Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Remarks upon bus Second Chapter of the Government of the Church of Epheſus and Crete. The Apoſtles left the Government of the Church of Epheſus in the Presbyters. This Eſtabliſhment his laſt, divine, perpetual. Acts 20. Explain'd. The Government by Presbyters in parity never alter'd. Presbytery a Divine Remedy againſt Schiſm. Superiour Biſhops not the Remedy. Timothy no Dioceſan Biſhop, an unfixed Evangeliſt. Of the Aſian Angels, not ſo call'd from the Provincial Guardian Angels. Ignatius his Biſhop, not Dioceſan. Titus no Dioceſan Biſhop. Presbyters are Rulers.
HE undertakes to ſhew that St. Paul, toward the declining part of his Life, p. 45.and in his abſence from the Churches, did not commit the Government to the Presbyterles in Parity, but appointed one as Supreme to preſide over them in his abſence, and by conſequence to Succeed him, when he departed the World. This(ſaith he) I ſhall demonſtrate he did in the Churches of Epheſus and Crete, and by a reaſonable Conſequence in all his other Churches, and the reſt of the Apoſtles muſt be preſum'd to have done the ſame.
1. If the Apoſtle did not appoint one Presbyter as Supreme, to preſide over the rest, and to Succeed him in the Government of the Presbyters, the Government by his own Confeſſion muſt lodge in the Presbyters of the Churches in Parity.
2. Timothy and Titus were not ordinary Presbyters, but extraordinary Officers, that is, Evangeliſts, and as ſuch were Superiour to Presbyters, as Apoſtles and Prophets were: There is not the leaſt hint in the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, that they were Ordain'd to be the Apoſtles Succeſſors in Epheſus and Crete.
3. The Apoſtle did commit the Government of the Church of Epheſus in his abſence, to the Presbytery in a Parity, (Acts 20.17, 18.) and that when he was taking his laſt leave of them, without thoughts of ſeeing them any more, v. 25. This was the proper Seaſon for him to provide a ſirgle Perſon to Succeed him in the Preſidency over the Presbyters of Epheſus, had ſuch a Preſidency been of neceſſary and perpetual continuance in the Church. It is but rational to affirm, That when the Apoſtles took their final leave of any Church, then was the proper time to take care of it's future Government. It is not to be imagin'd that the Holy Apoſtles wou'd be wanting in their Duty towards the Churches in ſuch a Conjuncture as this.
They were Faithful Stewards of God's Houſe, and gave the neceſſary Rules for its future Government and Conſervation: accordingly the Apoſtle is very particular and expreſs, in giving Directions about the Government of the Church of Epheſus after his departure.
He ſends for the Elders of Epheſus, Preaches his Farewel Sermon to them, Asts 20.17—36. In all which there is not one word of ſetting a ſingle Perſon over them, but the whole Government of the Church is committed to them in a State of Parity: And leaſt any ſhou'd think this was a prudential Conſtitution, he tells them this Power was conſign'd to them by the Holy Ghoſt, who made them Biſhops to Feed (or Rule) the Church of God, v. 28.
The Elders, to whom the Government of the Church of Epheſus was thus committed by the Holy Ghoſt, took their ſolemn and final leave of Paul, with many Tears, ſorrowing moſt of all for the words which he ſpake, that they ſhou'd ſee his face no more, ver. 38.
Whether he did return again is not material at all; it's evident he thought he ſhould not, and the Elders of Epheſus thought ſo alſo,
There is no one Presbytery of which the Apoſtle took ſuch a Solemn leave, as he did of this; and there is no doubt, if it had been the mind of God that a ſingle Perſon ſhould be ſet over them, but the Apoſtle would have mention'd it at this time. He tells them in his Charge to them, That he ſhunned not to declare to them the whole Counſel of God, Acts 20.27. and immediately adds, v. 28. That the Holy Ghoſt made them Biſhops of that Flock; this therefore is part of the Council of God, That the Church be Govern'd by the Elders in Parity. If the Superiority of Biſhops had been any part of the Council of God, the Apoſtle would not have with-held it from the Presbyters of Epheſus at this time. They that affirm, That the Government of this Church was afterwards chang'd, muſt bring as clear Proof for it, as we do for this Eſtabliſhment.
It is very plain and inconteſtable, that the Apoſtle left the Government of the Church of Epheſus in the Presbyters of that Church, when he took his final leave of them: And is it as plain, that the First Epiſtle to Timothy, upon which his Epiſcopacy is Founded, was written after this Settlement of a Governing Presbytery, which moſt Ancient and Modern Chronologers, except Biſhop Pearſon, and two or three others, affirm to be written before?
It is very evident that the Holy Ghoſt appoints the Presbyters of Epheſus the ſole Biſhops of the Church, when Paul bid them a final Farewel: And is it as evident that an Evangeliſt, as Timothy was, may be degraded from an extraordinary unfixed Officer, to an ordinary fixed Paſtor?
