A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The ſame proved by the Conceſſion of the moſt Learned Defenders of Dioceſane Prelacy.
THough the Scripture Evidence be moſt ſatisfactory in it ſelf, yet in controverſie it much eaſeth the mind that doubteth, to find the Cauſe fully and expreſly granted, by thoſe that moſt learnedly defend thoſe conſequents which it overthrows: And if I do not bring plain Conceſſions here, I will not deprecate the Readers indignation.
1. Among all Chriſtians, the Papiſts are the higheſt Prelatiſts; And among1. Petavius. all Papiſts the Jeſuits; and among all the Jeſuits Petavius, who hath written againſt Salmaſius, &c. on this Subject. Petavius, Diſſert. Eccleſiaſt. de Epiſcop. dignit. & juriſd. p. 22. concludeth his firſt Chapter in which he had cited the chiefeſt of the Fathers; [Hactenus igitur ex antiquorum authoritate conficitur primis temporibus, Presbyterorum & Epiſcoporum non tantum appellationes, ſed etiam ordines, in eaſdem concurriſſe perſonas, iidem ut eſſent utrique.] i. e. Hitherto it is proved by the Authority of the Ancients, that in the firſt times, not only the Names, but the Orders, of Presbyters and Biſhops did concurr into the ſame perſons, ſo that both were the ſame men.] And if ſo, I ſhall ſhew the conſequents anon.
And pag. 23. He thus beginneth his third Chapter, as opening the only neceſſary way to avoid the Scripture Arguments againſt Epiſcopacy, [Si quis amnia illa ſcripturae loca diligenter expendat, id neceſſario conſequens ex illis eſſe ſtatuet, eos ipſos, qui ibi Presbyteri vocantur, plus aliquid quam ſimplices fuiſſe presbyteros, cujuſmodi hodieque ſunt: nec dubitabit, quin Epiſcopi fuerint iidem, non vocabulo tantum, ſed re etiam & poteſtate.] i. e. [If any one will diligently weigh all thoſe places of Scripture, he will conclude that this is the neceſſary conſequent of them, that thoſe that are there called Presbyters were ſomewhat more than ſimple Presbyters, and ſuch as now they are: and he will not doubt but the ſame men were Biſhops, not only in name, but in deed and in power.]
Pag. 24. [Exiſtimo Presbyteros vel omnes, vel eorum pleroſque ſic ordinatos eſſe ut Epiſcopi pariter ac presbyteri gradum obtinerent.] I think that either all or moſt of the Presbyters were ſo ordained, as that they obtained both the degree of Biſhop and of Presbyter.] Which he proceedeth to ſhew that he thinks was done that there might be a ſtore of Biſhops prepared for all Countries. Pag. 25. he thus far differs from Doctor Hammond, but not from the truth, as to hold, that [Plures in eadem Eccleſia velut Eph…ſina Epiſcopi fuere.] [There were many Biſhops in one Church, as in that of Epheſus.] Which he taketh for a particular Church, and not a Province; and ſaith, that the ſimple manners of the Church would then bear this, till Ambition had depraved men, and Charity and Humility and the imitation of Chriſt waxed cold: then came that which Hierome ſpeaketh of, that For a remedy of Schiſm one was choſen out of the company of Presbyters, and ſet above the reſt.
So Pag. 26. In eadem capita paſſim ambo conferebantur. And p. 27. Hoc ſi ita eſt, quid aliud reſtat niſi ut penes eoſdem (Nam plures una in Eccleſia fuiſſe tales, iiſdem ex locis argumentum ducitur) tam nomen illud duplex, quam conveniens nomini poteſtas & authoritas utraque fuiſſe dicatur.] that is [If this be ſo, what elſe remaineth, but that both the double name, and the agreeable double power and authority, be ſaid to have been in the ſame perſons (for that there were many of them in one Church, may be proved from the ſame places.)
