can never obtain the faith of any man to his contra- | purpose, as of St. Chrysostom,m Epiphanius," St. dictory, it being impossible to prove it.

gratiam, quæ in te est per impositionem manuum | ject the younger widows," viz. "à collegio vidua

m

clude his being a bishop? Whether is higher, a bishopric, or the office of an evangelist? If a bishop's office be higher, and, therefore, cannot consist with an evangelist, then a bishop cannot be a priest, and a priest cannot be a deacon, and an evangelist can be neither; for that also is thought to be higher than them both. But if the office of an evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much less destructive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an evangelist is an office of a moveable employment, and a bishopric of fixed residence, that will be considered by and by.

2. All the former discourse is upon supposition, that the word ciakovía implies the "office of a deacon;" and so it may, as well as St. Paul's other phrase implies St. Timothy to be an evangelist, for if we mark it well, it is ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, "Do the work," not the "office, of an evangelist." And what is that? We may see it in the verses immediately going before, Kýpužov tòv λóyov, ¿ñíσtηθα εὐκαίρως, ἀκαίρως· ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλε σον ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. And if this be the work of an evangelist, which St. Paul would have Timothy perform, viz. "to preach, to be instant in season and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort," there is no harm done; a bishop may, nay, he must do all this.

Add to this evidence of Scripture, the testimony | an evangelist, as well as his being an evangelist exof catholic and unquestioned antiquity, affirming St. Timothy to have been ordained bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul. Eusebius, speaking of the successions to St. Paul, “Sed et Lucas," saith he, "in actibus apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei et Titi, quorum alter in Epheso episcopus -ab eo ordinatus præficitur." St. Ambrose affirms that St. Paul, having ordained him bishop, writes his first epistle to him, to instruct him in his episcopal office: "Hunc igitur jam creatum episcopum instruit per epistolam, quomodo deberet ecclesiam ordinare." And that this epistle was written to instruct St. Timothy for his own person, and all bishops in him, for their deportment in the office of a bishop, is the united concurrent testimony of St. Vincentius, Tertullian," St. Chrysostom,° St. Ambrose,P Ecumenius, Epiphanius,' Primasius," and St. Gregory. As for Epiphanius, in the place now quoted, he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aerius, contending a bishop and a presbyter to be all one: "Docet divinus apostoli sermo, quis sit episcopus et quis presbyter, quum dicit ad Timotheum, qui erat episcopus, Presbyterum ne objurges," &c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular; but that of the general council of Chalcedon, in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus ; Leontius, the bishop of Magnesia, spake it in full council, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Τιμοθέου μέχρι νῦν εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ ἐπίσκοποι ἐγένοντο, πάντες ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐχειροτονήθησαν : "from St. Timothy until now, there have been twenty-seven bishops ordained in Ephesus." Who desires a multitude of testimonies, (though enough already have deposed in the cause, besides the evidence of Scripture,) may to these add | that saying of St. Chrysostom," that to Timothy was committed Ovog öλókλпpov TOUTO 'Arías: of Theodoret, calling him "episcopum Asianorum;" the subscription to the first epistle to Timothy; (which, if it were not writ by St. Paul, yet at least will prove a primitive record, and very ancient,) the fragment of the martyrdom of St. Timothy in Photius, St. Jerome, St. Theophylact, and Nicephorus.a

Isidore,

And now all is well, if, after all this, Timothy do not prove an evangelist, for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at, to support a drowning cause, and though neither pertinent nor true, yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and catholic antiquity. But" do the work of an evangelist," saith St. Paul; therefore it is clear St. Timothy was no bishop. No, was not? That is hard but let us try however.

1. Τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, those are the next words; "fulfil thy deaconship." And therefore he was no bishop? As well this as the other; for if deaconship do not exclude episcopacy, why shall his being an evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a deacon exclude his being

|

3. Consider what an "evangelist" is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the gospel is an evangelist; so the Greek scholiast calls him. And in this sense, indeed, St. Timothy was not an evangelist; but yet if he had, he might have been a bishop; because St. Mark was an evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure, that he was a bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the catholic testimony of the primitive church, as we shall see hereafter, so far as concerns our question. But then again; an apostle might be an evangelist; St. Matthew was; St. John was; and the apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an evangelist as episcopal pre-eminence; for I have proved these two names, apostle and bishop, to signify all one thing. Secondly, St. Ambrose gives another exposition of evangelists; "Evangelistæ diaconi sunt, sicut fuit Philippus." St. Philip was one of the seven, commonly called deacons, and he was also a presbyter, and yet an evangelist; and yet a presbyter, in its proportion, is an office of as necessary residence as a bishop; or else why are presbyters cried out against so bitterly, in all cases, for non-residence? and yet nothing hinders, but that St. Timothy, as well as St. Philip, might have been a presbyter and an evangelist together; and then why not a bishop too? For why should a deaconship or a presbyterate consist with the office of an evangelist more than a bishopric? Thirdly; Another acceptation of

" b

C

But now I proceed.