In this Eſtabliſhment of Presbytery, without a Superiour Biſhop, it is obſervable, that,
1. It is an Apoſtolical Divine Eſtabliſhment; the Apoſtle was guided by the Holy Ghoſt in his determination, v. 28.
2. It was the laſt Eſtabliſhment which he intended to make in that Church, for he had no thoughts of ſeeing them again.
3. It was intended for a perpetual Eſtabliſhment, not only in the Church of Epheſus, but in all other Churches. Mr. G. allows the Government of this Church to be a Plat-form for other Churches, p. 45. That it was Perpetual appears, 1. Becauſe the Apoſtle gave them his laſt Thoughts, which are the ſame with his dying Thoughts, for he poſitively tells them, He ſhou'd ſee their Faces no more. 2. Here is not one Circumſtance in the whole Context that makes for a Temporary Eſtabliſhment. If any ſay it was Temporary, he ought to prove it. We may with much better Reaſon affirm, That the appointing of Timothy an Evangeliſt, to ſettle ſome things in Epheſus in Paul's abſence was Temporary. 3. Paul doth not give the leaſt hint in his whole Diſcourſe with the Epheſian Elders of any Biſhop he had ſet over them, or that he intended to ſet one hereafter. It's certain Paul muſt needs know what ſort of Government God would have ſettled in his Church after his departure. We cannot imagine that he was ignorant of the Pattern of God's Houſe. The extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were not given them in vain, it was to lead them into all Truth. Now if the Apoſtle knew of this pretended future Eſtabliſhment of Epiſcopacy, how comes he not to acquaint the Presbyters, with it? He ſhou'd have told them how they were to Govern the Church in Subordination to their Biſhop, preſent or future. But not a word of all this in his whole Diſcourſe, A certain evidence that it was the Apoſtle's mind, and the mind of the Holy Ghoſt, that the Presbyters ſhou'd Govern the Church in common.
Timothy was now preſent, or not far off, Acts 20.4, 6.—Why had not the Apoſtle recommended the Presbyters to his charge? They wanted a preſent Biſhop, according to Mr. G's. Hypotheſis, for the Apoſtle was taking his final leave of them. What ſhou'd hinder his being ſet over them? His Years? He was but Young when the firſt Epiſtle was written, which ſuppoſes him Biſhop of Epheſus, 1 Tim. 4.12. There were Prophecies concerning him, 1 Tim. 1.18. He had been Ordain'd by Prophecy, 1 Tim. 4.14. And was there no Prophecy of his being future Biſhop of Epheſus? If there was, how comes the Apoſtle to ſuppreſs it, in this neceſſary Juncture, when it ſo greatly concern'd the Epheſian Elders to know how the Church of Epheſus was to be Govern'd after the Apoſtle's departure? Would not the Elders of Epheſus acquieſce in this determination of the Apoſtle, as his laſt and unalterable Settlement? 4. No reaſon can be given why this Government of the Church of Epheſus ſhould be afterwards chang'd. The Rector thinks it was done as a Remedy against the Schiſms, p. 47. But the Eſtabliſhment of the Presbytery in Epheſus was for a Remedy againſt Schiſms, as appears Acts 20.28, 29, 30. After my departure grievous wolves ſhall enter in among you, not ſparing the flock, and of your ſelves ſhall men ariſe— This he mentions as a reaſon why the Elders of Epheſus ſhould overſee the Flock, v. 28, 31. This Remedy was appointed by the Wiſdom of the Holy Ghoſt, which cannot Err in Judgment; He knows how to provide apt and effectual Remedies. He is in one Mind, and does not appoint that to day which he repents of to morrow; His Proviſions are not meerly prudential, like thoſe of Men's deviſing, to whom future Events are wrapt up in obſcurity; and therefore upon tryal of their aptneſs to the ends for which they were deſign'd, change their thoughts concerning them, and take new meaſures. It is not ſo with the All-wiſe God, He ſees the End in the beginning, and Effects in their Cauſes, and with Him is no variableneſs, nor ſhadow of turning.
Now let's hear what the Rector can ſay for the Change of this Government by Presbyters, ſettled in the Church of Epheſus.
He Promiſes to Treat of three Things.
1. Of the Plantation and Government of the Church of Epheſus by Paul, ſo long as he was in a condition to manage the Affairs of the Church.
2. He'll ſhew the laſt Orders he took about the Government of this Church of Epheſus in his abſence.
3. He'll give us the glory of it, unto the Writing of Ignatius's Epistles.
As to the firſt, we agree with him, that the Presbyters of Epheſus were Subject to Paul, and good reaſon for it, for he was an Apoſtle infallibly guided by the Holy Ghoſt.
He obſerves two Things from Acts 20.28.1. That the Apoſtle committed the Government of this Church, in his abſence, unto theſe Presbyters (or Biſhops) for I'll ſuppoſe at preſent, that the Title and Power of Biſhops belong'd to them.
1. Here's a plain acknowledgment of our Hypotheſis, That the Government of the Epheſian Church was devolv'd upon the Presbyters there, but he inſinuates as if this was only for a time, i. e. during his abſence; whereas the Apoſtle intended to ſee their Faces no more; ſo that his Abſence was to be perpetual, (as to his preſent Intention at leaſt) and conſequently the Power committed to theſe Presbyters was perpetual.
2, He ſeems loath to call them Biſhops, but is ſo kind as to ſuppoſe it at preſent, though the Holy Ghoſt expreſly calls them ſo, and made them ſo, Acts 20.28. Feed the ſtock, over which the Holy Ghost made you foreign Biſhops.
