A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. That it is not of Gods inſtitution, nor is pleaſing to him that there be no Churches and Biſhops but in Cities; or that a City with its territories, or Country adjacent, be the bounds of each Church.
SOme late moſt eſteemed defenders of Dioceſanes, eſpecially Dr. Hammond, lay ſo great a ſtreſs upon the ſuppoſition, that the Apoſtles ſetled the Churches in the Metropolitane and Dioceſane order, and that they did partly in imitation of the Jewiſh policy, and partly as a thing neceſſary by the nature of the thing, that even in Heathen Kingdomes, when Churches are gathered in any Cities, they muſt have a difference of Church power over each other as they find the Cities to have a civil power (as you heard before from Dr. H.) that I think it meet here breifly to prove, 1. That it was not of the Apoſtles purpoſe to have Churches and Biſhops placed only in Cities, and not in Villages. 2. Nor that Church power ſhould thus follow the civil; 3. Nor that a City with its territories ſhould be the meaſure of the habitation of each Churches members. The licet in ſome caſes I deny not, but the oportet is the queſtion, yea and the licet in other caſes. The two firſt are proved together by theſe reaſons, following.
1. Chriſt himſelf our grand examplar did not only preach and convert Chriſtians in Cities, but in Country villages, where he held aſſemblies, and preacht and prayed, yea in mountains and in Ships: And though he planted no particular Churches with fixed Biſhops there, yet that was becauſe he did ſo no where. He performed all offices in the Country which he did in the Cities, except that which was appropriated to Jeruſalem by the Law and the inſtitution of his laſt ſupper, which could be done but in one place.
2. There is no Law of God (direct or indirect) which maketh it a duty to ſettle Churches and Biſhops in Cities only, and forbiddeth the ſetling them in Country villages: This is moſt evident to him that will ſearch the Scripture, and but try the pretended proofs of the late Prelatiſts; for the vanity of their pretenſions will eaſily appear; They have not ſo fair a pretenſe in the New Teſtament for aſſerting ſuch a Law, as the Pop: hath for his ſupermacy in [Peter feed my ſheep]. And where there is no Law, there is no obligation on us unto duty, and no ſin in omiſſion.
If they ſay that [the Apoſtles did plant Churches only in Cities comprehending their territories] I anſwer, 1. They prove that they planted them in Cities; but the ſilence of the Scriptures proveth not the Negative, that they planted none in Villages. 2. Nor have they a word of proof that each Church contained all Chriſtians in the Cities, with all the interjacent Villages. 3. Much leſs that they muſt contain all ſuch, when all the Countries were converted, and the Chriſtians were enow for many Churches. 4. Nor can they ever prove that the Apoſtles planting Churches only in Cities, was intended as a Law, to reſtrain men from planting them any where elſe; Any more than their not converting the Villages or the generality of the Cities, will prove that they muſt not be converted by any other: Or than that their ſetting up no Chriſtian Magiſtrates, or converting no Princes, will prove that there muſt be no ſuch thing. Whoever extended the obligation of Apoſtolical example to ſuch Negatives, as to do nothing which they did not? 5. The reaſon is moſt apparent why they preached firſt in Cities, becauſe there is no ſuch fiſhing as in the Sea; They had there the frequenteſt fulleſt audirories: And ſo they planted their firſt Churches there, becauſe they had moſt converts there. And it is known that Judea (a barren mountainous Coutrey of it ſelf) had been ſo harreſſed with Wars, that there was little ſafety and quiet expected in Countrey Villages; and the Roman Empire had been free from the ſame plague by ſuch ſhort intervals, that as many people as could, got into the Cities: (for all that know by experience what War is, do know the miſery of poor Country people who are at every wicked Soldiers mercy.) It was therefore among poor ſcattered labourers, a hard thing to get a conſiderable auditory: which maketh Mr. Eliots and his helpers work go on ſo heavily among the ſcattered Americans, who have no Cities or great Towns, becauſe they can rarely ſpeak to any conſiderable numbers. Now to gather from hence either that Villages muſt have no Churches or no Biſhops, is an impiety next to a concluding that they muſt not be aſſembled, taught, or worſhip God.
