A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII. That the great change of Government hitherto deſcribed (the making of new ſpecies of Churches, a new Epiſcopacy, and a new ſort of half-ſub-presbyters, with the Depoſition of the old,) was ſinfully done, and not according to the intent of the Apoſtles.
THere are two pretences (and no more that I know of) made to juſtifie all this foredeſcribed change. The firſt is by Dr. Hammond when he was hard put to it at laſt, in anſwer to the London Miniſters, which is, That Subpresbyters were Ordained in Saint John's time, and therefore by him. The ſecond is ordinary, that though de facto the Apoſtles ſetled but ſingle Paſtors (without Sub-presbyters at leaſt) over ſingle Churches or Aſſemblies, yet this was not done with an Obligatory purpoſe, for the ſo fixing of it; But only de facto, pro tempore, as a State of immaturity, with a purpoſe and intent, that it ſhould grow up to the change of this at maturity.
I. To the firſt Pretence I anſwer. 1. What probability is there that one Apoſtle when all the reſt were dead ſhould make ſo great a change in their Church Orders? Either it was part of the Apoſtolical Commiſſion and work to ſettle Church Offices and orders for Government, or not. (as to the ſpecies, if Chriſt had not before done it; or to ſettle it by revealing what Chriſt did command them; either from Chriſt's mouth, or the Spirits inſpiration, to …tle the Catholick Church, as Moſes did the Jewiſh.) If it were none of their Commiſſioned Office work, then it was none of John's: And then it is done ſo as may be yet undone. But if it were John's work it was Theirs; And if theirs, why did they not perform it? Even while they had that promiſe, Matth. 15. 20, 21. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, &c. And, If two of you agree of a thing, &c. If you ſay that there was no need till they were all dead, I anſwer, It is a Fiction. The greateſt numerous Church at Jeruſalem, had more need of more than One to officiate among them, (and ſo had Epheſus, Antioch, Coritnb, &c.) than moſt Churches elſe had in St. John's days. And were all the Apoſtles ſo negligent and forgetful?
2. What proof is there that St. John did make this change? It is either by Scripture that it is proved, or by Hiſtory. 1. Not by Scripture: For 1. No Scripture mentioneth S. John's doing it. 2. Dr. Hammond and his followers confeſs that it was not done (as can be proved) in Scripture times. And Chronologers ſuppoſe that there was but a year or two, between his death, and the end of Scripture times, that is, the writing of his Apocalypſe. And is it probable that he began ſo great a Change the laſt year of his life?
2. And Hiſtory maketh no mention of it at all. (For I am aſhamed to anſwer their nonconcluding reaſon, from St. John's bringing a young prodigal to a Presbyter to be educated, or his Ordaining Presbyters, when it is no more than is ſaid of the other Apoſtles.) Let them give us, if they can, any Satisfactory proof, that S. John alone, a year or two ere he died, made this new ſpecies of Presbyters and Churches, that we may believe it to be of God. But blind preſumptions we dare not truſt.
3. None of the Ancient Churches, Councils or Doctors (that ever I could find) did ever hold that Subpresbyters were inſtituted by St. John alone, and theſe changes made by him: How then ſhall we think that men of yeſterday can tell us without them, and better than they, and contrary to them, the hiſtory of thoſe times?
4. By as good a courſe as this, what humane corruption may not be defended, and Scripture ſuppoſed inſufficient to notifie Gods Church-inſtitutions to us? When there is nothing ſaid in Scripture for them, the Papiſts or others may ſay that S. John made this or that Change when all the reſt were dead: But why muſt we believe them?
5. And the Church hath rejected this plea already long ago. When Papias pleaded that he had the Millenary Doctrine from St. John himſelf, and when the Eaſtern Churches pretended his Authority for their time of Eaſters obſervation; here was incomparably a fairer ſhew of St. John's Authority than is produced by Dr. H. in the preſent caſe: And yet both were over-ruled by the Conſent of the Churches.
II. And that it cannot be proved to be the Apoſtles intentions that their eſtabliſhment herein ſhould be but temporary, and left to the will of man to change, I have largely proved in my Diſput. 1. of Church Government long ago. I now only ſay,
1. That which the Apoſtles did in execution of a Commiſſion of Chriſt, for which he promiſed and gave them his infallible Spirit, was the work of Chriſt himſelf and the Spirit, and not to be changed but by an Authority equal to that which did it. But ſuch was the ſetling of the ſpecies of Churches and Elders. Ergo—&c. The Commiſſion is before recited from Scripture, and ſo is the promiſe and gift of the Spirit to perform it.
