now, to make out that there was such Presbyters in the Church of Christ in the Apostles dayes, who yet were not Bishops in his sense, we propose these considerations.
First, Consider the general harmony of all the Ancients, of all the School-men, generally all that ever wrote since Reformation: for, I suppose, never any questioned but that there were Preaching-presbyters in the Church as we take them: and cannot Episcopacy be established except all these foundations be overturned; without which yet there will not be much to say for it?
Secondly, Consider the principles of that party: for, generally, they do account the Apostles to have been in the degree of Bishops, and the Disciples to have been in the place of ordinary Pastors; also that Bishops Jurisdiction over Ministers, is instituted and established in Timothy and Titus, their ordaining, admonishing, reproving, &c. of ordinary Ministers. And if there were none such in the Apostles dayes, they cannot be said to have had power over such: and so either these Arguments must stand, and this Authors assertion must fall; or, if it stand, they must fall: by which there is a losse to that party however.
Thirdly, It may be considered how that Authors ground can be reconciled with Scripture, wherein the office and actual being of such an Officer as a Presbyter, as we take it, is sufficiently clear: for which, see, First, these Scriptures that do most fully hold forth the distinct offices of the Church under the New Testament, as, Ephes. 1.4.11, 12. besides Apostles and Evangelists, he gave some to be Pastors and Teachers. Now, by Pastors and Teachers, must be understood Ministers, as we take them; because they are such as were by feeding and teaching to edifie Christs Body to the end of the world: which cannot be restricted to Bishops as understood by him; otherwayes the Pastor shall not have accesse to edifie Christs Church for any time to come. And if Pastors be here understood, then they must be understood as then in being, as the other Officers that are mentioned, and to have had their beginning immediately after Christs Ascension. The second pla…e is, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. where the Apostle speaketh of the Lords instituting Teachers in His Church, as distinct from other Officers. And what can these Teachers be but such as we account ordinary Ministers, their title bearing out their office especially to be in Teaching? A third place, is, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. where he that teacheth, and he that exhorteth, are spoken of, and are required to wait upon their Offices; and certainly cannot but be understood of ordinary Pastors, whose special duty consists in these. And considering the Doctors paraphrase upon these verses, we conceive that either there he expounds them of such as taught for the time, which doth confirm what we said; or, doth make it a direction to such as afterward might be called to that Office; whereby he would insinuate that there was none such in being for the time: this is expresly contrary to the letter of the Text, which speaketh of exhorting and teaching, as present duties of some Officer, as well as ruling and shewing mercy, &c. are spoken of.
The second ground from Scripture, is, such places as hold sorth the Apostles to have placed Presbyters in every Church, as Act. 14.23. Now, it must either be said that there was no Church in the New Testament, but Diocesian Churches; or, we must say that the ordaining Elders in every Church, must be understood of ordinary Presbyters or Pastors: for, it is clear in Scripture that there were many Churches, which were not in very considerable Cities as that in Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. which yet cannot be said to want Officers, as also these of Iudea and Galatia: and can it be said that there was no Church in any Village or part of the Country? Beside, many Churches are mentioned to be in Corinth 1 Cor. 14.34. and certainly all had Teachers, and yet it cannot be thought that they were all Diocesian Bishops; they must therefore be understood of ordinary Pastors.
The third sort of Scriptures, are these that speak of many Elders in one City, as in Ephesus, Act. 20.17, 28. and Philipp…, Philip. 1.1. in Ierusalem, in Corinth, &c. where it is clear, that beside the extraordinary Officers that were there, there were also many ordinary Teachers and Presbyters.