2dly. He obſerves from this Scripture,p. 47. That Paul certainly fore-ſaw, that Schiſms would ariſe among them. He did ſo, and provided a Remedy againſt them, by committing the Government there to the Presbyters. If Dioceſan Epiſcopacy had been the Remedy, how comes the Apoſtle not to mention it at this time? He makes mention of the Diſeaſe, v. 29. as he confeſſeth, and why not of the Remedy alſo, neither here, nor in the Epiſtle to the Epheſians? which he obſerves was written to give a check to their Schiſms, chap. 4. That Epiſtle and Chapter mentions the ſeveral degrees of Miniſters in Chriſt's Church, chap. 4. v. 11. but not a word of a Biſhop, as the Center of Ʋnity in the whole Epistle. Nor does he require one ordinary Minister to obey another, either in this Epiſtle, or that to the Corinthians, who were peſter'd with Schiſms alſo, as he takes notice. If Biſhops had been the Remedy, the Apoſtle would not have omitted mentioning them, having ſuch proper occaſion given him, and writing deſignedly to them upon that Subject. We would reckon him but a ſorry Phyſician that would preſcribe ſeveral Remedies for a Diſtemper, and omit the onelyonly proper Remedy. Such a Spiritual Phyſician the Rector makes the Apoſtle to be: He (ſays he) foreſaw the Schiſms of the Epheſians, wrote an Epiſtle to unite them, p. 47.and has a warm Diſcouaſe about Ʋnity, Chap. 4. And wrote another to the Corinthians to cure their Diviſions. But has not ſo much as touch'd upon his proper Remedy of Dioceſan Biſhops. There is a like warm Exhortation to Unity, Phil. 2.1, 2. and yet that Church was Governed by Biſhops and Deacons, Phil. 1.1. and not by one Superiour Biſhop.
2. The Second thing he promis'd was to tell us,P. 48. The Order he took afterwards about the Government of the Church of Epheſus, which was this: The Apoſtle being ſet at liberty, and returning back from Italy to the Eaſt, and being now old, Phil. v. 9. and finding that Factions and Diviſions every where increas'd and prevail'd, Conſtituted Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus, (as doubtleſs he did the ſame in all other places) 1 Tim. 1.3.
1. He takes it for granted the Epiſtle to Timothy was written after Paul's Impriſonment at Rome, which I deny. We ſhall hear his Proofs in the next Chapter, which we will there conſider.
If he be miſtaken in this Point of Chronology, as I ſhall prove he is. then all his Reaſonings from this Epiſtle fall to the ground.
2. There were Factions and Diviſions in the Churches long before, as he himſelf confeſſeth, and as is apparent from 1 Cor. 3. Why had not the Apoſtle provided this Remedy ſooner, to have prevented the increaſe and prevalence of them? A Diſtemper is eaſier prevented than cured If Diviſions increaſed under the Government of the Apoſtles, was the new Order of Biſhops like to put a ſtop to them? Why is this then aſſign'd as the Reaſon of the Inſtitution?
3. 1 Tim. 1.3. Does not ſay that Paul Conſtituted him Biſhop of Epheſus. It is agreed by the Ancients, that St. John the Apoſtle was at Epheſus, and reſided there for a conſiderable time after St. Paul's departure thence, and after the Writing of the Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy. Euſe. Hiſt. Eccl. III. 17. al. 18. Iren. adv. Haer. III. 3 Hierom. Catal. Scrip. Eccl.Euſebius, upon the Teſtimony of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus, affirms that he return'd to Epheſus, after he was releas'd from his Baniſhment at Patmos, and lived there, and among the other Aſian Churches until Trajan's Days. His ordinary Reſidence was at Epheſus, as Euſebius and Clemens, &c. affirm.
If St. John kept his Reſidence at Epheſus, and ruled that Church (as he did other Churches of Aſia) by his Apoſtolical Power, Timothy could not be the Supreme Ruler of the Church of Epheſus, Where an Apoſtle was Preſent and Reſident to Govern, his Superiour Authority Suſpended all Epiſcopal Juriſdiction; ſo that according to the Rector's own Principle, there was no need of a Biſhop, while an Apoſtle could Overſee the Church.
4. He gives not the leaſt Proof that Paul made Biſhops in all other Places. Doubtleſs it was ſo (ſaith he) you muſt take his ipſe dixit for Proof, and then all your Doubts will vaniſh.
He confeſſes that the Apoſtle might juſtly Admoniſh and Commend Timothy.P. 49. The Scope of his former Chapter was to prove the Presbyter… were Subject to the Apoſtles, and therefore were not Supreme Governours: Now he owns Timothy to be Subject to the Apoſtle. So that his Argument, that the Preſbyters had no Power of Government, becauſe Subject to the Apoſtles, is thrown out of Doors by himſelf. Had he been ſo kind as to inſert this Conceſſion in its proper place, he would have ſpared us the trouble of ſeveral Remarks upon the former Chapter.
He picks out of Paul's Epiſtle to Timothy, the particular Rules and Orders, P. 49, 50.which are preſcribed unto him for the diſcharge of his Epiſcopal Office.
The ſeveral Powers committed to Timothy in this Epiſtle, he might execute as he was an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4, 5. and Aſſiſtant of Paul in his Apoſtolical Function, and as his Delegate to Order and Regulate the Church.
It was Timothy's part to ſee to the Qualifications of thoſe who were to be Ordained at Epheſus.P. 50. If this be the proper work of a Biſhop, how come our Biſhops to depute this work to one of their Preſbyters?
At his death he left a Succeſſor with the ſame Powers.P. 55.
Timothy was an Evangelist, an extraordinary Officer, Eph. 4.5, 11. Did he leave Succeſſors with the ſame extraordinary Powers? If Evangeliſts, one Species of extraordinary Officers, have Succeſſors, why ſhould not Apoſtles and Prophets alſo, have Succeſſors aſſigned them?
Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, were alike extraordinary, and Superiour to Paſtors and Teachers, the ordinary Officers of Chriſt's Church. No reaſon can be given why one ſort of extraordinary Officers ſhould be continued, more than the reſt which are confeſſedly ceas'd.
But let's hear his Proofs.
1. It was no ways likely but that Timothy was expreſly Impower'd by St. Paul, to provide for the future Government of the Church; and perhaps his Commiſſion is in that (2 Tim. 2.2.) or if not, yet he would of his own accord ſettle it upon the ſame bottom, that himſelf had received it from the Apoſtle.
Something he would ſay, but knows not what. I expected a clear Proof, but we are put off with a perhaps it was ſo, or ſo, or ſo, one way or other it muſt be.
