« 上一页继续 »
epistle, he commands him to come to him shortly. - Timothy was also an evangelist of that order, Eph. 4.—So that Dorotheus says in his Synopsis, That Timothy preached through all Greece; but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop, but that, in the constitute church of Ephesus, he might oppose the false Apostles.—It appears therefore that he was more than a Bishop, although for a time he preached in that city as a pastor, and ordained some to the ministry. Hence it is, some calls him Bishop in Ephesus.” “Having elsewhere given the judgment of the learned Dr. Whitby at some length, all that I shall transcribe from him at this time, is a few lines of what he says in his preface to the Epistle to Titus: “First, I assert, that if by saying Timothy and Titus were Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, we understand they look upon these churches or dioceses as their fixed and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside for term of life, I believe, that Timothy and Titus were not thus Bishops.’ See Chap. 1 and 4. “To fortify those who have given their assault, let me bring in Mr. Le Clerc, in his Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Annotations on the Epistle to Titus, p. 530. who says, “The testimonies of the ancients about this matter, who judge rashly of the times of the apostles by their own, and speak of them in the language of their own age, are of little moment. And so do no more prove that Titus was the Bishop of the island of Crete, than what Dr. Hammond says, proves him to have been distinguished with the title of Archbishop.” To the same purpose the forecited Dr. Whitby says, “The great controversy concerning this and the epistle to Timothy is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bishops; the one in Ephesus, and the Pro-consular Asia, the other of Crete, and having authority to make, and jurisdiction over so many Bishops as were in those precincts' Now, of this matter, I confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, and not any intimation, that they bore that name.’
“The judgment of the learned Whittaker is supporting on this occasion, as well as in the most of the former, who says, Controv. 4. Q. 4. C. 2. p. 374. ‘In the apostle's times there were many things extraordinary. There was another form of government in the church in the days of the apostles, and another now, is acknowledged by Stapleton: For it was then governed by the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, but now only by pastors and doctors; the rest are all removed.” From this it may justly be inferred, that Timothy and Titus were not ordinary officers, but they being both evangelists, are not succeeded to by Bishops. And here I cannot but subjoin the judgment of Chrysostom, whom our adversaries, I hope, will not reject as an adversary. His words, as translated by Smectymnuus, are these, Paul would not commit the whole island to one man, but would have every man appointed to his charge and cure. For so he knew his labour would be the lighter, and the people that were under him would be governed with the greater diligence. For the teacher should not be troubled with the government of many churches, but only intend one, and study for to adorn that. The remark of Smectymnuus is just, Therefore this was Titus his work, not to be Bishop of Crete himself, but to ordain Elders in every city, which was an office above that of a Bishop.
“But this fortification is not able to stand ; for the remarkable Mr. Dodwell, Paraenes. Sect. 10. p. 404. attacks it most handsomely, when he says, “But truly, that the office of [Timothy] was not fixed, but itinerary, many arguments do evince. It was required of him to abide at Ephesus, is testified by the Apostle, 1 Tim. i. 3. He was therefore, when thus demanded, an itinerary. The work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. vi. 5, so many journeyings with St. Paul, and his name being joined in common with the Apostle, in the inscription of the epistles to the Thessalonians, are all of them arguments for this. Moreover, the apostle commands Titus only to ordain, in Crete, Presbyters in every city, Titus i. 5. He says, he was left there, that
he might set in order things that were wanting. And he was a companion of the apostle when he was left. And truly, other places make it appear, that he was a companion of St. Paul, and therefore was no more restricted to any particular place than the apostle himself.” Thus the famous Dodwell. And from what has been said from so many learned Episcopalian Doctors, one may consider, how far Bishop Hall had lost his senses, when he saith with such a masterly air, Episcop. Divine Right, Sect. 4. P. 2. That if Episcopal power of ordination, and power of ruling and censuring Presbyters, be not clear in the apostle's charge to these two Bishops, the one of Crete, and the other of Ephesus, I shall yield the cause, and confess to want my senses.” “But now, to dismiss this conceit of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus, &c. I shall give the judgment of the learned Willet, Synops. Papism. Contr. 5. Q. 3. “Neither can it be granted by the words of the Apostle, Lay hands suddenly on no man, &c. that Timothy had this sole power in himself; for, the apostle would not give that to him, which he did not take to himself, who associated to him the rest of the Presbyters in ordaining of Timothy. It is questioned, says he, if the apostle had then constituted Timothy bishop there [Ephesus:] For, he saith, That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,’ &c. . I conclude with the judgment of the accurate Dr. Barrow, Pope's Suprem. p. 82. whose words must certainly contradict this notion concerning Timothy's Episcopate ; for he says, “Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge, affixed
to one standing place, and requiring a special attendance there ; Bishops being Pastors, who, as St. Chrysostom says, do sit, and are employed in one place. Now, he that hath such a general charge, can hardly discharge such a particular office, and he is fixed to a particular attendance, can hardly look after so general a charge.” Though this is spoken with respect to the Apostles; yet it will equally hold
with respect to Timothy and Titus. I think, by this time, this strong bulwark has almost lost its beautiful shapes, and formidable figures, and is not capable of doing much execution. The itinerary life of the apostles, according to Barrow, is inconsistent with that of a Bishop, and must be so likewise with that of Timothy and Titus, seeing they were not fixed residenters in any particular place, as is well observed by Mr. Dodwell ; and it must conclude against them with equal force, if Dr. Brett's notion be true, that they were both of the Apostolic order.”
No equitable judge would censure us for leaving these sons of the hierarchy to dash their heads against each other, and declining to give ourselves any further trouble. We are not obliged to inquire into the claim which they set up for Timothy or Titus, until they shall themselves ascertain what the claim is ; nor to answer their plea, until they shall cease to quarrel about its correctness. But, instead of taking so mortifying an advantage, we shall meet the question as it is stated by Cyprian and the Layman; referring to our readers for an opinion whether or not we are afraid to have the cause tried either at Ephesus or in Crete; and under any form which our Episcopal friends shall prefer.
“In Titus i. 5.” says Cyprian, “it is said by the Apostle Paul, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city.” Let us contemplate the circumstances that attended this transaction, and see what inferences we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the
island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who stood in need of the ministrations of Presbyters. He
speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was already accomplished, as if the way was paved for the establishment of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that this transaction carries on its face a proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul had converted so many cities on this island without having ordained any elders amongst them : What ' When it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in every country in which he made proselytes ? What Could he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence 7 Would he have left the work he had begun only half performed ! “These considerations are sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that there were Elders or Presbyters in the Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. And if there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well have been accomplished without him 2 If the Presbyters possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jealousy, and strifes, and contentions ! Again. Let us view this transaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters were at this time considered as competent to the task of ordaining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of detaining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city ? The efforts of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why