I know that Author will repell this easily, by asserting that all these were Metropolitan Churches, and that these other Presbyters were inferiour Bishops, and that these Epistles, are not to be understood to be directed to these particular Towns, which are mentioned only, but to all the Countrie, whereof these were Metropolitan Cities and Churches. But to this we oppose, 1. How can that be made to appear from any ground in Scripture, where neither the word Metropolitan, nor the thing is hard of? 2. This maketh two sorts of Prelatical Bishops, when yet, whatever be understood by Bishops, in the Word it is clear they are but of one degree: and therefore the same rules for ordination, for qualifications, trial and ever other thing, are indifferently given for all. 3. This contrareth the very letter of the Text, to say that when he writeth to Philippi, or Thessalonica, he writeth to all Macedonia, &c. For the Apostle in his Inscriptions putteth great difference between his writeing to a particular Church or City, and his writing to several Churches in a Countrie, as by his directions to Corinth, Philippi, Coloss, &c. in the one case, and his directions not to any Church in a particular Town, but to the Churches in Galatia and to all the Hebrews, in the other case, is clear: which is done, to shew that the one respecteth a particular Town and the Christians in it, and the other the Christians in a whole Countrie. And certainly, if we will mark how he distinguisheth Thessalonica from Macedonia and Achaia, 1 Thes. 1.7. and how (Coloss. 4.16.) he commandeth to read that Epistle in the Church of the Laodiceans, which yet was not far from this Town, it will appear that he understood the particular Churches which were named. Yet it is clear that there were moe Bishops in Philippi, and moe Ministers in Thessalonica, as, 1 Epist. chap. 5. vers. 12. Now to put his glosse upon the words, in that place (saith he) Thessalonica was a Metropolis, and all the Christian Churches and Bishops in Macedonia were written unto, when Thessalonica was written unto; How then shall vers. 7, and 8. of the first Chapter be paraphrased, so that ye were examples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia? This would be the meaning, ye Christians of Macedonia, are examples to all the Christians of Macedonia: which were absurd. Yea, himself doth paraphrase it thus, and this in so eminent a manner, that your example had an happy influence, raised an emulation in all the Christians of the other Cities in Macedonia, &c. whereby it appeareth that the Church of the Thessalonians, is to be understood of the Christians of that particular City, and that as distinct from other particular Cities in Macedonia. Lastly, There are diverse Ministers of Coloss: for, Colos. 4.12. Epaphras is mentioned as one of their number, who certainly was a Preacher: and again, vers. 17. Archippus is spoken of. And if there were not plurality of Ministers in one place, What can be understood by these that are spoken of, Philip. 4.15, &c. who Preach Christ, some sincerely, and some out of envie? These, it seemeth, were all in Rome; and yet it will be hard to say that they were all Bishops in the sense pleaded-for.
A fourth sort of Scriptures, are these that give Directions and Rules for the calling, and trying of the qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters, &c. Now, if these same Directions warrand to call and ordain Ministers in all after-times, and if the same Rules that are given in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus, ought now to be observed, and the same qualifications to be enquired▪for in ordinary▪Ministers, &c. by vertue of these Rules; Then it will follow that Presbyters in these places are to be understood of ordinary Ministers: But the former is true, except we will denie that any Directions are given at all for trying and ordaining Ministers in the Scripture. Beside, the Apostles scope in laying down these Rules, is, to direct Officers how to walk in the admission of all others unto the end of the world.