And Pag. 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. he ſheweth out of Juſtin Martyr, firſt, [That all things in the ſacred Aſſemblies and Sacraments were done by the Biſhop alone; and that he was the Curator and Moderator both of the Sacraments to be adminiſtred, and of teaching the people, and of the Churches money. The Biſhop conſecrated the Sacraments, and by the Deacons adminiſtred them to the people. He prayeth and preacheth. He had the care of the Church-moneys, and kept them with it; he relieved the Orphans, Widows, Sick, Priſoners, Travellers, &c. And from Tertullian, that the Chriſtians received not the Sacrament from the hands of any but the Biſhops. (Were there not then as many Biſhops as Church-Aſſemblies?) And that they chiefly did baptize.
And p. 112. he citeth the Can. 7. &. 8. Concil. Gangrenſis, which anathematizeth thoſe that without the Biſhops conſent durſt give or receive the Church Oblations, &c. And p. 141. out of Proſper de vita contempl. c. 20. that a Biſhop muſt excel in knowledge, that he may inſtruct thoſe that live under him. And p. 144, 145, 147. he citeth Can. 3. Concil. Arelat. 3. an. 813. [That every Biſhop in his own Pariſh do perfectly and ſtudiouſly teach the Presbyters and all the people, and not neglect to inſtruct them.] And Concil. Turonenſ. 3. Can. 4. Let every Biſhop diligently ſtudy by ſacred preaching to inform the flock committed to him, what they muſt do, and what they muſt avoid. And Concil. Rhemenſ. 2. Can. 14. That Biſhops preach the Word of God to all. And Concil. Cabilonenſ. 3. Can. 1. [That Biſhops be diligent in reading, and ſearch the myſteries of Gods Word, that they may ſhine by the brightneſs of Doctrine in the Church, and ceaſe not to ſatiate the ſouls ſubject to them, by nutriment of Gods Words.] And p. 147. That in the formula by which the Kings of France committed Epiſcopacy to any, it is ſaid, You ſhall ſtudy by daily Sermons to edifie, or poliſh, the people committed to you, according to Canonical Inſtitution.
And ibid. Can. 19. Concil. Conſtant. in Trullo, [The Church Preſidents muſt every day, but eſpecially the Lords day, teach all the Clergy and people, the things that belong to piety, gathering from the Scriptures the ſentences and judgments of verity.]
And p. 149. he citeth Concil. Lateran. ſub Innoc. 3. c. 10. allowing Biſhops to take helpers in preaching when buſineſs or ſickneſs hindred them. And p. 150, 152, 153. he mentioneth it as ſomewhat rare, that at Alexandria Preſbyters preached, and at Antioch Chryſoſtom, and at Hippo Auguſtine, while Flavianus and Valerius were Biſhops.
I do not cite all this now as to prove the ſenſe of Antiquity, but the ſenſe of Petavius, who plainly intimateth that the Churches were no larger of a long time, than that a Biſhop might preach to all the Clergy and People every Lords day; and that in Scripture times all or near all the Presbyters were Biſhops (which is it that we contend for;) and conſequently you may judge what the Churches were.
And though it ſtill look much farther than Scripture times, I will ſhew you what Petavius thought of the Magnitude of City-Churches, even near four hundred years after Chriſt, in Epiphanius's days, in his Animadverſ. on Epiphan. ad Haer. 69. p. 276. [Singularem tunc temporis Alexandriae morem hunc fuiſſe, vel ſaltem paucis in Eccleſiis uſurpatum, &c. i. e. That this was a ſingular cuſtom of Alexandria, or at leaſt uſed in few Churches, you may hence conjecture, becauſe he ſo expreſly mentioneth this cuſtom as peculiar to the Alexandrian Church: to wit, that in the ſame City there ſhould be many Titles, to each of which ſhould be aſſigned a proper Presbyter, who ſhould there perform the Church Offices. But yet the ſame was formerly elſewhere inſtituted; that is, at Rome: where the Presbyters did every one rule his own people, being diſtributed by Titles (that is, ſetled Sub-Aſſemblies.) To them the Biſhops on the Lords days ſent Leaven, or hallowed Bread in token of Communion.] See what a ſhift they were at firſt put to, leſt the ſeveral Aſſemblies ſhould ſeem ſeveral Churches. For it is not to be imagined that this was done to ſignifie that common Chriſtian Communion which they had with all other Chriſtian Churches, but that neareſt Communion which belongeth to thoſe that are embodied under one Paſtor, or the ſame Paſtor in Common, that is, one particular Church Even as if theſe divers Altars or Tables were at a diſtance in the ſame Church, and the Biſhop would ſignifie the Union of the ſeveral Companies in the ſame Society, by ſending ſome of the Bread which he had bleſſed to them all.