It's likely he was Impower'd to provide for the future Government of the Church. Paul provided for it in Acts 20.28.
His Commiſſion in 1 Tim. 22.11. is to commit the things that he had heard of Paul to faithful Men, which ſhould be able to Teach others alſo. Is this a Commiſſion to Ordain Biſhops? Are all Teachers Biſhops? The Biſhops in Epheſus, Acts 20.28. are but meer Teachers with him, and now the Teachers in Epheſus are Ordaining Biſhops. The Biſhops which the Holy Ghost made in Epheſus, he degrades into ordinary Teachers, who have no Ordaining Power; and now when it ſerves his turn, he advances the Teachers Ordained by Timothy, into the Order of Superiour Biſhops.
But Timothy would of his own accord ſettle the Government, as he received it. He received the Power of an Evangelist, which was Temporary, as was that of the Apoſtles and Prophets.
2. Timothy left a Succeſſor,P. 56. becauſe Chriſt directs his Meſſage to the Angel of the Church in the ſingular Number; if that Church had been Govern'd by a Presbytery, the Meſſage muſt have been Expreſs'd in the Plural.
1. Angel is a Metaphorical Term, and is generally applied to the Heavenly Spirits, which are Ministring Spirits to the Heirs of Salvation, Heb. 1.14, So that this Title denotes a Miniſtry rather than Degrees of Superiority.
2. Angel is often taken collectively, and ſeldom perſonally, in the Myſterious Book of the Revelation, Rev. 9.11. & 14.6, 8, 9. And ſo are Stars uſed, which are the ſame with Angels, Rev. 1.20. & 12.1. & 8.10. & 9.1. They are Mystical Terms, and no clear Conſequence can be deduced from them. Auſtin, in his Diſputations with the Donatiſts, excepts againſt Myſtical, Figurative Scriptures, and requires ſome clear Texts that carry their own Evidence with them*Haec Myſtica ſunt, opertaſunt, Figurata ſunt aliquid manifeſtum quod interprete non egeat ſtagitamus. De Ʋnit. Eccl. Cap. XIX..
The Epiſtles were Dedicated to all the Churches as well as to the Angels, and by the ſame reaſon muſt be directed to all the Miniſters, as well as to one. Can it be imagined that the Spirit ſhould ſpeak to all the Churches, and not to all the Miniſters.
3. There were ſeveral Biſhops in Epheſus, Acts 20.28. and doubtleſs all of them were concerned in Chriſt's Meſſage, though it might be directed to one, as Preſident or Moderator, for Order's ſake. But Mr. G. will never be able to prove, that one Angel had Juriſdiction over the reſt,
4. If there were any thing of certainty in the Celeſtial Hierarchy, which is deſcribed by the Suppoſititious Dionyſius, the Order of Angels (ſtrictly call'd ſo) is the loweſt of all the reſt*Extremo loco inter Coelestes Eſſentias Angelicam proprietam obtinent. De Coel. Hierar. Cap. 9..
How comes that to be the higheſt Order among Eccleſiaſtical Angels, which is the loweſt among Celeſtial Argels?
He adds the Reaſon, why 'tis ſaid Angel in the ſingular Number, becauſe (ſaith he) there was an Opinion current in thoſe Days, that every Province had his peculiar Guardian Angel, Deut. 32.8. in the LXX, Dan. 12.1. & 10.12, 13.
1. The current Opinion of a Provincial Guardian Angel is very doubtful at the beſt, and without Foundation in the Scriptures he quotes.
2. The Seventy Interpreters render Deut. 32.8. He ſet the bounds of the People accordirg to the number of the Angels of God; whereas according to the Hebrew it ſhould be, according to the number of the Children of Iſrael. They ſeem to allude to the Jewiſh Fabulous Tradition, concerning the Seventy Angels ſet over the Seventy Nations of the World†Lightſ▪ Vol. II. p. 402..
3. According to this Alluſion the Rector would have the Holy Ghoſt to conſtitute but one Biſhop for one Province, or Nation, and but Seventy for all the Nations of the World. But the Holy Ghoſt, who is no Friend to Fabulous Traditions, mentions Seven Angels in one Province, namely, the Pronconſular Aſia, and there were as many in every Church, as there were Preſbyters therein.
4. Is it not more probable that the Spirit alludes to the foreign the Argel of the Church, as the Jews call'd the publick Miniſter of every Synagogue*Lightſ. Vol. II. p. 133. in Conformity to the Language of the Old Teſtament, Job 33.23. Hag. 1.13. Mal. 21.7. He is the Meſſenger of the Lord of Hoſts. The Word foreign Meſſenger or Angel†foreign Mal. 2.7. in LXX. is taken collectively for all Teaching Prieſts, Mal. 3.1, 8. & 2.7.
If Angel be taken Collectively by Malachi, why not by John alſo? I appeal to the Learned Reader, whether is moſt probable, that the Holy Ghoſt ſhould Allude to Provincial Angels, the doubtful Miniſters of Providence (under that Denomination) or to the Synagogue-Angels, the known Miniſters of Sacred Things.
3. His third Reaſon to prove that Timothy left an Epiſcopal Succeſſor, is taken from Ignatius his Epiſtle to that Church,P. 59. in which he Names Oneſimus their Biſhop.
1. He knows that the Learned are not agreed, whether the Epiſtles of Ignatius be Genuine or no; Mounſ. Daille hath written a Learned Diſſertation to prove them Spurious. Doct. Pearſon hath Learnedly Defended them. Le Roque hath with great Judgment Anſwered the Learned Biſhop.