A fourth consideration which we propose, is, that this denial of Preaching-presbyters, is contrary to reason, and is founded upon false suppositions. For, it supponeth, 1. the number of Christians to have been few. 2. That an office may be afterward instituted in the Church, which was not instituted in the Apostles dayes. Now, let it be considered in reason, 1. If the Christians who were so numerous in many places, as in Ierusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, &c. can be supposed to have been fed sufficiently by one Bishop? it being clear that there were many thousands, as hath been abundantly made out by that rich Piece, Learned Mr. Rutherfurd his Dueright of Presbytery, and that acute Piece Iu…divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici; where also the plurality of Officers is abundantly evinced: wherefore there needeth no more of this. Only we may observe from Acts 13.1. that in Antioch, beside extraordinary Officers, there was a plurality of ordinary Teachers, which by no means can be understood of Bishops. 2. It may be considered what the case of these Churches would have been, when one Pastor was absent from them, as oftentimes it was by being sent in messages to the Apostles and otherwayes: can it be said that these Churches were without Preaching-officers and Ordinances of the Word and Sacraments all that time? yet that must be said, except we say there were other Preaching-officers labouring amongst them. 3. Is it agreeable to reason, to think that all Churches were of one measure so as to be served with one man? or, that where some few number of Christians were converted and did combine amongst themselves, they behoved either to be a Diocesian Church, which is impossible, or to be none at all, which is contrary to the way of the Gospel? 4. I ask, If the case of the Christian Church was more perfect with Presbyters than without them? If it be more perfect with them, then it must be said the Primitive Apostolick Church was not in the most perfect form, which will be against reason. If it be more perfect without them, then they were unreasonably brought and kept into the Church: both which are absurd.
A fifth consideration, is, That the denying of Presbyters and Ministers in this ordinary notion to have been instituted in the Apostles dayes, doth go neer to strike at the very root of Christianity and overturn the course of the Gospel: for, experience teacheth us, that the great work of conversion in the Church hath been, and is, carried on by such Presbyters … and this assertion doth at once remove the same: For, 1. it denieth them to have been instituted in the Apostles dayes as a mean for converting of souls; and what more can be said to overturn them? 2. Seing he denies this institution to have been when Iohn wrote this Revelation (chap. 4. Annotation.) what warrand can be afterward given for their instituting? yea, it cannot be shown from History or Writings of the Ancients, when or how they were first instituted; and therefore in sum they come to be a humane institution; and so, such an excellent mean of edification is overturned.
A sixth consideration, is, That this assertion seemeth to destroy itself, and to imply a contradiction: for, if there was but one Preaching-bishop in every one of these Churches to Preach and administer the Sacraments in the same, then either he was equal to the same, the Congregarions not being numerous, and so he discharged ministeriall duties without having jurisdiction over any other Preaching-presbyter (of which there were none according to this opinion) or over any other particular Church, and if so, he is the very person whom we call an ordinary Pastor, or Apostolick Bishop, of one particular Congregation: and in this sense, we grant there was no other Pastor, or Presbyter: and being so understood, this Prelatical or Diocesian-bishop having power over many particular Congregations, must fall to the ground: or, it must be said, that this Bishop had a charge beyond what is possible to one man to deal with, or, had Christians and Officers in diverse places and Churches subject to him, which will also be contrary to the assertions of the same Author. Now, if it implicateth not, to say that he was a Diocesian Bishop, and yet had rule but over one Congregation; and to say that he had power and jurisdiction over other Preaching-officers, and so was not a Preaching-officer of the lowest degree; and that yet there was no other inferiour Preaching-officer: which necessarily implieth that that Bishop was of the lowest degree. If (I say) these things implicate not, we cannot tell what doth: for, the one thing saith, he hath none under him; the other saith, he is not one of the lowest.
Neither will any have this to say, that there was an inferiour order to be instituted after the Apostles dayes, over which these Bishops were to govern. For, 1. It must be made out that there is an appointment in the Word for instituting of such an Officer, which was not then in the Church. 2. It will yet follow, that during the time of the Apostles, this Bishop did discharge the office of Presbyter, and so was the lowest Preaching-officer in the Church, and that therefore the contradiction would have been still obvious in that time, and they had been liable unto this same argument. 3. If they had then any jurisdiction over Presbyters, it behoved to be a non-ens, while they had no being, and that for many years: which looketh not like Christs way in giving talents to men. And indeed when all is considered, seing these Bishops did nothing but what we allow ordinary Ministers to do, and had the same qualifications appointed for them, and the same place in the Church, to wit, to be next before to Deacons, and have only charge of particular Congregations, and such like. It will be most safe to conclude them to have been Bishops and Presbyters in the sense that formerly we laid down. And so we leave any further consideration of this Author.