The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 6
Section VI.
Our meaning of Ignatius confirmed from the Writings of the Apostles, his immediat Ancestors
MOreover nothing can be more clear for the Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, than that known Scripture Acts 20. 17, 28. They Answer, that the Bishops of Asia, not the Pastors of Ephesus, were, by Paul, sent for, which some would support from the 18 ver. From the first day that I came into Asia &c. But since, as is clear ch. 19. verse 10. from his coming into Asia, he had been most in Ephesus, he might truly say so much tho' the Ephesians only had been present; but suppose he spoke to others beside, we are at no loss; the Question is, if he gave not, tho' amongst others, the Title of Overseers or Bishops to these he sent for? verse 17. And if these were not the Elders of Ephesus? They yet object the words of Irenaeus viz. That Paul called together to Miletum the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring Towns. But as for his seeming here to distinguish Bishops from Presbyters, this Scripture where they get both Names, and which Iraeneus had then in his view, and his frequent promiscuous using of these Names, perswade me that he only respected the 17 and 28 verses, and so took Bishop and Presbyter Synonimically for one and the same. His adding of the neighbour Towns to Ephesus might flow from his inadvertency whereat no attentive Reader of Irenaeus aLib. 2. Cap. 4.will marvel, and yet this is as likely to have crept into the Version, for the Original of Iraeneus we have not, because these Elders their belonging to Ephesus alone is not only so clear from the 17 verse, that the repeating of the word Ephesus would really prove a redundancy, wherefore the Syriack omits it in the former part of the verse and expresses it in the latter, and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus: but also all the Ancients either affirm, as Hierome, or suppose that these Elders belonged only to Ephesus, which even Dr. Maurice bPages 31, 32.yeelds against Dr. Hammond and says, that then, properly speaking, there might not be a Bishop amongst them all, for they are Presbyters belonging not to several Congregations; but to one Church and might have a Bishop. But not only the promiscuous attributing to them the Names Bishop and Presbyter, their being, and that without any insinuation of their Subjection to a superiour Bishop, enjoin'd by the Apostle to Oversee and feed the Flock; and finally the very Repetition of this Fiction of their Hierarchy in the Apostolick Age sufficiently refute it. Who (continues he) the Ancients thought was Timothy. And thus all resolves into the fictitious Episcopacy of Timothy, already overthrown. Now 'tis observable how they contradict one another, and by halfs acknowledge to be false all they plead for: for some, as Dr. Maurice, perceiving that the Ancients affirm and the Scriptures proclaim all these Elders to belong to the Church or City of Ephesus, acknowledge these could be no Diocesan Bishops. Others as Dr. Hammond (in locum & alibi) and Petavius cApud Wal. Mess. Page 96.seeing that these are not only dignifi'd with the name of Bishop but intrusted with the care of the Flock, and that without Paul's mentioning of any superiour Bishop; when, if ever, there was ground to have mention'd him; yeeld that, of necessity, these Elders must be Bishops or more than simple Presbyters. Whence is all this Contradiction and Confusion of Tongues? but from the force of Truth before which Men must either bow or break, and be compell'd, tho' after never so much interpolation and disguise, to express what they would fainest conceal. The matter is, their Diocesan Bishop, their simple Presbyter, their distinction between Bishop and Presbyter are meer Antiscriptural Figments, in the sustaining of which against this and the like Scriptures, they are obliged to confront one another, and in the throng of their blunderings intirely yeeld the Controversie.