2. If Ignatius be Genuine, which is very doubtful, it ſhould ſeem that in his time the Name of Biſhop, which the Holy Ghoſt gives to all Preſbyters in common, began to be appropriated to the firſt or chief Preſbyter, who for Order ſake Preſided over the reſt, and had the Honour of the chief Place in their Aſſemblies, and of moderating the Debates of the Preſbytery, but without any Power of Juriſdiction or Government over his Brethren.
This was the Primitive Biſhop, as J. O. hath proved in his Plea (p. 136. 139.) out of Hilarius, &c.
3. Ignatius his Biſhop was but the chief Paſtor of a Church that ordinarily Aſſembled together for Perſonal Communion, as will appear to any Impartial Perſon that Reads theſe Epiſtles with Obſervation. Congregational, or Parochial Biſhops were throughout the World, not only in Ignatius his time, but in Paul's time, who fixed more than one of them in every Church, Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1.
That the Biſhop's Dioceſs in Ignatius time, and long after, exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Pariſh, appears,
1. The whole Dioceſs met together, with the Biſhop, for Publick Worſhip. Let all follow the Biſhop, as Jeſus Chriſt, and the Presbytery as the Apoſtles— Let no Church Affairs be managed without the Biſhop. Where the Biſhop appears, let the multitude be *Ign. ad Smyr. p. 6. Edit. Voſ..
If the Prayer of one or two be ſo powerful, how much more is the Prayer of the Biſhop and the whole Church. He that cometh not into one place, he is proud and ſelf-condemned †Ad Eph. p. 20. 33, 34..
Do nothing without the Biſhop and Presbyters; Run all of you together into one Temple of God, as to one Altar ‖Ad Mag. p. 33, 34..
Where the Shepherd is, there do you follow, as the Sheep ought to do *Ad Phil. p. 40..
2. Baptiſm was generally Adminiſtred by the Biſhop within his Dioceſs.
It is not lawful without the Biſhop, either to Baptize, or to Celebrate the Lord's Supper †Ad Smy. p. 6..
So Tertullian, Ʋnder the hand of our Biſhop we proteſt, That we renounce the Devil, and the Pomp of this World ‖de Cor. mil. p. 336..
3. The Biſhop had but one Altar, or Communion, in his whole Dioceſs, at which he had Adminiſtred the Lord's Supper to his whole Flock. Give diligence to uſe one Euchariſt, for there is one Fleſh of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and one Cup, which repreſents the Ʋnion of his Blood, one Altar, and one Biſhop, with the Presbytery and Deacons, my Fellow-Servants *Ad Phil. p. 41..
One Altar here muſt be taken individually, as one Biſhop is. 'Tis abſurd to ſay, one ſpecifical Altar, and one individual Biſhop.
Tertullian ſaith of the Lord's Supper, We receive it from no hand, but from the hand of the Preſidents, or Biſhops †De Cor. Milit. p. 338.. They Communicated at leaſt once a Week, in ſome places twice or thrice. One of our Biſhops would ſcarce be able to Adminiſter the Lord's Supper in a whole Month to all his Dioceſs.
4. No Marriages were made without the Biſhop: Thoſe Ʋnions were made with the Sentence of the Biſhop ‖Ad Poly. p. 13..
5. The Biſhop took care of all the Poor of the Diceſs. Neglect not the Widows; do you take care of them next unto the Lord: Let nothing be done without thy Advice; let the People often Aſſemble together; inquire after all by Name; deſpiſe not Men-Servants, and Maid-Servants *Ad Poly. p. 12. 13..
Here the Biſhop was to take care of the poor Widows of his Dioceſs, to ſee that nothing be done without his Advice, and that the Congregation often met together; he was to take an account by Name of thoſe that were abſent, not omitting Servant-Men and Maids. What Dioceſan Biſhop can perform all this in his Dioceſs, which conſiſts of ſome Scores, or hundreds of Pariſhes?
Many more Teſtimonies might be gathered out of theſe Epiſtles, to prove that Ignatius his Biſhop, was but a Pariſh-Biſhop.
Thus we have made it evident, that the Government of the Church of Epheſus was ledged in the Presbyters of that Church, and that there was no Change of the Government afterwards by the Apoſtles, and that there was no Dioceſan Biſhop there in Ignatius his time. The preſent Biſhop of Salisbury, doth ingenuouſly acknowledge, That Ignatius was but the Paſtor of a particular Church. See the Quotation in J. O's. Plea, p. 30,
Having invalidated the Rector's Arguments for Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, from 1 Tim. and Ignatius his Epiſtles, I proceed to conſider what he hath to offer in favour of Titus, his being Biſhop of Crete.
If Timothy was not Biſhop of Epheſus, no more was Titus of Crete; for the Epiſtles directed to both, are much of the ſame Strain. Their Powers were the ſame, and both were Officers of the ſame Species, namely, Evangeliſts.
Timothy is expreſly ſo call'd, and Titus was really one, (as will be acknowledged by the Learned) for he was the Apoſtle's Aſſiſtant, and Meſſenger to the Churches, particularly to that of Corinth, where he ſeems to have ſpent a great part of his time; 2 C…r. 2.13. & 7.6. & 8.6. The Apoſtle calls him his Companion, and Fellow-Worker, 2 Cor. 8.23. We find him with the Apoſtle at Jeruſalem, Gal. 2.13.
Paul left Titus in Crete, P. 63.to ſet in Order the things that were wanting, and to Ordain Elders in every City, as the Rector obſerves, Tit. 1.5.
1. It's no where ſaid that Paul made him Biſhop of Crete: The Truſts committed to him were ſuch as an Evangeliſt might diſcharge: This I preſume will not be denied. Euſebius expreſly affirms, it was part of their Work to Ordain Paſtors*Eccl. Hiſt. III. 31.. And the Rector acknowledges that Branch of their Power, p, 115.
