Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 11 – Section 13
Section XI.
Of the Epiſtles being ſent to the whole Church, not to the Biſhop onelyonly. Of Timothy, Oneſimus and Polycarp, being Biſhops of ſome of the Aſian Churches, without any charge of Apoſtacy falling on them by this meanes.
THere is a fourth behinds ſtill, that though but one Angel …e mentioned in the fore-front▪ yet it is evident that the Epiſtles themſelves (though we are farre from thinking that in formal denomination, the Angels and the Candleſticks are the ſame) are dedicated to all the Angels and Miniſters in the Church, and to the Churches themſelves, as appeares, R…v. 1. 10. Rev. 2. 7. 11. 17. And therefore when it is ſaid in the ſingular number, I know thy workes, This thou haſt, Repent and doe thy firſt workes, &c. All theſe and the like places are not to be underſtood as meant of one individual perſon, but of the whole company of Ministers, and alſo of the whole Church, becauſe the puniſhment threatned is to the whole Church, Rev. 2. 5. 16. 2. Now we have no warrant in the word to thinke that Chriſt would remove his Goſpell from a Church for the ſin of one Biſhop, when all the other miniſters and Churches are farre from thoſe ſins.
2. To this I ſhall need make no reply, having done it ſufficiently already, by conceſſion that the Angel being the Ruler of a Church, the whole Epiſtle belongs to him and the Church promiſcuouſly, and agreeably thoſe expreſſions, which are uſed in the ſingular number, doe not all belong to the Biſhop, but to the Church wherein he praeſides: But certainly this is farre from inferring that the Biſhop and Church are all one, or that the word Angel ſignifies the collective body of the Church, for, beſides that the Text is expreſſe in making a ſignall difference between the Starres and the Candleſticks, the Angels and the Churches (and the Aſſemblers are here forced to confeſſe that the Angels and Candleſticks are not the ſame) the confounding them will be as diſadvantageous to them as to us, and I ſhall as regularly be able to conclude that the word Angel ſignifies not the Preſbytery, but the whole diffuſive body of the Church, as they can pretend to doe upon their owne poſtulatum, that the Angel denotes not the Biſhop but the whole Church, it being as certaine that they make a difference between the Church or multitude of believers, and the Preſbytery that is ſet over them to rule, as we doe between the ſame Church and the Biſhop.
3. Thus have we viewed all the reaſons produced by them to aſſert or confirme their firſt anſwer, and ſhewed divers wayes how no manner of validity there is in any one or all of them, to evidence it to be a ſolid and every way ſufficient anſwer. And therefore there was ſome uſe of the next part of the Method, to call in the authority of other men to countenance this interpretation, Maſter Brightman, Maſter Perkins, Maſter Foxe, (who citeth Primaſius Haymo, Beda, Richardus, Thomas, &c.) Doctor Fulke, Maſter Meade, Gregory and Saint Auſtin; But although they have thought fit to ſet downe theſe names, yet having omitted to adde their Teſtimonies, and indeed having reſolved to forbear, becauſe Smectymnuus hath done it already, I ſhall confeſſe my ſelfe willing to leave this chaſe, and in ſtead of leading the Reader ſo weariſome a walke, to examine the ſeverall comments here named (and but named) give him more ſhortly my conjecture what truth may be in them.
4. Maſter Brightman, I know (and ſome others 'tis poſſible) may have interpreted the Angel to ſignifie the whole College of Paſtors, and truly I ſhould much ſooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of theſe Aſſemblers, than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman; He was one learned man, long knowne to be unkinde to our Pralates, and here are many, for ought I know, as learned, though under the ſame praejudices.
5. Some others here cited, I cannot believe are brought to teſtifie this, but onelyonly that what is ſaid to the Angel in each part of the Epiſtle, was ſaid to the whole Church, and not onelyonly to the Biſhop; and if that be all they ſay, it is that which we cannot doubt to affirme with them, and have oft confeſt to underſtand Chriſt's Epiſtle ſo, without any incommodity to our praetenſions.
6. If I miſtake in theſe conjectures, I deſire pardon, and ſhall hope to give a better account, when I reade the teſtimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited. For in theſe derivations of teſtimonies, the Aſſemblers citing them from Smectymnuus, Smectymnuus from Maſter Foxe, Maſter Foxe from Primaſius, &c. there is great poſſibility of miſtake, and therefore I ſhall follow the example before me, forbeare adding any more of this matter.
