The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 5
Section V.
The Objections they pretend to bring from Scripture against the Doctrine now deduc'd from Ignatius, removed.
ANd indeed Ignatius is encompast with so thick a Cloud of Witnesses, who, not only deny all support to, but give most evident Depositions against the Diocesan Prelat, that his Testimony in favours thereof should be a firm demonstration of the Bastardy of these Epistles. The time of the Apostles was not far above that of Ignatius. Now, if we consult these, we shall not only find our Adversaries destitute of their Suffrages, but also overwhelm'd with their plain Testimonies against the Hierarchy.
'Tis true they alledge several things out of the Apostolick Writings, for establishing their Cause; as that Timothy and Titus, as also the Angels of the Asiatick Caeurches were Diocesan Bishops. The grounds wherein t…ey establish the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, are, that they are enjoined to Ordain Elders which in after Ages was the peculiar Province of Diocesan Bishops; and that in the Postscr…pts of these Epistles they are both called Bishops But their later Topick is by the profound silence of the ancient Commentaries and many other tokens of Forgery and Novelty so baffl'd that Prelacy's present Agents, and amongst others D. M, are so wise as to suppress it. And yet D. M. aPages 106. 107.adventures to conclude Timothy his being made Bishop of Ephesus from Acts 20. 3, 4, 5. (which Inference few, I think, beside the Author can gather) compared with 1 Tim. 1. 3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus—that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other Doctrine. From which even tho' it be compared with the other Scripture, any Man in his Wit would much rather, with Chrysostome, inferr the very contrary, and conclude that Timothy's stay at Ephesus was only temporary, to expede the Business there mention'd but not to fix therein. But, saith hebPage 108. 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. These things I write unto thee &c. plainly insinuat his particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus. But the many Scriptures informing us of Timothy's almost perpetual absence from Ephesus; perswade that there was no such Relation, neither does this place in the least insinuat it, but only that Timothy if not sent for was to stay till Paul's return, wherefore he begs the Question whilecPage 107. he tells us that after he was in a particular manner established Bishop of the Church of Ephesus he might wait upon Paul. Moreover this was an odd Attendance that scarce ever suffer'd Timothy to stay with his Flock, and this shift, too like that of the Romanists, who, in Answer to the Argument from Scripture-silence against Peter's being Bishop of Rome, tell us that he was frequently abroad. But here we have not only Scripture-silence but Scripture Testimony, shewing Timothy's almost perpetual absence from Ephesus. He essays alsodPage 108. to bring Timothy's Episcopal Power and particular Relation to Ephesus from 1 Tim. 5. 9. 1 Tim. 2. 1. and 1 Tim. 5. 21. And that this was not temporary or transient, but successive and perpetual, he would proveePages 109. from 1 Tim. 6. 13. 20. and 2 Tim. 2. 2. and adds that his Adversaries grant that the Power he pleads for to Bishops was exercised by Timothy. But as for the particular Relation he speaks of, he should have proved it, seeing he knows it will not be granted, except he bring more than the bare recitall of the places from which his fancy collects it, and without such a particular Relation the Power Timothy exercised, be what it will, makes nothing for his purpose: seeing it might be lodged in him alone as an Evangelist, and thus most of his postulata fPages 109, 110.prove useless. Yet I will handle them particularly, of which the first two are, that the Power which Timothy exercised was in it self lawfull, and that he practised it in Ephesus. And 'tis true none denies it, but what then, untill he first prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus. The third and fourth are, that it was committed to him alone, and not to a Colledge of Presbyters acting among themselves in Parity. And that there's no mention of any spiritual Power lodged in a Colledge of Presbyters to which Timothy was accountable. But Willet, an approved Divine of the Church of England, shall answer for us; Neither (saith hegSyn. pap. contr. 5. Quest. 3.) can it be gathered by these words of the Apostle, lay Hands suddenly upon no Man &c. That Timothy had this sole Power in himself, for the Apostle would not give that to him which he did not take to himself, who associated unto him the rest of the Presbytry in Ordaining of Timothy. I add that there's no less mention of a spiritual Power in a Colledge of Presbyters &c. than of Timothy's being fixed Bishop of Ephesus. Hence his 5. postulatum (viz. That the great and most eminent Branches of the Episcopal Power were lodged in Timothy's Person, the ordination of such as were admitted unto the sacred Function, the care of Widows, the Censuring of Elders, and his autoritative preventing of Heresies) becomes unserviceable. His VI is, that this Authority was not in it self of temporary duration, transient, or extraordinary, but such as the constant Necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages; for he was commanded to commit it unto faithfull Men, such as should be able to teach others, and if there be nothing in it extraordinary, why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary trust, there was need of an extraordinary Officer.