§. 2. The same line of confusion runs along their Answer to Philip. 1. 1. with the Bishops and Deacons &c. whence 'tis clear that there were in one City many Bishops who were no other thing than Presbyters, and that these were no distinct Orders, the Deacons being immediatly subjoin'd, these were the Bishops of the several Cities of Macedonia under Philippi the Metropolis (saith Dr. Hammond in locum) 'tis denied by Dr. Maurice dPage 27.I could never find reason (saith he) to believe them any other thing than Presbyters. Philippi was a Metropolis because a Colonie; saith Dr. Hammond: but that this will not follow is acknowledged by Dr. Maurice. Thus they are still by the ears. But saith Dr. Hammond, the Apostle might retain the Episcopal Power in his own hands, and tho' absent might exercise it by Letters: but they can give no ground why the like may not be said of the Apostle in reference to the rest of the Churches, and so Timothy and Titus shall be dethron'd and our Adversaries, endeavouring to Answer one of our Arguments, loss two of their own, yea all of them: for it being no less presumable that John would keep the Episcopal Power over the Churches of Asia in his own hand then that Paul kept that of Philippi, there shall be no ground nor colour to Metamorphose the Apocalyptick Angels into Diocesan Bishops? Or it's possible (continues Dr. H.) that then the Bishop's Chair was vacant. But if so and a Diocesan so necessary as they pretend, without peradventure the Apostle had not only mention'd it. but also spent some part of his Epistle in directing and giving them Rules in order to their choice of a fit Successour. Or the Bishop (saith he) might be absent, and Epaphroditus by the Ancients judged Bishop of Philippi appears to have been then with Paul. But this Dream of Epaphroditus his being Bishop of Philippi, the Doctor in that very placeePage 636. condemns and overthrows, and so frees us of further trouble about it.
§. 3. Yea in none of these Answers does Dr. H. rest, but, as is said, in this pretext that Philippi was a Metropolis over many subject Bishops, leaning mainly on Acts 16. 12. whose Arguments were examined by Dr. Stillingfleet fIr. Page 369. Et seq.and Mr. Clerkson. gPrim. Episc. Page 7. Et seq.Dr. Maurice, tho' a grand Enemy to Hammond's grand Principle, undertakes notwithstanding the defence of some of these Arguments against the latter, but medles not with the former, and saith that Beza's Manuscript hath foreign and not foreign as hath also the Syriack and Arabick. But OEcumenius and Theophilact, and even Chrysostome, yea and the received Greek Copy which Translators, generally follow, read foreignnot foreign. But seeing, as the learned Stillingfleet demonstrats, Philippi was not then a Metropolis in the Civil sence which is the Foundation of all their Structure, 'tis impossible that it can be call'd by Luke foreign or first in respect of Dignity; but only either must be mean'd as Luke may well be understood that it was the first Colony they mett with coming from Samothrace, or in respect of Situation it being scarce within the Bounds of the proper Macedonia, but on the Thracian side of the River Strymon the Boundary between Thrace and Macedonia, yet it might be nearer to the proper Macedonia than was Neapolis, and therefore is rather to be reckon'd a part of that Country than Neapolis could be: wherefore on both, at least, certainly on one of these accounts, appears the nullity of Dr. Maurice his Answer, while he says that not Philippi but Neapolis was the first in Situation. Of the same kidney is his saying that Philippi might be more considerable in Luke's time than in the time of P. Aemilius: seeing this is a mean begging of the Question: for he brings nothing from any Records which a Matter of this kind requires, to make in the least probable the growth of Philippi between the time of Aemilius and Luke: and Chrysostome hHomil. 35. In Act. Apost. foreign.speaking of Luke's time, tells us that it was no great City. Moreover Dr. Stilling fleet, ex abundanti, clearly shews through the several periods of time that Philippi was of no greater Dignity in the time of Luke than in the time of P. Aemilius. Dr. Maurice adds as a proof of Philippi's Metropolitan-ship, in Luke's time that the Bishop of Philippi is mention'd as Metropolitan in Liberatus, the Council of Ephesus, Sedulius, and in an old Notitia. To which I Answer with Dr. Stillingfleet iIren. Page 361.in the like Case: But what validity there is in such Subscriptions, or Allegations in the latter end of the fourth, or the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis: in the first, let any-one judge that doth but consider how common a thing it was to alter Metropoles, especially after the new Disposition of the Roman Impire by Constantine. Yea Carolus à sancto Paulo who was most versant in these Matters, and with him Dr. Stillingfleet, believe that for the first six Centuries Philippi was no Metropolis.