7. In the next place they are pleaſed to take notice as of an objection againſt their interpretation, that ſome Authors ſay, Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus when our Saviour wrote this Epiſtle, others that Oneſimus was Biſhop, others that Polycarp was Biſhop of Smyrna at that time, and therefore theſe Angels muſt needs be taken individually for ſo many ſingle perſons.
8. Of this Objection, which they have thus formed for us, there is onelyonly thus much of truth, that out of authentique Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothies being conſtituted by St. Paul Biſhop of Epheſus, for Oneſimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius's writing to the Epheſians, that Polycarpe was conſtituted Biſhop of Smyrna by S. John, of all which we have ſpoken enough already.
9. But of all or any of theſe being Biſhops in thoſe Cities at the very time of Chriſt's addreſſing this Epiſtle to the Angels of each, this had no where been our affirmation, nor would it have beene uſefull to us in any conſiderable degree, if we had grounds poſitively to affirme it. All that is needfull to us is this, that by the Antient Records, which evidence them to have been ſo early Biſhops in two of thoſe Churches, to which Chriſt's Epiſtle was ſent, and Biſhops in the notion wherein we now uſe the word, we are ſecured of the truth of ou… collections, when from the mention of the ſeven Angels of the 7. Churches, we aſſert the Eccleſiaſticall power in the hands of a ſingle Biſhop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Chriſt; And ſuppoſing ſome other perſons, and none of theſe three to have beene thoſe very numericall Angels to whom thoſe Epiſtles were written, this concluſion of ours ſtands yet as firme, as if we could demonſtrate it of thoſe very numericall perſons, there being no reaſon to doubt but the ſame manner of Government continued all the Scripture times; and to Timothies ſucceſſour and Oneſimus's predeceſſor, being as certainly Biſhops, as either Oneſimus or Timothy himſelfe; when withall we have already produced mentions from the Antients of the Catalogues of thoſe Biſhops which ſucce dede Timothy in that See.
10. Having thus ſet right the Objection for them, ſo as it is owned by us to be an Objection againſt them, it will now ſoone appeare what force there is in their anſwers to it, and thoſe are three.
11. Firſt, that they that ſay that Timothy was then Biſhop, offer no little injury to him, for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apoſtacy, and of loſing his firſt love, and ſo out of a blind zeale to Epiſcopacy they make that glorious Saint to ſtand charged as an Apoſtate. The like injury is offered by Objections to Oneſim…s.
12. But firſt you ſee whatever our opinion is expreſt to be we have not affirmed either of theſe, as to the perſon either of Timothy or Oneſimus, but left it uncertaine who the Angel of the Church of Epheſus was, whether either or neither of theſe, but ſome ſucceſſor of the one, and predeceſſor of the other, and ſo what charge ſoever falls on that Angel, it falls not neceſſarily on either of theſe.
13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties, affirmed by them, and acknowledged by me, that the Epiſtle being addreſt to the Angel of Epheſus, the Church or diffuſive body, the Chriſtians in it, were concerned in the contents of it; And then whatſoever charge be found in the Epiſtle, of how heavy a nature ſoever, even of Apoſtacy it ſelfe, yet there is no neceſſity the Angel or Biſhop ſhould be perſonally guilty of it, and ſo whoſoever the Biſhop was, though Timothy himſelfe, our zeale to Epiſcopacy hath not beene ſo blind or tranſporting, as to put us on any uncharitable cenſure, to affix any unhandſome character upon ſo glorious a Saint.
14. Laſtly, to remove this anſwer yet one degree farther from being ſatisfactory, it no where appeares that apoſtacy is in that Epiſtle laid to the charge, whether of the Church or Angel; The firſt part is all in commendati…n of their former zeal, and the later, wherein their charge conſiſts, v. 4. is only this [foreign] which is not (as is ſuggeſted) loſing their firſt love, but remitting it; Their love to Chriſt had formerly been ſtrong as death, pure and vehement, ſuch as had caſt out all feare of dangers, and evidenced it ſelfe in couragious confeſſion, but now, though it were not quite loſt, yet it was remitted, leſſened in the degree, not ſo intenſe as formerly, and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen, that fall doth not neceſſarily ſignifie Apoſtacy or renouncing of Chriſtianity, for then it had been an impertinent threatning to remove their Chandleſtick v. 5.) but a falling from the former degree, a cooling of the intenſe heat, which had been ſo laudable in them. And ſo ſtill there is more invalidity in this firſt anſwer.