But First he corrupts the Apostles words 2 Tim. 2. 2. substituting (it) in stead of (them) that thereby he may force the Text to speak of a Power equal to that of Timothy, which was to be derived unto succeeding Teachers, when yet it plainly speaks of the Transmission of the Doctrine or things Timothy had heard, and others were to teach; but nothing of an equality of Timothy's Power to be derived in solidum to every subsequent Bishop or Teacher. Now except this be proved, D. M. saith nothing. Yea Hammond hIn locum.expresly contradicts him, Appoint them (saith he) as Bishops under thee. Moreover, Christ committed the things Paul here speaks of to his Apostles; yet will D. M. say their Power was equall to Christ's?
Secondly, In this his last postulatum there appears a strange kind of reasoning viz. the Things or Actions wherein Timothy and Titus were employed, are perpetual and ordinary; therefore they were not extraordinary Officers: just as if one would Reason: It's ordinary for a skillfull Physitian to relieve a Febricitant; therefore our Saviour relieving Peter's Wife's Mother, was no extraordinary Physitian. For their Method and Way of performing these Actions was extraordinary and temporary, they having no special Power over, or Relation to, any one particular Congregation; but such a Power and Relation as equally were extended over all the places whither they were sent. Moreover others of their Actions, and these which were properly Evangelistick, were extraordinary: such as that of Planting the first Christian Churches.
Lastly, I appeal to all Protestants, if his ascribing to every Bishop a Power of authorative preventing of Heresies (i. e. a Power of making Canons that lean only on the Bishop's own Will, and which he's not oblig'd to prove from Scripture, otherwise every Minister of Christ hath a Power and Authority, by publick preaching and reasoning from the Word of God, to prevent and overthrow Heresies: and so D. M. speaks not to the purpose) hath not a rank savour of what is no better than the grossest of Popery. The Romanists give such an authoritative Power to one Pope, but from a perswasion of his Infallibility: this Author will have it unto every single Bishop, tho', as yet, he has not adventured to ascribe to each of 'em such a Priviledge, and to explain, if need were, what he means by this authoritative preventing of Heresies.
§. 2. Look but on page 95 et seq. and you shall see him make every Bishop an Apostle in the strickest sense, and priviledg'd with no less Power over the Church-Officers and People in his Diocess than an Apostle ever had or could exercise: viz. a Power to Govern the Churches, to give Rules and Directions, to inflict Censures, to communicat his Authority to others, to hear Complaints, to decide Controversies—to Confer the Holy Ghost—viz. the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, that must needs attend the authoritative Ministry of holy Things; and therefore that the Office of an Apostle is altogether ordinary and permanent. The Apostolical Office (saith he) being essentially no other than this, the ordinary Necessities of the Church require that it should continue till the second coming of our Saviour. But the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Power of Miracles, of Languages—were only extriasick Advantages,—and not peculiar to the Apostles. And to affirm otherwayes; and say that the proper Apostolick Office is now ceased, he makes proper to Presbyterians and Socinians. But so far is he from speaking Truth here, that the ceasing of the proper Apostolick Office and Power is asserted by the Body of Protestants, even Episcopal no less than Presbyterian, in opposition to the Jesuites his Masters, who, as he doth to his Diocesan Bishop, arrogate an Apostolick Office and Power to their Pope. Spanhem F.iDissert. 3. Numb. 25. Etseq. a fervent Apologist of the Hierarchicks, assigns many Characters of the Apostolate as an extraordinary Calling either immediat or equivalent thereto, Infallibility of Doctrine, transcendent Efficacy and energy in Preaching, admirable success therein, the Gift of Tongues, and of working Miracles: all which things, altho' some of 'em might have been in some measure in others, were (saith he) in a more Divine and Eminent manner in the Apostles. And he affirms that every one who was endued with a true and proper Apostolick Power, had, and could give such visible Proofs and ocular Demonstrations thereof: and then concludes against the Pope; thus,kNumb. 37. Eat nunc de rupe turpeia Pontifex, & cum Apostolis loquatur Linguis Sp. S. exlo visibiliter arcessat, virtutes similes edat, magnalia eadem obsignet, ac venerabimur in eo Apostolatus Apicem! let the Pope now descend from the Capitol, let him, as did the Apostles, declare that he has the Gift of Tongues Divinely infused, let him bring visibly the Gifts of the Holy Ghost from Heav'n, let him work like the Apostles such illustrious Miracles, and then we shall yeeld that he has Apostolick Authority: and so shall we to the Diocesans when they adduce these Proofs of their Apostleship. He assertslNumb. 