§. 4. But I will not enlarge in overthrowing a Fancy so wild and gross. But in the end of the second Century, (saith Dr. Burnet, kConferences. Pages 307, 308.) the Churches were framed in another mould from the Division of the Empire: and the Bishops of the Cities did, according to the several Divisions of the Empire, associat in Synods with the chief Bishop of that Division or Province, who was call'd the Metropolitan, from the Dignity of the City, where he was Bishop. And hence sprang Provincial Synods, and the Superiorities, and Precedencies of Bishopricks. You see how the chiefest of Prelatists disown and disclaim this Metropolitan Fiction: but none more fully than Dr. Stillingfleet who has nervously baffl'd all their Pretences, prevented whatsoever Dr. Maurice advanced (for I speak not of Mr. Clerkson who has also sufficiently done it) and finally, more particularly, ruined all their Pretexts for Philippi's Metropolitan-ship, either in a Civil or Ecclesiastick sense, during the first Century or Apostolick age. Judge therefore of Dr. Maurice his Candor, which minds me of another piece of his Legerdemain to evite the force of Philippians 1. 1. For if (saith helPage 27.) in Mr. Clerkson's Opinion, the Bishops mention'd Philip. 1. 1. be no other than Presbyters, then this place is impertinently alledged, since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledg'd to have belong'd to one Church, but if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sense, and then conclude from this Passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi, his Opinion is as singular as that of Dr. Hammond which he endeavours to refute, for my part I must profess I am not concern'd in this Dispute; and I could never find reason to believe them any other thing, than Presbyters—mPage 30. Or were these Bishops only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi, with common and equal Authority? Then our Author must give up the Question, and in stead of making many Bishops, must own that there was none at all there, but Presbyters only, if he thus contend he will abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word, which he takes in one sense, and the Church in another. That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation, none ever deni'd; that many Bishops in the allowed and Ecclesiastical sense of the word, had the oversight of one City, sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians. Where he sleely supposes as granted that Bishops in Philip. 1. 1. must either be understood of their simple Presbyters or of Diocesan Bishops, and then equipps his horn'd Argument no other ways than if he had professedly declined all Dispute, till once his Adversary had, out of kindness, yeelded the Question, which is only about the Scriptural and Apostolick sense of the word and notion of the Office of a Bishop, if that, and the Office of a preaching Presbyter be not in Scripture one and the same, and consequently if these at Philippi were not Scriptural Bishops no less than they were Presbyters? Now that he concern'd not himself in this Dispute, nor was in earnest in it. I deny not: his slippery dealings make it but too, too apparent: his simple intimation that these were only their simple Presbyters, I pass, having already blown off all their noticeable Depravations of Philip. 1. 1. I have yet mett with; and observe that he, following the Romanists, insinuats that we cann't understand the Scripture's meaning, untill we have their Churches Commentary. His ambiguous and unhandsome conduct is no less apparent in these his Phrases (common Ecclesiastical sense—which he takes in one sense, and the Church in another) For either he may mean that the Church, when she speaks of Bishops who were in after times, understands, by this Name, only Diocesans; and so touches not in the least (contrary to what he insinuats) the Churches received sense of this Text, nor what Notion she had of Scriptural-Bishops: Or his sense may be that, when she speaks of Apostolick and Scriptural Bishops, she then still means Diocesans and Rulers over their simple Presbyters, and this he must mean if he speak to the Purpose. And then I inquire what Church was of this mind? Surely neither Primitive nor reformed Churches, I except not that of England, whose greatest Lights we have already heard disclaiming all Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy, and identifying Bishop and Presbyter. Yea many, even of the Romanists, are forc'd to confess so much; There are Catholicks (saith the Jesuite Justinianus nIn Philip. 1. 1. Haeserunt in eodem Luto nonnulli Catholici.) who have stuck in the mud of Aërianism. The Church then he means must be only a few factious Novelists, who, in despite of both Divine and Humane Records, and the common Sentiment of Christians, dare to obtrude on the World, as a Fundamental of Religion, their privat and wild Fancies. Neither is it strange that so few imbrace this conceit of denying the Scripture-Identity of Bishop and Presbyter.
