is notorious He gives an account of the last words of Peter and of his decease to James who died before him the space of several years We have seen under what Character S. James remain'd at Jerusalem and we may conclude that this Office was not Personal but continued after his death if it be evident that Simeon or Simon as he is sometimes call'd was his Successor And this is what is affirm'd by the Ancients generally and the notice of what they declare might be the better convey'd to them because Simeon lived to so great an Age that his Martyrdom falls within the Compass of the second Century Eusebius and Abulpharagius assign it to the tenth year of Trajan which was the one hundred and seventh year of our Lord. But a Learned Man of our own ascribes it to the one hundred and sixteenth year of Christ and for this he produces some probable Reasons which have met with good reception Not long after that time Hegesippus was a Writer and he testifies amongst many others that after the death of James Simeon was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem A Truth that in the Ages which afforded the best Judges of it met with an universal approbation This being clear I know not what better Form of Government we can have than that which was established at Jerusalem in the first Christian Church that ever was and of which some of the Kindred of our Saviour had the Administration I know not what more excellent Model can be contriv'd if this gives no satisfaction CHAP. V. The Apostolate differs not in substance from the Office of a Bishop It was design'd for continuance I Have consider'd the Arguments by which you would demonstrate that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers and in examining the last of them which I mention'd I proceeded farther than was necessary because I was willing to lay some things together that relate to the same subject It was my business to shew that a setled Residence in a Place was consistent with the Office of an Apostle and this I have not only done but also prov'd that S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that Simeon was his Successor and if so this does not only answer whatever you produce for your Opinion but is a direct Argument for Episcopacy It also shews that the Apostolate differs not in substance from Episcopacy and that it was design'd for continuance A Truth which I shall confirm 1. From the Nature of that Office or Authority which was confer'd on the Apostles 2. From the Necessity of the Continuance of some things which depend on a Succession to them 3. From the Promise which was annexed to their Commission 4. From the Actual Communication of their Office to others and the Preservation of it after their Decease 1. This Office or Authority which was of Divine Institution was never abrogated by any Divine Precept It was neither appropriated to the Apostles nor can Time render it useless or unfit It is therefore such as ought to be preserv'd in all Ages We may well think that they who were conversant with Christ himself and had receiv'd their Commission immediately from him have afforded us the best Pattern of Government that ever was and it seems very improbable that our Lord should shew us in their example the most excellent way of managing Ecclesiastical Affairs and put us under an obligation to reject it without telling us so or that such a disparity of Officers as had his approbation but never was oppos'd by him should now become Antichristian They say that Empires are best preserv'd by such means as they were founded and if the Apostles thought a disparity of Officers necessary when they were employ'd in converting the Gentiles I think 't is still requisite for the Government of them now that they are converted for their Conversion did prepare them for more Instruction it obliged them to an attendance at Religious Assemblies it made them subject to Discipline who were not so before And when the Work increases I think the Labourers ought not to be diminished nor their Ranks broken We may rather suppose that when whole Kingdoms embraced the Christian Faith disorders would be increas'd And when the first Apostles were departed who could convey Diseases and Death in their Censures whenever that Miraculous Power ceas'd it was requisite that some should retain all the Authority they had which was communicable that by the Dignity of their Office they might keep up a Reverence of Discipline and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church 2. There is a Necessity of the Continuation of some things which might depend on a Succession to the Apostles and cannot be preserv'd without it Amongst them I reckon the Administration of the Sacraments and the reason of it will be manifest when I have examin'd by what Right it is that you assign that Administration to Presbyters as a standing part of their Work I therefore demand in the first place From whence it is that they have Right to Baptize If it be from any Declaration that is made to them in Scripture let it be shew'd if from any Command let it be produc'd if from Example I pray inform me where any of their Order did Baptize I think upon enquiry it will be found that none in Scripture are said to Baptize but such as you call Extraordinary Officers and if they were so as many of their Actions as were peculiar to them may not be drawn into precedent It follows therefore from your Principles either that Baptism must be laid aside or else the Laity may confer it and they that have taken it out of their hands have done it in their wrong and that ever since the days of the Apostles Concerning the Lord's Supper you are like to be as much