34. that they're much deceiv'd who would bring the Apostles down to the Order of particular Bishops; and demonstrats against Hammond, that they were not at all call'd Apostles on the account that they were Bishops, & consequently that Apostle and Bishop are quite different things. mNumb. 17.In short the very Sum and Substance of Spanhemius his Disputation is nothing save an Approbation and Confirmation of that common Sentiment of Protestants express'd by Beza nIn Epist. ad Ephesios. Cap. 4. ver. 11. Constitutis ergo his hoc quoque munus necessario fuit sublatum: itaque tyrannica hodie vox est in Ecclesia sese Apostolum ex Successione profiteri.The Churches (saith he) being once constitute, this Office of the Apostle-ship was of necessity taken away: he is a Tyranne therefore who does now profess himself an Apostle in the Church by Succession. And by this one Observation, viz. that whereever the proper Apostolick Power was, they could give ocular and undeniable Proofs and Demonstrations thereof, the Protestants for ever silence and baffle the Jesuites and their Progeny D. M. and such Companions ascribing a Power properly Apostolick to their Roman Antichrist and their Diocesan Prelats, and fully remove all thier Quibbles on this Theme, as Dr. Scot's Quirk, the Substance whereof is, there's no mention in Scripture of the taking away of this Apostolick Office; and therefore it yet remains. But I forgot that for the permanency of a Power properly Apostolick D. M. cites Mat. 28. 20. And lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the World. As if, not to mention Protestants,oVide, inter alios, Marloratum in locum. even the more ingenuous Romanists, as Lyra, did not understand this place, of Christ's assistance given to all Doctors of the Church without any Discrimination. Moreover all his Exceptions and pretended Instances to the contrary are impertinent, and severals of 'em false in matter of Fact, as for Example, nor is it necessary (saith D. M.) to make up an Apostle that he be immediatly call'd to the Apostolate by our Saviour; for Matthias—was not immediatly ordain'd by our Saviour, but by the Apostles. But Spanhemius pNumb. 27. De Matthia sorte, id est divina voce, qualiter in distributione terrae, in segregatione Hirci &c.tells these Jesuites that the Lot that fell upon Matthias was really the voice of God, no less than was that of the Division of Canaan, of the Scape-goat &c. And indeed, as I said, that the Office and Power properly Apostolick is long since ceas'd, is the common Doctine of Protestants; as Calvine qVide Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 3.. None (saith Sadeel rEt nemo sane, nisi plane sit foreign, Apostolatum confuderit.—dico igitur immediate eligi & vocari a Deo ad praedicandum Evangelium, esse essentiale Ministerio Apostolatus.against Turrian the Jesuite) but he who is an Ignoramus in Divinity will confound an Apostle with a Bishop—I assert therefore that God's immediat calling and choosing to preach the Gospel is essential to the Office of an Apostle. But these, say you, were Presbyterians. I deny't not; however, they were then pleading the common Cause of Protestants, and were never opposed herein by any save down-fight Papists only, till that now we have to do with real Jesuites, who yet mask themselves, and will not acknowledge the name. In the mean while I do not think they'll say Spanhemius Fil. is a Presbyterian, nor yet Nilus' Bishop of Thessalonica who saithsDe primatu Papae. Lib. 2. Pag. 30, 31. foreign. the Pope is not an Apostle, the Apostles did not ordain other Apostles, but only Doctors and Teachers. Of this mind is also Willet tPage 145.. Bellarmine [saith Whitaker uDe pontif. Romano. Page 61. Qua igitur in re—in Apostolatu videtur dicere Bellarminus—At Apostolicam potestatem nemo habere potest, nisi qui verè ac pro…riè Apostolus est &c.) seems to say the Pope succeeds Peter in his Apostle-ship—but none can have Apostolick Power but he who is properly and truly an Apostle; for the Power and Office of an Apostle constitute an Apostle. But that the Pope is neither truly nor properly an Apostle is prov'd by these Arguments whereby Paul proves his Apostle-ship, as, that he was not call'd by Men &c. Gal. 1. 1, and 12. and Ephes. 3. 3. and 5. 1 Cor. 9. 1. Altho' (saith Sutlivius xDe pontif. Rom. Pages 175, 176. Quare etiam olim Episcopi R. Petro successerint in Doctrina, & externa Cathedra, non tamen in Apostolatu, etsi successerunt, at posteriores Pontifices nec &c,) the ancient Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter in Doctrine and the Chair, yet they succeeded him not in his Apostle-ship, but the latter Bishops in neither &c. And Lightfoot yVol. 1. Page 787.a renown'd Divine of the Church of England, proves that the Apostle-ship was an Order for ever unimitable in the Church. The Apostles (saith the same AuthorzPage 745.) could not ordain as Apostle by Imposition of Hands, as they could ordain Elders; but they are forced to use a Divine Lot, which was as the immediate Hand of Christ imposed on him that was to be ordained: that Opinion took little notice of this circumstance, that hath placed Bishops in the Place of the Apostles, by a common and successive Ordination. Dr. Barrow, whose Works are publish'd by Bishop Tillotson, and therefore are to be lookt on as his, is copious on this Subject. Apostles also (saith heaOf the Pope's Supremacy. Page 78.) did Govern in an absolute manner, according to Discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the which they might on occasion appeal, and affirm, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.—Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicat it. They did indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each Church; they did assume fellow Labourers or Assistents in the Work of Preaching and Governance; but they did not constitute Apostles, equal to themselves in Authority, Priviledges or Gifts, for who knoweth not (saith St. Austine) that Principate of Apostle-ship to be preferr'd before any Episcopacy? And the Bishops (saith Bellarmine) have no part of the true Apostolical Authority. And now judge of the Spirit of these Men, who are glad most falsly to brand these famous Bishops, and others the most eminent Doctors of that Perswasion as being guilty of the most abominable Crime of Socinianism, providing they can thereby bespatter and make odious the Presbyterians. Judge also of D. M's QuerybPage 158. whether the Apostolical Power, as to it's permanent, necessary, and essential Branches, was not in its nature Perpetual and Successive; and by them transmitted in solidum, as they receiv'd it from our blessed Saviour to single Successors in particular Sees, and not to a Colledge of Presbytsrs in the modern Notion? As to the last part of his Query and his Presbyters in the modern Notion, I know none such if 't be not these of the Hierarchicks their half Ministers, for which there is no ground in Scripture. And accordingly it's certain that the Apostles left the managing of the Church to neither Bishops nor Presbyters in his sense, both of them being Chimera's but to Colledges of Bishops who are also Presbyters, both being one in Scripture & during the Apostolick age. But tho' we should grant them all the Query seeks, supposing, which all the Ancients affirm, the equality of all Bishops who, at the beginning, were reciprocated with Congregations, he's yet but where he was, and has really done nothing for the establishing of his Hierarchy. Judge lastly, of that doughty Argument of the PapistscAlphonsus de Castro adversus haereses. Fol. 102. Bellarm. de Clericis. Cap. 14. and our Hierarchicks for Prelacy: to wit, that Bishops succeed to the Apostles and Presbyters to the 70 Disciples: which has been generally reckon'd, by Protestants, among Rome's dotages, and as such refuted in their Popish Controversies; and, to name no others, by Iunius dTom. 2. Col. 1209.and Willet eSynops. papism. Page 236.who answers that not only Bishops, but all faithfull Pastors are the Apostles Successors: and that, even according to the Pope's Decrees, not Bishop, but Priests, succeed the Apostles; and Deacons, not Presbyters, succeed the 70 Disciples. And now, to go on with D. M. and his Fellows, all their cavilling to make Timothy and Titus Hierarchick Bishops, is but the product of a late Popish Dream. For the Fathers, when they so called them, or the Apostles, mean'd not of Bishops in this sense.
§. 3. Wherefore Willet fIbidem.Answers that it is most like Timothy had the Place and Calling of an Evangelist: and that the Calling of Evangelists and Bishops which were Pastors was diverse. This Answer which so approv'd a Divine of the Church of England gave the Papists, D. M. gPage 111.calls a ridiculous subterfuge. For (saith he) the Work of an Evangelist has nothing in it opposite to, or inconsistent with, the Dignity of a Bishop &c. A most disingenuous tergiversation and sliding from the Office of the opponent or probant to that of the defendent, seeing this was one of his special Scripture-Arguments whereby to establish his Hierarchy; and it's sure that if Timothy and Titus might do what they did under another Notion and Capacity than that of a Diocesan Prelate, his Argument goes to wrack. As does also his perversion of 2 Tim. 4 5. for he insinuats that from Timothy's being injoined to do the Work of an Evangelist, it will no more follow that he deserved the Name than Daniel's saying Ch. 8. 27. that he did the King's Work, will prove him a King. But had he ever considered the rest of the Epistle, the context of the place, and the Signification and Notation of the Word Evangelist, he had clearly seen that the Apostle so adapts this Work of an Evangelist to Timothy, that the Name and Character properly belongs unto him. He addshPage 112. That any who now convert Jews or Pagans are as properly Evangelists as any so called in the primitive Church; and thus insinuats that Evangelists, such as Timothy and Titus, were no extraordinary Officers, which, except a few Novelists wedded to their Fancies, is condemned by all Men.