2. He was left in Crete but for a Seaſon (as Timothy was in Epheſus) for the Apoſtle charges him to come to him to Nicopolis,Tit. 3.12 when he ſhould ſend Artemas or Tychicus to him, for there he intended to Winter.
By which it is evident his ſtay in Crete, by Paul's appointment, was not long, perhaps not above half a Year, if ſo much; after which we never read of his returning thither; but we find him after this ſent into Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.10. and we hear no more of him.
3. He thinks Titus 1.5. That thou mighteſt Ordain Elders, not rightly Tranſlated; it ſhould be, That thou mighteſt appoint and ſettle Elders in every City. This preſuppoſes that Titus had the Power of Ordaining alſo.
1. Here he gives up one of Titus's main Powers, for which they feign him a Biſhop, to wit, his Ordaining of Elders: This he ſaith is not the meaning of Titus 1.5. If this Text doth not prove his Ordaining Power, no one in that Epiſtle doth.
2. He fancies that aſſigning unto Presbyters their power and ſpecial places, was the work of Titus in Crete, and that this was after Ordination. Did not Titus ordain Elders in every City, or particular Church, as he himſelf explains it? Act 14.23. and were they not choſen by the Multitude before Ordination, as he alſo confeſſeth in the caſe of his Deacon-Preſbyters, Acts 6. He would do well to tell us, What new power was aſſign'd unto the Presbyters by Titus after Ordination? Perhaps he Dream't that the Elders needed a Licence from their Biſhop, to impower them to Preach after Ordination, as the Canon requires.†Can. 36.
Paul, ſays he, entruſts him with the charge of ſeeing unto the Qualifications of Elders, P. 65.v. 6, 7, 8, 9. The ſame, though more compendious, than thoſe in 1 Tim. 3.
1. All that he might do as an Evangeliſt, or the Apoſtle's Delegate: as the Biſhop's Chaplain, or Arch-Deacon, examine the Candidates for the Miniſtry with us.
2. He wiſely overlooks the Identity of Biſhops and Presbyters, which is aſſerted in both the places he Quotes, Titus 1.5, 6, 7, 8. Ordain Elders — if any be blameleſs; for a Biſhop muſt be blameleſs. The Reaſon were Incogent if Elder and Biſhop were not the ſame. The Qualification of Elders here, are the ſame with thoſe of a Biſhop in 1 Tim. 3. as he confeſſeth. Biſhops and Presbyters were the ſame, not only at firſt, but even at this time, when theſe Epiſtles were Written, to Timothy and Titus; which makes it evident, they were Evangeliſts, Superiour to Preſbyters (Eph. 4.11.) and not Biſhops in a proper Senſe, who are one and the ſame with Presbyters. He will not be able to give one Inſtance in all the New Teſtament of any one ordinary Miniſter or Elder, that was made Superiour to his Brethren of the ſame Order with him: Nor of any extraordinary Officer that was made Superiour to others of the ſame kind. One Apoſtle was not made Superiour to another Apoſtle, nor one Prophet to another Prophet, nor one Evangeliſt to another Evangeliſt, though the Apoſtles were above the Prophets, and the Prophets above the Evangeliſts, and all the Three were Superiour to the Preſbyters; but no one Preſbyter is made Superiour in degree, much leſs a Ruler over another Preſbyter.
The Apostle impowers him (ſays he) Cap. 1.11. to stop the Mouths, or Silence falſe Teachers, to rebuke them ſharply, v. 13. that is, v. 10. the Ʋnruly, or Non-conformists, &c.
1. The Apoſtle Explains his Meaning about stopping the Mouths of falſe Teachers, in v. 9. That he may be able by ſound Doctrine, both to exhort and convince Gainſayers. He ſpeaks of the Presbyters ordain'd by Titus, that they muſt be able to convince Gainſayers, and ſo to ſtop their mouths. Even private Perſons are exhorted foreign, to ſtop the mouths, or put to ſilence the ignorance of fooliſh men, 1 Pet. 2.15.
2. But ſuppoſe it be meant of an Authoritative Silencing of ſuch, it is no more than what Titus might do as an Evangeliſt, and the Apoſtles Delegate.
3. The Rector ſhews his good will to have the Nonconformiſts ſilenced, but it's well that curſed Cows have ſhort Horns.
4. The Nonconformiſts, or uaruly Perſons the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, were a ſort of Judaizing Chriſtians, that retain'd the Legal Ceremonies, and the Commandments of Men, Tit 1.10, 13. They were not content with the Simplicity and Plainneſs of Goſpel-Institutions, but would ſuper-add their own Inventions, and impoſe them upon others. Theſe were the Nonconformiſts, that would not conform to the Simplicity of the Goſpel, nor leave others in the quiet poſſeſſion of Goſpel-Priviledges, unleſs they ſubmitted to their Impoſitions, Acts 15.2. Gal. 4.9, 10. and 5.1, 2 Col, 2.20, 23.
Grotius gives another Character, by which theſe Nonconformists may be known: He ſaith, That the Apoſtle pointed at thoſe who taught that all Iſraelites had a part in the World to come. *Grot. in Tit. 1.10.Not unlike ſome People who affirm all to be ſaved,‖Vid. Com. Prayer Burial Dead. that have the happineſs to die in their Communion, and do not lay violent Hands upon themſelves.
We are obliged to the Rector, for helping us to a right Notion of Nonconformity. There are two ſorts of Nonconformiſts: Some are ſo call'd becauſe they do not conform to Unſcriptural Impoſitions; theſe the Text ſpeaks nothing of: Others, as the Rector well obſerves, may be ſo call'd, becauſe they do not Conform to the Simplicity of the Goſpel but impoſe humane …nventions as Terms of Communion.
