The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 7
Section VII.
The grand Objection, taken from the Commentaries of the Ancients, remov'd.
BUT the Fathers, as our Adversaries pretend, glossing on these Texts, went quite cross to our Doctrine, To the Bishops and Deacons (saith Chrysostome aOn Philip. 1. 1.) What means that? What? was there a Plurality of Bishops in one City? Not at all: for at that time the Name was yet common, so that a Bishop was also nam'd a Deacon, that is a Servant. And adds, that both Timothy and Titus were Bishops. Of the same mind (say they) were Hilary, Epiphanius, Theodoret, OEcumenius and others: which harmonius Consent of Ancients cann't but be the true meaning of the places in Controversie. But as these, and such Fathers confess, and their Works proclaim, they were, like others, subject to humane Weakness and Corruption, fell into compliance with the growing Errors, into immoderat heat, prevarication and self-repugnancy, and negligence to search for the Scriptures their meaning. How loudly sounded the debate concerning rebaptizing between Stephen and Cyprian, which …ore almost the whole body of Christians into a pair of Factions? With what heat was it prosecuted? And, which is most lamentable, how pitifully was the truth on both hands deserted? For altho' it be commonly believ'd that Stephen only held the truth, and Cyprian and his fail'd, yet Stephen and the Romans did no less betray it: On the other extream, while they asserted the sufficiency of Baptism, altho' administred by the grossest Hereticks and capital Enemies of the Fundamentals of Christianity. How great, both before and after that time, were the Contests about Easter? How scandalous were the Contests between Chrysostome, Epiphanius and Theophilus: and between Hierome and Ruffine. Not to name others, in all which it is apparent how little they believed one another, and how much many of 'em prevaricated in favours of their particular Fancies.
§. 2. But their Contradictions to one another are less to be admired when we clearly perceive that one and the self same Author, either out of negligence or some other weakness, hath given us quite contrary Doctrines. Justine Martyr, which Sculte… observesbMedull. Theol. Patrum. Vol. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 17., in one place ascribes the whole Work of Regeneration to free Grace, and in another destroyes what he had builded; and places free Will in the room thereof. And Clemens Alexandrinus, as the same Scultet observescLib. 5. Cap. 13. following Justine Martyr delivers the like inconsistencies about the same Theme: he sometimes ascribes our Salvation wholly to Faith, and again tells us that we may purchase it with the Treasure of our Works.
§. 3. Of the same kind are their polemick Discourses, wherein their study was much more directed to bespatte their Antagonists, and alure the vulgar Auditor, than solidly to support the Truth. I shall never believe that Optatus dContra Parmenianum. Lib. 3.believed himself, when he maintain'd that all the Menaces utter'd in the Old Testament against Tyre and her King had for their Object Parmenianus the schismatical Bishop of the Donatists, who lived at Carthage, that had once been a Tyrian Colony, but in the time of Parmenianus was inhabited by Romans who had either quite extirpated or expelled thence the whole Race of the Tyrians. With no less lightness, but more danger did Justine Martyr eApologia ad Antonium pium Imp. foreign.long before Optatus, endeavour to perswade the Gentiles, that all Mankind were Partakers of Christ, because they were Partakers of Reason, and Christ is called foreign which also signifies Reason. Where we see that Justine leans only on a pitifull Equivocation, the deceit of which could not be unknown to him who natively spoke Greek. Neither were Origenes, Methodius, and others, as Hierome witnesseth, more solide in their Writings. Yea Hierome himself distinguisheth between Progymnasticks and Dogmaticks, alledging that in the former of these a Disputant hath liberty to muster up many Arguments in which he hath no confidence.
§. 4. To these we may add both their Homilies and Expositions wherein it's not easily determined when they spoke their own minds, or when they gave us only Transcripts of others, to believe and defend which they held themselves but little obliged. Yea Hierome oftner than once tells us that it was the common Practice of the Writers of these times to give the Expositions of others, and yet conceal the names of the Authors, and so involve the Reader, and make him take for their judgement the things they never believ'd.
