Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 5
Section V.
Of St. John's being Biſhop of Aſia. Of the Apoſtles being Biſhops.
NOw ſucceeds a third conſideration. viz. That the ſame Authors that ſay that S. John made Polycarpe Biſh. of Smyrna, & that S. Peter made Ignatius Biſhop of Antioch, do alſo ſay that St. John himſelfe ſat many yeares Biſhop of Epheſus, and was the Metropolitan of all Aſia, which (ſay they) is an evident demonstration to us, that theſe Authors did not uſe the word Biſhop in a Prelaticall ſenſe. For it is certaine that the Apoſtles cannot be properly called Biſhops; For though they doe eminently containe the Epiſcopall Office, yet they were not formally Biſhops. For this were to degrade the Apoſtle, and to make their Office Ordinary and perpetuall, this were to exalt the Biſhop above his degree, and make him an Apoſtles, and to make the Apoſtle a Biſhop. It doth not much differ from madneſſe, to ſay that Peter or any one of the Apoſtles were properly Biſhops, as learned Whitaker ſaith, whom wee ſhall have occaſion to cite to this purpoſe hereafter.
2. Whether this conſideration be likely to contribute any thing to their advantage, ſave onelyonly by amuſing the Reader, and keeping him longer in expectation, that ſomewhat may poſſibly be produced to the diſparagement of our plea, I deſire may diſtinctly be conſidered by theſe degrees.
3. Firſt, I acknowledge that ſtile [the ſame Authors—] to belong truly to antient Writers produced by mee in the Diſſertations, who, as they doe affirme St. John to have conſtituted Policarpe Biſhop of Smyrna, Diſſ. 4. c. 5. Sect. 5. and St. Peter to have placed Ignatius Biſhop of Antioch. Diſſ. 5. c. 1. Sect. 18. ſo they conſent alſo that St. John ſat Biſhop of Epheſus and Metropolitane of all Aſia: ſo*L. 3. c. 23. Euſebius frequently, that after his returne from his baniſhment foreign, he adminiſtred or governed the Churches there, i.e. in Aſia; and (as he cites it lib. 3. cap. 31. out of Policrates his Epiſtle) died there. So the antient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy, †Biblioth: Num. 25….in Photius foreign, Being recalled by Nerva's decree, he ſat downe at Epheſus, and himſelfe perſonally, with ſeven Biſhops his adſeſſors (thoſe in all probability the Biſhops of the ſeven Churches in the Revelation) hee governed the Metropolitan City of Epheſus that prime Metropolis of all Aſia, to the Biſhop whereof, ſaith †Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5. 19.Chryſoſtome, was intruſted foreign, the whole Nation of Aſia; Theſe teſtimonies may ſuffice for the ſubſtance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Epheſus, and under it all Aſia, which is the notion wee now have of a Biſhop Metropolitane and Primate.
4. As for the word Biſhop, how can it be inconvenient to beſtow that upon him, when hee diſcharged the Office, nay when Chriſt himſelfe that great exemplar and originall of this power, is expreſly called the Biſhop of our Soules, as well as the Apoſtle; when the Office from which Judas fell, and to which Matthias is aſſumed, is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called foreign Biſhoprick, Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture uſage the Fathers of the Church have continued the ſtyle, Apoſtolos i. e. Epiſcopos & Praepoſitos Dominus elegit, the Lord choſe Apoſtles, i. e. Biſhops and Governours of the Church, ſaith*Ep. 65. Cyprian, and foreign, Peter and Paul were the firſt or chiefe in Rome, the ſame perſons, Apoſtles and Biſhops, ſaith *L. 1. Con…. Carpocr.Epiphanius, and Apoſtoli Epiſcopi ſunt, firmante illud Petro Apoſtol…—the Apoſtles were Biſhops, as is confirmed by Peter in theſe words. His Biſhoprick let another take, ſaith†In Eph. 4. & 1 Cor. 12. 29. Hilarius Sardus, and againe, Areall Apoſtles? …Tis true, ſaith hee, quia in Eceleſiâ unus Epiſcopus, becauſe in each Church there is one Biſhop. And, Nemo ignorat Epiſcopos ſervatorem Eccleſi…s inſtituiſſe, Ipſe enim priuſquam aſcenderet, imponens manum Apoſtolis ordinavit eos Epiſcopos. No man is ignorant that our Saviour inſtituted Biſhops in the Church, for before he aſcended to Heaven hee laid his hands on the Diſciples and ordained them Biſhops; ſaith the*Quaeſt. 97. Writer of the queſtions on the Old and New Teſtament, and, Sanctus Matth…us Epiſcopatum ſortitus eſt, St. Matthew was Biſhop, ſaith Gildas. And to ſhut up all, foreign—It is manifest that the Apoſtles were Biſhops, St John in Aſia, St. Andrew in Achaia, St. Thomas in India; ſaith*foreign. Gabriel Philadelph: And agreeably when St. John of whom we now ſpeake, calls himſelfe in the front of two Epiſtles foreign, the Elder, the Greek ſcholiaſt, reſolves foreign, by the word Elder he calls himſelfe Biſhop. And ſo there is no newes in thus affirming.
