Necessity of Reforming Our Churches, Assertion 2
The 2. Aſſertion.
For the ſpace of 200. yeares after Christ the Viſible Churches vſing governement were not Dioceſan Churches, but particular ordinary Congregations only: and the Biſhops (as they were particularly called after the Apostles) were only Pariſhionall not Dioceſan Biſhops, and differed from other Paſtors in Prioritie of order not in Maioritie of rule.
IN this Aſſertion we obſerve 3. diſtinct partes. 1. A Church was then but one Ordinarie Congregation: and generally in each Citie then there was but one ſuch Congregation only. 2. The particular ordinary Congregations had in themſelves their owne governement Eccleſiaſticall. 3. There was no Maioritie of rule, but Prioritie of order only, in a Biſhop then compared with other Paſtors.
The first is proved by theſe Testimonies following.
FIrſt let vsus conſider that in the Apoſtles dayes the ordayning of Elders“Citie by Citie. Tir. 1.5. foreign&*Church by Church, Act. 14.23. foreign was all one thing; namely becauſe in each Citie in thoſe times there were not many Churches in number, but one onelyonly proper Church or Congregation of Chriſtians. Which alſo“Pag. 19.20 aboue we further declared. Then for the next age after, *Anno 100Ignatius plainly ſheweth the common ſtate of the viſible Churches in this time alſo to be ſuch: where he thus writeth.†Ignat. ad Trall. Without a Biſhop, without a Senate of Elders, without Deacons, &c. foreign. Without theſe there is no Church, no company of of Saints, no holy Cōgregation. Which proveth that then each Citie had but only one ordinary Cōgregation of Chriſtians. Sith doubtles each Citie then had but one ſuch Senat of Elders, and but one Biſhop, in Ignatius vnderſtanding. Further alſo he perſwading the Church of Philadelphia to vnitie and concord ſaith.“Ad Philadelph. I exhort you vſe one Faith, one Preaching, one ſupper of the Lord, &c. For there is but one Communiō Table foreign to the whole Church (heere in this Citie) and one Biſhop with a company of Elders and Deacons. Therefore in this Citie there was then but one Ordinary Congregation of Chriſtians. Neither ſpeaketh he of this Church in Philadelphia as being of an other forme or conſtitution then other Churches then were, but indeed as being conformable and like to the maner of the reſt. If we tranſlate foreign as ſom like better [to every Church] diſtributively, then our Aſſertion is more cleerely avouched. Againe touching the Church of Philadelphia he ſaith,*Ibid. The Biſhop is Gods Ambaſſador to a people foreign that are togeather in one place. Laſtly writing elſwhere to the ſame effect he ſaith ſo much touching an other Viſible Church, namely in the Citie Magneſia; “Ad Magneſ.foreign, &c. All of you com togeather into the fame place to prayer; Let there be but one common prayer, one minde, one hope, &c.
Iustin Martyr ſhewing the maner of the Churches worſhipping of God in the Cities where they then were, obſerveth the very ſame. Saith he;*Iuſt. Mart. Apolog. 2. Anno 142. foreign. On the Sonday as it is called All (the Christians) dwelling in the Cities, or abroad in the Country, do com togeather into the ſame place, &c. It is very like that this was ſpecially ſpoken of the Church of Rome then: ſeeing there Iustin wrot and offered vp his Apologie to Antoninus the Emperor. Though with all he ſignifieth that he meanes other Churches in other*foreign. Cities, and in Country-places likewiſe indifferently. Therefore then, All the Chriſtians in each Citie (yea thoſe in Rome) made not divers but one conſtant and ordinary Congregation only.
Irenaeus in his time obſerveth no materiall difference betweene Biſhops and Preſbyters Miniſters of the word. Which is a plaine argument that Biſhops then were not Dioceſan Biſhops overſeeing many cōſtantly diſtinct Congregations, but were Paſtors of one particular ordinary Congregation only. Thus he ſaith,*Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 3. Traditio vi…. ſcripta: vel neceſſario conſequens ab … quod eſt ſcriptum per Apoſtol…s. Traditio quae est ab Apoſtolis per ſucceſsionem Preſbyterorum custoditur. The tradition which is taken from the Apostles is kept by ſucceſsiō of Preſbyters. In the ſame place alſo: Epiſcopi ab Apostolis instituti in Eccleſijs & Succeſſores eorum vſque ad nos. Biſhops ordayned by the Apostles in the Churches, and their Succeſſors vntill our times. Where alſo the Romane Biſhops Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, he nameth Presbyters. By all which it is evident, that the name Biſhop & Preſbyter was not yet exactly diſtinguiſhed as after it was, but remayned yet (as it were) common and indifferent to all Miniſters of the word, even ſo as it was vſed by the Apoſtles in their writings. Alſo it appeareth heereby that there was not then any kind of Dioceſan Biſhops. For the name then ought to hauehave ben very diſtinct, and peculiar to him, as afterward it came to paſſe. Much leſſe had any Biſhop a power to rule over a whole Dioceſſe. Otherwiſe Ireneus ſhould not hauehave vſed theſe names and termes then ſo indifferently.