§. 5. If we search into the causes of so strange dealing, we have heard out of Hierome that one of 'em was meer sloath and neglect. See much more to this purpose in Dallaeus de usu Patrum. Another Cause, why they both spoke, wrote and practised otherways than they knew could be warranted by Scripture, was their unjustifiable Compliance with both Jews and Pagans; good perhaps intentionally being out of design the better to Proselyte them, but eventually proved as unhappy as its Practice was unwarrantable, and destitute of Scripture ground. Hence their Deacons were named Levites, their Bishops Priests and High-Priests, the Lord's Table the Altar, and the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, and at length Diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops were instituted in imitation of the fLombard. Lib. 4. Distinctione 24. M.Pagan Flamines and Protoflamines. Another Cause thereof, which especially takes place in their Homiles and Expositions, was the multitude of Alterations and Corruptions well grown before any of these Homilies and Commentaries we now enjoy were extant, these were too deeply rooted to be opposed; and therefore they believed themselves under a kind of necessity to accommodat their Comments and Declamations thereto, at least, so to temper and compose them that they should not thwart therewith. Of this sort of Conduct, we have a clear instance in Augustine, who sometimes commends and praises several unscriptural Ceremonies: ButgEpist. 118. elsewhere speaking his Mind more freely disapproves them as both unwrantable and burdensome. He indeed there intimats that some things commonly observ'd throw the World tho' they were not written yet might be kept as having come from the Apostles or general Councils; such as was the Observation of the Lord's Passion, Resurrection and Ascension. But even this, as is most probable, he yeelded out of humane Weakness and Fear to oppose the then prevailing Innovations: for, the needlesness of such preterscriptural Observations he evidently declares elsewhere hDe Doctrina Christiana. Lib. 2. Cap. 9.saying that all things which belong either to Faith and Manners are plainly contain'd in Scripture. From all which is clear, that we cannot at all be sure if the Fathers, Commenting on the places in hand, either knew their true meaning, or if they did, sincerely gave us what themselves believed.
§. 6. And that in their Explications of these Texts, we have not their genuine Sentiments, is to me evident. First, because they gave such Reasons of their Exposition as the greatest Prelatists count stark nought. Thus Bellarmine iDe Clericis. C…p. 15.rejects and overturns the Grounds of every one of these Expositors in particular, except these of Chrysostome only, who yet hath nothing of any moment above the rest: for Chrysostome exponing Philip. 1. 1. alledges only in defence of his Exposition that the sole Title and Name of Bishop was common to both Orders: but this is refused by Dr. Hammond and others, and, as we shall hear, by Chrysostome himself. But the Jesuite intending to retain that Exposition, thought himself obliged to embrace some of their Defences, whereas in truth they themselves never believ'd them to be solide, but only the growing Corruptions being too strong to be opposed, and some of 'em having got an Episcopacy which was then creeping in, and which they, depending on the Churches Authority, thought they might retain, they believ'd that for the fashion they might so gloss the Scriptures whereby Episcopacy is wounded that the People should not perceive the unwarrantableness thereof. Secondly, The main ground common to all these Expositions why they expone any of these Texts as if they condemn'd not a Diocesan Bishop, is a sufficient evidence that they were far from being in earnest in their Glosses, for they still alledge that there behoved to be a Bishop above these Bishops in Philippi whom Paul salutes, because there might not be Plurality of Bishops in one City. This Practice indeed was for the most part current in this time, tho' not universal, as we learn fromkDe heresi Miletiana. Epiphanius, informing us that even in these times there used to be a Plurality of Bishops in one City. Yet quite contrary to this Text which they either carelesly or timourously shuffl'd. They judged (saith Dr. Stillingfleet lIren. Page 317.) the Practice of the Apostles by that of their own times; as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators, assigning that as the reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were not Bishops in the sense of their Age, because their could be but one Bishop in a City. And Petavius mapud Wal. Mess. pag. 6. & 114.grants that many true Bishops were sometimes at once in one City. AndnApud Salmas. apparat. ad libros de primatu. Page 23. altho' the Episcopal Order be of Divine Right, yet at's not of Divine Right that there should be only one Bishop in one City, this was only brought in by the Authority of the Church and Councils, and accordingly Hierome and Ambrose are to be understood. By what Law (saith oEpiscopacy asserted. Page 132.J. Taylor) speaking of Philippi and that not as a Metropolis) may there not be more Bishops than one in a proper sense in one Diocess? Where 'tis not unpleasant to hear so great a Prelatist by one Interrogation overthrowing the whole Episcopal Cause, and