2. Where there is full proof of a Divine Inſtitution by the Apoſtles, and no proof of a purpoſe that men ſhould afterward change it, or that this inſtitution ſhould be but for a time, and then ceaſe; there that Inſtitution is to be ſuppoſed to ſtand in force, and the repeal, ceſſation, or allowed mutation to befeigned. But there is full proof of a Divine inſtitution by the Apoſtles that Preesbyters with the power of Government were placed over ſingle Churches (and no other ſaith Dr. H.) And there is no proof brought us at all, of either Repeal, Ceſſation, or Allowance for mutation—Ergo &c.—They confeſs de facto all that we deſire, viz. 1. That there was then none but ſingle Churches or Congregations under one Biſhop. 2. That there were no Subpresbyters. Let them now prove the Allowance of a Change.
3. That ſuppoſition is not to be granted which leaveth nothing ſure in the Chriſtian Churches and Religion: But ſuch is the ſuppoſition of a change of the Apoſtles Orders in theſe points. Ergo.
If the after times may change theſe Orders, who can prove that they may not change all things elſe of ſupernatural inſtitution? As the Lords day, Baptiſm, the Lords Supper, the Bible, the Miniſtry yet remaining, &c. And if ſo, nothing is ſure,
Object. Chriſt himſelf inſtituted theſe, and therefore they may not be changed.
Anſw. 1. It was not Chriſt himſelf that wrote the Scripture, but his ſervants by his Spirit. 2. Chriſt himſelf did that mediately which his Apoſtles did by his Mandate and Spirit. Matth. 28. 20. The Spirit was given them to bring all things to their remembrance which he had ſpoken to them. And to cauſe them to Teach the Churches all things which Chriſt had commanded them. And as Chriſt made the Sin againſt the Holy Ghoſt to be greater than that which was but directly againſt his humanity, and as he promiſed his Diſciples that by that Spirit they ſhould do greater works than his, ſo that which his Spirit in them did eſtabliſh, was of no leſs authority, than if Chriſt had perſonally eſtabliſhed it.
4. By this rule the Prelates themſelves may be yet taken down by as good authority as the Apoſtles other ſettlement was changed: For if it was done by Humane Authority, there is yet as great Humane power to make that further change: Wherever they place it, in Kings, Biſhops, or Councils, they may yet put down Biſhops, by as good authority as they put down what the Apoſtles ſet up; and may ſet up more new orders ſtill, by as good authority as they ſet up theſe half-presbyters: And ſo the Church ſhall change as the Moon.
5. That which is accounted a reproach to all Governours is not without proof to be imputed to God, and his inſpired Apoſtles. But to make oft and ſudden changes of Government, is accounted a reproach to all Governours: Ergo—
For it is ſuppoſed that they wanted either foreſight and wiſdom to know what was to be done, or Power to maintain it. To make Laws and ſe… up Churches, Officers, and Orders, this year, and to take them down, and ſet up new ones a few years after, ſeemeth levity and mutability in man: And therefore muſt not without cauſe and proof be aſcribed to God. And the rather becauſe that Moſes Laws had ſtood ſo long, and the taking down of them was a ſcandal very hardly born: And if the Apoſtles that did it, ſhould ſet up by the Spirit others in their ſtead, to continue but till they died, this would be more ſtrange and increaſe the offence.
6. There was no ſufficient change of the Reaſon of the thing, Therefore there was no ſufficient reaſon to change the thing it ſelf (if Prelates had had Authority to do it.) If you ſay, That in Scripture times there were not worthy men enow, to make Subpresbyters and Biſhops both of: I anſwer, It is notoriouſly falſe, by what Scripture ſpeaketh, 1. Of the large pourings out of the Spirit in thoſe times: 2. Of the many Prophets, Teachers, Interpreters, and other inſpired ſpeakers which were then in one Congregation, Act. 13. 1, 2. And 1 Cor. 14. Inſomuch that at Corinth Paul was put to limit them in the number of ſpeakers, and the exerciſe of their gifts. 2. And it's known by hiſtory and the great paucity of Writers in the next age, that when thoſe miraculous gifts abated, there was a greater paucity of fit Teachers, proportionably to the number of Churches, than before. 3. And who can prove that if there had been more men, the Apoſtles would have made a new Order of Presbyters, and not only more of the ſame Order?
