« AnteriorContinuar »
) Aft** at (m) Troas, when he went from thence to , 4' ' Miletus, that was sufficient Reason why he did not address "himself to him, but to the Elders which came from Ephefits'; whom he put in mind of their Duty by his Speech, as he had done Timothy by an Epistle not long before directed to him.
Whose Office was no more superseded by this Charge given to them $ than a Proconsuls was by the Senats Instructions to his Legats, when hmself was present.
If it were evidently proved, that St. Paul then carried away Timothy with him to Jerusalem, and so to Rome, there would be greater force in the Objection. But how doth that appear? Not from Scripture. For when St. Paul appeared at the Temple, the Jews laid hold on him, because they supposed )A%V*(W) ne had brought Tmphimm the Ephefian with him into the Temple, whom they had seen so much with him in the City. How came Timothy not to be as much taken notice of, if he were there? For, he being discovered by the Jews of Asia , there was far greater Reason for them to have raised a Tumult about Timothy, than about Trophi
3 Act2',.4' After this, we find (0) St. Paul kept two years in Prison, and not a word of Timothy,
whom Charge all that time at Ephesus. When Saint Paul was carried to Rome, we find not Timothy iti his Company 5 no mention being made of him till he Wrote the Epistles to the (p) Philipsians and (q) Coloffians, and then(/>)Phil-«■ Timothy was with him. For St. /W/had fentco coiod for him from Ephesus in his Second (r ) E-\rylrm. piftle; where, in all probability, he remained *9' .till th.it time. During his stay at Rome those Epistles were Written, as likewise that to Philemon, and to the Hebrews ; in which it is said, (/) That he had been Imprison J, and was /fases)8**1* at Liberty; and intended shortly to return into the Eastern Parts. From henceforwards we read nothing of Timothy in Scripture. But WL'f]/."1"'TM St., Jerome himself makes him Bijhop of the Ephefians, and (o doth (u) Eufebius $ (x) Theo- («) Euseb. dor et calls him , The Apostle of those in Asia'^iT and St. ( y) Chryfostome faith, The whole Peo-i*) n»pie of Asia were committed to his Charge, i. e.a.i.' of this Proconsular Asia, which Jay about Æ-l^tr
- . And now let any reasonable Man consider, whether there be not sufficient Proof, that the Apostolical Power of Governing Churchps
/.was.communicated toothers besides the Aposiles themselves; and consequently there
<....'.„■ E might
many as the Apostles thought fit. (O waio. It is confessed by some (?) That there were p.40.50.81. Secondary Apostles, such as besides Timothy and Titus, Linus, Clemens and Epaphroditus are [aid to hat/e been; but these are called Itinerant Preachers , and not fixed Bishops. But the (a) Tw same Persons observe-from (a) Theodores, w 'tSstlu not onely that these were called Bijhops af^Timoth. tcrwards; but that the Reason why St. Paul Wrote Epistles to some, and not to others, was, because some he tool^ with him, and others fye entrusted with the Government of Churches. xA«m? iyK*xstz/K»4, which can hardly agree to Itinerant Preachers.
But it is said, These Secondary Apostles were w*h,&c.iJiot sent by Christ, but by tlie Apostles. > And 5°- what then? Would the Apostles betray their Trust, and commit part ot that charge to others, which was entrusted onely to themselves? But if this Office were by the Will of Christ appropriated to the Persons of the Apostles, they could not commit it to others without breach of Trust. And if it were not so, then this Power might be communicated to as many as the Apostles judged convenient; and (o ( as 1 said before 1 we have nothing farther to doe, but to enquire, whether at their removal from particular
"Churches, Churches, they did not put this Power in* to the Hands of others.
(II. Confid. ) Whether the Apostles, upon their withdrawing, did pass this/W^r over to others, as St. Paul did plainly in the Case of Timothy and Titus , is a matter of Fact; and to be proved in such a manner as such a thing is capable of We find plainly, the Apo/iles had this Power in themselves, and did convey it to some others; but whether Universally, and with a design to continue this Order, must be proved by the best means , we can doe a matter of Fact of so great Antiquity.
(III. Confid.) There can be no stronger Proof of such a matter of Fact, than the general sense of the Christian- Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apoflles.
Now, as to the finding out the general fense of the Church , as to this matter, I stiall premise Three things.
(1.) It is not necessary to prove from Scripture, that the Apostles did observe the. same method in all Churches; which we find , as to the Churches of Ephefus and Crete. For we have no such particular account, as to the other Churches; but we are certain
E 2 St./W St. Paul would doe no irregular thing, nor communicate an Office to others, which was to expire with themselves.
( 2.) It is not at all necessary, to prove, that all the Bishops mentions in Scripture had this Apostolical Tower; for the contrary appears in the Bijhops under Timothy and Titus: and therefore the Succession is not to be drawn from the Bishops mentioned in the Epistles to them, but from themselves; the want of considering this one Point, hath caused more perplexity in the Controversy about Episcopacy , than any one thing besides.
( 3.) It is not necessary, that, the Succession in this Apostolical PowerPC made equally clear in all Churches $ since the Records of the Church may be more doubtfull and defective in some Churches which are not in others. But- yet there are these ways to make out the general Sense, of the Christian Church, as to this point. ... ; ^ -;
Oi.%)/.That :the Evidence of the Succession : is clear in the most conspicuous Churches, by undoubted Testimonies. [
tfsfc-'ksRhafc Hipfe w-ho; s&%Haed -most: doubtfull about the first Succession, yiejdr the ge•v .'*: /; . c neral