§. 4. And that there was such a Function by which some in the days of the Apostles were raised far above the rank of ordinar Pastors or Doctors, and placed in the very next degree to the Apostles themselves, whose Office was mostly ambulatory, going from Church to Church in the exercise thereof, is in part intimated by Sedulius and Theodoret and others upon Ephes. 4. 11. but more fully by Eusebius iLib. 3. Cap. 37. foreign—foreign—foreign—foreign—foreign &c.who informs us that even after the Death of the Apostles divers remained who were in a far higher rank than the rest of their Successors, who being (saith he) the admirable and divine Disciples of so great Men built up the Churches the Apostles had founded, promoving the preaching of the Gospel, and sowing Seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and wide thro' the whole World: for many of these Disciples that were yet living, whose Minds the Divine Word had inflammed with a vehement desire of Wisdom, fullfilling our Saviour's Command and dividing their Goods among the Poor and thus leaving their Country, exercised the Office of Evangelists among these who had not yet heard the Doctrine of Faith by most diligent preaching of the Gospel and furnishing their Hearers with the Holy Scriptures: these, so soon as in any remot and barbarous Country they had laid the Foundations of Faith and ordained Pastors, and had committed to these Pastors the care of this New Plantation, being content therewith and accompanied by the Grace and Power of God hast'ned to other Countries; for even to that time the Divine Power of God's Spirit wrought Miracles by these Men, so that at the first hearing of the Gospel some whole Peoples readily imbraced the Christian Religion. Behold Reader how plainly and fully Eusebius relates the thing we plead for viz. that those Officers were altogether extraordinary unfixed and temporary.
§. 5. Wretch'dly therefore does D. M. kPage 111.castrat this full and plain discourse, while he only says that an Evangelist, in the Notion of Eusebius, was a Person that preached the Gospel to those that had not heard of it or resisted it; and thus dissembles the whole matter in question which Eusebius clearly determines.
And according to this Relation of Eusebius, 2 Timothy 4. 5. he is enjoined to do the Work of an Evangelist, and never made a long stay at one place for even after the time of his pretended Ordination to the Bishoprick, we find him not rarely with the Apostle Paul as his Attendant or Fellow Labourer: which not only his joint Superscriptions to the second Epistle to the Corinthians and these to the Philippians, Colossians, both his Epistles to the Thessalonians, and to Philemon: but also the long Journeys and Peregrinations wherein we find Timothy still imployed, irrefragably make manifest: for after he is supposed to have been Bishop of Ephesus, he was accompanying Paul in his Voyages Acts 20. 4. and was with him Prisoner at Rome as is probable from Philippians 1. and 1. Heb. 13. 23. as also frequently imployed in long Voyages to several Churches, and that in Businesses which could not be expeded in a day as is evident 1 Cor. 4. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 10. Philip. 2. 19. Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 21. So that if he was Bishop of Ephesus he will prove a sufficient Patern for non-residence. Most of which things may be supposed of Titus, whose frequent long Journeys are mentioned by the same Apostle. Yea they have just as good ground in 2 Tim. 4. 10. to fix Titus his Episcopal Chair in Dalmatia, which was the Fancy of Aquinas lIn locum. Titus etiam missus ab eo abiit in Dalmatiam, ubi finaliter fuisse Episcopus dicitur.and others as, they can ever shew for their dream of its being among the Cretians. And indeed the very Phrase from which they gather the Prelacy of Titus (as we have already observed of Timothy) gives real ground to conclude the contrary: For this Cause (saith he) I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in Order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders. From which place any ingenuous Man shall be compell'd to inferr, that Titus was only left there to supply some present want, and to return again, much rather than that he was the fixed Arch-Bishop of Crete.
§. 6. It's amazing then that in defiance of so clear Antiquity, yea and so clear and full Scripture evidence, some dare to transform Timothy and Titus unto ordinary and fixed Officers; why? they see that among the ordinary and fixed Church-Officers; they cannot find what they covet, the Scriptures making Bishop, Pastor, and Presbyter one and the same, but yeelding no place to their Diocesan Bishop, a Lord and Ruler over other Bishops or Pastors. They are compell'd therefore, in imitation of the Romanists, who degrade the Apostle to find the Bishop of Rome and Antioch, just so to handle the Evangelists that Peter be not alone, but may find other degraded Companions if he shall by chance, in his Journey from one of his Sees to another, visit Crete or Ephesus.