5. But then ſecondly, when they take this for an evident demonſtration, that theſe Authors did not uſe the word Biſhop in a Prelaticall ſenſe, this is very farre diſtant from a demonſtration, having not arrived to the loweſt degree of probability or credibility. For what is a Biſhop in the Prelaticall ſenſe, but a ſingle perſon governing in chiefe in a City or wider circuit? And ſuch certainly was St. Peter at Rome, S. John at Epheſus, &c. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keyes (the donation of which inſtituted them foreign Stewards in Gods Houſe, Governours of the Church) in this or that City or Region, and ordained other Biſhops there.
Thirdly, therefore when 'tis added, that it is certaine that the Apoſtles cannot be properly called Biſhops, I reply that it is moſt certaine they may, not onelyonly becauſe theſe ſo many antient Writers, through ſeverall ages have called them ſo, and may not, with any juſtice from us, be accuſed of impropriety, but becauſe the donation of the Keyes did as properly make them Biſhops, as the Commiſſion to goe preach to all Nations, being added to it, made them Apoſtles. To which purpoſe let theſe few things be conſidered, 1. That it is here by the Aſſemblies acknowledged, that the Apoſtles did eminently conteine the Epiſcopall Office, which though it be a little haſtily expreſſed, and ſhould be, I ſuppoſe, that the Apoſtolicall Office did eminently containe the Epiſcopall, yet there is no doubt, but this is the meaning of it, that the Apoſtles had all the Epiſcopall power in their hands, and over and above, ſomething more, and if they had Epiſcopall power, then ſure in reſpect of that, they may as properly be called Biſhops, as in reſpect of their Apoſtolicall Commiſſion, which they had alſo, they may be properly called Apoſtles. Thus we know that they that have firſt the power of Deacons beſtowed on them, and after of Presbyters, are queſtionleſſe Deacons ſtill, though they be alſo Presbyters, and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Biſhops, are certainly Presbyters ſtill, though they be alſo Biſhops, and doe not loſe the former power by being advanced to the latter, are not leſſened by this increaſe of their dignity.
7. Secondly, that when an Apostle is differenced from a Biſhop, it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church, or by the Vniverſality of his Dioceſe, the [all the World] to which his Commiſſion extended, whereas the ordinary Biſhop's power and Dioceſe are more limited. But then theſe differences are of no force in this matter, they onelyonly conclude that the Apoſtle is more than a Biſhop in thoſe two reſpects, not that in other ſufficient reſpects he is not a Biſhop.
8. Thirdly, when the Apoſtles had each of them (not onelyonly all together in a conſiſtory) that unlimited power, in reſpect of the extent to all the World, given to them by Chriſt, wee know that after his aſcent they parted and diſtributed this Province among them, aſſigned every one foreign, or foreign his proper place or lot, to which he ſhould betake himſelfe for the planting of the faith of Chriſt; And then there will be no doubt but that hee, who according to his line (in St. Paul's phraſe) had planted the faith in ſuch a City or Province, and ſat downe, and confirmed, and farther inſtituted (which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine, as well as in the word) and govern'd them, and exerciſed all Epiſcopall acts among them, might in ſo doing be ſtiled a Biſhop in that City or province, and that as truely and as properl… as he that could doe all the latter and not the former (building on another mans foundation▪ go…erning and inſtructing, where another had planted the faith might be ſaid to be.
9. Nay fourthly, we know, that although by Canons of the Church there is proviſion made, upon prudentiall conſiderations, that no man ſhall be made a Biſhop ſine titulo, without a title or particular See, to which hee is aſſigned, yet before thoſe Canons forbad it, ſuch Biſhops there were, and thoſe never doubted to be properly Biſhops, though they were not affixt to any Dioceſe; And then nothing can hinder but that the Apoſtle, who had each the whole World for his Title, though hee were never affixed to any particular Dioceſe or Province, might be moſt properly ſtyled a Biſhop for all that. But this is ex abundanti, more than is needfull to our preſent praetentions of St. John, who, we know, was after his returne from baniſhment affixt to Aſia, and ſeated at Epheſus the chiefe Metropolis there, to ſuperintend in the Jewiſh part of the Aſian Church over all the Biſhops and Metropolitans there.