§. 5. For beside these Scriptures now adduc'd let them but look unto 1 Tim. 1. 3. where they shall find a transition from Bishop to Deacons without any mention of intermediant Presbyters, and consequently the Identity of these Offices. Bellarmine oDe Clericis. Cap. 15.Answers that the Apostle gives a general Instruction to the Clergy, & that under the name of Bishops & Presbyters all the superior Clergy is comprehended. But seeing they make a Distinction of these Offices so necessary, it was requisite they had been handl'd in particular, and not hudl'd up in a general, seeing no where in Scripture there's any more particular Distinction of Bishop and preaching Presbyter assigned: but Bellarmine's main Answer to this and all such Scriptures is, that the Names Bishop and Presbyter were then common to both Orders: which Answer all the Hierarchicks and more particularly D. M. borrow from the Jesuite. But I answer and argue with Junius against Bellarmine pTom. 2. Col. 1211.that seeing the Names were then common, and a real community of Names imports a community of things which by these names are signifi'd; it necessarily then follows that, as the Names were then common, so were the Offices design'd by these Names. But to see the Reform'd conquering, and the Jesuites foil'd some are much pain'd: and in special D. M. who spends about 17 pagesqPage 22. Et seq. for the support of Bellarmine's Answer: the substance whereof, and of his first three Queries rPages 157, 158.is, that Still in the Pentateuch the High Priest is nam'd by the same Appellative (without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction) that the other Priests were nam'd by: and the title of a Priest was promiscuously apply'd, without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinat. And, The Apostles retain'd the Phraseology of the Jews who spoke of Priests and Levites as two distinct Orders, without mentioning the High Priest. And, When the Ancients Dichotomiz'd the Clergy, they in other places plainly reckon up three distinct Orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. But is there never in all the Scriptures any Title, Distinction, or Marks of Eminence giv'n to one Priest, which were not communicable to all of 'em? Got ever all of 'em promiscuously the Title of High Priest, or such distinctive Appellations? Did the Apostles so retian the Phraseology of the Jews, as that they sometimes make a Bipartite and sometimes a Tripartite Division of ordinary Church-Officers, and give to any one ordinary Pastor, sometimes at least, a distinguishing Title and Marks of Eminence which are at no time communicable to all ordinary Pastors promiscuously? As to the Ancients their sometimes Dichotomizing, sometimes Trichotomizing the Clergy; it's most certain that in their Dichotomies they ey'd the prime primitive Church, and in their Trichotomies their own times. But Christ saith D. M.) is call'd an Apostle & a Bishop, the Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons. But was Christ so call'd an Apostle that he had no other peculiar titles or marks of Eminence, or that on the other hand the name Christ was giv'n promiscuously to all Apostles or ever giv'n to any of 'em? Lastly, was the Apellation of Apostle equally communicable to all Presbyters or ordinary Pastors, as to the twelve and some few else extraordinary Officers? All which he must swallow, else he gives no relief to his Friend Bellarmine. We Argue, that seeing to no ordinary Pastor is giv'n any peculiar Appellation, Character, or Description, but what is equally common to all, there must be an Equality and Parity amongst all of 'em; and this they can never get over. Moreover among the Evangelists, yea and among the Apostles, Officers superior to ordinary Pastors, the reformed Churches being Judges, there was a compleat Parity as was also among the Deacons their Inferiours: notwithstanding of all which the Hierarchicks must plead for certain Stories of Preheminence among the ordinary Pastors; in favours; whereof ne gry quidem they can bring from the Word of God the only Rule of Faith and Doctrine.
§. 6. Add hereto Tit. chap. 1. where we not only find the Apostle using indifferently and promiscuously the two words Bishop and Elder, but also he alledgeth the necessity of fit Qualifications in the one, to prove that the same are required in the other; the Presbyters that were to be Ordain'd must be blameless &c. because a Bishop must be so: wherein either we have an ocular Demonstration of the Identity of these two Officers, or else (which I abhorr to think) the Apostles reasoning is more pitifull than the most equivocant Paralogism; their being not so much as a nominal Connexion betwixt the Antecedent and Consequent; and no less ridiculous than if one should reason that every Captain of a single Company must be able to guide and manage a whole Army, because such Qualifications are required in a General. Now, seeing these Scriptures already vindicated, to name no others, evidently declare that there was no such thing as a Diocesan Bishop, that there's a compleat Identity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, and consequently a Parity of all ordinary Pastors, they of necessity condemn the Hierarchick and Diocesan Imparity: for I'm perswaded these who alledge that they find in Scripture a Distinction between these Offices, will judge that they may with reason enough conclude the Divine Right of Episcopacy. Hence judge of D. M's fifth Queryspag. 158. where and in what places of Scripture the superiority and jurisdiction of one Priest above another is forbidden? And if it be not plainly forbidden, then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Presbytry (such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government) is groundless and Chimerical.
From all which I conclude that if the Ignatian Bishop and Presbyter most be understood in the Notion of our Adversaries, he then quite crosses the Apostles, & so his Doctrine is stark nought, or (which is a far more charitable Sentiment) his Epistles have suffer'd no small interpolation.