or more at a loss for you tell me that these words Do this in remembrance of me were said to the Apostles not as they were Ministers but as Communicants you mean private Christians And if so I would demand what grounds you have from Scripture for assigning to any Ecclesiastical Officers the Administration of this Sacrament or how with Consistence to your own Principles you can free them from Usurpation The reason for which you think those words of Christ were not said to the Apostles as Ministers but as private Christians is that otherwise there is no Canon of Communion for the Common People or Laity at which I suppose some of them who talk much of Religion would not be offended But if there be nothing else on which their Right to the Communion is founded without any injury to them this matter may be thus adjusted The Apostles as receiving the Communion might be the Representatives of the Faithful and of Ministers only in receiving the Command of Christ to do as he had shew'd them that is to bless and give to others the Sacramental Elements of Bread and Wine And such I affirm they were and such
to comprehend the High Priests whom he does not expresly mention And probably it was in imitation of the Hellenist Jews that many of the Primitive Christian Writers distinguish'd the Clergy into two Ranks and to make them speak consistent with themselves we need only grant that two different Orders by reason of some general agreement between them are contain'd in one of the Branches of the Distinctions which they use This one thing being consider'd may answer a great part of Blondel's Apology And it shews that if nothing else hinders Clemens might comprehend all the Ruling Officers of the Church under the Name of Bishops that being a word which at that time was of a general signification yet some of them might be Supreme and others Subordinate to them He might call them indifferently Bishops or Presbyters yet some of them might be Prelats and the rest of an inferior Rank and under their Authority But supposing what for my part I am inclin'd to believe that all the Bishops mention'd by Clemens were mere Presbyters I know not what service this can do you For he intimates that there were Officers distinct from them and superior to them And only to these Renowned Men as he calls them and the Apostles whom he joyns with them he ascribes the Power of Ordination which hath been the Prerogative of the Bishops ever since his days 'T is true it may seem that there was no Bishop at Corinth when he sent this Epistle thither which was before the Destruction of Jerusalem But if the See was vacant at that time it might be fill'd before the first Century was expir'd Certain it is that about the middle of the following Age Primus was Bishop of Corinth by Succession as you may learn from Hegesippus And if you enquire into the Original of that Succession Tertullian will lead you to it for he places at Corinth one of the Chairs of the Apostles It was in another of them that S. Clemens himself sate who is the Author of this Epistle He was a Bishop or an Apostle as he is styl'd by Clemens Alexandrinus He is mentioned in the Table of the Roman Apostles which was taken by Mabillon out of a Book of Canons in the Abbey of Corbie and which amounts to the same thing he is reckon'd in all the Catalogues that are extant of the Roman Bishops S. Irenaeus who liv'd near his time informs us that he was Bishop of Rome The same is attested by Tertullian and Origen by Eusebius and Epiphanius by Optatus and Jerom by Augustin and many others So that we have as great certainty of it as there is that Clemens writ the Epistle which bears his Name And if there be no ground to doubt of it as I think there is not his silence concerning a Bishop of Corinth is not so cogent an Argument against Episcopacy as his own Example is for it there not being the least cause to believe that so Excellent a Person would have born an Office which himself condemn'd or believ'd to be sinful CHAP. XI After the Apostles Decease the Churches were govern'd by single Persons who were distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops IN what hath been already said of Episcopal Government I have for the most part limited my Discourse to the first Century and only touch'd on it incidentally as continued in succeeding times I come now more fully to shew that after the Apostles decease the Churches or Dioceses were govern'd by Single Persons who were then distinguish'd by the Name of Bishops This appears from many passages in the Epistles of S. Ignatius as also from the Fragments that remain of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth of Polycrates and others who flourish'd in the second Century In the third Origen acquaints us it was the custom to have no more than One Bishop of a Church and this he plainly intimates where he tells us expresly that in every Church there were Two For according to him one of them was visible and the other invisible One of them a Man and the other an assisting Angel 'T is true near the beginning of that Age Narcissus had Alexander for his Colleague in the Government of the Church of Jerusalem But as he was the first we meet with in Ecclesiastical History that after the Apostles days admitted of a Coadjutor so his Case was Extraordinary not only by reason of his extreme Old Age but also because as Eusebius informs us his breach of the Churches Rule was dispenc'd with by Divine Revelation The Rule was that of One Church or Diocese there might be no more than one Bishop On which principle Cyprian and Cornelius argued against the Novatians And the Council of Nice meant the same thing in