Tertullians teſtimony alſo ſeemeth very agreable in this point. Where ſpeaking of Chriſtians ordinary Congregations in Cities in his time he ſaith Corpus ſumus, &c. Pertulian. Apolog. … …9.we are all one Body, &c. And againe Coimus in Cetum & aggregationem, &c. We all com togeather into a Company and Congregation. He ſaith not plurally in cetus & aggregationes into divers Companies & Congregations; as ſurely it ſeemeth he ſhould and would hauehave ſaid, if there had ben then in one Citie many ordinary conſtant Congregations. Specially ſeeing he ſaith alſo of the ſame ſingular Congregation: Ibidem (est) Cenſura divina: iudicatur magno cum pondere, &c. There are divine Cenſures exerciſed. The iudgement is given with great waight, &c. Which ſurely was done in every ſuch conſtant Congregation as before he ſpake of. And yet but in one ſingular Congregation & not in many, nor in one over many conſtantly appointed in one Citie at that time.
Euſebius Hiſtory ſheweth that the Churches of the moſt famous Cities were each of them primitiuely no more but a Pariſh only; that is, but one ordinary conſtant Congregation only. As wehre he nameth the Church of IeruſalemaEuſe. lib. 3.11. the Pariſh of Ieruſalem, of Epheſus the Pariſh of bLib. 3.28.Epheſus, and ſo ofcLib. 3.13.18. lib. 4.1.4.5.19. Alexandria, ofdLib. 3.32 Hierapolis, ofeLib. 4.22 Corinth, offLib 4.25. Sardis, ofgLib. 5.5. Lyons, & divers Churches the hLib. 4.22 6.Pariſhes of Crete. He no where mentioneth many Churches nor Pariſhes vnderunder one Biſhop in any Citie till Iulianus time in Alexandria, as before we obſerved.
By Epiphanius teſtimonie alſo our Aſſertion is maintained. Who ſaith Primitiuely*Epiph cōtr. Ha…. 73. in a ſmall Cōgregation a Biſhop was ordayned alone without other Preſbyters aſſiſting him. And in ſom places only Preſbyters and Deacons without a Biſhop. In other places, that is in great & populous Congregatiōs where they had meete men to be choſen, there they choſe in each of them a Biſhop with other aſſiſtant Preſbyters. By which it appeareth conſequently that everywhere a Biſhop then was but of one particular Congregation only whether greater or ſimaller.
The ſecond part is proved.
The particular Congregations had their owne goverment Ecclefiaſticall. Ignat. ad Philad.NEither let any imagine that theſe particular Congregations then wanted their owne Eccleſiaſticall government among themſelves only. It is moſt evident that they had it & exerciſed it only within themſelues ordinarily. Which is plaine by that of Ignatius writing to one of them thus: foreign. It is meet for you as being the Church of God to choſe by common cōſent your Biſhop. And to an other particular Church thus,*Ad Smyrna. foreign. In the Church (which is with you at Smyrna) there is not any thing aboue the Biſhop. He meaneth the Biſhop or Paſtor of the particular Congregation is of greateſt authoritie and aboue any other there whomſoever. So that they in that Congregation had all governement ſimply and ſolely among themſelves. He ſpeaketh heere of governing foreign Spiritually, not foreign Civilly. For thus the Magiſtrate is Supreme both in and over each Church and whatſoever Church matters, as Mai. Beza religiouſly and dutifully*Theod. Bez. de Excom. & Preſbyt. ſpeaketh, & we†Pag. 57. before obſerved. Yea verily thus the Magiſtrat is ſupreme whether he care for the Church, or care not. Hence therfore we conclude, that theſe particular Churches had the ordinary Eccleſiaſticall government of themſelves among themſelves. Tertulliā alſo in the place before cited ſheweth ſo much, ſpeaking of each particular ordinarie Congregation in his dayes: Ibidem (est) cenſura divina. Iudicatur magno cum pondere vt apud certos de Dei conſpectu. Apol. ….39.Preſident probati quique Seniores. There are divine Cenſures. They iudge with great waight and adviſednes, as being ſure that God ſeeth them. The approved Elders are the chiefe, or do governe theſe Cenſures. Therfore all particular ordinary Congregations inioyed their owne ſpirituall governement then in thoſe times. There is no ſuſpicion of any reſtraint or abridging of them therin till Dionyſius the 13. Biſhop of Alexandria, Anno 260.at the ſooneſt.