SECTION XV.

St. Titus at Crete.

evangelist is also in Eusebius: "Sed et alii plurimi | Timothy's being an evangelist is absolutely impertiper idem tempus apostolorum discipuli superstites nent, though it had been true. erant-Nonnulli ex his ardentiores divinæ philosophiæ, animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant; ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum, prædicarent, primaque apud eos evangelii fundamenta collocantes, evangelistarum fungebantur officio." They that planted the gospel "first" in any country, were evangelists. St. Timothy might be such a one, and yet be a bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of evangelists. For so Eusebius: "Primaque apud eos fundamenta evangelii collocantes, atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendæ ecclesiæ, quam fundaverant, committentes, ipsi rursum ad alias gentes properabant." So that they first converted the nation, and then governed the church; first they were evangelists, and afterwards bishops; and so was Austin the monk, that converted England in the time of St. Gregory and Ethelbert; he was first our evangelist, and afterwards bishop of Dover. Nay, why may they not, in this sense, be both evangelists and bishops at the same time? insomuch as many bishops have first planted christianity in divers countries, as St. Chrysostom in Scythia, St. Trophimus, St. Denis, St. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word "evangelist," this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more evangelists for that; but only their office was writing or preaching the gospel; and thence they had their name.

4. The office of an evangelist was but temporary, and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Ecumenius, which are the only true and genuine, was to expire when christianity was planted every where, and the office of episcopacy, if it was at all, was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent, at least, not always. And how St. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, "to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," e if the office, for the execution of which he gave him the rules, was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if St. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sense, neither in person, nor in succession, could those rules of St. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgment. But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of episcopacy, then it is easy to understand that St. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, but for his successors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and office of episcopacy.

5. Lastly; After all this stir, there are some of the fathers that will by no means admit St. Timothy to have been an evangelist. So St. Chrysostom, so Theophylact, so the Greek scholiast. Now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needless, we were safe enough without it; if it be false, then itself we see is needless, for the allegation of St.

e Lib. iii. Hist. c. 37.

d Lib x. Tripart. Hist. cap. 5. Theodoret.

TITUS was also made a bishop by the apostles. St. Paul also was his ordainer. First, "Reliqui te Creta." There St. Paul fixed his seat for him at Crete. Secondly: His work was rà λɛiñoνта Éπdopoa, " to set in order things that are wanting;" viz. to constitute rights and forms of public liturgy, to erect a consistory for cognizance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer, by public destination for Divine service; and, in a word, by his authority, to establish such discipline and rituals, as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the church of God. For he that was appointed by St. Paul to rectify and set things in order, was, most certainly, by him supposed to be the judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify. 2. The next work is episcopal too, and it is the "ordaining presbyters in every city." Not presbyters collectively in every city, but distributively, Karà πóλ, "city by city;" that is, elders in several cities; one in one city, many in many. For by these "elders," are certainly meant "bishops." Of the identity of names I shall afterwards give an account; but here, it is plain, St. Paul expounds himself to mean bishops.

1. In terms and express words: "To ordain elders in every city; if any be the husband of one wife, &c. For a bishop must be blameless:" that is, "the elders that you are to ordain in several cities, must be blameless; for else they must not be bishops." 2. The word peσßurépove cannot hinder this exposition; for St. Peter calls himself σvμпρεσẞúтeрov, and St. John, “ presbyter electæ dominæ," and "presbyter dilectissimo Gaio." Such presbyters as these were apostolical; and that is as much as episcopal, to be sure. 3. St. Paul adds further, “A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." a "Who, then, is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?" St. Paul's bishop is God's steward;" and "God's steward" is the "ruler of his household," says our blessed Saviour himself; and, therefore, not a mere presbyter; amongst whom, indeed, there is a parity, but no superintendence of God's making. 4. St. Paul does, in the sequel, still qualify his elders or bishops, with more proprieties of rulers: "A bishop must be no striker; not given to wine." They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts, in his stewards' or rulers' accounts. "If the steward of the house will drink and be drunk, and beat his fellowservants, then the Lord of that servant shall come, and divide him his portion with unbelievers." The In Ephes. iv.

e 1 Tim. vi. 14.

a Tit. 1.