prohibiting a plurality of Bishops in one City and did not thereby introduce an Innovation but confirm an useful part of the Ancient Discipline It was high time to do this for when Epiphanius speaking of Alexandria says that it never had two Bishops as other Cities he intimates that in the days of Alexander who was present in the Nicene Council some Cities in Egypt had a plurality of Bishops and if so it was a thing fit to be repress'd as being contrary to the Primitive Custom a Custom so avow'd and which had been so well establish'd that when the Roman Confessors abandon'd the Schismaticks by whose arts they had been deluded and made their submission to Cornelius when they acknowledged their errors before him with great humility they profess'd they could not charge themselves with the ignorance of this That as there is one God one Christ and one Holy Spirit so there ought to be but one Bishop of a Catholick Church Yet a doubt still remains on what account it was that other Cities differ'd from Alexandria in such a manner as Epiphanius suggests And some are of opinion that the reason of it was because some Catholick Bishops assum'd Coadjutors after the example of Narcissus But I rather think it proceeded from the Meletians of whom he discourses in this place and who with a mighty industry set up their Schismatical Bishops and Assemblies At Alexandria it seems they could not carry on their designs so successfully as in other parts of Egypt till as Epiphanius relates the matter they took their advantage of the death of Alexander and the absence of Achillas his Successon and then in opposition to him they made Theonas their Bishop and at Alexandria it self erected Altar against Altar But if you are not mistaken these Meletians reform'd a great abuse at Alexandria by that action For there you say the departure from the Primitive Institution of having divers Bishops of one City began as we are told by Danaeus who citeth Epiphanius and might have cited others Thousands doubtless Sir he might have cited to as much purpose that is to testifie such things as never enter'd
rightly believ'd to proceed from Apostolical Authority And that he did not believe Episcopacy was introduced into the Church after the Apostles decease appears from several instances and particularly from hence that he thought the Angels of the Asiatick Churches were their Bishops Thus far your Witnesses have appear'd against you and with them you have fitly join'd S. Chrysostom who says not as you pretend that there is no difference in a manner between Bishops and Priests but that the difference is not great Thereby intimating that some difference there was even in the Apostles days for of these he he speaks And in this he tells us they were distinguish'd that only the Bishops had the power of Ordination A thing so destructive of the cause for which you are concern'd that the Dissenters doubtless had rather see all the Volumes of Chrysostom in a flame than be concluded by his testimony After all you must depend I think on the testimony of such as Danaeus Buchanan Johannes Major and Hector Boethius and of what Authority these men are I come now to enquire If we may believe Danaeus say you Epiphanius himself was at last compell'd to confess that in the Age of the Apostles no such distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as I contend for was to be found To which I reply If we may believe Epiphanius himself he confess'd no such matter On the contrary when he had represented Aerius as the plague of mankind when he had expos'd and condemn'd his detestable ingratitude towards Eustathius and shew'd how he loaded his Benefactor with calumnies because he was advanced to a Bishoprick to which that modest Leveller aspir'd he then gives an account of this opinion of the Heretick That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter which he censures as extremely foolish and proceeds to the confutation of it That a Presbyter says he cannot be the same with a Bishop the sacred word of the Apostle declares For thus he writes to Timothy Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father But why should he forbid him to rebuke an Elder but that he had Authority over him He admonishes him ver 19. Not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses But he did not give direction to any of the Presbyters not to receive an accusation against a Bishop not to rebuke a Bishop This then is a manifest Argument of the disparity of those Officers in the judgment of Epiphanius But if you can make him confess what he denies if you can make him approve what he confutes and bring him to an agreement with one whom he represents as a prodigious villain and a monster then you may believe Danaeus But his credit labours much at present and you have said nothing to relieve it It hath been little for the honour of the Presbyterian Government that the Father of it hath been thought to be Aerius But you think it is of more ancient and better extraction The Scots you say who receiv'd the knowledge of Christianity in the first Age had not any knowledge for many Ages after that appears of any but Presbyterian jurisdiction And for this you quote Buchanan who tell us that no Bishop ever presided in the Church of Scotland before Palladius his time and that the Church unto that time was govern'd by Monks without Bishops with less pride and outward pomp but greater simplicity and holiness And if his word may be taken for it this would be something to the purpose But Camden says that his History was condemn'd of falshood by the Parliament of Scotland and that Buchanan before his death bitterly accus'd himself of