3. The reaſons are vain and null, which are pretended for ſuch a modelling of Churches to the form of the civil Government, and thus confining them to Cities. For, 1. There is no need that one Biſhop be the Governour of another at all; 2. And therefore no need that the Biſhop of a Metropolis govern the Biſhop of a leſſer City, or he, the Biſhop of a Village. 1. God hath not given one Biſhop power over another, as meer Biſhops. As Cyprian ſaith, in his Carth. Council, none of us are Biſhops of Biſhops, but Colleagues. Dr. Hammond himſelf ſaith, that the Biſhops are the Apoſtles Succeſſors, and the Apoſtles were equal in power and Independent, Annot. in 1 Tim. 3. c. p 732. Jeſus Chriſt diſpenſing them (all the particular Churches of the whole world by himſelf and adminiſtring them ſeverally, not by any one Oeconomus, but by the ſeveral Biſhops as inferiour heads of unity to the ſeveralbodies ſo conſtituted by the ſeveral Apoſtles in their plantations, each of them having foreign a ſeveral diſtinct commiſſion from Chriſt immediately, and ſubordinate to none but the ſupreme donor or plenipotentiary.] Indeed if it be not Biſhops, but Archbiſhops or Biſhops of Biſhops which are the Apoſtles Succeſſors, in order over the Biſhops as they are ſuppoſed to be over the Prieſts, then ſuch an order of Arch-Biſhops is of divine right; But not as Metropolitanes, or for the Cities ſake, but as general Officers to take care of many Churches, ſucceeding the Apoſtles.
2. And that Apoſtolical ſucceſſion is not the foundation of the Metropolitan or City power is plain; 1. Becauſe if the Biſhop or Arch-Biſhop be the immediate ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, there muſt be but juſt 13 or 14 in the whole world, if they ſucceed them fully in the accidentals of their office: But if not, than their reſidence in Cities, will not prove that they muſt ſucceed them in that accident, any more than in the number. 2. Becauſe (as is ſhewed) the Apoſtles tyed not themſelves to Cities only, and what they did in preferring Cities was occaſional (as is ſaid before): 3. Nor is there the leaſt proof (beyond an oſtentation of vain words and confidence) that ever the Apoſtles ſetled Churches according to the civil form, and put the Biſhops of leſſer Cities under the Metropolitans: No more than that among themſelves that Apoſtle was Ruler of the reſt, who had the Metropolis for his Seat: The Papiſts themſelves not pretending that Peter was Ruler of the reſt, becauſe Rome was his Seat, but that Rome muſt have the ruling Univerſal Biſhop, becauſe it was the Seat of Peter. And if the Metropolis made not one Apoſtle Ruler of the reſt, why ſhould it do ſo by their ſucceſſors? And I never heard any attempt to prove, that Mathew, Bartholomew, Lebbeus, James the Apoſtle, Thomas, Philip and every one of the Apoſtles had a diſtinct independent Metropolis for his Epiſcopal Seat. 4. Indeed its but vain words of them that pretend that the Apoſtles fixed themſelves in any Seat at all; but it is certain by their Office and by Hiſtory that they oft removed from place to place, in order to call as much of the world as they were capable, and were ſomtimes in Metropoles and ſometimes in other places: and though the ancients make them the firſt Biſhops of Churches, they do not ſay that they were Biſhops of any particular Churches only, excluſively to all others. But the ſame Apoſtle that Planted ten or twenty Churches was the firſt Biſhop of them all pro tempore, ſetling fixed Biſhops to ſucceed them. 5. And whoever dreamed that Mark who was no Apoſtle, was the Ruler of other Apoſtles, (at leaſt that came into his Province) becauſe Alexandria was the ſecond Metropolis?
4. This pretended forming of the Churches as aforeſaid; is contrary to the Ends of Church inſtitution and Communion: which are the publick worſhipping of God, and perſonal Communion of Parochians or Cohabitants in that worſhip, Sacraments and holy living, in mutual aſſiſtance. Whereas in a great part of the world, Country Villages are ſo far from any Cities, that if they muſt travel to them for this publick Communion, they muſt ſpend all the Lords day in travaile, and yet miſs their Ends, and come too late. Nor can Women, Children and aged ones poſſibly do it at all. But if they are to have no ſuch perſonal Communion with the City Churches, but have it ordinarily among themſelves, then (whatever men may ſay that ſtrive about the Name) they are not of that particular City Church as ſuch, but are of another Church at home, which muſt have a Biſhop̄ becauſe it is a Church.