steward of the household, this ruler, must not be
ápovos, nor λýкτηs; no more must a bishop;
he must not be " given to wine; no striker,"
Neque enim pugilem describit sermo apostolicus,
sed pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat,"
saith St. Jerome. Still, then, these are the rulers
of the church, which St. Titus was to ordain; and,
therefore, it is required should rule well his own
house; for how else shall he take charge of the
church of God? Implying, that this, his charge, is
to rule the house of God. 5. The reason why St.
Paul appointed him to ordain these bishops in cities,
is, in order to coercive jurisdiction; because " many
unruly and vain talkers were crept in," (verse 10.)
and they were to be silenced, ovç dei ¿ñɩotoμíšev,
"their mouths must be stopped." Therefore they
must be such elders as had superiority of jurisdic-
tion over these impertinent preachers, which to a
single presbyter, either by Divine or apostolical
institution, no man will grant; and to a college of
presbyters, St. Paul does not intend it, for him-
self had given it singly to St. Titus. For I consider, |
Titus alone had coercive jurisdiction before he
ordained these elders; be they bishops, be they
presbyters. The presbyters which were at Crete
before his coming, had not episcopal power, or coer-
cive jurisdiction: for why, then, was Titus sent?
As for the presbyters which Titus ordained, before
his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at
all; they were not presbyters. If they had a coer-
cive jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordina-
tion, then Titus had it before in his own person;
(for they that were there before his coming, had
not, as I showed ;) and, therefore, he must also have
it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others;
or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto
them whom he ordained? For "plus juris in alium
transferre nemo potest, quam ipse habet."

that epistle,) these elders (I say) are verily and indeed, such as himself calls bishops, in the proper sense and acceptation of the word.

6. The Cretan presbyters, who were there before St. Titus's coming, had not power to ordain others; that is, had not that power that Titus had. For Titus was sent thither for that purpose, therefore, to supply the want of that power. And now, because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the church; that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world; and mere presbyters could not do it; and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him; it follows undeniably, that St. Paul sent Titus to ordain men, with the same power that himself had; that is, with more than his first Cretan presbyters, that is, bishops; and he means them in the proper sense.

7. That by "elders in several cities," he means "bishops," is also plain, from the place where they were to be ordained ; κατὰ πόλιν, not κατὰ κωμὴν, οι Karà πOλíxνiov "In populous cities, not in villagetowns;" for no bishops were ever suffered to be in village-towns; as is to be seen in the councils of Sardis, of Chalcedon,d and St. Leo; the cities, therefore, do at least highly intimate, that the persons to be ordained were not mere presbyters.

But

The issue of this discourse is: That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain bishops, himself was a bishop, to be sure, at least. If he had ordained only presbyters, it would have proved that. this infers him to be a metropolitan, forasmuch as he was bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his own constitution, and yet of proper diocesses. However, if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar, it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes, upon the confusion of" episcopus" and "presbyter;" and at least infers his being a bishop, if not a great deal more.

Yea; but did not St. Titus ordain no mere pres

66

too; and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this epistle, but by consequence and comprehension, within the superior order. For he that ordains " a bishop," first makes him " deacon," and then he obtains καλὸν βαθμὸν, "a good degree;" and then "a presbyter," and then, a bishop." So that these inferior orders are presupposed, in the authorizing the supreme; and by giving direction for the qualifications of bishops, he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher.

Howsoever it be then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person; and then it follows undeniably, that either this coercive jurisdiction was not neces-byters? Yes, most certainly. But so he did deacons sary for the church; (which would be either to suppose men impeccable, or the church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of schism and tumultuary factions, without possibility of relief;) or if it was necessary, then, because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authority to do it, with the same power he had himself; and, therefore, since he alone had this coercion in his own person, so should his successors; and then, because a single presbyter could not have it over his brethren, by the confession of all sides, nor the college of presbyters, which were there before his coming, had it not; (for why, then, was Titus sent with a new commission;) nor those which he was to ordain, if they were but mere presbyters, could not have it, no more than the presbyters that were there before his coming it follows, that those elders, which St. Paul sent Titus to ordain, being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false doctors and prating preachers, and with authority to silence them, (as is evident in the first chapter of b Advers. Jovinian. < Cap. 6.

2. Add to this, that he that ordains bishops in cities, sets there τážɩ yεvvηtɩký, "ordinem generativum patrum," as Epiphanius calls episcopacy ; and, therefore, most certainly with intention, not that it should be χεὶρ ἄκυρος, manus mortua," but to produce others; and, therefore, presbyters and deacons.

66

3. St. Paul made no express provision for villages, and yet, most certainly, did not intend to leave them destitute; and, therefore, he took order that such ordinations should be made in cities, Epist. 87. ad. Episc. Afric.

■ Can. 17.

e