The latter of theſe two are the Culpable Nonconformists. I believe Mr. G. will not be for Silencing theſe, leſt be be condemned out of his own Mouth.
Paul inſtructs him to reject a Heretick, p. 66.Tit. 3.10.
That he might do as an Evangelist.
What he tranſcribes out of Ignatius from p. 67. to p. 73. doth not concern Crete, and we have already conſider'd Ignatius bis Biſhop.
Here is not one Direction or Command given to the Presbytery,P. 76. nor any ſhare in the Government communicated to them in theſe Epiſtles, ſaith our Author.
1. The Epiſtles were directed to Evangeliſts, who were ſuperiour to Presbyters; and therefore it was fit the Exhortation ſhould be immediately directed to them.
2. The Directions concern'd the Presbyters alſo, as the ordinary perpetual Governours of the Church; and doubtleſs were intended for the uſe of the Church unto the end of time, 1 Tim. 4. 2 Tim. 3.
The Presbyters are concern'd, I hope, in the ſeveral Directions to Purity, Patience, Conſtancy, Faithfulneſs in diſpenſing the Word, &c. 1 Tim, 6.11, 12. 2 Tim. 2.3, 4. and 4.1, 2, 3.
3. It is a very groſs miſtake, that the Presbytery had no ſhare in the Government communicated to them in theſe Epiſtles. Paul ordain'd Biſhops there, who among other Qualifications muſt be ſuch as Rul'd well their own Houſes, that they might take care of the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. And in 1 Tim. 5.17. he mentions Elders that Ruled well, and mere worthy of Double Honour.
He contradicts himſelf, and ſaith, that the Presbyters had ſome Intereſt in the Government, (tho' their Power was ſubordinate) as appears from the Council at Jeruſalem,P. 77. Acts 15. even with the Apoſtles themſelves; doubtleſs then, and much more with Timothy and Titus. They had no ſhare in the Government, and yet they had ſome Intereſt in it; himſelf can beſt reconcile theſe inconſiſtent Propoſitions.
They were ſubordinate to the Apoſtles, Acts 15. and ſo were the Evangeliſts: But can he produce any ordinary Presbyters, that were ſubordinate to others of the ſame Order?
Ignatius, ſaith he, allows 'em a great ſtroke in ordering the Affairs of their Churches, p. 77.but still in Subjection to their Biſhop, without whom they could do nothing.
It does not appear that Ignatius his Biſhop could do any thing without his Presbyters, no more than they could without him. And long after his time, the Biſhop had no power to determine Church-matters without his Presbyters; as appears by that Canon in the Council of Carthage, — Let the Biſhop hear no Mans Cauſe without the Preſence of his Clergy; otherwiſe his Sentence ſhall be void, unleſs it be confirmed by the preſence of his Clergy.(1)Concil. Cath. IV. Can. 13.
Cyprian did nothing without the Council of his Presbyters, and without the Conſent of his People.(2)Statuerim nil ſine Concilio veſtro & ſine conſenſu Plebis meae privatâ ſentemiâ gerere. Cypr. Ep. 6.
To be ſure then the People and their Biſhop ordinarily met in one place.
Ignatius frequently exhorts the People to do nothing without their Biſhop, Presbyters and Deacons in Conjunction. The Biſhop and his Presbyters made one Conſiſtory: The Biſhop, ſaith he, preſiding in the Place of God, and the Presbyters in the Place of the Council of the Apoſtles. (3)foreign Magn. p. 33.And a… little after he mentions the Complex Spiritual Crown of the Presbytery, who ſat round about him in the Church.(4)P. 37.
Again, Let all reverence the Deacons as the Command of Jeſus Chriſt, aid the Biſhop as Jeſus Chriſt, who is the Son of the Father, and the Presbyters as the Council of God, and the Conjunction of the Apoſtles.(5)Ad Tralles. p. 48.
By theſe and many other Paſſages in Ignatius his Epiſtles, it's evident that the Biſhop and Presbyters ſat in Council together, and were only the Guides of a Parochial Church, in which the Biſhop did nothing without his Presbyters, nor they without him. This Agreement of the Biſhop and his Presbyters; Ignatius compares to the Strings of a Harp; and adds, That under their joynt Conduct the whole Church made a Chorus, a ſacred Choire, and by their conſenting Unity made a Divine Melody.(6)Ad Epheſ. p, 19.
This is agreeable to what Jerom affirms, that the Churth was antiently Governed Communi Concilio Presbyterorum, by the Common Council of the Presbyters.(7)Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. who had a Moderator or Preſident, for Order's ſake, but without any Juriſdiction over the other Presbyters. This Moderator at the firſt was not ſo much as choſen, but the Honour was devolved in courſe upon the Senior Presbyter; and when he died, the next to him ſucceeded. This is expreſly arffirm'd by Hilarius the Deacon.(8)Ʋt recedente uno ſequens ei ſuccedederet. Hil. in Eph. 4. But the Senior Preſbyters proving ſometimes not ſo fit for the Place, as he adds, they changed the Succeſſion, by Seniority, into that by Election. The Presbyters choſe the fitteſt Perſon to be their Moderator or Preſident, as is done in all the Preſbyteries of the Reformed Churches. This Preſident had no new Ordination, had no Power over his Brethren, and was but Primus Sacerdos, the firſt Preſbyter, as Hilary affirms. See this Quotation more at large in J. O's Plea, p. 136.—(9)Mutata eſte ratio, ut non Ordo ſed Meritum crearet Epiſcopum, &c. In Eph. 4. & in 1 Tim. 1.3.