5. Their Civil and City or Dioceſan frame contradicteth the plain inſtitution or Law of Chriſt and of his Spirit. For 1. Math. 28. 19. 20. it is the very Commiſſion of the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors (with whom Chriſt will be to the end of the world) to Teach or Diſciple all Nations, and then to Baptizc them, and ſo gather them into the Church Univerſal, and then Teach them as Diſciples all his Laws, which includeth Congregating them in perticular Churches where they muſt be ſo taught. Now as it is all Nations, even the whole Countryes and not the Cities only that muſt be Diſcipled or convicted and Baptized, ſo it is the whole Nations, Villages and all of Baptized perſons that muſt thus be Congregated into particular Churches and taught. 2. To which add Act. 14. 23. the poſitive exemplary and ſo obliging ordinary practice of the Apoſtles, They ordained them Elders in every Church: ſo that 1. It is Gods will that Villages have Churches. 2. And it is Gods will that every Church have a Biſhop (at leaſt) therefore it is Gods will that every Village have a Biſhop which have a Church; or that ſome Villages have Biſhops.
And though [every City be mentioned Tit. 1. 5. that only ſheweth that de facto then and there, Village Churches were rare or none, but not de jure they muſt not be gathered: nor doth he ſay [ordain Elders in Cities only]: much leſs [give them Rule according to the City power.]
And as Ceuchrea had a Church, which was no City, ſo Act. 14. 23. will prove that they ſhould have a Biſhop. For every Church is to have a Biſhop. And Ceuchrea was not a family-Church; and ſo the name not uſed equivocally: And Biſhop Downams aſſertion that it was a Church with a mean Presbyter under the Biſhop of Corinth, is a naked unproved ſaying that deſerveth no credit; and is contradicted by Doctor Hammond, who ſaith there was there no meer Presbyter in being.
6. Had this form been ſetled as they Pretend (in Cities only and Dioceſſes) there would have been uncertainty and contentions what places ſhould have Biſhops and Churches, and what places ſhould have none. For it is uncertain and litigious, what place is to be taken for a City and what not. For foreign ſometimes ſignifieth any great Town, and ſome times ſtrictly Towns incorprate, and ſometimes more ſtrictly eminent Corporations now called Cities with us here in England. And how great would the difficulty have been to determine when a Town was big enough to paſs for a City, or when it had privileges enow for that title. If it be ſaid, that the account and name then and thus uſed was the directory, they will then make Gods Church to depend for being upon a Name with heathen people. If they will call Ceucbrea a City, it ſhall have a Church; otherwiſe it ſhall have none. But there was no ſuch controverſie in thoſe times.
7. According to their model Churches ſhall be mutable and diſſolvible at the will of the Magiſtrate, yea of every Heathen Magiſtrate: For if he will but change the priviledges and title of a Town and make it no City, it muſt have no Church or Biſhop: And if he will remove the privileges and title, the Church and Biſhop muſt remove: And if he will endow a big Village or Town with City privileges and name, a Church and Biſhop muſt be then made anew. But who can believe that Chriſt thus modled his Churches in his inſtitution?
8. Yea after their model, an infidel or Chriſtian King a…iud agen…, that never thinketh on it or intendeth it, ſhall change the Churches, and deſtroy them. If by war a City be turned into no City, or if the King for other reaſons un-city it, or if change of Government put it into another Princes power, that ſhall for his convenience un city it, the Church in City and Country is at an end, though there remain people enow to conſtitute a Church.
9. Yea a fire or an Earthquake by this Rule may end a Church, by Wood and ſtone, though the Country ſtill have never ſo many Chriſtians: and when the City is gone, the Church is gone. 10. Yea it will be in the power of every king, even of Heathens, whether Chriſt ſhall have any Church or Biſhop in his kingdoms, or not. Becauſe he can un-city or dispriviledge all the Cities in his kingdom at his pleaſure, and conſequently unchurch all the Churches.
11. And by their way Chriſt hath ſetled as various Church forms as there be forms of Government in the world: For all Dominions are not divided into Provinces, under Priſidents &c as the Roman Empire was: In many Countries, the Metropolis hath no ſuperiority over the other City or the Country, and ſo that will be of divine inſtitution in one Country, which will be a ſin in others.