§. 7. But more strange is that most precarious Assertion of D. M. lPage 112.that Philip the Evangelist had no Power of Ordination. But it's yet more admirable how, to establish Timothy a Bishop, he can adducemPage 107. the eleventh Act of the Council of Chalcedon: surely, had he read the learned Stillingfleet nIrem. Pages 302, 303.who hath for ever baffl'd them in this their Allegation, he had blush'd at the very mentioning thereof. And we learn from Hierome oPro…em. in Tit. Scribit ad Titum &c.that Titus, after he had given some Instruction to the Churches of Cret…, was to return again to the Apostles, and to be succeeded by Artemas or Tychicus, for comforting of these Churches in the absence of the Apostle. Judge Reader if Hierome thought Titus was fix'd Arch-Bishop of Crete. It's questionable (saith Chrysostome pHom. 1. in 1 Tim. foreign.) if the Apostle had then constituted Timothy Bishop there: for he saith, that thou might'st charge some that they teach no other Doctrine. Thus he, without a word more for solution of this his Doubt. Judge therefore if, from the very Scripture, whereon (alone) they would found Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus, he really concludes not the quite contrary Doctrine. It's doubtfull (saith a most earnest Prelatist, Salmeron the JesuitqDisp. 1. in 1 Tim. Dubium est an Episcopus fuerit Ephesinus &c.; if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, for altho' he preach'd and ordain'd some to the Ministry there, it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place, for Paul preach'd also there above two years, and absolv'd the Penitents, and yet he was no Bishop. Add that now and then the Apostle call'd him away unto himself and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his Epistle. And in the second Epistle he commands him to come to him shortly. Timothy was also an Evangelist of that Order Eph. 4. He gave some Apostles &c. So that Dorotheus says in his Synopsis, that Timothy preach'd through all Grecee but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop, but that in the constitute Church of Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles &c. It appears therefore that he was more than a Bishop, altho' for a time he preached in that City as a Pastor and ordain'd some to the Ministry. Hence it is that some call him Bishop of Ephesus. And to conclude this matter, the celebrated Stilling fleet rIren. Page 340.ingenuously grants that Timothy and Titus were no fixed Bishops or Pastors but Evangelists, notwithstanding [saith he] all the opposition made against it, as will appear to any who will take an impartial survey of the Arguments on both sides.
§. 8. As for the Apocalyptick Angels, tho', with Beza, we should affirm that by one of 'em one single Moderator is mean'd, we yeeld them nothing, but, e contra, cut the sinews of their Argument. With this D. M. sPage 117.ingages not; only he calls the Alterableness of the Moderator, which Beza holds as defensible, ridiculous, which is said without proof, and tho' it were so, touches not the marrow of our Answer. But they shall find their Foundation yet weaker for such a structure, so soon as they shall with attention read over the contexts of the place now in Controversie. The seven Stars which are the seven Angels are said to be held in God's right hand; whereby, without peradventure, is signified the great care our Lord had of the Pastors of these Flocks, in order to the promoting of the great Gospel-Design, the gaining of Souls to himself. But Bishops, I mean Diocesans, as such, and distinct from other Pastors, are not at all Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments, by whom mostly this Gospel-design is effected.
Moreover, how few should they be, to whom this care was extended, and how small comfort should the bulk of the Labourers in the Word and Doctrine be able to reap from the Scripture; which otherways is one of the most refreshing Cordials to the weary and fainting Labourers of Christ's Vineyard. And if we consult the Epistles to these Churches, how many things shall we find therein that argue, beyond scruple, that the Spirit is speaking to the collective Bodies of Church-Officers and not to one Man only. Shall we believe that for the sin of one Diocesan Bishop, who, as such, was scarce so much as a Preacher of the Gospel, all the Candlesticks of the Gospel were to be removed from the whole Church, and the Light thereof extinguished: a grievous Punishment, and too universal, providing the Diocesan only were to be charged with Defection. Yea have we not much better reason, to judge that this declining, and deserting of their first Love, imputed to the Ephesian Angel, had crept into, at least, the far greater part of the Church-Officers; and so the sin charged upon them, and the punishment threatned shall have a far greater correspondency. Moreover the trial of false Teachers, for which the same Ephesian Angel is commended, is not the Work of any one Church-Officer, but of the Ecclesiastical Senat, which therefore must be the Angel, who upon this account is here commended. D. M. yeelds that the Heavenly Admonitions first address'd to these Angels were also communicated to the Churches but by the interposal of their Angels. But, were this as certain as, from what is now said, it appear… precarious, yea and uncredible; yet this Angel or Bishop might be only a Praeses or Moderator, so his Argument is not at all relieved. Who (continues he) cann't be call'd a Colledge of Angels but one single Angel &c. Which is a most flat begging of the Question. And tho' (saith he) there be Instructions in these Epistles, in which, besides others, the Angels are particularly admonished, yet they are no less adress'd to single Angels than the Epistle to the Philippians is to that Church, Tho' St. Paul uses particular Compellations Ch. 4. verse 2. 3. Where he perverts the state of the Question which is not, If in any Epistle there may be Instructions that concern some beside these to whom they are chiefly directed? But if what is here said to the Angel can agree to any one Man? And beside what is instanced, to what one Man in the World can that agree which is promised to the Philadelphian Angel? viz. That the Hereticks were to come and Worship before his Feet. Such a promise indeed is made to the Church, Isai. 60. 14. but to one meer Man no where.