10. To this I might adde fiftly, that the Biſhops in every City were ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, as is largely deduced Diſſ. 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. &c. which they could not truly be, if the Apoſtles, whom they ſucceeded, were not in veſted with that power, wherein they ſucceeded them, i. e. were not firſt Biſhops before them. But I ſhall not inlarge of this, having no need of more evidences in this matter.
11. Fourthly therefore, when it is added, that if the Apoſtles be affirmed to be properly Biſhops, this were to degrade the Apoſtles, and to make their office ordinary and perpetuall. This is but a ſhortneſſe of diſcourſe, of which a very few words will ſuffice to admoniſh any, for there is no more ſtrength in that conſequence, than there would be in affirming that ſuch an one is a Man, therefore he is not a living Creature, or that he that ſaith he is a living Creature, degrades him from being a man; For as to that of [ordinary and perpetuall] 'tis no way inconvenient, that the Apoſtles, who had ſomewhat temporary and extraordinary for the firſt planting of Churches (in reſpect of which eſpecially they were called Apoſtles) might alſo have ſomewhat, which was of ordinary perpetuall uſe in the Church, wherein others might and ſhould ſucceed them, and that is it unqueſtionably which wee meane by the word Biſhops, when we aſcribe it to them or any of them, or to Chriſt himſelfe, the ſource and originall Copy of that power in the Church.
12. Fiftly, when another inconvenience is accumulated on this, (much to the former purpoſe, but in more words) this were to exalt the Biſhop above his degree, and make him an Apoſtle, end to make the Apoſtle a Biſhop. 1. It is evident, that if the forementioned exception were true, viz. That it were the degrading the Apoſtle, it could not farther be truly ſaid, that it were the exalting the Biſhop above his degree, for ſuppoſing one to be above the other, the degrading one would make the other e…uall to him without any new act of exalting him▪ if the Apoſtle have already deſcended to the Biſhop, ſure the Biſhop need not, cannot aſcend to the Apoſtle; I cannot goe up ſtaires to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune, and is already come or fallen downe… to me. Secondly therefore this makes not the Biſhop an Apoſtle, which is a degree higher than he, (though in reſpect of the Epiſcopall power common to them with the Apoſles it is nothing ſtrange in the Antient Writers for the firſt Biſhops of the Churches; James the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, Thaddaeus, Luke, Barnabas, Marke Timothy, Titus, Clemens, Ignatius, to be called Apoſtles, as is evidenced at large in the*Diſſ. 4. c. 3. Diſſertations) but onelyonly ſuppoſes the Apoſtle to be a Biſhop, which he may well be (as the greater conteineth the leſſe) though the Biſhop be no Apoſtle, as it is confeſt that the leſſe containes not the greater.
13. And laſtly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker, I have no directions to the place, which may inable me to examine it; And I know circumſtances of the context, or the deſigne of the ſpeech may much alter it, from what it ſignifies to me at my reading it thus cited; But if it be diſtinctly thus, and incapable of a more commodious interpretation, I cannot conſent to the truth of it, or comprehend upon what grounds of reaſon he ſhould ſo ſeverely cenſure thoſe Scriptures and Fathers, which have been produced to affirme that the Apoſtles were Biſhops, and particularly St. John and St. Peter. And indeed when it falls out, that each of thoſe two Apoſtles peculiarly calls himſelfe foreign an Elder, or as they render it Presbyter, I ſhall demand; Did either of thoſe ſpeake properly or no? If they did, were either of thoſe little diſtant from, mad-men? If ſo I ſhall be content to be under any cenſure in their company. And therefore if they ſpake not ſo properly, I ſhall be content with them to have ſpoken improperly alſo: But if Apoſtles may be called Presbyters without any of theſe inconveniences of degradation in them, any inſ…lence in the Presbyter, or madneſſe in the Speaker, my onelyonly remaining Quaere is, why they might not, without all this adoe, be called Biſhops alſo, meaning by Biſhops, as I now meane? For I am ſure that is the ſame thing that I underſtand by foreign, Elder in thoſe three places, and they, who differ from me herein, do yet underſtand it of Presbyters (and ſo had ſaid in the ſecond conſideration expreſly, that St. John calls himſelfe a Presbyter) and then all the ſpice of madneſſe conſiſts in this, thinking a Biſhop capable of that exaltation, that a Presbyter in perfect ſobriety is capable of. And ſo much for the third conſideration.