Section XII.
Of Timothies being an Evangeliſt, that it hinders not his being a Biſhop.
THe ſecond is, that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangeliſt in a proper ſenſe, and therefore cannot be called Biſhop of Epheſus in their ſenſe.
2. To this I reply, 1. That Timothies being an Evangeliſt no way prejudgeth his being a Biſhop in our …enſe, An Evangeliſt is one commiſſionated by any of the Apoſtles' foreign to preach the Gospell to any City or People; And a Biſhop is one commiſſionated by the like Apoſtle to praeſide in, and governe a Church already planted. And what hinders but that he that hath beene employed in the former capacity to plant, may elſewhere or in the ſame place be appointed to Governe, and ſo the Evangeliſt be a Biſhop?
3. Whatſoever Objections can be brought againſt this, I ſhall not doubt will be eaſily anſwered, but there is no offer of any here, and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place.
4. Secondly, it muſt againe be remembred, that what is here ſaid of Timothy is proper to his perſon, both from Oneſimus and Polycarpe, and all other Angels, whether ſucceeding Timothy in Epheſus, or praeſiding in the other 7. Aſian Churches, and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangeliſt were rendred uncapable (which yet he was not) of being the Biſhop of Epheſus in our ſenſe, yet thoſe other ſeven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epiſtle of which none have been proved to be Evangeliſts, may ſtill be Biſhops in our ſenſe.
5. Thirdly, I ſhall demand upon the Aſſemblers principles, who allow a Primus Presbyter, a Prolocutor in their conſistory or Councell of Presbyters, might Timothy be that firſt Presbyter in the Church of Epheſus, or did his being an Evangeliſt hinder him from being ſo, when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed foreign to abide in that City? I cannot imagine they will ſay he could not, who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themſelves Preſbyters; But if he could in their opinion, then why might he not be a Biſhop in our ſenſe (notwithſtanding that he was an Evangeliſt) as well as a Preſbyter in theirs? I foreſee not what anſwer can be adapted to this Dilemma.
Section XIII.
Of the Biſhops at Epheſus. Of the plurall number in the Epiſtle to the Angel of Smyrna.
THere remaines a third branch of the Anſwer, that it will not follow becauſe Oneſimus was Biſhop of Epheſus in St. John's dayes, that therefore he was the onelyonly perſon to whom Chriſt wrote his Epiſtle; For St. Paul tells us there were many Biſhops at Epheſus (beſides the ſuppoſed Oneſimus) and Chriſt may very well write to him, and to all the reſt as well as him. The like may be ſaid concerning Polycarpe, for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number, Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be ſaid to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna, as well as to one.
2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene diſtinctly foreſtall'd, and ſpoken to largely already, it will ſuffice that we repeat the heads, and leave the Reader to view the places, where they are more explicitly handled. And 1. though St. Paul ſhould tell us that there were many Biſhops at Epheſus, as there might be from other Cities occaſionally met there, yet it would not follow that there were more than one Biſhop of that City, or conſequently that Chriſt in a peculiar addreſſe to the Angel of that City could write to more Biſhops there.
3. But then ſecondly, the whole truth is this, that S. Luke (and not St Paul) tells, that upon St. Pauls ſummons ſent to Epheſus, many Biſhops met him at Miletus; Epheſus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fitteſt meanes to convey the ſummons to the Cities neer it, and from them and not onelyonly from them, and not onelyonly from Epheſus came the Biſhops to him, as hath been declared out of Irenaeus.
4. Thirdly, for our Saviour's ſpeaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number, that is not punctually true, for though the letter be written and inſcribed to the Angel, yet, as hath oft been ſaid, the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it, and ſo ſpeaking to the Angel in the ſingular, he may yet ſpeake to the Church or any members thereof, in the plurall number. And ſo much againe to demonſtrate the ineffectualneſſe of the firſt Head of Anſwers.