the Calumnies he had divulged So that however I have a great value for his wit and learning I think no great credit is due to his testimony since he wanted that veracity which is essential to a good Historian But here it seems we need not depend on his word alone for he is warranted by the Authority of Johannes Major whose words you set down and they are to the same effect as the former And really say you this testimony given by Johannes Major is very full And who would not now think that this Johannes Major was an Ancient Father that could give such a full and exact account of the Primitive times Yet did this man draw down his History of Great Britain as far as the Marriage of K. Henry VIII of England with the Princess Catherine of Aragon and dedicated it to K. James V. of Scotland He was alive says Labbe in the year 1520. And one that would undertake to declare what men were doing above a thousand years before he was born had need to vouch better Authority than his own to gain belief But John Major is not the only Evidence Buchanan might have cited Beda you tell me says that Palladius was sent unto the Scots who believ'd in Christ as their first Bishop How great an advantage is it to have the faculty of close reasoning Yet so dull am I that I do not perceive how the words of Bede prove those of Buchanan to be true For 1. Palladius might be sent into Scotland and yet not into the Country now call'd by that name and intended by Buchanan It might be into Ireland of which Beda himself says that it is properly the Country of the Scots and accordingly in Claudian the Scot is the Irish man And that Palladius was sent to the Irish Scots hath been prov'd by those great Antiquaries the Bishops of S. Asaph and Worcester to whom I refer you for satisfaction 2. The Christian faith hath no such dependance on Monkery but the Scots might believe though there had never been any Monks in the world And I take it to be manifest that there were none so early as you imagine Polydor Vergil ascribes the institution of Monkery to S. Antony who died as he tells us in the year 361. Danaeus says that it began to be in request in Egypt after the year 300 and that it was later before it was receiv'd in Europe He attributes the invention of it to superstition and an idolatrous admiration of external things He compares the Monks to swarms of drones and says that in the year 500. they were dispers'd and multiplied like the Locusts in the Revelation upon the face of the whole Earth You see Sir what sentiments your friend Danaeus had of these men and of their institution and little did he think that the Church of Scotland was so happy in an excellent sort of Presbyterian Monks in the best and purest Ages S. Jerom himself who had such a zeal for the Monastick way of living that he was willing to say as much for the honour of it as he was able carries the original of it notwithstanding no higher than Antony or Paul the Thebaean But which of them soever was the Founder of it
it I do not understand You have some other quotations from the Fathers which I need not here examine having done it already But I proceed to shew that it is altogether improbable that the Pastours of the Church who came next after the Apostles should conspire to deprave a Divine Institution And this I think will appear if it be consider'd 1. That they were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue 2. If they had not been such they could not so suddenly have agreed in the same design to corrupt the Church as you contend in the same manner 1. They were persons of admirable Holiness and Virtue Clemens Alexandrinus gives an account what care S. John took of the Churches after his return from Patmos and that he admitted such into the Clergy as were design'd or distinguish'd by the Holy Ghost And as I noted before Irenaeus says the Apostles were desirous that they should be very perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left to be their Successors to whom they committed their own place of Government And can we imagine that such persons as these conspir'd to deprave an Institution of Christ When they daily expos'd their lives to danger when they despis'd the Vngulae and Catastae the rage of Savage Boasts and more Savage Men when a firm adherence to their Religion expos'd them to the Scourge or the Cross the Axe or the Fire and when they express'd such a chearful readiness to embrace the sorest evils that could be inflicted on them and death it self under the most dreadful Circumstances rather than deny their Master were they then contriving to ruin his Discipline or Caballing to make themselves great Or if the mystery of iniquity did so generally work in the Prelates who are suppos'd to have usurpt Authority over their Brethren was there not an honest Presbyter in the world to put them in mind of their Duty or to admonish them to keep their Station Was there not one upon earth that would oppose their Innovations or plainly tell them that by the appointment of Heaven all Presbyters are equal If the Presbyters had no regard for their own Authority had they no concern for their Masters glory Had they no remembrance of what the Apostles taught or of the Instructions for the Government of the Church which they had given Did they not only quietly see the degeneracy spread apace but help it forward by relinquishing the Trust and Authority committed to them by the Holy Ghost We have no reason certainly to suspect any such matters of them but if we had I should dread the Consequences of it 2. If the Bishops who liv'd in the next Age to that of the Apostles had not been persons of so much Perfection and Virtue yet