But Petavius proceedeth [Non dubito majoribus duntaxat in urbibus, &c. I doubt not but that it was in the Greater Cities only that there were more (than one) Titles within the bounds (or Liberties) when within the ſame Walls, they would not be contained and meet together; and ſo had Presbyters put on the ſeveral Churches. But in the ſmaller and leſs frequented Cities, there was one only Church, into which they all did come together. Of which ſort were the Cities of Cyprus. And therefore Epiphanius noteth the cuſtom of Alexandria, as a thing ſtrange to his Countrymen and unuſual. Hence was the original of Pariſhes; which word was transferred from the Country Churches to the City Churches. And adding the foreign with their Biſhops or Curators ſetled in Rome by Servius Tullius he ſaith, Quibus Chriſtianorum in agris Paroeciae quam ſimillimae fuerunt; Nam & illic foreign &c. To which the Pariſhes of the Chriſtians in the Countries were moſt like: For there alſo were Biſhops, or rather (Chorepiſcopi) rural Biſhops placed of old: which ſome Latine interpretations of the Canons call the Vicars of the Biſhops, but others far more rightly than they, the Country, or Village (Biſhops) (of which more after.)
So that you ſee in Petavius opinion, even when Epiphanius wrote, the ordinary Cities of the World had but one Aſſembly in each City and Suburbs; And only ſome extraordinary Cities (of which only Alexandria could be named by Epiphanius, and Rome alſo by Petavius, and no more by any other Author) had divers ſetled Titles under their ſeveral Presbyters: And even thoſe Titles in thoſe two Cities were but Chappels, like our Pariſh Chappels, received conſecrated Bread from the Biſhops Church, leſt they ſhould think that they were a diſtinct body of themſelves. Yea, and that the Villages that had Aſſemblies had their proper Biſhops. And ſo I diſmiſs Petavius with thanks, for his free Conceſſion.
2. My next Witneſs is Biſhop Downame, the ſtrongeſt that hath written againſt2. Biſhop Downame Pariſh Biſhops for Dioceſanes; who, lib. 1. cap. 1. (before recited) ſaith, [Indeed at the very firſt Converſion of Cities, the whole number of the people converted, being ſomewhere not much greater than the number of Presbyters placed among them, were able to make but a ſmall Congregation.] And cap. 6. pag. 104. [At the firſt, and namely the time of the Apoſtle Paul, the moſt of the Churches, ſo ſoon after their Converſion, did not each of them, exceed the proportion of a populous Congregation.] Though this reach not ſo low as Petavius Conceſſion, it is as much as I need to the preſent buſineſs.