12. Yea by this Rule many vaſt Countries muſt have no Biſhops or Churches at all, becauſe they have no Cities (as is known among the Americans); and others muſt have but one Church and Biſhop in a whole Country of many hundred Miles.
13. And by their Rule all the Biſhops of England are unbiſhoped, and their Dioceſan Churches are unchurched. For 1. Some of them (in Wales and Man) have no Cities now called ſuch. 2. Others of them have many Cities (not only Coventry and Lichfield, Bath and Wells now called Cities, but) abundance of Corporations really Cities. 3. And the Cities in England, Scotland and Ireland have no Civil Government over all the Countries, Corporations, Villages of the Diocefe at all: nor are they Seats of Preſidents or Lieutenants that have ſuch Rule, ſo that our Dioceſes are not modelled to the form of the Civil Government. What ſubjection doth Hartfordſhire, Bedfordſhire, Buckinghamſhire, &c. owe to the Town of Lincolne?
14. By their model it is not Biſhops and Metropolitans alone that are of divine right: For if the Church Government muſt be modelled to the Civill, the Imperial Churches muſt have had Officers to anſwer all the Proconſuls and Preſects, the Lieutenants, the Vicars, the Conſular Preſidents, the Corr…ctors &c. For who can prove that one ſort or two oaly muſt by imitated and not others.
15. They muſt by their rule, ſet up in England an inconſiſtent or ſelf deſtroying form. For in many if not moſt Counties our Lord Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants, and Sherifs, and moſt Juſtices dwell in Countrey mannors and Villages, and not in Cities. And ſo either Cities muſt not be the Seats of Biſhops and Churches, or elſe the Seat of Civil Government muſt not be the Seat of the Eccleſiaſtical. If they ſay that Aſſizes and Seſſions are kept in the County Towns, I anſwer. 1. So Church aſſemblies called Synods or Councils may be held in them, and yet not be the Biſhops Seat. For they are not the Judges or Juſtices Seat, becauſe of Aſſizes, and quarterly Seſſions. 2. The obſervation is not univerſally true: Yea no Aſſizes or Seſſions at all are therefore held in any Town becauſe it is the County Town, but becauſe it is the convenienteſt place for meeting; The choice of which is left to the Judges and Juſtices; who ſometimes chooſe the County-Town, and ſometimes another, as they pleaſe (As Bridgnorth in Shropſhire, Aleshury (not Buckingham) ordinarily in Buckinghamſhire, and ſo of others. 3. And th…ſe County Towns are few of them either Cities or Biſhops Seats: As Buckingham, Hartford, Bedford, Cambridge, Huntington, Warwick, Darby, Nottingham, Sherwsbury, Ipſwich, Colcheſter, Lancaſter, Flint, Denbigh, Montgomery, Merioneth, Radnor, Cardigan, Carnarvon, Pembrook, Carmarthen, Breeknock, and divers others.
16. This model of theirs is in moſt parts of the world or many, quite contrary to the Intereſt of the Church: and therefore forbidden by God in Nature and Scripture, by that rule, Let the end be preferred, and the means which beſt ſerve it: Let all things be done to edification: For in moſt of the world the Rulers are enemies to Chriſtianity, and diſpoſed to perſecute the Paſtors of the Church, therefore they will leaſt endure Eccleſiaſtical Courts and Biſhops in their Imperial Cities, and under their noſes (as we ſay) Obj. The Romans did endure it. Anſ. For all the ten perſecutions, the Romans gave ordinarily more liberty of Religion than moſt of the world doth at this day. Biſhops and Paſtors, are glad to keep out of the way of Infidel and Heathen Rulers. (And I think verily our moſt Zealous Engliſh Prelates would be loath, (if they had their language) to go ſet up a Church and Biſhops ſeat at Madrid, Vienna, Jngolſted, yea at Florence, Milan, Ravenna, Venice, Lisbone, Warſaw, &c. And if they muſt needs be in thoſe Countries, they would rather choſe a more private and leſs offenſive ſeat.