Thus it was at Alexandria, as Jerom obſerves, ad Evagr. By all which it appears, that the Primitive Biſhop was not of the ſame Species with our Modern Biſhops; and that the Government of the Churches by the Preſbyters, under their reſpective Moderators, is moſt agreeable to the Primitive Practice.
He thinks that he hath ſufficiently prov'd that Timothy and Titus were Dioceſan Governours, tho not Biſhops in Title ‖P. 78.I leave it to the Impartial Reader to conſider of his Proofs, and my Anſwers.
As to Timothy and Titus, I will add theſe few things, and ſo conclude this Chapter.
1. It is certain there was an Order of Evangeliſts in the Church, Epheſ. 4.11. This all will acknowledge.
2. They were Ʋnſixed Officers, ſubordinate to the Apoſtles, and ſent by them to ſupply their abſence, in the Churches planted by them, 1 Cor. 3.6. Not as their ſtated Paſtors, for they had Paſtors and Teachers reſident with them; but to guide the New Paſtors in Faith, Worſhip and Diſcipline, during the preſent Neceſſity, until the Canon of the New Teſtament were written for a compleat and infallible Directory unto all Churches unto the end of Time. The Apoſtles themſelves could not be every where, and the ordinary Miniſters would be often at a loſs without their Directions. Therefore it was neceſſary they ſhould entruſt ſome Perſons, as Delegates, to go in their names, and with full inſtructions to the Churches, to ſettle, direct and eſtabliſh them.
Some of theſe Evangeliſts generally attended the Apoſtles, that they might be aſſiſtant to them.
Sometimes they ſend them to one Church, ſometimes to another, to make a ſhorter or a longer ſtay, as the circumſtances of their work required, and then to return again to the Apoſtle that ſent them.
Thus Timothy is ſent to Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.10. & 4.17. we find him with Paul again, when he writ the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1.1. at Berea he was with Paul, and abode there ſtill with Silas, Acts 17.14. foreign, as he did afterwards at Epheſus, 1 Tim. 1.3. I beſought thee, foreign to abide ſtill, but no more as Biſhop of Epheſus than of Berea. And yet this is the great Argument to prove him Biſhop of Epheſus, that Paul beſought him to abide there. It's true, he ſoon left Berea, and followed Paul to Athens, Acts 17.15. whoſe companion he was: Nor was he to ſtay at Epheſus, but until Paul came to him, 1 Tim. 3.14. & 4.13. And in the ſecond Epiſtle, which was written not long after the firſt, the Apoſtle calls him away to Rome, and ſends lychicus, another Evangeliſt to Epheſus, 2 Tim. 4.9.12.21. In 1 Theſſ. 1.1. we find him in Athens, whence he was ſent to Theſſalonica, and thence returned back to Athens, 1 Theſ. 3.1, 2, 6. After this he remov'd with Paul to Corinth, Acts 18.5. thence he accompanied Paul to Aſia and Epheſus, Acts 19.1. thence he was ſent to Macedonia, v. 21, 22. But it were tedious to follow him in all his Travels to ſo many diſtant places. He is expreſly called an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4.5. and no one elſe is expreſly ſo call'd but Philip, Acts 21.8.
Titus was ſuch another unfixed Officer. He was Paul's partner, and fellow-helper, 2 Cor. 8.23. and ſeems moſtly imploy'd in the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 8.6.16, & 7.6.13. Paul expected him at Troas, and not finding him, he had no reſt in his ſpirit, but took his leave of them, and went into Macedonia, 2 Cor. 12.13. We find him with Paul at Jeruſalem, Gal. 2.1, 3. and after his being in Crete, the Apoſtle ſends for him to Nicopolis, Titus 3.12. we find him with Paul at Rome, whence he ſent him to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.12. and we hear no more of him.
3. Evangeliſts were ſubordinate to the Apoſtles, and ſuperiour to Preſbyters, Eph. 4.11. They were the Apoſtles Collegues and Companions, and their Authorized Meſſengers to the Churches, to ſet in order what was wanting in them, and to inſtruct, admoniſh and reprove the Preſbyters, as there was occaſion.
4. They had power to Ordain Miniſters where there was need of them. This appears in Euſebius, who ſaith of them, That travelling far from home, they perform'd the Office of Evangeliſts,Eccl. Hist. III. 31. and preached Chriſt to ſuch as heard not of the Faith, and delivered unto them the Scriptures of the holy Goſpels with great application. When they had laid the foundation of Chriſtian Doctrine in certain ſtrange places, and ordained other Paſtors, and committed the new Converts to their Care and Conduct, they went into other Countries and Nations, attended with the favour and power of God. Thus he. Timothy and Titus, who were both of them Evangeliſts, were entruſted with the power of ordaining, We have already proved, That ordinary Preſbyters have exerciſed this power, much more might Evangeliſts, who were extraordinary Officers.
5. Evangeliſts were Temporary Officers in tho Church, and are long ſince ceas'd, as Apoſtles and Prophets are.
6. Timothy and Titus were Evangeliſts, as we have prov'd, and therefore no Dioceſan Biſhops. It would be a degrading an extraordinary Officer, whoſe Power was general over all the Churches, in Subordination to the Apoſtles, to make an ordinary Officer of him, and to confine his Power to one particular Church. It's like the Degrading of the Colonel of a Regiment, to be the Captain of a ſingle Company; or the Confining of a Dioceſan Biſhop, to a mean Parochial Cure.
Mr. G. and ſome Others, will own they were Evangeliſts, and Unfixed at firſt, but that the Apoſtle towards his latter End had made them Biſhops, and that they were ſuch when he wrote his Epiſtles to them, which was after his firſt Impriſonment at Rome: This he undertakes to prove in his next Chapter.