§. 9 From all which 'tis evident that by the Name of Angels, not particular Men, but at least the Ecclesiastick Senats are design'd which is not unfrequent in Scripture, as Mal. 2. 7. where 'tis said that the Priests lips should keep knowledge, from whose mouth the Law was to be sought, the reason of which is subjoin'd, that he was the Messenger or Angel &c. as the Seventy have it. I know from the Passage Dr. Hammond, on the Revelation, attempts to conclude the quite contrary, alledging that in this place the High-Priest only is to be understood, but without any ground of his alledgiance: this his Assertion further supposes, that the High-Priest alone was the Cabine of Knowledge, and the Peoples Teacher from whom the Law was to be learned; quite contrary to 2 Chron. 17. 8, 9. where we learn that amongst the rest of the Teachers sent through the Kingdom by Jehoshaphat, were Elishamma and Jehoram Priests. Moreover the 4, 5, and 6. verses of the same second of Malachy, where under the name of Levi in the singular Number all the Levites are undeniably to be understood, and what's said of Levi as of one Man is certainly mean'd of a Multitude; evince that under the name of Priest in the following verse, we must understand a Plurality.
§. 10. But the 24. verse of the second Chapter, VntoUnto you I say and to the rest of Thyatira puts this beyond Debate. But Hammond excepts, that in the Ancient Greek Mss. And particularly that at St. James foreign is left out, and the words read To you the rest or To the rest of you in Thyatira. But be it so, yet I think these will not serve to discredit the Vulgar, and universally received Greek Copy in which this particle is found. Yea 'tis found in so many Greek Copies, and these of so good Note, that I doubt if any of all these who during eight or nine Score of years, translated or expounded this Place, has ommitted it; and altho' some Copies of the Vulgar Latine want it; yet there be no few that retain it; and amongst other two Mss. in the Library of Glasgow. And Aretas or rather Andreas who lived in the fifth Century; above, as I believe, the age of most of the Mss. now in the World, I except not that at St. James's notwithstanding of what is fabled to the contrary, retains this Particle as a part of the then uncontroverted Copy. And after him Beda: to which we may yet add the ablest of the Romanists, as Dionysius Carthusians, Lyra the Glossa interlinearis, and a Lapide, no Friends to Presbytry.
§. 11. But D. M.tPage 117. tells us that these words in the 24 v. But unto you I say, &c. cannot be applyed so properly to the Angel of the Church of Thyatira as to these mention'd in the end of the 23 verse, the other Churches of Asia. Which, (saith he) because they are mentioned in the Speech directed to the Angel of the Church of Thyatria the immediat transition from him to them is easie.
But except we force the place nothing of this kind can be thence collected, there being nothing in this Epistle spoken to or of the other Churches except the meer mentioning thereof, the more to hold forth the greatness and conspicuousness of the Punishment denunced against the Strayers in Thyatira. Yea the latter part of the 24 verse, And to the rest in Thyatira proclaims that the former part of the verse is to be understood of the same People of Thyatira likewise. In a word his gloss is so uncouth and strain'd that you cannot easily tell what to make of it. And 'tis, at least, no more odd than his Conduct all along.
§. 12. And to instance, in the present Theme, he would fain ridicule Salmasius for affirming that, under the names of the Angels, the Churches themselves or the more pure and Angel-like parts thereof are to be understood. According to Salmasius his Iterpretation (inferrs D. M.) the seven Stars must needs be the seven Churches of the seven Churches. As if such Phrases were not frequent enough in Authors, and yet not justly lyable to any such Inference; or as if the more holy and spiritual part of the Church were the whole visible Church: for except D. M. so affirm, the Author of this Gloss cann't be accus'd of nonsense; who yet is not Salmasius, for he only learn'd it from Aretas, or Andraeas, and other Fathers, and defended it against the Jesuite Petavius, whom D. M. would patronize against both Protestants and Fathers.