The third part is proved.
No Maioritie of rule, but only Prioritie of order in a primitive Biſhop.BEſides the teſtimonies before alleaged, Ambroſe in plain wordes telleth vsus this, that primitively*Ambro in Eph. 4. & 1 Tim. 3. A Biſhop was no more but primus Presbyter, the foremost in order among the other Miniſters of the word in the Synods, or where there were other in the ſame Congregation with him. Therefore the Biſhop then differed not in Maioritie of rule from any other Paſtor. And therefore then there was no Dioceſan Church vſing governement, nor Dioceſan Biſhop ruling other Paſtors and Churches. Much leſſe was there any Dioceſan Lord Biſhop then.
Ierome doth likewiſe: Where he ſaith,*Ierom. ad Evagr. & in Tit. 1. A Biſhop and an Elder or common Paſtor, by Divine institution and ordinance, are all one. And Maioritie among them came in by the custome of the Church and Humane diſpoſition. He meaneth Maioritie of Ruling, becauſe he ſheweth heere that formerly all did rule“in cōmuni… or communi Preſbyterorum conſili…. in common. Wherefore by his iudgement there was not at the firſt any Maioritie of rule in a Biſhop over Paſtors. Much leſſe were there any Dioceſan L. Biſhops ruling by their ſole authoritie in thoſe times. Som Prioritie in order, we doubt not, was alwayes: Firſt Pariſhionall, and then Dioceſan ſom good while after, as before is ſhewed. Yea the Pariſhionall prioritie of order was (we deny not) conſtant, yea even among Paſtors who had otherwiſe all one Office intirely. I ſay, this was where there were divers Miniſters of the word in one particular Congregation. As we doubt not there were in ſom places. Now for this matter, viz. Biſhops Maioritie in governement above Preſbyters, and alſo concerning Ieromes opinion thereof, it is not amiſſe to obſerve what D. Bilſon alſo hath taught and avouched. In his*Againſt the Semina. part. 2. pag. 318. Firſt Booke he ſayeth, It was not by the institution of Christ, nor his Apoſtles, but long after by the conſent of the Churches, the Custom of the tymes, and the will of Princes. Where alſo he ſheweth that this was Ieromes iudgement likewiſe. Howſoever ſince (I can not tell how, nor why) D. Bilſon †Perpe…. gov. pag. 236.237.238.changed much his minde heerein: and yet with no more diſcrepance from himſelfe then from the trueth, and from almoſt all learned men beſide both ancient and later.
Further, this reaſon prooveth the preſent whole Aſſertion. If the word foreign vſed religiouſly for a Church Viſible with order and governement, do and ought to keepe in all good Authors a iuſt proportion anſwerable to the Civill and Originall vſe thereof, then it muſt needs be in proper ſignification a particular Cōgregation only. For Originally and Civilly in all Greeke Authors foreign ſignifieth one particular Aſſembly in one place only, as an Aſſembly of the people at Athens, in Epheſus, in Corinth, &c being com togeather in their publike iudgement-place. Which is evident by the writinges of Plato, Demosthenes, Iſocrates, Xenophon, &c. Yea in the*Acte 19.…2.39.40. Actes of the Apoſtles we do finde it likewiſe ſo vſed.
But the Apoſtles and other Eccleſiaſticall writers for 200. yeares after Chriſt vſing this worde for a Viſible Church with order and governement do ſpeak properly, and ſo ought to keepe a iuſt proportion in it anſwerable to the Civill and originall vſe thereof. This ſentence is vndoubtedly true and vndenyable. If any think he can ſhew to the co…rie, let it be ſhewed.
