The True Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches, Part 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Vniverſal Church will never unite in Patriarchs, or any other humane Form of Church-Government.
Sect. I. WHether or how far ſuch Forms may conſiſt with Union, is a Queſtion that I am not now debating, any further than ſhall be anon intimated by the way. But that they will never become the Bond of Union, or be received by all, and that to make any ſuch thought Neceſſary to univerſal Unity, is Schiſm, I am eaſily able to prove.
Sect. II. And this needeth no other proofs than what are given againſt uniting in the Papacy, in the former Chapter. As, 1. Patriarchs and other humane Inſtitutions being not of God but Man, the whole Church can never unite in them, 1. Becauſe they will never all agree that any men have true Authority given them by God, to make new Church-Officers and Forms that ſhall be neceſſary to the Unity or Concord of the Church Univerſal.
2. They will never agree who thoſe men are that God hath given ſuch power to, if they did ſuſpect that ſuch there are. A Prince hath no Power out of his Dominions.
3. They will never agree, that if man made ſuch Forms or Offices, they may not unmake them again if they ſee cauſe; or that their Acts bind all their Poſterity never to reſcind or change them.
4. They will never find that all the Chriſtian World ever agreed herein, and ſo in all Poſterity is obliged by their Anceſtors.
5. Much leſs will any ever prove that the Inſtitution was Divine.
Sect. III. If any ſay, that the Apoſtles ſettled this Form by the Spirit, the Univerſal Church will never believe it: For, 1. No Scripture ſaith ſo: 2. No true credible Hiſtory ſaith ſo: 3. If the Apoſtles ſettled Patriarchs, it was either as their own Succeſſors, or as a new Office: And it was either by joynt conſent, or man by man, each one apart: But 1. Had they ſettled them as their Succeſſours, they would have ſettled twelve or thirteen; But there were but five ſettled at all, beſides ſome new petty Patriarchs (as at Aquileia when they caſt off Rome.) 2. No Writer tells us of any meeting of the Apoſtles to agree of ſuch a Form. 3. No nor that ever they ſettled them. 4. Hiſtory aſſureth us that they were ſettled only in One Empire, and not in the reſt of the World. 5. And that the Emperour and Councils of that Empire made them. 6. And therefore when they were at firſt but three they added at their pleaſure two more, Conſtantinople and Jeruſalem. 7. And none of all theſe pretend to Apoſtolical Inſtitution and Succeſſion but Antioch, that claimeth to be St. Peters firſt Seat, and Rome to be his ſecond, and that but as Biſhops, (when that alſo is a frivolous pretenſe.) Alexandria claimeth ſucceſsion but from St. Mark, and Jeruſalem from that St. James who (ſaith Dr. Hammond and others) was none of the Apoſtles, and Conſtantinople from none at all, though above the reſt. Councils (as Conſtant. and Chalced.) profeſsing that the Fathers and Princes made them what they were.
Sect. IV. It is certain, that the Chriſtian World is not now united in Patriarchs, nor ever was, nor ever will be. The Patriarchs of the reſt of the Empire are all now broken off from the Church of Rome: Conſtantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruſalem, are all againſt him: The Eaſt had four, and the Weſt but one, and are now at odds condemning each other. The reſt of the world have none, and had none. And it is commonly confeſſed, that as men ſet them up, ſo men may pull them down again. Yea, even in the old Empire many Churches were from under all the Patriarchs, as is commonly known.
Sect. V. And how ſhould theſe Patriarchs unite all the Church? It muſt be either by meeting or at diſtance. As for their meeting, Princes that are ſome Mahometans, and ſome Chriſtians, of divers Intereſts and Minds, will not ſuffer it: And neither by meeting or diſtance can we be ſecured that they will agree, when even under one Emperour that laboured to unite them, they were among their Clergy like the Generals of ſo many Armies, diſtracting (and at laſt deſtroying) the Empire by hereticating and perſecuting one another. Thoſe that have divided and undone that Empire, are never like to unite the Chriſtian World.
Sect. VI. And what I ſay of Patriarchs, I ſay of all humane Forms of Churches or Church-government; and ſo of ſuch an Epiſcopacy as is not neceſſary to the being of the Church. There are here three diſtinct queſtions before us: 1. Whether the Paſtoral Office be neceſſary to Church-unity? 2. Whether Parochial Epiſcopacy be neceſſary to it? 3. Whether Dioceſan Biſhops diſtinct from Archbiſhops be neceſſary to it? And you may adde a fourth, Whether Archbiſhops be neceſſary to it, (not diſputing now the lawfulneſs of any of all theſe?)