they could not so suddenly have agreed to corrupt the Church in the same manner Arnobius disputing against the Gentiles says in vindication of the History of Christianity If that be false whence comes it to pass that the whole World was in so short a time fill'd with this Religion or how came Nations so distant to receive it with one consent And in like manner I may demand If Prelacy be a defection from an Institution of Christ or his Apostles how came it to gain so early an admission amongst persons of so many different Countries and Languages How came it so suddenly to be establish'd in all the Churches upon the face of the Earth You say that Ecclesiastical Prelates arose at best by occasion and prudentially upon the increase of Believers But how did they every where meet with the like occasions How came all the Churches in the World to act by the same Prudential Rules If you can shew how all the Bishops upon Earth agreed to exalt themselves above their Brethren and how the Presbyters every where so suddenly consented in their submission to them you are the man of the world fittest to write a Commentary on the Philosophy of Epicurus and to prove that his Atoms by their accidental concourse perform'd all the feats and wonders that have been attributed to them That I have not been singular in matching such improbabilities may appear from the words of Mr. Chillingworth which I shall here set down When I shall see says he all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep and awake into Monarchies Then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles Doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a Scene in a Masque and transform'd into Episcopacy In the mean time continues my Author whilst these things remain thus incredible and in human reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally receiv'd in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick CHAP. XVII Episcopacy cannot be thought a degeneracy from an Apostolical Constitution if the Testimony of the Fathers may be admitted Their Testimony vindicated IT is certain that the Testimony of the Fathers cannot be admitted to determine the Controversie between us but with the ruine of your Cause it being altogether inconsistent with your Opinion That Episcopacy was not of a Divine or Apostolical Appointment but introduced prudentially and gradually advanced upon the steps to Corruption Even of that select Company who as you say were as Pious and Learned Fathers as any the Churches ever own'd and to whom you profess'd your adherence there was not a man who did not believe that Bishops were constituted by Christ himself or his Apostles or by both You have one Refuge however yet remaining which is to reject those as incompetent Witnesses who upon examination appear against you And accordingly you tell me That the Fathers wrote things they saw not and fram'd matters according to their own conceits and many of them were tainted with partial humours You farther add That the Catalogues of the Succession of Bishops which Eusebius has given us are only Conjectural and Traditionary words fitly join'd together That himself tells us there was a great Chasm in Ecclesiastical History for the three first Centuries Ay that in the third Book of that History Chap. 4. he says expresly as to the persons that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of the Churches that it is hard to tell particularly and by name who they were And that in making his Catalogues he went by way of Collection and Inference from what is written by S. Paul c. But the sum of what Eusebius does indeed say in that
is consistent enough with his setled Residence in his Diocese when the Church of Ephesus was committed to his Administration I do not remember any other material Objection against what I have said concerning this subject So that I make no doubt still to affirm that Timothy was an Ordinary Pastor of the Church and thus much in effect is acknowledged by some Learned Presbyterians who say he was the first Presbyter or President of the Presbytery And if they would allow such Presidents as have the full Power of Ordination which he had Presidents with Authority equal to his and which as Cameron gathers from 1 Tim. 5.19 was greater than was consistent with the Office of other Presbyters Presidents that are so for life as Ludovicus Cappellus thinks they originally were Then if they please they may call them Presidents still and I shall not contend about the Name if we are agreed about the Thing But since you and many others have not made the Concessions I have mention'd I shall farther prove that the Office of Timothy was such as I have describ'd by the following Arguments 1. If it had been intended that the Authority committed to Timothy and others of his Rank should be temporary either this may appear from the nature of the thing or it might have been expected that we should have had some notice of it in the Scripture For if we may take the liberty without any grounds to fasten on it the Title of Temporary or Extraordinary we may by the same means soon put an end to any Constitutions whatsover But there is nothing in the nature of this Authority that may hinder its continuance nothing in the Scripture that declares it to be abrogated We may conclude therefore that as it is fit to be continued so it was design'd to be so in all succeeding times 2. We have no reason to believe that S. Paul would alter his own Constitutions without a cause or that without any necessity he would put the Government of a Church into a new Model and divert the Course of Discipline from that Channel in which it ought to run in