The second of the Homilies ascribed to AugustineuEt Angeli earum ibidem non debent intelligi, nisi aut Episoopi aut praepositi Ecclesiarum.—Nam quia etiam Angelus nuncius interpraetatur, quicunque aut Episcopus aut Presbyter aut etiam Laicus frequenter de Deo loquitur, & quomodo ad Vitam eternam perveniat meritò Angelus Dei dicitur. in Apocalypsin informs us that under the name of Angel not only Bishops but other Church-Rulers are likewise understood. And again, seeing Angel signifies a Messenger; whosoever, whether Bishop, Presbyter or Laick frequently speaketh of God, and declares how we may obtain eternal Life, deservedly gets the name of an Angel of God. And AretasxComment. in Apocalyps. Cap. 3. foreign. saith, he calleth the Church it self the Angel. And PrimasiusyIn Cap. 1. Apoc. saith by these Angels of the Church are to be understood the Guides and Rectors of the People, who ruling in particular Churches, Preach the Word of Life to all Men: for the name of Angel signifies a Messenger. And zIn. Cap. 2.again both Church and Angel is comprehended under the Person of the Angel. And thus their main Scripture-Argument even the Fathers being Judges goes to ruine.
§. 13. Yea the more sagacious of our Adversaries well perceive that neither this Scripture, nor any other, supports their Doctrine: Wherefore Petavius never attempts to bring his Proofs from Scripture, but only from Ecclesiastick Traditions. Add hereto the words of Dr. Burnet aConfer. Page 310.As for the Notion (saith he) of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter, I confess, it is not so clear to me: and therefore since I look upon the Sacramental Actions, as the highest of sacred Performances; I cannot but acknowledge these who are empower'd for them, must be of the highest Office in the Church. So I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct Office from a Presbyter; but a different degree in the same Office, to whom for Order and Vnities sake, the chief inspection and care of Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be referred, and who shall have Authority to curb the Insolencies of some factious and turbulent Spirits. His Work should be to feed the Flock by the Word and Sacraments, as well as other Presbyters; and especially to try and ordain Entrants, and to Oversee, Direct, and Admonish such as bear Office. And I more willingly incline to believe Bishops and Presbyters, to be the several degrees of the same Office, since the names of Bishop and Presbyter, are used for the same thing in Scripture; and are also used promiscuously by the Writers of the two first Centuries. Where he plainly contradicts Dr. Pearson, who, in favour of his Ignatius, largely pleads for the accurat distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the second Century, denies Bishop and Presbyter to be distinct Orders; and finally acknowledges, that in the chiefest parts of the Ministerial Function they are equal: and so really denudes the Bishop of all the degree he left him. But more clearly elsewhere, I acknowledged (saith he bConfer. Page 331.) Bishop and Presbyter, to be one and the same Office; and so I plead for no New Office-Bearers in the Church. Next, in our second Conference, the Power giv'n to Churchmen was proved to be double. The first Branch of it, is their Authority to publish the Gospel, to manage the Worship, and to dispence the Sacraments. And this is all that is of Divine-Right in the Ministry, in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers, both being vested with this Power. But beside this, the Church claims a Power of Jurisdiction, of making Rules for Discipline, and of appointing and executing the same; all which is indeed suitable to the common Laws of Societies, and to the general Rules of Scripture, but hath no positive Warrant from any Scripture-Precept. And all these Constitutions of Churches into Synods and the Canons of Discipline, taking their rise from the Divisions of the World into the several Provinces, and beginning in the end of the second, and beginning of the third Century, do clearly shew they can be derived from no Divine Original; and so were, as to their particular Form, but of humane Constitution: therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction, it is in the Churches Power to cast it in what mould she will. A Presbyter (acknowledges even Cornelius à Lapide cIn Philip. 1. 1.) is equal to a Bishop in the chiefest Order, which is the Order of the Priest-hood.
§. 14. To which add the Judgement of Dr. Hammond a Man so distemper'd with extreme Passion for the Hierarchy, that he makesdOn Rev. 4. compared with his Notes on Acts 11. him that sat on the Throne Rev. 4. God the Father, and the four and twenty Elders with their Golden Crowns, an Image and Representation of the Metropolitan Bishop of Hierusalem, and the four and twenty Bishops of Judaea in Council, for Golden Crowns or Mitres he makes the Characters of the Episcopal Dignity. Yet even he asserts (on Acts 11. 30. & Philip. 1. 1.) that the Title of Presbyter in Scripture times belonged principally if not only to Bishops: There being (saith he) no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted but Bishops (only) and Deacons. This he at large confirms, and so really overthrows Prelacy when he would fainest establish it, joining with the Presbyterians in their grand Antiprelatick Principle; viz. that simple Presbyter (as the Hierarchicks phrase it) without Power of Ordination or Government, or a distinction between Bishop and preaching Presbyter, is a meer stranger, & without all Foundation in the Holy Scriptures. From all which 'tis clear that these Bishops or (which is all one) preaching Presbyters, in Scriptures, and during the Apostolick age, were nothing save Pastors of particular Congregations.