Sect. VII. 1. Of the firſt I have ſpoken before: No doubt but Chriſts univerſal Church hath ever had Teachers and Paſtors as the moſt noble organical part; And a Body may as well be without a Stomack, Liver or Lungs, as the Church be without them. And to a particular Church as political, organized, or Governed, they are a conſtitutive part. But I have before ſhewed reaſons to doubt whether yet it be neceſſary to ſalvation to every individual Chriſtian to know that the Miniſtry is an inſtituted Office, and to own ſuch: But this little concerneth our Cauſe.
Sect. VIII. 2. Parochial Epiſcopacy, that is, the preeminence and government of one Presbyter called a Biſhop over the reſt in every ſingle Church, was early introduced to avoid the diſcord of the Presbyters and the Flock: In the time when Ignatius's Epiſtles were written, he tells us, That every Church had One Altar, and one Biſhop with his fellow-Presbyters and Deacons. Whether this was of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, or a humane Corruption, is diſputed in ſo many Volumes (by Petavius, Sancta Clara, Faravia, Whitenitto, Downham, Hammond, Hooker, Bilſon, &c. on one ſide: And Gerſom, Bucer, Beza, Cartwright, Salmaſius, Didoclane, Jacob, Blondel, Parker, Paul Baine, &c. on the other,) that I think it not meet here to interpoſe my thoughts. But that it is not eſſential to a Church, and that all the Church will not unite in it, appeareth as followeth.
Sect. IX. 1. They are not united in it now: The Reformed Churches in France, Belgia, Helvetia, and many other parts, are againſt ſuch Biſhops as neceſſary, and a diſtinct Order. And in England, Scotland, and Ireland, New-England, &c. they are by ſome approved, and by others not.
2. Former Ages have had many pious Chriſtians againſt them, eſpecially in Scotland, and among the Waldenſes.
3. The School-men and other Papiſts are not themſelves agreed, whether Biſhops and Presbyters are diſtinct Orders.
4. The Church of England even while Popiſh denyed it, and ſaid they were but one Order, as you may ſee in Spelman Aelfreds Laws or Canons.
5. Hierome and Eutychius Alexandrinus tell us how and why Epiſcopacy was introduced at Alexandria, and that the Presbyters made them there.
6. The Scots were long governed without them, (as Major and Beda tell us.) And their Presbyters made the firſt Biſhops in Northumberland; as Pomeranus a Presbyter made thoſe in Denmark.
7. Almoſt all the Churches in Eaſt and Weſt as far as I can learn, have caſt off Parochial Biſhops (of ſingle Churches) and in their ſtead ſet up Dioceſans over multitudes of Pariſhes without any Biſhops under them, but Curats only.
8. While there is no hope of all agreeing whether it be a Divine Inſtitution, and that of eſſential neceſsity) there is no probability that ever the Univerſal Church will unite in them.
9. The Dioceſans we find will never yield to them.
10. The reception of them will not unite the Church were it agreed on, it being more and greater matters that they differ about.
I confeſs that the ancient reception of them was ſo general, and the reaſon of the thing ſo fair, that I am none of thoſe that accuſe ſuch Epiſcopacy as unlawfull or Schiſmatical, but rather think it conduceth to prevent Schiſms: But, 1. I am ſatisfied that it will not be agreed to by all, 2. Nor ſerve for univerſal Concord were it agreed on; 3. And that it is Schiſmatical to make them more neceſſary than God hath made them, and to cut off Chriſtians or Churches that cannot receive them.
Sect. IX. Dioceſan Epiſcopacy (by which I mean a ſingle Biſhop over many hundred or ſcore Pariſhes and ſacred Aſſemblies that have Altars, and are large enough to be ſingle Churches, or at leaſt Many ſuch, without any Biſhops under him of thoſe Churches) will much leſs ever unite the Univerſal Church, however it hath obtained over very much of the Chriſtian world. For firſt more Churches by far at this day are against it, than againſt Parochial Epiſcopacy, and more Volumes are written againſt it; and Men have a far greater averſneſs to it, as more dangerous to the Church.
Sect. X. 2. It is contrary to the Scripture Inſtitution, which ſet up Biſhops in all ſingle Churches, (whether the ſame with Presbyters I now diſpute not, but they were ſuch as then were received;) And thoſe that think ſuch Single, or Pariſh, or City Biſhops neceſſary, will never agree to put them all down.
Sect. XI. 3. They turn all the Pariſh-Churches into Chappels, or meer parts of one Church, and Unchurch them all, in the judgment of thoſe that take a Biſhop to be eſſential to a Church: And all will not agree to Unchurch all ſuch Pariſhes.
Sect. XII. 4. It maketh true Diſcipline as impoſſible, as is the Government of ſo many ſcore o… hundred Schools by one Schoolmaſter, or Hoſpitals by one Phyſician, without any other Schoolmaſter or Phyſician under him, (but Uſhers and Apothecaries; which all Chriſtians will not agree to.
Sect. XIII. 5. It is contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Churches, and caſteth out their ſort o… Parochial Biſhops, as I have elſewhere fully proved.
