Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 2
Section II.
Of Timothy, of Oneſimus, of Polycarpe.
The next period in their charge againſt mee runs thus. Nun. 1.It is farther added, that ſome of the Antient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of thoſe Churches. Some ſay Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus, when John wrote his Epiſtle to it; Others ſay Oneſimus, others ſay that Policarpe was Biſhop of Smyrna; And from hence they conclude with a great deale of planſibility, that the Angell of the Churches were ſeven individuall Biſhops.
2. Here is as yet no great charge offered, but a confeſſion rather, that I had ſome temptation for the confidence, of which I was formerly accuſed, my concluſion being acknowledged by the adverſaries to be inferred with a great deale of plauſibility. But I have not ſo much reaſon to depend on their civilities, as to omit the inſerting here, what may be uſefull to prevent miſtakes, and ſhall therefore thinke it neceſſary to ſet downe intirely, what it is which I have affirmed in this matter.
3. And 1. I have yet no where ſaid that Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus when John writ this Epiſtle to that Church; My words are expreſly otherwiſe, Ex quibus patet vel Timotheum ipſum vel aliquem ei ſuccedaneum hunc ipſum Angelum fuiſſe, quem c. 2. 1. Christus alloquitur. By which it appeares (having formerly ſet down my grounds to induce this concluſion, that either Timothy himſelf, or ſome body that ſucceeded him, was that very Angel to whom Chriſt addreſt his speech, c. 2. 1. But that is not to affirme it of Timothy, but purpoſely to abſteine from affirming any thing that could be denyed or doubted, and onelyonly to affirme it either to Timothy or ſome ſucceſſor of his, which evidently and infallibly it muſt be, if there be truth in the premiſe from which it was inferred, the words of the Councell, and the Father, that after Timothy, the firſt, ſucceeded of continuall ſeries of Biſhops there.
4. What my opinion is in this matter, I ſhall now freely tell them, though before I had not occaſion to doe it, together profeſſing it to be onelyonly my opinion, and ſo ſtill affirming nothing in a matter of ſome uncertainty, or farther than the grounds, on which my opinon is founded, ſhall appeare able to ſupport it. My opinion briefly is, that Timothy was then Biſhop of Epheſus at the time of addreſſing that Epiſtle to the Angel of that Church; And the grounds are theſe. 1. That St.He…. foreign. Johns baniſhment and propheſying are by Epiphanius twice expreſly affirmed to have been foreign, in the times of Claudius Caeſar; Then ſecondly, that as it is by Chronologers ſet downe to be in the 13. of Claudius, that Timothy was left by Paul at Epheſus, when hee went into Macedonia; 1 Tim. 1. 3. Act. 20. ſo it is generally reſolved that Timothy ſuffered at Epheſus under Nerva, and that agreeable enough with his age, who appeares to be young when Paul firſt placed him Biſhop of Epheſus. If theſe grounds have truth in them, then Timothy cannot be doubted to be Biſhop of Epheſus, when St Johns viſion was received; And though 'tis true, that Ireneus ſeemes to aſſigne another date of theſe viſions, at leaſt of ſome of them, foreign, at the end of Domitians Reigne (which what it is to be deemed to ſignifie, is*Annot. p. 906. elſewhere explained) yet ſtill that is within the compaſſe of Timothies life, if hee ſuffered not till Nerva's Reigne. And ſo much for that of Timothies.
5. Secondly, that Oneſimus was Biſhop of Epheſus at the date of that Epiſtle, is no where ſo much as intimated to be my opinion, much leſſe affirmed by me. And therefore I need reply no more to that. Yet becauſe Ignatius in his Epiſtle to the Epheſians mentions Oneſimus their Biſhop (and that Teſtimony is produced by me Diſſert. 2. c. 25. Sect. 9) I ſhall here freely give them my opinion alſo of that matter.
6. Firſt, that there is little ground of queſtion, but that one of that name, Oneſimus, was Biſhop of Epheſus in the tenth yeare of Trajan, wherein Ignatius wrote that Epiſtle.
7. Secondly, that by one indication there is ſome ſmall reaſon to gueſs, that this Oneſimus was then lately come to that dignity; I meane Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church, that God had given them the favour to obtaine or have ſuch a Biſhop; foreign.
8. Thirdly, that according to Epiphanius his ſetting down the time of John's baniſhment and viſions, in the dayes of Claudius, there muſt be above 50 yeares diſtance between the date of this Epiſtle of Christ, and that of Ignatius, and conſequently that it is not ſo likely that Oneſimus, that was their Biſhop in the later, ſhould be that very Angel in the former.
9. Fourthly, that as I can have no cauſe to conſent with Ado (in lib. de Feſt. Apoſt. ad 14. Cal. Mart.) that this Oneſimus in Ignatius was hee that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon, ſo nor to adhere to the Roman Martyrologie, that he whom Paul mentions, was conſtituted Biſhop of Epheſus after Timothy.
10. And therefore fiftly, it muſt be remembred, that both the Greeke Menologies, and Simeon Metaphraſtes (who celebrate his memory on March 13.) acknowledge not that Oneſimus to have been at all Biſhop of Epheſus, and that others alſo of the antients make him to have been Biſhop of Beraea, and martyr'd in Domitian's Reigne: and Dorotheas in Synopſi expreſly affirmeth that Gaius ſucceeded Timothy in Epheſus.
11. From all which it followes, that Oneſimus mentioned by Ignatius, was ſome later Biſhop of that City, who bare that very Ordinary Greeke name, and ſo that his being Biſhop of Epheſus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation, not interferes with their opinion, who thinke Timothy to have beene that Angel; The appearing incompetibility whereof was it, I ſpppoſe, that brought in here the mention of Oneſimus.
12. This was here ſeaſonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place, and will be of uſe to be remembred in the proceſſe of their Diſcourſe.
13. Thirdly, for Polycarp's being Biſhop of Smyrna, as there is left no place for the doubting of that (if either Irenaeus, that lived in his time and ſaw him, or if Tertullian, who lived not long after, and was a curious Antiquary, may be believed in their joynt affirmations of a knowne matter of Fact) ſo it is againe no where affirmed by me, that hee was the very man, to whom that Epiſtle to the Angel of Smyrna was ſent, and if that were their meaning, they have againe miſreported my words.
14. All that I had ſaid, I thinke was proved irrefragably; that in two of thoſe Churches mentioned in the Apocalyps; Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick teſtimonies affirmed to be conſtituted Biſhops, the one by St. Paul, the other by St. John, and that is a competent argument added to others, to inferre that the Angel of each of thoſe Churches was a ſingle perſon, and ſo a Biſhop in the Prelatiſts, not in the Presbyterians notion of the word, an aſſertion which I need not feare will yeild any advantage to the adverſaries, and ſo I as briefly commit it to them.