propugning the main Plea of the Presbyterians viz. that in Philippi alone there were many who had not only the power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments, but also of Ordination and Jurisdiction, and were every way Bishops in a proper sense. Thirdly, Some of these Expositors proclaim what we alledge for pforeign,—&c.OEcumenius who, like the rest intimats, as if in Philippi there had been a Bishop superior to the plurality of Bishops saluted by the Apostle. Yet on Acts 20. and 17. gives this Paraphrase. Because many are ignorant of the Manner especially of the New Testament, whereby Bishops are call'd Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops. This much may be observed both from this place and from the Epistle to Titus and to the Philippians, and 1. to Timothy. From this place therefore of the Acts we may arrive at the certainty of this Matter. For thus it is written, from Miletus he sent and called the Elders of the Church, it is not said the Bishops. And afterwards he subjoins, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed or Rule the Church: and from the Epistle to Titus, that thou mightest appoint Elders in every City, as I ordain'd thee: and from the Epistle to the Philippians, to all that are at Philippi with Bishops and Deacons: and, as I believe, the same may be gather'd from the frist to Timothy: If any Man (saith he) desires the Office of a Bishop, he desires a good Work; a Bishop therefore should be blameless. And shortly after, let not a Widow be taken into the number under threescore years (which the Transcriber of OEcumenius hath out of negligence inserted from the 5. Chap. and 9. ver. in stead of the 8. verse of the 3. Likewise let the Deacons be grave &c.) For this is the Church Canon directing what manner of Man such an one viz. the Deacon ought to be. Thus far OEcumenius, and not a word more to this purpose, where, having really proposed the now much tossed Question, mustres up four of the chief Places from which the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter is commonly inferr'd, and directs us to learn the Solution of this Doubt therefrom. Hence 'tis certain that OEcumenius, no less than Hierome and Aërius of old, and Presbyterians now, believ'd the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, seeing, he having brought up these Scriptures, which, even in the Judgement of our Adversaries, creat to the Hierarchicks a vexatious Scruple, and pungent Objection, is so far from glossing them, as thereby to leave any room for a Diocesan Bishop, that he plainly informs us, that these Scriptures only suffice to dissolve all our Scruples and period the Dispute. 'Tis evident then that OEcumenius, commenting on Philip. 1. 1. or wherever he seems to say nothing against a superiority of Diocesans, spoke only out of compliance with the Custom of his time, or some such weakness. Neither is the matter less clear of Theodoret, who, altho' he ascribes an Episcopal Dispensation over the Philippians to Epaphroditus, yet even then he looks on him as no ordinary or fixed Officer, which is really yeelded by Petavius qApud Wal. Mess. Pag. 80.and is plain from Theodoret himselfrIn priorem Ep. ad Tim. Cap. 3. The Apostle (saith he) calls a Presbyter a Bishop, as we shewed when we expon'd the Epistle to the Philippians. Which may be also learn'd from this Place. For after the Precepts proper to Bishops, he describes the things that agree to Deacons, omitting the Presbyters. But, as I said, of old they call'd the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters, but these who are now call'd Bishops they then call'd Apostles: But afterward the name of Apostle was left to the real Apostles: And the name Bishop giv'n to these that were of old call'd Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians—Thus was Titus the Apostle of the Cretians, Timothy of the Asians, Thus the Apostles and Presbyters at Hierusalem write to the Antiochians. And on 1 Cor. 12. 28.—first Apostles—The Apostle saith not God hath sent onlie Twelve Apostles but also the Seventy. And these who also received the like Grace. For Paul himself after his Calling was of the same Order, and Barnabas and many others. And again he calls Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians. Where 'tis clear as the Sun, that Theodoret, by these his Bishops or Apostles, understands only the real Apostles themselves together with Timothy and Titus and other such Evangelists and extraordinary Officers, who never had any fixed Station. And this was well perceiv'd by the Jesuite Medina, who therefore really yeelds Theodoret with Hierome, Aërius, Augustine &c. to the Presbyterians, and warmly recented by Petavius, who, besides many other places, spends at once near asDe Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. whole Chapter to prove Theodoret a self repugnant blunderer. Hence it's clear that they cann't rent Theodoret from us, untill (Tullus-like) they first rent him from himself. Wherever therefore these Ancients so spoke as that they seemed not to oppose the Divine Right of Episcopacy; 'tis clear they did so out of carelesness, or unwarrantable Compliance, but mostly, as may be gather'd from the handling Aërius mett with, out of fear least they had derived on their Heads the hate of much of the then degenerating Church, and secularizing Clergy.