17. I think that few Churches or Biſhops in the world, except the Italian (if they) are of the opinion now oppoſed by me. *Quemad modum hodi… ab aliqu…t ſecul…s Antioch in a ſides Patr. no… eſt in ea u…be un… nomen habet, ſed in Meredin ad ripa…n Ch… bar, in finibus Meſopotainae Joſ. Scaliger Animad. in Euſeb. pag. 211.The Greek Church is not: For though for honor ſake they retain the name of the ancient Seats, yet they ordinarily dwell in Countrey Villages. And ſo doth the Patriarck of Antioch himſelf often, or at leaſt Antioch is now no City, of which he hath the name. And Socrates, and after him other Hiſtorians tell us, that of old this practiſe varied as a thing indifferent, in ſeveral Countries according to their ſeveral cuſtomes, which had no Law of God for them, and therefore were not accounted neceſſary.
18. Our Engliſh Biſhops have been for the moſt part of another mind till Dr. Hammond and others turned this way of late: Not only Je…el, Bilſon, and many others have aſſerted that Patriarks, Metropolitans and Primates, and ſuch like are of human right, and mutable, but few if any were found heretofore to contradict them. And at this day many Biſhops ordinarily dwell in their Country houſes, (As the Biſhop of Lincolne did at Bugden, the Biſhop of Coventree and Lichfield, (formerly) at Eccleſhall Caſtle; the Biſhop of Cheſter (now) at Wigan, and ſo of others). And I think that is the Biſhops Seat where uſually his dwelling is, and not where a Lay-Chancellor keepes a Court, or where a Dean and Chapter dwell who are no Biſhops.
19. There have (as Dr. Hammond hath well proved) been of old ſeveral Churches in one City; one of Jews and one of Gentiles, with their ſeveral Biſhops and Clergy. Therefore one City with its territories is not jure Divino the meaſure or boundaries of one only Church.
20. If the Church Government muſt be modelled to the Civil, then in every Monarchie or Empire there muſt be one Univerſal Paſtor to rule all the reſt as there is one King: And in every Ariſtocracy, there muſt be a Synod of Prelates in Church Supremacy; and in every Democracy—who or what—But then the Papacy will be proved not only lawful, but of Divine inſtitution, as the Head or Church Soveraign of the Roman Empire (though not of all the world) (at Rome firſt and at Conſtantinople after) And indeed I know no word of reaſon that can be given to draw an impartial man of Judgment to doubt, but that Metropolitans, Primates, Patriarcks, and the Pope as Head of the Churches in the Empire, ſtood all on the ſame ground, and had the ſame Original; as all Fathers Councells and Hiſtory ſhew, which truely proveth that (as an Univerſal Papacy is a Treaſonable Uſurpation, ſo) an Imperial Papacy (that is, through the Roman Empire) is but a human Creature, and Metropolitans, Patriarcks, &c. are the like; and they that will feigne the one to be of Gods inſtitution or neceſſary, muſt ſay that the other is ſo to.
But after all this, one conſequence puts the world in hope that Dioceſans may come in time to be reformed: For ſeeling Kings may make and unmake Cities, and conſequently Biſhop-pricks at their pleaſure, whenever it ſhall pleaſe his Majeſty, or any other wiſe and Holy Prince, to declare every Corporation and Market Town to be a City, we muſt needs have a Biſhop in every one of them (according to the principles of the Prelates themſelves. And then the Dioceſe will not be ſo great, but a diligent Paſtor may poſſibly ſometimes, ſee the greater number of his flock.
Obj. But they that do ſay that the Apo…les took this courſe do not ſay that it is ſo obligatory but that in caſes of neceſſity we may do otherwiſe.
Anſ. 1. They alledge the very Law of nature for it, that it muſt be ſo even in Heathen Empires ex natura rei, as Dr. Hammond before cited. 2. All meer poſitves give places to natural duties, caeteris paribus: in caſes of true neceſſity we may break the reſt of the Lords day, we may omit the Lords Supper, we may ſtay from the Church aſſemblies, we may forbear to preach or pray or meditate or read. So that the exception only of neceſſity will but equal this Dioceſan model, to other poſſitive ordinances, which are indeed Divine.
Obj. What if we prove but the lawfulneſs of it, though not the Duty?
Anſ. If you prove it not of Divine inſtitution, I have proved it to be ſinful, and ſhall do much more, by all the evils which attend it. And ſo much for theſe City Dioceſe and Metropolitans and modelling the Church Government to the ſtate.