1. From the Teſtimonies of many, ſuch as that o… Ignatius before cited.
2. From the cuſtom of chooſing Biſhops by all the People.
3. And of managing Diſcipline before all the Church.
4. By the cuſtom mentioned by Tertulli… and Juſtin Martyr, of receiving the Sacrament onelyonly from the hand of the Biſhop, or when he Conſecrated it.
5. By the cuſtom of the Biſhops onelyonly Preaching, except in caſe of his ſpecial appointment.
6. In every Church the Biſhop ſate on a high Seat with the Presbyters about him.
7. The Biſhop onelyonly pronounced the Bleſſing.
8. Many Canons after, when the Churches grew greater, command all the People to be preſent, and communicate with the Biſhop on the great Feſtivals. Theſe and many more Evidences prove, That in the Primitive Times the Biſhops had but ſingle Churches, and every Altar and Church had a Biſhop.
Sect. XIV. 6. The very Species of the old Churches is thus overthrown, and the old office of Presbyters therewith, which was to be aſſiſtant Governors with the Biſhop, and not meer Preachers or Readers. And all theſe Changes all Chriſtians will not agree to.
Sect. XV. 7. Eſpecially the ſad Hiſtory of Councils and Prelacy will deter them from ſuch Concord; when they find that their Aſpiring, Ambition and Contention, hath been the grand Cauſe of Schiſms and Rebellions, and kept the Church in confuſion, and brought it to the lamentable ſtate in Eaſt and Weſt that it is in.
Sect. XVI. 8. And conſtant Experience will be the greateſt hinderance: As in our own Age many good Men, that had favourable thoughts of Dioceſans, are quite turned from them, ſince they ſaw Two thouſand faithful Miniſters ſilenced by them; and that it is the work of too many of them to caſt out ſuch, and ſet up ſuch as I am not willing to deſcribe: And ſuch Experience After-Ages are like to have, which will produce the ſame effects. When Experience perſuadeth Men, That under the name of Biſhops, they are Troublers, Perſecutors and Deſtroyers, they will account them Wolves, and not agree to take them for their Shepherds.
It will be ſaid, That Good Biſhops are not ſuch: It's true, and that there are Good Ones no ſober Man doubteth: But when 1300 years Experience hath told Men, That the Good Ones are few, in compariſon of the Bad Ones, ever ſince they had large Dominions and Juriſdictions: And when Reaſon tells Men, That the worst, and most worldly Men, will be the most diligent ſeekers of ſuch Power and Wealth; and that he that ſeeketh them, is liker to find them, than he that doth not; and ſo that Bad men are ſtill likeſt to be Di…ceſans: And when the divided, ſcattered, perſecuted Flocks, find that the work of ſuch Men, is to ſilence the moſt conſcionable Miniſters, and to be Thorns and Thiſt…es to the People, though they wear Sheeps cloathing, Men will judge of the… by their fruits, and the Churches will never be united in them.
Sect. XVII. 9. The greateſt Defenders of Epiſcopacy ſay ſo much to make Men againſt them, as will hinder this from being an uniting courſe. I wi…l inſtance now but in Petavius, and Doctor Ham…d who followeth him, and Scolus, who ſaith, … Clara led them the way: Theſe hold, That the Ap…ſt…s ſetled a Biſhop without any ſubject ſort of Presbyters in every City and ſingle Congregational Church: And Doctor Hammond (Annot. in Act. 11. & Diſſertat. adverſus Blondel) ſaith, That it cannot be proved that there were any ſubject Presbyters in Scripture-times; but that the word Presbyter every where in Scripture ſignifieth a Biſhop: And if ſo,
1. Men will know that the Apoſtolical Form was for every Congregational Church to have a Biſhop of its own.
2. That no Biſhop had more ſetled Congregations than one: For no ſuch Congregation could worſhip God, and celebrate the Sacrament of Communion, as then they conſtantly did, without a Miniſter; And one Biſhop could be but in one place at once, and ſo without Curates, could have but one Aſſembly.
3. And Men will be inquiſitive, By what Authority Subject Presbyters, and Dioceſan Biſhops and Churches were introduced after Scripture-times? in which they will never receive univerſal ſatisfaction. If it be ſaid that the Apoſtles gave Biſhops Power to make a ſubject order of Presbyters, and to turn Pariſh or Congregational Churches into Dioceſan, and ſo to alter the firſt Forms of Government, when they were dead; this will not be received without proofs, which never will be given to ſatisfie all: Nay, it will ſeem utterly improbable, and Men will ask,
1. Why did not the Apoſtles do it themſelves, if they would have it done? Was not their Authority more unqueſtionable than theirs that ſhould come after? If it be ſaid that there were not qualified Men enow, it will,
2. Be asked, Were there not like to be then greateſt Choice upon the extraordinary pouring out of the Spirit?
3. Do we not find in Corinth ſo many inſpired gifted perſons in one Aſſembly, that Paul was put to limit them in their Prophecying, yet allowing many to do it one by one? And Acts 13. there were many Prophets and Teachers in Antioch: And at Jeruſalem more, and at Epheſus, Acts 20. and at Philippi, Phil. 1. 1, 2. there were many Biſhops or Elders; And ſuch Deacons as Stephen and Philip, &c. would have ſerved for Elders, rather than to have none.