all Ages If therefore he sent Timothy as an Extraordinary Commissioner to interpose in the Affairs of Ephesus we may suppose this to have been either 1. Because there was some Extraordinary Work which none but Extraordinary Officers could perform or 2. Because there were no Ministers at Ephesus or such only as were unfit for Government But neither of these can well be imagin'd Not the first for the Work was no other than what hath or might have been perform'd by Bishops ever since Not the second for there were Presbyters at Ephesus of eminent Gifts such as the Holy Ghost had made Overseers It seems improbable then that these were constituted Supreme Standing Rulers of the Church or that the Work for which they were so well qualified was so soon taken out of their hands Particularly it seems improbable either that they had the Power of Ordination or that it would have been transfer'd from them to a Stranger who came to visit them but was not of their number and that without any ground or reason given or any notice taken of them as concern'd in the matter Flaminius did a thing acceptable to the Greeks when he gave them permission to live after their own Laws But if he had afterwards sent amongst them some Governour with Power and Commission to over-rule and controul their Magistrates and to disturb that Polity which had been established by his Concession by such Changes and Turns of Affairs he would have introduc'd and encouraged great Irregularities and put his former Admirers upon upbraiding his Levity or questioning his Veracity And let us now suppose if you please that such Elders were constituted by S. Paul at Ephesus as were inabled and obliged to perform the highest Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority as Supreme Ordinary Pastors and were design'd also to be a Pattern for following Ages Let us farther suppose that an Officer Extraordinary had afterwards been left amongst them with Commission from that Apostle to alter the measures they had taken and to suspend the exercise of a principal part of their Function by taking it wholly to himself and that without any Miscarriage laid to their Charge you may easily perceive what Reflections this might have occasioned and that such Proceedings would have been so far from setting things in order that one has reason to think they would have put them into greater confusion 3. If such eminent Presbyters as were at Ephesus and a Church so flourishing as that of Ephesus was had a Governour put over them this ought not to be esteemed an extraordinary thing for doubtless other Presbyters and Churches whose Exigences were greater had so too And if such a Subordination of Officers was necessary when the Apostles were alive I cannot imagine why an end should afterwards be put to it when there was more occasion of it than ever Some of the most Learned Opposers of Episcopacy grant that Timothy and others of his Rank govern'd Churches with the same Plenitude of Power as Bishops afterwards did who as they say were rais'd in the second Century for the Cure of Schism But if in the common sense of Christians Prelacy was useful to that purpose as 't is supposed this must have obliged them to preserve it when it had been introduced amongst them by such as were directed by the Spirit of God and it could be no great Argument of their Wisdom if they laid aside that which was of Divine Original and were very shortly afterwards put upon contriving how to restore it by a Humane Invention 4. It seems very improbable that the Apostle should write two Epistles to Timothy only to direct him in the temporary Administration of the Affairs of a Place where he was only to make a transient Visit But if from the Examples we have of Presbyters and the Rules that are laid down for them in Scripture we may gather that such ought to be continued Then may we also conclude from the Example of Timothy from the Authority he had and the Rules that were given to him for the exercise of it and which are of perpetual use that the Office with which he was vested ought to be preserv'd in the Church till the end of the World 5. As we learn from the Scripture that Timothy resided at Ephesus so it may something confirm what I have said of his relation to that Place if there he ended his days And this is what is testified by Sophronius who tells us that there he gloriously suffer'd Martyrdom But more fully by an Ancient Writer in Photius who acquaints us that he was put to death at the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which he would have abrogated 6. After his death we find Onesimus in his Place who is said to be Bishop of Ephesus by Ignatius his Co-temporary and by whom he is
represented as a Person of admirable Charity and a Worthy Pattern and great Blessing to his Flock Polycrates was another of his Successors and it were easie to reckon many more If therefore your Standard of Extraordinaries be true and of any use it must be granted that his Office was not of their number and that the Inferences you draw from his doing the work of an Evangelist and from your supposition of his being a Co-founder are groundless for 't is in vain to advance little Conjectures against plain Matter of Fact CHAP. VIII Apostolical Authority was communicated to Titus who was Bishop of Crete I Have said so much of Timothy that the less need be added concerning Titus who had been train'd up with him under the same Spiritual Father and was employ'd in the same manner They were both S. Paul's Fellow-Labourers and Partners in the Apostolate and they were left under the same Character and with the same Authority the one at Ephesus and the other in