2. Obj. But the Churches grew greater after than before?
Anſw. 1. Where was there three Churches in the whole world for 300 years ſo numerous as the Church at Jeruſalem is ſaid to have been in Scripture? 2. If the Churches were more numerous, why might they not have been diſtributed into more particular Churches? 3. Or how prove you that Presbyters ſhould not rather have been increaſed in the number of the ſame Order, than a new Order invented? 4. This contradicts the former objection: For if that Churches were ſo ſmall and few before, it's like there might have been the more gifted perſons ſpared to have made two Orders in a Church. 5. And what if in Conſtantine's days the Churches grew yet greater, than they did in the ſecond, or third age compared to the Apoſtles? will it follow that ſtill more new Orders may be deviſed, as Subprieſts were?
7. There are worſer reaſons of the change too viſible: And therefore it is not to be imputed to a ſecret unproved mental intention of the Apoſtles. In Chriſts own time, even the Apoſtles themſelves ſtrove, who ſhould be the greateſt. Falſe Apoſtles afterward troubled Paul by ſtriving for a ſuperiority of reputation. Diotrephes loved to have the preeminence. Sect-maſters roſe up in the Apoſtles days: Acts 20. 30. Of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things, to draw away diſciples after them. Some cauſed Diviſions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which they had learned, Rom. 16. 17. In Clem. Rom. time the Church of Corinth was contending about Epiſcopacy and ſuperiority, even Lay-men aſpiring to the chair. Peter ſeemeth to foreſee what Paſtors would do, when he forewarneth them not to Lord it over Gods heritage, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. Victor quickly practiſed the contrary when he Excommunicated the Aſian Biſhops. See Grotius his complaint of the early and ancient pride, contention, and tyranny of the Biſhops, De Imper. ſum. Pot. p. 360, 361. Novatian with Novatus quickly ſhewed this ſpirit (if they be not wronged) at Rome and Carthage; and ſo did Feliciſſimus and his partners againſt Cyprian. What ſtirrs were there for many ages between the Cecilians and the Donatiſts? What horrid work was there at the Concil. Epheſ. 1. And Concil Chalcedon. & Concil. Eph. 2. between the contending Biſhops on each ſide? The reading of the Acts would make a Chriſtians face to bluſh. What ſtrife between Anthymius and Baſil for a larger Dioceſe? What work againſt Nazianzen to caſt him out of Conſtantinople? What ſad exclamations maketh he againſt Synods, and againſt theſe Names and Titles of preeminence and higher ſeats, wiſhing the Church had never known them? And yet he was angry with his friend Baſil for placing him in ſo ſmall a Biſhoprick as Soſunis. What abundance of Epiſtles doth Iſidore Peluſiota write to Euſebius the Biſhop and Soſimus and the other wicked Prieſts, detecting and reproving their malignity, drunkenneſs, and horrid wickedneſs? And how ſharply doth he lament that a faithful Miniſtry is degenerate into carnal formal Tyranny, and that the Biſhops adorned the Temples under the name of the Church, while they maligned and perſecuted the Godly who are the Church indeed? How lamentable a deſcription doth Sulpit. Severus give of the whole Synods of Biſhops that followed Ithacius and Idacius? And in particular of Ithacius himſelf, as a fellow that made no conſcience of what he ſaid: And what did Martin think of them who avoided all their Communions to the death, and would never come to any of their Synods? Eſpecially becauſe by ſtirring up the Magiſtrate againſt the Priſcillianiſts, they had taught the vulgar fury to abuſe and reproach any man that did but read, and pray, and faſt, and live ſtrictly, as if he were to be ſuſpected of Priſcillianiſm (which Hooker himſelf complaineth of, Pref.) And Ambroſe alſo did avoid them. What bloody work did Cyril and his party make at Alexandria? What a man was Theophilus after him? What work made he againſt Chryſoſtom? What a Character doth Socrates give of him? What inſolence and furious zeal did Epiphanius ſhew in the ſame cauſe, in thruſting himſelf into the Church of Chryſoſtom to ſtir up his hearers to forſake him? Hierom had a finger in the ſame cauſe: His quarrels with Johan Hieroſol. with Ruffinus, his abuſive bitterneſs againſt Vigilantius, &c. are well known. The multitudes of Canons for preſerving the grandeur of Patriarchs, and Metropolitanes, and Prelates, on one ſide, and for keeping ſmall Cities without Biſhops, ne vileſcat nomen Epiſcopi, and for reſtraining Pride, ſelf-exaltation, enlargement of Dioceſe, encroachment on each other, on the other ſide, do all ſhew the diſeaſes that needed ſuch a Cure, or that had ſuch a vent. In a word the Biſhops never ceaſed contending, partly for their ſeveral opinions and errours; and partly for preeminence and rule, till they had brought it to that paſs as we ſee it at this day, between Rome and Conſtantinople, and the moſt of the Chriſtian world. From all which it is moſt apparent that Pride and Contention were cured but in part in the Paſtors of the Churches: And that the remaining part was ſo ſtrong and operative, as maketh it too credible that there were ill cauſes enow for enlarging of Dioceſes and getting many Churches into one mans power, and ſetting up a new Order of half-ſubpresbyters; And that the event of ſuch a change is no proof that it was the Intent of the Apoſtles, that this change ſhould be made when they were dead; no more than you can prove that all this turbulent pride and ſtrife was intended by them.