Therefore the Apoſtles and other Eccleſiaſticall Writers, for 200. yeares ſpace after Chriſt vſing this word for a Viſib… Church with order and governement, do ſignifie by it a particular Congregation only. And it no where ſignifieth in them a Dioceſan Church, &c.
Where note that the ſtrength of this reaſon ſtandeth wholy in the proper taking and vſing of this word foreign a Church. Note.The Adverſaries error hath advantage by the improper and ambiguous vſe of it: which is Sophiſticall. Yea if you will, their ſenſe is a“By the Scriptures verdict. falſe ſenſe of it; wherein yet it often vſed in Writers and in common ſpeach for want of due regard. By which meanes alſo ſundry other errors have crept in heeretofore & much prevayled, even by miſ-vnderſtanding of certayne wordes. As we may ſee in foreign: and in Latin Meritum, Equivocall wordes.Poenitentia, Crux, Sacramentum, &c.
Out of all thoſe Teſtimonies before alleadged, this generall reaſon may be concluded. No Dioceſan Church or Biſhop was knowen or once heard of in the world, till many diſtinct ordinary Congregations began to be appointed in one Citie.
But there was no Multiplication nor diſtinction of many ordinarie and conſtant Congregations in a Citie, till about 200. yeares after Chriſt. Som cōiecture, it was long after this. No man ſheweth that it was before this. The truth in deed heereof, that for this while generally in each Citie there was but one ordinary conſtant Congregation of Chriſtians, hath ben plentifully ſhewed in the Proofes of this 2. Aſſertion before going.
Therefore till about 200. yeares after Chriſt there was no manner of Dioceſan Church or Biſhop knowen, nor once heard of in all the Chriſtian world. No not the Dioceſan Titular Biſhop: much leſſe any Dioceſan ruling Biſhop.
Where yet we deny not but that one particular Congregation or Church being populous might occaſionally and vncertainly in the time of perſecution for their ſafetie ſake aſſemble in divers ſmaller Meetings.As before we noted pag. 19.20. As alſo they did we doubt not, many times within the ſpace of theſe 200. yeares after Chriſt. Howbeit yet theſe ſmaller Meetings were not ſo many Churches properly: becauſe they were not ordinary ſett Companies, nor conſtantly diſtinct Societies, as Churches ought to be, and as our Pariſhes now are. Thoſe divers Occaſionall and vncertaine meetings made but one Church and ordinary Congregation,Act. 6, 1. yea though the whole nomber were too populous for one actual Aſſembly ordinarily. It is true in ſuch caſe they ought to diſtinguiſh and diſtribut themſelves into divers competent ſet Congregations which ſhould be ſo many proper and intire Churches. But when they are (as they were in thoſe primitive times) dayly in great perill of cruell perſecution, they may with reaſon remaine ſomwhile vndiſtinguiſhed, & not ſo diſtribute themſelves, which in time of peace and ſafetie they always ought to do. Wherin now ſom Reformed Churches beyond Seas do ſeeme to offend.
If any ſay the troubleſomnes of thoſe times or the yong age of the Churches who were not yet growen vp to perfection, cauſed that there were no Dioceſan Churches with governement nor Dioceſan ruling Biſhops then. And we take advantage of the ſpecial ſtate of thoſe times, vrging it to our purpoſe generally.
I anſwer; we vrge from the ſtate and order of the Apoſtolike primitive Churches nothing but what is generall in them, and ought to be perpetuall with vsus. So that neither the troubleſomnes of thoſe times, nor the young age of the Churches then do give vsus our advantage. For notwithſtanding theſe ſpeciall Circumſtances the Viſible Churches vſing gouernement and the Biſhops then, might have ben very well Dioceſan and Provinciall, if Chriſt had ſo inſtituted and the Apoſtles had ſo framed and left them. Nothing in the world hindereth but they might eaſily have ben ſuch even in thoſe times. But the world knew none ſuch then, as I have ſaid. And it is impietie to ſay Chriſtes Churches were vnperfect then, as touching their Viſible forme & conſtitution, their Miniſtery, and the whole lawfull order of worſhipping God in them. Or that the times ſince have made them more perfect then they were as the Apoſtles left them. Wherefore this advantage do we ſtand vponupon, and this do we vrge, viz. the ſame patterne and forme of Viſible Churches vſing governement that was then vniverſally practiſed & receaved immediatly from Chriſt and the Apoſtles; which was Pariſhionall not Dioceſan, as hath ben declared.