Crete Titus was left in Crete of which he was Bishop say the Fathers and one part of his Episcopal Power appears from the Commission he had to ordain Elders there in every City Tit. 1.5 But say you the word there which is render'd Ordain is the same that is us'd Acts 6.3 in the matter of the Deacons who were appointed by the Apostles not one of the Apostles but all and chosen by the people And one might well admire that the same word which is translated appointed in one place should be rendred ordain'd in another but that Titus is said to ordain and not to appoint only that it might look as if it were a plain Text for sole Ordination So that here is a heavy Charge against the Translators and perhaps never was any more groundless For I pray Sir what did they mean either by appointing or ordaining but constituting And if all the Apostles constituted the Deacons which were chosen by the People will it follow from the signification of this word that Titus might not constitute Elders unless they were chosen by the People or that he could not do it unless he had Colleagues to assist him or was himself a multitude When the Lord in the Gospel is said to set a Ruler over his houshold must the interpretation of this expression be that he did it not without a previous Election in the Family and with the concurrence of his equals And when we read that Pharaoh made Joseph Governour over Egypt and all his house must the meaning of this be that Pharaoh and some Partners with him in the Thone did this but not without the common consent of their Subjects If these things be absurd you may at your leisure reflect on the Success of your Criticism and the Justice of your Censure We have seen what Right Titus had to constitute Elders And if it be absurd to imagine that all his Care of them was to be employ'd in examining and admitting them into Office and none afterwards it will follow that since the Rules for their Conversation are directed unto him he had over them an Episcopal Authority For as the Command that was given to the Master of a Family that his Children and Servants should keep the Sabbath was an Argument that they were under his Jurisdiction which rendred him accountable for them So when the Precepts by which Presbyters ought to govern their Actions were addressed to Titus this signifies that he had Power to see them executed and Offences against them prevented or punish'd Another Argument of his Episcopal Power may be taken from hence that he is required to rebuke the disobedient and refractory with all Authority That is says Beza with the highest Authority as an Ambassador of God and to let no man despise him which last advice confirms Beza's Exposition of the former and shews that if Titus would exercise the Authority he had That was sufficient to create a Reverence for him amongst all that were committed to his care But this I confess might seem very strange had his Orders or his Proceedings against Offenders been precarious or some Notions about the Pastors of the Church then prevail'd which of late have been entertain'd In the Imperial Law the following Precept is given to a Judge or President Observandum est jus reddenti ut se contemni non patiatur And it is suitable enough to the condition of a Magistrate But if it be said Of what use could it be to instruct a person to let no man despise him who had no coercive force to vindicate himself from Contempt if any were inclin'd to throw it on him To this I know no other answer can be given than that the Authority of Bishops however it was only Spiritual did in that Age strike such an awe upon the Minds of Christians that they were able to stop the Mouths of False Teachers without any external violence or deprive them of their followers if these had any true sense of Piety Their publick reproof of Scandalous Offenders was then very dreadful and when they expell'd them from the Church by their Censures this was justly esteem'd a sad presage of their future judgment Such Censures I suppose were meant by the Apostle where he instructs Titus to reject a Heretick after the first and second admonition On which words Dr. Hammond hath this Annotation which is not vulgar but in my opinion very rational The first and second admonition says he here refers to the method prescrib'd by Christ in proceeding against Christian Offenders Matth 18.15 but in some circumstances differs from it There is mention of a threefold admonition one by the injured person alone a second by two or three taken with him the third by the Church But here only a first and second admonition The cause of this difference is to be taken from the quality of the person to whom this Epistle is written Titus a Bishop whereas there the speech is address'd to every private Christian that is injured by any Here the first admonition of the Bishop carries an Authority along with it far above that of the private person and the two or three with him and so may well supply the place of both those and then the second here will be parallel to the third there and so after that is despis'd or proved uneffectual it is seasonable to proceed to Censures to excommunicate the contumacious Thus 2 Cor. 13.2 immediately after the second admonition deliver'd by S. Paul he tells the Offenders he will not spare and v. 10. he tells them that this admonition is that he may not proceed to excision or cutting off which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking away the word ordinarily used in the Canons for Excommunication The summ of what I have said of Titus is That he had Commission to constitute Officers and to govern with plenitude of Power Presbyters as well as others