If any ſay, that it is not probable that ſo ſoon after the Apoſtles all the Churches would conſpire in ſuch an error: I anſwer, If all theſe things before mentioned were not done, or if matter of known fact may be denied as improbable, then that objection hath ſome ſence. To which I add,
8. I have proved that this change was not made at once, but by ſlow degrees: No nor made ſo ſoon as is pretended, nor ſo univerſally, but in long time, except at Alexandria and Rome; It was long before the Churches knew it.
9. And I think none will deny but other things were taken up as the Traditions of the Apoſtles, and all the Churches cuſtomes, which yet are now rejected as no ſuch thing. To ſay no more of Eaſter and the Millennium, there were five ceremonies which were accounted the Churches univerſal cuſtomes, and traditions, and none was to omit, viz. not kneeling in adoration on the Lords days, Adoring towards the Eaſt, the White Garment, the Milk and Honey and the Chriſm to the Baptized: But were theſe ſuch? Socrates, Sozomen, and Nicephorus tell us great Reaſons to believe that (whatever ſome ſay) the time of Eaſter, the Faſt of Lent, and many other obſervances, and among others the largeneſs or ſmallneſs of Dioceſes, were no Laws of God or the Apoſtles, but uſages voluntarily and diverſly taken up, in ſeveral places, in which no Chriſtians ſhould condemn each other, but allow a liberty of diſſent and difference, without breach of Charity or peace.
10. Moreover it is a clear proof that the Apoſtles intended no ſuch change, in that they left no Rule, Inſtructions or Directions for it, nor for the calling of the new ſort of Presbyters, nor for their performance of their places. They left full directions for the Ordination and Regulation of Biſhops, called Pesbyters, and for Deacons, not leaving out ſo much as Deaconeſſes; And would they have wholly omitted all inſtructions for the new order of Presbyters, and Prelates, &c. if they had intended them?
11. To put all out of controverſie, God hath told us that his ſetled orders are for continuance. Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. Such Offices as Chriſt hath given to the Church, are for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt, till we all come to the unity of the Faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, &c. If God do give ſome to lay the foundation, and ſome to build thereon, yet he leaveth not men to make new Officers beſides all theſe, to do his appointed work. Timothy had charge to propagate the ſame Doctrine, and the ſame Church orders, even to the coming of Chriſt, 1 Tim. 6. 13, 14. 2 Tim. 2. 2. and 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. Heb. 10. 23, 24, 25. But of this I deſire the Reader to ſee full proofs in my 2. ſheet for the Miniſtry.
12. Laſtly, the holy Scripture is a perfect ſtanding Rule for all things neceſſary to Salvation, and Divine Faith and duty, and to Church worſhip and Communion. If not, what is? And where ſhall we find it? And what ſtop ſhall we make of our additions, if there be no Law or Rule to govern the univerſal Church? And who are they that have power to Rule the Church univerſal? See my Key for Catholicks, againſt the claim of Pope and General Councils. But if it be, then the adding and altering is preſumption, except in circumſtantials which God hath left to mans determination: And then why muſt we ſwear never to alter unneceſſary circumſtances, were they ſuch?