3. My third Witneſs ſhall be that learned moderate man, Mr. Joſeph Mede, 3. Maſter Mede.who in his diſcourſe of Churches, pag. 48, 49, 50. ſaith, [Nay more than this, it ſhould ſeem that in thoſe firſt times before Dioceſſes were divided into thoſe leſſer and ſubordinate Churches which we now call Pariſhes, and Presbyters aſſigned to them, they had not only one Altar to a Church or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Biſhop or Paſter: and that was in the City or place where the Biſhop had his See and Reſidence. Like as the Jews had but one Altar and Temple for the whole Nation, united under one High Prieſt. And yet, as the Jews had their Synagogues, ſo perhaps might they have more Oratories than one though their Altar were but one, there namely where the Biſhop was. Die ſolis, ſaith Juſtin Martyr, omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ru…i degunt in eundem locum Conventus fit. Namely as he there tells us to celebrate, and participate the holy Euchariſt. Why was this? but becauſe they had not many places to celebrate it in. And unleſs this were ſo, whence came it elſe that a Schiſmatical Biſhop was ſaid, Conſtituere or collocare aliud altare? And that a Biſhop and an Altar are made correlatives? See St. Cyprian, Epiſt. 40, 72, 73. de unit. Eccleſ. &c. So that Mr. Mede granteth that every Church that had a Biſhop, had no more people than communicated at one Altar. To which purpoſe he goeth on further to Ignatius Teſtimony, of which anon.
4. Biſhop Bilſon's Teſtimony, Perp. Gov. cap. 13. pag. 256. See afterward.4. Bilſon.
5. Grotius is large in his endeavours to prove, that not only every City had5. Grotius. a Biſhop, but alſo every ſtated Aſſembly, of which there were divers in one and the ſame City, and that the Government was not ſuited to the Temple way, but to the Synagogues; and as every Synagogue had its chief Ruler, of which there were many in a City, ſo had every Church in a City its Biſhop; and that only the Church of Alexandria had the cuſtom of having but one Biſhop in the whole City. Thus he de Imper. Sum. Pot. p. 355, 356, 357. And in his Annot. in 1 Tim. 5. 17. [Sed notandum eſt una urbe, ſicut plures Synagogas, ita & plures fuiſſe Eccleſias, id eſt conventus Chriſtianorum: & cuique Eccleſiae fuiſſe suum praeſidem, qui populum alloqueretur & Presbyteros ordinaret: Alexandriae tantum eum fuiſſe morem, ut unus eſſet in tota urbe praeſes qui ad docendum Presbyteros Per urbem diſtribueret, docet nos Sozomenus, l. 1. c. 14. & Epiphanius, &c.]
Thus Grotius thought that of old every ſtated Aſſembly had a Biſhop that had power of Ordination. I confeſs I interpret not Zozomen nor Epiphanius as Grotius doth, nor believe I that he can bring us frequent proof of two Churches with Biſhops in one City (much leſs many;) unleſs in Doctor Hammond's inſtance before and after mentioned. But the reſt I accept.
6. I may take it for a full Conceſſion from Biſhop Jeremy Tailor, which is6. Biſhop Jeremy Tailor. before cited, though in few words; Praef. Treat. of Repent. [I am ſure we cannot give account of ſouls of which we have no notice.] And I am ſure a full Pariſh is as many as a more able and diligent man than ever I was, can take ſuch notice of as to do the Paſtors Office to them.
7. But the laſt and greateſt Champion for Dioceſanes is Doctor Hammond: his7. Doctor Hammond. Conceſſions are mentioned before; but now are purpoſely to be cited: But remember ſtill that we are yet ſpeaking but of the matter of Fact.
In his Annot. in Act. 11. 30. he ſaith, [Although this Title of foreign Elders, have been alſo extended to a ſecond Order in the Church, and now is only in uſe for them under the name of Presbyters, yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally, if not alone to Biſhops, there being no evidence that any of the ſecond order were then inſtituted; though ſoon after before the writing of Ignatius Epiſtles there were ſuch inſtituted in all Churches.
(Though ſo ſuddain a change be unlikely, I paſs it by.) In his Diſſert. p. 208, 209, 211. cap. 10. ſect. 19, 20, 21. & 11. ſect. 2. &c. he ſaith, [Prius non uſquequaque verum eſſe quod pro conceſſo ſumitur (in una civitate non fuiſſe plures Epiſcopos.) Quamvis enim in una Eccleſia aut coetu plures ſimul Epiſcopi nunquam fuerint, nihil tamen obſtare, quin in eadem civitate duo aliquando diſterminati coetus fuerint, a duobus Apoſtolis ad fidem adducti, &c. as I have before more largely cited him.