4. Doth not this imply, that after-times that might make ſo great a change, may alſo do the like in other things?
5. And that Dioceſans and ſubject Presbyters be but humane Inſtitutions, and therefore Men may again change them?
6. Doth it not diſhonour the Apoſtles, to ſay that they ſetled one Form of Government for their own Age, which ſhould ſo quickly be changed by their Followers into another ſpecies? All theſe things, and much more, will hinder Univerſal Concord in Dioceſans.
Sect. XIX. Yet I muſt add, that there is great difference between Dioceſans both as to their Government, and their Perſons, whence ſome Churches may comfortably live in Concord under them, though … be divided and afflicted under them.
1. Some Dioceſans have Dioceſſes ſo ſmall, that Diſcipline is there a poſſible thing: Others (as ours in England) have ſome above a thouſand, ſome many hundred, or ſcore Pariſhes, which maketh true Diſcip… impoſſible.
2. Some Dioceſans exerciſe the Church Keys of Excommunication and Abſolution only themſelves. Othe… delegate them to Presbyters, (and thereby tell the People that Presbyters are capable of them.) Others (which is the Caſe with us in England) do commit them to Lay-Chancellors, who Excommunicate and Abſolve by Sentence, commanding a Prieſt to publiſh it.
3. Some Dioceſans may, if they pleaſe, allow the Pariſh-Prieſt to be Epiſcopus Gregis, and to exerciſe ſo much of his true office in his Pariſh, as ſhall keep up ſome tolerable Purity, Order and Diſcipline, themſelves receiving Appeals, and being Epiſcopi Paſtorum. … this is rare, I know none ſuch: But they leave the Pariſh-Prieſt no power ſo much as to ſuſpend his own Act in adminiſtring Baptiſm, or the Euchariſt, or pronouncing decreed Excommunications or Abſolution… when it is againſt his Knowledge and Conſcience, no though the People profeſs that they take him not for their Paſtor or Guide at all, or refuſe to ſpeak with him in caſe of Ignorance, ſuſpected Hereſie or Scandal.
4. Some Dioceſans are learned, good and holy Men, and ſet themſelves to promote Godlineſs, and encourage the beſt Miniſters: ſuch we have had in England, (as Grindall, Jewel, Uſher, and many more excellent Men.) But others, in jealouſie of their places, power and intereſt, ſuſpect and ſet themſelves againſt painful Preachers, and ſtrict Men, eſpecially if they diſſent from them, and take them for dangerous Enemies, and perſecute them, and countenance the ignorant Rabble, to ſtrengthen themſelves againſt them: So that particular Concord will be promoted by ſome Dioceſans, but Univerſal Concord will never be ſo attained by them.
Sect. XX. There are many Learned Divines, who think that Forms of Church-Government are mutable, and not neceſſary to all times and places: and that as Prudence may change other Rites, Circumſtances and Orders, ſo it may do this: And ſome Papiſts are of this mind; Read Card. Cuſanus de Concordia, and Gorſon de Auferibilitate Papae; And the Italian Biſhops at Trent, were for the dependance of Biſhops on the Pope, as the Maker of their Order, or Giver of their Power. And if ſo, it is not capable of being neceſſary to Catholick Unity, which may it ſelf be changed. And moſt Proteſtants and Papiſts hold, that Men may turn Dioceſan Biſhops again into Parochial, if they ſaw cauſe. And all confeſs, that Man may ſet up Biſhops foreign, in every City, which in the old ſenſe was in every great Town, like our Corporations, or Market-Towns, which is greatly different from the Roman, or the Engliſh, or the French, or the Italian Dioceſſes.
Sect. XXI. Yea, there are very Learned Divines, that think no Form of Church-Government is Jure Divino, or of Divine determinate Inſtitution; ſo though Doctor Edward Reynolds, late Biſhop of N…rwich; and Doctor Stillingfleet doth not only think ſo himſelf, but hath cited great and many Patrons of that opinion, and brought a great many of Arguments for it in his Irenicon: Be theſe in the right or wrong, no Man of this opinion can believe any one Form of Government neceſſary to the Unity of the Church, or fit to be the terms of Univerſal Concord. And it is certain that ſome will ſtill be of their opinion (beſides thoſe that account Dioceſans unlawful.)