Yea, Diſſert. Epiſt. Sect. 30, 31. he will have the queſtion ſtated only of a Biſhop [in ſingulari Eccleſia] & [in ſingulari coetu.] The controverſie is not, Quibus demum nominibus cogniti fuerint Eccleſiarum rectores; ſed an ad unum in ſingulari Eccleſia, an ad plures poteſtas iſta devenerit? Nos ad unum ſingularem praefectum, quem ex famoſiore Eccleſiae uſu, Epiſcopum vulgo dicimus, poteſtatem iſtam in ſingulari coetu ex Chriſti & Apoſtolorum inſtitutione, nunquam non pertinuiſſe affirmamus. So that it is a Biſhop of one Aſſembly or Church which Doctor Hammond will have the queſtion ſtated about. 2. And ſuch a Church or Aſſembly as great Cities a while had divers of, and ſo divers Biſhops. 3. And this was after the Scripture times; for they had divers Biſhops with a divers Clergy. 4. But that in Scripture times, the Order of Sub-Presbyters cannot be proved inſtituted. 5. And in his Annotations he expoundeth all the Texts of the New Teſtament of Biſhops that mention Presbyters. 6. But in his Anſwer to the London Miniſters, not daring yet to hold that they were of Humane and not of Divine Inſtitution, he holds that they were inſtituted in the end of St. John's days after all the Scripture was written (which was about two or three years before his death) and ſo were of Divine Inſtitution, though all the reſt of the Apoſtles were dead.
Before I apply this I will ſubjoyn his words of more numerous Witneſſes to our opinion with himſelf, for he ſaith.
8. Doctor Hammond of the reſt, Vindication againſt London Minſters, pag. 8. All the Divines in the ſame Cauſe.104. [And though I might truly ſay that for thoſe more minute conſiderations or conjectures, wherein this Doctor differs from ſome others, he hath the ſuffrages of many of the learnedſt men of this Church at this day, and as far as he knoweth of all that embrace the ſame Cauſe with him.]
I purpoſely paſs by ſuch Biſhops as Cranmer, Jewel, &c. and ſuch conformable Divines as Doctor Whitaker, Fulke, &c. as being not high enough to be valued by thoſe that I have now to do with. As Jewel, Art. 4. p. 171. ſheweth that every Church muſt have one Biſhop and but one, and out of Cyprian that the Fraternitas univerſa was to chuſe him; Et …piſcopus delegatur plebe praeſente—de univerſae fraternitatis ſuffragio, Epiſcopatus ei (Sabino) deferretur: And mentioneth the Reſcript of Honorius the Emperor to Boniface, that [If two Biſhops through diviſion and contention happen to be choſen, we will that neither of them be allowed as Biſhop; but that he only remain in the Apoſtolick Seat, whom out of the number of the Clergy, Godly diſcretion, and the conſent of the whole Brotherhood, ſhall chuſe by a new Election.] How big yet was the Church even then?
Now all this being aſſerted, 1. It is evident that they hold that in Scripture times, no Church conſiſted of more than one ordinary ſtated worſhipping Aſſembly. 2. And that every ſuch Aſſembly had a Biſhop. For if there were no Presbyters, there could be no Aſſembly but where a Biſhop was preſent: for the Lords days were then uſed for publick Worſhip; and the people could not do that without a Miniſter, for they had Communion in the Lords Supper every Lords day: And therefore they muſt have a Biſhop, or have no ſuch Worſhip. And Doctor Hammond departeth from Petavius in holding that no Church had more Biſhops than one: So that de facto he granteth all that I deſire, 1. That the Churches were but ſo many Aſſemblies having each a Biſhop. 2. And that no Sub-Presbyters were inſtituted in Scripture times. And by what right the change was made we ſhall enquire anon.